Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet 09/27/1988 NOTE: THERE WILL BE A CITY COUNCIL CLOSED SESSION AT 7 : 00 P .M. IN THE FOURTH FLOOR CLUB ROOM REGARDING LITIGATION 14ATTERS A G E N P A ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING ATASCADERO ADMINISTRATION BUILDING FOURTH FLOOR, ROTUNDA ROOM SEPTEMBER 27, 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: A. BOARD OF APPEALS APPOINTMENTS (John Vial & Jim Rodger) B. PRESENTATION OF RECOGNITION PLAQUE TO DEPARTING BOARD OF APPEALS CHAIRMAN MIKE BEWSEY ** PROCLAMATION - ACKNOWLEDGING OCTOBER 2-8, 1988 AS "MENTAL ILLNESS AWARENESS WEEK" ** PROCLAMATION - ACKNOWLEDGING OCTOBER 9-15, 1988 AS "FIRE PREVENTION WEEK" ** PROCLAMATION — ACKNOWLEDGING SOVIET FRIENDSHIP VISIT - OCTBER 6 - 11, 1988 • A. CONSENT CALENDAR• (Approximate Time - 8:00 P.M. ) 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 . SEPTEMBER 13, 1988 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 2. SEPTEMBER 22, 1988 SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL/TREE COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES 3 . CITY FINANCE DEPARTMENT REPORT - AUGUST, 1988 4 . CITY TREASURER' S REPORT - AUGUST, 1988 5. ACCEPTANCE OF FINAL PARCEL MAP 46-87 - 11755 SANTA ANA ROAD BLUE/KAMM/DOHAN/CUESTA ENGINEERING 6. ACCEPTANCE OF FINAL PARCEL MAP 9-88 - 4800 SAN JACINTO PALMER/CUESTA ENGINEERING 7 . ACCEPTANCE OF FINAL PARCEL MAP 44-87 - 1909 TRAFFIC WAY - JOHNSTON/CUESTA ENGINEERING 8. ACCEPTANCE OF FINAL PARCEL MAP 12-85 7100 SERENA - HARRELL/DAN STEWART ENGINEERING B. HEARINGS/APPEARANCES/REPORTS: 1 . TREE REMOVAL REQUEST - VISTA ROAD EXTENSION - IBSEN/DAN STEWART ENGINEERING A. Public Hearing B. Council Action 2 . TREE REMOVAL REQUEST - 8625 SAN GREGORIO ROAD - MESSER / CUESTA ENGINEERING . A. Public Hearing B. Council Action 3 COMMITTEE REPORTS: (Approximate Time - 7 :40 P.M. ) (The following represents Ad Hoc or Standing Committees . Informative status reports will be given, as felt necessary. ) 1 . City/School Committee 2 . North Coastal Transit 3 . San Luis Obispo Area 7 . Police Facility Committee Coordinating Council 8 . Atascadero Lake Acquisition 4 . Traffic Committee Committee 5 . Solid/Hazardous Waste 9 . Business Improvement Assoc. Management Committee 10. Tree Committee 6 . Economic Opportunity 11 . Pavilion Committee Commission COMMUNITY FORUM: (Approximate Time - 7 :45 P.M. ) 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 may do so by forwarding to Council, prior to the Council Meeting, nine ( 9) copies to the City Clerk by 5 : 00 p.m. on the Wednesday preceding the Council Meeting. • • 3 . GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE REPORTS: A. City of Atascadero Proposed Extension of Barranco Road to Highway 41 (Additional Access to 3-F Meadows Area) (Cont' d from 8/23/88) B. County Proposed Acquisition of Southern Pacific Rail Road Right-of-Way (Cortez Ave. , East of Curbaril) for Equestrian Staging Area BREAK - 15 MINUTES C. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: 1 . 1988/89 ROAD RESURFACING PROJECT: (Award Resurfacing Bid ##88-10 to Union Asphalt) (Cont'd from 8/9/88) D. NEW BUSINESS: 1 . 20,000 SQUARE FOOT LOT REQUIREMENT: (Authorization to initiate making Ordinance 175 permanent) (Ordinance 175 clarifies the required minimum lot size in LSF-x and RSF-x Districts as 20,000 Square Foot Net Area With Sewer) 2 . ATASCADERO TREE COMMITTEE (Initiation of Recruitment for Permanent Appointments) 3 . POLICE DEPARTMENT PROPOSED SITE - CAPISTRANO AVENUE (Dissolution of Lease with County to Construct a Police Facility on Capistrano Avenue (County Property) 4 . PERSONNEL WAGE & SALARY CLASSIFICATION STUDY (Authorization to Solicit Request for Proposals to Determine Costs for a Personnel Wage & Salary Classification Study) 5 . PARK AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT VEHICLE (Authorization to Purchase Used Truck - $4,459) 6 . 1988 TRAILS GRANT APPLICATION - RESOLUTION 97-88 (Authorization to File Application through State • Department of Recreation for Development of Atascadero Creek Trail System) 7 . FIRE DEPARTMENT VEHICLE (Authorization to Solicit Bids for 4-Wheel Drive Vehicle) 4 S . COPY MACHINE (Authorization to Solicit Bids for Lease/Purchase Option) E. INDIVIDUAL DETERMINATION: 1 . City Council 2 . City Attorney 3 . City Clerk 4 . City Treasurer 5 . City Manager making 5 • MEET�N 8 AGENDA _ DAT GIITEM e • ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES SEPTEMBER 13, 1988 The regular meeting of the City Council was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Mayor Borgeson, followed by announcement that Council met in closed session prior to the regular meeting regarding litigation (Case #62442, Alvarado vs. City of Atas. ) . ROLL CALL Present : Councilmembers Dexter , Shiers, Mackey and Mayor Borgeson Absent : Councilman Lilley (on vacation) Staff Present: Ray Windsor , City Mgr . ; Lt . Bill Watton, Police . Dept . ; Henry Engen, Commun. Devel . Dir ; Paul • Sensibaugh , Pub . Works . Dir . ; Bob Best , Parks & Rec . Dir . ; Jeff Jorgensen, City Atty. ; Boyd Sharitz , City Clerk. ; Cindy Wilkins, Dep . City Clerk COUNCIL COMMENT Mayor Borgeson introduced new City Manager , Ray Windsor . Mr . Sensibaugh was thanked for his services as Acting City Myr . Mayor Borgeson issued (3) proclamations: - "American Business Women ' s Day" , September 22, 19B8 - "Erosion Control Month" , September 15-October 15, 1988 - "National POW/MIA Recognition Day" , September 16, 1988, accepted by Viet Nam Veteran Mike Tobey, who announced that a special , public memorial service will be held on the steps of Mission S.L.O. at 7:00 p .m. , Friday , 9/ 16/88. COMMITTEE REPORTS Traffic Committee - Councilwoman Mackey reported the committee is considering recommending additional. red curbs at San Gabriel & ECR (pending review of traffic impacts to the area following the opening of the new Post Office) and discussed same on EI Bordo . • SLO Area Coordinating Council - Mayor Borgeson announced that SLOACC met Sept . 7th and approved the year-end financial report . rhe staff presented a report on the current progess in implement- 1 • ing the No . County planning study, which will collect transit needs information. Evening & weekend Atascadero D-A-R services will be reviewed as an option. Tree Committee - Ursula Luna, Committee Member, reported that the first four of a series of educational pamphlets have been prepared (distributed to Council and administrative staff ) , say- ing the committee welcomes input on any of the materials before Sept . 30th . A public meeting of the committee will be announced as soon as date & location are determined . COMMUNITY FORUM John McNeil , 8765 Sierra Vista , expressed complaints regarding the relocation of the Post Office: ( 1 ) the inconvenience caused by the closing of the drive-by mail drop on Entrada, and (2) the . hazardous traffic pattern in and out of the new facility. Terril Graham, 6205 Conejo , urged Council to reconsider the City ' s position in levying of development fees , expressing con- cern that necessary City services are being underfunded in , relation to our rate of development . Mr . Sensibaugh , Pub . Works Dir . , noted a correction to Res. 92-88 • adopted 8/23/88: Pg . 6, Sec . 8, should read , " . . .a maximum annual assessment of $150.00. . . for the administration. . .or other related funds. " ( amount changed from $1500, previously reported ) A. CONSENT CALENDAR 1 . August 23, 1988 City Council Minutes 2. TPM 10-88 - 8100 Coromar (subdivn. of 1 .5 ac. into two par- cels of 20,000 & 44,500 sq. ft. - Bishop/Volbrecht Surveys) (Recommend Denial ) 3. Claim by Shane W. Smith (Recommend Denial ) Councilwoman Mackey pulled A-2 for discussion. Motion: By Councilwoman Mackey to approve # ' s 1 & 3, sec- onded by Councilman Dexter ; passed by 4 :0 roll- call , with Councilman Lilley absent . Re: Item #2 - Councilwoman Mackey relayed the applicant ' s request for reconsideration of this request , in view of the Planning Commission ' s recommendation for denial , noting that the lot configuration would not allow for another lot split . Council discussion followed . 2 Public Comment John Falkenstien, Cuesta Eng . , expressed concerns relative to this proposal as it affects the way he does business . Feeling that the 20 ' driveway requirement in the Subdivision Ord . is innappropriate, he noted that subject property is in excess of 60,000 ft . and is zoned for 20,000 sq . ft . lots; it ' s not possible to divide it into 3 lots, since the driveway portion doesn ' t count in the land total . Terril Graham, resident , expressed that he feels people should be expected to adhere to adopted City ordinances. Alan Volbrecht , agent for the applicant , addressed the findings for denial and spoke in opposition to them, seconding Mr . Falken- stien ' s comments (above) . Steve LaSalle, resident , noted the steepness of this parcel and , also , doesn ' t think it ' s appropriate to address exemptions to current ordinances. ` Motion: By Councilwoman Mackey for denial of TPM 10-ee as recommended by the Plan. Commission, seconded by Mayor Borgeson; passed by 4:0 roll-call , with Councilman Lilley absent . B. HEARINGS/APPEARANCES/REPQRTS 1 . Tree Removal Request - 7675 Del Rio Road A. Public Hearing B. Council Action Mr . Engen, Commun. Devel . Dir . , gave staff report . Public Comment Ron Ayers, representing the applicant , Mr . Marden, requested that the applicant be allowed to donate the two 15-gal . replacement trees to the City, noting that subject lot is heavily wooded. Motion: By Councilman Dexter to approve tree removal re- quest at 7675 Del Rio , leaving planting location of the two replacement trees as an open option, seconded by Councilman Shiers; passed by 4:0 roll- call , with Councilman Lilley absent . 2. Paloma Creek Park Equestrian Arena (PoligX Status_on Usi-4go Mr . Best . Recreation Dir . , gave staff report and discussion with Council ensued . 3 Public Comment Tom Bench , Parks & Rec . Commissioner , commented that he feels meetings of the commission should be recorded for a complete record of discussions and actions not included in the minutes. He also feels there has been "sandbagging" by staff to arrange an insurance meeting between the City ' s and equestrian group ' s attorneys, which the commission unanimously approved in June. Jim Comes, Chmn. of the Paloma Ck . Park Equestrian Committee, expressed his pride in working with the committee and City staff to get the arena to where it is today. He stated that access to the arena has depleted the group ' s funds, noting that other local equestrian arenas are also locked up for similar insurance reas- ons, which may eventually work in the group ' s favor . He sug- gested that perhaps a combination lock system could solve the access problem. Shirley Chastain, Secy. of the PCP Equest . Comm. , wondered where the committee can go to make progress on several of its ques- tions. Mr . Jorgensen, City Atty. , responding to a suggestion that the group sion a hold harmless agreement , commented on the dif- ficulty of controlling both access to a lock combination and activities at the arena. Council consensus was that the arena should be kept locked when not in use. Mayor Borgeson directed that Mr . Best , Mr . Comes and another Equestrian Committeemember consider suggestions made tonight , work toward a solution and report back to the Council in four weeks . 3. General Plan Progress Report A. Progress Report/Update B. Set Meeting Date Mr . Engen, Commun. Devel . Dir . , gave staff report . There was no public comment . Consensus was to hold a joint meeting with the Planning Commission regarding GP review on 9/29 at 7:00 p .m. in the 4th Fl . Rotunda Rm. 4. Atas. Lake Park Pavilion Bldg. (Demolition alternative report Mr . Best , Recreation Dir . , gave staff report . Public Comment Dorothy McNeil , resident , expressed concern about possible pol- 4 lution or fire hazard in the event the option of burning down the pavilion is approved . Geraldine Brasher , resident , supported suggestion by Councilwoman Mackey to save portions of the pavilion floor as souvenir items; perhaps certain local , charitable organizations may be interested in using them for a fund-raiser . There was one suggestion to accept donations to save the pavi- lion. Mr . Windsor , City Mgr . , suggested he, Councilwoman Mackey, Mr . Sensibaugh , Chief Hicks and Councilman Shiers visit the site. Motion: By Councilman Dexter to continue this item for two weeks , seconded by Councilwoman Mackey; passed by 4 :0 roll-call , with Councilman Lilley absent . COUNCIL RECESSED FOR A BREAK FROM 9:00-9: 15 P.M. C. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1 . Chandler Ranch Road Maintenance District #5 Res. 94-88 - Approval of Engineer ' s Report on Road Improve- ments, Approval of Time & Place for Hearing Protests and Approval to Solicit Bids for Road Improvements Mr . Sensibaugh , Pub . Works Dir . , gave staff report . He intro- duced Antonia Dolar of Orrick , Herrington & Sutcliffe, Bill Bothwell , who will soon take over her duties at OH & S, and John Falkenstien, Engineer of Work . Ms. Dolar reviewed the schedule of events which takes place following adoption of the Engineer ' s Report . Public Comment Gaylen Little, 8265 Toloso , representative for the formation of the assessment district , indicated B5% of the property owners contacted expressed support for the petition in favor of the district (61% by land area ) . He noted that those residents on San Diego Rd . who oppose the district reside on a city-maintained road and presently derive greater benefit . John Anderson, 8295 San Diego , submitted a letter from Michael Bewsey, contractor who developed lots 15-A, B, C, 3 & 4 , Blk . 38, San Diego Rd . , expressing that approval of the subdivision was conditioned on maintenance of the road ; the costs were incorpor- ated into the selling price of the homes -- thus, the property owner.=., have already paid for - city-maintained road . 5 Linda Rose, owner Lot 11 , San Diego Rd . , requested exclusion from the proposed assessment district . Tom Parks , 8251 Toloso , expressed support for the formation of the proposed district . Frank Herrera, 8205 San Diego Rd . , spoke in opposition to being included in the assessment district due to multiple assessments. Cathy Trost , 8355 San Diego Rd . , expressed opposition to multiple assessments to streets connecting to San Diego Rd . , but does feel Chandler Ranch Rds. should be improved to City standards. Bart Ellerbroek , 8200 San Diego Rd . , feels Old Morro Rd . should , as part of Chandler Ranch , be included in the assessment dist- rict , as residents in the area would benefit from the proposed road improvements. He also requested exclusion from the district due to multiple assessments. Bob Horton, 8190 Los Osos Rd . , expressed support for the for- mation of the district and supports the inclusion of San Diego Rd . , noting that there has been ongoing dispute over whether the County or the City own the road . William Manser , 8305 San Diego , expressed opposition to being included in the district due to multiple assessments. Mike Tobey, 8193 San Dimas, supports the district and feels everyone benefitting from the road improvements should pay their fair share of the responsibility for their maintenance. Don Secker , 8225 San Diego , expressed that , as a new resident , one of the reasons for purchasing his property was that the road is improved . John Anderson spoke again, expounding on his earlier comments in opposition to multiple assessments (noting the owners on the un- improved roads didn ' t contribute to San Diego improvement costs ) ; he wondered what other city-maintained roads in Atas. could be included in the assessment district , if San Diego must be. Dick Chafe, 8250 San Dimas , supports including in the assessment district all who benefit from the proposed improvements , feeling the issue is more of mutual benefit than one of who paid how much and when. Wes Watkins , 8110 Castanada, expressed support for the proposed improvements , noting their declining condition. Lengthy discussion by Council_. -followed . 6 Mr . Jorgensen, City Atty. , summarized the City ' s current policy with respect to accepting roads into the City-maintained system, noting that roads will riot be accepted into the City ' s road system unless they are contiguous to another road that is al- ready in the system. If the public assumes the responsibility of creating assessment districts to bring their roads up to City standards , the City will accept them. It is an established Council policy but is not an obligation; this is to encourage people to find self-help solutions to their road problems . Motion: By Councilwoman Mackey to deny Res. 93-88, sec- onded by Councilman Dexter ; passed by 4:0 roll- call , with Councilman Lilley absent . Motion: By Councilman Shiers to approve Res. 94-ee, sec- onded by Mayor Borgeson; passed by 4 :0 roll-call , , with Councilman Lilley absent . 2. D-A-R Contract Extension Mr . Sensibaugh , Pub . Works Dir . , gave staff report , noting staff recommends this extension to allow time to work on re-bidding the service. He noted the City should see a savings of $4,000 over the present contract with CTS over the life of the 120-day exten- sion. There was no public comment. Motion: By Councilman Dexter to approve the 120-day ex- tension of the present D-A-R contract , seconded by Councilwoman Mackey; passed by 4:0 roll-call , with Councilman Lilley absent . 3. Dissolution of Atas. County Sanitation District: Repeal of ACSD Ordinance & Adoption of Wastewater Divn. Ord. - Ord. 181 (second & final reading) (cont 'd from 8/23/88) Adoption of Wastewater Divn. Service Chgs. - Res. 90-88 (cont ' d from 8/23/88) Mr . Sensibaugh , Pub . Works Dir . , gave staff report . There was no public comment . Motion: By Councilman Dexter to adopt Ord . lei on second reading by title only, seconded by Councilman Shiers; passed by 4:0 roll-call , with Councilman Lilley absent . Motion: By Councilwoman Mackey to adopt Res . 90-88, to be effective upon the effective date of Ord . 181 , seconded by Councilman Dexter ; passed by 4 :0 is roll-call , with Councilman Lilley absent . 7 4. West Mall/E1 Camino Real Traffic Signal (Res. 95-88 - Auth- orizing_a9reement with Caltrans) Mr . Sensibaugh , Pub . Works Dir . gave staff report . Public Comment Maggie Rice, Chamber of Commerce & Colony Days Committee, urged a four-week delay of the removal of underground tanks in view of the upcoming Colony Days Parade and celebration. Mr . Sensibaugh noted that the tank removal is semi-related to this project , but the Health Dept . is ordering the private property owner to remove them, which may coincide with Colony Days; staff will approach the contractor with expressed concerns . Motion: By Councilwoman Mackey to adopt Res. 95-88, sec- onded by Councilman Dexter ; passed by 4 :0 roll- call , with Councilman Lilley absent . 5. Atas. Lake Improvement Project Contract (with Associated Pacific Constructors) (conceptually approved on 8/23/88) Mr . Sensibaugh , Pub . Works Dir . , gave brief staff summary. There was no public comment . Council expressed interest in the possi- ble drafting of an ordinance that would prohibit the dumping of ducks and domestic ;-owl at the lake; Mr . Jorgensen, City Atty. , noted the difficulty and expense of enforcing such an ordinance. Motion: By Councilman Shiers that Council approve the Atas. Lake Improvement Project Contract , seconded by Councilwoman Mackey; passed by 4:0 roll-call , with Councilman Lilley absent . D. NEW BUSINESS 1 . Police Department Vehicle (Authorization to puurchase) Mr . Windsor , City Mgr . , indicated this purchase is part of the adopted budget . There was no public comment . Motion: By Councilwoman Mackey to authorize the purchase of one mid-sized vehicle from Atas. Ford for a total amount not to exceed $15 , 500, seconded by Mayor Borgeson; passed by 4:0 roll-call , with Councilman Lilley absent . Motion: By Councilwoman Mackey to recess as Council and convene as ACSD Board , seconded by Councilman Dexter ; passed unanimously. 8 E. SANITATION DISTRICT 1 . ACSD Quitclaim Deed to the City of Atascadero Mr . Jorgensen, City Atty. , gave staff report . There was no public comment . Motion: By Director Shiers to authorize execution of the Quitclaim Deed , seconded by Director Mackey; passed by 4 :0 roll-call , with Director Lilley absent . Motion: By Chmn. Borgeson to adjourn as ACSD Board and reconvene as City Council , seconded by Councilman Shiers; passed unanimously. F. INDIVIDUAL DETERMINATION City Council A. Discussion regarding Tree Protection Ordinance #168 * Tree Replacement Fund * Revisions to the list of arborists Mr . Engen, Commun. Devel . Dir . , gave staff report . Following discussion, Council consensus was to concur with staff recom- mendation regarding the establishment of tree replacement fund . Following discussion regarding the issue of the list of arbor- ists, consensus was to refer this issue to the Oct . 25th Council meeting . City Clerk - Mr . Sharitz thanked staff and Council for concerns expressed during his recent illness. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10:55 P.M. TO A SPECIAL OPEN SESSION ON MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 19, 4:30 P.M. , IN THE 4TH FLOOR CLUB ROOM FOR THE PURPOSE OF INTERVIEWING CANDIDATES FOR THE CONSTRUCTION BOARD OF APPEALS. MINUTES RECORDED BY: BOYD C. SHARITZ, City Clerk PREPARED BY: C/- CINDY WILKINS , Dep . City Clerk 9 . DMA , AGENDA DATE,-� = ITEM • ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL/TREE COMMITTEE MINUTES —SPECIAL MEETING AUGUST 28, 1988 The Special Joint Meeting was called to order at 6:30 p .m. by Mayor Bergeson. ROLL CALL Present : Councilmembers Dexter , Lilley, Mackey, Shiers and Mayor Borgeson Tree Committee: Elaine Oglesby, Jim Dulitz , Barbara Schoenike, Stubby Fasig , Livia Kellerman ( alternate) , John Cole, Steve LaSalle, Tim O ' Keefe (alternate ) and Chairperson Ursula Luna Staff Present : Paul Sensibaugh , Acting City Mgr . ; Henry Engen, Commun. Devel . Dir . ; Steve DeCamp , Sr . Planner • Mayor Borgeson noted that the purpose of the meeting is for review and discussion of activity with respect to tree permits and procedures as they relate to the Tree Ordinance. 1 . Committee Review of Actives with Renard to�free Permits Ursula Luna indicated that some 122 trees have been removed , to date, and the Tree Committee ( T .C. ) has reviewed some 16 of 23 permits , but no tree protections plans, as yet . Paul Sen=_ibaugh requested that a copy of the tree removal inventory be provided to staff . Henry Engen referenced the August 19th Tree Removal Report that had been prepared by staff for the City Council , which identified a total of 84 trees removed , with 92 replacement trees having been required . He noted the difference in numbers between the T.C. ' s count and that of staff is that the Tree Ord- inance did not go into effect until May 13, 199e. Ursula Luna indicated that , " with respect to problems, property had not always been properly posted , and the committee has not been receiving copies of tree protection plans . Mr . Engen res- ponded that it is the responsibility of the applicant ' s arborist to post the property and that staff will be seeking two copies of future tree protection plans , so one can be provided the T.C . • Councilman Dexter questioned whether there were enough arborists to handle the work and wondered if the definition of heritage trees is too broad . • 2. Procedures Henry Engen recited the process by which individuals are required to prepare tree protection plans when any development improve- ments are proposed within 20 ' of a defined tree. Hence, the tree protection plan becomes part of an application package the same as a percolation test or soils report . With heritage trees , hearings are required before the City Council before they can be authorized for removal . _ In response to question from Councilman Lilley with regard to the role of the T.C . , John Cole indicated that their function is to serve in an advisory capacity to the City Council . Mayor Bor- geson indicated that the committee would be making regular reports to the Council . 3. Relationships (between the Committee, Staff/Public/Council ) Councilman Lilley expressed concerns that there may be too many interpretations occurring with respect to the Tree Ordinance and expressed the need that the City speak with one tongue on this issue. :general discussion followed on this matter . • 4. Discussion on MakeUD and Role of New Tree Committee. Mayor Borgeson indicated that this matter would be the subject of discussion at the time of the six-month review process. 5. Review of Ordinance Jane Smith , Atascadero Ave. , expressed concern about the many shopping centers that have leu to the death of a number of trees . Art Tonneson, Arborist , indicated that he had not been called yet for arborist services, and it was suggested that a precise list of available arborists be prepared . He questioned whether all 20 ' diameter trees should be considered heritage trees and ex- pressed the need that there be an urban forester . Betty Sanders, local attorney , expressed concern over ambiguities in the ordinance , and Mayor Borgeson indicated that a letter in- corporating suggested changes would be welcome. Mildred Copelan, Portola Rd . , wondered whether staff wasn ' t being overburdened with T.C. time demands . She also felt that it was slowing the process and that monitoring by the T .C. should not occur on every permit but through a random process. • Yodi Adanas stated that the 7 .C. was an asset to the community whose efforts should be lauded and that these nine people should be thanked by staff for all the work they have done. Eric Michielssen, Aguila Ave . , questioned whether all recommenda- tion=_ of the T.C . had been formulated in public meetings . Ursula Luna responded that reviews had been made in public . Terri ! Graham, resident , supported a professional approach to the process and urged that we work together and riot be adversarial . Jack Brazeal , arborist , expressed support for the ordinance. Dorothy McNeil , Sierra Vista Rd . , stated that the T.C. deserved the community ' s thanks. Joe Elkins , architect , felt that the town is better now than in the past when there was a . lack of rules. He stated , further , that he expects to survive the transition at this time but an orderly process is required with respect to who has the author- ity in the matter of trees ; currently, it is confusing . He has always diligently avoided trees , but he didn ' t want letters from the T.u. ( to re-do his C.U.P. application) any more than he wanted the staff to predesign his projects . Frank Platz , Venado Rd . , indicated that he had arrived in the City in 1929, and that there are more trees now than then. He • felt the ordinance was unnecessary and restricted property rights . He recently applied for a garage and had difficulty finding an arborist ; when he did , the person did not seem familiar with the ordinance. 6. Discussion of 6-Month Review of Ordinance Henry Engen reported that, when the ordinance was adopted , there was direction to bring back a review of it by Oct . 25, 1988. Ccurr� il.man Dexter expressed the need to clarify duties and have tighter definitions of terms. Councilman Shiers indicated the need to take into consideration comments from today ' s meeting . He felt the process had been fairly smooth , as he had not been receiving negative calls. Councilwoman Mackey hoped that we could straighten out complaints and asked that a five-name list of arborists be available for hand-oiit . Councilman Lilley indicated that the meeting had uncovered some problem= with the ordinance and urged that actions under the ordinance not appear- as punitive. He spoke to the need to speak with one voice on ordinance interpretation. • Mayor Borgeson noted that , at mid-year budget time, Council re- consider hiring an urban forester . She also rioted the need to clarify definition of "hazardous" . She recalled a letter sub- mitted during testimony of the Tree Ordinance from - a Santa • Margar- ita resident indicating the need to exercise good jUdq- ments on trees, which have few rights . MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:00 P.M. MINUTES PREPARED BY: HENRY ENG N Community Development Director HE:cw • *MEETiN AGENDA ©AT ITEM! -� CITY OF ATASCADERO • SCHEDULE OF CASH RECEIPTS AND TRANSFERS IN FOR THE MONTH OF AUGUST, 1988 CASH RECEIPTS: Taxes : Sales Tax 153,900. 00 Motor Vehicle In-Lieu 54 ,957.52 Cigarette Tax 4 ,379. 72 Development Impact Tax 16 ,968.50 Occupancy Tax 12 ,202. 67 .- Other Receipts: Licenses/Permits/Fees 57,543.10 Franchise Fee 3,912.10 P.O.S.T. Reimbursement 1, 876.14 Fines/Penalties/Overages 275. 98 Gas Tax 511035.64 Prior Year Revenue 37 ,166.19 Zoo Reserve Fund 192.00 Parks and Recreation Fees 11,590.45 Investment Earnings 2 ,387. 14 ` Weed Abatement 745. 90 Amapoa-Tecorida 4 ,165. 61 Lewis Ave. Bridge 1,020.00 • Local Transportation 2 , 819.05 Development Fees 11,225.22 Zoo Receipts 6 ,663. 88 Rents/Concessions 450. 00 Sales-Maps/Publications/Reports 683.50 Special Police Services 226.00 Miscellaneous 106. 00 TOTAL CASH RECEIPTS 436 ,492. 31 FUND TRANSFERS IN: Sanitation Fund Reimbursement 32,021. 97 TOTAL FUND TRANSFERS IN 32 ,021. 97 OTHER CASH RECEIPTS: Reimbursement to Expense 2 ,555.06 Refunds 582.00 TOTAL OTHER CASH RECEIPTS 3 ,137. 06 • MEETlN AGENDA DAT Z7 TEM M CITY OF ATASCADERO • CASH ACTIVITY SUMMARY FOR THE MONTH OF AUGUST, 1988 BEGINNING CASH RESOURCES 3 ,245 ,498. 74 ADD: RECEIPTS 439 ,629. 37 FUND TRANSFERS 32 ,021. 97 INVESTMENTS REDEEMED 274 ,000.00 LESS : DISBURSEMENTS 697 ,173. 29 FUND TRANSFERS 274 ,000. 00 ENDING CASH RESOURCES 3,019,976. 79 SCHEDULE OF CASH RESOURCES Int. Due AS OF AUGUST 31, 1988 Rate Date Checking Account: Mid-State Bank 3,436. 79 .Certificates of Deposit: Cal America Savings 99 ,000.00 7. 50 09/13/88 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 ,620 ,000.00 8. 09 N/A Other Cash Resources : Petty Cash 540. 00 TOTAL CASH RESOURCES 3,019 ,976. 79 i GERE SIBBACH City Treasurer • CITY OF ATASCADERO SCHEDULE OF DISBURSEMENTS • FOR THE MONTH OF AUGUST, 1988 DISBURSEMENTS: Hand Warrant Register for August, 1988 1,332. 96 08/03/88 Accounts Payable Warrants 121,207. 12 08/04/88 Accounts Payable Warrants 8,690. 99 08/12/88 Accounts Payable Warrants 38,522. 38 08/19/88 Accounts Payable Warrants 124 , 949. 23 08/26/88 Accounts Payable Warrants 106 ,362. 98 Service Charge-Mastercard/Visa 7. 06 08/31/88 Wire Transfers 140 ,000. 00 08/03/88 Payroll Checks #43325-43458 99 ,119. 00 08/17/88 Payroll Checks #43459-43603 99 ,645. 47 08/31/88 Payroll Checks #43604-43737 98,355.22 Total 838,192.41 LESS: Voided Check #42342 318. 00 Voided Check #42399 36. 00 -Voided Check #40668 45. 38 Voided Check #42458 388. 46 Voided Check #42459 177. 05 Voided Check #39094 12. 50 • Voided Check #38391 41. 73 Total 837 ,173. 29 I, DAVID G. JORGENSEN, do hereby certify and declare that demands enumerated and referred to in the foregoing register are accurate and just claims against the City and that there are funds available for payment thereof in the City Treasury. The breakdown detail on all accounts is available for your viewing in the Finance office. DAVID G. J RgEN EN Interim Admi vcs. Director • ME-r1 DDT ITEM/ • M E M O R A N D U M TO: City Council September 27 , 1988 VIA: Ray Windsor, City Manager FROM: Henry Engen, Community Development Directorc�. SUBJECT: Acceptance of Final Parcel Map 46-87 LOCATION: 11755 Santa Ana Road APPLICANT: Blue/Kamm & Dohan (Cuesta Engineering) BACKGROUND: On March 22, 1988 the City Council approved Tentative Parcel Map • 46-87 , 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 :ph cc : Diana & Bryce Blue Kamm & Dohan Partnership Cuesta Engineering • 0 4 EXHIBIT A LOCATION MAP L CITY OF Tentative Parcel Map 46-87 ��,I•�14•� �� ATASCADERO Blue/Kamm & Dohan (Cuesta) 4 t-Baa�l�,� -- � �� _ __ 11755 Santa Ana -�scanCOMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT J DEPARTMENT R S P C 9. 40 jL OAO ° L �0 BA�eoA / Cm 9r R S ��- ROIL A_ _ I, RS / -s's" SITE 11755 SANTA ANA `� °° TPM 46-87 Blue/Kamm & Dohan Z (Cuesta) ��, �o j ' 11755 Santa Ana ►NSA C ROAD R S 9° � It RS / X11 Zlcy /1 -�1 � \�\ N OAO 0 \ �\ < a a gO,ol CIO sF 10.1 L Q� 11 :ZROAO� NN 'VO N% 11 o \'\ m�PoA0 0►r J R S LLANO II Lt H) MEETINti ` , AGENDA 6 DAT ITEM# • M E M O R AN D U M TO: City Council September 27 , 1988 VIA: Ray Windsor, City Manager FROM: Henry Engen, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Acceptance of Final Parcel Map 9-88 LOCATION: 4800 San Jacinto APPLICANT: William and Ann Palmer (Cuesta Engineering) BACKGROUND: On May 17 , 1988 the City Council approved Tentative Parcel Map 9-88, 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 :ph cc : William and Ann Palmer Cuesta Engineering • � x • 11 x : 11 • • , ,tip.; `,looms...■■ 1111111 1�1;;� • � � � y• OWN we Y► on- man ♦♦ "a some 1 _ _Ono �, ��• � ,, ♦ � � 1111/ 11� Ip - i � UEI~7 it -, AGENDA ITEhqo M E M O R A N D U M TO: City Council September 27 , 1988 VIA: Ray Windsor, City Manager FROM: Henry Engen, Community Development Director its SUBJECT: Acceptance of Final Parcel Map 44-87 LOCATION: 1909 Traffic Way APPLICANT: James Johnson (Cuesta Engineering) BACKGROUND: On March 8, 1988 the City Council approved Tentative Parcel Map 44-87 , 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 :ph cc : James Johnson Cuesta Engineering EXHIBIT A - LOCATION MAP CITY Tentative Parcel Ma 44-87 OF ATASCADERO p 1909 Traffic Way � w COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Johnson/Cuesta • DEPARTMENT Site 1909 Traffic Way TPM 44-87 Johnson/Cuesta P( F �.o R FERROCARIL tS TR Y : T o cc 4 RS \\ t RSko Y F• 6 .� �O - mN CA No REAL 44/ E T c � S S C h / wy /o/ o z FIA � m 4,o C JE31NQ f PENDA t EM N • M E M O R A N D U M TO: City Council September 27 , 1988 VIA: Ray Windsor, City Manager FROM: Henry Engen, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Acceptance of Final Parcel Map 12-85 LOCATION: 7100 Serena APPLICANT: David Harrell (Daniel Stewart) BACKGROUND: On February 24, 1986 , the City Council approved Tentative Parcel • Map 12-85 , 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 :ph cc : David Harrell Daniel Stewart • - N. X u IBfT B LOCIATID N M A4� CITY N1�-In1 to t N�'D S it 77 IMPROVEr 14 .�;"� � � ��• I1L'!:z �1 16 �l !''Scji- "•.r '�^yw ' ,'\ \ i CIA -i - - —a '' .5.�r� '-t :Oitt •� i i 1 !.1(j::.- .� t �Q PAPER 30 Ste, 6��'''3 ..'r' .'.z 1�!2' •�..• - - ` IA` '•.�: _ _ -'l .4i •IVA1-�'� .B/✓�. .,. T. . . ..t 22 a� PQ' 2`��.�, lg-i: s o ^i y.i� •. :s �4���7^iz'. ilii, t�"� s - -41 zoo I LIF iG-'17x1 q� --A'1_ „L� ���._�_ LE 5,.�-� •_�` 9 0 .1 ; + � � e t' i4.Q.7/�, • •- - _ •'� '-•-- - /i%tea I� tj.y. � y �-SN Cy ��• ����� a `v — `• -4 - ` a• � �'e ^•1' ", •'`?'_��./�` adv Pal • `�.! r .l! ...,k.F.- ;� yrN ANO RF�j - •.,�,`1 - a�:w '�,'•2�j•J�'�Q- t'+�^,'�•�- `. S � n. •M.,ETIN AGENDA _ E._.:�ITEM 0 • M E M O R A N D U M TO: City Council September 27 , 1988 VIA: Ray Windsor, City Manager FROM: Henry Engen, Community Development Director A.S SUBJECT: TREE REMOVAL REQUEST: VISTA ROAD (TRACT MAP AT 820802:1) BACKGROUND: The Tree Ordinance requires that heritage trees not be removed unless they are approved by the City Council following public hearing. GRADING PERMIT APPLICATION: • Dr. Robert Ibsen, represented by Dan Stewart, civil engineer, has applied for a grading permit to install an extension of Vista Road prior to submitting for a final map for the so-called Ibsen/Langford tract (see attached map and materials ) . As originally laid out, this subdivision road would have taken forty-eight (48) trees . Subsequently, staff and members of the Tree Committee viewed the site and concluded that conditions of approval had not been met with respect to realigning Vista Road to "minimize removal of major topographic features including trees and rock outcroppings" (condition #6-c) . Condition #10 states as follows : 1110 . Efforts shall be made to minimize grading that would be disruptive to the natural topography and removal of existing mature trees . The following shall appear as a note on the final map: No trees shall be removed without compliance with applicable City ordinances . No grading shall commence without appropriate permit and compliance with appli- cable City ordinances . No cuts shall be made which exceed 5 feet in height unless authorized by the Plan- ning Director. " The revised plan avoids the excessive tree removal originally • proposed at the tract entrance and eliminates the need for any tree removal at the cul-de-sac . • Since the road will be a private road until it can be accepted as part of the acceptance of San Marcos as a publicly-maintained road, the applicants have applied for a grading permit to install a private road. The Public Works Department has approved the public improvement plans submitted in fulfillment of the tract map' s conditions , and the Planning Division has required an arborist' s report relative to tree removal . In reviewing the attached arborist' s report, we note that there are thirteen ( 13 ) trees within the pavement area or affected by road construction grading which would have to be taken as obstructing "existing or proposed improvements that cannot be reasonably designed to avoid the need for tree removal . " Two of these trees are dead. Tree No. 18 is a 26" live oak. RECOMMENDATION: Approval of tree protection plan recommended by the arborist, including nineteen ( 19) compensatory planting trees . HE :ph Enclosures : Zoning Map • Area Road Map May 16 , 1983 Staff Report - Tentative Tract Map AT 820802 : 1 Road Improvement Plan - showing proposed tree removals Arborist Report - August 14 , 1988 Engineers Transmittal - September 15 , 1988 cc : Dan Stewart Dr. Ibsen Tree Committee - ROAO—__y I / A GAB I l C4 PO I Zo1�t �ntG MAP OS � n O Tr W w S►� W !�! NORIT �� J AVLV OA I A— 4ST �p O 4400 O\ r .F° 1'N +�a O v +� ROAO IN RS i a I L(FH) �N O Mj le,` I - , R S (PD2) r j L 9cps \p0 r R S RS - O 1 ORR p01' SOI► __ _- 1` 1 IS! ` Ila . GIT - M A !t� NF O14 R 100 Cj Q 2` 4�,� `J�� 28 '•.2� 3U'�I 109 10 103 G s Iy7921 6 C E-: 73 9 14 �` 25. 44 t is 4 3 _— (i� ,5 �,� (pj ly 8 _ , 24 84 �; _ i 1>tir;; 43 �3 _ \1 \5 ,' \ 2! 32 6"r�� 65 l-'—:� , , 2258 / d E6 / , 1 r I 59. � . 6 j ,/ t 14 17 X/64 15 -� _ c! la 3? / Co 34i`_ �d.i39 614 - 7 �� j IE _ 9 ` X40 6`�� 4g j 41 ,5 IG �— /34 `. 30 �t i'� 96\4 10 4 , j 120 17 18 35 - i 1 / i3 i4� 28 ( 227 12616j 1 22 '' 19 14 36 Iqb i 15 16 13 i 14a i I i 1 1 21 i 5 G PV i 37p �1 117 jl8� 20 I �5 0 �� � 8 39 t I 19 - a I 4 17 6 5 4 �/ � C 3 �U D 6 1143 1\ \\ / 5 42 JIM # 1 ` 46 t 1 E1P�� r 19\ 41 CO LO Ni Y K i� 1-1 r -D F- VVAY= 6 5 — VAuED - iv1:f ctrY MAi0 AiAiR0) 4 � ! \ / 3 V iS7A it D - TRACT 13 41 47 40 4 3 2 LITY A-CC-EP T E.0 �/ 2 ! I 1 23/ / 2 24 6 5 2 25 3� 7 1 26 \ 13 z X12 it \ 36 2, 34 9 .4b U r r j 7 6 i 7 6 5 60 1 � IN 2828 a 29a IS 19 1z 11 i 2 , 1 , I ` ppR0 �Q 27'\ 5 ' 4 3 ( �Ql� 22 6 i I 2 4 23 I I 9 23 i 22 6 5 4 i 3 2 1 5 E / r -- 24 14 n e�nin • �olrcrrii, CITY OF ATASCADERO -� 1979 Planning Department April 18 , 1983 \k �EOd - May 16, 1983 (Revised) 't STAFF REPORT 3 SUBJECT: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP AT 820802:1 LOCATION: Between Highway 41 (Morro Road) and San Marcos Road South of the present terminus of Vista Road (Portion 'of Lot 46, Block 40) APPLICANT: Langford and Ibsen Enterprises (Stewart) REQUEST: To divide 123.85 acres of land into 31 lots ranging in size from 1.01 acres to 20.10 acres. x BACKGROUND 1. Zoning: RPD-4 2. General Plan: Suburban Single Family Residential 3. E - nvironmental. Determination: An Environmental Impact Report has been previously certified for this site in association with Zone Change 2801107 :1. 4. Site Conditions: The site is comprised of hilly terrain with num- erous drainage swales, a pond, lowland and natural vegetation con- i sisting of dense oak stands, scrub oak, chapparral and grasses. f One drainage Swale from San Marcos Road runs eastward between pro- posed Lots 1 and 2 located at the southwest corner of the site and drains into the pond between proposed parcels 13 and 14 in the central portion of the site. This Swale continues beyond the man- made pond to low lying ground. Another steeper Swale runs north- easterly from -San Marcos Road between the boundaries oft Parcels 6 and 7, and 6 and 8 . This Swale empties into a low°Posed swamplike area at the present . terminus of Vista Road. A secondc, small seasonal pond is located at the easternmost corner of Lot 15. Slopes throughout the site range from 10% to 108%. A jeep trailer is located at the southwesterly corner of the site at San Marcos Road and runs along the southerly property line approxi- mately 1500 feet before turning northeast into the central t of the site. A second jeep trail runs through the lower portion of the site across proposed Lots 19, 18, 20, 21, 22 and off the site to the east. Vegetation generally consists -of natural grasses and cha pparral on the upper half of the site and dense stands of oak trees on the lower half. Rock outcrops appear thoughout the site. Tenta � tive Tract Map At 820802:1 (Langford &Ibsen Ent. ) 5. Project Description: The applicant proposes to divide his 123,85 acres of land into 31 lots ranging in size from 1.01 acres to 20.01 acres. The RPD-4 zoning (Rural Planned Development 4 acre average lot size) allows the applicant to create lots which vary in size but do not go beyond the maximum density of one unit per four acres. The applicant desires to construct the site in three phases. Phase I is composed of the eight lots (1 through 8) fronting on San Marcos road ranging in size from 1.01 acres to 1.40 acres. Phase II is composed of lots 9 through 16 and lots 26 through 31 (14 lots) ranging in size from 1.34 acres to 3.50 acres. Phase III is composed of the remaining lots 17 through 25 ranging in size from 3.03 acres to 20 .10 acres. For Phase I development, the applicant PP proposes relocating the jeep trail on lot 1 to follow a more uniform grade to San Marcos Road { by connecting the, road through to lot .2. Both lots would then - use this as driveway access improved to a 16 foot width. A 30 foot easement would be reserved over the same driv . e for emergency '- •-:� .: egress when Phase II develops. Access to lot 5 is proposed along that lot's southern property line which is 10 feet from the steep- est . est swale on the site. This driveway would require fill and pro- tection of the swale. Access to lot 6 is via a wooden bridge over the swale or installation of a culvert with graded fill. Lot 7 is accessible directly from San Marcos Road but limited in y depth due to the nearness of the swale forming the rear property' line. Due to the depth, the applicant is requesting a 15 foot front setback in lieu of the required 25 foot front setback for lot 7. All other Phase I lots access directly on to San Marcos Road. Phase II development would include the extension of Vista ; Road through the lowland at the northern edge of the property on to.- the site with a temporary cul-de-sac constructed at the inter- section of lots 26, 27 and the frontage of lot 16. Temporary emergency egress is to be provided from this cul-de-sac back to San Marcos Road through the easement between lots 15 and 16 to the jeep trail realignment on lot 1. Phase III would extend Vista Road to a new cul-de-sac at the intersection of lots 22, 23and 24. All Phase II and III lots would access directly from Vista x Road. Permanent emergency egress from the end of Vista Road is to be provided by an easement running between lots 22and 23 to the Evans'. property (Parcel l of 24/PM/65) and on to Morro Road. BACKGROUND On Thursday, September 9, 1982, the Subdivision Review Board met with the applicant, Mr. Langford and his engineer, Dan Stewart to discuss the -proposed project. Also attending were: Larry Stevens, Planning Director; Mike Hicks, Fire Chief; Kami Griffin, Planning Intern; Jim Wentzel, Planning Commissioner ; and Fred Buss, Associate Planner. The following items of concern were discussed: 1. Need to review the written agreement on road improvement of San Marcos Road before any further processing takes place. 2. Verification of the site size to determine density. Tentative Trac t Map A 820802.1 (Langford &Ibsen Ent. ) 3. Review of lots in the field with the applicants' engineer to check building sites, access and septic suitability. 4. Adjustment of access to Lot 1 to eliminate the easement. 5. Possibility of eliminating the smaller water impoundment area. 6. Bridge access to Lot 6 must meet County standards. 7. If all water impoundment areas are to be retained, improvement drawings will need to be included with the road improvement drawings. 8. Building pads, drives and access grades will not be required until grading plans are submitted. 9. Improvement phasing as discussed is adequate. 10. Show emergency access road on plans for Phases I and II. 11. Fire hydrants in Phases II and III shall not exceed 800 feet apart. 12. Provide documentation for emergency access of the end of the cul- de-sac in Phase III with grant of easement and crash gate. 13. Standard brush clearance standards shall be mandated for all structures. 14. The Fire Department requests participation in a radio repater for the top of San Marcos Road. 15. City Engineer 's requirements as per his letter in the Environmen- tal Impact Report. The applicants' engineer has informed Staff that Phases II and III are to be combined and developed at the same time. The reason given is the cost involved, with construction of Vista Road at two different times. - Staff has a number of concerns related to in- cluding slopes (gradin this design .proposal in- lud g) , geology and soils (erosion and septic sys- tems) , aesthetics (landscaping and erosion) , and traffic (circula- tion and safety services) . These points were adequately brought out in the Environmental Impact Report (E. I.R. ) . The Manual of Septic Tank Practice and the Uniform Plumbing Code establish setbacks for leach fields from natural watercourses of 50 feet and 100 feet from water impoundment areas. There are also additional setback require- ments from lot lines (5 feet) and structures 20 feet) . In the Basin Plan may eventually establish even greater setbacks afortion pri- vate sewage disposal system. The E.I.R. has identified topographic and percolation problems on this site and advises .a mitigation mea- sure of requiring a minimum 200% expansion area for all leach fields s a design standard for all lots. Staf Went on some of the f is concerned that develop- proposed lots would require so much engineering - s *4 Zentative Tract Map AT 820802:1 (Langford &Ibsen Ent. ) that it would degrade other environmentally sensitive factors in order to construct dwellings. The E.I.R. notes that one of the irreversible impacts that cannot be mitigated is excessive cut and fill causing substantial loss of on- site scenic character, potential erosion and a high possibility of failure of fill areas. The E.I.R. also identifies the impact of building on slopes greater than 20% which would require extensive grading, a long term negative impact. --The mitigation measure identi- fied is to restrict single family building sites to areas less than 20% in grade. Staff recommends that a number of lots be redesigned by reducing the number of lots from 31 to 25 ensuring that an adequate building site , is available on each without setback adjustments. . The primary concern in recommending redesign of and reduction in the number of lots re- r lates to private sewage disposal system constraints. Adjustment of Vista Road around certain rock outcroppings and trees will be required. The engineer has agreed that this should be done. Vista Road will require extensive grading to construct since most of the Phase II and III area is. in 30% or more slope. Road grades must be limited to 15% or less as noted in the E.I.R. to allow fire fight- ing equipment and other vehicles the ability to access the develop- ment and nearby wildland. Road development will. also require improve- ment plans for continued use of the water impound areas. Along with this, a second major access out of the 3-F Meadows area is important. Staff recommends that this project not be allowed to develop or that the Final Map not be permitted to record until such time as San Mar- Cos/Los Altos Roads are completed to Morro Road. This concurs with the current City Council policy on lot splits in the 3-F Meadows region. The applicant has provided conditional approval of the use of theex- isting roadway through the Evans' property (Parcel 1, 24/PM/65) to Morro Road as an emergency exit from the site when Phase III is com- plete. The egress will be for emergency purposes only and be located off the final cul-de-sac running between Lots 22 and 23 connecting to the road- on the Evans' lot. A crash gate will be located at the com- mon boundary. FINDINGS 1. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the 1980 Atascadero General Plan and with , applicable zoning and subdivision regulations. 2. Modifications to the proposed subdivision design and its improve- ments are necessary to assure consistency with the General Plan and with mitigation measures identified in the .Final Environmental Impact Report. — 4 IN W-1 Tentative Tract Map AT 820802 :1 (Langford &Ibsen Ent. ) 3• The 123 acre site is physically suitable for a single family resi- dential subdivision but its density is only physically suitable if modified as recommended. 4. The subdivision design and improvements are not likely to cause environmental damage or public health problems. 5. Existing easements of record are not adversely . affected by the proposed design. 6. Mitigation measures identified in the Final Environmental Impact Report are appropriate-and necessary for incorporation into -recom- mended conditions of -approval.- Participation f_approval:Participation in area-wide circulation improvements are essential T. to accommodate traffic which will be generated by the project. Conditional approval of this subdivision together with existing private agreements will ensure completion of San Marcos and Los Altos Roads to Highway 41 eliminating the cul-de-sac effect in the upper 3-F Meadows area. -"RECOMMENDATION y . Based upon the above Findings, the Planning g D epartment recommends ap- proval of Tentative Tract Map AT 820802:1 subject to the following conditions: 1. The proposed subdivision design shall be revised to conform with the following: a. Lots 1,21 and 3 shall be redesigned into two parcels. b. Lots 6,7, and 8 shall be redesigned into two parcels. C. Lots 9 and 10 may be required to be redesigned into one par- cel, if engineering measures proposed in conjunction with the development of Vista Road do not adequately eliminate poor drainage conditions on Lot 9. d. Lots 29 ,30 , and 31 may be required to be redesigned into two parcels, if engineering measures proposed in conjunction with the development of Vista Road do not adequately eliminate poor drainage conditions on Lot 31. e. Lot 14 shall be eliminated and merged with one or more adja- cent parcels unless one of the two ponds are eliminated. f. -Design revisions set forth in a.-e. above shall be subject to final approval by the Planning Department and shall comply with other criteria set forth in this approval concerning building site, private sewage disposal system, grading and Tentative Tract Map AT 820802:1 (Langford &Ibsen Ent. ) road improvement designs. Revision may be referred to the Planning Commission for final approval if deemed necessary by the Planning Director or if requested by the applicant. 2. Private sewage disposal systems will be an acceptable method of sewage disposal if reports and designs are acceptable. All tests, reports and designs shall conform to methods and guidelines pre- scribed by the Manual of Septic Tank Practice and other applicable City ordinances. The following Note shall appear on the Final Map: "Appropriate soils reports including a percolation test, a test to determine the presence of •,..:••�: P ground water, and a log of a soil boring "' `• to a minimum depth of ten (10) feet shall be submitted to the r; Planning Department prior to the issuance of a building permit. t ^; Where soils reports indicate that conventional soil absorption systems are not acceptable, City approval of plans for an alter- << native private sewage disposal system, designed b a Y g y Registered -, Civil Engineer, shall be required. Depending upon 'the system, ' more restrictive requirements may be imposed. All tests, borings, and designs, including structure locations and septic system lo- cations shall be located inside the delineated building sites k:;.. shown on the plan delineating feasible building sites on file in the Planning Department. " 3. Private sewage disposal system design shall also comply with the T following, which shall be shown as a Note on the Final Map. The Planning Director may modify these requirements, upon recommenda- tion of the design engineer, where deemed appropriate for individ- ual system designs. a. Expansion area for .the leach field shall be 200%. b. Provide a minimum twenty (20) feet of horizontal separation t, between the bottom of the trench and surface exposure for i conventional systems. C. Provide a minimum setback of fifty (50) feet from drainage swales and of one hundred (100) feet from water impoundment areas (unless impounded water is used for domestic purposes) . More restrictive setbacks may be required if the Basin Plan or applicable City ordinances establish them prior to devel- opment of individual sites. 4. Water shall be obtained from the Atascadero Mutual Water Company and water lines shall exist at the frontage of all parcels prior to recordation of the Final Map. 5. All utilities, including electricity and telephone, shall be placed underground and shall exist at the frontage of all parcels prior to recordation of the Final Map. Any utility easements shall be indicated on the Final Map. • 6 c � Tentative Tract Map AT 820802:1 (Langford &Ibsen Ent. ) 6. Vista Road shall be full im roved with a minimum aved width of wen v _eet inc u ing adequate shoulders to Citv standards to the frontage of Lot 23. a. Improvement plan drawings, prepared by a registered civil engineer, shall be submitted to and be approved by the Public Works Department. The applicant shall enter into an inspec- tion agreement and secure any required permits prior to con- structing road improvements. b. Final road grade shall not exceed 15%. If multiple Final 'Maps are to be recorded for this project, plan and profile drawings, prepared by a registered civil engineer,• shall -be submitted to and a pproved by the Public Works Department prior to recordation of any Final Maps to as that final � . - road grades can comply with this standard. is•�': . .. . . C. The alignment of Vista Road shall minimize removal of major topograhic features including trees and rock outcroppings. Any- such features to be removed shall be indicated on im- provement plan drawings.. d. Improvement plan drawings shall delineate measures to pro- tect road improvements from any water impoundment areas. e. Drainage and erosion control plans, civil engineer, shall be submitted etorand ed ba a registered the Public Works Department in conjunction with improvementroved byplan drawings. f. Dedication of Vista Road shall be made on the Final Map. The width of the road dedication shall be adjusted as needed to accommodate cuts and fills and slopes related thereto. g. Soil reports, prepared by a registered civil engineer, and/or geologist, shall be provided to the Public Works Department where deemed necessary to adequately review improvement plan drawings. 7. Plan and profile drawings of proposed individual driveways shall be submitted for approval to the Planning Department in order to determine average grade and appropriate improvement requirements. If average slope exceeds 12%, paved improvement would be required at the time of application for building permit. Otherwise, an all-weather surface would be required similarly. In no event will driveways be allowed which exceed 20% in slope. The driveway access shall be improved to a minimum width of twelve (12) feet where it serves only one residence and sixteen (16) feet where it serves two or more residences. All driveways shall have a mini- mum unobstructed vertical clearance of fourteen (14) feet. In the event of shared driveways, improvement of the shared portions shall be a requirement made in conjunction with the first building permit. If a bridge is necessary to provide access to a lot, it shall be designed by a registered civil engineer for a load capa- city of 35, 000 pounds. Tentative Tract Map AT 820802:1 (Langford &Ibsen Ent. ) 8. Drainage and erosion control plans, prepared by a registered civil engineer, shall be submitted for review and approval to the Plan- ning Department prior to issuance of building permits in conjunc- tion with installation of private driveways, access easements, and r structures. 9. A 'plan delineating a feasible building site or sites for each lot in compliance with the following shall be submitted to the Plan- ning Department prior to recordation of any Final Map: a. Building sites shall generally be limited to areas of . 20% grade or less, for conventional slab-on-grade construction. b. Building sites shall conform to setback requirements of the � . # zoning and building ordinances, including those required for private sewage disposal systems. a C. Building sites shall contain sufficient area for private sew- age disposal systems, including expansion area. d. Building sites shall be accessible by driveways with less than 20% grade. e. A minimum of one such building site in conformance with the,*. 3 above, - as well as other conditions set forth in this a al, shall be available on each iasite is p not available, the lot design may obedrequired toberevised to provide one.. f. The following Note shall appear on the Final Map: "A plan delineating a feasible building site for each lot is on file in the Planning Department. Construction may be limited to these sites by the Planning Department when re- viewing individual building permit applications. " 10. Efforts shall be made to minimize grading that would be disruptive to the natural topography and removal of existing mature trees. The following shall appear as a Note on the Final Map: "No trees shall be removed without compliance with applicable City ordinances. No grading shall commence without an appropriate per- mit and compliance with applicable City ordinances. No cuts shall be made which exceed five (S) feet in height, unless authorized by the Planning Director. " 11. All grading shall conform to Chapter 70 of the Uniform Building Code. All cut and fill slopes shall be adequate to allow for establishment of vegetation: Particular attention shall be given to drainage control in conjunction with any grading. 12. Development of lots located within identified oak woodland areas shall be given particular attention to minimizing unnecessary tree removal. II'� Tentative Tract Map AT 820802:1 (Langford &Ibsen Ent. ) 13. Final grading and drainage plans, prepared by a registered civil engineer, for development on each parcel, shall be required to be submitted for review and approval to the Planning Department prior to issuance of building permits. A Note to this effect shall ap- pear on the Final Map. 14. Roof materials for all structures-shall be Class C rating or bet- ter and a Note to that effect shall appear on the Final Map. 15. An easement shall be secured tooprovide an emergency fire access through Parcel 1 of CO 76-509. This easement shall be improved to a minimum width of ten (10) feet, to an all-weather condition, and with adequate provision for drainage. It shall be maintained �. ' in a passable condition especially during the summer fire season. ` 16. Fire hydrants of a- type and size specified by the Fire Department shall be installed along Vista Road extension. Hydrants shall be installed at distances no greater than 800 feet on center. Exact location and manner of placement shall be subject to the approval of the Fire Department. A letter from the Fire Department certi- fying the installation of the hydrants shall be received by the t Planning Department prior to the recordation of the Final Map. 17. Drainage swales shall be indicated on the Final Map and a Note shall appear on the Final Map which states: "Any modification of the ground during site development within fifty (50) feet of the drainage swales shall be subject to ap- proval by the Planning Department. " 18. All pipeline and other easements of record shall be shown on the Final Map. A letter shall be submitted from each utility company indicating the nature and extent of any building restrictions. A Note so stating such restrictions shall appear on the Final Map. 19. The applicant shall contribute 50% of the cost of a radio repeater for the Fire and Police Department communications systems. 20. In the event that archeological resources are discovered on the subject site during construction of this project, said resources are to remain undisturbed after discovery and construction acti- vity shall cease immediately. The Planning Department is to be notified so that proper disposition of the resources may be ac- complished. Construction may resume only upon authorization by the Planning Department. 21. The Final Map shall not be permitted to record until such time as the road improvements of San Marcos Road and Los Altos Road are complete and installed to Morro Road (Highway 41) . 22. A final soils or geologic report shall be prepared and submitted prior to recordation of any Final Map. Tentative Tract Map AT 820802:1 (Langford &Ibsen Ent. ) 23. All conditions of approval are to be complied with prior to filing of the Final Map unless otherwise specified herein. If multiple Final Maps are submitted to accommodate the proposed phasing, then the Planning Director shall determine which conditions are to be complied with for each phase. 24. A covenant shall be recorded with each lot indicating that no further land divisions of any lot created by this Tract Map, in- cluding multiple phases of this Tract Map (if any) , shall be al- lowed unless planned development zoning regulations affecting the entire 123 acre parent parcel are changed. } 25. A Final Map in compliance with all conditions set forth herein shall be submitted for review and approval in accordance with the Subdivision Map Act and the City Land Division Ordinances prior to recordation. a. Monuments shall be set at all new property corners and a Reg- istered Civil Engineer or licensed land surveyor shall sub- mit a letter certifying that the monuments have been set prior to recordation, unless certification is received, that corners are already monumented.. b• A recently updated preliminary Title Report shall be submit- ted for review in conjunction with the processing of the, Final Map. 26 . Approval of this Tentative Tract Map shall expire two years from the date of this approval unless an extension of time is granted pursuant to a written request prior to the expiration date. a. If multiple Final Maps are recorded, all such maps shall be recorded with these time limits or any extensions thereof. b. If recordation of Final Maps does not proceed beyond the first phase, then any consideration of new land division ap- plications for remaining land of later phases shall not be granted without consideration of densities allowed in the first phase of the planned development. A Note this effect shall 1 a ear on any y Final Maps for all but the last phase. NOTE: COPIES OF THE EIR SHOULD BE REVIEWED IN CONSIDERING THIS APPLICATION. CONTACT THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT IF YOU NEED ANOTHER COPY. � n :w:a� .• g.J LGA.. -� _ __ ���-. .• `` N a V � , J tea- ' e'1w'� / �~l-'/ e'er V �•t'� �.1�.! /1�i �+�'� N w�T" � ._� / w �t\ � ! � \ �LL v°! , Lon W a"- ..,t i ie•.� H V��i v Vt \:�c�r• .:���. Os�'��''l � 1` •'`\`�\��C•'•vZ>�.� N�v�� -C ��� �'��' �,�t..� �! 4vj �! � _�;\�. '�`��,6/!��_`✓ ; � Nq. ai���`. ;' ��•�_ ���, i�'Z'•�����';;'�1�.�Oecl;�y� Wig; t j ��/:�` ��. �'/ � ���`� �1�`,�. �,� •Co ti+a o.-� �, a . - may/ In I r`%� t t/�, \�`t\Il i' + �\ Q�t� 1`!��� ,tom�-- ,(� ����� /�' �'�J�%�\\�'.`\\' /•. .��,._-1,•.� > ` ve ..� �N��W�O:Y '" �' ��\�� -:� � �� � +t��'i:% c'o�� \ y. 1 'j!I'1�,'• :ii!':1� V1'^I s °o '� �"Q V k M :=-,t?'v�1 � ` ���f'�j)!'� f �,6.�j�! - �\\,' \`1 .t�/�,,�i'll�\ •-� �` a1. �.O }�� ��� •v�/./•----��e%�".�. � �^•� \ I��:/�\\,yam:/�~ � ,., y 1 \�.'`�_-.• 14 �'.� --��,��: \1"r- i'is•\\�\ '����\\\ ,\� I `•\<'� � ` • + �`\ \� �" y:`9 'o. .M. —" .d 5:�.;�. ! 1'I� V� by _�r_=- `\\1 y :ri. ,�� �, i• + 1\`\�„\\`�,_\'.. ON =r: COClilt O - •i ` � -.�\ ._,�1>Sti'1Jr1; , 1 % �•,l``�\; �v��/,;/moi . :�� >^` _t', �, �".` ` 'tt�).'�/I I��// ,'�••''"'.. it / � / ~ �� �/// /./-./'� �"p _ - - ' .TH;.';�^ •O'�ti i J !+` � i"l 'i a�Lai/�`:� `"�'� .,�L'1 • ,-�. '.\ I�, 11 r<2�—� y-1 �•' ,�.\`,•,• �;�. :n�f'�01,'`' �, V e l �♦. ./�qw �w ..�\,t\�\�_�\ ��, ��\(��,li'/tl t� _-� �\ \}i,'I' -�y• .� 6.�• ti�, �. �.�� ice, ���K Vii' �1� �� \� �' - ����\ }I:;(' •�%!i ::.--, � -•,: •/. _-_b\ - ie�'� �.. , .` 1 /.. `, :, \ \\ roles .J.//�rl%)�JJ,I�\��. ? \: �vc a :� .ane � �..�� -/i __ /'.'l; ��'/ / /'' + � �:�' '�J.•' �` - ,+'.,'.+ 1 ice,.. ..,:. :�� :Ib ,% ��i ��_ �•�' \J)�//i � ' ' •� .'$�y \}• •'. ,'. 'I � �" / •: • Jii/l, i '',iii a�-.!�i;(�- '�.��\ ./. •� i//` � � // ��/v�s r r r 5�6Z+ a aYh do to ,� /lVihWySME F • I 7� - - --- 3 3 N t N 3_ i .ti 14.2 0 O LL Tr* .NV/ •41' A6 ~ 4 g- � � Q a ti z l v o i D rte � v 3 Q 0 p 0 J � Z O 1 O � � v Ne Vti h �`0 q 0 000 � 0 0 0 0 ki QQ04 � �iyX 6 J 01 o s. 141 Vl r 0 d IV� ti to v pry e 4 oc f. v D r � . W 19, b �-`� W ��► Q Q Q VC to a ojj I'li � ZZ, � ebb � S � w w� ts, rk X3 zi Q�h10 N �Fi , � � o z � � �, ►, �wWti � , �IN coq wVQZ 4 ��� � � �o � �� �� oen- �e W� • o wW W Q WW �O J � , � W � o � � W '4 44 � he L p� �lb IL Q k1 O Y � t \ .c Jack Brazeal Certified Arborist 4531 Skipjack Lane W.C. I.S.A. #163 Paso Robles, California 93446 805/227-6140 August 14, 1988 Daniel J. Stewart & Assoc. 597 12th Street P.O. Box 2038 Paso Robles, California 93447 Certified Arborist Tree Preservation and Recommendation for Tract 1382, Panorama Oaks Estates - Phase II Vista Road Extension The development of this road has a physical impact on many oak trees in this area and has a significant impact on twenty oak trees including the removal of ten of these trees. A description of the trees impacted on this development and mitigation measures are as follows: 1. All trees are to be marked and numbered as indicated on the final plans. All trees are to be marked and numbered in the field to correspond to numbers on the plan. 2. A definition of each tree marked and the proposal for that specific tree. 3. All tree pruning is to be done under the supervision of a Certified Arborist. Tree #1 - 60" diameter, California Live Oak, Lot #24 One large branch protruding over the street right of way is to be lightened (safety pruned) by removing 15% of the branch foilage. Tree #2 - 40" diameter, California Live Oak, Lot #24 This tree will require pruning to obtain the minimum hight (14 feet) over the street. Tree #3 - 10" diameter, Blue Oak/dia.2 = 100x.7854 = 78.54 sq. inches x $27.00 - 2, 120.58 x species factor 80% = 1,696.46 x condition factor 50% = $848.23 x location factor 75% = $636 . 17 True value. TO BE REMOVED Tree Preservation & Recommendation August 14, 1988 Tract 1382, Panorama Oaks Estates Phase II, Vista Rood Extension Page 2 Tree #4 - 18" diameter Blue Oak/dia.2=324x .7854=254.46 s.q.-. i:nches. x. $-27.00 = 6, 870.42 x species factor 80% = 5,496.33 x condition factor 50% . 2,748.16 x location factor 75% _ $2,061.12 True Value. TO BE REMOVED Tree #5 - 10" diameter Blue Oak/dia.2=100x.7854=78.54 sq. inches x $27.00 = 2, 120.58xspecies factor 80% = 1,696.46 x condition factor 50% = 848.23 x location factor 75% = $636.17 True Value. TO BE REMOVED Tree #6 - 12" diameter Blue Oak. To be retained and safety pruned to clear for street right of way. Tree #7 - 8" dia. Blue Oak - dia.2= 64x.7854 = 50.26 sq. inches x $ 27.00 x-$1,357.17 x species factor 80% = 1,085.73 x condition factor 50% _ $542.86 x location factor 75% = $407.15 True Value. TO BE REMOVED Tree #8 - 14" diameter Blue Oak Pruning required to clear for street right of way. Tree #9 - 6" diameter Blue Oak No impact Tree #10 - 4" diameter Blue Oak No impact Tree #11 - 24" diameter Blue Oak This tree has low branches and will need to be significantly;,pruned in order to attain the required minimum height (14 feet) over the street. One six inch branch and two, four inch branches will need to be removed. One 36" diameter Live Oak down the hill from tree #11 will need to have one large branch, 10" diameter, headed back to clear the street. Tree #12 - One, 4" diameter Blue Oak, dead. To be removed. Tree #13 - One, 5" diameter Blue Oak, dead. To be removed. Tree #14 - One, 8" diameter Live Oak. A tree protection fence required. Tree #15 - One, 18" diameter Live Oak - 18" diameter2 = 324x.7854 = 254.46 sq. inches x $27.00 = 6,870.42 x species factor 80% = 5, 496.33 x condition factor 50% = 2,748.16 x location factor 75% - $2,061. 12 True Value. TO BE REMOVED Tree #16 - One 16" diameter Live Oak - 16" dia.2=256 x .7854 = 201.06 sq. inches x $27.00 = 5, 428.68 x species factor 80% = 4, 342.94 x condition factor 50% = 2, 171.47 x location factor 75% = $1,628.60 True Value. TO BE REMOVED. Tree Preservation & Recommendation August 14, 1988 Tract 1382, Panorama Oaks Estates Phase II, Vista Road Extension page 3 Tree #17 - 12" diameter Live Oak - 12" dia.2=144x.7854 = 113.09 sq. inches x $27.00 = $3,053.63 x species factor 80% = 2, 442.90 x condition factor 50% = 1, 221.45 x location factor 75% = $916.09 True Value. TO BE REMOVED Tree #18 - 26" diameter Live Oak. This tree is to be retained. Realign the street to six feet East of this tree's location. This will allow this specimen tree to be saved without further impacting other trees. A protection fence will be required. The basic value of this tree is: $14, 335.12. Tree #19 - One, 12". diameter' Live Oak. This tree is to be retained. A protection fence is required. Tree #20 - One, 9" diameter Blue Oak - 9" dia.2=81x.7854 = 63.61 sq. inches x $27.00 = 1717.66 x species factor 80% = 1,374.13 x condition factor 50% _ 687.06 x location factor 75% = $515.30 True Value. TO BE REMOVED The total value of the trees proposed to be removed, with the exception of • tree #18, is $8,346.42. This amount is to be used for compensatory planting as follows: Plant compensatory trees within five feet behind the right of way in areas that will not require future grading. Plant as close to lot lines as is feasible. All newly planted trees are to be irrigated by auto- matic bubbler system to guarantee establishment. Estimated tree values include irrigation and maintenance for one year. a. 24" box Quercus agrifolia (California Live Oak) - $175.00 x 4 = $700.00 each b. 15 gallon size Quercus agrifolia (California Live Oak) - $65.00 x 4 = $260.00 each. $8,346.42 divided by $260.00 = 32, 15 gallon size trees. $8,346.42 divided by $700.00 = 12, 24" box trees. ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS: 1. No equipment is to be operated or parked within the dripline of any k tree that is outside of the right of way. 2. Trees that exist closer than ten feet of the right of way are to have protection fences at the right of way line for the length of the tree's canopy. 3. Protection fence material and installation: 48" chain-link, 72"x2" steel post, installed on 10' centers or closer. • '48" field fencing, 72".'steel T-post installed on 10' centers or closer, a minimum of three wire clips or fasteners are to be in- stalled on each post. Tree Preservation & Recommendation August 14, 1988 Tract 1382, Panorama Oaks Estates . Phase II, Vista Road Extension page 4 ADDITONAL REQUIREMENTS (continued) 4. Cuts within the dripline of existing oak trees: All cuts made within the dripline are to be dug by hand. All roots encountered are to be cut with hand tools, i.e., saw, axe, loppers, etc. and all cuts are to be sealed with tree seal. 5. Soil dessication(drying)control: Upon completion of the hand excavation, a black tarping is to be placed over the entire vertical cut surface to reduce dessication of the soil. This tarping is to be securely fastened in place to prevent penetration of the wind and remain in place until the ex- covation is back-filled or hydro-mulched with an approved seed mix. SUMMARY: This is a moderately sensitive site for development, with many large and ` significant trees. Several trees are to be removed as noted and the re- commended replacement trees should be adequate. Every precaution has been taken to insure the health and preservation of the trees that. ore being retained and/or impacted by this Vista Road Extension. The owner/developer is in agreement with these recommendations and requirements and I recommend that this tree protection plan be approved as submitted. N ppni� S ewart, Deve operf 4t• Date ny a FwO , k Brazen , CeLiified Date Arborist/WCISA #163 • 081588:04 ERNIEL I STEWART 6 AS06C. ENGINEERS 6 SURVEYORS POST OFFICE BOX 2038 597 Twelfth Street PASO ROBLES, CALIFORNIA 93446 (805) 238-0700 September 14, 1988 City of Atascadero Planning Department City Hall Atascadero, CA 93422 Re: Tract 1382 Vista Road Extension Gentlemen, Enclosed please find 4 prints of Sheet #4 of the improvement plans for this project. Also enclosed are 12 photo copies of the critical area of the tree removal within Vista Road. We have made every attempt to save as many. trees as possible for this project. Our original approved design and layout, which would have caused the removal of 40 to 50 oak trees, has been redesigned so that only 13 trees will be . removed. The arborist report prepared by Jack Brazeal reviewed each of the trees shown on this plan and his comments are contained in his report. We also made an attempt to save tree No. 18 by re-shifting the roadway and adjusting the vertical alignment. After doing a comprehensive scrutiny of the trees in this area, and reviewing the roadway profile, its typical section, and horizontal alignment, it was impossible to save both tree No. 11 and tree No. 18. Upon review with staff, we concluded that tree No. 18 would have to be removed and will need city council approval . Due to the tree removal that is necessary to complete this project, we are providing 19 "compensatory planting" trees. Please review our tree removal request so that this project can be finalized. Very truly yours, Daniel J. Ste Xrt DJS/nm SEP 1 1 88 . nOMMU dIT`! IDEVEL] ME14T Jo•zk Brazeal Certified Arborist 4531 Skipjack Lane W.C. I.S.A. #163 . Paso Robles, California 93446 805/227-6140 August 14, 1988 Vif-:5 , Daniel J. Stewart & Assoc. 597 12th Street P.O. Box 2038 Paso Robles, California 93447 Certified Arborist- Tree Preservation and Recommendation for Tract 1382, Panorama Oaks Estates - Phase II Vista Road Extension The development of this road has a physical impact on many oak trees in this area and has a significant impact on twenty oak trees including the removal of ten of these trees. A description of the trees impacted on this development and mitigation measures are as follows: 1. All trees are to be marked and numbered as indicated on the . final plans. All trees are to be marked and numbered in the field to correspond to numbers on the plan. 2. A definition of each tree marked and the proposal for that specific tree. 3. All tree pruning is to be done under the supervision of a Certified Arborist. Tree #1 - 60 diameter, California Live Oak, Lot #24 One large branch protruding over the street right of way is to be lightened (safety pruned) by removing 15% of the branch foilage. Tree #2 - 40" diameter, California Live Oak, Lot #24 This tree will require pruning to obtain the minimum Night (14 feet) over the street. Tree #3 - 10" diameter, Blue Oak/dia.2 = 100x.7854 = 78.54 sq. inches x $27.00 - 2, 120.58 x species factor 80% = 1,696.46 x condition factor 50% = $848.23 x location factor 75% = $636 .17 True value. TO BE REMOVED Tree Preservation & Recommendation August 14, 1988 Tract 1382, Panorama Oaks Estates Phase II, Vista Road Extension page 2 Tree #4 - 18" diameter Blue Oak/dia.2=324x .7854=254.46 sq.-. i:nches. x. $27.00 = 6, 870.42 x species factor 80% = 5, 496.33 x condition factor 50% a 2,748.16 x location factor 75% _ $2,061.12 True Value. TO BE REMOVED Tree #5 - 10" diameter Blue Oak/dia.2=100x.7854=78.54 sq. inches x $27.00 = 2, 120.58x'- species factor 80% = 1,696.46 x condition factor 50% = 848.23 x location factor 75% _ $636.17 True Value. TO BE REMOVED Tree #6 - 12" diameter Blue Oak. To be retained and safety pruned to clear for street right of way. Tree #7 - 8" dia. Blue Oak - dia.2= 64x.7854 = 50.26 sq. inches x $ 27.00 =.$1,357.17 x species factor 80% = 1,085.73 x condition factor 50% _ $542.86 x location factor 75% _ $407.15 True Value. TO BE REMOVED Tree #8 - 14" diameter Blue Oak Pruning required to clear for street right of way. Tree #9 - 6" diameter Blue Oak No impact Tree #10 4" diameter Blue Oak No impact Tree #11 - 24" diameter Blue Oak This tree has low branches and will need to be significaantly;,Pruned in order to attain the required minimum height (14 feet) over the street. One six inch branch and two, four inch* branches will need to be removed. One 36" diameter Live Oak down the hill from tree #11 will need to have one large branch, 10" diameter, headed back to clear the street. Tree #12 - One, 4" diameter Blue Oak, .dead. To be removed. Tree #13 - One, 5" diameter Blue Oak, dead. To be removed. . Tree #14 - One, 8" diameter Live Oak. A tree protection fence required. Tree #15 - One, 18" diameter Live Oak - 18" diameter2 = 324x.7854 = 254.46 sq. inches x $27.00 = 6,870.42 x species factor 80% = 5, 496.33 x condition factor 50% = 2,748.16 x location factor 75% = $2,061. 12 True Value. TO BE REMOVED Tree #16 - One 16" diameter Live Oak - 16" dia.2=256 x .7854 = 201.06 sq. inches x $27.00 = 5, 428.68 x species factor 80% = 4, 342.94 x condition • factor 50% = 2, 171.47 x location factor 75% _ $1,628.60 True Value. TO BE REMOVED. 1 r i i MEW Tree Preservation & Recommendation August 14, 1988 Tract 1382, Panorama Oaks Estates . Phase II, Vista Road Extension page 3 Tree #17 - 12" diameter Live Oak - 12" dia.2=144x.7854 = 113.09 sq. inches x $27.00 = $3,053.63 x species factor 80% = 2,442.90 x condition factor 50% = 1,221.45 x location factor 75% = $916.09 True Value. TO BE REMOVED Tree #18 - 26" diameter Live Oak. This tree is to be retained. Realign the street to six feet East of this tree's location. This will allow this specimen tree to be saved without further impacting other trees. A protection fence will $ be required. The basic value of this tree is: $14, 335.12. ILv` x 8070 59ecieS Tree #19 - One, 12"- diameter' Live Oak. x s0010 eo%, a;fro•. X 757o Loeuttov% = "700 This tree is to be retained. A protection fence is required. = G Addy xQ Tree #20 - One, 9" diameter Blue Oak - 9" dia.2=81x.7854 = 63.61 sq. inches x $27.00 = 1717.66 x species factor 80% = 1,374.13 x condition factor 50% _ 687.06 x location factor 75% = $515.30 True Value. TO BE REMOVED The total value of the trees proposed to be removed, with the exception of tree #18, is $8,346.42. This amount is to be used for compensatory planting as follows: Plant compensatory trees within five feet behind the right of way in areas that will not require future grading. Plant as close to lot lines as is feasible. All newly planted trees are to be irrigated by auto- matic bubbler system to guarantee establishment. Estimated tree values include irrigation and maintenance for one year. a. 24" box Quercus agrifolia (California Live Oak) - $175.00 x 4 = $700.00 each b. 15 gallon size Quercus agrifolia (California Live Oak) - $65.00 x 4 = $260.00 each. $8,346.42 divided by $260.00 = 32, 15 gallon size trees. $8,346.42 divided by $700.00 = 12, 24" box trees. ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS: 1. No equipment is to be operated or parked within the dripline of any sc tree that is outside of the right of way. 2. Trees that exist closer than ten feet of the right of way are to have protection fences at the right of way line for the length of the tree's canopy. 3. Protection fence material and installation: 48" chain-link, 72"x2" steel post, installed on 10' centers or closer. '48" field fencing, 72".;steel T-post installed on 10' centers or closer, a minimum of three wire clips or fasteners are to be in- stalled on each post. Tree Preservation & Recommendation August 14, 1988 • Tract 1382, Panorama Oaks Estates Phase II, Vista Road Extension page 4 ADDITONAL REQUIREMENTS (continued) 4. Cuts within the dripline of existing oak trees: All cuts made within the dripline are to be dug by hand. All roots encountered are to be cut with hand tools, i.e., saw, axe, loppers, etc. and all cuts are to be sealed with tree seal. 5. Soil dessication(drying)control: Upon completion of the hand excavation, a black tarping is to be placed over the entire vertical cut surface to reduce dessication of the soil. This tarping is to be securely fastened in place to prevent penetration of the wind and remain in place until the ex- cavation is back-filled or hydro-mulched with an approved seed mix. SUMMARY: This is a moderately sensitive site for development, with many large and significant trees. Several trees are to be removed as noted and the re- commended replacement trees should be adequate. Every precaution has been taken to insure the health and preservation of the trees thot. are being retained and/or impacted by this Vista Road Extension. The owner/developer is in agreement with these recommendations and requirements and I recommend that this tree protection plan be approved as submitted. Daniel J. Stewart, Developer Date .gvn7 k Brazen , Ce ified Date Arborist/VICISA #163 081588:04 9 � c o v Q \ CC �-� - >n .;� 'a DoT z��• _ _ `1�+Si Za to aZI% ' 5.38 �I n qt GGA �'y W j> `• � — 3 -4 H A iZf -�n f�'� °�� N44 ri 45.77 of GO _ o �\ _ .� � Y ct4� N o9� Z-1 � eN r Y \ 0 rIt � „• `_� +29 5 w M i Ss Oa � � o %i �+ c100 th � a i MEETI XNDAaDAT 2. SM • M E M O R A N D U M TO: City Council September 27 , 1988 VIA: Ray Windsor, City Manager FROM: Henry Engen, Community Development Director 4 SUBJECT: Tree Removal Request: 8625 San Gregorio Road (Precise Plan 29-88) BACKGROUND: The Tree Ordinance requires that heritage trees not be removed unless approved by the City Council following public hearing. • PRECISE PLAN APPLICATION: As indicated in the attached applicant' s statement, Don Messer Construction (Cuesta Engineering) is seeking removal of one live oak tree ( 70" in circumference) as part of a precise plan application for siting of a house involving grading of over 20% on the property (see attached materials) . The tree ( #1) is shown as 2-16" oak trees on the grading plan. The proposed driveway to this heavily wooded property is existing at approximately a 25% slope and the arborist is recommending removal of a total of five ( 5) trees including the heritage tree noted. Additional grading is necessary to accomplish a 200 driveway, the maximum allowed under the Zoning Ordinance. The arborist is recommending that six ( 6 ) 15 gallon oaks be contributed to the City' s Replacement Tree Program because there is no feasible on-site area available. The Tree Ordinance includes tree removal criteria as stated in the following: " ( iv) Obstructing existing or proposed improvements that cannot be reasonably designed to avoid the need for tree removal . " • STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval of removal of the heritage tree with mitigation measures as recommended by the arborist. DD:ph Encls: Location Map Grading Plan Supplemental Statement Application Form Arborist Supplemental Information cc: Don Messer Construction Cuesta Engineering Tree Committee • • o - \ �, , RS ml cr r r 0 s of 40 R S o � o •�; !�:�; � % �: � / 1`0 ., ice_ _ _� v H BIT lZo CAT toil 3 94 rrW t °g a � �, � � baa �W���tg��sa� •���. � � s � , oo •1'C �� i� sae e����r�s'�� �� -�'-?�_ � ��c� __ 1 �� i ���r e b y+�S������ sw.•.ss~ �.a e��p �' _ L �Ysl's ��A55k4 �@ � g�g➢3•e F \ .aa :ii.. i._ Qtdi Q' I �' ` ;-a . `�. 'F' :'• .i Ptd •. I 4 .•fFr®� .a \a 2 Ilk of € 1 • f Z:aa�.5v�es . 4W,- G SPE G O R / D ROAD 1 1 LONST,PULT DSP/IiE APP�PD�JLN ' Ik 902 _ _ _ - - - � / • � /ASO ARE/1 � - - �vevrEei��dJ I7A� (914970 O�'LO TDP Ouzo L /240:QAC. rjW 9/G 0NS1Tl Y 1. MINIMUM SETW 2��•\\n�� �� 2. MINIMUM SEAS \ 0 3_ MINIMS 5 fE \ ;h00 O N q, DESIGN 51 5. LENGTH OT' (1 �• - 6, SPACING f7. 110 + 41 n > /' ..c a,# Wt FD. A14&- 'FL.=-11-5-1:5" 14&-EL.=915./5 `. Ex/ST/NLT EOG �F PQ!//N!r TREE PROTECTION NOTES 1 . ALL EXISTING TREES SIIALL REMAIN UNLESS OTIIERWISF NOTED. � ( mM 2. EAR TII WORK SIIALL NO f EXCEED 111E L IMI TS OF 111I S PLAN. o 3. LOW BRANCHES IN DANGER OF BEING TORN FROM TREES SHALL BE PRUNED PRIOR TO AN 11EAA EQUIPMENT WORK BEING DONE. 4. VEHICLES AND STOCKPILED MATERIALS SIIALL BE STORED OUTSIDE THE DRIP LINE OF Tl1E TI TO REMAIN. 5. TREES TO BE REMOVFD SIIALL- BF IDFNFIFIED W1 T11 A SIGN PROVIDED BY TIIE CITY- G. TREE REMOVAL PERMIT SIIALL 13E POSILD AND VISIBLE FROM 111F STREET. 7. TREES 10 BE PROIECIFD S11ALL HE TFNCFD DURING CONSTRUCTION Willi 5-FOOT FEN -E AS SII ON 1llE PLAN. 930 f0 3/ ,P.L.E. /-f994 _ t SZALf�: /'=/D' r. • i CUESTA ENGINEERING 7401-B EI Camino Real/P.O. Box 2066 Atascadero, California 934:23 (805)466-6827 SeptsrbEr 19, 1988 City of Atascadero Community Development 6500 Palma Atascadero, CA 93422 ATIN: Doug Davidson RE: Tree Removal Application for Parcel 1 14./PM/92 San Gregario Road/Messer Dear Doug: Through the course of design of this project, I have encountered some problems with the subject site which have contributed to the need for removal of the double 16" oak tree (tree #1 on our plan). The largest problem I have encountered is the existing driveway which best utilized would have just been improved and paved. But, the fire department will not accept it because of the steepness, which is 257.+-. Therefore, I have had to flatten the grade and thus cut the existing driveway deeper which further endangers tree #1. Other paths for the driveway have been explored, but due to limited sep- tic area and steepness of the slope of the existing hillside, the best way is to utilize the existing driveway path. The arborist and I have considered constructing a retaining wall around the base of tree #1, but believe that to be a temporary solution. Due to the root damage already done and the further root damage by the driveway cut proposed, it is likely that the tree will not survive and that the wall will have been built for no reason. Another consideration which needs to be addressed is the tree replacement. The arborist on his site visit determined that there was no available area for replacement tree, and therefore we would like to donate our replacement trees to the City tree replacement program. If you have any questions, please call me. Robert W. Carnes RC:pd n n^n <: Al A rti l GIT . I 'q r _' I COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT M I PLANNING DIVISION 6500 Palma Ave. P.O. Box 747 Atascadero, CA 93423 (805) 466-8000 APPLICATION ' RORilli Please type or print in ink Owners aA IVA! 5 __,t? Agents .Addresss Address 524oi _kQ45a4L422 Phone #: Phone #s �66--hf327 Applicant : 4)n! /L1e$5 4%r Address: Phone #: Project Description: Existing Use: 11 AMT E Project Address: Legal Description: L-0 s) x_ / ; B- ac* Tract Assessors Parcel No (s) : a I/We consent to the filing of this application and declare that this application and related documents are true and correct . (NOTE: The signature of the property owner is required on the appl ;cation before it will be accepted for processing. ) wner Agent Date Date For. Staff Use Only Fee: Receipt # : r 1 0 Tree Removal Permit Application' • , la11 rr Supplemental Information rr iwdi c � 1979� �A ,SrADC -O/ (Please type or print in ink) Reason f r ,Removal : iy� , -�ar Tel egml4tk.t4- S� f OttWG�?r�,, " r c cc :f r e aft Wi 164 10�. u c.e7(pe14 N�K 1,.3 ci -, r� Number,.of Trees to be Removed : ' Specify the size , Ameasured 4 ' above ground level ) , species (both common and botanical name) and condition of each tree to be removed: 1 . 2. 3. la", 4. /6 A, 5. 16 "' Specify the size and species of the trees proposed to replace those intended for removal : 2• e C4 tn ► J o.� th c jb 3. r 611- lda� 4. � f rcc �•.K..��_( �h e � tom/%tier.-.s 'fir C�li e 5. Please prepare a "Plot Plan" showing all improvements on your property, trees to be removed , trees to remain, and the proposed location of replacement trees as per the attached example. Owner Arborist Certificate Number y �S Date Date M IETI AGENDA DATE�4 ITEM • MEMORANDUM To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Through: Ray Windsor, City Manager From: Paul M. Sensibaugh, Director of Public Works/City Engineer Subject : Caltrans Request For Right-of-Way, Barranco Rd. Exten. 3-Bridges Project-Hgwy. 41 South of San Gabriel Date : August 21 , 1988 Recommendation : Staff recommends that Council approve the attached agreement . Background: , At the August 22 regular meeting Council directed staff to forward the attached agreement on to the Planning Commission for a • General Plan conformity report . The Planning Commission at their September 21 meeting determined that the proposed disposition of real property for highway realignment purposes and the acquisition of access rights to Highway 41 are in conformance with the City ' s adopted General Plan. Discussion : The Planning Commission suggested that the City acquire any remnant property from the realignment . It should be understood, however, that there are State laws that deal with the disposition of abandoned right-of-way and Caltrans may not be in a position to transfer or to sell the land to the City. Additionally, a determination would have to be made as to the usefullness of the property in comparison with its maintenance needs . Any creekway property could be useful for the Creekway Plan, of course, and staff will discuss that matter with Caltrans . Fiscal Impact : There will be no money exchanged between the governmental agencies The State will acquire the right-of-way and the City will r v the encroachment permit and physical approach to the future one ne Extension. • TeWfA OMA ' • M E M O R A N D U M TO: City Council September 27 , 1988 VIA: Ray Windsor, City Manager FROM: Henry Engen, Community Development Director 4E SUBJECT: General Plan Conformity Report 2-88: Request by the City of Atascadero for Determination of Conformance with the City' s General Plan of Proposal to Coordinate with Caltrans for the Eventual Extension of Barranco Road to Highway 41 . BACKGROUND : The City has been negotiating with Caltrans to provide for a second access point to the 3F Meadows area. A proposed agreement with Caltrans has been developed in conjunction with the • improvements slated for the three bridges stretch of Highway 41 ( see attached staff report) . The City Planning Commission considered this matter at their meeting of September 20, 1988 and are recommending that this project be found consistent with the General Plan. RECOMMENDATION: Advise Caltrans that the project design is in conformance with the City' s General Plan. As part of the negotiations with the state, the Commission suggested that the City request relinquish- ment of any surplus open space lands . HE :ph Encl : Staff Report to Planning Commission - September 20 , 1988 • 0 California ' District Co. Rte . P.M E.A. ;, 5 SLO 41 12 .9/ 258909 ; 19 13 . 4 ; Grantor RIGHT OF WAY CONTRACT--STATE HIGHWAY Document No. 4629-1 (4630-1 ) in the form of a Grant Deed covering the property particularly described in the above instrument has been executed and delivered to John W. Maddux, Right of Way Agent for the State of California. In consideration of which, and the other considerations hereinafter set forth, it is mutually agreed as follows: 1 . The parties have herein set forth the whole of their agreement. The performance of this agreement constitutes the entire consideration for said document and shall relieve the State of all further obligation or claims on this account, or on account of the location, grade or construction of the proposed public improvement. 2. The State shall : (A) Accept delivery of property or interest conveyed by above document(s) and record same when title can be vested in the State free and clear of all liens , encumbrances , assessments , easements and leases (recorded) , and taxes , except: a. Taxes for the tax year in which this escrow closes shall be cleared and paid in the manner required by Section 5086 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, if unpaid at the close of escrow. b. Covenants, conditions , restrictions and reservations of record, or contained in the above referenced document. C. Easements or rights of way over said land for public or quasi-public utility or public street purposes, if (B) Pay all escrow and recording fees incurred in this transaction and, if title insurance is desired by the State, the premium charged therefor. 3 . It is agreed and confirmed by the parties hereto that notwithstanding other provisions in this contract, the right of possession and use of the subject property by the State, including the right to remove and dispose of improvements , shall commence on September 1 , 1988, or the close of escrow controlling this transaction, whichever occurs first, and that the amount shown in Clause 2(A) herein includes, but is not limited to, full payment for such possession and use, including damages, if any, from said date. 4 . Grantor( s ) warrant(s ) there are no oral or written leases on all or any portion of the property exceeding a period of one month, and the grantor(s ) further agree( s) to hold the State harmless and reimburse the State for any and all of its losses and expenses occasioned by reason of any lease of said property held by any tenant of grantor( s) for a period exceeding one month. 5: The undersigned grantor(s) hereby agree(s) and consent(s) to the dismissal of any eminent domain action in the Superior Court wherein the herein described land is included and also waive(s ) any and all claims to any money that may now be on deposit in said action. 6 . At no expense to the grantor(s) and at the time of highway construction, construct a road approach right of Engineer's Station 710+. Upon completion of construction of said road approach it will be considered as an encroachment under permit on the State highway and is to be maintained, repaired and operated as such by grantor(s ) in accordance with and subject to the laws of the State of California and the rules and regulations of the Department of- Transportation of said State. 0 7 . Permission is hereby granted to State or its authorized agent to enter the Cities land, where necessary, to construct road approach as described in Clause of this contract. I/we understand and agree that after completion of the work described in Clause 7 , said facility will be considered as the sole property of the City and I/we will be responsible for its/their maintenance and repair. 8. It is understood and agreed that the property conveyed by document No. 4629-1 ( 4630-1 ) is being donated to the State by the undersigned grantor. Grantor, having initiated this donation, has been informed of the right to compensation for the property donated and hereby waives such right to compensation. Part of Document No. 4629-1 -2- ( 4630-1 ) IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this agreement the day and year first above written. Sign here ❑ Initial here ❑ Notarize here ❑ ................................................................ ................................................................ Q 1981 EXCELSIOR-LEGAL,INC. NO.5007 RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL: : STATE OF CALIFORNIA TRANSPORTATION AGENCY Department of Transportation By John W. Maddux Right of Way Agent By Frank M. Lentz Deputy District Director Right of Way ` By Richard L. Bryan, Chief Acquisition Services NO OBLIGATION OTHER THAN THOSE SET FORTH HEREIN WILL BE RECOGNIZED Part of Document No. 4629-1 -3- (4630-1 ) S l SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDER'S USE DISTRICT COUNTY ROUTE POST MILE NUMBER .. . . GRANT DEED (CORPORATION) 5 SLO 41 13.4 4629-1 (4630-1) a corporation organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of , does hereby GRANT to the STATE OF CALIFORNIA all that real property in the City of Atascadero ,County of San Luis Obispo ,State of California,described as: That part of Lot 8 in Block 39 and of Atascadero. Creek Reservation No . 10 shown on the maps of Atascadero Colony filed in Map Book AC3 at Sheets No. 41 and No. 53 in the office of the County Recorder of said county, described as follows : Beginning at a point on the northwesterly line of State Highway 41 at the southwesterly terminus of course 3 described in the deed from the State of California to the County of San Luis Obispo recorded February 10 , 1971 in Volume 1604 page 616 of Official Records of said county • thence (1) , N. 34b 41' 45" E. , 273 . 23 feet ; tdhence (2) , N. 436 35 ' 27" E. , 130 .92 feet; thgnce (3) , N. 50 42' 05" E. , 153.04 feet ; th8nce (4) , N. 53 14 ' 27" E., 293 .83 feet ; thence (5) , N. 72 08' 03" E. , 76 .39 feet -to said highway line at the north corner of the 615.98-foot segment of the right of way described in the deed from said county to the State, recorded June 30, 1937 in Volume 217, page 402 of Official Records of said county; thence (6) southwesterly, along said highway line, to the point of beginning. Together with the underlying fee interest appurtenant to said Reservation No. 10, in and to said State highway. FORM RW 02-3 (Rev. 12-82) 0OSP The grantor further understands that the present intention of the grantee is to construct and maintain a public highway on the lands hereby conveyed in fee and the grantor, for itself, its successors and assigns, hereby waives any claims for any and all damages to grantor's remaining property contiguous to the property hereby conveyed by reason of the location, construction,landscaping or maintenance of said highway. IN WITNESS WHEREOF,said corporation has caused its corporate name to be hereunto subscribed and its corporate seal to be affixed hereto, this day of 19 By President By Secretary [CORPORATE SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA = County of ss. On before me, the undersigned Notary Public in and for said County and State,personally appeared . ❑ personally known to me, ❑ proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence, to be the person_who executed the within instrument as the President and Secretary, respectively,of and acknowledged to me that the corporation executed it. WITNESS my hand and official seal. (for notary seal or stamp) Signature Notary Public in and for said County and State (CERTIFICATE OF ACCEPTANCE, GOVT. CODE, SECTION 27281) THIS Is To CERTIFY, That the State of California, grantee herein, acting by and through the Department of Transportation,hereby accepts for public purposes the real property, or interest therein,conveyed by the within deed and consents to the recordation thereof. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this day of ' 19 Director of Transportation By Attorney in Fact . CITY OF ATASCADERO Item: g _ 4 STAFF REPORT FOR: Planning Commission Meeting Date: Sept. 20, 1988 BY:pIPSteven L. DeCamp, Senior Planner File No: GPCR 2-88 SUBJECT: General Plan Conformity Report regarding the disposition of certain City owned real property along Atascadero Creek and acquisition of access rights and a physical approach to State Highway 41 for alternate access to the 3-F Meadows area. BACKGROUND: The California Government Code provides that no real property shall be disposed of or acquired by a city until the planning agency of that city has reported on the conformity of the proposed disposition and/or acquisition with that city's adopted general plan (see Exhibit A - Government Code Sec. 65402 (a) ) . A. SITUATION AND FACTS: 1. Applicant. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .City of Atascadero 2. Legal Description. . . . . . . . . . . .Ptn. Lt. 8; Blk. 39; AC & Ptn. Creek Reservation #10 3. Site Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.69 acres (30, 000 sq. ft. ) 4. Zoning. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .RS 5. General Plan Designation. . . . . Suburban Single Family 6. Existing Use. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Vacant 7. Environmental Status. . . . . . . . .Categorically Exempt Class 1 (the subsequent road realignment will be subject to separate CEQA review) B. ANALYSIS: The State of California has proposed a realignment of Highway 41 in the "Three Bridges" area between Old Morro Road East and Old Morro Road West. Replacement of the three (3) existing bridges in this area will improve sight distances and straighten the road for improved traveler safety. The State (Caltrans) has prepared plans and is in the process of acquiring the necessary right-of- �► i • way for this realignment project. Construction could begin as early as next spring. A portion of the right-of-way needed by the State for the Highway 41 project lies within property owned by the City of Atascadero (see Exhibits B and D) . This property is a portion of Creek Reservation #10 adjacent to Atascadero Creek. The State' s project lies within an area which has long been considered appropriate for a stream crossing to provide alternate access to the 3-F Meadows area. A crossing at this location appears necessary to provide a second means of ingress and egress for the growing residential population in the area. In the past, Caltrans has resisted efforts to obtain a legal encroachment for this purpose and has frowned on the "illegal" crossing currently utilized during dry weather. Staff has been able to negotiate with Caltrans to provide an encroachment and physical approach onto Highway 41 for a future stream crossing in alignment with Barranco Road. The City' s General Plan indicates a future crossing located mid-way between Barranco Road and Casanova Road (see Exhibit C) ; however, the Barranco alignment would provide a better approach to Highway 41. The Commission needs to report on the conformance of two aspects • of this project with the City' s General Plan: 1. Is the relinquishment of a portion of City owned property to the State for highway realignment purposes appropriate? and, 2. Is the movement of the proposed Atascadero Creek crossing from the location indicated on the General Plan Map to the Barranco Road alignment appropriate? The property required by the State for right-of-way is designated on the General Plan as "Suburban Residential" . The property is a Creek Reservation, however, and was originally intended to be utilized for open space. The property is immediately adjacent to Atascadero Creek and does not appear to be appropriate for residential development. The General Plan calls for preservation of the creek and possible utilization of the reservations for low impact recreational uses such as trails (see Exhibit E) . The amount of land needed by the State is relatively small and its location would not adversely impact future trail development. Staff believes that the public benefit to be derived from the proposed realignment of Highway 41 outweighs the minimal impact on the Creek Reservation from the land area lost to right-of-way. The Circulation Element of the General Plan does not contain Policy language specifically addressing a crossing of Atascadero • Creek in the Three Bridges area, but such a crossing is shown on 2 0 • the General plan Map. Staff does not believe, therefore, that • the location shown on the map is meant to be interpreted as a specific site, but merely suggestive of a need for a crossing in that general location. The location for the crossing suggested by the Public Works Department is preferable because it will give adequate sight distance in both the north and south directions. The level of service provided to the 3-F Meadows area will be unaffected by the choice of crossing location. C. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission determine that the proposed disposition of real property for highway realignment purposes and the acquisition of access rights to Highway 41 is in conformance with this City' s adopted General Plan. ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A - Government Code Excerpt Exhibit B - Location and Zoning Map Exhibit C - General Plan Map Exhibit D - Detail Map Exhibit E - General Plan Excerpts 3 • EXHIBIT A CITY OF ATASCADERO Calif. Government Code • �asn�•' COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT GPCR 2-88 DEPARTMENT ca CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE 65402. (a) If a general plan or part thereof has been adopted, no real property shall be I acquired by dedication or otherwise for street, ' square, park or other public purposes, and no real property shall be disposed of, no street shall be vacated or abandoned, and no public building or structure shall be constructed or authorized, if the adopted general plan or part ' thereof applies thereto, until the location, purpose and extent of such acquisition or disposition, such street vacation or abandonment, or such public building or structure have been submitted to and reported upon by the planning agency as to conformity with said adopted general plan or part thereof. Zhe planning agency shall render its report as to conformity with said adopted general plan or part thereof within forty (4 0) days after the matter was submitted to it, or such longer period of time as may be designated by the legislative body. If the legislative body so provides , by ordinance or resolution, the provisions of this subdivision shall not apply to: ( 1 ) the disposition of the remainder of a larger parcel which was acquired and used in part for street purposes; (2) acquisitions, dispositions, or abandonments for street widening; or ( 3 ) alignment projects, provided such dispositions for street purposes,. acquisitions, dispositions, or abandonments for street widening, or alignment projects are of a minor nature. • • EXHIBIT B CITY OF ATASCADERO Location & Zoning Map s� ATASCAD"qCOMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT GPCR 2-88 DEPARTMENT Fq a 9 ) I �OS s� uA S NOAIT 1 04 .9 I „jam``,1 I OP __ / � Y OO� MOB 45T \ O'S f"o6,4 1 r`° �ANOO I �v AOA 0 OSOS U INDA AO �O / I A � Z � / a SO 1 L(FH) t�` 06 L(FH) O O Y r, RS 1 RS (PD2) EXHIBIT C CITY OF ATASCADERO General Plan Map ' COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT GPCR 2-88 DEPARTMENT 1 a a i NDAIT iJ \t05--� AV 4 \m Ilt l CrS C .40 ApAO °sOS ADAD iNDA I ,O2 OL SO I/ 11 1� �\ a • O4 " 0 /O, _ R Q 1�j\A \ 1 � KeIIDEWMAcL.. RECREATION i � 0 0 EXHIBIT D ti�. ��r . 4•,� CITY OF ATASCADERO Detail Map -s��C,ADI:ft, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT GPCR 2-88 DEPARTMENT • —�__• ---- ;r RANCHO LA ASUNCION-." •� �" BLOCK.40'. ___'�4•. ; _ ---LOT xo _ 1r 'LOT x1• I _ LO 4G rtJr,ar ro aiq / b. '•. �"wu.]r°o•J�__. - ATASCADERO goFFe. •!rcrt '• s:ref PORTIONOi LOT B ATASCADERO CREEK RESERVATION .010 •Crrr+o NTCII /• _ ocTa nti. q 0 i ie.ro+�r•r l r•+r.. •snT M B.1AC•3 SHEET No 41 :f torr y 'N�i --.f••.,vst n)r* ,o rm r 'lu br • cr r. ,e]o•. a. ' �.T Tti1w T • iii is./ •,•0••-100• ` '- •fr f { l ,{. g .. iiJl J r. ,•r•r M.•r' I - 1. {j'f .d+• 8,` ;:-•' irz' !'•eit.' re._ 1= ° ° 0 •'s •r,, i A,r �= 1 . .. l r,bar.'r-I— !�`` ':ocra c • r .]ror y- +rz'oso)•r.,ils_ rl I � '. { roe n �..,•O-o SP C.raft•{ alH n .wF I b•e'JJ - I r 'liar _. a.).r....cr�_ •...c � �ee '¢r�•io.r.r•r � Si �� arr ]>oJ "_ — -r ti '•- - -: r, )srro ' rar of Ox'1r c. .y) �"'> =. y;r� '•'«.,.II - seit ` GIF O. air ,;/•. ;.\f `�. .iioo •• t0T .LOT 7 .LOT 6 ,���..' .-r. i•.� .. I LOT S o r t•'t %' '/ . � .L.+ ? MR AC 31 SHEET No 52 PARCELS htB AC•3 SHEEI\NQ SS y 1l )'• r n nCC.,ib.rr,0 l'doc oo i BLOCK 39 ' -. ATASCADERO COLONY t11 - �;• OLD NORRO RD CURVE DATA , CITY OF ATASCADERO • _ i F,ab•0.G•r,']I)V.l•>r.)r \._ .mob �• �, YY6 ' 4 - cc '�::._-.__ ....—e...... •.�� i 4 0.... a DETAIL C _ —_ _ __ r.•.b.• b+o•o \ 01 .z11,-a� zaz.v wrr LEGEND sun Or uu(osn,• ..�,. torr - J]ie i.w.•Jl- - — — - _—i::,,= r Ds.s�.A DETAIL B .sLB .G rw•....,r.s.... I• m,.. J•.;,... ;.,.. —`y RiGNI OF WAY MAP rrP AIITH-(J5-215149n9 '• EXHIBIT E CITY OF ��, .�. ;.. . ATASCADERO General Plan Excerpts • COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT GPCR 2-88 DEPARTMENT Creek Policy Proposals 1 . Possible purchase of privately owned portions, or negotiation of easement rights, shall be considered in order to develop the whole area as recreational land. These actions can be financed through public subscrip- tion, general obligation bonds, revenue-sharing funds or operating surplus. 2. Building setback requirements shall be established along the banks of both creeks to ensure the uninter- rupted natural flow of the streams and ensure access to the recreational use of the creeks. 3• The bacteriological content of the water in both creeks shall be monitored at appropriate intervals, to ensure against contamination by inflow of effluent from nearby septic tank leach lines. This possibility may exist along Atascadero Creek from the Capistrano Avenue Bridge to the railroad overpass. 4• Land disturbance shall be minimized within at least 50 • feet of water courses, except for that maintenance such as brush clearing which shall protect adjacent properties from flood hazards. Other minor exceutions could be made for harvesting sand and gravel and for low intensity recreational uses, such as trails and picnic areas. Channelization of creeks with concrete shall be prohibited. 5. Some areas of the creeks shall be left in their natural state for public enjoyment and to provide a continuing home for the beaver population, as well as the foxes, weasels, coyotes, wildcats and raccoons. 6. Facilities for picnics, playgrounds and riding, biking and hiking trails are appropriate to these watercourse areas. Multiple-use trails for hiking and riding shall be developed the length of the creeks. 7• A series of check dams on the upper portions of Atascadero Creek could provide year-around water (see Chapter VII, SERVICES) for fishing and swimming activities. However, the alteration of natural drainage patterns shall be minimized, and the existing minor drainage channels shall be left in open space, in most cases, to provide for runoff. 8. The Atascadero Creek Plan, as prepared by SEDES and approved as amended by the Board of Supervisors (1975) , is an integral part of this General Plan and represents a potential horizon plan for the subject area. The Creek Plan is shown on Map VI-2. 9• That portion of the Atascadero Creek Reserve from El Camino Real Bridge to the proposed Lewis Avenue Bridge shall be developed into a park. MEETt AG ND Dll'f !TERN, MEMORANDUM To : Honorable Mayor and City Council From: Paul M. Sensibaugh, Director of Public Works/City Engineer , 5 Acting City Manager Subject : Caltrans Request For Right—of—Way, Barranco Rd. Exten. Date : August 16, 1988 Recommendation: Staff recommends that Council direct staff to route the right— of—way request to the Planning Commission prior to approving the attached agreement . Background: Caltrans is in the process of acquiring the necessary right—of— way to relocate the three bridges along Morro Rd. (Hgwy. 41) between Old Morro Rd. East and Old Morro Rd. West . Due to a realignment in . the vicinity of Barranco Rd. ( if extended easterly) additional right— of—way is required from the Creek Reservation owned by the City along Atascadero Creek near Carmelita . Discussion: Staff has negotiated with the State to provide a street access and physical approach onto Hgwy. 41 in direct alignment with Barranco Rd. This location, which is south of (toward Morro Bay) the infamous illegal crossing, will give adequate sight distance in both the north and south directions . This approach would become the responsibility of the City in the future but would allow a second entrance to the 3—F Meadows area . This project will not give immediate safe public access to Carmelita since a creek crossing is necessary . That crossing could Possibly be a part of the assessment district now being discussed in the 3—F Meadows area with or without City participation. The matter of the additional right—of—way should first go to the Planning Commission since the City has not adopted an ordinance which allows re—alignments without hoops . i • Fiscal Impact : The land is basically unuseable except for the future trailways discussed in the general plan, which can still occur since the R/W will not encroach into the creekway itself . The right to have an access onto Hgwy. 41 at this location coupled with the physical Placement of the same by Caltrans appears to be an equitable trade for the City. • II EETI AGENDA T LZ-7� ITEM S E DMA • M E M O R A N D U M TO: City Council September 27 , 1988 VIA: Ray Windsor, City Manager FROM: Henry Engen, Community Development Director :; SUBJECT: General Plan Conformity Report 1-88: Request from the County of San Luis Obispo for General Plan Conformity Determination on Their Request to Acquire a Portion of Southern Pacific Railroad Right-of-Way for an Equestrian Staging Area BACKGROUND: The County is proposing to acquire lands for an equestrian staging area on Cortez Avenue, east of Curbaril . The Planning • Commission considered this matter at their meeting of September 20 , 1988 and are recommending that the action be considered consistent with the City' s General Plan. RECOMMENDATION: Advise the County that the City Council finds the proposed acquisition is in conformance with the City' s General Plan. HE :ph Encl : Staff Report to Planning Commission - September 20, 1988 • i • CITY OF ATASCADERO Item: • R _ 3 STAFF REPORT FOR: Planning Commission Meeting Date: Sept. 20, 1988 BY: OpSteven L. DeCamp, Senior Planner File No: GPCR 1-88 SUBJECT: General Plan Conformity Report regarding the acquisition of real property within the City of Atascadero by the County of San Luis Obispo. BACKGROUND: The California Government Code provides that no real property located within the corporate limits of a city shall be acquired or disposed of by a county until the planning agency of the city has reported on the conformity of the proposed action with that city' s adopted general plan (see Exhibit A - Government Code Sec. 65402 (b) ) . A. SITUATION AND FACTS: • 1. Applicant. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .County of San Luis Obispo. 2. Legal Description. . . . . . . . . . . .Ptn. Blk 42, Atas. Colony 3. Site Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0. 258 acres (11,243 sq. ft. ) 4. Zoning. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .RSF-Y 5. General Plan Designation. . . . .Public 6. Existing Use. . . o . o . o . . . . . . . . .Vacant 7. Environmental Status. . . . . . —Categorically Exempt - Class 1 B. ANALYSIS: For many years, San Luis Obispo County has leased property from the Southern Pacific Railroad for the staging of horses and equestrian access to Chalk Mountain Regional Park. This property is located between the railroad tracks and Cortez Avenue south of Curbaril (see Exhibits B and D) . The County now proposes to . purchase this property from the Railroad. No change in the current use of the property is anticipated. • The Planning Commission needs to report on the conformance of the 0 0 County' s proposed acquisition with this City' s adopted General Plan. The General Plan Map designates the subject property "Public This designation is in keeping with the current ownership of the property. The property is zoned RSF-Y which is a moderate lot size single family designation. Because of its location adjacent to the railroad tracks, this property is not appropriate for residential development, however. The Open Space Principles in the Open Space Element of the City' s General Plan encourages recreational use on public and quasi- public land. Although generally intended to guide local actions, 'the General Plan does not preclude the provision of open space and recreational opportunities by other levels of government. It appears that continued use of the subject property for equestrian use is in conformance with this City' s General Plan. Ownership of the property does not appear to be a significant issue. C. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission determine that the County' s proposed acquisition of real property within the City of Atascadero is in conformance with this City' s adopted General Plan. ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A - Government Code Excerpt Exhibit B - Location and Zoning Map Exhibit C - General Plan Map Exhibit D - Proposed Acquisition Map Exhibit E - General Plan Excerpt 2 • • EXHIBIT A CITY OF ATASCADERO Calif. Government Code ' COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT GPCR 1-88 D_ DEPARTMENT CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65402 . (b) A county shall not acquire real property for any of the purposes specified in paragraph (a) , nor dispose of any real property, nor construct or authorize a public building or structure, in another county or within the corporate limits of a city, if such city or other county has adopted a general plan or part thereof and such general plan or part thereof is applicable thereto, and a city shall not acquire real property for any of the purposes specified in paragraph (a) , nor dispose of any real property, nor construct or authorize a public building or structure, in another city or in unincorporated territory, if such other city or the county in which such unincorporated territory is situated has adopted a general plan or part thereof and such general plan or part thereof is applicable thereto, until the location, purpose and extent of such acquisition, disposition, or such public building or structure have been submitted to and reported upon by the planning agency having jurisdiction, as to conformity with said adopted general plan or part thereof. Failure of the planning agency to report within forty ( 40) days after the matter has been submitted to it shall be conclusively deemed a finding that the proposed acquisition, disposition, or public building or structure is in conformity with said adopted general plan or part thereof. The provisions of this paragraph (b) shall not apply to acquisition or abandonment for street widening or alignment projects of a minor nature if the legislative body having the real property within its boundaries so provides by ordinance or resolution. EXHIBIT B T CITY OF A ASCADERO Location & Zoning Map — COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT GPCR 1-88 DEPARTMENT r P 9 ROCKY�� O / / G►NYpH�Pa' L ) o cc LS ROF4 r0� .ice I�F 1 .� p 4).F7 44 ON R L ,0 11 � of f lu ALL SFr i, �p►� \ \ \ I ` R •I'6 MBR � IS F; \ N ' tir J RMF • F' YS I b R F•Z �'� MF•4t46 I , s i SPE ' - . yr ,a — ' � divi �v EXHIBIT D CITY OF ATASCADERO S- ,A,,;,�,G Proposed Acquisition Map ', ►scant COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT GPCR 1-88 DEPARTMENT tj y .4ct f _ III � � - +r• • -� •. -1...`i• � a66.1NMsfia Post ' GZ I *fiat. "��'�3 � .. � •°� _ 71. Nth - _ 966�f95�f0'3ajlast Gcck •.'.Ic aM y EXHIBIT E CITY OF ATASCADERO E ` ATASC&DF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT General Plan Excerpt `^ DEPARTMENT GPCR 1-88 • Open Space Principles 1 . Individual rights shall be safeguarded by proper application of government regulation. Restriction on personal action shall be applied only where necessary to achieve clearly defined environmental objectives , and only where voluntary incentive or private initia- tive has not .been sufficient to achieve these objec- tives. 2. The long term protection of the environment shall be the guiding criterion in Atascadero public policy decisions. 3• Scenic and sensitive lands shall be protected from destruction, overuse and misuse. 4• Scenic and open space easements , parklands and open space dedications shall be obtained through the subdivision and development process , including, but not limited to : creek reservation, wooded areas , flood plains , scenic and historic sites and other suitable sites. 5• Recreation facilities shall be encouraged in new developments as well as on public and quasi-public properties. o, IN /ter/�� MEMORANDUM TO: City Council THROUGH: Rav Windsor , City Manager FROM: Paul Sensibaugh , Director of Public Works SUBJECT: 1988-89 Resurfacing Program (Street Overlay) DATE: September 20, 1988 Recommendation : Staff recommends that Council award the annual resurfacing bid to Union Asphalt in the amount of $324 ,924 .00. Background: This project is the annual resurfacing of various city streets . The low bidder . Union Asphalt (M.J. Hermreck) , has • completed annual overlay projects for the city in the past with very satisfactory results . Discussion : The work represents about 8 miles of paving (wide pavement) . A list of the streets involved and a bid summary are attached for your reference. Fiscal Impact : The bid from Union Asphalt was approximately $50 , 000 below the Engineer' s Estimate. Extra work, including paved shoulders for the walk-to-school plan , will be completed to expend the Gas Tax Funds appropriated. BID #88-10 • DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS BID SUMMARY PROjECT: 1968-89 OVERLAY BIDDER SUNION ASPHALT INDONNA CONSTRECTION 1R. BURKE CCU. i 1 :TEM I)HUNTION UNIT MAURY x UNIT PRICE = TOTAL x UNIT PRICE - TOTAL x UNIT PRICE TOTAL I I I 27VE B AC T Q11-1.00 x $24.00 =$29t904-00 x $26.00 =$-3115�146.00 x -527.30 1 1 2 TACK COAT T "16 m $125.00 = $%620A0 x $1.00 = 64C 96 x $345.00 $15,R 1 AO I t 3 ANIUST MH EA 9%00 x $150.00 = $14,950.00 x $150.00 = $14,850.00 x $146.00 $14�;54.00 I t 4 ANUST MON EA 3L 00 x $nT00 = $10100 x $15100 - $4,65100 m U3100 = t 03E 00 1 3 5 SUR MON EA 6Ao x $0100 - $00100 x $mhoo = $No 00 x $H100 SUL 00 1 1 6 PAVE MARK LS LOP SUM m $0,00100 = $%00100 x Q00100 = Q00100 x $%45100 = $0,45100 1 1 7 x $100 = $100 x $o00 = $too x $100 $100 1 1 6 x $100 = $100 m $100 = 1100 x 1100 = $Too i 1 9 x $TOO = $L 00 x $100 = $100 x So 00 $100 i t 10 m $100 = $100 x $100 = $100 x So.00 So 00 1 1$lo"Hit!I"llitu$1131"I"$It 11"HIIIII 1""$Hull suits 11111"111 it 1"114 lullull I lit$ 1 HAL BID 1 $32402A00 1 ssymm 1 su"sm.50 t �11at�t�aYYixd�$;t>i>gat=���ttaa$a�.�t3�����a$$a=t$tt3�€$tate$a$t$a#.t$$ttt$$tt$tt$$tt$$at$$ltt�ta$t$$$$$$$It$tz$$t$ • LOW BID B 1 D-1,-E R iA.jz DIAN! CONIST, INC. 1 ENSINEERT ESTRATE I REM DHUPTMN UNIT MAURY m UNIT PRICE = TOTAL x UNIT PRICE = TOTAL x UNIT .?ii = TOTAL 1 1 27PE B PC T 1;12L 00 x $29.40 43412HAO m $too $T 00 x $100 $o 00 1 2 TACK CNT T 4,?6 x $No 00 = $m,HL40 x $100 - $Q 00 x $100 $100 1 3 ADJUST MH EA 99AO x $Bl 00 = $5,03&00 x $100 = $100 x $100 = 100 1 4 ANUST MN EA 3LOO x $116.00 = $"5HAo x $100 = $100 x $100 = $100 1 5 SUR MON EA &00 x SHIN = SUL 00 x So 00 = $100 x $100 = $100 1 6 PAVE MARK LS LOP SUM x $Q000.100 = $12 00-0.00 x $100 = $100 x $100 - $100 1 7 x $100 = $100 x $100 = $100 x $100 = $160 xx 1 9 x $100 = $o00 x $100 = $100 x $100 = $100 x 1 10 x $100 = $100 x $100 = $100 m $N 00 = $100 -, I t$3 1 t i A i i!it 11$43 1"1"1"1 IS 11"11 AS 9"1"I"3"3114"1111 13 13 11"3 1111 111111111 113 1113"111 it 1 1111114 I TOTAL BID I sm;no.80 1 $600 1 Su;on Ao I 1 4 0 111111 111 It"13 11111"1 it 1"3 1"1"11 IS 3 111 It 1111 t 1 If 113 111"111113 1"11113 11"111111"i 11111 11 it 111 it 1988-89 OVERLAY PROJECT OLMEDA San Jacinto to Traffic Way ARDILLA Atascadero Mall to San Anselmo VENADO Ardilla to Santa Lucia SANTA YNEZ Morro Road to Morro Road NAVAJOA Santa Ynez to Curbaril CRISTOBAL Santa Ynez to Curbaril WEST FRONT Portola to Santa Rosa PORTOLA Morro Road to West Front SAN GABRIEL Morro Road to Atascadero Avenue ATASCADERO AVENUE Morro Road to Curbaril CAPISTRANO West Mall to Hospital Drive tMAETeT 1 ANDA�ITEM s .. ..� • M E M O R A N D U M TO: City Council September 27 , 1988 VIA: Ray Windsor, City Manager FROM: Henry Engen, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Request for Council to Initiate a Permanent Ordinance Relative to Minimum Lot Size Required in the LSF-X and RSF-X Districts (20,000 sq. ft. lots, with sewer) BACKGROUND: The City is currently operating under the attached Ordinance No. 175 , which is an urgency ordinance having clarified that the minimum required lot size in the smallest lot single family zones, require a minimum net square footage of 20,000 square feet • with sewer. This ordinance was good for one year and would expire on June 14 , 1989 . The legislature has. been developing amendments of the urgency ordinance statutes which may affect the date of the City' s ordinance. Rather than run the risk of jeopardizing the effective date of Ordinance No. 175 , it would be advisable to make it permanent. RECOMMENDATION: Initiate a zoning text amendment to make Ordinance No. 175 a permanent part of the City' s zoning regulations . This will entail a staff report and public hearing before the Planning Commission for recommendation back to the City Council . HE :ph Encl : Ordinance No. 175 • 0 ORDINANCE NO. 175 AN URGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO AMENDING TITLE 9 ZONING REGULATIONS BY CLARIFYING THE MINIMUM REQUIRED LOT SIZE IN THE LSF-X AND RSF-X DISTRICT AS REQUIRING A NET MINIMUM LAND AREA OF 201000 SQUARE FEET WITH SEWER (EXCLUDING LAND AREA NEEDED FOR STREET RIGHTS-OF-WAY WHETHER PUBLICLY OR PRIVATELY OWNED) I AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 154 WHEREAS Section 65858 of the Government Code authorizes the adoption by local legislative bodies of interim ordinances as urgency measures to protect the public safety, health and welfare; and WHEREAS, said ordinances may be adopted as urgency measures prohibiting actions which may be in conflict with a contemplated zoning proposal which the legislative body, Planning Commission or Community Develoment Department is considering, or studying, , or intends to study within a reasonable time; and WHEREAS, the City is presently studying amendments to the City' s General Plan and zoning regulations to clarify definitions • of minimum lot areas required; and WHEREAS, the City Zoning Ordinance Sections 9-3 . 154 and 9- 3 . 164 were amended (Ordinance 145 ) to reduce minimum lot size in the RSF-X and LSF-X 'districts to 20, 000 square feet with sewers; and WHEREAS, said revision was a reduction from one-half acre minimum lot size to eliminate disputes as to credit for fee ownership of roads with the objective of setting a minimum net lot area of 20, 000 square feet in these districts where sewer is available regardless of ownership of said fee title to the roads; and WHEREAS, applications for the subdivisions of land with lot sizes of less than 20, 000 square feet net have been submitted contrary to the City Council ' s intent; and WHEREAS, the proposed extension of interim Ordinance No. 154 has been noticed for public hearing held on June 14 , 1988 pursuant to Section 65090 of the Government Code; and WHEREAS, such urgency measures shall require a four-fifths vote of the legislative body for adoption. NOW, THEREFORE , the City Council of the City of Atascadero • does ordain as follows : Section 1 . Council Findings . 1 . The proposed code amendment is in conformance with Section 65800 et seq of the California Government Code concerning zoning regulations . 2 . The proposed zoning text amendment will not have a significant adverse effect on the environment. Preparation of an Environmental Impact Report is not necessary. 3 . That further study is necessary to determine what legislation, if any, is proper for the protection of the public health, safety and welfare. 4 . That there is a current and immediate threat to the public health, safety, or welfare, and that the approval of additional subdivisions inconsistent with the zoning text changes provided for herein, would result in a threat to public health, safety, or welfare. Section 2 . Zoning Text Change. That the chart in Section 9-3 . 154 Minimum Lot Size in the Residential Single Family zone and 9-3 . 164 Minimum Lot Size in the Limited Residential Single Family zone shall be changed to read as follows in relation to the Symbol X: SYMBOL MINIMUM LOT SIZE X 20, 000 square foot net area (excluding land area needed for street rights-of-way whether publicly or privately owned) with sewer; half acre net area (excluding land area needed for street rights-of-way whether publicly or privately owned) where sewer is not available. Section 3 . All applications for a permit for a subdivision of land Which had been pending before the City of May 12 , 1987 , shall not be affected by or subject to the restraints herein enacted. Section 4 . This ordinance is adopted under Government Code Section 65858 and is in full force and effect for one ( 1 ) year. Section 5 . The City Council hereby declares that this is an urgency ordinance necessary to preserve the public peace, health and safety due to the facts set forth above. Section 6 . This ordinance being an urgency ordinance for the immediate protection of the public safety, health and general welfare, containing a declaration of the facts constituting the urgency and passed by a four-fifths (4/5 ) vote of the Council shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. Section 7 . Publication. The City Clerk shall cause this ordinance to be published once within fifteen ( 15 ) days after its passage in the Atascadero news , a newspaper of general circulation, printed, published and circulated in the City in accordance with Section 36933 of the Government Code; shall certify the adopting and posting of this , ordinance, and shall cause this ordinance and this certification together with proof of posting to be entered into the Book of Ordinances of this City. it On motion by COUNCILWOMAN MACKEY and seconded by COUNCILWONUN BORGESON, the foregoing ordinance is hereby adopted in its entirety by the following roll call vote: AYES : COUNCILMEMBERS BORGESON, BOURBEAU, HANDSITY, MACKEY AND MAYOR NORRIS NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE DATE ADOPTED: 6/14/88 CITY OF ATASCADERO, CALIFORNIA f- A-?�A� BARBARA NORRIS, MAYOR ATTEST: . BOYD 0z SAARITZ , City Cler APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: aLLANLEY Interim City Manager APPROVED AS TO FORM: t,Y G. R NSEN, City Attorney REPARED Y: HENRY ENGEN Community De elopment Director POVS4NM�NLT%tCYOE ,Ex cc• pnr (Amended by Stats. 1984, Ch. 1009.) Commission review of 65857. The legislative body *may approve, legislative body's modify or disapprove the recommendation of the changes planning commission ; provided that any modification of the proposed ordinance or amendment by the legislative body not previously considered by the planning commission during its hearing, shall first be referred to the planning commission for report and recommendation, but the planning commission shall not be required to hold a public hearing thereon. Failure of the : planning commission to report -within forty - �ry•. . (4.0) days after the reference, or such longer - period as may be designated by the legislative • body, shall be deemed to be approval of the proposed modification. (Amended by Stats. 1973, Ch. 600.) Uraency measure: 65858. [Text of section operative until Interim zoning January 1, 989.1 ordinance (effective (a) without followingU-ie Procedures ofhe rwiuntil1/1/89) se rqipror . . . .III to the adoption of a zoning '. ordinance, the legislative body, to protect the ' public safety, health and welfare, may adopt as an urgency measure an interim ordinance " prohibiting any uses which may be in conflict F with a contemplated general plan, specific plan, or zoning proposal which the legislative body, planning comnission or the planning department is considering or studying or intends to study within a reasonable time . That urgency -measure shall require a four-fifths vote of the • legislative body for adoption. The interim ordinance shall be of no further force and effect 45 days from its date of adoption. After notice pursuant to Section 65090 and public hearing, the legislative body may extend the interim ordinance for 10 months and 15 days and subsequently extend the interim ordinance for one year. Any such extension shall also require a four-fifths vote for adoption. Not more than the two such extensions may be adopted. (b) Alternatively, an interim ordinance may be adopted by a four-fifths vote following notice • pursuant to Section 65090 and public hearing, ; in which case it shall be of no further force and effect 45 days from its date of adoption. After notice pursuant to Section 65090 and public hearing, the legislative body may by a four- fifths vote extend the interim ordinance for 22 months and 15 days. (c) The'_ legislative body shall not adopt or extend any interim ordinanceur P suant to this. section unless the ordinance contains a finding that there is a current and immediate threat to 107- • MEE r AGENDA z DAT ITEMS 7 • M E M O R A N D U M TO: City Council September 27 , 1988 VIA: Ray Windsor City Manager FROM: Henry Engen, Community Development Director P&, SUBJECT: Request to Initiate Recruitment for Permanent Tree Committee Appointments BACKGROUND: Ordinance No. 171 establishing the Tree Committee (see attached) , provided that the initial term of members would be for a six month period ending on October 25 , 1988 . The attached Resolution No. 35-88 kept the original adhoc committee that had prepared the Tree Ordinance in place. They are to report back after six months with recommendations for possible amendments. • RECOMMENDATION: Direct the City Clerk to advertise to solicit interest for permanent appointees to the Tree Committee, with an application deadline of 5 : 00 P.M. on Friday, October 14 , 1988. This would enable establishing an interview schedule sometime during the week of October 17th. Alternatively, the appointments could be made at the Council' s October 25th meeting. HE :ph Encls : Ordinance No. 171 Resolution No. 35-88 cc : Tree Committee City Clerk • (revised 4/26/88) • ORDINANCE NO. 171 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO ADOPTING CHAPTER 19 ESTABLISHING THE ATASCADERO TREE COMMITTEE WHEREAS, the Council of the City of Atascadero has appointed an Ad hoc Tree Committee to prepare recommendations for the management and protection of trees in the City; and WHEREAS, said committee has completed this aspect of its charge, leading to the approval of Ordinance No. 168, "Tree Ordinance" ; and WHEREAS, said Ordinance requires that the Tree Committee advise Council on certified arborists to insure compliance with the City' s tree protection goals and objectives; and WHEREAS, there are other matters in the City requiring advioe relative to preserving natural flora and fauna; and WHEREAS, it is the desire of the Council of the City of Atascadero to have a standing Tree Committee to serve in this advisory capacity, NOW THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Atascadero does ordain as follows: Section 1. Chapter 19 is added to Title 2 of the Atascadero Municipal Code relating to the Tree Committee, to read as follows: CHAPTER 19. TREE COMMITTEE 2-19 .01. Tree Committee. There is hereby created and established a City of Atascadero Tree Committee which shall consist of seven (7) members, citizens and resi- dences of this City, who shall' serve without compensation and be appointed by the City Council. Said members shall be selected to rep- resent a broad range of perspectives in furtherance of the City' s goal to preserve natural flora and fauna within the City of Atascadero. 2-19 .02. Term. The term of the seven persons to be appointed shall be three (3)0 years, except that the initial terms of all members shall be for a six month period, ending on October 25, 1988. Thereafter , three members shall be appointed for terms which expire on August 1, 1990. Four members shall be appointed for terms which shall expire on August 1, 1991. Thereafter , all terms shall be for three (3) years and shall expire three (3) years after August 1 of the date of appointment, ex- cept those appointments made after the commencement of the term to fill a vacancy or a removal, in which case the term of office shall be for the balance of the unexpired term. 2.19 .03. Duties and Responsibilities. Duties and responsibilities of the Tree Committee shall include the following: 1. Monitor the effectiveness of Ordinance No. 168 and make recommen- dations for its ' administration and modification. 2. Recommend a street tree ordinance and a street tree planting master plan, including the establishment of specific tree plant- ing patterns and details for the City. 3. Recommend a tree management ordinance. 4. Recommend educational programs to encourage the general public to become knowledgeable in tree preservation methods. 5. Recommend guidelines for the protection of trees within the pub- lic right-of-way. 6. Recommend Heritage Trees to the City Council. 7. Recommend on any question referred to it by 'the City Council for investigation, finding or report. 2-19 .04. Operations. The Tree Committee shall choose its ' own officers, make its' own rules and regulations and keep a journal of its, proceedings. A majority of its' members shall be a quorum for the transaction of business. 2-19 . 05. Meetings. The Committee shall meet at the discretion of its ' elected chair, pro- vided that proper notice of time and place and agenda of said meetings be posted in accordance with the provisions of Section 54956 of the Government Code of the State of California. Section 2. Publication. The City Clerk shall cause this ordinance to be published once within fifteen (15) days after its passage in the Atascadero News, a newspaper of general circulation, printed, published, and circulated in the City in accordance with Section 36933 of the Government Code, shall certify the adopting and posting of this ordinance and shall cause this ordinance and this certification together with proof of posting to be entered in the Book of Ordinances of this City. T T r Section 3. Effective Date. This ordinance shall go into effect and be in full force and effect at 12: 01 a.m. on the 31st day after its passage. On motion by COUNCILWOMAN MACKEY and seconded COL'NCIL`L-N BOURBEAU , the motion was approved by the following roll call vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS BOURBEAU, MACKEY AND MAYOR PRO TEM BORGESON NOES: NONE ABSENT: COUNCILMAN HANDSITY AND MAYOR NORRIS DATE ADOPTED: 5/10/88 By:� 5ONITA ORGES N, ayor em City of Atascadero, California -' ATTEST: . c_ J,BOYD C. Sl!"RITZ, City Clerk zy: CINDY WILKI. S, Deputy City Clerk APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: BILL HANLEY, nterim City Manager APPROVED A TO FORM: 671FREt� J GENAEN, City Attorney P PA D B U HENRY ENGEN Community D velopment Director i REVISED AGENDA ITEM B. 3 . C. Resolution 35-88 Tree Committee Appointment 4-26-88 RESOLUTION NO. 35-88 A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO APPOINTING SEVEN (7 ) MEMBERS TO THE TREE COMMITTEE WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 168 has been established to provide procedures for tree protection in the City; and WHEREAS, said Ordinance amending the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Atascadero calls for advice from the Tree Committee relative to certified arborists; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Ordinance No. 171, the City Council of the City of Atascadero has formally established an advisory Tree Committee; and WHEREAS, the City Council is desirous of having a report in six months on the effectiveness of Ordinance No. 168 and the Possible need for amendments thereto, and wishes to utilize the Adhoc Committee who advised on .the preparation of that Ordinance in that oversight roll. NOW THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Atascadero does resolve to appoint the following individuals to the Tree Committee for a term which will expire on October 25 , 1988 : 1 . Elaine Oglesby 5 . Ursula Luna 2 . Jim Dulitz 6 . John Cole 3 . Barbara Schoenike 7 . Steve La Salle 4 . Stubby Fasig Tim O' Keefe, Alternate Livia Kellerman, Alternate 0 • On motion by COin?CIL_1 AN BOtTRBEAU and *seconded by COLTN'CILwo,, N MACKEY the motion was approved by the following roll call vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS BOURBEAU, MACKEY AND MAYOR PRO TEM BORGESON NOES: NONE ABSENT: COUNCILMAN HANDSITY AND MAYOR NORRIS DATE ADOPTED: 4/26/88 � B Y: (—,2 0,15-77,-� 'BONITA BORGESON', Mayor/oto Tem City of Atascadero, California ATTEST: BOYD C. -SH ITZ, City Clerk ,By: CINDY WILKt , Deputy City Clerk APPROVED)AS TO CONTENT: 'r PAUL SENSIBAUGH, Acting,-City Manager APPROVED AS TO FORM: Ft r.Y RG SEN, City Attorney 1/'PREPAR HENRY ENGEN Community D 'velopmen Director MINISTRATON AD POST OFF CIE BOX I�DING _L ITEE *AE 4T , NDA 47 ATASCADERO. CALIFORNIA 93423 POLICE*DEPARTMENT/ PHONE: (805) 466.8000 POST OFFICE BOX 747 ATASCADERO, CALIFORNIA 93423 • CITY COUNCIL PHONE: (805) 466-8600 CITY CLERK ea. e ® CITY TREASURER INCORPORATED JULY 2. 1979 + CITY MANAGER ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DEPARTMENT FIRE DEPARTMENT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 6005 LEWIS AVENUE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ATASCADERO, CALIFORNIA 93422 PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT PHONE: (805) 466-2141 September 19 , 1988 County of San Luis Obispo Department of General Services County Government Center San Luis Obispo, California 93408 Attn: Curtis Sorg, County Property Manager Re: ATASCADERO POLICE DEPARTMENT LEASE - CAPISTRANO AVENUE ' Dear Curtis : • Your understanding regarding the City's new Police Facility, . cited in your letter of September 2, 1988, is correct. We are currently moving ahead with plans to rehabilitate an existing building on E1 Camino Real . In addition, of course, we recognize under the terms of the Land Lease Agreement, dated November 12, 1986 , that, "Any other use or purpose must have the prior written consent of the County in each instant. " And further that, "Said consent by the County shall not be unreasonably withheld. " As the new City Manager, I must apologize for not having knowledge of the Council ' s desires with respect to the subject project now that the Police Facility issue has apparently been resolved. However, I would respectfully request your indulgence in this matter by giving me an opportunity to run the item by Council at its meeting of September 27 , 1988 . I very much appreciate your letter and its request, and again apologize for any inconvenience- or misunderstanding arising from the lack of prior clarification in the matter. sincerely, • baWindsor City Manager RW:kv File:pd2 COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO x k.OIIu:,:• aE ammen•t of qenepzat sEizvices COUNTY GOVERNNIENT CENTER •SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA 93408 (805)549-5200 � DUANE R. LEIB. DIRECTOR September 2, 1988 City of Atascadero 6500 Palma Avenue Atascadero, CA 93422 ATTN: City Manager ATASCADERO POLICE DEPARTMENT LEASE It is our understanding that the City of Atascadero has located a new police., department site and is no longer interested in the site at the old Atascadero Hospital . (Lease copy attached. ) Could you confirm whether or not the City of Atascadero is still interested in • subject property for their police department. Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter. If you have any questions, please contact me at 549-5206. CURTIS SORG County Property Manager Attachment mke/9451w/M7Jrl1 9-7 LAND LEASE AGREEMENT THIS LEAS E.AGREEMENT is entered into thi dli! day of 19G'�v by and between the.CountyOf San.Luis.Obispo,.,hereinafter and the City of Areferred to as `COUNTY" tascadero, hereinafter referred to as "CITY." NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual. covenants and agreements herein contained, the parties hereto agree as follows: 3; 1. PREMISES. = County hereby leases as shown on Exhibit to City, and City hereby from County,_ for the term and upon the conditions hereinafter ysethires fortha takes certain those premises, he1.reinafter referred to as the "Premises", "A" attached hereto;and incorporated by 'reference herein. Said premises shall • construed to be land ons exclusio be --Gity""agrees that the accordance with Exhibit q a Parcel herein described ereto, must be subdivided as an ses pIndependent- ;legal lot within 180 days . , the execution of this lease.by County.` City further ees that all incurred in the subdivision pross wl be the responsibility of the City. In the evensol t that City fails toce create said legal sole then this Lease may be terminated at the sole discretion of County. , 2._ TERM: The _term of this agreement shall be for a period of fifty (50) years, commencing on the 1st day of January, 1981 and expiring at midnight on the -31st day of December, 2037. 3. RENEWAL: City shall not have the right to renew this Lease. Citya that any extension or renewal of this Lease is at the sole discretior subject to approval by Count of and eventnot this Lease during the term or at tithe eexpiration onthereof,ty elecsthen to extend or renew further rights hereunder unless expressly set forth herein, city shall have no In the event that County does not renew this Lease and City elects not to Purchase the leased premises at the expiration of the term of this Lease, then County will purchase from Ci premises b ty the building improvements constructed on the y City at the then fair market value. Said fair market value shall be determined by a qualified independent appraiser and City. The cost incurred. in obtaining said appraisal acceptable to both County PPraisal shall be shared equally by County and City. 4. QUIET ENJOYMENT: County covenants that upon Cit all obligations under this agreement, Cit may P y Performing and observing ably and quietly enjoy the premises for the term of this agreement, andany extensions ave, hold and or renewals thereof, subject to and subordinate to all provisions of this agreement, provided, however, that County's liabilities under this agreement shall be ons Period during which it shall be the Owner of the premises. y for the 5. USE OF PREMISES: The premises may be used by the City for the purpose of constructing and operating a City Police Department. Any other use or have th consent of the County in each instan St ounty shall not be unreasonably withheld. Said consent by 1 es tat no representation, except such as are contained herein, have been made to City respecting the condition of said premises. The taking possession Of said premises by City shall be conclusive evidence as against Cit premises were in good and satisfactory condition when Possession of the sameawasasd taken. MEET G AGENDA DAT ITEM � = • M E M O R A N D U M To : City Council From: Ray Windsor , City Manager Date: September 15, 1988 Subject : Wage and Salary Classification Study RFP RECOMMENDATION That the City Council approve sending the request for proposal (RFP) to firms in order to determine the cost of conducting a wage and salary classification study. DISCUSSION The cost for this study is included in the 1988-1989 Budget . , The City ' s wage and salary classification system was last • reviewed in 1984. We believe it is prudent to have a review conducted every 3-5 years. In addition to the need for this type of periodic review, the size and complexity of the City work force has changed significantly since the last review. The basic reasons for conducting this study are: 1 ) To insure that salaries are competitive. 2) Many positions have been added since the last review was conducted . Have these positions been classified correctly on the pay plan or have they skewed the relationship between positions? 3) A number of City employees are working out of their current job classifications. Some of these positions were proposed by department heads to be changed at budget time. No changes were made pending the completion of this study. 4) Career series positions (such as, Maintenance Worker I , II , III ) need to be evaluated in order to insure that a proper promotional spread exists between each level . • • In addition, the RFP will ask for a cost estimate to conduct an update of the City ' s personnel rules and regulations. This will only be considered if there are enough funds in the budgeted amount after doing the wage and salary classification study. However , we believe this update is critical in light of the rapidly changing federal , state and local laws affecting working conditions, employee and management rights, etc . Sending out an RFP does not commit the City or the Council to spending money to do a study. It will , however , provide a better indication of what can and perhaps should be done and for how much . FINANCIAL CONSIDERATION The Council appropriated $20,000 in the Personnel Department for this study. • • REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR WAGE AND SALARY CLASSIFICATION STUDY by the City of Atascadero The City of Atascadero , California, is seeking a qualified firm to perform a review of the City ' s wage and salary classification plan. A response to this request for proposals must be received by the City no later than 5:00 p .m. , on October 17, 1988, to Room 201 of the Atascadero City Administration Building , 6500 Palma Avenue, Atascadero , California 93422, ATTENTION: Alicia Lara. Any questions or assistance needed in completing a response should be directed to Ray Windsor , City Manager (805) 466-8000 extension 130. PART I . SELECTION PROCESS TIME FRAME. The anticipated sequence of events are as follows: • a. October 171 1988 at 5:00 p .m. , all proposals are due to the City. b . October 25, 1988, recommendation and contract submitted to City Council for approval . C . October 26, 1988 to December 2, 1988, work to be completed . d . December 16, 1988 final report submitted to Director of Administrative Services. Each firm will be officially notified by the Director of Administrative Services regarding firms status by November 1 , 1988. SELECTION CRITERIA. Each proposal will be evaluated based upon the following criteria: a. EXPERIENCE . A firm ' s experience in conducting this type of study is a critical factor in determining their suitability to perform the work required . A list of references where similar work has been completed is required . b . QUALIFICATIONS OF PERSONNEL ASSIGNED. The evaluation will consider strongly the quality of the staff that will be assigned to perform both the field work and the final report and recommendations. Factors that will be considered are: length of service with the firm, and prior experience in conducting similar work . i C . COST OF SERVICE. The cost for providing the work herein described will be considered in selecting the firm to do the work . d . ABILITY TO COMPLETE WORK ON TIME. In employee negotiations the City has committed to complete this study and implement any salary adjustments by January 1 , 1989. It is critical that the time-frame described in this RFP be met or bettered by the firm selected . CRITERIA WEIGHING. The selection criteria weighing system to be used in the selection process will be: a. Firm' s Experience 40 b . Qualifications of Personnel Assigned 20 C . Cost of Services 20 d. Ability to Complete Work on Time 20 PART II . PROPOSAL CONTENT Please respond to each criterion listed below and include a cost of services for alternative #1 with the bid . A. FIRM ' S EXPERIENCE - Each firm must provide a detailed outline of the experience it has in working with local and State government clients. Each client should be identified by the name of the governmental agency, type of governmental agency, number of personnel , years the service was/has been provided to the agency by your firm, type of services provided , the principal contact person of the agency and their telephone number . Each firm should list all principle officers of the firm, titles and total full-time personnel presently employed by the firm (please distinguish between professional and support staff ) . B. PERSONNEL QUALIFICATIONS - Each firm must identify the specific personnel that will be assigned to the City of Atascadero for the period of the firm' s engagement . Each person who will be associated with the City shall include a detailed r6sum6 with outlines their experience and education. In addition, all principles should include their r6sum6s in regard to their professional qualifications and education. C. COST OF SERVICE — Each firm will specifically identify the cost (contract amount not-to-exceed ) for the base service. In addition a separate cost for Alternative #1 should be included , including time frame to complete. BASE SERVICE. a. Review City ' s wage and salary classification plan to determine if job descriptions match the work being performed and to verify that wages and salaries are • equal to the average salaries for similar positions based upon a predefined set of key cities of similar size and nature to Atascadero . b . Look at the relationships between a job series to insure that an adequate spread exists between career level positions os promotional opportunities exist for career advancement . C . Write new job descriptions and create new positions where necessary after examining the job responsibilities of approximately 30 specific positions in Management , Mid-Management , Professional and Clerical classifications. Alternative #1 a. Review City ' s Personnel Rules and Regulations. ` b . Rewrite Personnel Rules and Regulations bringing them into agreement with existing work group MOU ' s, State and City ordinances and resolutions. D. APPROACH OF FIRM. This element will be evaluated based upon the types of items to be reviewed , the number of personnel to be interviewed , the ability of the firm to complete the work within the prescribed time frame. An outline of the scope of services with specific events and timing should be included . PART III . CONTRACT FOR SERVICES A basic contract for services as described in this RFP should be submitted for review by the City Attorney in conjunction with submitting a proposal . \salary.rfp kEETI AGENDA • pT ITEM N • September 27, 1988 To: City Council Via : Ray Windsor, City Manager From: Bob Best, Parks and Recreation Director Subject : Authorization to Purchase Vehicle RECOMMENDATION As approved in the 1988-89 Budget, authorize the purchase of one used truck for Parks and Recreation. Purchase to be made from Palla Equipment Company. Total purchase price, including sales tax and transfer tax, is $4459 . 00 . BACKGROUND • As part of the 1988-89 Budget, Council approved $4000 for the purchase of a used truck for Parks/Zoo use . Since approval of the budget, Parks and Zoo staff have been seeking an appropriate vehicle for use by the department . The selection of this vehicle, a 3/4 ton Chevrolet , will meet the current needs. Staff recommends the purchase price in excess of the authorized $4000 be charged to the Zoo Maintenance and Operations Budget . FISCAL IMPACT As indicated, the total cost is $4459 . 00 . MEETI AGENDA DAT TEM N • September 27, 1988 To : City Council Via : Ray Windsor, City Manager From: Bob Best, Parks and Recreation Director � Subject : Trails Grant Application BACKGROUND With the passage of Proposition 70 in June 1988 (California Wildlife, Coastal and Park Land Conservation Bond Act of 1988) , the City of Atascadero will be eligible to apply for parks and recreation funding under four different programs . One of these Programs is the Trails Grant Program. This program will provide a • total of $5 million statewide for competitive grants to public agencies and non—profit organizations for acquisition and development of trails . The funds will be appropriated over a two Year period, with $2 . 5 million available in fiscal years 1989-90 and 1990-91 . At the September meeting of the Parks and Recreation Commission, Staff proposed the Atascadero Creekway Project be selected for funding application to State Parks and Recreation. The Commission approved the Staff proposal , recommending Council approval of the grant application. This project has been identified as a need in the proposed Parks and Recreation Element of the General Plan . In addition, the project already has documentation which outlines details of the proposed work. This will aide the City in seeking funding from the State, as projects which are ready to begin receive a higher priority than projects only in the idea stage . The project would include additional clearing of Atascadero Creek, development of multi—purpose trails, area lighting, picnic facilities, interpretive signs, retaining walls as needed, and restrooms . In addition to the Creekway Project, Staff discussed the Possibility of a Salinas River project . However, due to • uncertainty with the County Master Plan addressing trail systems in this area and the short time available for planning for this application process, Staff did not recommend this to the Parks and Recreation Commission . • RECOMMENDATION Approve Resolution No. 97-88, approving the application for grant funds for the Trails Grant Program under the California Wildlife, Coastal , and Park Land Conservation Act of 1988. FISCAL IMPACT The Trails Grant program is 100% funded by the State . This includes, if desired by the City, employee services directly engaged in the project . No Capital Project funds will be required to match the grant amount . • I • RESOLUTION NO. 97-BB RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO APPROVING THE APPLICATION FOR GRANT FUNDS FOR THE TRAIL GRANT PROGRAM UNDER THE CALIFORNIA WILDLIFE, COASTAL, AND PARK LAND CONSERVATION ACT OF 1988 for the following project : ATASCADERO CREEK DEVELOPMENT PROJECT WHEREAS, the people of the State of California have enacted the California Wildlife, Coastal , and Park Land Conservation Act of 1988, which provides funds to the State of California and its political subdivisions for acquiring and/or developing facilities for public recreational and open space purposes: and WHEREAS, the State Department of Parks and Recreation has . been delegated the responsibility for the administration of the program within the state, setting up necessary procedures governing application by local agencies under this program; and WHEREAS, said procedures established by the State Department of Parks and Recreation require the applicant to certify by resolution the approval of application before submission of said application to the state; and WHEREAS, said application contains assurances that the application must comply with ; and WHEREAS, the applicant will enter into an agreement with the State of California for acquisition or development of the project . NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Atascadero City Council hereby: 1 . Approves the filing of an application for the Trails Grant Program under the California Wildlife, Coastal , and Park Land Conservation Act of 19BB state grant assistance for the above project ; and 2. Certifies that said applicant understands the assurances and certification in the application form; and ; 3. Certifies that said applicant has or will have sufficient funds to operate and maintain the project ; and �► s • 4. Appoints the Parks and Recreation Director as agent of the City of Atascadero to conduct all negotiations, execute and submit all documents, including , but not limited to negotiations , execute and submit all documents, including , but not limited to applications, agreements, amendments, payment requests and so on, which may be necessary for the completion of the aforementioned project . Approved and Adopted the ---------- day of _____ 19 I , the undersigned , hereby certify that the forgoing Resolution Number 97-88 was duly adopted by the Atascadero City Council by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Noes: Absent : ------------------------------- BONITA BORGESON, MAYOR ATTEST: ---------------------------------- BOYD SHARITZ, CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: --------------------------------- ------------------------------ JEFFREY JORGENSEN, CITY ATTORNEY RAY WINDSOR, CITY MANAGER MEET IN AGENDA QATE t 'TEM. • M E M O R A N D U M DATE : 9/19/88 TO: City Council THROUGH: Ray Windsor, City Manager FROM: Michael Hicks , Fire Chief SUBJECT: Fire department 4X4 vehicle bid The Fire Department is requesting authorization to solicit bids for a 4X4 command vehicle, as approved in the 1988/89 fiscal year budget. I would anticipate bringing the bid results back to Council , with a recommendation, at the October 25th meeting . • MICHAEL HICKS MH:pg • MEETIN AGENDA f� DATE_ ITEM I � • M E M O R A N D U M To : City Council From: Ray Windsor , City Manager Date: September 20, 19ee Subject : Request Bids for Copy Machine RECOMMENDATION That the City Council approve going to bid for a new copy machine. DISCUSSION The existing copy machine is over three years old . It is no longer reliable and makes less than adequate copies when it does work . • Copy machine technology has improved significantly since this machine was installed . Due to the relatively high volume of copies we make each month (57,000) , we need a machine that is reliable and makes good copies. Since we will be primarily looking at a lease or lease/purchase, there should be adequate funds in the budget to change machines. This can be better determined after the bids have been received . A copy of the bid specifications and bid forms is attached . • • BID SPECIFICATIONS FOR COPY MACHINE BY THE CITY OF ATASCADERO, CALIFORNIA The City of Atascadero is seeking bids on a new large-volume copy machine. Listed below are the general specifications that must be addressed by firms submitting bids. Bids are due no later than 2:00 p .m. , P.D.T. , October 14, 1988. Bids should be addressed to : Ray Windsor , City Manager City Administration Building , Room 207 6500 Palma Avenue Atascadero , CA 93422 • (Please submit bids on these forms. ) SPECIFICATIONS : Current copier volume ranges from 40,000 to 77,000 copies per month , with an average of 57,000. Desired features: Automatic Paper Feed Automatic Duplexing Electronic Copy Monitor/Auditron Automatic Reduction/Enlargement 20 Bin Sorter Optional features: Finisher Computer Forms Feeder * An on-site demonstration will be required by each bidder prior to a bid being awarded . ��* COSTS: Total Copier Cost with Tax t Less Trade-In Adjusted Copier Cost ri ` Cost of Options: it Finisher ?_ Computer-forms Feeder Monthly Lease/Purchase Cost :rlwithout options) Interest Rate 24 months 36 months 48 months 60 months Monthly Lease/Purchase Cost :..#with options) 24 months 36 months 48 months 60 months Maintenance Agreement: e, At a minimum a maintenance agreement should include all1 parts and labor , including drum. A warranty period for the copier should also be detailed as to length of time and coverage. Monthly Maintenance Cosyt*. Additional Cost per CopV: Number of copies before per copy cost starts Per copy cost after minimum copies \copier .bid