Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Agenda Packet 09/14/1993
PUBLIC (REVIEW OOP'Y # PLEAS.DQ NOT REMOVE FROM'OOWER AGENDA ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING CITY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING 6500 PALMA AVENUE, 4TH FLOOR ROTUNDA'ROOM SEPTEMBER 14, 1993 7:00 P.M. This agenda is prepared and posted pursuant to the requirements of Government Code Section 54954.2. By listing a topic on this agenda, the City Council has expressed its intent to discuss and act on each item. In addition to any action identffled in the brief general description of each item, the action that may be taken shall include: A referral to staff with specific requests for information; continuance; specific diitection to staff concerning the policy or mission of the item;discontinuance of consideration;authorization to enter into negotiations and execute agreements pertaining to the item; adoption or approval,• and, disapproval. • Copies of the staff reports or other. 'documentation relating to each item of business referred to on the agenda-are on file in.the office-of the City Clerk (Room;208) and in the Information Office (Room 103); available for public-inspection during Ci(y Hall business hours. The City Clerk will answer any questions regarding the agenda. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need specJW assistance to participate in a City meeting or other services offered by this City,please Contact the City Manager's Office ((805) 461-5010) or the City Clerk's Office((805)461-$074). Notifica- tion at least 48 hours prior to the meeting or time when services are needed will assist the City staff in assuring that reasonable arrangements can be made to provide accessibility to the meeting or service. 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 furthers discussion. * The floor will then be closed to public participation anq! open for Council discussion. a i 7 Call to Order Pledge of Allegiance Roll Call City Council Comments: Plaque Presentations: o Former Councilman and Mayor Mart Kudlac q Y Y o Former Planning Commissioner,Roger Miller Proclamations: o "U.S. Constitution Observance Month September r 1993 O "U.S.S. Brinkley Bass Fiftieth Anniversary" COMMUNITY FORUM: The City Council values and encourages exchange of ideas and comments from you, the citizen. The Community Forum period is provided to receive comments from the public on matters other than scheduled agenda items. To increase the effective- ness 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 elected official, commissions and staff. A. COMMITTEE REPORTS (The following represent ad hoc or standing commit- tees. Informative status reports will be given, as felt necessary.): 1. S.L.O. Council of Governments 2. S.L.O. Regional Transit Authority 3. Solid/Hazardous Waste Task Force 4. City/School Committee 5. Traffic Committee 6. County Water Advisory Board 7. Economic Round Table 8. Colony Roads Committee 9. Liability Claims Review & Finance Committee 10. Nacimiento Water Purveyors Advisory Group ` B. CONSENT CALENDAR: All matters listed under Item B, 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: 2 • . 1. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - JULY 27, 1993 2. RESOLUTION NO. 106-93 - Designating a no parking zone;on EI Camino Real in front of the Post Office 3. RESOLUTION NO. 107-93 -Designating a stop intersection on Alturas Avenue at the intersection with Del Rio Road 4. RESOLUTION NO. 108-93 - Designating a stop intersection;on Andrita Avenue at the intersection with San Marcos Road 5. RESOLUTION NO. 109-93 - Establishing a 25-MPH speed limit on Santa Ynez Avenue 6. RESOLUTION NO. 110-93 - Accepting portions of Vista Rood and San Marcos Road into the City's maintained road system 7. ACCEPTANCE OF THE SANTA ROSA ROAD SEWER PROJECT (Notice of Completion) • C. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. HIGHWAY 101/41 INTERCHANGE: PROJECT STUDY REPORT ON PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS - Presentation by Mike Kennedy, DKS & Associates (Request to continue to 9/28/93) 2. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE GRANT: ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - Second of two required hearings A. Resolution No. 111-93 - Approving an application for funding and the execution of a grant agreement from the Planning/Technical Assistance allocation of the State CDBG Program D. REGULAR BUSINESS: 1. RESOLUTION NO. 112-93 -Authorizing the execution of a contract with Harold D. Peterson to construct the 1993 Median Revisions Project (Bid No. 93-07) • 2. COUNCIL VACANCY - SET DATE FOR INTERVIEWS 3 • E. INDIVIDUAL DETERMINATION AND/OR ACTION: 1. City Council 2. City Attorney 3. City Clerk 4. City Treasurer 5. City Manager: Registration for League of CA Cities Annual Conference, October 16-19, 1993 NOTICE: The City Council will adjourn to a Closed Session for purposes of discussion regarding personnel matters, pursuant to Govt. Code Sec. 54957, labor negotiations, pursuant to Govt. Code Sec. 54957.6(a), potential litigation, pursuant to Govt. Code Sec. 54956.9(a), and pending litigation, entitled W itaker v. City of Atascadero, pursuant to Govt. Code Seca 54956.9. �I 4 I I ° SqkMkr, 1993 w W, � Is the t 10 abon our , Who Ieredt y ONLY YA* and to A& w exp tie maturld ry is ww� ad IER.EAS, 11V U.S. CastibOn was mcdyed as an buftuvA fir the tim , tkefir the , ad HEREASf This &?lrAwyW &wad wasftaid tN onler to " 9 Me mm c tr , yr for tke mom et pwAc lk pwgl, wyare ad sec a tke to q ad sur yaoritr, And WHEREAS, On Scytemba 17, 1787, two-hwmW ad sa yurs , W t t fflUt Amer Ct#S ff&W And dAMd AN M0441 400at-4im d StAW AXVfCA; and WHEREAS, die" that eA Aa be motlow thd, bred ,d AdvUR kerIM#, ra&dd tkAt try are tke fortunate red eat tke xgq hwe oft ywW # t ttT4W, TIMMFORE., I, ROBERT F. NIMMO, Mqff tke Vtp. AWWM,. , 4kereby x tke mod Sqkntkr, 1993,, to be -U.S. CXdWM bluffaw,A40mar Jo tk Clt of A dere. ROBERT F. til' , mqvr Cf AWAdm,, SCytMkr 14, 1993 TO: City Administration Office 15, 14MR Office of the Mayor Atsecedevot California a :. Attached is a draft of a ?"alavation> to , issued- by sir ice fo. , CONST MM j, 1993. ,t lrt ' ' Tom Marks (west lboter, of,it"+ v lino Lam) winp r isat 1 t amo. m It is vftO* ma 1 . *,i ja ,`you Gard y0ty a to � its Ob a to'behold at the Templeton lltndaPark ou S&twd*y*,:� sit 10:004M, y, h g`' o" the TPA AUIWWy I tkC U.S.S. Mbiky -MW WHEREAS, U.S.S. BdXWey Bass (DD 7) Wa€ MaMd fir Lt. Cdr. Bis, it al otator who PC his kfe fir kfs mmq to Woad we it a WHEREAS, U.S.S. BH&Wq Bess, a 225044 GO Cr Was W And kwn&d A Word War II aid r€ ftd:fn cmftm stmw ftm 19+5 to IM with tkt , U.S. NaTf aid WHEREAS,, U.S.S. BrIA7 BZS WZ the W kwdd ktvyv the Kom agar WHEREAS, U.S.S. Brhiky Bis was transf�r d to t .t MAM Navy is 1973 AM ske kCMe tkt MartzE. BOW D--26 aid rmfns an gdivr wa the Bmdka MATf Wil REAS, Bd&7 Bass/Marfz E. BarroS wig SM k celr mrWe to tktt two;gest NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that &C Sk U.S.S. BrfAiY B" owd over ftlex4s do refta tau uwW Stites Gavtrrmd to mitad the Br Govtrtoad in orkr to array for,a formal vWt of The C'o*; o t 4ArU E. s D-26 to a ye d� in the unfW States'to cekk.* tkt f f ftA m&emjy 0 te lamckho of u s.s. B B slAUrfz E. BONS. ROBERT P. NIMM , Mlor cf °f AW f scyumber 14, 1993 • � • • �', s ', • • Agenda Item: B-1 Meetir g Date: 09/14/93 ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL .JULY 27, 1993 MINUTES The Mayor called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL: Present:. Councilmembers Bewley, Borgeson, immo, Luna and Mayor Kudlac Absent: None Also Present: Muriel "Micki" Korba, City Treasurer ar d Lee Raboin, City Clerk Staff Present: Andy Takata, City Manager/Direct ir of Community Services; Henry Engen, Community Development Director; Art Montandon,City Attorney; Mark Jos ph,Administrative Services Director; Mike McCain, FireChief; Bud' McHale, Police Chief; Steve Sylvester, City Engineer and Gary Kaiser, Associate Planner Mayor Kudlac<announced that Item #D-1 was being'continued L ntil the meeting of August 10, 1993 at the request of Camino Real Fashion Outlets, Ltd. (Golden West Development). COMMUNITY FORUM: Eric Greening, 7365 Valle, announced that the Water Quality Study of Paso Robles Groundwater Basin was available at the Regional Water Quality Control Board Office, explained that it was packed with important information and enc` uraged everyone to take a look at it. A. COMMITTEE REPORTS (The following represent ad hoc or standing commit- tees. Informative status reports will be given,` as felt necessary.): CC,07/27/93 Page 1 1. S.L.O. Council of Governments/S.L.O. Regional Transit Authority - Councilman Bewley provided a full report (Note: Minutes on file with the City Clerk). 2. Solid/Hazardous Waste Task Force - Henry Engen reported that the Task Force had met three times during the past month regarding the Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) between the County and Cities. He explained that the draft JPA would be reviewed at the next meeting. 3`. Traffic Committee - Councilman Bewley reported that the Traffic Committee world be making several recommendations for City Council action at the next meeting. 4. County Water Advisory Board - Councilwoman Borgeson reported that the Board would meet during the month of August. 5. Economic Round Table Councilman Nimmo indicated that the Round Table had, at their last meeting, received a status report on the Carlton Hotel Project. B. CONSENT CALENDAR: Mayor Kudlac read the Consent Calendar, as follows: 1. ` CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - JUNE 8, 1993 2.` CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 4 JUNE 22, 1993 3. CITY TREASURER'S REPORT '- JUNE, 1993 4. FINANCE DIRECTOR'S REPORT - JUNE, 1993 5. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 09-91, 9286 EL BORDO Acceptance of Final Tract Map to create a five-unit residential condominium project 6. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 93-001, 4805 &5205 CARRIZO RD. -Consideration of 'a request to subdivide two existing lots containing 10.75 acres into four parcels`containing 2.63, 2.64, 2.68 and 2.77 acres (Hawkins/Wilson Land Surveys) 7. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 29-90, 3450EL CAMINO REAL - Consideration of time extension request`(Chapel of the Roses) CC 07/27/93 Page 2 8. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 31-90, LOCATED AT SW CORNER OF HIGHWAY 101 & SANTA BARBARA ROAD Consideration of time extension request (Eagle Creek) 9. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 92007, 4650 TRAFFIC WAY - ,Acceptance of Final Parcel Map to subdivide two original Colony lots into four (4) parcels ranging in size from 8,588 to 10,122 sq. ft. (net) (Landmark Partnership/Haas) 10. RESOLUTION NO. 28-93 - Approving Historical Society Lease Agreement 11. RESOLUTION NO. 85-93 - Approving a Grant Agreement between the County of San Luis Obispo and the City regarding the use of recycling bins at Atascadero Lake Park 12. RESOLUTION NO. 62-93 Authorizing the extension of street sweeping contract with Daystar Industries 13. RESOLUTION NO. 88-93 - Authorizing the execution of an agreement with Medico-Dental Adjustment Bureau to perform professional debt collection services 14. RESOLUTION NO. 86-93 - Approving an agreement to purchase tax-defaulted Graves Creek parcel (A.P.N. 055-431-004) Councilwoman Borgeson pulled Items #B-7 & 13. HenryEngen pulled Item #13-9 for clarification. MOTION: By Councilman Nimmo, seconded by Councilman Luna to approved Consent Calendar Items #B-1 through 6, 8, 10, 11 , 12 & 14; motion carried 5:0 by roll call vote. Re: #13-7. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 29-90, 3450 EL CAMINO REAL - Consideration of time extension request (Chapel of the Roses) Councilwoman Borgeson remarked that she felt the proposed development was too close to the Chapel of the Roses. Mr. Engen explained that the issue before the Council was the time extension and reported that development proposals would come in the future. MOTION: By Councilman Nimmo, seconded by Councilman Bewley to approve the time extension for Tentative Parcel Map 29-90 at 3450 EI Camino Real; motion passed 4:1 (Borgeson). CC 07/27/93 Page 3 Re: #13-13. RESOLUTION NO. 88-93 - Authorizing the execution of an agreement with Medico-Dental Adjustment Bureau to perform is professional debt collection services Councilwoman Borgeson questioned the need for entering into an agreement with a collection service. Mark Joseph provided the staff report and noted that although there were not many outstanding debts, those past due amounts were significant. He explained that the City Council had authorized staff to seek requests for proposals as part of new collection procedures adopted in 1992. MOTION: By Councilman Nimmo, seconded by Councilman Luna to adopt Resolution No. 88-93; motion approved 3:2 (Borgeson & Kudlac). Re: Item #13-9. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 92007, 4650 TRAFFIC WAY - Acceptance of Final Parcel Map to subdivide two original Colony lots into four (4) parcels ranging in size from 8,588 to 10,122 sq. ft. (net) (Landmark Partnership/Haas) Henry Engen reported that there were some last-minute, minor problems relating to the recording of the final map. He indicated that the City Attorney had a possible solution for allowing Council action. Art Montandon advised that minor conditions that had not yet been met (tax certificate, one signature on the map) were not substantive and stated that he believed the Council could accept the map conditionally provided the City Engineer certify that these minor items are completed in the next few days. He added that the map was in the possession of Mr. Sylvester and pointed out that it could not be filed without satisfying these details. Steve Sylvester confirmed that all other conditions of approval had been met and that he indeed held the map. MOTION: By Councilman Nimmo, seconded by Councilman Bewley to approve Tentative Parcel Map 92007, 4650 Traffic Way; motion carried unanimously by simple vote. C. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1 . COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) REPORT - Grantee Performance Report (Close-out): Domestic Violence Shelter Planning & Technical Assistance Program Henry Engen introduced Pat Wickstrom, Program Manager, People's Self-Help Housing. Ms. Wickstrom presented a summary report of the project and reported that the State had awarded a $354,000 grant to the City. This money, she continued, will CC 07/27/93 Page 4 fund the acquisition of a permanent domestic violence shelter, ';provide for certain activities and cover some administrative expenses. She thanked the City Council for supporting the application and for making the initial commitment of $3,300 that lead to the large grant award. At Councilman Luna's request, Henry Engen confirmed that the grant was conditioned upon the adoption of an updated housing element. Councilman Luna voiced dis- content with State mandates and stated that he hoped staff would expedite the completion of the element. Mr. Engen indicated that staff's object(ve was to bring the housing element to public hearing by the end of the year. Public Comments: Barbara MacGregor, former Director of the North County Womens' Shelter, extended appreciation to staff and the City Council for not only supporting the grant, but for providing supplemental funding for the Womens' Shelter over the past four years. Eric Greening asked staff if the grant was contingent upon meeting any State growth target. Mr. Engen reported that staff was anticipating difficulties with regards to allocated housing counts produced annually, but noted other communities are challenging some of the State mandates. Councilman Luna pointed out that the grant represented federal funds, but added that they are administered by the Sate. • ---End of Public Testimony--- Councilman Luna encouraged the public to write or fax Federal representatives with a request to put pressure on State representatives to relieve Cities of overwhelming mandates. By mutual consent, the City Council agreed to accept, receive and file the Grantee Performance Report. 2. LONG VALLEY 11, 225.46-ACRE PROJECT BETWEEN LLANO, SANTA ANA, SANTA LUCIA & CORRIENTE - Request to re-subdivide 15 of the existing 25 lots into 51 parcels for single family residential use A. Final EIR - Certification as adequate under the provisions of CEQA B. Ordinance No. 266 - Amending Maps 9 and 15 of'the Official Zoning Maps by rezoning certain real properties located north of Llano Rd., south of Santa Ana Rd., west of Santa Lucia Rd. and east of Corriente Rd. from RS (Residential Suburban) to RS (PD 1 1) (Residential Suburban, CC 07/27/93 Page 5 Planned Development Overlay Zone No. 11) (ZC 91014: Davis/RRM/Long Valley II) is (Recommend (1) motion to waive reading in full and read by title only, and (2) motion to introduce on first reading by title only) C. Approval of subdivision exception based on Findings and Conditions of Approval D. Approval of Tentative Tract Map 91-005 based on Findings and Conditions of Approval - Re-subdividing 15 lots into 51 lots and conveying lands for public use E. Resolution No. 5-93 - Summarily vacating unimproved portion of Santa Ana Rd. (RA 92001) Due to a potential conflict of interest, Councilman Nimmo stepped down from deliberations. Henry Engen provided introductory remarks. Gary Kaiser presented the project description, overview of conditions and recommendations. Lengthy Council questions and comments followed. Councilman Luna pointed out that individual lots, as proposed, had not been staked. He and Councilwoman Borgeson shared concerns relating to the fact that percolation tests had not been conducted on all the sites. The EIR consultant, David Foote of SEDES, reported that there were not any precise plans at present and mentioned that individual perc tests could be required as a condition of approval at the Planning Commission level. Councilman Luna voiced distress about grading, slopes, building envelopes, fire safety and impacts relating to guest homes and schools. Councilwoman Borgeson also shared concern relating to fire safety and the lack of a fire egress road as a condition of approval. Responding to inquiry from Mayor Kudlac, Mr. Kaiser noted that individual lots would be un-recordable if they failed to percolate and speculated that some of the proposed homesites would probably be lost as a result. Public Comments: LeeAnne Hagmaier, RRM Design, provided a history of the project and addressed specific issues of concern. She spoke in favor of the subdivision request and highlighted the public benefits. She urged the City Council to certify the EIR and approve the project. Responding to questions from Councilmembers Borgeson and Luna, Ms. Hagmaier reported that the owner, Gordon T. Davis, had no objections to CC 07/27/93 • Page 6 staking the lots and would not consider offering a lower lot subdivision. She indicated that he felt confident that the representative perc tests were adequate to construct the leach fields and building lots as designated and remarked that the project had already been redesigned from 57 lots down to 51 . Dean Benedix, project engineer for RRM Design, provided additional information relating to leach fields, slopes, lot lines and drainage. Joan O'Keefe, 9985 Old Morro Road, read a prepared statement (see Exhibit A) proclaiming the EIR legally inadequate and requesting that the City Council not certify it. Eric Greening, asserted that the EIR was incomplete and urged the City Council to initiate more study by asking for a supplemental EIR. Marcia Torgerson, 6200 Llano Road, submitted the Neighborhood Report: Long Valley II Proposed Development prepared and signed by 33 Llano Road residents (on file with the City Clerk). She read a prepared statement (see Exhibit B)'' outlining concerns about the adequacy of the EIR, aesthetic impacts and conditions of approval. Karen Oakes, 6705 Llano Road, submitted a written statement ';(see Exhibit C) and presented suggestions for re-designing the subdivision with 35 lots. She also contended that the EIR did not address cumulative effects. Gregg Cobarr, 9560 Gallina Court, stated that the EIR did not adequately consider aesthetic impacts. He shared concerns relating to drainage and offered alternative mitigation measures. Fred Frank, 3615 Ardilla, remarked that he agreed with most of the previous speakers and added that he was also distressed about the lack of conditions providing for fire protection and water shed management. Andy McMeans, 6160 Llano Road, stated he was opposed to the project as proposed and related concern for the safety of the Santa Lucia bridge. Bill McCranberg, Santa Ana Road resident, announced that he, too, was worried about emergency egress and asked if there had been any time and effort put into recommending that Serrijon Road be made a through-street. Robert Cardillo, 9400 Corriente, commented that he found the EIR to be inadequate. Dorothy McNeil, 8765 Sierra Vista, urged the Council not to give approval to a project CC 07/27/93 Page 7 with so faulty an EIR. She stated that the City should insist upon staking, perc tests and written agreements to bind Gordon Davis to his dedication promises. Daphne Fahsing, 51.05 Llano Road, submitted a written protest (see Exhibit D) and indicated that she hoped the City Council would take into full consideration the concerns expressed in the Neighborhood Report. Eunice Gray, 6100 Llano Road, read a prepared statement (see Exhibit E) and asked that the developer be required to reduce the number of lots and address drainage issues. Jim Speaks, 6400 Llano Road, voiced concerns similar to previous speakers and indicated that he would not have any objections if the project were 23 or fewer lots. In addition, he stated that the wooden bridge on Santa Lucia was built by a private individual and expressed anxiety over its' safety. Debbie Vial, 6000 Llano Road, submitted a statement for the record (see Exhibit F) and asserted that a compromise could be achieved with a smaller project. Arlynn Stark, 9900 Santa Lucia Road, requested that Item #C-2-E (road abandonment) be addressed separately. Sue McMeans, 6150 Llano Road, remarked that the developer should work with the rest of the neighborhood. Making final comments were Andy McMeans, Marcia Torgerson, Karen Oakes and Daphne Fahsing. LeeAnne Hagmaier addressed some of concerns expressed by the public and provided an overview of how the lot sizes were determined. ---End of Public Testimony--- Mayor Kudlac then closed the hearing and brought the matter back to the Council. There was consensus among the councilmembers to take action on Item #C-2-E first. MOTION: By Councilman Luna, seconded by Councilman Bewley to approve Road Abandonment 92001 based on the Findings contained in draft Resolution No. 05-93; motion carried 4:0 by roll call vote. Following a motion duly made and seconded, the City Council agreed to extend the meeting beyond 11 :00 p.m. Individual Council comments followed. Councilman Luna indicated that he could not CC 07/27/93 Page 8 certify or approve the EIR. He stated that the project would impact the property • values and the safety of the neighborhood. He remarked that he would like to see the project sent back for re-design. Councilwoman Borgeson agreed and commented that she would Dike to see a smaller, more environmentally-sensitive project. She added that staff should send a message to the developer that the City is pleased with the dedications, but not with the proposal as submitted. Councilman Bewley spoke in favor of certifying the EIR and in approving the project. Mayor Kudlac indicated that he was not willing to send the project back to staff and was ready to certify the EIR. MOTION: By Councilman Bewley, seconded by Mayor Kudlac to certify the Final Environmental Impact Report as adequate under the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act; motion failed 2:2 (Borgeson & Luna). The City Attorney clarified that the resulting split vote represented no action and advised that without approval, Items #C-2-B, C, and were now moot. Mr. Engen reported that the Subdivision Ordinance specifies that a project, once denied, cannot come back again for one year. Mr. Montandon explained that the applicant could, if he so chooses, take a revised project back to the Planning Commission. 3. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT (Cont'd from 7/13/93) A. Resolution 77-93 - Approving an amendment to the Land Use Map of the Land Use Element of the City's General Plan from Low to High-Density Residential, 7000-7060 Los Arboles (GPA 92-008/Los Arboles Property Owners Association) B. Ordinance No. 270 - Amending Map 17 of the Official Zoning Maps by rezoning certain real property at 7000-7060 Los Arboles from RMF/10 (FH) to RMF/16 (PD7)(FH) (ZC 92-012/Los Arboles Property Owners Association) (Recommend (1) motion to waive reading in full and read by title only, and (2) motion to introduce on first reading by title',only) (Cont'd from 7/13/93) Councilman Bewley reported that, at the last meeting, he had stepped down because of a potential conflict of interest. He explained that had he asked the City Attorney CC 07/271/93 Page 9 he continued, had researched the matter and advised him that he did not have a financial conflict and could take part in deliberations. Mr. Montandon provided additional clarification and responded to questions from Councilwoman Borgeson. He concluded by suggesting that the City Council put the matter over to allow him time to prepare a written opinion on the matter. Councilmembers Borgeson and Luna concurred with his recommendation. Councilman Nimmo and Mayor Kudlac indicated that they did not have a problem with the item and were prepared to take action. There was no public testimony. MOTION: By Councilman Nimmo, seconded by Councilman Bewley to adopt Resolution No. 77-93 amending the Land Use Element designation from Low Density Multi-Family to High Density Multi-Family; motion carried 3:2 (Borgeson & Luna). MOTION: By Councilman Nimmo, seconded by Councilman Bewley to waive the reading in full of Ordinance No. 270; motion carried unanimously. MOTION: By Councilman Nimmo, seconded by Councilman Bewley to intro- duce on first reading Ordinance No. 720; motion carried 3:2 (Borgeson & Luna). 4. WEED ABATEMENT PROTEST HEARING i A. Resolution No. 87-93 - Confirming the cost of weed abatement Chief McCain provided the staff report and recommendation to approve. Public Comments: Doug Lewis, Tunitas Avenue resident, proclaimed that the 100% administrative fee was unjust and unfair. The Fire Chief explained that the administrative fee was intended to motivate and encourage property owners to abate weeds voluntarily. He added that the charge barely covers the costs and clarified that the City does not make a profit. ---End of Public Testimony--- The mayor closed the hearing and brought the matter back for action. CC 07/27/93 Page 10 MOTION: By Councilman Nimmo, seconded by Councilwoman Borgeson to adopt Resolution No. 87-93 confirming the cost of weed abatement; motion carried 5:0 by roll call vote. D. REGULAR BUSINESS: 1 . CAMINO REAL FACTORY OUTLET - City Assistance Agreement Item continued to August 10, 1993. E. INDIVIDUAL DETERMINATION AND/OR ACTION: 1 . City Council Councilwoman Borgeson requested a written status report on 'living conditions at 8750 EI Camino Real. She encouraged City awareness and urged protection measures for families with children. 2. City Manager Andy Takata provided an overview of items for the next meeting's agenda and mentioned he would be out of town during the week of August '20 - 28. THE MEETING WAS ADJOURNED AT 11 :40 P.M. THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING OF THE ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL WILL BE TUESDAY, AUGUST 10, 1993 AT 7:00 P.M. MINUTES RECORDfQ AND PREPARED BY: L OIN, it Clerk Exhibits: O'Keefe (Exhibit A) Torgerson (Exhibit B) Oakes (Exhibit C) Fahsing (Exhibit D) Gray (Exhibit E) Vial (Exhibit F) CC 07/27/93 Page 11 CC 7/27/93 EXHIBIT "A" Page 1 Joan O'Keefe 9985 Old Morro Rd. East Atascadero, Ca Mayor Kudlac, Council Persons I have thoroughly read the LVII EIR, I have attended all the Plannlnq Commission meetings and heard the neighbor's testimony. Based on what I ' ve read and heard I believe this EIR is legally inadequate and therefore should not be certified by the Council . Normally CEQA's informational and disclosure function is fulfilled by preparation of an EIR. This function has not been fulfilled with regard to the LVII ETR for the following reasons: ( t) Information Inas not been provided with regard to percolation rates 1o• each proposed lot 2) Engineered plans have not been submitted for Ser•rijon Rd. T,i s information is absolutely necessary in order to deArmi ne project i density and environmental impacts. unknown impacts cannot be mitigat.d. e lack of information with regard to percolation rate_, for each lot and engineered road plans leads to another major flaw in the EIR. It is a basic fundamental requirement of the EIR process that a reasonable , nge of alternatives be considered when preparing an EIR. The applicant and his representatives have refused to assess and consider am easo,aa i e mid sized density subdivision. I also believe that their. _ uszance to provide information about percolation rates for each lot veered road plans is directly related to their refusal to _srsiw r a midsized project . There is substantial documentation in the eoor , .hat a mid sized project wi I l be the environmentally superior. a -sfecv , albeit one with lass lots to sell . The report submitted by the _.sna Road NeiGrx)ors summarizes the evidence very clearly. Many lots , CC', 7/27/93 EXHIBIT "A" Page 2 fl,�ave b��:>r� id�ntitid a havirr1 build'irr7 r�roi?lr�nr.. Lots �4 , 35, 316,4_, , h,-r,vin•-I le , thIr, 50 to 60 f�etFor builclill_7 width and no yard sp..,cr•. yin th 20 r•icl<ie lin: logs:,, 1:hr had to hunt for are(_I`; th,It L+OUld J:a r' oI;_,'tra ,inC.l 1'I If"tI"r3t' the_, _=lnlpl te,t_, W'T.r•e not cionrl nt_ar the idwrltifi :d building e:nvelc.l.,e;i;. i:: ny�ound i nr_I tllc= prc>l)1.-rn is the pr'ob,'ybL_:r of Si r,'r.i jorl Rd. into 1 ._:Ich l i el d areas. En=li rr rid road p I ariz, wi'l l el i rrri n,at T� g)UMS'; wor•I:. Eighit lots 13 , 15, '16, 17 , '19, 21 , 44 , and 43 ori I I J)._ve:; to be re i oc-_•ced to aci i grad I ant of urldc,r tw'--I A y p�•rcerI t: : lav i ou!s I y sane nos't of l:ne-e iota Ire not build,_ible c111d should not bw• on tll�- map. anutl l;_,ted i_sue is that ttl>> .ypp l i cant ,:1nd are =i<i n<1 for a den. jr.-rater th_,r ._1 b he Gene-r•,al Plat" 'i ICi1Ned y f I �;irld ?on1rr�j by Ct c:71-it1 '.`e r)Umber cr'ullch1tlg, i .e, including the dedicated pr'cph _-rty undere_timating drive way slche and neighborhood character •arid gLIE'_s -. e_titr' -;. _ ;bout p,�rcolation r,,ates.. It is cr'tic. l that percolation t�_ts .ion` for e.,ch lot berore the ETR is certified. This is th.-. Only . _. "Du C._n lU'ow' what = l ter'natl ve is th; =i",V i r'(�111T,%f It:�ll'y Superior, uld not _ =;t int:-rite,=.. whl 1) t:ll t_a_ts ,at r-7_9son;-lbIy `he ..0st of doi t,g per•co l at l on test i not :� I e ,a7 l y T _ al'_�Uf11 I;T TOI exem , r;._i the. of-ip I lcan.t 't r ow pt'ovich 119 thl The app 1 i caf = _ngi neer st._,t,�cl at the p l;:.tnn i ht corn,rri s ion ems: t test = expen_ �e •-rind that was or, of th IC- " I"4�,FCns 'I'ol"' nCit _hat per c'�ti on tests be fi )ecl iii th = wt sr 1ic7nt - _:n this r_quitern 1-1t c rt,yin tiM.li ) rnu ;t -- -=e f -D-, she not be made .and to do o i 3 abuse-oF t.h, CC 7/27/93 EXHIBIT "A" Page 3 _xc:ep'tion t:�rr..>ce But by yrantin thi loophole t,ii t h., . op_n_<;1 anot I r. Taff has reconulr_ncb_d combinin'i lots that don't rlle.et septi :-ystt::ni redui rem nts. The app I i cant i r- a I r_,,dy cha I l env-,ii ng the I y,_,1 i ty of this coridit ion I:,y reter'ellc, to tlli_ phra—.,s „ ubstanti,:,l conformity" in thi:• :'tate S`L!bdi vi si on Map Act. "Sub'st,=ant i a I " is ornW of tho-•e qui bb 1 i ng a•rord ; that has a way of endi nlg up if) court. Tlli s should be a w•-:arni ng of 1:h i n,35• to coni•_ if the [IF is cer•ti fi ed ,,along with all the except i olrE. ;:incl Ioophol b_ii'g Al"anted to 1-i11 th gaps; 'in the BIR. Th • City has I_, :n clown thr road of thr�atered 1 eg'a l •=,cti ori before- with tIl - _app l i cant:. Ther, ace tl^;o additional issues: ( 1 ) IqD acts v!, th regard to ,_,esthetic_: or, this pr•orni hent ridge- h.-ave been ignored. Anotl-v=r project in the area v,-as conditioned to adds eS's the i _sue of •. -sthet i cs. ('2) Thi City is putt i nq fL1tu1"e occupant_ as- we l I _, : al i I e ,i ci. nt i rl tn7,stern At•_� c._,d;-r•o .at ri sl< by propos i rr=1 tc, •,l love a CU I d: = tinw's 1Onq;_r' th.-ill til.,-it a lowed by city ='tc'1lldar'd'c• on a ( roj cti:I.sc 3't•,1't_ t half don, and with loop hole_ has 1•d,:.;';' of l;li D•=i-:< IG hl-iunC Ll I urrje You not to cE°r'tify this= lr_=1.11ly t Marcia McClure Torgerson 6200 Llano Road CC 7/27/93 Atascadero, CA 93422 EXHIBIT "B" 805-466-7980 Page 1 July 27 , 1993 City Council City of Atascadero Re : Long Valley II Dear Councilmembers, I hope that all of you have had a chance to read the Neighborhood Report that we submitted to you last week. We triad to not bombard you with lots of letters and instead we combined our efforts and came up with the report . I will be submitting the original of that report for the record tonight which includes the signatures of 33 neighbors . The EIR needs to be complete before being certified. One of the more important issues that I feel was overlooked was the aesthetic impact of this proposal . SEDES says in ';their May 29, 1993 letter (Neighborhood Report, Appendix I - page 2 , last paragraph) that their analysis is as specific as the underlying proposal , which means they only have to address the subdivision of property and not the construction build out . Yet they did evaluate the impacts of schools, air quality, the ''two archaeological sites, fire safety, traffic safety,' law i enforcement, wildlife etc? (EIR, page II-4) . All 'these impacts were checked off on the initial check lest including aesthetics . Why they addressed all the other impacts and not aesthetics, is a question that as of tonight has not been answered. CEQA states that "decision-makers would need to have a reason 'in the record" to allow changes to be made from the initial check list . Therefore, if aesthetics is not going to be addressed in the EIR then they need to give a reason in the record. So far, none has been given. (Neighborhood Report, Appendix I - page 7A) The EIR also needs to re-address the fire safety issue since Mr. Davi' s has removed the emergency egress road from his proposal . Thai road was the mitigation for the fire safety impact . The most obvious issue in question on this development is the proposed density. As you read in our report (Neighborhood Recor_ , Section C, page 8) , we question the accuracy of the ca-cu-ations of staff for the minimum lot size, and we question the inclusion of the dedicated acreage in the calculations for de._si%- . If you go by our figures, the number of ',allowable lots ;c �d be from 38-43 . .�Iy concern in regards to the Subdivision Ordinance exception is h :he leach areas were chosen strictly from a topography map. ,1_=_- a::tempted to place them in areas on this proposed de-.-e__oment than were less than 306 slope . However, according to 13 lots show proposed leach field areas on 306 or CC 7/2V93 EXHIBIT "B Page 2 greater slope . As we showed you in our Neighborhood report (Appendix II - page 1) , approximately 750 of the proposed lots leach areas are very accessible. If you are going to grant an exception to the Subdivision Ordinance, why not have Mr. Davis pert the 75% accessible lots, and grant the exception for only the lots that are truly difficult to get to as a result of the topographic conditions? It seems to me that they are trying to put the cart before the horse . Why create lots and then try to find a natural building site, leach area and 100% expansion area within its boundaries? It would make more sense to me to find a natural building site, a leach area with a 100% expansion area, and then draw lines around " it to create a parcel . Then you would know exactly how many reliable lots you really have . I am very concerned with the aesthetic impact of the build out of this proposal . Without requiring Mr. Davis to stake out the property lines or building envelopes or leach areas, or provide any kind of visual study, there is no way to evaluate what this parcel will look like when built out . For example, I agree with the theory behind requiring step foundations for the future homes on the ridgeline, but I am concerned about what 10-30 ft . stem walls will look like from down below. Maybe you should condition any future homes on this development to be required to landscape in front of any stem walls to help alleviate the visual impact on the neighborhood. I do have a few comments on the staff' s Conditions of Approval . a15 - states that the estimated 9 driveways that exceed 20% slope would be allowed to be paved in conjunction with the road improvements . It makes no sense to construct a driveway on a lot that has not yet been sold. a28 - Everyone on both sides of this issue say they are concerned about the drainage, but very little discussion has taken place . Condition #28 states a few suggestions for drainage control but leaves it up to Mr. Davis to decide ,.,-hat will be done, leaving the existing neighbors out of the -_oop . I personally do not like the idea of fenced detention basins and I don' t plan on selling an easement across my oroperty. Frankly, it offends me that these decisions are being made about things that will affect my property, -,.,ithout me being included in the discussion. _= ani.- of you are considering voting to certify the EIR and/or pprove the proposed development "as is" I can only assume that : _ . `_ou are comfortable with the removal of the fire egress road ..-hich remo,:es the mitigation of fire safety for the future -roperty owners on Serrijon Road. Improved fire hydrants do _.ot replace exit accessibility during a fire . CC 7/27/93 EXHIBIT "C" Page 3 2 . You are comfortable with creating Serrijon Road even though it is over 3 , 000 feet longer than the City Standard recommends . Keeping cul-de-sacs within the recommended City Standard would eliminate any significant impact on fire safety. 3 . You are comfortable with leaving the drainagg issues to Mr. Davis, rather than having the City Engineer and the neighboring properties decide what would be best . 4 . You are comfortable with accepting the horsearena with its existing drainage problems, and the fire station site without Mr. Davis completing the testing. S . You are comfortable with setting the precedent of granting a Subdivision Ordinance exception on a proposalthat does not meet all the required findings and conditions. 6 . You are comfortable with creating 19 new lots, on Llano Road for future homes, in which the children who will live there will have to walk across the Santa Lucia bridge, that doesn' t have a pedestrian walkway, to the school bus . 7 . You are comfortable with creating a development of this size without seeing any visual studies or analysis or having any idea what it will look like. I want to make one point perfectly clear to you. We as citizens know and accept that there will be a development on this property someday. By speaking out, we are trying to say that we want a reasonable development that will blend in with the existing neighborhood. Glenn Milhollin owns a large parcel behind my house and is waiting to see how this proposal is handled before proposing his subdivision. Please realize that your decisions tonight not only affect the proposal in front of you, but will set a precedent for future developments . We all know that Mr. Davis has offered several dedications to the City. We also know that it is common knowledge around City Hall that Mr. Davis has verbally offered an additional :100 acre recreation-zoned parcel to the City, but that donotion would take place after this proposal is approved. Alot of us also know that in the past Mr. Davis has threatened to sue the city when things didn' t go his way. For all we know, he could have already done that again. If he has, please look at this proposal very ca-refully and make educated decisions . Don' t letone man bully vc into a decision that could have a negative effect on the existing neighbors and the future property owners of Long Valley __ . Thank you for listening to all of our concerns, please don' t _a=re them. --cerel�- is McClure Torgerson CC 7/27/93 EXHIBIT "C" Page 1 at, 27, 1992 Mayor Kudlac and City Council City of Atascadero 6500 Palma Atascadero, CA 93422 RE: LONG VALLEY II Public Hearing Dear Mayor Kudlac and Council Members: As a resident of Llano Road, I would like to register my concerns re: the adequacy of the final EIR and the proposed tentative tract map. My comments are based on my opinion that the EIR does not properly address across the board cumulative effects of the project and that reduced density in the tract map would mitigate both the environmental impact as well as public safety concerns. Most specifically, several of the proposed lots do not conform to the Land Use Element stipulations for creation of new lots. Many lots lack percolation capability, adequate everyday access and emergency egress and natural building sites. You need to consider your fiduciary responsibility to create a subdivision that meets the needs of both current and future owners as well as current and future neighbors. The EIR did not study a mid-sized density subdivision that would create larger lots and more flexibility in house/septic/driveway location. Deferring these issues until Precise Plan Application by individual homeowners is not appropriate and based on these points, the EIR should not be certified. The experts proposing the project cannot abdicate their ultimate responsibility for the TOTAL impact of development. In support of my points, I refer to page II-7 in the EIR: "most of the mitigations proposed deal with project design, therefore it would generally be the responsibility of the City Public Works, Building and Planning Divisions to ensure the Tentative and Final tract Maps and individual lot development plans reflect the mitigations prior to the respective approval of each. Likewise, as design features, many of the mitigations rust be in place prior to occupancy of the residences, that is, the plans must be fully and correctly implemented." With no intended degradation of staff's capabilities, I would like to point out that the EIR optimistically assumes that design, geological and administrative experts (the proposed "mitigators") will perform on a level not currently practiced. Specifically, multiple homes in the immediate area built in t :e last 3 years demonstrate the negative effects of concentrated develor,-nent plagued by "good intentions gone wrong". The effect on the environment is significant because expert designs failed, homeowners have not reacted with new mitigation plans and the city is understaffed to make a priority o= these issues. I CC 7/27/93 EXHIBIT "C" Page 2 Mayor Kudlac, City Council Long Valley II - Public Hearing Page 2 Specific to the geologic conditions of the project, the applicant has suggested [Condition #9 and Attachment M Condition #21 that .the project would be onerously burdened if staff were to merge adjacent parcels to create lots that would meet perc requirements. However, the applicant has elected to postpone perc tests on the lots and has not submitted alternate tract maps prior to tonight's meeting. All documents produced to date suggest that the applicant's proposal is too aggressive for the site. At minimum, CONDITION#9, etc. provides the opportunity of greater latitude to future owners in building on these constrained parcels. I would ask that you keep the condition as originally worded.The processes labeled onerous are in place'; to protect future owners of the property. Additionally, SEDES' letter of 5/19/93 suggests that review of the geological features of the proposed lots and recombination of the properties on this criteria would produce "an environmentally superior alternative [of 35 lots] ." These issues effect your vote on the subdivision exception which I do not believe should be granted. Specific to density and related factors, I would ask that you consider a reduced density alternative in your final decision on the tentative tract map. Additionally, if you approve the tentative map conditioning acceptable perc tests on the proposed lots, I would ask that you supply staff with definitive guidelines on adjusting the lot lines prior to presentation of the final tract map. Specific to the tentative tract map proposed, you will note the following: 70% of the lots are seriously constrained for septic disposal 18% of the lots contain designated land slide areas 75% of the lots will require special foundations, 23% of the lots require relocation of the driveway [from proposed] 30% of the lots require relocation of the leach 'fields [from proposed siting] . These geologic factors inherent in the project site combinedwith a need to reestablish emergency egress and design drainage plans for development require recombination of lots and revision of the tentative map. I would recommend combining lots 12 & 13, 14 & 15, 16 & 17, 18 & 19, and 20 & '21 to create more developable lots and to facilitate drainage easements on the applicant's property. Additionally, I would recommend combining 28 & 57, 29 & 30, 31 & 3"', 33 & 34, 35 & 36, 37 & 38, 39 & 40, 45 & 46, and 47 & 48' to improve developability of the lots. Finally, lots 26 & 27 should be condemned to allow extension of Serrijon Road to Tecolote allowing fire gess from the ridge line. Thank you for your time. I believe that upon review, you will find the EIR is NST adequate to support the proposed development project. Sincerely, Karen Oakes, 6705 Llano Road, Atascadero, CA 93422 En--l. CC 7/27/93 oN x oj x EXHIBIT "C i Page 3 °' x x •x T co l` (D X X X x O c X m v t[) X X � x E a v m o U O O C ro N J ? x o > m cl) x � r'; x x � x � s t ? r o ro TX i X m 0 Li m Q ? mro W a (1 ? o o af4 x ? x o E m T 1 O ca p N O o X ix E �m f p c6 c M ,2 C = m CD C L-T 3 x c o N C Q ? ° p Ecnx ro O C_ (U6 m coX x ; y E p 1 cu CD O o x ]? 0) h m E m CD t(E( 3 C 0 y .X O { x x X ? O O C EE; 3 p s .o '7c c c Q i X ? X x 1 �' t= i(s E Ry a) TpmcE c E X g t) L m N co m o rn E ? 1 n 3 CD ((n E E v c� 1 X x > mm0m N 1 1 � rn ro� cn io 1 C.- N f x ' X c =3'3 o E � mE� cco _ m E cp ro o o N n� i 3i3iC 11 ? m 0 `v !' I+ x x p i 3 c U m n O c 1 ' �Eov � mo � m m ,�•o ' O E ID CD CJS C 1 ? ON Q O J_- ? iss ? (n J p rn ED c a V —:. 1 U .� O N C N N•�, N N'�0- -6 'fl m O m N E > a 0 3 ��mm� E-, o o >cn m m m m m aam > N _ ro p_ m io > 0 0 0 rn m m m E g 0 Q c c N E I � m ccz roi "' Y o ro o 00cmmEo c j U O O m a- N E U m U w � ro C p y j U p ro ro (T4 m a -0 Y n rn m o �k> �� co o o m o m C U N �i.: CC 7/27/93 ` EXHIBIT "C" �``` C) x x x x Page 4 x v � x x x � x €€ x , co x x x xco ( x E r x x x cl) CO x x x x x X �-- o X x x X m cl) E CD E X X O > CD x x x x x X E m L 6 t 7 O U NI, x X X X X m m m a m� W i X x x X � Q a, Y U LL X X X XE > 3 m L I o c cu a i m D N' �. X X X X X C O N C Q ° a •Ev C ;6is o • N x x X x X X X m Ti E a o I m o o f N ; X X X ` X X �' N G >O U) c € � c - m•N Z CD < N x O N ; x X X E X X ° ao 3 m m o. c Q N X X X 33i X i X E N'F 1 3 - c rn._ 0 g ,'cm � E N X X X X X i X m O N 0)s zz I m umi o E_EV N X 3 X X € X CD (V IIMD N L m 3 c T'� �„ m 3 m c E u, o 0 CD o c c mEoaooN x , XX X ; v, m CO rzO ` (Do • �" i O0a m m 2- C F- m , E cm C o o f av m E'am� _ N m m 3 F U NE m mLO p 30 'o, c c o ; .� c -rom � m-oq = 3m N No �� U T N C _ C m m �,T N m N N'C.N.N.- 0- Z c a� j E a c m 'n m E_ c '> ° o i u0i U `m m ° man-0 I .rJ O ? m .0 m '� C m > m O O m T - - C c cca c m C 3 > rn D m ^" © o 0 0 3 L m m m m E mmo > > C, E L a v v �o i 'D in oa o c c m m m E N CD o o f m co E m cmi U, � Nf m ° me c rn o 2 v o M m m C 0) �V m N m m O m >,CD CD E - - U _ o c C' � c ao_ m o m - 3 Y N O C v m - - L oON oN > UV Em u U GO m C O d U -0 M - -mCr E 1 CC 7/27/93 o 0 x. x x EXHIBIT "C" � m Page 5 c x o Q X x x Sn X x X X � U o j c U') X x X Lna m � m � a X o co Q > X x € E m c CY ({E EE N X X x E x E X m i Q ° ° o CD CIS Ll1 X x x x ° E m Ltd . — Y U CC ON O 0 0 , . X X X x �f E ; sm �i C) x X X x C O N m d r� O Q EI x Q .,_.m O C m m X X X x x x x .0 0 E 0-0 ° oE " L ] U >m �J x x X X X 0) 0 m E c c ' Ul m C Rf m m Z CC i x x Xx f X p O 3 m 0O 0 m �` co c m m F. f X X X X E X x c E c"cis � t.{ co C ; X X S X x X m O m!6 0).c ca. in � m m umi `0 3 Es i 3 1 X c`t o m X X € X > o m N f� i N L m E L[` S 3 � . ^` X 0 ca � t° W N x X X X j X X t c m o o N � ! i mEQo_�• U_- TII ( X 1 x x EE x _nQ 876 m E O'a O m O r m m O O c O F-I• l 1 a j a -n E•am I my c0 3 U N O D - `: 2mc �- >0 CC: c j o ns m ;rt`S m m II C Y 7 1 .mei N to C m �T 1 N U m c0 C N' .(.0•m E LO O3.cL �I } O EEE m O U O m to .�. i Q 1 O c T N N > j N O 0.0 ?• N y ; c N m 0. m $ m0> m c: "o i s sm N m c m mc m E m� � E m tmi cn v m c T— O 1 m 1 m C m fC m C � O `U O c6 M M L _ 3 _ 1 y m E m v, m m oL2 — L) c N n c an.m 0 m � ; o { Y cn rn c moo.>_ — ., O N m Y omEpN nm cq vv m m m CC 7/27/93 EXHIBIT "C" ` Page 6 LONG VAL L F.v u Revised Site Plan March 12, 1993 CORRESPONDING LOT ADJUSTMENTS OLD I,OT NEW 1,()T OLD LOT NEW LOT 1&2 1 31 27 3&4 2 32 28 5&6/7 3 33 29 7&8 4 34 30 9&10 5 35 31 _ 10/11 6 36 3.2 12 7 37 33 13 8 38 34 14 9 39 35 15 10 4. 0 36 16 11 41 37 17 12 42/43 38 18 13 43/44 39 19 14 45 40 20 15 46 41 21 16 47 42 22 17 48 43 23 19 49 44 24 18 50 45 25 20 51 46 26 21 52 47 27 22 53 48 28 23 54 49 NAP 24 55 50 29 25 56 51 30 26 'OTE: This tabic is provIdcd for easy reference between the' rcVised site plan and the lots discussed in the EIR. CC 7/27/93 EXHIBIT "D" Page 1 Atascadero City Council Meeting July 27, 1993 LONG VALLEY II - Public Hearing From: Daphne Fahsing, 5105 Llano Road. Re: Certification of Final EIR I believe that the EIR is legally inadequate because it does not fully consider a full range of alternative sized development or mid-size density project based on septic percolation suitability; and because it does not address visual impacts of the final development . I believe the Council should not certify the Final EIR as it now stands . Daphne Fahsing CC 7/27/93 EXHIBIT "D" Atascadero City Council Meeting July 27, 1993 Page 2 LONG VALLEY II - Public Hearing From: Daphne Fahsing, 5105 Llano Road. I support the Neighborhood Report presented to the Council , and also refer you to my letter of July 1 , addressed to Mayor Kudlac. I hope our concerns will be fully considered. In addition, and as stated in the Final EIR page IV-A17 (Appendix III , last paragraph of page 12 of the Neighborhood Report ) , the creek areas are especially sensitive to wildlife habitat . Red-shouldered hawk are currently breeding in the area of Lot No. 22 at the end of Tecolote Road. The EIR report states that building on Lot No . 22 , as well as No. 20, 21 and 26, would "very likely cause extirpation of this breeding pair. " Red-shouldered hawks may not yet be an endangered species, but according to Fish & Game they are a "Species of Special Concern. " They have a beneficial effect on controlling small rodents , gophers and ground squirrels, and should be protected. Tot 22 is also very close to the creek, and perhaps '; this lot (and preferably Lots 20 , 21 and 26) could be added to the dedicated park area instead of a building site . I am also concerned about creating lots and driveways on slopes of 2030' and 30%, and hope that they could be eliminated. to be sure these are included in the official records, I am -e-submitting copies of my letter to the Council of July 1 , 1993 , ".d my st-mtements to the Planning Commission May 1811993 . Daphne Fahsing CC 7/27/93 EXHIBIT "E" Page 1 I would like to address the issues of Density, Aesthetics, Drainage, Fire Safety Density No consideration was given to a medium density project. Dedicated property is used to calculate minimum lot size. Since many of the lots are on 30% or greater slopes, it would seem reasonable to reduce the number to allow for better building sites, better septic leaching systems and possibly removing or impacting fewer trees. To C- `l ''i«Kr �''� 1 y LcT 1if f = f r%�~� c� a j i�>>✓� �. �<__y' �3 �c`:,e. t C c.; / 15 Aesthetics follow closely on density, especially on the ridge. I understand another property owner to the west of Llano Rd. was not allowed to divide property in a way which would have homes built on the ridge. Shouldn't the same rules apply to all developers? Serrajon ridge is very high and very visible. The number of proposed homes on the ridge would not be a very attractive scene and would be reminiscent of L.A. or Orange County - not in keeping with the rural atmosphere of Atascadero. Drainage There is no definitive plan for handling additional runoff from the project. This is an issue that should be resolved before approval of the EIR or Tentative Tract Mao. There are several parcels on the west of Llano Rd, that will be greatly affected and leaving the resolution of the problem to some future time is not satisfactory. • i i CC 7/27/93 EXHIBIT "E" Page 2 Fire Safety Serrajon is a long cul de sac without sufficient egress in case of a wildland fire. The total number of potential new homes in the subdivision creates an additional safety aspect for those people now living in the adjoining properties. For example, Santa Lucia would be hard pressed to handle a large volume of people evacuating with 2 or 3 cars per family, personal property, horse trailers , etc. in the event of a fire. We have no idea when or if the proposed fire station will ever be built. CC 7/27/93 EXHIBIT "F" Page 1 City Council Members City of Atascadero 6500 Palma 0 Atascadero, CA 93422 July 27 , 1993 Dear Members of the City Council, Regarding the subdivision application for Long Valley II, I still have some concerns that have not been resolved. My goal in speaking about this project is not to ask you to stop the project altogether, but to ask for your help in achieving a compromise so that those of us who must live next to it, will not be negatively impacted. Those of us who live on Llano Road have worked diligently to exhaust our administrative remedies but in terms of the Planning Commission, have not found satisfaction. The project has its good points such as the scenic easement, the road realignment , the creek dedications and the proposed fire station site . But, there are issues of density, drainage, fire safety, aesthetics, bridge safety, etc . that have not been resolved. How do we accomplish a compromise? Do we ask you to deny the EIR? Do we ask you to not allow the tentative tract map or the zone change? So far, no one seems to have the answers . If we approach this project in terms of the EIR, there are some points that have been made in the binder handed to you this last week, and submitted into the record tonight . Briefly: 1 . The EIR fails to study the aesthetic aspects of a highly visible project . 2 . The mitigation for fire safety at Serraj on Road has been recommended to be removed, thereby not mitigating a significant impact . 3 . Requiring a donation to replace the bridge over Graves Creek does not mitigate the impact of traffic safety, because sa=etv is not achievable in a "timely manner" as required by CEQA. 4 . The impact of law enforcement has not been mitigated. 5 . A ;--id-sized density project, with all of the positive as-ec-s of the 57 lot approach, has not been studied, as required ^V we approach -his project from the tentative tract map and zoning - o ,.- � �__ , it occ-�rs to me that a lot of this project�ect has allowed the car -o come before the horse �. ess I ' m reading the LUE incorrectly, land dedications may be in exchange for developing lots in excess of 300-. slope . Vic., ire does i- mention that these dedications are to then be added - e total ^roject acreage, thus making a more dense original - unles-s this is the intent of asking for the PD zone If this is the result of the zone change, it must be Perhaps Mr . Davis should donate the 100 acre recreational he has :rerbally promised the City and further increase the lots pN' 23? ! Strictly interpreted, 189 . 18 acres (the CC 7/27/93 EXHIBIT "F" Page 2 area to be subdivided) divided by 4 . 36 acres = 43 lots . Why is there even discussion about 57 or 51? B. Requiring perc tests in designated leach areas, and examination of proper leaching sites before approval of the tentative tract map, as required in the LUE, would give an accurate picture of just how many lots this subdivision should have from the standpoint of septic suitability. Perhaps further discussions of density wouldn' t be necessary. C. An aesthetic review of the project would'; have allowed conditions to be placed on the project that would have minimized its impacts visually, thereby making it less intrusive to those of us already living here . The Land Use Element in its Open Space Policy calls for "careful evaluation of private development to protect scenic and sensitive lands including prominent viewsheds . " From Llano Road, Laurel , Santa Lucia, Cascabel and Santa Ana, the project is a prominent feature . The LUE also calls for attention to be paid to the "aesthetic result of land division . " Sensitive building placement, color and massing considerations, roof styles, landscaping, etc . all can contribute to a more desirable project . CEQA requires consideration of cumulative aspects of development and therefore aesthetic considerations must be addressed by the land developer. D. No lots have been staked to date thus making it impossible to know if the proposed building envelopes or leach sites, or • dr=veways are even possible . E . As a condition of approval, the applicant is being required to establish a composite utility plan, a soils plan, aroad plan, but no composite drainage plan. If allowed to use detention/retention basins , the burden of drainage is passed from the developer to the individual homeowner. From the very outset of this project, I have expressed my concerns with detention/retention basins and asked for the applicant to design drainage culverts on his own side of the road and not through my improved property frontage. No attempt has been made to negotiate easements with anyone along Llano for access tc -:ie Unnamed Creek or Graves Creek. Those of us along Llano are cctential recipients of a great deal of water coming from this crc- ect and wo•,:-_d like to see the developer made responsible for c_�ninc and i--:olementina a drainage plan prior to approval of the :ens �iive frac map so that we will not be required at some later .a:- to solve these woes of problems with each individual _.ase == tes�:-ng of the proposed fire station site would let us :enc if -_^deed it can be used for a fire station. If the site bui-_-:i upon, perhaps the City would not feel that the ic--_s had enough value to encourage development of very steep sem` is not clear that this project has some loose ends, loci{ at Jt from the aspect of the City Council' s CC 7/27/93 EXHIBIT "F" Page 3 responsibility to protect the safety and well being of it' s residents . • 1 . Requiring that Serrajon Road be made a through road solves five problems : A. Mitigates fire safety requirement . B. Reduces air quality impacts by reducing longer trips in and out of the ridge area. C. Decreases emergency response time . D. Reduces traffic on Santa Ana Road. E. Allows residents to escape when fire does come . 2 . Requiring a pedestrian bridge over Graves Creek at Santa Lucia Road solves two problems : A. It allows school children (19 families worth) to travel safely to the bus stop. B. It provides a mitigation that is achievable in a reasonable amount of time. This is a subdivision in the planning stages . I do believe that compromises can be achieved that will make this project possible and a thoughtful addition to our City. Hopefully you as members of the City Council will agree that those of us who already live in the shadow of this development have valid concerns . You have graciously met with us, accepted our materials and spoken with us over the phone . Thank you for your accessibility, and I look forward to your thoughtful response. Sincerely, Debbie Vial 6000 Llano Road Atascadero, CA 93422 REPORT T® CITY COUNCIL M60ting Date: 9--14-93 CITY of ATASCADER€! Agenda tea: $--2 Through: Andy Takata, City Manager Via: henry Engen, Director of Community Development From: Valerie Humphrey, Engineering DivisiQ , ,UB.JECT: Establishment of No Parking zone on El Camino Real in front-of the Post Office. RE99ENDATI©N It is the recommendation of the Traffic Committee that Council adopt Resolution No. 106-93 authorizing the w4ifications as described on the attached. resolution. This area of El Camino Real carries a high volume of traffic which leads to conflicts as vehicles enter and exit. the Post Office. Establishing No Parking along the curb in front: of the Post Office will allow for increased sight distance improving traffic safety. Parking needs appear to be adequately met with the on-sine spaces provided by the Past Office. It was noted that the vehicles parked at the curb are frequently "For Sale" vehicles which are parked for long term. OPTIONS 1) Adopt Resolution No. 106-93 2) Deny Resolution No. 106-93 3) Return item to Traffic Committee for further, review , FISCAL IMPACT: The cost of these modifications will be approximately $500 for painting and signs to be paid out of currently budgeted funds. ` Attachments Resolution No. 106-93 000001 RESOLUTION, NO. 1-06-93 RESOLUTION OF ,TNB COUNCIL OF THE CI'T'Y OF ATA `U to DESIGNATING A NO PARKING ZONE ON EL `CANINO REAL IN FRONT OF THE POST OFFICE WHEREAS, Section 4-2.1101, pt., seq,,,, of the Atascr Municipal Code allows the City Traffic Engineer to designate Parking" areas,' and to -place and maintain appropriate siqns, or markings indicating the same; -,and. WHEREAS, the Traf f is Committee has dtrmined establishing a No Parking zone in front of the Post off oei il-1 improve a 'sight hazard. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Ataso a directs the City TrafficEngineer to place and maintain-appr r signs or ,Aarkings as indicated above. On motion by ,and sc b the foregoing resolution is hereby -ad in -its :entirety on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES; ABSENT ADOPTED: ATTEST!.,. CITY OF AT-A By LEE RABC3IH, C ty Clerk ROBERT P. NI - Di or' APPROVED AS TO FORM: AR'C'HER 'RO-MBDON City Attorney APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: HENRY ENC fid` Director of:- Ct+ unity Development 00000 s 9 EXHIBIT A RESOLUTION 106-93 20' Red ''Curb a w x 156' Red Curb w U H z w 0 I U CHn O P-4 a w 20' Red Curb 0010, 03 REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL Neeti Date: 3 CITY OF ATASCADERO Agenft Ytem 3 Through: Andy Takata, City Manager Via: Henry 'Engen, Director of Community D vela ent From: Valerie Humphrey, Engineering D .visi nk SUBJECT Establishment of Stop intersection. REgMENDATION The Traff is Committee recommends that Council opt Resolution No. 107--93 creating a stop intersection on Alturas Avenue at Dei. Rio Read. DISCUSSION At this location Alturas Avenue ends in a "T" ` ntersection at the bottom of an extremely steep grade. This latersection, is. currently uncontrolled and it is the consensus of the Traffic Committee that miring traffic on Alturas to stop before entering, the intersection would improve safety. ORJJQNS 1) Approve Resolution No. 107-93 2) Deity Resolution No. 107-93 3) Return to Traffic Committee for further consideration. FISCAL IMPAqT The cost of this installation is estimated to bB approximately $150. 00 to be paid out of current fiscal year budgeted funds. 000904' ' , a RESOLUTION Or THE CITE IL OF TIM CITY clu AT THE IMMSEMON WrTK DEL 910 ROAb WHEREAS, Section 4-2.801 at seq, of the Atascade o Munlaiv, Code allos the City Traffic -Vaginaer todetermine the locat STOP i.ntrsections, and to xtix�taat� �+a�ri to . w ;. mar)cin4g'ji,wdicatinq the sAmaj and H; AS, the Ata erc r$ffic` committee has r c tahliShi:ng s STOP intersection ernAIturas et>"041 Rite 4'I 11 A. traffic safety, OW IEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of At Oft m directs the City Traffic Engineer to place and maintain, *► signs or markings indicating STOP inter-section listed, a3aea` Cn t of by counc lw► , ,and seconded .W Cc ci i e r the forogoing Resolution isv,hereby in its entirety ;on thd, following roll: call vote: AYES HCS: ' ABSENT: ADOPTED: ATTEST x i LEE TH. C APPhQVFaI At TO FORM: I WTRW -w City Attorney APROVE 3 .AS TO CONT tT. HMy SNM Di.rectcr cf Co unity ue,lo t i REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL Meetin Date: 9-14-93 CITY OF ATASCADERO Agenda Items B-4 Through;: Andy Takata, City Manager vias Henry Engen, Director of community Development From: Valerie Humphrey, Engineering Division? SUBJECT Establishment of stop intersection. RECQMMEND46T,ION The Traffic Committee recommends that Council adopt Resolution No. 108-92 creating a stop intersection on Andritz Avenue at the intersection with San Marcos Roam. DISCUSSIQN The request for a stop sign at this location came from a resident in the area who writes that traffic does not hesitate when entering San Marcos Road from Andrita Avenue -cauls ng many "close calls" . Auer review of the location the Traffic Committee agreed with that a stop sign on Andrita Avenue would im rove safety in this area. OPTIONS l) Approve Resolution No. 108-93 2) Deny Resolution No. 108-93 3) Return to Traffic Committee for further consideration. FISCAL IMEACT The cost of this installation is estimated to be approximately $150. 00 to be paid out of current fiscal year budgeted funds.. 0000061 RESOLUTION NO. 1 RESOLUTION OF THN CITY COUNCIL OF THE CIT €0I ATC DESIGNATING A SOP INTZROECTION ON A RIT _ AVENVII, AT THE INTERSECTION WITH ROAD WHEREAS, Section .4-2.801 et sect. of the AtascaderoMuni-1101",l Code allows the 'City Traffic '_Engineer to determine the 'l ti STOP intersections, and to place and maintain appropriate 0r: ` , markings, indicating the same; and WHEREAS, the Atas dery Traffaic committee has,recommend": t Establishing a STOP intersection on Andrita 'at S,an Mar vi, improve traffic safety. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Ata t4 directs tie City Traffic Engineer tgD.place and maintain app'. a . signs or markings indicating STOP Intersection- li*ted on -motion by CoUnoilmember, , and seconded Councilmember , the foregoing Resolution is hereby in its entirety`on the following 'roll call vete: AYES: NOES•. ABSENT: . ADOPTED.* ATTEST LEE O , Elty, Clerk 2C?R ".. Nlr APPROVED AS` TO, ORM ARTHER Mtn 'T` NOON City Attorney APPROVED AS TO CONTENT HENRY ENGEN" Director of Community Develcapment REPORT To CITY COUNCIL Meeting Bate: 914-9a- CITY OF ATASCAUFRO Agenda Iteas B-5 Through: Andy Takata, City Manager via. Henry Engen, Director of Community Do elc t From: Valerie Humphrey, Engineering Department SIIRJHCT: Establishment of 25 MPH speed limit on. Santa Nnez Avenue. `; R$G� NT9ATI4N Traffic Committee recommends approval of Resolution No. .109- 93. DISCIISSIoN Santa Ynez is a busy residential street which also collects traffic destined for the high school area. The property owners on this street are concerned about speed and have approached the Traffic Committee regarding loweri the existing speed limit. { This section of Santa Ynez Avenue meets the legal criteria for posting a 25 MPH speed limit, which is determined byresidential density. QPT j CANS 1) Approve Resolution No. 109-93 2) Deny 'Resolution No. 109-93 3.) Return to Traffic Committee for further aonsideration FISCAL IMPACT: The cost of signage ;for this modification is a timated tee be approximately $200. 00. 000008 RESOLUTION NO. 190-94 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO ESTABLISKING A $S XPR SPEED LIXIT ON SANTA PBZ AVENUE' WHEREAS, Section 4--2.501, et. , gag, of the AtascAdero Municipal Code allows the City Traffic Engineer, through an engineering and traff is survey, to determine the appropriate speed-',, limit for streets within the City; and WHEREAS, an engineering and traffic survey conducted by . the Atascadero Police Department determined that the appropriate and safe speed is 25 miles per, hour (*MPH") on Santa Ynez Avenue. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Atascadero directs the city Traffic Engineer to place and maintain appropriate signs or, maskings to indicate a 25 MPH speed limit at this location on motion by Councilmember , and seconded' , by Councilmember , the foregoing`Resolution is hereby ,adopted in its entirety on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES ABSENT: ADOPTED: ATTEST By, LEE RABOIN, City Clerk ROBERT P. 9I O, Maycsr .APPROVED AS TO FORM: ARTHER MONTANDON City Attorney APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: HENRY ENGEM' Director of Community Development 00OR" REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL Meeting Date: 9-14-93 CITY OF A,TASCADERO Agenda Item: B-6 Through: Andy Takata, City Manager Via: Henry Engen, Community Development Director From: Steve Sylvester, City Engineer SUBJECT: Acceptance of portions of San .Marcos Road and Vista Road d into the City Maintained System �t.EGQMMENDAT�,Q�T•• Adopt Resolution No 110-93 BA;CK R D The property owners living along certain portions, of San Marcos Road and Vista Road have made improvements necessary to have thes+s roads accepted into the City Maintained System. These improvements have been designed, contracted and paid for by the property owners along these sections of road. The portions unproved include 3300 feet of San Marcos Road east of Portal-Escondido Road and 1500 feet of Vista Roa ! south. of 'San Marcos Road. The recently completed improvements include pavement base repair, pavement widening in critical locations, shoulder grading, chip sealing and the installation of refl ctive markers. DIFCLSSIaN: =ct Engineering Staff and Maintenance Staff have reviewed the recently completed improvements and have determined that they'are -^ ccl:~ormance with the plan's and specifications submitted to and , reviewed by the City Engineering Department. It is anti:ci.pated. t:.s.t -L he recently constructed improvements will extend the service fe CT- these portions' of road thereby reducing the requirements ",:-ure rou,=e maintenance. I- n uld be noted that the improvements cans ruct+ed by the -:pertz_- owners along the above referenced Porti, ns of road are _- a Vo the improvements which will be cans rutted in , the eye —v formes: 3-F Meadows and Las Encinas Assess ent Districts. 0000,1 However, since this was a totally private road improvement program initiated by the residents luring along these portions of road, the costs associated with the formation of an assessment district have been eliminated. FISCAL 'IMPACT- There has no capital coast to the City. The property .owners have entered into a plan check & inspection agreement with the City ,for reimbursement of all administrative and technical support c*sts associated with the project Routine road maintenance costa wil'1 be incurred by the City if these >portions of San Marcus and Vista Roads are accepted into the City maintained system. ATTACLIME- ITS: A. January 12,. 1993 -Staff Report regarding conditional acceptance of ;portions of San Marcos Road and Vista Road B. Resolution No. 11.0--93 04J0W1 RESOLUTION NO. 110-93 RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO ACCEPTING OF PORTIONS OF VISTA' ROAD AND SAN MARCOS ROAD INTO THE CITY' S MAINTAINED ROAD SYSTEM WHEREAS, certain property owners living along San Marcos Road and Vista Road have designed, contracted and paid for ' the improvements required to have portions of these roads accepted into the City Maintained System; and WHEREAS, the portions improved include the 3300 feet of San Marcos Road east of Portal-Escondido Road and the 1500 feet of Vista Road south of San Marcos Road; and WHEREAS, the portions of San Marcos Road and ''Vista Road to be accepted are directly connected to streets currently in the City Maintained System; and WHEREAS, City Engineering Department and City ; Road Maintenance Staff have reviewed the improvements and determined them to be in substantial conformance with the plans reviewed by the City Engineering Department ; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT: The 3300 foot portion of San Marcos Road east of Portal-Escondido Road and the 15010 foot portion of Vista Road south of San Marcos Road are hereby accepted into the City Maintained System. On a motion by Councilmember and seconded by Councilmember the foregoing resolution is hereby adopted in its entirety on the following role ''call vote : AYES : N ES : City of Atascadero Lee Ra' c_n, City Clerk Robert P. Nimmo, Mayor A. ` e: as to Form X=:iandon, City Attorney as io content S even - . Svlvester, City Engineer 9110204.ATA 000912 REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL Meeting Date: 1-12-93 CITY OF ATASCADERO Agenda Item: D_3 Through: Andy Takata, Assistant City Manager Via: Henry Engen, Community Development Director E.Je, From: Steve Sylvester, City Engineer SUBJECT: Conditional acceptance of portions of San Marcos Road and Vista Road into the City Maintained System RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Resolution No. 03-93 BACKGROUND: The property owners living along certain portions of San Marcos Road and Vista Road expressed their desire to make all the improvements necessary to have these roads accepted into the City Maintained System. These improvements are to be designed, contracted and paid for by the property owners on these sections of road. The portions to be improved include 3300 feet of San Marcos Road east of Portal-Escondido Road and 1500 feet of Vista Road south of San Marcos Road. DISCUSSION: Staff has reviewed the preliminary plans for the proposed improvements and, upon final approval, is prepared to accept the plans submitted for these improvements to be in conformance with City Standards. once the improvements are constructed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, these portions of San Marcos Road and Vista Road will be eligible for acceptance into the City Maintained System. It should be noted that this is a totally private road improvement program. The City has no authority to remedy any conflicts which ,-� may occur by the assement of fees or the collection of fees for these proposed improvements. 000013 • FISCAL IMPACT: There is no capital cost to the City. The property owner's will be required to enter into a plan check & inspecton agreement to recoup administative and technical support costs incurred by the City. 1 9212609.ATA ( (nfir 07. 0014 RESOLUTION NO. 03-93 RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO ESTABLISHING AN UNDERSTANDING OF CONDITIONAL ACCEPTANCE OF A PORTION OF VISTA ROAD INTO THE CITY'S MAINTAINED ROAD SYSTEM WHEREAS, certain property owners living along San Marcos Road and Vista Road desire to design, contract and pay for the improvements required to have portions of these roads accepted into the City Maintained System; and WHEREAS, the portions to be improved include the 3300 feet of San Marcos Road east of Portal-Escondido Road and the 1500 feet of Vista Road south of San Marcos Road; and WHEREAS, City Engineering Staff has reviewed the improvement plans and is further prepared to accept the plans submitted for the proposed improvements to be in substantial conformance with City Standards. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT: It is the intent of the Council to accept portions of San Marcos Road and Vista Road into the City Maintained System when the proposed improvements are done to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. on motion by Councilmember , and seconded by Councilmember , the foregoing resolution is hereby adopted in its entirety on the following roll call vote: AYES NOES: ABSENT: ADOPTED: ATTEST: CITY OF ATASCADERO LEE RABOIN, City Clerk ROBERT P. NIMMO, Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM ARTHER MONTANDON, City Attorney APPROVED AS TO CONTENT STEVEN J. SYLVESTER, City Engineer 9212610.ATA AM.If "Mugu ". 000015 A I� CITY OF ATASCADERO JANUARY 12, 1993 CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING'.1 CONDITIONAL. ACCEPTANCE OF PORTIONS OF SAN MARCOS AND VISTA ROADS INTO THE CITY MAINTAINED SYSTEM REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL Meeting Date: 9-14-93 CITY OF ATASCADERO Agenda It B-7 Through: Andy Takata, City Manager Via: Henry Engen, Community Development Director From: Steve Sylvester, City Enginee SUBJECT: Acceptance of the Santa Rosa Rad Sewer Project RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council accept the subject sever improvements as complete and requests authorization rom Council tb release the 10% retention in the amount of $23,060. 25 thirty five (35) days after the Notice of Completion is filed, DISCgSSION: Staff has reviewed the completed Santa Rosa Road Se er Project and determined it to be in substantial conformance with the plans specifications approved by the City Council . During the progress of the work, an 811 water main iTL Mountain View Drive belonging to Atascadero Mutual water Company (AMWC) was broken by the contractor (Dechance Construction) The water main break occurred due to an error in the locationof the water main as marked by AMWC. A claim for damages and delays haE been filed by the contractor. Stuff is currently negotiating with AMWC and the, contractor in an attempt to resolve the claim, ISS; IMPACT; the aMou: t budgeted by the Council for the construction of the Santa Rosa Road Sewer Project was $249, 399. 70 which included a 1:0V co:zingency. The final 'cost of the project with approved change order was $230,602 .50 . The actual amount of the claim filed by e cc�t,ractor has not yet been determined. Azz. c--menz A, Notice of Completion 0,0001,7 RECORDING REQUESTED BY: (and when recorded, mail to:) City Clerk CITY OF ATASCADERO 6500 Palma Avenue Atascadero; CA 93422 NOTICE Of COMPLETION NO TRANSFER OF PROPERTY Notice is hereby given pursuant to Civil Code Section 3093: 1. The undersigned is corporate officer for the City of Atascadero, owe of property hereinafter described. 2. The full name of the owner is the City of Atascadero. 3. The full address of the owner is: 6500,Paima Avenue, Atascadero, CA`83422, 4. The nature of the interest of the owner is in fee. 5. A work of improvement on the property hereinafter described was Colk"ctpl ted on September 7, 1993. 6. The work dune was the Santa Rosa Road Sewer Project. 7. The name of the contractor who performed such work of improvement was Dechance Construction Company. The date contractwas entered into was January 6, 1993. 8. The property on which said work of improvement was completed was frl the City of Atascadero, County ;of Sail Luis Obispo, State of California,; ' is described as follows- Sanitary Sewer and Lift Station. Thetf et address of id pro party is: Santa Rosa Road, Lakeview Arai Mountain View Drive within the City of Atascadero (no specific street address, no APN - all withinthe public:right-of-way). Dated: 9`14/9`3 ANDREW J. TAKATA, City Manager City of Atascadero VER„IMATlO I the undersigned, say that I am the City Manager, declarant of the foregoing Notice of Completion; t Piave read said Notice,of Completion and know the contents thereof; the same is true of my own kn6w I ,declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true end coffect. Executed on at the City oaf Atascadero, California. ANDREW J. TAKATA, City Manager City of Atascadero REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL kgonda Item: C-2 CITY OF ATAS.CADERO Through: Andy Takata, City Manager Meeting Date: From: Mark Joseph, Administrative. Services Ui,re for `ri StJ gXgT: Second Public Hearing for Technical Assistance Grant, Economic Development. RECO PA3TIM; 1) Conduct the second public hearing, as req i.red for the grant:` 2) Adopt Resolution 111-93, approving the ap licat.ion for a $30,000 Planning Grant for Economic Devalopment. The Economic Roundtable recommended to the CitF to apply for a $30,O00 planning grant for economic development p rposes. The first of two required public hearings was held on Aigust 24. At this point in time, the State has approxi.ma ely $323,003 available to award (most awards are for $30,000, le s the individual. City's matching amount) The City's mat h amount increased slightly from last year. It is now 12 pe cent, or $3, 600 (last year the rate was 11 percent, or $3,303) . Originally, the County and all the Cities (except Morro' 'Bay and San Luise Obispo City) were planning to apply. t this pei.nt, Arroyo Grande and. Grover Beach have decided to drop out and the County and Pismo Beach have already submitted their applications. It is expected that our application will be turned' Ln shortly after the second public hearing and thus before the State's official deadline of September 24, 1993. The early submittal is important because grant are awarded first on whether they meet the State's guidelines, andaecond, on . when they are actually received. This second condition is relevant only when funds run out. That is to say, f two applications meet the guidelines, but there is only enough money for one,, the first one received will be approved. The attached resolution is needed as part of the formal application. Although the grant is not yet finishe , it will dead with the issues covered in the resolution: ass ssment of business potentials, including tourism and light maiufacturing, targeting specific industries and development of marketing strategies. A program summary is expected to be distributed to Council prior to the meeting. 001019 RESOLUTION NO. 111-93 { A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR FUNDING AND THE EXECUTION OF A GRANT AGREEMENT FROM THE PLANNING/TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE ALLOCATION 'OF' THE STATS CnBG PROGRAM BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council of the City 'of Atascadero as follows SECTION I: The City Council has reviewed and hereby approves an application for $30,000 to be submitted to the State Department ofHousing and Community Development for a planning grant under the CD program. The grant is to prepare an assessment of Business Potentials, resulting in identification of the best business targets,, marketing strategies, creation of employment opportunities for targeted income group residents, and stimulation of the tourism sector. SECTION 2: The City Council has reviewed the citizen participation plan for compliance with federal statute and has determined that thit plan was followed for the developmentsof this application. SECTION 3 The City Council hereby approves the use of General Funds in the amount of $3,600 to be used as the City's Cash:. Match for this , project. SECT_10N 4: The City Manager is hereby authorized and directed to act on the City' s 'behalf in all matters pertaining to this application. SECTI©N 5: If the application is approved, the City Manager is authorized .to enter into and sign the grant agreement and any subsequent amendments with the State of California for the purposes of this grant. 000022 � UPON MOTION of Councilmember , Seconded by Councilmember , the foregoing Resolution is hereby passed and adopted at a Regular City Council meeting held on this day of 1993 on the following'', roll call vote: AYES: NOES; ABSENT: ADOPTED: CITY OF ATASCADERO By: ROBERT P. NIMMO ATTEST; LEE RABOIN, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: ARTHER MONTANDON City Attorney 000021 meeting, �a '�r y� 3� �lyc/p iiiii N �.�. Tq:; }'- L�.t � ta' ak f45x +i4( 'rift s �x ,,Bei Bng dcommuufty°° ±tet. t �►i _ # +j +�-11��►►y/I�... � y�.�r ®� T spy , ���,u� �,. it; Bid= 1-99 3° Medan%' Revisions � '� # GI I�dt�pt . teso '�ttitnt4 13 -93: auth4riz�.��` � ` . aw Ti AtV`:thea eta 3hpri:L,-19 tOR he w 6 k - la ,t'.. Ys A� etas A v%+{ l tf were �`K .,�,,,,,,,,,QQ�#. y� yy.,,��,, �y 'frJ.,t =�y"r.LFl� Cit , nC, cureaeht� � A;, F Y='! 9 30 ' WO ,Th rk g�ner+�lly consists +�� t�e��re�movai�.��� � ortions, f'the 3� , �th�'>r pa �o . tie " addition of�_a� t t un staut with =such =vark'inc�s' of:`this. area. bifid ittod;"threes ..s�ic,�t �a:T ' �tmed ell COlOmbo,.resid6nookdri'viewd y a us;r _ �s;�.v � a ';�, •fir nor�'; .�a�, We x�` ` s a, K{ t•+ r y Y#�.7.� + i a" fit+,. h t i : " W P a Ye # iir4� fT k J h Area 2 - Providing an opening. at the erst e to Tract No. 2061: permitting ridnts° tri , `� make, a left turn into,:°the AldrthbM d w El Camino Real. ,. Area 3 - Removal of median°ro truct117Zip El Bordo to the entrance isOtho .North 4 s, entrance to California 4(iAoAR r,. Additie3.$id: Extend the.median r a ..f Area 3 ; i* ' South Entrance to Ca13frn .a cr ° .. Al tee' A$id: Bid onto+' Area .'. ,.A tf - e M r �),�., vebe—oneek dr�r '�c` aL�M RJ�'IGi� ��" O submitted the, I 04 Bid and dc6bination of Base ,Bid i ire B3td b Efa 7rld �i t�� ►ison figure for the Alternatei �a� a1s�► �� � O , pay yr �y iy g3 } �P " 3rTlar ► f 19 r ands IR Police. and Fixe .dept ' u tept� ao :itints anti 'no ;` A �►xl]. tn ,{ naees• �hlefoCni # € 4 greater=macer ,is the uneven road spa f i p urea ; s + ngin+ j rinLyL�de �r tme road yai t +� �► lud ita I .f V`T y, ws mon.. ,i+ i T ' v � itV ey1 y"4 ".gty�. AIM lltii � ent +:7tr 'O'J' ,�F. nld b ' ktaf's opinion that the`- t f ��. , �►et bYtom: bay's 1ia�ied Capital to the r f e than. tc ate.' an .alr . 3�� ' a` y ,�p N oningd ��ae atoly and .safe: x a 3 Y k , s fa. { y '& _ J.,.' r '�. - h" •y '$ 'yii''� 1� '4 y 1 `� �b RESOLUTION NO. 112-93 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT WITH HAROLD D. PETERSON FOR 1993 MEDIAN REVISIONS PROJECT The City Council of the City of Atascadero, California hereby resolves as follows: 1. The Mayor is hereby authorized to execute an agreement with • Harold D. Peterson for the construction of 1993 Median Revisions Project. • 2. The City Manager is hereby authorized to make minor corrections or 9 Y modifications of a mathematical or clerical nature. 3. The Finance Director is hereby authorized to appropriate funds, if necessary; release and expend funds; and issue warrants to comply with the terms of this agreement. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Atascadero held on the of 1993. ATTEST: CITY OF ATASCADERO By: LEE RABOIN, City Clerk ROBERT P. NIMMO,',Mayor 000025 FISCAL IMPACT• The projected fiscal impact is as follows: Base Bid (Areas 1, 2 and 3) $ 33 , 282.00 Contingencies @ 10% 3 , 328 . 00 SUBTOTAL $ 36,610.20 Engineering, inspection and administration @ 14% $ 5, 125.43 TOTAL ESTIMATE $ 41,735.63 ATTACHMENTS: Resolution No. 112-93 Bid Summary anted Sheets Bid Item Exhibits Fire Department Letter Police Department Letter • • M:1RDC\91152M.CR 000024 BID SUMMARY MEDIAN RENOVATION - EL CAMINO REAL HAROLD D SANSONE A-JAY PETERSON COMPANY EXCAVATING BASE BID $ 33,282 .00 $ 40,807.00 $ 36,504. 60 ADDITIVE BID 12, 145.55 14,998.45 14,228.40 ALTERNATE BID 17,620.00 No Bid 20,400.00 • • N.\RDK\91152N.CR 000026 1 BID SHEET ( 61993 CITY OF ATASCADERO PROJECT: 1993 MEDIAN REVISIONS PROJECT - Bid No. TY CIERK'S OFFICE EL CAMINO REAL CITY OF ATASCADERO NAME OF BIDDER: Harold D. Peterson BUSINESS ADDRESS: 9005 El Camino Real Atascadero Ca, 93423 PHONE: 466-2840 RESIDENCE ADDRESS: 8515 E1 Dorado Atascadero Ca, 93423 PHONE: 466-0430 Bids are required for the entire work. Incidental items of work shall be incorporated into the most appropriate unit price bid • item and no additional compensation shall be made therefor. The amount of the Bid for comparison purposes will be the total of • all items. The total of unit basis items will be determined by multiplying the unit price bid by the estimated quantity set forth for the item. The Bidder shall set forth for each item of work, in clearly legible figures, a unit price and a total for the item in the respective spaces provided for this purpose. In the case of the unit basis items, the amount set forth under the "Total" column shall be the multiplication of the unit price bid by the estimated quantity of the item. The City reserves the right to reject all bids. • VARDC\BIDUST 000027 BASE BID - AREAS 1, AREA 2 AND AREA 3 Unit Total Item Item Unit of Estimated Price Price No Description Measure Quantity (Figures) (Figures) 1. Demolition/Remove LS LS 6,500.00 6,500.00 2 . Cold Mill A.C. SF 5, 340 1.00 5,340.00 3 . 6" Median Curb LF 140 23.00 3,220.00 ✓ 4. . 151 A.C. Overlay SF 6,880 0.90 6,192.00 ✓ 5. 3" A.C. Pavement SF 1,540 2.50 3,850.00 6. 12" Class II Base SF 1,540 1.50 2,310.00 7. New Sign EA 2 250.00. 500.00 ✓ 8. Relocate Sign EA 3 .150.00 450.00 9 Relocate K-1 Marker EA 3 40.00 120.00 • 10. Traffic Striping, Reflectors and . Traffic Marking LS LS 2,300.00 2,300.00 ✓ 11. Traffic Control LS LS 2,500.00 2,500.00 Base Bid Sum of Total Price Column $ 33.282.00 • 000028 M:\RDK\BIDLIST ADDITIVE BID Unit,' Total Item Item Unit of Estimated Price' Price No Description Measure Quantity (Figures) (Figures) 1. Demolition/Remove LS LS 2,000.00 2,000.00 2 . Cold Mill A.C. LF 2, 120 0.75 1,590.00 3 . . 15' A.C. Overlay SF 3,055 0.85 49fr.69-'y�q�•�S 4 . 3" A.C. Pavement SF 940 2.26 5. 12" Class II Base SF 940 1.26 1,-14 o `s' 4- 6. "6. New Sign EA 1 250.00 250.00 ✓ 7. Traffic Striping and Reflectors LF LS 650.00 650.00 8. Traffic Control LS LS 1,750.04 1,750.00 • Additive Bid Sum of Total Price Column $ 1-2-, -12,x.55 • M:\RDK\BIOLIST 000029 Prices for 1&2 only i. Drmo LS C 3,000.00 ( 2,000.00 8 2. Cold Mix 1660 sq. ft. C 2.00= $ 3,320.00 3. . 15 AC overlay 1660 sq. ft. C 2.00= $3,320.00 4. 120 LF PCC curb C 25.00= 3,000.00 5. 3" AC pavement 500 sq. ft. C 3.00 = 1,500.00 6. 12" Class 2 500 sq. ft. C 2.00 = 1;000.00 7. Relocate signs 2 RD C 150.00= 300.00 8. Relocate K-1 Marker 2 Ea C 40.00 = 80.00 9. Striping LS C 600.00= 600.00 10. Traffic LS C 1,500.00 1,500.00 $, 16,620.00 • • 000030 i D BID SHEET J 619M CITY OF ATASCADERO PROJECT: 1993 MEDIAN REVISIONS PROJECT - Bid o. CITY CLERK'S OFFICE EL CAMINO REAL CITY OF ATASCADERO NAME OF BIDDER: SW60"tE Co SNL. BUSINESS ADDRESS: To-'ZI F1uto 5w CA . q -6y o 1 PHONE: S-9 q- p(o 6 n RESIDENCE ADDRESS: SLIO PHONE: Bids are required for the entire work. Incidental items of work shall be incorporated into the most appropriate unit price bid • item and no additional compensation shall be made therefor. The amount of the Bid for comparison purposes will be the total of all items. The total of unit basis items will be determined by multiplying the unit price bid by the estimated quantity set forth for the item. The Bidder shall set forth for each item of work, in! clearly legible figures, a unit price and a total for the item in the respective spaces provided for this purpose. In the: case of the unit basis items, the amount set forth under the "Total" column shall be the multiplication of the unit price bid by the estimated quantity of the item. The City reserves the right to reject all bids. • M:\RDK\SIDI[ST 000031 7 BASE BID - AREAS 1, AREA 2 AND AREA 3 Unit Total Item Item Unit of Estimated Price Price No Description Measure Quantity (Figures) (Figures) 1. Demolition/Remove LS LS 2 . Cold Mill A.C. SF 5,340 ,�f s�1530q 3 . 6" Median Curb LF 140 `36 �S1�0 60 4. . 151 A.C. Overlay SF 6,880 5. 3" A.C. Pavement SF 1,540 Z y S 6. 12" Class II Base SF 1,540 Z Ud 7 . New Sign EA 2 1 Z5 8. Relocate Sign EA 3 `]s — ZZ cs 9. Relocate K-1 Marker EA 3 �-�"' `� — ✓ 10. Traffic Striping, _ Reflectors and Traffic Marking LS LS 2�-�(oho ^ Z� (�(a 11. Traffic Control LS LS Base Bid Sum of Total Price Column $ 000032 ADDITIVE BID Unit ' Total Item Item Unit of Estimated Price Price No Description Measure Quantity (Figures';) (Figures) 1. Demolition/Remove LS LS 32Zv """ �ZZU 2 . Cold Mill A.C. LF 2, 120 t V9? Zv 3. . 151 A.C. Overlay SF 3,055 O q� 30-Z4 14'6- 4. b4. 3" A.C. Pavement SF 940 ?y & p ✓ 5. 12" Class II Base SF 940 6. New Sign EA 1 'Z,,S _ ✓ 7. Traffic Striping and Reflectors LF LS 5d LA t;-fb 8. Traffic Control LS LS S Additive Bid Sum of Total Price Column $ Ia�.�l N '� i N:XRDMIDLIST 000033 ,. W 1 61993 BID SHEET C1noFarascaoERO CITY CLERK'S 0 ICE PROJECT: 1993 MEDIAN REVISIONS PROJECT - Bid No. 93-07 EL CAMINO REAL CITY OF ATASCADERO NAME OF BIDDER: A-JAY EXCAVATING, INC. BUSINESS ADDRESS: P.O. BOX 554 ATASCADERO, CA 93423 PHONE: (805) 466-0300 RESIDENCE ADDRESS: 740 BETHAL ROAD TEMPLETON, CA 93465 PHONE: (805) 466-0300 Bids are required for the entire work. Incidental items of work shall be incorporated into the most appropriate unit price bid item and no additional compensation shall be made therefor. The amount of the Bid for comparison purposes will be the total of all items. The total of unit basis items will be determined by multiplying the unit price bid by the estimated quantity set ,. forth for the item. The Bidder shall set forth for each item of work, in clearly legible figures, a unit price and a total for the item in the respective spaces provided for this purpose. In the case of the unit basis items, the amount set forth under the "Total" column shall be the multiplication of the unit price bid by the estimated quantity of the item. The City reserves the right to reject all bids. i i 000034 r:\RDK\81DL1ST ADDITIVE BID Unit' Total Item Item Unit of Estimated Price Price No Description Measure Quantity (Figures) (Figures) 1. Demolition/Remove LS LS 4,232.00 4,232.00✓ 2. Cold Mill A.C. Y,)' SF 2,120 .67 4: 1,420.40 ' 3 . . 151 A.C. Overlay SF 3,055 1.00 3,055.00 4 . 3" A.C. Pavement SF 940 2.30 2,162.00 ' 5. 12" Class II Base SF 940 2.10 1,974.001 6. New Sign EA 1 125.00 125.00 7. Traffic Striping and Reflectors LF LS 600.00 600.00✓ S. Traffic Control LS LS 660.00 660.00✓ Additive Bid Sum of Total Price Column $ 14,228.40 s i .:\aDKs,oLiST 000035 BASE BID - AREAS 1, AREA 2 AND AREA 3 Unit Total Item Item Unit of Estimated Price Price No Description Measure Quantity (Figures) (Figures) 1. Demolition/Remove LS LS 12,696.00 12,696.00 2 . Cold Mill A.C. SF 5,340 .67 c 3,577.80 3 . 6" Median Curb LF 140 13.07 -L'830100- 4 . 0100-4 . . 151 A.C. Overlay SF 6,880 1.00 6,880.00 ✓ 5. 3" A.C. Pavement SF 1,540 2.30 3,542.00 ✓ 6. 12" Class II Base SF 1,540 2.10 3,234.00- 7. ,234.00-7. New Sign EA 2 125.00 250.00 ✓ 8. Relocate Sign EA 3 80.00 240.00 9. Relocate K-1 Marker EA 3 25.00 75.00 ✓ 10. Traffic Striping, Reflectors and 2,200.00 2,200.00 Traffic Marking LS LS 11. Traffic Control LS LS 1,980.00 1,980.001/ Base Bid Sum of Total Price Column Alternate Bid Item # 1 & 2 $ 20,400.00 M:\R MIDIIST 0 0 0 0 3 6 ' 1 1 1 I 1 1• .y IZm I :gal I I �•m ' n m I 1 1 W U I I CO �p Q ' W G Q�� J QD Q w n D .�WI = Q o I o CO e I ,� Z �N O K E 1 :a: < w •W. � I O+ .SY N • 1 S n Ct) o� U vrn, Op I � tn ' V/ r' "3 o T ign Q sab � I — AdM3AIHG CA 08W0-100 st: W o - Z 00003'7 if t 13 IT, t ,31a8b�Nyg�, i �• I :,f W f,' Q 3-f 7 T i (yC t d ! 30NValN3 :iota b 3 00808 130 OHONV ca z ��• b ONValN3 H18ON z S ; t UONVW VINUO311VO !`l W f c G o Q w W CY) T, MOTUM : of ;Iw Q (ti _ LValN3 Hinos ;aONVW VINHOdI1V0 1 000038 00-13-93 15:19 Rtascadero City Fire Department 194 P01 1 ' CITY OF ATASCADER0 FIRE DEPARTMENT pest4t"brand fax transmittal MCM0 7671 I 8 w pope.• DATE: August 13, 1893 L TO: Richard D. Kilpatrick °'p'' -' wee � �. � �• �� FROM: Mike McCain, Fire Chief RE: MEDIAN- SOUTH EL CAMINO REAL Richard: I have spoken with the majority of firefighters who almost daily respond on South EI Camino Real and use the emergency access of the median, and to this date, there have been no negative comments regarding the median itself. Today I met with two representatives of the San Luis Ambulance Company and they stated that their company sees no problem with the median or emergency access; however, they rarely use it because the u-turn at the end of the median does not present a problem with their vehicle. However, boat firefighters and ambulance personnel have experienced many occasions in which they nearly lost control of their vehicles because of the road surface differences of the different lanes. I recommend this problem be corrected immediately. The trees could pose a problem in the future in the area of the emergency access, but at this time they do not. The median has not negatively affected medical or fire operations. P -m:5 CawJ Michael P. McCain, Fire Chief City of Atascadero 6005 LEWIS AVENUE • ATASCADERO CA 93422 • (805)461-5070 • FAX (805)461-0606 000039 POLICE SERVICE$ fI n psis a to CITY. OF ATASCADERO CADF�� August 13, 1993 North Coast Engineering, Inc. 715 24th. St. , Suite D Paso Robles CA - 93446 Attn: Mr. ' Richard D. Kilpatrick Dear Mr. Kilpatrick, You will recall that you requested a "listing of all accidents" occurring on: El Camino Real adjacent to ---the recently installed median , 'divider since completion of the project. As reported verbally to -you a few weeks ago,. this letter will confirm that there have been no- reported traffic collisions in the area of the median since the project was completed. Please contact us if you have additional questions relating to this matter. Sincerely, RICHARD H. McHALE CHIEF OF POLICE R.H. "BUD"ChW WHALE or PbNceao"- a 5505 EL CAMMO REAL • POST OFFICE sox 911 • ATASCADERO. CA 93423 00004( Cencro/Basusebs:SOS461-5051 • Administrative Services: 461-5053 • hitch Commander: 461-5055 9 Investigations:461-5058 • FAX:461-3702