Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet 01/14/1992 # FtRIC REVIEW COPY # ElEASE DQ NOT RENVE AGENDAFROM MUM ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL :REGULAR MEETING ATASCADERO ADMINISTRATION BUILDING 6500 PALMA FOURTH FLOOR, ROTUNDA ROOM JANUARY 14, 1992 7:00 P.M. This agenda is prepared and posted pursuant to the require- ments of Government Code Section 54954.2. By l.ist_�ng a topic on this agenda, the City Council has expressed its intent to discuss and act on each item. In addition to any action identified in the brief general description of each item, the action that may be tak- en shall include: A referral to staff with specific requests for information; continuance; specific direction 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, $isapproval Copies of, the staff reports or other documentation relating to each item of business referred to on the agenda are on file in the office of the City Clerk, available for public inspection during City Hall business hours. The City Clerk will answer; any questions regarding the agenda. RULES OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: * Members of the audience may speak on any item on the agenda. * A person may speak for five (5) minutes. * No one may speak for a second time until everyone wishing to speak has had an opportunity to do so * No one may speak more than twice on any item. * Council Members may question any speaker; the speaker may respond but, after the allotted time has expired, may not initiate further discussion. * The floor will then be closed to public participation and open for Council discussion. Call to Order Pledge of Allegiance Roll Call City Council Comments 1 COMMUNITY FORUM: The City Council values and encourages exchange of ,ideas and comments from you, the citizen. The Community Forum period is provided to receive comments from the public on matters other than scheduled agenda items. To increase the effectiveness of Community Forum, the following rules will be enforced: * A maximum of 30 minutes will be allowed for Community_Forum, unless Council authorizes an extension. * All remarks shall be addressed to Council, as a whole, and not to any individual member thereof. * No person <shall be permitted to make slanderous, profane or personal remarks against any Council Member, commissions and staff. A. COMMIT (The following represent ad hoc or standing committees. Informative status reports will be given, as felt necessary. ) : 1. S.L.O. Area Coordinating Council/Worth Coastal Transit 2. Solid/Hazardous Waste Management Committee 3. Recycling Committee 4. Economic Opportunity Commission 5. City/School Committee 6. Traffic Committee - 7. County Water Advisory Board 8. Economic Round Table 9. B.I.A. 10. Colony Roads Committee B. CONSENT CALENDAR: All matters listed`under Item B, Consent Calendar, are consid- ered to be routine, and will be enacted by one motion in the form listed below,. There will be no separate discussion on these items. A member of the Council or public may, by request, have any item removed from the Consent Calendar, which shall then be reviewed and acted upon separately after the adoption of the Consent Calendar: 1. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES `- ;NOVEMBER 26, 1991 2. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - DECEMBER 10, 1991 3. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - DECEMBER 19, 1991 (Special Meeting) 4. CONSOLIDATED CITY TREASURER'S REPORT - NOVEMBER) 1991 2 S. FINAL TRACT MAP 23-90, 9313 MUSSELMAN - Subdivision of one existing lot intoeightairspace condominiums and a common area (Smith/Cuesta Engineering) 6. FINAL PARCEL MAP 12-89, 10785 EL CAMINO REAL Subdivision of 10.0 acres .into four lots Two lots at `2.0 act. , one lot at 1.0 ac. , and one lot at 5.. 0 ac. (Columbo) 7. FINAL PARCEL MAP 8--91, 7605 MORRO ROAD Creation of commer- cial condominium project consisting of six airspace units for professional/medical office use (Golden West Development) 8. , FINAL TRACT MAP 22-90, 9305 'MUSSELMAN AVE. Coinversion of an existing nine-unit multiple family project i.ntl airspace con- dominiums (Shahan/North Coast Engineering) 9. JOINT BOARD OF SUPERVISORS/CITY COUNCILS MEETING - FEBRUARY 1, 1992 10. ATASCADERO COMMUNITY 'SERVICES FOUNDATION, INC. e BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEMBERSHIP 11. PROPOSAL BY THE S.L.O. COUNTY ZOOLOGICAL SOCIETY TO PREPARE A MASTER PLAN FOR THE CHARLES PADDOCK Z06, 12. RISK MANAGEMENT REPORT - QUARTER ENDING DECEMB R 31, 1991 13. RESOLUTION NO. 03-92 - DECLARING INTENTION TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF MENTAL HEALTH TO CONSTRUCT ROAD IMPROVEMENTS ALONG Al PORTION OF ,EL CAMINO REAL C. HEARINGS/APPEARANCES: 1. 3-F MEADOWS ASSESSMENT DISTRICT u n Request Council direction on how to proceed A. Report from Asst. City Attorney Mary R. Glayle B. Assessment district formation - Discussion 2. URGENCY ORDINANCE NO. 237 - `AMENDING THE ZONIAG ORDINANCE BY ESTABLISHING A DEFINITION FOR RECYCLING CENTERS AND PROVIDING STANDARDS FOR THEIR DEVELOPMENT (City Council-Initiated - A15 vote required) (Recommend motion to waive reading in full and adopt on single reading by title only) (Cont'd from 12/10/91) ; 3 s 3. OFFER TO PURCHASE REAL PROPERTY A. Resolution No. 02-92 (formerly Res. No. 105-911 - Finding and determining that the public interest, convenience and .necessity require. the acquisition of certain real proper- ty for public purposes ,as a part of the rounding out of Atascadero Lake Park (Guidry (Lake Park) ) (Cont'd from 11/12/91) D. REGULAR BUSINESS 1. GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT: CONSIDERATION OF GENERAL PLAN UPDATE OF PROPOSED LAND USE, CONSERVATION AND OPEN SPACE ELEMENTS and FINAL MIRQNMENTAiL IMPACT REPORT (Cont'd from 12/19/91) A. Resolution No. 01-92 (formerly Res. No 107-91), - Approving the adoption of updated Land Use, Conservation and Open Space Elements of the City's General Plan (City of Atascadero) 2. ORDINANCE RO. 235 ADDING CHAPTER 8, "WATERWAY INTRUSIONS", TO TITLE 5 OF THE ATASCADERO MUNICIPAL CODE, PROHIBITING: SPEC- IFIED ACTIVITIES IN ATASCADERO CREEK, GRAVES` CREEK AND THE SALINAS RIVER (Recommend motion to waive reading in full and adopt on`second reading by title only) (Cont'd from 12/10/91) 3. HOMELESS SHELTER TASK FORCE - Consideration of request to create a task force to advise on possible use of the Armory as a 'homeless shelter 4 DEDICATION PLAQUE POLICY E. INDIVIDUAL DETERMINATION AND.IOR ACTION.- 1. CTION:1. City Council 2. City Attorney 3. City Clerk 4. City Treasurer 5 City Manager * NOTICE: THE COUNCIL WILL ADJOURN TO A CLOSED SESSION FOR PURPOSES OF DISCUSSION REGARDING PENDING LITIGATION, ENTITLED O'KEEFE v. CITY OF ATASCADERO HELD PURSUANT TO GOVERN- MENT CODE SECTION 54956(a). 4 • Agenda Item: B-1 Meeting Date: 01/14/92 ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL NOVEMBER 26, 1991 MINUTES Mayor Shiers called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. and led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL: Present: Councilmembers Nimmo, Lilley, Borgeson, Dexter and Mayor Shiers Absent: None Also Present: Muriel "Micki" Rorba, City Treasurer and Lee Raboin, City Clerk Staff Present: Ray Windsor, City Manager; Henry Engen, Community Development Director; Art Montandon, City Attorney; Mark Joseph, Administrative Services Director; Bud McHale, Police Chief COUNCIL COMMENTS: Councilman Dexter stated that the Salvation Army "Christmas Ring would begin soon and announced that volunteers were needed. Councilwoman Borgeson commented on the following subjects: She acknowledged efforts by Georgia Ramirez, Administrative Secretary, in coordinating the City' s volunteer program and mentioned that the City was benefitting greatly from these services. She asked that the Council formally recognize Ms. Ramirez ' s achievement by presenting her with a certificate or plaque. Councilwoman Borgeson indicated she had received calls from the public about the Council agenda packet at the public library. She emphasized the importance of timely delivery by City staff. Councilwoman Borgeson also stated that she had received a call from a parent of a member of the Atascadero "Greyhounds" CC11/26/91 Page 1 Uig 000 c football team who had asked if the City would be willingto put on a celebration for the squad if they win the C.I.F. Championship. In addition, Councilwoman Borgeson reported that she had talked with a creekside property owner on Santa Ynez Avenue about the cutting down of willows and other plant materials in the creek. She asked staff to look into the matter and respond. COMMUNITY FORUM: Harvey Levenson, 7570 Balboa Road, asked when it would be appropriate to speak on the city-wide smoking issue. The mayor indicated that testimony would be received on this matter under agenda item #D-1. Melissa Meyers, 11-year old resident of Atascadero, presented a petition (on file with the City Clerk) signed by students at the San Gabriel Elementary School concerned about the effects of second-hand smoke and requesting a city-wide smoking ban. Anne Melvin asked the mayor when she could present a petition to the Council. Mayor Shiers indicated that she could elect to submit it under item #D-1 or keep it for continued circulation. A. COMMITTEE REPORTS (The following represent ad hoc or standing committees. Informative status reports were given, as follows. ) : 1. S.L.O. Area Coordinating Council/North Coastal Transit - Councilwoman Borgeson reported the next meeting would be on December 4, 1991 in San Luis Obispo in the Board of Supervisors' Chambers. 2. Recycling Committee Mayor Shiers reported that the committee had met and discussed issues of concern including expanding curbside recycling services to the commercial sector. 3. Economic Opportunity Commission - Councilman Dexter reported that the board had met and received a status report on the homeless shelter. He also noted that the EOC had successfully completed an audit and had elected two board members who would represent those with low incomes. 4. City/School Committee - Councilman Dexter reported that the committee had met on November 21, 1991. Bob Carr, representing the Air Pollution Control Board, made a CC11/26/91 Page 2 00 OM • presentation and the committee discussed issues relating to bussing and the budget. He announced that the next meeting would be on February 20, 1992. 5. Downtown Interim Sign Committee - Councilman Lilley reported that the committee had fulfilled its, responsibilities and requested permission to disband. Gratitude was expressed to Councilman Lilley, the committee members and to Robert Malone, Assistant Planner, for his artistic contributions. It was moved, seconded and carried to disband the Downtown Sign Committee. 6. County Water Advisory Board - Councilwoman Borgeson reported that the next meeting was scheduled for December 4, 1991. 7. Economic Round Table —Councilman Lilley reported that members of the committee were finalizing reports at the request of the Council and that those reports would be presented by the first of the new year. B. CONSENT CALENDAR: Mayor Shiers read the Consent Calendar, as follows: • 1. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - OCTOBER 22, 1991 2. - CONSOLIDATED TREASURER'S REPORT - OCTOBER, 1991 3. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 17-89, 7550 CORTEZ ROAD - Request for time extension on subdivision of 6.25 acres into four lots (Barrett) 4. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 14-87, 9505 EL CAMINO REAL - Request for time extension on subdivision of 5.5 acres into eight lots, of which two will be further subdivided into commercial condomin- ium units (Hendrix/Westland Engineering) 5. DIRECT CITY CLERK TO ADVERTISE BOARD OF APPEALS VACANCIES (2) 6. RESOLUTION NO. 106-91 - AUTHORIZING ACCESS TO SALES AND USE TAX RECORDS PURSUANT TO REVENUE AND TAXATION CODE SECTION 7056 7. RESOLUTION 108-91 - AUTHORIZING THE SUBMITTAL OF A FUEL EFFICIENT TRAFFIC SIGNAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM (FETSM) GRANT APPLICATION Councilwoman Borgeson asked that item #B-2 be pulled for comments. CC11/26/91 Page 3 00 002 MOTION: By Councilman Lilley, seconded by Councilman Dexter to approve the Consent Calendar with the exception of item #B-2; motion carried 5:0 by roll call vote. Re: Item #B-2. CONSOLIDATED TREASURER'S REPORT - OCTOBER, 1991 Councilwoman Borgeson asked staff for clarification of revenues from property taxes and from gas tax receipts, noting that revenues were down 21% while expenditures were up 7%. In addition, she pointed out that major capital expenditures were up 54.9% and asked if it was because of construction costs related the Lake Park Pavilion. Mark Joseph, Administrative Services Director, confirmed that the increase in major capital expenditures was indeed due to construction of the Pavilion. He explained that most of the increase in gas tax receipts was due to Proposition 111, a bond issue passed a couple of years ago, and were revenues accrued to date. Mr. Joseph reported that property tax increases resulted from increased assessment of homes. He added that staff had just distributed a financial status report through the end of October, 1991, targeting specifically the General Fund. Councilman Lilley indicated that the decrease in revenues from sales tax and bed tax is an issue that needs to be seriously addressed. MOTION: By Councilwoman Borgeson, seconded by Councilman Lilley to approve Consent Calendar item #B-2; motion unanimously carried. C. HEARINGS/APPEARANCES: 1. LOCAL UNMET TRANSIT AND BIKEWAY NEEDS HEARING Greg Luke, Public Works Director, introduced Mike Harmon from the San Luis Obispo Area Coordinating Council who provided background for the hearing. Mr. Harmon reported that State law requires the County to hold an unmet transit and bikeway needs hearing and that the county-wide hearing had been set for December 4, 1991 at 1:30 p.m. in the Board of Supervisors' Chambers. He noted that this hearing was to facilitate citizen input on any transit or bicycle facilities deficiencies and that he was prepared to take comments back to the Area Council. Councilman Lilley questioned the need for the hearing indicating that citizens of Atascadero have already voiced concerns relating to "Safe Pathways to School" and bikeway needs. He stated that those comments have already been forwarded to the Area Council by CC11/26/91 Page 4 00 003 • staff and by the Council representative to SLOACC, Councilwoman Borgeson. Councilwoman Borgeson remarked that she strongly supported the local hearing. Mayor Shiers remarked that he had received two telephone calls regarding the lack of public transportation on weekends and for travel to and from City Council meetings. Public Comment: Eric Greening, 7365 Valle, read a prepared statement (see Exhibit A) and protested the date selected for the county-wide unmet transit needs hearing because it conflicted with the Water Advisory Board meeting also scheduled for December 4th. He pointed out that this would mean that Councilwoman Borgeson and a council representative from another city would have to miss one or the other of two very important meetings. In addition, Mr. Greening provided suggestions for improving services on Route 9. ---End of Public Testimony--- Council questions followed. Councilwoman Borgeson asked the Public Works Director for a status report on the widening of Portola Road. Mr. Luke indicated that the road had been surveyed and explained • that once the base maps have been completed, road construction design will begin. He projected that in the Spring, letters would be sent out to residents to inform them of possible improvements to the road. Responding to inquiry from Councilman Nimmo, he reported that staff could clearly identify those parcelson Portola with encroachment rights and where there may be problems with road rights-of-way. Discussion then ensued regarding "Safe Pathways to School" and bikeways, and their related funding sources. Mr. Harmon reported that there are significant funds available for bikeways from the passage of Proposition 116 and noted that SLOACC encourages cities to identify potential projects throughout the County. Councilman Lilley asked whether Prop. 116 funds could be used for pedestrian purposes. Mr. Harmon was not able to answer that question, but promised to get back to staff with a response. Mr. Luke explained that TDA (Transit Development Act) Funds were to 1) finance transit needs and 2) if there are monies left over, fund the repaving of City roads. Councilwoman Borgeson stated that the purpose of TDA funds was to get autos off the road to ensure clean air and asserted that the policy of "Safe Paths to School" was a different topic. • CC11/26/91 Page 5 00 0114 D. REGULAR BUSINESS: • 1. ORDINANCE NO. 235 - AMENDING TITLE 6, CHAPTER 6 OF THE ATAS- CADERO MUNICIPAL CODE REGULATING SMOKING IN CITY FACILITIES (Recommend motion to waive reading in full and approve on first reading by title only) Ray Windsor, City Manager, introduced the topic and recapped action taken by the Council on October 22, 1991. He indicated that staff had acted upon Council direction and was bringing back for adoption a revised "No Smoking ordinance relating to City owned and operated facilities. Mr. Windsor also reported that staff had submitted a request for grant funds under the California Smoke-Free Cities Program and results of the award would be divulged in December. Mayor Shiers apologized to the public for confusion about when testimony would be heard on the issue of a city-wide smoking ban. He emphasized that the present ordinance before the -Council was regulating smoking in City facilities only and that Council wished to postpone any further action until results of the grant application have been received. He announced that he would open the floor for comments following Council remarks. Council discussion followed regarding proposed language in Section 6-6.01(d) . Councilman Nimmo opposed the wording; Councilwoman Borgeson stated that she believed it was not necessary; Councilman • Dexter and Councilman Lilley agreed that the language could be deleted as long as all other verbiage remained; Mayor Shiers indicated that he supported the proposed subsection. Public Comments: Harvey Levenson, 7570 Balboa, read a prepared statement (see Exhibit B) in support of rigid legislation to abolish smoking in Atascadero. Sandy Taborski, co-owner of Atascadero Travel, voiced strong opposition to banning smoking in private businesses. Anne Melvin, 10005 Old Morro Road East, submitted a citizen petition of over 600 names (filed with the City Clerk) in support of a "No Smoking" ordinance in all public buildings. Eric Greening commented that he favored a city-wide smoking ban. He also mentioned that he supported legislature regulating cigarette machines because of their easy access to the community' s youth. Janet Stecher, 9090 LaLinia, spoke representing the American Lung CC11/26/91 is 6 00 004 Association. She presented to Council a article entitled, Passive • Tobacco Smoke and Protecting the Nonsmoker (copy on file with the City Clerk) and urged Council to adopt a comprehensive ordinance banning smoking in public areas. Nancy Hyman, 10760 Colorado Road, indicated that she was speaking for those with sensitive airways (she has a son who suffers from asthma) and urged the passage of a smoking ban. John Cole, 8710 Sierra Vista Road, shared concern for the health of the people and encouraged the Council to consider a city-wide ordinance regulating smoking. Whitey Thorpe, 8025 Santa Ynez, indicated that although he favored the restrictions proposed for City buildings, he could not support an all-out ban. He pointed out that without the aid of laws, many restaurants -were- already dealing with the issue on their own. Donna Huff, Atascadero resident, stated that she was a non-smoker who supports the rights of both smokers and non-smokers. She declared that there are no harmful affects of second-hand smoke and objected to regulating smoking in public areas. Tom Bench, 7503 Carmelita Avenue, remarked that while he had no objection to regulating smoking in City facilities, he opposed governing private businesses. He stated that the matter should be brought to the. vote of the people in the June 1992 election. Russ Kolmaine, Atascadero resident, observed that there have been no massive violations in local restaurants and stores. He stated that he was against a city-wide ban because it could not be enforced. Marty Kudlac, 4740 Del Rio Road, debated the effects of second-hand smoke and circulated to Council a statement and a number of articles in support (filed with the City Clerk) of his argument. He contended that he was opposed to the City' s application for grant funds and a city-wide ban. Micki Korba, City Treasurer, remarked that she had carried a petition and could attest to the fact that there is concern in the community about exposure to second-hand smoke. She proclaimed that non-smokers have the right to breathe clean air. ----End of Public Testimony---- Councilwoman Borgeson suggested that proposed language in Section 6-6.01(d) be deleted and in its, place inserted the following: "Whereas the Surgeon General' s report on involuntary smoking states that there are proven health hazards from involuntary smoking by CC11/26/91 Page 7 00 006 non-smokers. " There was consensus that this amendment was • acceptable. MOTION: By Councilman Dexter, seconded by Mayor Shiers to waive the reading of Ordinance No. 235 in full; motion carried unanimously. MOTION: By Councilwoman Borgeson, seconded by Councilman Lilley to approve Ordinance No. 235 on first reading, as amended; motion carried 5:0 by roll call vote. Council discussion followed regarding the wider issue of a smoking ban. Councilman Dexter indicated that he preferred to gather as much information as possible and wait for the results of the grant application before taking action. He commented that if grant funds are available to the City, he would hope that they could be used for educational programs targeted to the youth. Councilwoman Borgeson reported that if the City were to receive the grant award, the funds would be used to survey the entire community and asserted that it would not be a long, laborious effort. She stated she was prepared to wait for the results and proceed from there, adding she hoped that the matter could be dealt with before the June election. Mayor Shiers commented that he favored the use of grant funds for educational purposes. Councilman Lilley commented that he hoped the community would, in addition to protecting employees and the public, voluntarily refrain from smoking around children. He spoke in favor of providing educational programs without violating individual rights. Councilman Nimmo asked for clarification of how the funds, if received, are to be used. Mark Joseph reported that the program objective was to reduce public smoking and the bulk of the funds would go toward a community assessment of what the public will accept in terms of legislature and for educational materials. Councilwoman Borgeson remarked that the Council would need to look closely at the perimeters of the grant. She added that any survey conducted should be concise and clear cut. Councilman Nimmo voiced objection to the grant application because he believed it would add "fuel to the fire Mayor Shiers called a break at 9:15 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 9:40 p.m. CC11/26/91 Page 8 00 007 • 2. ORDINANCE NO. 236 - ADDING CHAPTER 8, "WATERWAY INTRUSIONS", TO TITLE 7 OF THE ATASCADERO MUNICIPAL CODE (Prohibiting certain specified uses in creekways) (Recommend motion to waive reading in full and approve on first reading by title only) The City Manager introduced the item and noted a couple of amendments staff was requesting, as follows: ( 1) In Section 5- 8. 02(c) , the addition of the words, "fill material". (2) In Section 5-8.03(a) , change "recreational" to "private". In addition, Mr. Windsor pointed out that staff was in favor of including the Salinas River despite additional enforcement. Councilman Nimmo voiced opposition to language proposed in Section 5-8.03 (c) , (d) & (e) . He stressed that he did not want to restrict the rights of a property owner to build on their own lot. He also stated that he would not want to prohibit creekside development in the downtown. Councilman Lilley shared similar concerns and suggested that subsections 5-8.03 (c) , (d) & (e) be deleted. Henry Engen reported that staff is currently working on other issues relating to the creek which may overlap with what was being proposed in the draft ordinance. He suggested that Council may wish to defer this matter. Councilwoman Borgeson criticized the proposed ordinance and asserted that it does not address the issues Council wanted it to. She added that it was imperative that a definition for "riparian corridor" be agreed upon. Councilman Nimmo indicated that he was having second thoughts about the matter and suggested that addressing the riparian corridor was premature. Councilwoman Borgeson. agreed. Public Comments: Sarah Gronstrand, 7620 Del Rio Road, voiced opposition to the draft ordinance. She stated that there was no indication of where the riparian corridor begins or ends. Russ Rolemaine cautioned the Council to take a prudent approach and postpone making a decision on the ordinance. He pondered about seasonal streams and how they would be addressed and asked what would happen to the amount of land one has to use once the riparian zone and setbacks have been established. Whitey Thorpe proclaimed that outlawing animals in and around the waterways will not retain the "rural" atmosphere of the community. He asked the Council to make a decision about whether Atascadero is CC11/26/91 Page 9 00 008 to be "rural" or "city" . Eric Greening stated that he supported forbidding motorized vehicles and dumping in the creeks and suggested that other proposed prohibitions be delayed for now. Mr. Greening urged that the Council include Pine Mountain as an area in which vehicles are outlawed. ----End of Public Testimony---- Individual Council comments and suggestions followed. Councilman Lilley proposed that a subcommittee be formed to revise the ordinance and offered to serve on it. Councilwoman Borgeson voiced support and also volunteered to be a member on the subcommittee. There was agreement on this approach. The City Manager suggested that the committee be comprised of Councilman Lilley and Councilwoman Borgeson, Greg Luke, Art Montandon, Henry Engen, Kelly Heffernon and himself. A meeting date was set for Monday, December 2, 1991. 3. ORDINANCE NO. 234 - AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT TO ALLOW AWNINGS AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO CONVENTIONAL SIGNS IN THE DOWNTOWN ZONES (Zone Change 10-91) (Recommend motion to waive reading in full and approve on second reading by title only) Mayor Shiers reported that Ordinance No. 234 was back for second reading. Councilwoman Borgeson indicated that she was opposed to the mandated use of the color green for the awning canopies, but added that with that one exception, she thought the ordinance was excellent. Mayor Shiers pointed out that the downtown merchants had agreed on the color and added that he was in support of adopting the ordinance. There were no additional Council comments or public testimony. MOTION: By Councilman Dexter, seconded by Mayor Shiers to approve and adopt Ordinance No. 234 on second reading; motion unanimously passed by roll call vote. 4. LETTER FROM COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR REQUESTING JOINT BOARD OF SUPERVISORS/CITY COUNCILS MEETING The City Manager reported that staff had called several communities in the County to see what reaction they had to the joint meeting and noted that those contacted shared a lukewarm response. MS CC11/26/91 Page 10 00 01►5 commented that he thought it was asking quite a bit to expect every councilmember from every city to meet at the same time. Council- woman Borgeson remarked that the suggested discussion topics were issues already being addressed at Mayors/City Managers meetings and the Area Council. By consensus, Council agreed that the City Manager would draft a letter for the mayor's signature to the County Administrator notifying him that there was little interest in a joint meeting as was being proposed. E. INDIVIDUAL DETERMINATION AND/OR ACTION: 1. City Council Mayor Shiers reported that he had attended the most recent Mayors/City Managers meeting at which topics discussed included possible changes in cable television, emergency medical services and regional planning. 2. City Attorney Art Montandon reported that he was back on duty after a brief leave. He indicated that the Assistant City Attorney, Mary Gayle, would continue working on several issues including Colony roads. • MOTION: By Councilman Dexter, seconded by Councilwoman, Borgeson to adjourn the meeting; motion carried unanimously. MINUTES RECORDED AND PREPARED BY: LEE RABOIN, City Clerk Attachments: Exhibit A - Greening Exhibit B - Levenson CC11/26/91 • Page 11 00 (11.0 CC11/26/01 EXHIBIT A Testimony given at the Unmet Transit Needs Hearing in Atascadero, California, November 26th, 1991, by Eric Greening, 7365 Valle Ave. Atascadero, CA, 93422: I'd like to thank the Area Co-Ordinating Council's representative(s) for coming to Atascadero, and I'd like to thank whoever in our city is responsible for seeing that this item got on our agenda, thereby giving local citizens the opportunity to voice our needs without travelling to San Luis Obispo or reshuffling our daytime obligations to attend the countywide hearing. Before going on to the substance of my transit-related remarks, however, I do have to voice a strong protest regarding the scheduling of the countywide hearing. According to the notice I received, it is set for 1:30 pm on Wednesday, December 4th. This scheduling forces two members of the Area-CoOrdinating Council to miss a very improtant obligation, because they can't be two places at once. The meeting of the Water Advisory Board, on which our delegate Borgeson, as well as Grover City's delegate Comstock, serve, is set for exactly the same date and time. No matter which of these conflicting meetings these delegates choose to attend, they will be forced into the serious negligence of missing the other. I don't need to tell you how important the Unmet Transit Needs hearing is. The Water Advisory; Board meeting occurring at the same time will be facing what may be the most im- portant decision ever to face this county: what recommendations to give our Coun- ty Supervisors regarding their response to the contracts for the State Water Project that will soon be before them. The date and time of the Water Advisory Board meeting have been public knowledge for a month. Why was no effort made to discover and avoid this con- flict? If it is not too late, I'd hope the countywide hearing before the Area Co-Or- dinating Council could be rescheduled. Given the short notice, that may not be possible, but please, never make such a mistake again! I'd like to add a personal plea to our delegate Borgeson that if the Unmet Needs hearing cannot be resche- duled she should forego it; her ears are needed there, but can be extended after the fact by listening to tapes and reading written testimony from the hearing. It is her voice that is needed at the Water Advisory Board, and that has to be immediately and personally present to have any effect at all. Now to transit issues: the improvements on Route 9 are very welcome, and take a lot of the pressure off the runs that were over capacity. It is now rare for a Route 9 bus to have standees, but still not unheard-of. The two runs that are likely to have standees soonest as patronage continues to grow are the early morning south- bound local, and the northbound local that leaves San Luis Obispo around 4:00. It is noteworthy that both these buses are locals. I strongly urge that, for the foreseeable future, all new buses added be locals that make all stops. For most people, the travel time from origin to destination is shorter on a local because less time need be spent getting to the nearest stop. For the express service, many pa- trons drive to the stop, minimizing the beneficial effect transit use has on air quali- ty. A commuter who drives to and from the bus stop goes through the same two "cold starts" that an over-the-hill commuter does, and in the case of the bus com- muter, both the cold starts are here in Atascadero. At least these commuters' cars are not adding to congestion over the Grade. 00 (01 • Once the runs I have just described surpass capacity, my suggestion would be to add new local runs about 30 minutes later southbound (leave Atascadero City Hall about 7:30) and 30 minutes earlier northbound (Leave San Luis Obispo about 3:25). Most of the students could then use these runs. These could be called extensions of existing needs--fine-tuning of service alrea- dy used and useful, to make it more responsive. The unmet needs on Route 9 fit into three categories: evening service, weekend service, and "reverse commute" service. What I mean by "reverse commute" is a northbound morning run and south- bound evening run that allow people who work north of their homes--San Luis Obispans or Santa Margaritans who work in Atascadero, or Atascaderans who work in Templeton or Paso Robles--to put in a full day before catching the bus home. Anyone who is on the Grade during commute hours can see that the "re- verse" flow is almost as significant as the flow the bus already swims in. Evening service northbound would allow North County residents to linger in San Luis Obispo for meetings, cultural events, night classes, or Farmers' Market without having to drive the grade in the dark, and would extend that access to those who don't drive. If startup funds are limited, perhaps a pilot run could go Thurs- day evenings only, to capture the Farmers'Martket trade and gauge the response to evening service in general. Weekend service could add a branch to the route to bring people from Paso and SLO--and outlying parts of Atascadero--to our Lake and Zoo. All runs northbound and southbound could turn west at Santa Rosa and circle the lake clockwise (to • allow right turns at Morro Road), including a stop near the Zoo. They could then return to El Camino via Santa Rosa and resume the regular route. An added bonus of such a configuration is that visitors from SLO who have spent time at the Zoo and Lake (soon to include the Pavilion) could end their Atascadero stay with dinner at El Toro or the Golden China or another of our fine Atascadero restaurants while the bus chugged up to Paso Robles and back for its last southbound run. Or if the last bus was northbound, visitors from places to our north could enjoy this option. Depending on the schedule, this sort of option might also work at lunchtime. One final thought on a more general topic: most weekdays, countywide, hum died of buses are mobilized and penetrate to every comer of the county. They exist for one purpose: taking kids to school. Tenuous school finance put this ser- vice at risk in Atascadero recently, a situation that got me to thinking: is it necessa- ry for every school district to invest funds in maintaining a bus system at the ex- pense of classroom amenities and a healthier staff-to-student ratio? Or could the school diustaricts pool their resources with public transit agencies to provide broa- der, more comprehensive service accessible to everyone? I have no knowledge of how such a system would pan out, whether the economics of scale could save both the districts and the public transit agencies money, what would become of the cur- rent stock of school buses (would non-kids condescend to ride them?)--in short, I have far more questions than answers, but they are questions that need to be asked, because they could potentially lead to addressing unmet needs in all age groups of our population! Thank you, 00 (► t 2 4 CC11/26/91 EXHIBIT B POSITION PAPER ON LEGISLATION TO REGULATE SMOKING IN ATASCADERO "The best way to keep people from smoking is to stop them from starting" said San Luis Obispo's Health Director Dr. George Rowland in a November 23-24, 1991 Telegram-Tribune article. I contend that the best way to stop people from starting to smoke is to eliminate the influences that encourage smoking. Some of these influences include the availability of cigarette machines, smoking in public places--whether indoors or outdoors. The City of San Luis Obispo had the right idea in enacting the nation's toughest non-smoking ban. San Luis Obispo is now a model for other cities to follow and is lauded nationally by individuals and health groups concerned with the health and welfare of all citizens but particularly children and young adults who have not yet become addicted to nicotine. Atascadero can receive similar acclaim by approving the regulation of smoking in city facilities, and more importantly by following-up with regulation of smoking • indoors and outdoors. The abolishment of smoking on public grounds (outdoors) would have the added result of less litter from cigarette butts. The abolishment of smoking in public places should include City facilities, businesses, restaurants, and places of recreation, and particularly those frequented by children and young adults such as the bowling alley. The bowling alley, which is the hub of activities for many of Atascadero's youth, is probably the city's most polluted indoor public environment resulting from "secondhand" smoke. Claims that smokers will not attend public and recreational facilities that prohibit smoking are unfounded. For example, movie theaters have not allowed smoking for decades and smokers continue to fly even though they may no longer smoke on airlines. These examples are merely a few showing that people learn to cope and that social reforms for the good of the population are rarely as difficult to adapt to as some may initially believe they will be. No smoking legislation is the trend of our times and will continue to be enacted on a more rigid bases in cities across the nation. Such 00 013 • legislation represents progress in social improvements and in enhancing the quality of life for the citizens of our nation. History shows us that progress to improve the public's welfare cannot be stopped in the United States. It can be inhibited or slowed down but eventually it breaks through. No smoking legislation will occur nationwide, throughout the state of California, and in Atascadero. realize that today's agenda deals exclusively with the issue of smoking in City facilities. However, I urge City Council to enact rigid legislation to abolish smoking in Atascadero. Let it happen now so all facets of our community can begin working as soon as possible to cope with a smoke-free environment. Let Atascadero be on the cutting edge of creating the most healthy environment possible for its citizens. More importantly, let Atascadero show its community and others that it will make every effort possible to create an environment that minimizes inducing children and young adults to smoke. • Harvey R. Levenson Citizen of Atascadero November 26, 1991 00 MEETING AGENDA DA 1 14 92 REM# B-2w • ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES December 10, 1991 The Special Session was commenced at 6:30 p.m. Roll Call: Present: Councilmembers Borgeson, Dexter, Lilley and Mayor Shiers Absent: Councilman Nimmo Staff: Ray Windsor, City Manager, Henry Engen, Community Development Director; Greg Luke, Public Works Director; Mark Joseph, Administrative Services Director; Steve DeCamp, City Planner; Cindy Wilkins, Deputy City Clerk. FISCAL IMPACT MODEL DEMONSTRATION: Consultants of Crawford, Multari & Starr provided a brief overview • of the Fiscal Impact Model and demonstrated some of its capabi- lities. Examples of commercial and residential projects were simulated, reviewed and discussed with Council. Mayor Shiers called the Regular Session to order at 7:10 p.m. and apologized for the delay, which was due to the presentation of the Fiscal Impact -Model. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. Roll Call: Present: Councilmembers Borgeson, Dexter, Lilley and Mayor Shiers Absent: Councilman Nimmo Also Present: Micki Korba, City Treasurer Staff: Ray Windsor, City Manager; Mark Joseph, Dir. of Administrative Services; Henry Engen; Dir. of Community Development; Greg Luke, Dir. of Public Works; Art Montandon, City Attorney; Lt. Bill Watton, Police Dept. ; Andy Takata, Dir. of Com- munity Services; Cindy Wilkins, Deputy City Clerk. 00 W S COUNCIL COMMENTS: • Councilman Dexter thanked the public for the approx. $5, 000 which has been donated thus far to the Salvation Army during its bell- ringing drive. He invited persons interested in volunteering for bellringing to contact him. Councilwoman Borgeson congratulated the Atascadero High Greyhounds football team on a champions' effort in last week's CIF game, despite the absence of three starting team members, who were unable to play due to injuries sustained in a vehicle accident prior to the game. The coaching staff and team were congratulated on a fine season. • Presentation to employees Georgia Ramirez and Officer Ren Spann regarding City's Volunteer Program Mayor Shiers presented the above employees with City watches in recognition of their efforts in coordinating the City's RSVP Program. It was noted that the RSVP Board of Directors recently recognized the program at the Atascadero Police Dept. as the best volunteer work site in the County. The amount of volunteer time to date equates to two full-time positions, representing an annual savings of approx. $60,000. COMMUNITY FORUM: Ray Jansen, 6655 Country Club Dr. , read a letter-to-the-editor, S , dated 12/2/91 (Exh. A, attached) , which expresses his convictions in opposition to the Highway 41 Realignment and urges the public to petition the City Council to remove it from the General Plan. Richard Bastian, 6225 Conejo Rd. , expressed opposition to the creek setback ordinance, feeling it would infringe on private properties; he urged Council to consider comments in support of as well as in opposition to the proposed 50' setback. Steve Pixley, 4575 Arizona Ave. , read a prepared statement, dated 12/10/91 (Exh. B, attached) , appealing City zoning enforcement action against him and three other residents on* Arizona for rec- reational vehicles parked in violation of the Municipal Code. Richard Standon, 4550 Arizona Ave. , also spoke in opposition to being cited for illegally parking an RV on that street. He .indicated that he has since counted numerous RV' s parked in the same general area. ccl2/10/91 Page 2 00 016 Councilmember Borgeson requested copies of the complaints from the • residents on Arizona for Council to review. A. COMMITTEE REPORTS (The following represents ad hoc or standing committees. Informative status reports will be given, as felt necessary. ) : 1. S.L.O. Area Coordinating Council/North Coastal Transit: Councilwoman Borgeson reported that meetings were held on December 4th. She noted that the SLOACC Unmet Needs Hearing was lengthy and informative; there were many requests for additional bikeways. The SLOACC work program and budget as concerns transit funding formulas were reviewed. A budget subcommittee was formed, to which she was appointed, and it meets tomorrow morning. Mr. Luke added that the City can expect an increase in its share of the regional transit funding formula. 2. Solid/Hazardous Waste Management Committee: No report. 3. Recycling Committee: Mayor Shiers announced that the committee' s next meeting is 5:00 p.m. , Thurs. , 12/12/91, Room 102. 4. Economic Opportunity Commission: Councilman Dexter • reported that he attended an audit exit session yester- day, which the EOC noted as one of the best it has had in several years. Next regular meeting is this Thurs. , 12/12/91. 5. City/School Committee: Next meets February 20, 1992. 6. Traffic Committee: No report. . 7. County Water Advisory Board: Due to conflict with the Regional Transit Authority meeting, Councilwoman Borgeson was unable to attend the Water Advisory Board meeting. Eric Greening, 7365 Valle, who attended the Water Advi- sory Board meeting, reported that the board' s main work currently is advising the Board of Supervisors on the State Water Project. Due to the lack of agreement among Water Advisory Board members, there are three opinion papers under preparation; the deadline for rebuttals to those opinions is December 18th. He also reported that an advisory groundwater management policy was passed. 8. Economic Round Table: No report. cc12/10/91 Page 3 W7 00 tl 1 i 9. B.I.A. : No report. • 10. Colony Roads Committee: Next meeting to be in early January. B. CONSENT CALENDAR: 1. City Council Minutes —November 12, 1991 2. Resolution No. 109-91 - Updating City's Annual Investment Pol- icy 3. Resolution No. 110-91 - Authorizing filing of Claim for Local Transportation Funds & State Transit Assistance Funds, in com- pliance with the Transportation Development Act 4. Award of Bid #91-18 for purchase of one marked police patrol sedan 5. Resolution No. 111-91 - Authorizing the execution of an agreement with Associated Professions, Inc. , for design im- provements to Atascadero Road 6. Resolution No. 112-91 - Authorizing the execution of an agreement with Associated Professions, Inc. , for design im- provements to El Camino Real 7. Award of contract for maintenance of traffic signals to Lee Wilson Electric ' Micki Korba requested Item B-21 and Eric Greening requested Items B-3 & B-7 be pulled for discussion. • Motion: By Councilman Dexter, seconded by Councilwoman Borgeson to approve the Consent Calendar, with the exception of Items B-2, 3 & 7. Motion passed by 4:0 roll-call, with Councilman Nimmo absent. Re: Item B-2: Mrs. Korba clarified- that the State law which re- quired annual revision of the City' s Investment Policy expired and was not repealed as staff' s report indicated. Motion: By Councilman Lilley, seconded by Councilman Dexter to approve Item B-2; motion passed by unanimous voice vote, with Councilman Nimmo absent. Re: Item B-3: Eric Greening, 7365 Valle, asked for clarification as to whether this represents the last opportunity to address the possible alternate uses of the $422,000 marked for roads, in such areas as safe routes to schools or unmet pedestrian and bicycle needs, or if there will be a future date for addressing apportion- ment of the monies. Greg Luke responded by further explaining the TDA funds distribution process. He indicated that any excess money cc12/10/91 Page 4 00 0,18 • not already pre-allocated for other purposes--such as Dial-A-Ride and regional transportation--will be the subject of both the 5-Year CIP Hearing and the 1992-93 Budget hearings. Mr. Greening observed that there are cities that use all of their TDA entitlement for transit, bicycle and pedestrian needs, which he understands is the primary purpose of the funds. He noted, however, that he has no objection to the approval of the proposed application. Motion: By Councilman Dexter, seconded by Councilwoman Borgeson to approve Res. No. 110-91; motion passed by 4:0 roll-call, with Councilman Nimmo absent. Re: Item B-7c Eric Greening asked why the new signal at E1 Camino Real & West Mall was not on the list of signals to be maintained. Andy Takata responded that the signal in question, which is along the Highway 41 route, is CalTrans ' s maintenance responsibility. Motion: By Councilman Dexter, seconded by Mayor Shiers, to approve Item B-7; motion passed by 4:0 roll-call, with Councilman Nimmo absent. C. BEARINGS/APPEARANCES: 1. Ordinance No. 237 - Amending the Zoning Ordinance by elimi- nating Subsection (a) of Sec. 9-6.131, Recycling and Scrap, • which requires a 500' distance from residential zones and other uses and zones, and requiring the urgency thereof .(City Council-initiated - 415 vote required) Henry Engen, Dir. of Community Development, gave staff report. He noted this item requires a 4/4 vote this evening, in view of Coun- cilman Nimmo' s absence. He added that the Coast Recycling Center on E1 Camino Real is currently in the abatement process, as it is not a permitted use in the present zone. Public Comment Mike Sherer, resident, commended staff on the prompt action regard- ing this matter. He expressed concern with the potential allowance of wrecking yards (which are included under the "recycling facil- ity" definition in Sec. 9-6. 140 of the Zoning Ordinance) within 500' of residential zones, or other uses and zones. He noted that the 500' distance requirement has been effectively used to remove illegal storage areas/wrecking yards and asked that the Council study this ordinance carefully so as not to grandfather in a great deal of the illegal uses still in existence, particularly along ccl2/10/91 Page 5 • 00 019 Traffic Way. He agrees, however, that Wil-Mar needs an allowable • location for a recycling center. Discussion between Council and staff ensued regarding the concerns raised by Mr. Sherer. Motion: By Mayor Shiers, seconded by Councilman Dexter, to read Ord. 237 by title only; motion passed unani- mously. Mayor Shiers read Ord. 237 by title. Motion: By Mayor Shiers, seconded by Councilman Dexter, to approve Ord. 237. Mr. Engen clarified, at the Mayor' s request, that, unlike previous types of zoning urgency ordinances, Ord. 237 would be permanently effective. Councilman Lilley expressed concern about the need to distinguish recycling operations from wrecking yards and auto wrecking yards. He would like to see staff modify this ordinance on the basis of an analysis of the classifications which will elim- inate recycling centers from other criteria. 'Councilman Dexter withdrew his second to the motion. Mr. Engen suggested Council' s concerns be addressed by an adjust- ment in the definition of recycling to exclude auto wreckers (replacing the word "include" ) . After additional discussion, Council consensus was to direct that staff bring back a redrafted • ordinance specifically targeting "recycling center", distinct and separate from auto wrecking and other kinds of scrap activities, including site design standards. Mayor Shiers withdrew his motion. This item was continued to the next regular meeting (January 14, 1992) . D. REGULAR BUSINESS: 1. Ordinance No. 236 - Adding Chapter 8, "Waterway Intrusions", to Title 5 of the Atas. Muni. Code, prohibiting specified activities in Atascadero Creek, Graves Creek and the Salinas River (Recommend motion to waive reading in full and adopt on first reading by title only) (Cont'd from 11/26/91) Greg Luke, Dir. of Public Works, gave staff report. Councilman Lilley commented that it was the consensus of the subcommittee that immediate action needs to be taken to protect the creeks from cer- tain dangers, such as pollutants vehicles in the creek andener g al dumping, storage and accumulations of waste as addressed in the ccl2/10/91 Page 6 • 00 (WO • proposed ordinance. Beyond that, it was expressed that we should develop an overall plan which, through public hearings and discus- sions, balances individuals' rights for the use of their property with environmental concerns, those of the Department of Fish and Game and other interested parties. Councilmember Borgeson feels this approach to protection of the creekway--which does not involve the taking of private property--is most positive and expressed hope for the community' s support of Council's action. She noted the creek setback issue will be addressed in the General Plan hearings. Public Comment Tom Bench, resident, feels the language defining the riparian cor- ridor intended to be protected is "catchy", in need of professional review and should be removed from the ordinance until the area is more clearly identified. Ron Rothman, 1660 San Ramon Rd. , concurred with the comments of the previous speaker that the definition of the riparian corridor is ambiguous, although he is pleased with the updated ordinance and supports its goals. He prefers use of a term such as "high water line" or "creek preserve line" rather than riparian corridor. Councilman Lilley explained that the term riparian corridor at- tempts to visibly identify what area to protect from vehicle use and dumping. Theoretically, the area of vegetation supported by • water is visible. Ursula Luna, resident, read from a prepared statement (Exh. C, attached) expressing support for protection of the riparian vegeta- tion in the creeks from vehicles and pollutants; however, she opposes the deletion of the language addressing removal of that same vegetation by chainsaws. Richard Bastian, resident, feels the best way to protect the creek- ways is not to do anything to it. Sarah Gronstrand, 7620 Del Rio Rd. , expressed any creekway ordi- nance should be based on expert definition of riparian corridors and riparian area. She then quoted three definitions: ( 1) Ripar- ian corridor is a passage for wildlife and is defined by riparian vegetation. It begins at the water's edge and ends where there is no longer any riparian vegetation. " (from a Fish & Wildlife Service document) ; (2) "Riparian zone is the water/land interface which is part of the transition region between upland, which is the dry land, and the aquatic ecosystems (from Environmental Feature for Streambank Protection Project, by Henderson & Shields, Dept. of the Army, Environmental Laboratory) ; (3) "Define riparian corridor by cc12/10/91 Page 7 • 00 021 the limit of riparian vegetation determined by the association of plant & animal species normally found near streams, lakes and other bodies of water. Such a corridor must contain at least 50% cover of some combination of the plants listed. . . " (from San Mateo County, which she noted is held up as a model for resource protection poli- cies) . She expressed support for the proposed ordinance. Council discussion ensued. Councilman Dexter noted the ordinance language provides that the definition "riparian corridor" shall apply until superceded by an Official Creekway Map. Mayor Shiers asked if the committee had examined protection for the trees in the riparian corridor. Councilman Lilley responded that the committee felt that any potential policy decisions beyond the proposed ordinance regarding the management of the varieties of vegetation in the creekways would best be deferred to future study and consideration. Councilmember Borgeson responded that the pro- posed ordinance is intended as an initial and immediate protection. Mayor Shiers clarified that the proposed ordinance does not address the subject of pathways or people trespassing on private property. Motion: By Councilman Dexter, seconded by Councilman Lilley, to read Ord. 236 by title only; motion t passed unanimously. Motion: By Councilwoman Borgeson, seconded by Councilman Lilley, to adopt Ord. 236 on first reading; motion passed by 4:O roll-call, with Councilman Nimmo absent. COUNCIL RECESSED. FOR A BREAK FROM 8:27 TO 8:46 P.M. 2. Presentation by North County Engineering on proposed City Engineering Standards (Steve Sylvester) Steve Sylvester provided a brief overview of the Draft Engineering Standards, reiterating staff's recommendation seeking Council authorization to distribute the document to the public, including the local engineering and surveying firms for their review, and to schedule a public hearing for adoption in January. He added that the specifications have been compared with those of the County and area cities. He then responded to questions from Council. He highlighted the following additions, at Councilwoman Borgeson's request, which were ccl2/10/91 Page 8 • 00 0?2 • made after discussion with staff subsequent to the distribution of the first draft of the standards: 4.01 (A-5) Collector. The last sentence, "The Collector des- ignations shall also apply to industrial zonings", was added, as there is no separate industrial street standard. 4.02 (B) Cross Gradients. The last sentence, "Wherever fea- sible a 2% cross grade shall be used", was added, which is a standard cross grade on a public street. 4.02 (C-3) Intersections. Minimum curb radius and minimum property line radiuses were added following staff request to conform to City policy. Mr. Sylvester also noted an addition was made to Section C-2, Basement Soil, clarifying the compaction requirements for the basement soil. Mayor Shiers requested the addition of language which specifies a timeframe within which a developer shall correct any particular defects or deficiencies (Sec. 3.03, Final Inspection, p. 11) . There was no public comment. Council expressed its pleasure with the document. No formal action • was taken. It was agreed that a public hearing date will be set after allowing ample time for review by concerned parties. 3. Approval of Contract for Engineering Services for Recovery of Reclaimed Water Greg Luke, Dir. of Public Works, gave staff report and responded to questions from Council. Discussion ensued. There was no public comment. Motion: By Councilman Lilley, seconded by Councilman Dexter, to award the Contract for Engineering Services for Recovery of Reclaimed Water to John Carollo Engineers; motion passed by 4:0 roll-call, with Councilman Nimmo absent. Councilman Lilley expressed the hope that the discussion on this item becomes a part of the working documents of the City. He feels it' s excellent and will serve as a guide to avoid future problems of this kind. On that note, Mr. Luke added that there are some cc12/10/91 Page 9 UU 0�3 model ordinances in existence which guide the selection of consul- tants, which staff would like to bring before the Council at a • future date for consideration. 4. Ordinance No. 235 - Amending Title 6, Chapter 6 of the Atasca- dero Municipal Code regulating smoking in City facilities There was no verbal staff report made, and there was no public com- ment. Motion: By Councilman Dexter, seconded by Councilwoman Borgeson, to read Ord. 235 by title only; motion passed unanimously. Motion: By Councilman Dexter, seconded by Councilwoman Borgeson, to approve Ord. 235 on second reading; motion passed by 4:0 roll-call, with Councilman N' Immo absent. E. INDIVIDUAL DETERMINATION AND/OR ACTION: City Council - Mayor Shiers announced that a representative of the Homeless Shelter in San Luis Obispo met with staff yesterday to request that the armory be opened for use as a shelter to which homeless could be bussed from San Luis Obispo to Atascadero. Mayor • Shiers relayed his feeling and staff's that a public hearing was in order before any approval. The soonest meeting date noted was Dec. 19th which is, however, dedicated to the General Plan Update Hear- ing. Ray Windsor, City Manager, noted that the lead agency in the matter is the County, which would not make an approval without the City I's assent. He reported that staff expressed to the shelter represen- tative that to hold a public hearing without input from the School District would not be appropriate--given the concerns with regard to the proximity of the armory to an elementary, the- junior high and a pre-school--nor could it be accomplished by 12/19. The EOC's need for a decision is immediate, because the shelter is proposed to be open only through mid-February. Discussion ended. Councilwoman Borgeson commented on Item B-4, feeling it relates to the previous discussion on bids and requests for proposals (Item D- 3) . She would like to see the bids awarded locally where the bid amounts are so close. cc12/10/91 Page 10 o 00 024 City Manager - Ray Windsor reported he will be out of the country • from Dec. 26th through January 18, 1992. COUNCIL ADJOURNED AT 9:25 P.M. TO A CLOSED SESSION FOR PURPOSES OF DISCUSSION REGARDING POTENTIAL LITIGATION, ENTITLED PESENTI v. CITY OF ATASCADERO, PURSUANT TO GOVT. CODE SEC. 54956(a) . Motion: By Councilwoman Borgeson, seconded by Councilman Dexter, to adjourn from closed session; motion passed unanimously. There was no action taken following the closed session. COUNCIL ADJOURNED TO A SPECIAL MEETING ON THURSDAY, DEC. 19, 1991, 7 :00 P.M. FOR PURPOSES OF GENERAL PLAN UPDATE. Minutes recorded and prepared by: CINDY WIILKILNS Admin. Secy./Dep. City Clerk Attachments: Exh. A from Raymond K. Jansen, dated 12/2/91 • Exh. B from Stephen J. Pixley, dated 12/10/91 Exh. C from Ursula Luna, dated 12/10/91 ccl2/10/91 Page 11 00 02:) EXHIBIT A TO CITY COUNCIL MINUT 7710/9I- • 6655 Country Club Drive Atascadero, 93422 December 21 1991 Dear Editor: Thank you for providing this access to the public. My complaint is with the publishers, however, because, 1 presume, it is their policy which has denied front-page readers the negative sife of the so-called Highway 41 "Realignment" issue. if the straightening of the highway was the crux of the issue twenty t& years ago it could easily have been routed over Curbaril when very few homes were located on it. So, why didn't it? I contend the object was, and still is., the 1100 foot bridge, at the rivers widest point, pointing directly toward' Shandon, and the eventual development of lands there, where there is plenty of water, and points between. Without that, Cal Trans could not project that 7000 cars per day J-t dz "east of the river" by the year 2012. That is the fir �eQ which would threaten the future character of Atascadero.ascadero. Conside his str am of traffic^the already impacted intersection of Santa Ysabel and El Camino Heal. 2. Cal Trans personnel have told me that when Cold Canyon is • exhausted in 2 to 15 years the trash trucks from SLO and South County will come to Cizicago tirade Landfill exiting the freeway at Santa Ysabel. if Atascadero buys this ilealignmeat package any prospect of a south truck route via tialcynon-Rocky Canyon Road- Templeton Road will be dead. we should be working with the County for a bridge on tialcy non. 3. north truck route via Santa Cruz to Traffic Way, with a bridge over the railroad touching the tip of diver Gardens to �:iycjamore Road, and with a south truck in place, trucks could be banned on Curbaril, giving relief to those residents. Ah way$ stop at Valle would also help their safety. 4. The dumping of 80,000 Cu yds of earth at the entrance to stadium Park and a flood of traffic noise very near would make it inaccessible and impractical for concerts or drama in the future. 5. Imagine the scar on Pine Mountain some 1500 feet long and up to 35 feet in height. beside this the loss of nearly 200 trees and 15 houses. CD-Id All lots now owned by Cal TransAetm be sold for higher fi&ures and returned to the tax roles at the higher rates 'oE�.taxat1on. , 6. The choice for a new and wider'''bridge near its present site for • 2.5 million compared to an outlay of 16 million for another artery to bisect 00 (116 EXHIBIT A, PAGE 2 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES . 12/10/91 the city east to west is hardly a choice. Plain greed for the '#free", state money could have motivated that earlier Council to initiate this monstrous proposal. .'lease help me to petition the present City Council to remove this entire "Realignment,) f:ooii t1he General Plan. Unle::s we speak up now, in t' this positive way, and be present for the Cal Trans Hearing early next year we will have no one to blame except ourselves. If you see me in front of Foods For Less please ask for a fact sheet and a blank petition to share with your neighbors. i will thank you. • 00 027 HWTBYYU9CIL MINUTES DECEMEER 10• 1991 . TO'# ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL REFERENCE'# CITY OF ATASCADERO LETTERY DATED NOVEMBER 25 1951 + SUBJECT. TY1003 FILE NO'# 91-3 9.003 ON TUESDAYP THE 25TH OF NOVEMBERY Ir ALONG WITH 3 OTHER RESIDENTS OF ARIZONA AVE. , RECEIVED NOTIFICATION THAT THE RECREATIONAL VEHICLES PARKED ON OUR PROPERTY WERE IN VIOLATION OF A SECTION OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE AND MUST BE REMOVED. ON WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH, WE CONTACTED THE COMPLIANCE OFFICIAL, MR. WITTMEYERY TO DETERMINE THE REASONS FOR HIS UNEXPECTED AND REMARKABLE INTEREST IN THESE VEHICLES. WE WERE INFORMED THAT THIS ACTION WAS THE RESULT OF A COMPLAINT RECEIVED BY HIS OFFICE AND WAS NOT DUE TO ANY ACTIVE AND/OR UNILATERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THIS PARTICULAR ORDINANCE. I Ali HERE THIS EVENING TO APPEAL THIS ACTION AND I WOULD LIKE TO PRESENT THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION IN SUPPORT OF THAT APPEAL: FIRSTLY9 THE COMPLAINT FILED WITH THE CITY ALLEGES THAT A RECREATIONAL VEHICLE IMPARED THE ACCESS OF FIRE FIGHTING • EQUIPMENT TO A RESIDENCE ,ON ARIZONA AVE. IF FACT• THE FIRE' MARSHALL HAS INFORMED MR. WITTMEYER THAT NEITHER T14E VEHICLE IN QUESTION NOR ANY OTHER RECREATIONAL VEHICLE PARKE,'.i ON OR ABOUT ARIZONA AVE. PRESENTS AN IMPARTMENT TO THE Ai'CESS OF FIRE FIGHTING EQUIPMENT. IN VIEW OF THIS DETERMINATION BY THE FIRE MARSHALL, I FEEL THAT THE COMPLAINT IS INVALIDATED AND THAT FURTHER ACTION IN THIS MATTER IS NOT WARRENTED. HOWEVER, THE NOTICES WHICH WE RECEIVEDY AND SUBSEQUENT . INFORMATION PROVIDED PROVIDED BY MR. WITTMEYERY REFERENCE SECTIONS OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE WHICH PERTAIN TO SETBACK REQUIREMENTS AND WHILE I CERTAINLY HAVE NO DESIRE TO OPEN THE PROVERBIAL CAN OF WORMS, I WILL ADDRESS THESE ITEMS. TO BEGIN WITH► THE MANNER IN WHICH ARIZONA AVE. IS CONSTRUCTEDY AND THE TOPOGRAPHY OF THE AREA, APPEAR TO INVOKE THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 9.4-105A WHICH PERTAIN TO SLOPING LOT AND VARIABLE SETBACK ADJUSTMENTS. THIS WOULD INDICATE THAT THE 25 FOOT SETBACK REQUIREMENTY AS REFERENCED9 DOES NOT APPLY TO THE LOTS ON THIS STREET. ALSO, BECAUSE THE SAME PART OF MY PROPERTY HAS BEEN UTILIZED FOR RV PARKING • CONTINUOUSLY SINCE 1979, THE PROVISIONS FOR A PRE-EXISTING, NDN-CONFORMINGY LAND USE MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 9.7-102. U0 0? IT GE FINALLY? I FEEL THAT SOME MENTION SHOULD BE MADE OF THE FACT CITYBCOUNCILAMINUTES THAT THE LONG TERM PARKING OF VEHICLES IN FRONT OF RESIDENCES, 12/10/92 BOTH ONY AND OFF? THE STREET, IS A COMMON PRACTICE THROUGHOUT ATASCADERO. UNDOUBTABLY? THE MEMBERS OF THIS COUNCIL HAVE THEMSELVES OBSERVED THE TRAILERS? CAMPERS? MOTORHOMES? AND BOATS WHICH • ARE PARKED IN EVERY CONCEIVABLE MANNER ON VITUALLY ANY RESIDENTIAL STREET, I AGREE THAT ORDINANCES ARE NEEDED TO CONTROL THIS? AND OTHER PRACTICES. HOWEVER? I WILL ALSO ARGUE THAT IF THESE ORDINANCES ARE TO BE ENFORCED? IT MUST BE DONE IN A UNILATERAL MANNER FOR TO DO OTHERWISE COULD ALLOW THE QUESTION OF DISCRIMINATORY PROSECUTION AND WOULD? MOST CERTAINLY, OPEN THE WAY FOR ANY INDIVIDUAL TO USE THE OFFICES OF THIS CITY AS A CONDUIT FOR HIS OR HER PERSONAL VIEWPOINTS AND GRIEVENCES. STEPHEN J. PIXLEY 45.75 ARIZONA AVE. ATASCADERO • 0() (12y • December 10, 1991 CITY COUNCIL MINU EXHIBIT C Mr. Mayor and members of the Council, I am pleased that tonight you may protect the riparian vegetation of the Salinas, Atascadero and Graves Creeks from vehicles and pollutants. It is unfortunate that you deleted the section which would have protected that same vegetation from complete removal by chainsaws and brushcutters. When this Council adopted the tree ordinance, you removed all riparian trees from the ordinance. Let me read to you from this meeting out of your City Council minutes of December 11, 1990: "Discussion followed regarding possible elimination of some varieties of trees from the Tree Standards and Guidelines "List of Atascadero Trees". It was noted that some trees included on the list were in the riparian area of the creek and should be addressed as part • of the creekway management plan." "Councilman Shiers reiterated that all trees in the creeks should be protected as part of the future creekway protection ordinance; Council concurred." The flaw in this ordinance is that it does permit vehicles and pollutants in the creeks ---after the removal of the riparian vegetation. County Office of Emergency Services and confirmed that no written proposition has been submitted. PUBLIC HEARING: GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT: Consideration of General Plan Update of pro- posed Land Use. Conservation and Open Space Elements and Final Environmental Impact Report Henry Engen provided background, highlighted key issues of concern and indicated Planning Commission and staff recommendation was to approve the General Plan text as proposed and certify the adequacy of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) . Mr. Engen introduced Paul Crawford and Dave Moran of Crawford, Multari & Starr, the consultant firm retained to prepare the EIR. In addition, the Community Development Director noted several letters received most recently from- the public. Mayor Shiers announced that the City Council would take public testimony on the General Plan Update but would not be taking any action due to the absence of Councilman Nimmo, who plans to listen to the tapes of the hearing prior to the future scheduling of this matter. Councilwoman Borgeson commented that the EIR described the setting of Atascadero as residential with lot sizes ranging from one-half acre to 10 acres. She asked if this statement would be revised to reflect the allowance of planned unit developments (PUD) and subsequent approval of single-family homes on lot sizes smaller than one-half acre. Mr. Engen explained that the intent of the statement was to give the broad characteristics of the community. Councilwoman Borgeson also asked why water sources other than those provided by Atascadero Mutual Water Company were not named in the EIR. Mr. .Engen reported that the draft General Plan does provide an alternate source listing under the water section and referred to page II-18 of the plan. Councilwoman Borgeson requested a clari- fication of the reported amount of water proposed to be stored by Atascadero Mutual Water Company in the new San Carlos Road reservoir. Mr. Engen noted that the figure "three and one-half million gallons" should be corrected in the text to "five and one- half million gallons". Public Comments: Livia Kellerman, 5463 Honda, read a prepared statement (see Exhibit A) in support of creek setbacks. Richard Bastian, Atascadero resident, opposed creek setbacks and asked that property rights be respected. Special CC12/19/91 t Page 2 00 0.12 Nancy Rice, 4245 Arena, read a prepared statement (see Exhibit B) in support of creek preservation. Jan Bewley, 12090 San Marcos Road and President of the Atascadero Board of Realtors, spoke in opposition to the following: (1) direct downzoning of major multi-family area on North E1 Camino Real (2) the indirect downzoning of property through the requirement of a five-minute travel time for fire response, (3) the change in zoning proposed for the Ferrocaril property on Traffic Way and San Benito and (4) the 30% slope requirement of suburban family. She concluded by stating that downzoning represents the taking of property without the giving of consideration. Carol Ball, 7070 Marchant, commented that she believed the fifty- foot creek setback was inappropriate language for the General Plan because it is too specific and restrictive. She stated that creek setbacks should be considered in a zoning ordinance. Ms. Ball remarked that she was in favor of developing all nodes along Highway 101, including the property between Santa Barbara Road and the Atascadero Hospital, as Commercial Retail because of potential economic benefit to the community. Ms. Ball also commented that the Ferrocaril property should be retained for an Industrial Park. Eric Greening, 7365 Valle, read a prepared statement (see Exhibit C) in which he addressed concerns relating to land affected by the proposed re-routing of Highway 41, Stadium Park and creek setbacks. Lester Jeffries, Rancho Palos Verdes resident and Atascadero property owner, spoke in opposition to not permitting new lots to develop if there is more than a 30% slope or if it is outside the a five-minute emergency response time area. Ron Rothman, 1660 San Ramon Road, spoke in support of creek preservation and encouraged continued study. He urged the Council to implement and monitor Ordinance No. 236 and inspire the community to clean up and make improvements within the creek reservation areas. Mr. Rothman asserted that he had not seen any report that defines and documents threats to the creek and suggested that those who feel that they do exist document their concerns and offer possible solutions for the community to debate. Roger Miller, 6675 Santa Ynez, opposed downzoning of certain properties from RMF-16 to RS because it would create a drop in affordable housing. He spoke in support of retaining Industrial designation for the Ferrocaril property. In addition, Mr. Miller favored the fifty-foot creek setback, but reported opposition to the five-minute emergency response time. He speculated that this requirement might pose some liability problems for the City and suggested that some kind of waiver of liability be devised whereby the property owner is permitted to develop but acknowledges his Special CC12/19/91 • Page 3 00 U:13 property is outside the response time. Lindsay Hampton, 8402 Alta Vista, submitted the Creekway Resolution unanimously adopted by the Atascadero Homeowners ' Association on October 17, 1991 (see Exhibit D) proclaiming support for creek preservation and setbacks. Don Saueressrig, 10735 San Marcos Road, expressed support for the fifty-foot creek setback and opposition to the five-minute emergency response time. Eric Michielssen, 5300 Aquila and representing Atascadero 2000, criticized the plan for not being creative. He summarized to his letter of December 19, 1991 to Henry Engen, which outlined five concerns relating to: ( 1) Jobs/Housing Balancer Atascadero 2000 opposes the reduction in RMF-16 lands and the Ferrocaril zone change, and believes the plan does not address Air Pollution Control District concerns; (2) Industrial Areas: Atascadero 2000 supports retaining the Ferrocaril property and adjacent property owned by Atascadero Mutual Water Company on Sycamore Road as Industrial and argues that the plan leaves insufficient useable Industrial land in the City; (3) RMF-16 Zoning: Atascadero 2000 opposes the re-zoning of RMF-16 land to RS claiming it eliminates 449 potential units and creates a large area of existing mobilehome parks as non-conforming uses; (4) Urban Services Line: Atascadero 2000 opposes the chosen boundary and urges adoption of Alternative "B"; and (5) Re-Development Funding: Atascadero 2000 supports the establishment of a re-development agency in new Industrial areas to provide extension of needed infrastructure improvements. Ken Marks, 9073 Circle Oak Drive, asked the Council to look closely at the five-minute emergency response time issue. He asserted that if the plan is adopted, the City will lose fine opportunities for development and " free enterprise because of added mitigation measures. Celia Moss, 8040 Coromar, read a prepared statement (see Exhibit E) in support of fifty-foot creek setbacks. She also read a letter from Jean Young Behan of 4925 El Verano (see Exhibit F) offering a favorable position on the fifty-foot creek setback issue. John Bunyea, Atascadero resident, addressed traffic congestion problems around the Lewis Avenue Elementary and the Junior High schools, and shared concern for student safety once the elementary school has been converted as an additional Junior High School campus. Catherine Baker, 6820 Santa Ynez Avenue, stated that she and her husband, Jim, were in favor of the fifty-foot creek setback. Special CC12/19/91 • Page 4 00 0:14 Joan O'Keefe, 9985 Old Morro Road East, submitted a detailed i statement (see Exhibit G) and supporting documentation (on file with the City Clerk) urging adoption of the General Plan Update and EIR. In a brief summary of her statement, Ms. O'Keefe criticized Council action to date regarding creek preservation and indicated that she supported mitigation measures recommended in the EIR which include the adoption of a fifty-foot creek setback. Karen Riggs, 4935 Arizona, asserted that the fifty-foot creek setback standard is the most important environmental protection measure the City can adopt. Matt Riggs, 4935 Arizona, added his support for the creek setback standard. Anna Hartig-Ferrier, 7205 Carmelita, asked the Council to put back the fifty-foot creek setback language into the General Plan. Steve LaSalle of Atascadero read a prepared statement (see Exhibit H) in support of the fifty-foot creek setback and asked the City Council to incorporate into the General Plan requirements for the use of shielded lights to reduce glare. Vincent Simpson, 1780 San Ramon Road, voiced opposition to the fifty-foot creek setback and stated that he had already built a barn on his creekside property. • Karen Coniglio, 7600 Graves Creek Road, read a prepared statement (see Exhibit I) sharing concern for protecting wildlife habitat and and in support of implementing the fifty-foot creek setback standard. James Watson, 8400-8600 Atascadero Avenue, reiterated his petition to the Planning Commission for an increase in the density -allowed from Moderate Density Single Family to High Density Single Family to allow for half acre lots. Mayor Shiers called a break at 8:50 p.m. At 9:10 p.m. , the meeting was reconvened. Public Testimony continued. Dorothy Bench, 7503 Carmelita Avenue, expressed opposition to the fifty-foot creek setback claiming that this action would be confiscation without compensation. She stated that property owners cannot afford to give up their land. Larry Sherwin, 2755 Campo Road, reported that half of his property would be lost with a fifty-foot creek setback. He stated he was opposed to putting more restrictions on the tax payers and mentioned that he, personally, has cleaned up the creek on his own land. Mr. Sherwin added that if he had known (about the potential • Special CC12/19/91 Page 5 00 ():A;j setback) when he bought his property, he would have been offered the opportunity of choice. • Ursula Luna, 10600 San Marcos Road, submitted a written statement (see Exhibit J) supporting the enactment of a fifty-foot creek setback standard. Don Hartig, 7205 Carmelita Avenue, urged the Council to adopt a creekside protection plan and implement a fifty-foot creek setback. In addition, he read statements from the following citizens: Mike Kirkpatrick, 6606 Santa Cruz Road (Exhibit K) ; Ronald Kiel (Exhibit L) , 9090 La Canada; and Harvey Levenson, 7570 Balboa Road (Exhibit M) all of which support creek preservation and/or the fifty-foot creek setback standard. Rex Hendrix, 8855 Rocky Canyon Road, asked questions concerning the area designated for a specific plan at the south end of Atascadero. Mr. Engen explained that the area Mr. Hendrix was inquiring about was between Paloma Creek Park and the State Hospital south to Santa Barbara Road between the freeway and the Salinas River. He stated that present zoning would allow permits for single-family housing in the Suburban-Residential zone. The specific plan language, he continued, indicates that the outlined area is a candidate for alternate land uses and invites planning with a more intensive use, but noted it would take either a specific plan under State law or a general plan amendment. Mr. Engen explained the difference between the two alternatives and reported that it was up to the • applicant to pay the fees and work through the process to make a change. Mr. Hendrix commented that he wondered why the node at Santa Barbara Road and Highway 101 was not addressed during this General Plan change. He added that it was a shame to see this property be developed with two and one-half acre housing when it could be used for something that would promote tourism. Marj Mackey, 5504-A Tunitas Avenue, spoke in support of the fifty- foot creek setback standard adding that she was the "only council- member who objected to removing subject language from the current General Plan. Tim McCutcheon, Atascadero business owner, shared concern for a lack of affordable housing and contended that the General Plan Update would reduce housing opportunities. Jim Reyburn, 11705 Santa Rita Road, spoke in opposition to the proposed fifty-foot creek setback and mentioned that 70% of his property is on the creek. He asserted that individual property owners can keep the creek clean. Special CC12/19/91 Page 6 00 0.16 Dorothy McNeil, 8765 Sierra Vista Road, read a prepared statement (see Exhibit N) in favor of creek setbacks and pointed out that the proposed language only applies to new construction and would not, therefore, constitute a taking of land. In addition, she commented that 808 of emergency response is for medical services and stated that it was the City' s responsibility to provide these services to all residents. Loraine Russell of Atascadero spoke in opposition to creek setbacks claiming that they are of no benefit to the community and could exclude her building in line withother houses along Atascadero Creek, off of Carmelita Avenue. Virginia Powers, 7505 Carmelita Avenue, read a prepared statement (see Exhibit 0) in support of the fifty-foot creek setback. John McNeil,, . 8765 Sierra Vista, read a prepared statement (see Exhibit P) urging Council approval of fifty-foot creek setbacks. LeeAnne Hagmaier, Planner with RRM Design Group in San Luis Obispo, complimented City staff and the Planning Commission on the General Plan Update. She indicated that she had written Steve DeCamp, City Planner, and summarized options she suggested to policies regarding 30% or more slope and .fire response time. Bob Powers, 7505 Carmelita Avenue, read his statement in favor of fifty-foot creek setbacks (see Exhibit R) . Sarah Gronstrand, 7620 Del Rio Road, read a prepared statement with attachments (see Exhibit Q) in debate of comments made by Brian Hunter, Regional Manager of the State Department of fish & Game in his letter to Henry Engen dated September 9, 1991 responding to the General Plan Update and the EIR. 011ie Bishop, 7655 Carmelita Avenue*, spoke in support of creek setbacks and submitted her statement (see Exhibit S) . Bob Huot, 3850 Ardilla Road, indicated that he was also in favor of the fifty-foot creek setback standard as recommended by the Planning Commission and the Atascadero Homeowners' Association. Richard Bastian requested, again, that the City Council respect individual property rights. Joan O'Keefe, also re-addressed the Council speaking in support of the both policies regarding the five-minute emergency response time and 30% slope. The City Clerk announced that a number of letters written by residents had been submitted by others present during the course of • Special CC12/19/91 Page 7 0U 0.{'7 the evening and read each into the record. All the letters read were in support of the fifty-foot creek setback and were from the following Atascadero residents: Alfred & Daphne Fahsing - (Exhibit T) Debra Leasure - (Exhibit U) Erma L. Davis - (Exhibit V) Michael J. Hungerford - (Exhibit W) Marcia M. Joyce - (Exhibit X) Nancy Hyman - (Exhibit Y) Mabel & Harold Poland - (Exhibit Z) Howard G. Marohn - (Exhibit AA) James W. Carpenter - (Exhibit BB) Barbara & John Barnard - (Exhibit CC) John W. Cole - (Exhibit DD) Beatrice Anson —(Exhibit EE) William C. Ferguson - (Exhibit FF) Steve Luna - (Exhibit GG) ---End- of Public Testimony--- Mayor Shiers closed the public hearing. By unanimous vote on a motion by Councilman Lilley, the special meeting was adjourned at 10:20 p.m. and the matter was continued to January 14, 1992. MINUTES RECORDD PREPARED BY: L i01i_, i;Clerk Attachments: Exhibits A - GG Special CC12/19/91 • Page 8 ou U:�B LIST OF SPEAKERS AND THOSE SUBMITTING STATEMENTS ON MATTERS RELATING TO THE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND EIR AT THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL ON DECEMBER 19, 1991 Speaker Exhibit Kellerman A Rice B Greening C Atascadero Homeowners D - Moss E Behan F O'Keefe G LaSalle H Coniglio I Luna, U. J Kirkpatrick K • Kiel L Levenson M McNeil, D. N Powers, V. 0 McNeil, J. P Gronstrand Q Powers, B. R Bishop S Fahsing T Leasure U Davis V Hungerford W Young X Hyman Y Poland Z Marohn AA Carpenter BB Barnard CC Cole DD Anson EE Ferguson FF Luna, S GG Special CC12/19/91 • Page. 9 SPECIAL CC 12/19/91 EXHIBIT A Livia Kellerman 5463 Honda • Atascadero December 19, 1991 Mr. Mayor, members of the Council; I was pleased that the Council, at its last meeting, took a first step toward protecting the creeks of Atascadero. Stopping the dumping of pollutants and the destruction of creek vegetation by vehicle use was long overdue. Most of us do not pollute the creeks or ride roughshod in them, but the few who do need to be restrained. Also, those who wish to build along the creeks sometimes need help to keep them from causing damage due to a lack of knowledge about creek life and habitat or to lack of sensitivity or foresight. The language of this proposed measure will not prohibit any concerned, knowledgeable or thoughtful owner from building on a legal lot. It will help the Planning Department assist builders and prevent damage before it occurs. This measure most certainly does NOT have anything to do • with a "Taking" of property_ It does NOT give public access to private land. Many cities and counties have used even more stringent language successfully. The Coastal Zone in our own county states that "rural riparian setbacks are 100 feet, urban are 50 feet." All of us who live in Atascadero are responsible for the protection and preservation of our beautiful creeks-. Not many cities are blessed with creeks which have not been destroyed. Ninety-five percent of the urban creeks of California have been destroyed, and some cities are investing huge sums of money trying to revive them_ Preservation is economical. Preservation is wise. When human beings preserve nature, they are acting to preserve themselves. We must act wisely for ourselves: and for our children_ We must put this excellently worded. creek protection measure into our General Plan- The Council took the first step on December 10th. L am confident that tonight it will take this important second step_ SPECIAL cc 12/19/91 EXHIBIT B • My husband and I support the recommendation made for the General Plan update to preserve the creek. The plan should allay the fears of property owners along the creek and provide minimum protection. Atascadero is fortunate to have this wonderful resource and we now have the opportunity to make a first step towards development of a unique and endangered resource that could be developed into something very attractive to residents and businesses in this town. The history of creeks in urban areas is sad. Government has ignored their potential and they have been ruined or paved over. We should begin to work toward developing this precious asset. y� • F SPECIAL CC 12/19/91 EXHIBIT C Testimony given at the City Council Hearing on the especially strong regarding the north-facing slopes of General Plan Update of December 19th, 1991 by Eric the mountain, which cradle the cemetery, and which Greening,7365 Valle Ave.,Atascadero, CA,93422. contain most of the vegetation and wildlife habitat. If the bulk of Pine Mountain were left undeveloped ex- cept for perhaps a hiking trail reaching the ridge fro I am basically happy with the document before Stadium Park, the value of nearby properties would you this evening. I was especially pleased by the actually be enchanted, and Atascadero would have "Land Use and Circulation Management Strategies" one more major attraction: guaranteed public access from the APCD that appeared in the agenda packet to one of the most breathtaking views in the county, for this meeting, but am a little confused about what an asset that could enhance the Stadium Park experi- they were doing there, since they were not,to my un- ence for visitors and residents alike. derstanding, language up for adoption into our Gene- Any potential loss of these inappropriate and ex- ral Plan, nor was it my understanding that our pensive-to-serve parcels from the tax rolls would be Circulation Element was being considered at this more than offset if the properties now under the high- time. Since this material was there, however, I do way 41 cloud could be freed from the CalTrans lim- want to make one point: the Highway 41 routing that bo. now appears on our General Plan should be elimina- Before I close, I'd like to add my own two cents ted, and this does affect adjacent land use, since the worth to the volatile issue of creek setbacks, specifi- properties now in limbo could then serve housing tally the language in 1137 s L I am in favor of giving needs, as well as fiscal ones once they would be back any potential building site near the creek very close on the tax rolls. The Draft EIR that CalTrans put for- scrutiny, but wonder why a biologist is specified to ward and then rapidly scuttled indicated that the inter- the exclusion of a geologist. Any site near the creek section of El Camino and Morro Road would be should be assessed by a professional competent to de- affected too severely for any possible compatibility termine exposure to such hazards as flooding, bank with the strategies suggested by the APCD. It erosion, and the enhanced seismic risk of saturated al- estimated that by the year 2012 the average delay at luvium. This professional should also be able to as- this intersection would be over 21/2 minutes! This is sess the effect of disturbance at the site on the creek almost twice the delay projected for El Camino and itself as it continues downstream,with the goal of ma- Cutharil in that year if the bridge should remain at its ximizing groundwater recharge by minimizing silta- present location. A compatibility issue that affects tion of the stream bottom. I think we are likely to land use and parks and recreation is the effect that find that the building sites most disruptive to vegeta-0 vastly increased noise at the canyon mouth would tion and wildlife are usually sites that would not in have on the now acoustically sheltered outdoor per- any case provide a secure habitat for humans to invest formance site you have recently moved to acquire in large sums of money placing structum in. I don't see Stadium Park. I am absolutely delighted that this as- preventing people from building in sites that put their set will soon be our&to clean up and use to experience property in harm's way as a form of"taking;" on the nature and culture, and would hate to see it rendered contrary, to the extent that all the taxpayers bail out useless by a badlythought-out road project the victims of avoidable disasters,.failure to avoid In past hearings on this.General Plan before the those disastem constitutes a form of"takis'fmm all Planning Commission.I tried to clear up a common the city'&taxpayers. confusion between Pine Mountain Stadium and the Thank you. actual summit ridge of Pine Mountain,from which it is separated by a paper street The bulk of Pine Mountain is evidently to go into rural residential zon- ing, although it is.hard to imagine a house site on the mountain that could be graded,not to mention ac- cessed,without massive earth movement I appreci- ate the correction that added Piney Mountain't 30 degree-plus slopes:to the citywide map of such areas; now it is time to accept the reality that this mag faces us witir- I'd like:to think that a recent approval in- volving four homesites at the:base of the mountain and 17 acres of open:space uphill therefrom sets a pattern that will continue to keep the upper slopes flee from development,but there is no language in the ge- neral plan:to indicate that it will;in fact;the:transfer • of the 17 acres to the-"public"zoning designation seems to indicate a special case,and this for a piece of land that is virtually useless by itself. My concern is SPECIAL CC 12/19/91 EXHIBIT D Page 1 • CREED REPORT Unanimously adopted by the general membership of the Atascadero Homeowners Association on October 17, 1991 • • SPECIAL CC 12/19/91 EXHIBIT D Page 2 CREEKWAY RESOLUTION • ATASCADERO HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION OCTOBER 17, 1991 WHEREAS, the Atascadero Homeowner's Association, as well as other community organizations, have demonstrated strong support for the utilization and protection of our creekways, and WHEREAS, these unique and valuable assets were recognized by the founder of Atascadero, E. G. Lewis, and WHEREAS, these resources still offer great opportunities for recreation, open space and enhancement of the downtown business area. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Atascadero Homeowners Association: 1. supports the objective to maintain and restore Atascadero's creeks and their adjacent riparian woodlands as a natural environment in which native plants and animals thrive. 2. seeks long term protection of the Atascadero • creeks and their woodlands through responsible land stewardship. 3 . wishes to further the understanding of this diverse and delicate environment in the hope that with knowledge comes respect, and with respect comes responsibility. 4. promotes land use compatible with its, streamside environment_ BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Atascadero Homeowners Association: S. supports a minimum 5o fent building setback requirement in the Atascadero General Plan which will provide protected riparian corridors_ 5_ opposes ''harvesting sand and gravel'" in Atascadero creeks and wishes this provision to be deleted from: the General Plan_ T.. opposes future incompatible. construction within the 100 year floodplain. • SPECIAL CC 12/19/91 EXHIBIT 0 Page 3 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Atascadero Homeowners Association supports a creek ordinance based on the requirements and guidelines in the Atascadero General Plan by: 8 . establishing minimum 5o feet building setbacks which will provide protected riparian corridors. 9 . minimizing land disturbance within at least 50 feet of water courses. 10. prohibiting channeiization of the creeks. 11. assuring that existing primary tributaries and, where feasible, minor tributaries be left in open space to provide runoff and wildlife habitat protection. 12 . protecting creek reserves until they may be acquired for parks, recreational use and open space. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Atascadero Homeowners Association: 13 . petitions the City Council to provide creek and riparian habitat protection through the General Plan and the Zoning Ordinance, and 14. to restrict indiscriminate vegetation removal in the riparian zone, and 15. to prohibit livestock and vehicles= in the riparian zone, and 14. that these actions be undertaken to coincide with the update of the Atascadero General Plan. Timothy Q'Keefe, PresideiE • SPECIAL CC 12/19/91 EXHIBIT D Page 4 CREEKS efie� cit cur n)c�a t c`h,#jw. rn? 17JturJ.1 r41_vuraO. hjd Ahe 147_: cit my .:CTOJZP hid oceurre cf umAer epel nesse. a- it &'Ore. and with n&a 4)jX_in_;, no prate_t. Aliahener !Nlhe &jli ty c?t Ls'ta`:I Most people like creeks and take them for granted. Unfortunately creeks are in danger of becoming memories of the past. Ninety-five percent of California' s urban creeksite habitat is lost and over one-half of the remaining five percent is in great jeopardy of disappearing. Californians are discovering that the once sparkling streams they enjoyed no longer exist. How could this loss have occurred under our noses with a minimum of protest? Urbanization and agricultural uses have been oblivious to the fact that streamb arks are not stable and that the ecosystem which supports the stream and its bank is a delicate one. Zn its natural state a stream adapts to the periodic flooding that occurs. A creek needs room to change and modify its course and banks . When man builds in the natural flood area he interferes with nature' s self- correcting actions . Urbanization increases flood discharges causing greater quantities of water to fill streams in a shorter period of time, The lagtime to fill a creek may change from hours to. minutes, increasing probability- of erosion and flooding. Because of the decrease in. lagtime, even a minor cloudburst will greatly increase the probability of a major flood. Accompanying this runoff are pollutants from the roads and parking lots. When floods and erosion threaten buildings its the floodplain, the creek is rechanneled by man, culverted, filled wits: concrete or paved over. Zn addition to the SPECIAL CC 12/19/91 EXHIBIT D Page 5 • increased flood discharges creeks have been used as sewage and garbage disposal sites . Overgrazing of livestock on or near the banks of creeks has caused severe erosion, and animal wastes have polluted the waters . Siltation, runoff from pesticides and herbicides , rerouting streams for irrigation purposes and damming for stockponds have all added to the disappearance or change of the streams in California. In the name of cost-effective flood control, the Army Corps of Engineers has cemented the banks and put up fences to accommodate development. These are "old-fashioned flood control techniques that are ugly and often don' t work very well . 1142 For example, the Los Angeles River, "which was one of the • Army Corps ' first big projects in the 1930 ' s, is in its current incarnation essentially 50 miles of concrete. trough. Only about two miles of banks near Griffith Park are exposed enough to support life . Along its journey the river picks up runoff from about 4200 storm drains, and many people regard it as nothing more than a sewer. "Z in spite of these costly flood control efforts. California' s chief flood forecaster rates the Los Angeles River basin as having the highest pot4ntial for a major flood disaster_ Another example is the San Lorenzo River in Santa Cruz. Zn the 1960 ' s the Army Corps built a: flood control project. "Large cement levees were installed to raise the banks and the riverbed was excavated below its natural level to carrY flood flows , . . _ an ugly drainage ditch running through the 1 center of the town. SFortunately, today there is a new- awareness. "when. small towns turn into larger ones and to cities, people feel a. SPECIAL CC 12/19/91 EXHIBIT 0 Page 6 need to recognize the wilderness past we are all a part of . • Water is one of the main means by which we try to touch base with our past. 111 People are responding with simple outrage to a desecration of their neighborhood. Today "there are almost 300 projects around the state to preserve or restore urban streams" , done with "a new awareness of the value of streams and their significance in human lives . "4. The City of Santa Cruz is presently developing "a new, environmentally sound flood control plan. Eventually. . . many of the cement banks will be planted with native shrubs and trees, which not only will look nicer but will cool the edges of the water, provide shade for fish, and encourage insects , which are an important part of the food chain. in the end. . . the project may cost as much as 20 or 30 million dollars over the next decade . "Z San Luis Obispo spent many years restoring a portion of its downtown creek and developing a plaza. After hiring architects , holding a city election, bit by bit purchase of land, securing of easements and land dedications, and countless hours of volunteer work by citizens, the plaza and creek restoration in a critical part of the downtown became a reality. Unfortunately in earlier years the creek had been considered a throwaway commodity and two and one-half blocks of downtown business were built right over the creek. This encroachment has in turn greatly increased flood damage to adjacent properties. Boulder Colorado provides an example of how to avoid destruction of creeks and streams and prevent the exorbitant cost of restoration.. Boulder- has been working on its plan for the past ZZ years. Here is its secret: preserve the- flora heflora and fauna through the acquisition- of open space, and SPECIAL CC 12/19/91 EXHIBIT D Page 7 prevent incompatible development in the floodplain and beyond, reserving it for recreational use. Creeksite preservation is cost-effective. Restoration is almost cost-prohibitive. Engineering solutions in the past have proven unsatisfactory and have led to the need for expensive restoration. Through land use regulations and acquisition of land for recreational use, creeksites will provide the greatest public benefit with the least cost. E. G. Lewis planned the City of Atascadero with great foresight . He reserved approximately one-fourth of the entire estate for parks, as well as "the banks of all streams for fifty feet on both sides , and an acre surrounding all springs . " 3 He established open space creek reservations for all creeks . The original maps , recorded in 1914 , show them extending beyond the banks of Atascadero Creek. Additionally he required a setback of not less than . twenty-five feet from property lines abutting the creek reservations . Unfortunately, after the E. G. Lewis bankruptcy the creek reservations were sold into private ownership, as was the rest of the parkland. This marked the beginning of a great loss of. a vision of preservation of community rights and values . *the attitude of thepeople and the courts continue to move in_ the direction of favoring protection of the community interest rather than. the interest of the individual developer. . . Attitudes about the extent of local regulation. of land subdivision. that is allowabl- have • changed markedly over the past few Years• "T SPECIAL CC 12/19/91 _ EXHIBIT D Page 8 The subsequent General Plans continued to incorporate many environmental values and even today the General Plan reflects respect for natural resources . However, city government failed to incorporate these values into local ordinances . Furthermore,some of these values have been totally deleted through General Pian amendments. In addition, most environmental elements have been ignored in the decision making process to accommodate private property rights at the expense of community rights . The 1967 General Plan states ,of import to the plan and to the economy of the community are the acquisition of creek reservations"¢ . The 1977 General Plan addresses the acquisition of creek reservations or easement rights and is still part of today' s General Plan. No comprehensiverehensive plan to establish this goal has been developed. In many instances the opportunity to secure "easements, parkland and open space dedications . . . through the subdivision and - development process,1 5 has been lost. The 1977 General Plan also stated "Access to and recreational use of the creeks should be assured by establishing building setbacks of not less than 50 feet from the bank of the creek. 116 This minimum 50 foot setback was deleted in 1933 by Resolution 17-83 to facilitate a lot split in the southern Atascadero Creek Reservation. No . 6 . The requirement to establish specific setbacks along the banks was never acted upon. No setbacks have been established, Leaving our creeks subject to development and abuse. What has happened. to E. G. Lewis ' s. dream7 creek reservations have been subdivided to facilitate development along the creeks. Lot line adjustments have- been granted, satisfying requirements for further subdivision. Homes have been . constructed within the 100 year floodplains and within- the SPECIAL CC 12/19/91 EXHIBIT D Page 9 creek reservation areas . Homes and apartments have been constructed at the creekbanks. Creekbanks have been stabilized with concrete and metal. Banks have been eroded by livestock. In areas along the streams there is an acrid smell of sewage and in various places the creek and the creekbed have been used as dumpsites . Tributaries that just a few years ago supported life have been confined in culverts , buried and built upon. The signs of destructive human impact are leaving their mark on our local creeks. However, Atascadero is very fortunate that our creeks have so far escaped the massive destruction common to other urban creeks , and the community has escaped serious flood damage . Many areas are still beautifui.The streambanks , supported by natural riparian vegetation, have been allowed to change with the flow and ebb of the waterlevel. Majestic oaks, sycamores, walnuts and cottonwoods still line the banks . . Erosion and development along the banks are still confined to certain areas . How fortunate we are! But if we are to preserve this delicate and diverse environment we must now assume responsib ilitY for this unique ecological treasure in our community. NOTES 1. Ken Schwartz, address to Atascadero Homeowner' s Association, March 1-3 , 1989 . . Z. Pollock, Sarah, Urban Creek- Restoration, The Museum of California 12-, No. 6 ( 1989 ) . 3 . Atascadero California, published by The Atascade-ra Press ( 1-9f 3 ) 4. Atascadero General Plan. ( 1967) .. 5. Atascadero General Plan (1980) . a. Atascadero General Plan. (19-77) . • T. Yearwood, Richard R. , Land Subdivision Regulation, Fraeger Publishers -( 1971) 4 t spECIAL CC 12/19/91 MIBIT E December i8 , 199� _A 7ayor aad memaers o:: the icy Oouncil AL Oar cwo aad a hal-1.7 years anci what aus'z; seem like endless rhetoric, you have as opportunity toaighc to take a .3i>nificant Step forward.. Ii you vote in support 06 your own Plannin6 flommission and staff ' s recommendations to adopt ouilding sac .oac.cs on k4ascadero 's creer-days , you will successfully resolve the differences and misunderstandings which aave developed over this jLssue. Ithiaic you would. all agree we need to preserve our irreplaceable natural resources. The language proposed 03r your sta f tares into accountrQll of oojectioas L have heard is opposition to any setbac quirements. The aucposed language allows for exceptions to the 50 foot setbacK if reasonable criteria are met to prot2ct the cceeicway habitat or it the city has completed a crte way mapping program which allows for other satbaczs. Opponents to any setbacks on our creeks have pleaded that their private property rights are oeing violated or that their property is being taken from them This is si:mp17 not true.. We all have to litre wit,, wont, side ,and tsar setbacks , height restrictions,. etc. when we develop our property. And L rememoer homes in rural Oregon beim °cashed. away when there were ao zoning or setback requirements to protect property owners. Recently L visited my beach cabin in Gearhart, Oregon to find a home being built on an adjacent lot.,- very close to our cabin_ So we checked with the city manager on their sstbac� rsstricrions_ L was very pleased. when L read thei-- simpla tgo page document to find that they had language to protect: their t=eens. and rivr e *Lth a 50 foot setbaait .. LL this Zittle sleepy laid bath town of 2000 people cam da it, sa cart g'�.ascadero_ Lf you. da reject your staffs ecommendatiom, = Will. be m��t carious to hear howi you eau. 'justify a mega.ti ve: vote-_ Plaase vota- yes- ThaaJC you. �inceraly� �e-Lia Ifo sg 8040 coromar Rd.: -� Atascadero„ ua_ 93422. SPECIAL CC 12/19/91 n EXHIBIT F G'r. �(V�.C.1 �'C-<� •v, q v\V v t v\ Y\L W `'\-'I� �l t s e is \ rCV`4 t.j ,J -\i'� Chc'-\\t.- M�jt. 4 6v XAS ��t'�t Gly�c.t'�.vr• �.%G-a J/�� cc�cl. :2 �r-eC:.�, t...:��r, , `:� eV�.G.I\Ci\��r�.`(�� .li�+_�('� 'F}:L L`i�,J�i 1 �-`ti , \i`J�l.�"'`k•V'� yi..\•'.� W�`�X�-� v1C LA3`1+.'�. �' c-,c-. CL.10\'. v- \a'l SPECIAL CC 12/19/91 EXHIBIT G Page i of 8 December 19, 1991 Joan O' Keefe 9985 Old Morro Rd. East Atascadero, Ca 93422 To the City Council; I am submitting this statement and all its enclosures to be part of the record of the City Council meeting of 12/19/90 on the General Plan Uadate Draft of pragosed Land Use— Conservation seConsersati on and Open space Ements and Final Environmental Impact Report . I have heard members of the City Council speak in public hearings about the need to protect the creeks of Atascadero. I am very pleased that tonight you finally have an opportunity to vote for that protection', while at the same time allowing for the necessary flexibility. I am sure that you already know many of the reasons why you should adopt this language. Please bear with me as I explain why I believe it is so important . My main concern 1s . CUMULATIVE IMPACTS • A close look at the Graft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Draft General Plan will show you that the cumulative impacts of the past, present and future developments along Atascadero' s creeks are not addressed. On a one by one, lot by lot, home by home evaluation, each with its own Legative Declaration, the impacts of each individual development appears minor. However, together these developments will change the creeks as we know them. This is a slow, almost unnoticeable process until one day the damage can no longer be ignored. 3y this time restoration is usually so expensive that it stretches the communities finances to the Limit or it may be cost-prohibitive. It. is. through cumulative impacts that 95� of California's urban creek habitat has alreadv been lost. (See enclosures A235-A240, Urban Creek Restoration. ) It is because of cumulative impacts that 60* of California' s surviving creeks are in trouble as was pointed out by a University of California, Davis study. (See enclosures C23--C26, The Meaning of Creeks . ) Atascadero' s creeks can easily become a part of this sad statistic by looking at each development individually and not considering the cumulative effects of the many individual projects together. • Past Cumulative Impacts Homes, apartments and commercial buildings have been allowed to be constructed to the bank of the creeks . (See enclosures 01-D37 . ) Riparian vegetation, so vital to the health of a creek, has been allowed to be removed. These are years in which certain animal species have already disappeared from our creek habitat . A former creeklot resident testified before the Planning Commission that only the teeth-marks remain in some tree trunks to remind us that beavers once lived here, that steelhead trout are no longer found in our creeks . Others have noted that the heron rookery has disappeared. (See enclosures A211-A212, Planning Commission minutes of 10/29/91 and public comments made by at the Planning Commission meeting of 4/3/90, on tape. ) These are years in which creekbanks have been eroded, riparian vegetation has been lost, culverts have been installed to accommodate new development_ and their discharge has eroded some banks of the creeks . Horses have been allowed to graze in the creek and have polluted the water, destroyed the riparian vegetation, and eroded and broken down the banks of the creek. vehicles have been allowed in the creeks that have destroyed the riparian vegetation, • displaced wildlife, eroded the creekbanks and polluted the waters . The basic steps necessary to protect urban creeks have in many instances not been taken. What will it cost the city to restore the damaged areas of our creeks? (See enclosures C14-C22, Stream Care Guide and enclosures E1-E3, pictures . ) The DEIR does not evaluate these past cumulative impacts of development along our creeks since 1983 . That was the year in which the requirement to establish minimum 50 foot setbacks was removed from the city' s General Plan to allow one person to subdivide his creeklot into three parcels. (See enclosures Al-A30, Staff Reports, Planning Commission minutes and City Council minutes of 10/18/32, 11/1/82, 11/15/82, 1/17/83, 2/22/83, 4/11/83 . ) Although the remaining General Plan language still mandates that ~creek setbacks shall be established" the Council failed to establish such setbacks in an ordinance. This has resulted in an effective zero foot setback from the creeks which is contrary to many of Atascadero' s General Plan policies . (See enclosures B2-B4, quotes from Atascadero's General Plan. ) The DEIR does not analyze the cumulative impacts that this eight year development policy of zero setback has had on the creeks, creekbanks, riparian vegetation, wildlife habitat and wildlife. • Future Cumulative impacts What will be the cumulative impacts of structures that push themselves onto the creeks? What will be the cumulative impacts of erosion caused by construction? What will be the cumulative impacts of erosion caused by culverts installed along the creeks to provide drainage for the new development . what will be the cumulative impacts when development in love and appreciation of the creeks hugs in the long term the vegetation and wildlife to death? What will be the cumulative impacts when structures and people displace threatened, endangered, or rare species in these rich natural corridors? What will be the cumulative impacts when development forces the relocation of wild animals in our creeks because they are no longer compatible with their immediate neighbor - man? What will be the cumulative impacts of the city 's Tree Ordinance that does not cover riparian vegetation and does not apply on lots that already have a structure on it? (See enclosures A14?-AZ51. ) What will be the cumulative impacts of riparian vegetation loss on the creekbank' s stability? What will be the cumulative impacts of riparian vegetation loss on the wildlife? What will be the cumulative impacts of the removal of riparian vegetation within the recommended 30 to 100 feet of structures by the creek because it presents a dangerous fire threat to these buildings in the dry hot summer month? (See enclosures C33-C34, Fireproof and enclosures C29-C32, Wildfire. ) What will be the cumulative impacts if this vegetation is allowed to remain and a firestorm takes the homes adjacent to the vegetation? What will be the fiscal impacts when insurance rates for all homeowners get increased to pay for the homes lost in the fire? • 3 What will be the cumulative impacts of construction at the edge of banks of the creeks when the next very wet rainy season crumbles and erodes the 'banks which support the buildings? Public testimony was given at the Planning Commission hearing in June 1990 that since the 1960 ' s and 70 ' s the creek has changed 15 yards or 45 feet . (See enclosure A126, Planning Commission minutes of 5115/90 . ) What_ will be the cumulative impacts on the creeks when concrete walls will be constructed to reenforce the banks to save these threatened 'homes? What will be the fiscal impacts to all citizens when their insurance rates increase to pay for the homes that could not be saved when the creek changed its channel in a flood caused by a massive storm? What will be the cumulative impacts of urbanization which increases runoff and discharges more water- into the creeks in a shorter period of time ( lagtime) ? What will it cost the City of Atascadero to restore the damage to the creeks if the cumulative impacts are allowed to continue? (See enclosures C1-C13, Ur'--an Stream Restoration Program, enclosure A222, The Hidden Wonder of Contra Costa County, and enclosures E1-E8, pictures . ) • The DEIR does not assess any of these foreseeable future cumulative impacts of development along the creeks . The city is already subdivided and such impacts can be forecast . (Projects such as the 444 unit RV park along Graves Creek and the Salinas and which proposes to culvert Graves Creek should be considered as parr of the cumulative impacts analysis of the Land Use Element . ) The ambiguous language that building setbacks shall be established leaves us to speculate what this may be. Will it be 5 feet? Will it be measured from the center of the creek? when will it be established? Since this is a Program EIR it is especially important to address the cumulative impacts of such an open ended policy. The City' s Past Record The original language proposed in the Draft General Plan and DEIR was ambiguous as has been so clearly said in the letter of September 9, 1991 by the California Department of Fish and Game. Since the city's incorporation. in 1980 the Atascadero General Plan stated "Building setback requirements shall be established along the banks of both creeks. . . " and went on to state " . . . by establishing building setbacks of not less than 50 feet from the bank of the creek. " This language, as stated previously, was • 4 modifier in 1983 by removing the 50 foot setback requirement-- but equirementbut leaving the wording "Building setback requirements shall . be established along the banks of both creeks" . (See enclosures A17-A30, Staff Reports, Planning Commission minutes and City Council minutes 1/17/83 , 2/22/83, 4/11/83 . ) Since incorporation 11 years ago the city has not established building setbacks in its Zoning Ordinance with the result that its General Plan and Zoning Ordinance are not consistent . In fact, the City Council has filibustered with an endless stream of rhetoric thereby avoiding, postponing and delaying action to provide protection for the creeks . (See enclosure A. ) in March of 1990 the Council appointed the Creek Study Committee, a step that is to be commended. However, the creek study seems to go on and on and on. Meanwhile the creeks remain unprotected. The committee has provided valuable information but their work will take time, possibly many years. Unfortunately since their appointment the committee has been used to delay decision making. Two years ago, in January of 1990, the City Council unanimously initiated an Interim Ordinance to establish setbacks as required by the General Plan. Just two weeks later, January 23 , 1990 the Council came back and unanimously found that it could not support such an ordinance. (See enclosures A47-AS1, City Council minutes 1/9/90 and enclosures A84-A8S, City Council minutes • 1/23/90 . ) On that same date, 1/23/90, the City Council gave unanimous direction to proceed with the process to establish 50 foot building setbacks along the creeks in the Zoning Ordinance. In response the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this issue on 5/15/90 . However, action was tabled by the City Manager who requested delay until some unknown time in the future when the creek study is complete. (See enclosure ASS, City Council minutes 1/23/90 and enclosures A101-A121, Staff Report to the Planning Commission. 5/15/90 and enclosures A122-A128, Planning Commission minutes 5/15/90 and enclosures A98-A100, Memorandum from City Manager 5/8/90 . ) In December of 1990 the City Council removed riparian trees from the Tree Ordinance with the unanimous promise that it would cover riparian vegetation in a separate creekway protection ordinance. On November 26, 1991 staff recommended the protection of riparian vegetation in the Waterway Intrusion Ordinance. The Council removed that provision from the ordinance. (See enclosure A150, City Council minutes 12/11/90, see enclosures A252-A255, Staff Report to the City Council 11/26/91, see enclosures A267- 5 A275, Staff Report to the City Council 12/10/91 and see • enclosures A256-A266 & A276-A286, City Council minutes of 11/26/91 and 12/10/91, which were not available at the time of this statement but which I make herewith part of the record. ) To this day no ordinance has been adopted by the City Council that addresses the protection of riparian vegetation. Instead the Council has told the public that the blackberries need to be removed from the riparian corridor. However, backberries stabilize steep creekbanks keeping them from eroding and crumbling. They provide safe nesting sites and a food source for wildlife. They keep people out of certain areas thereby protecting endangered species . Blackberries are planted by the California Department of Fish and Game on creekbanks to protect wildlife and on creek rehabilitation projects to revegetate steep creekbanks . Blackberries are riparian vegetation. The City Council directed staff in December of 1990 to draft a creek preserve protection ordinance that would address off-road vehicles, dog runs, etc. in the creek. (See enclosure A145, City Council minutes 12/11/90 . ) on 11/26/91, staff recommended to the Council a draft Waterway intrusion Ordinance. On Council direction, the "ordinance was prepared with the purpose of identifying human activities causing the most destructive impacts on the riparian habitat . " These include 1) use of vehicles, 2) • dumping of pollutants, 3 ) confinement of domestic animals, 4) unauthorized construction, and 5) destruction of riparian vegetation. The Council ordered staff to delete sections 3 through 5) . The matter was continued. on 12/10/92 the Council adopted an ordinance prohibiting private vehicles and dumping of pollutants in the riparian corridor. Of the many concerns raised in the letter from the Department of Fish and Game vehicles in the creek has been the only issue that the Council has addressed. (See enclosures A245-A247, Letter from the Department of Fish and Game, see enclosures A252-A255, Staff Report 11/26/91 enclosures A26~-A27S, Staff Report 12/10/91, and see enclosures A256-A266 & A276-A286, City Council minutes of 11/26/91 and 12/10/91, which were not available at the time of this statement but which I make herewith part of the record. ) No action was taken by the Council on the unanimous. recommendation of staff and the Planning commissions to protect the creek reservations from further subdivision. The Council removed that portion from the Subdivision Ordinance update until some unknown time in the future when the creek study is complete. In the meantime the City Council adopted the revisions to the Subdivision Ordinance without this provision. (See enclosures A152-A153, Staff. Report 7/16/91 and enclosures A154-A156, Planning Commission 6 minutes 7/16/91 and enclosure A163, City Council minutes 8/13/91 . 1 . In the past 2 years the City has held many public hearings that addressed, in one way or another, the issue of creek protection not counting the public hearings where development projects affecting the creeks were considered. (See enclosure Al-A286 and see enclosures 01-D37 . ) These hearings have resulted in a lot of grandstanding, but have done nothing to protect the creeks . How many more times will the citizens hear the City Council say we want to do it right but not right now. Given the city ' s record we must assume that if the Council is to adopt any setback that setback would be too little and too late. Mitigation for Cumulative Impacts of Development on the Creeks The language on creek building setbacks and creek protection before you, policies 18 through 23, as recommended by the Consultants Crawford, Multari & Starr and by your Planning Commission, addresses some of the concerns raised by the California Department of Fish and Game, the experts on this issue. It addresses some of the concerns raised by the public in these hearings . It addresses the concerns raised in this statement . it addresses them because this language • provides mitigation for the cumulative impacts of development along the creeks . It provides an effective monitoring program to assure the success of the mitigation. Without this mitigation monitoring language the EIR will be flawed and inadequate. The exceptions provided for in the language will give the necessary flexibility to allow development on every lot . As was pointed out by the Memorandum dated 11/5/91 from the Community Development Director this language would establish ~the 50 foot distance as a trip wire for additional review of permits in selected riparian areas' . (See enclosures A250-A251, Memorandum from H. Engen, 11/5/91. ) There are. other communities that have adopted specific figures in their General Plan and provided the necessary flexibility through careful wording just as the recommended wording on creek building setbacks before you is doing. This wording- will- not take property owners- use of their property any more than the side, front and rear building setbacks that the city is presently requiring. The public will count on you and your staff to explain this at the Council hearing to the citizens who may be confused about the relationship between setbacks and a taking. T • I urge you to adopt the Draft General Plan and the DEIR as has been recommended to you by the Planning Commission. ff 0)-Wz4L---, SPECIAL CC 12/19/91 EXHIBIT H December 19, 1991 • To the City Council: I wish to address two different but related issues. At one time, E. G. Lewis set aside one fourth of the Atascadero Colony for public use. Included in that were the creek reservations. I am not talking about setting aside a fourth of Atascadero for public use. It is something of a commentary of our times that we are reduced to talking about a small fraction of the original ideas of the founder of this town. I am talking about a fifty foot setback for the creeks to protect them so that maybe twenty or thirty years from now there may be something left which reminds us of what originally brought E. G. Lewis, and I suspect what brought many of us here, the natural beauty of Atascadero. Like many other people, I have had a lifelong love for the beauty of a night sky full of stars. Since I have lived here, I have noticed a drastic deterioration in the quality of the night sky. I am pleased to see that on page N-13 of the EIR draft for the Camino Real Fashion Outlets, glare as an environmental issue is discussed. There are simple, cost effective measures- that can be taken to reduce undesirable glare onto surrounding suburban areas. I would like to ask the City Council to incorporate into the General Plan requirements for commercial development that would reduce glare, such as shielded lights. This is a win-win proposal- Studies have shown that with proper shielding and direction of illumination to parking lots the total illumination can be reduced by as much as forty percent with a corresponding reduction of energy consumption.The payback in cost can be as quick as two to four years. This:allows some of us to enjoy the night sky for its aesthetic value and retain,what we cm of the rural feeling. The issues of aesthetics,retention of a.rural feeling and conservation of energy resources are worthy goals of the General Plan_ Stephen R. LaSalle! SPECIAL CC IZ/I9/9? I� EXHIBIT E }•, V V ' C-- C"ear .uear cot,nc 1 meM,,er*s t s r.ir' f { ta' Shp l� �Ivildlir-a amen" nor tie 1` st! W4 •lul11e JePar'mems. s •��.�.;Lc inr'ormed a gr�:,u� Of res.ideri!r3 hat deer ar born, live, and die all wit Il ' �• ,. t / .� t /•1 t. min ,+ n�•p n i'n rM,n� r+....n.,.+... tme same t o �- {� _mi ilia area. I'het� ,:Q lot mor„ vn as s gas.. �y jillliiW l .h I t , i`._�..,�. ter.. h� n kit i tf i (ii. orJL;'.ar r-1..s. {{ ;Ju C.� .� �� nair I{abitat, ycu _ ..: n . 'ifs year-, T� Nan.;+-�r h i�i� ar a �jar"t'ting rat-.. Cu-Ing !' e "a:.L f 1 t n wcr'<,. . for t:�a cisn and Came DapartiRe^t in C;'1is area, he hay seer, a deer nerd a 20 -30,000 diminisn to 2,000. His rla6commlr�uation to We department his year is that there- is no de:.r herd in the RJQrt" County arena. i his is a iQss Qf 1'3 - 28,000 deer. if this care ra`�'I�ia, we would at' be ::,'frog. T11 Qf u5 Who Itynr� iei=t wQuTd i:eum Ci e QGU' C I .." 'n ' ,! on '?y 3. we ar? Cai<ing here of a Ia ion Iar.;..r an tI• -/ 3i.s.:A�BL v1 rtv�e. 3avOr. ± •/( :nc, .. ,gy•-m..a ^r `'eir�s and oth L+:°r�j w� Cli«i .�,ray:. 3 •.{,an�... .3!. I � C:.,. 11ara- In rttaycad r:. I I;e -Iar,ni11g �- IifiiIJJIQn ,Ia.. t..c.J I •.� . .v :0 �oQt building ,etac,< from the esKs inCo our general ;fan. hf3 is a s rho safeguard: or �I N i ldi i fe hat sti i i 1 lues her- t t in no Wray Itakes away anyone's arapertf ana makes it available for pubiic use. it scat lets ir_stay in CMe rands or the ir?ature:s_Mair get heir sustainerice-112r om•' it Their ver•/% fives depend on you and your w•i Iiingness to of ford hem protec-oR_ (' R 1` uiSs`H '''3^iQ(Ic1iaCIQR QS`hum8fi beim. gay a qac , i / _ �,1�� a ,�r�t.y...;.. .+r ll�r�4n r� It• h e•rg.i td.i l fa cane :t.•.:Z� Jut. %W 14�1�iCly. VI Jt Y/ •I�a-ZIl{ •IW 1 t...r� L/��. rn only !secett¢on `10 &humans Mat 2n See-z ,cnc: y:.l•�es ,;�Co a:ruorid 1»., z�,... , 1 i• Anda or. ,.c:`� 'NI;�'- ice': ;tr�T iT .. {tv'1:rtg �1 ,f gei1, q-- aro.Uac~d�IY 'ttFC i�rd i! Gt' •JIIJvC1.lI{tl�v '�:•w. ', 7 w. f ♦fa'7Q.'1�/T,i.. - Y ( ✓n-1 ^Sl`(' n �.� •ii(••c�itl Ue!!1141 1 t.& .LT X ''17. L.•=�Z.sry tact I t;,or ne,.au � �..3u �1uChaR►�•uasu��oye�� oucrrer-�aw�t hand, - • - iiCr-f"��r " ' v n,leu •- . t - SPECIAL CC 12/19/91 EXHIBIT J December 19, 1991 Ursula Luna 10600 San Marcos Rd. Atascadero, CA 93422 Mr. Mayor and members of the Council, "For want of a nail the shoe is lost, for want of a shoe the horse is lost, for want of a horse the rider is lost" How many news programs do we listen to,how many articles do we read, learning that another species is threatened, another forest lost, another water source polluted, another habitat destroyed? Just recently came the warning that the eagle population will face drastic decline because of rapid loss of brushland and therefore jackrabbits, the eagles main food source. It does not take the lifetime of a generation to destroy the life sustaining environment entrusted on us. Within just 10 ears the rabbits have disappeared from the canyons m husband � y pp y y grew up in.Today signs warn not to eat the poisoned berries and mushrooms in the forests of my childhood.It took only 4 years before my son no longer saw the quail where he grew up. These same experienced losses are repeated over and over again. For the past 25 years you and I have heard about the intricate complexities of the ecosystem.Why have we failed to incorporate this knowledge into our action? We postpone these decisions to let our children deal with the results of our exploiting self-serving actions,be it a multi-trillion dollar debt,a poisoned planet and exhausted resources. We pretend that these problems are caused by others,not by our own small actions.But it is indeed only our own small actions that make the difference Will we record that"For want of a.vote the creeks were lost?" • SPECIAL CC 12/19/91 EXHIBIT K • December 19. 1991 "Dear City Council Members: L fully support the '"discretionary review" of any development proposals within SO feet of creekways. These delicate ar3a3 must be acknowledged. Wt-- must caratulty consider the changes we make in our local environment. • Thank you. r-444�1�- ftkt-a Kt,rkpatrick 6605. Santa Cruz Rd_ Artascadero. CA 93x27 SPECIAL CC 12/19/91 EXHIBIT r, 1 Atascadero, Bec. 13, 1992 Mr. mayor, members of the hoard: my name is Ron dial, and L am writing this lettar on behalf of my f amily and myself. we have Lived in Atascadero since 1981. we hereby express our sincere concern about the continuing encroachment by private intarest upon what we consider to be one of Atascadero 's most beautifuL natural resources---the Atascadero Creek. we as a city ars behind the times for not already having recognized the Atascadero Creek for what it is---a precious part of Atascadero ' s- heritage which deserves to be preserved for future generations. we strongly- supcort the adoption of an ordinance which wnecessary ill- provide for the necessy protection, as Drell as :.or the enhancement of the Atascadero ::eek and we tars^e you do all you can to accomplish this objective. • Sincerely, Ronald 3.. diel 9090 La Canada. Atascadero • SPECIAL CC 12/19/91 EXHIBIT M Harvey P, Levenson • P. O. Box 323 Atascadero, CA 93423 December 18, 1991 City Council City of Atascadero, CA Dear Council Members: This is a letter in support of those many Atascadero residents concerned about the deterioration of Atascadero Creek and surrounding environs. As you know the concern relates primarily to the approval of building permits that allow dwellings to be placed within the 50 foot protected area that is presently being considered. I support the passing of legislation that will enforce the 50 foot"barrier" to enhance property protection and safety, and to help • maintain an aesthetically pleasing and clean environment. Property protection and safety is a concern in the event of "flash flooding" and its influence on dwellings sitting on or close to the creek bank. Aesthetics and cleanliness is a concern regarding the overall pleasant appeal of the creek's present environment to those who live near it or visit it I believe that it would be in the city's best interest to protect the the creek as a "gift of nature"that Atascadero is fortunate to have. Sincetrely, ' Harvey)R. Levenson S-7� n • SPECIAL CC 12/19/91 EXHIBIT N 8705 Sierra Vista Rd. .,uu acero, -,3422 December 19, 1991 • To; Mayor Alden Shiers Members of the Atascadero City k3ouncil Subject : General Plan Update, creek setback issue It has been said by one creek property owner that imple- menting a creek setbac'.c "would deprive owners of the same privileges enjoyed by property owners in the same zoaing district." What a non-sensical comparison! All property is required to save front, side and rear setbacks. icon-creek property owners are not required to have 70 foot setbacks because they have no creekar I believe in property rights. I don't- :.rant my neighbor to build o"n my property because he has inadea nate information about whe-re the proerty line lies. That aimost happened to us. However, I have lived long e sough and have learned at least enough about the 'Constitution to '_-snow that any liven right is balanced against the rights of others. My right to -freedom of speech does not extend so far as to falsel.; yell. ire ! " in a crowded theater. My right to do as I wises on my own propert has to be balanced against the riShts of my neizhbors and the com- • mu=ty as a whole. 3uil;d_ing right up to tLe`pro^erty line re- stricts the light,, air and view of my neighbor. 3uilding within a creek area which can cause damage to a creek which does not belong solely to me but also to many others is not one of my property. rights.. I have no right to expect you to take care of my acuse in flood times because I insist on building right on the. creek. i am incensed when I am asked as a tax-payer to aid some of the owners of elegant homes on Malibu. I resent bailing out anyone who risks such proximity to ocean storms.. Therefore, it seers obvious to me that flood and fire danger are enhanced whey- homes are close to: the creeks and their vege- tation.. Lt. seems obvious to me that this setback tsE every bio as reasonable as the front, side, and rear setbacks required in residential, and commercial- areas. It seems obvious to me that ar greater setbacic be required, when one is dealing with something as and unpredictable as a stream: which- can rage one day, re_cie• .the next and. chiangL-. course: the following day. & creek; is hat s tact.=f l t: is ae Using tJz ng- _ _ Repeatedly crying `mg property is Ueing taken." or "ty Gonsitu- ticmaZ. rights are- violated"' because= of the eery reasonable neect too protect creeks- and homeowners- a:Like,� does: naw give truth to these: complaints_ Stating; over aced awe= "'the= wo l-d. t_% flat" w+T Z rrat makes it true. Please,. councilmembers•, after- scr very, very long, so very',: very' • much study and ta1k,b please give stascadera this creek protection. 1]orat « McNeil V4*)zq4-rzi a Potm%6 DecemGea /9. /99/ SPECIAL CC 12/19/91 Good eve :ng mew,ea4 04 tf e Ci t# Counca EXHIBIT 0 • !w Veau ago CVs on Decembelt /9, 1989, the P4wnZzg COVJ=Z444On recommended to Lire Ci.; Council (6:1) ;6o Aei.rratu, . npa-ge conwmi ng the —:perk 04 OWA bui.Cdirrg 4-AWA a;z�� in 41re dawmaZ Pear, and eata6.lLdh bui.Gding Aet& in #Izp- aning Ordinance. On Se r 9, /99/, the Dept. o4 F Ak and Game 4erat our Camwu- roc DeveLormeit Dept. a le#;en ne o=ending trot ,bpe� 4 beeat Ci. h-,mi she Upland edge 04 the Ai.pwu:= cornier A. T* atated 4iat, "Fan emupLe, wLdu:z the CoeataL 7orre .cn tziv courLtjr, =,wt %4 pa:ci an 4e bac a ane /00 4ee-4 wybu t aem 50 4et-" The tette A&VOW,t atated shat )u,-,au= vegeta tion along otheA wv=aed on axat ten c weAA ow.4 4&U provideel r� uspor&nt habA tat and is-CONU rd d that p;wt ec i ve rueaaurcee 6e eadmid d to LwhAde theoe coruci doAd. On OctobeA 29, /99/ the Pt=zi ng CavmRi,aai,on again necammereded to the Cb Counc.0 on a 5:2 vote to adopt 50 �aot Au LdAng 4et6ac4.6 in .the P.tan, Prov at the Abwzt 8 gegx& have gore 6g u t hou t 4etbac�4 �a,t peotec tion a�- the caeak and ni=Aum corradoa. • MOdW ca 04 Ci;r� Carnci,e: You am .&& dec Lon ma��cng poai.tio— l Rw* that gac mi.LL do the. ;u iAt thil7g. Le-'4 A& t �Rediatelv to p vied our 4w nal vmt /Ce6oEl=" "t rtuecaderro. • SPECIAL CC 12/19/91- EXHIBIT P john ,i. •icNeil a?67 Sierra Vista tascadero , CA 13422 December 19, ly;l :':aJor Alden 6hie_s and Members of the City Council .Ytascedero, Calif. Dear Mfa;:or S 'ere and City Council Members : the proposed building setbacks along the creeks in Atascadero to be ir_corporated in the up-date of the �e�eral -la� have been attacked by one homeowner residing or the creek, who bases his opposition to the proposal on the spurious assertion that the 50 foot se-back would be a "ta:ix" of his property rights. City ordinances for residential, commercial and indu4triai con- struction setbacks for health, safety, and aestheticsreasons are unquestioned. Yo one refers to those setbacks as a taking of property rights. They are recoamized as being for the mutual benefit of all citizens. Without then the rl=al character of our cit-r would be destroyed. The procosed 50 foot creek setbacks will not jive the public access .o p+iva�e o_oper t,y along =e creek. 'yns seLbacss �r--- help preserve the rizarian vexetatl.On that makes t_^.e creeks sacs an attractive natural resource of our city. survey of one hundred squi.Trels living along our creeps, s_ows • t'nat all the scut refs with two excections favor tae 50 foot creek setbacks. Some of the obstreperous scu ._rels nade noises about their property rights. r'ye two squirrels who abstained were quoted as saying, "Nuts to you." and "?eople ara no damn CAood." I urge you to approve this measure recommended by the City Con- sultants and supported by .-Staff and the Planning Commission_ Sincerely, • / SPECIAL CC 12/19/91 EXHIBIT Q `+1e do noz live near a creek. I am concerned abcuz the creeks be- cause I live in AUascaCero. And I am .artic ularl:V concerned about t�he letter the city received from :fir. :mounter, Regional Manager of is'a and Game. :� curious letter indeed. lr. Hunter takes issue with the state- ment in the General Flan EIR that we have no rare or endangered animal species. Ca September 26 I visited Mr. Hunter' s home of- fice in Sacramento and found that indeed we did not have any rare or endangered animal species. Mr. Hunter named six "sensitive" bird which should have been iden- tif ied in the dccumeat the city sent to ris 4nd Game. "Sensitive" seemed an unlikely classification. I, therefore, phoned the Fish and Game office in Long Beach and was told there is no such clas- sification as "sensitive." When I visited Mr. Hunter' s home of- fice in Sacramento I was given a list of "Bird and Mammal Spe- cies of Suecial Concern. " T.e birds which Mr_ Hunter named in his letter to the city as "sensitive" are on the list.. Of the • six birds M.r. Hunter names, only three may be found in Atascadero and not necessarily in the creek area. I am surprised that Mr. Hunter is not aware of the five year Bird Breeding being conducted in this county_, and l.-ascadero , br 4. - the Audubon Society. Three years of the y have been comple- ted. The results indicate that there are no reports of the Cooper' s Hawk or the Sharp-shinned hawk nesting in Atascadero.. There are no reports of sightings of the Long-eared Owl. The Yeliow 'garbler and the yellow-breasted Chat may nest in. tas- cadero in a variety of habitats- The Purple Martin nests at t'ne creek across from the Zoo and near Santa Rita Creek,. Though it too may nest nest in other areas,. the nesting across from the Zoo is the only area documented- So e 4 a e So we have- only three species of special concern �3. A�asaad rof 'the material I obtained from Mr- Hunter' s home office states the followina` about s;ecies cf special concern: It T-1elf '1 — ti— • - .-'r -ry^7�,r T '�-�.w(TT °' � p Ti7JS �r�u_ v' :. �" HAS 10 at 7_CI.sL LEIGAL Al , THEF.E IS NO SPECIAL 1U" IRE1C� T SUCH AS THE LAW PROVIDES FOR • D-'.NG=RED SEE.CIES,TO CONSIDER POTENICI:Z ADI RS% I 4PACTS CE A FRO ECT LTPCN THE SPECIES AND ITS HA31TnT." I am certainly not suggesting that species of special concern deserve no consider—' ation on our part. Whatever we do, however, must be logical, reasonable and based on facts, not emotion. In speaking of set backs, lir. Hlunter cites as example the setback in the Coastal Zone in this county. I phoned the California Coastal Commission in San Francisco and spoke with Mr. Gary Halloway. He told me that Atascadero is not in the Coastal Zone and that their office has no interest in Atascadero. My concern in reading Mr. Hunter' s letter is that it appears to give the impression that our creeks are habitats for endangered animal species. Tre State Office in Sacramento does not con— firm this. 3efore considering any setback you have to determine by means of sound, incontrovertible evidence that establishing the setback • will so tremendously enhance the historical, educational, eco— logical and scientific value of the creeks that it will super— sede the right of the person to use the land he or she paid for. The burden of proof is upon you. Sarah ronstrandi • f - cr O Z O CD O Cr m O :T' CD CD ct Go a oR M O Fj 8 m O m N t-J m r CD m b ct t- 1-j n m Cr Fj O CD O O t-+• H O Q CD CD cn ►i £ £ CD • O mO co m a, m 0 �' P. m y Cno � p- CD cD n ct CD n CD m :: 7 V cr CD m ct C-t. �' CD y O `a m a w m ,.s CA oq n P.O F'i Co ri 11 CD Ctl O O m O z CO CD c!• C� �e Oq m = O m m M Fj Fj O n m m m n () h; ,? ri CD ct a CD ct ct h ct CD O O ct m jS - N N• ct CD P m PIV m ice•CD • S 3 m 0 F3 O CD t-j•,c$ N O :d O a 3 tij m m C3 F� d 0 Z O al ;:r aq O M O O H $a, m N P. 174 y r•O Q CD FjC � O O cD F.. z ct a m ct ct ' h Fj ct z O a` Fj m m O CD m ct m O O O m O to *i O CD m M a m m M Cr CD Fj O a ct N• 1 Gq d CD O m CD m ct a, F"I CD 1-m Z t7q m O m m E.,- rn ct m m cr m ct n CD to C. cam• C_ ct m D O ti c- 11 P. CD m O n m CD CJ CD n Oq m m mm (D HO ctm O )iO FS m CD C m N•m m C. m m m W Cl m Fj W b a m m ct O cr C. O m n m m O m O C O ^� CD CC 0 ct :3 m m �- • m �• O• y W H O 9 cr ct O 0 ct • CD CD 1 CD O ? O 00 Fl Cp CD � a t.+•k N Fi ct r- m d m O n O >C ''r ct, a 1 O O CD n CD111 �- ti =4 m O C O' O Fj v CD O O 't O m CD C m F+- � x O O" m O CD ct ct m m Q. f-j(n Fj CD « C FJ. F i d W O ct = t'S O" M !- CD CD CO �l m M O H cC CD O m M COD y m P. £ - CD ¢• O CD m m £ CD �y CD m h N. 4 ct• ct r O 1-1 Fi O ct O n O M Fl m " h m ii M CD m O !J- O O CD d Fj m CD fj CD n HI m R• a. H m M O h m sZ m Fj. ct- ct C m co a I—j m it 3 O m m CD A. m C13 D 8 O S. m ct m m cr O G O b co Cr A• CD O m ci- O CD £ CD ct-O m O Fi CD Ci- m m OC� and mp. O.m vm CD ct F+r Fj y� m O :-j m � Cr CD I.J.m m m n Ca Fj m 3 m A n a m cD A• :3 O y ct pr t3.cm P- O m L;• H O O- m U1-- F+� Q- CD w CD O t-+- ct H, M O a - ma 0 m03 O m W O x 130 1 i m r C m t-j CD a CD ct-O to a c•t- P. m an d G sa• ar oq m Cct- F-j cD m m b m J. m z I✓ -- m H cr m CD m (11) Q � mci-(D CD Fj • p- R ►l O W G ct d As Q. m Ir z C h m CD c' n CD OC•t- m h m' - r. m GO m Fi ct m co �- F-j m m Qq n 1-4 Fr. ri CD >?.cr- (D C m ri co to m STATE OF CALIFORNIA-THE RESOURCES AGENCY GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN. C r wrw. DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME ; P.O. SOX 9AA209 SACRAMENTO. CALIFORNIA 9A2AA.2090 (916) 445-5561 May 16, 1990 All Interested Parties 1990 List of Bird and Mammal Species of Special Concern The Department of Fish and Game publications, Bird Species of Special Concern in California and Mammalian Species of Special Concern in California, that originally established our administrative lists of birds and mammals of concern have become outdated. Some of the original species on these lists have been officially listed as Threatened or &Wangered by the Fish and Game Commission. Other species have been added to or removed from the lists as additional status information has become available. The original list of birds is now over twelve years old (Remsen 1978) and the mammal list is almost five years old (Williams 1986) . We hope to publish new volumes of Species of Special Concern in the near future. Until that time, in order to avoid any confusion regarding which species the Department considers to be of concern, we have developed the attached list of California birds and mammals. We anticipate updating this list on an annual basis at the and of each calendar year (i.e. , in December 1990 we will revise this list for 1991 ) . This list has been prepared to help land management agencies, developers, landowners and the general public take action to protect declining bird and mammal populations before they become endangered. A species of special concern has: no special legal status, thus there is no special requirement such as the law provides for endangered species, to consider potential adverse impacts of a project upon the species and its habitat_ Yet by giving special consideration to species of special concern whenever possible, we can avoid the costly recovery efforts that might otherwise be required to save the species. The attached list is provided for your information and use during the 1990 calendar year. Bird taxonomy and distribution is based on rhe, 4.0.(r. Check-list of North Axericaa Birds (American Ornithologists' Union, 1957 and 1983) . Mammal taxonomy is based on currently accepted nomenclature. Mammal distribution is based on rhe Mammals of North America (Z. Raymond Hall, 1981 ) .. Although this is an administrative list, we encourage you to consider these species and subspecies as "sensitive" during preparation and revie-* of environmental. documents. If you. have any questions, need additional copies of this list, or have any informatioa suggesting, that any, species or subspecies should be added to or deleted frons• this list, please feel free• to contact Ms. Caryla. Larsen in: the Nongamee Bird and mammal Section of the Wildlife Management Division (phone number 916-323-1417 of ATSS 473-1417) . Thank you for your consideration of these species. Sincerely, _ l 91dridge G. Hunt, Chief Wildlife- Management Division //// Attachment THE RE9MFCES AGEWY DEPARTHWr OF FM AND GAM wi ldl i Fe Marogeaent Division Norigame Bird and Meet u*d Section BIM AND t AMIAL "WeU isn CW SPSCUL COCEW (May 19941 8 IRDS Gavta icer Corort Loon arachvr,;#Ov$ iarecritus marbled Murrelbt Oaaanodroaa furcate Fork-tailed Stort-Pstrel cerorhincs aatocarata Ahirweros Aukltt Ocsanodroda norochroa Ashy StorrPytrel erjt&x1i cirrtuta rufted.Alf fin O=noe w .elanla Black Stors-Petrel Athena aatarlarta Burrowing Owl Strtx xcidenvlis Spotted Owl !�!lecanus arvthrorhvnctros A.ertran ahita Pelican Longyar�d �l .07ulacroeorix curt cos Double-crasted Carvorant Asia otos Sh�t-sar!d l ixabrvchus s Least 3ittarn Asia fiaaeeus Reddish Egrnt Cypselaiaias ��iger glad A+ift cgrgtta rvf8 rs Yillm flycatcw Amita-Faced Ibis E,Pidoriatr tMilhi AlegaQts vYt1h1 Pyroci nalus rv6inas yerlilioa Flycatcher :tycterta aaertcans Mood Stork Jenerocyvtrra bicolor Fulvatts Mistling-W& 1fViardtus tyrartrtulur Brot�tedFlycatcher ,4lstrtonial5 histrionicus Narleauin Ouclk ;7f.07ts'I&IS Parple-Aartin 3uceohall ,sIjMIcs Barrow,s Goidenevv AMM atricaolIlur 3lack-^.aved Chickadee l3Mion hallaetus Owly CWYIor*rizcs brei nei- Coastal Cactus*Nt Ctrafs cvaneus Northern Narriar caotllus 3aMie9MIW .•CC1,11tel strtatu5 SharA- "red Na* ✓ Ae1100t21s califWaics California Wtcateher rbliwdilt al/anr" glad-tailad�Wtcatchw .leciotter c�ch0e/'!1 Coaoer's Aa* ,/' 3eMira s Washer` xivrtar gentllis ttorthern ;osha* ro>aaksto Nw*ret �araouteo unicincctct Norris' Naw* !`amtas dorssle, Crissal. ihaastw 3uteo regalis Farrtiginous Naris ramtoes fecoatOL LeContV Thr-ashet Acvila dhrvsaetas 8oidatr Eagle- Vireo`viciaiar. �j Arm � VanitiWZ vtrgintsr Yirginrt'r Aarbla f alca calurcartus Whir Oendr'oicsAs ►rx Ybllot►' lac , Falco M arlcmur Prairim Falcon, 86naft=uaMtltts Ruffed Grouse 2WUdWLr trtdw sirty= Sal tm or Conon T61 IMM Centrocacacs urVIDWIafrF SAW;;MW W fcta l s vrfhtlrF Ysllote-br�Chat: ryno&XV1us othasiansllus- Sham-tailed GFouee' Pam chritrssa *rdwvj5' Lug&-htiledr Swum CoturnjCWS aavebora ewe r YellowRaiL rnstnatr SPa>Tow awraerius alexa z mels Snort Plow Ptrw�e ftivu Hepatic ff:haveF Charaer'ius rontamw hamtaitr Plover- Pirmp ruW2- Sumler(ashager 'tuentusa awl=w Lona-oilla&Curlewr *rdiUIircndrMhr- frtMMCardinal • l aces-atctctlli Latighit dill Mtrlosaitt,Wlod L mrllLtM: Suisun SOMR iatr�► Cdfus callfocniar5 California Hull Msla9orlZ rladu sarnells Slur Pablo-Sort¢��'�' ntlforni Cullaided Tear M dWIzraeladra.A�silluli: Alaa ft SOW mow'' � .iterna r,�y-waded Lunar Sterna Maw Elegant. tarry lunoo car►tceoks 2vndtops nradr 3tacic Sktrer N IUS,triccior Tricolaretf 8lac*t1rd, BIRO AIS MRWL S'IS8 cr SPW AL �� • (contirnxed) MAt1"^LS ftro9natirts longirerbr'is Pacific ?Dant "oust► sorex lyeill Aottnt lyeli Shr' paciftcus sorex vagrans hahcoetes Saitaarsh Undering SMi ft-osmum I.Iwmtus San Joaeuin Pocket Money sora ornatus rehctus &pw Asta.LAS War plum alticolt Yhite-wsd hck*t Mous+t sorex ornatus salarius Montarey Ornate SWTA lipodw, + vietus Marysville, Kancaroo Rtt Sora orwas salicornicts SOatlwn California. Bivodws el�tim 3ig-wid UrgAr" Qat Saltsarsh Ww mtritaidm Short'flosed Kuparoo Ret S>Ji511n Shree UIOodOttYs Som orna tm SUKAOSUS "i daAs sorsa ornatus willetti Santa Catalina SWO bittrodantom aegilotis Southrn Marsh guvest ,buss ,UCrotuS ctliforntcus California Luf-WAd oat JWCOIA (;;'wonyctarIs mxiwm 4macan Lonrtwgusd oat Aei rodpntCifYS iectWis Untl Crli ft-mt !bust! XyotlS Iuctftnvs ocxrJlttlS rrttona My�ot15 Cave,myotis santxmzar! 1ff�otis +�alifer p atniarlstus �� Island +ker tbt� EuderYs tacultttas bolted Sit �� Plewtus torrtswll jo++nse+�d's atg"' '� Bat A.oeYscuS nnIculatus San Clement& Ceer mom Antrorour paiI!dis Pillid Sat clessntls Nwtinoscw fesormaem's Pocketad FrwtLiled Sat t ydkxYs wrid s Wltra SrasShaov ;bias* ,N0ctinoscns atcrotis 3iq Frwtailsd Sat tularartsis &AW watis. ye,stern Ustiff aal Tjgw bff hisAidus wanctis TQU Catton Rat 3racriyla9W tdaltoeffIS_ Pygay Umlt Sim►a<IZ~ Colorado River Cotton Roc ,,ylyilj¢1s Uchwoj riparluF RiWiat 3rvsh hwit Nwtoar f6scipa rjpArj RIOCIA '`loodrat r Ctrs NffIcags SnoMstros flare fttt-foot*d 'Mt whitrtailed Jat�crabbit '��� ��� ! tow>sendii l Arbariatrs agicsud s Red Trw iolb. 4lodontiz raft.cslifocnicr Sierra Ne+rsda lattntaln Seaver Xicrottc adiforniaes Sao Pabia 1,001kAarlodontiz refs:nigra; Mint Aram Monntaart 3asyse y��oa0rloeRsis Aolodontis.rufa.PMet Point 4aves,'bur►tusr Beaver ctliformars Ouerts Ya1Ls1► volt bww0,luS tereticatbus Palix WIPW 6taatA Squirrel ratlIic>'lt d Uarvs low trinotatus acacias Point Reyes•Jtsainq Motcsa nIatroos"s sattr'tnrrs S++r gecnacdlno:flYin�SquinmL Fishy ,- csit focntcus l'ssades<wvIr A�et:tcaae aarlga►s` ,7tasar:Ys usbrirrrsaeu�oasasr 4"'gos*Pocket:rGWW �I�l,�gctcilis a phitlt 1*12n w Spotted: 'mm lFrogrtattrrs tongiseibrts los Artgelmc Pocket:Maw tutu.csnrdewis-ww 30 Saatlttesttctr RiveF OtLac t►rarintsus Felis coraolor brata�L Mcuattitr Liar • • State of California The Resources Agency Department of Fish and Game STATE AND FEDERAL ENDANGERED AND THREATENED ANIMALS OF CALIFORNIA (Revised July 1991) This is a list of the species or subspecies of animals found within California or off the coast of the state that have been classified as Endangered or Threatened by the California Fish and Game Commission (state list) or by the U. S. Secretary of the Interior or the U. S. Secretary of Commerce (federal list) . The official California listing of ' stin Endangered and Threatened animals g the California Code of is contained in h Regulations, Title 14, Section 670. 5. The official federal listing of Endangered ered and Threatened animals isP ublished in the Federal Register, 50 CFR 17 -11. Candidate animals for state listing and proposed animals for Federal listing are also included in this list. A state candidate species is one which the Fish and Game Commission has formally noticed as being under review by the Department for addition to the state list. A federal proposed species is one for which a proposed regulation has been published in the Federal • Register. Code designation: Totals as of July 1991 SE - State-11 9 State-listed Endangered 43 ST = State-listed Threatened 29 FE = Federally listed Endangered 49 FT = Federally listed Threatened 22 SCE = State candidate (Endangered) 0 SCT = State candidate (Threatened) 1 FPE = Federally proposed (Endangered) 3 FPT = Federally proposed (Threatened) 1 Total number of animals listed 105 Total number of candidate/proposed animals 5- Common and scientific names are shown as they appear on the state or federal lists_ If the nomenclature differs for a species that- is hatis included on both lists, the state nomenclature is: given and the federal nomenclature is shown in a footnote. Also, other synonyms and name changes are footnoted. • Endangered and Threatened Animals of California Page Z Common Name Scientific Name Classification GASTROPODS Trinity Bristle Snail. Monadenia setosa ST CRUSTACEANS California Freshwater Shrimp Syncaris pacifica SE, FE Shasta Crayfish Pacifastacus fortis SE, FE INSECTS Mission Blue Butterfly Lcaricia, icarioides missionensis F Lotis Blue Butterfly Lycaeides acgyrognomon lotis F Palos Verdes Blue Butterfly Glaucopsyche Lygdamus Fr paiosverdesensis E1 Segundo Blue Butterfly Euphilotas (=Shijimiaeoidesj FE battoides allvni Smith' s Blue Butterfly Euphilotas j=Shijim.iaeoidesj cam' enoptes smithi San Bruno Elfin Butt rncisalia mossi bayensis FE'. Lange's Metalmark Butterfly Apodemia mormo lange.L FE Bay Checkerspot Butterfly Euphydz-yas editha bayensis ri Oregon Silverspot Butterfly Speyeria serene hippolyta r^'� Myrtle' s Silverspot Speyerza car-ane myrtleae FPE Butterfly Kern Primrose Sphinx Moth ZUproserpinus eutarpe FT Oelta Green Ground Beetle 3laphrus vzridis FT Valley Elderberry Longhorn Desmocerus cali.fornicusc'i' Beetle dmorphus E'TS$ES' Winter-run Chinook Saimort Oncorhynchus tshawytscha SE,. E"r' Little Kern Go Iden Trout OncorhynchusI aguabonita vhital r► Lahontan Cutthroat Trout OncorhynchusZ clar!ci he-nshavi r'T Paiute cut:throat Trout OncorhynchusS clarki selenI i s F'Z' BUIL Trout Salvelinusk confluent-as SE; L Federal.: Salma aguabonita wiritei Z Federal: Salmo- clarki_ henshawi Federal:- Salmo- clarki seleniris Endangered and Threatened Animals of California Page 3 • FISHES (continued) Mohave Tui Chub Gila bicolor mohavensis SE, FE Owens Tui Chub Gila bicolor snyderi SE, FE TT Bonytaz14 Gila elegans SE FE Colorado Squawfish Ptychocheilus Lucius SE FE Deltistes 1 uxatus SE, FE Lost River Sucker SE FE Modoc Sucker Catostomus microps , FE Shortnose Sucker Chasmistes brevirostris SE, Razorback Sucker Xyrauchen texanus SE,FPE Desert Pupfish Cyprinodon macularius SE, FE Cottonball Marsh Pupfish Cyprinodon salinus milleri ST Owens Pupfish Cyprinodon radiosus SE, FE Unarmored Threespine Gasterosteus aculeatus SE, FE Stickleback williamsoni Rough Sculpin Cottus asperrimus ST AMPHIBIANS Santa Cruz Long-toed Ambystoma macrodactylum SE, FE Salamander croceum • Siski You Mountain Plethodon stormi ST Salamander Desert Slender Salamander Batrachoseps aridus SE,- FE Kern Canyon Slender Batrachoseps simatus ST Salamander ST Tehachapi Slender Batrachoseps stebbinsi Salamander ST Limestone Salamander Hydromantes brunus ST Shasta Salamander Hydromantes shastae Black Toad Bufo exsul ST REPTILES Desert Tortoise Gopherus agassizii ST, FT Green Sea Turtle Chelonia mydas P"i Leatherback Sea Turtle Dermochet y s cori acea FE Loggerhead Sea Turtle Caretta carettl Ya T` FFT Olive =Pacific Ridley Lepidochelys olivacea Sea. Turtle Barefoot Banded Gecko Coleonyx switaki _ ST SS, � Coachella Valley Uma i.nornata Fringe-toed Lizard 44 Federal: Bonytail. Chub L' Endangered and Threatened Animals of California Page 4 REPTILES (continued) • Blunt-nosed Leopard Lizard Gambella siluss SE, FE Island Night Lizard Xantusia C=Klauberinaj FT riversiana Southern Rubner Boa Charina bottae umbratica ST Alameda Whipsnake Masticophis lateralis ST euryxanthus San Francisco Garter Thamnoah.is six•-talis SE, FE Snake tatrataenia Giant Garter Snake Thamnophis couchi:.i gigas6 ST BIRDS California Brown Pelican Pelecanus occidentalis SE, FE californicus Aleutian Canada Goose Branta canadensis Zeucopareia FT California Condor Gymnogyps californianus SE, FE Bald Eagle ffallaeetus leucocephalus SE, FE Swainson' s Hawk Butao swainson! ST American Peregrine Falcon Nalco pereqrinus anatum SE, FE California Black Rail Laterallus jamaicensis ST coturniculus California Clapper Rail Rallus longirost=is obsoletus SE, FE Light-tooted Clapper Rail Rallus longirostris levipes SE, FE Yuma Clapper Rail Rallus longirostris yumanensis ST, F Greater Sandhill Crane Gnus canadensis tabida ST California Least Tern Starnes antillr aum brown.L SE, FE Marbled Murrelet 3r3chyramphus ma.=oratus SCT, ,-!PT Western Yellow-billed Coccyzus americanus SE Cuckoo occidentalis Elf owl Micrathene whitneyi SE Great Gray Owl Strix nebulosa SE Northern, Spotted Owl Stria occidentalis caurina F"r Gila Woodpecker Melanerpes uropygialis SE Gilded Northern Flicker Colaptes' auratus chryscides SE WUlow Flycatcher E.-npidonaic traiiiiL SE Bank Swallo%4 Riparia riparia ST San Clemente Loggerhead Lani.us ladovicianus mearnsi TZ Shrike Arizona Bell's Vireo Vireo bell11 arizonaet SE Leas-t Sell.'s'- Virea v'i.rec bell t pusi..11us SE,_ EE; rnyo- Brown Towheea pi-al-To :cuscus eremoph*rus SE',. E"E S Federal:. Gambelia (=CrotaPhytrzs) situs S Same as: Thamnophis- gigas • T Federal: Sterna antillarunr (=albifrons) browni 6 Same as rnyo California Towhee (Pipilo c-issalis• eremophl-L s) Endangered and Threatened Animals of California Page 5 • BIRDS (continued) San Clemente Sage Sparrow Amphispiza belli clementeae FT Beldin 's Savannah e Belding 's sandwich nss SE Sparrow beldingi MAMMALS Point Arena Mountain Aplodontia Tufa nigra FPE Beaver Mohave Ground Squirrel Spermophilus mohavensis ST San Joaquin Antelope Ammospermophilus nelson! ST Squirrel Morro Bay Kangaroo Rat Dipodomys heermanni morroensis SE, FE Giant Kangaroo Rat Dipodomys ingens SE, FE Stephens ' Kangaroo Rat Dipodomys stephensi ST, FE Fresno Kangaroo Rat Dipodomys nitratoides exilis SE, FE Tipton Kangaroo Rat Dipodomys nitratoides SE, FE nitratoides Salt-marsh Harvest Mouse Reithrodontomys raviventris SE, FE Amargosa Vole Microtus californicus SE, FE scirpensis Gray Whale Eschrichtius robustus FE Sei Whale Balaenoptera borealis FE Finback Whale9 Balaenoptera physalus FE Blue Whale Balaenoptera musculus FE Humpback Whaler Megaptera novaeangliae FE Right Whalen Balaena glacialis FE Sperm Whale Physeter catodoni2 FE Sierra Nevada Red Fox Vulpes Vulpes necator ST San Joaquin Kit Fox Vulpes macrotis mutica ST, FE Island Fox Urocyon Zittoralis ST Wolverine Gulo gulo ST Southern Sea Otter Enhydra lutris nerals FT Guadalupe Fur Seal Arctocephalus townsendi ST, FT Northern (Steller) Eumetopias jubatus FT Sea Lion California Bighorn Sheep Ovis canadensis californana ST Peninsular Bighorn Sheep Ovis canadensis cremnobates ST 9- Also called Fin Whale 10 Also called Hump-backed Whale • 11 Also called Black Right Whale 12 Same.- as Physeter macrocephalus l � SPECK CC 12/19/91 "XHI9IT R q G-z, uj L ta=r 1�.- . .. .. . .-. . _. ��U - h � i /yam pt�n '4tff i! SPECIAL CC 12/19/91 EXHIBIT T STATEMENT by Alfred and Daphne Fahsing, 5105 Llano Road. We request that this Statement be considered by the Ccuncil, at the public hearing on the General Plan Update, December 19, 1991, relating to the 50 foot building setback along creeks . We own property adjacent to Graves Creek, and we see no treat in the Ira osad 50 foot setback ra uirament. If tie wish to build within a sensitive area, it is right that special evaluation be made to ansur proper protection for the vegetation and wildlife, and that such building will not prove to be a hazard to itself in event of fire, flood, or other disaster. We urge the Council to follow the recommendation of the Planning Commission and Staff to include this requirement in the. General Pian. it is also strongly supported by to Stats . Department of Fish and Game, which identifies a number of sensitive species of animals and plants which depend upon_ healthy riparian vegetation for their survival. Our City Council has the opportunity to make a wise decision based on expert knowledge of our unique and beautiful creekways, or to make an unwise decision based on short-range monetary value. We hope you Trill ;e wise--and. bold--tonight_ Thanic you_ Alfred B. Fa.sing December 16, 1991 Daphne W. FahS4 ng SPECIAL CC 12/19/91 EXHIBIT U 6LZ4A- �lzz G` t� n yL r z, " SPECIAL CC 12/19/91 EXHIBIT V December 17, M991 Magor xldea Scalers; 6300 Farms. Xtascadero, CA: 93+7 D'eaEr Mr. Shiers- L am unaebla to attend the meeting December Z'8 because of hcaT th,. reasons- L have Ii red am Carmeli.ta for &-l=ost at decade. Ia the parst* Z have m-ttended =any' aeetings and harve written ?stte:rs to council. members aslcng for ac 30-ft. aeback. T`.t& sethmak was takem out so building Iota cauIl bar-sold along the creek. This issuer has been. di v:.d'i=C the citT for years- L think the 50-ft- sebac& should ba put im the General II2aat immediately. PMe read this mattes =�thes record.- r r SPECIAL CC 12/19/91 EXHIBIT w• Mayor Alden Shiers 6500 Palma Atascadero , Ca 9342? Dear Mr . Mayor , I am not abl .- toto attend the meeting due a prior a_ ngag ement at Cal Poly as I am a student there f i n i sh i nq my enoineerinq degree . Un ti 1 hav i no read the Raper , I di d not real' i =a that Atascadero di d not have any creek setback w is still iTl in its standards. Th--- tact that the. raaC a. d •. ,�ta.sc a de ro an natural state adds to the beau �, or because of that beauty , my wife and I make our Noma here . Unfortunatel' y , in other parts of San Luis. Obispo County , the creeks have been altered and abused by their . res Re:tivellawnersM ' My o y hap,-- i s thatat the ci ti =ens or the g ' t a real Cit/ of Ataseadero wi l T not make the same m i s tak e . For that matter' , I uroe• the cit/ counci1 to adoa t . the recommended 50-ft . creek satback as soon as. possible . The creek is a vital part of Atascadera and should be Kept in its natural state- It looks as though this i ssuy has been going on far a long. time . I th i nK i t wou T d be a. qood idea to r-¢so T vg-- i t now and: put a creek setback of 50 feet i r the► oenera.l p 1 an . S i ncereT r,. Mi chae-T T- Hungerford' 2355 El Cami na Re-al A ta.scaderra,. Ca P'-S- PT�►aser %rteT LLde• th'i s. T utter® i-m th e• ari nu.tL-s a-rr t tt mE"e"t:l n'Q- SPECIAL CC 12/19/91 EXHIBIT X 8260 Portola Rd. Atascadero, CA 93422 • I(800)466-3885 Mayor Shiers, Mayor City Hall Atascadero, CA 93422 Dear Mr. Shiers, I would like to express my opinion in favor of estab- lishing a 50 foot building setback along the creeks of Atascadero. This is not to say L am in favor of taking peoples Land away by lessening their property line by the said amount. Rather I believe there should be a setback within their property just as there are easement laws to protect people from building homes too close to one another. Our creeks need our protection to preserve the wildlife iz the surrounding areas as well as people and their homes in the event of fire or flood. . I am sorry I can not attend tonights meeting because I feel so strongly about this. ?Lease read this Letter into the record_ Thank you for your time and consideration_ Sincerely, Marcia M_ Joyce SPECIAL CC 12/19/91 EXHIBIT Y r i t R ��.��,�,���,�-,,tom.� =�<v`-�� C,�. • ��.'c �'. SPECIAL CC 12/19/91 EXHIBIT Z &V,u. c4amold J0oland 9860 �fazmd as o4vsnu.E 1:4Eascadszo, ofalif oznia 93422 7,11 IT/ alWUrYkA, ,tea. �. • �A X;.J� -i c5'idTccT o G .�D � TGLCCII SPECIAL CC 12/19/91 EXHIBIT BB Paye 1 of 2 t7V u � 4,L Gtr Q�L�. � ::.c-c- dt--► /"/te, Ey., o-�.c,_ �.,� a-� .1 :?`I��-�.f'-,,� � ave- ��.�..�{ �'. �a-���i► a-^�-- 1 • • spECIAL CC 12/19/91 EX.�IBI CC, Mo vita and San Gabriel. ad atascadero , vci To : Atascadero Cit7 Council • Special Meeting, December 1 ly �gl Subect: General ?lan update and creek setbac-k issue We, aloe if th :zany others, chose, Atasca e-ro as a residence because o_ its natural beauty. Muc= of V"-- has beet destroyed. Psrmit approval from to city Lc, a =ir""` c^o_ t— vy 'a_ r se back is aocraur-ate and cecessa_zy i= we are to preserve wilalife, sati:rsl beauty and. ore it fumare damage to creek banks. 2-ermit a^croval is not tco much to ask of f`iture bu_lders for t'�e benefit of the ci.�y and the 000ulation as a whole. • n SPECIAL CC 12/19/91 EXHIBIT OD Gt G'�C i u-�1i4_lc.� C�C�c.2'J' CZ-'ytiLbtc,crc'�Gc1.P,c-�.s ✓i. �2 LL J LI '- zip.=�� Lj{ L ss u p fa ny a ._o ue- �ut' it mac., Z �►41rt (S �! j'r�.�t-j'�dL2 S ;�"`�r �ll� f 1 N.:►�2Yfi� . � `���`W.Q lam/ '"`r"' �y�i�.�J+��+L+�`i �V�G. ✓ 4 Peal* SP'ECI.4L CC 12/19/91 EXHIBIT EE To 'Mayor »Lien .5'G-nrs a .d the l"il4Y 4v^�nCll '21 om Beatrice Anson -.725 S3= N.-a_rcos ?d. itascad.ero, Calif. Yor tie :)ecenber 17, LQ91 SceciaL Meeti iue to ausic com=ittments L a= =able to attend. this special meeting to consider Creek SetbaCa.s for U"hose see_iiag new bu'idl:.3 ler its aloa t'--e c^ee s of ktuascadarcr. L -- arstand. that th-4 3 '.,ford. .''� does act af feC t those :J=O '--ave already buil t not does it allow DubliC access to Ori-rate crsek o_oDerty. L am deeoiy concerned about'crsserTint not; onLl� t'le beauty oL our creeks for all to enjoy. , but aID concermed. fo_ The :vild- I ra -#hica decends on these areas .or .food r and. Habitat. T is king of protection now is so easy, so ecoacm-4 cal and so much. wiser than cost Ly e=forts Late t0 reV1?e a=d. restore. _ Mal hooe the i.0ul''cil 'will act tonight t0 ac--e--Pt the wOr-'rIS of_e_sd by the cousul tants wb.icli =eras su^portad. by the sta -=d aNCroved by the 211- ann'ng •.,o=.-A;.33'on- • Beatrice .=son. • 7. SPECIAL CC 12/19/_91 EXHIBIT FF Page 1 of 2 ' � ,wJt.w�•Z ..]. ltiJ�� 1. �'��-I�LSV` 1/�w �,-�- c3�rC e����X- ave^ "7��l7 1 aw./lt�► �/v� ,�y..? � !�.'�f-�t,"it�. al I.k%.. ..:.� i�.i. '�%.T v'l..rL..�ii.•�2�1 V� (:� 1 r� � -r�, 1... �i�.:,q,�. � "_'� I,�-�-��, ter.. "'^'s •C.~�ti �i,..n\ .�,1/s. ..Z-N..1-�-v�'^'v"\`�'e'Y". i� .�.�Yi7�,-+Z� �w•-cv-t.c`- � (,Lt.�iif.�:.J�:r�-'� t to aL�»'.. `.t.�-7t- �yva:c.� y�1.�.i"���,,�..�L J-�- r � �:;�••i_ �,.:.�..v �-v` i.0-t..-� ald.'�.� � "�/� , c-a-B..'�SA:✓v�nll '>' `�J, �w' ''� � • '�'tn./ ��.�.JrVG t V I � � _}JqA � � �''JY� � Q.::."�fr+ 4C.1. t�..�i).L3. v`�i'�..r� .rte.-+�,A,�^^•+`t/f y��l�+_'�.i,� I�w.i.w moi, .f �.Q1.;,Y- :�,/��. .v�4� 5,�;,�,�„ �a�.N"Q-�a�;. ;SSI, "<..�.cr , � "' - J `h`�..G.r ^Q,r.� "�'"'��l"'�'°•.y�y� f�"+�•' d^ti �'i^.� t wr,vt�;�,,.,�,�,i��. /1�o.�•r '�-,'y� "(`ib�n� lJ.i_ la.Ct/w 1 ''6..��-�'� C'� "�'�51-.-�nn.L ^^!�/L — v1.�. ���.-Jil3 .{�fin.Z�.�.-rV2 , �k..+ �-••Vvs �.1 �1^r�%'h 4�+�r li /fr i ra.,r.i,. 1 " • (;I/.y t->*i. c,-d_+.L �:-W.._ .fd..-` ` " L -1v�,.f' 'Q.Y.i7� •�J`+�1rti"�., �AJ".c ,.�.1,:.. • � f`�tJ.![S�✓�:,�- u,-,�,a, �na.�-1,- � .�`�� �....�.. �..�1e2� 4,r..�I"�-��. ��'�•/�- �iK-�-y,,.,a� u.�.l. , t4 Lit- 1 ,��z.+.t.ir4..•-!` �L+M.�-c.ii..�...r�r '�. �Y�:t-�..Li. a�wr.O�"�.�v�/Y� _1v �ry r urw?- ! '�0- ILdl.�r� .Q,r._,Q.rl�+.�i?.+'�L-Q...r.. �- C+-C.t-�-'.�'�-) `�+~`.i�-,l.lisi/s.t.. • •C:7�..(Y�'�+�Ot tL - r,^''_„ ¢_ (` Yom-_ t SPECIAL CC 12/19/91 EXHIBIT FF Page 2 of 2 p` I� � � .�.t.-t,'3. � �y--Z L �• •�.� �SSr- �I.N.Z :�..5•,..�.--� s•.,,,,,. �v..d..i..`.v7. J` �Q/�L ��L�� _'_ .�"'CW�+i N�•tMwV�--R ��•LAIS"t. Y� ' I� �irL.f�1Z �+� �AA+�i� Y'�.1 �'�' a.JJJC. iK ��,,�;j 1•_ ,�,.7�„n,L � ,^s,•'�M,,,Y,+�.t,�1V�,,i,./ '�✓,. �..N-L �.+.i..L -+�-�•�`�" { • r � �r..ar ,�.�.2,.1.i.�LZ AV`<.. •��..�.���. ". A.a..tiv�s/� /�f/�:'+.AtJ...n.�vw�/L Qom/ A.,-L ^."'�� "�' ^^'c '.AiJ tA�4M" ` '.�t�+�. • 1i A tr.. AD- All- .4 �W�7.oVll.��.:,j 3� .h "y,;.,.,r ;C1,,•�' - -�-Z t'.i�G'"^,^^.a' "�-��,�, .Qr�. - """-'V�i ./:..Ls+� �.1�-+�""'` i ' ' „"„"'_'" 1 �ZL. u,!`�n�@�.'wk��i�t.�:.�+► .w..:..,� �.w..t�.c+.:t. �.-z��s.� w�.��s.�.�-ire'"' ar �:4 w.-�.a-�a..•c.�^�./w�...+.r.�.C..t- �7r.�T.+...x•. J ,�_,� rfl .✓t .W�n.•�^M...ti� r / Q^L� ..��h r zwN7 �1��C�"'�^� 2'�';,;r.:;.� r ,o..Tib..-k.L�..aL ��,:�-�-�.�L �=� �� •� � � �,c•1..A.�,:.,`2 �,:-�.t.A.6't+�.,`.- �..+.!� ^"� .4i,C A.�t ti , �"""`Z` c.v.r�. X� �,c..n. � "^" �` r, X•4.a�' tom.-��X+. l SPECIAL CC 12/19/91 EXHIBIT GG December 19, 1991 To the City Council: I am speaking today because I want to convince you that a fifty foot creek setback should be adopted with the General Plan. I appeal to your responsibility to younger generations. If you fail to require this setback, we will pay dearly as we reach middle age. For example, Santa Cruz faces a twenty to thirty million dollar bill to solve flooding problems that were caused by development near the San Lorenzo River. What will my generation have to pay if flooding becomes a problem for structures that were built too close to creeks? Also, consider the loss of riparian wildlife that development near the creeks would cause. My generation should be able to • enjoy the natural beauty of the creeks, just like yours did. The young have already inherited a multi-trillion dollar debt, countless environmental disasters, and many other problems. Please don't leave us another one. Steve Luna MEETI DAT 1 14/92 AGENDA g 4 14y 'U t' > �. �. .n ., � ;-•. Ory � m ;'iro i fro to (� 1 VI (D 1 O 7 1 Y cr O I 1 � •,. Uf O 'i ro 'b ro � � (ti 2 N � !D � C1 II •.h 1 rh 0 (p O =1rt "' r♦ 11 Ot I CO t J W r+ 1 `♦ 1 raj r* '- y •� CA O ro 11 I 1 � O "' '-' ti II �O I O �-• W 1� any. �+ O r� • 11 W ; O p J N 1 t7 07 0 rt G1 ro :� ro N rt tB to 1 O TI Sv O rui # {�, ~' 1 � '.T.' A cn CA � ?� ��aaI - 31 o � � a ro cn ~ O ' ~ r' y i ro 1 r. d �• 1 �O �-r ro n U 00 ~ rte+ N 1 1 ro o o D O ro I i 1 I ••� c`4 c4 1 to 1 j II 1 1 j I H W Ul it r- ti r♦ I' �h i 7 .hOO 1 11 N I \ tJ O O 1 11 tJ NOO 1 I • iii "-iw � � °+ '" i I I T% 1 9 rJ1 h I ro 1 00 044) CITY OF ATASCADERO CASH ACTIVITY SUMMARY TREASURER'S REPORT FOR THE MONTH OF NOVEMBER 1991 BEGIN,'\'ING CASH RESOURCES $5,920,725.15 ADD: RECEIPTS $675.855.00 LESS: DISBURSEMENTS $739.425.00 OTHER TRANSFERS/MISC. ADJUSTMENTS 5312.545.82 ENDING CASH RESOURCES S5,544.609.33 CITY OF ATASCADERO BALANCE SHEET TREE PLANTING TRUST ASSETS: FLTD BALANCES: ?DOLED CASH BALANCE 31.196.67 FnD BALANCE-LTRESER1ED 39.951.90 CL'RREA? iAR'tINGS 1.244.77 TOTAL ASSETS 31 .196.67 TOTAL F'L7\D BALANCES 31. 196_6 , CITY OF ATASCADERO BALANCE SHEET COP CONSTRUCTION FUND ASSETS: FUND GALA\CES: POOLED CASH BALANCE 20.52 F',T.\D BALA\CE-LTRESERVED (37{.510.'.5) RESERVE FOR F\CLQ[BR4\CES 3:".639.30 CLT.RF.%-I EAB�I�GS tS.192.27 TOTAL ASSETS 20-S2 TOTAL FLT\J BALANCES 20.S2 • 00 041 CO'N'SOLIDATED TREASURER'S REPORT FOR THE PERIOD ENDING NOVEMBER 30. 1991 PREPARED: 12/30/91 • I. SCHEDULE OF CURRENT MONTH ACTIVITY AND PRIOR YEAR VARIANCES NOVEMBER CURRENT PRIOR DESCRIPTION 1991 YR-TO-DATE YR-TO-DATE VAR. REVENUE Property Taxes 90,974 220,190 229,024 -3.9% Sales Tax 137,800 642,075 711,824 -9.83 Bed Tax 589 32,439 34,274 -5.4% Prop. Transfer Tax 3,126 11,048 14,886 -25.80 Franchise Fees 6,506 23,309 21.754 7.10 Special Assessments 3,171 4.686 8,519 -45.0% Business Licenses 1,130 17,194 25,698 -33.1% Building Permits 14,987 122,301 151.890 -19.5% Motor Vehicle Tax 64,237 346,580 341,361 1.50 Cigarette Tax 1,334 81210 18,936 -56.60 Other State In-Lieu 0 213 2.817 -92.4w Gas Tax Receipts 0 156,705 126,696 23.70 TDA Receipts 110,692 110,692 100.596 10.0170 Other Intergov'al 35,350 145,698 157,755 -7.60 Recreation Fees 35,953 155,488 143,753 3.20 Zoo Admissions 3,311 32,117 291152 10.2% Planning Fees 7,330 56.953 63,990 -11 .0° Wastewater Fees 31,959 53,013 140.391 -62.20 Development Fees 43.068 190,368 221, 11 -13.9" Dial-A-Ride Fares 2.950 12.532 13.941 -10. 11,; Police Services 559 2,761 2.550 7.00 Weed Abatement 739 2.276 3.414 -33.30 Other Fees/Charges 181 1,444 675 113.011'C- Fines 13.0%Fines he Forfeits 3.685 16.497 25,S61 -36.20 Interest Earnings 1.S1S 150.901 258,214 -41.6%c- Rental's 41.6%Rentals 0 230 139 65.50 Proceeds from Sales 75.030 75,530 1181875 -36.50 Miscellaneous (647) 12,908 15.140 28.80,'o TOTALS 675,855 2.604.364 2,986.252 -12.80 E TENDITURES General Gov't 19.575 119,639 111.772 7.00 Police 166.S78 836.107 871,607 4.10 Fire 59,765 462.538 488.255 -5.30 Public Works/Eng. 26.67S 16416S4 145.027 13.60 Wastewater 41.1{% 22S,676 216.747 { �' Dial-A-Ride 31,793 S1.953 75.053 9.2%<• Community Dev'ment 60.059 31S.805 314.947 -0.40 Recreation 39.234 280,826 256.S41 9.3<. Parks s Bldg. Maint 3 240 269,3'3 '13,57_' 36.00 Zoo 1S.369 S ,936 93.4'3 S.0". • Streets 50.05 202,070 227.577 Admin. Services 44,950 371.362 4631152 -19.50 Non-Departmental 17%533 214.453 381,S67 -43.50 MaJor Capital "5.260 -15, 158 2 21 .J J . Debt Service/Trust 2.909 132.892 106.:89 25.30" Ap Y -39 °''S 4,-48-4.4 ,2- 4 561---- -11=--------_ 4 TOTALS 00 012 CONSOLIDATED TREASURER'S REPORT FOR THE PERIOD EiDING NOVEMBER 30. 1991 PREPARED: 12/30/91 • II.. BUDGET-TO-ACTUAL REPORT CURRENT CURRENT COLLECTED PRIOR PRIOR COLL/ DESCRIPTION BUDGET YR-TO-DATE /SPELT BUDGET YR-TO-DATE SPENT REVENUES � ---- - - Property Taxes 2,326,500 . 220.190 9.5s 2,050,000 229,024 11.20^1 Sales Tax 1,900,000 . 642,075 33.8% 1,850,000 711,524 38.5% Bed Tax 105.000 . 32,439 30.9% 110,000 .34,274 31.2% Prop. Transfer Tax 50,000 11,048 22.1% 60,000 14.886 24.8% Franchise Fees 360.000 23.309 6.50% 330,000 21,754 6.6% Special Assessments 151,753 4,686 3.1% 151,753 8.519 5.6% Business Licenses 110,000 17,194 15.6% 105,010 25,698 24.5% Building Permits - 362,050 122,301 33.8% 381,575 151,890 39.8% Motor Vehicle Tax 575,000 346,580 39.6% 860,000 341,361 39.7% Cigarette Tax 42,300 8,210 19.4% 35,000 18,936 54.1% Other State In-Lieu 60,900 213 0.3% 60,900 2.517 4.6% Gas Tax Receipts 416,162 156,705 37.7% 393,100 126,696 32.20 TDA Receipts 482,957 110.692 22.9010, 402,521 100,596 25.00' Other Intergov'al 403,400 145,698 36.1% 455,700 157,1158 34.6% Recreation Fees 342.550. 155,488 45.4% 310.850 143,753 46.21% Zoo Admissions 72.500 32,117 44.3% 71,000 29,152 41.1% Planning Fees 256,723 56,953 19.9% 192.612 63,990 33.2% Wastewater Fees 690.200 53.013 7.70: 660.200 140,391 21.3% Development Fees 717.000 190,365 26.6% 562,600 221,121 39.39.1• Dial-A-Ride Fares 36.000 12.532 34.8% 34.000 13.941 41 .0% Police Services 6, 100 2.761 45.30' 4.800 2 5S0 53.5% Weed Abatement 40.000 2,276 5. .% 30,000 3,414 11.41/'(. Other Fees/Charges 57.650 1.444 ^.5% 3.000 67S ''.694 Fines 8 Forfeits 52.050 16,497 20.1 S1,550 25,861 31.7. Interest Earnings 452,920 150.907 33.3N' 389.150 258,214 66.4% Rentals 21000 230 11.50' 14.200 139 1.0% Proceeds from Sales 90.000 15.530 83.9/0 65.500 118,875 173.5. Miscellaneous 50,000 12.905 25.8% 191430 18,140 93.4% TOTALS 10,571,15 2.604,364 24.6% 9.687,451 2,9S6.282 30.81/10 EXPE I)I TURES General Gov't 313.085 119.639 37.60 305.2''5 111.772 36.6% Police 2.084.000 836. 107 40.1% 2.053.315 S-1,607 42.4/0 Fire 1 .106,300 462.538 41.8% 1.164.492 438,288 41.9?(, Public Works/Eng. 346,905 164.654 47.5% 359.010 145.02" 37.3% Wastewater 805,960 ^'S.676 2S.3. 801.585 216,747 27.0°' Dial-A-Ride 299.245 S1.953 27.4°4. 3SS.393 75,05319.3. Community Dei*'ment61'. 318.805 40.6%( 795.689 319,947 40.' Recreation 514,29S 280.S26 54.6% 553.529 256.541 46.4": Parks Bldg. Maint 537.650 269,373 50.1T 521,530 213.872 41.0% Zoo 221,2"5 S5,936 3S.81' 222.500 93,423 2.0% Stree 635.425 202.070 31.8% 606,565 .27,5717 3'.6. Admin. Services 666.335 3711,362 55.7. 726,075 463. 152 63.8. • Non-Departmental 531,120 214.453 40.4% 7.3,893 351 .867 52.0' Major Capital 4,846.000 .15, 158 14.5% 2.692.453 589.592 21 .90,; Debt Service/Trust 216.692 132.892 61.3``. '41.316 106.089 14.3`. ------ -- -------------------- ------------------------------------- TOTALS 13,917,931 4.484.472 32.2% 12.695,573 4,561,154 35.9% 00 043 CONSOLIDATED TREASLTY—R'S REPORT FOR THE PERIOD ENDING NOVEMBER 30, 1991 PREPARED: 1/30/91 • I Mark Joseph, do hereby certify that the above information is accurate and reflects the City's financial conditions for the periods specified. However, the information in these reports is unaudited, and may therefore be subject to future evisions. Y Mark Jose h, Fimnc i ector 00 044 • REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL CITY OF ATASCAD$RO Agenda Item: B-5 Through: Ray Windsor, City Manager Meeting Date: 1/14/92 File No: TTM 23-90 Via: Henry Engen, Community Development Director M From: Steven L. DeCamp, City Planner SUBJECT: Acceptance of final Tract Map 23-90 (subdivision of one existing lot into eight airspace condominiums and a common area) at 9313- 9327 Musselman Avenue (David Smith/Cuesta Engineering) RECOMMENDATION: Acceptance of Final Tract Map 23-90. • BACKGROUND: On January 8, 1991, the City Council tentatively approved this map, subject to certain conditions and in concurrence with the recom- mendation of the Planning Commission. All conditions of approval have now been complied with by the applicant. HE:ps cc: David Smith Cuesta Engineering • 0ig U� ;� i CITY OF ATASCADERO EXIiIBIT A Nil to COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT TENTATIVE TRACT MAP DEPARTMENT TTM 23-90 4-.1, _ 2 3nu3AV Nvr413SSnr1 •.•� W z •• — •— yj"3 c3 '= a $'x •!lTYtr• got.]!' N 3 �� W a`¢i as 333 7 '- W ')y = 7 � U •i� 2 - �o I I L N p 7 L I U f] a. V b I 1� �s co I 7yy n � Z �ii I v WS A W i `ate 9Z—�rd—« 8 133ayd VAX / a� all — rn 3 . uv • REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL CITY OF ATASCADERO Agenda Item: B-6 Through: Ray Windsor, City Manager Meeting Date: 1/14/92 File No: TPM 12-89 Via: Henry Engen, Community Development Director From: Steven L. DeCamp, City Planner SUBJECT: Acceptance of final Parcel Map 12-89 (subdivision of 10. 0 acres into 4 lots: 2 lots at 2. 0 acres, 1 lot at 1. 0 acres, and 1 lot at 5. 0 acres) at 10785 E1 Camino Real (Colombo) RECOMMENDATION: • Acceptance of Final Parcel Map 12-89. BACKGROUND: On August 22, 1989, the City Council tentatively approved this map, subject to certain conditions and in ,concurrence with the recom- mendation of the Planning Commission. All conditions of approval have now been complied with by the applicant. HE:ps cc: Genevieve Colombo • 00 ()A7 EXHIBIT A Kv.; C1 �+' TPM 12-89 ,R, O ATASCADERO COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT General Plan Map • t • � • ''�T' ATASCADE�o STATE W DEN / • HOPITA i S� RE C. • L NGLE • / FAMILY • � i a HIGH/ •��, / I DENSITYi-- '_��•• / MULTI A /, • ' ~•• FAOIL CIA ;� � : • ••• �; .may •• �• • RE CRE: ham. �" � � • C / D TI- A LY • PK J� i 'tea E AIL 44i " Fit \ �� \ , •to • . ' 4<<fes` � •• • v Uv 6,'�o • REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL CITY OF ATASCADERO Agenda Item: B-7 Through: Ray Windsor, City Manager Meeting Date: 1/14/92 File No: TTM 8-91 From: Henry Engen, Community Development Director %f SUBJECT: Acceptance of final Parcel Map 8-91 (creation of commercial condominium project consisting of 6 airspace units for profes- sional/medical office use) at 7605 Morro Road (Golden West Devel- opment) . RECOMMENDATION: Acceptance of Final Tract Map 8-91. • BACKGROUND: On August 27, 1991, the City Council tentatively approved this map, subject to certain conditions and in concurrence with the recom- mendation of the Planning Commission. All conditions of approval have now been complied with by the applicant. HE:ps ' cc: Golden West Development • 00 OA9 • An MIR ♦ J .. ii REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL • CITY OF ATASCADERO Agenda Item: B-8 Through: Ray Windsor, City Manager Meeting Date: 1/14/92 File No: TTM 22-90 From: Henry Engen, Community Development DirectorlvE SUBJECT: Acceptance of final Tract Map 22-90 (conversion of an existing nine-unit multiple family project into airspace condominiums) at 9305 Musselman Avenue (Edgar Shahan/North Coast Engineering) . RECOMMENDATION: Acceptance of Final Tract Map 22-90. BACKGROUND: On January 8, 1991, the City Council tentatively approved this map, subject to certain conditions and in concurrence with the recom- mendation of the Planning Commission. All conditions of approval have now been complied with by the applicant. HE:ps cc: Edgar Shahan North Coast Engineering i 0 �► rXHIBIT A CM OF ATASCADERO 1 ZONING MAP COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT TTM 22-90 DEPARTMENT ,.RSF (POT) S t r E I - 040 I • I T CRI ' yli 1 I! C ! C!\ r • I DA�i�92 ITEMI 9 .. County of San Luis Obispo P COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER,RM.370 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CALIFORNIA'■(805)549-5011 f TO: ALL CITY MANAGERS - OFFICE OF THE FROM: ROBERT E. HENDRI OUNTY ADMINISTRATOR COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR DATE: DECEMBER 18, 1991 SUBJECT: JOINT BOARD OF SUPERVISORS/CITY COUNCILS' MEETING After a good deal of schedule shuffling we have decided upon a date for the joint meeting of the Board of Supervisors and all of the City Councils. The joint meeting will be held from 8:30 A.M. to 12:00 noon on Saturday, February 1, 1992 at the Embassy Suites Hotel in San Luis Obispo. I have received several suggestions from cities for discussion items, but there is certainly time to add topics to the agenda between now and the meeting date. I realize that the meeting date may not fit with everyone's schedule, however,it is my hope that most City Councils will be able to attend. Thank you for your assistance in finalizing this • meeting date. c - Board of Supervisors Ou- (1S3 • REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL CITY OF ATASCADERO AGENDA ITEM: B-10 THROUGH: Ray Windsor, City Manager MEETING DATE: 1/14/92 FROM: Andrew J. Takata, Director Department of community Services SUBJECT: ATASCADERO COMMUNITY SERVICES FOUNDATION, INC. - BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEMBERSHIP RECOMMENDATION: 1. Staff recommends the City Council authorize seven (7) total positions for membership to the Board of Directors of the Atascadero Community Services Foundation, Inc. 2. Council request the City Clerk to advertise three (3) public member positions to the Atascadero Community Services Foundation, Inc. Board of Directors in the local newspaper for • Council's future appointment. BACKGROUND: In September, 1991, the City Council adopted the attached Articles of Incorporation to the Atascadero Community Services Foundation, Inc. The Articles of Incorporation is a document that assists in maintaining, enhancing, and promoting the Atascadero Zoo, Atascadero public parks, recreation and cultural facilities, and other public facilities which serve the general public. The foundation will encourage public volunteers, promote public facilities, educational, recreational and historical values, and encourage public donations, grants and corporate gifts. According to the Articles of Incorporation, the City Council determines the number of members on the Board of Directors to the foundation. The Articles of Incorporation already depict the Director of Community Services, Director of Community Development Department, Director of Administrative Services Department, and the President to the San Luis Obispo County Zoological Society as members to the Board of Directors. The City Council may also allocate three (3) , • five (5) , or an alternate amount of public members to fill the remaining Board of Directors membership. 00 05-4 DISCUSSION: • Staff recommends the City Council appoint three (3) public members to the Board of Directors, which would provide a total of seven (7) members. Staff feels the smaller sized group will provide for more continuity and the ability to reach a quorum. AJT:kv ;Com.Sery Attachment • 00 055 RESOLUTION NO. 89-91 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO DECLARING THE NEED FOR A NON-PROFIT CORPORATION FOR COMMUNITY SERVICES AND AUTHORIZING ITS INCORPORATION AS A TAX-EXEMPT ENTITY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO DOES HEREBY FIND AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: I. FINDINGS A. There presently exists in the City of Atascadero a need for education about, and additions and improvements to, the Atascadero Zoo, public parks and recreation facilities, cultural opportunities and other community services (hereafter, collectively, "Community Services". B. The responsibility for providing the needed education about, and additions and improvements to, Community Services presents a burden on the finances and • physical resources of the City which can be alleviated by the establishment of a non-profit, tax-exempt corporation to which the public will be encouraged to make contributions for Community Services. II. RESOLVED A. That it is in thebest interest of the health safety and general welfare of the public for there to be established a non-profit corporation to encourage participation in, and to accept tax-exempt contributions to, the Community Services. B. That the City Council does hereby authorize the City Attorney's office to proceed with the incorporation of a non-profit, tax-exempt corporation, to be known as the ATASCADERO COMMUNITY SERVICES FOUNDATION, INC. , to be organized in substantial conformity with the Articles of Incorporation attached hereto as Exhibit A and the By- laws attached hereto as Exhibit B, both of which are incorporated herein by this reference Page 1 00 056 III. AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE AN CERTIFI ATTON The Mayor is authorized to execute this Resolution and the City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this Resolution. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 10th day of September, 1991. AL EN SHIERS, MAYOR ATTIIST:") LEE RABOIN, CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: dGGai AY EDNT CITYUS 'GAYLE, ASS STAATTORNEY • Page 2 00 or--7 4 • CERTIFICATION I, LEE RABOIN, CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO, HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the City Council of the City'; of Atascadero, California at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 10th day of September, 1991, upon motion made by Councilmember Lilley and seconded by Councilmember Dexter and upon the following vote of the City Council: AYES: Mayor Shiers, Councilmembers Lilley, Dexter and Borgeson NOES: None .ABSENT: None ABSE' : Cou cil ember Nimmo z • L E RABOI , CITY CLERK •. Page 3 00 058 EXHIBIT RAN ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION OF ATASCADERO COMMUNITY SERVICES FOUNDATION, INC. I. The name of this corporation is ATASCADERO COMMUNITY SERVICES FOUNDATION, INC. II. A.- This corporation is a nonprofit public benefit corporation and is not organized for the private gain of any person. It is organized under the Nonprofit Public Benefit Corporation Law for charitable purposes. B. This corporation is formed exclusively for public and charitable purposes, including the following: to lessen the burdens of government of the City of Atascadero by promoting public welfare and education through the acceptance of contributions for use in the Atascadero Zoo, public City parks, public City recreational and cultural facilities, and other public facilities. III. The name and address in the State of California of this corporation's initial agent for service of process is: Ray Windsor City Manager City of Atascadero 6500 Palma Avenue Atascadero, California 93422 IV. A. This corporation is organized and operated exclusively for charitable purposes within the meaning of Section 5O1(c) (3) of the Internal Revenue Code. B. No substantial part of the activities of this corporation shall consist of carrying on propaganda, or otherwise attempting to influence legislation, and the corporation shall not participate or intervene in any political campaign (including the publishing or distribution of statements) on behalf of any candidate for public office. 1 EXHIBIT RAN 00 059 EXHIBIT "'B" BYLAWS FOR THE REGULATION OF THE ATASCADERO COMMUNITY SERVICES FOUNDATION, INC. I. NAME AND ADDRESS SECTION A. NAME OF ASSOCIATION. The name of this "Corporation" shall be the "ATASCADERO COMMUNITY SERVICES FOUNDATION, INC. "', a nonprofit organization incorporated under the laws of the State of California. SECTION B. PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICE. The address of the principal executive office of the Atascadero Community Services Foundation, Inc. , shall be located at Atascadero City Hall, 6500 Palma Avenue, Atascadero, California 93422, or at such other place as the Board of Directors hereafter may designate. The City of Atascadero is hereinafter referred to as, the OCityO II. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS • SECTION A. GENERAL PURPOSES. The general purpose of the corporation shall be to assist in maintaining, enhancing, and promoting the Atascadero Zoo, Atascadero public parks, recreation and cultural facilities, and other public facilities which serve the general public, to familiarize the public with those public facilities and their contribution to the growth and welfare of the United States, the State of California, the County of San Luis Obispo and the City, and to accumulate and manage such facilities for the public benefit to the following ends: 1. Personnel - To recruit, train,- encourage and recognize volunteers as docents, guides, hosts, staff support in maintenance, displays and public functions under the supervision of the City Director of Community Services, as appropriate; 2. Publicity - To establish a group to promote on-going use of the public facilities to promote educational, recreational and historical values and to plan and develop special events; 3. Fundinct - To encourage donations, grants and corporate gifts for expansion, preservation, improvement and maintenance of the Atascadero Zoo, Atascadero public parks, recreational and cultural facilities, and other public facilities in pursuit of the Corporation's goals. 1 EXHIBIT "B" 00 060 SECTION A. OTHER PURPOSES. The Corporation may engage in such further and other purposes as may be permitted by, law, provided however, that such purposes are authorized and approved by the Board of Directors, are in furtherance of the Corporation's public charitable purposes, and are of the type permitted to be performed under Section 501(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. III. MEMBERS MEMBERS PROHIBITED. The Corporation shall not have any members. EFFECT OF PROHIBITION. Any action which would otherwise require approval by a majority of all members or approval by the members shall require only approval by a majority of the Board of Directors. IV. DIRECTORS AND BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETINGS SECTION A. NUMBER AND REQUIRED DIRECTORS. • (1) The number of Directors of the Atascadero Community Services Foundation, Inc. shall be not less than seven (7) and not more than nine (9) . The number of authorized Directors shall be specified by the Atascadero NCity Council" and may be changed by City Council annually at the time the Annual Report .(as hereinafter defined) is submitted for City Council review. The Directors shall serve without pay. (2) Four (4) Members of the Board shall be those persons holding the positions of City Director of Community Services, City Director of Community Development, City Director of Administrative Services, and President of the San Luis Obispo County Zoological Society, or persons serving in like capacities as those capacities may be renamed from time to time, and as those persons may be selected or elected from time to time. The term of each individual serving in one of the four (4) above- named capacities shall be co-extensive with the term each such person serves in the capacity so noted. Any person succeeding to the title of one of the four (4) above-named capacities shall automatically become a Director of the Corporation. 2 EXHIBIT ffBp 00 OF11 k SECTION B. APPOINTMENT OF DIRECTORS. All Directors not required by Section IV.A (1) , above, shall be appointed by the City Council, as follows: (1) In the event that the City Council initially authorizes seven (7) members to the Board of Directors, the three (3) Directors named initially by the City Council to fill the seats not designated in Section IV.A(1) , above, shall be appointed for staggered terms with one (1) Director appointed for a period of . three (3) years, one (1) Director appointed for a period of two (2) years and a third appointed for a period of one (1) year. (2) In the event that the City Council initially authorizes nine (9) members of the Board of Directors, the four (4) Directors named initially by the City Council to fill the seats not designated in Section IV.A(1) , - above, shall be appointed for staggered terms with three (3) Directors appointed for a period of three (3) years, and two (2) Directors appointed for a period of two (2) years. (3) In the event that the City Council changes the number of authorized Directors at any time permitted by these By- laws, the newly created positions shall be filled for full terms of three (3) years each. (4) The term of eacherson named for r a staggered term pursuant to Subsection (1) or Subsection (2) , above, shall be specified in the action of the City Council l so naming each of those Directors. (5) After the initial terms of the Directors named by the Cit Council 1 pursuant to Subsection (1) or Subsection (2) , above, the Directors appointed by Y the Cit Council shall serve a three (3) year term. (6) Directors appointed by the City Council pursuant to this Section IV.B may be reappointed by the City Council at the expiration of their terms, without limitation. SECTION C. EX-OFFICIO DIRECTOR. The City Manager of the City of Atascadero shall serve as an Ex-officio Director. Said Ex-officio Director shall have no voting power but may serve otherwise in all capacities as a Director and may participate in deliberations and discussions at all meetings of the Directors as a member of the Board. The Ex-officio Director shall be a permanent member of the Board and shall not be a Director additional to the number of Directors authorized pursuant to 3 EXHIBIT nBa 00 0012 `c l Section IV, above. Any person succeeding to the capacity of City Manager shall automatically become an Ex-officio Director of the corporation. SECTION D. PLACE OF MEETINGS. Meetings of the Board of Directors shall be held at any place within or without the State of California, which has been stated in the notice of the meeting, or if not stated in the notice, or if there is no notice, at Atascadero City Hall, 6500 Palma, Atascadero, California," 93422, or at such other place as may be designated for Directors' meetings, from time to time, by resolution of the Board of Directors. SECTION E. REGULAR MEETINGS. Regular meetings of the Board of Directors shall be held on the day and at the hour or at such other day and time as may be determined by the Board of Directors. No notice need be given in connection with such regular meetings, except that notice shall be given to each Director of any resolution of the Board changing the regular meeting date or time. SECTION F. QUORUM REQUIRED FOR ACTION AT MEETINGS. A majority of the authorized number of Directors present at a meeting shall constitute a "quorum"' of the Board of Directors for • the transaction of business. For purposes of determining a quorum, the Ex-officio Director shall not be counted. SECTION G. SPECIAL MEETINGS. Meetings other than regular meetings of the Board may be called by the President, and shall be called by the President upon the request of any two Directors requesting a special meeting. SECTION H. REMOVAL OF DIRECTORS. A Director appointed pursuant to Section IV.B, above, may be removed by action taken by a majority of the City Council or by a vote of the majority of the Directors then in office subject to approval in writing by the City Council. SECTION I. VACANCIES. A vacancy on the Board of Directors shall exist upon the occurrence of any of the following: (1) The death or resignation of any Director. (2) The suspension or termination of any Director pursuant to the provisions of Section IV.H, above. (3) An increase in the authorized number of Directors without appointment by the City Council. j 4 EXHIBIT "Bp 00 0f-3 k (4) The failure of the Cit Council to Y appoint the full number of authorized Directors to the Board. A reduction of the authorized number of Directors shall not operate to remove any Director prior to the expiration of his or her term of office. V. FINANCING SECTION A. SOLICITATION OF FUNDS. The Corporation's primary source of funds shall be through solicitation of funds from the general public through gifts, bequests, trusts, or other devices and conducting special fundraising events. SECTION B. BUDGETING. The Board of Directors shall prepare and submit to the City Council, for approval, an annual operating budget for the Corporation. VI. INDEMNIFICATION OF DIRECTORS OFFICERS AND OTHER CORPORATE AGENTS ® SECTION A. INDEMNIFICATION. The Atascadero Community Services Foundation, Inc. shall, to the maximum extent permitted by California law, indemnify each of its Directors and Officers and the City of Atascadero, its Council and its officers and agents, against any expenses, judgments, fines, settlements, and other amounts actually and reasonably incurred in connection with any proceedings arising by reason of the fact any such person is or was a Director or Officer of the Atascadero Community Services Foundation, Inc. SECTION B. NON-EXCLUSIVITY. The right of indemnification or advancement of expenses provided herein shall not be deemed exclusive of any other rights which any Director or Officer of the Corporation, or any other person seeking indemnification or advancement of expenses may have, whether by law or under any agreement, insurance policy, vote of disinterested Directors, or otherwise. VII. OFFICERS SECTION A. OFFICERS. The Atascadero Community Services Foundation, Inc. , shall have a President, a Vice- President, Secretary, Treasurer and such other Officers as may be 5 EXHIBIT "Bff 00 WA • designated by the Board of Directors. The Treasurer shall be the Atascadero Director of Administrative Services. All other , Officers shall be elected by the Board of Directors for a term of one (1) year. Only Members of the Board of Directors shall be eligible to serve as Officers of the Corporation. Officers shall have the powers and duties as specified below, together with such. other duties as may be specified from time to time by resolution of the Board of Directors. The Officers of the corporation shall serve without pay. Powers and Duties of the President. (1) To act as the Chief Executive Officer (2) To exercise general supervision over all the affairs of the Corporation. (3) To nominate members to committees necessary to carry out the executive functions. (4) To propose activities in the best interest of the Corporation. (5) To propose policies and legislation of the Board of Directors. (6) To propose the budget of the Board of Directors in conjunction with the Treasurer. (7) To administer regulations and By-laws. Powers and Duties of the First vice President. (1) To assist the President in carrying out the executive functions. (2) To have the power and authority of the President when the President is absent. Powers and Duties of the -Treasurer. (1) To maintain all the financial books and records of the Corporation consistent with generally accepted accounting principles. (2) To make regular financial reports to the Board of Directors at regular business meetings. i 1 • 6 EXHIBIT OBN 00 or-5 (3) To sign all disbursements of the Corporation which shall also be cosigned by the President or First Vice-President. (4) To responsible for the collection and disbursement of the Corporation funds. Powers and Duties of the Secretary. (1) To keep permanent comprehensive records of the Corporation's action. (2) To record the minutes at each and every meeting, and to prepare the said minutes for presentations and approval at the next regularly scheduled meeting. (3) To handle any correspondence at the request of the Board of Directors or committee members. (4) To be responsible to the President for all letters and notices necessary for promotion and execution of the function of the Corporation and may include a newsletter/bulletin. • SECTION A. I --AUTHORITY OF •FFICERS. No Officer of the Atascadero Community Services Foundation, Inc. shall have any power or authority, outside of the normal day-to- day business of the Corporation, to bind the Corporation by any contract or engagement or to pledge its credit or to render it liable in connection with any transaction unless so authorized by the Board of Directors. VIII. AMENDMENTS New By-laws may be adopted or these By-laws may be amended or repealed by a majority of the Board of Directors. IX. FISCAL YEAR The "fiscal year" of the Corporation shall be the sane as that of the City. 7 EXHIBIT NBN 00 Otis; r. a • ANNUAL REPORTS SECTION A. The Board shall cause an "Annual Report- to be sent to the City Council and the Directors within 120 days after the end of the corporation's fiscal year. The Annual Report shall contain the following information for the fiscal year, in such detail as is necessary to clearly explain the fiscal transactions and status of the Corporation for that fiscal year: (a) The assets and liabilities, of the Corporation as of the beginning and the end of the fiscal year. (b) The principal changes in assets and liabilities within the fiscal year. (c) The revenue or receipts of the Corporation, both unrestricted and restricted to particular purposes. (d) The expenses or disbursements of the Corporation for both general and restricted purposes. (e) Any information required by Section IX.B. , below. The Annual Report shall be accompanied by an audit S report of independent accountants or, if there is no such audit report as permitted by this Section IX.A, by the certificate of the Treasurer of the Corporation that such statements were prepared without independent audit from the Corporation's books and records. If the Corporation receives less than $25,000 in gros§ receipts during a fiscal year an Annual Report must still be furnished to the City Council and to all Directors but no audit report need be prepared by an independent accountant for such a fiscal year. SECTION B. As part of the Annual Report to the City Council, the Corporation shall annually prepare and mail or deliver to the City Council and furnish to each Director, a statement of any transaction or indemnification of the following kind within 120 days after the end of the Corporation's fiscal year: (1) Any transaction (i) in which the Corporation, its parent, or its subsidiary was a party, (ii) in which an Ointerested person' had a direct or indirect material financial interest, and (iii) which involved more than $50, 000, or was one of a number of transactions by the same interested person which, in the aggregate, totalled • 8 EXHIBIT _0B0 00 097 more tuan $50 000. p . For this purpose, an "'interested person shall be any Director or Officer of the Corporation, its parent, or one of its subsidiaries; provided, however, that mere common directorship held by a Director or Officer of the Corporation, its Of its subsidiaries with another non-related parent,entity one person with whom the Corporation contracts shall not be considered an interested party. The above-required statement shall include a brief description of the transaction, the names of interested persons involved, their relationship to the Corporation, the nature of their interest in the transaction and, if practicable, the amount of that interest, provided that if the transaction was with a partnership in which the interested person is a partner, only the interest of the partnership need be stated. (2) Any indemnifications or advances aggregating more than $10,000 paid during the fiscal year to any Officer or Director of the Corporation under Section VI.A, above. of this IN WITNESS WHEREOF, these By-laws have been executed as day of • , 1991. PRESIDENT SECRETARY t 9 EXHIBIT NBN 00 06.28 REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM: B-11 • CITY OF ATASCADERO THROUGH: Ray Windsor, City Manager MEETING DATE: 1/14/92 FROM: Andrev J. Takata, Director DRRartment of Community Services SUBJECT: PROPOSAL BY THE SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY ZOOLOGICAL SOCIETY TO PREPARE A MASTER PLAN FOR CHARLES PADDOCK ZOO RECOMMENDATION: The Parks and Recreation Commission recommends the City Council endorse the San Luis Obispo County Zoological Society proposal to fund the development of a master plan for Charles Paddock Zoo. BACKGROUND: The Zoological Society is proposing the development of a ten-year zoo master plan, which will be funded by the Society and prepared by a private consultant. • On December 12, 1991, the Parks and Recreation Commission reviewed the proposal and voted to endorse the Society's proposal. DISCUSSION: The Society is proposing the master plan be prepared by David Manwarren Corporation, a private consulting firm, at an estimated cost of $12,000. The Manwarren Corporation specializes in zoo master plans and are well recommended through the American Association of Zoological Parks and Aquariums. Prior to the Society entering into a formal contract with the above consulting firm, endorsement from the City Council is requested. Staff feels a master plan for the zoo will provide valued long- range direction for future development and renovation, and will assist in planning future capital improvement projects and related costs. If the City Council endorses the preparation of a master plan for the zoo, staff proposes the formation of an ad-hoc committee (through the Zoological Society with City staff attending) to review the master plan and update Council on an ongoing basis. Prior to the finalization of the master plan, the draft will be • presented to the Parks and Recreation Commission and City Council for review and input. 00 099 Zoological Society Proposal to Prepare a Zoo Master Plan • Page Two It should be noted that proposed improvements depicted in the master plan would be developed according to available funds, and fiscally approved by the City Council. FISCAL IMPACT: The proposed master plan preparation will be funded completely by the San Luis Obispo County Zoological Society. AJT:kv Attachment - 12/12/91 Memo to P/R Commission 12/12/91 P/R Commission Minutes ;zoo.mpi • 00 070 • REPORT TO PARRS AND RECREATION COMMISSION DATE: 12/12/91 FROM: Alan Metzler, Zoo Manager� ITEM: 5 - 1 THROUGH: Andrew J. Takata, Director Department of Community Services SUBJECT: PROPOSED ZOO MASTER PLAN RECOMMENDATION: The Parks and Recreation Commission: Endorse the preparation of a Zoo Master Plan by a private consultant which will be funded by the San Luis Obispo County Zoological Society, and recommend the City Council also endorse the proposal. BACKGROUND: • The Zoological Society of San Luis Obispo County,. at their November, 1991 meeting, voted unanimously to finance a proposed Zoo " Master Plan. The Zoological Society is proposing David Manwarren Corporation perform the development of a master plan at an estimated cost of $12,000. A -copy of the firm's proposal is attached for your review. DISCUSSION: Prior to the Zoological Society formally committing to the above referenced proposal, the Parks and Recreation Commission is requested to review and endorse the proposal for the development of a Zoo Master Plan, prepared by an experienced professional master plan consultant company. If the Parks and Recreation Commission endorses the above proposal, it will then be submitted to the City Council for their input and endorsement. It should be clarified that no funding is being requested of the City for this proposal. AM:kv • Attachment ;Zoomp 00 07-L DAVID L. MANWARREN CORP. 187 W.Orangethorpe, Suite H, Placentia, CA 92670 • Phone: (714)528-9252 • FAX: (714)528-7732 5 November 1991 George Beatie President Zoological Society of San Luis Obispo County P. O. Box 8 Atascadero, California 93423 RE: Master Plan Proposal Dear George, , Thank you for the opportunity to present this proposal for the Charles Paddock Zoo Master Plan. The plans and video you sent were valuable in defining what makes up your institution, and the commentary was helpful and enjoyable. (I hope that blonde, two- legged tiger isn 't still roaming around outside of its enclosure!) While the size of your facility is not considered "big", the potential for your exhibits and programs is. Having a master plan that addresses the goals and objectives of your staff and meets the needs of the collection and visitors will make the Charles Paddock Zoo even better than it is today. The newer projects demonstrate that the Zoo is moving forward with enthusiasm and sensitivity. This can be enhanced through the master planning process. The David ,L. Manwarren Corporation is honored to be considered for assisting the `staff of the Zoo and the Zoological Society as it embarks on shaping the future of the Charles Paddock Zoo. Thank you for your consideration and interest. Respectfully Submitted, Priscilla Meckley' Design and Projects M nager i QEXHIBIT DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION L J d • O�_t 1 ori. 2 __ Fu1_.Z Mas �a.r _ P3 .ari. This is the option we would recommend be selected as it is more comprehensive and includes extra drawings that would be valuable for future fund-raising. The Zoo would provide - Correct, accurate plan/topo/aerial map. List of initial goals/objectives/ideas. David L Manwarren Corporation would - Complete this project within a four to five month time period. Conduct and lead three workshops at the Zoo with staff and other interested parties as needed. Complete goal and objective definition, site/facility evaluation, annotated, existing map of facilities, master plan concepts for collection, staff, visitors, 2 or 3 plans (1 would be colored) , 1 color rendering, text outlining goals and recommendations, phasing plan and recommendations, estimates - rough, conceptual, and sections and exhibit diagrams as needed. Present the master plan and final documents. The cost for this proposal is broken out as follows: Design Fee $ 9, 175. 00 This would be a lump sum fee for all labor involved in doing the master plan work. Reimbursables $ 2, 800. 00 This is an estimated amount that would be 'billed at actual cost plus 10'T. This includes all travel expenses and all Office support items such as copying, printing, mailing, shipping, and phone calls. 00 073 O�a'ti an. 2_ At�►brevz a'red MctS mer P1 a.z�. • This is an option we could provide if the total cost for the full master plan is not a possibility. The Zoo would provide Correct, accurate plan/topo/aerial map. List of initial goals/objectives/ideas. David L Manwarren Corporation would - Complete this project within a three to four month time period. Conduct and lead two workshops at the Zoo with staff and other interested parties as needed. Complete goal and objective definition, site/facility evaluation, master plan concepts for collection, staff, visitors, 1 plan, text outlining goals and recommendations, and estimates tes - rough,h g conceptual. The cost for this proposal is broken out as follows: Design Fee $ 5,850.00 This would be a lump sum fee for all labor involved in doing the master plan work. Reimbursables $ 11900. 00 This is an estimated amount that would be billed at actual cost plus 10S. This includes all travel expenses and all office support items such as copying, printing, mailing, shipping, and phone calls. • 00 074 • CITY OF ATASCADERO PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION DECEMBER 12, 1991 8:00 P.M. 7129 San Gregorio Atascadero ITEM 1 - CALL TO ORDER: Meeting is called to order by Chairman Bench at 8: 00 p.m. ITEM 2 - ROLL CALL: Chairman Bench Vice Chairman Smart Commissioner Cooper Commissioner Schulte Commissioner Meyer - Excused • EB-OFFICIO MEMBER: Belinda Wiley - Absent STAFF: Andrew J. Takata, Director Alan Metzler, Zoo Manager Bill White, Parks Supervisor Sue Rovai, Recreation Coordinator Paula Anton, Recreation Supervisor Michael Walsh, Maintenance Worker Karen Vaughan, Secretary ITEM 3 - PUBLIC COMMENTS: No public comment is given. ITEM 4 - MINUTES, OCTOBER 17, 1992: The minutes of the October 17, 1991 Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting are approved 4-0. (Commissioner Meyer not in attendance) • 00 075 t PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 12, 1991 ITEM 5 - NEW BUSINESS ITEM 5-A - ZOOLOGICAL SOCIETY PROPOSAL TO CREATE A ZOO MASTER PLAN, PREPARED BY A PRIVATE CONSULTANT Alan Metzler, Zoo Manager, states that the San Luis Obispo County Zoological Society is proposing to hire a private consultant (David Manwarren Corporation) to prepare a master plan for the Charles Paddock Zoo. Expected cost for the plan is $12,000, which the Zoological Society will fund. Prior to formally entering into a contract for preparing the master plan, the Zoological Society is requesting endorsement from the Parks and Recreation Commission and the City Council. Staff notes that the master pian will be presented in draft format to the Parks and Recreation Commission and City Council for their review and input prior to finalization. Staff feels that a master plan for the zoo would provide long range direction for future renovation and development, which is greatly needed. MOTION: Commissioner Schulte moves to, 1) Endorse the San Luis Obispo County Zoological Society proposal to enter into an agreement with a private consulting firm 'to prepare a master plan for the Charles Paddock Zoo; and 2) Recommend the City Council also endorse the proposal; Motion carries 4-0 (Commissioner Meyer absent) Ov OV6 B-12 QUARTERLY RISK MANAGEMENT REPORT QUARTER ENDING DECEMBER 31, 1991 THIS ALL ACTIVE CLAIMS BY STATUS: OTR. CLAIMS 1. Claims Received/Outstanding 4 23 2. Claims Under Review/Investigation 1 2 3. Claims Rejected/Pending 0 2 4. Claims in Litigation 0 10 5. Claims Rejected/Expired 0 3 6. Claims Settled 3 6 7. Claims Outstanding - 12/31/91 1 14 CLAIMS BY AMOUNT REQUESTED: 1. Unspecified 0 9 2. Up to $1,000 3 7 3. $1,001 - $10,000 1 3 4. $101001-$50,000 0 2 5. Over $50,000 0 2 TOTAL - 4 23 OCLAIMS -BY ALLEGED CAUSATION: 1. Streets 0 10 2. Police 2 5 3. Parks and Recreation/Zoo 1 5 4. Other (Sewer, Land Use) 1 3 TOTAL - 4 23 NOTES/COMMENTS: 1. Losses Paid Out This Quarter $1,032. 11 $3,330.07 Prep red By Date �:quartrpt Ulf 077 • REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL Meeting Date: 1-14-92 CITY OF ATASCADERO Agenda Item: B-13 Through: Ray Windsor, City Manager From: Greg Luke, Director of Public Works Ci— Subject: Road improvements on E1 Camino Real in front of the State Hospital. Recommendation: Adopt attached Resolution 03-92. Background: Road improvements for this area of E1 Camino Real have been in the planning stage for a number of years. State approval and financial participation has been requested and obtained. The project consist of upgrading E1 Camino Real with road widening, installation of curbs, gutters, and sidewalks, drainage improvements and construction of a median that includes left turn pockets. Safety has been a major concern at the entrance to the State Hospital and the construction of a left turn pocket should dramatically improve this situation. Discussion: The purpose of this resolution is to formally declare the intent of the City Council to enter into an agreement with the State to construct road improvements along this portion of E1 Camino Real. Fiscal Impact: The State will contribute a maximum of $150, 000 towards this project. The specific terms of which are detailed in the resolution. • 00 ()'78 RESOLUTION NO. 03-92 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF MENTAL HEALTH TO CONSTRUCT ROAD IMPROVEMENTS ALONG A PORTION OF EL CAMINO REAL WHEREAS, the City of Atascadero (City) and the Atascadero State Hospital (State) share a common boundary, including a length of E1 Camino Real. WHEREAS, both the City and the State share a common interest in upgrading E1 Camino Real to improve road safety, reduce routine maintenance and facilitate roadway drainage. WHEREAS, the road improvements that will be made include roadway widening, installation of curbs, gutters, and sidewalks, and construction of a median that includes left turn pockets. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. The City of Atascadero will act as lead agency in designing and constructing the complete improvement project, including all incidental tasks that may arise in conjunction with the project. 2. The City will perform all work and administer . contracts necessary to complete the work in accordance with statutes governing City public works projects. This responsibility includes making appropriate progress payments to contractors in accordance with the written contracts. 3 . The State will reimburse the City for the construction cost of half-width road improvements, including the median and left-turn pocket constructed along the frontage of State Hospital property. The exact limits of the State's responsibility is shown on attachment A. In addition, the State will reimburse the City for an additional 20% of construction cost to cover engineering and miscellaneous City administration costs. 4. The maximum contribution to be made by the State for its share of the project is $150, 000. • 00 O'79 • Resolution No. 03-92 page two On motion by Councilman and seconded by Councilman , the foregoing Resolution is hereby adopted in its entirety on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ADOPTED: ATTEST: CITY OF ATASCADERO LEE RABOIN, City Clerk ALDEN SHIERS, Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: • ARTHER MONTANTON City Attorney APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: GREG LUKE Dir. of Public Works 00 080 Attachment } AnN NVVgl3c f ( ` LU � S W 0 � W W i Z I � ► ZLL) 1 u D � I s 10 73d-qb'Y /VV9 �dl�dso� �1 x/15 Q i �� ou Os t AGEND DAETlN ' ,Z,ITEM A � • BURRE, WILLIAMS & SORENSEN M E M O R A N D U M TO: City Council cc: Ray Windsor Art Montandon Greg Luke Henry Engen Lee Raboin FROM: Mary Gayle . DATE: December 13 1991 RE: 3-F Meadows - Road Considerations; Update on Research • Pursuant to the direction of the City Council given at its November 12, 1991 meeting, I arranged to research the Department of Real Estate ("DRE") file in Sacramento for further information regarding those subdivisions which have been subject to DRE Reports for the 3-F Meadows project. The file was voluminous and dates back to 1968. I was able to review all of the completed reports which we had not previously seen, as well as most of the applications for the issuance of those reports and correspondence provided to DRE in support of the reports over the period of time from 1968 to present. My research took the better part of one full day. A. Conclusions The Blocks sold from time to time by this developer as a part of 3-F Meadows include: Blocks 28 through 30, 40 through 42, 57 through 60, 80 through 82 and 90 through 92. As Blocks were sold out, they were dropped from subsequent DRE Reports because they no longer needed to be covered by the subsequent renewals or amendments to the original Report. • Atascadero - City Council; Re 3-F Meadows December 13 , 1991 Page 2 Although later DRE Reports for this development indicate that offers of dedication would be made to a public agency for roads within the development, each and every DRE Report, including the current one which expires in 1995, represented that those roads not on County maintained roads (which are listed in each Report fromr 1979 forward) are private and would not be maintained and/or developed by the developer. Each Report contains an estimate for improvement and maintenance of those private roads which increased as the years went by. The developer has no obligation pursuant to these DRE Reports to improve or maintain those roads which were originally or subsequently subject to any of the DRE Reports. Neither the lot owners who took from the developer nor their successors in interest can look to the developer for monetary assistance with the roads and the City has no mechanism to change that situation. B. Particulars Learned from Prior and Latest Research The following discussion is a summary of the particulars learned from the DRE file regarding the subdivided Blocks and lots included in the applications from time to time and the representations made by the applicant and DRE regarding the status and maintenance of roads in those Blocks and lots. (Copies of all but item 2 below are attached) . 1. First Abplication - May, 1968 - Issued 1969 Expired 1974 A map of the area included within the first application shows that Blocks 28 , 30, 31, 40, 41, 42, 57 through 60, 80 through 82, and 90 through 92 were included (see map attached) .. You will note that those Blocks underlined above were ones not listed in the 1979 DRE Report which we had previously reviewed and that Block 31 include some of the roads about which Mayor Shiers had questions at the November meeting. By the same token, Block 29 which was listed in the 1979 Report is not listed in this original Report. The 1968 Field Report to DRE indicates that all of the Blocks: are part of an old subdivision and that most of the streets were incomplete at the time. Atascadero - City Council; Re 3-F Meadows December 13 , 1991 Page 3 The Streets and Roads portion of the final 1969 DRE Report states as follows: "Subdivider will install dirt graded access roads to lots sold prior to escrow. The streets and roads within this subdivision are private. No provision for their repair and maintenance has been made by the developer and it is not contemplated that he will do so. All repair and maintenance of these private roads will be your (buyers' ] responsibility and expense individually and collectively proportionately to the use of the road easement by you. (Emphasis added] If you and your neighbor cannot agree on pro rata shares or upon the need or extent of repair and maintenance, it will be necessary for you to appeal to the proper superior court for the appointment of an impartial arbitrator or for the determination of the court as to the pro rata shares." The discussion of streets goes on to estimate the lineal cost for bringing the roads to County standards and the maintenance cost • ($15 per lineal foot for improvement and $50 a mile for maintenance) . 2 .. First Amendment Sought and Granted in 1970 In 1970, the developer sought and was granted an amendment to the 1969 DRE Report for the 3-F Meadows for reasons not related to roads. The application indicated that there would be no changes in the status of the roads and the Blocks included did not change. 3. Second Amendment and First Renewal Sought and Received in 1974, Expired 1979 No changes appear in the representations about the status (i.e, private, not developer maintained) of the roads in this application. The Report does change the estimated costs for improvements to, and maintenance of, the private roads which indicated that the cost to improve had dropped to $11 per lineal foot and the cost to maintain was now 25 cents per lineal foot ($1, 320 dollars a mile as opposed to $50 in the prior report) . In response to the application for renewal and amendment, DRE L3 3 Atascadero - City Council; Re 3-F Meadows December 13 , 1991 Page 4 • requested additional documents from the developer including a letter from the County describing which lots fronted on County maintained roads and that information was included in the Final. The prior Report was amended with respect to the road costs and in other respects not related to the roads. 4 . Second Renewal Sought and Received in 1979, Expired 1984 The application for this renewal indicates that Blocks 28 through 30 [adding Block 29 this time] , 40, 41, 57 through 60, 80 through 82 and 90 through 92 are included. Blocks 31 and 42 were not included in this Report, which means that they had been sold out. With respect to the status of the roads, the 1979 DRE report includes language previously reported to the Council in my November 6, 1991 memo to you. That language reads as follows: "The roadways within the project are private but i3rior to selling will be offered for dedication by Mr. Davis. The offer of dedication includes the existing roadways fronting all lots owned by Mr. Davis with an additional 5 feet on each lot parallel to and 25 feet • from the centerline of the roads. [Emphasis added] . Lot 2, Block 57 [Santa Ana Road] and portion of Lot 28A, Block 60 [Morro Road] front on county maintained roads. Lots 26A, 27A, 28A, 19, 20 and 21 in Block 60 along with Lots 32C, 32B, 32A, 33 , 34 and 37 in Block 80 front on State Highway 41 which is maintained by the State of California. The rest of the lots front on private, unmaintained roads. . . [There follows an estimate of costs to bring private roads to County standards with a "typical 20' wide section".] This DRE Report makes the following final comments with regard to the roads: "NOTE: . All private roads will be maintained by lot owners. No provision for their repair and maintenance has been made by the developer, and it is not i Atascadero —City Council; Re 3-F Meadows December 13 , 1991 Page 5 contemplated that he will do so. All repair and maintenance of these private roads will be your responsibility and expense individually, collectively and.proportionately to the use of the road easement by you. (Emphasis added) If you and your neighbor cannot agree on pro rata shares or upon the need or extent of repair and maintenance, it will be necessary for you to appeal to the proper superior court for the appointment of an impartial arbitrator or for the determination of the court as to the pro rata shares." As previously noted, the foregoing language clearly and unequivocably puts potential lots owners on notice that no public or developer assistance had been promised to them for maintenance of the roads. That language further recognizesthat, even if an offer of dedication were made as the developer's engineer indicated, there was no assurance that such a dedication would be accepted by the County when it had jurisdiction or the City after it was incorporated. • 5. Third Renewal and Fourth Amendment Sought and Received in 1984 , Expired 1989 The Blocks listed in this report are the same as those listed in the 1979 Report. As in the previous report, it is indicated that roads are private and to maintained by the purchasers and that there will be an offer of dedication prior to close of escrow. The price for maintenance of the roads (25 cents a lineal foot) remains the same in this Report, but construction cost goes up to $20 per lineal foot. A list of County maintained roads was included which is identical to the previous report. 6. Fourth Renewal and Amended Report Issued February, 1990 and Is Operative at this Time, Expires in 1995 The blocks and the lots in them which are included in this report are the following: Block 28, Lot 16; Boulder Creek Reservation No. 1 Block 57, Lots 6-A, 20 through 27; Block 58, Lots 1 Atascadero - City Council; Re 3-F Meadows December 13 , 1991 Page 6 through 27 ; Block 59, Lots 18 through 23 ; Block 80, Lots 12 through 18, 20 through 31, a portion of lot 19 and Park Reservation "A"; Block 81, Lots 3 through 6, 8 through 32 and 41; Block 82, Lots 2, 4, 7 through 15, Park Reservations "A" and "B"' Block 90, Lots 1 and 2 ; Block 91, Lots 1 through 3, 12 and 13 ; and Block 92, Lots 1 through 7. You will note that Blocks 29, 30, 31, 40 through 42, and 60 are no longer mentioned, which means that they were completely sold and no longer subject to a renewed report. The section of this Report entitled "Streets and Roads" states as follows: "The subdivider's engineer [actually the developer's engineer] advises as follows: "The roadways within the project are private but prior to selling will be offered for dedication by Mr. Davis. The offer of dedication includes the existing roadways fronting all lots owned by Mr. Davis with an additional 5 feet on each lot parallel to and 25 feet • from the centerline of the roads. [Emphasis added] . Lot 2, Block 57 [Santa Ana Road] and portion of Lot 28A, Block 60 [Morro Road] , front on county maintained roads. Lots 26A, 27A, 28A, 19, 20 and 21 in Block 60 along with Lots 32C, 32B, 32A, 33 , 34 and 37, in. Block 80 front on State Highway 41 which is maintained by the State of California. The rest of the lots front on private, unmaintained roads .... . ." [Emphasis added] There follows an estimate of costs to bring private roads to County standards with a "typical 20' wide section". If you have any questions regarding any of this material, or if you want more detail, please let me know. I have over 15 pages of notes on material backing up the foregoing summary. 3-F MEANS CAT/co ^Lam-- ��_•w.it•, � '•ri I'� all Zo- t 1 r' g f w 1j� MINERAL RIGHTS: You may not own the mineral , oil and gas rights under your land. These have been reserved from various lots. The right to surface entry has not been waived and the owners of the mineral rights may enter upon the land at some future date to extract minerals, etc. This right could affect your ability to obtain financing for building on your property. USES AND ZONING: Information about zoning may be obtained at the offlcei of the San Luis Obispo County Planning Commission. RESTRICTIONS: These lots are subject to restrictions recorded to the Office of the San Luis Obispo County Recorder, embodied in various deeds. This subdivision is subject to restrictions recorded in the Office of the San Luis Obispo County Recorder, Book 1587► Pages I through 20, which include; among other provisions, the following: Prior to any construction, you must obtain approval of your plans by the Architectural Control Committee. This committee is controlled by the subdivider. Building Restrictions: Height limit: two stories. Minimum floor space: 1 ,200 square feet. Garage 1 imi t: not more than three cars. No trees shall be cut or removed without prior written approval from the committee. No commercial sign of any kind shall be displayed to the public view on any lot without committee approval . This provision may be unenforceable. FOR INFORMATION AS TO YOUR OBLIGATIONS AND RIGHTS, YOU SHOULD READ THE RESTRICTIONS. THE SUBDIVIDER SHOULD MAKE THEM AVAILABLE TO YOU. TAX ESTIMATES: if the subdivider is unable to give you the current tax information for your lot, you may approximate your taxes as follows: TAKE 25% OF THE SALES PRICE, DIVIDE BY 100, AND THEN MULTIPLY BY THE TOTAL TAX RATE. THE TAX RATE FOR THE 1970-71 FISCAL YEAR IS $9.611. THE TAX RATE AND ASSESSED VALUATION MAY CHANGE IN SUBSEQUENT YEARS. FOR EXAMPLE, ANY BONDED DEBT OR SPECIAL DISTRICT ASSESSMENT APPROVED AFTER THE ABOVE TAX RATE HAD BEEN SET COULD INCREASE THE FUTURE RATE. CONDITIONS OF SALE: If your purchase involves financing, a fornr of deed of trust and note will be used. These documents contain the following provision: An Acceleration Clause. This means that if you tell the property, the lender may declare the entire unpaid loan balance Immediately due and payable. PURCHASE MONEY HANDLING: The subdivider must impound all funds received from you in a neutral escrow depository until legal title is delivered to you. (Refer to Section 11013.2(a) of the Business and Professions Code.) GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS: The Division of Mines and Geology reports: "This areae is underlain by a4 variety of rock formations, some of which are- relatively soft. In this semi -rural area we assume that development will be concentrated on the more favorable sites, avoiding the steeper slopes. However, if construction is planned on the steeper parts of the area, detailed site studies should be made, so that potentialslope-stability problems may be recognized and avoided by appropriate remedial action taken during site development." WATER: The Atascadero Mutual Water Company advises that it will supply water service to Block 31 . This is a mutual water company. A mutual water company is not subject to super- vision or regulation as a public utility company. No public agency has any supervision or control over the management, rates, assessments, charges or conduct of business by a mutual water company. C7�1 OF Ti1E STATE OF CALIFORNIA BURTON E. SmiTH, Real Estate Commissioner In the matter of the application of FINAL SUBDIVISION PUBLIC REPORT JAMES R. DAVIS FILE NO 2561 FRESNO for a final subdivision public report on ISSUED JULY 1 , 1969 ATASCADERO COLONY (Name to Be Used in Offering AMENDED or Advertising: 34 MEADOW RANCHES) NOVEMBER 16,1970 EXPIRES JUNE 30,1974 SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA This Report Is Not a Recommendation or Endorsement of the Subdivision But Is Informative Only. Buyer or Lessee Must Sign That He Has Received and Read This Report. This Report Expires on Date Shown Above or Upon a Material Change. SPECIAL NOTES: 1 . TITLE WILL BE SUBJECT TO A RESERVATION OF POSSESSION AND CATTLE GRAZING RIGHTS UNTIL THE PROPERTY IS IMPROVED WITH A PERMANENT RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE CONTAINING 1 ,200 SQUARE FEET OR MORE OF LIVING AREA. • 2. THE SUBDIVIDER CERTIFIES HE WILL NOT SELL ANY OF THE LOTS OF LESS THAN ONE ACRE SEPARATELY IN BLOCK 28, 29, 30, 40, 41 , 57, 58,59, 6o, 8o, 81 , 82, 90, 91 AND 92. LOTS OF LESS THAN ONE ACRE IN SIZE WILL BE SOLD ONLY WITH LOTS OF LARGER ACREAGE. 3. SEWAGE DISPOSAL. THE COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT ADVISES THE GREATER PORTION OF ATASCADERO COLONY HAS A HISTORY OF A VERY HIGH PERCENTAGE OF SEPTIC TANK FAILURES CAUSED BY UNSATISFACTORY SOIL CONDITIONS. INSTALL- ATION OF SEPTIC TANK SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEMS MUST BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH SPECIFIC PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AS INDICATED BELOW: 1 . PERCOLATION TESTS SHALL BE PERFORMED BY A REGISTERED CIVIL ENGINEER AND REPORTS SUBMITTED TO THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT FOR APPROVAL,, PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT. 2. THE DESIGN OF THE LEACHING SYSTEM SHALL BE BY A REGISTERED CIVIL ENGINEER. THE SIZE SHALL BE BASED ON, THE RESULTS OF ANY APPROVED PERCOLATION TEST REPORT AND SHALL INCORPORATE THE USE OF A DIVERSION VALVE. TO ALTERNATE THE FLOW OF EFFLUENT INTO EITHER OF TWO LEACHING FIELDS, EACH SIZED SO AS TO REFLECT THE RESULTS OF THE RATE OF PERCOLATION., 3. AN AREA EQUIVALENT TO 50 PERCENT OF THE REQUIRED INITIAL DRAIN- FIELD AREA SHALL BE PROVIDED FOR REPLACEMENT PURPOSES. LOCATION AND SIZE: Approximately 2 miles west of Atascadero.' Approximately 1 ,831 acres divided into 301 lots. EASEMENTS: Easements for utilities and other purposes are- shown on the title report and the subdivision map recorded in the Office of the San Luis Obispo County Recorder, Book 3 of Maps. WATER - Continued: Usually, you must be a stockholder in the mutual water company In order to be entitled to get water. A stockholder must share in the costs of operation of the water company. His share of stock may be assessed for any amount the management deems necessary to tho continuation of the operation of the water company. Through his stock, the stockholder has a voice in the management. If a stockholder's vote is one of the minority on the issues of management, Individual dissatisfaction may not be easily resolved. The share of stock is appurtenant to the individual lot or parcel and may not be disposed of separately. You will be required to pay costs for hookup of water service. There Is no regular water service to this tract to the balance of the lots. Privste water wells are the only source of water and you will be required to pay all costs to have a well installed. Subdivider's well driller has submitted the following information: The cost of drilling and casing a well to a depth of 100-200 feet would be approximately $1 ,000 to $2,000 and the cost of a pump and pressure system would be approximately $505.30. A geologist reports in part: 1 . Existing wells are predominate throughout the general area on all boundaries of the subject property. 2. Specific data relative to depth of water and quantity available cannot be determined without extensive exploratory drilling. There is no guarantee of the quality, quantity or availability of water on each for or parcel . The State Water Code requires a notice of Intention to drill and a report of completion to be filed with the Department of Water Resources. FIRE PROTECTION: Fire protection furnished by forestry service. GAS AND ELECTRICITY: Southern Counties Gas Company advises that the present facility Is approximately 1 .9 miles from the farthest lot. Pacific Gas and Electric Company advises that the present facility Is approxii 3,500 feet from the farthest lot. TELEPHONE: The Pacific Telephone and Telegraph Company advises that the present facility is approximately 2 miles from the farthest lot. SEWAGE DISPOSAL: Septic tanks will be used for sewage disposal . You must pay for your septic tank. Prior to commencing construction, you should contact the local health department for specifications, requirements- and any local problems. STREETS AND ROADS: The subdivider will install dirt graded access read3 to lots sold prior to close of escrow. The streets and roads within this subdivision are private. No provision for their repair and maintenance has been made by the developer and It is not contenplated that he will do so. All repair and maintenance of these private roads will be your responsibility and expense individually, collectively and proportionately to the use of the road easement by you. If you and your neighbor cannot agree on prorata shares or upon the need or extent of repair and maintenance, it will be necessary for you to appeal to the proper superior court for the appointment of an impartial arbitrator or for the determination of the- court hecourt as to the prorata shares. An engineer estimates it will cost iot owners $15400 per lineal foot to bring roads to county standards and that the annual cost for maintaining roads at Existing at time of sale will be $50.00 per mile. PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION: Bus service is 4 miles from the subdivision at Atascadero. SCHOOLS: School bus service is provided. SHOPPING FACILITIES: At Atascadero. JAD:mag Page 3 of 3 Pages. Flit No. 2561 Fresno WATER (continued) ; Usually you must be a stockholder in the mutual water company in order to be entitled to get water. A stockholder must share in the costs of operation of the water company. His share of stock may be assessed for any amount the management deems necessary to the continuation of the operation of the water company. Througl, his stock, the stockholder has a voice in the management. If a stock- holder's vote is one of the minority on the issues of management , individual dissatis- faction may not be easily resolved. The share of stock is appurtenant to the in., vidua! lot or parcel and may not be disposed of separately. Y-),i o; i l tic requ i red to pay costs for hookup of water service. Thee is no regular water service to this tract to the balance of the lots. Private water wells are the only source of water, and you will be required to pay all costs to have a well installed. Suhdivider's well driller has submitted the following information: "In my opini--)n you shouldn' t have any problem vetting domestic wells in the above-described properties . They will he in the neighborhood of 100 to 400 feet in depth. Test holes will have to be drilled on each parcel to prove water, and there will probably be some parcels that you will not be able to find water ()n, i am !:asinq my opinion on wells that I have drilled and existing wells south and east of this property, which fall in relevantly the same type of formation. The cost of drilling will be $4.00 to $5.00 a foot for the test holes and $10.00 to $11 .00 a foot for 6" plastic casing, gravel packed and baled free of excessive mud. A domestic pressure system will range from $$00.00 to $1 ,000.00 for 0 pump . l. ipe, and pressure tank, depending on depth and quantity of ]ate. A geologist reports in part: 1 . Existing wells are predominate throughout the general area on all boundaries of the subject property. L. Specific data relative to depth of water and quantity available cannot be determined without extensive exploratory drilling. There is no guarantee of the quality, quantity or availability of water on each lot or parcel . The State Water Code requires a notice of intention to drill a well and a report of completion to be filed with the Department of Water Resources. FIRE PROTECTION: Fire protection furnished by Forestry Service. GAS AND ELECTRICITY: Southern Counties Gas Company advises that the present facility is approximately 1 ,9 miles from the farthest lot. Pacific Gas and Electric Company advises that the present facility is approximately 3,500 feet from the farthest lot. TELEPHONE: The Pacific Telephone and Telegraph Company advises that the present facility is approximately 2 miles from the farthest lot. PA 3 of 4 Pages File No. 2561 Fresno SEWAGE DISPOSAL: Septic tanks will be used for sewage disposal . You must pav for your septic tank. Prior to commencing construction, you should contact the local health department for specifications, requirements and- any local problems. The County Department - of Public Health advises as follows 1 . Blocks: 28. 29, 30, 31 , 40, 41 , 57, 58, 59, 60, 80, 81 , 90, 91 , 92 Those unsold lots in Block 31 shall be required to be furnished domestic water by the Atascadero Mutual Water Company system. Prior to issuance of any building permit, a percolation study shall be performed by a registered civil engineer and approved by the Administrative Authority responsible for enforcement of the Uniform Plumbing Code. Construction of septic tank systems shall meet the requirements of the County Ordinance Code. 2. Blocks: 28, 29, 30, 40, 41 , 57, 58, 59, 60, 80, 81 , 82., 90, 91 , 92 Lots in these above blocks may be served by individual sewage disposal systems. ALL SITES SHALL BE SUBJECTED TO PERCOLATION TESTS PERFORMED BY A REGISTERED CIVIL ENGINEER TO DETERMINE THE ABSORPTION CAPACITY OF THE SOILS. Such tests shall be approved by the Division of Building and Safety, County of San Luis Obispo. Individual wells for water supply will be permitted on lots larger than one acre in area. provided that well sites are located more than 150 feet from any sewage disposal system or other source of pollution. Permits for water wells shall be obtained from the County Health Department, and construction methods shall comply with the County 's We11 Ordinance. STREETS AND ROADS : The subdivider will install dirt graded access roads to lots sold prior to cT_o_se_­5T escrow. The streets and roads within this subdivision are private. No provision for thei � repair and maintenance has been made by the developer, and it is not contemplated that he will do so. All repair and maintenance of these private roads will be your responsi - bility and expense individually, collectively and proportionately to the use of the road easement by you. If you and your neighbor cannot agree on pro rata shares or upon the need or extent of repair and maintenance, it will be necessary for you to appeal to the proper superior court for the appointment of an impartial arbitrator or for the determination of the court as to the pro rata shares. An engineer estimates it will cost lot owners $11 .00 per lineal foot to bring roads to county standards , and that the annual cost for maintaining roads as existing at time of sale will be $0.25 per lineal foot. PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION: Bus service is 4 miles from the subdivision at Atascadero. SCHOOLS This tract is located within the boundaries of the Atascadero Unified School District. The schools serving this tract from the farthest lot in the tract to the nearest schools are as follows: Distance from Tract Santa Rosa Elementary School Approximately I mi e Atascadero Junior High School Approximately 1 -8/10 mile Atascadero High School Approximately 8/10 mile There is no bus service available. SHOPPING FACILITIES: At Atascadero. WN:es Page 4 of 4 Pages File No. 2561 Fresno DEPARTMENT OF REAL ESTATE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA (912-322-2505) In the matter of the application of FINAL SUBDIVISION JAMES R. DAVIS PUBLIC REPORT FILE NO. 2561 FRESNO for a final subdivision public report on ISSUED JULY 1 , 1969 ATASCADERO COLONY, .3-F MEADOW RANCHES RENEWED AND 2ND AMENDMENT JUNE 21 , 1974 EXPIRES JUNE 20, 1979 SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA This Report Is Not a Recommendation or Endorsement of the Subdivision But Is Informative Only. Buyer or Lessee Must Sign That He Has Received and Read This Report. This Report Expires on Date Shown Above. If There Has Been a Material Change in the Offering, an Amended Public Report Must Be Obtained and Used in Lieu of This Report. SPECIAL NOTES I . T 111E WILL BE SUBJECT TO A RESERVATION OF POSSESSION AND CATTLE GRAZING RIGHTS UNTIL THE PROPERTY IS IMPROVED WITH A PERMANENT 'RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE CONTAINING 1 ,200 SQUARE FEET OR MORE OF LIVING AREA. 2. THE SUBDIVIDER CERTIFIES HE WILL NOT SELL ANY OF THE LOTS OF LESS THAN ONE ACRE SEPARATELY IN BLOCK 28, 29, 30, 40, 41 , 57, 58, 59, 60, 80, hi , 82, 90, 91 AND 92. LOTS OF LESS THAN ONE ACRE IN SIZE WILL BE SOLO ONLY WITH LOTS OF LARGER ACREAGE. LOCATION AND S1ZF: Approximately 2 miles west of Atascadero. Approximately 1 ,831 acres divided into 301 lots. EASEMENTS: Easements for utilities and other purposes are shown on the title report anisubdivision map recorded in the Office of the San Luis Obispo County Recorder, Book 3 of Maps. MINERAL RIGHTS: You may not own the mineral , oil and gas rights under your land. These have been reserved from various lots. The right to surface entry has not been waived and the owners of the mineral rights may enter upon the land at somefuture date to extract minerals, etc. This right could affect your ability to obtain financing for-building on your property. Page I of 4 Pages USES AND ZONING: Information about zoning may be obtained at the ofFices of the San Luis Obispo County Planning Commission, RESTRICTIONS: These lots are subject to restrictions recorded in the Office of the San Luis Obispo County Recorder, embodied in various deeds. This subdivision is subject to restrictions recorded in the Office of the San Luis Obispo County Recorder, Book 1587, pages 1 through 20, which include, among other provisions , the following Prior to any construction, you must obtain approval of your plans by the Architectural Control Committee. This committee is appointed by the subdivider. Building Restrictions: Height emit: two stories Minimum floor space: 1 ,200 square feet Garage limit: not more than three cars No trees shall be cut or removed without prior written approval from the committee. No commercial sign of any kind shall be displayed to the public view on any lot without committee approval . This provision may be unenforceable. FOR INFORMATION AS TO HOUR OBLIGATIONS AND RIGHTS, YOU SHOULD READ THE RESTRICTIONS, THE SUBDIVIDER SHOULD MAKE THEM AVAILABLE TO YOU. TAX ESTIMATES: if the subdivider is unable to give you the current tax information oo r your Tot, you may approximate your taxes as follows: TAKE 25% OF THE SALES PRICE, DIVIDE BY 100, AND THEN MULTIPLY BY THE TOTAL TAX RATE. THE TAX RATE FOR THE 1973-74 FISCAL YEAR IS $9. 11 . THE TAX RATE AND ASSESSED VALUATION MAY CHANGE IN SUBSEQUENT YEARS. FOR EXAMPLE, ANY BONDED DEBT OR SPECIAL DISTRICT ASSESSMENT APPROVED AFTER THE ABOVE TAX RATE HAD BEEN SET COULD INCREASE THE FUTURE RATE. CONDITIONS OF SALE: If your purchase involves financing, a form of deed of trust and note will used. These documents contain the following provision: An Acceleration Clause. This means that if you sell the property, the lender may declare the entire unpaid loan balance immediately due and payable. PURCHASE MONEY HANDLING: The subdivider must impound all funds received from you in a neutral escrow deposrtory until legal title is delivered to you. (Refer to Section 11013.2(a) of the Business and Professions Code.) GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS: The Division of Mines and Geology reports: "This area is underlain by a variety of rock formations, some of which are relatively soft. in this semi-rural area we assume that development will be concentrated on the more favorable sites, avoiding the steeper slopes. However, if construction is planned on the steeper parts of the area, detailed site studies should be made so that potential slope-stability problems may be recognized and avoided by appropriate remedial action taken during site development." WATER: The Atascadero Mutual Water Company advises that it will supply water service to Brock 31 . This is a mutual water company. A mutual water company is not subject to super- vision or regulation as a public utility company. No public agency has any supervision or control over the management, rates, assessments, charges or conduct of business by a mutual water company. Page 2 of 4 Pages file No. 2561 Fresno R 4 RILCEi Vea oe" ll"rivio"t DEPARTMENT OF REAL ESTATE JUN2 01479 OF THE a STATE OF CALIFORNIA 0"W"WrA of deal%left (916) 322-2SOS FINAL SUBDIVISION In the matter of the application of PUBLIC REPORT DANES R.DAVIS AND FILE NO. . 2,S61 FRESNO BERNICE N. DAVIS ISSUED JULY 1, 1969 RENEtfED AND 3RD AMENDMENT MAY 8, 1979 for a Final Subdivision Public Report on EXPIRES MAY T, 1984 ATASCADERO COLONY, •3—F I4EADOW RANCHES SAA LUIS OBISPO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA This Report 4 Not a Recommendation or Endorsement of the Sub"I" But is Informative Omiy. Buyer or Lessee Moat Sp 71st He Has Received and Rad This Rept•• WiW an' pi This Report Expires on Date Shown Above. if There Has Men a Malarial ChaW Is the Off • • Amended-Public Report Must Be Obtained and Used in Lieu of Tho Report. Section 35700 of the California Health and Safety Code povidethat the practice of disrAminstion + modstions it because of race,color,religion,sex,marital status,national origin or wwWrY in housing saom .against public policy. •Under Section 125.8 of the California 8winiss and Professions-Code,Californiareal canto lirdtmaae WOsubject to diseipiinarV action by the Real Estate Commissioner i athey make any of the race,color, mi nt nisti or restriction in negotiating a sale or la'ei of real ptopsrW ex. unse nctionY or national origin of the prospeedve butler. 1f an Prospective buyer or face,lessee beliethat a Ito guilty of such conduct,he or she should contact the.DepWUWt of Rai Estate. Information Ragardin{Schools can be found on hgr 6: READ THE ENTIRE REPORT on the following papas before contracting toy PuMh: a lot in thk- SUBDIVISION. t f Page i of 6 Pages RIE Form etc """""'on► ronc SPECIAL NOTES 1. TITLE WILL BE SUBJECT TO A RESERVATION OF POSSESSION AND CATTLE GRAZING RIGHTS UNTli. THE PROPERTY IS IMPROVED WITH A PERMANENT RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE CONTAINING 1,200 sQuARE FEET OR MORE OF LIVING AREA. 2. THE SUBDIVIDER CERTIFIES HE WILL NOT SELL ANY OP THE LOTS OF LESS THAN ONE ACRE SEPARATELY IN BLACK 28, 29, 30, 40, 41, 57, 58, 59,.60, 80, 81, 82, 90, 91, AND 92. LATS OF LESS THAN ONE ACRE IN SIZE WILL BE SOLD ONLY WITH LOTS OP LARGER ACREAGE. 3. THIS REPORT COVERS PARCELS 1 TO 19 INCLUSIVE, 21 TO 25 INCLU- SIVE, 27, 28, 30, TO 34 INCLUSIVE, AND AN UNDIVIDED ONE-HALF INTEREST IN PARCEL 26 AS SHOWN IN THE TITLE REPORT. 4. GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS: THE DIVISION OF MINES AND GEOLOGY REPORTS: "THIS AREA IS UNDERLAIN BY A VARIETY OF ROCK FORMATIONS, SOME or WHICH ARE RELATIVELY SOFT. IN THIS SEMI-RURAL AREA WE ASSUME THAT DEVELOPMENT WILL BE CONCENTRATED ON THE MORE FAVORABLE SITES, AVOIDING THE STEEPER SLOPES. HOWEVER, IF CONSTRUCTION IS PLANNED ON THE STEEPER PARTS OF THE AREA, DETAILED SITE STUDIES SHOULD BE MADE SO THAT POTENTIAL SLOPE-STABILITY PRO- BLEMS MAY BE RECOGNIZED AND AVOIDED BY APPROPRIATE REMEDIAL ACTION TAKEN DURING SITE DEVELOPMENT." LOCATION AND SIZE: Approximately 2 miles west of Atascadero. Approximately 1,831 acres divided into 301 lots. TAXES: Under the California Constitution, the maximus amount of property taxon real property that can be collected annually is one percent (1t) of the full cash value of the property. For the purchaser of a lot or unit in this subdivision, the "full cash value of the lot or unit will be the- valuation, as reflected on the tax roll, determined by the county assessor as of the date of purchase of the lot or unit or as of the data of completio:r of an improvement on the lot if that occurs after the date of purchase. EASEMENTS: Easements for utilities, and other purposes are shown on the title report and subdivision map recorded in the Offices of San Luis Obispo County Recorder, Book 3 of Maps. MINERAL RIGHTS: You may not own the mineral, oil, and gas rights under your land. These have been reserved from various lots. The right to surface entry has not been waived and the owners of the mineral rights may enter upontFe land at some future date to extract minerals, etc. This right could affect.your ability to obtain financing for building on your property. /l 4 USES AND ZONINGs Information about zoning may be obtained at the offices of the San Luis Obispo County Planning Commission. REST ICTIONSs These lots are subject to restrictions recorded in the Office of the San Luis Obispo County Recorder, embodied in var- ious deeds. This subdivision is subject to restrictions recorded in the T Officeof the San Luna Obispo County Recorder, Book 1587, Pages l through 20, which include, among other provisions, the following: Prior to any construction, you must obtain approval of your plans by the Architectural Control Committee. This committee is appointed by the subdivider. Building-Restrictions: Height m is two stories Minimum floor space: 1,200 square feet Garage limits not more than three cars No trees shall be cut or removed without prior written approval from the committee. No commercial sign of any kind shall be dis- played to the public view on any lot without committee,approval. This provision may be unenforceable. FOR INFORMATION AS TO YOUR OBLIGATIONS AND RIGH"t YOU SHOULD READ THE RESTRICTIONS. THE SUBDIVIDER SHOULD MAKE THEM AVAILABLE TO YOU, PURCHASE MONEY HANDLING& The subdivider must impound all funds received rom you in an escrow depository until legal title is delivered to you. (Refer to Section 11013.2(a) of the Business and Professions Code.) CONDITIONS OF SALES If your purchase involves financing, a form of de-ed of trust ano note will be used. These documents 'contain the following provisions: An Acceleration Clause. This means that if you sell the pro- perty, the lender may declare the entire unpaid' loan balance immedi ately due and payable. WATER: ' Atascadero Mutual Nater Company. This is a mutual water company.. A mutual water company is not subject to supervision or regulation as a public utility company. No public agency has any supervision or control over the management, rates, assessments, charges, or conduct of business by a mutual water company. Usually you must be a stockholder in the mutual water company in order to be entitled to get water. NOTES The Atascadero Mutual Nater Company advises as follows$ MAnple water for normal use and fire protection is available and will be furnished on ismand without exception. Arrangements have been made for the installation of water lines as the area is developed, the cost of which will be borne by the developer. The present cost of water main installations is $7.00 per foot.`. Paoe. 3 of.fr s File No. 2,561 FRESNO t: I FIRE PROTECTION: mire protection is furnished by the Forestry Service, (SAS: Natural gas service is not available. ELECTRICITY: Pacific Gas and Electric Company advises as follows: wTh* extension of our electric lines would be made in accor- dance with Electric Extension Rules 15 and/or 15.11 however, there may be instances where it is determined that the extension of electric distribution facilities under the regular provisions of these rules is not feasible. In thee* instances, the exceptional cases provisions of the rules would be invoked requiring, among other things, the payment of cost of ownership charges.` TELEPHONE: Pacific Telephone Company advises as followss "mss is to inform you that under its present plan the Pacific Telephone Company expects to be in a position to provide telephone service to applicants in the above subdivision upon request in accordance with requirements of and at rates and charges specified in its tariffs on file with the Califofnia Public Utilities Commission. This tract will be served with underground distribution facilities in accordance with the above mentioned tariffs, the applicant or customer on his property will be responsible for: 1. furnishing, installing and maintaining conduit if the Telephone Company requires it for the service connection wire or cable= or 2. providing or paying the cost of the underground supporting . structures (usually a trench) if the Telephone Company determines buried wire or cable is to be used for the service connection. NOTE: Purchasers will be responsible for all costs in extend- ing eTeatric and telephone lines to their lots." SEWAGE DISPOSAL: Septic tanks will be used for sewage disposal.. You must pay or your septic tank. A contractor advises as follows: The cost of a complete installation of a 1,000 gallon septic tank and 450 square feet of leachfield in the 3-F Meadows Tract, Ataseadero, will average $1,500.00 per installation. NOTE: The County Health Department advises as follows: Community sewer service is not presently available for the above mentioned tract. Septic tanks and subsurface leachfields on each parcel will be an acceptable method of sewage disposal. Sewage disposal systems intended to be installed on slopes of 201 or greater shall be designed and the installation supervised and certified to function properly under all weather conditions by a re- gistered civil engineer. Plans shall be submitted to the County Planning Department for approval prior to the issuance- of a building permit. Slops in excess of 30• are not suitable for subsurface sewage disposal. Page 4 of 6 Pages rile, No, 2;561 FRESNO f a • SEWAGE DISPOSAL: (Continued) On all parcels of five (5) acres or less complete soils testing and borings shall be made on each parcel. Sewage disposal shall comply with Title 19, Building and Construction Ordinance to the satisfaction of the San Luis Obispo County Building Department. Sewage disposal systems shall be a minimum of fifty (50) feet from creek banks, drainage swales or areas subject to inundation. Sewage disposal systems shall be separated from all wells and domestic water lines, as follows: Horizontal Distance (feet) WELL WATER SUPPLY UNaLLING PROPBRTY LINB- (PRESSURE) LINE o1sposal field and seepage bed (community well - 200) Bored pits or 150 5020 10-15 cesspools Septic tank or 100 10 septic 5 10 septic building sewer tank tank NOTE: Sewaqe lines shall not be placed above water lines or in the same trench. Water shall be obtained from the Atascadero Mutual Water Company. This approval will apply to single family dwellings and shall not imply approval for future lot splits or to any type of high density residential, commercial or recreational development.' STREETS AND ROADS: The subdividers engineer advises as follows: T e roadways within this project area are private but prior to selling will be offered for dedication by Mr. Davis. The offer of dedication includes the existing roadways fronting all lots owned by Mr. Davis with an additional 5 feet on each lot parallel to and 25 feet from the centerline of the roads. Lot 2, Block 57 and a portion of Lot 2SA, Block 60 front on county maintained roads. Lots 26A, 27A, 28A, 19, 20, and 21, Block 60 along with Lots 32C, 328, 32A, 33, 34 and 37, in Block: 80 front on State Highway-41 which is maintained by the State of California. The rest of the lots front on the private, unmaintained roads. The approximate annual costs to maintain an all-weather road on the private roads would be S> .25 per linear foot. The all-weather road would be 16 feet wide and overlaid with 2' of red-rock. The approximate costs to bring these roadways to county &tan- dards with atypical section of 20 feet wide consisting of 6•' aggregate base and 20' of asphaltic concrete would be $20.00 per linear foot, excluding any required drainage facilities.*` The San Luis Obispo County engineer advises as. follows: page5 of' 6- Pages File No. 2,561 FRESNO u Vis.. STREETS AND ROADS: (Continued) "Lot 2, Block 57, Atascadero Colony fronts on Santa Lucia Road, &'.hard surfaced County maintained highway. Lot 28A, flock 60 fronts oh both Morro Road, a hard surfaced County maintained highway, and State Highway 46. Lots 19 through 21, 2" and 27A, flock 60 and Lots 32A, 323, 32C, 33, 36 and 37, Block 80 all front on state Highway 16. Thr remainder of the lots owned by Mr. J. R. Davis in Block 57, 58, 59, 80, 81, 82, 90, 91, 40, 41 and 60 front on private road easements within Atascadero Colony. These roads, to our know- ledge, are unconstructed and are not maintained by any public agency." NOTE: All private roads will be maintained by lot owners. No provis;on for their repair and maintenance has been made by the developer, and it is not contemplated that he will do so. All re- pair and maintenance of these private roads will be your respon- sibility and expense individually, collectively and proportionately to the use of the road easement by you. If you and your neighbor cannot agree on pro rata shares or upon the need or extent of repair and maintenance, it will be necessary for you to appeal to the proper superior court for the appointment of an impartAal arbitrator or for the determination of the court as to the pro rata shares. PUBLIC TRANSPORTATIONi sus service is- 4 miles from the subdivision at Atascadero. SHOPPING FACILITIES& At Atascadero. SCHOOLS: The Atascadero Unified School District advises the schools sery ng this- tract, from the farthest lot in the tract to the nearest schools, are as followsz SCHOOL DISTAMC9 FROM TRACT Monterey Road Elementary School 1.8 miles Asascad*Co Junior High School S.6 miles Atascadero High School 5.3 miles ' NOTEt There is no bus service available-- to the aforementioned ac 0018. NOTE: This school information was correct as of the date of this report. Purchasers may contact the local school district for current information on school assignments, facilities and bus service. For further information in regard to this- subdivision, you may call (916) 322-2SOS or examine- the .documents at the Department of Real Estate, 6633 Florin Road, Suite- 250, Sacramento, .CA: 93823. WN/at Page 6 of 6 Pages File no. 2,561 MOND �1. 'C EPARTMENT OF REAL ESTATE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA (916 ) 322-2505 STANDARD In the matter of the application of FINAL SUBDIVISION PUBLIC REPORT RICHARD LEE DAVIS & LEROY RUSSELL DAVIS , As Co-Trustees of the DAVIS FAMILY TRUST; FILE NO. : 002561FR-AO4 LEROY DAVIS for a Final Subdivision Public Report on ISSUED: JULY 1 , 1969 ATASCADERO COLONY RENEWED & 4TH 3-F MEADOW RANCHES AMENDMENT: MAY 23 , 1984 SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA EXPIRES: MAY 22, 1989 THIS REPORT IS NOT A RECOMMENDATION OR ENDORSEMENT OF THE SUBDIVISION BUT IS INFORMATIVE ONLY - BUYER OR LESSEE MUST SIGN THAT HE HAS RECEIVED AND READ THIS REPORT N A copy of this subdivision public report along with a statement advising that a copy of the public report may be obtained from the 0 owner , subdivider , or agent at any time , upon oral or written request , must be posted in a conspicuous place at any office where T sales or leases or offers to sell or le arse lata within the subdivision are regularly made . E ( Reference B&P Code Section 11018 . 1 ( b ) ] T h i a Report Expires on Date Shown Above. If Ther& Has Been a: Hateria:l Change in the Offering , an Amended Public Report !lust be Obtained and Used in Lieu of This Report . Section 12920 of the California Government Coderprovides that ttoe practice of discrimination because of race , color , religion , sex , marital status , national origin or ancestry in housing accommodations is against public policy . Under Section 125 . 6 of the California Business and Professions Code , California real estate licensees are subject to disciplinary action by the Real Estate Commissioner if they make any discrimination , distinction or restriction in negotiating sale or lease of real property because of the race , color , sex , religion , ancestry or national origin of the prospective buyer . If any prospective buyer or lessee believes that a licensee is guilty of such conduct , he or she should contact the Department of Real Estate. Read the entire report on the following pages_ before, contracting to purchase a lot in this subdivision . HE Form 618 ( Rev . 9/ 30/83) Page 1 of 8 to C) SPECIAL NOTES 1 . TITLE WILL BE SUBJECT TO A RESERVATION OF POSSESSION AND CATTLE GRAZING RIGHTS UNTIL THE PROPERTY IS IMPROVED WITH A PERMANENT RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE CONTAINING 1 , 200 SQUARE FEET OR MORE OF LIVING AREA. 2. THE SUBDIVIDER CERTIFIES HE WILL NOT SELL ANY OF THE LOTS OF LESS THAN ONE ACRE SEPARATELY IN BLOCK 28, 29, 30, 40, 41 , 57, 58, 59, 60, 80, 81 , 82, 90,. 91 AND 92. LOTS OF LESS THAN ONE ACRE IN SIZE WILL BE SOLD ONLY WITH LOTS OF LARGER ACREAGE. 3. THIS REPORT COVERS LOT 16 IN BLOCK 28 OF ATASCADERO COLONY AND ANY OTHER LOT TO-WHICH THE APPLICANT HELD TITLE AT THE DATE OF ISSUANCE OF THE FOURTH AMENDMENT TO THE PUBLIC REPORT. 4. IF YOU PURCHASE FIVE OR MORE SUBDIVISION INTERESTS (LOTS) FROM THE SUBDIVIDER, HE/SHE IS REQUIRED "TO NOTIFY THE REAL ESTATE COMMISSIONER OF THE SALE. IF YOU INTEND TO SELL YOUR INTERESTS OR LEASE THEM FOR MORE THAN ONE YEAR, YOU ARE REQUIRED TO OBTAIN AN AMENDED SUBDIVISION PUBLIC REPORT BEFORE YOU CAN OFFER THEM FOR SALE OR LEASE. 5. GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS: THE UNIFORM BUILDING CODE, CHAPTER 70, PROVIDES FOR LOCAL BUILDING OFFICIALS TO EXERCISE PREVENTIVE MEASURES DURING GRADING TO ELIMINATE OR MINIMIZE DAMAGE FROM GE- OLOGIC HAZARDS SUCH AS LANDSLIDES, FAULT MOVEMENTS, EARTHQUAKE SHAKING, RAPID EROSION OR SUBSIDENCE. THIS SUBDIVISION IS LO- CATED IN AN AREA WHERE SOME OF THESE HAZARDS MAY EXIST. SOME CALIFORNIA COUNTIES AND CITIES HAVE ADOPTED ORDINANCES THAT MAY OR MAY NOT BE AS EFFECTIVE IN THE CONTROL OF GRADING AND SITE PREPARATION. PURCHASERS MAY DISCUSS WITH THE DEVELOPER, THE DEVELOPER'S ENGI- NEER, THE ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST AND THE LOCAL BUILDING OFFICIALS TO DETERMINE IF THE ABOVE-MENTIONED HAZARDS HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED AND IF THERE HAS BEEN ADEQUATE COMPLIANCE WITH CHAPTER 70 OR AN EQUIVALENT OR MORE STRINGENT GRADING ORDINAUCE DURING THE CON- STRUCTION OF THIS SUBDIVISION. NOTE: THE DIVISION OF MINES AND GEOLOGY REPORTS: "THIS AREA IS UNDERLAIN BY A VARIETY OF ROCK FORMATIONS, SOME OF WHICH ARE RELATIVELY SOFT. IN THIS SEMI-RURAL AREA WE ASSUME THAT DEVELOPMENT WILL BE CONCENTRATED ON THE MORE FAVORABLE SITES, AVOIDING THE STEEPER SLOPES. HOWEVER, IF CONSTRUCTION IS PLANNED ON THE STEEPER PARTS OF THE AREA, DETAIL D SITE STUDIES SHOULD BE MADE SO THAT POTENTIAL SLOPE-STABILITY PROBLEMS MAY BE RECOGNIZED AND AVOIDED BY APPROPRIATE REMEDIAL ACTION TAKEN DURING SITE DEVELOPMENT. " Page 2 of 8 File No. 002561FR-A04 J �•012-1 LOCATION AND SIZE: Approximately 2 miles west of Atascadero. Approximately 1 ,831 acres divided 'into 305 lots. . TAXES: The maximum amount of any tax on real property that can be collected annually by counties is 1 % of the full cash value of the property. With the addition of interest and redemption charges on any indebtedness, approved by voters prior to July 1 , 1978, the to- tal property tax rate in most counties is approximately 1 . 25% of the full cash value. In some counties the total tax. rate could be well above 1 . 25% of the full cash value. For example, an issue of gen- eral obligation bonds previously approved by the voters and sold by a county water district, a sanitation district or other such dis- trict could increase the total tax. For the purchaser of a lot or unit in this subdivision, the "full cash value" of the lot or unit will be the valuation, as reflected on the tax roll, determined by the county assessor as of the date of purchase of the lot or unit or as of the date of completion of an improvement on the lot if that occurs after the date of purchase. EASEMENTS: Easements for utilities and other purposes are shown on the T tle Report and Subdivision Map recorded in the Office of the San Luis Obispo County Recorder, Book 3 of Maps; Parcel Map 82-91 and 82-129.. MINERAL RIGHTS: You may not own the mineral, oil, and gas rights under your land. These have been reserved from various lots. The right to surface entry has not been waived, and the owners of the mineral rights may enter upon the land at some future date to extract minerals, etc. This right could affect your ability to obtain financing for building on your. property.. USES AND ZONING: Information about zoning may be obtained at the offices of the San Luis Obispo County Planning Commission. RESTRICTIONS: These lots are subject to Restrictions recorded in the Office of the San Luis Obispo County Recorder, embodied in various deeds_ This subdivision is subject to Restrictions recorded in the Office of the San Luis Obispo County Recorder, Book 1587, Pages 1 through 20, which include, among other provisions, the following: Prior to any construction, you must obtain approval of. your plans by the Architectural Control Committee. This committee is appointed by the subdivider. Building Restrictions: Height limit: two stories Minimum floor space: 1 , 200 square feet Garage limit: not more Phan three cars Page 3 of 8 File No. 002561FR A04 RESTRICTIONS: (Continued ) . No trees shall be cut or removed without prior written approval from the committee. No commercial sign of any kind shall be displayed to • the public view on any lot without committee approval. This provision may be unenforceable. FOR INFORMATION AS TO YOUR OBLIGATIONS AND RIGHTS, YOU SHOULD READ THE RESTRICTIONS. THE SUBDIVIDER SHOULD MAKE THEM AVAILABLE TO YOU. PURCHASE MONEY HANDLING: The subdivider must impound all funds re- ceived from you in an escrow depository until legal title is deliv- ered to you. (Refer to Section 11013. 2( a) of the Business and Professions Code. ] If the escrow has not closed on your lot within twelve ( 12) months of the date of your deposit receipt, you may request return of your deposit. NOTE: Section 2995 of the Civil Code provides that: "No real estate developer shall require as a condition precedent to the transfer of real property containing a single family residential dwelling that escrow services effectuating such transfer shall be provided by an escrow entity in which the developer (owns or controls) 5% or more of the escrow entity. " The applicant advises that they hold no interest in any escrow companies in regards to said subdivision. CONDITIONS OF SALE: If your purchase involves financing, a form of Deed of Trust and Note will be used. These documents may contain the following provision: Acceleration Clause. This is a clause in a mortgage or deed of trust which provides that if the borrower ( trustor) defaults in repaying the loan or sells the property, the lender may declare the unpaid balance of the loan immediately due and payable. An acceler- ation clause that is triggered- by a sale of the property is commonly referred to as a due-on-sale clause. On October 15, 1982, a federal law (Gare-St. Germain Depository Institutions Act of 1982 ) was enacted which declares that the en- forceability of due-on-sale clauses in loan contracts entered into after October 15, 1982, is to be governed exclusively by the terms of the loan contract itself. This is the controlling law for a mortgage loan made by any institutional or private mortgage lender.. If the loan instrument for financing your purchase of an interest in this subdivision includes a due-on-sale clause, the clause will be automatically enforceable by the lender in the event of a sale of the property by you. This means that the loan- will not be assumable by a purchaser of the property without the approval of the lender. Page 4 of 3 File No. 002561FR-A04 CONDITIONS OF SALE: (Continued ) • • If the lender does not declare the loan to be all due and payable on transfer of the property by you, the lender is nevertheless likely to insist upon modification of the terms of the instrument as a condition to permitting assumption by the buyer. The lender will almost certainly insist upon an increase in the interest rate if the prevailing interest rate at the time of the proposed sale of the property is higher than the interest rate of the promissory note by which you are financing the purchase of the property. Because of the confusion that still surrounds the subject of due-on- sale clause enforceability, you should consider obtaining the advice of an attorney concerning the enforceability of a due-on-sale clause before making this purchase . BEFORE SIGNING, YOU SHOULD READ AND THOROUGHLY UNDERSTAND ALL LOAN DOCUMENTS. WATER: The Atascadero Mutual Water Company. This is a mutual water company. A mutual water company is not subject to supervision or regulation as a public utility company. No public agency has any supervision or control over the management,, rates, assessments, charges or conduct of business by a mutual water company. Usually you must be a stockholder in the mutual water company in order to be entitled to get water. NOTE: The A:.ascadero Mutual Water Company advises as follows: . "Ample water for normal use and fire protection is available and will be furnished on demand without exception. Arrangements have been made for the installation of water lines as the area is developed, the cost of which will be borne by the developer. The present cost of water main installations is $8.00 per foot." FIRE PROTECTION: Fire protection is furnished by the Forestry service. GAS: Natural gas service is not available. ELECTRICITY: Pacific Gas and Electric Company advises as follows: "The extension of our electric lines would be made in accordance with Electric Extension . Rules 15 and/or 15. 1 ; however, there may be. instances where it is determined that the extension of electric distribution facilities under the regular provisions of these rules is not feasible. In these instances , the exceptional cases Provisions of the rules would be invoked rz-quiring, among other things, the payment of costs of ownership charges . " Page 5 of 8 File No. 002561FR-A04 TELEPHONE: Pacific Bell Telephone Company advises as follows : "This is to inform you that under its present plan the Pacific Bell Telephone Company expects to be in a position to provide telephone service to applicants in the above subdivision upon request in accordance with requirements of and at rates and charges specified in its tariffs on file with the California Public Utilities Commission. This tract will be served with underground distribution facilities in accordance with the above mentioned tariffs, the applicant or customer on his property will be responsible for: 1 . furnishing, installing and maintaining conduit if the Telephone Company requires it for the service connection wire or cable; or 2. providing or paying the cost for the underground supporting structures (usually a trench) if the Telephone Company determines buried wire or cable is to be used for the service connection. NOTE: Purchasers will be responsible for all costs in extending electric and telephone lines to their lots." SEWAGE DISPOSAL: Septic tanks will be used for sewage disposal. You must pay for your septic tank. A contractor advises as follows: "The cost of• a complete installation of a 1 ,000 gallon septic tank and 450 square feet of leachfield in the 3-F Meadows Tract, Atascadero, will be $1 , 500.00 to $1 ,800.00 per installation. " NOTE: The County Health Department advises as follows: "Community sewer service is not presently available for the above mentioned tract. Septic tanks and subsurface leachfields on each parcel will be an acceptable method of sewage disposal. Sewage disposal systems intended to be installed on slopes of 20% or greater shall be designed and the installation supervised and certified to function properly under all weather conditions by a registered civil engineer. Plans shall be submitted to the County Planning Department for approval prior to the issuance of a building permit. Slopes in excess of 30% are not suitable for subsurface sewage disposal. On all parcels of five ( 5) acres or less complete soils testing and borings shall be made on each parcel. Sewage dispos ,l shall comply with Title 19, Building and Construction Ordinance t. - the satisfaction of the San Luis Obispo County Building Department. Sewage disposal systems shall be a minimum of fifty (50) feet from creek banks, drainage swales or areas subject to- inundation. Sewage disposal systems shall be separated from all wells and dom4estic water lines, as follows: • Page 6 of 8 File No. 002561FR-A04 • 8`I SEWAGE DISPOSAL: (Continued) Horizontal Distance (feet) WATER SUPPLY PROPERTY WELL LINE (PRESSURE) DWELLING LINE,_ Disposal Field 100 (community 25 20 5 and seepage bed well - 200 ) Bored pits or 150 50 20 10-15 cesspools Septic tank or 100 10 septic 5 10 septic building sewer tank tank NOTE: Sewage lines shall not be placed above water lines or in the same trench . Water shall be obtained from the Atascadero Mutual Water Company. This approval will apply to single family dwellings and shall not imply approval for future lot splits or to any type of high density residential, commercial or recreational development.* STREETS AND ROADS: The subdivider's engineer advises as follows: "The roadways within this project area are private but prior to selling will be offered for dedication by Mr. Davis. The offer of dedication includes the existing roadways fronting all lots owned by Mr. Davis with an additional 5 feet on each lot parallel to and 25 feet from the centerline of the roads. Lot 2, Block 57 and a portion of Lot 28A, Block 60, 'front on county maintained roads. Lots 26A, 27A, 28A, 19, 20 and 21 , Block 60 along with Lots 32C, 32B , 32A, 33, 34 and 37, in Block 80, front on State Highway 41 which is maintained by the State of California. The rest of the lots front on the private , unmaintained roads. The approximate annual costs to maintain an all-weather road on the private roads would be $. 25 per linear foot. The all-weather road would be 16 feet wide and overlaid with 2" of red-rock. The approximate costs ta bring these roadways to county standards with a typical section of 20 feet wide consisting of 6' aggregate base and 2" of asphaltic concrete would be $20.00 per linear foot, excluding any required drainage facilities." The San Luis Obispo County engineer advises as follows Page 7 of 3 File No. 002561FR-A04 STREETS AND ROADS: (Continued) "Lot 2, Block 57, (Parcel Map 82-129 ) , Atascadero Colony fronts on Santa Lucia Road, a hard surfaced county-maintained highway. Lot 28A, Block 60, fronts on both Morro Road, a hard surfaced county- maintained highway, and State Highway 46. Lots 19 through 21 , 26A and 27A, Block 60 and Lots 32A, 32B, 32C, 33, 34 and 37, Block 80, all front on State Highway 46. The remainder of the lots owned by Mr. J. R. Davis in Blocks 57, 58, 59, 80, 81 , 82, 90, 91 , 40, 41 and 60, front on private road easements within Atascadero- Colony. These roads, to our knowledge, are unconstructed and are not maintained by any public agency. " NOTE: All private roads will be maintained by lot owners. No pro- vision for their repair and maintenance has been made by the devel- oper, and it is not contemplated that he will do so. All repair and maintenance of these private roads will be your responsibility and expense individually, collectively and proportionately to the use of the road easement by you. If you and your neighbor cannot agree on pro rata shares or upon the need or extent of repair and maintenance, it will be necessary for you to appeal to the proper superior court for the appointment of an impartial arbitrator or for the determination of the court as to the pro rata shares. SOIL: Soil information is on file at' County of San Luis Obispo, Planning Department, County Government Center, San Luis Obispo, California 93408. PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION: Bus service is 4 miles from the subdivision at Atascadero. SHOPPING FACILITIES: At Atascadero. For further information in regard to this subdivision, you may call ( 916 ) 322-2505 or examine the documents at the Department of Real Estate, 4433 Florin Road, Suite 250, Sacramento, California 95823. 0085/TMD/dea Page 9 of 8 File No. 002561FR-A04 Department of Real Estate 1 of the State of California FINAL SUBDIt'ISION PUBLIC REPORT In the matter of the application of STANDARD RICHARD LEE DAVIS , LEROY RUSSELL DAVIS, AND BERNICE M. DAVIS , As Co—Trustees of the DAVIS FAMILY TRUST; FILE NO. : 002561FR—A05 ISSUED: JULY 1 , 1969 RENEWED & FES 0 6 19-0 for a Final Subdivision Public Report on AMENDED i , AEXPIRES: ,��8 �- TASCADERO COLONY 3—F MEADOW RANCHES JAMES A. Est IONDS,11t. Co 'oner by SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA ury ommissioner' CONSUMER INFORMATION NOT ♦ F THE SUBDIVISION; IT IS INFORMATIVE THIS REPORT IS 1`OT A RECO�LtitE'�"DATIO� OR ENDORSE.tE.Z' O e ONLY. 1 `• BUYER OR LTssEE Mus-r SIGN THAT (S)HE HAs REcEIVED A.s-D READ THIS REPORT. II A copy of this subdivision public report along with a statement advising that a copy of the public report may be obtained from the owner,subdivider,or agent at any time,upon oral or written request, must be posted in a conspicuous place at any office where sales or leases or offers to sell or lease interests in this subdivision are regularly made. {Reference Business and Professions(B&P) Code Section 11018.1(b)J This report expires on the date shown above. All material changes must be reported to the Department of Real Estate. (Refer to Section 11012 of the B&P Code; and Chapter 6, Title 10 of the California Administrative Code,Regulation 2800.) Some material changes may require amendment of the Public Report;which Amendment must be obtained and used in lieu of this report. Section 12920 of the California Government Code provides that the practice of discrimination in housing accommodations on the basis of race,color,religion,sex,martial status,national origin,physical handicap or ancestry, is against public policy. Under Section 125.6 of the B&P Code, California real estate licensees are subject to disciplinary action by the Real Estate Commissioner if they discriminate or make any distinction or restriction in negotiat- ing the sale or lease of real property because of the race,color,sex,religion,ancestry,national origin,or physical handicap of the client. If any prospective buyer or lessee believes that a licensee is guilty of such conduct, (s)he should contact the Department of Real Estates READ THE ENTIRE REPORT ON THE FOLLOWING PAGES BEFORE CONTRACTING TO BUY OR LEASE AN INTEREST IN THIS SUBDIVISION. RE 618(Rev.IZIM Pave 1 of 10 SPECIAL NOTES 1 . TITLE WILL BE SUBJECT TO A RESERVATION OF POSSESSION AND CATTLE GRAZING RIGHTS UNTIL THE PROPERTY IS IMPROVED WITH A PERMANENT RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE CONTAINING 1 ,200 SQUARE FEET OR MORE OF LIVING AREA. 2. THE SUBDIVIDER CERTIFIES HE WILL NOT SELL ANY OF THE LOTS OF LESS THAN ONE ACRE SEPARATELY IN BLOCK 28, 29, 30, 40, 41 , 57, 58, 59, 60, 80, 81 , 82, 90, 91 AND 92. LOTS OF LESS THAN ONE ACRE IN SIZE WILL BE SOLD ONLY WITH LOTS OF LARGER ACREAGE. 3 . THIS REPORT ONLY COVERS THE LOTS LISTED AT THE END OF REPORT AND ANY OTHER LOT TO WHICH THE APPLICANT HELD TITLE AT THE DATE OF ISSUANCE OF THE FOURTH AMENDMENT TO THE PUBLIC REPORT. 4. IF YOU PURCHASE FIVE OR MORE SUBDIVISION LOTS FROM THE SUBDI- VIDER, THE SUBDIVIDER IS REQUIRED TO NOTIFY THE REAL ESTATE COMMISSIONER OF THE SALE. IF YOU INTEND TO SELL YOUR INTERESTS OR LEASE THEM FOR TERMS LONGER THAN ONE YEAR, YOU ARE REQUIRED TO OBTAIN AN AMENDED SUBDIVISION PUBLIC REPORT BEFORE YOU CAN OFFER THE INTERESTS FOR SALE OR LEASE. 5. YOUR ATTENTION IS ESPECIALLY DIRECTED TO THE PARAGRAPHS BELOW ENTITLED: STREETS AND ROADS, AND SEWAGE DISPOSAL. LOCATION AND SIZE: This subdivision contains 305 lots on 1 ,831 acres and is located at State Highway 41 and San Gabriel within the city limits of Atascadero, California. Prospective purchasers should acquaint themselves with the kinds of city services available. MINERAL RIGHTS: On many lots you will not own the mineral,, oil and gas rights under your land. These have been reserved as stated in the title report. Prospective purchasers should review this with the title company. The right to surface entry has not been waived, and the owners of the mineral rights may enter upon the land at some future date to extract minerals, etc. This right could affect your ability to obtain financing for building on your property. EASEMENTS: Easements for utilities, ditches, pipes, poles, flood control, rights-of-way, streets and sidewalks, septic leach field, and other purposes are shown on the Title Report and Subdivision Map recorded in the Office of the San Luis Obispo County Recorder, Book 3 of Maps, Page 1 ET SEQ OF MAPS RESTRICTIONS: These lots are subject to Restrictions recorded in e Ottice of the San Luis Obispo County Recorder, embodied in various deeds. Page 2 of 10 File No. 002561SA-A05 RESTRICTIONS : (Continued) This subdivision is subject to Restrictions recorded in -the Office of the San Luis Obispo County Recorder, Book 1587, Pages 1 through 20, and Book 1836, Page 281 which include, among other provisions , the following : Prior to any construction, you must obtain approval of your plans by the Architectural Control Committee. This committee is appointed by the subdivider. Building Restrictions : Height limit: two stories Minimum floor space: 1 ,200 square feet Garage limit: not more than three cars . No trees shall be cut or removed without prior written approval from the committee. No commercial sign of any kind shall be displayed to the public view on any lot without committee approval. This provi- sion may be unenforceable. FOR INFORMATION AS TO YOUR OBLIGATIONS AND RIGHTS, YOU SHOULD READ THE RESTRICTIONS. THE SUBDIVIDER SHOULD MAKE THEM AVAILABLE TO YOU. HAZARDS: The following hazard exists within or near this eve opment: THE SUBDIVISION IS LOCATED WITHIN 15 MILES OF THE DIABLO CANYON NUCLEAR POWER PLANT. IT IS WITHIN THE PUBLIC EDUCATION ZONE, THE AREA SURROUNDING EACH OF CALIFORNIA' S NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS, IN WHICH BOTH STATE AND FEDERAL GOVERNMENTS REQUIRE PLANNING TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC IN THE UNLIKELY EVENT OF A SERIOUS ACCIDENT AT THE PLANT. PLANS FOR PUBLIC INFORMA- TION AND FOR A FULL RANGE OF PROTECTIVE ACTIONS, INCLUDING EVACUA- TION, HAVE BEEN DEVELOPED BY LOCAL EMERGENCY SERVICES OFFICES. FIRE PROTECTION: The Atascadero City Fire Department provides fire protection. PURCHASE MONEY HANDLING: The subdivider must impound all funds received from you in an escrow depository until legal title is delivered to you. (Refer to Sections 11013, 11013. 1 and 11013.2(a) of the Business and Professions Code.] If the escrow has not closed on your lot within twelve ( 12) months of the date of your deposit receipt, you may request return of your deposit. • Page 3 of 10 File No. 002561SA-A05 PURCHASE MONEY HANDLING: (Continued) NOTE: Section 2995 of the Civil Code provides that no real estate 3eveloper shall require as a condition precedent to the transfer of real property containing a single family residential dwelling that escrow services effectuating such transfer shall be provided by an escrow entity in which the developer owns or controls 5% or more of the escrow entity. THE SUBDIVIDER HAS NO SUCH INTEREST IN THE ESCROW COMPANY WHICH IS TO BE USED IN CONNECTION WITH THE SALE OR LEASE OF LOTS IN THIS SUBDIVISION. CONDITIONS OF SALE: Pursuant to Civil Code Sections 2956 through 2997, inclusive, subdividers and purchasers must make certain writ- ten disclosures regarding financing terms and related information. The subdivider will advise purchasers of disclosures needed from them, if any.. If your purchase involves financing, a form of deed of trust and note will be used. The provisions of these documents may vary depending on the lender selected. These documents may contain the following provisions: Acceleration Clause. This is a clause in a mortgage or deed of trust wnich prove es that if the borrower (trustor) defaults in repaying the loan, the lender may declare the unpaid balance of the loan immediately due and payable. Due-on-Sale Clause. If the loan instrument for financing your pur- chase of an interest in this subdivision includes a due-on-sale clause , the clause will be automatically enforceable by the lender in the event of a sale of the property by you. This means that the loan will not be assumable by a purchaser without the approval of the lender. If the lender does not declare the loan to be all due and payable on transfer of the property by you, the lender is never- theless likely to insist upon modification of the terms of the instrument as a condition to permitting assumption by the buyer. The lender will almost certainly insist upon an increase in the interest rate if the prevailing interest rate at the time of the proposed sale of the property is higher than the interest rate of the promissory note. BEFORE SIGNING, YOU SHOULD READ AND THOROUGHLY UNDERSTAND ALL LOAN DOCUMENTS. WATER: The Atascadero Mutual Water Company advises that it will supply water to each lot. This is a mutual water company. A mutual water company is not subject to supervision or regulation as a public utility company. No- public agency has any supervision or control over the management, rates, assessments, charges or conduct of business by a mutual water company. Usually you. must be a stock- holder in the mutual water company in order to be entitled to get water. ._ Page 4 of 10 File No. 002561FR-A05 WATER: (Continued) • NOTE: The Atascadero Mutual Water Company advises as follows : "Ample water for normal use and fire protection is available and will be furnished on demand without exception. Arrangements have been made for the installation of water lines as the area is developed, the cost of which will be borne by the developer. The present cost of water main installations is $8 .00 per foot. " An excavation company advises : "The cost breakdown of a 2 inch P.V.C. waterline running from the water meter to the building site in 3-F Meadows, would be as follows: Up to 200 feet $5.00 per foot 201 feet to 400 feet 4. 00 per foot 401 feet and up 3.40 per foot. GAS: Natural gas service is not available. ELECTRICITY: Pacific Gas and Electric Company advises as follows: Electric service will be provided to the furthest lot in accordance with Electric Rules 15 and 16. Any cost to customer would be determined by the length of the exten- sion and the connected load of the customer. The customer receives a free footage allowance in accordance with the table, and any extension beyond the free footage will be billed at $ 10.05 per foot. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact (805) 434-4430, 160 Cow Meadow Place, Templeton, California. TELEPHONE: Pacific Bell advises as follows: This development has been classified as a Real EstateDevelopment within which telephone facilities will be extended. The developer has made no arrangements for installation of the facilities in advance of lot sales. Therefore, upon request for service, an individual applicant will be required to pay in advance, charges for line extension facilities to reach his or her lot under the provi- sion of Tariff Schedule Number 23-T. This charge estimated to be $16,896 +, is based on a charge of $1 . 10 a lineal foot and 28% C. I.A.C. tax for each foot of construction in excess of 750 feet free allowance. This estimate is for extending the longest loop to San Madrone Road. Page 5 of 10 File No. 002561SA-A05 3_�. TELEPHONE: (Continued) This charge may be reduced depending on the number of additional applicants for service using the same facility initially or within three years of the initial service date of the first application. Additional charges for service connection extension on the property served in excess of 300 feet free footage allowance may also be required. However, it is not feasible to compute this charge due to the variables involved and uncertainty of actual service location. Where underground distribution facilities have been established an applicant will be required to provide the underground supporting structure for separate service connection facilities on the property to be served. NOTE: Purchasers will be responsible for all costs in extending electric and telephone lines to their lots. * SEWAGE DISPOSAL: Septic tanks will be used for sewage disposal . You must pay for your septic tank. A contractor advises as follows : "The cost of a complete installation of a septic tank and leachfield in the 3-F Meadows Tract, Atascadero, will be $2,000.00 to $8, 000. 00 per installation." NOTE: The County Health Department advises as follows : "Community sewer service is not presently available for the above mentioned tract. Septic tanks and subsurface leachfields on each parcel will be an acceptable method of sewage disposal.. Sewage disposal systems intended to be installed on slopes of 20% or greater shall be designed and the installation supervised and certi- fied to function properly under all weather conditions by a regis- tered civil engineer. Plans shall be submitted to the County Planning Department for approval prior to the issuance of a building permit. Slopes in excess of 30% are not suitable for subsurface sewage disposal. On all parcels of five (5) acres or less complete soils testing and borings shall be made on each parcel. Sewage disposal shall comply with Title 19, Building and Construction Ordinance to the satisfac- tion of the San Luis Obispo County Building Department.. Sewage disposal systems shall be a minimum of fifty (50) feet from creek banks, drainage swales or areas subject to inundation. Sewage disposal systems shall be separated from all wells and domestic water lines, as follows:. • Page 6 of 10 File No. 002561FR-A05 SEWAGE DISPOSAL: (Continued) • Horizontal Distance (feet) WATER SUPPLY PROPERTY WELL LINE (PRESSURE) DWELLING LINE Disposal Field 100 (community 25 20 5 and seepage bed well - 200) Bored pits or 150 50 20 10-15 cesspools Septic tank or 100 10 septic 5 10 septic building sewer tank tank NOTE: Sewage lines shall not be placed above water lines or in the same trench. Water shall be obtained from the Atascadero Mutual Water Company. This approval will apply to single-family dwellings and shall not imply approval for future lot splits or to any type of high density residential, commercial or recreational development. The San Luis Obispo County Health Department has stated that a per- mit will be issued for a septic system on all lots/parcels in this subdivision. This information is applicable as of the date of . issuance of this public report. If there is a change in the requirements for a sewage disposal system permit, the subdivider must amend the public report to disclose the new conditions. Please note that if you do not intend to install a sewage system at this time, there is no guarantee that the lot/parcel will later qualify for use of a septic system. Prior to purchasing a lot/parcel and commencing construction, you should contact the local health depart- ment concerning specifications, requirements and any local problems . TAXES: The maximum amount of any tax on real property that can be collected annually by counties is 1 % of the full cash value of the property. With the addition of interest and redemption charges on any indebtedness, approved by voters prior to July 1 ,; 1978, the total property tax rate in most counties is approximately 1 .25% of the full cash value. In some counties the total tax rate could be well above 1 .25% of the full cash value. For example, an issue of general obligation bonds previously approved by the voters and sold by a county water district, a sanitation district or 'other such dis- trict could increase the tax rate. For the purchaser of a lot or unit in this subdivision, the full cash value of the lot or unit will be the valuation, as reflected on the tax roll , determined by the county assessor as of the date of purchase of the lot or unit or as of the date of completion of an improvement on the lot if that occurs after the date of purchase. • Page 7 of 10 File No. 002561FR-A05 _2L STREETS AND ROADS: The subdivider's engineer advises as follows : "The roadways within this project area are private but prior to • selling will be offered for dedication by Mr. Davis. The offer of dedication includes the existing roadways fronting all lots owned by Mr . Davis with an additional 5 feet on each lot parallel to and 25 feet from the centerline of the roads. Lot 2, Block 57 and a portion of Lot 28A, Block 60, front on county maintained roads. Lots 26A, 27A, 28A, 19, 20 and 21 , Block 60 along with Lots 32C, 32B, 32A, 33, 34 and 37, in Block 80, front on State Highway 41 which is maintained by the State of California. The rest of the lots front on the private, unmaintained roads. The approximate annual costs to maintain an all-weather road on the private roads would be $ .25 per linear foot. The all-weather road would be 16 feet wide and overlaid with 2" of red-rock. The approximate costs to bring these roadways to county standards with a typical section of 20 feet wide consisting of 6" aggregate base and 2" of asphaltic concrete would be $20.00 per linear foot, excluding any required drainage facilities. "` The San Luis Obispo County engineer advises as follows : "Lot 2, Block 57, (Parcel Map 82-129 ) , Atascadero Colony fronts on Santa Lucia Road, a hard surfaced county-maintained highway. Lot • 28A, Block 60, fronts on both Morro Road, a hard surfaced county- maintained highway, and State Highway 46. Lots 19 through 21 , 26A and 27A, Block 60 and Lots 32A, 32B, 32C, 33, 34 and 37, Block 80, all front on State Highway 46. The remainder of the lots owned by Mr. J. R. Davis in Blocks 57, 58, 59, 80, 81 , 82, 90, 91 ,. 40, 41 and 60, front on private road easements within Atascadero Colony. These roads , to our knowledge, are unconstructed and are not maintained by ny public agency." NOTE: All private roads will be maintained by lot owners. No pro- v, for their repair and maintenance has been made by the devel- oper, and it is not contemplated that he will do so. All repair and maintenance of these private roads will be your responsibility and expense individually, collectively and proportionately to the use of I e road easement by you. If you and your neighbor cannot agree on pro rata shares or upon the need or extent of repair and maintenance, it will be necessary for you to appeal to the proper superior court for the appointment of an impartial arbitrator or for the determination of the court as to the pro rata shares. SOIL: Soil information is on file at County of San Luis. Obispo , Punning Department, County Government Center, San Luis Obispo, California 93408. • Page 8 of 10 File No. 002561FR-A05 <�! f GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS: THE UNIFORM BUILDING CODE, CHAPTER 70, PRO- . • VIDES FOR LOCAL BUILDING OFFICIALS TO EXERCISE PREVENTIVE MEASURES DURING GRADING TO ELIMINATE OR MINIMIZE DAMAGE FROM GEOLOGIC HAZARDS SUCH AS LANDSLIDES, FAULT MOVEMENTS, EARTHQUAKE SHAKING, RAPID ERO- SION OR SUBSIDENCE. THIS SUBDIVISION IS LOCATED IN AN AREA WHERE SOME OF THESE HAZARDS MAY EXIST. SOME CALIFORNIA COUNTIES AND CITIES HAVE ADOPTED ORDINANCES THAT MAY OR MAY NOT BE AS EFFECTIVE IN THE CONTROL OF GRADING AND SITE PREPARATION. PURCHASERS MAY CONTACT THE DEVELOPER, THE DEVELOPER'S ENGINEER, THE ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST AND THE LOCAL BUILDING OFFICIALS TO DETERMINE IF THE ABOVE-MENTIONED HAZARDS HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED AND IF THERE HAS BEEN ADEQUATE COMPLIANCE WITH CHAPTER 70 OR AN EQUIVALENT OR MORE STRINGENT GRADING ORDINANCE DURING THE CONSTRUCTION OF THIS SUBDIVISION. NOTE: THE DIVISION OF MINES AND GEOLOGY REPORTS : "THIS AREA IS UNDERLAIN BY A VARIETY OF ROCK FORMATIONS, SOME OF WHICH ARE RELATIVELY SOFT. IN THIS SEMI-RURAL AREA WE ASSUME THAT DEVELOPMENT WILL BE CONCENTRATED ON THE MORE FAVORABLE SITES, AVOIDING THE STEEPER SLOPES. HOWEVER, IF CONSTRUCTION IS PLANNED ON THE STEEPER PARTS OF THE AREA, DETAILED SITE STUDIES SHOULD BE MADE SO THAT POTENTIAL SLOPE-STABILITY PROBLEMS MAY BE RECOGNIZED AND AVOIDED BY APPROPRIATE REMEDIAL ACTION TAKEN DURING SITE DEVELOPMENT. LOT INCLUDED IN RENEWED PUBLIC REPORT: Lot 16, Block 28 ; Boulder Creek Reservation No. 1 , and Lots 6-A, 20, 21 , 22, 23,- 24, 25, 26 and 27,. Block 57; Lots 1 , 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11 , 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 , 22, 23, 24, 26, and 27, Block 58; Lots 18, 19, 20, 21 , 22, and 23, Block 59; Lots 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18; and Lots 20, 21 , 22,' 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, and 31 ; and a portion of Lot 19; and Park Reservation "A" , all in Block 80; Lots 3, 4, 5 and 6; and Lots 8, %, 10, 1 1 , 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 , 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 30, 32, and 41 , Block 81 ; Lots 2, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 , 12, 13, 14, 15, Park Reservation and Park Reservation B, Block 82; Lots 1 and 2, Block 90; Lots 1 , 2, 3, 12, and 13 Block 91 ; and . Lots 1 , 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7, Block 92. Page 9 of 10 File No. 002561SA-A05 If you need clarification as to the statements in this Public Report or if you desire to make arrangements to review the documents sub- • mitted by the subdivider which the Department of Real Estate used in preparing this Public Report you may call (916) 739-3631 . 0147/ERC dlw / Page 10 of 10 File. No. 002561FR-A05 n /f AL f1AEcTIOA /AGENDA ITEW BURKE, WILLIAMS & SORENSEN M E M O R A N D U M TO: City t Council cc: V Ray Windsor Art Montandon Greg Luke Henry Engen Lee Raboin FROM: Mary Gayle DATE: November 6 , 1991 RE: 3-F Meadows; Road Considerations The following memo discusses issues raised by the City Council regarding the status of public ownership of road easements in the referenced subdivision and any potential the City might have to require the developer to repair and bring the roads within the subdivision to City standards. Specifically, this memo addresses the impacts and implications of California Department of Real Estate ( "DRE") Public Reports (hereinafter, the "Reports"') with regard to the status of the roads in the referenced tract.. Subdivision Maps Reserved Title to the Roads in E G Lewis the Original Subdivider As the Council is aware, the land within the subject subdivision was originally subdivided by E. G. Lewis in 1914. Each deed originally recorded within the subdivision specifically reserved the roads adjacent to the lots in the subdivision to Lewis or a Lewis corporation and stated that there was no explicit or implied dedication of roads to any public agency. Each such deed granted a revocable easement in the roads for the benefit of every other lot owner who bought from Lewis or one of his corporations; those easements do not grant rights to the "public" , as distinguished from lot owners; i.e. , • 00 OR2 Atascadero City Council - Re 3-F Meadows Roads November 6, 1991 Page 2 theoretically, renters, guests, tradesmen, etc. were not granted a right to use the roads. _Absent Road Conditions in Subdivision ARprovals or Offers of Dedication City Lacks Authority- to Require Construction Maintenance or -Dedication Because the Lewis maps covering what is now known as 3-F Meadows were recorded without dedication of the roads, and because subsequent parcel maps were apparently approved without road conditions by the County, and absent any subsequent dedication to, or acceptance of the roads by, the County (prior to incorporation) or the City (after incorporation) , there is no legal means by which to require maintenance, construction or dedication of those roads which are not now acknowledged to be in the City's maintained street system. General Information on DRE Reports DRE Reports are required and issued to inform the buying public regarding the sale of property in a finalized l subdivision. A DRE Report does ngt constitute approval or recommendation of the Department of Real Estate. It does provide public review of information provided by the subdivider/developer regarding relevant information, including without limitation roads, water, sewers, utilities, etc. A DRE Report is required to be made available to each person who buys a portion of a subdivision from the subdivider/developer and each buyer is required to sign a receipt showing that he or she received that DRE Report. Obviously, the purpose of DRE Reports is to avoid consumer fraud and to assure to the extent possible that the buying public knows all relevant facts. Information on an applicationa DRE Report is for usually sworn to under penalty of perjury by the applicant. Simplistically, the DRE Report is a representation by the subdivider/developer to his or her buyers, upon which a buyer and possibly the Attorney General may base an action against the subdivider/developer if relevant facts are misrepresented. By signing the document, 00 OP i Atascadero City Council - Re 3-F Meadows Roads November 6, 1991 • Page 3 I however, a buyer acknowledges those "defects" or "negative" aspects of the subdivision, and in so doing, may be deemed to have waived any right to object to defects or negative aspects disclosed in the Report. No public agency other than the DRE is a direct party or third party beneficiary to the Report. Only the State and the lot purchasers would have a cause of action arising out of a DRE Report. 3-F Meadows Ranches Documents Reviewed. I was asked to review two DRE Reports (DRE File No. 2561-Fresno, aka 002561FR-A05) for Atascadero Colony 3-F Meadow Ranches. Copies of the applications from which those Reports were compiled were not provided_ They may be available if further information is required by the Council, but that could take some time. The relevant portions of those Reports, copies of which are attached, are set forth below: 1. Final Subdivision Public Report showing the • following information on the face sheet: Issued July 1, 1969, Renewed and 3rd Amendment May 8, 1979, Expires May 7, 1984; Applicants James R. Davis and Bernice M. Davis. The Special Notes in this report indicate that it covers Blocks 28 through 30, 40, 41, 57 through 60, 80 through 82, and 90 through 92 and that lots of less than one acre in those Blocks will be sold only with lots of larger acreage. The Special Notes also indicate that it covers parcels 1 through 19, 21 through 25,27, 28 , and 30 through 34, plus an undivided one-half interest in Parcel 26 as shown the title report (the Block in which these parcels are located is unidentified in the Report and the title report is not attached) . Road Representations: The body of the report states that the subdividers (sic) engineers (actually the developer's engineers) have advised DRE as follows: "The roadways within the project are private but tricar to selling will be offered for dedication by Mr. Davis. The offer of dedication includes the 08 . 00 4 Atascadero City Council - Re 3-F Meadows Roads November 6, 1991 Page 4 existing roadways fronting all lots owned by Mr. Davis with an additional 5 feet on each lot parallel to and 25 feet from the centerline of the roads. [Emphasis added] . Lot 2, Block 57 [Santa Ana Road] and portion of Lot 28A, Block 60 [Morro Road] front on county maintained roads. Lots 26A, 27A, 28A, 19, 20 and 21 in Block 60 along with Lots 32C, 32B, 32A, 33, 34 and 37 in Block 80 front on State Highway 41 which is maintained by the State of California. The rest of the lots front on private, unmaintained roads. . [There follows an estimate of costs to bring private roads to County standards with a "typical 20' wide section" . ]" The road portion of this Report goes on: "The San Luis Obispo County engineer advises as follows: 'Lot 2, Block 57 . fronts on Santa Lucia Road, a hard surfaced County maintained highway. Lot 28A, Block 60 fronts on both Morro Road, a hard surfaced County maintained highway, and State Highway 46. Lots 19 through 21, 26A and 27A, Block 60 and Lots 32A, 32 B, 32C, 33, 34 and 37, Block 80 all front on State Highway 46. The remainder of the lots owned by Mr. J. R. Davis in Blocks 57, 58, 59, 80, 81, 82, 90, 91, 40, 41 and 60 front on private road easements within Atascadero Colony_ These roads, to our knowledge, are unconstructed and are not maintained by any public agency. "' This DRE Report make the following final comments with regard to the roads: "NOTE: All private roads will be maintained by , off owners No ,provision for their repair and maintenance has been made by the developer—and it is not contemAlated that he will do so All repair 00 Osb Atascadero City Council - Re 3-F Meadows Roads November 6 , 1991 • Page 5 and maintenance of these private roads will be your responsibility and exRense individually - collectively and RroRortionately to the use of the road easement by you. [Emphasis added] If you and your neighbor cannot agree on pro rata shares or upon the need or extent of repair and maintenance, it will be necessary for you to appeal to the proper superior court for the appointment of an impartial arbitrator or for the determination of the court as to the pro rata shares." The foregoing language clearly and unequivocably puts potential lots owners on notice that no public or developer assistance had been promised to them for maintenance of the roads. That language further recognizes that, even if an offer of dedication were made as the developer's engineer indicated, there was no assurance that such a dedication would be accepted by the County when it had jurisdiction or the City after it was incorporated. 2. Final Subdivision Public Report showing the following information on the face sheet: Issued July 1, 1969; Renewed and Amended February 6, 1990, Expires February 5, 1995; Applicants Richard Lee Davis, Leroy Russell Davis, and Bernice M. Davis, as Co-Trustees of the Davis Family Trust. The Special Notes in this report state: 113 . This report only covers the lots listed at the end of report and any other lot to which the applicant held title at the date of issuance of the fourth amendment to the Public Report_ [and] 5. Your attention is especially directed to the paragraphs below entitled: Streets and Roads, and Sewage Disposal. " At the end of this Report is included a list of those lots which are included in the Report, which I have summarized as follows: • 00 OSh Atascadero City Council - Re 3-F Meadows Roads November 6, 1991 Page 6 Block 28, Lot 16; Boulder Creek Reservation No. 1; Block 57, Lots 6-A, 20 through 27; Block 58, Lots 1 through 27; Block 59, Lots 18 through 23; Block 80, Lots 12 through 18, 20 through 31, a portion of lot 19 and Park Reservation "A"; Block 81, Lots 3 through 6, 8 through 32 and 41; Block 82, Lots 2, 4, 7 through 15, Park Reservations "A" and "B"' Block 90, Lots 1 and 2; Block 91, Lots 1 through 3, 12 and 13; and Block 92, Lots 1 through 7. The section of this Report entitled "Streets and Roads" states as follows: "The subdivider's engineer [actually the developer's engineer] advises as follows: "The roadways within the project are private but prior to selling will be offered for dedication by Mr. Davis. The offer of dedication includes the existing roadways fronting all lots owned by Mr. Davis with an additional 5 feet on each lot parallel to and 25 feet from the centerline of the roads. [Emphasis added] . Lot 2 Block 57Ana Santa Road and portion of Lot [ l 28A, Block 60 [Morro Road] , front on county maintained roads. Lots 26A, 27A, 28A, 19, 20 and 21 in Block 60 along with Lots 32C, 32B, 32A, 33, 34 and 37, in Block 80 front on State Highway 41 which is maintained by the State of California. The rest of the lots front on private, unmaintained roads.. . . . [There follows an estimate of costs to bring private roads to County standards with a "typical 20' wide section" . ]" The road portion of this Report goes on: "The San Luis Obispo County engineer advises as follows: • 00 OR 7 Atascadero City Council - Re 3-F Meadows Roads November 6, 1991 �• Page 7 'Lot 2, Block 57 fronts on Santa Lucia Road, a hard surfaced County maintained highway. Lot 28A, Block 60 fronts on both Morro Road, a hard surfaced County maintained highway, and ``State Highway 46. Lots 19 through 21, 26A and 27A, Block 60 and Lots 32A, 32 B, 32C, 33 , 34 and 37, Block 80 all front on State Highway 46. The remainder of the lots owned by Mr. J. R. Davis in Blocks 57, 58, 59, 80, 81, 82, 90, 91, 40, 41 and 60 front on private road easements within Atascadero Colony. These roads, to our knowledge, are unconstructed and are not maintained by any public agency."' This early DRE Report make the following final comments with regard to the roads: "NOTE: All private roads will be maintained by lot owners No provision for their repair and maintenance has been made by the develoRer,. and it is not contemplated that he--will--do so. All repair and maintenance of these private roads will be your responsibility andexpense Lndividually collectively and proportionately to the use of the road easement by you. [Emphasis added] Again, this language put buyers on notice of their potential liability for street maintenance. If you and your neighbor cannot agree on pro rata shares or upon the need or extent of repair and maintenance, it will be necessary for you to appeal to the proper superior court for the appointment of an impartial arbitrator or for the determination of the court as to the pro rata shares." It appears from the documents cited, the City maps showing the status of roads and the limited documents available from the County that the representations as to the then-existing status of the roads described in the two reports for 3-F Meadows was accurate. I have been unable to locate a specific offer of dedication to the County and/or the City for the roads which the developer's engineers indicated would be offered for dedication. Without examining the title on each of the lots involved back to the i 0() w48 Atascadero City Council - Re 3-F Meadows Roads November 6 , 1991 Page 8 time of the first sale by the developer, there is no way to document whether or not such offers of dedication were made. Assuming, for purposes of discussion, however, that the offers were made, there is no requirement by the County and/or the City to accept such dedications. indeed, the public agency might have many reasons to reject such an offer without prejudice, particularly if the roads were not built to public agency standards. On the map attached to this memo, I have indicated the Blocks which are included in the DRE Report (outlined in red) and those portions of the roads abutting lots in the subdivision which currently lie on a City or State maintained road (as represented by the City Engineer and the County Engineer's representations in the DRE Reports noted above) . Those roads are colored black. All private roads abutting lots contained in the respective reports are marked in green. Conclusion There is no present legal way for the City to require either the developer or the adjacent landowners who acquired lots from the developer to repair the present • easements for road purposes. Neither is there any way to require that the roads over the private easements which date back to E. G. Lewis be dedicated for public use. were an application to be received to subdivide one of the existing lots into smaller parcels, road conditions, including repair to City standards and offers of dedication, . could be attached to the parcel or subdivision map. Alternative: Assessment District At this point, the only way that finances can be- acquired eacquired to repair and maintain what are now mere easements,- absent total repair and maintenance at homeowner or City expense, is the formation of an assessment district or districts, which would require approval of a majority of the owners of the• subdivision. If you have• any further questions regarding these matters, r would be pleased to respond_ • REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL Meeting Date: 1-14-92 CITY OF ATASCADERO Agenda Item: C1-B Through: Ray Windsor, City Manager From: Greg Luke, Director of Public Works g� SUBJECT: 3F Meadow Roads RECOMMENDATION: 1. Council indicate its support for the formation of an assessment district for 3-F Meadows. 2. Council establish a policy for providing financial assistance to road assessments, based on the alternatives discussed below. 3. Council direct staff to provide the residents of 3-F Meadows with assistance to initiate the initial steps to form an assessment district. BACKGROUND: The following is a brief summary of events leading to this meeting: 5-22-90 Council authorizes engineering work on 3F Meadows 5-15-91 Staff conducts public information meeting 7-23-91 Council takes testimony on 3F Roads 8-27-91 Council presented information on: * Colony Road Ownership (Mary Gayle) * Road Standards Study (North Coast Engr. ) * Road Assessment Districts (Wildan & Assoc) 9-24-91 Council presented with Staff's recommendation regarding 3F Meadows Roads; legal question of developer responsibility arises; staff directed to provide information on Chandler Ranch Assessment District. • 11-12-91 Status report given to Council on questions raised earlier; public hearing set for January 1992. 00 OR9 DISCUSSION: Staff made the following recommendation at the September 24, 1991 Council meeting: 111. Staff recommends .the Council make a policy determination that using public funds is necessary to supplement the upgrading of non-city maintained roads to City standards. If City participation is desired, a sliding scale formula based on a percentage of the total assessment is suggested with a maximum $100,000 per year cap on any given district. " This recommendation was based on the premise that some assistance was appropriate from the City to encourage the formation of road assessment districts. AVAILABLE ALTERNATIVES: 1. Provide technical and administrative assistance, but no outright financial support to road assessment districts. (As provided for Chandler Ranch) 2. Provide a higher level of financial assistance to non-City maintained roads than recommended by staff to further encourage the formation of road assessment districts. This action would result in a substantial reduction of road repair on City-maintained roads for the next 3-5 years. 3. Accept all of the non-City maintained roads into the City system without requiring any property owner participation. This action would heavily impact routine road maintenance activities throughout the City for the next 5-10 years. 4. Initiate proceedings to form a City-wide assessment district, such as a Benefit District, a Mello-Roos District, or other similar funding mechanism. FISCAL IMPACT: Staff recommendation would allocate $100,000 per year from road tax revenues. Other alternatives would have substantially different fiscal impacts. All alternatives listed would require significant staff time from both the Public Works and Finance Departments. Attachments: A - Memorandum dated 11-6-91 - Chandler vs. 3F Meadows B - Staff Report dated 9-24-91 - 3F Roads C - Letter from Councilman Lilley dated 8-29-91 D - Vicinity Map of 3F Meadows E - Fiscal Impact Evaluation (Mark Joseph 1/92) 00 090 Attachment A . MEMORANDUM TO: City Council VIA: Ray Windsor, City Manager FROM: Greg Luke, Director of Public Works DATE: November 6, 1991 SUBJECT: Chandler Ranch vs. 3-F Meadows During the discussion of an Assessment District for 3-F Meadows road improvements, several questions have arisen regarding the Assessment District for Chandler Ranch. In an effort to compare the similarities and differences between the two assessment districts, the following summary is provided: CHANDLER RANCH Total Project Cost (1989 dollars) $235, 000 Total Mileage 3.25 miles Optional ,Initial Cash Buy-out (per lot) $1605 Annual Assessment $495/year for 5 years Bond Interest Rate (tax free) 8.4% per annum Number of Owners Signing Petition 70% Note: The land was largely less than 20% slope. The roads were initially built quite close to approved County Road Standards. Approximately 70% of the construction cost was; spent on asphalt overlay. The remaining money was used for earthwork and drainage improvements. Although the roads were built in the late 1970's, they were in fairly good condition, requiring only minor road reconstruction. In essence, the project was primarily an asphalt overlay project. The homeowners paid for the entire project; the City provided only administrative assistance. • 00 091 i • 3-F MEADOWS Estimated Total Project Costs $406,960 Total Mileage 2.6 miles Number of Benefiting Properties 100 Estimated Optional Initial Cash Buy-Out $3,500 Estimated Annual Assessment $384/year for 20 years ' $447/year for 15 years Bond Interest Rate (tax free) 7% per annum Yearly payment assuming equal assessments for all lots. The 3-F Meadows Assessment District is located in hilly terrain, making road reconstruction considerably more expensive. The roads were not originally constructed to County Road Standards and therefore are deficient in the usual grading the drainage improvements. The cost of asphalt overlay would be only 40% of the overall construction cost. The remaining improvements would be for drainage improvements and work to strengthen the base of the existing roadway. It should be pointed out that this is the engineer's second preliminary cost estimate, using lower construction standards than what would be required for new road construction. In many ways the project a's presently proposed closely resembles the standard of construction used to reconstruct both the Chandler Ranch roads and the standard of work that the City's road maintenance crew would use to repair other City maintained streets. • 00 042 e Attachment • REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL Meeting Date: 9-24-91 CITY OF ATASCADERO Agenda Item: C-1(A) Through: Ray Windsor, City Manager From: Greg Luke, Director of Public Works SUBJECT: 3-F Meadows Roads RECOMMENDATION: 1. Staff recommends the Council make a policy determination that using public funds is necessary to supplement the upgrading of private roads to City standards. If City participation is desired, a sliding scale, formula based on a percentage of the total assessment is suggested with a maximum $100,000 per year cap on any given district. 2. The City should pursue further the matter of the developer's legal responsibility to maintain the roads, and • possible compensation due to the City if the roads are brought into the City system. BACKGROUND: Distant Past: The history of road development in. 3-F Meadows is complex and documentation is sketchy. To answer the question, "what is the responsibility of the City in assisting the 3-F residents to improve and maintain their roads?", I spoke with current and former senior County. engineers, including Jim Granflatten, Alan Campbell, John Wallace, and former City engineer George Wolfrank. I also researched all available sources for documentation on the subject. According to Jim Granflatten, Mr. Bud Davis (or the Davis Family Trust) constructed the first roads of Monita and Sierra Vista to County standards. After completion, these roads were taken into the County-maintained road system. The City has continued to maintain these roads after incorporation. Subsequent roads were not built to County standards because, according to Jim Granflatten, the cost of construction was too high. Instead, the County apparently allowed 'Davis to construct private roads, with the understanding that the roads would be • private and maintained by Davis. According to John Wallace, this understanding was setforth through some form of "semi-formal action", of which no written documentation can be found. 00 093 During various public hearings, long-time residents have indicated • that Davis told them that he would maintain the roads until the City took them over. During the early years of incorporation it was common practice for the Public Works Department to refer road complaints from 3-F residents to Davis (according to George Wolfrank) . However, the City never gave any indication that the roads would be brought into the City system. On October 11, 1982, the residents of 3-F Meadows made an appeal to the City Council to form an Assessment District. A transcript of this meeting has been made available to the Council previously. Basically, the Council postponed taking action because only a few days prior to the meeting the California Appeals Court had ruled that a "two-thirds" vote would be required to set up a district. Consequently, the Council was unsure of the full ramifications of that court decision. (The Supreme Court eventually over-turned the Appellate Court decision) . At that 1982 Council meeting Larry McPherson, Public Works Director, stated that a Department of Real Estate, "Public Report" had -been filed by Davis stating that all the roads were privately owned and maintained. Staff has recently discovered that every five years since 1969 this Public Report has been renewed by the Davis Family Trust, the latest report being filed in 1989. Copies of the document have not yet been received by staff. However, they may have implications as to who is responsible for the maintenance • of the 3-F Meadow roads. Recent Past: During the past year a group of 3-F residents have taken several steps to form an Assessment District. They requested that the City conduct an engineering investigation to determine the cost of improving the 3-F roads to a level where they could be taken into the City maintained system. The City retained the firm of Tartaglia-Hughes to conduct the engineering study. Subsequently, a Public Forum was held to discuss the results of the study. An Assessment District would cost approximately $640,000 to make the necessary improvements, which averaged out at over $6500 per parcel. Some parcels could pay more, some could pay less. The almost universal reaction from the residents was that this cost was too high. The District would not be accepted by the residents. Working with Bob Tartaglia, we formulated some alternate pavement repair strategies, bringing the cost down to about $400,000. The trade-off was a road system that would require increased maintenance in the future. This information was presented to the Council on July 12, 1991. During deliberation, Council expressed a reluctance to spend money on a problem that had been created through past understandings prior to incorporation and largely known to most (but not all) residents when they purchased their 3-F property. 00 094 However, a strong sentiment was expressed that the City should not allow the 3-F Meadows' roads to deteriorate to rubble. And, the longer the problem was delayed, the more difficult any solution would become. Accordingly, three suggestions were made: 1. All possible means be investigated to determine if the Davis Family Trust could be required to help remedy the problem, 2. The City set aside a "one-time only" fund that could be used as an incentive to motivate residents living on any private road to establish a matching program (such as an Assessment District) to bring their private roads up to a level where they could be brought into the City-maintained system. 3. The City investigate a city-wide assessment district which would spread the cost of bringing private roads up to standards over the entire populous. This concept of sharing costs could be equated to the 1/4 % sales tax used to rebuild San Francisco after the earthquake. Attachment A provides a plan to implement such a program. ANALYSIS: Staff can add little to what has been said previously. The City has approximately 30 miles of private roads. A reasonable estimate of the cost to bring these roads up to an acceptable level is $3 - $5 • million. The total annual revenues that are received from various sources and applied to road repair is about $750,000. About $250,000 of this money is used to pay for road repair crews, Dial- A-Ride and other similar fixed expenses. The remaining $500,000 is used for capital improvement projects and/or ongoing street overlay. If the Council chooses to use some of this money to upgrade private roads, the formula and criteria for disbursement must. be carefully be chosen. Staff suggests that if the City chooses to provide supplemental funding for local private roads the City contribution should start at 10%. Roads that serve as a collector to carry local traffic to arterial roads should be supplemented at the ;20% level. Main arterial roads (such as the unimproved sections-' of' San Marcos and Santa Cruz) should be supplemented by up to 40%. A dollar cap should be set up to $100,000 per year to insure that sufficient funds are available to perform necessary improvements on other City roads. It I is recommended that h t the Cit investigate further Y g any responsibility the original developer may have to upgrade the road based on the disclosure report to the Department of Real Estate. Staff will report back to Council on this matter. 00 095 t Attachment • M E M O R A N D U M TO: Mayor Shiers and Fellow Members of the Council FROM., Robert B. Lilley SUBJECT: Road Improvements DATE: August 29, 1991 I detected that we all felt a sense of frustration during the discussion of the road issues at our August 27th meeting. Specifically that portion of the discussion that attempted to address how road improvements necessary to bring roads not • presently owned by the City into the City system be paid for. As we all know, this is a formidable challenge, one that we must meet effectively and immediately without having the issues skewed or delayed by politics. All of us, I am sure, are feeling pressure from our constituents; on the one hand, there are those who want us to re=prioritize our capital improvement allocations for public works so that the City would pay the full cost of these improvements; on the other, there are strong objections by those who have paid for their own improvements on their roads to putting any money towards improving these roads and requiring the adjoining property owners to fund the full costs of the improvements through an assessment district. This is one of those issues that requires all of us once again to find the wisdom of Solomon and come to a fair, equitable and effective decision. We are struggling in an effort to give very clear direction to staff and with good cause, and the purpose of this memo is to try to build some consensus amongst us that will lead to an effective resolution if this problem that will be palatable to rational members of our respective constituencies. I have no difficulty with reviewing and, if appropriate, re- prioritizing our capital improvements in an effort to find a source • 00 096 b MEMORANDUM Mayor Shiers/Members of the Council August 29, 1991 Page 2 of funds sufficient to help improve these roads so that they may be brought into our public road system within the foreseeable future. I know that there is insufficient funds for this City to underwrite the entire project and, if there were such funds, to allocate them to that use would derail other very important capital improvements projects and inequitably favor those whose roads would be improved totally at public expense, despite their present private status. On the other hand, I was impressed by much of Mr. Lindsay's summation at our council meeting, and would acknowledge that there is a financial role for us to play at some "fair" level in bringing the roads into our system. I guess I kind of take the middle ground on this issue in that I am proposing that we acknowledge to a degree the merits in the arguments on both sides and proceed with • the following policy: 1. Review the capital improvement projects and the present general fund allocations to determine what reasonable amount of money we can divert or re-prioritize and allocate that sum as the fund from which we will subsidize assessment districts. 2. Direct staff to proceed with preliminary steps to establish assessment districts of an appropriate size and related benefit for all of those roads that we contemplate upgrading to bring within the public street system in the next ten years. 3. We commit the designated funds from our present public works budget to be contributed on a pro rata basis to each such assessment district that is established by* a particular target date. The balance of the funds would have to be raised through the assessment district participants. 4. It would be my hope that whether that pro rata figure ends up being ten percent (i0$) of the total cost of improvements or forty percent (401) it will be a sufficient enough incentive to motivate those who border these roads to adopt an assessment district knowing that this will be a one time offer. If any of these areas should elect not to form an assessment district despite this incentive, then any cost to be expended bringing that particular area of roadway into the system must wait until we have • sufficient funds, if ever, - to do so from the general capital improvements allocation. 00 (►0'7 k l • MEMORANDUM Mayor Shiers/Members of the Council August 29, 1991 Page 3 It is my belief that to do anything other than adopted this course would lead us either to ignore the problem for 'an indefinite period in the future, which is grossly unfair to the people who border those roads and, in some instances, needlessly subjects the risk of public health and safety for those who must travel on the roads, or to reallocate more money than we should to benefit the folks who border these roads at the expense of other very vital public works projects. I can certainly agree that the issue of bringing these roads into the system is of far greater importance than putting in a median divider down E1 Camino Real. But beyond that most obvious case, sacrificing other very necessary public works improvements to bring the roads into the system by fully subsidizing their improvement would seem to fly on the face of all of our commitments towards long range master planning for public works in this City. Lastly, we should not be pushed into the actual creation of the assessment districts or expenditure of funds for road improvement until the issue of the underlying rights to • title is formally and finally resolved. If nothing else, I hope that this letter will help stimulate the momentum that Bonita mentioned at the last meeting, which I too am deeply desirous of not losing in our efforts to solve "this road problem" in its entirety! cc: Mr. Ray Windsor bc. 6 q /V,/;? &7 00 098 L -- f Attachment M a a �yy 4' J � Z W 7 r r� a 7 1 � v I.AC�t �j V a' 4 v 1.4 40 00001,1111 Iv lea I n "' �455ESSMENT OISTRICT e4AX CITYMAINTANEO�W05� Iw xPEit=R406'(4or FOR d•W / CONSTRUt710N) 00 099 Attachment E . M E MORA U D U M Date, January 10, 1992 To Council Through: Henry Engen, Acting City Manager , From: Mark Joseph, Administrative Services Director Subject, Financial Observations Regarding 3F Meadows Road Issue I have had a chance to review Greg's memo on 3F Meadows, specifically the options available to Council- It may be appropriate to shed some additional financial "light" on each of the various options. However, some preliminary statistics are in order. First, we can anticipate approximately $300,000 per year from Gas Tax monies for road construction and major road repair. Second, the portion of Local Transportation Funds (LTF) available for roads is around $300,000 per year. However, at Council's recent Unmet Transit Needs Hearing, it was made clear that the roads portion is likely to decrease over the next few years. A conservative estimate is only $100,000 per year will be available. Thus, Council has about $400,000 annually to address existing roads issues, either City maintained or privately-maintained (Developer Fees will augment certain new road improvements, but only as it relates to new development. Much of the private roads issues is based on existing homeowners) . On the expenditures side, the estimated cost for upgrading all "private roads" (excluding "paper streets" ) could range from 4-6 million dollars. (Using 3F Meadows cost estimates, the cost would be approximately $5 million) . In addition, based on our 5- year CIP plan, we have identified over $7 million dollars in road and bridge improvements for City-maintained roads. Also, the City has approximately 122 miles of City- maintained roads and 32 miles of non-City-maintained roads (The 3F Meadows project, at 2.6 miles, represents 8.1 percent of the total "private road" inventory) . Another 19 miles of "Paper Streets" exist. Absorbing all 32 miles of "private roads" would represent a 25 percent increase in our street maintenance workload. With these facts in mind, the following comments are for Council consideration: 099.1 I. Staff's Recommendation 1» $100,000 per year to assist in the upgrading of private • roads. This offers the affected property owners an incentive to participate in upgrading their roads while establishing clear limits as to the City's financial responsibility. The $100,000 figure also represents about 25 percent of our annual roads-related allotment, consistent with the relative share of non-City- :maintained roads. On the negative side, earmarking $100,000 per year for "private roads" would slow down the City's ability to address other road and bridge improvements. II. Other Alternatives 1. Offer Technical and Administrative support only; no direct support for construction. This is similar to the City's arrangement with the Chandler Ranch Assessment District. Engineering and Finance staff have spent, and will continue to spend, substantial amounts of time to either organize districts or account .for the annual assessments and service the debt. In addition, the one-time legal expense to address the underlying rights to title will easily approach $30- 50, 000. To the extent these costs are charged to an assessment district, a portion of any "City" support towards the road issue would actually return to the General Fund. The appeal of the administrative subsidy option, then, is twofold: first, it avoids the appearance of giving financial assistance on the one hand and then taking it away with the other; and second, it may be more acceptable for property owners to pay for only direct construction costs, and not be charged for more indirect administrative expenses. 2. Provide a higher level of support (than $100, 000 annually) . The Public Works Director correctly points out it would substantially reduce the City's ability to address other projects involving City-maintained roads. This is particularly relevant when one considers the total "private roads" issue. For example, a 100 percent subsidy to upgrade all "private roads" would lock-up our Roads Budget for the next 10-15 years. Although no one has requested a complete subsidy, it does demonstrate how limited the City' s ability to financially assist "private road" property owners. 099.2 3. Accept the roads without repairing them first. As noted above, "private roads" represent a 25 percent increase in workload. Since our existing street crew is already working at (or sometimes above) capacity, Council will need to address increasing our on-going street maintenance budget regardless of how the roads issue is resolved. Accepting the roads ""as is" will only .aggravate that situation. A. Utilize a Citywide assessment district. This option is probably the most practical from an administrative point of view. only one district formation process would be required, and the Citywide effort would generate a sizable amount of money for ongoing minor road repairs and maintenance.:. However, as "subdistricts"_, such as 3F Meadows, require major improvements, the assessments related to those areas would of necessity be higher than in other areas, simply because they would be receiving a higher level of benefit. Thus, the Citywide approach would not significantly reduce the costs for the "private road" property owner. In addition, simply adopting a Citywide assessment district approach does not address the question of how much City support should be provided individual areas. In conclusion, the purpose of this memo was to offer additional financial insight as it relates to addressing the "private roads" issue. Ultimately, trade-offs will need to be made, and hopefully, the above analysis has helped. cc: Greg Luke, Public Works Director as 3fineadows 099.3 • REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL CITY OF ATASCADERO Item: C-2 Through: Ray Windsor, City Manager Mtg. Date: 1/14/92 From: Henry Engen, Comm. Dev. Director }{e File No: ZC 13-91 SUBJECT: Proposed urgency ordinance relative to siting standards for recycling centers (continued from 12/10/91 meeting) . RECOMMENDATION: Read by title only and adoption of Ordinance No. 237 (4/5ths vote required) . BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS: At the City Council's December 10th meeting, the Council considered an urgency ordinance to strike the current locational criteria for recycling centers which precluded their being located within 500 feet of any "school, church, hospital, public building, commercial or residential zone" for further rewrite. The Council was con- cerned that elimination of that standard might have the unintended effect of liberalizing the locational criteria for junk yards/auto- motive dismantling facilities. In response, the attached draft ordinance has been crafted to apply to recycling centers only. They would be allowable by conditional use permit within either Industrial or Industrial Park zones sub- ject to complying with the screening requirements of the present ordinance with respect to storage yards, together with new stand- ards requiring a minimum one-half acre site. ISSUE: Staff conferred with representatives of Wil-Mar Disposal Co. and Coast Recycling and both requested that the CS, Service Commercial, zoning district be added to the zones where recycling centers could be considered. Wil-Mar's facility at 7625 San Luis Avenue is designated on the current General Plan as Heavy Commercial and is zoned CS, Service Commercial. The General Plan Update designates the property as Service Commercial. Coast Recycling at 4950 E1 Camino Real is designated as Retail Commercial on the existing General Plan and is zoned CR - Retail Commercial. However, it is proposed as Service Commercial in the General Plan Update. The property is currently an enforcement case (recycling centers are not permitted in CR zones) . Should CS zones be added to the text of this zoning amendment and should the General Plan Update be adopted showing the property as Service Commercial, staff would put the abatement case on hold pending (1) 00 100 follow-up rezoning to CS and (2) submittal of a conditional use permit application by Coast Recycling. If approved by the Planning Commission, the case would be moot. If disapproved (or if the above prerequisite actions did not occur) , the enforcement case would be pursued. The negative side of adding CS Service Commercial zones to the list is that the zoning is common along E1 Camino Real, and the use can be noisy and unsightly. Conversely, these locations are convenient and - through the conditional use permit process - ill-located sites can be rejected and others conditioned to be acceptable. HE:ps Enclosures: Draft Ordinance No. 237 ; Letter from Coast Recycling of 1/6/92; Letter from Betty R. Sanders, dated 1/8/92 cc: Wil-Mar Disposal Company Brian Touey, Coast Recycling Bill Wittmeyer, Compliance Official 00 101 • ORDINANCE NO. 237 AN URGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE BY ESTABLISHING A DEFINITION FOR RECYCLING CENTERS AND PROVIDING STANDARDS FOR THEIR DEVELOPMENT (CITY COUNCIL INITIATED) WHEREAS, Section 36934 of the Government Code authorizes local legislative bodies to enact urgency measures to protect the public safety, health, and welfare; and WHEREAS, the City of Atascadero is implementing a comprehensive program for the recycling of solid waste materials in compliance with AB 939; and WHEREAS, the City has entered a contract with Wil Mar Disposal Co. to achieve these objectives; and WHEREAS, the City's current Zoning Regulations, under Section 9-6.131(a) , state that locations would be limited to "at least 500 feet from any school, church, hospital, public building, commercial, or residential zones; and • WHEREAS, said criteria effectively precludes establishing a re- cycling center within the City of Atascadero; and WHEREAS, there is an urgent need to provide reasonable standards for the establishment of recycling centers in the City; and WHEREAS, the Atascadero City Council held a noticed public hear- ing on December. 10, 1991 and January 14, 1992 to consider this urgency issue. NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Atascadero does ordain as follows: Section 1. Zoning Ordinance Text Change. A. Section 9-3.701 (Land Use Descriptions) of the Zoning Ordinance Text is hereby amended by the addition of a definition of "Recycling Centers" as shown in the attached Exhibit "A",which is hereby made a part of this ordinance by reference. B. Section 9-9.102 (General Definitions) of the Zoning Ordinance text is hereby amended by the revision of the definition of "Recycling Facility" as shown in the attached Exhibit "B", which is hereby made a part of this ordinance • by reference. 00 102 Ordinance No. 237 • Page Two C. Chapter 6. Special Uses of the Zoning Ordinance is hereby amended by the addition of a new Section 9-6.132, Recycling Centers, as shown in the attached Exhibit "C", which is hereby made a part of this ordinance by reference. D. Section 9-3.301 IP Industrial Park, and Section 9-3.311 I Industrial zones is hereby amended by the addition of Recycling Centers as permitted conditional uses, as shown in the attached Exhibit "D", which is hereby made a part of this ordinance by reference. Section 2. Publication. The City Clerk shall cause this ordinance to be published once within fifteen (15) days after its passage in the Atascadero News, a newspaper of general circulation, printed, published, and circulated in the City in accordance with Section 36933 of the Government Code; shall certify the adopting and posting of this ordinance and shall cause this ordinance and certification together with proof of posting to be entered into the Book of Ordinances of the City. Section 3. Effective Date. The City Council hereby declares that this is an urgency ordinance necessary to preserve the public safety, health, and welfare due to the facts set forth above, and passed by a four- fifths (4/5ths) vote of the Council shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. On motion by and seconded by , the foregoing Ordinance is approved by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: . ADOPTED: CITY OF ATASCADERO By• • 00 103. Ordinance No. 237 • Page Three ATTEST: LEE RABOIN, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: ARTHER R. MONTANDON, City Attorney PREPARED BY: HENRY ENGEN, Community Development Director • 00 104 ORDINANCE NO. 237 • EXHIBIT "A" Section 9-3.701 Land Use Descriptions Recycling Centers An establishment, which is larger than a "collection station", that serves as a community-wide center for the collection and/or processing of recyclable materials such as glass, paper, plastic, aluminum and metal cans. • 00 105 • ORDINANCE NO. 237 EXHIBIT "B" Section 9-9.102 General Definitions Recycling Facility Any lot or portion of a lot used for the purpose of outdoor storage, sorting handling, processing, dismantling, wrecking, keeping or sale of inoperative, discarded, wrecked, or abandoned appliances, vehicles, boats, building materials, machinery, equipment, or parts thereof, including but not limited to scrap materials, wood, lumber, plastic, fiber, or other tangible materials that cannot, without further reconditioning, be used for their original purposes. Includes beth wrecking yards for vehicles. &RdEeeyeiii:q eenters handling suah materials -asi Note: strikeout (----) indicates text to be deleted. 00 106 ORDINANCE NO. 237 EXHIBIT "C" Chapter 6. Special Uses 9-6. 132. Recycling Centers: (a) Minimum Site Area: One-half acre. (b) Parking Requirement: Two spaces, plus one space for each 5,000 square feet of use area. (c) Site Design and Operation: Recycling centers are subject to all provisions of Section 9-6.140 (Storage Yards) . • 00 107 E t • ORDINANCE NO. 237 EXHIBIT "D" Chapter 3. Zoning Districts IP (industrial Park) Zone 9-3.303. Conditional Uses: So Recycling Centers (See Section 9-6.132) I (Industrial) Zone 9-3.313. Conditional Uses: 1. Recycling Centers (See Section 9-6.132) • 00 108 L coast �'. Recyclingp = And Enterprises, Inc. .1:.„ CITY 'ddtin`iNstrative Office 4950 EI Camino Real January 6. 1992 Atascadero,CA 93422 (805)466-6965 To: '71Q., of Ata.Fcadero. City c"ounce 1 Fi -gym: 1?rian Touey. President . Coast Recycl inU and Enterprises DIC. Re: liecl-c n Ce17t el- ,nincr Ammendment.s l�c�c3r' Cr=�u tc i 1 Members: to the O'_'nlMj requirements of the Carty of Atascadf?ro and 1ses inc. IF..- in violation of the nr:,e . The cm-1"ent _�r?n117(T 1.3w St'.3tt'r t17at c?I7V at least .5()0 feet from an , h,.11"ch. hospi t_,31 . public building and frcn1 any commercial AP the of California requires that all `'tate Cep tified I;ec�-clin�7 (.'enters must_ be. located within 1/2 n7ile fro:,? an), yr'ocel'} 't(-It-e outlet . With the current zonii7g • ordinances of Atascad,?1-c,. thei- ? is no means by which a recycling canter- can ODP-I-ate. 1=,:,ast Recycling request that the City of Atascader-'? look- into the pos:_.tblity of a1mme!1':1inT the cui-rent .'7oning or'dinace_i so that it makes it feasable tri overate a '-tate Cel-t_ ified Recycling Canter" r,.-i thin the Cit v .1111]1 is of .4tasc,adel-o. As, a tion t�, the Council Members. Coast Recycling Fv--7gests that -recyciina centers be allowed in commercial service -ones as well as industrial and industrial park zones. This would prevent Fecyclilla centers fi-wll violating the -on.ing ordinances that currently As far -:i the hours of operation are cc-,ncerned recycling centers are r'equil-ed to operate between the hours of 0:00 am and 5: 00 pm. Any pioc_-sling of material will occur- during the hours of operation and at no time r,?-ill p1'r?,'r =S l lTrl occur be-foi-e 13:00 am or- after 5: 00 pm. Concerning the problem of outside storage. it is absolutely necessary for 1'ecvcl incl centers to have Outdoor space for which to tore the processed materials. 1 wvl.11d hope we can c0111e to .S0n1e fol:-111 Of compr'On2ise concernln(7 this matter. Sr ncere 1 y, > ri an Touey, President • Recycling Pays ti Printedon recycled paper 00 109 m L RECEIVE-.- %0 d - $ 11992 WRIGHT & SANDERS • A LAW CORPORATION TELEPHONE WILLIAM D. WRIGHT (RETIRED) 5950 ENTRA DA AVENUE (805) 466-9026 FAX BETTY R. SANDERS ATASCADERO, CALIFORNIA 93422 .(805) 466-9098 January 8, 1992 Henry Engen, Director Community Services City of Atascadero 6500 Palma Avenue Atascadero, CA 93422 Re: Proposed urgency ordinance relative to siting standards for recycling centers. Dear Mr. Engen: With regard to the above-referenced ordinance, I believe it would be in the best interests of both the City and Wil-Mar Disposal to allow recycling centers in areas designated Service Commercial . • As you have pointed out , presently we have no options and with the adoption of the proposed urgency ordinance we will have a few options. By adding Service Commercial and requiring a use permit we would have expanded options and would be better able to site a recycling center convenient for the City residents. I appreciate your consideration of this request . Very truly yours , or yt'CC . �-;Il<ICG L✓ BETTY R. SANDERS Attorney for Wil-Mar Disposal Company, Inc. BRS/bah C.C. William Gibbs Wil-Mar Disposal Co. 00 110 MELTING QATE 1/14/92 Zrt.C-3 ... • BURRE, WILLIAMS $ SORENSEN STAFF REPORT TOr City Council cc: Engen, Luke, Raboin PROMS Mary Gayle, Assistant City Attorney DATE: January 7, 1992 RE: Eminent Domain Proceedings - Guidry Parcel - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Enclosed for the Council's consideration is a revised draft of the Resolution of Intention for the acquisition of the Guidry parcel. The revised resolution indicates that the project is a part of the Amapoa Drainage Project within the Atascadero Lake Park Project. This revision more accurately represents the factual situation than the draft which you had before in December. • If the Council decides to proceed with the acquisition after the public hearing at the January 14, 1992 City Council meeting, the appropriate motion would be to waive further reading and to adopt the Resolution. Our office would be please to respond to any questions the Council may have. • 110.01 RESOLUTION NO. _02_-92 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF TF.E CITY OF ATASCADERO FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT THE PUBLIC INTEREST, CONVENIENCE AND NECESSIT`? REQUIRE THE ACQUISITION OF CERTAIN PROPERTY FOR PUBLIC PURPOSES AS A PART OF THE AMAPOA DRAINAGE PROJECT IN THE ATASCADERO LACE PARR PROJECT AND ALL USES APPURTENANT THERETO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO does hereby resolve as follows: 1: The Cit Council of the City of SECTION y .f Atascadero (hereinafter "City*) does hereby find, determine: and declare as follows: (a) That the public interest, convenience and necessity require the acquisition by said City of the fee interest in and to certain hereinafter described real property (*Propertyll) for the public purposes of use as a pa_-t of the Amapoa Drainage Project ("Project") which will be incorporated in the Atascadero Lake Park Project and all uses appurtenant thereto as hereafter described; (b) That the Project is planned or located in the manner that will be most compatible with the • greatest public gcod and least private injury; (c) That then taking, of the interest in and to said Property as above describect is necessary to such use and is authorized by Section 14, Article L of the California Constitution, Sections 4040L at seq. and 3735a.5 et seq. of the California Government Code, Section L240.010 at seq., of the California Code of Civil Procedure, and other applicable law.- (d) aw;(d) That the offer to purchaser r q i red by California Government Code Section. 7267.2 has beer% made to the: owners of the Property to be acquired by the City and that said offer was reJectect by the propert-T owners. SECTION Zx The City hereby declares that-- 11m is the~ intention of• said City to acTai. - in: its,name the fee interest i.rr and: to sa i.ct Property,. as desc,—ibed is Mbit 'An in is name is accordance with the. provision: of the laws of the: State of Ca.Li..,P-,.,Pwith: reference. to- condemnation procedures. SECTION' 3:. That i.a any- of; the Property has; bee= appropriated to some public use, the public use to which. it: Is to be applied and taken under this proceeding is & more: • necessary and paramount public use. SECTTON 4: The: interests in' and to said: Property, the acquisition of which is required by said public interest, convenience- and necessity for the: purposes. 110.02 set Earth in Section One hereof, is located in the City Of Atascadero, County of San Luis Obispo, State of California, and is more particularly described in Exhibit "A-*' which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference and made a part hereof. A map showing the general Location of the Property sought to be acquired in this proceeding 43 marked Exhibit "B" attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference and made a part hereof. SECTION S: The City Attorney and the first of Burke, wiliiams ac Sorensen, as special counsel, under the direction of the City Attorney, are authorized and directed to prepare, institute, and prosecute in the name of the City such proceedings in the proper court having jurisdiction thereof for the acquisition of the interests in and to the Property. Said counsel is also authorized and directed to obtain an Order of Court granting to said City the right of immediate possession and occupancy of said Property'. SECTION SEVEN: This Resolution shall be effective immediately upon its adoption. SECTION SIX: The Secretary shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 1,4uh day of Sanuary, 1992. • ALDEN SHI .�S, MAYOR ATT—ygT LEX RABOIN, CITY CLERK APPROVED A,S TO ORM: MARY REDUS GAYLE, of SURXE, wIUT.AMS rs SORENSEN, ASSISTANT CITT ATTORNME • 110.03 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) )ss. COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO } • I HEREBY CERTIFY under penalty of perjury that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the City of Atascadero at a regular meeting thereof held on the 14th day of :anuary, 1992, and that the same was adopted, upon action made by Councilmember and seconded by Councilmember , by the following vote of the City Council. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: AiBSTAiN: LEE RABOIN, CITY CLERX • • 110.04 E.YfiIBIT 'A"' • PARCEL 1: LOT 29 IN BLOCK OJC" OF ATASCADERO, IN THE CITY OF ATASCADERO, COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO MAP RECORDED JULY 16, 1915 IN BOOK 4, PAGE 56A OF MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, INCLUDING THAT PORTION OF SAID LOT LYING WITHIN A STRIP OF LAND DESIGNATED ON SAID MAP AS OZAKE SPILLWAY. * EXCEPT THAT PORTION OF SAID LAND LYING WI`hIN THE LINES OF AM.APOA AVENUE AS SHOWN THE MAP ABOVE-REFERRED TO. PARCEL 2: LOT S IN BLOCK OJCO OF ATASCADERO, IN THE CITY OF ATASCADERO, COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBSIPO, STAT OF CALIFORNIA, ACCOrDING TO AMENDED MAP OF ATASCADERO RECORDED JULY 6, L915 in BOOK 4, PAGE 1, et seq. , OF MAPS IN THE OFFICE OF THE RECORDER FOR SAID COUNTY. EXCEPT THEREFROM SUCH INTEREST, IN AND TO THAT PORTION OF SAID LAND SHOWN AS "SPILLWAY'S ON THE M.AP ABOVE-REFERRED TO, AS WAS CONVEYED TO THE COUNTY OF SAN U'JIS OBISPO, A. POLITICAL COR?ORATION, BY DEEDS RECORDED OCTOBER 30, L936 IN BOOK 204, AT PAGE 216 AND IN BOOK 204 AT PAGE 229 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS FOR SAID COUNTY, ALSO EXCEPT THEREFROM T*.A.T PORTION OF SAID LAND DESCRIBED IN T-HZ DEED TO THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA RECORDED JANUARY 26, 1959 IN BOOK 979 AT PAGE. 70 OF OFFICIAL, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY. ALSO EXCEPT THEREFROM ALL OIL, MINERALS AND OTHER HYDROCARBON PRODUCTS, WITHOUT TF.E RIGHT, HOWEVER, TO PROSPECT FOR OR TAKE THE SAME FROM SAID LAND WHILE SAID LAND IS USED FOR RESIDENTIAL, AGRZCULTURA.L OR HORTICULTURAL PURPOSES, AS RESERVE BY COLONY MOLDING CORPORA`."ION, A. CORPORATION,. = DEED RECORDED SEPTEMBER 28,. 1315 MT BOOK 12.94 AT PAGE 545 OF DEEDS ALSO EXCEPT THEREFRON THAZ PORTION OF SAID LAND LYING WITH= THE LINES OF MORRO AVENUE AS SHOWN ON THE. MAF ABOVE REFEMD. TO. • 110.05 :FO CREEK w y G41, F1`��'Al Ir 9to46 -04 r ti► � � I R.0'149� 7 5 01 40 ILA ILP • O Tp r' 1O•w ,n s v + t`6.60 G la •a 29.1 a_•+► ,a s y` lit t1 N �, u �► • v: 'v 3 a ,� ,may f Z to a - P e4 0 o r O say �s O GNP 91 10 6J PJ u `,pp06 yyu �'�•� -��M Or o . 1,v �•rN/I�/T erg°� PAla� J of / - 110.06 Mullen JHenzell .: ATTORNEYS AT LAW • 011-Y -01GR. January 8, 1992 PHILIP S.WILCOX - GEORGEL.WnTENRuRC BY FEDERAL EXPRESS J.ROBERT ANDREWS JAMES W.BROWN City of Atascadero DENNIS W.REILLY City Council JEFFREY C.NELSON 6500 Palma Avenue CHARLES S.BARGIEL JOSEPH F.GREEN Atascadero, CA 93422 GARY W.RoewsoN LESLIE M.ROBINsON JOEL C.BAIOCCHI Re: Atascadero City Council Hearing January 14, 1991 JOHN R.NELSON (Notice of Intention to Adopt a Resolution of LAWRENCE T.SORENSEN Necessity --- Guidry Property) GREGORY F.FAULKNER RICHARD G.BATTLEs Dear Council Members: WILLIAM E.DECEN WA NDREW M.POUNSKY As you know.by our previous correspondence of November 12, OLLYS.BANDER 1991, a copy of which is attached hereto for easy MICHAEL E.CAGE MICHALE E. CAGE P reference, we represent Mr. and Mrs . W.P. Guidry with DANIELDOORAH G.CORLM reference to the City of Atascadero's possible eminent MATTHEW J.LONG domain proceeding regarding their property. Our letter of November 12th requested a continuance of the hearing, and THOMAS M.MuLLEN you have courteously continued the hearing to the 14th of ARTHUR A.HENZELL January to accommodate that request. We request that both RUWM of our letters be read into and made part of the record of proceedings. Backcrround. It is well documented that the City has, since 1983, coveted the Guldrys' property_ In February 1983 the City circulated a request for proposal, indicating that it intended to acquire the Guidrys' parcels to expand the parking area for Atascadero Lake and related facilities. This never came into fruition. Then again, in 1985, thea City hired Dennis E. Green. & Company in a further effort to acquire the property. This, too, never reached maturity, and the: Guidrys were advised in March of 1985 that "the City Council has determined not to pursue the purchase- of said property at this time.."' But in 1987, the City again contacted appraisers in an effort to obtain the property. • 112 East Victoria Sheet Post Office Drawer 789 Sarna Barbara,California 93102-0789 (SW%6-1S01 FAX(80S)96"204 13.0.01 City of Atascadero City Council • January 8, 1992 Page 2 And again, nothing was ever done. In short, for nearly nine years , the City has placed a cloud over the Guidrys ' property, making development impossible. This latest attempt to take the Guidrys ' property is also ill-conceived and legally ineffective, as will be explained below. We had requested by letter of November 6, 1991 from the City the following information: ( 1) A full copy of the appraisal, as required by Government Code section 7267. 2; ( 2) The engineering and technical data as it related to the proposed project on the Guidry property and the vicinity; and ( 3 ) All environmental review documentation regarding the property. In response to that request, we received from the City Clerk' s office the following: ( 1) Appraisal report dated August 20, 1991, by . Reeder, Gilman & Associates; ( 2) Amapoa-Tecorida Drainage Moratorium Technical Flood Study (Project Manager: John Kennaly; Project Engineer: Michele Reynolds) ; apparently undated; and (3) Negative Declaration dated March 2, 1987 and adopted March 24, 1987, and related materials. Assuming as we must that the City responded fully and in good faith to our request, we have two preliminary comments. First, the "Technical Flood Study" nowhere indicates, from an engineering and planning perspective, that the Guldrys' property is at all necessary to accomplish the stated objectives_ From an engineering and hydraulic standpoint, there is simply no evidence before the Council to justify taking the Guidrys' property_ Second, as will be explained more fully below, the Initial Study is, quite candidly, likely to be the most inappropriate review to ever be considered by a court. • 110.08 City of Atascadero City Council January 8, 1992 Page 3 The Lecral Standard. Code of Civil Procedure section 1245. 230 sets out several requirements which must be satisfied before the City may properly condemn the Guidrys' property. These factual findings are to be incorporated within your resolution of necessity, and will have to be proven in any subsequent eminent domain lawsuit. These requirements are, inter alfa, as follows : ( 1) The public interest and necessity require the proposed project; ( 2) The proposed project is planned or located in the manner which will be most compatible with the least public good and the least private injury; and. ( 3 ) The property described in the resolution is necessary for the proposed project. Given the supporting materials provided to us,.. the project • as proposed meets none of these legal requirements. The resolution of necessity, as well as the appraisal report, evidence an intent by the City to take the entirety of parcels 5 and 29 . These parcels are approximately 75 feet wide by 125 in length. A fifteen foot easement for drainage already exists to the south of the subject parcels and has ably served its purpose for many years . Clearly, it is not necessary to take the entirety of these two parcels, or for that matter not so much as an inch, because existing easement fulfills the stated goal. The technical study nowhere indicates that the easement is inadequate. Consequently, there is absolutely no evidence that the public interest and necessity require the proposed project. In fact, given the existing easement and ditch, the evidence is exactly to the contrary_ Second, the taking the Guidrys' property is not compatible with the "greatest public good and "least private injury. " Clearly, it is not necessary to take 18,000 plus square feet of private property, when (perhaps at best) a fraction of that may be necessary or (at worst) none is necessary because of an existing fifteen foot ditch which could simply be improved. The Guidrys' property is not at all necessary for this proposed project- • 11O.0 City of Atascadero City Council January 8, 1992 Page 4 The technical study also appears to be severely dated in its assumptions of land values and factual predicates . The appraisal report (deficient as it is in a number of respects, not all of which will be addressed in this forum) nowhere corresponds with the technical study or the environmental review. Plainly, the City's attempt to take property that is neither necessary nor useful for the flood control project is subject to successful legal challenge. Finally, the project is not "necessary" for a separate and independent reason: the Initial Study states that there are no flooding problems at the site or surrounding the City. ( Initial Study Questionnaire, page 3 . ) CEQA Violations. We are also seriously concerned about the adequacy of environmental review. The notice of intent which has precipitated this hearing indicates that the purpose of this eminent domain proceeding is to acquire property for flood control purposes . Yet the environmental review indicates that the "project" is "sale of surplus property • and property acquisition" . Taken as a whole, the Initial Study obviously was not prepared with regard to a flood control project. For example, the Initial Study identifies no environmental impacts with respect to earth, water, risk of upset, or public works; indeed, there are no environmental impacts associated with the "project" as described. For a project with costs of millions of dollars (and probably hundreds of thousands if not millions in land acquisition) , this is very hard to believe and under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) , it would not pass muster. Just by way of example of the incongruity of this Initial Study vis a vis the proposed flood control project, the Initial Study questionnaire at page 3 states that there are "no" flooding problems at the site or in the surrounding vicinity_ Similarly, the area is claimed to be zoned residential, yet the Guidrys' property isplainlyzoned recreational (with many commercial uses) , as evidenced in. the appraisal report. These are merely examples to- - illustrate that the Initial Study and Negative Declaration has absolutely no correlation to the proposed project.. Because eminent domain proceedings are subject to CEQA, we believe the Notice of Intent is legally defective- and inappropriate.. The City is proceeding with a "project" which has never undergone appropriate environmental review. • 110.10 City of Atascadero . City Council January 8, 1992 Page 5 Conclusions. on behalf of the Guidrys, accordingly, we are advising the City Council that the proposed resolution is utterly defective because the resolution takes property totally unnecessary for the project, and the proposal does not balance the least private injury with the greatest public good. Furthermore, public necessity and interest do not require acquisition of this particular property, and the project has never undergone the requisite environmental review. Accordingly, the Council should and must, under the law, decline to adopt the notice of intent. The Guidrys are firmly committed to the preservation, use, and enjoyment of their land. Should the City of Atascadero proceed with this ill-conceived project, the Guidrys will take prompt and vigorous legal action. Very truly yours, • Joel C�3o6chi. MULLEN & HENZELL JCB:md cc: Mrs . and Mrs . W.P., Guidry jcb/14080/0001/91CORRO f1230city 110.11 Mullen aHenzell ATTORNEYS AT LAW 77 tai i 1. W1 G�,R November 12, 1991 PHILIP S.WILCOX BY FACSIMILE GEORGE L.Wn mNeURC J.ROBERT ANDREWS City of Atascadero JAMES W.BROWN City Council DENNIS W.REILLY 6500 Palma Avenue JEFFREY C.NELSON Atascadero, CA 93422 CHARLES S.BARCIEL JOSEPH F.GREEN GARY W.ROBINSoN LESLIE M.RoswsoN Re: Atascadero City Council Hearing November 12, 1991 JOEL C.BAI«CHI (Notice of Intention to Adopt a Resolution of JOHN R.NELSON Necessity - Guidry Property) LAWRENCE T.SORENSEN GREGORY F.FAULKNER Dear Council Members RICHARD G.BATTLES STEVEN PINSKER As we have previously advised the City Clerk's office, we . WILLIAM E.OEGEN were very recently retained by Mr. and Mrs . W.P. Guidry CHRMTOANDREW M. O. NSKY with reference to a possible eminent domain proceeding ANDREW M.POLINSKY Hmy S.BANDER regarding their property. As will be explained below,. MICHAEL E.CACE because of the scheduling difficulties, it will not be DANIELLE S.CUUP possible for us to appear at the hearing, and we therefore DEBORAH G.CoRu7r request that this letter be read into the record and made a MATTHEW J.LONG part of the administrative record_ THOMAS M.MULLEN Immediately upon being retained by the Guidrys, we tendered ARTHUR A.HENZML by facsimile- a written request to the City Clerk for background info=atlon regarding the project. At this writing the City Clerk's office is in the process of obtaining that information for our review. Due to the time constraints, however, this information apparently will not be available for us until Tuesday afternoon, November 12th. Consequently, it will be virtually impossible for us to properly prepare for the hearing, and we have therefore: requested a reasonable continuance of the hearing. A. continuance, we submit, is required by the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure section 1245. 235(d) which entitles the Guidrys to a "'reasonable opportunity to appear and be heard" on the merits. • 112 East Victoria Street Post Office Drawer 789 Sema Barbara,California 93102-0789 (80S)%G-ISI" FAX(8W%fiAZ" 110.12 City of Atascadero City Council November 12, 1991 Page 2 Assuming, for some reason, that the Council elects to deny the Guidrys a reasonable opportunity to be heard, and proceeds with the hearing, we offer the following comments : Public Use We are uncertain of the exact nature of the public use intended for the Guidrys' property, or whether the City intends to actually put the property to such intended use. Naturally, if there is anerroneous .,ate=minae-on cf publicuse, or erroneous expression of intent to put the property to designated use, or a failure to intend to use the property within a reasonable time, the City's action will be void. Environmental Review One of the categories of information we requested from the City Clerk relates to the environmental review for the project, if any. The City is required to comply with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act before proceeding with its resolution. To date, we have seen no supporting documentation in this regard, and as such, the resolution would appear to be contrary to law. Necessity The Notice of Hearing indicates that the property is to be taken for the Amapoa Drainage Project, presumably a flood control improvement. Given the size and scope of the existing channel located on the perimeter of the Guidrys' property, it is clear that it is not necessary for the City to take such a large portion of the Guid,:ys' praperty. In addition, the project is not located or planned in a manner that is most compatible with the greatest public good and the least private injury. Valuation While, of course, the City's consideration of the proposed resolution does not address directly the issue of valuation, suffice it to say that the City's offer is unreasonably and unrealistically low. • 110.13 City of Atascadero City Council November 12, 1991 Page 3 Summary In summary, we would again reiterate our request for a 30 day continuance of the hearing so as to better represent our clients and focus our comments. In the alternative, should the Council decide to proceed on the merits, on behalf of Mr. and Mrs . Guidry, we wish to formally notify the City of Atascadero that they object to the taking of their property, including but not necessarily limited to the reasons and concerns expressed above. Thank you for your consideration of our comments . ry truly yours, d-L- Joel C. Bai.occhi of MULLEN & HENZELL JCB:md cc: Mr. and Mrs. W.P. Guidry Lawrence T. Sorensen, Esq. icbn4WA)001/9iCoxRon111dty 110.14 f s REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL CITY OF ATASCADERO Item: D-1 Through: Ray Windsor, City Manager Mtg. Date: 1/14/92 From: Henry Engen, Community Dev. Dir. 4CC File No: GP Update EIR SUBJECT: Consideration of General Plan Update Draft of proposed Land Use, Conservation and Open Space Elements and Final Environmental Impact Report (continued from December 19, 1991 special meeting) . RECOMMENDATION: Approve the draft Resolution with such amendments to the text and map as the Council may direct. BACKGROUNDS The attached draft Resolution No. 01-92 represents the recommenda- tion of the Planning -Commission following three public hearings held in August, September, and October of 1991. Vote of the Planning Commission on the overall action was 7:0. It should be • noted, however, that there were split votes on various particular issues in the course of their deliberations. The public testimony portion of the public hearing wasconcluded at the December 19th special meeting of the City Council. A summary of the major policy issues follows: 5 Minute Travel Time Issue: The Planning Commission recommended language, - on a 4:3 vote, for changes on Pages II-21 and II-35 of the General Plan text that would preclude the creation of new lots if they are located beyond a 5 minute travel time from existing fire stations. A map of 5, 7, and 9 minute travel times from the two existing stations was reviewed prior to making that determina- tion. The proposed language is as follows: "P. II-2115th paragraph: 1. To serve the west side of the city, two new fire stations are needed and should be located in the northwestern portion of the city in the general locations shown on the Land Use Plan map. Minimum response time standards shall be adopted and development proposals evaluated on the basis of ability to serve. New lots shall not be approved when proposed beyond a five-minute travel time from existing stations. • 00 111 P. II-35/5th paragraph: New lots shall not be permitted where any of the following conditions exist: Where the emergency travel time to the proposed new lot would be beyond 5 minutes from an existing fire station. " The language as proposed would preclude lot splits until additional fire stations within five minutes were operational. However, existing lots could be developed for individual dwelling units. Alternatives considered by the Commission included a more than 5 minute travel time standard or modification to the language to reflect criteria that would enable new lot creation, e.g. , providing sites for new fire stations or other significant mitigation measures. Fish and Game Letter/Creekway Issue: The September 6, 1991 letter from the Department of Fish and Game led to the consultants retaining a certified wildlife biologist for additional work. His response was incorporated into Crawford, Multari, and Starr's October 15th response to comments, and was considered at the October 29th meeting. As a result of the consideration of the consultant's recommendations and public testimony, the Planning Commission, on a 5:2 vote, directed additional General Plan text changes which highlighted the policy • of dealing sensitively with the creeks' riparian corridors, wetlands, and other areas of significant habitat value. This included adding mitigation monitoring language to the text on page II-37 (s) which calls for discretionary review of any development proposals within 50 feet of any creekway riparian vegetation or centerline of the creek, whichever is greater. "P. II-37 (s. ) : Grading shall not occur and buildings or structures requiring permit approval shall not be located within 50 feet of any creekway riparian vegetation, or within 50 feet of the centerline of the creekway,' -whichever is greater, unless: (i) A site-specific evaluation by a qualified biologist approved by the city determines that a lesser setback will provide equivalent habitat protection; or (ii) The city completes a creekway mapping program and adopts other specific setback requirements based upon that mapping program. " This would not preclude development within that 50 foot setback area, but would require a more detailed review and evaluation before development could occur. For example, the City's adopted Atascadero Creekway Plan calls for a system of trails and park • 00112 development as part of the development in the downtown area, together with a pedestrian and vehicular bridge across the creekway. Roseliy Quarry Land Use (Ferrocaril Road) : Owing to the development of the elementary and junior high school site on Traffic Way and San Benito, concerns about truck traffic emanating from this location, and the low demand for industrial land use identified in the ERA report and fiscal analysis studies of the city, the General Plan Subcommittee recommended this area for Suburban Residential use. Most of the 72+ acres is owned by the Santa Lucia Hills Company, and they have indicated that they would prefer the residential designation. There was testimony, however, in support of retaining the Industrial land use designation to allow for growth of the economic; base. The Air Pollution Control District raised questions with regard to S & P Milling and the appropriateness of residential use given the emissions from that operation. It turns out that the operation is subject to an APCD permit which would seem to be the appropriate way to control emissions. Be that as it may, proposed Mitigation Monitoring Measure "q" is recommended which would preclude the development of housing in the area until the emission problem is resolved (the S & P site is leased from Santa Lucia Hills Company) . Now Lot StandardsJ3O% Slopes: This issue was commented on at the Council's hearing in several letters including letters from Cuesta Engineering and RRM Design Group requested revisions. At issue is the language on page II-9 and II-35 of the text which precludes lot splits where the slopes average over 30% slope. Exception is allowed where a building envelope of 8,000 square feet with less than 20% average slope is evident, as follows: "P. II-9: New lots averaging 30% or more slope shall not be permitted; provided that exceptions may be permitted where such a lot contains a "building envelope" of at least 8,000 square feet with less than 20% average slope. This land use designation is the predominate land use in terms of acreage in the land use plan and occurs between the Urban Service Line and the Urban Reserve Line. P.P.II-35: New lots shall not be permitted where any of the following conditions exist: Where average slope is over 30%. (Exceptions may be allowed where there is a "building envelope" of at least 8,000 square feet with an average slope of less than 20%) . 00 113 Where private sewage disposal systems would be required on slopes of more than 30%. " With the increased interest in developing the more difficult terrain in the City, it was felt that establishment of this standard - which was fine-tuned by the General Plan Subcommittee - would clarify at the front end of the development review process what the City is looking for in these suburban residential areas where the terrain is inappropriate for intensification of density. CONCLUSION: Absent any revisions, the City Council has the option of approving Resolution 1-92 exactly as proposed by the Planning Commission. Staff would recommend any refinements to the text or map of the General Plan be handled in the same manner as the Planning Commission did, i.e. , invite motions dealing with any proposed revision first, vote them up or down, and conclude with a final motion incorporating any successful motions into a revised Resolution 1-92. It should be noted that in the event of a motion seeking a "substantial modification" in the map or text which was not considered by the Planning Commission, there would be a need to refer that item back to the Planning Commission for their recommendation. HE:ps • Separate Cover: Draft Land Use, Conservation and Open Space Element - General Plan Update Program, Atascadero Community Development Department - April, 1990 Final Environmental Impact Report, Crawford, Multari, and Starr, December, 1991 Enclosure: Resolution No. 1-92 approving General Plan Update cc: Crawford, Multari, & Starr , 00 114 • RESOLUTION NO. 01-92 A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO APPROVING THE ADOPTION OF UPDATED LAND USE, CONSERVATION, AND OPEN SPACE ELEMENTS OF THE CITY'S GENERAL PLAN (CITY OF ATASCADERO) WHEREAS, the City of Atascadero has grown considerably since incorporation; and WHEREAS, the City's General Plan, which was prepared in the 1970's and adopted in 1980 to guide the City's general growth is in need of updating; and WHEREAS, the City has undertaken a comprehensive program of study and public participation to update the General Plan beginning in 1986; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Atascadero conducted public hearings on the subject amendment on August 20, September 17, 1991 and October 29, 1991; and • WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Atascadero conducted public hearings on subject amendment on December 19, 1991 and Jan- uary 14, 1992; and WHEREAS, Government Code Section 65356 provides that a General Plan be amended by the adoption of a resolution; and WHEREAS, the Council of the City of Atascadero finds as follows: 1. The proposed General Plan reflects policies_ and standards appropriate for the City of Atascadero. 2. The Environmental Impact Report prepared for the project is hereby certified as a complete and accurate document consis- tent with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Atascadero does resolve to approve the General Plan Update as follows: 1. Amendment to the General Plan by adoption of the General Plan Update: Land Use, Conservation and Open Space Elements dated April, 1990, as amended by Attachment "A • 00 11 S Resolution No. 01-92 Page 2 • 2. Rescinds the following chapters of the 1980 General Plan: I Introduction, III Population, IV Economy, V Land Use (and General Plan Map) , VI Open Space and Conservation, VII Public & Quasi-Public Services, IX Housing, and Appendices A. Atascadero Creekway Scheme One, SEDES, B. Atascadero Creekway Scheme One, modified, C. A Plan for Street Planting, D. Draft Ordinances, E. Fire Fighting and Planning, and G. General Plan Amendments since February 24, 1987. 3. Retains the following Chapters of the 1980 General Plan: II Physical Setting, and XIII Community Appearance and Standards (incorporated into the Technical Appendix) ; VIII Circulation (as new • Chapter III) ; X Seismic Hazards; XI Safety and Appendix F. Seismic Hazards (as new Chapter V) ; and XII Noise (as new Chapter IV) . 4. Incorporates the following additional materials by reference into the Technical Appendix: General Plan Update. Phase I and II, Atascadero Community Development Department, June 1987; Appearance Review Guidelines, Architectural Standards Review Committee, May, 1987; Landscape Deficiencies Study: US Highway 1010, Atascadero Community Development Department, June 1987; and "Technical Report: Parks and Recreation Element; r Atascadero Parks and Recreation Department, January 1988. On motion by Council , and seconded by Council , the foregoing resolution is hereby adopted in its entirety by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ADOPTED: CITY OF ATASCADERO, CALIFORNIA By:• ATTEST: ALDEN SHIERS, Mayor . LEE RABOIN, City Clerk • 00 116 4 • Resolution No. 01-92 Page 3 APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: RAY WINDSOR, City Manager APPROVED AS TO FORM: ARTHER MONTANDON, City Attorney PREPARED BY: HENRY ENGEN Community Development Director • 00 117 ATTACHMENT"A" Resolution No. 01-92 I. CHANGES TO GENERAL PLAN TEXT BACKGROUND: The Draft General Plan Update Land Use, Conservation and Open Space Element was distributed in April 1990. Since that time, statements quoted in the plan have changed, including 1990 Census data, school enrollment levels, solid waste disposal policies, water company policies, fire protection master plan proposals, publication of the County's draft Salinas River Area Plan, and compliance requirements for language required to conform to the State's Surface Mining and Reclamation Act, typos, and revisions recommended by the Planning Commission following public hearings held on August 20, September 17, and October 29, 1991. PROPOSED CHANGES: The following changes are proposed (---- for deletions and bold text for additions) to the April 1990 Draft General Plan Update: Page/Location Change Proposed • Table of Contents Add: "Mineral Resources Management" (overall) section under Technical Appendix Table of Contents Add: 9. Mitigation Monitoring (Land Use, Element) Change: Population Trends: 1980-$9 90 P. II-1/3rd goal Add: Provide for a sound economic base to sustain the city's unique character and reformat. P. II-3/1st para. Change: The following Table, II-1 charts last 3 sent. the course of population trends from 1980 through 4989 1990 as developed annually by the California State Department of Finance. For the nine ten year period cited, the community has grown an addi- tional 40% 43% for an average of 4-r4% 4.3% per year. Interestingly, the total population increase of 4,413-3 6 , 906 persons closely equates with the total population that has been added to the community in each of the prior two decades. • 00 118 Pane/Location Chane Proposed • P. II-3/Table II-1 Add: 1990 23,138 1.82% Source: California State Department of Finance (January 1 estimates) , except for 1980 and 1990 U.S. Census P. II-3a Change figure: from 1990 population of 23,300 to 23,138 P. II-4/4th para. 2nd Change to read: The city limits encom- sentence pass 15,600 acres of land within an over- all defined planning area of 2a , 7:;Q 29,980 acres. P. II-5/new 5th para. Add: The Salinas River, often referred to as the "underground river, " defines the eastern boundary of Atascadero, excepting county park lands and the Atascadero State Hospital. The State Division of Mines and Geology has classified a considerable portion of the Salinas River channel as containing significant mineral deposits , namely sand and gravel resources (refer to Technical Appendix - • Mineral Resources Management) . P. II-7/Suburban Serv. Add: Solid Waste Disposal Area Services P. II-10/b.Multiple Delete: WheNe-smaller—lets aE- pEepesed Fam. Res./ as-pat 91 as-gaEt-e f a planned unit 3rd sent. develepment, the minimum let see sha he-9,000 sq. ft. , t. P. II-18/1st para.last Change to read: An additional -3 4.78 mil- sentence lion gallon tank is planned near San Carlos Road to meet future needs. P. II-18/last sent. of The Water Company should nde=take-ate subsec. (a) expand and refine ongoing water conserva- tion programs to encourage prudent use of this valuable resource. P. II-20/1st two sent. Change to read: Solid waste collection of subsec. (c) and disposal is carried on-by Wil-Mar Disposal, a city-granted franchise. Par- ticipation in garbage collection " has historically been voluntary, and there are cases of garbage and trash dumping • along roadsides. Mandatory garbage col- lection shei ld be eens:a_-_a shall be instituted for lands within the Urban 00 119 Page/Location Change Proposed • W Reserve Line. P. II-21/5th para. Change to read: 1 . To serve the west side of the city, a thlEa two new fire stations " are needed and should be located in the northwestern portion of the city in the general locations shown on the Land Use Plan map. Minimum re- sponse time standards shall be adopted and development proposals evaluated on the basis of ability to serve. Pending aetlenthe g!Ee nrai eE'9 ksteE pan. New lots shall not be approved when pro- posed beyond a five-minute Eespeese travel time from existing stations. P. II-23/last para. Change to read: The stated capacities of existing schools and their current enrollments, as of AetebeE 188.9 May, 1991, are: Capacity Enrollment • Lewis Avenue Elem. 489 &" . 548 Monterey Road Elem. 589 444 716 Santa Rosa Elementary 614 6'-4 680 San Gabriel Elementary 626 4" 729 Atascadero Junior High 759 4q4 813 Atascadero Senior High 11390 1,2801,195 Oak Hills Contin. H.S. 75 -74 75 Totals 41542 384,756 P. II-26/1st para. Change to read: Future facilities for federal, state, county, and other local governmental agencies should be concentrated within - or convenient to - the civic center. P. II-28/lst complete Change to read: Except for the Suburban sentence Residential South Atascadero area, the highest density land use category proposed within the planning area beyond the city limits of Atascadero is rural residential. P. II-29/Policy a. Change to read: Scenic and sensitive land$ including creeks, riparian corri- dors , orri dors , wetlands and other areas of significant habitat value shall be 00 120 • Page/Location Change Proposed protected from destruction, overuse, and misuse by the use of zoning, tax incen- tives, easements, or fee acquisition. P. II-30/Policy i. Change to read: Creek reserves shall be preserved for park and recreational use, with appropriate areas left in their natural state for public enjoyment and habitat purposes. Any recreational use of the creeks shall minimize its impact on the habitat value and open space dualities of the creeks. P. II-30/add to sub Add: Some of the flood hazard areas section "n" associated with the Salinas River are known to contain significant sand and gravel resources , and indeed active surface mining operations exist in this region. Therefore, new or expanded land uses in the vicinity of these identified mineral resources and/or existing mining operations should be carefully reviewed for their compatibility with surface • mining (refer to Technical Appendix - Mineral Resources Management) . P. II-32/add subsec. Add: m. Salinas River Mining. Proposals to extract mineral resources from the Salinas River channel shall be carefully evaluated to ensure conformity with the State Surface Mining and Reclamation Act; surface mining criteria contained within the Zoning Ordinance, and flood hazard zoning standards (refer to Technical Appendix - Mineral Resources Management) . P. II-34/amends. list Delete : Adeptlen of a new dewntewn P. II-35/5th para. Change to read: Where the emergency travel Eesgense time to the proposed new lot would be beyond the-elt ' s-adept Eespense-standaEd- (pending-aet-ien en the #Ee-sepees-masteEplam—this-stands d shall be 5 minutes from an existing fire station+. • 00 121 Page/Location Change Proposed • P. 11-35/ last sentce.& Change to read: The long-term protection P. II-36/first sentce. of the environment has been incorporated as a central goal in the Atascadero General Plan and is not felt to be in conflict with the objective of allowing reasonable use of land, towards this end, major projects or general plan amendment proposals which are identified as having the potential for significant adverse effects on the environment shall be required to have environmental impact reports prepared prior to their consider- ation. Further, the policies of the conservation and open space elements in particular shall be adhered to in review- ing both public and private development proposals. P. II=37/new section Add: 9. Mitigation Monitoring State law requires that mitigation measures be monitored 1) to ensure that required mitigation measures are imple- mented ; 2 ) to allow the city and interested citizens to verify compliance • before, during and after project con- struction; 3) to generate information on the effectiveness of mitigation measures to improve their effectiveness in future applications , and 4) to guide future decision-making. The following mitigation measures should be pursued to mitigate the potential impacts identified in the- Environmental Impact Report prepared for the Land Use, Conservation and Open Space Elements of the General Plan in 1991: a . The city should establish truck routes that direct truck traffic away from residential neighborhoods. b. Expansion of the capacity of the sewage treatment plant and distribution system should be planned to precede or coincide with the increase in the demand beyond current capacities resulting from development under the Land Use Element (LUE) . New development within the Urban . 00 122 t • Page/Location Change Proposed Services Line should not be permitted unless adequate capacity to serve such development is available. c. The addition of police officers and support staff should precede or coincide with the increase in population to achieve at least a ratio of 1.2 police officers per 1000 population. The city should establish thresholds which new development will be restricted until services and facilities deemed adequate are provided. The level of development restrictions should reflect the severity of the services and facilities needs. d. The addition of fire stations and personnel should precede or coincide with the increase in population in accordance with the LUE. The city should establish thresholds beyond which new development will be restricted until services and facilities deemed adequate are provided. • The level of development restrictions should reflect the severity of the services and facilities needs. e. The expansion of the landfill should precede or coincide with the increase in population in accordance with the LUE so that capacity is not significantly ex- ceeded . The city should establish thresholds beyond which new development will be restricted until facilities deemed adequate are provided. The level of development restrictions should reflect the severity of the facility deficiency. f. The expansion of school facilities should precede or coincide with the increase in population in accordance with the LUE so that capacity is not significantly exceeded. The city, in consultation with the school district, should establish thresholds beyond which new residential development will be restricted until services and facilities • deemed adequate are provided. The level 00 W3 i Page/Location Change Proposed • of development restrictions should reflect the severity of the services and facilities needs. g. The expansion of parks and recreation facilities should precede or coincide with the increase in population in accordance with the LUL so that the preferred levels of service are main- tained. In addition, the city should establish thresholds beyond which new residential development will be restric- ted until services and facilities deemed adequate are provided. The level of development restrictions should reflect the severity of the services and facili- ties needs. h. The city should develop and adopt an implementation program, based on the Long Range Fiscal Plan , for increasing revenues over the next several years. This plan may be included as an element of the General Plan, or may be adopted • separately as a strategic plan. i. Circulation improvements should be installed in accordance with long range improvement planning implemented by Five Year Capital Improvements Programs. J . The city should promote the attainment and maintenance of state and federal air quality standards through the adoption and implementation of one or more of the following programs: .Trip Reduction Ordinance .Public Transit Improvements .Bicycling and Bikeway Improvements .Park and Ride Lots .Circulation System Planning .Local Agency cooperation and co- ordination k. The mixing of commercial and residen- tial land uses should be encouraged when it will reduce dependence on the auto- mobile, improve the balance between jobs • and housing , and will not create incompatible land use relationships. 00 124 • Page/Location Change Proposed 1. Additional development within the city beyond available production capacities should not occur prior to the provision of adequate production facilities for the extraction of water from the deep aquifer or reliable alternative sources. m. If the development of a site uncovers cultural resources, the recommendations of Appendix K, California Environmental Quality Act (Section 15--et seq of the Government Code) shall be followed for identification, documentation and preservation of the resource. n. The city should document and record data or information relevant to prehis- toric and historic cultural resources which may be impacted by proposed devel- opment. The accumulation of such data shall act as a tool to assist decision makers in determinations of the potential development effects to prehistoric and • historical resources located within the city. o . The Circulation Element should address the need for, and location of, a "route to school" plan to encourage safe alternatives to the automobile as the primary mode for transporting children to and from school. p. The City should consider requiring project-specific trip reduction measures to be incorporated into development projects to help reduce vehicle miles travelled and improve air quality. Such measures would include , but not be limited to, reducing the required number of parking spaces,. providing transit stops/bus turnouts , providing bike lockers and changing facilities , preferential parking for carpools, and providing on-site child-care services. q. The development of residences in the industrial area proposed for residential • land use northeast of Traffic Way on Ferrocaril shall be prohibited until the concrete batch plant ceases operation or 00 12%) a PagelLocation Change Proposed • until the potential air quality impacts on surrounding properties can be mitiga- ted to an acceptable level. r. Areas with the potential to support rare, endangered or threatened species or "Species of Special Concern" shall be identified through the City's creek map- ping program. s. Grading shall not occur and buildings or structures requiring permit approval shall not be located within 50 feet of any creekway riparian vegetation, or within 50 feet of the centerline of the creekway, whichever is greater, unless: (i) A site-specific evaluation by a qualified biologist approved by the City determines that a lesser set- back will provide equivalent habitat protection; or (ii) The City completes a creekway map- • ping program and adopts other specific setback requirements based upon that mapping program. t. The habitat requirements of rare, endangered, or threatened species and Species of. Special Concern shall be incorporated into the City of Atascadero environmental review guidelines and made a part of the initial environmental study checklist. u. The City shall work with the State Department of Fish and Game, the County and other interested agencies, organiza- tions and parties to implement a compre- hensive creek protection policy and management plan. Such a plan may include the following elements: The identification of areas along creeks to be regulated by the Plan. Implementation mechanisms, such as minimum setbacks for new develop • meat. 00 JLYti • Page/Location change Proposed The identification of activities that are prohibited in creek areas, which may include grading, tree/veg- etation removal, culverting, and other activities that promote erosion, sedimentation and the deg- radation of water quality. The identification of specific criterial for: -- optimum stream channel configure- tion and capacity -- habitat restoration -- access/trail locations New Technical Appendix Add : Technical Appendix : Mineral Resources Management • 00 V7 • TECHNICAL APPENDIX MINERAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT • 00 �J8 k • 2. CHANGES TO LAND USE PLAN MAP Land Use Plan Map: Map Changes: A. Urban Service Line: Expand the Urban Service Line to include the Atascadero State Hospital, Chalk Mountain Golf Course, and Paloma Creek Park. Rationale: County facilities and Paloma Creek Park are already receiving urban services. The State Hospital also has urban services, which it provides. Atascadero/San Gabriel: Change corner from Tomassacci/Hazard property to intersection from Suburban Single Family to Moderate Density Single Family and move the urban service line to include these parcels. Rationale This would make all four corners consistent, and recognizes avail- ability of sewer along both roads. B. Old County Hospital Site: Change from Public and Quasi-Public to High Density Multi-Family Residential. Rationale: The County is phasing out this facility; High Density Multi-Family is the current land use designation. Noakes Planned Development: Change from Special Recreation to Public and Moderate Density Single Family. Rationale: This would reflect the recent rezoning and tentative parcel map approval, including dedication of 17 acres for public use. C. Eagle Creek Project: Change from Special Recreation to Recre- ation and High Density Single Family Residential. • 00 1?9 Rationale: The Special Recreation land • use category is being dropped. The pro- posed land uses reflect the recent P.D. rezoning. D. Montessori School Site: On Monterey Road, next to the Monterey Road School . Change from Public and Quasi-Public to Suburban Residential. Rationale: In the event the project is not built, Suburban Residential would be the appropriate land use designation ( either category would enable the school) . San AnselmolLobos Neighborhood: Changes from High Density Multi-Family to High Density Single Family and Suburban Single Family to Moderate Density Single Family. Rationale: Drafting errors. San Anselmo/San Palo: Change the Kundert property from Low • Density Single Family back to Tourist Commercial. Rationale: Following public hearing, it was determined that retaining current designation was appropriate. The + 4 acre area lies between a hill and the Union Gas Station. San Jacinto/El Camino Real: Change the Jazwiecki and Verheyen proper- ties from Neighborhood Commercial back to Retail Commercial. Rationale: Response to public testimony and development planning undertaken pursuant to current general plan designa- tion. San Anselmo Urban Service Line: Adjust to be parcel specific per Planning Commission direction at the September 17, 1991 meeting. Rationale: Response to location #7 re- • analysis and related public testimony. 00 130 • E. Factory Outlet Site: Retain Commercial Park land use designa- tion and text for this site. Rationale: An EIR is in preparation for a conditional use permit for a factory outlet center allowable in the existing Commercial Park land use designation. That land use designation is being elim- inated in favor of Industrial Park, which would not allow such centers. • • 00 1:41 ` 1 f MAP A w SUBURBANIN S GLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TO "RECREATION (WRANGLERETTE ARENA) J « NEW URBAN SERVICE LINE OLD URBAN SERVICE LINE V � 717 OLD URBAN CHANGE FROM SUBURBAN SINGLE- SERVICE LINE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TO MODERATE DENSITY SINGLE FAMILY r. 1 YEW URBAN SERVICE LINE • ■ ►uai nnuut � � ►� ------ -'...--- - —r� moi' �Ij� ►.����j� � � _ •.� , , , ��,! e �� ��� .ti��� _, SII ��,. ��,�®�►�i►. �:� �'' � %#'��II ��,`� � �,®fit , � a: �f MAP C • b O y0 ' `06 CPQ 0 p t a ....-. ..... VIEJO MAIN f � � l EL C41NIp0 ♦ _ REAL o 2 N m a ,ND REIIl r a N `S �P t 1 II--' HD pac. sr QoA I CHANGE FROM SPECIAL RECREATION TO RECREATION pa1vE AND HIGH DENSITY SINGLE FAMILY cc i J i �� ,All S .. • � . .. _ -- __ - ��I :���/lir ISC1111111 P W- 1 r OLD URBAN SERVICE LINE • �� ` �j c ,M, . XPi.. �•;+� � �G� ���' 41 • di' 0'� �►�'-�+��,'� �'` � r'7'/ '!%����',��!��1,!il��'�•+�poi �I�, �_�' / �► /!INeil6 s 1 • REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL CITY OF ATASCADERO Agenda Item: D-2 From: Henry Engen, Acting City ManagerV6 Meeting Date: 1/14/92 SUBJECT: Waterway Intrusion Ordinance RECOMMENDATION: Council adopt proposed Ordinance No. 236 on second reading. BACKGROUND: This ordinance was approved on first reading at the Council meeting of December 10, 1991. • RW:cw Attachment: Ordinance No. 236 00 Lit ORDINANCE NO. 236 • AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO, CALIFORNIA, ADDING CHAPTER 8 TO TITLE 5 OF THE ATASCADERO MUNICIPAL CODE PROHIBITING SPECIFIED ACTIVITIES IN ATASCADERO CREEK, GRAVES CREEK AND THE SALINAS RIVER The City Council of the City of Atascadero does ordain as follows: SECTION 1. Chapter 8 is hereby added to Title 5 of the Atascadero Municipal Code to read as follows: CHAPTER 8. WATERWAY INTRUSIONS Section 5-8.01. Definitions. (a) Riparian corridor shall mean the area of land within the normal high water levels and the land containing riparian vegetation immediately adjacent to the following waterways: (1) Atascadero Creek (2) Graves Creek (3) Salinas River • The definition above shall apply until superceded by an "Offi- cial Creekway Map" is adopted by the City Council. When such a map or maps are adopted, the "riparian corridor" shall be that area so designated on that map for that area of the waterway. (b) Intrusion shall mean any encroachment or activity into the riparian corridor, as listed in 5-8.02 below, which may adversely impact the drainage, flora and fauna of the specified riparian corridors. (c) Pollutants shall mean any harmful substance, includ- ing but not limited to chemicals, fuels, fill materials, lumber, petroleum products, sewage, domestic animal waste and any other substance which could adversely impact: Drainage; cause flooding; contaminate water; destroy or damage flora or fauna. Section 5-8.02. Prohibited Uses and Activities. Each of the following uses and activities are prohibited: (a) The parking, operation or use of private motorized vehicles, including but not limited to motorcycles, ATVs, dune • buggies, recreational vehicles, automobiles, go-carts, motor- ized skateboards or trucks in the riparian corridor. 0&-f}`v-7 Ordinance No. 236 Page Two (b) Allowing or causing the accumulation, storing, place- ment, dumping or disposing of pollutants in the riparian corridor, unless done with a properly issued City grading permit or in an emergency flooding situation to protect life and property. (c) Allowing or causing the migration of pollutants into the riparian corridor. Section 5-8.03. Enforcement. A violation of any provision of this Title shall be a misdemeanor. Penalties for a violation of this Chapter shall be as set forth in Chapter 3, Title 1 of this Code. SECTION 2. PUBLICATION The City Clerk shall cause this ordinance to be published once within fifteen ( 15) days after its passage in the,Atascadero News,_ a newspaper of general circulation, printed, published and cir- culated in the City in accordance with Section 36933 of the • Government Code; shall certify the adoption and posting of this ordinance and shall cause this ordinance and this certification together with proof of posting to be entered into the Book of Ordinances of the City. SECTION 3. EFFECTIVE DATE This ordinance shall go into effect and be in full force and effect at 12:01 a.m. on the 31st day after its passage. On Motion by Councilmember , seconded by Council member , the foregoing ordinance is hereby adopted in its entirety on the following roll-call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ADOPTED: CITY OF ATASCADERO, CA • ALDEN F. SHIERS, Mayor 00 a3q Ordinance No. 236 Page Three ATTEST: LEE RABOIN, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: ARTHER R. MONTANDON, City Attorney • • 00 �:ii MEETING AGE DAT 1 14 92 ITEM _ • Januar 7 1992 The.Homeless Shelter Y Mayor Alden Shiers and Members of the City Counti l RonMeMaster,chair City of Atascadero 7 6500 Palma Ave. Patricia Ponce,Vice Chair Atascadero, California 93420 =�;' Cynthia Perez.SeaetaryJreasurw - David Blakey • Dear Mayor and Members of the Council : Wheat Blank Dexter Rosemary Manchester I would like to ask for your formal consideration of the various issues , Sally Mason surrounding the opening of the National Guard Armory for sheltering the Magda Mendoza homeless according to Governor Wilson's directive. I believe that with Fred Munroe some relatively simple planning, the involvement of the community, and a Fred Nunez spirit of willingness, opening the armory will be seen as- not only possible, BigRoalmen but neccessary. There is unquestionably a need.for the sheltering resource Anita Robinsort that the armory offers, no more so than during the inclement weather we have recently been experiencing. I propose .that the Council lend its support to the concept pending the outcome of the work of a City Council appointed task force to design a program which addresses the various concerns outlined by the Police Department. I do not believe this need be a protracted process, but I do believe that it needs your support and participation. I have been in .contact with numerous Atascadero residents who are supportive of the armory • proposal and are committed to making the opening a reality. There is not question that with this type of community support, an effective and efficient program can be developed and operated. No one in our country, our county, or our communities should be homeless and unsheltered this winter when there is a resource of the magnitude of the armory available to us. Don't defeat this idea before it has had. a chance to work as- a program which addresses the needs of the homeless in your city and elsewhere in the county. I know you are aware of the power that citizens have to find creative solutions to our most pressing social concerns. Join with us and be a part of that particular ingenuity. I will be attending your Council meeting on the 14th. I hope that at that time you will demonstrate your committment to solutions and appoint a task force to begin its work immediately. Si cerely, G e Guy re, S pervisor EO Homeless helter cc: Ray Windsor, City Manager Larry Etter Nancy Horton • UU 1:16 880 Industrial Way San Luis 0bispo CA 93401 REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL CITY OF ATASCADERO AGENDA ITEM: D-4 THROUGH: Ray Windsor, City Manager MEETING DATE: 1/14/92 FROM: Andrew J. Takata, Director CLX Department of Community Services SUBJECT: DEDICATION PLAQUE POLICY RECOMMENDATION: Council to provide direction as to Council Member inscriptions on facility dedication plaques, whether membership at conception or at dedication, and this direction to be placed as policy for future construction projects. BACKGROUND: The Atascadero Lake Park Pavilion is reaching the final phase of completion, and dedication plaques need to be ordered as soon as possible. Since the Council authorized the construction contract for the Pavilion, Council positions have changed. Staff feels a policy should be set regarding dedication plaques and which Council names and titles should be inscribed on them. It is ' noted that the recently constructed Police Department facility dedication plaque depicts the Council members that were in office at the time the construction contract was authorized rather than the membership in place at the completion and dedication. In surveying other cities, it has been determined that many record the Council members awarding the contract, but some record the Council members in place at the time of dedication. AJT:kv :plaque Ute :+'1