HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 072297 ITEM # A- 6
Meeting Date: 8/12/97
Approved as submitted
ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL
JULY 22, 1997
MINUTES
6:30 P.M. - CLOSED SESSION:
1. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR (G.C. Sec. 54957.6)
Agency negotiator: Roy Hanley
Employee organizations: Mid-Management/Professional, Atascadero Fire Captains,
Atascadero Firefighters, Service Employees Intl. Union Local 620
2. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - CITY MANAGER RECRUITMENT (G.C. Sec.
54957)
3. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION (Govt. Code Sec.
54957 et seq)
Name of case: McHale v. City of Atascadero
There was no action taken in Closed Session and the meeting was continued at 7:12 p.m.
to after the Regular Session.
7:00 P.M. - REGULAR SESSION
Mayor Johnson called the meeting to order at 7:15 p.m. and Councilman Lerno led the
Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL:
Present: Councilmembers Carden, Clay, Lerno, Luna and Mayor Johnson
Absent: None.
Others Present: Marcia M. Torgerson, City Clerk
Staff Present: Robert Grogan, Interim City Manager; Roy Hanley, City Attorney;
Steve DeCamp, Acting Community Development Director; Brady
Cherry, Community Services Director; Mike McCain, Fire Chief; Bill
Watton, Acting Chief of Police; John Neil, Assistant City Engineer;
Rachelle Rickard, City Accountant; Mark Markwort, Chief
Wastewater Operations; Geoff English, Recreation Supervisor; and
Fred Motlo, Fire Captain.
COUNCIL COMMENTS
Councilman Carden announced that he still has tickets for the Winemakers Dinner and
Wine Festival this Friday and Saturday. All the proceeds go to the zoo.
Councilman Clay announced that the Atascadero School District and the Atascadero
Youth Task Force and members of the Atascadero City Recreation Department have met
and have a target date of October 1, 1997 for getting a youth center started.
PROCLAMATION: "National Night Out", August 5, 1997 [Po/ice Department]
Joy Butterfield, Support Services Technician, Atascadero Police Department accepted the
Proclamation. Ms. Butterfield spoke briefly to explain "National Night Out."
COMMUNITY FORUM
Ray Jansen, 6655 Country Club Drive, read a letter to the editor he had written and
recently submitted concerning his feelings about citizens' apathy towards government.
Eric Greening, 7365 Valle, announced the Lake Nacimiento EIR will be released 8/1/97.
He suggested that the City Council have this item on their 2"d meeting in August or 1't
meeting in September.
Rush Kolemaine, P.O. Box 1990, expressed that, like Mr. Jansen, he is concerned with
City employees' level of communication with the public.
--end of Community Forum—
REGULAR BUSINESS: Salinas Reservoir Expansion Project [Counci/member Clay]
(Staff recommendation: Respond to Draft EIR and record concerns relative to effects on
water supply and public safety [Roy Hanley])
Roy Hanley, City Attorney, explained that the staff report for this item was prepared by
Gary Kaiser, Assistant Planner. He asked the Council to discuss this issue and direct him
as to what topics of concern they want addressed in a letter to the City of San Luis
Obispo and what tone they would like in the letter. He assured the Council that he will
make the July 25, 1997 deadline. Mr. Hanley introduced Mr. Bob Roos to give a brief
presentation.
Robert Roos, Homestead Road, Templeton, addressed downstream flow impacts. He
went on to explain in detail the impacts, by percentage, the expansion would have on
Atascadero (6.45% - 58%) (see Attachment A). Councilman Luna stated that the City of
Atascadero received a fax of a draft letter of the North County Council's response to this
issue. He asked if Mr. Roos agreed with Section C. Mr. Roos responded that he has not
seen it yet, but will read it and give his comments later.
Ken Weathers, Atascadero Mutual Water Co., thanked George Highland for attending
many water meetings. Also, he thanked Councilman Clay for his attendance. Mr.
Weathers explained the history of Atascadero's water; from 1939, when E.G. Lewis
formed the Atascadero Mutual Water Co., to the present. He also stated that Atascadero
property owners also own the riparian water rights in perpetuity. Mr. Weathers explained
that riparian water rights come before any appropriated water rights. He stated that the
AMWC has focused their attention on the potential impact of the Salinas Reservoir Dam
expansion to Atascadero's water resources and the potential impact from flooding on
AMWC facilities. Mr. Weathers explained that the change in surface flow caused by the
dam expansion will impact the recharging of our ground water. He stated the AMWC has
8 issues of concern and if they cumulate, there would be a significant impact on our water
supply. He listed some of their concerns: Insufficient mitigation, alternative were not
addressed adequately, flood impact not analyzed, is there financial backing to pay for
potential flood damage downstream.
CC 07/22/97
Page 2
Councilman Clay asked Mr. Weathers some questions and Council discussion ensued.
Mr. Hanley explained about CEQA and the EIR process. He explained that instead of
having an independent consultant prepare the EIR, the City of San Luis Obispo has
prepared their own. Mr. Hanley stated that the EIR is only an informational document. He
explained that if the City of San Luis Obispo adopts this EIR, it will not change how water
law is going to apply to the situation. He stressed that CEQA requires the City of San
Luis Obispo to consider alternatives and address possible mitigations, but it does not
require them to adopt them. The Council asked questions of Mr. Hanley and discussion
ensued.
Councilman Carden asked Mr. Weathers when the City of San Luis Obispo acquired their
water rights. Mr. Weathers responded that Atascadero acquired their water rights in
1914 and San Luis Obispo acquired their water rights in approximately 1945. He
explained that San Luis Obispo's water rights are in conjunction with the dam which was
built during WWII to serve Camp San Luis Obispo. Mr. Weathers stated that the water
rights were filed jointly between the Army and the City. Councilman Carden questioned
whether the water rights granted during a time of national emergency versus a time of
peace should even be considered valid today. Mr. Weathers responded by stating that he
and the AMWC's water rights attorney have the opinion that the City of San Luis Obispo
has a legitimate water right for the existing dam.
George Highland, Secretary of the North County Water Task Force, expressed his
concerns and referred to the documentation he submitted to Council before the meeting
(see Attachment B). He questioned whether those who prepared the EIR have a bias.
Bob Roos, Homestead Road, Templeton, commented concerning the draft letter of the
North County Council that he felt it reflected his concerns.
Roy Hanley added to the discussion that he feels the Council should address the lack of
information on what would happen in Atascadero if the dam failed, including a
comparision between the potential damage if the current dam failed versus if the dam
expansion failed.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Pat Mackie, Paso Robles, expressed his feelings that the City should notify San Luis
Obispo of all their concerns, not just a few. He also stated that he felt all issues should
be addressed in the EIR otherwise, later in court, you will not be able to address it. Mr.
Mackie also shared with the Council that whenever he comes to the Atascadero City
Council meetings, it's always a pleasant experience. He went on to state that anytime
that he needs to contact the staff in Atascadero, especially the City Manager's office and
the City Clerk's office, they have always treated him with the upmost respect and have
immediately responded to my requests. Mayor Johnson thanked Mr. Mackie for the kind
comments.
Rush Kolemaine, P.O. Box 1990, asked questions of Mr. Ken Weathers. He also asked if
the City has set aside money for possible litigation. Mayor Johnson responded that there
is money in the City's budget for litigation. Mr. Kolemaine asked the Council to strongly
express Atascadero's concerns to the City of San Luis Obispo.
Eric Greening, 7365 Valle, shared his concerns and stated that he feels the City needs to
be ready for litigation. He recommended that Atascadero strongly request that the City of
CC 07/22/97
Page 3
San Luis Obispo fund an independent structural engineering analysis of the dam by
consultants to be chosen by the North County Cities and Communities Districts that are
downstream for a second opinion on the potential risks of expansion.
Doug Lewis, Atascadero, expressed his concerns of the Army Corps of Engineers' water
rights and how the City of San Luis Obispo has acquired them.
Bill Zimmerman, 6225 Lomitas Road, stated how important it is to take action. He said
that there will be a reduction of water in Atascadero if this dam expansion takes place.
He asked that the Council consider the long-term viability of Atascadero and submit strong
comments to the City of San Luis Obispo.
Pete Cagliero, Salinas Farmer, member of the Water Task Force, representing agriculture.
He referred to the letter he gave to the City of San Luis Obispo (see Attachment C). He
has 3 times the number of wells that Atascadero has and San Luis Obispo is not
addressing his concerns either. He stated that if the concerns about the safety of the dam
expansion could all be met to everybody's satisfaction, and the water was shared with
Atascadero, Templeton and Paso Robles, that would leave more ground water in the basin
for agriculture; he could support that. He said that he felt the EIR was inaccurate. Mr.
Cagliero stated that San Luis Obispo turned down State water because it would promote
growth and yet they can take our water and that doesn't promote growth. He said that
he would like the EIR to address using State water versus using Salinas water.
Barbara Rose, 7200 Llano Road, recommended the City look into how San Luis Obispo
acquired their water rights. She also stated that it seems as though the original dam was
constructed hastily and suggested that we look into the safety of the existing dam, let
alone an expansion.
-- end of public testimony--
Mayor Johnson stated that he wanted the Council to, (1) review the draft letter from the
North County Council, (2) see if there is consensus that Atascadero will participate in
litigation, if necessary, and (3) compose our own letter.
Councilman Luna offered suggested amendments to the North County Council letter. The
Council agreed with his suggestions.
MOTION: Moved by Councilman Clay and seconded by Councilman Carden, to
approve the draft Paso Robles letter addressed to the City of San Luis
Obispo with the following suggested amendments:
1. Change second sentence in Section 0 to read.• "Whatever the
risk of flooding, if flooding does occur, the County and downstream
cities will bear the financial risk rather than the federal government."
2. Include a sentence requiring the City of San Luis Obispo to be
financially liable for damage resulting from flooding.
Motion passed 5.0 by a roll-call vote.
Mayor Johnson received consensus from the Council that they would participate in
litigation on this issue, if necessary.
Council also directed Roy Hanley to compose a letter to the City of San Luis Obispo
expressing their concerns which include: Council would like to see addressed the worse-
case scenario if the dam fails, San Luis Obispo needs to demonstrate their water rights,
they need to identify inundation areas, an emergency response plan should the dam fail,
CC 07/22/97
Page 4
impacts identified by AMWC need to be addressed and mitigated to insignificance in the
final EIR, construction of original dam, recommend an independent engineer to get
accurate figures, pressuring aquifers, lack of flushing and scouring of riverbed, who would
pay for flood damage, deteriorating relationship between North County and the City of San
Luis Obispo.
There was consensus that the letter be signed by Mayor Johnson,
Roy Hanley and Robert Grogan.
Mayor Johnson called for a 10 minute recess at 9.15 p.m.
Mayor Johnson re-opened the meeting at 9:21 p.m.
A. CONSENT CALENDAR:
1. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - April 8, 1997 [Marcia Torgerson]
(City Clerk's recommendation: Approve)
2. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - June 24, 1997 [Marcia Torgerson]
(City Clerk's recommendation: Approve)
3. RESOLUTION NO. 49-97 - Authorizing placement of annual payment for Assess-
ment Dist. No. 10 (Santa Rosa, Area F) on the Property Taxes for fiscal year 1996-
97 [Brady Cherry]
(Staff recommendation: Adopt)
4. RESOLUTION NO. 66-97 - Authorizing the execution of an agreement with PARC,
Contractors Inc. for asbestos abatement at the Atascadero Youth Recreation Center
[Brady Cherry]
FISCAL IMPACT.• $13,000 Council-authorized CDBG funds/$6,350 ARCC funds
(Staff recommendation: Adopt)
5. RESOLUTION NO. 67-97 - Authorizing the execution of an agreement with
Electricraft, Inc. for electrical improvements at the Atascadero Youth Recreation
Center [Brady Cherry]
FISCAL IMPACT.• $20,160 Council-authorized CDBG funds/$1,662 ARCC funds
(Staff recommendation: Adopt)
6. RESOLUTION NO. 72-97 - Amending Resolution No. 120-92, which authorizes
road closures related to Farmer's Market [Brady Cherry]
(Staff recommendation: Adopt)
7. STATUS REPORT ON GENERAL PLAN SAFETY ELEMENT UPDATE [Steve DeCamp]
(Staff recommendation: Receive & file)
8. WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY UPGRADE, STAGE 1 DESIGN FEE
NEGOTIATIONS [Brady Cherry]
FISCAL IMPACT.• 1997-98 Wastewater Divn. Budget, anticipated @ 10-15% of
anticipated $1,859,000 construction cost
(Staff recommendation: Direct City Engineer to negotiate a reasonable fee for
stage 1 engineering design)
CC 07/22/97
Page 5
9. DECLARATION OF SURPLUS EQUIPMENT [Brady Cherry]
FISCAL IMPACT.• Estimate $1,200 in auction revenues to wastewater facility
improvement fund
(Staff recommendation: Declare equipment as surplus)
10. RESOLUTION NO. 70-97 - Awarding a contract to Souza Construction, Inc. for the
construction of the Minor Road Repair Projects, FY 1996/97 (Bid #97-01) [John
Neil]
FISCAL IMPACT.• Total expenditures, $135,213.40/Total revenues $135,213.40
(Staff recommendation: Adopt)
11. RESOLUTION NO. 71-97 - Awarding a contract to NFL Construction, Inc. for the
construction of the State Route 41/Atascadero Ave. Storm Drain Project (Bid #97-
07) [John Neil]
FISCAL IMPACT.- Total expenditures, $935,684.90/Total revenues $935,684.90
(Staff recommendation: Adopt Res. No. 71-97/Revise adopted FY1997198 budget)
12. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 96008, 8805 OLD SANTA ROSA RD. - Consideration of
final parcel map to divide one lot of 1.50 acres in size into two parcels of 0.76 and
0.74 acres each for single family residential use (Lanini/Wilson Land Surveys)
[Steve DeCamp]
(Planning Commission/Staff recommendation: Accept)
Mayor Johnson announced that Item #A-1 1 is being pulled and continued. Councilman
Carden stated that he would like to pull Item #A-10. Councilman Clay asked that Item
#A-9 be pulled for clarification.
MOTION: By Councilman Luna and seconded by Councilman Lerno to approve
Items A-1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8, and 12.
Motion passed 5.0 by a roll-call vote.
RE: Item A-9: Councilman Clay asked how the auctions were run. Brady Cherry
explained the process.
MOTION: By Councilman Clay and seconded by Councilman Luna to approve
Item A-9.
Motion passed 5.0 by a roll-call vote.
RE: Item A-10: Councilman Carden asked if signs was included in this bid. John Neil
responded that signs was not part of this bid because it was prepared prior to the
discussions regarding signs. Brady Cherry added that he and Brian Sword have priced
some signs that the City can use on a number of upcoming projects. He explained that
any project that will take more than 2 weeks to complete, the City will put up its own
signs. The bigger projects coming up will have signs in the contract.
MOTION: By Councilman Carden and seconded by Council Clay to approve Item
A-10.
Motion passed 5.0 by a roll-call vote.
RE: Item A-11: Brady Cherry explained that this item is being pulled primarily because the
project revenues that are listed in the staff report have been changed. Staff has decided
to re-allocate different revenues from different sources than what we have stated in the
report. He stated that they would be able to bring this back to Council on Monday, July
28, 1997, at 4:00 p.m. Councilman Carden stated that he will be out of town on that
CC 07/22/97
Page 6
day. The rest of the Council stated that they would be able to attend.
B. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
1. HEARING OF PROTESTS REGARDING PLACING DELINQUENT SOLID WASTE
CHARGES ON THE 1997/98 PROPERTY TAXES [Rachel% Rickard]
A. Resolution No. 64-97 - Placing delinquent solid waste charges on the
1997/98 Property Tax bills
FISCAL IMPACT.• Net additional $428.91 in franchise fee revenues
[Staff recommendation: Adopt]
Rachelle Rickard, City Accountant, gave a brief staff report. She explained that this is an
annual process. Ms. Rickard stated that the City does receive a 5% collection fee for the
administration.
No Public Comment
MOTION: By Councilman Luna and seconded by Councilman Lerno to adopt
Resolution No. 64-97.
Motion passed 5:0 by a roll-call vote.
2. HEARING OF OBJECTIONS REGARDING PLACING WEED ABATEMENT CHARGES
ON THE 1997/98 PROPERTY TAXES [Mike McCain]
A. Resolution No. 65-97 - Confirming the cost of weed abatement
FISCAL IMPACT.• No direct impact
[Staff recommendation: Adopt]
Mike McCain, Fire Chief, gave a brief staff report.
No Public Comment
MOTION: By Councilman Carden and seconded by Councilman Luna to adopt
Resolution No. 65-97.
Motion passed 5:0 by a roll-call vote.
3. ORDINANCE NO. 331 - Amending Chapter 2 of Title 11 (Subdivision Ordinance) of
the Municipal Code delegating to the Planning Commission the authority to
approve, conditionally approve or disapprove tentative tract and parcel maps
[Steve DeCamp]
(Staff recommendation: Motion to waive reading in full and introduce on first
reading by title only)
Steve DeCamp, Acting Community Development Director, gave a brief staff report and
explained that this ordinance is part of the City's effort to streamline the permit process.
He explained the history of Planning Commission actions and compared them to what this
amendment of the Atascadero Municipal Code would allow.
CC 07/22/97
Page 7
Councilman Luna commented that he is very satisfied with the present process and does
not intend to support this ordinance. He explained that he feels it is the responsibility of
the City Council to assure that land-use issues are in conformance with the General Plan
and that does not mean delegating that responsibility to a non-elected body.
Mr. DeCamp answered questions of Council.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Ursula Luna, P.O. Box 806, asked if a Councilmember appeals a tract map, does he have
to step down because of conflict of interest. Also, she asked if a neighbor wants to
appeal a tract map, how much would it cost. Mayor Johnson responded that the answer
to her second question is $200.00 (for the citizen). Roy Hanley responded that his
personal opinion is no, the Councilmember would not be required to step down. He
explained that there is one appellate case, that has not been decertified by the State
Supreme Court, that is interpreted to require that particular Councilmember to step down.
--end of public testimony--
MOTION: By Councilman Carden and seconded by Councilman Lerno to
waive reading in full and introduce Ordinance No. 331 on first
reading by title only.
Motion passed 4:1, with Councilmember Luna opposed.
4. ORDINANCE NO. 332- Adding Chapter 15 to Title 7 of the Municipal Code
pertaining to encroachment permits !John Neill
(Staff recommendation: Motion to waive reading in full and introduce on first
reading by title only)
John Neil, Assistant City Engineer, gave a brief staff report and explained that this
ordinance defines the authority by which the City can control encroachments within the
right-of-way. He then answered questions of Council.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Doug Lewis, Atascadero, asked why trees were not included in the encroachment
ordinance. Mr. Neil answered that landscaping, trees and shrubbery are defined as
encroachments and would be subject to the provisions of the ordinance.
--end of public testimony--
Councilman Carden asked if the City has a master plan for coordinating utility projects.
Mr. Neil responded no, but AMWC would like to enter into an MOU with the City.
Councilmember Carden requested that the Council pursue, at a future meeting, developing
MOU's by which capital improvements with all utilities and the school district are
coordinated.
MOTION: By Councilman Carden and seconded by Mayor Johnson to
waive reading in full and introduce Ordinance No. 332 on first
reading by title only.
Motion passed 4:1, with Councilmember Lerno opposed.
C. REGULAR BUSINESS: No scheduled items.
CC 07/22/97
Page 8
D. COMMITTEE REPORTS (The following represent standing committees. Informative
status reports will be given, as folt necessary):
S.L.O. Council of Governments - Councilman Carden announced that the executive
committee meets tomorrow.
Economic Round Table - Mayor Johnson stated that they received a briefing from the
State Hospital on an expansion plan. Councilman Carden asked where the City stands on
the annexation of that area. Steve DeCamp explained that the annexation is proceeding.
Finance Committee - Councilman Luna announced that the committee needs to meet
soon. Bob Grogan suggested August 4, 1997 at 4:00 p.m. Councilmembers Luna and
Carden agreed.
Air Pollution Control District - Councilmember Clay stated they will meet soon.
Integrated Waste Management Authority - Councilmember Luna stated that they met 2
weeks ago. He explained that he promised to check into why Atascadero's diversion rate
dropped from 53% to 45%. 3% of that is because the State changed the population
base. The other 4% was because some of our waste was delivered to Paso Robles.
E. INDIVIDUAL DETERMINATION AND/OR ACTION:
1. City Council
Councilman Clay asked that the Police Department work with the Golf Course concerning
their frequent problems. He also announced that Atascadero is going to have a youth
center and the City's going to have to bite the bullet and help out.
Councilman Carden stated that he's received several calls about the parking around the
lake in the no-parking zone. Mayor Johnson asked that staff bring to Council the previous
staff report and minutes regarding this issue.
Mayor Johnson also asked about the status of setting a Planning Commission/City Council
joint meeting. Bob Grogan explained that he and Steve thought they should wait until the
new manager is on board. It was decided that the meeting should be set in early fall.
Mayor Johnson adjourned to continue the Closed Session at 10-08 p.m. Mayor Johnson
adjourned the Closed Session at 10.11 p.m. to Monday, July 28, 1997 at 4:00 p.m. in
the Club Room, 4' floor, Atascadero City Hall.
RECORDED AND PREPARED BY:
Marcia M. Torgerson, City Cl4rk
ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A - Bob Roos presentation
Exhibit B - George Highland documentation
Exhibit C - Pete Cagliero documentation
CC 07/22/97
Page 9
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
7/22/97
Exhibit A, Page 1 of 22
ALS
rTj
O
V
O
N
EXHIBIT A Page 2 of 22
Atascadero City Council
Minutes
Y
O N �
O
N
O � W
� O �
� o �
0
w
N
O
EXHIBIT A - Page 3 6f 22
CITY OF ATASCADERO
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
" R
ID N .
CD O
00
crq
ul
0 0 (D 00
O
EXHIBIT A Page 4 of 22
CITY OF ATASCADERO
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ � ' 4 x
' � .�.
eX"
n n n
CD � CD i
O
rTl
Cs1 N �
o
o O
A
EXHIBIT A - Page 5 of 22
CITY OF ATASCADERO
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
fi
rrF
♦♦. ♦♦♦ P.
.♦. Y xFY 3v S`i F.:
N � �
w �
0 0
N CD cn
CD
N
CD ,
CD
cn
_ EXHIBIT A - Page 6 of 22
CITY OF ATASCADERO
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
�5
8 � '
3 ;
O O O
c)0
. O Q
O
cn cn O
O >
CSD
►-1 Q O
O O o p
0
EXHIBIT A - Page 7 of 22
CITY OF ATASCADERO
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
CA
NJ �O CO 00 00 DD 00 00 00 W 00 00 00 J J J J J -.4 J J
A W
m In w N O \O ao J Q\ to AW N oo _] C\ toA w N y
A
w f7
m
V ,
�' ^ �C/i _ co
tQ
C" N tV N Ja w w N �D Cy J Zz N .-. W -,1 00 to t.n U Do v .-• A A Lv
W G W tp J w 00 to N 00 0o A to N O C% A A O N
UJ y Cr N W .1 J J lr 00 N A W %c %O O U �O A O J 00 J w N Op t0
x O
CA cr
-oma00 �c
�O IA N lJ " to J J C7•
00 01 -4 1 t0 tr to Cn %O A a\ A
w J a O a0 0 0 O. O C O to O O A tA O w t0 O O O �1 00 G1
Ci
CD y
C
0~0 � N � ..- r r-• N Vwi .... �N A to N N J � •- �O O .-. `-'' Q Cs• '
N w N 0c A, O O \O 00 N CN y w _ N tr 00 J N w
d " J ~ W to " w 00 A A N cn a\ to a\ to ao N CN1.24. O to A b
00 w In J J tA 00 N A 00 1-0110A O �D to w C\ Oo -.3 w t0 G1 tA
M
r
v, woo c r
—
ro o � w oo cn ,-• .� � o
w w
Cdo x
O O N ? J O - w w w O }�
N N O W 0 0 0 0 0 0 to O lr J O A Oo C\ 0 0 0 �0 O O > W C
\a
►+ to y w �O A t� .-. '9 � �' � � O
W N N N ... .... �.. N •-. N O N N r 0 to �O �-• C\ ..- � �
to A N In Ja 00 00 In %�O O w tc w .— tJ -4 J N 10 to 00 v A X:6 A W O\ 'r+
W %O J aA t
\ = to N M W p N J 0o O ON �0 J N ON A 0o O N G G .
00 A W O J J to 00 N A 00 10 C In N �O 00 00 w 00 J w .-+ 00 1.0 cn
W
A A
a �
00
►+ V N J 00 00 Q� N :4 A A ►rj G. Op .�
03 F*�
r J O In O O O O O O O O O A00 O W O O O o0 0
-11
�o O > G
CD
C
^ p m d
A J W 00 Ja 00 W cn I0 O O\ tD N O\ O �l 00 -- O\ In oo a N Q, A ty F G
W a J O 00 kA N 00 00 A O\ N O .A ON A N a, A O\ O N 4
%0 O 00 J w O O\ IC
til
a �• a
N W W W A w N ... N 00 v �.
G1 00 cb. O A to 00 W —1 NO J 03
00 O\ cn to 00 -4 A t0 to N A
V1 A O U O O O O O O O O 00 t0 00 O J to w O O O 00 00 O\
"y7
O m
' ^ co. y
N O Z; d O co C,
bi ac LA tJ 00 IA GA� _ G O.
Vii O O J O O LA
A
N w v w N — ►- C� '� w co d CD
p J N .- tJf �-• tO W N oo v
ii w N to W O\ A A to O W N O
j ►+ to O 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 t� O O O w �O w O O O -- N O
tA d %O 0 0 0 0 0 0 %O O LA O W O U Q\ O O O W W O � � �.
ii C+ O O1 C O O C O O lJ C C% In C\ C 00 t� is b O O tJ is C �,, 0 CD.
t/1 O W O O O O O O W O W -J - O N O O% 0 O O O\ O
EXHIBIT A - Page 8 of 22
CITY OF ATASCADERO
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
TABLE 3.4-14
ANALYSIS OF REDUCED FLOWS AT ATASCADERO`
Reductions(AF) Estimated Flow(AF)
Historic Historic- Historic- Raised Existing Dam Raised Dam Estimated Estimated
Flow Existing Raised Dam 10,000 AFY 10,000 AFY Project Impact(%of
Year (AF) Dam Dam Impact Demand Demand Impact Existing Flow)
72 2,660 716 716 0 1,944 1,944 0 0.00
73 60,300 8,948 15,750 6,802 51,352 44,550 6,802 11.28
74 21,500 2,728 3,949 1,221 18,772 17,551 1,221 5.68
75 6,400 0 0 0 6,400 6,400 0 0.00
76 1,720 0 0 0 1,720 1,720 0 0.00
77 1,820 0 01 0 1,820 1,820 0 0.00
78 140,500 9,313- 20,6461 11,333 131,187 119,854 11,333 8.07
79 15,100 1,855 2,964 1,109 13,245 12,136 1,109 7.34
80 94,200 2.597 3,550953 91,603 90,650 953 1.01
81 8,690 0 0 0 8,690 8,690 0 0.00
82 38,600 3,448 5,587 2,140 35,152 33,013 2,140 5.54
83 154,100 4,079 4,621 541 150,021 149,479 541 0.35
84 9,650 488 650 161 9,162 9,001 161 1.67
85 3,370 0 0 0 3,370 3,370 0 0.00
86 35,600 3,150 6,385 3,235 32,450 29,215 3,235 9.09
87 2,100 0 0 0 2,100 2,100 0 0.00
88 2,100 0 01 0 2,100 2,100 0 0.00
89 1,700 0 0 0 000 1,700 0 0.00
90 1,042 0 0 0 1,042 1,042 0 0.00
91 8,884 0 0 0 8,884 8,884 0 0.00
92 16,330 0 0 0 16,330 16,330 0 0.00
93 57,245 13,255 31,0131 17,758 43,9901 26,232 17,758 31.02
94 2,463 0 01 0 2,463 2,463 0 0.00
Average 29,829 2,199 4,167 1,968 27,630 25,663 1,968 3.52
' Source: modeling based on estimated historic flow data developed using Morro Group methodology(Morro Group,
1991)(note: no gaging station data are available for Atascadero).
''' ` w'%PROJ%leB131D197EIR134TABS.XLS 5/8!97 3.4-44
EXHIBIT A - Page 9 of 22
CITY OF ATASCADERO
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
TABLE 3.4-15
ANALYSIS OF REDUCED FLOWS AT PASO ROBLES`
Reductions(AF) Estimated Flow(AF)
Historic Historic- Historic- Raised Existing Dam Raised Dam Estimated Estimated
Flow Existing Raised Dam 10,000 AFY 10,000 AFY Project Impact(%of
Year (AF) Dam Dam Impact Demand Demand Impact Existing Flow)
72 773 716 716 0 57 57 0 0.00
73 144,558 8,948 15,750 6,802 135,610 128,808 6,802 4.71
74 94,874 2,728 3,949 1,221 92,146 90,925 1,221 1.29
75 36,651 0 0 0 36,651 36,651 01 0.00
76 0 0 0 0 0 0 01 0.00
77 0 0 0 0 0 0 01 0.00
78 222,856 9,313 20,646 11,333 213,543 202,210 11,333 5.09
79 36,553 1,855 2,964 1,109 34,698 33,589 1,109 3.03
80 191,354 2,597 3,550 953 188,757 187,804 953 0.50
81 34,211 0 0 0 34,211 34,211 0 0.00
82 93,312 3,448 5,587 2,140 89,864 87,725 2,140 2.29
83 380,594 4,079 4,621 541 376,515 375,973 541 0.14
84 31,767 488 650 161 31,279 31,118 161 0.51
85 8,750 0 0 0 8,750 8,750 0 0.00
86 127,596 3,150 6,385 3,235 124,446 121,211 3,235 2.54
87 3,985 0 0 0 3,985 3,985 0 0.00
88 7,107 0 0 0 7,107 7,107 0 0.00
89 4,612 0 0 0 4,612 4,612 0 0.00
90 263 0 0 0 263 263 01 0.00
91 29,200 0 0 0 29,200 29,200 0 0.00
92 56,776 0 0 0 56,776 56,776 0 0.00
93 208,314 13,255 31,013 17,758 195,059 177.301 17,758 8.52
94 5,420 0 0 0 5,420 5,4201 0 0.00
Average 74,762 2,199 4,167 1,968 72,563 70,595 1,968 1.24
t Source: modeling based on historic gaging station flow data(USGS, 1995).
WAPROA916B131 D197EIR13-47ABS.XLS 5!8!97 3.4-45
EXHIBIT A - Page 10 of 2;
CITY OF ATASCADERO
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
T7�
3
d CJ d H
o �
o o
n•
W
O v
cn
crq
EXHIBIT A - Page llof 22
CITY OF ATASCADERO
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
W C'D CD
o � �
r-t- CD CD
CD �
moi•
It N •
C!1
EXHIBIT A - Page 12 of 2:
CITY OF ATASCADERO
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
• 3 ,
O � On
cn �• .
� O
cn
cn
O
dd
EXHIBIT A - Page 13 of 22
CITY OF ATASCADERO
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Sol
v a,
N N W Na., n
0
O � O �Jo
o CJS
Oo Oo Opo C"0
CT
'tel . (J" N O
ulo
w
N
0 0
EXHIBIT A - Page 14 of 22
CITY OF ATASCADERO
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
t f 7Z
n r N
O' aro
� N
o m
V
x CD
CD °
CD w
m
EXHIBIT A — Page 15 OF -2.2
CITY OF ATASCADERO
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
a _
o
%O �o %0 %O NO \O 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 J J J J J J J J J J
cp In .A. W N —. O lO 0o J O\ Y, a w N -- O 1p oo J C, Vr .A. w N — O
j r r r r r r r r r r r r r - r r i f0
�p �O �O �O tO V %O 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 J J J J J J J J J A7
N -- O %.O DO J C\ Vr .P W W O W 00 J D\ Vr A
m
z O
b rn r
y !J N w N N tJ tJ lJ N tJ IJ N N N N tJ tJ N N tJ IV N N N
110 %O 00 A. In O\ w %O %0 �10 %O 1�0 W J 00 \p %O %O 00 %O v CT1
1p Oo O N 0o 00 .- W J 00 N �-1 tJr Vr �o Oo O\ 00 00 00 A W J 00 00cooN
O A LA Cr J 0% N tp ON m ? CN t!r ? J -1 .A %D w 110 _1 1A Vr O� 0% w �O v cep Ami
cr r+ ? 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 08
,
O
W °r 0 N N
N N O
-- N W 4P .A v+ N A�
W W A V J O IA Nco
O _ J IJ00 CT a N C tJ a
O\ O\ 00 In w \ A O\ In 1. Z& J O 00 N W O\ %O ? 'TJ ,
to J .• w J O P Z. Vr � N m F p to J� oo O A J a\ w
A :�j O\ iT �O b% -- w v A 00 w O O� O+ O oo w O O oo O O 00 O O C Irk
cr
N
,p. w � N w .._• � -• N yr � � O� J yr O� rn U O� N N O� Vr yr cn yr w
%0 ON %c 00 0\ w cn .1 �l Vr N -- N tT iw O y.l m LA O N w
J J �p J %O 00 ,p O� 00 w \O to J Do J A. O O A N O N 00 %O 00 Oo a
J A 00 O Vr J �O -+ �p J �O O\ N w Vr N to to O w A 00 N J
trl �O 1J 00 \,O % p A O %0 w 00 00 00 110
%0 %O ON 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O Co O O O O O C O W `I
CA
0 N
..._. N �. N ... ... r.. In 00 � _ A �
tJ � N Vr �O O J � N w J w Vr in N v ~ p lJ ao .� co rb r
''A 00 N �p J W 00 p� A 00 00 11 U N O O In In w H H
W W J N . J J 00 J J N Vr w J O� W 00 O� W O J v N "t7 W o
N J A N Do Na --.1 p p M %O C 00 O\ \.o O \O .A p pN tT p p
A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O y �++
z � N
_ o
A N Vf.A ? A w
p W O w 0 0 0 0 0 0 tJ O A tJ 0 to J 0 0 0 %p O ^
O > 71
AO J C 0 0 0 0 0 r^ O to O D 0 0 0
N w N N w w w N W w w N W .-
-1 z, 1,. %O %O ko w O is '.O -j A -1O_ d O tJ q0 C w w J w -.4 ^
O� O O� �O LA 00 t!i O Vr w 00 Vr w N C!r N w A N D` \0 000o N a G H
�Q J J 1a W a\ O� O� 00 Oo N trr A .A Vr C\ O 00 00 A J = w 0
O� tJ .IA C \0 tJ 0% ON 00 tJ N %D w 0 D, to w .A. J " C %O w w w w
p
O\ %D
�+ tJ 00 Oo ,
O W O 0o w P J N
W00 ;O O A A O
�JC� W 00 C 'T7
w J 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O LA w 0 ba L^ L^ 0 0 � "
00
O C O O O
QA N W O O O O 0 0 0
O
O
N .ta N �p N W N W v 0 A %0 A .-A J 00 Q\ to N ,.
N
Z. -4 00
iT O 00 LA `A W 0o A J 00 J "� N oo � `O p ter W iT 00 O o.
fh J 00 J In w J C!r 01 J W W N •� J O w N w N C\ W 5 F\ w -n
N O O Vr W J C N N -• N In ? C C J O 'i7 O
C O C O O O C 0 0 0
O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0
EXHIBIT A - Page 16 of 22
CITY OF ATASCADERO
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Co O CO co (0 Co w co w co w w w w w CO V V V V V V V V V M
Ut .9h. W N -+ O to w V CA Ut A co N -► O c0 w V w U1 •P W N -� N
co co c0 co c0 co (0 ow w w 0o w w 0o 0o CO CO V V V V V V V V
w (Ji CO N -+ O Co Co V 0) (n P W N -► O O Co V w U7 -i W N
C
co 4 N co 4 4 W •P 4 4 -+ N W 4 co -► N (n
Ul CO CO N " -- CO V -► -+ V " -• " 0 Cn V -+ V N N
V 0 V w 4 4 N W N V w (D V V V V V V w w w V W
CD O c0 4 " 4 4 V 4 O — �i CD (O (0 (0 CD Co O Ul O c0 Ul
N w N O U1 O .064 N N 0) t0 N N � N N N O w w N w N w 0 �
J + O.01 1 W
N V Cn -+ -+ Cn -► O N -+ CA j OD w �^ -e
Ut w -+ N P W N 4 O N m O j (n w CO V V N p A) m
W M CD M w --► O w O N W Ut 4 (0 -► V -� V w N N to V 4 6 � .a
N O w O V O cn W O 1 -y Cn w w cn -1 -► Cn Cn w .N w N -► CD
U7 N
CD CD
w w Cn O O V O N -+ w V w U1 cn Cn w v - p 3
c0 N c0 V w w Cn N w w •P w W O O CD -+ Cn Cn W N Cn 4 4 -+ N
Cn w N 4 V w V 0 w W Cn 4 O w CD M V W cD M w V W — 0 O
C
w w ww w w w w w w w w w w w CO w CO w w w w CO CO CO S
co Co c0 (D cD c0 C0 co (0 co (D CO (0 (D (0 O CO (0 cD (D CD (D co co co 'COD
V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V
V V V V V V V V V -I V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V
U7 �
c c li p m
3 3 P. co co W N 1 -+ -r N N N co N N
W w
0
D0 OV O «OO CO cW O CpN C
II, w 0) C0 (n W w Cn — O CJl W w Cn w N -� Cn N W 4 N w c0 w w
V V 4 W V -• V V w O N — 0) .4. (D Cn w o) O CD w 4 co Co 4 � c-
>
D —I CD
A A P -n `<
co N W .A N W .P .? W •A � •P N W .P W O
a c2 (D N -` ` j V (n W W N -+ - w V 1 V w Cn V
Cn V V (n V w 4 A N W N V w (D V V V V V V w w (n V 0) � =rO
= O c0 O C0 4 4 V 0. (0 -� 4 (0 CO (0 (0 CO CO O m O (0 Cn N L
0 0 N N U7 N O Cn O 4 4 N Na) (D N N 4 N N N O 0) 0) N w N C
N cn
CD
_� t0
< < N 0) w CD p = CA
Q CL O 4 cn -+ W V O (D V N V O
(n CD CD (n W 'Co Cb Cn Cn _0 O N -+ Co 7
C a C]. c: • V w w w —
�
3 ss cr 3 0) - V rn cn V (0 C)
O � o O V O r i -j CA (n W O O ¢)
Dc c D (n = <
CD 3 3 CCDD W co -� w P s CD -j w 0) ► = - C
p o 0 p N Cn Co W 4 O ()) V w (0 O 3
-~ n
p O W -• Ut N a)
CSD = = CD a) A 0) 0) V c0 w Cn w -► O .Ca [A .p " CD
0 ( N cn i w w 4 w w � � � � � � M � O 4 Cn � --• CO CD � r � V Co 0) (N
_p O o _0 1 •NP
co
cD (n -n Q W -• W —-p
C L o C2 10 w W Co V W (n co w CO V CD �_ W -Tl
O "'. In 4 Co ...� Cn � ) 'C3 ".
CrN Q w (J1 O N •P w coO co V
�< cn co O Cn V (D N Cn w c0 W O O Cn 4 -► = n
P CD w i r 4 i O CO O w O CO V w W CDCIO �j<�
D
w p Cn
V N V w w Cn N VSD
3 w �,
rP O CS
V w Ln Ln -L W 0) co N O f � O CD
Cp .+
NN
V , Cn � � � � � � O � � 4 w � 'a CO co � � r w W � -- CO �1
Ut co N W (n N (0 4 O W 0) N Co O O (D X
V I W(i!c W O -+ (0 O w 0) 0) O CO w 0 0 0-cn
V -+ O O CA V w O W E •A• V N a) O O n
3
-+ N -► -` CO co W O N V -` O 4 W O O '"
FF
o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -p
(D
3
(D
a
EXHIBIT A - Page 17 of 22
CITY OF ATASCADERO
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
'lot H yH
o O O _
Hh � �D � ~•
r o
n ~ �
O
CD
N � �
� O N
U-1CD
O
p �
O
O
EXHIBIT A - Page 18 of 22
CITY OF ATASCADERO
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
r
CSi W W N 014N
o o W o 0 0
0
. n
O
A
EXHIBIT A - Page 19 of 22
CITY OF ATASCADERO
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
al
IF
� CTI � W W W ,rte`' •� ,
r+
� O
CD W
o �
�►. r+
EXHIBIT A - Page 20 of 2;
CITY OF ATASCADERO
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
pCSD � � c�—l- •
~ ~ c-i- ~
' r+ Oloot
(� N •
�- (D W
ooto �; �►
r+ �' •
cin � �-►• CD O �,'. � p' �'• �,, W
�..� `17
cooto
rmool-
�Jawoma, co
r � 1 C!1
OrQ �' sy y �q ►—r•
CD
roto
(D n O O
�. .
O ~ `C
O
� a o
1
� CD m
� _. �• sv � a —• y
m
cn � m
EXHIBIT B - Page l of 23
CITY OF ATASCADERO
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
3057 S. Higuera St. , Sp. 155,
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 .1 .
10 July 97
Community Development Dept. ,
990 Palm St. ,
.San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 .
ATTN: Glen Matteson,
Associate Planner
Dear Sir:
I would like to offer the following comments regarding the Revised
Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Proposed Salinas Reservoir
Expansion Project. Although I have been a resident of San Luis Obispo
since last December, prior to that time I was a resident of Atascadero
for 37 years and still own a home in that city. Iii addition, I have
been a member of the City Planning Commission ( 1988-92) and twice
a member of the City Council ( 1979-82, 1994-96) . I am currently a
member of the North County Water Task Force.
1 . ES-15: All new oak acreages should be specified to be located
in the North County.
2. ES-19, Visual & Aesthetics: The inundated, dead trees should not
be removed. They provide excellent cover for fish populations.
David Highland, DFG Fishery Habitat Restoration progrem ( 805)
466-0341 , has done extensive habitat restoration at the lake
over the past 5 years and should be consulted on this.
3. 2. 4-10: As a long-time fisherman at the lake, I find the loss
of the White Oak launching facility and the proposed mitigation
to be unacceptable. The current [carina facility has the capacity
to launch 3 boats simultaneously and the White Oak two. A single
launching ramp, with expanded vehicle parking, will create
launching and retrieval congestion, at times of high usage, which
do not currently exist. The proposed mitigation will not correct
this problem.
4. 3.5-22, par. 2: "many years" is too indefinite. Suggest a .figure
--- 10 yrs, 20 yrs, 40 yrs?
5. ES-7 & following, Alternatives: There is no consideration of the
availability of water, as demonstrated in a 1974 study (as per
Fred Strong) , in the 7 Sisters & Los Osos Valley corridors. Why
not?
16. 3.13-3: "Non-residential growth should not out-pace residential
growth" . The current jobs/housing ratio of 1 .27 indicates this
has not been enforced in the recent past No mention is made of
potential new jobs in the City due to proposed population growth.
Why not? Will such jobs increase maintain or increase the current
ratio?
EXHIBIT B - Page 2 of 23
CITY OF ATASCADERO
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
3.13-11 , Table 3. 13-1 : Population figures in this table include
the population of Cal Poly. .A footnote states that Cal Poly has
a separate water entitlenjerit. If this is true, why include Cal
Poly's population a table which relates City water
requirements to population projections? If one subtracts an
estimated CP population ( 16M) from the 1997 City figure (45M) ,
one is talking of a water related City population of 29M. This
would project to a 2002 figure of 30.5M and a 2022 figure of
only 37M.
8. ES-14, Water Resources/Quality: I-litigation Measures: This
recommended measure is not currently considered to be feasible".
This section needs to be revised to correct potential misinter-
pretation by the public. While the statement is technically
correct, the Atascadero hearing (9 July) clearly demonstrated
fosters a public interpretation that the City of SLO is
unwilling to enter into a regional management agency. I know
this interpretation is incorrect. Perhaps an additional statement,
indicating the City's willingness to 'enter such an agency (if
& when it is formed) , would eliminate the misinterpretation.
10. Analysis submitted by Bob Roos: The analyses submitted raise
legitimate questions regarding the DEIR' s statistical methodology.
Woodward-Clyde needs to justify the methodology used and explain
why they consider Roos ' methodology is not justified regarding
the project impact on spill outflow. It is well-known that
statistics are subject to multiple interpretations (I have over
40 years experience in statistical analyses) , so the credibility
and impartiality of the City' s "experts" must be firmly
established.
Sincerely,
George P. Lighland
ADERO
�Ofi V�: �' ��� �n EXHIBIT B - Page 3 of 23
E Rllnas Reservoir Expansion Pro ect CITY CO NCILATASMINUTES P � CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
The Project
This project will install a gate in the existing spillway of Santa Margarita Lake dam
to raise the lake spill elevation from the existing 1301'to 1320'..1 This will increase
the storage capacity of Santa Margarita Lake about 18,000 acre feet. 23,843
acre feet to 41,792 acre feet.'. Lake size will increase from 730 acres to 1195
acres.3
The City of San Luis Obispo has a permit to store 45,000 acre feet and to take up
to 12.4 cubic feet per second from the reservoir.4. 12.4 cubic feet per second
equates to 8977.2 acre feet per year.' The pipeline system to the treatment
facility has a limitation of 9410 acre feet per years
Water usage by the city of San Luis Obispo since 1980 has been as little as 490
acre feet/year (90-91) and as much as 7272 acre feet/year (83-84), the average
use has been 4304 acre feet/year (1980-1996).'
The safe annual yield from the combined operation of the Whale Rock and Salinas
reservoirs is now estimated to be 7235 AFY, this project will increase that by 1650
AFY to 8885 AFY. Groundwater supplies the city with 500 AFY.'
The City of San Luis Obispo has estimated they will need 11,596 AFY for their
estimated buildout population by the year 2022.9
An analysis of reservoir operations should presume the city will eventually use
somewhere near their permitted amount of water.
Reservoir History
Water flow into the reservoir has averaged 23,652 AFY. The low was 772 AFY in
76-77 and the high was 99,842 AFY in 82-83. Rainfall averaged 1,107.98 AFY.
Livestream maintenance used an average of 2,183.79 AFY, losses from
evaporation averaged 2,769.61 and city usage was an average of 4,477.39 AFY."
Analysis
This project will lesson the amount of water that flows in the Salinas river through
Atascadero, Templeton, Paso Robles and other downstream points. The question
is how much of a reduction? The EIR calculates the average annual effect of this
' Section 2.4.2.1, page 2.4-3
2 Section 2.1, page 2.1-1
3 Section 3.2.1.1.2, page 3.2-1
4 Section 3.4.1.1, page 3.4-1, One acre foot = 43,560 cubic feet or 325,851 gallons
5 12.4 cu ft X 60 sec/min. X 1440 min./day X 365 days/yr. / 43,560 cu ft/ acre foot
e Section 3.4.1.1, page 3.4-1
' Table 3.4-1, page 3.4-30
6 Section 2.2.2, page 2.2-1
9 Section 2.2.2, page 2.2-1
'0 Table 3.4-2, page 3.4-32
Page 1
EXHIBIT B - Page 4 of 23
CITY OF ATASCADERO
Salinas Reservoir Expansion Project CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
project in Spreckels to be 0.45%. Paso Robles - 1.24%, Atascadero - 3.52% and at
the outlet of the dam - 6.45%.11
Drainage area for the Paso Robles gaging station = 390 square miles
Drainage area for the Salinas Reservoir= 112 square miles12
112/390 = 28.7%
Relationship of Dam Outlet Flow to Downstream
Flows.13
Year Rainfall Dam flow Atascadero % of Paso Robles % of
Paso AFY flow,AFY Dam flow flow,AFY Dam flow
Robles14
72 7.69" 1,145 2,660 43% 773 148%
73 23.15" 20,356 60,300 34% 144,558 14%
74 17.42 9,209 21,50043% 94,874 10%
75 12.79" 1,743 6,400 27% 36,651 5%
76 5.32" 867 1,720 50% 0 Undef
77 11.47" 528 1,820 29% 0 Undef
78 26.79" 69,286 140,500 49% 222,856 31%
79 13.95" 7,153 15,100 47% 36,553 20%
80 19.45" 52,365 94,200 56% 191,354 27%
81 12.31" 2,719 8,690 31% 34,211 8%
82 14.78" 15,650 38,600 41% 93,312 17%
83 27.20" 94,264 154,100 61010 380,594 25%
84 9.35" 2,859 9,650 30% 31,767 9%
85 9.56" 1,929 3,370 57% 8,750 22%
86 18.03" 35,048 35,600 98% 127,596 27%
87 8.8" 2,044 2,100 97% 3,985 51%
88 13.70" 1,982 2,100 94% 7,107 28%
89 7.69" 1,588 1,700 93% 4,612 34%
90 8.30" 825 1,042 79% 263 314%
91 857 8,884 10% 291200 3%
92 1,487 16,330 9% 56,776 3%
93 44,815 57,245 78% 208,314 22%
94 = 2,273 1 2,463 92% 5,420 42%
Ave 12.33" 1 18,223 1 29,829 61% 74,762 24%
The important question is: Does the raising of the spillway height and making the
reservoir capable of storing an additional 18,000 acre feet matter to the north
county? This table which shows that 61% of the Salinas river flow through
Atascadero and 24% of the Salinas river flow through Paso Robles comes from the
facility in question, and the fact that almost 30% of the drainage basin could be
Tables 3.4-17, 15, 14, 13
t2 Table 3.4-3, page 3.4-33
13 Tables 3.4-13, 14 & 15
t4 Rainfall records from Historical data at Paso Robles City Water Works
Page 2
EXHIBIT B - Page 5 of 23
CITY OF ATASCADERO
Salinas Reservoir Expansion Project CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
retained and diverted out of the basin suggests that this project could have serious
consequences for the north county.
Calculation of the Average
So why do Tables 3-4.13, 14 & 15 say otherwise? A 6.45%flow reduction at the
dam, 3.52% in Atascadero and 1.24% in Paso Robles do not seem to be significant
impacts. There are several pieces to this puzzle.
1. The calculated effect is an average. The years when there was no spill flow
because it was a dry year are included as well as the years like 77-78 and 82-83
when there was a lot of flow. But what really is of interest is those years when
there is a modest amount of flow. Or after several dry years and then one or
two average years then another dry spell.
2. The next piece of the puzzle is again associated with that average. Each of the
tables has rows of numbers and the bottom row is the average of those
numbers. One would expect the project impact average to have been obtained
by dividing average"Project Impact"by average "Historic Spill"just as was
done for each of the years in question. But what actually was done was to add
up the"Project Impact V numbers, including all the zeros for those dry years,
and divide by 24. The difference is illustrated below:
At Dam Atascadero Paso Robles
Project Impact Total/24 6.45% 3.52% 1.24%
(EIR)15
Ave Project Impact 11.2% 6.6% 2.6%
/Historic Spill
3. It is useful to think what this project is really about, increased usage of the
water in the Salinas reservoir. And because that is the case it would be more
illustrative to determine what would the ongoing effect of this project would be if
the high usage were in effect for several years. To do that divide the "Project
Impact AF"by the "Existing Dam 10,000 AFY Demand, Total Flow Below
Dam". Doing that would change the Project Impact in the years there was an
impact to the following percentages:
Year 73 174 78 1 79 80 182 83 84 86 93 95 Ave
EIR 33% 13% 16% 16% 2% 14% .6% 6% 9% 40% 1 6% 11.2%
Alternate 60% 19% 19% 21% 2% 18% .6% 7% 10% 56% 1 7% 13.1%
method
Not much of difference most years but the numbers for 1973 and 1993 do vary
quite a bit.
4. Another questionable aspect of the tables is the construction of the spread
sheet that calculated what the flow reductions would be if the dam were raised
and the city increased their usage to the permitted value.
15 Tables 3.4-13, 14, 15
Page 3
EXHIBIT B - Page 6 of 23
CITY OF ATASCADERO
Salinas Reservoir Expansion Project CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Table 3-4.13 in the EIR made two cases; one with the existing spillway height
and a city usage of 10,000 AFY, and one with the spillway height raised - again
with a city usage of 10,000. In the six years between 1986 and 1992, all dry
years, the input to the reservoir in the form of rain and stream inflow was only
40,216 AF. This had to supply 60,000 AF to the city plus 8,786 AF to supply ,
the live stream and 11,459 AF evaporated.
Start = 40K
In =40K
Out = 60K+ 9K+ 11K= 80K
40K+ 40K- 80K= 0
This simple calculation seems to indicate the reservoir would be empty at the
start of the 92-93 year and of the 51,699 AF that went into the reservoir that
year" all of it would have gone either to the city or to fill up the reservoir or to
the live stream or lost to evaporation. But Table 3-4.13 says the next year
12,565 AF were spilled.
A spread sheet for a raised dam and 10,000 AFY city usage was made using the
historical values in Table 3-4.2 for Rainfall, Inflow, Live stream'releases and
Evaporation. The amount of water in storage at the end of year 70-71 was
used as the starting point. This made it a simple number crunch to balance the
inputs and outputs to calculate the year end storage levels. Using the Table 3-
4.2 values for evaporation and rainfall is considered to be a conservation
assumption.
The calculations did not agree with Table 3-4.2 and showed flow reductions at
the dam from historical values of 34%. The volume of the spills decreased by
39%.
To review: Average numbers for the impact of the flow reductions at the dam and
we have gone from 6.45% to 11.2% then 13.1% and finally to 34%.
Does it matter? A review of table defining the percentage of river flow at
Atascadero and Paso Robles that was Salinas reservoir water seems to indicate
that this project will negatively impact water resources in the North County.
Mitigation
Does the EIR state there would be negative impacts to the north county from this
project? The following sections of the EIR state or suggest that it does.
3.4.1.2.1, Downstream Hydrology. "The river forms the western boundary of
the Paso Robles Groundwater Basin and contributes substantial quantities of
water to the aquifer."
3.4.2.2.3, "Ground Water Recharge. The primary potential impact of the
proposed project on groundwater resources would be the potential reduction in
t6 Table 3.4-2, page 3.4-32
Page 4
EXHIBIT B - Page 7 of 23
CITY OF ATASCADERO
Salinas Reservoir Expansion Project CITY COUNCIL MINUTEs
groundwater recharge in the downstream areas affected by the reduced annual
flow."
3.4.1.3.1 Paso Robles Groundwater Basin. "During the 1960's and early
70's, overdraft in the Paso Robles groundwater basin is estimated to have been
over 30,000 acre feet per year, and the water level in the aquifer had declined
at an average or 0.9 feet per year over the previous 10-15 years. (DWR, 1979)
In 1985 overdraft was estimated to have increased to 40,000 AFY(DWR
1991), and by 1993 the basin was estimated to have a net annual overdraft of
57,621 AFY(Fugro-McClelland, 1993a)."
5.2 Unavoidable Adverse Significant Effects - Water Resources/ uality
"However the cumulative effects of the project when considered with the overall
surface water diversions and groundwater withdrawals by all downstream users
could be considered a significant environmental impact, especially with respect
to groundwater quantity and quality, riparian habitat, and instream fishery
habitat."
The EIR considers Operation Mitigation measures in Section 3.4.3.1.3 and is willing
to consider potential mitigation measure Water- 3:
"Participation in a basin-wide management plan (that includes maintenance of
minimum flows at designated locations) if the majority of downstream surface
water and groundwater users agree to participate on an equal basis in order to
enable the plan to be effective. The authority to require and implement such a
basin-wide plan for the Salinas River is not within the jurisdiction of the city, thus
this potential mitigation measure is not currently considered to be feasible."17
The city does not have authority to implement a basin-wide management plan but
the mitigation measure can still be implemented in at least one manner: Expand
the live stream agreement. An example of what could be done is as follows:
"When the live stream no longer exists, 30% of the water volume contained above
1301' on the date the live stream ceased to exist will be used to maintain a live
stream until that water volume is exhausted or alive stream again exists due to
rainfall. The manner of operation of the 30% water volume above 1301'may be
modified by a basin wide water management plan if one is established among the
various water interests of the upper Salinas river valley
" Section 3.4.3.1.3, page 3.4-29
Page 5
EXHIBIT B — Pa.,e
city Of atasca+�, -c
• 1O coity Council
Cn 0 W N CoCCo CO Co 00 Cp W W
Co 4 CO CO w
CA O O O CO CO CO W N O O Co V V V V V V V m
I CJ1 �a W N 0 0 CnWp W N Co V V V V V V II1
•t� N •p V W Cn �, W
p O p y N W p W p N
O N N W W ..; N - W j W -+ �' W N W W (n rt7
O -+ p O A W V V CO - O W Co W _.Cn N 4i m
i' N N N W -a O Co O CO A N N --4 CoVV (� W Ca N 3 CCD
.� N j N N N p• N Cn N � -1 C O
- W
N 00 Co O W W �` W -4
1 W W O p' CO .a --t Cn - -` =4
in
Co O N CA Ca
(0C)
W N CoWa W V CA �.
O . V C ) A CSD C) Al
W _
N N W Cn CO
V Cb Cn UVi W W CO Cn p. V W O CO A -` W �.
v Cn
O I W V p N CNTt C43 C j N Cn Ca -moi W pW
C N CA W V p W
QI_ W W .. N � N
to O Cp N Ca W Cb W O _ N j
O W W N N W d0 Cn N W p V O N -+ W - _ _ "` -+ CD C<-p
V Co V W W A C11 W O O _V C o Cn CIl - __ tli
o W O O O V W (n W N C) P �i 3
� (0
p- -p _O` '•''' N N Np O
O1O p p Np 00
I, pOppOp 0 C�)` C)` C)-+ O
pp p 0) pO pp0 ppO0 C) O
A-'
vsCnN Om
C Co (0 W
W W N W O (n
p Cn W j V V O p O _ - _ W (,�j N Co A) < CSvn
I V V CD CO N cl) CD ••A m O C�WO '�W �• D fD
=c �' Co N cD
Al NO CO ap O CJ N 1 . N W A N ``
O p W W 4 W O
iU V CJt O V W W _• W O , 0 Cb a) CO N (aj N W W W . Ca
_ O W N N CD
W V N -� CrQ WD v N CO CO V O O W O W OJ CIt . - w X
3 — Q ' CT Cb CO CT1 0 0 (?1 O V Ca M Co V Cn
W O O W M Ate)
n c(D N CL O lD O j N N y p, N W N Cn p N CO CD p C
-• = 3 _ -+ Cb O W N -+ N W p
N N V N
W WW
�O O pjW N � m
O O
V j49 OCD
N) r\) N WO v(0 (00 00 C7OCD
CO NpN NN
N
n N W K) Cnc— -< O O
Cn CD A N CO -'
•A Co N -4 4N6 �a
WVOv . -` '' °3 Dtn
4 N -4 A Cn W V O 4 Cb A � 3 -0
c OC") N W v Co -+ CO V 0)
Q W ' W
W
CD O W CO -+ W
CD CCD -w O O) N Cn CJ -4
CD
CD (D 4 O W .. � Cn Cp =
CY)
p O) N W -+ N - OJ Cp _
W ' (On i p n COCO � O O V C"jO•
W j
CO V Cn --a O �• Q
N c0 V O V Ca
V Cn CA _. N - 00 CO
Cb N , O jCo
CLn _ W N O O VCD
_
i CO W Co v o
CO CO .y
(n InV p j
V O Cn b)CO V ' Cn ' ' O � C
' C� Nj 44 O -QN-I
CD
' O W ' '
Co
Co ' '= W
EXHIBIT B - Page 9 of 23
CITY OF ATASCADERO
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
TABLE 3.4-14
ANALYSIS OF REDUCED FLOWS AT ATASCADERO'
Reductions(AF) Estimated Flow(AF)
Historic Historic- Historic- Raised Existing Dam Raised Dam Estimated Estimated
Flow Existing Raised Dam 10,000 AFY 10,000 AFY Project Impact(%of
Year (AF) Dam Dam Impact Demand Demand Impact Existing Flow)
72 2,660 716 716 0 1,944 1,944 0 0.00
73 60,300 8,948 15,750 6,802 51,352 44,550 6,802 11.28 l�
74 21,500 2,728 3,949 1,221 18,772 17,551 1,221 5.68
75 6,400 0 0 0 6,400 6,400 0 0.00
76 1,720 0 0 0 1,720 1,720 0 0.00
77 1,820 0 0 0 1,820 1,820 0 0.00
78 140,500 9,313 20,646 11,333 131,187 119,854 11,333 8.07
79 15,1001 1,855 2,964 1,109 13,245 12,136 1,109 7.34
80 94,2001 2.597 3,550 953 91,603 90,650 953 1.01
81 8,690 0 0 0 8,690 8,690 0 0.00
82 38,600 3,448 5,587 2,140 35,152 33,013 2,140 5.54
83 154,100 4,079 4,621 541 150,021 149,479 541 0.35
84 9,650 488 650 161 9,162 9,001 161 1.67
85 3,370 0 0 0 3,370 3,370 00.00
86 35,600 3,150 6,385 3,235 32,450 29,215 3,235 9.09
87 2,1001 0 0 0 2,100 2,100 0 0.00
88 21100 0 0 0 2,100 2,100 0 0.00
89 --1,7001 0 0 0 1,700 1,700 0 0.00
90 1,0421 0 0 0 1,042 1,042 0 0.00
91 8,884 0 0 0 8,884 8,884 0 0.00
92 16,330 0 0 0 16,330 16,330 0 0.00
93 57,245 13,255 31,013 17,758 43,990 26,232 17,758 31.02
94 2,463 0 0 01 2,463 2,463 0 0.00
Average 29,829 2,199 4,167 1,9681 27,6301 25,6631 1,9681 3.52
' Source: modeling based on estimated historic flow data developed using Morro Group methodology(Morro Group,
1991)(note: no gaging station data are available for Atascadero).
*-�PROJU16B131D\97EIRi3-4TABS.XLS 5/8/97 3.4-44
EXHIBIT B - Page. 10 of-'2;
CITY OF ATASCADERO
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
TABLE 3.4-15
ANALYSIS OF REDUCED FLOWS AT PASO ROBLES`
Reductions(AF) Estimated Flow(AF)
Historic Historic Historic- Raised Existing Dam Raised Darn Estimated Estimated
Flow Existing Raised Darn 10,000 AFY 10,000 AFY Project Impact(%of
Year (AF) Dam Dam Impact 1 Demand Demand Impact Existing Flow)
72 773 716 716 01 57 57 0 0.00
73 144,558 8,948 15,750 6.802 135,610 128,808 6,802 4.71
74 94,874 2, 28 3,949 1,221 92,146 90,925 1,221 1.29
75 36,651 0 0 0 36,651 36,651 0 0.00
76 0 Q 0 0 0 0 0 0.00
77 0 0 0 01 0 0 0 0.00
78 222,856 9,313 20,646 11,333 213,543 202,210 11,333 5.09
79 36,553 1,855 2,964 1,109 34,698 33,589 1,109 3.03
80 191,354 2,597 3,550 953 188,757 187,804 953 0.50
81 34,211 0 0 0 34,211 34,211 0 0.00
82 93,312 3,448 5,587 2,140 89,864 87,725 2,140 2.29
83 380,5941 4,079 4,621 541 376,515 375,973 541 0.14
84 31,767 488 650 161 31,279 31,118 161 0.51
85 8,750 0 0 0 8,750 8,750 0 0.00
86 127,596 3,150 6,385 3235 124,446 121,211 3,235 2.54
87 3,985 0 0 0 3,985 3,985 0 0.00
88 7,107 0 . 0 01 7,107 7,107 0 0.00
89 4,612 0 0 0 4,612 4,612 0 0.00
90 263 0 0 0 263 263 0 0.00
91 29,200 0 0 0 29,200 29,200 0 0.00
92 56,776 0 0 0 56,776 56,776 0 0.00
93 208,314 13,255 31,013 17,758 195,059 177,301 17,758 8.52
94 5,420 0 0 0 5,420 5,420 0 0.00
Average 74,762 2,199 4,167 1,968 72,563 70,595 1,968 1.24
1 Source: modeling based on historic gaging station flow data(USGS, 1995).
WAPROJ1916B731D197EIR%3 4TA8S.XLS 5/8197 3.4-45
EXHIBIT B - Page 11 of 2;
CITY OF�'ATASCADERO
GI' N."'I . NIGHU,t
O
Robert L. Roos July�, 1ITy 967UNCIL MINUTES
2550 Homestead Rd.
Templeton, CA 93465
805 466 656,1-
Glenn Matteson
Planning Department
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Re: Comments of Draft EIR for Salinas Dam Expansion Project
Dear Mr. Matteson,
I would like to offer the following comments on the downstream effects of the
raising the spillway height of the Salinas Reservoir from it's present 1301'to 1320'.
In my opinion there would be significant negative downstream effects to this
project to the upper reaches of the Salinas River valley. In Section 5.2 of the
DEIR the statement is made that the average downstream flow reductions are
relatively small compared to the overall historic flows in the Salinas River. I
disagree and will make a case for my opinion.
Tables 3.4-13, 14, 15 are spread sheets used to determine the yearly project
impacts for the Dam outlet, Atascadero and Paso Robles. Yearly impacts were
determined by dividing the reduction in spill flow to the historic flow for each year.
The Average Project Impact is given as:
• 6.45%, 3.52%and 1.24%.
Those values were calculated by adding the yearly averages and dividing by the
number of years in the table. That certainly is one way of doing it but, if the
"Average Estimated Project Impact (in AFY)" is divided by "Average Historic
Total Flow (again in AFY)", the percentages of impact are somewhat higher:
• 11.2% 6.6% and 2.6%.
But comparing project impact to historic flow is incorrect. The project impact was
determined by comparing calculated river flows for two cases. Case one was the
existing spillway height and a city usage of 10,000 AFY and the case two was for
an identical city usage with a raised dam. Therefore "Project Impact" should be
divided by the case two flows. Doing so gives estimated Project Impacts of:
• 13.1%, 7.1% and 2.7%
However the concern is the loss of water volume in the river during the wet years
when flushing of the river takes place. It is illustrative to compare the percentage
of reduction of spill flows from the reservoir for the two cases. From Table 3.4-13
The average "Project Impact" (2041 AF) divided by the average "Existing Dam,
10,000 AFY Demand - Spill(AF)" (13,302 AF) equals:
Page 1
EXHIBIT B - Page 12 of 23
CITY OF ATASCADERO
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
• 15.3%
That same method of calculating the "Project Impact V should be applied to
Tables 3.4-13, 14 and 15. Doing so will increase the Estimated Project Impact for
each year there was a spill. The table below illustrates the change in estimated
impacts for spill flow below the dam:
Case One Case Two
Calculated Spill Calculated Spill Project Impact % Impact
Existing Dam Raised Dam Case One less Calculated by
Height, 10,000 Height, 10,000 Case Two Dividing Impact
AF Demand AF Demand by Case One
73 11,000 4,198 6,802 62%
74 5,339 4,118 1,221 23%
78 58,436 47,103 11,333 19%
79 3,738 2,629 1,10 30%
80 47,914 46,961 953 2%
82 10,807 8,668 2,140 20%
83 89,075 88,534 541 0.6%
84 161 - 161 100%
86 11,145 7,910 3,235 29%
93 30,323 12,565 17,758 59%
95 51,302 47,577 3,725 7.3%
Total 319,240 270,263 48,978 15.34%
Ave / 24 13,302 11,261 2,041 15.34%
Ave / 11 1 29,022 24,569 4,452 15.34%
Sum of the Averages Divided by the 24 Years of Table 3.4-13 14.63%
Sum of the Averages Divided by the 11 Years a Spill Occurred 31.91%
Pursuing this logic a step further, the major concern to the north county is the
reduction is spill flow and not the reduction in total flow. This concern is based on
"cleansing flow" and occasionally having massive amounts of water to increase the
hydraulic pressure to "recharge the basins" to name but two. Therefor one could
say with some justification that adding up the Impact percentages and dividing by
only the years there was a spill provides a useful method of measuring overall
impact. That method of determining overall impact calculated a impact
percentage of: `
• 31.91% at the dam
All of these methods of determining the percentage of impact use the data supplied
in the DEIR and are mathematically correct, they are just different ways of
comparing the data.
However, in my opinion the methodology for determining impact is flawed because
the assumed city usage, 10,000 AFY, is from the cities two reservoirs. No
estimates of Salinas reservoir use alone are given. The usage patterns of today
and constraints placed on the model today may not be in use 50 years from now.
This EIR review process must evaluate the highest possible use from the
reservoir. Determining that number is difficult to do. Several maximum usage
rates are possible; the estimated safe annual yield of the reservoir, 7100 AFY(a
Page 2
EXHIBIT B - Page 13 of 23
CITY OF ATASCADERO
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
difficult number to determine), the maximum permitted value of 8977 AFY or the
maximum pumping capacity of 9409 AFY are all possibilities. Enclosed please find
spread sheets for two assumed uses of 7,100 and 8977 AFY.
For the 7100 AFY the "Average" percentage of impact of the spill reductions at the
dam were calculated several ways:
• Adding the impact percentages and dividing by the 25 years of the study- 21%
• Dividing the sum of the spill reductions by the sum of the historic flows - 19%
• Dividing the sum of the spill reductions by the sum of the historic spills - 21%
• Adding the impact percentages and dividing by the 13 years when a historic
spill occurred - 39%
And for the 8977 AFY demand case the Average" percentage of impact of the spill
reductions at the dam were again calculated several ways:
• Adding the impact percentages and dividing by the 25 years of the study - 30%
• Dividing the sum of the spill reductions by the sum of the historic flows - 29%
• Dividing the sum of the spill reductions by the sum of the historic spills - 33%
• Adding the impact percentages and dividing by the 13 years when a historic
spill occurred - 58%
In summary it can shown that the project impact can be calculated several ways
with results that vary from 6% to 58% and they are all ways of expressing what
the downstream effects of the spill reductions would be. It is overly simplistic to
take one value, such as 6.45%, and say there will be very little effect on the upper
Salinas River because of this project. It is equally misleading to state the effects of
this project are a 58% reduction in downstream flows without understanding the
basis for that number.
I believe a thorough evaluation of all the flow reduction data will lead any
reasonable body to conclude there will be significant spill reductions because of this
project and there will be negative impacts due to those downstream spill
reductions. These negative impacts will be manifested by:
• Lower recharge rates for the underground aquifers. At least one of which is
already determined to be in an overdraft condition. (DEIR Section 3.4.1.3.1
Paso Robles Basin)
• Reduction in water quality due to lower cleansing rates for the Salinas River.
The River receives treated effluent from at least two municipal sewage plants
as well as numerous non point source contaminants.
• Increased pumping costs for wells that depend on the Salinas River as their
source.
• Increased pumping costs for wells that pump from underground aquifers such
as the Atascadero sub Basin and the Paso Robles Basin.
• Property value reductions due to less water availability as underground basins
become increasingly overdrafted.
• Decreased dispersion of sand and gravel This will decrease the replenishment
of sand and gravel mines in the riverbed.
Page 3
EXHIBIT B - Page 14 of 2.3
CITY OF ATASCADERO
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
• Changes to instream vegetation. Occasional floods disrupt vegetation growing
in the river bed: If floods are decreased in intensity then vegetation will build up
to more compact masses and alter later flood flows.
Negative impacts require mitigation measures, Section 3.4.3.1.3 of the DEIR did
consider operational mitigation measures and states the city was willing to
consider potential mitigation measure Water- 3: "Participation in a basin-wide
management plan(that includes maintenance of minimum flows at designated
locations) if the majority of downstream surface water and groundwater users agree
to participate on an equal basis in order to enable the plan to be effective. The
authority to require and implement such a basin-wide plan for the Salinas River is
not within the jurisdiction of the city, thus this potential mitigation measure is not
currently considered to be feasible."
True, the city does not have authority to implement a basin-wide management
plan but this mitigation measure can still be implemented by expanding the live
stream agreement. An example of what could be done is as follows:
"When the live stream no longer exists, 30%of the water volume contained above
1301'on the date the live stream ceased to exist will be used to maintain a live stream
until that water volume is exhausted or a live stream again exists due to rainfall.
The manner of operation of the 30% water volume above 1301'may be modified by a
basin wide water management plan if one is established among the various water
interests of the upper Salinas river valley."
Example: If the reservoir level on the day the live stream ceased to exist was
33,843 AF then 30 % of the excess above 23,843 or 3,000 acre feet
(30% of 10,000 AF) would be released in an attempt to maintain the
live stream. The release would cease once rain restored the live stream
or all of the 3,000 AF had all been released.
During years when the water volume does not exceed 23,843 acre feet then there
would no change from the present,live stream agreement.
Because the north county would be receiving additional water during months when
the Salinas river would not normally be flowing the negative impacts of this project
would be somewhat mitigated.
The basis for the 30% is the average of the percentage reduction in spills for the 11
years spills occurred in Table 3.4-13, see page 2 of this letter. If 30 % spill
reductions are to be expected because of this project then setting aside 30 % of the
additional water as a mitigation measure seems appropriate.
Because simply extending the live stream may not be the best way to mitigate the
effects of this project if a basin wide water management plan is established among
the various water interests of the upper Salinas river valley, then that plan may
determine better mitigation measures and then they can be implemented using the
30% of the "new"water.
Sincerely,
Robert L. Roos
Page 4
EXHIBIT B - Page 15 of 23
CITY OF ATASCADERO
- CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
m C4
a
A 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
In 00 J J J J J J J J
? w N O �O— oo J O� to �. w N .. O 00 V G1 Lr a w N Co
W
V °
m
c
cn
y N tJ A 00 00 w oo to N o0 00 to oo to U to 00 --1 L1 A.. v c9
t0 V ? N O �D —
W U C` W N G1 ? ? O N
vi CT N J J J C.n 00 N A W t0 p V1 tp ? C J 00 V w N 00 %O
y crcr
f7t N
O H % _ to th a .� N•
tp L^ _w ? O tr v 00In
W
Go O\ J t0 Vii LA tN/� 1Ad O �O J C7•
00 C O O O C G In 0 0 ? to O •.. w �0 O O O J 0�o a\
b � w
�O
CO
N tWA N A to N NN n
r0 O -1
N W N 00 00 00 i0 �O b O �O oo N a% V W
N W J 00 In N 00 00 ? ? N to CA to ON0 N 00 NO W O
W rn
00 W LA J J N Oo N A 00 C;% 00 J W
H
r
�-. 00 k w cc
C%A t � an
wo r
w o = o Jwo�o
c, 00 WW o :c y
N N O W O O O C O O to O -- to J O :A. 0 0 0 O O C)
SO
b o n
LA a
oc y r
N -' '-•• N O N N to �0 -- CT = 1,7)
f11 t� N t o A 00 00 to �0 O 00 �0 W tJ J J N to 00 �.1 J� L A W �r •�+
••� W �O V tT oo to N 00 00 ? %0 N J 00 C ,.- b J N C� ? Oo O N
W00 ? W O J J l.n Dv N A 00 %0 C H N %O 00 00 W 00 J W — 00 t000
cn
N �VJi •VNi J 00 00 CT N J p ? > O
ON LAJ CN C% t1i
t0 to G1 �O L• .- O
O MM
to O O O O O O 0 O O 000 O CW O C O 00 %4D O y N
'-i
WOAoNw �- Nt(= oo
� -- -0110, A _ a *
N 00 V 0 O N ? 00
A J iV Oo 00 00 In �O O G1 ON O �1 00 — p� to 00 J N � A v Cy O
�O Q\. J O W to N 00 Oo ? C\ .A ON --
J t0 W N J J to 00 N W ? w �0 to Ic O 000 J W O CCD � G
y x
a •
N W W W ? W N �- tp N 00 u O
000 C%00 N WCJS ? O to 0 0 0 0 0 t0 00 O v V1 w 0 0 Cl 000 00 a\ '
�7
� ..••ter O �
NJ � C60 ^gni
O W lA C9
N 0�0 00 LA N 000 Vii CC1 A J J C's•
atoow0000 ootnoo voo ? o� 000t�'ooa 3 C7
0 °
N to - W N O C7 0
v
►•+ VNi O 0 000 0 0 0 0 0 0 trwi O A O O W tCO W 0 0 0 — N O
C1 to O `0 O O O O p 0 t0 O th O W O to Oti 0 0 0 W W
A C1 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 tJ O O\ N� 01 O 00 th W
CA ►�- O W O O O O O O W O W J J O N O CT O O O CT N O
�4
K
,,R••-•�
EXHIBIT B - Page 16 of 23
CITY OF ATASCADERO
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
0
a
o
� o
�O �O t0 %0 %0 %0 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 CO 00 J J J J J J J J J J
O lO oo J O" to t, It, N
O lD o0 -rt O` o O
00 00 00 00 00 00 00 0 00 J J J J J J J !J J `0
ooJQ\ W A wN • CD L
� tr � w N �— ^�
� o
y N N to N �N IV N IJ N tJ N N N N N tJ tJ tJ N N N N N t.N tJ N N ^ ' CD
00 �O O �O �O �O 00 A to O� 00 110 00 t0 t0 �D %0 %0 �O J 00 �0 %0 %0 Oo
m N �O 00 O N 00 Oo .-• W J 00 N -1 th Vf �0 w ON W 00 00 -c. W J 00 go A lA CD
O A LA Cs J a tJ �D C\ O` -- Ja O\ t•n is J :.1 :. �0 W �D r7 A LA C% ON W %0
4 O' h+ �a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cl 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 C5
'cn �•
O
O
N N N N N N N N N N
N 00N w 00 N N N N •A v N J� �D N N O N N om ? W A. Ja LA N A�
tolJ ti V v O In N_
m 00 CA w Cl 0T O w D., ON In A d J O Z A
cn J •- Q\ w J p91 `r A A to Q\ N Oo 0% O to A
� v C\ C� �D C� •- �''� J 'A 00 w O Q\ C� GO 00 t.A O O 00 O O � 00 O C '..� t~
z
ja twl tr N w -• A •� N U Q\ � O� J v� C\ C\ th O� N N Q\ In v, to t!� w �•
ai 00 %0 ON 10 00 m th to J �l In tJ -- tJ Q\ W O J Q` to O — to w
J J %0 J tD 00 M 00 w %D tr A J 00 J A. O O A N O N 00 t0 00 00
J .A 0o O lJi �O •A �O J tD O" N w to N to lh O w -- A oo N J .%I �
W %D N i>0 \0 V p A O \D W 00 00 J O 00 %0 v tJ O tJ %0 \0 �D v ti
t0 b Ot 0 0 O O O Cl O O O O O C O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 p�
6<7 �
o y
00 N NO .. N .. N — _ a A 0 O cn p
to t0 O "_.a t0 N �. w �] a0 in t!� �,•� J p N �. .a < b r
CO N �D J W. 00 C\ ,A DO 00 A LA to Vl w J O\ A 11 �0 00 > l9 .�•
Po O% CT to w p J :-1 O � vwi Q O W
N +� LA tJ 60 N J p p C\ � G � oo O� •� v \0 O 10 � p p N C\ p p c�
�D •A �-- O O O O Cl O C O O O O O O O O O O y = W H
N
_ Oma,
A A w a O to J co
p w O w c) O O O O O N O
O W C O O CO 0 0 0 V' O N A O O O J O
90C>J C O O O O O O L^ A 0 CO 0 0 00 00 O v
JW O J p O p ti
CyD Q. O
N
N w .-
:1 Z. b. t0 10 � w O�a \0 -4 A -4 J J O_ O O tJ 00 O N w v w J ^ b
CT m ON t0 kA W 0o to O " w 00 to w N In N w A N Q1 �O 00 00 N > O
W O\ O\ Q\ 00 Oo N t1� A u' A U O` 0 00 00 A J 00 w -
O� lV A O %D " C, O� -- 00 tJ tV 1.0w 6o U w A -1 t.) 0 \0 W w .moi
r+ w to �0 O C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 G
a
00
►.+ �-.. N 00 00 W ... N lA .A �` O, `p W :' tD N t!� W •.. ..-. .-.
C W W A �A w O OJO w J tA N CT 00 p N ON 00
a C\ � .r a 000 N a
;a •- o a w wa oo �Do aao
A _ W O J v p J i"
tG 11 W W w tQ O O N W O w N " 0 0 00 L, O O �"'� �•
00 N W O O 0 0 O O O 0 0 0 O
O
w N W r0 %0 A \0 :D A 00 !V C\ ,•,.
to J 00J a Ji J t'•� !-J N A N W N O\ W .�. w W >
V ^J'
N O O U w -3 p NN -• N N A p p J O -0 O
J O O O 0, O O O O O -,,
A 0J Ja N O t) O p 0 0 0 p O 0 0 0 0 0 0 CD p p p C 0 0 CD
Ch O� tD O O O O O O O O O Cl O
EXHIBIT B - Page 17of 23
CITY OF ATASCADER0
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Revised Draft EIR Report for the Proposed Salinas Reservoir Expansion project
Permit 5882 for 45,000 AFY of storage with yap to 12.4 CFS of direct diversion.
Dam currently 930 acres plus additional 395 acres.
Safety: Earthquake and Dam Failure
Diminished Supply of Water Downstream
Increase the water supply of City 1650 AFY - pretty expensive project for the amount of
increase to City. ES-1
6.45% base of dam, 3.52% Atascadero, 1.24% Paso Robles - seems to be a floating figure
ES-5 Maximum possible annual incremental reduction in downstream flow 17,949 AF.
ES-6 Not mitigatable since releasing more water downstream would not allow the
Project's goals to be met and further regulation of downstream users and management
practices is outside the purview of the City
ES-7 Nacimiento requested allocation by City 3380 AFY.
E8-8 Transfer H2O via pipeline from Salinas to Whale Rock. This alternative, if feasible
would reduce project-related inundation effects at Salinas since the storage capacity of
Salinas Reservoir would HOT be expanded.
ES-9 Raise spillway 9-10 would reduce inundation effects and downstream flow effects
associated with the proposed project.
ES-10 No Project Alternative would result in the least environmental effect however would
not meet project goals of City's projected water supply atm f approx. 3861 by 2022.
ES-11 Table ES-1 Many flawed mitigation impact decisions. Everything can not be
insignificant
ES-14 Table ES-1 17,949 AF reduction in downstream flow. Is this amount picked up
with the Nacimiento project Read whole Big Impact then Recommended Mit Measures.
Consider participation in it basin wide management plan. IMPORTANT WE CONSIDER
SUCH A PLAN AT SOME POINT TO SHARE IN THE AMOUNT OF NEW BACKUP FROM THE
LAKE. THE LOSS OF SPILL AND THE FILLING OF THE DAM DURING THE WET WINTER
MONTHS WILL NOT ALLOW FILLING AND CLEANSING OF THE PASO ROBLES AQUIFER.
MOST IMPORTANT.
ES-15 Tree ordinance? Apply to City and County? NOTE: 2:1 acreage ratio thought this
as 4:1
ES-18 Aquatic Ec. Calif Red Legged Frog- quite a few were found when the state H2O
line rupture occurred. Neat item no mitigation measures for North Salinas watershed due
to flow reductions in the winter months of the wet years.
ES-19 Visual and Aesthetics dead trees in the inundation tone. They surely don't intend
to leave dead trees in their new lakel
EXHIBIT B Page 18 of 23
CITY OF ATASCADERO
CITY COUNCIL 'MINUTES
ES-19 Traffic and Circulation- maybe workers could use existing camp areas.
ES-20 Growth inducement: What is true rate of growth. is this another Floating
Figure?
M21 Energy Use - Maybe use the idle hydroeleetrlo-re"ver facility would be wise at this
time.
ES-22 Cumulative Impacts: If the bottom line is according to
make the case of damage to the North County Can this � paragraph 3, then they
insignificant??????? County be considered
1-2 Historically the dam was not to provide water to the City, o
nly the Camp. Sait
does not make it no. SEE APPENDIX F PERMIT 5881 "AUTHORIZES USE OF WATER
WITHIN THE ARMY CANTONMENT AT CAMP SAN LUIS " There is no reference to the City
H2O until the permit 5882 was Sled by the City.READ ORDER REGARDING EXTENSION
OF TIME WITH PROTEST FILED. (LAST LIRE ON PAGE) NEXT PAGE READ #6
CONSTRUCTION WORK SHALL BE COMPLETED OR OR BEFORE SEPT. 30, 1970 WITH
APPLICATION OF THE WATER TO PROPOSED USE SHALL BE COMPLETED OR OR BEFORE
DEC. 1, 1981.) Very important Point.
#8 New Permit Condition. Why were the Cities not notified of this at the time. 8-7-95
Would seem to be another lobbying item slid thru and who is RJ
signing for Anton????
1-2 "Spillway gate not installed at the time of construction due to uncertainty regarding
geologic and faulting conditions"
2.1-1 2.1 Why are we storing 17,949 more AF if only 1650 AF safe yield is needed
2.1-2"downstream water use is small in comparison with normal runoff in the Jan
through April period and that it significant portion of this runoff shouldbe available for
and wet years in the foreseeable future"
storage and diversion by the City daring average
Maybe stored for use by North County for drought years,
2.2-1 "Protection of downstream water rights and users" Where is this addressed in
book?
2.2.3 "Other water supply Projectsconsidered"
Why no supply on Loa Osos ValleyRoad Area tthat the City put a cap on mention
t Fred springs d
about this. Strong
2.4.1 Approx, 4400 acres of ACOS land surrounding reservoir would be transferred from
Feds to County or other LOCAL ENTITY Who and was this done'???
2.4.2"possibly grouting of the bedcrock foundation of the dam to seal cracks in the
bedrock that might otherwise leak once the water level in the reservoir was raised" What
do they mean POSSIBLY?
2.4-6 See Middle of page. IS CITY WILLING TO INSURE DOWNSTREAM OWNERS FOR
EARTHQUAKE AND FLOOD DAMAGE - NOT CURRENTLY AVAILABLE TO OWNERS IN THE
NO. CO EXCEPT AT EXCESSIVE PRICES -.THIS DAM WILL MAKE THE POSSIBILITY OF
THERE TWO INSURANCES FOR AREA UNATTAINABLE.
2.4-6 Last paragraph - conditions ofh t
adequate to support the dam u � abutment are not presently considered..to be
under a raised reservoir water surface elevation of 1319 ft.
or higher- It is considered LIKELY (or maybe not likely) that the abutment rock can be
reinforced suMciently using post-tensioned rock anchors, to provide adequate support
0
0th dam and spillway under the ANTICIPATED SEISMIC AND INCREASED
RESERVOIR
Are you comfortable with that statement???.
EXHIBIT B - Page 19 of 2_
CITY OF ATASCADERO
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
2,4-9 Woodward -Clyde seem to be under the opinion the dam will be in a fall condition
all of the time with the wet winter months adding to the needed for additional discharge.
This is a faulty assumption if the City is the H20 raring dry summer, chances
are with no inflow during that part of the season, the dam would not be full if the City is
using the H2O as they state in their need for more AFT.
2.4-10 "There are virtually no easily developable sl proposed new
p opus-above the ro
maximum reservoir level of 1320 ft. (White Oak-m#-2 o3 acres) "For this reason, it is not
practical to replace each facility, in hind, immed4stely above its existing location nor
ARE THERE ANY REASONABLY FLAT SITES OF SUFFICIENT SIZE FOR RELOCATION OF
RECREATIONAL FACILITIES. Is aware of this??
2.4.3.3 White Oak Area- "For the
purposes of the EIR, it is assumed that the existing
septic tank would be cleaned out and properly abandoned in place and a new septic tank
would be installed w/o a leach field but be periodically pumped out and transported offsite
for disposal of sanitary waste (Is this acceptable practice with potable water?)
2.4.2.4. Who pays for increased maintenance of inundated North Shore access road -
County or City?
2.4.22Assuming that ownership of the dam is transferred to local control, dam safety
etc-(City or County local control:)
2.4-23 Increase the potential volume of any catastrophic dam failure or accidental release
y rap to additional 77,949 AF or water- stating this is a very low probability event.
Where will these people be if it becomes a very high probable event i.e. insurance to
Pay for it.
2.4.23 Downstream releases associated with the live stream agreement have averaged
approx. 2336 AF"Y between 1972 and March 1996. Does this figures include the 18
times the dam has "spilled" important point as that "spill" is needed for filling and
cleansing PR Aquifer.
2.4.24
"when the reservoir is maintained at a constant level, the outflow over the spillway is
equal to the inflow to the reservoir (except for evaporation, seepage and infiltration which
are substantial - are these figures included in outflow/inflow)
2.5.1 An overview of the alternatives which have been considered is presented in the
Executive Summary - Harry, check on this.
3.2-3 lot Paragraph (Fish teeth?) 2ad Par. 3 Faults should read 4. 3rd Par. The largest
fault shown on the map to have a 68 degree dip to the west, is exposed between the
southern and central abutment strata. Here, the fault consists of a narrow zone of
steeply east-dipping parallel shears and fractures etc. Scares mellil
3.2-4 Maybe have an engineer explain this - beyond me.
3.2-5/6/7and 8 Very important that you read and understand these pages.
3.2.13 (3.2.2.2.1) " Could be potentially susceptible to geologic hazards in the long
term" etc. ( I assume this is supposed to be a long term dam)
3/2-13 Geologic hazards are typically determined to have a significant impact when an
unacceptable number of people and facilities arcs exposed to the hazard in an identified
hazard zone. In other words, when the level of risk to people and structures is
Perceived to be too high, the threshold is exceeded. Local, state and fed gov policies
and regulations for development in hazard zones provide general definitions of what
acceptable (key word) levels of risk are presently perceived to be " Now there is a
disclaimer if I ever heard one- If You think that the North Co. might get flooded with a
dam failure due to earthquake did you as Supervisor exceed the level of acceptable risk
- whatever that meanall
EXHIBIT B - Page 20 of 23
CITY OF ATASCADERO
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
3.2-14 more of same - Harry better read
3.2-15 6 landslide possible areas
3.2.-16 to and including 23 READ (It would seem to mate sense to drain the dant, deepen
by excavation and mate repairs to abutments and install concrete apron while dam is
empty. would be more cost effective ) of coarse, it would not give the county the larger
park they desire or the City their "Nacimiento" - by the way, is this potentially larger late
to be a body contact as per Haeimiento??
3.228 Why are we being given the approximate distance to dam in KM, it is
approximately 0.62137 miles. This is not acceptable and another method of convolution.
3.3-9 How does reducing tract emission reduce particle mater from grading.
3.4-1 My point is addressed regarding sediment but only through 1992 so assume it will
be even more excessive 5 years later.
3.4.2 Hydrology If the average annual inflow has be 21,105 AF with a maximum annual
inflow in 68-69 (what has been the outflow to the City over these years -the most
water the City has ever appropriated in a year from Salinas Reservoir is 7272
(3.4.1.2.2) There have been 27 occurrences of monthly inflow exceeding 10,000 AF 1
out of 2 years. These figures should prove interesting.
3.45 While water law limits diversion of surface water and direct pumping from the
river alluvium, use of groundwater in the upper Salinas basin has not been adjudicated
and is thus not constrained. Be vigilant that this does not ha
Peen.
3.4-5 There is evidence that withdrawals from the Paso Robles Groundwater basin may
affect flow in the river, especially during late spring and summer when flows in the
river are typically low (low like in non-existent)
3.4-6 Might want to talk to someone about water quality which will become a major
factor with less water in the river/aquifer.
3.47 and 8 This information regarding the Paso Robles Groundwater Basin is
essential to our whole area. Please read and note "this concentrated draft may lead to
locally inadequate water supplies (F ugro_McClelland 1993a) F
Read 3.4-8 However, the cumulative effect of this overdraft could he significant if
allowed to continue over a period of 25 years or more.
3.4-16 Increased Evaporation - current calculated to be an average of 2770 AFY (797.5
Month) with an increase of surface area of the lake would reach a peat of 903 AF per
month.
3.4-17 The reservoir level is also expected to fluctuates that it currently does since
the percentage of water in storage that is diverted by the City would decrease
substantially (what if the City uses more proportionately)
3.418 Total City demand was set at 10,000 AFY for both model runs to simulate the
total City demand under the worst case scenario- two modifications were made to the
original file for the purposes of the EIR assessment: Why were these modifications
made?
3.419 through 23 MUST READ.
4.2 Peak Discharge (Maximum water depths decrease rapidly below the canyon month due
to the widening of the river channel. Atascadero maximum depth 20 to 25 feet and
remain at that depth until San Ardo. (10 Feet) Raising the dam causes the peat to arrive
sooner at locations below the canyon month. Bradley almost 1 hour earlier for peak water
surface elevations. ..1 For a concrete arch dam such as Salinas Dam, it is reasonable and
EXHIBIT B - Page 21 of 23
CITY OF ATASCADERO
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
conservative to assume that a failure will result in complete removal of the dam because
three is little structural resistance to COmpik failure once a portion of the dam fails. Also
Failure will occur very quickly, between 0.1 and 0.8 hours according to O$8 studies.
i
Preserve what remains of the river.
18 sPills (including this year)in 66 years.
Environmental Concerns
Trees in inundated 896 acres
Previous EIR: 400 mature Oak Trees Current EIR: 2470 Oak Trees
930 Grey Pine 469 Grey Pine
WHERE DID THEY GO- CUT?
This exacting document has too many errors, indicating a flawed system and
document.
How can a study supposedly so exact in Nov. 9993 be so in error in May 9997?
Buildout City SLO 56,000 (2022) Jobs -Housing Balance
A
EXHIBIT B - Page 22 of 23
CITY OF ATASCADERO
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
(o (D co (D (D co 0o 00 w Co 0o Co 00 W co W V V V V V -41-41-4 V CD
U1 .p co N - 0 (D co V rn U1 A W N O (0 CO V O U1 A W N -+
(O (0 O (0 (O O (D 00 Co W 00 Co CO W Co CO W V V V V V V V V
O 01 A W N --L O CO Co V IM (n A W N -A O (0 00 V 0) U1 A CO N
(n
dP W -'. -L — --` N W •A � 1 N 0) 0
-+ W -� CO ? O W d7 W -+ N (0 -► CO . . . CO (D -� N
V W V -+ W CD W --► -• V U1 W V V W V V V � W W V A N N
co W (0 O O 4 V N -+ (0 V N O (O V CD (D (D W -• W CO -� CD p O N
N N N W - CO W W (0 N O O N N N N N N O W N N CD W CD
+
j 0
N V UI -+ -+ cn -+ O N -i W -+ W W
N U1 -? — Ut W -j N P W N O N O O — m O) -+ — (0 V V N O Sy m
W CA CO M W -1 O W O N W 0 .p CO -+ V -i V O N N W V (D K
O -+ U) (D N (D U7 U) O W -i 0 (D W 0 — O 0 V CD N CO M -• O) Z3
N O 00 CO V O U1 W O 0 W W U1 -1 -► U1 0 CO N W N -► (O �
UI N
0
W W NO.t .t .a _a (V 1 N . .� N i j CD 0
O O -+ N N .P W W W O O V (D N -+ W V Oo Ul UI Ul 00 V .A. .� 3
(D rO (0 -S W 00 (n N OD Co .P 01 W O O (D -i U1 Ul CO N W 4P -` N
W W N -N V W V Cn W W M -0. O W cD U1 V W CD M 0 V W -► O (D
C
C C
V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V _V V V V V -4 V V V 03
3 .i 1 .1 1 .l ..l .l ..L .l .1 1 .1 1 ...L .l .i .1 .J. .l .1 .l .1 CD
O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
v a O m
— l i � co co W N -+ -+ -� — N N N W N N W W _W N 1 W W co N W A) <
�. CD (D (D W C) •A (D V A V -• V V O O O N 0o O N W V W p
CD Q.. ; co W CD Ul Co co Ul -+ O Ln co co Ln co N " Ul N W -P N O) (D Co Co D
C C I V V .P W V " V V CD (D N -� M -0, (D U1 M O O (D CO .IP (D co -i
0 0 L
O OC
O n i < O � -0i W .P -+ -'. -� — N W .A W C.0 -P, A W -P � •P N N W .p 4 -� N O `<
j N N O
j 0 0 in V V W V -y CO (D CD - -+ V Ul CO V V W V V V P W W V 4 N -`
< < j CD CO W (D O O 4 V CD V N cD (O V (D (D O W W (0 -► (D O
C- CL ' N N N N W — (D W W (D N O W N N -+ N N N N O W N N CD
CO CD CD Cn; C_
C (Z CL C
i C
DCD3 crs3 ! CD 3 -
`G `G
(n (n W -► V Ln W N -+ N (o A (.n In 0)
> C CD CO do 0) , v -co (0 co O A v
-�� O O (�D 0) V V O W i W O N O (D N ..
cr) Fn CA (/) ww '^
�► eh .tel 0) Y �� (0 c-, (7 —A �h 0
0 = D; p C3) N w W P W p O U1 V W (D Q c
o o O W Ul N W -+ N Ul Ut V O CD V 0 a CL 3
ro
N (niro
l
N cn Ca
W U1 i W WP CO W N N CO Sv
.p tV t3) V co p W N P W UI W W (0 V pn. T
V N V N cn (0 Ut " ;a U) N O N 4 -` p
CD O V U1 OD N O --► Ln (D W O U1 00 W tD
(7
>
j
N
-4 00 3 w _
V )CO00 a7 W N _J rP rP O Cn CS
Ul U) CD (Jl cy) (D a) j -• -+ C -p CD SI)
4 W -4 W 0) W N O — to � _ W CD
(a
II
� c
W N - co -+ W -+ O -+ N -• N O O CL Cn
.P N W in W t0 CA L� O W --+ (A N -� W O O 0= O
V V O W W N W � O O 4 (0 W W N 0 0 0 D
\ \o \. \ \ \ ! \o \ -.-0,
\ >
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 �
C
SD
CD
Q.
EXHIBIT B - Page 23 of 23
CITY OF ATASCADERO
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
(D (D cD co (D (D co 00ao as 1(n
0o 0o tp CO CO V V V v V V V V V CD
(nW N -• O CO W V O M � W N -► O 0 co V m 01 A W N - �
CD CD CD (0 (0 CD (0 00 Qo OD CO 00 CO CD CO CO CO V V V V V V V V cn
al
W (nW N -+ O CO 00 V O Ln .A• CO N --► O CD W V W (n 4 CO N
P co -+ N co 4 N W -r-% -N W
-� " " V M W W N — " W V -A " V . -+. . Cn Cn V -+ V
V M V W .A. � N W N V W CD V V V V V V CD CO Cn V W 4 N � �.
(D O CD -P- " .A, V 4 (0 -� .0, (D (0 (D (D CD (0 O (Jl O O Cn N A CD (p
N (Jt N0 (Ji O p N N W co N N N N N O CD O N co N W 0 CD
N V (n -` -+ (1t -+ O N 0) -y Co --► W -pw �' "t
.4, -+ (Il W W N 4 O N O O j m Cn -+ -► C0 V V N 5- 9 m
O OD O N W +U7 4 (0 -j V -• V W N N M V 4 0
0 (n O W � .x
-� (Jt cD W Ul -+ CA to V (0 N 0 M -+ m ar
N O W CD V O w W O -► -+ Cn (b CA M -+ -+ Ln (n (D N 00 N (D
cn r c_n
(n N 1 <. O
CD CD
CA O -► N N P (b OD M CD O V (0 N -+ W V CO En (n M CO v . 3
(0 N 0 V W W 0 N W W P Cn W O O CD " M (n W N W � N
CA Cb N A V CO V Cn W W 0 -P O W M (n V W O W W V W j O CD
y C
00 0o ao au 00 oD m ou o0 m au w w ao 00 00 0o ao ao 00 0o ao 00 0o ao �
C0 0 (0 C0 CD CD CD C0 (0 (D CD CD CD (0 00 CD CD (D CO (D M (0 CD CD 'COD
V V V V V V V V -J V V V V V V V V V -4-4 V V V V V
V V V V V J V V �! V V V V V V V V V -1 V V V V V V
(n (n
c c O m
3 3 W W W N 1 1 _. ` N N N W N N W W W N j W WW N W 2) 0
O O p 4 CD CD CD CA O .:, O V A V -+ V V O O O N co O N W V W 0
cn (n
co CA (D cn co w cn -+ 0 cn W co En m N -� Ln N W -P. N W (0 co m O
c a V -4 -01 (0 V -1 V V co (D N — 0) A. CD (n W m O O OD 4 O co 4 C_
CD (D < O � 4 W .P -+ N W 4 N W 4P P. A P ? - N ca -0k, W -L CD > V
C2 m -� 1 -� V (n W W N - -+ w V -+ -� V y 1 1 (.n Cn V
On (n V -4 (n V co 4 4 N W N V 0D (0 V V V V V V CO Co In V W .0 O
•-". '= O (0 O (0 .A. -+ .01- V P (0 -+ P (D CD (D CD C0 (D O (Jl O (0 Cn N
c-
0 O N N Cn N O (n O .A. 4 N N W (0 N N P N N N O rn W N m N c
cn O
N
00
D cn
CD
< <' N m c-n (D 3 -0 (0C2 Q O � (n -� W V O CD V N V O —
(n
C Cl CL c4 coCD O O Cn N -� CD O
0 `�`C7 O CA V coW OD V O (n V (0 -N
3
O V i O i -+ Q) (-ncoO O F5
Dc c > cn :c <
m 3 3 < i w " D) �' (D Cn a) = c
A� o O A� 0 W N Cn W W {� O (n V aD co O
to = 2(a W CA W J N W " N to V O co V Cj CD
'" N
N N to c (n 0) .p 0) CO (n � O A Ln � " Co (D � � � V Co Cn N
00001 to
(D O ' . W j W _► N .N� a D
VJ n
CL{ O to W (0 V W Ln co W co V CD ,.� cn 1, -n
`C 0, (A � COO ()i Cin v coOW p _' N 4t,. C 0 (D (0 V (D "a
N CA co (0 W O O (n .P -j Cr -= n
(D to 4 co CO 4 O CD (D O O (D V co cn CD
W (J7 •<
_ D N
V N J � "co 0) N V �► 30 Cr cc
W N
W In (o Cn 0) (D rn c �
V 0) -► co W W N O -. cD 3 'D
V CD CD
Ul O oA 00 '' (D W CO CO "` = W ii
� c
J .1
V CO 00 O W O coO W coCn N (D O O \ X
Co O co W m O O
W O W P .fP V N O O O () - �
CO (D W O N V -+ CD � W O O
o
,0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 :3 -p
(D
3
CD
Q
EXHIBIT C — Page 1• of 2
CITY OF ATASCADER
CITY COUNCIL MIN TES
^` PETE J. CAGUERO .r
Cagliero Ranches
may a Grain • Cattle
July 21 , 1997
Glen Matteson
Associate Planner
Community Development Depar.tme.nt
990 Palm Avenue
San Luis Obispo, CA. 93401
Dear Glen,
We have important issues we feel need to be addressed concerning the
EIR for the Salinas Reservoir Expansion Project .
Concerns are :
How is the Dam expansion going to effect our 18 we11.s along the
Salinas River? Our repari.an rights are before the cities rights .
How does the city- have the legal right to make an out of basin
water tranfer?
The City of SLO will be creating a hazard by raising the spillway .
What emergency plan for evacuation do you have in place?
Are you going to insure us against flood damage in the event the
Dam breaks? I
We want to know how many homes , structures , pumps and water wells
will be flooded . Now does the city plan to compensate us for our
damage? All our wells along the Salinas River would be in the
floodplain .
All your figures are spewed in the report . We want the dam losses
refigured again . We don ' t want to see the EIR using averages
of averages . There is many different ways to figure, averages .
Environmentally the City of Slo is very sensitive to their own needs .
Drowning of all the hundreds of- mature oak and Pine trees means
. nothing . The Stake Water Project had to replace 10- 1 ratio. We
want SLO to do the same , also monitor their success of growth to
make sure: they stay alive . This is the city of SLO responsibility.
The loss of water to the north county will not allow enough cleansing
of the underground aquifer. (Paso Robles ) We want you to address the
River Contamination?
The City of SLO voted down State Water two times , as that would be
growth inducing. Now that your own facts show that in 2003 you need
more WATER to provide for YOUR GROWTH, you want oursll Get State Water .
It ' s not too late .
76362 Vineyard Canyon Phone (805) 467-9733
an Miguel, California 93451 FAX (805) 467-9733
EXHIBIT C — Page 2. of 2
CITY OF ATASCADERO
CITY COUNCIL MIIC
PETE J. CAG UERO
Cagliero Ranches
Hay * Crain * Cattle
We 'want the EIR to address the use of State Waterv_ersus using
our Salinas River Water .
.If the safety issues can be met and the Dam expansion is allowed, we
want you to address the sharing of the water with the 'North County.
The cities of the North County are willing to share in the cost of
the Dam expansion We want the LIR 'to address a plan for sharing
bf the water with the North County.
San Luis Obispo needs to quit hiding behind the fact that the city
of SLO has no control over the North County cities ; because the
'North County cities have publicly said they are willing to cooperate
with the city of SLO if the WATER i$ shared with all entites .
We want all our questions answered in the revised EIR.
ank you very much.
Sincerely,
/,zl&
Pete J. and Lorraine Cagliero
76362 Vineyard Canyon Phone ($05) 467-97,33
San Miguel, California 93451 FAX (M) 467,973