Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 022399 Approved as submitted DATE: 03/09/99 MINUTES ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 23, 1999 CLOSED SESSION, 6:30 P.M.: 1. Conference with labor negotiator(Govt. Code Sec. 54957.6) Agency Negotiator: City Manager/Mayor Employee organizations: Department Heads, Mid-Management/Professional, Confidential Unit, Atascadero Fire Captains, Atascadero Firefighters, Service Employees Intl. Union Local 620, Atascadero Police Assoc. 2. Conference with legal counsel—Potential litigation (Govt. Code Sec. 54956.9) Name: Donald Scroggs City Attorney Roy Hanley announced there was no reportable action taken. REGULAR SESSION, 7:00 P.M.: Mayor Johnson called the Regular Session to order at 7:05 p.m. and Council Member Lerno led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL: Present: Council Members Arrambide, Clay, Lerno, Luna and Mayor Johnson Absent: None Others Present: City Clerk Marcia Torgerson and City Treasurer David Graham Staff Present: City Manager Wade McKinney, Police Chief Dennis Hegwood, Community Services Director Brady Cherry, Community and Economic Development Director Paul Saldafia, Assistant City Engineer John Neil and City Attorney Roy Hanley. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Roll Call MOTION: By Council Member Luna and seconded by Council Member Clay to approve the agenda. Motion passed 5:0 by a roll-call vote. COMMUNITY FORUM: Raymond Jansen, 6655 Country Club Drive, spoke about the ratification of the test ban treaty. Senator Jesse Helms, chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, has refused to send this bill to the Senate floor. This treaty would stop the testing of nuclear weapons. He asked all present to sign a petition supporting the passage of this bill. Mike Murphy, 9320 Santa Clara Road, thanked the Council and staff for the lights at the golf course finally being turned off. Mike Kohle, 5345 Mercedes Ave., read a prepared statement about the Highway 41 realignment construction. He handed out to the Council pictures and information about the negative impacts the construction is having on his neighborhood. In particular, the sound wall that is to be constructed will create a freeway-like highway. He suggested a stepped wall and contoured berm with landscaping to create a more rural look. (see Attachment A) Steve Devencenzi, representative of SLOCOG, announced they are now undertaking the update of their Regional Transportation Plan. He stated there will be a public meeting in Templeton at the Women's Center. They will be sending out a press release. Mayor Johnson closed the Community Forum period. COUNCIL ANNOUNCEMENTS AND REPORTS: Council Member Luna stated that he was opposed to the Highway 41 realignment. He said that the effect on this neighborhood is devastating. He stated that anyone who supported this project needs to drive through this neighborhood to see the effect. He asked the Council to support sending a letter to CalTrans asking that the mitigation trees be planted in Atascadero and why berms instead of the sound wall aren't being used as was suggested in the EIR. Council Member Clay stated that he feels the Highway 41 realignment is a good project. He said that he didn't think there was room in Atascadero for all the trees. He agreed that a berm would be better than a sound wall. Council Member Clay also stated that this project could have been built in 1988 for only 8.9 million. Mayor Johnson asked staff to provide Council with a report of the status of the Highway 41 realignment project, especially concerning the soundwall and tree mitigation. Council Member Luna said that the tree mitigation plan is poor and won't replace what has been removed. A. CONSENT CALENDAR: Roll Call 1. City Council Minutes - January 26, 1999 - (City Clerk recommendation: Approve the City Council minutes of January 26, 1999) [Marcia McClure Torgerson] CC 02/23/99 Page 2 of 7 2. Zoning Change 97002 - Davis Ranch, 3900 Traffic Way (Midland Pacific) - Fiscal Impact: $40,000 over 10 years, to pay for itself after about 20 years - (Staff recommendation: Council adopt Ordinance No. 357, on second reading by title only, approving Zone Change 97002, changing the zoning of the site from Residential Suburban (RS) to Residential Single Family (RSF-Y), and adopting Planning Development Overlay Zone No. 14,for property at 3900 Traffic Way) [Paul Saldana] 3. Agreement with Access Unlimited - for Accessibility Management Consultation Services - Fiscal Impact: $500.00-700.00 from previously allocated CBDG funds (Staff recommendation: Council authorize the City Manager to execute an agreement with ACCESS Unlimited for consultation services) [Brady Cherry] 4. Graves Creek Road Overlay Project - City of Atascadero Bid No. 97-04 - Acceptance of project and release of retention - Fiscal Impact: $31,082.28 in Street & Bridges Fees (fund 705), previously budgeted (Staff recommendation: Council accept the project as complete and authorize the release of the project retention to Souza Construction, Inc. in the amount of$31,082.28) [Brady Cherry] Mayor Johnson announced that Council Member Lerno will be stepping down on Item #A-2 due to a potential conflict of interest. Council Member Luna pulled Item#A-1 and#A-2. MOTION: By Council Member Clay and seconded by Council Member Lerno to approve Items #A-3 and#A-4. Motion passed 5:0 by a roll-call vote. Item #A-1: Council Member Luna stated that he pulled this item to review the San Luis Obispo County City-County Library Survey Results attached to the minutes (page 13) where it listed service ranking for the County. He noted that it is very interested that street maintenance did not rank in the top seven for the North County. He also noted that it also showed (page 19) that the public believes that City government is the second highest source of public library funding which is incorrect. PUBLIC COMMENT Eric Greening, 6600 Lewis Ave., noted a correction in the spelling of the name of the County Engineering Representative, Susan Litteral under Presentations. Mayor Johnson closed the Public Comment period. MOTION: By Council Member Luna and seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Arrambide to approve Item#A-1. Motion passed 5:0 by a roll-call vote. Item #A-2 Council Member Luna stated that he voting no of this item but wanted to make sure that the amendments voted on at the last meeting were all accounted for. City Manager Wade McKinney stated that the Ordinance No. 357 has the amended findings included and the CC 02/23/99 Page 3 of 7 Resolution No. 1999-013 that was approved at the last meeting is being handed out to the Council now to show all the changes included. Council Member. Luna asked about the $250,000 donation by the developer and where it is included. Mr. McKinney responded by stating that is not included in any of the Resolutions from last meeting or the Ordinance being voted on tonight. It is a separate agreement because it is not a condition of the subdivision. Council Member Luna stated that he is concerned about the Council approving this project without seeing the $250,000 agreement. Council Member Clay agreed that he was also concerned about how they were going to tie in the $250,000 donation agreement to this project. Mr. McKinney stated that it is a formal development agreement that the City Attorney has drafted and it will be on the next Council agenda. Council Member Luna stated that he feels Mr. Moresko is a honorable man but things can happen. He suggested that the Council should continue this item until the contract is on the same agenda. City Attorney stated that the agreement is drafted and Mr. Saldana has reviewed it and it will be on the next Council agenda. There was lengthy Council discussion where they asked for clarification of specific points in this project. PUBLIC COMMENT Eric Greening, 6600 Lewis Ave., repeated his comment from last meeting that he feels it is irresponsible not to mitigate the conversion of agricultural land. Rush Kolemaine, P.O. Box 1990, questioned why Traffic Way is now being labeled a Rural Collector as opposed to an Industrial Arterial as it was originally categorized. Mayor Johnson stated that there are several difficulties with right-of-way and easements which are part of the issue. Mr. McKinney explained that the purpose of making a portion of Traffic Way a Rural Collector was to provide an expanded roadway for children traveling to and from school. Mayor Johnson closed the Public Comment period. MOTION: By Mayor Pro Tem Arrambide and seconded by Council Member Clay to approve Item #A-2. Motion passed 3:1 by a roll-call vote. (Luna opposed, Lerno abstained) B. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. Highway 41/101 Interchange / Traffic Way Project Study Report - Fiscal Impact: Estimated$75,000 ($40,000 in Regional State Highway Account funds, $21,000 in Urban SHA funds and$14,000 in local transportation funds - (Staff recommendation: Council approve the draft request for proposal developed by staff for the Highway 101/Traffic Way Interchange Project Study Report and authorize the City Engineer to distribute the request to consultants) [Brady Cherry] CC 02/23/99 Page 4 of 7 Assistant City Engineer John Neil gave the staff report and answered questions of Council. He stressed that Council is being asked at this time to authorize staff to distribute the request to consultants so that it can be studied thoroughly. Mayor Pro Tem Arrambide suggested that the concept of recreating the Atascadero Mall as an underpass of the freeway be included in the study. Council Member Lemo asked if that could be part of the redevelopment of the Downtown. Kathy DiGrazia, Project Manager of CalTrans, answered questions of Council and clarified the timeline for the 41 realignment project. Council Member Clay suggested CalTrans leave the existing temporary bridge over the Salinas River until the 41 realignment project is completed and tested. Only then, when the new project is successful, should the temporary bridge be removed. Mayor Johnson interrupted Council Member Clay and stated that the temporary bridge is not on the agenda and the Council cannot discuss and/or take action on the issue. Mr. McKinney agreed that the Council cannot take action on the issue. PUBLIC COMMENT Doug Lewis, asked that the Council consider the possibility of a pedestrian over-crossing. He also asked the Council to consider other alternatives than the ones proposed tonight. Peter Boonisar, 5212 Magdelana, stated that he supports fewer signal lights. He also said that he is opposed to the two left-turn lanes onto westbound Highway 41 from El Camino Real. Eric Greening, 6600 Lewis Ave., asked how signal lights can be synchronized. He stated that he's opposed to the intersection at the mall. Peter Boonisar, 5212 Magdelana, stated that CalTrans has already purchased Plump Chicken and their last day is Friday. Mike Murphy, 9320 Santa Clara Road, expressed concern with some of the solutions Cal Trans has planned such as the two left-turn lanes onto westbound Highway 41. Kathy DeGrazia, CalTrans, stated that the owner of Plump Chicken approached CalTrans concerning the purchase of that property. Doug Lewis, asked what the timeline is for this study. Mr. Neil responded the study would need to be completed by July 1999. Genie Dadisman, owner of Genie's Steak House, stated that she agrees with the idea of moving the off-ramp south towards the car wash. Mayor Johnson closed the Public Comment period. CC 02/23/99 Page 5 of 7 MOTION: By Mayor Pro Tem Arrambide and seconded by Council Member Lerno to approve the draft request for proposal developed by staff for the Highway 41/101 / Traffic Way Interchange Project Study Report and authorize the City Engineer to distribute the request to consultants with the following amendment added to the alternatives to be evaluated (in staff report): 116. Evaluate the feasibility of an underpass at the mall." Motion passed 5:0 by a roll-call vote. C. MANAGEMENT REPORTS: 1. Information Bulletin City Manager Wade McKinney stated that the Finance Committee asked that the information concerning LAIF be provided to the Council. Mayor Johnson asked the City Treasurer if he had any comments. Mr. Graham responded that he is studying diversifying our current investments. However, at the present time, he stated that he feels the City is getting a better rate of return having its money in LAIF. He went on to state that at some point in time, he will recommend an aggressive reinvestment program. PUBLIC COMMENT Doug Lewis, asked if the City will be reinvesting in Orange County again. Mayor Johnson said no. Mayor Johnson closed the Public Comment period. D. COMMITTEE REPORTS Air Pollution Control District Mayor Pro Tem Arrambide stated the next meeting will be on March 241" County Mayor's Round Table Mayor Johnson said they will be meeting Friday. Economic Vitality Corporation, Board of Directors Mayor Johnson stated they will meet tomorrow. Economic Opportunity Commission Mayor Pro Tem Arrambide said that he missed the Board meeting last week but there will be a facility tour this Thursday morning. CC 02/23/99 Page 6 of 7 E. INDIVIDUAL DETERMINATION AND/OR ACTION: City Council Council Member Clay repeated his concerns about removing the existing temporary bridge across the Salinas River before the Highway 41 realignment have proven to be successful. Mayor Johnson expressed on behalf of the entire Council their condolences to Mayor Pro Tem Arrambide for the passing of his mother-in-law. Council Member Clay announced that George Beattie passed away and commended his for his service to Atascadero. Council Member Luna stated there will be a celebration of George Beattie's life at the Pavilion on this Sunday at 2:00 p.m. F. ADJOURNMENT: Mayor Johnson adjourned the Regular Session at 8:37 p.m. to the next Regular Session scheduled on March 9, 1999. MEETING RECORDED AND MINUTES PREPARED BY: y Marcia McClure Torgerson, City Clerli Attachments: Attachment A -Prepared statement by Mike Kohle CC 02/23/99 Page 7 of 7 Attachment: A xY Atascadero City Council k Meeting Date: 2/9/99 i ms CITY OF ATASCADERO BLnDING/LAND USE VIOLATION COMPLAINT FORM 6500 Palma Avenue Atascadero,CA 93422 (805)461-5035 Because alleged violations of City building or land use regulations can eventually result in legal action through the court,it is impVtant that the City have an accurate record of information provided by citizens who have witnessed or observed such a violation. Please fill out this form as completely as possible. We realize you may not have all the information requested, but please provide all you do have. Your name, address and telephone number are needed because this is a legal matter,and because we may need to contact you for clarifications of the information you provide. The.Community Development Department will treat such information as confidential; however, if a violation cannot be cleared up except through court action,you could be asked to testify on the matter as a witness. It can be difficult,if not impossible,to take proper enforcement action on the basis of anonymous complaints. COMPLAINANTIWITNESS YOUR NAME: j ,,,-)i-rki M t j z i>4!Y DATE: re .�,; ,, �� )999 ADDRESS: PHONE:(DAYTIIv1Ey C.�2 —2� tS SCZ LM 17340/ LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF YOUR PROPERTY OR ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER(APN). (This is needed to accurately locate the property where the violation is occurring): 01—C''LZ-Z 232c, SA P-ra C Lc n n Yk nv, ATASC-4 Dean ARE YOU A: Tenant 1 eighbor Landlord Other DESCRIPTION OF ALLEGED VIOLATION: (On the back of this sheet, please explain the nature and location of the activity that you believe to be a violation of City regulations. Use additional pages if necessary and include any photos or maps you may have that show the alleged violation). LOCATION OF PROPERTY WHERE VIOLATION EXISTS: 6 AG.(.j= C'�Zr �:`• [i .c 'c`t S�= f3coQ A7ASGADt5neLn R rD , A-7ASc-AD6e'c CA ALLEGED VIOLATOR (Who is the person responsible for the violation NAME: ke,Lc.i PHONE:, 4t j --7500 ADDRESS: i 3 nn(�. &,rA t CA r-3P 0, ,�r><}il ilT Amt,�r;, .Qcs � A q ZG 2 My signature verifies that the above statements are true and accurate to the best of my knowledge. SIGNATURE: FO — l Please return this form to: City of Atascadero-Community Development Department ► � ; � - . �3 Set_i� lam- t Z `4' ob m; ,eG EJ a� 0CC'_ I-lorl),;= _ - {- o r -, L/ tv s /N O , "? OR /N o ; 0-Y--rj ?:� a2 Htt;2m F i 0 "fr�2.5 c> O,'L. T c i ''" O_ S rz2c� n.iii IvU 7HE US G r nJ-r 'PORC,441- 0 h i NAVA CZF-4 �/ AF^EC7c1� r''i/CNflcLS JZ7/-� . .. w 0r1/�:uCj S� un AFT,5 TI�c L;{�SEAREA BELOW FOR ANY 17 Avg E3ccnJ J-U DRAWNGoO SI�TC D a 1 Ea /6D /A) THS' L/ GNTiN6 /�L{�� n'1�NTlOJVE,c� `� • Si,qTr� i �Ii C C.c (moi N&5P_S �% Li C-14TS IvoL L:.L) NA✓E iN THEii` d w=ST' r L-o Z- • �}OS/T/b.c> l JVD O/L10 cry 7b �'on4 1 f G, TJfc t.r✓Fr LIC-,IT- .,,i I G.f-JT /� nn,,��� `` '' Til Akr- 1V 1�/ 1IV -THE-: L. J a.-e:,DCS i A PQAE;6-r* f a, ;a Hwy 1C1 �l OvrL ,it 0:; { So�fLCeS �•�mSz�J�� a- ;' r��3 L.oeK nc, �C ti, Il4 Le s C) } 77 j4. LEF7- L-' C-N7` i�)n�.S J�J C _. �d L'.__ 3 U c�,.+rs .i C.,4r A '1-in�lZ)"' OA: TNCRid'//t�Jc� f�IVG .r7 r3iLrrs in `f11�, �' `' •��W gAry r f (CcU:.v oV C hot•T -E SlivC� T tf� QRS? v r �-�/S W�c'K T14 1J C,/y7/.N6 a N r S T�� Do not write below this line oCN ao 0o uo: aoa raut M. aataana MUb-461 -5038 p, 2 r � D OD� m n D r M 1 -< O , Z m M ` 4 D Q { 1 l�, 1 m ` D ' , t I o frig, �H6arr-. Y •�N.�E;� It � • 06so� � �"�,'$a� •� eon � �,�p�3o�' p.t• .w� 1 ¢�KB � T { 1 (�/ p•;e?Ma � t `./ s { i t V ' { { C , t { 1 1 { 1 { t { x ilk's I' rT1 n C m t rc D 10 0 O Z rn r rl —+ i t , t 1 i $S ; Is 9IJR 4 1 �7 l C g , 3 1 +^ j� la D IQ • 1 r I�r i X ' i co 1 1 s e ; u i 1 1 1 1 • 1 ADOPTED JUNE 27, 1983 (i) The type of commercial activity requesting the signing and the need for such signing based on the purposes set forth in Section 9-4 .130 ; and The opportunity to combine signs for mo a than one use .on the same sign pole'; and (iii) The availability of other types o signing. along the freeway; and (iv) The sign area and height needed to achieve adequate visibility along the freewa�due to ramp locations and grade differences. ( ) Exceptions l 9 P s to Sign Area Standards. The sign area limita- tions of Subsections a through f^of this Section may be modified, increased or decreased by the Planning Commission through approval of a Conditional Use Permit. 9-4.135. Sign Construction Standards: The design and construc- tion of signs is to be in accordance with the Uniform Sign Code, and the following: i (a) Lighting: Signs shall be indirectly lighted by Contin- uous, stationary, shielded light sources, directed solely at the signior internal to it. (b), Location,:' In residential districts, signs shall not be locateyy closer than five feet to any property line except name,and address signs in the front yard. 9-4.136. ,.�Sign Maintenance Reqprop All signs are to be pro er ly mainta` ined in a safe and legible condition at all times. In the event/,that a use having signing is discontinued for a period exceed- ing ,six months, .all signs identifying the use and associated struc- tures shall be removed from the site, or in the case of painted signs, painted out. Signing which is not in conformity with the pro- /visions of these Sections is subject to Section 9-7.109 (Nonconform- ing Signs) . .9-4.137. Exterior Lighting: The standards of this Section are applicable to all outdoor night-lighting sources installed after the effective date of this Title, except for street lights located within Public rights-of-way and all uses established in the Agriculture zone. An electrical permit may be required by Title 8. (a) Illumination Only: Outdoor lighting shall be used for the purpose of illumination only and shall not be designed for or used as an advertising display, except as provided by Sec- tions 9-4. 130 et. seq. (Signing) . 4-43 ADOPTED JUNE 27 , 1983 (b) Light Directed Onto Lot: Light sources shall be designed and adjusted to direct light away from any road or street and away from any dwelling outside the ownership of the applicant. (c) Minimization of Light Intensity: No light or glare shall be transmitted or reflected in such concentration or inters sity as to be detrimental or harmful to persons or to inter- fere with the use of surrounding properties .or streets. (d) Light Sources to be Shielded: (1) Ground Illuminating Lights: Any light source used for ground area illumination except incandescent lamps of 150 watts or less and light produced directly by the 4�,L�ombustion of natural gas or other fuels, shall be shielded from above in such a manner that the edge of �q the shield is level with or below the lowest edge of the light source. Where any light source intended for ground illumination is located at a height greater than eight feet, the required shielding is to extend below the lowest edge of the light source a distance suffi- cient to block the light source from the view of any residential use within 1, 000 feet of the 'light fixture. (2) Elevated Feature Illumination: Where lights are used for the purpose of illuminating or accenting building walls, signs, flags, architectural features, or land- scaping, the light source is to be shielded so as not to be directly visible from off-site. (e) Height of Light Fixtures: Free-standing outdoor lighting fixtures shall not exceed the allowed height of the tallest building on the site, pursuant to Section 9-4 .111 (Heights) . 9-4. 138 . Grading : The following sections (9-4.138 through 9-4.146) establish standards, in addition to the standards c ained in the Uniform Building Code, for grading and excavation ivities to minimize hazards to life and property; protect agai t erosion, the sedimentation of water courses, and the innundatio f low lying areas; and protect the safety, use and stabilit of public rights-of- way and dranage channels. .- Grading regulatigrrs are organized into the ' following Sections: 9-4. 139 Grading Plan Required/ 9-4.140 Grading Permit Required 9-4.141 Grading Permit Application Content 9-4.142 Grading Per t Review and Approval 9-4.143 Special Grading Standards 9-4.144 GradinL Standards 9-4. 145 Sedimentation and Erosion Control 9-4.146 N-disance and Hazard Abatement 4-44 AttachmentB ` Atascadero City Council Meeting Date 2/9/99 February 9, 1999 Atascadero City Council Atascadero , CA 93422 Subject : Planning Commission Appointment Nir. Ma7ror and fellow Councilmembers : It appears the Council has made a poor choice in one of its recent appointments to the Planning Commission- The new appointee has missed the first two meetings since the appoint- ment . However, the Council was warneed when the applicant said she was very busy and relight not be able to make all the meetings. She even asked you if she could send in her vote ahead of time, seemingly unaware .of the importance_ of discussion with the other commissioners or hearing objections or approvals of the public. Such naivete is almost unbelievable. Perhaps she realized that what the Council wanted was her rubber stamp vote , and that proxy voting could take care of her absenteeism. These comments are not a criticism of the appointee, but of Council ' s. action in appointing any-one , no matter how well- intentioned, who is that uninformed about the governmental process. Doroth F. Pic veil 8765 ' erra Vista. Rd. Atascadero , CA 93422 ' Attachment: C Atascadero City Council Meeting Date'. 2/9/99 LOSS OF WATER IN THE POND ON ATASCADERO AVE Several months ago I came before this council to report that due to the construction and excavation work of the water drainage pipe being done on Morro Road that the pond just east of this project was being drained. This pond is located on two properties on Atascadero Ave. There is a second smaller pond on my neighbor's property to the north that is also being affected. Some of you have seen this property and the pond I am referring to. It is a natural pond with a variety of wildlife and fish that we all enjoy. At the first meeting you directed your staff to take care of this drainage problem caused directly by the work being done on Morro Road. In the audience that night was your contract engineering firm's representative and after the meeting he introduced himself to me and assured me they would take care of business. FACTS TO DATE • The contractor recognized he had hit a water source when they were digging the ditch, so much so that he called the water department because he thought they might have hit a line. In fact they broke the seal that held the water in the pond. • While the contractor was on site they ran a pump from the drainage pipe to the pond to keep some water in it. • Water has continued to drain without regard to all steps taken •` My neighbor and I have continuously had to call the contractor and your engineering firm to remind them that the water level was very low. • After several months gaskets were installed on the inside of the pipeline in hopes of stopping the leakage in the pond from flowing into the seams of the pipeline. • This solution did not stop the pond from draining. • The Pipeline ditch was dug significantly deeper than the bottom of the pipe to allow for large drainage rock to be placed under the pipe. • After the contractor left the site, the engineering firm retained a employee who added water occasionally when we called them to report low water. • In the last month or so we have been told, and have the feeling that nothing more is going to be done to remedy this problem. As of yesterday I attempted to visit your engineering firm's office and was told that the staff that we have been working with was too busy to speak to me. • On the positive side, the Fire Department loaned me hose to run from the water source to the pond and Mr. Cherry has been most supportive and even suggested a solution. We hope you agree that this not our doing that has resulted in the many calls and now another visit to this council. We simply would like to see the repairs made that allows us to enjoy our properties. _ zc `r �•q_'•.;...tg�z-:-�'�-k�ti�.a ��3� -2 �- .->_ - � � \1 .-r' '• "" by�5'}�£'�-+c>T .c_ r-C �� x y��� rte-"` �"i•Y <�1�:.=' - �.� 1-may*��i J ., r,,,iar � ,�T �'!' � l •i - '�'•�.�?%��► � /� - aaf•�\�' ;tom r .1 �I.+fr� ,c..rT �. .�= � ��-- ��'�,-rS..��;�`�Tye� ,� '�• s���y. ';� f���; [Vw/*q����`�� `y�i - �v' /vT:�,. �.,, j y,,,r�' •t1�'d ♦'moi' a `'`;i �.d • 1 '4♦/..��i/f�'`L�..� \ p1.— _ - AM � - VAI it �Q :�"`�_t i+-� � • .,� �� i � A .t'r �a•'. All \ •/-.� .,.T� i J,r rr• .[�+«:!'C'; r;j:�, .31. _- -�� :J•�G 'w 7 J 4 •Y r iY fff r r s ��'�i'9• ''c} x�r<.esrr' ...,�.�,{""�.'� :i �.,�,.r,: _{D r _~ :,., � Z '. Aa♦,r -yr - .�` x�'k t� 1 vy. : .�.,��1Z"i"�^' "'� `' -y2 <n .v-fa3Ns+-.K i� a - � 2 +. _ •Ci' i,�i t *,.a��* y r . '' � rN'C], fa+�.-.'J..rte`•.tx= F k ras�Jr.^'A,F-� c`-. � �- '- - .L �"'i'\�"�,3` --�a'r ° _.'111 b c•. .t-. - tc l'r y.. .-.a _ y,. _` •y`','e -��i«i a �4� ``��f`y-'.�. •��:�'�^�, tr f t.�-T••�.�j,t • •c 3� , -� -a•^�Z.'{�. `% i t4 '� 1j'. '�;-'may •�\` t„�""�'_ / a r - �• �N � Vt F � � •.. .� 4i, ^41 4 .. . Y"JiF=a � j!� X44:er fi,"' �_Rp "f��r ,r.c��►�3�'�?y�. ����T'.. •,fit .a � Zti l �_.�. ', � ��1• j- .xrr+ �Y _� yy 1 tR 1' i ! - �t 'f'�-i' rt to c L•r r� •sem r - ..u,„ ,,..•.a.�... ,o .xJ�+ ,L•'� mss.. �,4 , -Itri fkr'Y.ti � W. p�: v",x ' . �` Attachment D . tascadero City Council �� 1Vleet�rig`Date:'2/999 ATTACHMENT D Letter of support submitted by Dennis Moresko are on file in the City Clerk's office and available for review of the public. Attachment: E Atascadero City Council, Meeting Date:2/9/99 Jennifer Hageman 8005 Santa Lucia According to the financial analysis of this project prepared by the independent consultant the project does not provide a sound economic base as stated in the staff report and is not"revenue neutral"as stated by the developer. From the first year the project is completed-approximately year 5 to year 19-the project is a financial loss to the city-this means the taxpayers will subsidize the project from the time of complete buildout for the next 15 years. My question to the Council is what City services will be cut to pay for this development? Any extension of sewer service requires that certain findings be made-the need for this information was important enough in Sept.that the staff recommended that no major expansions of the USL should be made until that pian is complete. Now the staff is saying that no study to determine capacity is currently being done and that the study mentioned in Sept. has been changed to one of master planning the sewage system. What happened in 4 months that the City is no longer concerned about plant capacity? Especially since no study has been done. A couple of years ago It was been stated by the chief of wastewater operations that we were at or near capacity of our plant, and that we exceeded our capacity during wet weather flows. The staff report states that open space and recreational amenities and preservation of archeological resources benefit the community. The community will not benefit from the recreational amenities. The community will be locked out. The open space and preservation of the archeological resources would still be accomplished with the allowed density. Even more important are the changes to CEQA which took effect after the EIR for this project was written. They deal, in part,with archeological and historical sites. I see no mention in the staff report that these changes were addressed and that the EIR was found to be compliant with the new law. The staff report states that this project will help bring the City in compliance with the amount of housing needed by people of moderate income. According to the housing affordability standards,a three bedroom home would have sell for under$179,600. You do not have to be a rocket scientist to figure out that these homes are going to sell for much more. The developer stated that he is going to market the homes to empty nesters who want larger homes. Just how many local residents fall into this category? This development is obviously not geared to serve the citizens of this town. Yet, it is the citizens who will have to give up City services to help pay for it and will be locked out.. To approve this zone change and development is Ignoring the financial status of the City-we have better ways to spend our precious dollars and ignoring the imminent problems with our sewer plant is gang to prove fool hardy in a few short years. We have been promised 1500 new jobs in two years-we need to save our remaining plant capacity for industrial and commercial development and projects currently within the USL and not use it on i8 advised residential developments which expand the USL. As one of the Commissioners said so eloquently, her husband would be allowed into the development to risk his life to fight a fire(and,. 1 might add, have his tax dollars go to this project, rather than City services for him)but would be locked out and not welcome to enjoy the open space and other amenities. Gentleman,what kind of community goal is being accomplished with this project.? LV) CO co 10. OV N � � � � AS� T Y7 4 } ^ ' } T ca 104149 !A 49 y y v y �4 1 co Co S C49 N► fA bw3 V r v V w y w CO U) } N N W CTD co m N T Q T ren t�j try fa`9'' v V V e9 1 } •40 — V n V3 ^ N W a IA n } IA r V � of } N3 40 � f9 V! y.... � "M4y9 � w .}10 N CO co co CY ^ �-• � . . 4 +. 1-' _. N LZL W Lu LL cr _ _r .p:'.' W U } XIr - 42 o Q cecppLnp fA nj nj t7 ODS Q�iw OD N tfF� T N N N N off r r ► C�; } M to r r. y Q� pIq Q p .. 1�j W 40 � f1j fN/i rl- r O Py yA Coll m Lo V H� 49 $ i9 40 p N CDco C ' r r r 6`9 y� y 4040 } M! i0 f0 co r 40 44 rNp H3 l T Ln U) d I to cn Ln, gppco .r r r r 69 T 1 a W �j �j re » T �+ V- t6p �t �ppo �4�pp6 rN 9 i� — � 93 N N N 1` �! MC6 m eXfj K fA iR v Ey9 } e Nj T co CY IN LK �- ' LU Jon Q r Lu ,. a $ z ui co LU is F— a ? - 43 - Affordable Housing Standards SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNL'Y DBP_ARTWW OF PLANNING AND BUILDING County Govermaent Center ■ San Lois Obispo, California 93408 w Telephone (845)781-3600 This bulletin summarizes the county's affordable housing standards, including maximum family incomes, home purchase prices, refits,and long-term affordability. Income limits The state defines family Income groups as follows: "'very Low Income" is defined by Health and Safety Code Section 50105 as So% of county median income; "Lower Income" is defined by Health and Safety Code Section$0079,5 as 80% of county median income; "Moderate Income" is defined by Health and Safety Code section 50093 as 120 % of county median income. Effective January 7, 1998, the income Bruits for San Luis Obispo County are shown below: e l to Very Low Low edian Moderate 1 $16.150 $25 850 $32.350 $38.800 2 S18.500 $29,550 $36.950 $44,350 3 $20.800 $33,250 $41 600 $49,900 4 $23,100 $36,950 $46,200 $559450 5 $24,950 $39,900 $49,900 $59,900 6 $26 800 $42,850 $53 600 $64,300 L-7/ $28,650 $45,850 $57,300 $68,$30,500 $48 800 $61 000 73,200 Rents and sales prices: l��,cbEi: tzts' t�15 x otvar IYioclrYtt#y Livoir Lower Moclarate Iii:come Dame :. Yncotiic �-income�- Studio $404 $4$5 $498 $49,172 $75,052 $I16,460 1 $462 $554 $563 $56,164 $$5,724 $133102D 2 $520 $624 $714 $63,232--- $96.512 $149 —760 5624 $749 $991 $7518" $115,7 4F$179, 470 $804 $1 171 $81,472 $124 352 $1929960 Note 1: Maximum,rents shown above include costs of utilities based on utility allowances determined by the Housing Authority of the City of San Luis Obispo. Note 2: Maximum salas Pr{� steown above me based on assumption that special financing is not committed to Project, and therefore. reficet 1 i th District Cost of Funis Index of 4.69195. which is effective through 2�}y, 1999, according to the Federal Home Loan Bailie of San Francisco(interest rate hotline: 415-61 b- Oci 2 tv, 11113 cumulative impacts in an Initial Study of a project and clarifies the standard for determining when a project's contribution to a cumulative effect triggers the need for an EIR. An EIR is required when an agency determines that a project will make a"cumulatively considerable" contribution to a significant impact imposed by the project together with other related projects. An EIR need not be prepared,however, if the project's contribution to the impact will be rendered less than cumulatively considerable by mitigation measures in a mitigated negative declaration. This subsection also provides that a"de minimus"contribution need not be found cumulatively considerable, and defines a de minimus contribution as one that would leave environmental conditions essentially the same as they would be without the project. In addition, a project's contribution to an impact need not be deemed cumulatively considerable if the project complies with an approved plan or program that will avoid or substantially lessen the cumulative problem. Sections 15064.5 and 15126.4: Impacts To Historical and Archaeological Resources. Historical Resources. New section 15064.5 of the Guidelines expands upon the provision of the statute(Public Resources Code section 21084.1) that sets standards for determining the significance of historical resources. Guideline section 15064.5 provides that,in general,a resource not listed on state or local registers of historical resources shall be considered by an agency to be historically significant if the resource meets the criteria for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources. The revised section also provides standards for determining what constitutes a"substantial adverse change" that must be considered a significant impact to an historical resource. Finally,this Guideline states that its provisions apply to those archaeological resources that also qualify as historical resources. In addition,new Guideline section 15126.4. which provides standards for mitigation measures in general, contains a subsection that endorses for the first time a set of r' standard mitigation measures for impacts to historical resources(the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties). This subsection also provides notice that in some circumstances, documentation of historical resources will not be sufficient in itself to mitigate a project's impacts to a less-than-significant level. Archeological Resources. The Guideline revisions also replace Appendix K, which used to provide standards for mitigation of impacts to unique archaeological resources. New section 15464.5 now incorporates the guidance on mitigation for impacts to archaeological resources provided in Public Resources Code section 21083.2. This change eliminates the conflicts which had existed between the provisions of Appendix K and the statute. As noted above, section 15126.4 of the revised Guidelines also provides guidance on mitigation measures for archaeological sites determined to be historical resources. Section 15464.7-. Development And Publication Of Thresholds Of Significance. This new section encourages,but does not require,agencies to identify standard criteria to be used in determining the significance of environmental effects of projects under their review. Such thresholds of significance adopted for general use must be developed through a public review process and be supported by substantial evidence. This section is designed to stimulate more certainty,predictability and consistency among the threshold standards that agencies use to determine impact significance: 4 Attachment•F "Atascadero City Council 9 q q Meeting Date:2/9%99 I am here to riight as a mat ter of prirnciple . _ know that no matter what o`tl-iers or Z shy this project w11 be approved . The staff report has beeiz cl-hari.ged to reflect the CC maj ority positiorn . This is iri keeping with the policy of the Council to elimiriate arty voices of dissexzt anal. convey to the public a secam irig appearance of harmony . While you can silence appointed aria paid positioris you can ' t silence all of us . =f we don t speak. up tlzc Counc i1 grid the news media assume the public approves of your actions . TlZis proj c---c-- taken inisolation of its s,urroxuridin.gs aria i,grioririg . Atascadero ' s G . P . is not a bad x.C) ect . But its located ort prime ate; larid 9which has access problems and :TL-t-- :s very much iri conflict with the Basic Commur.i ty Goa.ls tested in_ our GP The project is clearly irncons z s ten t with the LiJE o f the GP which says tlza-t residential leaf sizes are to increa:.se as development moves away from the core o f the city no t aecrease i.n size as this proj oct is proposing The LUE doesri- t say that as the land acts fluter from the ctariter of the city yo-Lt car. increase lot sizes . The rteoLson for larger lot sizes is that Atascaderans wari-t to maintain a rural atmosphere . This is our Vision for tthe cornrnunity . Clearly Basic Community Goalls , a part of our GP have been ignored in. Ms Laufer * s staff report . Every justification in the report is directed toward firiding reasons to approve the project . Wheri c---x city planner Gary Kaiser wrote the staff - report he said that for practically any given project there wi11. be GP policies that will seern to speak in favor of a project and there will be policies that wi11 seem to speak against a proj ect . H werlt ori to say that wheYz there is more than orie way to interpret information than the Basic Community Goals should be used to guide interpretations . These Basic Community Goals are the peoples Vision . Statement . The City Couricil • s Vision Statement for Atascadero basically reiterates these goals . The Statement says the Council warns to maintain our rural atmosphere , protect natural erivircorim ent , keep lots large` and make Atascadera distinguishable from other cities -Mt is our large lot rural atrnosph�re that is positive distinguishing charac-teris`tic By approving this proj ect you are agairi saying one t:Ii ng to the public aricl voting the oppasi7te way .