Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 081099 Approved with amendments DATE: 09/14/99 MINUTES ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY, AUGUST 10, 1999 CLOSED SESSION, 6:15 P.M.: 1) Conference with negotiator over real property. (Govt. Code 54956.8) Negotiator: City Manager Wade McKinney Property: 6500 Palma Ave. City Attorney Roy Hanley announced that no reportable action was taken. "SPECIAL MEETING" - REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, 6:30 P.M. REGULAR SESSION, 7:00 P.M.: Mayor Johnson called the Regular Session to order at 7:02 p.m. 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, Fire Chief Mike McCain, Community Services Director Brady Cherry, Police Lieutenant John Couch, Community Development and Economic Director Paul Saldana, Assistant City Engineer John Neil and City Attorney Roy Hanley, Assistant Planner Phil Dunsmore, Principal Planner Warren Frace. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: MOTION: By Council Member Luna and seconded by Council Member Lerno to approve the agenda. Motion passed 5:0 by a roll-call vote. COMMUNITY FORUM: Eric Greening, 6600 Lewis Avenue, stated that CalTrans has begun implementing mitigation measures for the Cuesta Grade project. He reported that the measures include the purchase and operation of additional transit buses. He encouraged the City to write a letter to CalTrans asking them to increase the marketing of this service. Scott Knuckles, President of the Atascadero Firefighter's Association, 6940 Navajoa, invited the City Manager and officials to attend the Atascadero Firefighter's Muster on August 21 and 22, 1999. Sharon Winslow, 8275 Curbaril Avenue, expressed her concerns, in a prepared statement, for the Home Depot project(see Attachment A). John Novak, California Native Plant Society, suggested that the City organize some public workshops or distribute printed information regarding Star Thistle and how to control it. Mayor Johnson closed the Community Forum period. COUNCIL ANNOUNCEMENT AND REPORTS: None A. CONSENT CALENDAR: Roll Call 1. City Council Minutes - June 22, 1999 - (City Clerk recommendation: Council approve the City Council minutes of June 22, 1999) [Marcia McClure Torgerson] 2. Joint City Council/Redevelopment Agency Minutes - June 29, 1999 - (City Clerk recommendation: Council approve the City Council/Redevelopment Agency minutes of June 29, 1999) [Marcia McClure Torgerson] 3. Joint City Council/Redevelopment Agency Minutes - July 06, 1999 - (City Clerk recommendation: Council approve the City Council/Redevelopment Agency minutes of July 06, 1999) [Marcia McClure Torgerson] 4. City Council Minutes - July 13, 1999 - (City Clerk recommendation: Council approve the City Council minutes of July 13, 1999) [Marcia McClure Torgerson] CC 08/10/99 Page 2 of 16 5. Memorandums of Understanding -Atascadero Fire Captains, Atascadero Police Association, Mid Management and Professional Association, and Service Employees International Union (SEIU) Local 620 Fiscal Year 1999-2000; and Resolutions for Management and Confidential Employees - Fiscal Impact: Included in the FY 1999- 2000 budget - (Staff recommendation: Council: 1) Authorize the Mayor to execute a Memorandums of Understanding with the Atascadero Fire Captains, Atascadero Police Association, Mid Management and Professional Association and SEIU Local 620 for Fiscal Year 1999-2000; and 2) Adopt Resolution No. 1999-049, adopting salaries and benefits for Management employees; and 3) Adopt Resolution No. 1999-048, adopting a salary/classification schedule and benefits for Confidential employees) [Wade McKinney] 6. Memorandum of Understanding - San Luis Obispo County Narcotics Task Force -Fiscal Impact: $63,144 (Staff recommendation: Council authorize the Mayor to execute the Memorandum of Understanding with the San Luis Obispo County Narcotics Task Force) [Dennis Hegwood] 7. Emergency 911 Dispatch Equipment Upgrade - Lease Agreement -Fiscal Impact: None (Staff recommendation: Council approve new lease agreement with Motorola, Inc.) [Dennis Hegwood] 8. Minor Road Improvement Projects - Project No. 98-13 -Fiscal Impact: $4,589.86 in Streets and Bridges Impact Fee Funds (Fund 700) (Staff recommendation: Council accept public improvements as complete and authorize release of the project retention) Brady Cherry] 9. State Route 41 /Atascadero Ave. Storm Drain Project- Completed improvements - Fiscal Impact: Not known until City Attorney completes negotiation of the amount of liquidated damages due the City (Staff recommendation: Council accept the completed improvements) [Brady Cherry] 10. Master Agreement- Administering_Agency-State Agreement- for State Funded Projects No. 000-421 -Fiscal Impact: None, STIP funded (Staff recommendation: Council authorize the Mayor to execute a Master Agreement for administering State funded projects (Master Agreement No. 000421)) [Brady Cherry] 11. Final Parcel Map#96016 - AT 97-219 - 7265 Santa Ysabel Avenue (Charnley/ Shannon / Shoulders) Fiscal Impact. None (Staff recommendation: Council: 1) Accept the Final Map for Tentative parcel Map 496016; and 2) Accept a 6-foot wide Public Utility Easement along the frontage of Santa Ysabel Ave.) [Paul Saldana] 12. Final Parcel Map#98005 - AT 98-101 - 8972 Palomar Avenue (Gearhart/ Shoulders) Fiscal Impact: None (Staff recommendation: Council: 1) Accept the Final Map #98005; and 2) Accept a 6-foot wide Public Utility Easement along the frontage of Palomar Avenue) [Paul Saldana] CC 08/10/99 Page 3 of 16 13. Atascadero Lake Park& Pavilion Food Concessions Agreement- Assignment to Greg & Dawn Fuz -Fiscal Impact: $15,000 in revenue (Staff recommendation: Council authorize the Mayor to execute an assigned agreement for the Atascadero Lake Park Pavilion Food Concessions services from Bill Rabenaldt to Greg& Dawn Fuz) [Brady Cherry] 14. Establishment of No Parking-portion of Palma Ave. - Fiscal Impact: $200 from currently budgeted street division funds (Staff recommendation: Council adopt Resolution No. 1999-045, establishing a No Parking Zone on the east side of Palma Avenue,from the intersection with Rosario, 280 feet to the north) [Brady Cherry] 15. Amend Atascadero Municipal Code - Section 2-4.03 Temporary Manager -Fiscal Impact: None (Staff recommendation: Council introduce for first reading, waiving reading in full, Ordinance No. 363, amending the Atascadero Municipal Code Section 2- 4.03. [Wade McKinney] Item#A-3 was pulled by the City Clerk. She asked that the item be continued to the next meeting for corrections. The Council agreed to continue Item 4A-3. Item 4A-5 was pulled by Mayor Pro Tem Arrambide. Mayor Johnson announced that Council Member Lerno will be abstaining from Item#A-12. MOTION: By Council Member Luna and seconded by Council Member Clay to approve Items #A-1,2, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15. Motion passed 5:0 by a roll-call vote. (Lerno abstained from Item #A-12) RE: Item #A-5: Mayor Pro Tem Arrambide asked about the procedure in the event that a non- scheduled staff member is called in, but is not needed for the full two hours or not at all. City Manager Wade McKinney replied that it would be discretionary, and a staff member could be released prior to the ending of the two hours. MOTION: By Mayor Pro Tem Arrambide and seconded by Council Member Lerno to approve Item#A-5. Motion passed 5:0 by a roll-call vote. B. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. Nuisance Abatement Hearing - 5620 Hermosilla(Don Hurd) Code Enforcement Case #99036 -Fiscal Impact: None (Staff recommendation: Council adopt Resolution No. 1999-041 ordering nuisance abatement at 5620 Hermosilla) [Paul Saldana] Community and Economic Director Paul Saldana gave the staff report. CC 08/10/99 Page 4 of 16 Council Member Clay asked for a time-frame. Assistant Planner Phil Dunsmore stated that an additional 45 days following a notification would be allowed. Don Hurd, property owner, 5620 Hermosilla, stated that he did not receive proper notification when the classification of his property was changed from commercial to residential. He requested that he be allowed more time. Mayor Johnson asked staff if this type of nuisance abatement would apply to commercially-zoned property as well. Mr. Saldana responded, yes. Council Member Clay asked Mr. Hurd how much time he would need. Mr. Hurd replied that he would need all the time he could get, possibly three months. Mayor Johnson asked how long we have been dealing with this issue. City Attorney Roy Hanley replied that it has been an ongoing problem since 1985. He stated that, at the staff's discretion, an additional 45 days may be granted if apparent progress has been made in the first 45 days. PUBLIC COMMENT Marilyn Tonosen, condo owner in the San Anselmo Center, expressed concern for the current condition of the Hurd resident. She stated appreciation for addressing this problem. Rush Kolemaine, P.O. Box 1990, stated that there are approximately 100 similar situations in our city. He encouraged the Council to end nuisances such as these. Mayor Johnson closed the Public Comment period. MOTION: By Council Member Luna and seconded by Council Member Lerno to adopt Resolution No. 1999-047, ordering nuisance abatement at 5620 Hermosilla as amended: "In the event that abatement is not commenced and reasonably conducted within 45 days the enforcement officer is empowered and authorized to abate the nuisance." Motion passed 4:1 by roll-call vote. (Arrambide opposed) 2. Confirming the Cost of Weed/Refuse Abatement- Regarding the placement of weed abatement charges on the 1999/00 property tax roll - Fiscal Impact: None (Staff recommendation: Council adopt Resolution No. 1999-018 confirming the cost of weed I refuse abatement) [Mike McCain] Fire Chief Mike McCain gave the staff report. MOTION: By Council Member Luna and seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Arrambide to adopt Resolution No. 1999-018 confirming the cost of weed/refuse abatement. Motion passed 5:0 by a roll-call vote. CC 08/10/99 Page 5 of 16 3. General Plan Amendment#98003, Zone Change#98010, and 30-lot Tentative Tract Map #99001 - County file No. 2318 - 3055 Traffic Way (Mackey) - Fiscal Impact: Negative, exact number unknown (Planning Commission recommendation: Council: 1) Adopt Resolution No. 1999-037 approving the Negative Declaration with Mitigation, and approving General Plan Amendment 98003, changing the land use designation of the site from Suburban Single Family to Low Density Multi-Family, and extending the Urban Services Line (USL) to include the site; and 2) Adopt Ordinance No. 361, approving Zone Change 98010, changing the zoning of the site from Residential Suburban (RS) to Residential Multi-Family with a Planning Development overlay (RMF-10 (PD7)); and 3) Adopt Resolution No. 1999-038, approving Tentative Tract Map 99001 (County file No. Tract 2318) creating 29 single-family residential lots and one common storm water storage basin lot, based on findings and subject to conditions recommended by the Planning Commission with some minor modifications suggested by staff) [Paul Saldana] Council Member Clay announced that he would abstain from participating in Item#A-3 (see Attachment B). Community and Economic Development Director Paul Saldana gave the staff report and answered questions of Council. Council Member Lerno asked for a confirmation that the Applicant would not be able to get a building permit until the specified lots have water. Mr. Saldana acknowledged that the statement was true. Council Member Lerno stated the numbers listed for the housing were very low. Mr. Saldana replied that the factor used to determine the sales price was based on an average of that used by home builders, mortgage lenders, etc. Mayor Johnson asked if wells were used, in place of buying into the Water Company, they would first be tested for quality. Mr. Saldana replied that they would. Mayor Pro Tem Arrambide asked that some consideration be given to some type of driveable surface for more turnaround for those driveways which do not have shared turnarounds. Mr. Saldana stated that it may be possible, but would need to meet some conditions regarding landscaping and set-backs. Council Member Luna stated that we would not grant a subdivision without a perk test, but are currently looking at a proposal which would grant an entitlement without knowing if there is water to support the subdivision. He expressed concern for wells being placed on each low- income lot, and getting sewer to the site. He stated that this project belongs in the core of the city in multi-family zones. He commented that he had a problem with essentially ghettoizing low-income peoples by placing them all together. Council Member Luna requested that when a PD7 is done, a provision that some of those properties be for low and moderate-income housing. He stated that San Luis Obispo require developers to allow 3% of homes to be for low-income buyers and 5% for moderate-income buyers or they must put 3% or 5% into a kitty and the City will build those properties. CC 08/10/99 Page 6 of 16 Council Member Lerno stated that he did not feel a reference to a ghetto was appropriate. He also stated that if we cannot get the water,the project will not go. Mayor Johnson stated that he believes the comment Council Member Luna made in reference to ghettoizing was to say that by not spreading out our low-income housing in the community, we would be ghettoizing. John Falkenstien, Cannon Associates, representative for the Applicant Mr. Mackey, stated that Condition No. 30 qualifies the buyers of the parcels. He strongly recommended that the Council allow for moderate-income and low-income housing. Mr. Falkenstien referred to a letter written to Mr. Saldana in which the Executive Director of the Housing Authority of the City of San Luis Obispo, George Moylan, states that in their experience it would be more realistic to restrict the sales to those whose incomes are at the moderate-income level (see Attachment Q. Mayor Johnson asked what the intent was of the Applicant in regard to Condition No. 30 and the qualifying of the buyer. Mr. Falkenstien stated that he does not remember anything in the application that referred to low or moderate income; however, he stated that they had to offer something that would compel the Council to approve the project. He explained that was why they stated from the beginning that these houses would be in the $130,000 range. Council Member Luna asked if the housing was for low-income or moderate-income. Mr. Falkenstien replied that, with respect to State Health and Safety Code 50093, it would be low to moderate rather than State Health and Safety Code 50079.5. Council Member Luna asked how much his most recent homes sold for. Mr. Falkenstien stated that it was around $130,000. George Moylan, Executive Director for the Housing Authority of the City of San Luis Obispo, stated that from his experience it would be more realistic to provide these homes for moderate- income buyers. He stated, in response to Council Member Luna comment about the plan for low to moderate-income housing in San Luis Obispo,that he served as staff to the committee that proposed the plan Council Member Luna spoke of. He commented that the City has no intention of building housing and any funds that come back to the City will go into a housing press fund to be used by developers. In addition, he stated that they have not received any money, or houses, from that ordinance yet. Mayor Johnson called a recess at 8:30 p.m. Mayor Johnson called the meeting back to order at 8:40 p.m. Mr. Falkenstien clarified that the proposed housing would sell for the "low-income"price of $130,0004135,000 and not for the "moderate-income"price of$172,000. MOTION: By Mayor Pro Tem Arrambide and seconded by Council Member Lerno to move the speaking limit from five (5) minutes to three (3) minutes due to the great number of persons who desire to speak. Motion passed 3:1 by a voice vote. (Luna opposed) CC 08/10/99 Page 7 of 16 PUBLIC COMMENT Kim Jeanes, 6280 San Anselmo Road, stated that it was not her understanding that a cap could be placed on the cost of the housing. She also stated that one of the reasons for approving the proposal was that the homes were not clumped together. Marvin Pellett, 4320 Del Rio Road, stated that he is opposed to the proposed development. Fred Mills 4419 Del Rio Road, stated that this issue is not about low-income housing. He stated that he believes it is about a developer's attempt to redevelopment a neighborhood. He expressed concern that this project is inconsistent with the surrounding neighborhood. Jim Shores, 6700 El Camino Real, stated he owns property adjacent to the lots and is for the project. He offered to extend the use of his water well to the applicant if he was interested. Michael Sherer, 84050 Alta Vista, stated he attended a similar hearing concerning the 19-home subdivision on Traffic Way. He explained there were many objections to that subdivision but now that it is built, it is obvious that the concerns of the opponents of that project were unfounded. John Goers, 5200 Dolores, stated that he is opposed to the proposed development and does not believe that it is the appropriate location for such a project. Greg Walker, 4375 Del Rio Road, stated that he opposes this project. He said that it is not consistent with the General Plan and decreases the value of the existing properties. Eric Greening, 6600 Lewis Ave., stated that he agrees with the previous speaker. He also said that the Council should consider the safety of children in this proposed neighborhood as it will be adjacent to the railroad tracks. He suggested that if the Council cannot deny this project, he would like to see them hold off for 90 days to look into the water issue first. Donn Clickard, 8525 Atascadero Ave., stated that he is in favor of this project. He explained to the Council that low to moderate-income housing is a need in our community. He commented that several local school teachers have been forced to find homes in other communities where housing is more affordable. Bob Shannon, 5700 Portola, stated that he supports this project. He stated that he agrees with both Donn Clickard and Michael Sherer. As a competing contractor, he acknowledged that Mr. Gearhart has a vision and that may be what this city needs. Jay Miller, 7340 Morro Road, stated that in the past he had qualified for a first-time home in Lompoc. He stated that he is in favor of the housing project. Jeff Miller, 9300 Bocina, stated that he supports this project because it would be beneficial to young adults. Gary Benny, 5300 San Benito Road, stated his opposition to this project. CC 08/10/99 Page 8 of 16 Bonita Borgeson, 4780 Del Rio Road, expressed her opposition to this project. She stated that the Council Members should remember that they stand for something. She also stated that the water and traffic issues should be resolved before consideration is given to this project. Gary Pellett, 4255 San Benito Road, stated his opposition to this project. He expressed concern that the project would cease to be low-income. Tom Hembry, 2725 Ferro Carill Road, stated that he appreciates the current setting of Atascadero and is in opposition of the project. Mary Chastaine, 3855 Highway 41, Templeton, stated her support of the project. She also said that she was offended by Council Member Luna's comment about this project creating a ghetto. Debbie Sanford, 8610 San Carlos Road, stated her support for this project. Jessica Sanford, 8610 San Carlos Road, expressed her support for this project. She stated that she feels the project would be a great opportunity for her and her peers, who are recent college graduates. Rich Chastaine, 3855 Highway 41, Templeton, stated support for this project. He commented that Mr. Shores has offered his well, so water would not be an issue. Becky Pacas, 4305 San Benito Road, stated that the neighbors of this project are opposed to this project. She went on to explain that those speaking in favor of this project are from Peabody and Plum and their supporters. Roger Thompkins, 8465 Los Osos Road, stated he is in favor of this project. George Molina, 5555 Robles St., stated his support for this project. He also stated that many of the concerns expressed tonight regarding water, safety issue, etc., are not legitimate. He encouraged the Council to update the General Plan. Arron Sherer, 5808 Theresa Street, stated he is in favor of this project. Nicole Moore, 1220 Monte Vista, San Luis Obispo, stated that this project addresses affordable housing, not low-income housing. She said she supports this project. She also stated that, as a Cal Poly student, her class has studied Atascadero over the last year and have found that water is plentiful. Sherri Pellett, 4255 San Benito, stated she is opposed to this project. She expressed concern for the traffic issue that would arise. Marge Mackey, 5504 Tunitas Ave., stated she is not related to the Applicant and she is opposed to this project. Bill Caroll, 5350 Ensenada, stated he supports this project. CC 08/10/99 Page 9 of 16 Dorothy McNeil, 8765 Sierra Vista, expressed disappointment in the fact that the Council has not turned down a proposal yet. Todd Swenson, 100 Eagle Creek Court, stated that affordable housing is important and he supports this project. Olivia Swenson, 100 Eagle Creek Court, stated that she grew up next to a railroad and does not feels safety is an issue. Mike Molina, 7165 Pinal, stated that he supports affordable housing and supports this project. Bill Bright, 11875 Santa Lucia Road, stated that there are currently 19 homes currently listed on the market in Atascadero for under $135,000. Leonard Seveland, 5450 Capistrano, stated he supports affordable housing and this project. Theresa Wasley, 3060 Traffic Way, stated that she is directly affected by this project as she lives across the street. She said that she supports this project. Kim Jeanes, 6280 San Anselmo, clarified that her previously stated concern was for the condition placed on the project. She commented that many of the same people who were opposing the project tonight on the basis of trickery, water, and the butchering of the General Plan, were the same people who opposed the project at the Planning Commission meeting on the basis of declining property values, riffraff, trash issues, and living next door to "those"kinds of people. Gary Pallett, 4255 San Benito Road, stated that he is not opposed to low-income housing, however, $135,000 is not low-income. Becky Pacas, 4305 San Benito Road, continued her prepared statement expressing her opposition of this project. Sherri Pallett, 4255 San Benito Road, stated that Ms. Jeanes misquoted her. She stated that she currently is picking up trash from others on her property, and fears that it will increase with the addition of 29 homes. Nicole Moore, 1220 Monte Vista, stated again that the issue is affordable housing. She expressed that she believes many people take pride in their house and will not be slobs. Marvin Pallett, 4320 Del Rio Road, stated that he has heard a lot of rumors about the City Council and feels the issue is not what is right or wrong, but what the people think. Jackie Johnston, 5000 Marchant, stated she is in favor of this project as it fills the need for affordable housing. Mayor Johnson closed the Public Comment period. CC 08/10/99 Page 10 of 16 Council Member Lerno stated he supports this project because it fills the need of affordable housing. Mayor Pro Tem Arrambide stated he supports this project and believes the closeness of a school is an excellent opportunity for higher-density housing. He commented that the General Plan does need to be revised. Council Member Luna stated that, as an individual who was raised in government housing and bought his first home at the age of 35, he realizes the importance of the American Dream. He stated he will not support this project. He explained that it is his belief that when a planned development area is placed, it should be within the Urban Services Line and available to low and moderate-income families. He stated that there should be inclusive zoning, which allows for all levels of income. Mayor Johnson said that he agrees with Council Member Luna that we should spread out affordable housing. He stated he can support the project if Condition No. 30 includes the word "moderate." Also, he would like to see, as Council Member Lerno suggested, a deed restriction on some of the homes limiting their cost. He also asked about the water requirement. Mr. McKinney stated the water issue is included in the utility condition. Mr. McKinney explained the project would not receive a building permit until they can prove access to water. Mayor Johnson asked about tree preservation. Mr. McKinney replied that one tree is being removed. Mayor Johnson asked about the possibility of the developer to deviate from the plan before them by building, for example, apartments. Mr. McKinney stated that he could not. Mr. McKinney clarified that this project is not one that Mr. Saldana has developed, designed or recommended. He referred to Condition No. 30, stating that the sales price could be dealt with by using formulas by which low(80%) or moderate (120%) incomes are found. Mayor Pro Tem Arrambide stated that he would like to see three (3) of the homes deed-restricted to low-income housing and the balance be restricted at a percentage that would equal $135,000. He also stated that he would like to modify Condition No. 33 by adding turnarounds for each home to avoid backing out on Traffic Way to the extent feasible. MOTION: By Mayor Pro Tem Arrambide and seconded by Council Member Lerno to adopt Resolution No. 1999-037 approving the Negative Declaration with Mitigation, and approving General Plan Amendment 98003, changing the land use designation of the site from Suburban Single Family to Low Density Multi-Family, and extending the Urban Services Line (USL) to include the site as amended: Resolution No. 1999-037, finding#2 modified to read "...low and moderate-income housing..." Motion passed 3:1 by a roll-call vote. (Luna opposed, Clay abstained) CC 08/10/99 Page 11 of 16 MOTION: By Mayor Pro Tem Arrambide and seconded by Council Member Lerno to adopt Ordinance No. 361, approving Change 98010, introducing for first reading,waiving reading in full, changing the zoning of the site from Residential Suburban (RS) to Residential Multi-Family with a Planning Development overlay (RMF-10 (PD7)) as amended: Ordinance 361,Item 5 modified to read "...lower and moderate- income buyers..." Motion passed 3:1 by a roll-call vote. (Luna opposed, Clay abstained) MOTION: By Mayor Pro Tem Arrambide and seconded by Council Member Lerno to adopt Resolution No. 1999-038, approving Tentative Tract Map 99001 (County File No. Tract 2318) creating 29 single-family residential lots and one common storm water storage basin lot, based on findings and subject to conditions recommended by the Planning Commission with some minor modifications suggested by staff as amended: 1) Resolution No. 1999-038, Section 1, Item 7 deleted in its entirety and replace the Preliminary Grading Tract Plan 2318 on pages 287 through 290 of the agenda packet with the Preliminary Grading Tract Plan 2318 on pages 249 through 252 of the agenda packet to show shared driveways; 2) Condition No. 30, "Three (3) housing units are to be restricted by deed or other appropriate instrument for sale to qualified low-income buyers as defined by the State Health and Safety Code Section 50079.5 and the remainder of the units shall be restricted for sale to 94% of the median income ($135,360.00)." 3) Condition No. 33, "The total number of driveway ramps shall be reduced where feasible, driveway turnarounds to be provided to the extent feasible by use of common driveways where they will not affect existing large trees, to the approval of the Community Development Department." Motion passed 3:1 by a roll-call vote (Luna opposed, Clay abstained) C. MANAGEMENT REPORTS: 1. Response to Grand Jury Report- "Eagle Creek" Development- Fiscal Impact: None (Staff recommendation: Council approve the Response to the Grand Jury and authorize the Mayor to transmit same and direct staff to initiate certain actions as appropriate) [Paul Saldana] Community and Economic Development Director Paul Saldana gave the staff report. Council Member Luna reviewed suggestions he has made in the changing of the letter written to Judge Picquet. (see Attachment D) CC 08/10/99 Page 12 of 16 PUBLIC COMMENT Joan O'Keefe, 9985 Old Morro Road East, stated City compliance measures seem to have no affect on Kelly Gearhart who begins development prior to obtaining permits. She suggested that the offenders of the law should have greater penalties. She read a prepared statement that clarified her concerns (see Attachment E). Bill Zimmerman, 6225 Lomitas Road, concurred with Council Member Luna that the City should respond to the Grand Jury and tell them what steps the City will be taking to improve their procedures. Dorothy McNeil, 8765 Sierra Vista, stated she appreciates the actions of the citizens who triggered this Grand Jury report. She said that she is disappointed in the City Manager's response and read a prepared statement expressing her concerns (see Attachment F). Mayor Johnson stated he would entertain a motion to continue the meeting past 11:00 p.m. MOTION: By Council Member Luna and seconded by Council Member Clay to continue the meeting past 11:00 p.m. Motion passed unanimously by a voice vote. Mayor Johnson closed the Public Comment period. Council Member Clay read a prepared statement(see Attachment G). He asked the City Attorney to give his opinion on his voting on Eagle Creek. City Attorney Roy Hanley stated that a Conflict in Interest for Council Member Clay would depend on whether or not the change in access to the road would have reasonably provided $10,000 to Peabody and Plum, who was a source of income to him at that time. He continued to state that unless there was some record showing that the change in access would change the price of the houses, there would be no belief that the change in access would provide additional money for Peabody and Plum. Council Member Clay stated that he would be in favor of graduated fines for offenders of the law in regard to gaining building permits prior to the start of development. MOTION: By Mayor Pro Tem Arrambide and seconded by Council Member Luna to approve the Response to the Grand Jury as amended and authorize the Mayor to transmit same and direct staff to initiate certain actions as appropriate. Amended as follows: a) In the first sentence, replace "is pleased to provide" with "respectfully provides." b) In #l, add "...review our Conflict of Interest Code and..." after "The City Council will." c) In#2, second sentence, delete "believe that we emplore" and replace it with "employ." d) In#3, last sentence, delete "not" and replace it with "no longer." CC 08/10/99 Page 13 of 16 e) In #5, last sentence, add "General Law" between "the" and "cities." Motion passed 5:0 by a roll-call vote. 2. Schedule City Road System Workshop - Special Council Meeting - Fiscal Impact: None (Staff recommendation: Council schedule a Special Meeting and City Clerk post Public Notices for the Special Meeting to study issues involving the City road system) [Brady Cherry] There was a Council Consensus to direct Staff to set a meeting for September or October, 1999. 3. Authorization of Loan to Redevelopment Agency -Fiscal Impact: Additional revenue from interest (Staff recommendation: Council authorize a loan in the amount of $161,909 to the Redevelopment Agency at an annual interest rate equal to the average rate of return on LAIF) [Paul Saldana] Community and Economic Development Director Paul Saldana gave the staff report. PUBLIC COMMENT: None.. MOTION: By Mayor Pro Tem Arrambide and seconded by Council Member Luna to authorize a loan in the amount of$267,909 to the Redevelopment Agency at an annual interest rate equal to the average rate of return on LAIF amended as follows: 1) Payoff date of one year or less. 2) Current outstanding loan to the Agency, and accrued interest, be rolled into this new note. 3) Paragraph 3.2 modified to allow the loan to be repaid through the sale of revenue bonds. Motion passed 5:0 by a roll-call vote. 4. Information Bulletin D. COMMITTEE REPORTS: S.L.O. Council of Governments/S.L.O. Regional Transit Authority Mayor Johnson announced SLOCOG will approve a North County Corridor Study in September. He stated there is a SCA3 local option sales tax for roads that is being considered. He commented that he would like to know why Paso Robles receives 14% of STPSHA funds while Atascadero receives 11%. He also announced that in SLORTA there is a contract being recommended to SLOCOG to approve Laidlaw as the overall contractor, however some problems have risen and he commented that he would like to look into it. CC 08/10/99 Page 14 of 16 Water Committees: Council Member Clay reported that water wars are starting up again. He stated that Ken Weathers had mentioned the possibility of the dam project having some North County support if it was determined that the North County could benefit from the project. He also reported that Paso Robles is holding out on the Nacimiento project. Mayor Johnson stated that he has spoken with Ken Weathers, and he feels that we need to first speak with the Water Company before making any moves. Council Member Luna commented that he feels that we may need to get in with San Luis Obispo on the water project if nothing is going to happen with Nacimiento. Council Member Clay stated that municipalities would get water before farmers. North County Council Mayor Johnson stated that they would need to get together with the Water Company prior to beginning anything. Air Pollution Control District Mayor Pro Tem Arrambide announced that he had met with Bob Carr and the Fire Chief regarding eliminating backyard burning. He stated that the City would need to start planning for the time when backyard burning is eliminated. County Mayor's Round Table Mayor Johnson reported that they had met the new Executive Director for the League of California Cities, Chris Mackenzie,the week before last. He stated that he was very impressed. Economic Vitality Corporation, Board of Directors Mayor Johnson announced we had a marvelous reception when the last meeting was held here. E. INDIVIDUAL DETERMINATION AND/OR ACTION: Cites a. Designation of Voting Delegate for League Annual Conference City Clerk Marcia Torgerson gave the report. MOTION: By Council Member Clay and seconded by Council Member Luna to appoint Mayor Johnson as the voting member and Council Member Clay as the alternate. Motion passed unanimously by a voice vote. b. Parks and Recreation Commission Vacancy City Clerk Marcia Torgerson announced that Commissioner Craig Herron has resigned because he is moving out of the area. She stated that his term expires February 2003. She explained the Council's options for filling the vacancy. CC 08/10/99 Page 15 of 16 MOTION: By Council Member Luna and seconded by Council Member Clay to appoint Rick Mathews to the Parks and Recreation Commission. Motion passed 3:2 by a roll-call vote.(Lerno opposed,Arrambide opposed) City Treasurer City Treasurer David Graham had no report but thanked the Council for approving the changes made to the Redevelopment Agency Loan Agreement. ADJOURNMENT: Mayor Johnson adjourned the meeting at 11:40 p.m. to the next Regular Session on September 14, 1999, at 7:00 p.m. MEETING RECORDED BY: Marcia McClure Torgerson, City Cl k MINUTES PREPARED BY: Melanie Whaley, Deputy City Cler ATTACHMENTS: A- Prepared statement by Sharon Winslow B- Statement of Disqualification by Jerry Clay C- Letter from SLO Housing Authority, dated 8/9/99 D- Overhead presentation of George Luna E- Prepared statement by Joan O'Keefe F- Prepared statement by Dorothy McNeil G- Prepared statement by Jerry Clay CC 08/10/99 Page 16 of 16 Attachment: A Atascadero City Council Meeting Date: 8/10/99 Atascadero City Council Meeting =- August 10, 1999- Community Forum Telephone: 466-3691 My name is Sharon Winslow, and I reside at 8275 Curbaril Ave., Atascadero. For a couple of years soon after moving here in 1972, I served on the Atascadero Advisory Committee representing the southwest quadrant. We advised the County Board of Supervisors on planning matters and related community issues as well as assisting with the development of the first General Plan. I also did my share to promote the incorporation of the community. My comments today address the Home Depot project. In reviewing the City's General Plan and some accompanying Elements, I found in the Economia Development Element, item#3 under Basic Community Goals: "Recruit- ment of new commercial services and business enterprises which will broaden the City's economic base, improve the local availablility of goods and services, and improve and promote the economic viability of existing businesses". Does Home Depot fill this goal? I come today with a specific concern about your action to allow a Home Depot of 105,700 sq. ft. into the City without first requiring mitigation on the economic impact on existing businesses that currently provide the same goods and materials. It is my understanding that at one time this condition was a section of the City's EIR element. Where is it now, and why wasn't such an independent analysis required? No where in the documents presented and adopted at the March'99 meetings, do I see the user identified by name. Did we miss the identification of Home Depot as "the user"? I found instead, under the Planning Staff report for the March 2nd Public Hearing "Consideration of Master Plan Development to allow 239,600 sq. ft. of commercial uses on 27 acres", and under item 92, "The specifics of the development will be determined when specific users are identified.", and under item#7 "Fiscal Impacts. Specific users have not been identified for the project to date", and references further that the Subsequent EIR provides a fiscal impact analysis of projected direct and indirect impact amounts the proposal at buildout could generate. No where do I read about direct and indirect negative impact amounts such a project would cause by displacing property taxes, sales taxes, employees, etc. in existing businesses involved in competition directly and/or indirectly with Home Depot as the "primary user". In light of the above concerns, I have three specific requests of the Council this evening. I would greatly appreciate copies of the following pieces of information which I will gladly pick up and happily pay for: 1. The official minutes of the March 2nd, 16th, and any other meetings which detail the actions of the Planning Commission and/or City Council regarding the Home Depot proposal by name and/or by inference, 2. The official minutes and accompanying support documents pertaining to the =- removal of requiring an independent economic impact analysis from the City's Environmental Impact Element. Since the Staff report recommending approval of the project states: "All mitigation measures from environmental analysis have been incorporated into the conditions of approval...is recommended for approval.", and no where do I find an independent economic impact ann_*sis on local retailers in a similar business. What happened to this condition which I understand was in the City's Environmental Impact Element not too long ago? As I recall, one was required on the Dove Creek Project. What happened between Dove Creek and the 905 El Camino Real Home Depot proposal? 3. A list of the changes in any of the existing planning documents that are currently proposed and/or under consideration for revision or deletion, and the rationale for making these changes. This request is based on an inquiry by Commissioner Bill Zimmerman, at the conclusion of the August 3rd Planning Commission meeting during the Time for Staff. Commissioner Zimmerman asked the Development Director to bring to the Commission for their deliberation and action,those matters identified earlier as requiring change. I got the impression that he wished to see this happen as soon as possible. It certainly would be nice to have this information prior to any action. In closing, I would like to present copies of some of the information that has influenced my position on Home Depot or any "Big Box" store. From my point of you, and others in the business, it is Home Depot's huge size, supported by millions in corporate dollars plus predatory retail tactics and marketing strategies that impact so drastically on small existing business. What will happen to us here in Atascadero and others like us in the North County? I urge you to take the time to read about other community experiences, and what knowledgeable experts and other involved leaders and retailers have documented. This is.the "other side of the story", and one that I wish you could have had sooner. I look forward to your response. Thank you for permitting me to speak. _ - Attachment: B Atascadero City Council Meeting Date: 8/10/99 CITY OF ATASCADERO .era .9s CITY COUNCIL STATEMENT OF DISQUALIFICATION 261 ,have disqualified myself from participating in the following g a ite Date of Meet' g " % 9 Agenda Item /J Reason for disqualification is: (A) A financial interest. _( Enter appropriate number from below) 1. I have a direct investment in a business entity worth more than $1,000.00. (a) Name of business entity 2. I have an interest in real property that is too close. (a) Location of property 3. An applicant is a source of income to me greater than$250.00. (a) Name of applicant 4. I hold a position of management in a business entity affected. (a) Name of business entity 5. I have a promise of income from the proposed action. (a) Source of promised income (B) I do not have a disqualifying financial interest, however I choose to abstain to avoid any appearance.of impropriety. 1. State reason for abstention. 2 65 PALMA V UE .gjp.SCA Q,CALI O NIA 93 2 (805)461-50 6 FAX��)461-0606 _ Attachment: C Atascadero City Council Meeting Date: 8/10/99 LL 0 lW�l NOVfINO Ot011TYNITIlf Housing Authority 487 Leff Street Post Office Box 1289 San Luis Obispo CA 93406-1289 of the City po f (8k�g�9-041§9§x (805) 543-4992 San Lir. Fab 998ana Executive Director-Secretary Planning Director George J.Moylan City of Atascadero 6500 Palma Avenue FAXED AND MAILED 8-9-99 Atascadero, CA 93422 Dear Mr. Saldana: The developer and his consultant have asked me to review the conditions placed upon Tract 2318 as to sales price and buyer restrictions. My comments are as follow: First any single-family property selling for$135,000 anywhere in San Luis Obispo County is a desperately needed resource. We have been saying for years that truly affordable housing is desperately needed for those in our county whose income is just beyond the needs of those we typically serve, i.e. above 80% of the median income. To that end we have operated Mortgage Credit Certificate (MCC) programs and First Time Homebuyer(FTHB) programs for that population. Unfortunately, the State has restricted the MCC program to an unacceptable, unworkable level. The FTHB program is funded by HOME Program funds, which are federal dollars, directed through the County of San Luis Obispo. They are limited and only support 10-15 mortgages a year. That is just a small percentage of the need in this county. In reviewing the subject Tract it was noted that the City is apparently restricting sales to persons and families at or below 80% of County median income. From our experience that is unrealistic and prospective clients will not be able to secure mortgages for these units. A more realistic condition would be restricting the sales to individuals and families whose incomes are at the moderate-income level, 120% of County median income. This would be in keeping with market conditions and appropriate State Housing law. I will be available at tomorrow night's City Council meeting and will be happy to respond to any questions you might have prior to and at the meeting. I can be reached by direct line at 597-5302. Sincerely, George J. Moylan Executive Director Attachment: D y Atascadero City Cour. Judge Picquet: i Date: 8/10/9 Pursuant to Penal Code Section 933, the City of Atascadero provide t" is response to the 1998-99 Grand Jury's recommendations to the City of Atascadero. -�- 1. The City Council will continue to take all appropriate steps to insure all City officials and employees act in an ethical manner. (How? For example, how do we answer the Grand Jury's criticism of all of the conflict' of interest votes without which Ordinances 338 and 348 would not have passed. Suggestion: consider a code of ethics (which could tackle the "appearance of a conflict"?) or review the conflict of interest code § 2.15 of the Municipal Code. 2. The City Council recognizes its civic obligation to assure that all transactions can bear the test of public scrutiny.. We believe that we empleFe (employ) professional, dedicated, public servants who must remain diligent in the implementation of their duties and remain committed to their profession in public service. 3. The City has concluded that the driving range lights are not in conformance with City regulations (as originally installed and as modified) and the lights have been and will remain off until it can be resolved to the satisfaction of the City. The City has passed all the Grand Jury's recommendation to the property owners regarding landscaping the perimeter of the driving range, as this is Flet (no longer) within the authority of the City to implement. 4. Staff has established standard language that is used in conditions of approval that limits their authority in making changes to approved projects. This was developed to ensure that there is a separation between the discretion given to staff and that given to the Commission. In the case of Eagle Creek, there was no limitation on, the decision making, authority of staff and therefore all modifications to the project were made at the staff level. (hyperlink) This is a circumstance that is not acceptable to the City Council and we feel that the changes made will prevent the types of oversight that occurred with Eagle Creek from being repeated. 5. The City Council is required, as are all public agencies, to be in conformance with the Fair Political Practices Act. The City has adopted the necessary regulations and policies consistent with the Act. The City of Atascadero follows Government Code §36936 which requires a minimum Of three affirmative votes for the passage of ordinances, resolutions granting franchises, resolutions involving the payment of money, as well as it is required to implement other state regulations relating to affirmative voting, such as a two-thirds vote for the adoption of the budget and three. affirmative votes for approval of general plan amendments. In the Grand Jury Report the City of Atascadero was urged to. "adopt the policy of many cities in enacting an affirmative three vote minimums for all actions." City staff surveyed the other cities in San Luis Obispo County and found that Atascadero already practices the same voting system as all the cities in San Luis Obispo County. (What follows is from the City of San Luis Obispo's Council Policies and Procedures and is available from their website: 1 .3.6.2 No ordinance, resolution or motion shall be passed or become effective without receiving the affirmative vote of at least three members of the Council. (Charter 506) 6. The City Council requires strict observation of codes and regulations and provides personnel policies and procedures, as well as Municipal Code penalties to deal with areas where codes are not followed by City staff. Likewise,-if a private party not in compliance with City regulations, there are sufficient options available for the City to pursue, ranging from voluntary cooperation to formal legal action that may include fines and other judgements rendered by the judicial system. We Code of Ethics Part A: Declaration of Policy Section 1 Statement of Purpose It is essential in a democratic system that the public have confidence in the integrity, independence, and impartiality of those who act on their behalf in government. Such confidence depends not only on the conduct of those who exercise official power, but on the availability of aid or redress to all persons on equal terms and on the accessibility and dissemination of information relating to the conduct of public affairs. For the purpose of promoting confidence in the government of the City of San Antonio, and thereby enhancing the city's ability to function effectively, this code of ethics is adopted. The code establishes standards of conduct, disclosure requirements, and enforcement mechanisms relating to city officials and employees and others whose actions inevitably affect public faith in city government, such as former city officials and employees, candidates for public office, persons doing business with the city, and lobbyists. By prohibiting conduct incompatible with the city's best interests and minimizing the risk of any appearance of impropriety, this code of ethics will further the legitimate interests of democracy. Section 1 Improper Economic Benefit (a) General Rule. To avoid the appearance and risk of impropriety, a city official or employee shall not take any official action that he or she knows is likely to affect substantially the economic interests of: (1) the official or employee; (2) his or her parent, child, spouse, or other family member within the second degree of consanguinity or affinity; (3) his or her outside client; (4) a member of his or her household; (5) the outside employer of the official or employee or of his or her parent, child, or spouse; (6) a business entity in which the official or employee knows that any of the persons listed in Subsections (a)(1) or (a)(2) holds an economic interest; (7) a business entity which the official or employee knows is an affiliated business or partner of a business entity in which any of the persons listed in Subsections (a)(1) or (a)(2) holds an economic interest; (8) a business entity or nonprofit entity for which the city official or employee serves as an officer or director or in any other policy making position; or (9) a person or business entity: (A) from whom, within the past twelve months, the official or employee, or his or her spouse, directly or indirectly has (i) solicited, (ii) received and not rejected, or (iii) accepted an offer of employment; or (B) with whom the official or employee, or his or her spouse, directly or indirectly is engaged in negotiations pertaining to business opportunities . Atascadero Municipal Code =r (Ord. 87 § 1 1984) Sec. 1-2.13. Right to appeal. (a) Except where an appeals procedure is otherwise specifically set forth in this Code, any person excepting tO the denial, suspension, or revocation of a permit applied for or held by him pursuant to any of the provisions of this Code, or to any administrative decision made by any official of the City, if the denial, suspension, or revocation of such permit or the determination of such administrative decision involves the exercise of administrative discretion or personal judgment exercised pursuant to any of the provisions of this Code, may appeal in writing to the Council by filing with the City Clerk a written notice of such appeal, setting forth the specific grounds thereof. (b) No appeal may be taken to any such administrative decision made by an official of the City pursuant to any of the provisions of this chapter unless such decision to appeal has been first taken up with the department head concerned and with the City Manager. 9-9.102 Ministerial permit. Any permit that may be issued under the provisions of this title without review by the Planning Commission or City Council. A ministerial decision involves only the evaluation of a proposal with respect to fixed standards or Objective measurements, without the use of subjective criteria. 739 (Atascadero 6-84) Attachment: E Atascadero City Council Meeting Date: 8/10/99 1 8-10-99 Y Joan O'Keefe 9985 Old Morro Rd. d)aV Mayor Johnson, City Council members Re: Your response to the Grand Jury about the Eagle Creek Development. The Grand Jury Report under recommendations(#6) stated that if the penalties for non compliance of these regulations are not functioning as a deterrent than"they must be reviewed and modified ...so that they perform the function for which the penalties were intended." The city replied that there are sufficient options available for the City to pursue when a party is not in compliance. These options aren't-working in some cases. The penalties may be a deterrent for most of the contractors and developers but they have not been effective in getting Kelly Gerhart to follow the rules. Mr. Gearhart has a long history of beginning work before a permit has been approved. To name a few: 1. The housing project near Paloma Creek Park. Councilman Ken Lerno and Kelly Gearhart were fined for starting working before a permit was issued. 2. Ardilla Rd. Mr. Gearhart started bulldozing and removing trees before permits were issued. As a result no one knew how many trees were destroyed. 3. The property paralleling Hwy 101, and across the street from the Arco stations at San Anselmo. Grading and tree removal began before the permits were issued. 4. The accessory buldings at Paloma Creek Golf Course. Work was started on those before permits were issued. The double fine or investigative fee is a minor nuisance expense to Mr. Gearhart; it does not deter him from doing what he wants to do when he wants to do it. These are a few of the projects where Mr. Gearhart started work before a permit was issued. I asked the city Manager if there was a.complete record of the number of times Mr. Gearhart has ignored the law. He said there was not. If I wanted to pursue this I would probably have to go through all the records. I would suggest that you increase the motivation to comply by increasing the penalty for repeat violators. Each time the same contractor/developer starts work without a permit the fine/investigative fee should be doubled, than tripled, quadrupled etc.. Staff should not have to spend their time dealing with someone who repeatedly breaks the law intentionally. From what I have observed staff is much more responsive to complaints of code violations then it was in the past. However staff needs the tools to do the job and you, the Council needs to back up staff and the City Manger when penalties are administered. No more of these behind the door deals like there was on Adrilla Rd. . August 10, 1999 McNeil, D. p 1 Atascadero City Council Attachment: F -�- Re :. Grand Jury Report and Manager' s Response Atascadero City Council Honorable Couneilmembers : Meeting Date: 8/10/99 I am grateful to the citizens who triggered this Grand Jury . investigation of the City of Atascadero. The Eagle Creek Project aroused the concern of many people and for many different reasons. A major one was the lack of public review when the second reading of Ordinance 338 differed from the content of- the first reading. The lighted driving range has upset not only residents near and not so near, but many others as well. The project as first proposed by Eric Michielssen was an improve- ment over uses allowed by the previous zoning. It included homes , a small golf course , a clubhouse , swimming pool and a few tennis courts. When Kelly Gearhart bought the project he eliminated the club- house , pool and tennis courts and substituted a pro shop, adminis- trative office , restaurant and bar, a lighted driving range and changed the entrance/exit from Santa Barbara Rd. to Atascadero rive . The Michielssen project was given a Legative Declaration by staff white me-ant it would have no significant environmental impacts. Unbelievably, and inexcusably, the Gearhart proposal was not re- quirad to do an EIR. The subsequent uproar from the public about La. le -Creek demonstrates that the need for an EIR was obvious. The sign:i.fic:int changes made certainly have had environmental impacts on man- people. Ln�.ai Iv important is the issue of the developer' s disregard for t1iee law. I� quote from the Jury' s Report : " . .the project has been marts^d- Jrith instances of the developer' s disregard for established pro- cedures and regulations . Besides the installation of the li&ht.'i.ng. . , the developer commenced construction activity prior to the issuance of the appropriate permits . . ;he erected illegal signage , and he failed to provide adequate parking for the uses intended. " Many citizens could verify that Kelly has in other instances shower. such disregard of rules and regulations. In its closing Recommenda- tions on page 6 the Jury states : "There are monetary penalties imposed for failure to adhere to applicable provisions of the Citi• Code. These penalties are intended to serve as a motivation for cos-ppliance . If they fail to serve as an adequate deterrant for non- comoliance , they must be reviewed and mod_ified, _as appropriates so that t _Eerform the function for which the penalties were intended. (E " mphasis mine . - - - _ I saw nothing in the Manager' s Response indicating that the Council has done or intends to do anything to change these penalties. McNeil, D. page 2 8/10/99 The Manager stated in his response that the "Grand Jury made no substantive conclusions regarding issues it investigated "I should think changing the policy about penalties for disregard of City Codes "so that they perform the function for which the penalties were intended" might qualify as a substantive change. Perhaps we can get an oral answer concerning penalties tonight. The most confusing statement for me was the Manager' s statement under analysis : "Because conflict of interest rules apply to individuals and not to the City, itis not discussed in this report (the Grand Jury Report? Which report?) nor in the response to the Grand Jury. " It most certainly was discussed fully in the Grand Jury Report : Potential Conflicts of Interest- p3 Conclusions- p4 and 5 Recommendations- p5 and 6 (nos. 4 and 5) I quote , p51 no-5 "The City Council must adopt a policy regarding conflict of interest that would include banning not only an evident conflict of interest , but also the appearance of a conflict of interest . To do other- wise would add to the further distrust of government . As an ex- ample , Council Member Clay had the opportunity to excuse himself from voting on six separate occasions. . . .the public interest must be placed first. The force of truly representative government is brought under question when the personal interests of two Council Members are so inextricably intertwined with major develop- ment projects that they must abstain from important votes due to potential conflicts of interest." The report went on to say that while ordinances require three affirmative votes , in our city resolutions do not . The Jury urged the City to adopt the policy many cities have requiring three affirmative votes for all actions. It is interesting to note that the Grand Jury pointed out that Ordinance 338 approving the Eagle Creek project would not have passed if Jerry Clay had stepped down because of his conflict of interest . I am disappointed that the Manager did not respond to the Jury' s concerns about changes in the project and the need for an EIR, about the city' s inability to deal with developers .who violate its codes, about the conflicts of interests on the council , or about the recommendationsof the Jury that the city enact an affirna- tive three vote minimum for all actions. Dorothy F. McNeil �� 8765 Sierra Vista Rd. Atascadero, CA Attachment: G Atascadero City Council Meeting Date: 8/10/99 Response to the Grand Jury report on the Eagle Creek Development and Golf Course. In this Politically driven document they(the Grand Jury) states the witnesses interviewed were complainants, interested parties, former and current elected officials and city employees. If the Grand Jury really wanted the truth why did they not give me a chance to respond or others directly involved ? Obviously they had a politically motivated conclusion then wanted to reach. The Grand Jury indicated I had no real feeling for those being effected by the lights and , balls. That I only made statements of support for political reasons. This appalls me, Mr. Gearhart stated to the Atascadero News that my self and George Luna were harassing him about the lights on the driving range. Some of those affected by the lights and can attest to my sincere effort to correct and resolve this problem. How can the Grand Jury make these statements with out interviewing me? I have spent 45 years of my adult life involved in (helping others) community service in Atascadero The Grand Jury stated that I'm under some kind of pressure from my business associates as to my voting. This is not true, I separate my role on the City Council and my business as a Real Estate agent. I have not felt pressure from my peers prior to voting on any matter. I base my voting on common sense and what is best for Atascadero as I see it. I do not always vote with the majority, my vote is the most independent vote on the Atascadero City Council. It seems only fair that I should of been able to defend my self as to there conclusions. It is obvious the Grand Jury was not looking for the whole truth or fairness. they only wanted to play politics. There is no way they can rationalize,why I was not included in this process. As for my voting on the Eagle Creek development. Mr. Gearhart has never been a source of income(not one dollar)to my self. As for the half acre lot that was created by spliting one acre, Peabody& Plum Realtors were not involved in the sale of these two properties. I hope that future Grand Juries are more balanced and strive to get all the facts. I would say that this Grand Jury is not so Grand. It could better be called the Political Jury. San Luis Obispo County deserve better. OT INCLUD , "�l SR.