Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 052901 Approved June 12,2001 film MINUTES City Council / Planning Commission Joint Meeting GENERAL PLAN STUDY SESSION TUESDAY, MAY 299 2001 GENERAL PLAN STUDY SESSION, 7:00 P.M.: Mayor Arrambide called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. and Chairman Eddings led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL: Present: Council Members Clay, Johnson, Luna, Scalise and Mayor Arrambide. Planning Commissioners Blaser, Fonzi, Kelley,Norton, Jeanes and Chairman Eddings Absent: Commissioner Bentz Others Present: Recording Secretary Grace Pucci, Consultant Paul Crawford Staff Present: City Manager Wade McKinney, Acting Fire Chief Kurt Stone, Police Lt. John Couch, Community Development Director Lori Parcells, Public Works Director Steve Kahn, Principal Planner Warren Frace, Assistant Planner Phil Dunsmore, Associate Planner Jamie Kirk and City Attorney Roy Hanley. Chairman Eddings called the Planning Commission to order. INTRODUCTION: Joint CC/PC 05/29/01 Page 1 Approved June 12,2001 1. General Plan Session • Presentation • City Council/Planning Commission Questions • Public Comment • City Council/Planning Commission Discussion City Manager Wade McKinney welcomed those present to the Study Session, introduced City Staff and gave a brief history of the General Plan process to date and what he hoped this session would accomplish. Principal Planner Warren Frace gave the General Plan presentation and answered questions of the Council and Commission. The Plan as presented has been refined from the original three General Plan Alternatives as a result of community input through meetings, workshops and surveys. Planning Commissioner Bentz arrived at 7:18 p.m. Mayor Arrambide called a recess at 8:00 p.m. Mayor Arrambide called the meeting back to order at 8:15 p.m. Discussion of the General Plan was divided into three sections: The North End, Central Core, and South End. Questions of the Council and Commission were answered then public comment was taken. Several written statements were given to the Recording Secretary to be included in the Minutes. They are listed at the end of these minutes and attached. NORTH END PUBLIC COMMENT The following is a summary of the comments made by members of the public: • Regarding the Mackey Property, concern was expressed regarding the density transfer and its impact on water issues, development of wells, etc. • Regarding the San Benito School area, many property owners in the area have large lots that they wish to split and questioned why this area was not considered for potential lot splits. -- --•- -3n-the-issue-of-grannyyunits or-guest homes;-oo cc=-was-raised on how this would help with affordable housing as these units could not be purchased. Joint CC/PC 05/29/01 Page 2 Approved June 12,2001 • Would the area outlined as the Urban Services Line be an assessment district for the homeowners or would the City assume the cost of sewer and roads. • Will there be consideration in the Multifamily/Industrial zone for open space for the children in that area? • It is important to maintain the undeveloped look of Atascadero. • Does the current sewer plant have the capacity to accommodate any new development that results from the proposed General Plan changes within the Urban Services Line? • This plan should promote the growth of clean, light industry. • The proposed changes should be driven by realistic growth expectations, not by developmental pressures. • Will the proposed build out solve the City's current funding difficulties or add to them? • The proposed General Plan should be in place for a long period of time and not subject to continual changes. • Is this proposal in conformance with the original "Concentric Ring" theory of Atascadero where the density radiates out from the center? • What will be done with this plan that could not be done with the previous one? • Traffic Way property owners have concerns regarding changing lot sizes that do not appear to be addressed with this proposal. • Support was expressed for 1 %2 acre minimum property size in the North East area. • Regarding the move of North County Christian School, will there be adequate sewage disposal in the new site? • Will the 37 land use amendments currently waiting for action as a result of the moratorium be set aside for later consideration? • Second units are not the answer to solving the affordable housing issue. Mayor Arrambide closed the Public Comment period. Joint CC/PC 05/29/01 Page 3 Approved June 12,2001 CENTRAL CORE PUBLIC COMMENT • The area of Atascadero Avenue behind the Library should be left as it is. • Concern was expressed regarding the impact on residential areas that are within the proposed industrial/multifamily use designations on Traffic Way and Bajada. • Support was expressed for design standards on the Morro Road corridor. • The percentage of non-conforming lots in the City must be lowered. It was suggested that the zoning be changed to bring the lots into conformance. • Concern was raised for the consolidation of zoning at the El Camino Real/Curbaril intersection. • It was suggested that language be added regarding the impacts to the environment for non-conforming lots. • Parking standards for the downtown should be addressed in the General Plan Update. • Morro Road traffic was a concern and the question was raised if there would be some future road improvement for the area. • There was interest in knowing the criteria to be utilized for addressing lot size recommendations for non-conforming lots. • Concern was expressed regarding the source of funding for projected infrastructure improvements. • There is a need for senior and work force housing. It was felt that the downtown would be an excellent location for both these needs. • Regarding second units, it was suggested that they be required to locate as close as possible to the main house so that it would look like one unit. • Granny units should be treated as rental units. Mayor Arrambide closed Public Comment. Joint CC/PC 05/29/01 Page 4 Approved June 12,2001 SOUTH END PUBLIC COMMENT • Smaller lots should be concentrated in the center of town and discouraged in the north and south ends. • Questions were raised concerning guesthouses and the increased restrictions placed on them with the proposed General Plan. City Attorney Roy Hanley stated that low-income housing, including guest houses/granny units, are a function of State law, and if the City does not address the issue, the State will handle it for them. State law requires that there be at least one area within single-family residential zoning where guest houses/granny units are legal. • It was determined that second units are permitted in size to be 50% of the main unit. It was felt that depending on the size of the main unit, this was tantamount to subdividing a property. • Concern was expressed for the sewer system and if this proposed plan change would overload it. • It was suggested that lighting standards should be considered for areas that are currently rural but may have a higher density or commercial usage nearby in the future.. • The issue was raised regarding the increased needs for electricity, schools, roads, teachers, etc. under the proposed plan. • Apartments were encouraged as a solution for affordable housing. Mayor Arrambide closed the Public Comment period. POLICY OPTIONS URBAN SERVICES LINE Council Member Luna stated, in regard to the Urban Services Line, that sewer issues are critical and priority for approval should go to industrial and commercial property, which increases the tax base. AFFORDABLE HOUSING Commissioner Jeanes commended staff on their presentation and posed the question that if the City bypasses the affordable housing requirement, leaving things as they currently are, and the City is then fined or denied funding, where is that money to come from and Joint CC/PC 05/29/01 Page 5 Approved June 12,2001 how will it effect the future of Atascadero. Regarding the issues raised by the public concerning the core/spoke theory of smaller properties in the center of town radiating out to larger properties at each end, Commissioner Jeanes stated that the downtown master plan would address many of these concerns. Commissioner Kelley indicated that ownership of affordable housing is not currently feasible in Atascadero. He feels the City's efforts should be directed toward multiple family housing, and using units instead of bedrooms is a step in the right direction. Council Member Clay would like to see the standards for bonus units changed to encourage two-bedroom units. He feels that correcting inconsistencies throughout the City and bringing those areas into conformance will benefit everyone. Council Member Luna expressed concern for the schools and feels there needs to be cooperation with the school district to set aside sites for a junior or senior high school. Chairman Eddings felt that the key to affordable housing would be density. He stated that 16 units as opposed to 16 bedrooms is still too low and does not feel a density bonus should be substituted for improved density. He requested that staff come back with more information regarding density and some ideas about what others are doing about this issue and what density looks like on the lots. Inclusionary zoning was also suggested as an option. Chairman Eddings indicated that he did not agree with allowing a second unit on smaller parcels and suggested that wherever a guesthouse is allowed a second house would be allowed. Council Member Luna suggested a pilot program in which an area be carefully selected to study guesthouses and their impact and declare a moratorium on the rest of the city. Council Member Johnson stated that the issue of transportation as it relates to affordable housing must be considered. Commissioner Fonzi spoke about the concept of rental units being integrated into single- family neighborhoods. She expressed concern with a pilot program and the timelines involved. Commissioner Norton requested that information be brought back regarding setbacks, parking and lot size in relation to second units. Council Member Clay would like to see a pilot area for second units on an acre or more. Council Member Scalise requested that staff address the issue of parking in mixed-use areas. Chairman Eddings suggested allowing a higher density bonus for senior rentals. There was consensus among the Council and Commission that staff would bring back additional information on affordable housing options and second units. Joint CC/PC 05/29/01 Page 6 Approved June 12,2001 Commissioner Jeanes suggested that the Smart Growth Principles be posted at each of these meetings. Council Member Clay expressed confusion regarding residential zoning designations and requested clearer descriptions on the maps including acreage designations. EXPANSION OF PD-7 DISTRICT Mayor Arrambide felt there was consensus that the PD-7 District should be expanded as opposed to doubling up the high-density multi-family areas. Chairman Eddings would like to see PD-7 districts restricted and not be allowed in the high-density multi-family areas. Commissioner Bentz felt the recommendations are an additional tool to be used in certain instances with certain guidelines attached to them and he supports this concept. Council Member Johnson stated that if the City wants apartments, they must insure that they are affordable to build. He would like to see a number brought back that the building community would agree is conducive to building apartments. UNINCORPORATED AREAS PUBLIC COMMENT John Knight, Planner, discussed the Eagle Ranch Project and encouraged the City to annex this area. Mayor Arrambide closed Public Comment. There was discussion regarding proposed annexations as presented in the General Plan and consensus was reached to pursue annexation of areas A and D and leave B, C and E in the County. CREEK SETBACKS Council Member Clay supported the idea that on larger lots further out, the set back would be greater. Consensus was reached that staff would look at the riparian mapping and flexible standards for creek setbacks. SERVICE COMMERCIAL Principal Planner Frace indicated that the concern was for Service Commercial areas on the east side of El Camino Real that back up to single-family areas. The idea was to change this area to general commercial where mixed-use residential might be allowed. Council Members and Commissioners agreed with this approach. Joint CC/PC 05/29/01 Page 7 Approved June 12,2001 LOT SIZE INCONSISTENCIES PUBLIC COMMENT • It was felt that reduction of lot size was a good option, however, performance standards must be increased in these areas. • The issue of accessibility to lots, road size, etc. must be considered. • Frustration was expressed regarding inconsistent standards and too many non- conforming lots. Mayor Arrambide closed Public Comment. Council Member Clay indicated that the percentage of non-conforming lots is high and he would like to see the issue brought back specifically addressing how many additional lots could be created if zoning was changed. Principal Planner Frace requested direction on how large a solution was needed and what specifically the Council and Commission determine to be a"fix." Commissioner Jeanes suggested staff bring back numbers on how many lots could be split assuming all lots were brought into conformance by downsizing. MOTION: By Council Member Luna and seconded by Council Member Clay to go beyond 11:00 p.m. Motion passed 9:3 by a voice vote. (Arrambide, Luna and Scalise opposed) A discussion ensued regarding what size lots would be downsized. City Manager McKinney stated that staff would bring back several alternatives on how to handle the non-conforming lot issue. ADJOURNMENT: Mayor Arrambide thanked staff on the superlative job they had done on the General Plan Update and adjourned the City Council meeting at 11:09 p.m. to the next regularly scheduled meeting on June 12, 2001. Chairman Eddings complimented the staff, and particularly Principal Planner Frace on a first class presentation and adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 11:09 p.m. to the next regularly scheduled meeting on June 5, 2001. MEE ING RECO ED AND MINUTES PREPARED BY Grace Pucci, Re ording Secretary Joint CC/PC 05/29/01 Page 8 Approved June 12,2001 ATTACHMENTS: #A - Prepared statement, Elnora B. Garcia, dated May 29, 2001 #B - Prepared statement, Evelyn Rios, dated May 29, 2001 #C - Prepared statement, Polly Minding, Exec. Dir. SLOCO Access, dated May 29, 2001 #D - Prepared statement, Raymond Jansen, dated May 29, 2001 #E - Prepared statement, Rosemarie Handy, dated May 29, 2001 #F - Prepared statement, Mike Wasley, dated May 29, 2001 #G- Prepared statement, Robert& Beverly Cardillo, dated May 29, 2001 #H -Neighborhood comment list, dated May 28, 2001 #I - Prepared statement, John McNeil, dated May 29, 2001 (submitted May 30, 2001) #J - Prepared statement, Dorothy McNeil, dated May 29, 2001 (submitted May 30, 200 1) Joint CC/PC 05/29/01 Page 9 Attachment: A Pagel of 1 Atascadero City Council May 29, 2001- Marcia 001Marcia Torgerson From: Elnora B Garcia [elliegarcia@earthlink.net] Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2001 2:27 PM To: Torgerson, Marcia 1 would like my opinion in the minutes. 1 want the current General Plan to stay in force or let the residents vote for any changes. Enforce the General Plan as it is a good one. Einora B. Garcia 1700 San Ramon Road Atascadero CA 93422 466-5002 023 6/4/2001 05/29/2001 03:52 13054611934 J&E RIOS PAGE 01 Attachment: B Atascadero City Council May 29, 2001 Evelyn Rios Jane Rios 5700 Maya Lane Atascadero, Ca. 93422 City Clerk Marcia Torgeson 6500 Palma Atascadero, Ca. 93422 May 29, 2001 Att: Planning Commission Re: Speak Up! Who' s in Charge Here? Out of an estimated 25, 000 people in Atascadero, what percentage voted? How many of those who voted, voted for the same old bunch already in office? How many people in Atascadero realize that there are members of our city council who stand to gain when the developers take over? For that matter, are any of us REALLY informed as to what our ciy leaders are doing? Is this city "for the people, by the people or are we all shiip led around by greedy developrosdressed in city council clothing. It is a sad fact that' the people making the rules are not necessarily listening to the people. Perhaps it is because 1 . the people are not voting/speaking out? 2 . not informed? 3 . don't care? 4 . care, but don' t have time to get in- volved. Most of our politicians today are put in office by a minority of people. . If developers, . speciai interests, real estate entre--- peneurs have their way, we will cover our land with roads, houses, apartments, businesses and parking lots at the expense of our air, water and quality of life. Our land can only support so much "growth" . .when asked of a real estate developer recently, "What happens when there is no more room, water, money?" the response was "I can always do this somewhere else. " All of this for the almighty dollar. We can always make more money, but nature cannot make more air, water, and, land. We need the latter to survive. Who is in charge in Atascadero? If it is the "greedy" , shame on us for not voting for people with priorities for nature. Shame on us for not fighting back against the developessand special interests. Is Atascadero a city where only money talks? Maybe we should leave tha Carlton Hotel as it is and call it the CARLESEUM, Atascadero's answer to tourism. Who needs Rome and the Coliseum ? We are being fed to the lions anyway. 024 05/28/01 TUE 15:55 FAX 18055487423 CCATC 10002 Attachment: C Atascadero City Council May 29, 2001 m� sLoco May 29, 2001 ACCESS , RE: affordable and accessible housing for people w nth disabilities To Members of the Atascadero City Council &Planning Commission: During your discussions to update the Housing Element of Atascadero's General Plan,SLOCO Access asks that you address the'cridcal need for accessible and affordable housing for people with disabilities. Lack of such housing in this county is the number one probl.m of people with disabilities requesting services from SLOCO Acces and our partner agency., Independent Living Resource Center. The numbers are staggering: 1,900 applicants are currently on the SLO County Housing Authority waiting list—more than 100 of them have a family member with a disability. There are also the individuals with disabilities—both locals and those wishing to relocate here—who don't require fmancial.help, but need.accessible houses and apartments. Accessible housing can include a ramped or level entry, wide exterior and interior doorways, and at least one bathroom that can accommodate a wheelchair and seated bathing,plus-adequate blue s mace parking. Be forewarned,the demand for accessibility in both the public and private sectors will continue to grow as our population ages. Let Atascadero set the standard for creating an Inclusive and.accessible community now and in years to come. Ve. cerely .Yours, SLOCO Access, inc PO Box 4834 - San Luis Obispo California 93403 Poll NMB Executive ' ector 805.543-3"627 - 805-549-7424 TTY 0perxnsdoon12348a0.com 025 Attachment: D Atascadero City Council May 29, 2001 Statement for City Council Record of May 29,2001 My name is Raymond K. Jansen, of 6655 Country Club Dr, I take this opportunity to commend the individuals who contribued to the June 2001 issue of the Atascadero Homeowners Newsletter. It becomes very clear that pursuing a high density growth pattern is going to create future problems for the City that-eivi4 bonded indebtedness will be the only means of payment. Those problems are: An overloaded sewer capacity Additional road maintenance costs Expanded fire protection Overstretched Police Services Additional Water resources Over crowd schools . Any concerned citizen who has not seen this Newsletter should ac- quire a copy by joining the Atascadero Homeowners Association. The gradual growth pattern, provided in the present General Plan, is certainly more manageable than a run-away growth pattern which will 1�` pen if this full General Plafn rewrite is pursued. I personally see little evideice that the edit ' of the citizens, n which were repeatedly expressed at the er- meetings are being taken seriously. Thank you. l 026 Attachment: E Atascadero City Council May 29, 2001 May 29, 2001 Honorable Council Members and Commissioners : It concerns me that we are already at or over capacity for many essentials for Atascadero. 1. In this fire hazard part of California, we do not have at this time adequate protection for fighting fires according to standards of the National Fire Protection Association. 2 . Police protection is very thin. 3 . Traffic is unbearable when schools let out and during lunch hour. Not to mention the potholes which are getting worse on neighborhood streets . 4 . The sewage facility is overloaded during wet weather. Many residences , including mine, are not on the sewer line. S . The water company is issuing alarming statements about running out of water. We are due for a drought in the near future. What then? 6. Schools are overcrowded- If we increase the density by even ten percent, all of the existing residents will have to pay considerably higher taxes in order to expand the above mentioned facilities . I am not willing to pay higher taxes . Rosemarie Handy 8240 Larga Avenue Atascadero, CA 93422 027 Attachment: F Atascadero City Council May 29, 2001 TO: Atascadero City Council And Planning Commission FROM: Mike Wasley 3060 & 3000 Traffic Way DATE: 05/29/01 SUBJECT: Zone change for San Benito School area As many of you know, Myself and other property owners along traffic way have been involved in the frustrating challenge of having our area's zone changed from "single family suburban" to %2 acre minimum. We began this process over a year ago. We have watched property be developed within the same neighborhood such as the Lakes, Shores project, Kaiser property and nearly the Macky project be approved and developed, While we have been ignored or put off from one event to the other. We eventually were included in this "General Plan update". We have attended the meetings which were also frustrating and allowed to be dominated by people who were disruptive and busy providing people who don't know better, false and misleading info. Some of you witnessed this but did nothing even when this information was taken to the media and you, me and others were threatened with a baseless law suit. This neighborhood is zoned "single family suburban" 21/2 acre minimum. As is the case with many area's in this city very few parcels meet this zoning including mine. The majority of the people who signed the oppositions petition don't own property which meet this requirement. My property is surrounded by lots not meeting this requirement. When you allowed the construction of the other mentioned developments, San Benito school and the planned JR. high school you yourself took away the rural feel of this area. I don't consider one city block "rural". 028 This area along traffic way offers the you ability to reach many of the stated goals in this update. Many of the people supporting the change don't wish to do anything with there property today but would like that option in the future if they choose. This change also offers the ability to get a much needed sewer system to the school and pending school, traffic control and a much safer area for our children to pass through. Not to mention a prime area for moderate growth. 1/2 acre lots for nice homes, not apartments or commercial buildings. If'/2 acre lots are not acceptable why can't a compromise of some sort be reached?. 3/4 acre?. Perhaps a split of the block between Chico and San Benito rd's. This would allow the created flow of projects to reach the San Benito school, revise a neighborhood in need of it and a safer area for the children. As is the case in any issue, some people support change some don't. Some people resort to attacks in the papers and so on. All of us have an opinion and a right to share it without the fear of retaliation. NO ONE voice should ever be louder than another. Please consider all the options before making these decisions. Thank you, Mike Wasley LJ 029 FROM CARDILLO PHONE NO. : 4610207 May. 29 2001 02:12PM P1 t Attachment: G Atascadero City Council May 29, 2001 c One of the main reasons we purchased our home ten years ago, was for the peace and quiet that the area offered. If we wanted another Los Angcics, be it Van Nuys, Calabasas,or Thousand Oaks we would have stayed there. We also do not want a few people determining our destiny. Who do they think they are to change a general plait, when we purchased our home according to the plans in the general plan. You oamet expect people to he happy with s�:l: :.tea Wl�,.��ll,cr 4yiug tv t,Iraac wilt:tliii dcsl�iva. We support the land use elementas it was. We feel you should have listened to the homeowners at those meetings. Changing the coning of the arca to high density is a bad idea. Thu zoning contained in the current general plan is the zoning that should be maintained. Sincerely, Robert and Beverly Cardillo 030 Attachment: H Atascadero City Council May 29, 2001 Neighborhood comment on the Atascadero General Plan Rewrite: We, the undersigned reject the Atascadero City Councils proposed land use rewrites. Three alternatives have been proposed and each is unacceptable. They convert land that could be used for revenue enhancing commercial uses to high density housing in too many areas where such housing would be detrimental to the neighborhoods. This high density infill will not only create crowded, unappealing neighborhoods, but will create an unrealistic draw on water, sewers, streets, and all other services required for public safety. The second residence overlay only doubles these problems and crowds too many homes into neighborhoods with narrow winding roads. We prefer that the existing land use plan be kept as is and that housing development be considered on a case by case basis using smart growth principles. Name , Address Phone 031 Attachment: I Atascadero City Council May 29, 2001 '— John W. McNeil 6765 Sierra Vista Atascadero, CA )3422 May 29, 2001 City Council Atascadero , Cts ionorable Councilmembers : The rationale for the oronosed rewrite of o-.zr Atascadero 'Seneral Plan to remove "inconsistencies" is so obviously a subterfuge for massive 'increases in density throughout Atascadero , it is difficult to take it seriously. But then t' ey paid outside consultants thou- sands of dollars to persuade us drastic increases in density will somehow not destroy the charming rural character we have always enjoyed, and want to continue to enjoy. Are Jou convinced? Density and rural character are two incompatibles . It is not difficult ;;o perceive the motivation behind the rewri -- UREED. Land developers 'Love density. It is more profitable . Under our existin; . eneral Flan we have room for ample growth until 2020. We still '--ave our rural character. Let's keep it that way ! Respectf <lly submitted, :r 032 Attachment: J Atascadero City Council May 29, 2001 May 29, 2001 Honorable Mayor, Council and Commissioners :. No :natter what number or name is given to the new proposal being unveiled tonight , we members of the community have little expecta- tion that our concerns will be heeded. We have not been fooled by your use of the word "Update" and your claim that this "update"' is required by law. It is not . Nor do Are buy your excuse that inconsistencies in the current General 21an caused you to spend hundreds of thousands of our tax dollars to hire consultants to correct them when we know our own staff could easily have done so. We also know only the Housing Element was due for review, but all your proposals hgve focused singlemindedly on the Land Use Element to promote massive high density all over town. Gffering`choices" , all of them unwanted, unnecessary and un- principled, will not seduce us or convince us that our current General Plan is inadequate . It is hiThly adequate , providing for a 31 ,150 buildout figure with 15 to 20 years to reach that fiSure . If we don't change the 4 to 1 balance on the prosent council, we probably have 15 years . Thece 4 :ave never turned down any Developers request to chop lots of a nj size to little pieces to enhance the developer' s profits. I aGree with one resident who says there is nothing wron.3 with our present plan--it ' s the lack of enforcement of it that is .wrong. As a result of a 2 year moratorium on General Flan Amendments , 37 Sreedheads are breathlessly waiting to Set their proposals written into the new Flan. Thus they will be spared the time, money and oh-so-unpleasant process of having to listen to neiEhborhood complaints during 2 :Zearirgs . ?hese single-minded money- seekers know their 4 current councilmeTbers .will ;give them what they :rant anyway, so .why sAould the;; have to jump through hoops or pay money to the city coffer? Just put the zoni z` they seek into the Rewrite . No sweat . Also be sure to arrange for :passive residential building, 2 houses per lot , apartments doubled from 16 to 32 units and spread ' em all over town. No buildout figures given. That might scare people. Since we know that study after study proves residential building does not put money into the city treasury, we can easily guess ?chat the motive is for promoting; suet massive density increase. `Hou, ,who have the reins of government in your hands, can call your rroUosals any tii ng you like--maps , diagrams, alternatives 1 to 20. =very version of your smoke and mirrors proposals equals the same outcome : developers and their investor friends will profit . The r of fo us will shoulder the burden and the cost of too rapid development :which will destroy our rural character. 033 D 4c,'.eiI �.�. / 5� Ll ,.ie :-gust keen our current General Plan :pith its allowable 15 to 20 Dears moderate zrrowth. To nuote a recent letter to the editor: ':•Dien"Forbes Magazine rates tine jLO-eI.a-cad--ro area 21st best -olace in the whole country for business and career (out of 20 metro areas rated) based on jobs and earned our current General Plan must be doing something „ic"at rt Do thy F. Mc-A. il sierra Dista �1. 034