The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMinutes 072401 Approved August 28,2001 no on MINUTES ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY, JULY 249 2001 7:00 P.M. San Benito School Auditorium 4300 San Benito Road, Atascadero REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY: 6:30 P.M. PUBLIC COMMENT - CLOSED SESSION: None CLOSED SESSION: A. Call to Order 1) Conference with labor negotiator(Govt. Code Sec. 54957.6) Agency Negotiator: City Manager Employee organizations: Department Heads, Mid-Management/Professional, Confidential, Atascadero Fire Captains, Atascadero Firefighters, Service Employees Intl. Union Local 620, Atascadero Police Assoc. 2) Conference with legal counsel - Pending litigation(Govt. Code Sec. 54956.9) Cases: City of Atascadero v. PG&E Diamond v. City of Atascadero B. Adjourn to Regular Session CLOSED SESSION REPORT City Attorney Roy Hanley announced that there was not reportable action taken during the Closed Session. REGULAR SESSION, 7:00 P.M.: Mayor Arrambide called the meeting to order at 7:20 p.m. and Council Member Clay led the Pledge of Allegiance. CC 07/24/01 Page 1 ROLL CALL: Present: Council Members Clay, Johnson, Luna, Scalise and Mayor Arrambide Absent: None Others Present: City Clerk Marcia McClure Torgerson Staff Present: City Manager Wade McKinney, Assistant City Manager Brady Cherry, Fire Chief Kurt Stone, Police Chief Dennis Hegwood, Community Development Director Lori Parcells, Public Workers Director Steve Kahn, Administrative Services Director Rachelle Rickard, Police Lt. John Couch, Planning Services Manager Warren Frace, Community Services Manager Geoff English, and City Attorney Roy Hanley. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Mayor Arrambide proposed exchanging the public hearing regarding the Youth Center from #B- 2 to #B-1. Additionally, Mayor Arrambide proposed that the City Council meeting not go beyond 11:00 p.m. this evening and, if the matter is still before Council, that the hearing be continued to a subsequent meeting. MOTION: By Council Member Luna and seconded by Council Member Clay to approve the Agenda subject to both revisions. Council Member Clay stated that he felt if Council was still in public testimony at 11:00 p.m., they should continue to accommodate those from the public who had waited to speak. MOTION: By Mayor Arrambide and seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Scalise to amend the Motion that any matter pulled from the Consent Calendar be heard at the end of public testimony tonight. Motion passed 4:1 by a voice vote. (Council Member Clay opposed) MOTION: By Council Member Luna and seconded by Council Member Clay to move items #B-1 and #B-2 exchanging their order and to end the meeting at 11:00 p.m. or at the end of public testimony. Motion passed 5:0 by a roll-call vote. COMMUNITY FORUM: Eric Greening, 7365 Valle, stated that he is concerned about the development taking place near the cultural resources on Traffic Way. Frank Kock, 9545 Lakeview Drive, Parks & Recreation Commission, asked about the status of the yellow house on Santa Rosa, formerly the Dugar residence, and why there was no sewer hook up at the site. Mr. Kock questioned why there is a group home at that location when it was opposed by neighbors and turned down by the Planning Commission. CC 07/24/01 Page 2 Charlotte Byrne, 4064 Tranquilla, President of ECHO, gave the Council an update on their services. Bill Obermeyer, 4800 Carrizo Road, asked the Council to think about approving staging areas and horse trails with future developments. Chris Bell, 6180 Lewis Ave., stated he owns property on Ferro Carril Road and asked for an update on whether the road would be going through at the end of the cul de sac. Alan Thomas, 9520 Marchant Ave., spoke concerning the water quality of Atascadero Lake. He asked the Council to take a more pro-active approach towards the lake maintenance. Terrill Graham, 6205 Conejo Road, congratulated the Council for having this meeting televised. He stated that the Council tries to divert public attention to unimportant issues. Pam Marshall Heatherington, 7790 Yesal Avenue, stated the Atascadero Homeowners Association is providing the video coverage for tonight's meeting. John McGoff, 9192 Maple St., stated he notified the Public Works Department about weeds on El Camino Real and they were taken care of. He hopes future emphasis within the City will be placed on parking and truck routes. Mayor Arrambide closed the Community Forum period. COUNCIL ANNOUNCEMENTS AND REPORTS: None A. CONSENT CALENDAR: Roll Call 1. City_ Council Minutes—June 26, 2001 ■ City Clerk recommendation: Council approve the City Council minutes of June 26, 2001. [City Clerk] 2. May 2001 -Accounts Payable and Payroll ■ Fiscal Impact: $894, 742.23 ■ Staff recommendation: Council approve certified City accounts payable, payroll and payroll vendor checks for May 2001. [Administrative Services] 3. June 2001 -Accounts Payable and Pa rjoll ■ Fiscal Impact: $1,706,488.45 ■ Staff recommendation: Council approve certified City accounts payable, payroll and payroll vendor checks for June 2001. [Administrative Services] 4. 2001-2002 Annual SpendingLimit ■ Fiscal Impact: None ■ Staff recommendation: Council adopt the draft Resolution establishing the annual spending limit for fiscal year 2001-2002. [Administrative Services] CC 07/24/01 Page 3 5. Zone Change 2001-0013 — Rancho De Paraiso (San Gabriel Road / Portal Road / Escondido Road Area—City of Atascadero) ■ Fiscal Impact: None ■ Staff recommendation: Council introduce Ordinance 384,for second reading by title only, and adopt Ordinance No. 384 approving Zone Change 2001-0013 changing the zoning district within the Rancho De Paraiso Tract Map area from the Agriculture zoning district to the Residential Suburban zoning district. [Community Development] 6. Youth/Communily Center—State Grant Funds ■ Fiscal Impact: Approval of this Resolution will allow the City to apply for $492,000 in grant funds specifically allocated for the Atascadero Youth/Community Center. ■ Staff recommendation: Council approve the draft Resolution authorizing the City Manager to apply for grant funds from the State of California for the Atascadero Youth/Community Center. [Community Services] 7. "The Wood Nymphs" — Atascadero Art Association Request for Permission to Rehabilitate ■ Fiscal Impact: $10,000 from the Proposition 12 Per Capita funds has been allocated to the Wood Nymphs Restoration Project ■ Staff recommendation: Council authorize the City Manager to enter into an agreement with the Atascadero Art Association to remove, restore, and re-install "The Wood Nymphs" marble statue located in Sunken Gardens and to allocate $10,000.00 in Proposition 12 Per Capita Grant funds to the Atascadero Art Association for this project. [Community Services] 8. Proposition 12 Per Capita Program Grant Funds ■ Fiscal Impact: This Resolution will allow the City of Atascadero to apply for $234,000 in grant funds specifically allocated for Parks and Recreation related improvements. ■ Staff recommendation: Council approve the draft Resolution authorizing the City Manager to apply for Grant Funds from the Per Capita Program under the Safe Neighborhood, Parks, Clean Water, Clean Air, and Coastal Protection Bond Act of 2000. [Community Services] 9. Agreement with Atascadero Little League - for use of Paloma Creek Park Memorial Field ■ Fiscal Impact: Savings of an undetermined amount of staff time and supplies ■ Staff recommendation: Council authorize the City Manager to enter into an agreement with Atascadero Little League Baseball for the use and upkeep of Paloma Creek Park Memorial Field. [Community Services] 10. Public Safety Communication Center-Digital Recording System Purchase ■ Fiscal Impact: $13,804 provided entirely by LLEBG grant funds previously authorized by Council on December 12, 2000. ■ Staff recommendation: Council authorize the purchase of a Dynamic Instruments Brand Digital Recording System from Durham Communications. [Police] CC 07/24/01 Page 4 11. Repeater Component Purchase Authorization- Sealed Bid#2001-004 ■ Fiscal Impact: $15,566 75 provided entirely by grant funds previously authorized by Council on January 23, 2001. ■ Staff recommendation: Council authorize the purchase of Radio Repeater Components contained in Bid#2001-004 from Durham Communications. [Police] 12. Repeater Component Purchase Authorization- Sealed Bid#2001-005 ■ Fiscal Impact: $8,992.64 provided entirely by grant funds previously authorized by Council on January 23, 2001. ■ Staff recommendation: Council authorize the purchase of Radio Repeater Components contained in Bid#2001-005 from Applied Technology. [Police] 13. Repeater Component Purchase Authorization - Sealed Bid#2001-006 ■ Fiscal Impact: $15,530.16 provided entirely by grant funds previously authorized by Council on January 23, 2001. ■ Staff recommendation: Council authorize the purchase of Radio Repeater Components contained in Bid#2001-006 from Applied Technology. [Police] 14. Routes to School - San Gabriel Road and Santa Rosa Road ■ Fiscal Impact: $120,213.94 ■ Staff recommendation: Council authorize the City Manager to execute an agreement with Whitaker Contractor, Inc. to construct the Route to School Project with a maximum project expenditure of $120,213.94 including contingencies and construction engineering and authorize the expenditure of$38, 313.94 in Streets and Bridge Impact Fees for this project. [Public Works] 15. Authorization to Purchase Vehicles -through the State Department of General Services ■ Fiscal Impact: $91,120.00 (in FY 01102budget) ■ Staff recommendation: Council adopt the draft Resolution authorizing the State Department of General Services to purchase vehicles on behalf of the City of Atascadero. [Public Works] 16. Public Highway Crossing Agreement- Union Pacific Railroad (Chico Road) ■ Fiscal Impact: None ■ Staff recommendation: Council authorize the City Manager to execute an agreement with the Union Pacific Railroad Company establishing an easement for public access and allowing for improvement of the existing crossing. [Public Works] Council Member Luna pulled Consent Calendar Item #A-16, John McGoff pulled Consent Calendar Items #A-10 through #A-13 and #A-15, and Mayor Arrambide pulled Consent Calendar Item#A-7. MOTION: By Council Member Luna and seconded by Council Member Clay to approve Consent Calendar Items#A-1,2,3,4, 5, 6, 8, 9 and 14. Motion passed 5:0 by a roll-call vote. (Item #A-4-Resolution No. 2001- 026, Item #A-6 - Resolution No. 2001-027, Item #A-8 - Resolution No. 2001-028, Item #A-9 - Contract No. 2001-021, Item #A-14 - Contract No. 2001-022) CC 07/24/01 Page 5 B. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. Atascadero Youth/Community Center- Purchase of Property ■ Fiscal Impact: $492,000.00 from the State of California grant and $55,000.00 from the Proposition 12 Per Capita funds allocated to the City ofAtascadero ■ Staff recommendation: Council authorize the purchase of real property located at 5493 Traffic Way for the purpose of renovation as a Youth / Community Center, contingent on the receipt of previously allocated State funds. [Community Services] Assistant City Manager Brady Cherry gave the staff report and answered questions of Council. PUBLIC COMMENT John McGoff, 9192 Maple St., asked for clarification on the details of the proposed purchase. Livia Kellerman, 5463 Honda, asked if there could be a "youth complex" incorporating the two- story building in front of the proposed site for the Youth Center. Rick Mathews, 6950 Navarette Ave., discussed the different locations the City has reviewed for a Youth Center. He stated this proposed site seems to be the best location available at this time. He asked the Council to approve this purchase. Barbie Butz, 3370 San Fernando Road, President of ARC, asked the Council to approve this purchase. Mayor Arrambide closed the Public Comment period. Council discussion and clarification from staff of Council questions ensued. MOTION: By Council Member Clay and seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Scalise authorizing the purchase of real property located at 5493 Traffic Way for the purpose of renovation as a Youth / Community Center, contingent on the receipt of previously allocated State funds. Motion passed 5:0 by a roll-call vote. 2. GPA 2000-0001 General Plan Update - Review of Draft Land Use Plan ■ Fiscal Impact: None ■ Planning Commission recommendations: 1. Council adopt the draft Resolution, thereby endorsing the Draft Land Use Plan as the Preferred Plan for use in the Draft General Plan policy document and Draft Environmental Impact Report; and 2. Council direct staff to incorporate Policy Issues I through 10 into the Draft General Plan. [Community Development] Community Development Director Lori Parcells introduced Planning Services Manager Warren Frace who gave the staff report and answered questions of Council. CC 07/24/01 Page 6 Mayor Arrambide called a recess at 9:35 p.m. Mayor Arrambide reopened the meeting at 9:45 p.m. PUBLIC COMMENT Rose Marie Handy, 4240 Larga Avene, member of AHA, expressed her opposition to the General Plan update in a prepared statement read by Joe Schwartz. (Attachment A) Joe Schwartz, 7820 San Marcos Road, member of AHA, read from a prepared statement in which he stated he is opposed to the General Plan update. (Attachment B) John Heatherington, 7790 Yesal Ave., said that he is opposed to updating the existing General Plan. Livia Kellerman, 5463 Honda, distributed a map to the Council Members showing the 1.9 acres across Atascadero Ave. from the Library. She suggested to the Council, in a prepared statement, that this property should become a neighborhood park. Ms. Kellerman also expressed her opposition to updating the existing General Plan. (Attachment C) John McNeil, 8765 Sierra Vista, stated, in a prepared statement, he is opposed to the General Plan update. (Attachment D) Buck Summers, San Benito Avenue, opposed the General Plan update. Dorothy McNeil, Atascadero, expressed her opposition, in a prepared statement, of updating the General Plan. (Attachment E) Raymond Jansen, 7777 San Gregorio Road, stated his philosophical views, in a prepared statement, concerning this issue and public apathy. (Attachment F) Alan Thomas, 9520 Marchant Way, expressed his concern with the inconsistencies in the maps made available to the public. He urged the Council to ask for clarification on population build- out, density and land use policies. Frank Kock, 9545 Lakeview Drive, Parks and Recreation Commissioner, stated the Commission did make a recommendation to the Council to create additional parks. Eric Greening, 7365 Valle, addressed Council Member Luna's question—what about the other mandatory elements? He asked if we are just addressing the land use element, or all the elements of the General Plan. Henry Engen, 9575 Lake View Drive, expressed his opposition, in a prepared statement, to updating the General Plan. (Attachment G) Becky Pacas, 4305 San Benito Road, stated her concerns with the City updating the General Plan in a prepared statement. She also submitted 2 petitions and a prepared statement she submitted to the Planning Commission on June 5, 2001. (Attachment H) CC 07/24/01 Page 7 Marisa Todd, 4500 Del Rio Road, spoke about the issue of accessibility to the De Anza trail. She also expressed her concern that the San Benito area is being proposed for increased density late in this process. Shawn Knoff, requested a zoning change for his property on Capistrano to RMF 16. Scott Griffin, 5310 Carizzo Road, distributed a handout to the Council to support his statements. He explained that smaller lots surround his property on Carrizo Road. Mr. Griffin requested the Council consider his request to include his property in the General Plan update in the land use category designated as SFR-X (Single Family Residential/One-half acre). (Attachment I) Betty Scanlan, west side of Atascadero, stated the City is not using the public input they have received concerning this update. She asked the Council to remember the goals they set for the General Plan update process and to use these goals in their decision-making. Mark Barlow, 8500 El Dorado, expressed his concern with the elimination of the rural character of Atascadero. He gave the Council some suggestions for conditions on development that would help keep the rural feel in Atascadero. Julie Gorman, 5560 San Benito Road, stated she is concerned with the proposed rezoning on El Camino Real that is adjacent to her property. Carmen Barnett, 6780 Atascadero Ave., spoke about the property across Atascadero Ave. from the Library. She stated that she would like it to be a neighborhood park. Susan Black, 6700 Atascadero Avenue, in a prepared statement read by Carmen Barnett, expressed her opposition of developing the property across Atascadero Ave. from the Library. (Attachment J) Geraldine Brasher, 3202 Monterey Road, expressed her opposition of updating the General Plan because of its affect on Atascadero's rural character and open space. (Attachment K) Ken Switzer, thanked the Council for their efforts regarding the General Plan update. Rick Mathews, Parks and Recreation Commissioner, read the letter addressed to the Council and the Planning Commission that the Commission approved at their last meeting. The letter addresses the preservation of open space and the protection of native trees and wildlife habitat, which is necessary to retain the rural atmosphere of Atascadero. Pam Marshall Heatherington, 7790Yesal Avenue, Executive Director of the Environmental Center of San Luis Obispo, urged the Council to consider the cumulative impacts of any of the decisions they will be making tonight. Sonya Serra, 8805 Santa Cruz Road, felt that this draft for the General Plan update does not make sense and she urged the Council to represent the community and find that the plan will not work for Atascadero. Bob Aknathesia, staff attorney for the Environmental Defense Center, expressed his concern for the incremental change in precedent and policy that would be set by the update. CC 07/24/01 Page 8 Robin Femister, 7109 San Gregorio Road, stated his belief that lands are placed in conservancies to protect them from development and for land preservation, which he supports. Becky Pacas, 4305 San Benito Road, continued her comments of opposition concerning the update of the General Plan. (Attachment H) John Knight, planner with RRM Design Group, commended staff for the excellent job they have done on the General Plan update. He encouraged the Council to support the Planning Commission's recommendation for area D represented in Policy Option 7. Gerald Johnson, 1909 Traffic.Way, stated he supports development in Atascadero and supports the update of the General Plan. Alan Thomas, stated his concern with the density increase in multi-family zoning from 16-22 units. Henry Skibo, 3650 Traffic Way, spoke in support of builders, specifically Kelly Gearhart, and the homes and other benefits they provide for the citizens of Atascadero. Eric Greening, urged the Council to make sure the safety elements are reviewed in a public process. Dorothy McNeil, 8765 Sierra Vista, suggested that Council allow the public to express their support for a speaker by standing up. The following citizens submitted prepared statements to the City Clerk concerning this issue. Mayor Arrambide asked that they be included with the minutes of this meeting: Attachment L - Katherine & James Baker Attachment M - Gail & Craig Dingman, 6620 Atascadero Ave. Attachment N - David Jones Attachment O - Ken Cirisan, 9525 Santa Barbara Attachment P - Wayne Haish, 6860 Navajoa Attachment Q - Sorrel & Doug Marks, Atascadero Ave. Attachment R- Germane Segovia, 5705 Carrizo Attachment S - Gerald& Terri Ezell, 5930 Madera Place Attachment T - Roger Zachary, 1800 Traffic Way Attachment U - Anita Rouse Attachment V - M.L. Jacobson Attachment W- Ferro Carril Road petition Mayor Arrambide closed Public Comment and continued this item to the August 28, 2001 meeting of the City Council. Mayor Arrambide called a recess at 11:25 p.m. Mayor Arrambide reopened the meeting at 11:32 p.m. CC 07/24/01 Page 9 A. CONSENT CALENDAR(continued) Item #A-7: Mayor Arrambide stated his concern that the statues not be moved until there was a substantial portion of money available. Susan Beatie explained that the $10,000 would be used for an assessment of the condition of the statues and for an engineer to explain what needs to be done to move them. MOTION: By Mayor Arrambide and seconded by Council Member Luna to authorize the City Manager to enter into an agreement with the Atascadero Art Association to remove, restore, and re-install "The Wood Nymphs" marble statue located in Sunken Gardens and to allocate $10,000.00 in Proposition 12 Per Capita Grant funds to the Atascadero Art Association for this project. Motion passed 5:0 by a roll-call vote. (Contract No. 2001-020) Item#A-10: John McGoff, stated his concerns regarding procurement procedures for this item. MOTION: By Council Member Johnson and seconded by Council Member Clay to authorize the purchase of a Dynamic Instruments Brand Digital Recording System from Durham Communications. Motion passed 5:0 by a roll-call vote. Item#A-11: John McGoff, stated his concerns regarding procurement procedures for this item. MOTION: By Council Member Luna and seconded by Council Member Clay to authorize the purchase of Radio Repeater Components contained in Bid 92001-004 from Durham Communications. Motion passed 5:0 by a roll-call vote. Item #A-12: John McGoff felt the vendor selected for this item did not utilize unit pricing and was therefore non-responsive. MOTION: By Council Member Johnson and seconded by Council Member Clay to authorize the purchase of Radio Repeater Components contained in Bid #2001-005 from Applied Technology. Motion passed 5:0 by a roll-call vote. Item#A-13: John McGoff, stated his concerns regarding procurement procedures for this item. MOTION: By Council Member Luna and seconded by Council Member Johnson to authorize the purchase of Radio Repeater Components contained in Bid#2001-006 from Applied Technology. Motion passed 5:0 by a roll-call vote. Item #A-15: John McGoff asked if this was a programmed vehicle buy and was it to be bought from the vehicle fund or general fund. He also requested that commodity or vehicle contract numbers be included in future staff reports. CC 07/24/01 Page 10 MOTION: By Council Member Johnson and seconded by Council Member Luna to adopt the draft Resolution authorizing the State Department of General Services to purchase vehicles on behalf of the City of Atascadero. Motion passed 5:0 by a roll-call vote. (Resolution No. 2001-029) Item #A-16: Council Member Luna read from the Council's approval of the final tract map for the Lakes project, and felt that Condition No. 30 was not met. MOTION: By Council Member Johnson and seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Scalise to authorize the City Manager to execute an agreement with the Union Pacific Railroad Company establishing an easement for public access and allowing for improvement of the existing crossing. Motion passed 4:1 by a roll-call vote. (Council Member Luna opposed) (Contract No. 2001-023) C. ADJOURNMENT: Mayor Arrambide adjourned the meeting at 12:02 a.m. to the next regularly scheduled meeting on August 28, 2001. MEETING RECORDED AND MINUTES PREPARED BY: "U4� Marcia McClure Torgerson, City Clerk Attachment A- Rosemarie Handy, 4240 Larga Ave. Attachment B - Joe Schwartz, 7820 San Marcos Road Attachment C - Livia Kellerman, 5463 Honda Attachment D - John McNeil, 8765 Sierra Vista Road Attachment E - Dorothy McNeil, 8765 Siera Vista Road Attachment F - Raymond Jansen, 7777 San Gregorio Road Attachment G- Henry Engen, 8575 Lake View Drive Attachment H - Becky Pacas, 4305 San Benito Road Attachment I - Scott Griffin, 5310 Carrizo Road Attachment J - Susan Black, 6700 Atascadero Ave. Attachment K - Geraldine Brasher, 3202 Monterey Road Attachment L - Katherine &James Baker Attachment M - Gail & Craig Dingman, 6620 Atascadero Ave. Attachment N - David Jones Attachment O - Ken Cirisan, 9525 Santa Barbara Attachment P - Wayne Haish, 6860 Navajoa Attachment Q - Sorrel & Doug Marks, Atascadero Ave. Attachment R- Germane Segovia, 5705 Carrizo Attachment S - Gerald& Terri Ezell, 5930 Madera Place Attachment T- Roger Zachary, 1800 Traffic Way Attachment U - Anita Rouse Attachment V - M.L. Jacobson Attachment W- Ferro Carril Road petition CC 07/24/01 Page 11 Attachment: A , Atascadero City Council i 7-24-2001 / Rosemarie Handy v 61` „C("Z. 4240 Larga Ave. Atascadero There is not wrong with the existing general plan. You have been wasting money and time, your time , staff time and our time with all these meetings and maps and proposals to fix something that doesn' t need fixing. You continue to grant variances to the general plan that allow lots to be divided. In this way you subvert the intention of the existing plan to protect us from overcrowding. We don' t need our lots split. There are plenty of buildable lots of different sizes available for all types of housing right now. In looking at the maps the planning commission has discovered that we have many non-conforming lots . How can this matter? What difference does it make whether the lots in a particular neighborhood are matching one another in size? It is not possible to have conformity in irregular terrain such as we have here . Nor is it desirable; it would be boring. Every meeting you have held on the general plan has yielded the same response from the public and that is that people want to keep the rural atmosphere of Atascadero. We can' t do that with housing tracts , even small housing tracts . Please remember our democratic principles . You are here to represent all of the people, not just a few greediyi.-realtors and developers . 012 —T 1\RZ .� Attachment: B J � � Atascadero City Council :r '..s: .. 7-24-2001 A71_\ SCA0&r 0 My name is Joe Schwartz. I live on San Marcos Road, Atascadero. It concerns me that we are over-loaded trying to maintain essential services in our city. I wonder if we have adequate protection for fighting fires according to ;.the standards set by the National Fire Protection Association. During wet weather tom-sewage facilit� over-loaded- -a health hazard. The water company is issuing alarming state }ents about WC1 running out of water. Is it possible we'd have a drought in the very near future? Traffic is unbearable when schools let out and during lunch hour. Streets are full of pothole'. �a zcf,,d s , If we increase t� population by even a few percent, all of us will have to pay wAicb higher taxes in order to expand the above mentioned services , Paying higher taxes so that we can be more crowded Jdoesn' t make sense to me. 013 Attachment: C Atascadero City Council 7-24-2001 5463 Honda Atascadero,C.A. 93442 To Members of the City Council Before you is a map with plot 283 on it. In front ofis where the Library is. I need to give you a brief history of this property before I can express my concerns-According to Recoders.Survey Office -72-21.It is a 1.90 acre of land, it occmo it woo zoned rcorcpation. At woo bought around 1970s. In 1980 is was changed to high density multy family in a single family neighbor hood. The exception is a house with 3 apartments next to it.lnl992 Land use for this property was again recreation.On the 3 maps for public viewing by the city encluded 37 proposals for zone change this property was one of them. First as recreation then half high density,half open space then recreation city park.. The fouth map and last map to the people showed high density with the very tip as recreation-My understanding as it stands is- Land use recreation, Zoning -High Density, Max.16 units per acre. When I was finding out about map 4.1 went to the county office to get the map before you .While there an enployee at the office told me i was the second person to ask about this property . This person said to the man that she passes the property every morning and thought it would make a great neighborhood park..The man said "your not going to like whatYm going to do with it " That statement is very disturbing. My understanding was that the 37 proposals were just that, proposals ,not done deals.When I went to the neighborhood I found out no body knew the property was zoned high density. .Since it was next to the Library It would be great for out door programs for the Library as well a park for the neighborhood..You can see that the land has roads on all sides. It gets the traffic from the High School. 32 units on this land does not make good planning sense.. Why was recreation land allowed to be converted to high density? Is this going on in the rest of the town? When i brought the above information to the Planning Commison, Staff comfirmed my information about the propertys history. When asked why it was changed the response was that Parks and Recreation did not feel it was worth it.My question is did they ask the people aL Lhe Library. Did Lhey ask Lhe people in Lhe neighborhood? Did Lhey make that decesion because it would only be a two acre park.?Do they feel because it is surrounded by streets it would not make a good park ? The fact that it is surrounded by streets is why it is needed.Look at thr park on Palm street in S.L.O., in Santa Barbara. The park in a haven for the kids. There are orginzations who have children from the neighborhood design the neighborhood park which then makes iL a vilai part or Lhe 014 neighborhood. As member of the Citv Council I know,vou know you have a higher responsablil.y noL just to Lhe individual properly owner, bul. Lo Lhe people of each neighborhood Lo keep Lhe inLgerly of Lhe neighborhood and help create community in neighborhoods. One way to create community and good planning is neighborhood parks. It is dislurbinglo read Lhe orginal f79 acres set aside for recreation is.being cul down Lo%l acres yet Were is unexpected icrease of 8,172 residents. You have the general plan and the proposals before you, please incorpraLe as part of each proposal a play area or park in each of the high density areas. As for the rest of the general plan I feel that people were given a chance for input for a year then we get plan I and the process has been speeded up.Not enough time to really check out whats happening. I feel that if the general plan is changed the people in each of the areas effected will not be able Lo give Lheir in put because there would have been given a blank approval by the general plan. Since you are keeping the same goals of the present general plan, the same wording then let us keep the general plan as is and those 37 land changes be done individually Lhrough tone changes so LhaL each area Lail have in put as to what it wants in that area.The process may be slower but I think the town will benefit in the long run.Mistakes will not come in large doses. we could correct what went wrong .To meet the states requirnMents we could start with low and moderaLe incor7ies housing f irst where the need is Lhe rrrosL.tlsing barll.a Barbara au a rnodel, having lower in corTle houw,,; in cid' %itld developrnenUs so we do noL w ind up w i Lh gel Los. O15 Attachment: D Atascadero City Council July 24, 2001 7-24-2001 Atascadero City Council Subject : General Plan Rewrite Proposals Honorable Mayor and Council Members: All City Council Eembers and all City Planning Commissioners extoll preserving our "rural character" in Atascadero. The proposed rewrite of the General Plan prescribes intolerable densities throughout the city destroying that "rural character" . High density and rural atmosphere are incompatible. Only Council Member George Luna recognizes this fact . We don't need this General Plan rewrite . We don't grant this rewrite . John �i. 1%ci:eil 10 Sierra Vista Rd. Atascadero, CA 93422 016 Attachment: E Jul 24 2001 Atascadero City Council July 7-24-2001 Atascadero- City Council Subject : Proposed General Plan Rewrite: Honorable Mayor and Council Members :. This proposed General Plan rewrite was improperly and illegally voted for when Ken Lerno joined Arrambide and Johnson to provide a required third vote to pass it . Not long after that vote ,Lerno had to resign from the council because of his financial conflicts of interest. He had those same conflicts when he voted for the re- write. The only review--I did not say rewrite--the only review required by law was of the housing element . Instead, we have before us, openly stated by staff and proponents, Land Use charges as the goal of this rewrite. No one needs an IQ over 100 to see who benefits--all those developers who want their Land Use Amendments written into the General Plan so they won't have to spend the time and money going before the Planning Commission and the Council or listen to the protests from residents whose neighborhoods they are destroying. If you have paid attention, their names are familiar: Lerno ' s business partner/gearhart , Itii.mmo , Shores, Charnley, Moresco , Shannon, Hendrix, Zappas, Coldwell- Banker Realty. %thy is the council majority so willing to help these people make a lot of money easily? Are they too going to benefit financially? All the mail and phone surveys , the neighborhood meetings and the Rotunda meetings clearly show that the people--that ;treat majority which does not have personal profit to gain--those people simply .want the roads fixed, the downtown t�ainstreet Pro_;ram to succeed, and to 'keep the rural character by following the General Plan i-re now have . ,re avant it enforced, not ammended every time 3 council members say yes to their developer friends . mope, this is not a required "update" . This is a banquet offered by the council to those who already have plenty to eat . Changing multifamily to 22 homes on one lot ; putting 2 houses instead of 1 on lots in single family areas;annexing land outside the city; ma_cing lar;e lots conform in size to the smallest lots ; causing more traffic and crowded schools, less fire and police protection; assuming that our coater source is inexhaustible, and fire anyone at city hall who disagrees. The council majority loves Manager Jade McKinney because he is a master at smoke and mirrors, and he led the city of Shafter to a "healthy almost 10% growth- annually" . The buildout figure of our present General Plan is 31,150, and if we continue to grow at our current rate, we will have 15 to 20 more years to reach that figure. 017 D. McNeil page 2 Can you believe the magicians at city hall have given us a theoretical buildout figure? They say the 31,150 figure will rise to 35, 238. With all the massive density increases they have proposed, we can safely assume that that figure will be reached in about l)Z years. If we grow like Shafter, we can expect to double our population in 10 years and look forward to a non-rural city of about 63 ,000. With the banquet for developers the council is offering, that 's more nearly a probability than. a possibility. Keep the General Plan we have and ENFORCE it . Doroth, F. McNeil 8765 - erra Vista Rd. ntascadero , CA 93422 PLEASE E TER TRIS IL:TV `1-iE RECORD OF T iIS JULl 24, 2001 I'I}�i�' I� G. 013 Attachment: F Atascadero City Council 7-24-2001 Raymond K. aanzen, 7777San y2egon.io Road, Atazcade2o. Kononag,ee memReaz off' .the Counc.i.2. lam .oath to aep zat .the many chaagea ge.ing ievz-fed aga.inzt you. Not gecauzel think they the chazgez aae not tzue, oa not zea.iouz. I aizo lee.i they aae Both taue and eeaioue. Rathza, I want to zhaae some thoughts 2egaad.ing the apathy which keeps hundaedz o/ aezidents of azzidentz /aom Zeeiing con- ceaned; and at the same time enag iez the unpa inc ipied to az zume they can do az .they pieaae without dangea. OZ 9zing tuaned out o/ o,E/-iee. The mood o/ the dominant nat.iona.i paat.iez at doth the the estate and /edeaai izve.iz iz much the same and boa illr a aeazonz, which I w.i i t2y to name. .e. Fo�z one thing, pugei.c apathy .ia piayed down gy gothe mafoz poiit.icai paat.iez. The .ieza we eaae, the mote powea they w-i..ii azzame they have. loo many cit.izenz think the gig -iaauea ate de- team.ined o2 czeatecxit estate and nat.iona.i ieveiz of goveanment. We ate c0iiect.ive.iy zezponzigie /oa the a9zence of chaaactea .in out ae/22ezzn.tat.ivea, 9eeauzewe have agandoned a Iiaht-.love /o2 ehaaacte2 and pa-incipie at the .ioea.i .ievei in oua pe2zona.i and pugi-ic vaiuez. Z. Secondly, &eeauze chazactea .ins l.e.ing -igno2ed .in Bothe educat lona l and 2e l igzOuz zectoaz 0,2 zoc.iet y, the luz inzzz zecto2 haz Been agie to zeduee ups .into eonzameaizm, which Both .in/iatez out ego and den.iea uz the t.imeto out aeiat.ionah.ipa with each othea. Being .ind.iZ/e2ent to each deat2oya o/ zenae o/ .aeiatedne-s.a. With- out that thele can l.e no e11ect.ive aea-eization oZ the dut.iez and 0121202tun.it.ieZ o/ c.it.izenzh.i a. Be/o2e we can give ouaze.ivzz .in aeay.ice we must unde2.stand out -intzaeat and agiiit.iea we mutt jZind oa undea4tand o2 Zind out- Ol9 Attachment: H . Atascadero City Council 7-24-2001 Becky Pacas 4305 San Benito Rd. Honorable Mayor and Council, What were the excuses given by the proponents of this General Plan Rewrite? to correct Inconsistencies? but those who have brought up concerns about inconsistencies, such as Scott Griffith, Wade Tilley, Mike Baumberger, and Jerry and Madalyn McDaniels, have been ignored and even strategically left off, while someone has even seen fit to go outside the study area to accommodate Mr. Gearhart in th removal 2f a Forrest that helps contain the �h �- Salinas River. jv(o t -wkic-k �tteq IL µvz� k¢irc� e{ rpt<s arc r:7"OI mac( to create a secure tax base? instead of improving our retail tax base, the changes adopted by the planning commission virtually eliminate a retail tax base. In fact they legalize multifamily housing units that Gearhart has built in tourist commercial and Retail Commercial districts. The proposed changes expand the city's responsibilities to provide urban services to the furthest boarders of the city, diluting quality services and increasing city expenses, solely for the profit of Nimmo, Gearhart and their associates. to provide affordable housing? This argument requires us to believe that if qu lloality is diminished affordabili will follow. Even Councilman Clay benefits here when his High Density Multi Family Housing changes from sixteen bedrooms per acre to twenty two homes per acre. meanwhile the city is handing out increased density entitlements of between six to over fifty times current densities to those that former Mayor Ray Johnson likes to refer to as his constituents. And at the same time the city forfeits any right to require that a single one of those homes be affordable. This method of dealing with our General Plan will not only undermine any attempt to meet a "quota of affordable housing," to qualify for State road funds, but will also further stress our road systems, city budget, city services, and decrease quality of life in Atascadero while increasing the cost of living and imposing more health and safely risks. We are not talking about increasing housing densities for Jeffery Borges, who truly woul provide affordable housing. The majority of the change proposed is to benefit Kelly Gearhart and his associates, and although I hear that Kelly does often provide sub code, sub standard building, and has creative methods of financing the sale of his work, he has not been a source of affordable housing by CA state standards for Atascadero. However, Mr. Gearhart stili must be Wade McKinney's favorite builder, not only must complaints about his building go through Mr. Gearhart's Realtor Mike j Sherer, but even if a city employee attempts to enforce codes, ordinances or permit i processes concerning Mr. Gearhart , they soon find that the chain of command starts with Kelly Gearhart.. I understand that even people who work for private organizations 021 The facility was upgraded in March of this year to 2.39 mgd, less than half mgd above what the city was producing in 1998, prior to the additions aforementioned and totally discounting all of those in priority areas 1 through 3 of our General Plan. Upgrades to our Sewer treatment facility cost our city in the millions and these cost will be passed on to residents. I sincerely doubt that you will allow our Sewer Treatment facility to see another rainy season for an honest Environmental Impact Report in this areas And the entire city will be impacted. This General Plan Rewrite is an attempt to 'take" building and sewer rights away from those already entitled to Sewer treatment under our General Plan. If this were a "taking" from Kelly Gearhart, you would be up in arms protesting. This is the biggest "taking" in the history of Atascadero, but this time the taking is from the community at large and a gift to Kelly Gearhart so you support it. I suspect that the true motivation behind this General Plan rewrite is an attempt to disguise conflicts of interest on behalf of the Council and Planning Commission members. The end result is miles of spot zoning requests lumped together to increase the wealth and power of Atascadero's latest "land cartel," so that they will once again be able to buy another city council election in Atascadero. Sincerely, Becky Pacas Also find attachments: Petition from San Benito / Ferro Carril area residents who's request has been ignored 14 pages, 78 signatures Petition from San Andres area residents who's request has been ignored 3 pages, 42 signatures My address to the Panning Commission June 5, 2001 regarding thlsafar. l� �' r� l S i t' ✓tJ f t' U r Gc UL_,%.(� ' 023 During the current update of the Atascadero General Plan. We the residents listed below would like our request to be taken into account. S We request that no changes be made in the current Atascadero General Plan to allow for higher density development in the Suburban Single Family Residential Properties in our area of Atascadero. Print Name Signature Date C7 Address / Telephone Optional _��W��'� r�• � Vin- _ - � �"5�� ;ij . Print Name '-Signature Date ��=F�� n E M •�`7 1 1 --((---- i Ao ddr ss Telephone OptionalAil Pr/in'N me Signature Date Address — Telephone Optional i Signature int Name g Date Si lo Address Telephone Optional iI r L—4�—, -C1!:e-,nf Print Name Sienature Date D ��Gc� �� %off --�9% /�5 • C� . —'��_G��--�_`�-_ Address Telephone Optional Print Name Sign tur Date ,,_, Address Telephone Optional ¢; 024 i it !: 'i Zuringrent update of the Atascadero General Plan. We the residents listed belgW t equest to be taken into account. We req uesl that no changes be rnade in the current Atascadero General Pian to allow fot ►' r Fiiloher dgnay development in the Suburban Single Family Residential Properties in ou ,' '? area of Atascadero, I: Print Name Ign ure ate Address Telephone Optional •I I I � `i Print Name Signature I Da� Address --- Telephone Optional i I (� Print Name /I Signature Datar Address Telephone Optional r- inti!Name Signature Da`i Address Telephone Optional i t'ilnt Name Siynaro' Date Address Telephone Optional I'1a tl r e e h .�.Gt - �r-.s _� - �� •�s��rt. 1 .2i Print Name Signature Date Address Telephone Optional :I �► r y,. Z�D�uringrent update of the Atascadero General Pian. We the residents listed below worequest to be taken into account. We request that no changes be made in the current Atascadero General Plan to allow for higher density development in the Suburban Single Family Residential Properties in our area of Atascadero. 1 . Pit Name T' -� V Si nature� C Date � 7 - i� '� J 1�( / / �1 L� r�- + � 'fl 4• .L. � , __ .jam � � I ess /Telephone Optional U Print Name Signature Date Address Telephone Optional Print Name igi lure Date 1'15 Address Telephone Optional (III Print N& ( 'ignature Date ; i 4 SS Address Telephone Optional - d ►i,rw oat f'1 l if '114,t l� l o Print Name Ignature Date Address Telephone Optional Print Name Ignature Date Address Telephone Optional 026 i During the current update of the Atascadero General Plan. We the residents listed below would like our request to be taken into account. General Plan to Ilow fob We request that no changes be made in the current Atascaderoa r Higher density development in the Suburban Single Family Residential Properties in our area of Atascadero. Print Nam P� v Signal re ate Address Telephone Opti nal li! a, IL 44" Signature "ate Iii; Print Name , Address Telephone Optional Date Print Name Signature Telephone Optional Address iII fn I I• Date ' Print Name Signature _ 112 9E- R co c! �a Telephone Optional Address �ax40 Y Print Name Sig lure Date Address Telephone Optional Print Name �� nature l Date Address Telephone Optionar 027 J, ' .i During tile current update of the Atascadero General Plan. We the residents listed below ; would like our request to be taken into account. ' We request that no chpriges be made in the current Atascadero General Plan to allow for: , h1g[Igt density..development in the Suburban Single Family Residential Properties in our.- ' area of Atascadero. Print Jam 971-LI" ; Date ; Address / Telephone Optional i l I ' Print Name SlDal gnat a ;�: ,: , , • Address Telephone Optional 'I , WC)q d( Print Name ~SI nature Uatg� :; � Address Telephone Optional Print Name Signature Datg,; ; }f Telephone Optional Address Name 9n ure Date Pnnt � �i.3 Address Telephone Optional ,I n Print Name Signature Datg (�en=,r�Ch +2_t•( Telephone Optionalt Address fti azo ate of the Atascadero General Plan. We the residents listed beic �rv�`. flaring the current upd to all uld like our reques�t to be taken Into account. request that jan es be made In the current Atascadero General Pian ow r' { fier densIV development In the Suburban Single Family Residential Properties In our area of Atascadero. Da o'' ; --� Signature t' Print Name {. S� _`_� 'K'�✓1'-7�0—� (/(�Av� Telephone Optional' i''; Da Signature Print Name t ! ! Telephone Optional Address T E bnature Print Nance �� L��= -!V_--- _ /f� �— Telephone Optional �{ l{ ddress l� ! J Date �!!y►_ ---'�—" — — Signature Print Name �! {Q Telephone Optional Address i' Date ignatre Print Name j } Telephone Optional !R � Ad ress Dat ----- Signature Ji Print Ni me t -1-ON �• 7etephone Optional .l; Address ,t 029t During the current update of the Atascadero General Plan. We the residents listed below would like our request to be taken into account. We request that no changes be made in the current Atascadero General Plan to allow for Higher density development in the Suburban Single Family Residential Properties in our '. area of Atascadero. Ile Ile Print Name ignature Date 3<jBe�l Address Telephone Optional Print Name Signature Date I�tc-�. At C, 11 Address Telephone Optional VC V1 1- 2.6 - o Print Ndme Signature Date �35c� -�rcA RND �k\c Address Teleph a Optional Print Name Signature Date i; _%A - Address 'telephone Optionar Print Nae ig atur bate n Address Telephone Optional Print Name O Signatur Date A(kJress Telephone Optional 030 Z�D�uri�ngent update of the Atascadero General Pian. We the residents listed below:woud like our request to be taken Into account. We request that q o char lges be made in the current Atascadero General Plan to allow fQr higher de sits development In the Suburban Single Family Residential Properties In ou'ri, area of Atascadero, !: ` L-c6 y�L r rint a e J Signature Va�iey Address Telephone Optional,r :W L l: at� fk 'l PrintNameSignature Daiei ' ; Address Telephone Optional';� ,, Print Name Signature Dalps 1". t Address Telephone Optional 0 rn ryi C— Print Jame Signature Dalt j ;17X5' cryo G�=tri t 1, � �f-e-- Address Telephone Optional -CIE occ— Print Name nature D e: 2CY Address Telephone Optional ZE c13 Print Name Signatu Dae(ti•L X! Address Telephone Optional •iH ; t y .', 0 3 ]; 1 1. I r . 1 Dining the current ulxlate of the Atascadero General Plan. We the residents listed beloWl would like our request to be taken into account. requesl that no chan es be made In the current Atascadero General Plan to allow 16r : l h density development In the Suburban Single Family Residential Properties In our '`: ; z .a of Atascadero. Of Print a /- Signature Uala. Z1,;1 address Telephone Optional; - T Print Name Slyrrature Ua�g :1 4-1 Addross Telephone Optional r r U C K 'Tint Nara© Signature Uaid ress -- _�— - leleplron0Optional 1`111(11 Name ----- r sl 1M re IA Address Telephone Opllonal Print Name S gnatDale AddressC lelophone Optional 1, i'.,A. �.. � t:� c/ �• � 1. +, Print Namen Signa e' I Dae t, �r�.�c l t" V t , n��;I L _ }�1 Address Telephone plionarl'� I' 2 Ir 1 1kr " 1IlY 01 1 � it .11• t a 1( � r Dutinc the current update of the Atascadero General Plan. We the residents listed b6lo would our request to be taken into account. "le request that no changes be made in the current Atascadero General Plan to allow fr'� gi ler —eeL si jy development in the Subu(ban Single Family Residential Properties In o ea of Atascadero. Print Name Signature Dale , �5 r�-r r C«</- ; _ �5C'u�� "�-_- - (tom_(�� Telephone Optional Addross '..l {'Tint Name -- SI nalure Da e ' Address l olephom Optional;I LID Print N<'{rne . Igo lure Dald Vt' C't;t..t-t-.t _ - ---- ice-t ctcfevo_ Address �leil,pne Uptlonai'1�, :, JJ •,. �} n� � Print Name -- -- Signature Address Telephone Optional Prlrt Name gn Ur ' Date f... `7 Telephone tlonai, n dross �,!.•• t .. Signature Re��'I rn F rinl Nae 9 0� I v 0 ��en R_0_ C_A O `� j i tt `— Telephone optional,'�{1' F Address tl ar During the current update of the Atascadero General Plan. We the residents listed belch would like our request to be taken Into account. e requesl: that no ph nGes be made In the current Atascadero General Plan to allow fedi. Ijgj er_den$11y development in the Suburban Single Family Residential Properties in otI" area of Atascadero. t. Xr 10 �U w im, Print Name SI nature Dale ca *�L)A Adrhoss Telephone Optional. it Print Name Signature Dair ��• - c!r ►-�__ —ham --------- --- -- / i:f:. �,. Address 'Telephone Optional --�- �� --�� 1�- ---------•--- -- -- ------------ / - '�-111»;}�/ �i;e.: ('riot Name Signature Dale' };t ddress - -� --- — Teleplone Optional' ('tint Name lgt lure DA,B"j / ! :' 1 r Addross Telephone Optional cj HIM Name Signature Dale, k-A Address Telephone Optional' ' ' i r ti • �t';l �• ;;I� It l •�_, Ptint Signature Da{e t t.. Address Telephone Optional ' 03 - • i is ! t , 1 15, .ning the current update of the Atascadero General Plan. We the residents listed below, y would like our request to be taken Into account. re-dens that no changes be made In the current Atascadero General Pian tllow fortG e • _hIg �r ensi development o aIn the Suburban Single Family Residential Properties to our area of Atascadero. (9ik a�. 0Prr � /• r f tt Narne _ � Signature -_--'-- --- 2 ` Date S2-10 �Vc� �� rC c, � I . Address -- 14- Telephone Optional. ' K 'd _ I Print Name - — _ �� •] g Ure DC-6w Address Telephone Optional Print ame /Signature ��-- Dale j 1 I.f Address --1L -5 •: l: . , Telephone Optional!r I: .i Print NanSe — 1gnatufof �Da(- i Address Telephone Optional Print Name Signature / Date / Address 0� ,U/7S � Telephone Optional ` ftt Print Signature DaS6 Address _ ( !, ► i' Telephone Optional ' •r 4 Qurinq the current update of the Atascactero Genetai Pian. We the residents ilsted bel(l would like oUr request to be taken Into acc:ourtt. I! 1 We requesx that no chancres be matte In the current Atascadero General Plan toallow fo . � i I ter density_development in the Subur hart Single Family Residential,Properties in o of Atascadero. NO Name - Signalure Dale r 2 _1 22 I L A -�CnrD 9jZv L -q 9 L/ Address Telephone Optional. ! „� 7 K LEWIS Print Name Signature ILS Address ------ --- 1 elephone Opllonal ''rint Narno Sig al r oal0 Address telephone Optional: -.. r� ! l . -'lint Name �Slilature -- DI .^ 32 7Sv � '-r`:%�f' Address Telephone Optional ' •i 'lint Name ' Signature Uale tddress lelephor a"Alonai,4i_ '; AC f , 'lint Nat ne nature Drl e Illi Address l elephone Optlonal t, .;` ; a 3 , is During the current update of the Atascadero General Plan. We the residents listedf below would like our request to be taken Into account. ke request that no char es be made In the current Atascadero General Plan to allli flet �letZsity_ development in the Suburban Single Family Residential Propertlesur areq of Atascadero. Prinl Name Signature g �_WlDate do / 6 - I I-) . ; hr Address Telephone Optional 1� Print Name Slgnature Date Address Telephone Optional Print Name Signature Date dress letephone Optional _ Prirtl Name Signature Dald Address Telephone Optional Print Name Signature Date Address 1 etephone Optional f. P►Int Name Signature Date t Address letephone Optional 037; U` ��f5 �i� hay `gas h Attachment# 1 Y-° .�11 /� �y �°' PC Mi ^ as of h1AY 1 5 71101 } 4 �'y VIOLATING PUBLIC TRUST, HEALTH& SAFETY_ �jiJL7 `t� w" Increasing Atascadero's population density violates the legal and moral responsibility g � Y incumbent upon city officials, whether elected or appointed, to'provide for the public health and safety. It is beginning to appear to many that the responsibility such officials have to provide for the public health and safety is being subordinated to personal economic advantage. In the hope that such a conclusion is incorrect I have come to present a petition signed by forty of my home owning neighbors. The statement we signed was "I do not want the Atascadero city government to make any changes to the general plan which will in any way increase the population density.". Most home owners are aware of all the negative facts that attend increased population density. To assure each Planning Commission member is aware of these facts and aware of the impact such facts may have on each member's legal responsibility to provide for public health and safety I Evill not only discuss them but will provide a copy of these remarks and the.petition to our City Clerk and ask her to provide a copy of each to each Planning Commission member. The facts that this commission needs to be aware of and which are being ignored by those who are preparing the new general plans are these: a. Crime will increase. There is a direct relationship between increased population density and increased crime. The number of crimes increases as do the number of crimes per resident. I refer you to research published by R. Figlio a University of California criminologist. Obviously increased crime negatively impacts both health and safety. b. Sewage will increase. Our current sewage plant is inadequate to the task of taking care of all the sewage it must treat. Sewage overflows when it rains hard. Very similar problems cost the city of Folsum $700,000 in fines and that city was exposed to the possibility of those fines totaling ten times that, $7,000,000. With`increased population density overflows of sewage will become worse and this city will be at risk of severe fines and disease from such overflows. Increases in sewer system capacity will be required at taxpayers expense. Public health is an obvious issue. c. Water supply for the current population is marginal and increases in water demand cannot be met without significant and expensive increases in capacity. The aquifer from which Atascadero draws it's water runs beneath the sewage treatment plant. Increased sewage overflow could threaten our water. In many areas increases in water main capacity will be needed at taxpayer's expense. Water quality and availability are obvious public health and safety issues. d. Road maintenance in this city is a joke. The roads are a crumbling. The fact that there are no sidewalks makes walking on the roads unsafe. The city wastes so much money that road safety improvements through routine road maintenance and construction of sidewalks throughout the city are never even considered. Both of these problems have obvious major public health and safety aspects that the city has failed to address. Population density increases will only worsen this. Regarding the rewrites of the general plan, the public is being kept in the dark by the city regarding not only the huge costs it will have to bear to support major infrastructure additions but the fact that increased population density does not provide for the public health and safety. It increases the public health and safety risks. Approving any of the new general plans now being proposed puts Planning Commission members in the position of knowingly increasing health and safety risks to the public and taking no action to mitigate either the costs or the risks. DAVID B. JONES 038 PETITION AGAINST ZONING 'aVHICH INCREASES POPULATION DENSITY I do not want the Atascade:o City Government to make any changes to the general plan which :rill in any way increase the population density. Sature Print Name Street Ad�d/ress Date - -- - -- -i-- '.P>c..-��- -!J �••�-----------�91'J---u- ---------------------- 4 = e�j,( ---- /- _ ---u-------- 1 ce% PETITION.AGAINST ZONING WHICH INCREASES POPULATION DENSITY I do not want the Atascadcro City Government to make any changes to the general plan which will in any way increase the population density. Signature Print Name Street Address Date --�-�--------/�------ - -------------=�------�-�----------------------------------------------------------- - - -------------- ------------- _�cZ "I ,`` /— I/ ij•�IL a.1/.1 �c' /Z--- ----- ------------ -- s------ / - -- ---- --- - � �- ----- -----------P ---�O� - -------- -�-2u-sm1_t&k��.'ti�'------`� z Z c - — --- ��?�%'��-'.f;�oG��,�------- --- -- =G/��G�F•�''` -- - ------- __ -__--_•L_------__• _- �V- -- --�'0_J_✓N_-1 e-_�_:_1_ro C 1 7c ---- -` � emE zt.Cn� J Q - �- --n'"'-c 11 ��o os =-----------�'=��r�, ---�{-� -----------------------------=SQA__-C--�.�-L, ct-� z� U ip� �UUu�- uSS'ell 3 ff--------- - ------ --------- r --I_S__ e,�,v.. 15-16 - -- ----- ------------------------------ -------}------------------------------S1 =�_------------------------- , -- - - 31-------------------- ------------------- -�---1�A ��-L' ---------j 01-s'1c, I ----------------------- r 5, -- - - - --------`------------ �� rrn�14--------------------------------Scan l �� '��a� �o/ -- - rl v v- ,-> --=- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------=------------ ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------•--------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------- ------------=---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 040 ;0�1Ju8 June 5, 2001 Becky Pacas 4805 San Benito Rd. Atascadero, CA Atascadero Planning Commission: I am opposed to your proposed map and many other changes in the General Plan that are being proposed. I am disappointed that the Staff was evidently directed not to release information regarding the LUAs. I feel that the city is violating the Public Records Act on this very important issue being considered tonight. feel that it is extremely important to understand where changes in the the General Plan Land Use Map, proposed tonight, are coming from. California Law Is not requiring these changes to our General Plan Land Use Element. California code section 65580 says that despite the statewide need to provide housing for all economic levels, "the Legislature recognizes that in carrying out this responsibility, each local government also has the responsibility to consider...community goals set forth in the general plan..." CA code 65580 a-e. More than 90 percent of the Land Use Amendments (LUAs) proposed have a direct contradiction to the community goals set forth in our General Plan Land Use. Element. It is not the community input of the majority that has lead to these proposed changes. All of the Land Use Amendment proposals that have been adopted in the "Refined Land Use Alternative," or "Draft Land Use Plan" as it is referred to in your Staff report, conflict with the input given by the over whelming majority at the Neighborhood Meetings hosted by the city. The changes are certainly not in the best interest of the public or the community at large. The Publics Health and Safety are not being taken Into account. Many have expressed concern for traffic and road safety, police protection, adequate healthful water supply, fire protection so far from services, Waste Water Treatment reports that are deceptive. This proposal is Atascadero thumbing its nose at the National Fire Protection Association, while it can't meet the commission's minimum response times. Why should the tax payers pay for an EIR on the Hendrix project when they have already foot the bill in the past. It is not fair to Atascadero taxpayers that they are footing the bill for any of this."Update" or any resulting EIR. This proposal does not represent the Atascadero developers, only about ten percent of Atascadero's contractors are represented in this proposed map. This proposal does not represent the Atascadero Realtors, only about fifteen 041 percent of the Atascadero Realtors are represented in this proposed map. -Where did this plan come from? On September 14, 1999, after voting for the project four times, Ken Lerno stepped down from his vote on the "Mackey" project due to potential conflict of interest: That very same night Ken Lerno seconded the motion to direct Staff to implement a comprehensive update of the General Plan. Lerno was supported in his vote by, mayor at that time, Ray Johnson and current mayor Mike Arrambide. And so we find ourselves here tonight! The history actually goes back to quite some time before the Sept 1999 vote, during Lerno's term on the council. Mike Sherer of Peabody and Plum, Kelly Gearhart, Ken Lerno, Jay Miller of Hurst Financial and Michael Canon and Associates, working together with those city officials who would support them and today we have on our map: LUA number 7 Kelly Gearhart as owner and his partner Ken Lerno assisting him to attempt a purchase of piece of AMWC property to connect to some more Union Pacific Rail Road property that he has been arranging to buy for over two and one half years. And of course the "Mackey" property, where Gearhart has already built one home and if a transfer of lots were to take place it should only be one home. LUA number 28 25% owned by Lerno 25% owned by Gearhart Michael Canon and Associates their engineers LUA number 30 Gearhart has ownership of a large portion, perhaps even more is in escrow like his arrangements next to the "Mackey" project. The financier on the property, Hurst Financial, Ken Lerno's employment. LUA number 11 See your staff report attachment, Gearhart has been added as an owner. Therefore I will refer to the far North end of this plan as Lernoville, Lerno voted for it, Lerno profits from it, and I guess it is business as usual in Atascadero, at the expense of the tax payers. There are indications that Lernoville was in the works long before the Sept 1999 vote to implement the comprehensive Update of the General Plan, long before Ken Lerno resigned from office. do not expect any of you to respond to what I have said tonight. It has not been by experience in the past; however, I do believe that these things need to go on the record. 042 - r What I do expect from this Planning Commission is that at least four of you will vote tonight to support a plan that will line the pockets of the very Councilman who helped appoint you to your position on the Planning Commission. Thank You Becky Pacas 043 Attachment: I Atascadero City Council 7-24-2001 June 25, 2001 Members of City Council and Planning Staff 6500 Palma Ave Atascadero CA 93422 Dear Council and Planning Staff: I currently own and reside with my family at 5310 Carrizo road, parcel number(049-101- 022). Over the last few months I have kept myself informed of the three proposed General Plans that were exhibited in the city building and that they displayed various changes in the land use categories. These changes are consistent with the lot sizes in that area of Carrizo road. Due to the nature and circumstances of my work, I was unable to stay completely advised. It was just recently brought to my attention on June 22°d,that a new General Plan Update called for and designated select, Refined Land Use Alternative Areas. This current General Plan Update (map) outside your office no longer shows all the same boundaries or zoning. This existing General Plan Update indicates SSF (Single Family Suburban). I ask that you consider extending the boundaries to once again include the property, 5310 Carrizo road. The desired land use category would be the same as properties re-designated to the North, South and West, SFR-X (Single Family Residential/One-half acre). This amendment would be consistent with the lot sizes on Carrizo road and create no lower lot sizes within the neighborhood. Thank you, for your timely consideration of my request to be included in the Proposed Land Use Amendments for the City of Atascadero General Plan Update 2001. You have my full cooperation and may contact me at any time. Hm 460-9392 Wk 462-4361 Cell 610-4451 Fax 462-4373 Sincerely, Scott Griffin 044 June 29, 2001 Members of City Council and Planning Staff 6500 Palma Ave Atascadero CA 93422 Dear Council and Planning Staff: Since my first letter to the Council and Planning Staff on June 25`h I have met with and had a few conversations over the phone with members of the planning department. The conversations have been informative but left me feeling under-represented,with a sense of undue burden to actually persuade a local neighborhood alliance to accept a re-zoning change from (SSF) Single Family Suburban to (SFR-X) Single Family Resident, one-half acre. Mr. Frace has informed me that due to the recent petition from the Carrizo Neighborhood Alliance many of the properties bordering the road have been unchanged(SSF) even though property owners on Carrizo disagree with the alliance. The General Plan Update specified a new zone designation(SFR-X) to the North, South and West of my property- 5310 Carrizo road. The property directly to the East is also one half-acre. It is clear that my property is surrounded by existing property and new zoning at one-half acre; however at this time, I am unable to be included in the new Alternative General Plan Update because of a neighborhood alliance that was opposed to any of the original three General Plan options. Up until now, I have supported the team of city planners that have worked hard to research and develop what is best for the city but when alternative land use categories are denied based on complaints, at the expense of other property owners, I have to ask myself if this decision resembles standard planning procedure and/or city zoning ordinance amendments. In any case, is it the responsibility of a property owner to try and persuade members of an alliance to change their position on zoning? I would ask the commission and city council to make or initiate some provision for equal representation in this dilemma. I would be further relieved by your decision to honor my request to be designated(SFR-X) in the Proposed Land Use Amendments for the City of Atascadero General Plan Update 2001 before the final General Plan is adopted. You have my full cooperation and may contact me at any time. Hm 460-9392 Wk 462- 4360 Cell 610-4451 Fax 462-4373 Sincerely, Scott Griffin 045 July 19, 2001 Members of City Council and Planning Staff 6500 Palma Ave Atascadero CA 93422 Dear Council and Planning Staff: Thank you, for your responses concerning the first two letters that I wrote on June 25th & 29th, explaining the overlying zoning on 5310 Carrizo road and pertinent issues to be considered for the inclusion in the Land Use Amendments to the General Plan. The last two weeks have been spent trying to gain a better understanding, in person, of the Carrizo Neighborhood. I have talked with all bordering neighbors and most all of those down the street toward El Camino that were included in the last amendment for no change. I found the Carrizo neighbors that have been perceived as oblique and unbending in voicing their desire to keep things the way they are, on the contrary, were very willing to acknowledge a neighbor progressing toward similar lot size. Out of the fourteen parcels with no land designation change, four are rentals, eight have stated to me in person that they are not opposed to my property being similar lot size and two have yet to be reached. The opposition expressed by Carrizo neighbors was directed at the development of apartments or high-density expansion and not similar lot sizes. It is my understanding that one of the purposes initiated in the General Plan was to try and eliminate all (75%+) non-conforming lot sizes in the city. Given the overwhelming response by Carrizo neighbors in favor of similar lot sizes, I feel the zoning designation of(SFR-X)- Single Family Residence, One Half Acre, on 5310 Carrizo road will in no way create a potential dilemma. Actually, this move will eliminate more inconsistencies in route to conforming lot sizes and build a more solid General Plan that has to be revisited fewer times for any changes. It is still my hope that Mr. Frace provides a recommendation to the Council that will satisfy this situation. I intend to pursue a General Plan amendment that would effect the change. I trust as the Council and Planning Department refine and unfold the wishes of the Carrizo Neighborhood that they recognize the united responses and desire for conforming lot-single family residence. I look forward to moving ahead on the 24th of July and hearing from you again about my request to be designated (SFR-X) in the Proposed Land Use Amendments for the City of Atascadero General Plan Update 2001. Hm 460-9392 Wk 462-4360 Cell 610-4451 Fax 462-4373 Sincerely, Scott Griffin 046 a __ __ _ter_,_—. } a•}[��%•i� s�s�•j i � y' �"r'•�•�,,,,�Y,� / �/-_-- - -- t -� - - -- � -._ _ _ r - - __ fly. ��i -~_ _ r �-�•-ram— � �.� --_ 047 n o 5 3A'� /mss, 2.78 AC. D 26 2 .50AC+- DPTN. 2. 65 AC. 2 O .75AC+- 27 P.M. 6-8 —C8 BZ/d8 P. M. i4'80 24 D /q3 13 a" .50 C O D .45AC .22 9 P 45AC C D 4 2 2.67AC � .63AC .63AC 9 Z O' 21 *58AC P � �o 24 n O " .57AC w NZ O .58AC 0 A� 22 pM.l-50 58AC 15 20G50 0 .58AC a 20 20650 O .58AC s n 28 3 2065o 10 .76AC 29 4 •!� o 1565 20650 pM, 7-50 1535 P M.14—g8 1445R E A 1375 L C A M N 1325 ` ' 0 100 0 200 400 090 �JSMV THIS MAP IS PREPARED FOR 11-02-981 ASSESSMENT PURPOSES ONLY. T ►SCAG Attachment: J Atascadero City Council 7-24-2001 Susan M.Black 6700 Atascadero Avenue Atascadero, CA 93422 July 24,2001 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Atascadero, California Dear Mr. Mayor and Council, I oppose the proposed development of 32 units on lot 283 which consists of 1.9 acres. This property is surrounded by San Andres,Navajoa Streets, and Atascadero Avenue. The existing traffic problem because of this property's location near the high school, gas station, market, cafe and library would only become a more serious and dangerous problem for our neighborhood. I ask you to please drive by the lot and neighborhood and visualize how this proposed development would compromise the general character of our neighborhood forever. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, Susan M. Black 049 v 050 Attachment: L Atascadero City Council 7-24-2001 2�o l a � JUL 2 4 2.001 CITY OF ATHSCADERO - b CITY CLERK'S OFFICE Clav- 4r> =tV74- leve a i - � any � s � 14KG4�S dui -D / K� 0V!/D/�(/G�/ k!7 v � c 114e- V-1 r 7� a V'd e/i'/G� �� CQ O I1-Gt v e-- � � y r2�r Rlov-.Sep- r- SUS All y LJ y 051 Attachment: M -- Atascadero City Council 7-24-2001 Gail & Craig Dingman JUL 2112001 6620 Atascadero Ave CITY Of ATASCADER60- C Atascadero CA 93422 ITY CLERK'S OFFICE 805-466-4547 July 20, 2001 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Atascadero, California Dear Mr. Mayor and Council, We oppose the proposed development of 32 units on lot#283, the triangular lot bordered by San Andres, Atascadero Ave and Navajoa Sts. We believe such a development will negatively impact the livability of the neighborhood. This particular corner is already a traffic problem area, particularly at times when traffic from the high school must ingress or egress. Immediately adjacent to the proposed development are the Library, a restaurant and a convenience store and a number of private driveways from which vehicles must attempt to enter the stream of traffic. A new development from which potentially more than 50 vehicles might be operated would add a lot of stress to the roadway and to the lives of the people in the neighborhood. We are three blocks from the proposed development on Atascadero Ave and we already on occasion must step into the street to direct traffic when we want to back out of our driveway. Another issue is the opportunity that would be lost by the City to create a civic center by using the area as it has been zoned, to create a park directly across from the library. A park would be very well placed in this location and be of service to the neighborhood, which is already densely populated by Atascadero's standards. This triangular lot is already bordered by multi-unit housing and high density single family housing. It is an area that already has its fair share of housing. Thank you for listening. Sincerely, ; Gail & Craig Dingmfan 052 Attachment: N Atascadero City Counci July 24 2001 Council Remarks 7-24-2001 During these deliberations of general plan changes there has been considerable criticism of both City government and developers. Some of the criticisim has been deserved and some not. Certainly the criticism of the City for spending approximately$125,000 for help to make the general plan changes is deserved. Such wastefulness of the taxpayers money is consistent with many of the past City governments and is indicative of the need for a City government that is more concerned with the needs of the residents. The developers are often held up as the bad guys. I believe that these people are, in general; doing what developers do. Sometimes they push the envelope too hard but they are not the people we elect and/or hire to control development so the needs and wants of the residents are met. The City Council and those in managerial positions in City government are responsible for controlling development in a manner consistent with the needs and wants of the residents. Needless to say that there is considerable doubt among the residents of the City that the elected and the hired officials of the City government are acting in the interest of the residents. There is great concern among many that these government officials are acting in the interest of the developers. There is certainly ample evidence that this has often been the case in the past.Many residents are very upset. I would not be surprised if some mounted a legal challenge if too many of their interests are violated by the plan that is adopted. There may be no merit in such a challenge but it is definitely a possibility. We cannot change the past but we can change the future. My advice to the City Council and those who have been hired into managerial positions in the City government would be to be scnipulously honest regarding concessions to developers and to assure you are carrying out the wishes of the residents with regard to growth. There appear to be members of the City government both elected and hired who consider the development of such places as the San Fernando Valley and Orange county as outstanding examples of how to proceed. That is not the direction Atascadero residents want the development of this area to take. Council members and others in authority in the City government have both a legal and moral responsibility to act in accordance with the needs and wishes of the residents. I suggest that if they ignore that responsibility they do so at their peril. DAVID B. JONES Djr JUL 2 4 2001 CITY OF AT ASCADERO CITY CLERK'S OFFICE I 053 Attachment: O� Atas ader �C`ity Council 2 2001 � CITY OF ATASCADERO CITY CLERK'S OFFICE r � �{ ^Vim+ qv.,a /t < t Qr CD 1 054 1 1 1 02 \ 035 Attachment: P Atascadero City Council 7-24-2001 o Ij RJ '�--t•-tom .�-;L LJUL 242001 CIT`!CCL RK S OFFICE 1 056. Attachment: Q \� Atascadero City Council p ECS [ 0 T E DVV5 t � JUL 2 4 2001 CITY OF ATASCADERO CITY CLERK'S OFFICE E WWW • '� Z2- UAW. N N000 In20 ANC t C4 r r (( �� ,fix ��--�--�� t �..1 `��`r..�.? .�'�`��.t ✓�`�'� i %'? 0 IN j?r�---� '' .: . J 057 Attachment: R Atascadero City Council sem. U a3J dus 2 4 200( a.c.Rl('S OFFICE 1 058 ` Attachment: S Atascadero City Council Ge&(C,qT,- 7-24-2001 kdg �C(t"5e_ reg JUL 2 4 2001 ' C TAY CLERK S OFFICE 059 Attachment: i' Atascadero City Council 7-24Rif6bVED July 24,2001 JUL 2 4 2001 CITY OF ATASCADERO To: Atascadero City Council Members CI'Ty CLER:S From: Roger Zachary, 1800 Traffic Way,Atascadero RE: Atascadero General Plan Update I'd like to address some concerns I have about the General Plan Rewrite especially the proposed changes at the end of Ferro Carril between the railroad tracks and the Salinas River. Currently this property is zoned Public and the developer is asking to change it to SFR-Y with PD7 cluster expected. The same goes for the property near Home Depot and the proposed RV park-change from Recreation to SFR-X. I've been an educator in this community for 25 years and involved in conservation and environmental education. The need to preserve habitat along the Salinas River is important for wildlife and our watershed quality. There is no need to sandwich more homes between the railroad tracks and the river. We need to save this area for a wildlife corridor. This area is a potential home for the Kit Fox and Bell's Vireo. I'm very familiar with the flora and fauna of this area and recommend saving it. By developing this area,the biological resources would be lost. It's a good buffer zone close to the DeAnza Trail and the river. The city needs to maintain integrity with its biological resources and save areas for public and recreational interests. This rich and unique plant community and its ecological components must not be fragmented. Make no changes in the zoning of this property. The city needs to maintain the Open Space concept in this area. I also oppose the higher density changes in the northern parts of Atascadero specifically along Traffic Way south of San Benito Road and along El Camino Real from San Benito north. In the future Del Rio and El Camino intersection will be clogged with traffic. Retain the rural atmosphere and the larger lots of the city and make no changes in the area along the Salinas River other than of Open Space. Respectfully, Roger Zachary f 060 Attachment: U Atascadero City Council July 20, 2001 JUL 2 3 2001 CITY OF ATASUADERO Dear Councilmembers (Arrambide, Scalise, Clay, Johnson & Luna), This letter is to once again express my concern for the proposed changes to the Atascadero General Plan. I feel the proposed changes still are not in the best interest of the majority of residents of the City of Atascadero. For some special interest developers, it is just what they ordered, but they do not make up the general consensus of this community. High density housing and over development will just add to our present problems of congested streets, sewer hook-ups, demand for water, increased taxes, property values, addition Police and Fire protection and the overall standard of living. No one denies there will be growth here. Growth is expected and beneficial, but only if it is handled in a responsible way. That is why we look to our elected Councilmembers to maintain responsible growth and to do what is best for the "City of Atascadero". It is not part of your job description to do what benefits only a few individuals who stand to gain greatly at the expense of our city". Thank You, Anita Rouse Atascadero, CA M.Arrambide,W.Scalise,J.Clay,R.Johnson,G.dun &City Clerk(to be filed into the records of the Council meeting on July 24,2001) 061 Attachment: V 1 IL-UL;.I V L.Lj Atascadero City Council 7-24-2001 JUL 2 3 2001 CITY OF ATASCADERO ' i tom--7 `� ,o fie. �• �� - � w G�� w • 062 ,, III f • fit/ ..�.y�'G(1� ,i ! _ v Attachment: W Atascadero City Council To the Atascadero City Council and/or Atascadero Planning Commission-2001 We,the below signed residents of Ferro Carril Rd, would like it to be known that we want to see Ferro Carril Rd remain a"dead-end"cul-de-sac street. We are against any through traffic to the proposed housing developments to the north end of Ferro Carril Rd. Name Address 4 j g `��rrocarrtl � �J v` 17 5'� Ae iso �i 4 �� )/do X200 � jl,ro C 't�. 124A. )V2 � �'--- �/UCS OAI AJ rtS 1 c '/ !� lf Ltd kff& cct/-K/ gb'7S ,;r1Zarr�/ e k,t,C) r IZ,(A.KLt_ cq 6(05- 'I�e Lzz) A 721 a 064 To the Atascadero City Council and/or Atascadero Planning Commission: We,the below signed residents of Ferro Carril Rd, would like it to be known that we want to see Ferro Carril Rd Sed housing developments to the north end of Ferro Ca main a"dead-end" cul-de-sac street. We are aginst rril any through traffic to the propo g Rd. -Name Address .� Cu - —ar�i 065