Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Minutes 031291
MEETING , AGENDA DATES/9 91 ffEM# A-1 APPROVED AS SUBMITTED ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL 4/9/91 MINUTES MARCH 12, 1991 Mayor Lilley called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Councilman Dexter. ROLL CALL: Present: Councilmembers Shiers, Borgeson, Nimmo, Dexter and Mayor Lilley Also Present: Muriel Korba, City Treasurer and Lee Dayka, City Clerk Staff Present: Ray Windsor, City Manager; Mary Gayle, Acting City Attorney; Mark Joseph, Administrative Services Director; Henry Engen, Community Development Director; Greg Luke, Public Works Director; Andy Takata, Director of Parks, Recreation & Zoo; and Bud McHale, Police Chief COUNCIL COMMENT Councilwoman Borgeson recognized the fine work done by Sligh Cabinets for their construction of the extended dais. PROCLAMATIONS: Mayor Lilley read the proclamation for "Arbor Day", March 21, 1991. Andy Takata, Director of Parks, Recreation and Zoo presented an outline of the special activities planned for City observation. The mayor read the proclamation for "Camp Fire Birthday Week", 3/17 through 3/23/91. Sue Huntley, leader, and Camp Fire Girls from the Chumash Council of Camp Fire were present to receive the proclamation and distributed gifts of candy to Council and staff. CQMMUNITY FORUM: George Luna, Chairman of the Planning Commission, read a prepared statement (see Exhibit A) regarding Final Parcel Map 83-040 (relating to Ardilla Road) . The City Manager indicated that staff was aware of the complaint and would be following up on the matter. CC3/12/91 Page 1 Richard Moen, 4200 Portola Road, spoke regarding the community's water crisis. He urged the Council to look further into the matter before granting any new building permits and ensure that there is adequate water for the existing residents. Councilwoman Borgeson asked that this matter be placed on the Council' s agenda and asked for a status report on the City's Water Conservation Committee. The City Manager indicated that an update in the form of a memo would be coming to Council within the next day or so. A. CONSENT CALENDAR: Before reading the Consent Calendar, Mayor Lilley announced Mary Gayle of Burke, Williams & Sorensen, who would be sitting in for City Attorney, Art Montandon. The Consent Calendar was read, as follows: 1. FEBRUARY 12, 1991 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES (Cont'd from 2/26/91) 2. RESOLUTION NO. 20-91 - ESTABLISHING A STOP INTERSECTION ON SAN ANDRES AT THE INTERSECTION WITH SAN MARCOS AND NAVARETTE 3. RESOLUTION NO. 21-91 - ESTABLISHING A NO PARKING AREA ALONG A PORTION OF PALOMAR AVENUE 4. AUTHORIZING MID-YEAR BUDGET ADJUSTMENTS A. RESOLUTION NO. 22-91 - IMPLEMENTING THE MID-YEAR BUDGET ADJUSTMENTS DISCUSSED AT COUNCIL'S 2/26/91 MEETING B. RESOLUTION NO. 23-91 - INCREASING THE SALARY OF THE PARRS, RECREATION & ZOO DIRECTOR BY 5%, RETROACTIVE TO 1/1/91 5. RECOMMENDATION OF NAME CHANGE FOR PARKS, RECREATION & ZOO DEPARTMENT 6. RESOLUTION NO. 19-91 - SUPPORTING COUNTY SATELLITE FACILITIES IN THE NORTH COUNTY 7. RESOLUTION NO. 15-91 - SUPPORTING THE LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES IN ITS EFFORTS TO REPEAL SENATE BILL 2557 BY ENDORSING SENATE BILL 169 AND IMPLEMENTING THE VEHICLE LICENSE FEE (VLF) S. RESOLUTION NO. 18-91 - ESTABLISHING FEES FOR NOTARIAL SERVICES There were no requests from Council or the public to pull any matters from the Consent Calendar. Mark Joseph,, Administrative CC3/12/91 Page 2 Services Director, submitted for the record revised tables illustrating revenue projections and budget comparisons (relating to Items A-4(a)&(b) (see Exhibit B) . MOTION: By Councilman Dexter and seconded by Councilwoman Borgeson to approve the Consent Calendar; motion unanimously carried by roll call vote. Mayor Lilley commended Andy Takata for fine work in performing a wide scope of duties. B. HEARINGS/APPEARANCES: 1. ARDILLA ROAD EXTENSION/TREE REMOVAL REQUEST AND RELATED APPEAL OF THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION PROPOSED FOR THE EXTENSION OF ARDILLA ROAD (Cont'd from 1/22/91 meeting) A. Appeal of Negative Declaration (Joan O'Keefe) B. Tree removals for road extension Henry Engen presented the staff report recommending approval of the tree removal request. He presented background on the 1979 Environ- mental Impact Report prepared by the Department of Real Estate and noted that only 14% of the potential cumulative impact ,in Long Valley Ranches had occurred. Using overhead projections, the Community Development Director described the potential sites and gave an overview of the seven mitigation measures proposed by staff. In addition, he remarked that staff utilizing Wes Conner as City Arborist believed that the proposed mitigated negative declaration was in harmony with the legal opinion rendered relating to CEQA compliance by the City Attorney on January 7, 1991. Mr. Engen responded to a question from Councilwoman Borgeson relating to lot split potential of the Bill Barnes' properties. He remarked that future lot splits would be unlikely due to the steep slopes. Councilwoman Borgeson recognized that there has been a history of concern relating to drainage in the Graves Creek/Balboa Road area and asked staff whether there had been any complaints from area residents about drainage problems resulting from recent rains. The Community Development Director deferred the question relating to complaints to the Public Works Director and responded to the past history of the area. He stated that problems associated with the Dovica Tract had resulted from the fact that drainage elements were erroneously deferred until after the final map was filed. He reported that the mitigated negative declaration for the present project would require that the road improvement plans deal with matters relating to drainage, adding that each home's location on CC3/12/91 Page 3 a site will be subject to staff review and will be custom designed to fit the terrain so as not to adversely affect the neighbor. The Public Works Director indicated that no specific complaints had been received regarding drainage problems associated with the recent rains. He added that one of the routine functions conducted by the Engineering Department is to look at every building permit and track any problems relating to water run-off. Councilwoman Borgeson asked the Community Development Director to clarify a statement made by City Planner, Steve Decamp during the Planning Commission meeting of February 19, 1991 regarding the E.I.R. for Long Valley Ranches prepared by the Department of Real Estate. Mr. Engen validated the City Planner's comment adding that the City Attorney had verified that the State did not, at that time, monitor enforcement of the E.I.R. 's mitigation measures. Councilman Dexter questioned staff regarding the water company's ability to serve and other matters relating to drainage. Mr. Engen confirmed that Atascadero Mutual Water Company has indicated that it has sufficient water for this project. In addition, he reported that no perk or soils tests have been done at this point, indicating that these tests are done later in either the subdivision or building permit process. Addressing drainage, the Public Works Director, reported that, regardless of additional construction, the Graves Creek area is of .high priority in the department' s capital improvement program and explained that a variety of engineering techniques can be used to reduce the quantity of run-off. Public Comments: Joan O'Keefe, appellant, read a prepared statement supporting her appeal (see Exhibit C) Tom Vaughn, speaking for the applicant, urged Council to approve the tree removal permit reporting that the road hadbeendesigned to City standards and that the plans included erosion control and tree protection measures. He noted that if allowed more flexibility with the road design, additional trees could be saved. Mr. Vaughn also asked that the applicant be granted the right to replace trees at some other site, as the project area is already heavily forested. Eric Greening, 7365 Valle, read` a prepared statement (see Exhi- bit D) in support of the appeal. Jim Langford, Templeton resident, announced that he owned property adjacent to the proposed Ardilla Road extension and read a prepared statement (see Exhibit E) urging Council to consider modifying CC3/1a/91 Page 4 standards for the road. Karen Coniglio, 7600 Graves Creek Road, presented a copy of a citizens' petition requesting that a full environmental impact report be done on the proposed Ardilla Road extension (see Exhi- bit F) . Maurice Lane, 3105 Ardilla Road, emphasized concerns relating to drainage and road safety. The Community Development Director, responding to public comments, assured Council that documentation had been received prior to the posting of the negative declaration and that tree protection plans had indeed been included in the report. He related that staff, upon review, did not feel that the lots could be further subdivided and indicated that any request to have designs including houses and driveways would be impractical. This, he explained, was because it is up to the future individual lot owner(s) to prepare plans of this kind to in accordance with City standards. Regarding fire protection concerns, the Community Development Director clarified that the proposed project does not fall into the "fringe area" because it falls into the 8,000-10,000 foot ring from the center of town. Addressing some of the suggested alternatives, Mr. Engen emphasized that clustering housing, restrictions on lot splits, requirements of preservation of open space and creation of corridors of open space are all things that can be incorporated into planned development re-zoning or subdivision activity; but not road improvement plans. He stressed that because the applicant only owns one side of the street, there is not the flexibility to relocate the road. Explaining that restricting fencing in residential areas or limiting pets and livestock per household has not yet been done in RS-Suburban areas; Mr. Engen questioned whether the Council would wish to address this subject. The Community Development Director also clarified that ten trips/dwelling was a current standard released by the Institute of Traffic Engineers and in closing, pointed out that there exists a 1980 E.I.R. , done as part of the City's General Plan, which indicates that the kinds of development and lot sizes in the General Plan will assure the protection of flora and fauna by having built-in open space as part of it. Councilman Shiers referred to a letter from the Department of Fish & Game (May 8, 1979) which suggested the alterative of cluster-type development and asked whether or not the Long Valley E.I.R. responded. Mr. Engen stated that, to his knowledge, it had not. In reply to Councilwoman Borgeson's further inquiry regarding recombination of property (as suggested by the Dept. of Fish & CC3/12/91 Page 5 Game) , Mr. Engen reported that staff had spoken to various large landowners and encouraged resubdividing to achieve optimum building sites; but added that there have been no reviews of overall subdivisions to accomplish this. The mayor asked the Public Works Director to comment on the road design standards. Mr. Luke stated that staff had worked closely with the applicant' s engineer in designing a road that meets minimum standards adopted by the City Council, adding that it would be a safe road as presently designed. Mayor Lilley asked the City Attorney to clarify the reliability of the 1979 E.I.R. Mary Gayle confirmed that the lead jurisdiction was with the State Department of Real Estate, who was charged with the preparation of the Environmental Impact Report. The standard in California, she explained, for a negative declaration with mitigation measures is that there are no fair arguments that there can be significant impacts. She also pointed out that City Attorney Art Montandon believes the document to be adequate for the purposes of having a mitigated negative declaration. Ms. Gayle advised that if Council feels that there could be significant impacts not addressed by the mitigated negative declaration, appropriate action would be to ask for additional information. This, she explained, could include a full environmental impact review, an addendum or supplement to the existing E.I.R. prepared by the Department of Real Estate. Councilman Nimmo stated that staff had spent an enormous amount of time on this matter and asserted that it is time for Council to take the recommendations of staff and allow the applicant to proceed. Councilman Dexter indicated that his questions had been answered by staff. Councilman Shiers responded that he had some concerns relating to drainage and alternative designs and believed that there were significant impacts not yet addressed. He stated that it was time to put in a road the correct way and discontinue the piecemeal type of development which has already occurred. In addition, referencing the geological report, Councilman Shiers noted that findings in that report should no longer be relied upon because it had been well over one year since the report had been issued. Continuing, Councilman Shiers asserted that the appeal should be upheld and environmental impacts and alternatives should be studied in more detail. Councilwoman Borgeson agreed with his comments and made the following motion: CC3/12/91 Page 6 MOTION: By Councilwoman Borgeson to ask staff to bring back more information and prepare a focused E.I.R. addressing drainage, road design and trees. Mayor Lilley asked Councilwoman Borgeson if her motion was to include granting the appeal. Councilwoman Borgeson indicated that it was and amended her motion to read , as follows: To grant the appellant's appeal and request a focused E.I.R. on issues of drainage, roads and trees; Councilman Shiers seconded the motion as amended. Motion failed 2:3 with Councilmembers Dexter, Nimmo and Mayor Lilley voting in opposition. NOTION: By Councilman Nimmo and seconded by Councilman Dexter to approve the mitigated negative declaration posted on January 19, 1991 and approve the tree removals for the proposed road extension subject to the recommended mitigation measures in the negative declaration; motion seconded by Councilman Dexter. -Motion carried 3:2 with Councilmembers Shiers and Borgeson opposing. 2. RESOLUTION NO. 17-91 - CONSIDERATION OF ADOPTION OF DRAFT PARRS & RECREATION ELEMENT OF THE CITY'S GENERAL PLAN Andy Takata, Community Services Director, presented the staff report with the recommendation to adopt, by resolution, the Parks and Recreation Element of the City's General Plan. Mr. Takata noted the presence of Tom Bench, Chairman and Vic Smart, Vice- Chairman of the Parks & Recreation Commission and responded to questions from Council. Councilman Nimmo commended the Community Services Director and the Commission for their fine work. He reiterated concern he had shared earlier with Mr. Takata about providing unstrenuous outdoor execise for senior citizens. Mr. Takata noted that in his staff report he had proposed amending Chapter 4, page 9 of the Element to include recommendations for seniors. Other members of Council concurred with this direction and with the overall plan. Public Comment: Eric Greening, 7365 Valle, urged Council to approve the plan and set high goals for the City. Mr. Takata noted that much of document had been prepared by the previous director. MOTION: By Councilman Nimmo, seconded by Councilwoman Borgeson to CC3/12/91 Page 7 approve Resolution No. 17-91 approving the adoption of the Parks and Recreation Element of the City's General Plan, as amended; motion unanimously carried by roll call vote. Mayor Lilley called for a recess at 8:54 p.m. The meeting was reconvened at 9:15 p.m. C. REGULAR BUSINESS: 1. GORDON DAVIS ROADS - RIGHT-OF-WAY ACQUISITION The City Manager requested a continuance on the matter until issues relating to "Wells Fargo Roads" have been resolved. Mayor Lilley then gave a brief status report relating to the year-long endeavors of the City Attorney and the Roads Committee. He stated that efforts to come to a legal resolution regarding roads has been challenging, adding that he was encouraged by the fact that the committee was reaching closure. The mayor recognized Mary Gayle for her work and expertise in the matter and asked for a motion to continue this matter. MOTION: By Councilman Shiers and seconded by Councilman Dexter to continue the matter; unanimously passed by voice vote. 2. WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT UPDATE Greg Luke, Public Works Director, reported that he had recently hired Mark Markwort as Chief of Waste Water Operations and that his department was now ready to continue planning for long-needed upgrading and expansion of the sewage treatment plant. Mr. Luke reported that due to a combination of plant operation problems and personnel turnover, work had been delayed and asked Council to authorize funds in an amount not to exceed $8,000 to complete the plant expansion planning report. In response to questions from Council, the City Manager explained that during the course of preparing a long range plan for the wastewater treatment facility, Council had given direction to staff to work with consultants John Jenks and John Wallace to address excessive odor problems at the plant. No specific amount of money was appropriated for this purpose, he reported, adding that the long range plan had never been completed. In addition, the City Manager explained that during this time there was also a decision to cease accepting septage from recreational vehicles. He noted that the County has asked staff to look at this issue once again and Mr. Windsor remarked that it was his hope to address this on-going issue as part of the requested addendum. CC3/12/91 Page 8 Councilwoman Borgeson asked the Public Works Director if he could provide a time period for the completion of the tasks. Mr. Luke advised that, if Council authorizes the monies spent, a contract will be drawn up specifying the tasks, dollar amounts and the schedule. MOTION: By Councilwoman Borgeson and Councilman Shiers to authorize funds in an amount not to exceed $8,000 for the purpose of entering into a contract with Kennedy/ Jenks/Chilton to provide consultant services relating to the wastewater treatment plant; and, in addition, to direct staff to specify in the contract the tasks, dollar amounts and time schedule for completion; motion carried unanimously. 3. ARBOR DAY OBSERVANCE (Verbal) It was noted that Andy Takata had already given the report for activities planned for Arbor Day, March 21, 1991. The City Clerk read a poem entitled, "Arbor Day" submitted by Donald Curtis and written by his grand-daugher Jane Ramos, a fifth- grade student at Santa Rosa School. 4. SCHEDULE WORKSHOP DATE The City Manager suggested dates and times. Brief discussion followed. Councilwoman Borgeson proposed that the meeting be held after the normal work day to ensure the most attendance by the public. The City Manager asked that Council meet in a closed session for the purpose of discussing personnel and potential property purchase. He suggested that this be scheduled in conjunction with the workshop. Council agreed to meet on Friday, April 5, 1991 at 3:00 for a closed session regarding personnel and potential property purchase, followed by an open workshop beginning at 4:30 p.m. to continue discussions on the City's capital improvement plan and to receive an update on the Roads Policy. D. INDIVIDUAL DETERMINATION AND/OR ACTION: 1. City Council: A. Mayor's Report; Mayor Lilley reported that he had received a letter from Councilwoman Borgeson pertaining to numerous complaints she CC3/12/91 Page 9 had received regarding the new volume-based rate structure for Wil-Mar Disposal. Noting that he and other members of the Council had also received such complaints, Mayor Lilley emphasized that most of these comments were not in opposition to the new rates, but rather to the method in which it had been done and to the lack of explanation regarding bags and rented containers. He stated that he had apprised Betty Sanders, attorney for Wil-Mar, of these complaints and had received correspondence from her dated March 12, 1991 (see Exhibit G) announcing that Wil-Mar would be launching a public awareness campaign in an effort to facilitate community understanding. B. Committee Reports (The following represents ad hoc or standing committees. Informative status reports were given, as follows. ) : 1. City/School Committee- The City Manager announced that the next meeting would be March 21, 1991. 2. North Coastal Transit/S.L.O. Area Coordinating Council Councilwoman Bergeson announced the next meeting would be on March 13, 1991 and presented an overview of the agenda. She added that the agenda would be on the Council table for review. 3. Traffic Committee - Councilman Dexter reported that this committee would be meeting on March 20, 1991. 4. Solid/Hazardous Waste Mgmt. Committee - Councilman Nimmo reported that the committee had recently received the completed Solid Waste Characterization Study for San Luis Obispo County and indicated that it was on the Council desk for review. 5. Recycling Committee Councilman Shiers reported that the next meeting would be Thursday, March 14, 1991. Greg Luke stated that the committee was working on implementing the pilot green waste pick- up program slated to begin April 1, 1991. Mayor Lilley urged that this program be well- publicized. 6. Interim Sign Committee - Mayor Lilley reported that the committee had met with representatives from the Chamber of Commerce and had received a draft sign ordinance prepared by the Chamber reflecting changes proposed to the current sign ordinance. The mayor stated that he had advised the Chamber to CC3/12f91 Page 10 contact the City Manager to determine their next course of action. He also reported that the Interim Sign Committee is presently developing ideas for alternatives to conventional signs involving awnings and architecturally significant buildings downtown. On this note, he mentioned that project plans for the Carlton Hotel are moving forward. 7. Economic Roundtable - Mayor Lilley relayed that the first meeting was scheduled for March 20, 1991 at 8:00 a.m. 2. City Attorney - No report. 3. City Clerk No report. 4. City Treasurer Ms. Korba briefly remarked on revenue charts she recently produced, adding that the graphics could be illuminated with the use of color. 5. City Manager Mr. Windsor indicated he was seeking direction from Council relating to its' opposition to SB2557. He asked that, in addition to the resolution approved earlier (Resolution No. 15-91) endorsing SB169, if he could have a letter from the mayor urging the Board of Supervisors to join with the City and the Coalition for Cooperative Government in overturning SB2557 and giving support to SB169. Mr. Windsor noted that the letter would need to drafted, signed and hand-carried to San Luis Obispo the following morning. The City Attorney reminded Council that this matter, because it required immediate action, would require a 4/5 vote to be place upon the agenda. MOTION: By Mayor Lilley and seconded by Councilman Dexter to place the matter on the agenda; motion carried 5:0. Mayor Lilley expressed support and asked for opinions from the Council. Councilman Dexter stated that he was supportive of proposed correspondence. Councilman Nimmo indicated that he hoped that the letter would be temperant in its, criticism of SB2557 and emphasize, rather, the alternate measure. MOTION: By Councilman Dexter and seconded by Councilman Shiers to direct the City Manager to prepare said letter for the CG3/12/91 Page 11 mayor's signature; motion uanimously carried. 6. Additional Report(s) from Staff: Greg Luke introduced John Grindstaff, Contract Engineer, who managed the Sycamore Bridge Replacement Project. Mr. Grindstaff, he explained, will handle the construction management for the Pavilion and has informed the Public Works Director that the target date for ground breaking is April 15, 1991. MOTION: By Councilman Dexter and seconded by Councilman Wimmo to adjourn the meeting; motion unanimous. The meeting was adjourned at 9:52 p.m. The next regular meeting is sched a for ch 25, 1991 at 7:00 p.m. NU CO E PARED BY: LE D YKA, ity ClArk Attachments: Exhibit A (George una) Exhibit B (Mark Joseph, Admin. Services Director) Exhibit C (Joan O'Keefe) Exhibit D (Eric Greening) Exhibit E (Jim Langford) Exhibit F (Citizen Petition, copy) Exhibit G (Betty Sanders/Wil-Mar Disposal) CC3/12/91 Page 12 CC3/12/91 Mr. Mayor and Members of the Council, r EXHIBIT A ` My name is George Luna, and I speak tonight asiChairman of your Planning Commission about a serious issue which has been brought to my attention. In 1983, a planning commission (of which I was not a member) approved Tentative Tract Map (8303 11 ) with the following condition: #11. Ardilla Road shall be constructed along the frontage of the property to City standards including a minimum paved width of twenty (20) feet with three feet of graded shoulder on each side of the paving l?rior to recordationof the Final Map. The Tentative Map was approved by the Council and the Final Map was approved and recorded as Parcel Map 83-040 on Feb 29, 1987. I looked up the final map, and I quote from the Engineer's Certificate: "I hereby certify that it (the map) conforms to the approved tentative map and the conditions of approval thereof." Thus, the final map was recorded four years ago, and still condition #11 has not been met! However, there does appear to be "an improvement security " in the amount of $20,800. Does staff have the authority to receive money in lieu of conditions of approval even when the conditions do not provide for it? The money was not used for the road. Does the city still have the money; if so, how does it intend to use it In order that the Commission, Council, and public can be assured that conditions attached to Tentative Maps are secure, I respectfully request that the Council: (1) Determine if this was proper and legal. If not, what can be done. (2) Determine if this is an aberration, and if procedures are necessary to prevent such abuses. (3) Determine if other such cases exist, and establish procedures for handling them. Clearly this has shaken the faith of some in our community in our subdivision process. I ask that you restore that faith . Thank you. CC3/12/91 EXHIBIT B REVISED TABLE A: FY 90-91 REVENUE PROJECTIONS AS OF DECEMBER - 31 , 1990 (General Fund Only) Revenue 'Estimated Actual Projected Property Tax 2,050,000 1 ,236 , 131 2, 100,000 Sales Tax 1 ,850,000 999,977 1 ,e50,000 Transient Occupancy (Bed ) Tax 110,000 60, 184 110,000 Property Transfer Tax 60,000 19,614 40,000 Franchise Fees 330,000 31 ,592 350,000 Other Taxes 1 ,230 662 1 ,230 Licenses and Permits 486,585 226,723 450,000 Motor Vehicle In-Lieu 860,000 409, 116 850,000 Cigarette Tax 35,000 23,612 40,000 Other State Subventions 60,900 5, 109 50,000 Other Intergovernmental 425,700 71 ,065 425 ,700 Recreation Fees 270,200 135,750 270,200 Planning & Inspection Fees 192,612 73,262 192,612 Other Fees 37,800 27,420 40,000 Fines and Penalties 11 ,550 6,412 12,000 Interest and Rents 127,200 396,578* 155,000 Miscellaneous Revenues 23,500 18, 141 25,000 Transfers In: Traffic Safety 72,500 27.070 60,000 Dial-A-Ride 19,000 9,250 19,000 Developer Fees 37,050 -0- 37,050 Wastewater 8e,400 43,500 89,400 TOTAL 7,; 149,227 3,780, 168 7, 166, 192 *Interest reflects total earnings on all invested funds, since revenues have not been distributed at this time. Estimated interest earnings to date is $80,000. REVISED TABLE B: FY 90-91 BUDGET VS. ACTUAL BY D DEPARTMENT, AS OF DECEMBER 31 , 1990 (General Fund Only) Percent Department Budget Actual Spent 40,785 16,635 40.8 Council 21 ,575 455.4 City Clerk 47,500 e79 23.3 City Treasurer 3.765 38,571 59.3 City Attorney 65,000 129, 175 66,586 51 .3 City Manager 50.4 2,053, 140 1 ,035,798 49.7 'Police 1 , 146,770 569,664 Fire 181 ,787 49.5 P .W. /Engineering 367,480 369.996 47.8 Community Devel . 773,410 Parks, Rec . & ZOO C3-- 29,036 53.8 Admin. 53,M-id� 234 ,034 63.4 Recreation 368,970 167 ,064 48.6 Parks 344,005 =ncl- 86,762 43.3 Facilities 200,,j,--,j 227.2010 49.3 Streets 46_0,565 743,906 52. 1 Subtotal 1 ,42S,050 Admin. Services 60,975 53.2 Personnel 114,625 186,979 68. 1 Finance 274,400 260-__x__965 84.9 Risk Mgmt . 307,300 508,919 73. 1 Subtotal 696,325 629,393 420,416 66.8 Non-Department* ------- -0- C.O.P. Debt Serv. 96,000 Transfers Out : 71 ,802 41 .4 ZOO 173,600 ------- -0- Capital 196.000 TOTALS 7,846,393 4,046,534 51 .6% *Non-Department includes equipment replacement vehicles c/myadjust CC3/12/91 EXHIBIT C Joan Okeefe ' '''�h �' 9985 Old Morro Rd. East 3-12-91 I am appealing the reposting February 19, 1991 of the Negative Declaration for the Ardilla Road Extension because in the Initial Study I do not believe the mitigation measures set forth adequately mitigate the long list of environmental effects set forth. Frequent reference has been made to the Long Valley EIR which includes about half of this project. The City Attorney on 2-20-90 stated that projects have been approved in this area that were not based on the Long Valley EIR and that this is entirely legal and proper. So depending upon the whim of the City the EIR is evoked or ignored. The Long Valley EIR was an EIR for approval of a subdivision for the sale of individual lots on a very large parcel of land, 2500 Acres . The writers of the document said that it would be appropriate to consider the expected development of this area but the type of EIR being done didn' t allow for this . They went on further to say that dividing this type of terrain and vegetation into parcels averaging 4 .39 acres each will have significant negative environmental impacts. Among the most important are. (1) a reduction of an already diminishing vegetation type and threatened group of tree -- the oaks-- blue oak and valley oak are found in California and nowhere else in the world. (2) increased run-off, soil erosion, stream sedimentation and potential flood problems due to vegetation and watershed disturbances (3) reduction of prime wild life habitat which is diminishing in size each day both in the County and State. Two parcels have already been subdivided into 4 equal lots of 4 .7 acres each. This is a tainted lot split in that the applicant, for the subdivision, Gordon Davis, did not even have to meet the conditions set forth for approval. So the process of subdividing into the minimal parcel size has already begun and the Long Valley EIR said that by doing this there will be a significant impact on the environment. The number of trees to be removed, just for the road and two driveway is 210, about 400 of these are valley oak. Wes Conner's consulting arborist for the City gave these trees a valuation of$349,879 . 00 (International society of Arborists valuation standard) . With increased urbanization there will be increased runoff . The impacts of this runoff can be decreased by careful planning. Planning cannot occur if a project is piecemealed. It is important to pian drainage for total build out, which includes the exact number of lots in the area, driveways and building sites . . The Dovica Project which is in that area is a prime example of project that was allowed to begin when it was instages CEQAa one that violated many of the basic requirements The City is still trying to correct the drainage problems from this project. During the recent rain the Berry' s who live in that area aswell as the increased run off from veplufothe the Dovica j Ardilla Rd grading and grubbing. On 1-7-91 the City Attorney stated, "This project has been modified to minimize environmental impacts. These modifications were made in reliance upon expert report a. 11 nd other environment documentation (Long valley resi Schicker, who was the City Arborist, until she resigned has recommended that in terms of tree protection the project should be evaluated in its entirety. ,It is difficult to propose a Tree Protection Plan for road construction as an isolated activity when it is know that even without further lot splits, between ten and twelve driveways will be cutting up and down the hillsides along Ardilla Road Extension, perhaps taking out those very trees that are part of the Tree Protection Plan prepared by the arborist. it seems an important issue and one that needs to be discussed as soon as possible for every proposed road project in Atascadero. This is the City' s own expert testimony yet it is not reflected in the mitigation measures. Two driveways have been identified. one of these appears to access 3 lots The future owners are not bound by these suggestions so there is nothing to stop the owners of the two adjoining lots from putting in their own driveways at different locations . Have the trees which will need to be removed to access the two adjacent lots been included in the total tree removal count? The Negative Declaration was posted 2-19-91. The documents I received from the City did not include a map of the project, nor a tree protection plan. one of the reasons for reporting the project was to have a reproducible map of the project. The map I received about a week later from Community Development identified lots on both sides of Ardilla Rd. About half of these lots and possibly the road are outside of the Long Valley EIR area. The Geologic Hazard Report and the Geotechnical Engineering Field Report described the site as 9 lots. The project description is for 12 lots. Was all eeproject area this study. It is impossible totllfrom the information provided. Attached to a copy of the site map was a one page report from the developer's arborist regarding 22 trees . Is this the total tree protection plan? Additionally this document is dated 2-19-91 the same date the Negative Declaration was posted. This document is apart of the tree protection plan and should have ben submitted prior to posting the Negative Declaration, The Ardilla Rd Extension is only one part of this project which will ultimately open up the area to a minimum of 12 residential homes. The impacts of this subsequent development have not been addressed or assessed in the Report. This Project I believe could be mitigated to a point of no significant impact by disallowing further lot sp by identifying building envelopes and driveways, by planning drainage for future build out and by following the city arborist' s recommendations for tree protection. CC3/12/91 EXHIBIT D Testimonyresented at the Atascadero City Council Meeting March 12th, regarding the appeal of the ( Me 9 i Negative Declaration on the Ardilla Road Project by Eric Greening,7365 Valle Ave.,Atascadero,CA,93422 I'm sorry this whole appeals process is proving to be so cumbersome for all concerned, and I f imagine that Mr. Barnes feels about like someone who gets picked for a tax audit by the luck of I the draw,but I do feel some important citywide issues are raised by this appeal that have to be faced sooner or later,and I believe that sooner is be It is becoming increasilingly clear to me that,at least in present times,the greatest threat to our urban forest is not homeowners who might decide to cut down the trees in their front yards,it is road construction. Within a short period of time we had Garcia Road,now Ardilla,and San Marcos still pending. Each of these mads opens ubetwe�enf1U�lots ams per lot servedcost of 100, .trees. The ratio of lots accessed to trees taken runs many trees will be taken in the next decade as we reach General Plan buildout if and de do't c onsi- der new ways of building roads? Even if replacement trees find a place to grow hood, it could take them longer than the probable lifetime of these lrtlota�$aesthetics si Q lost canopy. Is this truly a Tree City,U.S.A.? it is also sobering value,according monetary value,or measurement of the degree to which they enhance property to ISA standards,of the trees taken to access each lot at these ratios,is a significant portion of the value of the lots themselves! tl lower ? Many comma- How many trees could be saved by building roads for a slightly of slowing the nities,even treeless ones,introduce curves,cul-de-sacs,etc.fpor the sole purposeg now of traffic to promote public safety. Could a lower-speed road with a more careful tree-pro- tection plan promote safety and protect community assets? What's an extra minute driving home if home is that much more desirable as a place to dive? I'll leave it for the people of the affected neighborhood to raise the particular'issues important to them. My interest as a citizen of this beautiful city is in the cumulative impacts of the road building policies that seem to be becoming established.mistakes made now will be with ine a direc- tion t a tion we're going in the last decade toward buildout, t to be more carefully designed long time. Therefore,I support the appeal and ask for this project in a way that sets a workable precedent so we this every we don't have to go through something time. I'm sorry this proving so cumbersome for Mr.Barnes and all concerned,but reforesting a deforested city would be even more cumbersome! Thank you,and have a happy Arbor Day! r CC3/12/91 EXHIBIT E PUBLIC HEARING ARDILLA ROAD EXTENSION My name is Jim Langford. I own property adjacent to the proposed Ardilla Road extension. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before the City Council and express my concerns in regard to this road extension and some of the proposed modifications involved. First, I want it to be known that I have an extensive background in natural resources management, having served with the National Park Service, Dept. of the Interior, for over 20 years, at locations such as Grand Teton, Everglades, Joshua Tree and Pinnacles National Parks. For the past 13 years I have been employed by the Army on the Fort Ord and Fort Hunter Liggett Complex as a land manager and range conservationist. I say this to assure you that I have a legitimate concern for the environment and some understanding of the problems associated with developing master plans for rural roads and developments. I 've helped in the planning of hiking trails, scenic roads, campgrounds, housing areas, viStor center/s complexes. All under the *arid resort close scrutiny of conservation organizations such as The Sierra Club, The Nature Conservancy, Friends of the Earth, etc. I have a personal interest in what happens on that hillside because I have waited for many years in anticipation of the Ardilla Road extension so that I could build my retirement home there,. Needless to ..,.. say, I concur with the proposed construction of that road.;;- However, I also feel very strongly about making every effort to preserve as many of those oaks as possible. And I feel very strongly about a road design that has minimal impact on the environment! Two things my experience taught me (and I will be quite blunt in saying this! ) : The first is that policies and standards are necessary. You can't plan unless you have policies to guide you and standards to meet. The second is: unless those policies and standards are set by God Almighty, there MUST BE EXCEPTIONS TO THEM! Where there is serious conflict, especially where only a road is concerned, THE STANDARDS MUST ALSO BEND--not just the environment ! Allow me to simply state some facts: 1 . The Ardiila Road Extension is just that--an extension. It is not a thoroughfare where there will be much traffic. 2. The extension is only about 3,000 feet in length. It traverses a steep hillside through one of the finest stands of live and white oaks in the city. 3. The road will serve about 6 or 7 parcels which otherwise would be landlocked. These parcels average from 2 to 10 acres or more in size. 4. The present road width standards specified for this project will insure a highly visible cutbank exposure and the loss of a maximum number of trees. My personal observations and recommendations are: 1 . This road extension does not warrant the standards imposed on it. It's short length, the few parcels it serves, the terrain it crosses and the limited traffic it will attract demand no more than a 16 to 18 foot paved surface. In fact, there is sufficient justification to reduce it to one-way status. Ardilia Road, at the point where the extension begins, is only 18 feet wide with no shoulders. Many, many roads in Atascadero, a unique rural community, have been functioning just fine with far lower standards. 2. Although modifications to the original 40 foot road right-of- way are being considered to lesson the impact on certain heritage trees, the overall impact on the environment will still be excessive 2 The proposed construction of retaining walls to maintain road elevation and grade at one point is inexcusable and would seriously degrade the value of property immediately below it. 3 . I urge the City Council to seriously consider modifying he standards for this particular road and to adopt an alignment plat that places the road at a higher elevation on the hillside. These two considerations would reduce the cut-bank exposure significantly and greatly reduce the number of trees sacrificed. i Thank you, James M. Langford 1446 Osprey Ct. Templeton, CA. 93465 (805)434-3658 3 CC3/12,191 Whereas the citizens have no other way to insure that a project of the magnitude of the ..proposed Ardilla Road extension will be carried out with the greatest possible sensitivity to environmental concerns,and Whereas the negative declaration process gives the citizens no opportunity to evaluate alternate routings of the road and configurations of homesites that would spare some of the 191 trees slated for removal, and Whereas the area that would gather the enhanced runoff from the new construction shows an already-existing propensity to sheet flooding,and Whereas the signatures here gathered demonstrate a level of public concern that warrants the level of attention we call for, We respectfully request that a full Environmental Impact Report to be done on the Ardilla Road extension and associated development, including full consideration of alternate routings and designs, to assure an outcome that takes full advantage of Atascadero's natural heritage and preserves this heritage for f ture generations.Nam 61��Y-Z&ddress '7 . oD &raves &k� c� ' A sse XV#i Address ;),o-Z S ' '• alL.4-d'- -Add= s 12 ,3p Address .70 Addre ss .2 iiial Address 7,9_�Z) �` . . PAdd=ss y 6 Address e Nam S NAME,- _ � �» ,� �`, ADDRES F. Whereas the citizens have no other way to insure that a project of the magnitude of the .proposed Ardilla Road extension will be carried out with the greatest possible sensitivity to environmental concerns,and Whereas the negative declaration process gives the citizens no opportunity to evaluate alternate routings of the road and configurations of homesites that would spare some of the 191 trees slated for removal, and Whereas the area that would gather the enhanced runoff from the new construction shows an already-existing propensity to sheet flooding,and Whereas the signatures here gathered demonstrate a level of public concern that warrants the level of attention we call for, We respectfully request that a full Environmental Impact Report to be done on the Ardilla Road extension and associated development, including full consideration of alternate routings and designs,to assure an outcome that takes full advantage of r�Atascadero's natural heritage and preserves this heritage for future generations. .. Nam ZL e Address hi No A9Z 14/70 No . ddren Mn Z,&g&LO Pto,r9L.? r KddrnsS a"'t �7"YgveS �e.� Addrevz e7'-7LT b / ame�4' 1 Address :21 oTT) ec( - NamcOA4dqia z 9- "A-a 75'"Uo v(/e-s eek F U I 6tr -Name &U-"J i -Xn4L� -77 qfp e j_J�X,6=4 Addr-egs, oewAddress + - 7 0 l - . .,J 11 fo vv Q s v-e,4.f ICf ��"CZZIA) A��Address 80 Autx-��&U� eee- L ama �� i Whereas the citizens have no other cvay to insure that a project of the magnitude of the proposed Ardilla Road extension will be carried out with the greatest possible sensitivity to environmental conccrns, and Whereas the negative declaration process gives the citizens no opportunity to evaluate alternate routings of the road.and configurations of homesites that would spare`some of the 191 trees slated for removal, and Whereas the area that would gather the enhanced runoff from the new construction shows an already-existing propensity to sheet flooding,and Whereas the signatures here gathered demonstrate a level of public concern that warrants the level of attention we call for, We respectfully request that a full Environmental Impact Report to be done on the Ardilla Road extension and associated development, including full consideration of alternate routings and designs, to assure an outcome that takes full advantage of Atascadero's natural heritage and preserves this heritage for future generations. SrAr &X 235' U!� C IJSaS C 9 4 Nam -ct L Add= � • Add=ss3 9z5"S 1k A Py sQ",e.a ►/ C mid© 1�3II1e � Ad rP �/ ..���u7 � SRO- 4/7 RO Name ��vv rm Address7365 V, #e- e d_ Address 341� Name Address jgo( 'Al AddMss NamC x / Al '1621 Nam s (LAM,��Jt, Aiddmss V(P&V Name Add=ss ' t of the ma ' 'tude of the Whereas the citizens have no other wy to,d o tthat a be�greatest possible sensitivity posed Ardilla Road extension will 1)6'cam =as mental concerns,and to:evaluate the negative declaration process gives the citizens na p u a some of alternate routings of the road and configurations of homesrtes P the 191 trees slated for removal, and Whereas the area that would gather the enhanced runoff from the new construction shows an already-existing propensity to sheet flooding, Whereas the signatures here gathered demonstrate a level of public concern that warrants the level of attention we call for, -_ We respectfully request that a full Environmental impact Report to be done an the of Ardilla Road ethat takei full ' xtension and associated development, including full consdearation e of ; utcome alternate routings and designs, to assure anhorita forfutur generations.«_ g _ Atascadero's natural heritage and preserves this g •_„._•_ _. - _ 4 �o ,- t taocc kcss -75 oo c, dr AAo L AI�O, 3 3 N Whereas the citizens have no other Way to insure that a project of the magnitude of the proposed Ardilla Road extension will be carried out with the greatest possible sensitivity to environental concerns, and Whereas the negative declaration process gives the citizens no opportunity to evaluate ternate routings of the road and configurations of homesites that would sparesome of e 191 trees slated for removal,and Whereas the area that would gather the enhanced runoff from the new construction shows an already-existing propensity to sheet flooding,and Whereas the signatures here gathered demonstrate a level of public concern that warrants the level of attention we call for, We respectfully request that a full Environmental Impact Report to be done on the Ardilla Road extension and associated development, including full consideration of alternate routings and designs, to assure an outcome that takes full advantage of Atascadero's natural herita a and preserves this heritage for future generations. o MZ Address Address / .._. 7365 VC r( A V Name Add=ss Name ( � . Add=ssCZ377 0 1/rJlt,- 9 s- e Address Namc kla, -Add=ss Name T ____--- Address Whereas the citizens have no other way<to insure that a project of the magniina a of the proposed Ardilla Road extension will be carried out with the greatest possible sensitivity to envirotanental concerns,and "tl Whereas the negative declaration process gives the citizens no opportunity to evaluate alternate routings of the road and configurations of homesites that would spare some of the 191 trees slated for removal, and _ Whereas the area that would gather the enhanced runoff from the new construction shows an-already-existing propensity to sheet flooding,and Whereas the signatures here gathered demonstrate a level of public concern that. warrants the level of attention we call for, We respectfully request that a fall Environmental Impact Report to be done on the .: z Ardla Road extension and associated development, including full consideration of alternate routings and designs, to assure an outcome that takes full advantage of - Atascadero's natural heritage and preserves this heritage for future generations. S3ly a, 04 tJ1'�r44,. Addresszc, , aat, a 3cZ4�d N=e�=�=Addmss loi�4 3 10'r\ a � ;*ret N= _ Address 1365' Valle ke A�atcadergcck 9342 vLf 40 h4 c w.... Add=ss qLoy 3 .a--a-- e Address . qY. blame tJ!2CCn Address-76 7-2slad-j;P, Name Address 2-098 PRICx=-- S �ah ta,.taaa► Hme u vJu r l 3 . t s Case- 92, 41'a . 4 Whereas the citizens have no other way to insure that a project of the magnitude of the ,proposed Ardilla Road extension will bd carried out with the greatest possible sensitivity to environmental concerns,and Whereas the negative declaration process gives the citizens no opportunity to,evaluate alternate routings of the road and configurations of homesites that would spare some of the 191 trees slated for removal, and Whereas the area that would gather the enhanced runoff from the new construction shows an already-existing propensity to sheet flooding,and Whereas the signatures here gathered demonstrate a level of public concern that warrants the level of attention we call for, We respectfully request that a full Environmental Impact Report to be done on the Ardilla Road extension and associated development, including full consideration of alternate routings and designsi to assure an outcome that takes full advantage of Atascadero's natural heritage and preserves this heritage for future generations. Name ss 10s �. Name V�� S, s Address 10 d!FS 7Z '.l 23 �Zz- Tame s Address /Ot,9.-E A115,*9 ✓t?A /'9'IW S. 9,3 7-2 T" N me Address t Name Address Name A ddms Name Address Name Address Address Namc Address Name Address 23ame Address Name Address _ CC3/12/91 EXHIBIT G WRIGHT & SANDERS A LAW CORPORATION TELEPHONE (805) 466-9026 JILLIAMO. WRIGHT (RETIRED) 5950 E.NTRAOA AVENUE FAX ETTY R. SANDERS ATASCADERO, CALIFORNIA 93422 (805) 466-9098 March 12, 1991 Honorable Mayor Robert Lilley City of Atascadero 6500 Palma Avenue Atascadero, CA 93422 Dear Mayor Lilley: On behalf of Wil-Mar Disposal Company, Inc. , I thought it expedient to advise you of steps taken to assist the public in understanding and accepting the recent change in rate structure and to advise the public of procedural changes to alleviate problems which have arisen as a result of the volume based structure. I enclose a copy of the ad which will appear in the Atascadero News on Wednesday and in the Northern Edition of the Telegram Tribune on Thursday. This is the first step in our public awareness campaign for which we have initially budgeted $15 ,000 . As you may know, this is a new endeavor for Wil-Mar . We look forward to continuing cooperation with the Recycling Committee in bringing the Green Waste program on-line April 1st . This will be a "first" in San Luis Obispo County and an event in which we should all take pride. As this public awareness campaign continues we will keep you apprised of its development. We would appreciate any suggestions or constructive criticism which you and the Council may have to offer . We appreciate your continued support . Very truly, ours, BETTY . SANDERS BRS/bah i Enol . C. C. Bill Gibb i Wil-Mar Disposal Co. 3 J aw CA. boo 01 i Vim 40 PL4D� � ° � � � � 'w" ate+ �� XLDO �. to5� d o a Lt .� L Lb & 5• ca •cs x a o c�„� 8