Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda 121991 Approved as Submitted 1/14/92 ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES SPECIAL MEETINGS - DECEMBER 19, 1991 Mayor Shiers called the special meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. Councilman Dexter led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL: Present: Councilmembers Borgeson, Lilley, Dexter and Mayor Shiers Absent: Councilman Nimmo Also Present: City Treasurer, Micki Korba; and City Clerk, Lee Raboin Staff Present: Henry Engen, Community Development Director; Art Montandon, City Attorney; Bud McHale, Police Chief and Lt. Bill Watton, Police Department Consultants: Paul Crawford and Dave Moran from the firm of Crawford, Multari & Starr COUNCIL COMMENT: Councilwoman Borgeson announced that she had received numerous phone. calls regarding the potential use of the National Guard Armory (located on the corner of Traffic Way and ©lmeda Avenue) as a homeless shelter and asked staff if it would be appropriate for the City Council to hold a special hearing or take any action on this matter. Mayor Shiers reported that he had also taken many calls on this issue and understood that the ultimate decision would be made by the County Board of Supervisors. The mayor explained that the Board had met and received related testimony earlier in the week but had not taken any action because there had been no formal proposal with associated mitigation measures presented. Lt. Bill Watton of the Police Department reported that the Armory would have to be opened by the State through a request from the Special CC12/19/91 Page 1 County Office of Emergency Services and confirmed that no written proposition has been submitted. PUBLIC HEARING: GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT: Consideration of General Plan Update of pro- posed Land Use, Conservation and Open Space Elements and Final Environmental Impact Report Henry Engen provided background, highlighted key issues of concern and indicated Planning Commission and staff recommendation was to approve the General Plan text as proposed and certify the adequacy of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) . Mr. Engen introduced Paul Crawford and Dave Moran of Crawford, Multari & Starr, the consultant firm retained to prepare the EIR. In addition, the Community Development Director noted several letters received most recently from the public. Mayor Shiers announced that the City Council would take public testimony on the General Plan Update but would not be taking any action due to the absence of Councilman Nimmo, who plans to listen to the tapes of the hearing prior to the future scheduling of this matter. Councilwoman Borgeson commented that the EIR described the setting of Atascadero as residential with lot sizes ranging from one-half acre to 10 acres. She asked if this statement would be revised to reflect the allowance of planned unit developments (PUD) and subsequent approval of single-family homes on lot sizes smaller than one-half acre. Mr. Engen explained that the intent of the statement was to give the broad characteristics of the community. Councilwoman Borgeson also asked why water sources other than those provided by Atascadero Mutual Water Company were not named in the EIR. Mr. Engen reported that the draft General Plan does provide an alternate source listing under the water section and referred to page II-18 of the plan. Councilwoman Borgeson requested a clari- fication of the reported amount of water proposed to be stored by Atascadero Mutual Water Company in the new San Carlos Road reservoir. Mr. Engen noted that the figure "three and one-half million gallons" should be corrected in the text to "five and one- half million gallons Public Comments: Livia Kellerman, 5463 Honda, read a prepared statement (see Exhibit A) in support of creek setbacks. Richard Bastian, Atascadero resident, opposed creek setbacks and asked that property rights be respected. Special CC12/19/91 Page 2 Nancy Rice, 4245 Arena, read a prepared statement (see Exhibit B)" in support of creek preservation. Jan Bewley, 12090 San Marcos Road and President of the Atascadero Board of Realtors, spoke in opposition to the following: (1) direct downzoning of major multi-family area on North El Camino Real (2) the indirect downzoning of property through the requirement of a five-minute travel time for fire response, (3) the change in zoning proposed for the Ferrocaril property on Traffic Way and San Benito and (4) the 30% slope requirement of suburban family. She concluded by stating that downzoning represents the taking of property without the giving of consideration. Carol Ball, 7070 Marchant, commented that she believed the fifty foot creek setback was inappropriate language for the General Plan because it is too specific and restrictive. She stated that creek setbacks should be considered in a zoning ordinance. Ms. Ball remarked that she was in favor of developing all nodes along Highway 101, including the property between Santa Barbara Road and the Atascadero Hospital, as Commercial Retail because of potential economic benefit to the community. Ms. Ball also commented that the Ferrocaril property should be retained for an Industrial Park. Eric Greening, 7365 Valle, read a prepared statement (see Exhibit C) in which he addressed concerns relating to land affected by the proposed re-routing of Highway 41, Stadium Park and creek setbacks. Lester Jeffries, Rancho Palos Verdes resident and Atascadero property owner, spoke in opposition to not permitting new lots to develop if there is more than a 30% slope or if it is outside the a five-minute emergency response time area. Ron Rothman, 1660 San Ramon Road, spoke in support of creek preservation and encouraged continued study. He urged the Council to implement and monitor Ordinance No. 236 and inspire the community to clean up and make improvements within the creek reservation areas. Mr. Rothman asserted that he had not seen any report that defines and documents threats to the creek and suggested that those who feel that they do exist document their concerns and offer possible solutions for the community to debate. Roger Miller, 6675 Santa Ynez, opposed downzoning of certain properties from RMF-16 to RS because it would create a drop in affordable housing. He spoke in support of retaining Industrial designation for the Ferrocaril property. In addition, Mr. Miller favored the fifty-foot creek setback, but reported opposition to the five-minute emergency response time. He speculated that this requirement might pose some liability problems for the City and suggested that some kind of waiver of liability be devised whereby the property owner is permitted to develop but acknowledges his Special CC12/19/91 Page 3 property is outside the response time. Lindsay Hampton, 8402 Alta Vista, submitted the Creekway Resolution unanimously adopted by the Atascadero Homeowners' Association on October 17, 1991 (see Exhibit D) proclaiming support for creek preservation and setbacks. Don Saueressrig, 10735 San Marcos Road, expressed support for the fifty-foot creek setback and opposition to the five-minute emergency response time. Eric Michielssen, 5300 Aquila and representing Atascadero 2000, criticized the plan for not being creative. He summarized to his letter of December 19, 1991 to Henry Engen, which outlined five concerns relating to: (1) Jobs/Housing Balance: Atascadero 2000 opposes the reduction in RMF-16 lands and the Ferrocaril zone change, and believes the plan does not address Air Pollution Control District concerns; (2) Industrial Areas: Atascadero 2000 supports retaining the Ferrocaril property and adjacent property owned by Atascadero Mutual Water Company on Sycamore Road as Industrial and argues that the plan leaves insufficient useable Industrial land in the City; (3) RMF-16 Zoning: Atascadero 2000 opposes the re-zoning of RMF-16 land to RS claiming it eliminates 449 potential units and creates a large area of existing mobilehome parks as non-conforming uses; (4) Urban Services Line: Atascadero 2000 opposes the chosen boundary and urges adoption of Alternative "B"; and (5) Re-Development Funding: Atascadero 2000 supports the establishment of a re-development agency in new Industrial areas to provide extension of needed infrastructure improvements. Ken Marks, 9073 Circle Oak Drive, asked the Council to look closely at the five-minute emergency response time issue. He asserted that if the plan is adopted, the City will lose fine opportunities for development and free enterprise because of added mitigation measures. Celia Moss, 8040 Coromar, read a prepared statement (see Exhibit E) in support of fifty-foot creek setbacks. She also read a letter from Jean Young Behan of 4925 E1 Verano (see Exhibit F) offering a favorable position on the fifty-foot creek setback issue. John Bunyea, Atascadero resident, addressed traffic congestion problems around the Lewis Avenue Elementary and the Junior High schools, and shared concern for student safety once the elementary school has been converted as an additional Junior High School campus. Catherine Baker, 6820 Santa Ynez Avenue, stated that she and her husband, Jim, were in favor of the fifty-foot creek setback. Special CC12/19/91 Page 4 Joan O'Keefe, 9985 Old Morro Road East, submitted a detailed statement (see Exhibit G) and supporting documentation (on file with the City Clerk) urging adoption of the General Plan Update and EIR. In a brief summary of her statement, Ms. O'Keefe criticized Council action to date regarding creek preservation and indicated that she supported mitigation measures recommended in the EIR which include the adoption of a fifty-foot creek setback. Karen Riggs, 4935 Arizona, asserted that the fifty-foot creek setback standard is the most important environmental protection measure the City can adopt. Matt Riggs, 4935 Arizona, added his support for the creek setback standard. Anna Hartig-Ferrier, 7205 Carmelita, asked the Council to put back the fifty-foot creek setback language into the General Plan. Steve LaSalle of Atascadero read a prepared statement (see Exhibit H) in support of the fifty-foot creek setback and asked the City Council to incorporate into the General Plan requirements for the use of shielded lights to reduce glare. Vincent Simpson, 1780 San Ramon Road, voiced opposition to the fifty-foot creek setback and stated that he had already built a barn on his creekside property. Karen Coniglio, 7600 Graves Creek Road, read a prepared statement (see Exhibit I) sharing concern for protecting wildlife habitat and and in support of implementing the fifty-foot creek setback standard. James Watson, 8400-8600 Atascadero Avenue, reiterated his petition to the Planning Commission for an increase in the density allowed from Moderate Density Single Family to High Density Single Family to allow for half acre lots. Mayor Shiers called a break at 8:50 p.m. At 9:10 p.m. , the meeting was reconvened. Public Testimony continued. Dorothy Bench, 7503 Carmelita Avenue, expressed opposition to the fifty-foot creek setback claiming that this action would be confiscation without compensation. She stated that property owners cannot afford to give up their land. Larry Sherwin, 2755 Campo Road, reported that half of his property would be lost with a fifty-foot creek setback. He stated he was opposed to putting more restrictions on the tax payers and mentioned that he, personally, has cleaned up the creek on his own land. Mr. Sherwin added that if he had known (about the potential Special CC12/19/91 Page 5 setback) when he bought his property, he would have been offered the opportunity of choice. Ursula Luna, 10600 San Marcos Road, submitted a written statement (see Exhibit J) supporting the enactment of a fifty-foot creek setback standard. Don Hartig, 7205 Carmelita Avenue, urged the Council to adopt a creekside protection plan and implement a fifty-foot creek setback. In addition, he read statements from the following citizens: Mike Kirkpatrick, 6606 Santa Cruz Road (Exhibit K) ; Ronald Kiel (Exhibit L) , 9090 La Canada; and Harvey Levenson, 7570 Balboa Road (Exhibit M) all of which support creek preservation and/or the fifty-foot creek setback standard. Rex Hendrix, 8855 Rocky Canyon Road, asked questions concerning the area designated for a specific plan at the south end of Atascadero. Mr. Engen explained that the area Mr. Hendrix was inquiring about was between Paloma Creek Park and the State Hospital south to Santa Barbara Road between the freeway and the Salinas River. He stated that present zoning would allow permits for single-family housing in the Suburban-Residential zone. The specific plan language, he continued, indicates that the outlined area is a candidate for alternate land uses and invites planning with a more intensive use, but noted it would take either a specific plan under State law or a general plan amendment. Mr. Engen explained the difference between the two alternatives and reported that it was up to the applicant to pay the fees and work through the process to make a change. Mr. Hendrix commented that he wondered why the node at Santa Barbara Road and Highway 101 was not addressed during this General Plan change. He added that it was a shame to see this property be developed with two and one-half acre housing when it could be used for something that would promote tourism. Marj Mackey, 5504-A Tunitas Avenue, spoke in support of the fifty- foot creek setback standard adding that she was the only council- member who objected to removing subject language from the current General Plan. Tim McCutcheon, Atascadero business owner, shared concern for a lack of affordable housing and contended that the GeneralPlan Update would reduce housing opportunities. Jim Reyburn, 11705 Santa Rita Road, spoke in opposition to the proposed fifty-foot creek setback and mentioned that 70% of his property is on the creek. He asserted that individual property owners can keep the creek clean. Special CC12/19/91 Page 6 Dorothy McNeil, 8765 Sierra Vista Road, read a prepared statement (see Exhibit N) in favor of creek setbacks and pointed out that the proposed language only applies to new construction and would not, therefore, constitute a taking of land. In addition, she commented that 80% of emergency response is for medical services and stated that it was the City' s responsibility to provide these services to all residents. Loraine Russell of Atascadero spoke in opposition to creek setbacks claiming that they are of no benefit to the community and could exclude her building in line withother houses along Atascadero Creek, off of Carmelita Avenue. Virginia Powers, 7505 Carmelita Avenue, read a prepared statement (see Exhibit O) in support of the fifty-foot creek setback. John McNeil, 8765 Sierra Vista, read a prepared statement (see Exhibit P) urging Council approval of fifty-foot creek setbacks. LeeAnne Hagmaier, Planner with RRM Design Group in San Luis Obispo, complimented City staff and the Planning Commission on the General Plan Update. She indicated that she had written Steve Decamp, City Planner, and summarized options she suggested to policies regarding 30% or more slope and fire response time. Bob Powers, 7505 Carmelita Avenue, read his statement in favor of fifty-foot creek setbacks (see Exhibit R) . Sarah Gronstrand, 7620 Del Rio Road, read a prepared statement with attachments (see Exhibit Q) in debate of comments made by Brian Hunter, Regional Manager of the State Department of Fish & Game in his letter to Henry Engen dated September 9, 1991 responding to the General Plan Update and the EIR. Oldie Bishop, 7655 Carmelita Avenue, spoke in support of creek setbacks and submitted her statement (see Exhibit S) . Bob Huot, 3850 Ardilla Road, indicated that he was also in favor of the fifty-foot creek setback standard as recommended by the Planning Commission and the Atascadero Homeowners' Association. Richard Bastian requested, again, that the City Council respect individual property rights. Joan O'Keefe, also re-addressed the Council speaking in support of the both policies regarding the five-minute emergency response time and 30% slope. The City Clerk announced that a number of letters written by residents had been submitted by others present during the course of Special CC12/19/91 Page 7 the evening and read each into the record. All the letters read were in support of the fifty-foot creek setback and were from the following Atascadero residents: Alfred &Daphne Fahsing - (Exhibit T) Debra Leasure - (Exhibit U) Erma L. Davis - (Exhibit V) Michael J. Hungerford - (Exhibit W) Marcia M. Joyce - (Exhibit X) Nancy Hyman - (Exhibit Y) Mabel & Harold Poland - (Exhibit Z) Howard G. Marohn - (Exhibit AA) James W. Carpenter - (Exhibit BB) Barbara & John Barnard - (Exhibit CC) John W. Cole - (Exhibit DD) Beatrice Anson (Exhibit EE) William C. Ferguson - (Exhibit FF) Steve Luna - (Exhibit GG) ---End of Public Testimony--- Mayor Shiers closed the public hearing. By unanimous vote on a motion by Councilman Lilley, the special meeting was adjourned at 10:20 p.m. and the matter was continued to January 14, 1992. MI $S RECO DED AND PREPARED BY: L RABOInK, ity Clerk Attachments: Exhibits A - GG Special CC12/19/91 Page 8 LIST OF SPEAKERS AND THOSE SUBMITTING STATEMENTS ON MATTERS RELATING TO THE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND EIR AT THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL ON DECEMBER 19, 1991 Speaker Exhibit Kellerman A Rice g Greening C Atascadero Homeowners D Moss E Behan F O'Keefe G LaSalle H Coniglio I Luna, U. J Kirkpatrick K Kiel L Levenson M McNeil, D. N Powers, V. O McNeil, J. P Gronstrand Q Powers, B. R Bishop S Fahsing T Leasure U Davis V Hungerford W Young X Hyman y Poland Z Marohn AA Carpenter BB Barnard CC Cole DD Anson EE Ferguson FF Luna, S. GG Special CC12/19/91 Page 9 LIST OF SPEAKERS AND THOSE SUBMITTING STATEMENTS ON MATTERS RELATING TO THE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND EIR AT THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL ON DECEMBER 19, 1991 Speaker Exhibit Kellerman A Rice B Greening C Atascadero Homeowners D Moss E Behan F O'Keefe G LaSalle H Con .glio I Luna, U. J Kirkpatrick K Kiel L Levenson M McNeil, D. N Powers, V. 0 McNeil, J. P Grestrand Q Powers, B. R Bishop S Fahsing T Leasure U Davis V Hungerford W Young X Hyman Y Poland Z Marohn AA Carpenter BB Barnard CC Cole DD Anson EE Ferguson FF Luna, S. GG Special CC12/19/91 Page 9 SPECIAL CC 12/19/91 EXHIBIT A Livia Kellerman 5463 Honda Atascadero December 19, 1991 Mr. Mayor, members of the Council; I was pleased that the Council, at its last meeting, took a first step toward protecting the creeks of Atascadero. Stopping the dumping of pollutants and the destruction of creek vegetation by vehicle use was long overdue. Most of us do not pollute the creeks or ride roughshod in them, but the few who do need to be restrained. Also, those who wish to build along the creeks sometimes need help to keep them from causing damage due to a lack of knowledge about creek life and habitat or to lack of sensitivity or foresight. The language of this proposed measure will not prohibit any concerned, knowledgeable or thoughtful owner from building on a legal lot. It will help the Planning Department assist builders and prevent damage before it occurs. This measure most certainly does NOT have anything to do with a "Taking"' of property. It does NOT give public access to private land. Many cities and counties have used even more stringent language successfully. The Coastal Zone in our own county states that "rural riparian setbacks are 100 feet, urban are 50 feet. " All of us who live in Atascadero are responsible for the protection and preservation of our beautiful creeks. Not many cities are blessed with creeks which have not been destroyed. Ninety-five percent of the urban creeks of California have been destroyed, and some cities are investing huge sums of money trying to revive them. Preservation is economical. Preservation is wise. When human beings preserve nature, they are acting to preserve themselves. We must act wisely for ourselves and for our children. We must put this excellently worded creek protection measure into our General Plan. The Council took the first step on December 10th. I am confident that tonight it will take this important second step SPECIAL CC 12/19/91 EXHIBIT B My husband and I support the recommendation made for the General Plan update to preserve the creek. The plan should allay the fears of property owners along the creek and provide minimum protection. Atascadero is fortunate to have this wonderful resource and we now have the opportunity to make a first step towards development of a unique and endangered resource that could be developed into something very attractive to residents and businesses in this town. The history of creeks in urban areas is sad. Government has ignored their potential and they have been ruined or paved over. We should begin to work toward developing this precious asset. i SPECIAL CC 12/19/91 EXHIBIT C Testimony given at the City Council Hearing on the especially strong regarding the north-facing slopes of General Plan Update of December 19th, 1991 by Eric the mountain, which cradle the cemetery, and which Greening,7365 Valle Ave.,Atascadero,CA,93422. contain most of the vegetation and wildlife habitat. If the bulk of Pine Mountain were left undeveloped ex- cept for perhaps a hiking trail reaching the ridge from I am basically happy with the document before Stadium Park, the value of nearby properties would you this evening. I was especially pleased by the actually be enchanced, and Atascadero would have "Land Use and Circulation Management Strategies" one more major attraction: guaranteed public access from the APCD that appeared in the agenda packet to one of the most breathtaking views in the county, for this meeting,but am a little confused about what an asset that could enhance the Stadium Park experi- they were doing there, since they were not,to my un- ence for visitors and residents alike. derstanding, language up for adoption into our Gene- Any potential loss of these inappropriate and ex- rat Plan, nor was it my understanding that our pensive-to-serve parcels from the tax rolls would be Circulation Element was being considered at this more than offset if the properties now under the high- time. Since this material was there, however, I do way 41 cloud could be freed from the CalTrans lim- want to make one point: the Highway 41 routing that bo. now appears on our General Plan should be elimina- Before I close, I'd like to add my own two cents ted, and this does affect adjacent land use, since the worth to the volatile issue of creek setbacks, specifi- properties now in limbo could then serve housing cally the language in 1137 s i. I am in favor of giving needs,as well as fiscal ones once they would be back any potential building site near the creek very close on the tax rolls. The Draft EIR that CalTrans put for- scrutiny, but wonder why a biologist is specified to ward and then rapidly scuttled indicated that the inter- the exclusion of a geologist. Any site near the creek section of El Camino and Morro Road would be should be assessed by a professional competent to de- affected too severely for any possible compatibility termine exposure to such hazards as flooding, bank with the strategies suggested by the APCD. It erosion,and the enhanced seismic risk of saturated al- estimated that by the year 2012 the average delay at luvium. This professional should also be able to as- this intersection would be over 2 1/2 minutes! This is sess the effect of disturbance at the site on the creek almost twice the delay projected for El Camino and itself as it continues downstream,with the goal of ma- Curbaril in that year if the bridge should remain at its ximizing groundwater recharge by minimizing silta- present location. A compatibility issue that affects tion of the stream bottom. I think we are likely to land use and parks and recreation is the effect that find that the building sites most disruptive to vegeta- vastly increased noise at the canyon mouth would tion and wildlife are usually sites that would not in have on the now acoustically sheltered outdoor per- any case provide a secure habitat for humans to invest formance site you have recently moved to acquire in large sums of money placing structures in. I don't see Stadium Park. I am absolutely delighted that this as- preventing people from building in sites that put their set will soon be ours to clean up and use to experience property in harm's way as a form of"taking;" on the nature and culture, and would hate to see it rendered contrary, to the extent that all the taxpayers bail out useless by a badlythought-out road project. the victims of avoidable disasters, failure to avoid In past hearings on this General Plan before the those disasters constitutes a form of"takinga'rfrom all Planning Commission, I tried to clear up a common the city's taxpayers. confusion between Pine Mountain Stadium and the Thank you. actual summit ridge of Pine Mountain, from which it is separated by a paper street. The bulk of Pine Mountain is evidently to go into rural residential zon- ing, although it is hard to imagine a house site on the mountain that could be graded, not to mention ac- cessed, without massive earth movement. I appreci- ate the correction that added Pine Mountain's 30 degree-plus slopes to the citywide map of such areas; now it is time to accept the reality that this map faces us with. I'd like to think that a recent approval in- volving four homesites at the base of the mountain and 17 acres of open space uphill therefrom sets a pattern that will continue to keep the upper slopes free from development,but there is no language in the ge- neral plan to indicate that it will; in fact,the transfer of the 17 acres to the "public" zoning designation seems to indicate a special case, and this for a piece of land that is virtually useless by itself. My concern is SPECIAL CC 12/19/91 EXHIBIT D Page 1 CREEK REPORT Unanimously adopted by the general membership of the Atascadero Homeowners Association on October 17,1991 SPECIAL CC 12/19/91 EXHIBIT D Page 2 CREEKWAY RESOLUTION ATASCADERO HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION OCTOBER 17, 1991 WHEREAS, the Atascadero Homeowner's Association, as well as other community organizations, have demonstrated strong support for the utilization and protection of our creekways, and WHEREAS, these unique and valuable assets were recognized by the founder of Atascadero, E. G. Lewis, and WHEREAS, these resources still offer great opportunities for recreation, open space and enhancement of the downtown business area. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Atascadero Homeowners Association: 1. supports the objective to maintain and restore Atascadero's creeks and their adjacent riparian woodlands as a natural environment in which native plants and animals thrive. 2. seeks long term protection of the Atascadero creeks and their woodlands through responsible land stewardship. 3 . wishes to further the understanding of this diverse and delicate environment in the hope that with knowledge comes respect, and with respect comes responsibility. 4. promotes land use compatible with its streamside environment. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Atascadero Homeowners Association; S. supports a minimum 5o feet building setback requirement in the Atascadero General Plan which will provide protected riparian corridors. 6. opposes "harvesting sand and gravel" in Atascadero creeks and wishes this provision to be deleted from the General Plan. 7. opposes future incompatible construction within the 100 year floodplain. SPECIAL CC 12/19/91 EXHIBIT D Page 3 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Atascadero Homeowners Association supports a creek ordinance based on the requirements and guidelines in the Atascadero General Plan by• 8. establishing minimum 50 feet building setbacks which will provide protected riparian corridors. 9. minimizing land disturbance within at least 50 feet of water courses. 10. prohibiting channelization of the creeks. 11. assuring that existing primary tributaries and, where feasible, minor tributaries be left in open space to provide runoff and wildlife habitat protection_ 12. protecting creek reserves until they may be acquired for parks, recreational use and open space. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Atascadero Homeowners Association: 13. petitions the City Council to provide creek and riparian habitat protection through the General Plan and the Zoning Ordinance, and 14. to restrict indiscriminate vegetation removal in the riparian zone, and 15. to prohibit livestock and vehicles in the riparian zone, and 14. that these actions be undertaken to coincide with the update of the Atascadero General Plan. Timothy 'Keefe, resident SPECIAL CC 12/19/91 EXHIBIT D Page 4 CREEKS ano oyc our c`hjrmit7v nicur31 re-ours e_ had bacon icy-tli�1�e'Q• . . They hart c�c�4urracl uncfar n��i ihb-O. J- it 1119're+. J12d wi th ma ?).#X X1717 ne, ,more-:-t. A1ic.hooer !"Ihe 4?u31i 41 oic Li Ao",I Most people like creeks and take them for granted. Unfortunately creeks are in danger of becoming memories of the past. Ninety-five percent of California' s urban creeksite habitat is lost and over one-half of the remaining five percent is in great jeopardy of disappearing. Californians are discovering that the once sparkling streams they enjoyed no longer exist. How could this loss have occurred under our noses with a minimum of protest? Urbanization and agricultural uses have been oblivious to the fact that streambanks are not stable and that the ecosystem which supports the stream and its bank is a delicate one . In its natural state a stream adapts to the periodic ::looding that occurs . A creek needs room to change and modify its course and banks . When man builds in the natural flood area he interferes with nature' s self correcting actions . Urbanization increases flood discharges causing greater quantities of water to fill streams in a shorter period of time . The lagtime to fill a creek may change from hours to minutes, increasing probability of erosion and flooding . Because of the decrease in lagtime, even a minor cloudburst will greatly increase the probability of a major flood. Accompanying this runoff are pollutants from the roads and parking lots . when floods and erosion threaten buildings iil the floodplain, the creek is rechanneled by man, culverted, filled with concrete or paved over. in addition to the SPECIAL CC 12/19/91 EXHIBIT D Page 5 increased flood discharges creeks have been used as sewage and garbage disposal sites . overgrazing of livestock on or near the banks of creeks has caused severe erosion, and animal wastes have polluted the waters . siltation, runoff from pesticides and herbicides , rerouting streams for irrigation purposes and damming for stockponds have all added to the disappearance or change of the streams in California. In the name of cost-effective flood control, the Army Corps of Engineers has cemented the banks and put up fences to accommodate development. These are "old-fashioned flood__ control techniques that are ugly and often don' t work very well . " For example, the Los Angeles River, "which was one of the Army Corps' first big projects in the 1930 ' s, is in its current incarnation essentially 50 miles of concrete. trough. only about two miles of banks near Griffith Park are exposed enough to support life . Along its journey the river picks up runoff from about 2oo storm drains, and many people regard it as nothing more than a sewer."Z In spite of these costly flood control efforts California' s chief flood forecaster rates the Los Angeles River basin as having the highest potential for a major flood disaster. Another example is the San Lorenzo River in Santa Cruz . In the 1960' s the Army Corps built a flood control project . "Large cement levees were installed to raise the banks and the riverbed was excavated below its natural level to carry flood flows , . . an ugly drainage ditch running through the center of the town. "`- Fortunately, today there is a new awareness . "When small towns turn into larger ones and to cities , people .feel a . 3pECIAL CC 12/19/91 EXHIBIT D Page 6 need to recognize the wilderness past we are all a part of . Water is one of the main means by which we try to touch base with our past. "l people are responding with simple outrage to a desecration of their neighborhood. Today "there are almost 300 projects around the state to preserve or restore urban streams" , done with "a new awareness of the value of streams and their significance in human lives . "2 The City of Santa Cruz is presently developing "a new, environmentally sound flood control plan. Eventually. . . many of the cement banks will be planted with native shrubs and trees , which not only will look nicer but will cool the edges of the water, provide shade for fish, and encourage insects, which are an important part of the food chain. In the end. . . the project may cost as much as 20 or 30 million dollars over the next decade . "4. San Luis Obispo spent many years restoring a portion of its downtown creek and developing a plaza. After hiring architects, holding a city election, bit by bit purchase of hand, securing of easements and land dedications , and countless hours of volunteer work by citizens , the plaza and creek restoration in a critical part of the downtown became a reality. Unfortunately in earlier years the creek had been considered a throwaway commodity and two and one-half blocks of downtown business were built right over the creek. This encroachment has in turn greatly increased flood damage to adjacent properties. Boulder Colorado provides an example of how to avoid destruction of creeks and streams and prevent the exorbitant cost of restoration. Boulder has been working on its plan for the past 22 years . Here is its secret: preserve the flora and fauna through the acquisition of open space, and SPECIAL CC 12/19/91 EXHIBIT D Page 7 prevent incompatible development in the floodplain and beyond, reserving it for recreational use . Creeksite preservation is cost-effective. Restoration is almost cost-prohibitive . Engineering solutions in the past have proven unsatisfactory and have led to the need for expensive restoration. Through land use regulations and acquisition of land for recreational use, creeksites will provide the greatest public benefit with the least cost. E . G. Lewis planned the City of Atascadero with great foresight . He reserved approximately one-fourth of the entire estate for parks , as well as "the banks of all streams for fifty feet on both sides , and an acre surrounding all springs . "3 He established open space creek reservations for all creeks . The original maps , recorded in 1924 , show them extending beyond the banks of Atascadero Creek. Additionally he required a setback of not less than. twenty-five feet from property lines abutting the creek reservations . Unfortunately, after the E . G. Lewis bankruptcy the creek reservations were sold into private ownership, as was the rest of the parkland. This marked the beginning of a great loss of - a vision of preservation of community rights and values . * * " . . . the attitude of the people and the courts continue to move in the direction of favoring protection of the community interest rather than the interest of the individual developer. . . Attitudes about the extent of local regulation of land subdivision that is allowable have changed markedly over the past few years . " 7 SPECIAL CC 12/19/91 EXHIBIT D Page 8 The subsequent General Plans continued to incorporate many environmental values and even today the General Plan reflects respect for natural resources . However, city government failed to incorporate these values into local ordinances . Furthermore,some of these values have been totally deleted through General Plan amendments . In addition, most environmental elements have been ignored in the decision making process to accommodate private property rights at the expense of community rights . The 1967 General Plan states ,of import to the plan and to the economy of the community are the acquisition of creek reservations"g . The 1977 General Plan addresses the acquisition of creek reservations or easement rights and is still part of today' s General Plan. No comprehensive plan to establish this goal has been developed. In many instances the opportunity to secure "easements, parkland and open space dedications . . . through the subdivision and development process*5 has been lost . The 1977 General Plan also stated "Access to and recreational use of the creeks should be assured by establishing building setbacks of not less than 50 feet from the bank of the creek. "6 This minimum 50 foot setback was deleted in 1983 by Resolution 17-83 to facilitate a lot split in the southern Atascaderc Creek Reservation No . 6 . The requirement to establish specific setbacks along the banks was never acted upon. No setbacks have been established, leaving our creeks subject to development and abuse . What has happened to E. G. Lewis' s dream? Creek reservations have been subdivided to facilitate development along the creeks . Lot line adjustments have been granted, satisfying requirements for further subdivision. Homes have been constructed within the 100 year floodplains and within the SPECIAL CC 12/19/91 EXHIBIT D Page 9 creek reservation areas . Homes and apartments have been constructed at the creekbanks . Creekbanks have been stabilized with concrete and metal . Banks have been eroded by livestock. In areas along the streams there is an acrid smell of sewage and in various places the creek and the creekbed have been used as dumpsites . Tributaries that just a few years ago supported life have been confined in culverts , buried and built upon. The signs of destructive human impact are leaving their mark on our local creeks . However, Atascadero is very fortunate that our creeks have so far escaped the massive destruction common to other urban creeks , and the community has escaped serious flood damage . e Many areas are still beautiful .The streambanks, supported by natural: riparian vegetation, have been allowed to change with the flow and ebb of the waterlevei. Majestic oaks, sycamores , walnuts and cottonwoods still line the banks . Erosion and development along the banks are still 'confined to certain areas . How fortunate we are ! But if we are to preserve this delicate and diverse environment we must now assume responsibility for this unique ecological treasure in our community. NOTES 1 . Ken Schwartz, address to Atascadero Homeowner' s Association, March 231 1989 . . 2 . Pollock, Sarah, Urban Creek Restoration, The Museum of California 12, No. 6 ( 1989 ) . 3 . Atascadero California, published by The Atascadero Press ( 1923) 4. Atascadero General Plan ( 1967 ) . 5 . Atascadero General Plan (1980) . 6 . Atascadero General Plan ( 1977 ) . 7 . Yearwood, Richard M. , Land subdivision Regulation, Praeger Publishers ( 1971 ) SPECIAL CC 12/19/91 EXHIBIT E Decemoer 18 , 1991 Mr. :payor and memoers of the City Council After two and a half years and what seem tlikeke aendless rhetoric , you have an opportunity 5h� ort of four si-nificant step forward. If you vote in supe own planning Commission and staff 's recommendations to adopt ouilding set backs on Atascadero 's creer-4 s, you will successfully resolve the differences and misunderstandings which have developed over this 2- sse0luld all eablennaturk you al oresources. agree we need to preserve our irrac re— The language proposed by your stair takes into accountallof objections I have heard in opposition to any setback quirements. The Decoosed language allows for exceptions to the 50 foot setback if reasonable criteria are met to protect the creekway habitat or if the city has completed tbacks a crtekway mapping program which allows for other se . Opponents to any setbacks on ouracreeks violatedvlaor dedttha their private property rights a g ty is being their propertaken from them . This is simply not true . We all ,.have to le�eetcetc.th arear we develop our setbacks , height restrictions, property. And I rememoer homes in rural Oregon being washed away when there were no zoning or setback requirements to protect property owners. �- Oregon to find Recently L visited my beach cabin in Uearhar . a home being built on an adjacent lot, very close to our cabin.. So we checked with the city manhem ager 0 uhe rrsimpleC� restrictions. L was very pleas Y e to protect two page document to find that the had language their creeks and river wtown of020004peopleacan do tlsso little sleepy laid back reject our staff' s recommendation„ can Ataascadero. If you do r .j Y I will be meet cur1ous to hear hove you aan. justify a negative - vote. please vote yes- Thank You Sincerely, Celia Moss 8040 Coromar Rd.- : , Atascadero,. t;a.. 9342? SPECIAL CC 12/19/91 EXHIBIT F �,�, �-c�-+��c���`�: ����s•�� civ, �L�' �-cc�� C.r�..Q..�� S�-��--lc � s;:•:�_ j vc k.,t 1�t�t : &(Lv t't':� 5\t�L�S '% tk-\'S CC if\r-!\\j4N k'A o. �!�.. l.)C`6 c V\4 :..1 r�o��C-t.csC��:—��.c.� 0. 'm' , �ts.r►� 0\ e-xl L.,n\ Chc,-�lC- m 'c �S Gl—c �'�`-E G-t'\c,.'��f.r (�� �fAH 'T�.�`, , V`"'"�'�.�'�'\ �..�.�C�, ��\a.�Z..�''..� ^.T .,,i•,C` �. t -)'c GL�.S�n�?✓s-� tri I�v•S�t� L ,\ Iva SPECIAL CC 12/19/91 EXHIBIT G Page 1 of 8 December 19, 1991 Joan O' Keefe 9985 Old Morro Rd. East Atascadero, Ca 93422 To the City Council; I am submitting this statement and all its enclosures to be part of the record of the City Council meeting of 12/19/90 on the General elan Update Draft of proposed Land Use. Conservation and Open 5p=�ce ment Eles and Final Environmental i Impact Re or . I have heard members of the City Council speak in public hearings about the need to protect the creeks of Atascadero. I am very pleased that tonight you finally have an opportunity to vote for that protection, while at the same time allowing for the necessary flexibility. I am sure that you already know many of the reasons why you should adopt this language. Please bear with me as I explain why I believe it is so important . My main concern is . CUMULATIVE IMPACTS A close look at the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Draft General Plan will show you that the cumulative impacts of the past, present and future developments along Atascadero' s creeks are not addressed. on a one by one, lot by lot , home by home evaluation, each with its own Legative Declaration, the impacts of each individual development appears minor. However, together these developments will change the creeks as we know them. This is a slow, almost unnoticeable process until one day the damage can no longer be ignored. By this time restoration is usually so expensive that it stretches the communities finances to the limit or it may be cost-prohibitive. it is through cumulative impacts that 95% of California's urban creek habitat has already been lost . (See enclosures A235-A240, Urban Creek Restoration. ) It is because of cumulative impacts that 60% of California' s surviving creeks are in trouble as was pointed out by a University of California, Davis study. (See enclosures C23--C26, The Meaning of Creeks . ) Atascadero' s creeks can easily become a part of this sad statistic by looking at each development individually and not considering the cumulative effects of the many individual projects together. Past cumulative Impacts Homes, apartments and commercial buildings have been allowed to be constructed to the bank of the creeks . (See enclosures D1-D37 . ) Riparian vegetation, so vital to the health of a creek, has been allowed to be removed. These are years in which certain animal species have already disappeared from our creek habitat . A former creeklot resident testified before the Planning commission that only the teeth-marks remain in some tree trunks to remind us that beavers once lived here, that steelhead trout are no longer found in our creeks . others have noted that the heron rookery has disappeared. (See enclosures A211-A212, Planning commission minutes of 10/29/91 and public comments made by at the Planning commission meeting of 4/3/90, on tape. ) These are years in which creekbanks have been eroded, riparian vegetation has been lost, culverts have been installed to accommodate new development and their discharge has eroded some banks of the creeks . Horses have been allowed to graze in the creek and have polluted the water, destroyed the riparian vegetation, and eroded and broken down the banks of the creek. Vehicles have been allowed in the creeks that have destroyed the riparian vegetation, displaced wildlife, eroded the creekbanks and polluted the waters . The basic steps necessary to protect urban creeks have in many instances not been taken. What will it Cost the city to restore the damaged areas of our creeks? (See enclosures C14-C22, Stream Care Guide and enclosures E1-E3, pictures . ) The DEIR does not evaluate these past cumulative impacts of development along our creeks since 1983 . That was the year in which the requirement to establish minimum 50 foot setbacks was removed from the city ' s General Plan to allow one person to subdivide his creeklot into three parcels . (See enclosures Al-A30, Staff Reports, Planning commission minutes and City Council minutes of 10/18/82, 11/1/82, 1.1/15/82, 1/17/83, 2/22/83, 4/11/83 . ) Although the remaining General Plan language still mandates that "creek setbacks shall be established" the Council failed to establish such setbacks in an ordinance. This has resulted in an effective zero foot setback from the creeks which is contrary to many of Atascadero' s General Plan policies . (See enclosures B2-B4, quotes from Atascadero' s General Plan. ) The DEIR does not analyze the cumulative impacts that this eight year development policy of zero setback has had on the creeks, creekbanks, riparian vegetation, wildlife habitat and wildlife. 2 Future Cumulative Impacts What will be the cumulative impacts of structures that push themselves onto the creeks? What will be the cumulative impacts of erosion caused by construction? what will be the cumulative impacts of erosion caused by culverts installed along the creeks to provide drainage for the new development . What will be the cumulative impacts when development in love and appreciation of the creeks hugs in the long term the vegetation and wildlife to death? What will be the cumulative impacts when structures and people displace threatened, endangered, or rare species in these rich natural corridors? What will be the cumulative impacts when development forces the relocation of wild animals in our creeks because they are no longer compatible with their immediate neighbor - man? What will be the cumulative impacts of the city ' s Tree Ordinance that does not cover riparian vegetation and does not apply on lots that already have a structure on it? (See enclosures A147-A151. ) What will be the cumulative impacts of riparian vegetation loss on the creekbank' s stability? What will be the cumulative impacts of riparian vegetation loss on the wildlife? What will be the cumulative impacts of the removal of riparian vegetation within the recommended 30 to 100 feet Of structures by the creek because it presents a dangerous fire threat to these buildings in the dry hot summer month? (See enclosures C33-C34, Fi-reproof and enclosures C29-C32, Wildfire. ) What will be the cumulative impacts if this vegetation is allowed to remain and a firestorm takes the homes adjacent to the vegetation? What will be the fiscal impacts when insurance rates for all homeowners get increased to pay for the homes lost in the fire? 3 What will be the cumulative impacts of construction at the edge of banks of the creeks when the next very wet rainy season crumbles and erodes the banks which support the buildings? Public testimony was given at the Planning Commission hearing in June 1990 that since the 1960 ' s and 70 ' s the creek has changed 15 yards or 45 feet. (See enclosure A126, Planning Commission minutes of 5/15/90. ) What will be the cumulative impacts on the creeks when concrete walls will be constructed to reenforce the banks to save these threatened homes? what will be the fiscal impacts to all citizens when their insurance rates increase to pay for the homes that could not be saved when the creek changed its channel in a flood caused by a massive storm? What will be the cumulative impacts of urbanization which increases runoff and discharges more water into the creeks in a shorter period of time ( lagtime)? What will it cost the City of Atascadero to restore the damage to the creeks if the cumulative impacts are allowed to continue? (See enclosures C1-C13, Urban Stream Restoration Program, enclosure A222, The Hidden Wonder of Contra Costa County, and enclosures E1-E8, pictures . ) The DEIR does not assess any of these foreseeable future cumulative impacts of development along the creeks . The city is already subdivided and such impacts can be forecast . (Projects such as the 444 unit RV park along Graves Creek and the Salinas and which proposes to culvert Graves Creek should be considered as part of the cumulative impacts analysis of the Land Use Element . ) The ambiguous language that building setbacks shall be established leaves us to speculate what this may be. Will it be 5 feet? Will it be measured from the center of the creek? When will it be established? Since this is a Program EIR it is especially important to address the cumulative impacts of such an open ended policy. The City' s Past Record The original language proposed in the Draft General Plan and DEIR was ambiguous as has been so clearly said in the letter of September 9, 1991 by the California Department of Fish and Game. Since the city' s incorporation in 1980 the Atascadero General Plan stated "Building setback requirements shall be established along the banks of both creeks . . . " and went on to state 0 . . . by establishing building setbacks of not less than 50 feet from the bank of the creek." This language, as stated previously, was 4 modified in 1983 by removing the 50 foot setback requirement but leaving the wording "suilding setback requirements shall be established along the banks of both creeks" . (See enclosures A17-A30, Staff Reports, Planning Commission minutes and City Council minutes 1/17/83 , 2/22/83 , 4/11/83 . ) Since incorporation. 11 years ago the city has not established building setbacks in its Zoning Ordinance with the result that its General Plan and Zoning Ordinance are not consistent . In fact, the City Council has filibustered with an endless stream of rhetoric thereby avoiding, postponing and delaying action to provide protection for the creeks . (See enclosure A. ) In March of 1990 the Council appointed the CreekStudy Committee, a step that is to be commended. However, he creek study seems to go on and on and on. Meanwhile the creeks remain unprotected. The committee has provided valuable information but their work will take time, possibly many years. Unfortunately since their appointment the committee has been used to delay decision making. Two years ago, in January of 1990, the City Council unanimously initiated an Interim Ordinance to establish setbacks as required by the General Plan. Just two weeks later, January 23 , 1990 the Council came back and unanimously found that it could not support such an ordinance. (See enclosures A47-AS1, City Council minutes 1/9/90 and enclosures A84-A8S, City Council minutes 1/23/90 . ) On that same date, 1/23/90, the City Council gave unanimous direction to proceed with the process to establish SO foot building setbacks along the creeks in the Zoning Ordinance. In response the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this issue on S/1S/90. However, action was tabled by the City Manager who requested delay until some unknown time in the future when the creek study is complete. (See enclosure ASS, City Council minutes 1/23/90 and enclosures A101-A121, Staff Report to the Planning commission S/15/90 and enclosures A122-A128, Planning commission minutes S/15/90 and enclosures A98-A100, Memorandum from City Manager S/8/90 . ) In December of 1990 the City Council removed riparian trees from the Tree Ordinance with the unanimous promise that it would cover riparian vegetation in a separate creekway protection ordinance. On November 26,1991 staff recommended the protection of riparian vegetation in the Waterway Intrusion Ordinance. The Council removed that provision from the ordinance. (See enclosure A150, City Council minutes 12/11/90, see enclosures A252-A255, Staff Report to the City Council 11/26/91, see enclosures A267- 5 A275, Staff Report to the City Council 12/10/91 and see enclosures A256-A266 & A276-A286, City Council minutes of 11/26/91 and 12/10/91, which were not available at the time of this statement but which I make herewith part of the record. ) To this day no ordinance has been adopted by the City Council that addresses the protection of riparian vegetation. Instead the Council has told the public that the blackberries need to be removed from the riparian corridor. However, backberries stabilize steep creekbanks keeping them from eroding and crumbling. They provide safe nesting sites and a food source for wildlife. They keep people out of certain areas thereby protecting endangered species . Blackberries are planted by the California Department of Fish and Game on creekbanks to protect wildlife and on creek rehabilitation projects to revegetate steep creekbanks . Blackberries are riparian vegetation. The City Council, directed staff in December of 1990 to draft a creek preserve protection ordinance that would address off-road vehicles, dog runs, etc . in the creek. (See enclosure A145, City Council minutes 12/11/90 . ) On 11/26/91, staff recommended to the Council a draft Wate.-iday Intrusion Ordinance. on Council direction, the "ordinance was prepared with the purpose of identifying human activities causing the most destructive impacts on the riparian habitat . " These include 1) use of vehicles, 2) dumping of pollutants, 3 ) confinement of domestic animals, 4) unauthorized construction, and 5) destruction of riparian vegetation. The Council ordered staff to delete sections 3 through 5) . The matter was continued. On 12/10/91 the Council adopted an ordinance prohibiting private vehicles and dumping of pollutants in the riparian corridor. Of the many concerns raised in the letter from the Department of Fish and Game vehicles in the creek has been the only issue that the Council has addressed. {See enclosures A245-A247, Letter from the Department of Fish and Game, see enclosures A252-A255, Staff Report 11/26/91 enclosures A267-A275, Staff Report 12/10/91, and see enclosures A256-A266 & A276-A286, City Council minutes of 11/26/91 and 12/10/91, which were not available at the time of this statement but which I make herewith part of the record. ) No action was taken by the Council on the unanimous recommendation of staff and the Planning Commissions to protect the creek reservations from further subdivision. The Council removed that portion from the Subdivision Ordinance update until some unknown time in the future when the creek study is complete. In the meantime the City Council adopted the revisions to the Subdivision Ordinance without this provision. (See enclosures A152-A153 , Staff Report 7/16/91 and enclosures A154-A156, Planning Commission 6 minutes 7/16/91 and enclosure A163, City Council minutes 8/13/91 . ) In the past 2 years the City has held many public hearings that addressed, in one way or another, the issue of creek protection not counting the public hearings where development projects affecting the creeks were considered. (See enclosure Al-A286 and see enclosures D1-D37 . ) These hearings have resulted in a lot of grandstanding, but have done nothing to protect the creeks . How many more times will the citizens hear the City Council say we want to do it right but not right now. Given the city's record we must assume that if the Council is to adopt any setback that setback would be too little and too late. Mitigation for Cumulative Impacts of Development on the Creeks The language on creek building setbacks and creek protection before you, policies 18 through 23, as recommended by the Consultants Crawford, Multari & Starr and by your Planning Commission, addresses some of the concerns raised by the California Department of Fish and Game, the experts on this issue. It addresses some of the concerns raised by the public in these hearings. It addresses the concerns raised in this statement . It addresses them because this language provides mitigation for the cumulative impacts of development along the creeks. It provides an effective monitoring program to assure the success of the mitigation.: Without this mitigation monitoring language the EIR will be flawed and inadequate. The exceptions provided for in the language will give the necessary flexibility to allow development on every lot . As was pointed out by the Memorandum dated 11/5/91 from the Community Development Director this language would establish "the 50 foot distance as a trip wire for additional review of permits in selected riparian areas" . (See enclosures A250-A251, Memorandum from H. Engen, 11/5/91. ) There are other communities that have adopted specific figures in their General Plan and provided the necessary flexibility through careful wording just as the recommended wording on creek building setbacks before you is doing. This wording will not take property owners use of their property any more than the side, front and rear building setbacks that the city is presently requiring . The public will count on you and your staff to explain this at the Council hearing to the citizens who may be confused about the relationship between setbacks and a taking. 7 I urge you to adopt the Draft General Plan and the DEIR as has been recommended to you by the Planning commission. i 8 ' SPECIAL CC 12/19/91 EXHIBIT H December 19, 1991 To the City Council: I wish to address two different but related issues. At one time, E. G. Lewis set aside one fourth of the Atascadero Colony for public use. Included in that were the creek reservations. I am not talking about setting aside a fourth of Atascadero for public use. It is something of a commentary of our times that we are reduced to talking about a small fraction of the original ideas of the founder of this town. I am talking about a fifty foot.setback for the creeks to protect them so that maybe twenty or thirty years from now there may be something left which reminds us of what originally brought E. G. Lewis, and I suspect what brought many of us here, the natural beauty of Atascadero. Like many other people, I have had a lifelong love for the beauty of a night sky full of stars. Since I have lived here, I have noticed a drastic deterioration in the quality of the night sky. I am pleased to see that on page N-13 of the EIR draft for the Camino Real Fashion Outlets, glare as an environmental issue is discussed. There are simple, cost effective measures that can betaken to reduce undesirable glare onto surrounding suburban areas. I would like to ask the City Council to incorporate into the General Plan requirements for commercial development that would reduce glare, such as shielded lights. This is a win-win proposal. Studies have shown that with proper shielding and direction of illumination to parking lots the total illumination can be reduced by as much as forty percent with a corresponding reduction of energy consumption.The payback in cost can be as quick as two to four years. This allows some of us to enjoy the night sky for its aesthetic value and retain, what we can, of the rural feeling. The issues of aesthetics, retention of a rural feeling and conservation of energy resources are worthy goals of the General Plan. Stephen P. LaSalle SPECIAL CC: 12/19/91 EXHIBIT L 3 •:a. Ce�.ember 13, 1 ;�t Gear Council r,{embers, Jim L.idberg, a wildlife axpert for the Fish and Game Depart-Ment r ecertly _ informed a group of residemrs that deer are born, live, and die al within ts+e same l -} I�'�mile area. t hey do not move ort as is t",e 111'r l{ Popular rl�iyt�ii, i i you destroy Chair {Iabitat, you <iil them. The r habitat i , shrin;cing at an jlarming rate. wring the pa .t '_0 year , that Jim Lidberg has worked for the l:ish and Came LeNartment in this area, h has sten a deer herd of 24 - 30,000 diminish to 2,000. His recommendation to the department this year is that there is no deer hRra _ in the i`lorth County area. This is a loss of i'3 -23,000 deer. If this were people, we `Nould all be Cr/Ing. Those of us who were left would deem t"e S,,1Uaticn ,)oQeless. We are talking here Of a pOGUlat;On larger than th�: :4t'i cf Atasc:ader �;4ped out. t i'1F'ir and Other Ntli ii`? habit!'.L ,,ave a •-,,'anc at Saving SumP O t TSp era in n't3S Cad•.ro. i I?e `�ianr,+ng CGmmission has ,Nisch agr"-. � ZO put a `'oot btlildirlg *baC< from t"e creaks into our general plan. This is 3 safeguard for the vyiidiife that still fives here. it in no way takes away anyone's property and Makes it available for public use It lust lets it stay in the hands of the Cr?aCUres.that get their susta�inence, from it: Their veri.ives depend on you an your willingness to afford tthem protection. - u Would all u�i►^I Say arum, if Cr;j 'NBr� 3 ,�Op(i{aCton 0 humai; ,einyS. ` af .:.. .'! r r.•.g ts. au- tl� '`u?idl ifv�.:r,r,oV Jlr4 an Jul 1C�111CU;aC .. 'vtivhir .,ii urvtrr.Ui •�� n .:an .;niy �Ie=o naon uhos2�numans matc3n seab�fcnC �t�rCe'.'�es Inco t �.., a e e,—,I 'living `nin uleOends On 'M-" OtNt'r 3r;' Nt'��; u^< <�r=� ,. NGr,d'ull�'. g' '- Hvingoaing are-uec«., tYc ii�t� =C• s_ =r;, iuc of �alanc :YJ4t oy . tJi' •,1ItJ C'1_Ihirt�v ��v...:. Y, ler ,.t. T t an orOne-..av y uej'.3U..Y �t1C" {�:•C'+uai t� Oyett:jy ourve "� Ow l �tant�. Since fy: {., Karef T h.Ca 1 Cji I o. _ SPECIAL CC 12/19/91 EXHIBIT J December 19, 1991 Ursula Luna 10600 San Marcos Rd. Atascadero, CA 93422 Mr. Mayor and members of the Council, "For want of a nail the shoe is lost, for want of a shoe the horse is lost,for want of a horse the rider is lost." How many news programs do we listen to, how many articles do we read, learning that another species is threatened, another forest lost, another water source polluted, another habitat destroyed? Just recently came the warning that the eagle population will face drastic decline because of rapid loss of brushland and therefore jackrabbits, the eagles main food source. It does not take the lifetime of a generation to destroy the life sustaining environment entrusted on us. Within just 10 years the rabbits have disappeared from the canyons my husband grew up in. Today signs warn not to eat the poisoned berries and mushrooms in the forests of my childhood. It took only 4 years before my son no longer saw the quail where he grew up. These same experienced losses are repeated over and over again. For the past 25 years you and I have heard about the intricate complexities of the ecosystem. Why have we failed to incorporate this knowledge into our action? We postpone these decisions to let our children deal with the results of our exploiting self-serving actions,be it a multi-trillion dollar debt, a poisoned planet and exhausted resources. We pretend that these problems are caused by others, not by our own small actions. But it is indeed only our own small actions that make the difference. Will we record that "For want of a vote the creeks were lost?" SPECIAL CC 12/19/91 MMIBIT K December 19, 1991 Dear City Council Members : L gully support the *discretionary review" of any development proposals within SO feet of creekways• These delicate areas must be acknowledged. We must carefully consider the changes we make in our local environment. Thank you. Mike Kirkpatrick 66x5 Santa Cruz Rd. Atascadero, CA 934.22 sPECIAL CC 12/19/91 EXHIBIT L 1 Atascadero, Dec. 18, 1992 Mr. mayor, members of the board: My name is Ron Kiel, and I am writing this letter on behalf of my family and myself. we have lived in Atascadero since 1981. We hereby express our sincere concern about the continuing encroachment by private interest upon what we consider to be one of Atascadero 's most beautiful. natural resources---the Atascadero Creek. we as a city .ars behind the times for not already having recognized the Atascadero creek for what it is---a precious part of A.tascadero's heritage which deserves to be preserved for future generations. we strongly support the adoption of an ordinance which will provide for the necessary protection, as well as for the enhancement of the Atascadero Creek and we urge you do all you can to accomplish this objective. sincerely, Ronald H. Kiel 9090 La Canada Atascadero SPECIAL CC 12/19/91 EXHIBIT M Harvey R. Levenson P. O. Box 323 Atascadero, CA 93423 December 18, 1991 City Council City of Atascadero, CA Dear Council Members: This is a letter in support of those many Atascadero residents concerned:about the deterioration of Atascadero Creek and surrounding environs. As you know the concern relates primarily to the approval of building permits that allow dwellings to be placed within the 50 foot protected area that is presently being considered. I support the passing of legislation that will enforce the 50 foot "barrier" to enhance property protection and safety, and to help maintain an aesthetically pleasing and clean environment. Property protection and safety is a concern in the event of "flash flooding" and its influence on dwellings sitting on or close to the creek bank. Aesthetics and cleanliness is a concern regarding the overall pleasant appeal of the creek's present environment to those who live near it or visit it. I believe that it would be in the city's best interest to protect the the creek as a "gift of nature" that Atascadero is fortunate to have. SWince Harvey R. Levenson �-7 a na SPECIAL CC 12/19/91 EXHIBIT N 8765 Sierra Vista Rd. ztascadero, Cn 93422 December 19, 1991 To ; Mayor Alden Shiers Members of the Atascadero City Council Subject : General Plan Update, creek setback issue- It has been said by one creek property owner that imple mentiag a creek setbac_c "would deprive owners of the same privileges enjoyed by property owners in the same zoning district. what a non-seas cal comparison! All property is required to have front, side and rear setbacks. lion-creek property owners are not required to have 50 foot setbacks because they have no creeks?' I believe in property rights. I don't .,rant my neighbor to build on my property because he has, inadequate information about where the proerty line lies. That almost happened to us. However, I have lived long enough and have learned at Least enough about the Constitution to '_snow that any liven right is balanced against the rights .of others. My right to freedom of speech does not extend so far as to falsely yell ".sire ! " in a crowded theater. My right to do as I wish on my own propert has to be balanced against the rights of my neighbors and the com- munity as a whole. Building right up to the pro-_;erty lire re- stricts the light, air and view of my nei,xhbor. Building within a creek area which can cause damage to a creek which does not belong solely to me but also to many others is not one of my propert, rights. I have no right to expect you to take care of my house in flood times because I insist on building right on the. creek. i am incensed when I am asked as a taxpa, er to aid some of the owners of elegant homes on Malibu. I resent bailing out anyone who risks such proximity to ocean storms. t Therefore, it seems obvious to me that flood and fire danger are enhanced when homes are close to the creeks and their vege- tation. It seems obvious to me that this setback is every bit as reasonable as the front, side , and rear setbacks required in residential and commercial areas. It seems obvious to me that a greater setback be required when one is dealing with something as alive and unpredictable as a stream which can rage one days, recede. the next and change course the following day. A. creek is not.-.:static. It is a living thing.. Y Repeatedly crying "my property is being taken" or "my Consitu- tional rights ara violated" because of the very reasonable need to protect creeks and homeowners alilte, does. not give truth to these complaints.. Stating over~ and. over "the world is flat" will not make it true Pleases. couneilmembers,. after so very,. very long,. so very, very :ouch study and talk, rlease give itaseadero this creek protection. Ilorothy F. McNeil ✓44A'A a POtLVIU Decembe c /9. 1991 SPECIAL CC 12/19/91 Good evening MembeAh o4 the G-b*t Counca EXHIBIT O Two Ve uce ago todag, on DeeembeA /9, /9(99, the Ptanrung Cmmid ai on "'co mreertd ed to the Cow=U (6:/) to neinata a Xanguage Cwr cwwLing the ea&Gi a/uwa 04 vcee� btd.&ng betbach 4tatdb in tAe Cmemt Paan and a o&6 i,de &wb t d ing b in Zoning Ondil2CULCe. On Sep�� 9, 1991, the Dept o4 FA.4h and Gcmee cent ouA Gm wu.tV Devetopneiet Dept. a .Letter xew=urdu that hpeci� heGacha be eota&Whec. �wa the Mand edge 04 the Mypa rn coxnirdon. Thea a#ti#.ad that, "Fon e=xp&, miA n the Coaatal Zone ,.a this eoun4, W.AaL nyaaw an 4etbvch4 ane /00 fleet, ud;an ane 50 fleet." The tettex Amtl,PA 6tat.Pd Meat Atvci= vege�n along otke c wvmxed on &waUeA c wd4A maV a GL P' eactnelrteCr� j poAtant habitat and necownended that pwtectLve W-aacvw-4 be extended to inchAde these coA4ido u. On'Octobers 29, /991 the P&mung Cmw-,mion again ",commended to the CA4 Cacrrrci.L on a 5:2 vote to adopt 511 �oot Au2duzg het6ad''s to the Ge ewe Ptm, picovid ing at the acme time 4n 4texi� Atmoat 8 .feG" have gone bg without hetwx" �ax pfrotection 04 the c�weh and lu+v' m Coivcodon m..&ena opt C.i tV Courccu: You ane .in deci.aioA-+a A4nq poaiZUns. ! pw# that VxL au--L do the Ai,* thing. Let",6 .start imed� to p✓w&ct our 4 nat)raL Aeaounceo .in r1..daaadelco. SPECIAL CC 12/19/91 EXHIBIT P john W. 'McNeil 8765 Sierra Vista �t ascadero , CA y3422 December 19, 1^1l i• ayor Alden Shiers and Members of the City Council ntascadero, Calif. Dear Mayor S..iers and City Council Members : The proposed building setbacks along the creeks in Atascadero to be ir_corLorated in the up-date of the General Plan have been attacked by one homeowner residing on the creek, who bases his opposition to the proposal on the spurious assertion that the j0 foot setback would be a "taking" of his property rights. City ordinances for residential, commercial and industrial con- struction setbacks for health, safety, and aestheticsreasons are unquestioned.. So one refers to those setbacks as a taking of property rights. They are recognized as being for the mutual benefit of all citizens. Without theft the rural character of our city would be destroyed. The proposed 50 foot creek setbacks will not .give the public access to private property along the creek. The setbacks w-.11 hell preserve the riparian vegetation that makes t1:e creeks sack an attractive natural resource cf our city. survey of one hundred squirrels living along owr creeks, sows that all the scui_-rels with two exceptions favor the 50 foot creek setbacks. Some of the obstreperous squirrels -Wade noises about their property rights. T'�^e two squirrels jhho abstained were quoted as saying, "huts to you." and "People are no damn good. " I urge you to approve this measure recommended by the City Con- sultants and supported by -Staff and the Planning Commission. Sincerely, r : i SPECIAL CC 12/19/91 EXHIBIT Q `rte do not live near a creek. I am concerned about the creeks be- cause I live in Atescadero. And I am particularl/ concerned about the lettxr the city received from Mr. Hunter, Regional Manager of Fisc'! and Game. A curious letter indeed. Mr. Hunter takes issue with the state- ment in the General Flan EIR that we have no rare or endangered animal species. On September 26 I visited Mr. Hunter' s home of- fice in Sacramento and found that indeed we did not have any rare or endangered animal species. Mr. Hunter named six "sensitive" bird which should have been idea- Wified in the document the city sent to Fish And Game. "Sensitive" seemed an unlikely classification. I, therefore, phoned the Fish and Game office in Tong Beach and was told there is no such clas- sification as "sensitive." When I visited Mr. Hunter't home of- fice in Sacramento I was given a list of 'Bird and Mammal Spe- cies of Special Concern. " The birds which Mr. Hunter named in his letter to the city as "sensitive" are on the list. Of the six birds ,fir. Hunter names, only three may be found in Atascadero and not necessarily in the creek area. I am surprised that Mr. Hunter is not aware of the five year Bird v, Breeding r beim conducted in this county`, and Atascadero, bVI r the Audubon Society. Three years of the sey have been comple- ted. The results indicate that there are no reports of the Cooper' s hawk or the Sharp-shinned Hawk nesting in Atascadero. There are no reports of sightings of the Long-eared Owl. The Yeliow Warbler and the Yellow-breasted Chat may nest in Atas- cadero in a variety of habitats.. The Purple Martin nests at the creek across from the Zoo and near Santa Rita Greek. Though it too may nest nest in other areas., the nesting across from the Zoo is the only area documented. So we have only three species of special concern in Atascadero.. ,the material I obtained frcn Mr. Hunter' s home office states the following about species cf special concern: C...-ERS= HAS NO SPECIAL LEGAL STATUS, THUS THERE IS NO SPECIAL RE"UIREtI ENT SUCH AS THE LAW PROVIDES FOR ENDyNGERED SPECIES,TO CONSIDER POTENTIAL ADVERSE IMPACTS OF A PROTECT UPON THE SPECIES AND ITS HABITAT." I am certainly not suggesting that species of special concern deserve no consider—' ation on our part. Whatever we do, however, must be logical, reasonable and based on facts, not emotion. In speaking of set backs, Mr. Hunter cites as example the setback in the Coastal Zone in this county. I phoned the California Coastal Commission in San Francisco and spoke with Mir. Gary Halloway. He told me that Atascadero is not in the Coastal Zone and that their office has no interest in Atascadero. My concern in reading Mr. Hunter's letter is that it appears to give the impression that our creeks are habitats for endangered animal species. The State Office in Sacramento does not con— firm this. Before considering any setback you have to determine by means of sound, incontrovertible evidence that establishing the setback will so tremendously enhance the historical, educational, eco— logical and scientific value of the creeks that it will Super— sede the right of the person to use the land he or she paid for. The burden of proof is upon you. Sarah ronstrand/ L�� ci. W a Iq It 0 h £ Cn O m N N m . CD CD :7G d H b ct F-' N 0 m C7• Hts i c., N ( CD 0 0 I.J. H 0 0 CDm m H £ £ CD �m m m O to - w H Cl)m c; H .. cD m 0 H m 0 P. H O mCD 0 H 0 CD CD ct CD cD H m t-j ct ct 0 0 `� mCO A' w m H 0 p-O H m H H CD Cd O O m CD CD ct 0 Fj 019 �-4 C9 CDd0CDCl) V Ho mm m 0 Na ;3' H CD ct 8 CD ct ct H ci- CD O O ct m F-+ ct CD Pr m Yi m P.CD • E s m C1 H ct 'd H d O w O m mss' 179 O O O H P, m p. 74 H P.0 0 CD H z 0 0 m �. m ct* ct • H H ct C O c!' H Z C.3 m 0O 03 (D omrn CD O ccoH0 O t.CD 0 O p. `t P- i p Fsj m �• CD CD ;:ICD O z m CD m N-• H �' ct p, H CD P•=10 z 09 m m m P- CD ci- m m ct m ct a m m c. ct c ct m 0 0 H �3* ct H P• CD m n Cu CD cu CD C m m mmm Hcs ct CD H H m 03 3 d P, gym/ �•J/r ter^ aP. N J 1 m C z �•.m m `l m m m P. C n P. r^ � z V, { • Om n H H • m mO m O C O .sm C « CD 1 z rnt£u aai rfca Som ct .D Q3 sz ct CD n c t mCCD H p ,. (DD 0 P. H H (D CD p- P.?C d x FCi 711 ct �• ro m 0 N. N• CD rn O CD co ZI m 0 A 0 x 'T H. cl A• i O 0 ca 3 0 H '+ ► "� m O C 0 H cr O9 9 0 h 00 0 m 1 j CD O O ''d O m CD C CD P- ct -c ,; 0 v m $ C CD ct ci- m m CL H 09 H m eN Hd N. crC HO Cl9NCD m CDH to 0H 1�4 mOcn �n y mty £ � ma ::1 CD m m £ O y CD CD m H�' £ ct ct 0) Fi 0 ct O0 0E H H) H H H, CD M Z P. 0 0 (D H m CD CD H H m ry R. �l 03 O t3' m p- CO N• cict 3 C CO CD � t-i m H3 m CD 0 S: m ct + m rn C7' H CD CD H m d m N.rn t-.+ V 0 N m p.0 CD ^ m a H O m CCD £ CD ct O m O H CD ct m tOA O H m C m O ct H ci- ctt-y hjj al O t-' an d Cr CD N m m m <] p. H o H ct 7O-V A. ran m m p, Ho ;3- CD U) tD cn CD O N• ct 0 g m ¢. 0 m m b 0 Cu N. Fj O Pil d 0 t..i m ( C m H CD Q. d CD CD m td Z cc a9 corn ct N m m N co vH t7' m d �.' m m (D 0 cEl q t� cc t CD CD H N d H O d ct- d tL p` p. m t✓ C H m m n (Dctct m ►my (mn H C10 CD N 0 m H ct m m Q. K m Oct n ►� F,. H cD Q.d• Fj CD m HrA STATE OF CALIFORNIA—THE RESOURCES AGENCY GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN, Co~w DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME 'o.1 o. Box 9AA209 SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 9a2u•2M (916) 445-5561 May 16, 1990 All Interested Parties 1990 List of Bird and Mammal Species of Special Concern The Department of Fish and Game publications, Bird Species of Special Concern in California and Mammalian Species of Special Concern in California, that originally established our administrative lists of birds and mammals of concern have become outdated. Some of the original species on these lists have been officially listed as Threatened or Endangered by the Fish and Game Commission. Other species have been added to or removed from the lists as additional. status information has become available. The original list of birds is now over twelve years old (Remsen 1978) and the mammal list is almost five years old (Williams 1986) • We hope to publish new volumes of Species of Special Concern in the near future. Until that time, in order to avoid any confusion regarding which species the Department considers to be of concern, we have developed the attached list Of California birds and mammals. We anticipate updating this list on an annual basis at the end of each calendar year (i.e., in December 1990 we will revise this list for 1991 ) . This, list has been prepared to help land management agencies, developers, landowners and the general public take action to protect declining bird and mammal populations before they become endangered. A species of special concern has no special legal status, thus there is no special requirement such as the law provides for endangered species, to consider potential adverse impacts of a project upon the species and its habitat. Yet by giving special consideration to species of special concern whenever possible, we can avoid the costly recovery efforts that might otherwise be required to save the, species. The attached list is provided for your information and use during the 1990 calendar year. Bird taxonomy and distribution is based on The A.O.U. Check-list of North American Birds (American Ornithologists' Union, 1957 and 1983) . Mammal taxonomy is based on currently accepted nomenclature. Mammal distribution is based on The Mammals of North America (E. Raymond Hall, 1981 ) . Although this is an administrative list, we encourage you to consider these species and subspecies as "sensitive" during preparation and review Of environmental documents. If you have any questions, need additional copies of this list, or have any information suggesting that any species or subspecies should be added to or deleted from. this list, please feel free to contact Ms. Caryla Larsen in the Nongame Bird and Mammal Section of the Wildlife Management Division (phone number 916-323-1417 or ATSS 473-1417) . Thank you for your consideration of these species. Sincerely, Eldridge G I Hunt, Chief Wildlife Management Division Attachment 'ice RESCLFCM AGENCY DEpARL?WT Cp FL`3H AND GAM wildlife Management Division Nongame Bird and Me� Section BIRO AND KAHMAL cWE CIES Cp SPSCIAL COHMN (May 1990) BIRDS &aura I er Coaw Loon BraclKlAohus ianoratus Marbled Hurrelat Oc@anodraa furcate Fork-tailed StorrPetrel cerorhinu sonocarata Rhinoceros Aukltt aceanaOraa �� Ashy StorrPetrel FratarYxrta cirrhtta fuftad:Puffin Oceanodr'oma �tanla 8tadt Stor*-Petrel Athena cun2arlarla Burrowing Owl Strtx fccidentaliS Spotted Owl Pelecanus arYthrorhvnct�os American %its Pelican Lonq-sarad Owl V" .Oatacrocorax aurrcus Double-crested Corsorant Rsiflus short-eared Owl lzobrvchus axtIis Least Btttarn �sie f1am�Irs cgrgtta rufescens Reddist2 Egret Gypsetoide5 nigsr Slack Swift Pleaadts chthl iihtte-faced [bis E.aadorux trai!!ii Willow Flycatcher pyrocxiahalus rubinas urailion Flycatew :yycterra americans Wood Stork �endrocrgna bicolor Fulvous Yhistling-4ucic Myiardxes tyrarvtrltts down-cxestad Flycatcher Hlstrionicus histrfonlcus Harlequin Prosoftie Purptt?4:ttin Buck ms 3uceohall ISINMc2 Barrow's oldenem Puns atricwI llus Blick-*.tipped Chickadee• fanGtfa lttllaetus OwT' Cavytorhynctm brvnmi- Coastal Cact22s Wren Crras*cvaneus Northern Harrier caolllus sudie9e W Accipiter striates Sharp-shinned Hawk Poltdottla califdrnict California Gnatcatener .40mtpI W 00awlI Cooper's Hawk V- Pajioptili AKIN I alae!-tailed Snateatdw Acc2Dtter�Vnt2lIs Northern Gosh" romtou ba4rei aefdlrt's Thrasher Paraouw untcinctus Harris' Hawk romtax dorstle Crissal Thrasher 3utm reglllts Ferruginous Hawk raxostae lamout LeConte`s abasia' Aou11a clYYSi8td5 Golden Eagle Virso viciRior. gray Virgo Vit91nii.'rwarble� 'a1Co CoturoariirS tbrii.n VenlitXr. V2rglRtst Fa1cc reztcanus Prairie Falcon *&ofca Petechix Yellow►Warbler 8anariss wttetlnrs Ruffed.6toust 6eothltvis tr'tcttts stns Salttnrste Coaoir'fbllowttrost Centroaerars urmAssiinus sageGrouse, lcteris vir�enr Yellow-brsasW Chat ry�aanudbus ohasianellus Share tailed Grouse! Ptssu`atlnrs sa»dridterists l,arge-btlled SavaMa� rostntus Sparrows coturnicaas mvewacensts Yellow Rail ahanar•Ius alexanalrrnus Snow Plover Prran9m fl#Vx Hepatic f#r+egeF Pi�amp rW.- fa2d9w Oaradrrus aontanus mountain Plover Cardiruli l m ius amerrcam Lor"illed Curley, s Clltliliilis Northern Cardinal Lacus atrrctllt Laughing 6U11 Jbldsaits. aelodia. rm2rttLris 9uisum Song'barrow latus cattformcus California 61211 1MlasotzZ atiodfl satutelts San.Pablo Song Sparrow .iterru ntlfttcl gull-billed tern *100,12 selodia Pusillul#. A1ased2r Song barrow` Elegant fern Junco cantaas ;ray-traded 7ur�co Sterna eleaarts tricolored Blackbird 2vnchovs nraer Black Skitwter Agetuus tricolor SOCM CF �I11L CaCEN BIRD Atm HAIL (Continued) "AnnaL9 pWo4uuw Icngia Oris Pacific Pocket House Sorex tyelIt Mount Lyell S1reM pacifiers Sorex vagrans halicoetes Saltsarsh wandering W" ➢ero9nathts ioorwtus San Joaquin Pocket 8� Vists tie Suer �� w altcla 1�►ite-eared Pock�At Mock Sorex ornatus reliCtus tSonteroY Ornate Strew lle f;arxgaroo Rat Sorex orrutus saluius pip*.Ys �W"l exielus ItrYm tlwwn California Pipodbeys a ephantirs nairwod UrOroo sbt Sorex ornatus saticor'nicus � Sattaarsh SMew roo Rat Oipodws ni tratoides Shrx t" Sorax ornatus strxrMS Suisan Shrew braving sorax ormW reheat Santa Catatina Strew Reithrodcntows W5010tis Souttwn Marsh Harvest loos mcrotus Californicz California Loaf-nosed Bat IiAicoll Choeronvcteris MxiCaro Iinxican LonrtonOW Bat Aei tbrodontOW MS210tis Simi Cm Harvest Nessa Nyotis fuCIMUs O=Itus Arirona Notis santicrvrae Nyotis velifer Cave Myotis Peroeyscz aaniculatus Anacr+ca island beet kuse• Eud" s WIAtur Swotted Bat "W-VM ?Iecytus tow*endti jownsend's 8ig-eared Bat Peroeysen sanierlatus san Cleeenta beer Mous° Antralous pallidus Pallid Bat clerentls M.tinoraps feaoros=us Pocketed FrwUiled Sat G Vdwys torridus Tutart ;'as34wco9ef Nine �h�ctinarovs eacrotis 8i9 FrwUiled Sat tulara-615 Euroos perotis western Mastiff Bat Sigiodon htsoidus aresicus Ywa Catton Rat 3rachyla9z rdlimm2s Pm A>bblt 5i9wdw arIMIS& Colorado River Cotton Rat 5ylvila9us bacl"i rip rias Riparian push Rabbit Neoto" fusaiges riparia RlparJAM yoodrit Snowshoe Hare white-footed %it t Ctrs a�eracarxrs Arborisrs albtpes Laous torrtserdli white-tailed Jackrabbit 4twiaus Io#vCxdis Red Tree Vola. Vlodontia rafa cslifornicx Sierra mvada,Maintain Seaver MicrotwWiforflad Sea Pablo VoIA, t Point Arena Mountain 8eawr aalodonti> rvfa nary ssr�v�trtoensis Aberplodont2a rvfa p� Point Reyes riarntun Seaver lticrobs californiars Owens Valla VoV016Sx�Ohilus tereticaudkrs Palo Springs Ground Squirrel vallicola chtorus laaxts trinotttus arartus Point Bayes 3urptr�q ft's"',&IaucoRys SwInus San Ser,wdina FIYi irnl �,�?erwnti ROW , csli{ornia,s• I•iaddee=tars A�tcan 8ab�ec � thaorys U"iMir MrgasaP AugW LOS ksr Packet 6t MN Los Angeles' Pocket Nouser St►ilogtlf. gracilis aavhiala CtWcr+et T3lsnes pottad SSmck parogrutlxrs longimadris lutrr.unodensis sonor'M soutlrmt n River Otter brarinasus Fblis concolor broru Yom;Mountain Lion State of California The Resources Agency Department of Fish and Game STATE AND FEDERAL ENDANGERED AND THREATENED ANIMALS OF CALIFORNIA (Revised July 1991) This is a list of the species or subspecies of animals found within California or off the coast of the state that have been classified as Endangered or Threatened by the California Fish and Game Commission (state list) or by the U. S. Secretary of the Interior or the U. S. Secretary of Commerce (federal list) . The official California listing of Endangered and Threatened animals is contained in the California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 670. 5. The official federal listing of Endangered and Threatened animals is published in the Federal Register, 50 CFR 17 . 12. Candidate animals for state listing and proposed animals for federal listing are also included in this list. A state candidate species is one which the Fish and Game Commission has formally noticed as being under review by the Department for addition to the state list. A federal proposed species is one for which a proposed regulation has been published in the Federal Register. Code designation. Totals as of July 1991 SE = State-listed Endangered 43 ST = State-listed Threatened 29 FE = Federally listed Endangered 49 FT = Federally listed Threatened 22 SCE = State candidate (Endangered) 0 SCT = State candidate (Threatened) 1 FPE = Federally proposed (Endangered) 3 FPT = Federally proposed (Threatened) 1 Total number of animals listed 105 Total number of candidate/proposed animals 5 Common and scientific names are shown as they appear on the state or federal lists. If the nomenclature differs for a species that is included on both lists, the state nomenclature is given and the federal nomenclature is shown in a footnote. Also, other synonyms and name changes are footnoted. Endangered and Threatened Animals of California Page 2 Common Name Scientific Name Classification GASTROPODS Trinity Bristle Snail Monadenia setosa ST CRUSTACEANS California Freshwater Shrimp Syncaris pacifica SE, FE Shasta Crayfish Pacifastacus fortis SE, FE INSECTS Mission Blue Butterfly rcaricia lcarioides missionensls FE Lotis Blue Butterfly Lycaeides argyrognomon lot!-s FE Palos Verdes Blue Butterfly Glaucopsyche lygdamus FE palosverdesensis El Segundo Blue Butterfly Euphilotes [=Shijimiaeoides] FE battoides allyn! Smith' s Blue Butterfly Euphilotes [=Shljimlaeoldes] FE enoptes smith! San Bruno Elfin Butterfly Incisalia mossi bayensis FE Lange's Metalmark Butterfly Apodemia mormo lange! FE Bay Checkerspot Butterfly Euphydryas editha bayensis FT Oregon Silverspot Butterfly Speyeria zerene hippolyta FT Myrtle's Silverspot Speyeria zerene myrtleae FPE Butterfly Kern Primrose Sphinx Moth Euproserpnus euterpe FT Delta Green Ground Beetle Elaphrus viridis FT Valley Elderberry Longhorn Desmocerus califoz-nlcus FT Beetle dimorphus FISHES Winter-run Chinook Salmon Oncorhvnchus tshawytscha SE, E"r Little Kern Golden Trout Oncorhynchus= aguabonita white! FT Lahontan Cutthroat Trout Oncorhynchusz clarki henshawi FT Paiute Cutthroat Trout Oneorhynchus3 clarki. seleniz'is FT Bull Trout Salveilnus confluentus SE: L Federal: Salmo aguabon.ita white! 2 Federal: Salmo clarki henshawi 3 Federal: Salmo clarki seleniris Endangered and Threatened Animals of California Page 3 FISHES (continued) Gila bicolor mohavensis SE, FE Mohave Tui Chub SE, FE Owens Tui Chub Gila bicolor snyderi SES FE Bonytail4 Gila elegans Pt chocheilus lucius SE, FE Colorado Squawfish peltistes luxatus SE, FE Lost River Sucker SE, FE Modoc Sucker Catostomus microps SE, FE Shortnose Sucker Chasmistes brevirostris SE,FPE Razorback Sucker Xyrauchen texanus SE, FE Desert Pupfish Cyprinodon macularius Cottonball Marsh Pupfish Cyprinodon salinus milleri ST C rinodon radiosus SE, FE Owens Pupfish yP SE, FE Unarmored Threespine Gasterosteus aculeatus Stickleback williamsoni ST Rough Sculpin Cottus asperrimus AMPHIBIANS Santa Cruz Long-toed Ambystoma macrodactylum SE, FE Salamander croceum ST Siskiyou Mountain Plethodon storm! Salamander aridSE, FE Desert Slender Salamander Batrachoseps sima stus ST Kern Canyon Slender Batrachoseps sima SalamanderST Tehachapi Slender Batrachoseps stebbinsi Salamander ST Limestone Salamander Hydromantes shunts ST Shasta Salamander Hydromantes shastae ST Black Toad Bufo exsul REPTILES Go herus agassizil ST, FT Desert Tortoise p FT Green Sea Turtle Chelonia mydas FE Leatherback Sea Turtle Dermochelys coriacea FT Loggerhead Sea Turtle Caretta caretta FT Olive (=Pacific) Ridley Lepidochelys olivacea Sea Turtle ST Barefoot Banded Gecko Coleonyx swtaki - SE, FT Coachella Valley Uma inornata Fringe-toed Lizard 4 Federal: Bonytail Chub Endangered and Threatened Animals of California Page 4 REPTILES (continued) Blunt-nosed Leopard Lizard Gambelia siluss SE, FE FT Island Night Lizard Xantusia (=Klauberina] riversiana ST Southern Rubber Boa Charina bottae umbratica ST Alameda Whipsnake Masticophis lateralis euryxanthus SE, FE San Francisco Garter Thamnophis sirtalis Snake tetrataen a 6 ST Giant Garter Snake Thamnophis couchi..i gigas BIRDS California Brown Pelican Pelecanus occidentalis SE, FE californicus FT Aleutian Canada Goose Branta canadensis leu copareia SE, California Condor Gymnogyps californianus SE, FE Bald Eagle FE Hal .aeetus leucocephalus ST Swainson' s Hawk Buteo swainson SE, FE American Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus anatsm ST California Black Rail Laterallus jamaicensis coturniculus California Clapper Rail Rallus longirostris obsoletus SE, FE Light-footed Clapper Rail Rallus longirostris levipes SE, FV- Yuma EYuma Clapper Rail Rallus longirostris yumanensis ST, FE Greater Sandhill Crane Grus canadensis tabida SE, FE California Least Tern. sterna antllarum br�wni7 5CT, r^PT Marbled Murrelet Brachyramphus marmoratus SE Western Yellow-billed Coccyzus americanus Cuckoo occidentalis SE Elf"Owl Micrathene whitneyi SE Great Gray Owl Strx� nebulosa FT Northern Spotted Owl strir occidentalis caurina SE Gila Woodpecker Melanerpes uropygialis Gilded Northern Flicker Colaptes aurchrysodes SE Willow Flycatcher Fmp.idonax traillii ST Bank Swallow Riparia riparia EE San Clemente Loggerhead Lanius ludovicianus mearnsi Shrike SE Arizona Bell's. Vireo Vireo beZlii ari2onae� SE, F+ Least Bell' s Vireo Vireo bellii pusi.11philus SE,. E-r Inyo Brown Towheea pipilo fuscus eremo S Federal: Gambelia. (=Crotaphytus) silus 6 Same as Thamnophis gigas albifrons) browni 7 Federal: Sterna antillarum (= 8 Same as Inyo California Towhee (pipilo erissalis eremophilus) Endangered and Threatened Animals of California Page 5 BIRDS (continued) San Clemente Sage Sparrow Amphispiza belli clementeae FT Belding' s Savannah Passerculus sandwichensis SE Sparrow beldingi MAMMALS Point Arena Mountain Aplodontia rufa nigra FPE Beaver Mohave Ground Squirrel Spermophilus mohavensis ST San Joaquin Antelope Ammospermophilus nelson! ST Squirrel Morro Bay Kangaroo Rat Dipodomys heermanni morroensis SE, FE Giant Kangaroo Rat Dipodomys ingens SE, FE Stephens' Kangaroo Rat Dipodomys stephensi ST, FE Fresno Kangaroo Rat Dipodomys nitratoides exilis SE, FE Tipton Kangaroo Rat Dipodomys nitratoides SE, FE nitratoides Salt-marsh Harvest Mouse Reithrodontomys raviventris SE, FE Amargosa Vole Microtus californicus SE, FE scirpensis Gray Whale Eschrichtius robustus FE Sei Whale Balaenoptera borealis FE Finback Whale g Balaenoptera physalus FE Blue Whale Balaenoptera musculus FE Humpback Whale Megaptera novaeangliae FE Right Whalell Balaena glacialis FE Sperm Whale Physeter catodon12 FE Sierra Nevada Red Fox vulpes vulpes necator ST San Joaquin Kit Fox Vulpes macrotis mutica ST, FE Island Fox Urocyon littoralis ST Wolverine Gulo gulp ST Southern Sea Otter Enhydra lutris nereis FT Guadalupe Fur Seal Arctocephalus townsendi ST, FT Northern (Steller) Eumetopias jubatus FT Sea Lion California Bighorn Sheep ovis canadensis californiana ST Peninsulas Bighorn Sheep ovis canadensis cremnobates ST 9 Also called Fin Whale 10 Also called Hump-backed Whale 11 Also called Black Right Whale 12 Same as Physeter macrocephalus SPECIE CC 12/19/91 EXHIBIT R - - --� �� � ��.� ��� �``r__�+�?ps'i �r.'�''" tom_ � •^�-��-- pr eg ��4 0 ,if I ' r .zdw 4 te; . SPECIAL CC 12/19/91 EXHIBIT T STATEMENT by Alfred and Daphne Fahsing, 5105 Llano Road. We request that this Statement be considered by the Council, at the public hearing on the General Plan Update, December 19, 1991, relating to the 50 foot building setback along creeks. We own property adjacent to Graves Creek, and we see no threat in the proposed 50 foot setback requirement. If we wish to build within a sensitive area, it is right that special evaluation be made to ensure proper protection for the vegetation and wildlife, and that such building will not prove to be a hazard to itself in event of fire, flood, or other disaster. We urge the Council to follow the recommendation of the Planning Commission and Staff to include this requirement in t',1e General Plan. It is also strongly supported by t.:e State Department of Fish and Game, which identifies a number of sensitive species of animals and plants which depend upon healthy riparian vegetation for their survival. Our City Council has the opportunity to mace a -prise decision based on expert knowledge of our unique and beautiful creekways, or to mare an unwise decision based on short-range monetary value. We hope you will be wise--and bold--tonight. Thank you. Alfred B. Fahsing December 16, 1991 teW. Fahsing SPECIAL CC 12/19/91 EXHIBIT U l!X11 . .�aL' ✓ ^ ' ' A a SPECIAL cc 12/19/91 EXHIBIT V December 17. T-993- May-or 991Mayor SIden Shiers; 6500 Paints Ataacadero v CX 93+2° Dear Mr. Shiers I ami unable to &ttend: the meeting December I8 because of hOSIth ressonse L have lived on CarmeUta for s most as decade. Ia the Past. I have &ttended many meetings and have written letters to council members asking for a 50-ft. sebacck- The setb�=k was taken, out so building lots could bea. sold along the creek. This issue has been. dividing the city for years- l think the 54-ft- seback should be put in the General Plan immed:i.a*ely. S'inaers�y. PI'.e read this zetter the: recmrd,- SPECIAL CC 12/19/91 EXHIBIT W ' Mayor Alden Shiers 6500 Palma Atascadero , Ca 93422 Dear Mr . Mayor , I am not able to attend the meeting due to a prior engagement at Cal Poly as I am a student there finishing my 'engineering decree . Until hawing read the paper , I did not realize that Atascadero did not have acreeke i s sttbl c n its standards . The fact that h� natural state adds t� thmyb�a�A"'and ItmdKzdou� home nd because of that beau y : here . tlnfortun�ak'lha�pnbe�ne�lparts tered andSan abusedsbObthe�r County , the ore that the citizens respective " owners." . Mx only hope is re the creat City of Atascadero will not make the same mistake . For that matter , I urge the c i ty counc i i to ado¢ t the recommended 50-ft . creek setback as soon as Atascadero and l p - possible . The creek is a vitaate . It looks as though should be kept in its natural st this issue has been cainc on for a long time . I think i t would be a good idea to resol ue i t now d put a creeK setback o+ 50 feet in the general pl an SincerelYr M i chaeT T. Huncer+ord 2355 El Camino. Real Atascadero,. Ca p..'a'.. p`l ease* isnaT ude* Ott i s 1 est test- in thL- ctri nu.te-s at= the• met-ti rrcr,.- SPECIAL CC 12/19/91 EXHIBIT X 8260 Portola Rd. Atascadero, CA 93422 1(800)466-3885 Mayor Shiers, Mayor City Hall Atascadero, CA 93422 Dear Mr. Shiers, I would like to express my opinion in favor of estab- lishing a 50 foot building setback along the creeks of Atascadero. This is not to say I am in favor of taking peoples land away by lessening their property line by the said amount. Rather I believe there should be a setback within their property just as there are easement laws to protect people from building homes too close to one another. Our creeks need our protection to preserve the wildlife in the surrounding areas as well as people and their homes in the event of fire or flood. I am sorry I can not attend tonights meeting because L feel so strongly about this . Please read this letter into the record. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Marcia M. Joyce SPECIAL CC 12/19/91 EXHIBIT Y SV c L �1 s-- `mac- S�Cu,�, 01 C # EXH BT ZC 12/19/91 441,ti. J/awlcl JDolanJ 9,660 Cfa2n2d as c4venuz ogtaseaJ&,Eo, cfall f o cnia 93422 l JA'` d4 kAJ . . � � / . � � , ' r �� ,�. / / r �'/ ; � , . � i � � � ��� i ti � ►- � . i � i -' .,;,� ,�� � � ✓� i ice ' � � i / ��/� �� � / � / � �♦ �. � r � � �' i ,,' / � ��� ` / � , � /� 'f� � ' � _� / ,. � I //- /r � I i � ,, i �, ' ,ji / / /� � �i � ' SPECIAL CC 12/19/91 EXHIBIT BB Page 1 of 2 eL 41-0 Lc ",aC-r,mac.. c lLi�ou /p L dJ - �„r ''`� �� � / � � �,�i,� SPECIAL CC 12/19/91 EXHIBIT CC, i��onita and San Gabriel 2d. a.tascade_o , CA To : Atascadero City Council Special Meeting, .ecember 19,1991 Subject : General Plan update and creek setback issue We, along with many of-hers, chose Atascadero as a residence because of its natural beauty. Much. of that has been destroyed. Permit approval from the city for a fifty foot set— back is appropriate and necessary if we are to preserve *,ri l?life, natural beauty and pre�rent future damage to creek banks. -Permit approval is not too much to ask of fature b�:ilders for the benefit of the city and tse population as a whole. Sincerely yours,- SPECIAL CC 12/19/91 EXHIBIT DD Aar rr r r — -- ���c? � 6L ff��-L`�.c. � �,{,�� 'G� -C�t�. '�►.(.2 C��Edi-.�.�,'"�f,c�,T,,, 2�/ ���5 f,Gyf red ri o 4j ( ,a .e c-` u ,E.r.'fS !'2t t .moi ice( {�iS C;e 7w f � ? I'i Ual 4 r; ALL E1��-rte¢- OwL le' �� s spECIAL CC 12/19/91 EXHIBIT EE To Mayor Alden Shiers and the Cita Council prom Beatrice Anson P 5 San Marcos 2d. Atascadero, Calif. nor the December 191 1991 Special -Meeting Due to music committments I an linable to attend this special meeting to consider Creek setbacks for those seekiJag new building permits aloes t'ne creeks of ktascadero`. I understand that this wording does not affect those :rbo have already buil, nor does it allow public access to Urivate creek property. I am deeply concerned about'preserving not only the beauty of our creeks for all- to enjoy, but I am concerned for the wild- life which depends on these areas for food, water and habitat. This kind of protection noir is so easy, so economical and so much wiser than costly efforts Later to revive and restore. I do-.. ho-oe the Council will act tonight to accept Jhe word- offered by the cousul4ants whic was supported by the staff. acrd approved by the planning Cormission. Beatrice Anson SPECIAL. CC 12/19/.91 EXHIBIT FF (: Page y_1 of 2 ' .r.a.w�-z ,,,L (.V,,J1^�;,,,+�1.,,,,,� l., �.,'�,.�w�.aNl �..t� L,,.,.�. o-•�•�� �.�''�..rc. �C/� 7��l� Sa.-r.�-� �� n to W 2. Al4n t a-I r 1 ) 0,3. St, .,g /.►.r.�t�.sva.o . (A.; .a.�L�:-ra,.�„ �ztr 1.�- - k.t,v,,,li;�'�(,,•Q,4,1ti.�.. �1�/'�-�:.. -4`�'^^.'"?i`'� '�'`n,. `t.�.."c. (A,•-LZ.tJ.+-S :(,vlL2;C� .ii^t-.Fif'�E�i.�t. .�./ ia.� 1 J f T {� �'�"�"'� cl qhs-lw"Vv�2� � ��VL�K. � ��i..�+ Wli ; .�'�......Z�.+�..:�/k ; �.�nr�ti"'MM � ' � ." tiQ�i'+V) / • �.'Z'.. 1.1,,2, ""'.L. .ac.+-•t.,,� 't1..;.,,,n.t_ .1,�.,..11,�,.�,;,i}iL.G+ r 't'�. /a.w.rta.,,,,h -Q,,.,i�l .o"'�.�.-4-'1n,� C� N.J'(X..'1..1%.�,�, � � l`S-t�.,Q,.ci.,;,,f�• ;a,�1,,• r7;,`,,, +c,X,l,� �:, � A�..�..I�-� �.1'� •t.v..w"�v'�c.�`- - 1�n- C�q'`�'� :t.L * pppp ��- A �,�� '�n}�_, „�.�w/�.. .•l,,t� iA1-'�J.L P-�-�'-�•-u��. N"-R- ii�LV"�'11� a�; L...f� all VL J-%LL 4ur-ki�o w. SPECIAL CC 12/19/91 EXHHI�B-IT FF Page 2 of 2 -(n l—A,-X.11 AX,L - • � X.N-'l!J l.0 -li-'�- �T�V" •QY�., ��'` Mau �•-t..�••,..ti.•`},. J�.,,V,. �M.G•.Z.LC� /j tL ,�•,, rZ,�r��-„r,�..Ol�i �-C'�,-�.,Q.L S�.t;,,..t:..-V,...Z �.2/L' d+�G..•Ws-�. ,ti .hw.�.v..'.( (-2.�!/L�!Lt.iW3. .Vl �2�:w..,�:�.Zt� •� -Z.i.,.."s d'r- d'�j`r��.vt�.�.n•�:L1 � JL'`�. (A,(.a.�.iW” VVKf`-�'�' �� a" �?MA.Z ✓1. �`�++� �6 •g01.�`'��nrt. .A�G:+.r�j �,y� � ��� � •�. a � '_ Q � /(�y."A A''�''7�(y�/J ! i�,�:�''C4l'J�n+.w �'"'l�`j/�' .Q'�n"�. ��VO..bJ �.+X•i S /4V�+'�A'2•.vWW1/1 Q.+�G.^I'�C�+�'` � ('• '` 'l,:.v� ,-�.c.�n. •c�.�t..,..�1 � 7-t'..t.�.v.. T�� i^-t' !'-'y" �j y� ����, f1 V Q,:��� .A.,; �1.,(` �,,(�n.,�_.�.,,,T�,•t.�,� ,,,r,�,,<;r,,,,�,;,r„� ,,,,,. "�'���� � �".A•d-"� �'wC.„"_��L l}..�w��A. '�"`"7�''�'�. 0 ,,V�r4-y �Z,.,��u.r�•2,, a..�.. q. A6wl v]� •Q...tiy.s.pvLt.�,;-2. � D• �/ u:'r�,�. •o�.-Z ,•v�,�J�..tld.�, �4 ���-aJtv�"'t C�,,nC G'V#v���4�.i.I�'4.6'^. ��1rN"``"•`°`r`' 'G'" tyi "K.a--1.I/• -G'�- N'"""`�'t- .C:.L...i�`tii�•`� �/..�`'"``",`'�`i.'"'' '.. { "^w'7dL �.l�.lt�� ,' �.. ""`.7✓.t �"^^-`'�'it- �'``'' , °~` ;..� r�2 � 1 Qom`"��.d`-`�"`^-�-"�• � •�'.�ft. ti �-`J. UA-p.-V-�� • .��,�,,,�.,,�.y,,.i .'V..Q..J-� GJ-Zft-'12 •4(7�w�-�/'1 -ih- /A•v�-.�'�Mw•-a.-�—.-! - � t '. .Q.,L',,-'�"!.`...,ih � ��'S' • u-,12,,Z -;�v�..�.�=- •�i2„ .t�.,,..u�Vic;��-� 'L'C...�..� u•� ."°`'r',y ('"'�'�'d'-'Z` ' ' � ,cam •7.t., vp 1 j ��� r t , !-� .+t.: o.,,,.�. "`-`r'1" /L.P�,t�-U.-.C.v�.�.� "� �1z" '_""'n /f.:c..�.v. �;,;,-.w�2..'l. ,ot..-t.t�L. -,,ti„•. sPEcIAL CC 12/19/91 EXHIBIT GG December 19, 1991 To the City Council: i am speaking today because I want to convince you that a fifty foot creek setback should be adopted with the General Plan. I appeal to your responsibility to younger generations. If you fail to require this setback, we will pay dearly as we reach middle age. For example, Santa Cruz faces a twenty to thirty million dollar bill to solve flooding problems that were caused by development near the San Lorenzo River. What will my generation have to pay if flooding becomes a problem for structures that were built too close to creeks Also, consider the loss of riparian wildlife that development near the creeks would cause. My generation should be able to enjoy the natural beauty of the creeks, just like yours did. The young have already inherited a multi-trillion dollar debt, countless environmental disasters, and many other problems. Please don't leave us another one. Steve Luna