Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 072793 Approved as Submitted Meeting Date: 09/14/93 ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL JULY 27, 1993 MINUTES The Mayor called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL: Present: Councilmembers Bewley, Borgeson, Nimmo, Luna and Mayor Kudlac Absent: None Also Present: Muriel "Micki" Korba, City Treasurer and Lee Raboin, City Clerk Staff Present: Andy Takata, City Manager/Director of Community Services; Henry Engen, Community Development Director; Art Montandon,City Attorney; Mark Joseph,Administrative Services Director; Mike McCain, Fire Chief; Bud McHale, Police Chief; Steve Sylvester, City Engineer and Gary Kaiser, Associate Planner Mayor Kudlac announced that Item #D-1 was being continued until the meeting of August 10, 1993 at the request of Camino Real Fashion Outlets, Ltd. (Golden West Development). COMMUNITY FORUM: Eric Greening, 7365 Valle, announced that the Water Quality Study of Paso Robles Groundwater Basin was available at the Regional Water Quality Control Board Office, explained that it was packed with important information and encouraged everyone to take a look at it. A. COMMITTEE REPORTS (The following represent ad hoc or standing commit- tees. Informative status reports will be given, as felt necessary.): CC 07/27/93 Page 1 1. S.L.O. Council of Governments/S.L.O. Regional Transit Authority - Councilman Bewley provided a full report (Note: Minutes on file with the City Clerk). 2. Solid/Hazardous Waste Task Force- Henry Engen reported that the Task Force had met three times during the past month regarding the Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) between the County and Cities. He explained that the draft JPA would be reviewed at the next meeting. 3. Traffic Committee - Councilman Bewley reported that the Traffic Committee would be making several recommendations for City Council action at the next meeting. 4. County Water Advisory Board - Councilwoman Borgeson reported that the Board would meet during the month of August. 5. Economic Round Table - Councilman Nimmo indicated that the Round Table had, at their last meeting, received a status report on the Carlton Hotel Project. B. CONSENT CALENDAR: Mayor Kudlac read the Consent Calendar, as follows: 1. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - JUNE 8, 1993 2. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - JUNE 22, 1993 3. CITY TREASURER'S REPORT - JUNE, 1993 4. FINANCE DIRECTOR'S REPORT - JUNE, 1993 5. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 09-91, 9286 EL BORDO Acceptance of Final Tract Map to create a five-unit residential condominium project 6. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 93-001, 4805 &5205 CARRIZO RD. -Consideration of a request to subdivide two existing lots containing 10.75 acres into four parcels containing 2.63, 2.64, 2.68 and 2.77 acres (Hawkins/Wilson Land Surveys) 7. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 29-90, 3450 EL CAMINO REAL - Consideration of time extension request (Chapel of the Roses) CC 07/27/93 Page 2 8. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 31-90, LOCATED AT SW CORNER OF HIGHWAY 101 & SANTA BARBARA ROAD - Consideration of time extension request (Eagle Creek) 9. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 92007, 4650 TRAFFIC WAY - Acceptance of Final Parcel Map to subdivide two original Colony lots into four (4) parcels ranging in size from 8,588 to 10,122 sq. ft. (net) (Landmark Partnership/Haas) 10. RESOLUTION NO. 28-93 - Approving Historical Society Lease Agreement 11. RESOLUTION NO. 85-93 - Approving a Grant Agreement between the County of San Luis Obispo and the City regarding the use of recycling bins at Atascadero Lake Park 12. RESOLUTION NO. 62-93 - Authorizing the extension of street sweeping contract with Daystar Industries 13. RESOLUTION NO. 88-93 - Authorizing the execution of an agreement with Medico-Dental Adjustment Bureau to perform professional debt collection services 14. RESOLUTION NO. 86-93 - Approving an agreement to purchase tax-defaulted Graves Creek parcel (A.P.N. 055-431-004) Councilwoman Borgeson pulled Items #B-7 & 13. Henry Engen pulled Item #13-9 for clarification. MOTION: By Councilman Nimmo, seconded by Councilman Luna to approved Consent Calendar Items #13-1 through 6, 8, 10, 11 , 12 & 14; motion carried 5:0 by roll call vote. Re: #13-7. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 29-90, 3450 EL CAMINO REAL - Consideration of time extension request (Chapel of the Roses) Councilwoman Borgeson remarked that she felt the proposed development was too close to the Chapel of the Roses. Mr. Engen explained that the issue before the Council was the time extension and reported that development proposals would come in the future. MOTION: By Councilman Nimmo, seconded by Councilman Bewley to approve the time extension for Tentative Parcel Map 29-90 at 3450 EI Camino Real; motion passed 4:1 (Borgeson). CC 07/27/93 Page 3 Re: #B-13. RESOLUTION NO. 88-93 - Authorizing the execution of an agreement with Medico-Dental Adjustment Bureau to perform professional debt collection services Councilwoman Borgeson questioned the need for entering into an agreement with a collection service. Mark Joseph provided the staff report and noted that although there were not many outstanding debts, those past due amounts were significant. He explained that the City Council had authorized staff to seek requests for proposals as part of new collection procedures adopted in 1992. MOTION: By Councilman Nimmo, seconded by Councilman Luna to adopt Resolution No. 88-93; motion approved 3:2 (Borgeson & Kudlac). Re: Item #13-9. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 92007, 4650 TRAFFIC WAY - Acceptance of Final Parcel Map to subdivide two original Colony lots into four (4) parcels ranging in size from 8,588 to 10,122 sq. ft. (net) (Landmark Partnership/Haas) Henry Engen reported that there were some last-minute, minor problems relating to the recording of the final map. He indicated that the City Attorney had a possible solution for allowing Council action. Art Montandon advised that minor conditions that had not yet been met (tax certificate, one signature on the map) were not substantive and stated that he believed the Council could accept the map conditionally provided the City Engineer certify that these minor items are completed in the next few days. He added that the map was in the possession of Mr. Sylvester and pointed out that it could not be filed without satisfying these details. Steve Sylvester confirmed that all other conditions of approval had been met and that he indeed held the map. MOTION: By Councilman Nimmo, seconded by Councilman Bewley to approve Tentative Parcel Map 92007, 4650 Traffic Way; motion carried unanimously by simple vote. C. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) REPORT - Grantee Performance Report (Close-out): Domestic Violence Shelter Planning & Technical Assistance Program Henry Engen introduced Pat Wickstrom, Program Manager, People's Self-Help Housing. Ms. Wickstrom presented a summary report of the project and reported that the State had awarded a $354,000 grant to the City. This money, she continued, will CC 07/27/93 Page 4 fund the acquisition of a permanent domestic violence shelter, provide for certain activities and cover some administrative expenses. She thanked the City Council for supporting the application and for making the initial commitment of $3,300 that lead to the large grant award. At Councilman Luna's request, Henry Engen confirmed that the grant was conditioned upon the adoption of an updated housing element. Councilman Luna voiced dis- content with State mandates and stated that he hoped staff would expedite the completion of the element. Mr. Engen indicated that staff's objective was to bring the housing element to public hearing by the end of the year. Public Comments: Barbara MacGregor, former Director of the North County Womens' Shelter, extended appreciation to staff and the City Council for not only supporting the grant, but for providing supplemental funding for the Womens' Shelter over the past four years. Eric Greening asked staff if the grant was contingent upon meeting any State growth target. Mr. Engen reported that staff was anticipating difficulties with regards to allocated housing counts produced annually, but noted other communities are challenging some of the State mandates. Councilman Luna pointed out that the grant represented federal funds, but added that they are administered by the Sate. ---End of Public Testimony--- Councilman Luna encouraged the public to write or fax Federal representatives with a request to put pressure on State representatives to relieve Cities of overwhelming mandates. By mutual consent, the City Council agreed to accept, receive and file the Grantee Performance Report. 2. LONG VALLEY 11, 225.46-ACRE PROJECT BETWEEN LLANO, SANTA ANA, SANTA LUCIA & CORRIENTE - Request to re-subdivide 15 of the existing 25 lots into 51 parcels for single family residential use A. Final EIR - Certification as adequate under the provisions of CEQA B. Ordinance No. 266 - Amending Maps 9 and 15 of the Official Zoning Maps by rezoning certain real properties located north of Llano Rd., south of Santa Ana Rd., west of Santa Lucia Rd. and east of Corriente Rd. from RS (Residential Suburban) to RS (PD 11) (Residential Suburban, CC 07/27/93 Page 5 Planned Development Overlay Zone No. 11) (ZC 91014: Davis/RRM/Long Valley II) (Recommend (1) motion to waive reading in full and read by title only, and (2) motion to introduce on first reading by title only) C. Approval of subdivision exception based on Findings and Conditions of Approval D. Approval of Tentative Tract Map 91-005 based on Findings and Conditions of Approval - Re-subdividing 15 lots into 51 lots and conveying lands for public use E. Resolution No. 5-93 - Summarily vacating unimproved portion of Santa Ana Rd. (RA 92001) Due to a potential conflict of interest, Councilman Nimmo stepped down from deliberations. Henry Engen provided introductory remarks. Gary Kaiser presented the project description, overview of conditions and recommendations. Lengthy Council questions and comments followed. Councilman Luna pointed out that individual lots, as proposed, had not been staked. He and Councilwoman Borgeson shared concerns relating to the fact that percolation tests had not been conducted on all the sites. The EIR consultant, David Foote of SEDES, reported that there were not any precise plans at present and mentioned. that individual perc tests could be required as a condition of approval at the Planning Commission level. Councilman Luna voiced distress about grading, slopes, building envelopes, fire safety and impacts relating to guest homes and schools. Councilwoman Borgeson also shared concern relating to fire safety and the lack of a fire egress road as a condition of approval. Responding to inquiry from Mayor Kudlac, Mr. Kaiser noted that individual lots would be un-recordable if they failed to percolate and speculated that some of the proposed homesites would probably be lost as a result. Public Comments: LeeAnne Hagmaier, RRM Design, provided a history of the project and addressed specific issues of concern. She spoke in favor of the subdivision request and highlighted the public benefits. She urged the City Council to certify the EIR and approve the project. Responding to questions from Councilmembers Borgeson and Luna, Ms. Hagmaier reported that the owner, Gordon T. Davis, had no objections to CC 07/27/93 Page 6 staking the lots and would not consider offering a lower lot subdivision. She indicated that he felt confident that the representative perc tests were adequate to construct the leach fields and building lots as designated and remarked that the project had already been redesigned from 57 lots down to 51 . Dean Benedix, project engineer for RRM Design, provided additional information relating to leach fields, slopes, lot lines and drainage. Joan O'Keefe, 9985 Old Morro Road, read a prepared statement (see Exhibit A) proclaiming the EIR legally inadequate and requesting that the City Council not certify it. Eric Greening, asserted that the EIR was incomplete and urged the City Council to initiate more study by asking for a supplemental EIR. Marcia Torgerson, 6200 Llano Road, submitted the Neighborhood Report: Long Valley II Proposed Development prepared and signed by 33 Llano Road residents (on file with the City Clerk). She read a prepared statement (see Exhibit B) outlining concerns about the adequacy of the EIR, aesthetic impacts and conditions of approval. Karen Oakes, 6705 Llano Road, submitted a written statement (see Exhibit C) and presented suggestions for re-designing the subdivision with 35 lots. She also contended that the EIR did not address cumulative effects. Gregg Cobarr, 9560 Gallina Court, stated that the EIR did not adequately consider aesthetic impacts. He shared concerns relating to drainage and offered alternative mitigation measures. Fred Frank, 3615 Ardilla, remarked that he agreed with most of the previous speakers and added that he was also distressed about the lack of conditions providing for fire protection and water shed management. Andy McMeans, 6160 Llano Road, stated he was opposed to the project as proposed and related concern for the safety of the Santa Lucia bridge. Bill McCranberg, Santa Ana Road resident, announced that he, too, was worried about emergency egress and asked if there had been any time and effort put into recommending that Serrijon Road be made a through-street. Robert Cardillo, 9400 Corriente, commented that he found the EIR to be inadequate. Dorothy McNeil, 8765 Sierra Vista, urged the Council not to give approval to a project CC 07/27/93 Page 7 with so faulty an EIR. She stated that the City should insist upon staking, perc tests and written agreements to bind Gordon Davis to his dedication promises. Daphne Fahsing, 5105 Llano Road, submitted a written protest (see Exhibit D) and indicated that she hoped the City Council would take into full consideration the concerns expressed in the Neighborhood Report. Eunice Gray, 6100 Llano Road, read a prepared statement (see Exhibit E) and asked that the developer be required to reduce the number of lots and address drainage issues. Jim Speaks, 6400 Llano Road, voiced concerns similar to previous speakers and indicated that he would not have any objections if the project were 23 or fewer lots. In addition, he stated that the wooden bridge on Santa Lucia was built by a private individual and expressed anxiety over its' safety. Debbie Vial, 6000 Llano Road, submitted a statement for the record (see Exhibit F) and asserted that a compromise could be achieved with a smaller project. Arlynn Stark, 9900 Santa Lucia Road, requested that Item #C-2-E (road abandonment) be addressed separately. Sue McMeans, 6150 Llano Road, remarked that the developer should work with the rest of the neighborhood. Making final comments were Andy McMeans, Marcia Torgerson, Karen Oakes and Daphne Fahsing. LeeAnne Hagmaier addressed some of concerns expressed by the public and provided an overview of how the lot sizes were determined. ---End of Public Testimony--- Mayor Kudlac then closed the hearing and brought the matter back to the Council. There was consensus among the councilmembers to take action on Item #C-2-E first. MOTION: By Councilman Luna, seconded by Councilman Bewley to approve Road Abandonment 92001 based on the Findings contained in draft Resolution No. 05-93: motion carried 4:0 by roll call vote. Following a motion duly made and seconded, the City Council agreed to extend the meeting beyond 11 :00 p.m. Individual Council comments followed. Councilman Luna indicated that he could not CC 07/27/93 Page 8 certify or approve the EIR. He stated that the project would impact the property values and the safety of the neighborhood. He remarked that he would like to see the project sent back for re-design. Councilwoman Borgeson agreed and commented that she would like to see a smaller, more environmentally-sensitive project. She added that staff should send a message to the developer that the City is pleased with the dedications, but not with the proposal as submitted. Councilman Bewley spoke in favor of certifying the EIR and in approving the project. Mayor Kudlac indicated that he was not willing to send the project back to staff and was ready to certify the EIR. MOTION: By Councilman Bewley, seconded by Mayor Kudlac to certify the Final Environmental Impact Report as adequate under the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act; motion failed 2:2 (Borgeson & Luna). The City Attorney clarified that the resulting split vote represented no action and advised that without approval, Items #C-2-B, C, and were now moot. Mr. Engen reported that the Subdivision Ordinance specifies that a project, once denied, cannot come back again for one year. Mr. Montandon explained that the applicant could, if he so chooses, take a revised project back to the Planning Commission. 3. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT (Cont'd from 7/13/93) A. Resolution 77-93 -Approving an amendment to the Land Use Map of the Land Use Element of the City's General Plan from Low to High-Density Residential, 7000-7060 Los Arboles (GPA 92-008/Los Arboles Property Owners Association) B. Ordinance No. 270 - Amending Map 17 of the Official Zoning Maps by rezoning certain real property at 7000-7060 Los Arboles from RMF/10 (FH) to RMF/16 (PD7)(FH) (ZC 92-012/Los Arboles Property Owners Association) (Recommend (1) motion to waive reading in full and read by title only, and (2) motion to introduce on first reading by title only) (Cont'd from 7/13/93) Councilman Bewley reported that, at the last meeting, he had stepped down because of a potential conflict of interest. He explained that had he asked the City Attorney CC 07/27/93 Page 9 to look at the matter and determine if a conflict did, in fact, exist. Mr. Montandon, he continued, had researched the matter and advised him that he did not have a financial conflict and could take part in deliberations. Mr. Montandon provided additional clarification and responded to questions from Councilwoman Borgeson. He concluded by suggesting that the City Council put the matter over to allow him time to prepare a written opinion on the matter. Councilmembers Borgeson and Luna concurred with his recommendation. Councilman Nimmo and Mayor Kudlac indicated that they did not have a problem with the item and were prepared to take action. There was no public testimony. MOTION: By Councilman Nimmo, seconded by Councilman Bewley to adopt Resolution No. 77-93 amending the Land Use Element designation from Low Density Multi-Family to High Density Multi-Family; motion carried 3:2 (Borgeson & Luna). MOTION: By Councilman Nimmo, seconded by Councilman Bewley to waive the reading in full of Ordinance No. 270; motion carried unanimously. MOTION: By Councilman Nimmo, seconded by Councilman Bewley to intro- duce on first reading Ordinance No. 720: motion carried 3:2 (Borgeson & Luna). 4. WEED ABATEMENT PROTEST HEARING A. Resolution No. 87-93 - Confirming the cost of weed abatement Chief McCain provided the staff report and recommendation to approve. Public Comments: Doug Lewis, Tunitas Avenue resident, proclaimed that the 100% administrative fee was unjust and unfair. The Fire Chief explained that the administrative fee was intended to motivate and encourage property owners to abate weeds voluntarily. He added that the charge barely covers the costs and clarified that the City does not make a profit. ---End of Public Testimony--- The mayor closed the hearing and brought the matter back for action. CC 07/27/93 Page 10 MOTION: By Councilman Nimmo, seconded by Councilwoman Borgeson to adopt Resolution No. 87-93 confirming the cost of weed abatement; motion carried 5:0 by roll call vote. D. REGULAR BUSINESS: 1. CAMINO REAL FACTORY OUTLET - City Assistance Agreement Item continued to August 10, 1993. E. INDIVIDUAL DETERMINATION AND/OR ACTION: 1. City Council Councilwoman Borgeson requested a written status report on living conditions at 8750 EI Camino Real. She encouraged City awareness and urged protection measures for families with children. 2. City Manager Andy Takata provided an overview of items for the next meeting's agenda and mentioned he would be out of town during the week of August 20 - 28. THE MEETING WAS ADJOURNED AT 11:40 P.M. THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING OF THE ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL WILL BE TUESDAY, AUGUST 10, 1993 AT 7:00 P.M. MINUTES RECOR D AND PREPARED BY: LEE RABOIN, ty Clerk Exhibits: O'Keefe (Exhibit A) Torgerson (Exhibit B) Oakes (Exhibit C) Fahsing (Exhibit D) Gray (Exhibit E) Vial (Exhibit F) CC 07/27/93 Page 11 lagv t IM . �� ;�M �'. CC 7/27/93 EXHIBIT "A" Page: I r t E -Joan 0;'Keefe �9985`01d Morro!Rd, `East `Atascader-o, Ca; Mayor Kudl ac,=Council Persons.' I, have thoroughly, r•ead the XVII EI�2�^,T have attended all the Planning Commission meetings and~ heard the neighbor's testimony. Based on what I've read and heard T belieye this"`EIR is' legal1y inadequate and R therefore shoul. d not be certlfi;ed byxthe Counc 1 . " Normally CEQA s �: i nformti oval',and di scl asre functiyori i s fulfilled by preparation of an ETR. ::-T M s." function has rcpt been fulfilled with regard to the LVII EIR f or' the .fol 1 owl ng ,reasons t, ;( 1} Information has not been pravi dad` with regard to percolation rates far' each proposed i of i a (2) Engineered plansfhav 'nQt{been submitted for 5errijon Rd. � Thi s i nformati an 1 s absol lel h necessary'1 n` order to detc-rmi ne project density and environmental �Jm",a is Uni<nowr► impacts cannot be mitigated. The 1 ack of i nformatiyon w�£th regar dto percol ati on rates for• each lot and engineered',rbad plans'leads:!to another major' ,f1aw in the EIR. It is a basic fundamental tof the EIR process that a reasonable range of, alternatives be considered .when ,prepar'ing an EIR. The applicant and his representatives have refused to assess and consider a reasonable mid sized density .subdivisian. sltalsa believe' that_their reluctance to provide information about percolation rates for each lot and engineered road..plans .is `directly related to their, refusal to consider a midsized project, k, There is substantial documentation in the report, that a mid sized project will be the environmentally superior' project, albeit one with less Tats to sell . -The report submitted by the Llano Road Neighbors' summarizes the evidence'ver'y clearly. Many bats v CC 7/27/93 EXHIBIT "A" Page 2 have been identified as having building problems. Lots 34, 35, 36,43, 44, and 45 were identified as having less than 50 to 60 feet for a building envelope width and no yard space. on the 28 ridge line lots, the engineers had to. hunt for, areas that would percolate and further• these sample tests were not done near the identified building envelopes. Compounding the problem is the probable encroachment of 5errijon Rd. into leachfield areas. Engineered road plans will eliminate guess work. -- Driveways for Eight lots 13, 15, 16, _17, 19, 21 , 44, and 48 will have to be rel ed to achieve a .gradient of under twenty percent. obviously some or, most of these lots are not buildable and should not be on the map. Another, related' issue is that the applicant and staff are :asking •For, a density greater, than allowed by the General Plan and zoning ordinances by creative number, crunching; i .e, including-the dedicated property, underestimating drive way, slope,'and neighborhood character- and guess- estimating about percolation rates It is crtical that percolation tests be done for- each lot before the EIR is certified This is the only way you can know what alternative is the environmentally superior project. An EIR should not use estimates when the facts are reasonably ,:accessible The cost of doing percolation test is not a legally defensible argument for exempting the applicant from providing this information. The applicant's engineer stated at the planning commission hearing that tests are expensive and that was one of the reasons for not doing them. It is a requirement that percolation tests be filed with each tentative map. To exempt an applicant from this requirement certain findings must be made. These findings should not be made and to do so is abuse of the v CC 7/27/93 EXHIBIT „A" Page 3 exception process. But by granting this loophole staff has opened another. Staff has recommended combining lots that don't meet septic system requirements. The applicant is already challenging the legality of this condition by reference to the phrase "substantial conformity" in the State Subdivision Map Act. "Substantial " is one of those quibbling words that has`a way of ending up in court. This should be a warning of things to come if the EIR is certified along with all the exceptions and _ loopholes being, grarnted to fill the gaps in the EIR. The City has been down-t4•oad of threatened legal action before with the applicant. There are two additional issues; ' ( 1) Impacts with regard to aesthetics on this prominent ridge have been ignored. Another project in the area was conditioned to address the issue of aesthetics. (2) The City is putting future occupants as well as all residents in western Atascadero at risk by proposing to allow a cul de Sac six times longer, than that allowed by city standards on a chaparral ridge A project that starts out half dobe and with loop holes has a way of coming back to haunt us I urge you not to certify this legally inadequate EIR. 7/a7/g3 A Marcia McClure Torgerson 6200 Llano Road CC 7/277/93 Atascadero, CA 93422 EXHIBIT "B„ 805-466-7980 Page 1 July 27, 1993 City Council City of Atascadero Re: Long Valley II Dear Councilmembers, I hope that all of you have had a chance to read the Neighborhood Report that we submitted to you last week. We tried to not _ bombard you with lots of letters and instead we combined our efforts and came up with the report. I will be submitting the original .-of that report for the record tonight which includes the signatss of 33 neighbors. The EIR needs to be complete before being certified. One of the more important issues that I feel was overlooked was the aesthetic impact of this proposal . SEDES says in their May 29, 1993 letter (Neighborhood Report, Appendix I page 2, last paragraph) that their analysis is as specific as the underlying proposal, which means they only have to address the subdivision of property and not the construction build out . Yet they did evaluate the impacts of schools, air quality, the two archaeological sites, fire safety, traffic safety, law enforcement, wildlife etc? (EIR, page II=4) . All these impacts were checked off on the initial check lest including aesthetics . Why they addressed all the other impacts and not aesthetics, is a question that as of tonight has not been answered. CEQA states that "decision-makers would need to have a reason in the record" to allow changes to be made from the initial check list . Therefore, if aesthetics is not going to be addressed in the EIR then they need to give a reason in the record. So far, none has been given. (Neighborhood Report, Appendix I - page 7A) The EIR also needs to re-address the fire safety issue since Mr. Davis has removed the emergency egress road from his proposal . That road was the mitigation for the fire safety impact . The most obvious issue in question on this development is the proposed density. As you read in our report (Neighborhood Report, Section C, page 8) , we question the accuracy of the calculations of staff for the minimum lot size, and we question the inclusion of the dedicated-acreage in the calculations for density. If you go by our figures, the number of allowable lots would be from 38-43 . My concern in regards to the Subdivision Ordinance exception is that the leach areas were chosen strictly from a topography map. They attempted to place them in areas on this proposed development that were less than 309o- slope. However, according to the EIR, 13 lots show proposed leach field areas on 30a or CC 7/2 V93 EXHIBIT "B" Page 2 greater slope. As we showed you in our Neighborhood report (Appendix II - page 1) , approximately 75% of the proposed lots leach areas are very accessible. If you are going to grant an exception to the Subdivision Ordinance, why not have Mr. Davis perc the 75% accessible lots, and grant the exception for only the lots that are truly difficult to get to as a result of the topographic conditions? It seems to me that they are trying to put the cart before the horse. Why create lots and then try to find a natural building site, leach area and 100% expansion area within its boundaries? It would make more sense to me to find a natural building site, a Leach area with a 100% expansion area, and then draw lines around it to create a parcel . Then you would know exactly how many reliable lots you really have. I am vel concerned with the aesthetic impact of the build out of this proposal . Without requiring Mr. Davis to stake out the property lines or building envelopes or leach areas, or provide any kind of visual study, there is no way to evaluate what this parcel will look like when built out. For example, I agree with the theory behind requiring step foundations for the future homes on the ridgeline, but I am concerned about what 10-30 ft. stem walls will look like from down below. Maybe you should condition any future homes on this development to be required to landscape in front of any stem walls to help alleviate the visual impact on the neighborhood. I do have a few comments on the staff' s Conditions of Approval. #15 - states that the estimated 9 driveways that exceed 20W slope would be allowed to be paved in conjunction with the road improvements . It makes no sense to construct a driveway on a lot that has not yet been sold. #28 - Everyone on both sides of this issue say they are concerned about the drainage, but very little discussion has taken place. Condition #28 states a few suggestions for drainage control but leaves it up to Mr. Davis to decide what will be done, leaving the existing neighbors out of the loop. I personally do not like the idea of fenced detention basins and I don' t plan on selling an easement across my property. Frankly, it offends me that these decisions are being made about things that will affect my property, without me being included in the discussion. If any of you are considering voting to certify the EIR and/or approve the proposed development "as is" I can only assume that: 1. You are comfortable with the removal of the fire egress road which removes the mitigation of fire safety for the future property owners on Serrijon Road. Improved fire hydrants do not replace exit accessibility during a fire. (X V2//93 EXHIBIT "C" Page 3 2 . You are comfortable with creating Serrijon Road even though it is over 3 . 000 feet longer than the City Standard recommends . Keeping cul-de-sacs within the recommended City Standard would eliminate any significant impact on fire safety. 3 . You are comfortable with leaving the drainage issues to Mr. Davis, rather than having the City Engineer and the neighboring properties decide what would be best. 4 . You are comfortable with accepting the horse arena with its existing drainage problems, and the fire station site without Mr. Davis completing the testing. 5 . You are comfortable with setting the precedent of granting a Subdivision Ordinance exception on a proposal that does not meet all the required findings and conditions . 6 . You are comfortable with creating 19 new lots, on Llano Road for-future homes, in which the children who will live there wig have to walk across the Santa Lucia bridge, that doesn' t have a pedestrian walkway, to the school bus . 7 . You are comfortable with creating a development of this size without seeing any visual studies or analysis or having any idea what it will look like. I want to make one point perfectly clear to you. We as citizens know and accept that there will be a development on this property someday. By speaking out, we are trying to say that we want a reasonable _development that will blend in with the existing neighborhood. Glenn Milhollin owns a large parcel behind my house and is waiting to see how this proposal is handled before proposing his subdivision. Please realize that your decisions tonight not only affect the proposal in front of you, but will set a precedent for future developments. We all know that Mr. Davis has offered several dedications to the City. We also know that it is common knowledge around City Hall that Mr. Davis has verbally offered an additional 100 acre recreation-zoned parcel to the City, but that donation would take place after this proposal is approved. Alot of us also know that in the past Mr. Davis has threatened to sue the city when things didn' t go his way. For all we know, he could have already done that again. If he has, please look at this proposal very carefully and make educated decisions. Don't let one man bully youintoa decision that could have a negative effect on the existing neighbors and the future property owners of Long Valley II . Thank you for listening to all of our concerns, please don' t ignore them. Sincerely, Marcia McClure Torgerson /m CC 7/2-7/93 • EXHIBIT "C" ' Page 1 Jut f 27, 1992 Mayor Kudlac and City Council City of Atascadero 6500 Palma Atascadero, CA 93422 RE: LONG VALLEY II Public Hearing Dear Mayor Kudlac and Council Members: As a resident of Llano Road, I would like to register my concerns re: the adequacyf of the final EIR-and the proposed tentative tract map. My comments are base on my opinion that the EIR does not properly address across the board cumulative effects of the project and that reduced density in the tract map would mitigate both the environmental impact as well as public safety concerns. Most specifically, several of the proposed lots do not conform to the Land Use Element stipulations for creation of new lots. Many lots lack percolation capability, adequate everyday access and emergency egress and natural building sites. You need to consider your fiduciary responsibility to create a subdivision that meets the needs of both current and future owners as well as current and future neighbors. The EIR did not study a mid-sized density subdivision that would create larger lots and more flexibility in house/septic/driveway location. Deferring these issues until Precise Plan Application by individual homeowners is not appropriate and based on these points, the EIR should not be certified. The experts proposing the project cannot abdicate their ultimate responsibility for the TOTAL impact of development. In support of my points,- I refer to page II-7 in the EIR: "most of the mitigations proposed deal with project design, therefore it would generally be the responsibility of the City Public Works, Building and Planning Divisions to ensure the Tentative and Final tract Maps and individual lot development plans reflect the mitigations prior to the respective approval of each. Likewise, as design features, many of the mitigations must be in place prior to occupancy of the residences, that is, the plans must be fully and correctly implemented." With no intended degradation of staff's capabilities, I would like to point out that the EIR optimistically assumes that design, geological and administrative experts (the proposed_ "mitigators") will perform-on a level not currently practiced. Specifically, multiple homes in the immediate area built In the last 3 years demonstrate the negative effects of concentrated development plagued by "good intentions gone wrong". The effect on the environment is significant because expert designs failed, homeowners have not reacted with new mitigation plans and the city is understaffed to make a priority of these issues. CC 7/27/93 EXHIBIT "C" Page 2 Mayor Kudlac, City Council Long Valley II - Public Hearing Page 2 Specific to the geologic conditions of the project, the applicant has suggested [Condition #9 and Attachment M Condition #21 that the project would be onerously burdened if staff were to merge adjacent parcels to create lots that would meet perc requirements. However, the applicant has elected to postpone perc tests on the lots and has not submitted alternate tract maps prior to tonight's meeting. All documents produced to date suggest that the applicant's proposal is too aggressive for the site. At minimum, CONDITION#9, etc. provides the opportunity of greater latitude to future owners in building on these constrained parcels. I would ask that you keep the condition as originally worded.The processes labeled onerous are in place to protect future owners of the property. Additionally, SEDES' letter of 5/19/93 suggests that review of the geological features of the proposed lots and recombination of the properties on this criteria would produce "an environmentally superior alternate [of 35 lots]." These issues effect your vote on the subdivision exception which I do not believe should be granted. Specific to density and related factors, I would ask that you consider a reduced density alternative in your final decision on the tentative tract map. Additionally, if you approve the tentative map conditioning acceptable perc tests on the proposed lots, I would ask that you supply staff with definitive guidelines on adjusting the lot lines prior to presentation of the final tract map. Specific to the tentative tract map proposed, you will note the following: , t 0490 Df-l1 �,e �p O r 70$ of the lots at)es ousllron�ttrained�r septic disposal 18% of the lots contain designated land slide areas 75% of the lots will require special foundations 23% of the lots require relocation of the driveway [from proposed] 30% of the lots require relocation of the leach fields [from proposed siting]. These geologic factors inherent in the project site combined with a need to reestablish emergency egress and design drainage plans for development require recombination of lots and revision of the tentative map. I would recommend combining lots 12 & 13, 14 & 15, 16 & 17, 18 & 19, and 20 & 21 to create more developable lots and to facilitate drainage easements on the applicant's property. Additionally, I would recommend combining 28 & 57, 29 & 30, 31 & 32, 33 & 34 35 & 36, 37 & 38, 39 & 40, 45 &-46, and 47 & 48 to improve developability of the lots. Finally, lots 26 & 27 should be condemned to allow extension of Serrijon Road to Tecolote allowing fire egress from the ridge line. v�L i 35 W W.b&VI'floX 54%.d'u-2d- 4 Wd4'b'OTuA at aim*r Thank you for your time. I believe that upon review, you will find the EIR is NOT adequate to support the proposed development project. S' ere , K n es, 6705 Llano Road, Atascadero, CA 93422 Encl. CC 7/27/93 N EXHIBIT "C" Page 3 x x r f •! I,- x x x x x r j x x x x x x x r 0 LO x x X X f { m S r m X X f rm O C N N T > �_ �J T X ,x X X X X i `•E m c i f L N D U NFD ai ._ - • C •D fA C CD CC m LLJ _ 3 a 6 -0 -� o o am r X X ! o_ Z` E 0) - m X f .y t0 3- LL o x 3 "` E Lm 1 ° c W ,2 x c CD-0 X � � C O N t0 Q 1 0 a E .4 X co x X m —°" E a o 0 o E o m D f` X X y v ° >o m rn y m E .: C C Vm f y i 0 co x X X 00 d E c0 m m C).2 O G Q Lo X X xv V O O �R C E y'cu rn p — cO �N C O T , X -�' m oD�' ``as �2 a y3rnE m umioEE Ch x X m >� N O m N Lcl, � 3 N X X t0 � c° y'3oo ra D m 1010- 0 N O O y 1 i •... mOO: U0 H _ O 8 O CO c: a E o v CD 0.CD o E c m Y a— � o � •o� E• mm o = CD m Zs 0 L v c c p 0' 1j N a-N .o _ y _ C Q _ 0 1 m 0 E y 0. o m y .N•y o X-- ° m E c6 0 C O O f0 t C m y 3 D > y m m L t0 "• L C cd C 0 :6 y a cis v y a m E c0m� cc9H m cc0i o o 'm c ets E �c o o tf1 o p Y m m E s m Q N U m 0 '°•C y C t D m m m m m co 0 C `�O N 0 00 m O m O 4 U cysy – S, O V C m Q Q m 0 O> – T c d 3 t L y m = C V yEtotoD . r N N •0 — • • • • • • • CC 7/2,7,1§3 EXHIBIT "C" o x x x x x Page 4 M x x x x x cox x x x x x x x M x x X X x 0 LO x x x x E o CD = v x x x x r1 m t— co = ° O N _J M X X X X X X E m c c� € L :3C $ O V M X X XCL m Q U �Wrr X X x x Q E`c, Y U N co LL p o x X x _ Cl) X E 1>0 s m f c coo 0 p� c m 0 N X X X X X C O N a CC a m Ey « c x x x X x X X R o E_ ro NE E ao mO OEL L m ,-.�m N x X X X X COy Y o m rn y m E ..; C o N m X Z x X x Xx (� 0 0_r 0 ID N O o �.� �mC_ f C O Q N x X X x x � ENmcoG1 �. N �: X x X X X X :n Nwo � � O mm 0- 3 CD CD n-RE-9 N X X X X D >� � O m N CD L W N X X X C E N 3 O 0 •p` m -0 C C N • d �N• a Um O °m 4v o* r-mowm x CXa= N m > Cx OC m'C� � °aEo0oOmE 'C Em 0 cmm}M 3U y.? O.O Cj CO 0 0 U LM tOf N: O mm CD CD 0 CD >v 0 c m m'fl mdd . ° ° m E $ o >mo com• m m O 0oommO m E V 0 rv'o yo .0( c O UO 2 t m m m m O C NC CD 0 .0 n.O. m TyAtE06 a ' 0 N OU 0.> CD .0vL � FL v m N .o> EO m m4 K 7 m ^ 10 m _ Al CC 7/27/93 >! X x EXHIBIT "C" A cn Page 5 x O Q CC x x LO to X X X X LO C 2 LO X x X E n v c m d x x m c LO ON O OJ >1 '0 E m m T 0 .iV. x X X x x TAN m � y Q = a 46 v W0 X x x Q a. E 8) � CC _ U o 0 a X � sm O x X x E m O c CC O X X X X m� c O N M Q o QE 16 . . X ' o c m X X X X X X 1 m N E O.° 2 DE .. X X x x X Mm'om ( N m V/ O O V1 m t!) _31... _ X Z X X X X X ".o ao3 CD n 0.0 c O O $j c 0 X X x X x X � E y c Q V* c rn� O X x x X F_ �v oN� o� CC m N © 3 E G Cf') X X x x mmm'om N 9t CD C5.0 y _ NX X X x X >C COX .: c>a 3 E H_.o vmEvcc � �] m E c m O O x X X x rC r >" CD co ui!y 0E0- SO`0 E-- ID m o� mE' °ccm CL o..5v E.am m O m O O h - = RD c m•p O r j t0 O m a U _ c H O C m m C >. CD a rco C y 3 m.. nQ. CD � c N 0. m •= i > NCa rn m 0 o 0mmy 0EN o > >c c• cV y m O c c mm m E mo m cHm o m c 2 0 3 5 m m s o c vrn o o 0m o m 0 o v v -0 a) y m o m >,m m 3 L C13U c p m m 3 .0 L O y.. N (d Y 'p. c U N E to N f0 D �D — m +, o o ? m m c m m E m --- �^ C N 2 'D m m � U � N U -0 m CC 7/27/93 EXHIBIT "C" Page 6 LONG VA ,T,EY TT Revised Site Pian March 12, 1993 CORRESPONDING LOT ADJUSTMENTS OLID LOT 01 I OT NFW I nT 1&2 1 31 27 3&4 2 32 28 5,&6/7 3 33 29 7&8 4 34 30 9&10 5 35 31 _ 10/11 6 36 32 12 7 37 33 13 8 38 34 14 9 39 35 15 10 40 36 16 11 41 .37 17 12 42/43 38 18 13 43/44 39 19 14 45 40 20 15 46 41 21 16 47 42 22 17 48 43 23 19 49 44 24 18 50 45 25 20 51 46 26 21 52 47 27 22 53 48 28 23 54 49 NAP 24 55 50 29 25 56 51 30 26 NOTE: This table isrovided for or easy reference between the revised site plan and the lots discussed in the I-,JR. CC 7/27/93 EXHIBIT "D" Page 1 Atascadero City Council Meeting July 27,1993 LONG VALLEY II - Public Hearing From: Daphne Fahsing, 5105 Llano Road. AS- Re: Certification of Final EIR I believe that the EIR is legally inadequate because it does not fully consider a full range of alternative sized development or mid-size density project based on septic percolation suitability; and because it does not address visual impacts of the final development. I believe the Council should not certify the Final EIR as it now stands. Daphne Fahsing CC 7/27/93 EXHIBIT "D" Atascadero City Council Meeting July 27,1993 Page 2 LONG VALLEY II - Public Hearing From: Daphne Fahsing, 5105 Llano Road. I support the Neighborhood Report presented to the Council, and also refer you to my letter of July 1, addressed to Mayor Kudlac. I hope our concerns will be fully considered. In_ addition, and as stated in the Final EIR page IV-A17 (Appen.d-i -_III, last paragraph of page 12 of the Neighborhood Report) , the creek areas are especially sensitive to wildlife habitat. Red-shouldered hawk are currently breeding in the area of Lot No. 22 at the end of Tecolote Road. The EIR report states that building on Lot No. 22, as well as No. 20, 21 and 26, would "very likely cause extirpation of this breeding pair. Red-shouldered hawks may not yet be an endangered species, but according to Fish &Game they are a "Species of Special Concern. " They have a beneficial effect on controlling small rodents, gophers and ground .squirrels, and should be protected. Lot 22 is also very close to the creek, and perhaps this lot (and preferably Lots 20, 21 and 26) could be added to the dedicated park area instead of a building site. I am also concerned about creating lots and driveways on slopes of 20% and 30%, and hope that they could be eliminated. To be sure these are included in the official records, I am re-submitting copies of my letter to the Council of July 1,1993, and my statements to the Planning Commission May 18,1993. n aphne Fahsing --� Jv �( CC 7/27/93 EXHIBIT "E" Page 1 I would like to address the issues of Density, Aesthetics, Drainage, Fire Safety Density No consideration was given to a medium density project. Dedicated property is used to calculate minimum lot size. Since many of the lots are on 30% or greater slopes, it would seem reasonable to reduce the number to allow for better building sites, better septic leaching systems and possibly removing or. meeting fewer trees. ::rPi .i pi5an-y To c- 4 6-rnxe5 c.0 m y LCT IM 9Pis-.'- )N P+-H-ee - SlAjeE 1985 - •g• a X- N-09"�* 'q 40=W=D SizotE Ve-cv- "Pee Pk-L rT)VO, q5 p.ut,y R PaP-`t'io,-) 1 5 FCuLEJD, Aesthetics follow closely on density, especially on the ridge. I understand another property owner to the west of Llano Rd. was not allowed to divide property in a way which would have homes built on the ridge. Shouldn't the same rules apply to all developers? Serrajon ridge is very high and very visible. The number of proposed homes on the ridge would not be a very attractive scene and would be reminiscent of L.A. or Orange County - not in keeping with the rural atmosphere of Atascadero. Draiiagee There is no definitive plan for handling additional runoff from the project. This is an issue that should be resolved before approval of the EIR or Tentative Tract Map. There are several parcels on the west of Llano Rd. that will be greatly affected and leaving the resolution of the problem to some future time is not satisfactory. CC 7/27/93 EXHIBIT "E" Page 2 Fire Safety Serrajon is a long cul de sac without sufficient egress in case of a wildland fire. The total number of potential new homes in the subdivision creates an additional safety aspect for those people now living in the adjoining properties. For example, Santa Lucia would be hard pressed to handle a large volume of people evacuating with 2 or 3 cars per family, personal property, horse trailers, etc. in the event of a fire. We have no idea when -or if the proposed fire station will ever be built. f CC 7/27/93 EXHIBIT "F" Page 1 City Council Members City of Atascadero 6500 Palma Atascadero, CA 93422 July 27, 1993 Dear Members of the City Council, Regarding the subdivision application for Long Valley II , I still have some concerns that have not been resolved. My goal in speaking about this project is not to ask you to stop the project altogether, but to ask for your help in achieving a compromise so that those of us who must live next to it, will not be negatively impacted.. Those of us who live on Llano Road have worked diligently to exhaust our administrative remedies but in terms of the Planning Commission, have not found satisfaction. The project has its good points such as the scenic easement, the road realignment, the creek dedications and the proposed fire station site. But, there are issues of density, drainage, fire safety, aesthetics, bridge safety, etc. that have not been resolved. How do we accomplish a compromise? Do we ask you to deny the EIR? Do we ask you to not allow the tentative tract map or the zone change? So far, no one seems to have the answers. If we approach this project in terms of the EIR, there are some points that have been made in the binder handed to you this last week, and submitted into the record tonight . Briefly: 1. The EIR fails to study the aesthetic aspects of a highly visible project . 2 . The mitigation for fire safety at Serrajon Road has been recommended to be removed, thereby not mitigating a significant impact . 3 . Requiring a donation to replace the bridge over Graves Creek does not -mitigate the impact of traffic safety, because safety is not achievable in a "timely manner" as required by CEQA. 4 . The impact of law enforcement has not been mitigated. 5 . Amid-sized density project, with all of the positive aspects of the 57 lot approach, has not been studied, as required by CEQA. If we approach this project from the tentative tract map and zoning aspect, it occurs to me that a lot of this project has allowed the cart to come before the horse. A. Unless I'm reading the LUE incorrectly, land dedications may be given in exchange for developing lots in excess of 301 slope. Nowhere does it mention that these dedications are to then be added into the total project acreage, thus making a more dense original project, unless this is the intent of asking for the PD zone change. If this is the result of the zone change, it must be denied. Perhaps Mr. Davis should donate the 100 acre recreational property he has verbally promised the City and further increase the number of lots by 23? ! Strictly interpreted, 189 . 18 acres (the CC 7/27/93 EXHIBIT "F" Page 2 area to be subdivided) divided by 4 . 36 acres = 43 lots. Why is there even discussion about 57 or 51? B. Requiring perc tests in designated leach areas, and examination of proper leaching sites before approval of the tentative tract map, as required in the LUE, would give an accurate picture of just how many lots this subdivision should have from the standpoint of septic suitability. Perhaps further discussions of density wouldn' t be necessary. C. An aesthetic review of the project would have allowed conditions to be placed on the project that would have minimized its impacts visually, thereby making it less intrusive to those of us already living here. The Land Use Element in its Open Space Policy calls for "careful evaluation of private development to protect-scenic and sensitive lands including prominent viewsheds . " From Llano Road, Laurel, Santa Lucia, Cascabel and Santa Ana, the project is a prominent feature. The LUE also calls for attention to be paid to the "aesthetic result of land division. " Sensitive building placement, color and massing considerations, roof styles, landscaping, etc. all can contribute to a more desirable project . CEQA requires consideration of cumulative aspects of development and therefore aesthetic considerations must be addressed by the land developer. D. No lots have been staked to date thus making it impossible to know if the proposed building envelopes or Teach sites, or driveways are even possible. E. As a condition of approval, the applicant is being required to establish a composite utility plan, a soils plan, a road pian, but no composite drainage plan. If allowed to use detention/retention basins, the burden of drainage is passed from the developer to the individual homeowner. From the very outset of this project, I have expressed my concerns with detention/retention basins and asked for the applicant to design drainage culverts on his own side of the road and not through my improved property frontage. No attempt has been made to negotiate easements with anyone along Llano for access to the Unnamed Creek or Graves Creek. Those of us along Llano are the potential recipients of a great deal of water coming from this project and would like to see the developer made responsible for designing and implementing a drainage plan prior to approval of the tentative tract map so that we will not be required at some later date to solve these types of problems with each individual homeowner. F. Phase II testing of the proposed fire station site would let us know if indeed it can be used, for a fire station. If the site cannot be built upon, perhaps the City would not ' feel that the dedications had enough value to encourage development of very steep lots. If it still is not clear that this project has some loose ends, lets look at it from the aspect of the City Council' s CC 7/27/93 EXHIBIT "F" Page 3 responsibility to protect the safety and well being of it' s residents. 1. Requiring that Serrajon Road be made a through road solves five problems : A. Mitigates fire safety requirement . B. Reduces air quality impacts by reducing longer trips in and out of the ridge area. C. Decreases emergency response time. D. Reduces traffic on Santa Ana Road. E. Allows residents to escape when fire does come. 2 . Requiring a pedestrian bridge over Graves Creek at Santa Lucia Road solves two problems: A. It allows school children (19 families worth) to travel safely to the bus stop. B. It provides a mitigation that is achievable in a reasonable amount of time. This is a subdivision in the planning stages . I do believe that compromises can be achieved that will make this project possible and a thoughtful addition to our City. Hopefully you as members of } the City Council will agree that those of us who already live in the shadow of this development have valid concerns. You have graciously met with us, accepted our materials and spoken with us over the phone. Thank you for your accessibility, and I look forward to your thoughtful response. ince�^rely, Debbie Vial 6000 Llano Road Atascadero, CA 93422