HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 103089 Approved as amended: 11/16/89
ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL
MINUTES
OCTOBER 300 1989
The regular meeting of the Atascadero City Council was called to
order at 7:01 p.m. by Mayor Dexter , followed by the Pledge of
Allegiance led by City Attorney Jorgensen.
Mayor Dexter read the proclamation for "NATIONAL HOSPICE MONTH"
and the Council voted unanimously to officially proclaim the
month of November as Hospice Month .
ROLL CALL:
Present : Councilmembers Borgeson, Mackey, Shiers and Mayor
Dexter
Absent Councilman Lilley
Staff Present : Ray Windsor , City Manager ; Henry Engen, Community
Development Director ; Chief Bud McHale, Police
Department ; Andy Takata, Director of Parks,
Recreation and Zoo ; Mark Joseph , Director of
Administrative Services; Boyd Sharitz , City Clerk
and Georgia Ramirez , Acting Deputy City Clerk .
The City Clerk presented and swore in his new Deputy City Clerk ,
Lee Dayka.
Mayor Dexter reported that a closed session was held prior to the
meeting to discuss personnel matters; no action was taken.
PUBLIC COMMENTSs
Stephen P. LaSalle of Atascadero submitted a letter (Exhibit A)
regarding the tone of Mayor ' s Memorandum of October 19, 1989.
Gail Lee Mudgett , 3125 Ardilla Road in Atascadero, read the
attached prepared statement (Exhibit B) expressing her concerns
with the implementation of the General and Seismic Plans.
Dolores Berry, who resides at 6955 Balboa Road in Atascadero ,
supported the concerns of Mrs. Mudgett (see Exhibit C) . Mayor
1
0 •
Dexter referred to staff for an answer to her letter .
Tom Bench , liaison from Little League and observer Chairman from
Parks & Recreation Commission, thanked the Council for their
support and for allowing him to serve on the Pavilion Committee.
Irene Bishop of Atascadero complimented the decor of the Rotunda
Room. Mayor Dexter credited the filming of the movie, "My Blue
Heaven" for the sprucing up of City Hall .
COUNCIL COMMENTSs
Councilwoman Borgeson urged the Council to address the comments
made regarding the Drainage Plan and consider placing it on a
future agenda for action. Mayor Dexter commented that an open
study session may be declared to establish guidelines and
referred the matter to staff.
Councilwoman Mackey announced the 8th Annual Bowl-a-Thou,
November 2-5, being held as a benefit for Hotline.
A. CONSENT CALENDARS
1 . OCTOBER 10, 1989 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
2. CITY TREASURER'S REPORT - SEPTEMBER 1989
3. FINANCE DIRECTOR'S REPORT - SEPTEMBER 1989
4. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 17-899 7550 CORTEZ - Subdivision of one
parcel containing 6.25 ac . into four lots of 1 .5 ac . , 1 .5
ac. , 1 .58 ac . and 1 .66 ac. (Barrett/Twin Cities
Engineering) .
5. REQUEST FOR ONE-YEAR EXTENSION OF TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 23-
87j 13900 LOS ALTOS ROAD (Vaughan)
6. AUTHORIZATION TO PURCHASE VEHICLES (Public Works Dept . )
7. AWARD CONTRACT FOR BACKHOE ATTACHMENT AND HYDRAULIC SCRAPER
(Parks Divn. )
S. RESOLUTION NO. 76-89 - ESTABLISHING ANNUAL DISADVANTAGED
BUSINESS ENTERPRISES (DBE) POLICY AND LIAISON OFFICER
9. NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR THE ATASCADERO ADMINISTRATION BLDG.
RENOVATION, PHASE IIC
2
10. AUTHORIZE CITY MANAGER TO SUBMIT REQUEST TO THE STATE FOR
REDUCED CENTREX SERVICE CHARGES
Item #6 was corrected to read , "AUTHORIZATION FOR BADS TO
PURCHASE VEHICLES.
Item #9 was removed from the calendar .
MOTION: By Councilwoman Mackey to approve the Consent Calendar ,
with Item #6 corrected and Item #9 removed, seconded by
Councilman Shiers; passed unanimously by roll call
vote.
B. HEARINCSlAPPEARANCES:
1 . Tentative Parcel Map 7-890 7000 SAN PALO ROAD-
Reconsideration of proposed subdivision of one 7.0 ac .
parcel into four lots of 1 .55, 1 .60, 1 .65 and 2.2 acres
(McNamara/Cuesta Engineering) (Reference July 11 , 1989 City
Council Meeting ) (Applicant requests continuance) .
Henry Engen, Community Development Director , gave staff report
and recommended continuation based upon the applicant ' s request
(see Exhibit D) .
MOTION: By Councilwoman Mackey and seconded by Councilwoman
Borgeson to continue the item until the regular meeting
of November 28, 1989. Passed unanimously.
2. CONSIDERATION OF REQUEST TO REMOVE A HERITAGE TREE, 12500
SANTA ANA (Sandal )
Henry Engen reported that when he went to make an inspection, the
trees were not marked as specified by the ordinance and
recommended continuing the matter until the required
identification could be completed . Council discussion followed
regarding the failure of some applicants to mark trees properly.
The applicant was not present .
MOTION: By Councilwoman Borgeson to continue the item until the
regular meeting of November 14, 1989. Councilman
Shiers seconded and the motion passed unanimously.
3
3° CONSIDERATION OF REQUEST TO REMOVE A HERITAGE TREE, a550
TRAFFIC WAY ( "The Oaks, )
Henry Engen gave staff report with the recommendation of approval
with a 3 to 1 replacement . He indicated that when he attempted
to inspect this tree, it too was not marked .
Councilwoman Mackey corrected the street number from 3550 to
555l~
The applicant was not present.
Further Council discussion ensued and the consensus was to
continue this request until the tree has been properly marked and
inspected.
Public Comment
Steve LaSalle commended the City Council for it 's serious
consideration of the ordinance.
MOTIONm By Councilwoman Borgeson and seconded by Councilman
Shiers to continue the matter until the meeting of
November 14, 1989. The motion passed unanimously.
u»° Tentative Parcel Map 16-89n 9350 SANTA CRUZ ~^ Subdivison of
one parcel containing approximately 9.63 ac . into two lots
of 4.0 ac . and 5.63 ac . (Lobo Investments/Volbrecht
Surveys) (Cont ' d from 10/10/89 meeting )
Henry Engen gave staff report with recommendation for approval .
Chief Hicks gave additional comments regarding residential
sprinkling systems and answered Council questions regarding area
growth and emergency response times. Councilwoman Borgeson
complimented Chief Hicks on his responsible statement.
�
Henry Engen responded to additional Council questions and noted
� that the Cities and County are going forward with the hiring of a
Public Comments
Mrs. Mudgett asked that her statement (Exhibit B) be applied to
this item.
Mrs. Berry requested that her concerns (Exhibit C) also be
applied.
Alan Volbrecht, of Volbrecht Surveys located at 7508 Morro Road
in Atascadero , appeared as agent for the applicant and
volunteered to answer questions from the Council or public .
Barbara Schoenicke, 7505 Marchant in Atascadero , addressed the
Council with a prepared statement (see Exhibit E) asking that
the cumulative effects of this lot split be considered .
George Wolfrank, 5561 Tunitas in Atascadero, voiced his concerns
about access bridge installation, cost and funding.
John McNeil , 8765 Sierra Vista in Atascadero , read the attached
prepared statement (see Exhibit F) urging the completion of an
Environmental Impact Report for this project .
` Joan O 'Keefe, residing at 9985 Old Morro Road East in Atascadero ,
submitted her statement (Exhibit G) requesting that this lot
split application be denied until an Environmental Impact Report
has been done.
Steve LaSalle requested that the Council consider his packet
(Exhibit H) of concerns.
Dorothy McNeil , 8765 Sierra Vista Road in Atascadero , submitted a
prepared statement with attachments (Exhibit I ) for Council
consideration.
Tom McNamara of Atascadero verbalized his concerns with the "no
growth" tone of the meeting and urged the Council to give
credence to the paid staff by allowing them to deal with
development problems.
Whitey Thorpe, E305 Santa Ynez in Atascadero , asked that we ( the
public ) extend to other newcomers the same courtesies.
Bob Nimmp , 7375 Bella Vista Road in Atascadero , supported the
Council ' s responsibility to observe the ordinances and asked that
the public be confident that they can rely on the objectivity of
the City Staff.
5
Mrs. Mudgett urged the Council to abide by the General Plan.
Mr . Volbrect explained, from the consultant ' s side, the process
of lot split . He stated that , in his professional opinion, the
application fits within the guidelines of both the Atascadero
General Plan and Subdivision Ordinance and urged that the
approval/disapproval of the project be considered based solely on
those merits. Mr . Volbrecht responded to Council questions.
Mayor Dexter observed that the matter has been before the
Planning Commission and has been recommended for approval . He
also noted that Santa Cruz Road was completed during the week of
October 16, 1989. The chair recognized the concerns of the
public and clarified that the issue is to consider the
recommendation of the Planning Commission.
Lengthy Council discussion followed regarding the Negative
Declaration of the project , the emergency response time and the
possible bridge fee issue. Mr. Volbrecht added that the
applicant is more than willing to fire sprinkle the homes on his
own accord.
City Attorney Jorgensen stated that the City needs to deal with
the concerns and , if necessary, develop new po.licies to address
them. He stressed that inventing policies on a case-by-case basis
or applying new policies on a case-by-base basis where they don ' t
already exist would create some serious potential problems for
the City. On the issue of response time, Mr . Jorgensen stated
that it is obviously an issue of major concern and that it should
be looked at . He reported that the City does not currently have
any mechanism for denying lot splits on the basis of response
time. He urged the Council to very carefully consider what the
impact of denying any additional development or split outside of
a five-minute response time would have on the City and the
potential liability to the City. If the Council wants to address
response time, it needs to be in the policy-making context , not
in the case-by-case analysis of individual applications.
Mr . Jorgensen responded to Council questions and stated that if
the Council cannot make the mandatory findings, it must admit so
based on evidence in the record.
The City Attorney asked the Community Development Director when
the Negative Declaration was issued for the project . Discussion
ensued regarding an appeal to the Declaration and it was the
consensus that the time had expired for any possible appeal . Mr .
Jorgensen advised that the Planning Commission's approval and the
6
��
�� 0
Negative Declaration would be legally sustainable since an appeal
was never an issue before the City. He noted that while the
Council may have the discretion to require an Environmental
Impact Report , it would bear additional staff analysis to
determine whether overturning the Negat` ve Declaration is the
appropriate procedure.
MOTIONm By Councilwoman Mackey to accept the recommendation of
the Planning Commission based upon the findings of the
staff report to approve Tentative Parcel Map 16-89,
seconded by Mayor Dexter . A roll call vote was taken
resulting with a 2:2 split ; with Councilmembers Mackey
and Dexter voting Yes and Councllmembers Shiers and
Borgeson voting No.
City Attorney Jorgensen stated that consistent with past
interpretation, a 2:2 tie represents no action on the item and
recommended that the Council continue the item until such time
that all councilmembers are present .
MO1[IONs By Councilwoman Mackey and seconded by Councilman
Shiers to continue the matter ; passed unanimously.
Mayor Dexter called for a recess at 9: 10 p.m. The meeting
reconvened at 9:22 p .m.
C. REGULAR BUSINESSi
& ~ RESPONSE TO JOHN McNEIL"S COMPLAINT REm GRADING FEE
VIOLATIONS (Herbal )
Henry Engen responsed to Mr. McNeil ' s question as to the County ' s
stand on grading violations. Mr . Engen indicated that the
County ' s Grading Ordinance has recently been amended and allows
them to prosecute major grading violations as misdemeanors rather
than infractions. Mr . Engen further compared the policies of
both the City of Atescadero and the County. He explained that
the Planning Directors meet monthly and it is their wish to
create an enforcement subgroup that might meet quarterly to
exchange ideas on this hey area.
Comment:Public
John McNeil , identifying himself as the citizen who raised the
question, made additional comments regarding the grading fee
issue and expressed his appreciation to Mr . Engen for looking
into the matter .
�
�� =~
a~ RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS RAISED BY STEVE L&SALLE REm PLANNING
COMMISSION SELECTION.
Mayor Dexter reminded the public that it is unacceptable to hand
out lengthy materials and expect the Council to be able to deal
with them during the meeting . He requested that items be
submitted to the City Clerk ahead of time for Council
consideration.
Mayor Dexter responded to Steve LaaGalle ' s questions regarding the
recent Planning Commissioner selection. He then asked the
Council if they wished to reconsider their appointment . Lengthy
Council discussion followed regarding Resolution 35-81 and the
voting process used to appoint Commissioner Hanauer .
Public Comments:
Steve LaSalle referred back to Exhibit A stating that he did not
want to enter into a personal debate. He then read the attached
letter (Exhibit J) criticizing the elimination process of the
balloting .
Barbara Schioenicke, resident , supported thoughts of Elaine
Oglesby and asked the Council if it could refuse to correct the
error .
City Attorney Jorgensen stated that the appointment of a
Planning Commissioner is a political appointment of the Council
dependent upon a majority vote. He expressed his concern that a
disservice was being done to the, Mayor ; that the method of
selection was done in the ignorance of the resolution and was
conducted in fairness and in good faith . The Commissioner was,
in fact , appointed with a majority vote of the City Council even
though there was indeed a deviation from the resolution. Mr.
Jorgensen did not feel it was legally necessary to re-appoint
unless a majority of the Council no longer wishes the
Commissioner to remain a commissioner , or members of the
community want to challenge the decision. If either is the case,
Mr . Jorgensen stated that the recommended action would be to
rescind the resolution and re-appoint .
Additional Council discussion followed .
MOTIONw By Councilwoman Borg*sson and seconded by Councilman
Shiers to direct staff and appoint two members of the
Council to examine, amend as needed and re-affirm
Resolution 35-81 ; passed unanimously~
'
B
��
�� 0
Mayor Dexter appointed himself and Councilwomen Borgeson to the
committee for review.
Mayor Dexter polled the Council with the question, "Do you
desire to reconsider your appointment of Mr . Hanauer?"
Councilman Shiers abstained, Councilwoman Mackey answered "No" , /seethe
The City Attorney advised that an abstension is considered a attached
"Yes" vote under the Municipal Code creating a 2:2 tie; therefore ad6eo«m`
no action could be taken and the appointment of Commissioner
Hanuaer stands.
D. INDIVIDUAL DETERMINATI011 ANDIOR ACTION:
1 . Councils
Council discussion regarding the interviewing process for the new
City Attorney was held . The item was placed first on the agenda
for the meeting of November B, 1989.
A. Committee Reports
1 . City/School Committee report was given by Mayor
Dexter .
2. North Coastal Transit - nothing to report .
3. SLO Area Coordinating Council report given by
Councilwoman Borgeson.
4. Traffic Committee - Meeting date announced by
Councilwoman Mackey.
5. Solid/Hazardous Waste Mgmt . Committee - Meeting date
announced by Councilwoman Mackey~
6. Recycling Committee - Meeting date given by
Councilwoman Mackey.
7. Economic Opportunity Commission Committee report given
by Mayor Dexter .
8. Finance Committee had nothing to report .
9. B. I .A. Committee had nothing to report .
10. Downtown Steering Mgmt . Committee submitted a written
report .
11 . Interim Growth Management Committee had nothing to
report .
12. General Plan Subcommittee - Mr. Engen set a tentative
meeting date.
Mayor Dexter announced that the League of California Cities
Annual Conference has been rescheduled for December 17-19 in San
Francisco due to the earthquake.
9
'
2. CITY ATTORNEY
Mr. Jorgensen, in this his last City Council meeting, expressed
pleasure at the liveliness of the meeting and said, "He would
never forget the first or the last meeting. " He also thanked the
City for the opportunity to serve as the City Attorney and the
Council wished him well in his new position with the City of San
Luis Obispo ~
3. CITY CLERK
Mr . Bharitr welcomed his new Deputy, Lee DaVka, and expressed his
appreciation to Georgia Ramirez, Acting Deputy Clerk for her
work .
4. CITY MANAGER
Mr . Windsor quiped that, "Out of compassion, Mr . Jorgensen should
be given 20 seconds to leave the building , because he deserves a
running start" .
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10x06 P.M. TO NOVEMBER Bv 1989 AT 10:00 A.M.
(CITY ATTORNEY INTERVIEWS) .
MINUTES RECORDED BYu
SH
i6VE C. SHQITK-EIT �-99R�------
RR----
Attachments: Exhibit A (LaSalle - C2)
Exhibit B (Mudgett )
Exhibit C (Berry)
Exhibit D (Request for Continuation - B2)
Exhibit E (Schoenike - B4)
Exhibit F (McNeil , J - B4)
Exhibit G (O ' Keefe - B4>
Exhibit H (LaSalle - B4)
Exhibit I 0OLX&*XD0{, D - B4) McNdll
Exhibit J (LaSalle - C2)
10
�����
ADDENUM TO MINUTES OF OCTOBER 30, 1989
On Page 9, second paragraph , the following underlined statements
were omitted from the minutes in error . The paragraph should
read :
Mayor Dexter polled the Council with the question "Do you desiretp reconsider your appointment of Mr . Hanauer?" Councilman
Shiers abstained
with oersonalities and he felt that the Council did nn+- -Fr%ll^,
the correct - procedures: Councilwoman Mmr-' d "No"
Councilwoman -L
-B-Orgeson abstai ed based on her feelinQs that
personalities were involved here and that it-was not the issue
before -the Council , Mayor Dexter replied, "No. - he did not wish to
have the appointment re-considered. The City Attorney advised
that an abstension is considered a "Yes" vote under the Municipal
Code creating a 2:2 tie; therefore no action could be taken and
the appointment of Commissioner Hanauer stands.
'
'
11
C�
October 30, 1989
Members of the Council;
I wish to call your attention to the tone and the words used in Mayor Dexters
Memorandum, dated October 19, 1989,subject: Planning Commissioner Selection.
I reserve the right to comment on this Memorandum at some future date.
Very truly yours,
Stephen P. LaSalle
Gail Lee Mudaett
3125 Ard i l la Road
Atascadero, Calif
93422
October 30, 1989
Ladies and (,entlement of the Atascadero City Council:
This Statement is in reply to Mayor Dexter's letter to me of October 4th.
Thank you for ackknoilleging that prior road agreements were not exempt from
the California Environmental Quality Act. Our 1980 General Plan was created
in agreement with that 1969 California Environmental Quality Act, along with
other California State Law,
I am still concerned with two components of our Safety Element which have not
been implemented. a) We do not have a comprehensive Drainage Plan as mandated
on Page 116 of our General Plan. b) We have an excellent Seismic Component in
our General Plan, with over 13 pages devoted to it, but in practise we have
ignored`it. I have quoted -before the following passage from our General Plan,
but I'll quote it again, because in Mayor Dexter's letter, he insists that "We
have complied with the General Plan and it documentation and policies with
respect to the seismic safety. ..
I quote : "Thoughtful land use decisions are fundamental to seismic safety-
We should not erect a structure or carry out major Brading on ground
that is subject to high levels of seismic or other geologic hazard,
until the consequences have been evaluated and the work approved by
competent professionals. To this end , no structure should be built
unless the geologist, architect, soils engineer and builder - as well
as the community are satisfied that it meets adequate standards de-
Signed to prevent life-threatening collapse or damage in future earth-
quakes. (Joint Committee, 1975) Page 140 of the General Plan.
Just to show you how up-to-date that policy is let me bring you up to Tuesday,;
October 17th, the day of the Santa Cruz quake, 75 miles south of San Francisco, It
shook that City, built on both rock and unstable soil. I quote from the Los
Angeles Times , October the 18th
"Thomas H. Holzer, brandh chief for engineering seismology
for the Geological Survey at Fenlo Park, said that regardless
of whether one is talking about freeways, gas lines, or apart-
ment houses the bottom line is that people should not be
building in these areas`.'"
THAT is a 1989 echo of our Joint Committee's admonishment of 1975 in our General
Plan:
2
If it is true, as you write, that our City has compled with the General Plan
how do you explain the Sensebauah/Davis Contract or 1986 and the invasion of
our seismologically hazardous Santa Lucia foothills?
You write in the next sentence, "The sale of lots is not subject to CEPA."
In answer;I quote from Daae 299 of the Guide to California Environmental
Qu: lity Act
"'A project will normally have a sianficar.t effect on the Onvironment
if it will,
a)Conflict with the adopted environmental plan and goals
of the community where it is located,
q) Cause substantial flooding, erosion, or siltation,
r) Expose people or structures to major aTeblozic hazards.
Also, from the same volume, CE�,A, Page 344,, I shall refer you to a 1980
Court Case having to do with the precise problem of sale of property:
FRIENDS OF A STREET V. CITY OF HAYWARD (1980)
Point 7. City approval of proposed subdivision's construction
of public improvements, and private sale of subdivided lots may
be enjoined for lack of consistency of the subdivision with the
General Plan.
mint 8. Of that same case states
City's public works as well as private development must be
consistent with the City's General Plan. (Govt Code 65302-66473.5)
In your letter you state, "Since no project is being proposed on the area
identified as landslide_7 no action is yet called for by this City."
CEQA considers grading a project and bulldozing did take place in August of
this year on those Santa Lucia foothills. I am concerned with All the foot-
hills of the Santa Lucias, from the Southern border and Santa Barbara Road to
the Northern border and Santa Cruz Road. Our General Plan refers to the
foothills on Faze 139 as,
"The high risk area in the foothills of the Santa Lucias comprises
8.298.79 acres."
If and when the Nacimiento, or the Rinconada, or the San Adnreas faults "happen"
what
what do you think will "happen" in our extensive alluvial, and Geologically
unstable soils and: hills? The State calls such areas "special studies zones.
Our State Geologist established critiera and policy for approval of real estate
I
s
3
development and structures for human occupancy in these "special studies zones."
According to the public Resources Code #2623, "Applications for all real estate
developments and structures for human occupancy within "special studies zones"
must be accompanied by a geologist's report." (D. Curtin"s Subdivision Map Act Manual)
P.55.
Did you comply with our General Plan and the State Code when you gave approval
and permits to grade and construct fo? human habitation on those foothills of the
Santa Lucias, with or without the Sensebaugh/Davis Contract? Did you have a
competent geologist"s report when you granted permits to build on those 9,000
acres?
When Mr. Windsor sent me a copy of that Sensebauzh,/navis Contract on August 31st
I hwee requested to see that file. There has been no response. Why?
How could our planning Department have given the go-ahead when they should be
thoroughly conversant with the General Plan and our State Planning Code and
CEQA? Did our City Attorney review that Sensebaugh/Davis Contract? Did 'any
one in the City Government file a Notice of Violation, according to Section
66499.36 of our Government Code?
There are still four more of my questions which remain unanswered. _I shall
list them after this Statement.
In conclusion: Ever since Tuesday, October 17th, I have been saddened by our
missed opportunity to avoid building on "high risk hills and soils:/ General Plans
are fundamental to make cities safe in California, the land of quakes. By incorp-
orating the 1977 Advisory Report into our adopted 1980 General Plan, we as a young
city had the CHOICE AND THE CHANCE through our General Plan to build roads and
homes as safely as could be possible. We made our CHOICE when we adopted. the
General Plan, but we discarded the CHANCE by ignoring and not implementing
the criteria and. policies of that General Plan.
WHY did we throw away that CHANCE to keep our young City of Atascadero safe?
Thank you, 4 i
/� j
Gail Lee Mudgett
4
List of unanswered question I have asked. Gail Lee M:udgett 10/30/89
1 . On August 24, as a contiguous landowner was i not entitled to a notification
of the project taking place across the road from my house?
2. On September 9, I informed you by letter that the bulldozer had filled in and
smoothed over the deep drain ditch that had been there since 1958 or before.
That ditch receives the overflow from the curve in the high hill above.
3. On September 19, to the Planning Commission, I asked about the implementation
of the Drainage Component of our Safety Element. In that last paragraph of that
Statement I asked in fewer words than what I shall use now:
Do you know that the State requires a General Plan to be adequate, meaning
complete in all State required Elements? Do you know that if the General
Plan lacks Elements or Components there-of, it is considered incomplete and
inadequate by the State? That if the General Plan is invalid this City
Government is invalid? That absence of an adequate General Plan precludes
any ena6ment of zoning ordinance and the like? ? f : •s
Resources Defense Fund v. County of Santa Cruz
133 Cal App. 3d 800, 806 (1982)
Gail Lee Mudgett
I appreciate your letters in .reply to my written Statements.
Also, Will you please apply this Statement to the item listed on yoE agenda
as :
4. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 16-89, 9350 SANTA CRUZ _ Subdivision of
one parcel containing approx. 9.63 ac. into two lots of 4.0
ac. and 5.63 ac. (Lobo Investments/Volbrecht Surveys) (Con'd,
from 10/10189 meeting)
GLM.
*i � � � 't
/ � � �_.� • �i •
_ A _..� �# �! w ` M ! V , A i � i '� 1�� F i� A � F F , 'f
+► b� � � � ! . F ��• Ari - � r •_• •
is , r � e i � •
A ... a bj � ,; ! `� Aye �■ i i m ' # l o i � s., w i� ." �
F � i... �. � w. '... 1 � � � i � w 1. A � • d ', ! A i � � F
,�yA s r .a • d ao 4 a �. s � '� b � a, w� a t $
y
17 ! � A � i+ffi 3. a g. # t 'T. ! � '., � � `. � i t i k i y F i
i i i { b
t gy* yi � d gj� � 0I i `_ gYA w !. t w # R 9 F .M� T � ! �/'
b Y ■ • ■ ♦ a '. of ` ': e E • A i'f!li 1p`f x'� 'S�. i i !- �. M
a 's �� � .t �: � ; .AA i -• AIS t � " � � : 'w .°
s A • s p ! r ;€ A ,. !,1,3.. xg.. �y ,. �9^'#`7`-. M !* > � i � .. gtyl � s ti :. �
'f '!< � i f i 7 � w A ! F
M r-� i 10' � a �pt � 7f # 1
A At .# ! R * d 1. � i. � R � � � .1 �. A } R >. A it i 7i ! / !
ALL THE NATURAL SHRUBS WHICH HELD BACK THE NATURALLY SPREADING
RAINWATER HAVE BEEN REMOVED FROM TJE DOVICA. DEVELOPMENT AND THE
BARNES DEVELOPMENT. HOW WILL THE CITY PROTECT OUR HOME AND PROPERTY?
WE HAVE EIGHT HERITAGE OAKS TREES AND MANY OTHER TREES OVER THE
$tt DIAMETER. HOW WILL THE DITCHING OF THE AREA ALONG THE OAKE TREE
ROOTS AND THE PROLONGING OF THE DRAINAGE WATER THROUGH THE AREA ON
OUR LAND AFFECT THESE HERITAGE TREES? .. HOW WILL THE INCREASE
IN VOLUME OR VELOCITY AFFECT OUR
_; ; HOMEt S FOUNDATIONS AND THESE
TREES? WE ASK FOR THE DRAINAGE PLAN THAT WAS AGREED UPON AT THE
MEETING'THAT WAS ATTENDED BY THE CITY MANAGER AND PUBLIC WORKS
MANAGER AND TWO OF THIS COUNCILt S AMBERS. WE ASR TO BE PROTECTED
BY THE DRAINAGE PLAN THAT THE GENERAL PLAN CALLS FOR ON PANE 116.
THIS DRAINAGE WATER IS A CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER TO OUR HEALTH
AND SAFETY AND WE; ASK THAT THE CITY BE RESPONSIBLE TO THE RESIDENTS
AND CARRY THE E MATER CREATED AWAY VIA THE CITY STREETS. I
ASK FOR ANSWERS TO THESE `CONCERNS IN WRITING.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION AND ATTENTION,
DOLORES BERRY
OAT ' • a 1TE MN A -
! ! ��`�Q �� :}'`I r- — '�. _ I IJ 1�t ��i_I • �'�1 1 '1 � � '�
LAW 0:F10Es
1»GrE7i LYON• LYON & 'rcQvET
AQ(SEA"iCJUf.T 1104 PAL&J
$TFPEET
TIM07111v i.CAF•M CL 'oos'r !�'i Fjcz6C.`+X 7El6PMrjNE
4,22 teen) 541•aHyrC
LUIS t�Sl$P
DATE: 3�..CSG� CJ 1 :� (BO S) 5a3•�Ha7
OCT 198y
TaL9=2UR-L
•�
11 7•
1111 � > • � `
_,,. ..
GGER
)fiepC
iA„LJ
CAP-MEL
'HIS ShE�I.
?Vt s. 7 ALLW?-:ICY r pX
• t'`" �`�• .F YOU NAVA �`1Y
54?'-2 QVEST�ONS( PLEASE
�56U A,VD ASK FOR
ChgNIENTS: ANNETTE
F
i
t
f
j I T r - i 10. 71
LAW OFf ICER I.
DrON & PYCQG7ET
I1049 PALM STREE,-
.i'.'::i':"t
Pos, Gr—ICC Box a22 (5031 S4i•2580
♦w_ww•.pw� s'6N '.iii:;, JFsI•�,'.R+^,,,�.ALlF�AtiIA �Jy',�6 TELECOPIiR
p..r,p« 1805) 84]•343'7
October 30, 1989 -
CC i
City Council
='Y Of Atascadero
P a'_:aa Ave.
Acascadero, CA 93422
Reconsi r. ar' ^_•r?
012 ri t e ��
e_-t�, iv : ap Appl=rat4.on (i'?CNiamara)
ur'A1*3 Ma or and Council:
.►:� :it CX`=v i :L �.1a�i v n�;l� '� '� t a F
Y 3cl.ettu..e�. for today' sr g fOc`
9 ay M� . 'rIC^1d,Tdra ard t m28 .i�� .oba
a+ c3 ha re been able to
� . c� . .n an res�ec-tP"„ unable gLliY prepare
~�:3 : ,rj � tze �c�.'enber 23 4.��y requ0:3t that this item be cor:tln-
, ?989, Council meet'_ng,
ar phase that the
Co-unci.-IL has decided
or. this applicatiand ad oto hold fort e
• are c4zZiden, th at the
._0 I -1" ,zx1 that w4---' be presented will satisfy
ncerns Previous) 4- r the Cot;rici3. 's
Y exNr . set and per; it a favorable decision.
:�r•:c Y'rJti very much for Your cooperat
:natter, ion and 4ourtes4e3 in this
Sincerely,
LYON P
ICQU
Roger 'cque
RP• ar
}
-
TOM, DI .Namara
October 30, 19#19
Members of the Council;
The lot split before you is only the first of many to come. It was given a Negative
Declaration. It is not deserving of such. The cumulative effects have never been
considered, nor does the City have the necessary information on which to base such
a decision.
How will this lot split, being only the first of many to come,effect fire protection,
emergency/medical response, police protection, schools, parks and recreational
facilities, roads, and other governmental services in the City?
The present fire protection in our City is adequate. Will it continue to be adequate
when hundreds of acres in the far western portion of the City (an area with very high
response time)get developed. This area is the 'interface", a high risk wildfire area.
What additional services will be needed, who will pay for them? Even with
mandatory fire sprinklers the fire department would surely respond to a fire in that
north western area. How long would it take the engines to respond if a second fire
broke out along Hwy. 41, where so many of them have started?Will fire protection
services for existing residential developments be sacrificed to accommodate the new
developments? The Atascadero General Plan states: "Fire stations shall be located
so as to provide an average response time of five minutes or less to all parts of the
District. While four minutes is considered acceptable, anything over five minutes is
unacceptable.". A city wide fire protection study has just been authorized by the
Council (to be maid for by the entire city). How can you make the finding that there
will be no significant impact,how can you already know the answer?
It becomes even more obvious in terms of emergency or medical response time. The
response time is above ten minutes. This is surely not sufficient for the critical case
(heart attack,choking victim, gun-shot wound,etc.). The development in that area is
raising the citywide emergency response time and thereby lowering the average
response time for already established residents. Must the entire city pay for this
development?
The cumulative impacts of development in this large area of the C5ty will have a
very definite cumulative impact on the police protection in the City. The 400 unit
Bourdoux apartments required additional police. Consider that the apartments can
be efficiently serviced. They are close to the police station and concentrated close
together. However, the development in the western part of the City is a long way
from the police station and spread far apart. Must the entire City pay for this
development?
The schools in this City are already overburdened. The new San Gabriel
Elementary School is already teaching classes in temporary trailers. Where will the
additional children be attending school? Do we develop first, bus the children again
to Santa Margarita and than build the schools in later years?What kind of planning
is that?Where will the additionally needed schools be located? Have appropriate
parcels of land been identified so that they may be acquired before the value of land
has gone out of sight and so that new landowners may know that they will be
neighbors of future schools? Has busing and its effect been considered?What will
the costs be?Will a ma school consultant be hired to prepa study?Must the
entire City pay for this development?
This lot split is just the first of many to come. Cumulatively, they will add more
people,stressing the already scarce parks and recreational opportunities in the City.
No additional parks have been identified in this area, there are no plans for open
space. The city has not earmarked money or fees for additional parks and
openspace, although the General Plan calls for acquisition of creek reservations,
stadium k, etc. Must the entire Cit for this development?
� Y P$Y Pm
What will be the cumulative effect of road maintenance?The recently constructed
roads in the western portion of the City have opened up this very large area for
development. Most of these roads (and driveways)were constructed behind locked
gates. They were built under a developer/city agreement that "was not legally
binding" (North County Tribune, Sep. 21, 1989). "The agreement allowed Davis to
bypass normal environmental review procedures when building roads to serve
development in western Atascadero...The agreement is no longer in force, following
review by the City Attorney"(North County Tribune, Oct. 5, 1989). These roads are
not consistent with the Atascadero General Plan statements: "(p.121 Any
transportation improvements system shall be compatible with the environment.
There shall be a wise use of available resources,avoidance of despoiling
irreplaceable resources, promotion of the aesthetic quality of the area and
minimization of environmental change."and from page 157"The contours of the hills
shall be preserved....Any land use or activity which would result in major alteration
of the land shall require a grading permit. The permit should require restoration of
the land". In addition, the City is already behind on the maintenance of the city
roads, due to lack of funds. Many existing roads within the City have not been
accepted by the City. Will the entire City be asked to foot the bill to accommodate
the developers interests in this portion of the City?
Have you considered the cumulative impacts that this extensive development will
have on governmental services such as rural postal delivery, dial-a-ride and other
public transportation services?
The questions that come to mind are overwhelming. To state that development in
that area will occur without significant cumulative impacts is wrong and
irresponsible. Where is your supporting evidence to show that the cumulative effects
would not have a significant impact?
"alz,o hr. �e�1
Barbara Schoenike
John W. McNeil �J
8765 Sierra Vista
1 Atascadero, CA 93422
466-4128
2 October 28, 1989
3 Mayor Rollin Dexter and City Council of Atascadero
4 City Hall
Atascadero, CA
5 Dear Mayor Dexter and City Council Members:
6 This refers to the environmental check list completed by the
7 Community Development staff for the proposed lot split at
9350 aanta Crus Road, Atascadero, Tentative Parcel Map 16-89
8 and 89-173. A Negative Declaration was given by the Community
Development Director for this project.
9 I would like to briefly comment on several items in the check
10 list.
II Environmental Impacts : 1. Earth. a. Unstable earth conditions
11 or in changes in geologic substructures? Checked "NO" .
12Is this judgment based on general geological information for
the area, specific information on the project site, or was the
item checked "NO" without any general or specific geological
13 information?
14 g. Exposure of people or property to geological hazards such
as earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, ;round failure or
15 similar hazards:
16 Now if the answer to l.a. above was based on general informa-
tion only for lack of specific information, as I surmise, then
17 why was this item, l.g. , regarding seismic hazards, not checked
"YES" or "MAYBE" . Map 11-4, Atascadero Major Earthquake Faults,
18 i# the General Plan (Enclosure) , shows the Nacimiento earthquake
fault running through the center of Atascadero, and the Rinconada
19 fault , the Hosgri fault , and the San Andreas fault within close
proximity to the project site . On this information alone, the
20 check should have been "MAYBE" . An EIR would provide specific
information as to the seismic hazards.
21 Moreover, the roads put in place by the land developer with-
22 out a permit under the presumed authority of the now disavowed
and rescinded road agreements, written and unwritten, have never
23 been evaluated as to seismic safety. In the event of a major
earthquake, these untested, never legally approved roads, could
24 be severely damaged and prevent access to emergency vehicles.
25 f. Changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may
modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of any lake?
26 This item checked "NO" fails to consider that the project will
require extensive grading to accomodate the building sites to the
27 hilly terrain as shown on the Tentative Parcel Map 89-173. The
contour lines show a 34 foot drop from the edge of one proposed
28 building site, and the other building site is more precipitous
1 -2-
2 on both sides. Any change in the landscape will contribute to
changes in siltation, deposition, and erosion, which together
3 with other adjacent developments can cumulatively substantially
modify the channels of streams in this area. Have we forgotten
4 the flood years in Atascaderoas recently as : 1967 - 45.40 inches,
1969 - 47.05 inches, and 1978 - 35.21 inches. (Atascadero News
5 1-6-82, page B-4.
6 II 2. Air. a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration of
ambient air quality? Checked "NO" . On what possible information
7 can this item be checked "NO"? Paul Allen of the San Luis Obispo
C6unty Air Pollution Control office informed the Atascadero Home
8 Owners Association several months ago that the County has never
made a study of ambient air movements in the County. Of course
9 two dwellings will have little effect from four or more autos,and
two or more wood burning fireplaces, but the cumulative effect
10 of existing and planned development will seriously impact our
air quality already exceeding air pollution limits.
11 Our city ' s five hundred foot air inversion factor makes us
peculiarly vulnerable to the effects of air pollution. San Ardo
12 oil fields, the P.G.&E. Morro Bay power -olant, and particulates
from farming make any added pollution from residential develop-
13 ment an incontrovertible environmental impact that should be the
subject of an EIR for this project.
14
II 3. Water. a.b.c.d.i. b and c. checked "MAYBE" , a.d.i. "NO" .
15 The answers should be "YES" for all of these items. How can
the anticipated changes in the grading and landscaping of this
16 project not unquestionably alter to some extent drainage patterns
and the amount of surface water runoff? Why the proposed cul-
17 verts if drainage patterns are unchanged? Would driveways and
paved parking areas not alter the amount and direction of run-
18 offs? Certainly the runoff and diverted water flow will have a
substantial cumulative effect on flood waters. Any urbanization
19 will shorten the flood time and hence the potential for flood
damage.
20 e. Surface water quality . The use of pesticides and herbicide
such as Round Up will undoubtedly alter the quality of surface
21 waters. Why a "NO" check for this item? Also, septic tank fail-
ures are common throughout Atascadero notwithstanding percolation
22 testing. Septic tank contamination of surface waters is certain-
ly a probability. Should be checked "MAYBE
23 h. Our city water supply is not inexhaustible. The cumulative
effect of adding more and more household consumers cannot be
24 ignored. A multiplicity of Negative Declarations on future
developments on this item, will surely result in the water
25 shortages experienced by our neighboring cities.
26 In conclusion, in using a check list for a Negative Declaration,
"the city must disclose the data or evidence upon which the per-
27 son conducting the study relied. Dere conclusions as to the
absence of the possibility of a significant effect are inadequate
28
a
1
2 -3-
3 to support a Negative Declaration. " Citizens Association vs
4 County of Inyo, 172 Cal App 3d 151 (1985). Unless the Community
Development staff has such convincing evidence controverting
5 all of the material set forth hereinabove, then an EIR should
be required for this project.
6
Respectively submitted,
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
r
r
All
sa
0
~ $`"�.
e f'S
13
= d
o
ex _
L'
`yY
a.,
f
5
` m
LL va
ao Y o 2 mW
0P1
Q �
Q W , o CA
ONI dMW
C'LerK
Joan Okeefe JU
9985 Old Morro Rd. East
Atascadero. Ca
October 30, 1989
Members of the Council;
I am requesting an Environmental Impact Report for the entire area under
the "Atascadero/Gordon Davis road agreement development project." This
should occur prior to any lot splits being granted for that area and I
am requesting that the lot split application at 9350 Santa Cruz, a part
of the "Atascadero/Gordon Davis road agreement development project," be
denied until an Environmental Impact Report is completed. It seems
Community Development has taken a piecemeal approach to projects. This
approach denies citizens an opportunity to be aware of the total impact
of the developments in process. As a result, the Environmental
Checklist filled out by Community Development, has not addressed
cumulative impact effects. I would like to call attention to specific
items in the Initial Study completed by Community Development.
4. Plant Life
a. The more land is divided the more habitat is altered or
destroyed. This results in (1) decline in the number of species
and (2) may result in a reduction of contiguous habitat sufficient
to support a viable population of a species. For example, as you
reduce the size of a stand of oaks the microenvironment is changed
so that more of the trees are exposed to wind, light, temperature
and predation. This principle applies to any species of plant and
especially takes its toll on slow growing species.
b. There is no data available regarding rare or endangered
species. An Environmental Impact Report would provide information
necessary to evaluate this point.
c. House construction brings with it landscaping with exotic
species which are incompatible with native plants. Two of the most
obvious are pampas grass and eucalyptus which once established are
almost impossible to remove.
d. This whole area was originally used for commercial cattle
grazing. Housing development usually removes such areas from
commercial grazing. It is apparent that this entire area was
originally used for a variety of agricultural uses. It is clear
that in conversion to residential use no impact analysis was ever
completed.
5. Animal Life
a. Subdivision of an oak woodland environment will impact wild
life habitat. Animal migration routes are blocked and the
contiguous size of habitat is insufficient to maintain a viable
population. Over 300 species of wildlife have been identified as
oak woodland residents.
L
i
b. There is no data avilable regarding rare or endangered species
of animals in this area. An Environmental Impact Report would
provide information for this point.
c. Concurrent with housing development domestic animals such as
cats, dogs, and horses will be introduced. Cats and dogs have a
long history of feral activity that can adversely impact many wild
life populations. It is well known that feral cats have become a
serious problem in Atascadero. In addition, horses confined on
small areas eatout and trample all vegetation; this results in
serious soil compaction and potential erosion and run-off hazards.
13. Transportation/Circulation
a. There will be a significant increase in vehicular movement.
c. The main access arteries are already congested. The problem
will be compounded by the increase in vehicular movement. There
are no plans or funds to remedy this existing problem. Access in
and out of these recently developed areas is limited. In case of
fire or other emergency citizens would find it difficult to
evacuate.
f. Pedestrians and bicyclists are already at risk because of the
narrow, shoulderless roads and lack of pathways. Drainage ditches
substitute for walkways. The roads are winding, narrow and steep
and frequently subject to rock slides during the rainy season.
School children are at risk if they walk on the roads. Increasing
the number of people will increase the probability of accidents.
18. Aesthetics
The open vistas of the area that can be viewed from all over the
city will be destroyed by the proposed placement of houses,
driveways and roads. Excessive cut and fill caused by the
construction of the existing roads have already resulted in
irreversible impacts that cannot be mitigated. These roads never
received an environmental review. This proposed lot-split and the
total area development have not addressed the problem of cumulative
impacts under a system of visual resource management.
21. Mandatory Findings of Significance
a. Refer to 4.a, 4.b, 5.a, and 5.b regarding impact on wild life
and plant life. At present there is no plant or wildlife inventory
available to serve as a bench mark reference that would provide a
check on evaluating developmental impacts. Research data in some
other parts of the state indicates that subdivision has serious
impact on native plant and wildlife population.
b. Short term, the profile of the land is disrupted and or altered
by subdivision development. Long term effects from development
include visual pollution, air pollution, massive soil erosion,
water drainage problems, pollution of ground table water due to
septic loading, accumulation in the soil and water table of
pesticides and herbicides. In addition oak regeneration is
seriously impaired.
c. Cumulative impacts is the major issue with this development. A
single lot split generally has little effect on resources; many lot
splits, many subdivisions have a significant effect on the
environment and resources of the City. For example, individually,
environmental impact on either wildlife or plant life would be
considered to be medium intensity. However the additive impact on
both resources must be considered a major environmental problem.
d. People's health may be adversely affected due to air and water
pollution.
October 30, 1989
Members of the Council;
Given that this Santa Cruz lot split is only the first of many to come, cumulative
effects have to be considered on all possible future and already existing
development. This has clearly not been done.
Allowing septic systems with at least a 100 percent expansion area on steep, tree
covered and seismicly hazardous hillsides will cause a significant impact on
vegetation and possible ground and surface water contamination. Atascadero is
already known for failing leachfields. Areas that were never intended to be included
within the Urban Services Line are now being served by sewers or are being
considered to be included because of failing systems. In general, this means lowering
minimum lotsizes and more subdivisions. Let us also not forget the 1980
recommendation by the City Council that the minimum lot size outside the Urban
Services Line should be 1.5 acres (see Atascadero News, Feb. b, 1980). What will be
the longterm cumulative effects?
What effect will the development in the west, of which this parcel is just a part, have
on the Chicago Grade Landfill? How will the City dispose of the additional sludge
from pumped septic systems? This is already a problem.
What effect will urbanization of this huge area have on stormwater run-off? More
driveways, roofs, culverts, and roads, all contribute to decreased lagtime in Graves
Creek, increasing the passibility for flooding in already developed areas of the creek.
Finally, what studies have been done to identify prehistoric archaeological sites in
this large area of the City?
Very truly yours,
Stephen P. LaSalle
(�
' 6y 0
8765 Sierra Vista Rd.
Atascadero, CA 93422
October 28, 1989
Mayor Rollin Dexter
Members of Atascadero City Council
6500 Palma Ave.
Atascadero, CA 93422
Dear Mayor Dexter and members of the Council :
The Santa Cruz lot split (Tentative Parcel Map 16-89 and 89-173)
by itself could present less than a serious environmental impact.
However, this lot split is of major significance as the fore-
runner of thousands of acres of lot splits yet to follow in
western Atascadero.
Atascadero has an overall acreage of about 24,C00 acres. The west-
ern area includes Las Encinas I, II and III, Long Valley ranches,
The Highlands and all of 3F Meadows which is about to add a huge
area along San Marcos Road. In fact the whole western section of
about 10,000 acres is almost equal in size to the presently de-
veloped and developing other areas of Atascadero.
The Las Encinas roads have been built by private agreement between
the developer and the former city engineer. No California Environ-
mental aality Act guidlines were followed. Now this whole area
seems to be proceeding to develop on a lot by lot Negative Declar-
ation for each lot split which means no cumulative impacts will be
considered. An environmental study on the entire area- is needed in
order to consider the total effects on drainage, traffic, water use
and sources, flooding, siltation of creeks, noise pollution, plant
and animal life including trees, emergency response time, and pop-
ulation growth- rate. Only a Master Environmental Impact Study can
consider cumulative effects and provide information for decision-
making. A lot split by lot split Negative Declaration could result
in grief and costliness to the city and to landowners.
Four of my concerns on the Initial Study Environmental Check List
are land use, population, recreation and noise.
How can anyone without a study say this and subsequent lot splits
will have no significance as to land use? It is common !knowledge
that most purchasers of land of more than minimum acreage buy with
the intent to split, and they are often advised by the realtor as
to the probai2ility of obtaining a split . Purchase of the original
lot can be covered by splitting and selling.
Just this evening Mr. Engen has advised us that a 1989 update on
subdivision applications in the city showsthat 25 existing lots
are proposed to be converted to 145 lots , a aain of 120 building
sites. With 2.7 persons per household that would be a change
k 0 Y Y
from 68 people on 25 lots to 391 people on 145 lots--a 475% or
almost a fivefold increase.
Now try to picture hundreds of lot splits in the western area
divided to accomodate, if not increases of that proportion, in-
creases of 100; and up. Can one honestly give endless Negative
Declarations on all these certain-to-come splits?. Can one in good
faith close one' s eyes and one 's mind to the cumulative effects
of such development?
According to city and state figures Atascadero grew from 2,600
people in 1940 to 9,091 people in 1970. By 1980 the population
was 16, 232. Again, according to city figures, the 1987 popula-
tion was 20,869. The 1988 figures say 22,725 people.
However, in 1987, taking the city' s own figures on building permits
issued from 1980 through December 1986, there were 3,232 single
family and multifamily permits issued. Multiply that number of
permits by 2.7 persons per household and you find an additional
population of 8,726. Add the 8,000 plus to the 16,000 plus and
you'll get 24,958--almost 25,000 people. We are not talking about
building permits and lot splits since December 1986. We are not
talking about 1987. We are not talking about 1988. '.ae are not
talking about 1989. Guess, if you can, what our real population
figure is right now. Try sitting at the Highway 41 and 101 inter-
section for awhile before making your guess.
Add another 10,000 people in the western areas with no environ-
mental impacts? Preposterous !
Let' s take a very brief look at recreation, schools and noise.
There are no provisions as far as I know for open space or parks
in any of these large western areas. Thousands more people will
certainly put a strain on our public parks, lake facilities,
tennis courts, golf course and creek areas.
Schools. Are there any sitesdesignated? Will we plan ahead with
the developers now, or will we wait to search later and buy at
the developer's inflated prices?
Noise is an environment factor of which I am acutely aware.
When we built our home in 1974, planes did not fly overhead; a
siren was a rarity; traffic noises seemed non-existent . The bird
songs were like nothing I had heard in the city--beautiful
sounds. My sister from San Diego could not believe the quiet. �►
Now planes are. common; 101 and 41 traffic is easily heard; motor-
cyclists and three wheelers rip the environment and the eardrums
as they plow the hillsides and the creek beds; cement trucks,
backhoes, tractors and the like chug past our house ; weedeaters,
a t
saws and blowers rend the air; dogs bark, including my own-;
boom boxes in cars and yard radios can spoil a nice day outdoors.
A rock group which played at Atascadero Lake Park on the weekend
of July 4th sent not only music sounds but words of songs all the
way to 3F Meadows. From the 10,000 people here when we arrived
to the probable 25,000 now, the quiet has gone. And the Negative
by Negative Declaration lot splits will take none of these factors
into consideration.
We cannot consider this Santa Cruz lot split by itself. We must
recognize its significance and consider the cumulative impacts
on the developing area and on the entire city.
Sincerely yours,
Doroth F; McNeil
NORTH COUNTY TRIBUNE,THURSDAY,SEPTEMBER 21,1989—PAGE 3
Engineer pact with
queried
�develo er
p
,By.Ryan McCarthy resident John McNeil asked. "I'm
Telegram-Tribune asking for you to take a hard look at
this agreement."
ATASCADERO—A pact between a McNeil called for an investigation
developer and City Engineer Paul into whether the developer-city engi-
Sensibaugh came under question.* neer pact met the requirements of the
Tuesday. city's General Plan and state environ-
The 1986 agreement supposedly mental law.
allowed developer Gordon'T.Davis to "As the public we're entitled to
bypass the normal review and ap- answer to questions,"he said. ,
proval procedure required before Planning Commissioner Geraldine
roads are accepted'into the city's road Brasher said"none of us were aware"
system• of the developer-city engineeer.pact.
The agreement called for the city to Planner Steve DeCamp said the
accept,without normal review,roads pact is"the only one of its kind in the
Davis planned in western Atascadero. city." However, Community Develop-
The pact also allowed Davis to do ment Director Henry Engen said
rough grading before submitting engi- Wednesday that Davis had a similar
neering plans,usually required before agreement with the city Public Works
work is done. Department in 1983.
The pact came to light Tuesday Davis surprised Atascadero library
when Lobo Investments, Inc., ap- officials in August with a $100,000
peared before the city Planning Com- donation towards future expansion.
mission,seeking approval to split a 9- The lot split request also brought
acre parcel at 9350 Santa Cruz Road, comment Tuesday from city Fire
into two building sites. Marshall Vern Elliot.
The firm,which bought the proper- He told commissioners that it could
ty from,Davis, objected to a require- take up to 20 minutes for a fire engine
ment concerning,°the road to the to reach the building site.
property. -Elliot said a fire sprinkler system
The requirement called for road should be required for homes built on
plans to be drawn up by a civil the two parcels, and commissioners
engineer, and submitted for city agreed to include the system as as a
review and approval. - condition of development
Representing Lobo` Investments, Elliot's comments follow a warning
Philip Baldner told .commissioners by Fire Chief Mike Hicks during July I
such a requirement had been waived budget hearings about problems with
under an agreement With city engi- Ere protection service to new homes
neer Sensibaugh. in the western part of the city.
Sensibaugh, who heads the city's Hicks said home building in the i
Public Works Department,was not at remote sections of the city with
Tuesday's meeting. He could not be rugged terrain meant delayed re-
reached for comment Wednesday. sponse tunes by the city Ere depart-
However, city planner Steve De- ment.
Camp said the agreement was not The lot split request with the
legally binding. aeco
mpanying fire sprinkler and road i
While the commission did vote to requirements was approved with
require that road plans be submitted Commissioners Jaime Lopez-Balton-:
as a condition of approving the lot tin, George Highland, Don Hanauer
split, the 4-3 vote came only after and Ken Waage voting yes.
questions were raised about the pact Commissioners George Luna,Den-
between the city engineer and the nis Lochridge and Brasher vgtedno.
developer. During discussion, Commissioner
"What possible autbority did Sensi- George Luna said "this is not just a ,
baugh have to enter into an agree- simple subdivision of one lot into
ment -with Gordon Davis?" asked two.,,
NORTH COUNTY TRIBUNE,THURSDAY,SEPTEMBER 28,1989—PAGE 3
Public
. access issue
dividesa E
commissi
on
13y Ryan McCarthy
Telegram.Trdbnne City manager:
ATASCADERO — The city's land-
use
and-
use 's tto seeo building fees
public has a
property where development is pro-
The fight for public access to could be higher
proposed development sites is being ATASCADERO - City Manager
led by city Planning Commissioner Ray Windsor suggested development
George Luna, fees are too low during his recent talk
"I don't think it's proper for me as a to the Homeowners Association.
commissioner to flash my city I.D. Ms comments came when resident
badge to visit those sites when John McNeil asked, "Have we really
members of the public do not have the ..charged enough develoment fees?"
==the
said the slow growth "I don't think I could look you in the
advocate, when the issue arose dur- face and say`Yes,' "Windsor replied
ing last week's Planning Commission
meeting. Community Development Director
Luna recalled that he became Henry Engen, whose office collects
interested in Atascadero politics the fees,said` 9're low compared
to a lot of communities in Ca
when he saw trees being bulldozedlifornia.
% Engen said the city made a major
across from his home.
When o investigated,Luna said he increase in 1986 when it set new fees.
"Itwas quite a changef,,om the
was accused of trespassing-some- On a new how that would sellr
thing other residents could face if about 8200,000, Engen said, the city
they took an interest in land-use now collects about$2,270 in fees.The
issues. ci{y also collects another $3,100 in
Two other planning commissioners fees are turned over to the
12
said they encountered a locked gate schools,that he said.
proposed m western
whenvision trying to visit land where a Fees are based on a building's slze.
suis
Atascadero. =- Byan May
When commissioners have trouble
seeing the property, the public has
even less of a chance, the officials
said
"I don't feel that the public was
given ample opporunity to view the
property,"said commissionChairman
Dennis e Geraldine Cocher
"The public should have access,"
she said."The public,I'm sure,lois no
awareness ofhow theye get seem."
While the trio called on applicants
to make sure the public has access to
proposed development.�sltes, other
panel members disagreed
""I don't think we can always have
everybody in the city have access to
Atascadero'spopulation
tops
by Tony Brown persons living here. That's a 4.9 An estimated 8,023 housing
Staff Writer percent increase over a year ago units exist in Atascadero. Of
when the total was 19,901. these, 5,471 are single-family
. Almost all Atascadero residences. Multi-family figures
Atascadero has broken the residents, 20,472,, live in state there are 719 units contain-
20,000-resident population bar- "households, a statistical ed in structures with between two
rier for the first time, according category that includes single- and four apartments each.
to figures released this month by family homes, apartments and Buildings with five or more
the California Department of mobile homes. About 400 per- apartments account for 1,303
Finance. sons live in "group quarters," units.
According to the annnal the category that includes nursing There are an estimated 530
estimate, there are now 20,869 homes and school dormitories. mobile homes in Atascadero
r.
t int a
20," ; 4.9
p
ercent rowth
9
housing 868 persons. in incorporated municipalities. There were 192,091 persons liv-
Of the slightly more than 8,000 Another 83,000 live in unincor- ing in San Luis Obispo County
total units, 7,519 are occupied. porated areas. last,year.
This translates to a 6.28 percent The housing scenario shows a Updated population estimates
vacancy rate. total of 81,795 units, over 53,000 for other cities in the county are:
Average population per of which are single-family homes. San Luis Obispo' City, 38,307
household in Atascadero is 2.7 There are about 19,000 apart- (3'8,037 last year); Paso Robles,
persons,according to the Finance ments in the county, and 9,300 14,719(13,764); Arroyo Grande,
Department report. mobile homes. 13,319 (13,270); Grover City,
Total population countywide is The overall vacancy rate is 9.87 10,624 . (10,179); Morro Bay,
now estimated at 198,220: There percent, and there are 2.49 per- 9,825 (9,838); Pismo Beach,
are about 114,000 persons living sons living in each household. 6,950(6,536).
co
--� - a k� ~
Y A
ial I
v
LUA&S, ,, „, CO.)_ o �.
p�► ca . .
Ste• IN
� ,�`�- �
co,
-fit
tl AAs &,A
18-t
a46
y
cc S
CDs
z9 Oil,
E $ > / 3�
TT o
4� LM a3 VJ
•
t e s
Continued from A-1
the demographic research section of G ro\Anh initiative
the state Finance Department are
estimates, based on enation col-
lected since the 1980 federal census, gains support
The fastest growing city with a An initiative that would cut the
population of more than 50,009 was county's growth rate in half has won the
Corona,which increased 16 8 percent endorsement of the local and state
during 1988 to 61,000 people. The chapters of the Sierra Club.
fastest growing city under 50,000 popu- The initiative is being advocated by
lation,Corcoran,increased 43 percent. the Fair Share group, which is now
to 11,000 people,due to in a to the a state trying to collect enough signatures to
construction and opening put the measure on the June 1990 ballot,
prison nearby. The measure would tie the county's
California's
largest 3,400,500 and .growth to the average statewide growth.
les—grew percen That would cut the county's growth rate
the second largest, San Diego, in- roughly in half, to around 2 percent
creased 2.7 p annually.
to 1,086,600. .
The fifth largest,Long$eac� grew Both the local Santa Lucia chapter �
1.3 percent to 419,800;the sixth largest, and Sierra Club California have ap-
Oakland, increased 0.1 percent to proved the measure, said Santa Lucia r
356,300;the seventh largest,Sacramen- chapter president Rich Ferguson. a
to, grew 1.6 percent to 339,900; the Ferguson,who lives in Creston,was
eighth biggest, Fresno, grew 3.4 per- one of the authors of the Fair Share
cent to 317,800; Anaheim, the ninth growth control measure.
largest,increased 0.5 percent to2.5
300; the tenth, Santa Ana, grew
percent to.237,300. 78,000;Moreno Valley,up 11.5 percent e
Officials said the greatest growth to 101,3000;Lancaster,up 10 3 percent C
occurred in several regions of South- to 82,200; Vista, up 9.6 percent to M
ern California that have been increas- 61,700; Rancho Cucamonga, up 9.5 in
Ing rapidly in recent years, including percent to 104,700; Oceanside, up 9.1 z1
the Inland Empire area of San Bernar- percent to,117,600; Pleasanton,up 7.7
dino and Riverside counties,northern percent to 52,000; Redding, up 7.4 h-
San Diego County and the Antelope percent to 59,800; and Escondido, up of
Valley-Western Mojave Desert section 6.2 percent to 99,000. E
of northern Los Angeles and San ,ager Cothran, the fastest growing hi
Bernardino counties. potions under,50;000
Coro , . �growidg 'were Sou s, up 28.7 percent to
Aftercities with populations over 50,000 33,800;Ione, up 23.3 percent to 5,600; f
were Fontana, up 11.6 percent to Perris,up22Apercent to15,200- tf
s
October 34, 1989
Members of the Council;
I have carefully read the City's written responses to my three questions regarding
the selection procedures to appoint the recent Planning Commissioner. I agree with
much of what you have to say.
You state that the City Council is given wide discretionary powers in these matters.
You also state that the "Council should make every effort to follow its terms and
condition unless and until they are modified or rescinded". I firmly agree with both
points. You make the point that a Resolution can be changed by a majority vote.
Nowhere in your responses have you said that you sought out a majority vote to
change an established procedure, nor was it done. Since the balloting process in Res.
35-81 is nothing more than common sense, this procedure has been followed in the
past, whether the Council knew it or not. Clearly it should be followed until changed
by majority vote.
Let us look at your responses:
Ray Windsor states:
. . .pmt Ap tear. . .had ilhfic-ated at the* AP9. nnina of the "Ptinj& A46VTO
av, c`a+% atarr re*oe*,ica a liWinate d
Iq%W ems,ivt*rarion. . I
. . .fir th* final AalJotx Je*amtin:� cro to uJt�rate+ a=e*Je*c tic�n.. th* AtUA?r
Aoi.te tw, that as ionsy is ant/ oanvirtate* r-on nrA►v' to rm"oe*ive* at Je*ast one
wev!, rhaul &cwlmt tae* "P to r~.zn in then balloting a7riJ thzw ca)te*s
mere ma6r* ine*o: . .
What Mayor Dexter indicatedat the beginning of the meeting is not in conflict with
Resolution 35-81. Clearly, to say that those who receive no votes will be dropped is
not to say those who receive one vote will remain. Besides, the Mayor never
verbalized his befiefi to keep candidates with only one vote in the process.
Mayor Dexter states:
. . .&J1 10.*7 J JI .isr, u7t1e*" a Asior-i of the ootpl ul saw fir ar that
two ro owsrican a7d caUIW rho prom.-PtAlre s r a wad,AM~
.k'-WAFW/W.1V . .
You had not articulated your"method". You never polled the members on the
council,nor did you give them an opportunity to vote on this change.
Mayor Dexter states:
.. .eavn Mere* a .res-a&rion jm*2 i as A4a. A57-*J t isre d heoitar. as al a arlp
e*1NMe Y,#r*rf M rhe* At. Wr Is reWorr, rhe*re* aeras Ypmr&wP ears e*ek*rk*w Is
Parr air re its A is;re owe*. . .
You never asked the members of the council of their possible knowledge of any
existing rules and regulations concerning voting methods. Marge Mackey made the
motion to approve resolution 35-81. You did not ask her.
i,
Ray Windsor states:
. , .In this c au e., /kv~r., the zvonrcl clear** repelrctx t/krt A . M.L%V
Aar- Heir f+~ ,seed in they intmca"ning Avars a&* to the tart thor its
existe m,e after JAU mw e+ithe"r ncpt hrxvm or nc-pt re Api-enced it the
atnorcypriate" t.ive. . .
Again, Marge Mackey made the motion to approve Res. 35-81. It can not be said
that it was not known. In fact, there was a well-known and well-covered controversy
which led to Res. 35-81; I have enclosed copies of newspaper reports. However, let
me reiterate that Res. 35-81 is nothing but a common sense voting procedure and
has been used to appoint six out of the last seven Commissioners.
Ray Windsor states:
. . . the Wt-*W-0 VhAnW of a 1*3ZiS1Jtiear+ t X*/ in Sele 0ting sONOWYe W
fill a c4uwww carp a hoarol or c amussim is to aswure itself a7d they
AwAVYe. that it is Awe 41 AmL ori*,# ,ote, Ws Imp .is efts is
soca UW.f~- the OrW0dWV t *1 Jr is 0XrMtid"J1 0 S00004(rV A Wtter,
A majority vote is meaningless to the public unless it is reached through a fair
process assured by "uniformity of proceeding in business, not subject to the caprice of
the chairman, or captiousness of the members. It is very material that order, decency
and regularity be preserved in a dignified public body" (Robert's Rules of Order,
Preface).
In a Memorandum, dated October 4, 1989 to the City Council
Ray Windsor states:
Your method wed for the last 4'ciw,►.iss2on Jaw ntfenc, &Uth the emweim
at not el.Winiting in -%-0q&fM7e?, ,, in AIS/ 4ainican, dW good ds AW/ tieing
,seed.
Of course it was. The exception Mr. Windsor so clearly identifies is the critical flaw
in the balloting process that I have been objecting to from the beginning. That flaw is
not eliminating in
Very truly yours,
Stephen P. LaSalle
Letters to
the editor
Pressure
groups _ =that all uw
of At dero
wW!ears from this am
lk is for awn► haft.26 anocmob to
To the editor:
Since I was out of town at the time of And tboee'p �
posed of people wbo are more interested
the Atasaadera fn ffieir own podbKboob than in the
poistments and ri aoly a t3ew 'OL-1 AftmeWm
ago, I bate not'bad an opporteait3► to - of
ezpress my views in teat matter. I am � �or-
�tbat° 'am. It b �Lo n� box tit own ttf w+bo
ear. Cmdrary to a rst, I wast to maize me t M very ,may bves Araemdero and Ib
the A maws aces JJ�2P,2 did not i QUAHUSS will take an SO& Wermid in
o
any
time, !n nay puce, or is any mooitorbrg botb the C*Windt and the
at
at anr whstsoever approach any mem- ; g Oammiasiaa.Anted their most.
ab
ber at the Qty CAwuudi coon mg my kDok4P3o a go wet t they we
r MWP to the Cocan s- &ft if yowl do not Iiiae what they are
dao. !bat statement was entirely fate.. �6 and some Gem tbeua�i m you and
Mayor Willdns did approach me on the Lara what fire amoral Pian stye aced
m
steed downtown one day and ask if I make sura k toilawe .
I want to espreas y gratitude to the
'Mended to apply for reappaen.- MY maay people wbo both P and
reply was that at that time I bad not yet ptvgY me bdfae the cep•
deddedwbetbertoapply wnot. polahneftwere made aid wbo have
The orhOW Plamming Commim m was dace shown me tbwdr concern and appre-
a very well-balanced Vm p. repremading datiom
many facet; of the 00amoofty bus- My abort term an fire Planning Goon.
nook bdVing, law, °ducatian, am neo' mission was an intensely h*eu wg e:
for citizens— and the members were in
agibemad an mod Weems, probably at challenge.
both a pleasure and a
Ing in part because they all had the rat Vie. Tt has been a privilege to
*interests of At at„ and ° iia way.
U.'—
Elaine Oglaby
Ataaaadero
Tlw nor. g fs urwwt a`•.
balaneed group at all but b k
wrdghted In favor of u, 1 asst taster
growtX We do act need aeotber Cho mbar
It was my pri4ege fin work eft-and
intimately whb the General Plm&.ibis
gdtde to the him development d Abe-
cadero is to keep it the kind of
conammiq it In always been - weal,
for botb people a and Imer aoimala.That
is wbat Ahmeadem was touoded for,
what the dtizene indicated they wasted
when tbey apix"aved the,General PLn.
and whet people frac other areas came
to enjoy. We must keep ti that wed►, not
kw no growtk but by modwaft,Car+efnlll+
1 the General the guide-
Atasta- dero ' 00:M,
and
the secret ballots
At its meeting July 27, the The attorney general made his
Atascadero City Council refused ruling in response to a request
to reappoint two planning com- from Richard D. Hayen, in 1976
missioners, Leslie Cannon and an assemblyman from the 22nd
Elaine Oglesby, and immediately (Santa Clara)district.
replaced them with Wayne La- In Attorney General Younger's
Prade and William Carroll. opinion, "The Brown Act not
There's nothing wrou with only requires proceedings of
that. Planning commsioners bodies within its coverage to be
serve at the- pleasure of the open to public attendance, but
council. What is wrong 'is the also requires such proceedings to
manner in which the new com- be conducted in a manner which
missioners wire chosen. permits full and complete disclo-
The vote t# approve LaPrade sure of the action taken and the
and Carroll as by secret ballot. Participation of individual mem-
The ballots were scraps of paper. bers in such action.
This deprived the people of "The Brown Act is intolerant
Atascadero of knowing how their
.,,of any secrecy at any stage of
elected council members voted to be public." are required
on the replacements for Cannon to be public.
and Oglesby, a move sought by Atascadero citizens should be
pro-growth interests in the city. equally intolerant of city officials
.who advise council members
This is a violation of the Ralph that secrecy is acceptable in an
M. Brown Act, a measure which open meeting and of council
I
uarantees the public's right to members who follow such ad-
know how public business is con- vice.
ducted. The Atascadero City Council
On July 27 Atascadero City should declare its action of July
Attorney Allen Grimes did not 27 void, bring the matter of the
agree. planning commissioners up
again and be`up front with the
The co cii .action was valid, public when it comes to re lac-
. �' P
he said, until a court tells us ing two of them.
otherwise. I dont know of any
ewe that says you have to call
the role so ev+rybody can see
who voted Which way on the
appointment."
It's time to open the lav ks.
On Nov. 17, 6, state -Attor-
ney General velle Yognger
ruled:
"A city council may not, dur-
.ing a public meting, make ap-
pointments to adv. sory
commissions, committer.' and
similar bodies by means' of a
secret ballot."
That's as clear as mountain
spm drinking roster.
0
Woman -asks
. . . . ban
on sd r
c et votes
Former Atascadero Plan- AtascademCity Attorney
ning Commissioner Leslie Allen Grimes told the
Cannon will push for a city council the voting prose.
law banning secret ballot dare
votes by City Council Cannonl�ask.ed to be
members. placed on the council's
Cannon and former Com- Monday agenda or on the
missioner Elaine Oglesby agenda of the Sept. 28
were replaced July 27 by
council members who vot- .said in a letter to
ed on scraps of torn paper, the council that the proce.
a procedure which hid dure confused the public
each council member's and eroded public tmst in
vote from public scrutiny. the council.
Such a procedure'is- a She said Wednesday she
violation of the Brown Act, intends to suggest several
which requires that public model ardina�ces for the
agencies meet openly and council to consider. She
requires full disclosure of said if the council doesn't
agency decisions, accord- ad to l t,SW*ae>ret
ing to a 1876 opinion of votes in the, fie, she'
then-Attorney General Ev- may take legal "action
elle Younger. againstthe city,