The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAgenda Packet 06/25/2002 CITY OF A TASCA DERO 1518 , 1 9 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA TUESDAY, June 25, 2002 7:00 P.M. City of Atascadero 6500 Palma Avenue, 4" Floor Atascadero, California REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY: 6:30 P.M. CLOSED SESSION: 1. PUBLIC COMMENT - CLOSED SESSION 2. Call to Order a.) Conference with labor negotiator (Govt. Code Sec. 54957.6) Agency Negotiator: City Manager Employee organizations: Mid-Management/Professional and Confidential. 3. Adjourn 4. CLOSED SESSION REPORT REGULAR SESSION, 7:00 P.M.: PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Mayor Arrambide ROLL CALL: Mayor Arrambide Mayor Pro Tem Scalise Council Member Clay Council Member Johnson Council Member Luna APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Roll Call COMMUNITY FORUM: (This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons wanting to address the Council on any matter not on this agenda and over which the Council has jurisdiction. Speakers are limited to five minutes. Please state your name and address for the record before making,your presentation. The Council may take action to direct the staff to place a matter of business on a future agenda. A maximum of 30 minutes will be allowed for Community Forum, unless changed by the Council.) COUNCIL ANNOUNCEMENTS AND REPORTS: (On their own initiative, Council Members may make a brief announcement or a brief report on their own activities. Council Members may ask a question for clarification, make a referral to staff or take action to have staff place a matter of business on a future agenda. The Council may take action on items listed on the Agenda.) • A. CONSENT CALENDAR: (All items on the consent calendar are considered to be routine and non-controversial by City staff and will be approved by one motion if no member of the Council or public wishes to comment or ask questions. If comment or discussion is desired by anyone, the item will be removed from the consent calendar and will be considered in the listed sequence with an opportunity for any member of the public to address the Council concerning the item before action is taken.) 1. City Council Minutes — June 11, 2002 ■ City Clerk recommendation: City Council approve the City Council minutes of June 11, 2002. [City Clerk 2. May Disbursements — May 2002 Accounts Payable & Payroll ■ Fiscal impact: $1,142,958.97 Staff recommendation: City Council approve certified City accounts payable, payroll and payroll vendor checks for May 2002. [Administrative Services] 2 B. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. General Plan Update Adoption Hearing - General Plan 2025 / Final EIR GPA 2000-0001 / ZCH 2002-0026 ■ Planning Commission recommendations: City Council: 1. Adopt draft Resolution "A" certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report SCH #2001121027 subject to findings, a Statement of Overriding Considerations and a Mitigation Monitoring Program; and 2. Adopt draft Resolution "B approving General Plan Amendment 2000-0001 to adopt a new General Plan Policy document and diagrams for the Land Use, Open Space, Conservation, Circulation, Safety, Noise and Housing Elements; and 3. Introduce for first reading by title only the draft Ordinance "A" approving Zoning Map amendment 2002-0026 to amend the zoning map consistent with the General Plan. [Community Development] C. COMMITTEE REPORTS: (The following represent standing committees. Informative status reports will be given, as felt necessary.): Mayor Arrambide 1. S.L.O. Council of Governments (SLOCOG)/S.L.O. Regional Transit Authority (SLORTA) 2. Water Committees 3. County Mayor's Round Table Mayor Pro Tem Scalise 1. Finance Committee 2. City / Schools Committee 3. Atascadero State Hospital Advisory Board 4. Economic Vitality Corporation, Board of Directors (EVC) Council Member Luna 1. Finance Committee 2. Integrated Waste Management Authority (IWMA) 3. North County Homeless Coalition Council Member Johnson 1. Local Agency Formation Commissions (LAFCO) 2. Water Committees Council Member Clay 1. Air Pollution Control District (APCD) 2. City / Schools Committee D. INDIVIDUAL DETERMINATION AND/OR ACTION: 1 . City Council 2. City Clerk 3. City Treasurer 4. City Attorney 5. City Manager 3 E. ADJOURNMENT: Please note: Should anyone challenge an y proposed that person may be limited to raising those issues a d essed at�the public hearinent entitment g described ssted on 'nth snnotice cor in written correspondence delivered to the City Council at or prior to this public hearing. I, Marcia McClure Torgerson, the City Clerk of the City of Atascadero, declare under the of of perjury that the foregoing agenda for the June 25, 2002 Regular Session of the Atascadero City Council was posted on June 19, 2002 at Atascadero City Hall, Atascadero, CA 93422 and was available for public review in the City Cle kOs0 officeaa t that location. Signed this 19" day of June, 2002 at Atascadero, California. Marcia McClure Torgerson, City Cie City of Atascadero w 4 City of Atascadero WELCOME TO THE ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL MEETING The City Council meets in regular session on the second and fourth Tuesday of each month at 7:00 p.m., in the Council Chamber of City Hall. Matters are considered by the Council in the order of the printed Agenda. Copies of the staff reports or other documentation relating to each item of business referred to on the Agenda are on file in the office of the City Clerk(Room 311) available for public inspection during City Hall business hours. An agenda packet is also available for public review at the Atascadero Library, 6850 Morro Road. Contracts, Resolutions and Ordinances will be allocated a number once they are approved by the City Council. The minutes of this meeting will reflect these numbers. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in a City meeting or other services offered by this City, please contact the City Manager's Office, (805) 461-5010, or the City Clerk's Office, (805)461-5074. Notification at least 48 hours prior to the meeting or time when services are needed will assist the City staff in assuring that reasonable arrangements can be made to provide accessibility to the meeting or service. TO SPEAK ON AGENDA ITEMS Members of the audience may speak on any item on the agenda. The Mayor will identify the subject, staff will give their report, and the Council will ask questions of staff. The Mayor will announce when the public comment period is open and will request anyone interested to address the Council regarding the matter being considered to step up to the podium. If you wish to speak for, against or comment in any way: • You must approach the podium and be recognized by the Mayor • Give your name and address(not required) • Make your statement • All comments should be made to the Mayor and Council • All comments limited to 5 minutes(unless changed by the Council) • No one may speak for a second time until everyone wishing to speak has had an opportunity to do so, and no one may speak more than twice on any item. The Mayor will announce when the public comment period is closed, and thereafter, no further public comments will be heard by the Council. TO SPEAK ON SUBJECTS NOT LISTED ON THE AGENDA Under Agenda item, "COMMUNITY FORUM", the Mayor will call for anyone from the audience having business with the Council to: • Please approach the podium and be recognized • Give your name and address • State the nature of your business This is the time items not on the Agenda may be brought to the Council's attention. A maximum of 30 minutes will be allowed for Community Forum(unless changed by the Council). TO HAVE ITEMS PLACED ON AGENDA All business matters to appear on the Agenda must be in the Office of the City Manager ten days preceding the Council meeting. Should you have a matter you wish to bring before the Council, please mail or bring a written communication to the City Manager's office in City Hall prior to the deadline. ITEM NUMBER: A-1 DATE: 06/25/2002 " CITY OF A TASCA DERO CITY COUNCIL DRAFT MINUTES TUESDAY, June 11, 2002 7:00 P.M. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY: 6:30 P.M. CLOSED SESSION: • 1 . PUBLIC COMMENT-CLOSED SESSION None 2. Call to Order a.) Conference with legal counsel - Pending litigation (Govt. Code Sec.54956.9) Diamond v City of Atascadero b.) Conference with labor negotiator (Govt. Code Sec. 54957.6) Agency Negotiator: City Manager Employee organizations: Mid-Management/Professional and Confidential. 3. Adjourn 4. CLOSED SESSION REPORT City Attorney Roy Hanley announced there was no reportable action taken. CC 06/11/02 001 Page 1 ITEM NUMBER: A-1 DATE: 06/25/2002 REGULAR SESSION, 7.00 P.M.: • Mayor Arrambide called the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m. and Council Member Luna led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL: Present: Council Members Clay, Johnson, Luna, Scalise and Mayor Arrambide Others Present: City Clerk Marcia McClure Torgerson Staff Present: City Manager Wade McKinney, Community Development Director Warren Frace, Administrative Services Director Rachelle Rickard, Redevelopment Specialist John Jansons, Assistant City Manager Brady Cherry, Deputy Community Services Director Geoff English, Police Chief Dennis Hegwood, Fire Chief Kurt Stone and City Attorney Roy Hanley. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: • MOTION: By Council Member Luna and seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Scalise to approve the agenda. Motion passed 5.0 by a roll-call vote. PRESENTATIONS: 1. Proclamation declaring June 10 & 11, 2002, "Special Olympics-Law Enforcement Torch Run Days." Mayor Arrambide presented the proclamation to Police Officer Brian Berry. Officer Berry thanked the Council and shared some of the history of the Special Olympics and local fund raising events connected with them. COMMUNITY FORUM: Betty Scanlan, 6390 Flores Road, asked the Council to videotape their meetings. is CC 06/11/02 002 Page 2 ITEM NUMBER: A- 1 DATE: 06/25/2002 Daphne Fahsing stated she has spoken with Mr. Mathews of AGP Video. He told • her that the City Manager is in negotiation with them about videotaping Council meetings for Charter Communications Channel 20. (Attachment A) Mayor Arrambide closed the Community Forum period. COUNCIL ANNOUNCEMENTS AND REPORTS: Council Member Clay asked the City Manager for a report on his son who has recently become a United States Marine. Mr. McKinney reported that his- son would be wearing his Marine uniform for his high school graduation color guard as well as the graduation ceremony. A. CONSENT CALENDAR: 1. City Council Minutes - May 28, 2002 ■ City Clerk recommendation: City Council approve the City Council minutes of May 28, 2002. [City Clerk] 2. Contract Amendment - Board of Administration of the California Public Employees' Retirement System (CaIPERS) ■ Fiscal impact: Change in Total Employer Rate 2.762% ■ Staff recommendation: Council introduce for second reading by title only, and adopt the draft Ordinance authorizing an amendment to the contract between the City Council of the City of Atascadero and the Board of Administration of the California Public Employees' Retirement System. [Administrative Services] 3. City Text Changes to Sign Code - Zone Change 2002-0022 ■ Fiscal impact: Staff has not identified a fiscal impact for these suggested changes. ■ City Attorney recommendation: Council introduce for second reading by title only, and adopt the draft Ordinance adopting the proposed amendments to the sign code for the City of Atascadero. [City Attorney] 4. Food and Beverage Concessions and Catering Agreement — Pavilion on the Lake ■ Fiscal impact: Revenue of $150.00 per month, plus a percentage of on-site sales, and a percentage of on and off-site catering services. ■ Staff recommendation: Council authorize the City Manager to enter into a three-year agreement with Vintage Cafe,a partnership between Glenn Olher and Cathy Johnson to operate the Pavilion Concession Stand / Cafeand to provide on-site catering services at the Pavilion. [Community Services] 5. Request to Plant a Memorial Tree At Atascadero Lake Park ■ Fiscal impact: None. ■ Staff recommendation: Council approve the request of the family of Daniel E. Carney to plant a Memorial Tree at Atascadero Lake Park. [Community Services] CC 06/11/02 003 Page 3 ITEM NUMBER: A-1 DATE: 06/25/2002 6. Agreement for the Disposition of Surplus City Vehicles — Ken Porter Auctions i ■ Fiscal impact: Undetermined revenue amount. ■ Staff recommendation: Council authorize the City Manager to execute the Draft one- year agreement with Ken Porter Auctions to sell surplus City vehicles. [Community Services] 7. Final Parcel Map 2002-0025 - (Parcel Map ATAL 01-474) [LLA 2001-00351 6155 San Anselmo Road (Gearhart/Wilson) ■ Fiscal impact: None. ■ Staff recommendation: Council: 1. Accept Final Parcel Map 2002-0025 (Parcel Map ATAL 01-474); and, 2. Accept offers of dedication for street purposes. [Public Works] 8. Human Services Grant ■ Fiscal impact: Budgeted at $20,000. ■ Staff recommendation: Council approve Human Services Grants to the Agencies and in the amounts recommended by the Finance Committee. [City Manager] Council Member Clay pulled Consent Calendar Item #A-8. MOTION: By Council Member Luna and seconded by Johnson to approve Consent Calendar Items #A-1 through 7. Motion passed 5.0 by a roll-call vote. (Item #A-4 Contract No. 2002-012, Item #A-6 Contract No. 2002-013) • ITEM #A-8: Council Member Clay commented that he would like to see the Human Services Grant money spent either in Atascadero or in the north county as much as possible. Council Member Luna explained that the county-wide organizations always list on their applications how much of the money they receive would be spent in Atascadero, and generally they spend more in the community than they are given. MOTION: By Council Member Clay and seconded by Council Member Johnson to approve Consent Calendar Item #A-8. Motion passed 5.0 by a roll-call vote. B. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. Downtown Parking & Business Improvement Area Confirmation of Annual Assessment — Fiscal Year 2002-03 ■ Fiscal impact: $10,500 from Downtown Parking & Business Improvement Area Fund. ■ Staff recommendation: Council adopt the Draft Resolution confirming annual assessment for Downtown Parking & Business Improvement Area (Fiscal Year 2002-03). [City Manager] CC 06/11/02 Page 004 ITEM NUMBER: A-1 DATE: 06/25/2002 • Redevelopment Specialist John Jansons gave the staff report and answered questions of Council. PUBLIC COMMENT Bob Wilkins, President of Main Street, urged the Council to approve this Resolution. Mayor Arrambide closed the Public Comment period. MOTION: By Council Member Luna and seconded by Council Member Johnson to adopt the Draft Resolution confirming the annual assessment for Downtown Parking & Business Improvement Area. Motion passed 5.0 by a roll-call vote. (Resolution No. 2002- 022) 2. Sewer Services Fees Placement on Property Taxes ■ Fiscal impact: Revenue of $1,456,595.92 in sanitation service charges (FY 2002-03). ■ Staff recommendation: Council adopt the Draft Resolution adopting service charges to be added to the 2002-03 property tax rolls. [Public Works] City Manager Wade McKinney gave the staff report and answered questions of • Council. PUBLIC COMMENT — None MOTION: By Council Member Luna and seconded by Council Member Clay to adopt the Draft Resolution adopting service charges to be added to the 2002-03 property tax rolls. Motion passed 5.0 by a roll-call vote. (Resolution No. 2002- 023) C. MANAGEMENT REPORTS: 1. Mid-Cycle Budget Review ■ Fiscal impact: For all funds and years: total net revenue adjustments $1,320,030; total expenditure adjustments $1,320,030; total reserve adjustment $75,000. ■ Staff recommendation: Council adopt the Draft Resolution amending the budgets for fiscal years 2001-2002 and 2002-2003. [Administrative Services] City Manager Wade McKinney gave the staff report and answered questions of Council. . PUBLIC COMMENT - None CC 06/11/02 ®5 Page 5 ITEM NUMBER: A-1 DATE: 06/25/2002 Council Member Johnson announced that when Council originally passed the budget he had stepped down because it contained an EVC element, however, as • that portion is not effected by this resolution he would not need to step down. Council Member Johnson thanked staff for their professional management of Atascadero's finances. MOTION: By Mayor Pro Tem Scalise and seconded by Council Member Luna to adopt the Draft Resolution amending the budgets for fiscal years 2001-2002 and 2002-2003. Motion passed 5.0 by a roll-call vote. (Resolution No. 2002- 024) 2. Proposal to Increase the Transient Occupancy Tax (Hotel Bed Tax) ■ Fiscal impact: Additional revenue of approximately $29,000 per year, with a one-time cost of $9,345.00 for the ballot measure. ■ Staff recommendation: 1. Submit to the General Electorate the following question for the Tuesday, November 5, 2002 General Election: Shall an Ordinance amending Section 3-3.03 of the Atascadero Municipal Code to increase the Transient Occupancy Tax (hotel/motel bed tax) rate from 9% to 10% be adopted? 2. Review, modify as appropriate and approve the draft Argument in Favor of the proposed ballot measure. [City Manager] Redevelopment Specialist John Jansons gave the staff report and answered • questions of Council. PUBLIC COMMENT - None Council Member Luna stated that the Council is not raising taxes through this resolution, but rather giving the citizens an opportunity to raise this tax if they wish to. MOTION: By Council Member Johnson and seconded by Council Member Luna to submit to the General Electorate the following question for the Tuesday, November 5, 2002 General Election: Shall an ordinance amending Section 3-3.03 of the Atascadero Municipal Code to increase the Transient Occupancy Tax from 9% to 10% be adopted and to review, modify as appropriate and approve the draft Argument in Favor of the proposed ballot measure as written. Motion passed 5.0 by a roll-call vote. CC 06/11/02 Page 6 ITEM NUMBER: A- 1 DATE: 06/25/2002 • 3. General Municipal Election ■ Fiscal impact: Approximately $10,340 for the election of four vacancies and approximately $9,345.00 one-time cost for the ballot measure. ■ City Clerk recommendation: Council adopt recommendation A or B: A. Council adopt the following Resolutions for the purpose of electing two members to the City Council, a City Clerk and a City Treasurer: 1. Draft Resolution A, calling and giving notice of the holding of a General Municipal Election to be held on Tuesday, November 5, 2002, and; 2. Draft Resolution B, requesting the Board of Supervisors of the County of San Luis Obispo to consolidate a General Municipal Election to be held on November 5, 2002. Or B. Council adopt the following Resolutions for the purpose of electing two members to the City Council, a City Clerk, a City Treasurer and to submit to the voters a question relating to a proposed increase in Transient Occupancy Taxes: 1. Draft Resolution C, calling and giving notice of the holding of a General Municipal Election to be held on Tuesday, November 5, 2002, and; 2. Draft Resolution D, requesting the Board of Supervisors of the County of San Luis Obispo to consolidate a General Municipal Election to be held on November • 5, 2002, and; 3. Draft Resolution E, setting priorities for filing written arguments regarding a City measure and directing the City Attorney to prepare an impartial analysis, and; 4. Draft Resolution F, providing for the filing of rebuttal arguments for City measures submitted at Municipal Elections. [City Clerk] City Clerk Marcia McClure Torgerson gave the staff report and answered questions of Council. PUBLIC COMMENT - None MOTION: By Mayor Pro Tem Scalise and seconded by Council Member Johnson to adopt draft Resolutions C, D, E and F for the purpose of electing two members to the City Council, the City Clerk and the City Treasurer and to submit to the voters a question relating to the proposed Transient Occupancy Tax increase. Motion passed 5.0 by a roU-call vote. (Resolution No. 2002- 025, Resolution No. 2002-026, Resolution No. 2002-027 and Resolution No. 2002-028) • CC 06/11/02 007 Page 7 ITEM NUMBER: A-1 DATE: 06/25/2002 4. Loan Agreement - Redevelopment Agency ■ Fiscal impact: Annual revenue from interest earnings. • ■ City Attorney recommendation: Council adopt Draft Resolution approving a loan agreement with the Atascadero Redevelopment Agency. [City Attorney] City Attorney Roy Hanley gave the staff report and answered questions of Council. PUBLIC COMMENT - None MOTION: By Council Member Luna and seconded by Council Member Johnson to adopt Draft Resolution approving a loan agreement with the Atascadero Redevelopment Agency. Motion passed 5.0 by a ro/%ca// vote. (Resolution No. 2002- 029 and Contract No. 2002-014) D. COMMITTEE REPORTS: Mayor Arrambide S.L.O. Council of Governments (SLOCOG)/S.L.O. Regional Transit Authority (SLORTA): The committee reviewed a map of the Urban Area Designation that applies to the north county, and which will allow the north county to compete at a higher level of funding than other parts of the .county. . . County Mayor's Round Table: An affordable housing conference is scheduled for September 14, 2002. People who can made decisions about, and are involved in industries that will allow affordable housing to happen, will be represented. All Council Members are invited to attend. Mayor Pro Tern Scalise Atascadero State Hospital Advisory Board: The Hospital has revamped the Patient Government Program and now has an appointed senator position. The Board met with these patient representatives who have been elected by their wards and reviewed the process they have put together. Council Member Luna Finance Committee: Met and discussed the Human Services Grants. E. INDIVIDUAL DETERMINATION AND/OR ACTION: City Council Council Member Clay stated that he is happy the community is on the threshold of having their own youth center. • CC 06/11/02 008 Page 8 ITEM NUMBER: A-1 DATE: 06/25/2002 • Mayor Arrambide commented on the opening of Barney Schwartz Park in Paso Robles and echoed Council Member Clay's feelings regarding Atascadero's youth center. City Manager Mr. McKinney stated that the Finance Committee reviewed the Interest Earnings Policy and staff will be working closer with this committee as difficult interest times approach to insure that the City keeps its interest earnings as high as possible. Additionally, Mr. McKinney reported that Fire Chief Kurt Stone and the Fire Department, through the Fire Safe Council, have organized a chipping program whereby the City can augment its burning program. F. ADJOURNMENT: Mayor Arrambide adjourned the meeting at 8:10 p.m. to the next regularly scheduled meeting on June 25, 2002. MEETING RECORDED AND MINUTES PREPARED BY: • Marcia McClure Torgerson, City Clerk Attachment A - Daphne Fahsing CC 06/11/02 009 Page 9 Attachment : A Atascadero City Council Meeting 6-11-02 Daphne Fahsing - City Council 6/11/02 I have spoken with Steve Matthews of AGP Video, and I was very pleased to hear that Mr. McKinney is in negotiations with him regarding Charter Communication's offer to produce the city' s Channel 20 for video-taping council -meetings . Mr. Matthews tells me that this could be ready to go by the end of next month, instead of waiting until September for the radio broadcasts . I 've done some asking around, and found that there is very little interest in radio these days, particularly at night. Even with the higher cost of video, I believe it would be more beneficial to the public, and of course you have that $118,000 per year Franchise Tax from Charter which could easily pay for it. i Mr. Matthews tells me that currently he is taping meetings for Morro Bay, Los Osos, Pismo Beach, Arroyo Grande, San Luis Obispo, Cambria and the County. And he is negotiating with Grover Beach and possibly Paso Robles . It 's time Atascadero got on that list . It would be nice if you would keep the public informed of these negotiations , and get the videos on line as soon as possible . Thank you. ITEM NUMBER: A _ 2 DATE: 06/25/2002 Ito I'm 1818 Atascadero City Council Staff Report-Administrative Services Department MAY 2002 ACCOUNTS PAYABLE & PAYROLL RECOMMENDATION Approve certified City accounts payable,payroll and payroll vendor checks for May 2002. DISCUSSION Attached for City Council review and approval are the following: Payroll Dated 05/09/02 Checks# 13819 - 13961 $ 163,635.08 • Dated 05/23/02 Checks# 13962 - 14108 165,015.89 Accounts Payable Dated May 1-31, 2002 Checks # 84155 - 84686 & EFTs 814,308.00 TOTAL AMOUNT $ 1,142,958.97 FISCAL IMPACT Total expenditures for all funds is $ 1,142,958.97 CERTIFICATION The undersigned certifies that the attached demands have been released for payment and that funds are available for these demands. L2ai4� (21)aA' C-)- Rachelle Rickard,Administr ive Services Director Approved by the City Council at a meeting held June 25, 2002. Marcia M. Torgerson, City Clerk ATTACHMENT: May 2002 Eden Warrant Register in the amount of $ 814,308.00 Oil City of Atascadero Disbursement Listing For the Month of May 2002 Check Check Number Date Vendor Description AmounAft 84155 5/2/2002 CAPISTRANO INN Accounts Payable Check 283.80 84156 5/2/2002 PMW ASSOCIATES Accounts Payable Check 338.00 84157 5/2/2002 CAROLE ROBINSON Accounts Payable Check 140.00 84158 5/3/2002 ABBEY GROUP CONSULTANTS Accounts Payable Check 1,619.69 84159 5/3/2002 ACTION TOWING Accounts Payable Check 166.50 84160 5/3/2002 ALBERTSONS Accounts Payable Check 21.43 84161 5/3/2002 AMERICAN WEST TIRE&AUTO INC Accounts Payable Check 612.77 84162 5/3/2002 ANDERSON'S AUTO SERVICES Accounts Payable Check 104.80 84163 5/3/2002 ANIMAL SPECTRUM,INC. Accounts Payable Check 686.40 84164 5/3/2002 ANTECH DIAGNOSTICS Accounts Payable Check 194.25 84165 5/3/2002 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES Accounts Payable Check 341.87 84166 5/3/2002 ARTHURS CONTRACTING,INC. Accounts Payable Check 4,714.13 84167 5/3/2002 ATASCADERO BATTERY EXCHANGE Accounts Payable Check 13.19 84168 5/3/2002 ATASCADERO FORD Accounts Payable Check 1,174.08 84169 5/3/2002 ATASCADERO GLASS,INC. Accounts Payable Check 96.52 84170 5/3/2002 ATASCADERO GREYHOUND ATHLETIC Accounts Payable Check 500.00 84171 5/3/2002 ATASCADERO MUTUAL WATER CO. Accounts Payable Check 4M0 84172 5/3/2002 ATASCADERO NEWS Accounts Payable Check 2,804.04 84173 5/3/2002 ATASCADERO UNIFIED SCHOOL DIST Accounts Payable Check 203.92 84174 5/3/2002 ANGEL CANNON Accounts Payable Check 268.07 84175 5/3/2002 CENTRAL COAST ASSISTIVE Accounts Payable Check 495.00 84176 5/3/2002 CENTRAL COAST PLUMBING SUPPLY Accounts Payable Check 21.02 84177 5/3/2002 CENTRAL COAST SAND BAGS Accounts Payable Check 353.93 84178 5/3/2002 CENTRAL COAST SANITATION Accounts Payable Check 56.60 84179 5/3/2002 NANCY CHALK Accounts Payable Check 22.00 84180 5/3/2002 CHEM CLEAN Accounts Payable Check 576.36 84181 5/3/2002 CHEVRON Accounts Payable Check 3,826.83 84182 5/3/2002 CHEVRON Accounts Payable Check 538.36 84183 5/3/2002 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO Accounts Payable Check 52 383.00 84184 5/3/2002 CJP PRODUCTIONS Accounts Payable Check 1,500.00 84185 5/3/2002 JERRY L.CLAY,SR. Accounts Payable Check 80.00 84186 5/3/2002 COAST ELECTRONICS Accounts Payable Check 493.30 84187 5/3/2002 COASTLINE EQUIPMENT Accounts Payable Check 12.15 84188 5/3/2002 VINCE CONDE Accounts Payable Check 84189 5/3/2002 CONSOLIDATED SEED&PET,INC. Accounts Payable Check 3 0 012 City of Ataseadero Disbursement Listing For the Month of May 2002 Check Check umber Date Vendor Description Amount 84190 5/3/2002 COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO ASSR Accounts Payable Check 529.70 84191 5/3/2002 CRYSTAL SPRINGS WATER Accounts Payable Check 87.00 84192 5/3/2002 D.A.R.E.AMERICA MERCHANDISE Accounts Payable Check 73.00 84193 5/3/2002 DATAPRINT CORPORATION Accounts Payable Check 51.53 84194 5/3/2002 DECOU LUMBER COMPANY Accounts Payable Check 493.25 84195 5/3/2002 DENTPRO Accounts Payable Check 65.00 84196 5/3/2002 DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Accounts Payable Check 1,502.00 84197 5/3/2002 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Accounts Payable Check 1,441.47 84198 5/3/2002 DSP BUSINESS SOLUTIONS Accounts Payable Check 490.00 84199 5/3/2002 DURHAM COMMUNICATIONS INC Accounts Payable Check 6,604.10 84200 5/3/2002 ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY COMMISSIO Accounts Payable Check 4,000.00 84201 5/3/2002 ECONOMIC VITALITY CORP OF SLO Accounts Payable Check 7,747.50 84202 5/3/2002 STEVE&DORIS ERLANSON Accounts Payable Check 150.00 84203 5/3/2002 ESCUELA DEL RIO Accounts Payable Check 67.60 84204 5/3/2002 FEDERAL EXPRESS Accounts Payable Check 22.84 84205 5/3/2002 FERRELL'S AUTO REPAIR Accounts Payable Check 132.00 84206 5/3/2002 FGL ENVIRONMENTAL Accounts Payable Check 162.00 . 84207 5/3/2002 FOOD FOR LESS Accounts Payable Check 124.38 84208 5/3/2002 FORESTRY SUPPLIERS,INC Accounts Payable Check 837.49 84209 5/3/2002 FOX&SOHAGI,LLP Accounts Payable Check 3,542.32 84210 5/3/2002 MARGARET FRANCO Accounts Payable Check 50.00 84211 5/3/2002 GAS COMPANY Accounts Payable Check 903.75 84212 5/3/2002 GEM AUTO PARTS Accounts Payable Check 489.21 84213 5/3/2002 MATTHEW A.GIANAS Accounts Payable Check 240.00 84214 5/3/2002 GOLDEN STATE SYSTEMS Accounts Payable Check 1,152.00 84215 5/3/2002 TIFFANI GREY Accounts Payable Check 20.00 84216 5/3/2002 GRISANTI HARDWARE Accounts Payable Check 1.91 84217 5/3/2002 H.D.PETERSON Accounts Payable Check 195.73 84218 5/3/2002 HANSON AGGREGATES MID-PACIFIC Accounts Payable Check 322.42 84219 5/3/2002 VOID Accounts Payable Check 0.00 84220 5/3/2002 DENNIS HEGWOOD Accounts Payable Check 80.00 84221 5/3/2002 GENE HICKS Accounts Payable Check 324.75 84222 5/3/2002 ICMA Accounts Payable Check 872.00 84223 5/3/2002 INFORMATION SERVICES DIVISION Accounts Payable Check 2,703.91 84224 5/3/2002 ELLEN JAGGER Accounts Payable Check 32.00 013 City of Atascadero Disbursement Listing For the Month of May 2002 Check Check Number Date Vendor Description AmnAft 84225 5/3/2002 JAMES C.CUSHMAN,INC. Accounts Payable Check 3,14'M 84226 5/3/2002 JOHN JANSONS Accounts Payable Check 641.25 84227 5/3/2002 JENCKS LAW GROUP Accounts Payable Check 150.74 84228 5/3/2002 JESPERSEN'S TIRE SERVICE,INC. Accounts Payable Check 363.39 84229 5/3/2002 JIM'S CAMPUS CAMERA Accounts Payable Check 138.86 84230 5/3/2002 RAY JOHNSON Accounts Payable Check 80.00 84231 5/3/2002 KEVIN W.JOURNEY Accounts Payable Check 75.00 84232 5/3/2002 CHUCK KENDRICK Accounts Payable Check 102.00 84233 5/3/2002 BRIAN KENNEDY Accounts Payable Check 90.00 84234 5/3/2002 KEY CONSTRUCTION SERVICES Accounts Payable Check 2,170.00 84235 5/3/2002 KRITZ EXCAVATING&TRUCKING Accounts Payable Check 566.17 84236 5/3/2002 LEONARD J.LA CASTO Accounts Payable Check 51.00 84237 5/3/2002 LAIDLAW TRANSIT SERVICES,INC. Accounts Payable Check 13 889.51 84238 5/3/2002 LIFE ASSIST,INC. Accounts Payable Check 134.34 84239 5/3/2002 LONGS DRUG STORES Accounts Payable Check 44.26 84240 5/3/2002 LYNDON'S AUTOMOTIVE Accounts Payable Check 391.68 84241 5/3/2002 MAINLINE Accounts Payable Check 1 250 0 84242 5/3/2002 MANAGED HEALTH NETWORK,INC. Accounts Payable Check 1 84243 5/3/2002 MARK SIMON SEWER MAINTENANCE Accounts Payable Check 14 819.00 84244 5/3/2002 JOHN MARTINO Accounts Payable Check 131.00 84245 5/3/2002 MAXIMUS Accounts Payable Check 2,150.00 84246 5/3/2002 BECKY MAXWELL Accounts Payable Check 46.53 84247 5/3/2002 RICHARD J.MCCOY Accounts Payable Check 204.00 84248 5/3/2002 WADE MCKINNEY Accounts Payable Check 194.84 84249 5/3/2002 MID-COAST MOWER&SAW Accounts Payable Check 57.60 84250 5/3/2002 PAUL MILLER Accounts Payable Check 85.00 84251 5/3/2002 MISSION UNIFORM SERVICE Accounts Payable Check 132.52 84252 5/3/2002 MUFFLER MAN Accounts Payable Check 25.00 84253 5/3/2002 MUNIFINANCIAL Accounts Payable Check 1,985.70 84254 5/3/2002 NATIONAL CRIME PREVENTION COUN Accounts Payable Check 217.25 84255 5/3/2002 TERRY O'FARRELL Accounts Payable Check 40.00 84256 5/3/2002 OHLIN SALES,INC. Accounts Payable Check 281.88 84257 5/3/2002 OMNI-MEANS,INC. Accounts Payable Check 8,602.00 84258 5/3/2002 ON TRACK GYMNASTICS Accounts Payable Check 15.00 84259 5/3/2002 ORCHARD SUPPLY HARDWARE Accounts Payable Check 2 84260 5/3/2002 OSCAR INTERNATIONAL,INC. Accounts Payable Check 12 014 City of Atascadero Disbursement Listing For the Month of May 2002 Check Check umber Date Vendor Description Amount 84261 5/3/2002 OUTLET TOOL SUPPLY Accounts Payable Check 85.94 84262 5/3/2002 PACIFIC BELL Accounts Payable Check 608.66 84263 5/3/2002 PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC Accounts Payable Check 578.08 84264 5/3/2002 PACIFIC HOME DO IT CENTER Accounts Payable Check 216.34 84265 5/3/2002 PAPER WORKS Accounts Payable Check 143.34 84266 5/3/2002 PASO ROBLES WELDING Accounts Payable Check 251.89 84267 5/3/2002 DAVE PAYTON Accounts Payable Check 324.75 84268 5/3/2002 PENNY MEN Accounts Payable Check 119.70 84269 5/3/2002 PLF,INC. Accounts Payable Check 107.86 84270 5/3/2002 POOR RICHARD'S PRESS Accounts Payable Check 622.64 84271 5/3/2002 BAS PRINS Accounts Payable Check 50.00 84272 5/3/2002 PRO MOTION Accounts Payable Check 656.04 84273 5/3/2002 GRACE L.PUCCI Accounts Payable Check 442.50 84274 5/3/2002 QUILL CORPORATION Accounts Payable Check 1,629.31 84275 5/3/2002 RADIO SHACK Accounts Payable Check 117.95 84276 5/3/2002 RAINBOW MEALWORMS,INC. Accounts Payable Check 47.75 84277 5/3/2002 RANGE MASTERS Accounts Payable Check 1,072.47 • 84278 5/3/2002 RECALL SECURE DESTRUCTION SERV Accounts Payable Check 42.00 84279 5/3/2002 RECOGNITION WORKS Accounts Payable Check 93.84 84280 5/3/2002 JOHN RODGERS Accounts Payable Check 14.50 84281 5/3/2002 ERICK RODRIGUEZ Accounts Payable Check 162.00 84282 5/3/2002 STEVE ROMO Accounts Payable Check 222.00 84283 5/3/2002 SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY SHERIFF Accounts Payable Check 4,407.00 84284 5/3/2002 SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY VISITOR Accounts Payable Check 4,350.00 84285 5/3/2002 SAN LUIS VIDEO SYSTEMS Accounts Payable Check 348.56 84286 5/3/2002 SANTA MARIA TIRE,INC. Accounts Payable Check 54.85 84287 5/3/2002 SCOTT O'BRIEN FIRE&SAFETY CO Accounts Payable Check 478.91 84288 5/3/2002 SHARKEY'S EXCAVATING Accounts Payable Check 50.00 84289 5/3/2002 SHELL Accounts Payable Check 71.30 84290 5/3/2002 SHERATON GRAND HOTEL Accounts Payable Check 701.96 84291 5/3/2002 SIGN OUTLET Accounts Payable Check 631.15 84292 5/3/2002 SIR SPEEDY Accounts Payable Check 18.66 84293 5/3/2002 SLO COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT Accounts Payable Check 50.00 84294 5/3/2002 SOLUTIONS 4 SURE.COM,INC. Accounts Payable Check 840.10 • 84295 5/3/2002 STAPLES INC. Accounts Payable Check 514.06 015 City of Atascadero Disbursement Listing For the Month of May 2002 Check Check Number Date Vendor Description Amo 84296 5/3/2002 STEWART'S WHEEL SHOP Accounts Payable Check 7 84297 5/3/2002 KURT W.STONE Accounts Payable Check 80.00 84298 5/3/2002 SUPERIOR QUALITY COPIERS,INC. Accounts Payable Check 473.58 84299 5/3/2002 SYLVESTER'S SECURITY ALARMS Accounts Payable Check 120.00 84300 5/3/2002 TARVIN&ASSOCIATES Accounts Payable Check 1,900.00 84301 5/3/2002 TAYLOR RENTAL CENTER Accounts Payable Check 62.83 84302 5/3/2002 TEE'S PLUS Accounts Payable Check 67.50 84303 5/3/2002 THE TOURIST,LLC Accounts Payable Check 215.00 84304 5/3/2002 TODD PIPE&SUPPLY Accounts Payable Check 323.64 84305 5/3/2002 MARK TOMES Accounts Payable Check 49.50 84306 5/3/2002 TREADWAY GRAPHICS Accounts Payable Check 276.92 84307 5/3/2002 TRIBUNE Accounts Payable Check 792.77 84308 5/3/2002 UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD Accounts Payable Check 1,055.00 84309 5/3/2002 UNISOURCE MAINT SUPPLY SYSTEMS Accounts Payable Check 442.51 84310 5/3/2002 UNIVERSAL SPECIALTIES,INC. Accounts Payable Check 210.38 84311 5/3/2002 TOM VELASQUEZ Accounts Payable Check 147.00 84312 5/3/2002 VERIZON WIRELESS Accounts Payable Check 102.64 84313 5/3/2002 NANCY VEST Accounts Payable Check 84314 5/3/2002 VIKING OFFICE PRODUCTS Accounts Payable Check 187.15 84315 5/3/2002 VOSE SERVICES Accounts Payable Check 85.00 84316 5/3/2002 W.W.GRAINGER,INC. Accounts Payable Check 335.19 84317 5/3/2002 WENGER CORPORATION Accounts Payable Check 1,134.53 84318 5/3/2002 WESTERN FARM SERVICE,INC. Accounts Payable Check 998.22 84319 5/8/2002 FINANCE DEPARTMENT PETTY CASH Accounts Payable Check 427.13 84320 5/10/2002 ATASCADERO FED.CREDIT UNION Payroll Vendor Payment 4,930.00 84321 5/10/2002 ATASCADERO FIRE DEPT EMP.ASSN Payroll Vendor Payment 240.00 84322 5/10/2002 ATASCADERO MID MGRS ORG UNION Payroll Vendor Payment 30.00 84323 5/10/2002 ATASCADERO POLICE OFFICERS ASN Payroll Vendor Payment 346.00 84324 5/10/2002 COUNTY-CITY EMPLOYEES CU Payroll Vendor Payment 895.00 84325 5/10/2002 EMPLOYMENT DEV DEPARTMENT Payroll Vendor Payment 6,428.42 84326 5/10/2002 EMPLOYMENT DEV.DEPARTMENT Accounts Payable Check 4,286.00 84327 5/10/2002 EMPLOYMENT DEV.DEPARTMENT Payroll Vendor Payment 687.44 84328 5/10/2002 FAMILY SUPPORT DIVISION Payroll Vendor Payment 369.23 84329 5/10/2002 HARTFORD LIFE INSURANCE Payroll Vendor Payment 5,6j 84330 5/10/2002 ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST-457 Payroll Vendor Payment 60 016 City of Ataseadero Disbursement Listing For the Month of May 2002 Check Check umber Date Vendor Description Amount 84331 5/10/2002 KENNEDY CLUB FITNESS Payroll Vendor Payment 79.50 84332 5/10/2002 PERS LONG TERM CARE PROGRAM Payroll Vendor Payment 32.31 84333 5/10/2002 PUBLIC EMPL RETIREMENT SYSTEM Payroll Vendor Payment 17 973.02 , 84334 5/10/2002 SEIU LOCAL 620 AFL-CIO Payroll Vendor Payment 489.89 84335 5/10/2002 FAMILY SUPPORT DIVISION Payroll Vendor Payment 498.00 84336 5/10/2002 UNITED WAY OF SLO COUNTY Payroll Vendor Payment 38.00 84337 5/10/2002 WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK Payroll Vendor Payment 629.51 84338 5/13/2002 CANADA LIFE ASSURANCE CO Payroll Vendor Payment 743.75 84339 5/13/2002 COLONIAL LIFE&ACCIDENT INS. Payroll Vendor Payment 2,007.29 84340 5/13/2002 CPIC LIFE Payroll Vendor Payment 1,481.20 84341 5/13/2002 DELTA DENTAL,ATTN:ACCOUNTING Payroll Vendor Payment 6,911.85 84342 5/13/2002 EQUITABLE LIFE Payroll Vendor Payment 348.88 84343 5/13/2002 LIFEGUARD INC. Payroll Vendor Payment 40 325.31 145 5/14/2002 MID-STATE BANK Payroll Vendor Payment 29,310.92 84344 5/16/2002 ACTION FAX&PRINTER Accounts Payable Check 276.70 • 84345 5/16/2002 EMILY J.ADAMS Accounts Payable Check 87.75 84346 5/16/2002 ADDICTION MEDICINE CONSULTANTS Accounts Payable Check 49.50 84347 5/16/2002 ALLPHASE LANDSCAPE Accounts Payable Check 130.00 84348 5/16/2002 ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT,INC. Accounts Payable Check 2,339.55 84349 5/16/2002 ALLSTEEL,INC. Accounts Payable Check 1,183.78 84350 5/16/2002 AMERICAN SANITATION Accounts Payable Check 193.05 84351 5/16/2002 AMERICAN WEST TIRE&AUTO INC Accounts Payable Check 422.23 84352 5/16/2002 ANDERSON'S AUTO SERVICES Accounts Payable Check 206.39 84353 5/16/2002 PAULA ANTON Accounts Payable Check 300.00 84354 5/16/2002 ARAMARK Accounts Payable Check 95.54 84355 5/16/2002 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES Accounts Payable Check 315.74 84356 5/16/2002 ATASCADERO ART ASSOCIATION Accounts Payable Check 3,625.00 84357 5/16/2002 ATASCADERO FORD Accounts Payable Check 1,554.20 84358 5/16/2002 ATASCADERO MUTUAL WATER CO. Accounts Payable Check 27.00 84359 5/16/2002 ATASCADERO SAW SHOP Accounts Payable Check 68.00 84360 5/16/2002 AVAYA INC. Accounts Payable Check 22.41 84361 5/16/2002 ALAN BAKER Accounts Payable Check 613.44 84362 5/16/2002 BAY LAUREL GARDEN CENTER Accounts Payable Check 56.67 84363 5/16/2002 CINDY K.BENSON Accounts Payable Check 597.10 017 City of Ataseadero Disbursement Listing For the Month of May 2002 Check Check Number Date Vendor Description Amo Ts 84364 5/16/2002 CASEY BRYSON Accounts Payable Check 2 84365 5/16/2002 C.A.P.C.A. Accounts Payable Check 100.00 84366 5/16/2002 CALIF REDEVELOPMENT ASSC Accounts Payable Check 1,275.00 84367 5/16/2002 CALIFORNIA ASSC OF POLICE Accounts Payable Check 40.00 84368 5/16/2002 CALIFORNIA CODE CHECK Accounts Payable Check 2,399.04 84369 5/16/2002 CALIFORNIA PARKS&RECREATION Accounts Payable Check 415.00 84370 5/16/2002 CONSOLIDATED ELECTRICAL CED Accounts Payable Check 273.64 84371 5/16/2002 CELLULARONE Accounts Payable Check 774.90 84372 5/16/2002 CENTRAL COAST COATINGS Accounts Payable Check 9,450.00 84373 5/16/2002 CENTRAL COAST LOCK&KEY Accounts Payable Check 2,289.38 84374 5/16/2002 CENTRAL COAST SEA FOOD Accounts Payable Check 222.75 84375 5/16/2002 CHEM CLEAN Accounts Payable Check 364.65 84376 5/16/2002 BRADY CHERRY Accounts Payable Check 300.00 84377 5/16/2002 CHEVRON Accounts Payable Check 588.66 84378 5/16/2002 CHEVRON Accounts Payable Check 12.72 84379 5/16/2002 JOSEPH CHOUINARD P.E. Accounts Payable Check 2,062.50 84380 5/16/2002 CLEAN WATER SYSTEMS,INC. Accounts Payable Check 35.00 84381 5/16/2002 COAST ELECTRONICS Accounts Payable Check 40 84382 5/16/2002 COASTAL IMAGING SUPPLIES Accounts Payable Check 468.68 84383 5/16/2002 COASTLINE EQUIPMENT Accounts Payable Check 279.83 84384 5/16/2002 COMPUGRAPH DRAFTING SERVICES Accounts Payable Check 50.00 84385 5/16/2002 VINCE CONDE Accounts Payable Check 120.00 84386 5/16/2002 CIMON CORMIER Accounts Payable Check 30.00 84387 5/16/2002 CORNERS LIMITED Accounts Payable Check 58.80 84388 5/16/2002 COUNTRY COPY Accounts Payable Check 341.23 84389 5/16/2002 CREATIVE BUS SALES,INC. Accounts Payable Check 49,082.08 84390 5/16/2002 CRYSTAL SPRINGS WATER Accounts Payable Check Y 112.25 84391 5/16/2002 CSFA Accounts Payable Check 150.00 84392 5/16/2002 CUESTA COLLEGE Accounts Payable Check 403.04 84393 5/16/2002 DAVE SPURR EXCAVATING,INC. Accounts Payable Check 190.00 84394 5/16/2002 DAN DAVIS Accounts Payable Check 119.00 84395 5/16/2002 DECOU LUMBER COMPANY Accounts Payable Check 642.91 84396 5/16/2002 DELL MARKETING L.P. Accounts Payable Check 2,242.62 84397 5/16/2002 DORMAN HYDRO SEEDING Accounts Payable Check 210.00 84398 5/16/2002 PEGGY EDWARDS Accounts Payable Check 84399 5/16/2002 EL CAMINO BUILDING SUPPLY Accounts Payable Check 90 City of Atascadero Disbursement Listing For the Month of May 2002 Check Check Allki. Date Vendor Description Amount 84400 5/16/2002 EL CAMINO VETERINARY HOSP Accounts Payable Check 70.50 84401 5/16/2002 ELECTRO-COMM WEST,INC. Accounts Payable Check 51.97 84402 5/16/2002 GEOFF ENGLISH Accounts Payable Check 71.38 84403 5/16/2002 ESCUELA DEL RIO Accounts Payable Check 135.20 84404 5/16/2002 EXXON MOBIL Accounts Payable Check 695.80 84405 5/16/2002 FARM SUPPLY COMPANY Accounts Payable Check 65.47 84406 5/16/2002 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES,INC. Accounts Payable Check 223.86 84407 5/16/2002 FGL ENVIRONMENTAL Accounts Payable Check 64.80 84408 5/16/2002 FIRE OUT UNIFORM COMPANY Accounts Payable Check 484.73 84409 5/16/2002 FOOD FOR LESS Accounts Payable Check 148.27 84410 5/16/2002 WARREN FRACE Accounts Payable Check 300.00 84411 5/16/2002 FRAZEE PAINTS Accounts Payable Check 112.76 84412 5/16/2002 KAREN GARMAN Accounts Payable Check 675.15 84413 5/16/2002 GAS COMPANY Accounts Payable Check 689.16 84414 5/16/2002 GEM AUTO PARTS Accounts Payable Check 798.88 84415 5/16/2002 MIKE GIL Accounts Payable Check 75.00 84416 5/16/2002 KENNETH GLYNN Accounts Payable Check 252.00 . 84417 5/16/2002 VOID Accounts Payable Check 0.00 84418 5/16/2002 GRISANTI HARDWARE Accounts Payable Check 111.41 84419 5/16/2002 H.D.PETERSON Accounts Payable Check 424.19 84420 5/16/2002 KATHY HARBOTTLE Accounts Payable Check 10.00 84421 5/16/2002 HART IMPRESSIONS PRINT&COPY Accounts Payable Check 619.71 84422 5/16/2002 CHELSEA L.HAYES Accounts Payable Check 67.50 84423 5/16/2002 HENRY SCHEIN,INC. Accounts Payable Check 414.60 84424 5/16/2002 REGIONALD HICKS Accounts Payable Check 300.00 84425 5/16/2002 SHANNAN E.HILLIER Accounts Payable Check 101.25 84426 5/16/2002 HOBBY SHOP Accounts Payable Check 100.00 84427 5/16/2002 HOLIDAY INN Accounts Payable Check 200.20 84428 5/16/2002 EVELYN INGRAM Accounts Payable Check 609.63 84429 5/16/2002 SUZANNE JAMISON-WADE Accounts Payable Check 14.60 84430 5/16/2002 JOHN JANSONS Accounts Payable Check 172.28 84431 5/16/2002 JESPERSEN'S TIRE SERVICE,INC. Accounts Payable Check 794.30 84432 5/16/2002 K-MART Accounts Payable Check 11.23 84433 5/16/2002 STEVEN KAHN Accounts Payable Check 300.00 is 84434 5/16/2002 LESLYN KEITH Accounts Payable Check 56.00 019 City of Ataseadero Disbursement Listing For the Month of May 2002 Check Check Number Date Vendor Description Amo 84435 5/16/2002 CHUCK KENDRICK Accounts Payable Check 5 84436 5/16/2002 BRIAN KENNEDY Accounts Payable Check 90.00 84437 5/16/2002 KATE KREMKE Accounts Payable Check 114.51 84438 5/16/2002 LEONARD J.LA CASTO Accounts Payable Check 153.00 84439 5/16/2002 LEE WILSON ELECTRIC CO.INC Accounts Payable Check 2,184.40 84440 5/16/2002 LIFE ASSIST,INC. Accounts Payable Check 239.32 84441 5/16/2002 TERI LIPPER Accounts Payable Check 271.25 84442 5/16/2002 LYNDON'S AUTOMOTIVE Accounts Payable Check 1,009.34 84443 5/16/2002 MANAGED HEALTH NETWORK,INC. Accounts Payable Check 160.16 84444 5/16/2002 JOHN MARTINO Accounts Payable Check 250.00 84445 5/16/2002 MASTERCARD DEPARTMENT 1850 Accounts Payable Check 145.99 84446 5/16/2002 MASTERCARD DEPARTMENT 4135 Accounts Payable Check 216.84 84447 5/16/2002 MASTERCARD DEPARTMENT 4150 Accounts Payable Check 383.60 84448 5/16/2002 MASTERCARD DEPARTMENT 4168 Accounts Payable Check 251.53 84449 5/16/2002 MASTERCARD DEPARTMENT 6082 Accounts Payable Check 296.64 84450 5/16/2002 MASTERCARD DEPARTMENT 6090 Accounts Payable Check 365.56 84451 5/16/2002 MASTERCARD DEPARTMENT 6108 Accounts Payable Check 1,078.15 84452 5/16/2002 MASTERCARD DEPARTMENT 9902 Accounts Payable Check 60 84453 5/16/2002 WADE MCKINNEY Accounts Payable Check 500.00 84454 5/16/2002 MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY CO. Accounts Payable Check 33.77 84455 5/16/2002 MID-COAST FIRE PROTECTION,INC Accounts Payable Check 823.66 84456 5/16/2002 PAUL MILLER Accounts Payable Check 119.00 84457 5/16/2002 KEVIN MILLER Accounts Payable Check 17.00 84458 5/16/2002 MISSION UNIFORM SERVICE Accounts Payable Check 97.86 84459 5/16/2002 MITCH FREDERICK SEALCOATING Accounts Payable Check 1,147.50 84460 5/16/2002 NASCO Accounts Payable Check 19.28 84461 5/16/2002 NATIONAL BUSINESS FURNITURE Accounts Payable Check 1,742.19 84462 5/16/2002 NORTH COAST ENGINEERING INC. Accounts Payable Check 38,905.85 84463 5/16/2002 NORTHERN SAFETY CO.,INC. Accounts Payable Check 1,306.14 84464 5/16/2002 NORTHWEST BUSINESS STAMP Accounts Payable Check 76.80 84465 5/16/2002 OFFICEMAX CREDIT PLAN Accounts Payable Check 2,476.32 84466 5/16/2002 OMNI-MEANS,INC. Accounts Payable Check 4,683.90 84467 5/16/2002 ORCHARD SUPPLY HARDWARE Accounts Payable Check 26.79 84468 5/16/2002 OUTLET TOOL SUPPLY Accounts Payable Check 144.99 84469 5/16/2002 PACIFIC BELL Accounts Payable Check I 84470 5/16/2002 PACIFIC BELL/WORLDCOM Accounts Payable Check 6 x;120 City of Ataseadero Disbursement Listing For the Month of May 2002 Check Check AdWumber Date Vendor Description Amount 84472 5/16/2002 PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC Accounts Payable Check 26 243.54 84473 5/16/2002 PACIFIC HOME DO IT CENTER Accounts Payable Check 57.09 84474 5/16/2002 PALOS SPORTS Accounts Payable Check 215.82 84475 5/16/2002 PAPER WORKS Accounts Payable Check 443.74 84476 5/16/2002 PASO ROBLES TRUCK CENTER Accounts Payable Check 432.39 84477 5/16/2002 PC MALL Accounts Payable Check 113.01 84478 5/16/2002 PEGASUS ARRIVAL,INC. Accounts Payable Check 120.00 84479 5/16/2002 PERRY'S PARCEL SERVICE Accounts Payable Check 66.10 84480 5/16/2002 POOR RICHARD'S PRESS Accounts Payable Check 134.31 84481 5/16/2002 PORAC LAW ENFORCEMENT NEWS Accounts Payable Check 36.00 84482 5/16/2002 BAS PRINS Accounts Payable Check 25.00 84483 5/16/2002 PRODUCERS DAIRY FOODS,INC. Accounts Payable Check 64.20 84484 5/16/2002 GRACE L.PUCCI Accounts Payable Check 157.50 84485 5/16/2002 QUILL CORPORATION Accounts Payable Check 593.80 84486 5/16/2002 RADIO SHACK Accounts Payable Check 116.79 84487 5/16/2002 RADIOLOGY ASSOCIATES OF SLO Accounts Payable Check 41.00 • 84488 5/11/2002 RAINBOW MEALWORMS,INC. Accounts Payable Check 49.95 84489 5/16/2002 JERI RANGEL Accounts Payable Check 131.98 84490 5/16/2002 RACHELLE RICKARD Accounts Payable Check 300.00 84491 5/16/2002 ROHRER HAY&FEED SALES Accounts Payable Check 40.77 84492 5/16/2002 STEVE ROMO Accounts Payable Check 179.00 84493 5/16/2002 SAFETY-KLEEN INC. Accounts Payable Check 109.25 84494 5/16/2002 SAFEWAY,INC Accounts Payable Check 16.90 84495 5/16/2002 SAN LUIS PERSONNEL INC. Accounts Payable Check 877.88 84496 5/16/2002 SAN LUIS SURGICAL SUPPLY Accounts Payable Check 36.47 84497 5/16/2002 SANTA MARIA TIRE,INC. Accounts Payable Check 1,040.64 84498 5/16/2002 LISETTE SCHOLL Accounts Payable Check 133.00 84499 5/16/2002 JOHN SIEMENS Accounts Payable Check 133.00 84500 5/16/2002 SIERRA VISTA REGIONAL MED CTR Accounts Payable Check 249.50 84501 5/16/2002 TOM SILVA Accounts Payable Check 102.00 84502 5/16/2002 SILVERADO STAGES INC. Accounts Payable Check 725.00 84503 5/16/2002 SIR SPEEDY Accounts Payable Check 277.97 84504 5/16/2002 SLO COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT Accounts Payable Check 22.00 84505 5/16/2002 SLO COUNTY TRAINING OFFICERS Accounts Payable Check 245.00 • 84506 5/16/2002 JILL SMETHERS Accounts Payable Check 16.02 �:+2 1 City of Ataseadero Disbursement Listing For the Month of May 2002 Check Check Number Date Vendor Description Amo 84507 5/16/2002 SOLUTIONS 4 SURE.COM,INC. Accounts Payable Check 10 . 84508 5/16/2002 SOUZA CONSTRUCTION INC. Accounts Payable Check 16 818.18 84509 5/16/2002 SUNLIGHT JANITORIAL Accounts Payable Check 1,205.00 84510 5/16/2002 SUPERIOR QUALITY COPIERS,INC. Accounts Payable Check 538.56 84511 5/16/2002 TARVIN&ASSOCIATES Accounts Payable Check 3,360.00 84512 5/16/2002 TEMPLETON UNIFORMS Accounts Payable Check 94.36 84513 5/16/2002 THYSSENKRUPP ELEVATOR Accounts Payable Check 216.36 84514 5/16/2002 MARK TOMES Accounts Payable Check 55.00 84515 5/16/2002 TREADWAY GRAPHICS Accounts Payable Check 104.00 84516 5/16/2002 TRIBUNE Accounts Payable Check 205.41 84517 5/16/2002 TTS PRODUCTS Accounts Payable Check 36.14 84518 5/16/2002 U.S.BANK Accounts Payable Check 54 375.00 84519 5/16/2002 UNION ASPHALT,INC. Accounts Payable Check 939.38 84520 5/16/2002 UNISOURCE MAINT SUPPLY SYSTEMS Accounts Payable Check 291.92 84521 5/16/2002 UNITED GREEN MARK,INC. Accounts Payable Check 257.79 84522 5/16/2002 JEFF VAN DEN EIKHOF Accounts Payable Check 80.00 84523 5/16/2002 TOM VELASQUEZ Accounts Payable Check 51.00 84524 5/16/2002 VERIZON WIRELESS Accounts Payable Check 0 84525 5/16/2002 VIKING OFFICE PRODUCTS Accounts Payable Check 58.78 84526 5/16/2002 W.W.GRAINGER,INC. Accounts Payable Check 157.03 84527 5/16/2002 TOM WAY Accounts Payable Check 60.00 84528 5/16/2002 WAYNE'S TIRE,INC. Accounts Payable Check 27.61 84529 5/16/2002 WE'RE INTO SAFETY Accounts Payable Check 304.00 84530 5/16/2002 WESTERN JANITOR SUPPLY Accounts Payable Check 623.12 84531 5/16/2002 ZUMAR INDUSTRIES,INC. Accounts Payable Check 826.82 84532 5/20/2002 KEVIN KLUSS Accounts Payable Check 1,000.00 84533 5/24/2002 ATASCADERO FED.CREDIT UNION Payroll Vendor Payment 4,930.00 84534 5/24/2002 ATASCADERO FIRE DEPT EMP.ASSN Payroll Vendor Payment 240.00 84535 5/24/2002 ATASCADERO MID MGRS ORG UNION Payroll Vendor Payment 30.00 84536 5/24/2002 ATASCADERO POLICE OFFICERS ASN Payroll Vendor Payment 346.00 84537 5/24/2002 COUNTY-CITY EMPLOYEES CU Payroll Vendor Payment 895.00 84538 5/24/2002 EMPLOYMENT DEV DEPARTMENT Payroll Vendor Payment 6,410.38 84539 5/24/2002 EMPLOYMENT DEV.DEPARTMENT Payroll Vendor Payment 677.97 84540 5/24/2002 FAMILY SUPPORT DIVISION Payroll Vendor Payment 3 84541 5/24/2002 HARTFORD LIFE INSURANCE Payroll Vendor Payment 5,63 022 City of Atascadero Disbursement Listing For the Month of May 2002 Check Check AlliftNum Date Vendor Description Amount 84542 5/24/2002 ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST-457 Payroll Vendor Payment 600.00 84543 5/24/2002 KENNEDY CLUB FITNESS Payroll Vendor Payment 79.50 84544 5/24/2002 PERS LONG TERM CARE PROGRAM Payroll Vendor Payment 32.31 84545 5/24/2002 PUBLIC EMPL RETIREMENT SYSTEM Payroll Vendor Payment 17 894.74 84546 5/24/2002 SEIU LOCAL 620 AFL-CIO Payroll Vendor Payment 493.50 84547 5/24/2002 FAMILY SUPPORT DIVISION Payroll Vendor Payment 498.00 84548 5/24/2002 UNITED WAY OF SLO COUNTY Payroll Vendor Payment 38.00 84549 5/24/2002 WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK Payroll Vendor Payment 759.47 146 5/29/2002 MID-STATE BANK Payroll Vendor Payment 29,419.41 84550 5/31/2002 ACCENTS Accounts Payable Check 56.67 84551 5/31/2002 EMILY J.ADAMS Accounts Payable Check 81.00 84552 5/31/2002 ALBERTSONS Accounts Payable Check 84.36 84553 5/31/2002 MIKE ALOI Accounts Payable Check 75.00 84554 5/31/2002 ANDERSON'S AUTO SERVICES Accounts Payable Check 60.00 84555 5/31/2002 ANTECH DIAGNOSTICS Accounts Payable Check 79.25 84556 5/31/2002 PAULA ANTON Accounts Payable Check 25.00 • 84557 5/31/2002 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES Accounts Payable Check 99.41 84558 5/31/2002 AT&T Accounts Payable Check 25.72 84559 5/31/2002 ATASCADERO ASSOC.OF REALTORS Accounts Payable Check 70.00 84560 5/31/2002 ATASCADERO BATTERY EXCHANGE Accounts Payable Check 225.26 84561 5/31/2002 ATASCADERO COMMUNITY Accounts Payable Check 10.00 84562 5/31/2002 ATASCADERO FORD Accounts Payable Check 539.87 84563 5/31/2002 CATHERINE BEACH Accounts Payable Check 50.00 84564 5/31/2002 BILLOW'S CUSTOM EMBROIDERY Accounts Payable Check 344.81 84565 5/31/2002 BOB KEULEN CONSTRUCTION Accounts Payable Check 1,757.00 84566 5/31/2002 DALE A.BYWATER Accounts Payable Check 3,530.00 84567 5/31/2002 CAL TRANS Accounts Payable Check 800.00 84568 5/31/2002 CALIFORNIA CODE CHECK Accounts Payable Check 771.69 84569 5/31/2002 CCPOA Accounts Payable Check 30.00 84570 5/31/2002 CENTRAL COAST SANITATION Accounts Payable Check 56.60 84571 5/31/2002 CHEM CLEAN Accounts Payable Check 15.44 84572 5/31/2002 BRADY CHERRY Accounts Payable Check 300.00 84573 5/31/2002 CHEVRON Accounts Payable Check 107.00 • 84574 5/31/2002 CHICAGO GRADE LANDFILL,INC. Accounts Payable Check 744.40 84575 5/31/2002 CJP PRODUCTIONS Accounts Payable Check 499.06 i 2 3 City of Atascadero Disbursement Listing For the Month of May 2002 Check Check Number Date Vendor Description hyo 84576 5/31/2002 COASTLINE EQUIPMENT Accounts Payable Check 3 84577 5/31/2002 VINCE CONDE Accounts Payable Check 60.00 84578 5/31/2002 CONWAY DISTRIBUTORS Accounts Payable Check 160.90 84579 5/31/2002 CIMON CORMIER Accounts Payable Check 45.00 84580 5/31/2002 CREDIT BUREAU Accounts Payable Check 16.00 84581 5/31/2002 CRYSTAL SPRINGS WATER Accounts Payable Check 48.00 84582 5/31/2002 CUESTA COLLEGE Accounts Payable Check 109.41 84583 5/31/2002 CUESTA EQUIPMENT Accounts Payable Check 1,224.15 84584 5/31/2002 D.A.R.E.AMERICA MERCHANDISE Accounts Payable Check 70.87 84585 5/31/2002 DARRYL'S LOCK AND SAFE Accounts Payable Check 6.44 84586 5/31/2002 DATANET SOLUTIONS Accounts Payable Check 2,140.00 84587 5/31/2002 DECOU LUMBER COMPANY Accounts Payable Check 26.10 84588 5/31/2002 DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Accounts Payable Check 64.00 84589 5/31/2002 DIAMOND MANUFACTURING,INC. Accounts Payable Check 615.00 84590 5/31/2002 DURHAM COMMUNICATIONS INC Accounts Payable Check 1,722.46 84591 5/31/2002 EL CAMINO CAR WASH LLC Accounts Payable Check 38.00 84592 5/31/2002 EL CAMINO HOMELESS ORG. Accounts Payable Check 4 81 84593 5/31/2002 FARM SUPPLY COMPANY Accounts Payable Check 84594 5/31/2002 FEDERAL SIGNAL CORP. Accounts Payable Check 146.22 84595 5/31/2002 FERRELL'S AUTO REPAIR Accounts Payable Check 609.86 84596 5/31/2002 FOOD FOR LESS Accounts Payable Check 41.58 84597 5/31/2002 WARREN FRACE Accounts Payable Check 344.24 84598 5/31/2002 GALL'S INC. Accounts Payable Check 84.72 84599 5/31/2002 GAS COMPANY Accounts Payable Check 726.50 84600 5/31/2002 GEM AUTO PARTS Accounts Payable Check 1,512.93 84601 5/31/2002 GENERAL HOSPITAL Accounts Payable Check 124.00 84602 5/31/2002 MATTHEW A.GIANAS Accounts Payable Check 345.00 84603 5/31/2002 GOLDEN STATE SYSTEMS Accounts Payable Check 29.86 84604 5/31/2002 GRISANTI HARDWARE Accounts Payable Check 4.01 84605 5/31/2002 H.D.PETERSON Accounts Payable Check 78.79 84606 5/31/2002 HAHN'S GUNS&AMMO Accounts Payable Check 540.00 84607 5/31/2002 HASTY AWARDS Accounts Payable Check 43.70 84608 5/31/2002 CHELSEA L.HAYES Accounts Payable Check 67.50 84609 5/31/2002 REGIONALD HICKS Accounts Payable Check 100.00 84610 5/31/2002 SHANNAN E.HILLIER Accounts Payable Check 1 84611 5/31/2002 HOBBY SHOP Accounts Payable Check 1000 024 City of Ataseadero Disbursement Listing For the Month of May 2002 Check Check umber Date Vendor Description Amount 84612 5/31/2002 INFORMATION SERVICES DIVISION Accounts Payable Check 555.02 84613 5/31/2002 VOID Accounts Payable Check 0.00 84614 5/31/2002 JIFFY LUBE#1932 PCJL,INC. Accounts Payable Check 138.75 84615 5/31/2002 JIM'S CAMPUS CAMERA Accounts Payable Check 363.03 84616 5/31/2002 K-MART Accounts Payable Check 62.47 84617 5/31/2002 STEVEN KAHN Accounts Payable Check 300.00 84618 5/31/2002 KEN'S MOBIL SERVICE Accounts Payable Check 1,055.74 84619 5/31/2002 CHUCK KENDRICK Accounts Payable Check 51.00 84620 5/31/2002 BRIAN KENNEDY Accounts Payable Check 90.00 84621 5/31/2002 LEONARD J.LA CASTO Accounts Payable Check 85.00 84622 5/31/2002 LAIDLAW TRANSIT SERVICES,INC. Accounts Payable Check 13 446.74 84623 5/31/2002 LCD AUTOMOTIVE Accounts Payable Check 162.50 84624 5/31/2002 LYNDON'S AUTOMOTIVE Accounts Payable Check 156.40 84625 5/31/2002 JOHN MARTINO Accounts Payable Check 159.00 84626 5/31/2002 ROBERT MAXWELL Accounts Payable Check 1,190.00 84627 5/31/2002 RICHARD J.MCCOY Accounts Payable Check 204.00 84628 5/31/2002 MCKINLEY EQUIPMENT CORP. Accounts Payable Check 586.24 84629 5/31/2002 WADE MCKINLEY Accounts Payable Check 500.00 84630 5/31/2002 MCNAMARA ELECTRIC Accounts Payable Check 3,166.00 84631 5/31/2002 MID-COAST MOWER&SAW Accounts Payable Check 39.68 84632 5/31/2002 PAUL MILLER Accounts Payable Check 102.00 84633 5/31/2002 MIRACLE RECREATION EQUIPMENT Accounts Payable Check 624.76 84634 5/31/2002 MISSION UNIFORM SERVICE Accounts Payable Check 66.67 84635 5/31/2002 MITCH FREDERICK SEALCOATING Accounts Payable Check 425.00 84636 5/31/2002 MODESTO JUNIOR COLLEGE Accounts Payable Check 1,656.00 84637 5/31/2002 MPH INDUSTRIES,INC. Accounts Payable Check 7,320.71 84638 5/31/2002 MUFFLER MAN Accounts Payable Check 49.31 84639 5/31/2002 NABER TECHNICAL ENTERPRISES Accounts Payable Check 350.00 84640 5/31/2002 NEOPOST RATE CHANGE DEPARTMENT Accounts Payable Check 155.15 84641 5/31/2002 NEW TIMES Accounts Payable Check 51.30 84642 5/31/2002 PACIFIC BELL Accounts Payable Check 874.86 84643 5/31/2002 PACIFIC BELL/WORLDCOM Accounts Payable Check 117.48 84644 5/31/2002 PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC Accounts Payable Check 273.93 84645 5/31/2002 PACIFIC HOME DO IT CENTER Accounts Payable Check 155.31 • 84646 5/31/2002 PASO ROBLES SUPERIOR COURT Accounts Payable Check 2,000.00 %a�5 City of Atascadero Disbursement Listing For the Month of May 2002 Check Check Number Date Vendor Description Amou 84647 5/31/2002 PAVEMENT ENGINEERING,INC. Accounts Payable Check 703 0 , 84648 5/31/2002 PC MALL Accounts Payable Check 1,394.01 84649 5/31/2002 MIKE PEREZ Accounts Payable Check 15.00 84650 5/31/2002 PERRY'S PARCEL SERVICE Accounts Payable Check 53.80 84651 5/31/2002 PMX MEDICAL SPECIALTY PRODUCT Accounts Payable Check 88.81 84652 5/31/2002 POSTAL PRIVILEGE Accounts Payable Check 27.61 84653 5/31/2002 BAS PRINS Accounts Payable Check 50.00 84654 5/31/2002 QUILL CORPORATION Accounts Payable Check 514.42 84655 5/31/2002 RADIO SHACK Accounts Payable Check 6.96 84656 5/31/2002 RAINBOW AUTO&TOWING Accounts Payable Check 60.00 84657 5/31/2002 RAINBOW MEALWORMS,INC. Accounts Payable Check 63.04 84658 5/31/2002 RACHELLE RICKARD Accounts Payable Check 300.00 84659 5/31/2002 ROBBINS TABLE TENNIS SPECIALTI Accounts Payable Check 674.95 84660 5/31/2002 STEVE ROMO Accounts Payable Check 145.00 84661 5/31/2002 S&S WORLDWIDE,INC. Accounts Payable Check 319.18 84662 5/31/2002 SAFEWAY,INC Accounts Payable Check 162.21 84663 5/31/2002 SAN DIEGO POLICE EQUIPMENT CO Accounts Payable Check 627 6 84664 5/31/2002 SAN LUIS,OBISPO COUNTY Accounts Payable Check 2,5 84665 5/31/2002 SAN LUIS PERSONNEL INC. Accounts Payable Check 460.50 84666 5/31/2002 SAN LUIS VIDEO SYSTEMS Accounts Payable Check 1,064.78 84667 5/31/2002 SANTA MARIA TIRE,INC. Accounts Payable Check 28.00 84668 5/31/2002 SHELL Accounts Payable Check 33.09 84669 5/31/2002 TOM SILVA Accounts Payable Check 153.00 84670 5/31/2002 SLORTA Accounts Payable Check 500.00 84671 5/31/2002 EDWARD SOMOGYI Accounts Payable Check 150.00 84672 5/31/2002 SPORTIME Accounts Payable Check 106.34 84673 5/31/2002 LINDA STEVENS Accounts Payable Check 45.00 84674 5/31/2002 STEWART'S WHEEL SHOP Accounts Payable Check 120.00 84675 5/31/2002 STRAND DRYWALL Accounts Payable Check 1,990.00 84676 5/31/2002 SUPERIOR QUALITY COPIERS,INC. Accounts Payable Check 199.16 84677 5/31/2002 WILLIAM SWIFT Accounts Payable Check 417.32 84678 5/31/2002 SYLVESTER'S SECURITY ALARMS Accounts Payable Check 197.50 84679 5/31/2002 TED MILES JEEP Accounts Payable Check 819.50 84680 5/31/2002 TEMPLETON UNIFORMS Accounts Payable Check 135.12 84681 5/31/2002 TRIBUNE Accounts Payable Check 5 84682 5/31/2002 U.S.POSTMASTER Accounts Payable Check 1 6440 , "126 City of Atascadero Disbursement Listing For the Month of May 2002 Check Check Alftumher Date Vendor Description Amount 84683 5/31/2002 JEFF VAN DEN EIKHOF Accounts Payable Check 173.74 84684 5/31/2002 VERIZON WIRELESS Accounts Payable Check 21.96 84685 5/31/2002 W.S.DARLEY&CO. Accounts Payable Check 168.53 84686 5/31/2002 TERRY ANN WILLINGHAM Accounts Payable Check 120.00 $ 814,308.00 • ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: 6-25-02 Big no. 191 1 79 9 \�SCADERip% Atascadero City Council Staff Report— Community Development Department General Plan Update Adoption Hearing General Plan 2025 /Final EIR GPA 2000-0001 / ZCH 2002-0026 RECOMMENDATIONS: Planning Commission recommends the City Council: 1. Adopt the draft Resolution "A" certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report SCH #2001121027 subject to findings, a Statement of Overriding Considerations and • a Mitigation Monitoring Program; and, 2. Adopt the draft Resolution "B" approving General Plan Amendment 2000-0001 to adopt a new General Plan Policy document and diagrams for the Land Use, Open Space, Conservation, Circulation, Safety,Noise and Housing Elements; and, 3. Introduce for first reading by title only the draft Ordinance "A" approving Zoning Map amendment 2002-0026 to amend the zoning map consistent with the General Plan. DISCUSSION: The City has completed all of the mandatory studies and noticing required to adopt an updated General Plan. The General Plan and Final EIR have been printed in a strik_��e-ugh and underline format to track all changes made from the previous versions. The changes that have been made are based on comments received from the Planning Commission, City Council, and Draft EIR Commenters. The City received 162 comments letters on the Draft EIR. Those comment letters and the City's response letters are contained in the EIR Response to Comments Volume IL Planning Commission Recommendation: The Planning Commission held a hearing on June 18, 2002 to consider the Final EIR and General Plan Adoption. Meeting minutes will be forwarded to the Council on Friday, June 21, 2002. During public testimony sixteen people spoke regarding the General Plan and Final EIR. One issue was raised by Pam Marshal Heatherington of ECOSLO regarding the U28 ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: 6-25-02 response to comment letter 154. It appeared that a portion of the City's responses to that comment letter was not published in Volume II because the response numbering between the letter and responses did not match. After reviewing the letter, the consultant has determined that there had been a numbering error in the letter, but that all comments had been responded to. The correctly numbered letter was delivered to ECOSLO on Wednesday, June 19, 2002. The corrected letter and responses are included in Resolution"A. The Commission's deliberations focused primarily on two issues: guesthouses and creek setbacks. A motion to increase the interim creek setback from 20 feet to 30 feet failed to pass. The Commission did pass a separate motion to recommend that City Council prioritize the implementation of General Plan Policy LOC 1.1.6. to update the City's accessory structure regulations and revisit the issue of allowing guesthouses. Following deliberations, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend certification of the Final EIR and approval of the General Plan Amendments and Zoning Map Amendments. The General Plan: The General Plan update process was started in early 2000 with the re-adoption of the current General Plan Goals (see Attachment 1) and the creation of the Atascadero Smart Growth Principles (see Attachment 2). The City Council directed staff to develop a public outreach campaign to gather input on updating the General Plan consistent with the existing Goals . while incorporating the Smart Growth Principles. In the spring of 2000 the outreach campaign was started with a series of eight neighborhood workshops. As part of a comprehensive public outreach campaign, the City has conducted 21 public meetings and workshops on the General Plan update. This outreach campaign produced a "Preferred Land Use Plan" and a list of Policy Options. A joint study session of the City Council and Planning Commission was held on May 29, 2001 to review a "refined" Draft Land Use Plan for use as the "preferred project" in the General Plan Update and EIR. In addition to the Plan, staff presented ten broad policy issues that needed to be addressed in the update process. The purpose of the study session was to allow staff an opportunity to present the Draft Land Use Plan and policy issues to the City Council, Planning Commission and public. Following the study session and a public open house, the Planning Commission held a hearing on June 5, 2001 to consider the Draft Land Use Plan. The Commission forwarded recommendations to the City Council on a Draft Land Use Plan and ten policy options. The following table summarized the Policy Options that were endorsed by City Council and where they are addressed in the General Plan Update. Policy Options Draft General Plan Reference 1. Urban Service Line Pages II-48-50 Figure II-10 • 2. Land Use Designations Pages II-5- 10 Table II-3 V4ZY ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: 6-25-02 r 3. Expansion of the PD-7 District Pages II-7 V-2 p g 8 Policy HOS 1.1.4. 4. Creek Setbacks Pages II-34 Policy LOC 8.2.1 &2 5. Affordable Housing a. Second Units in SFR-Y Page II-7, V-31 Policy HOS 3.1.2. b. Mixed Use in Commercial Page V-42 Policy HOS 10.2.1. Page 11-8, 11-24 Policy LOC 3.1.7. &9. C. Unit Density Page II-5 Table II-3 Page 11-22 Policy LOC 2.1.2. Page V-30 Policy HOS 2.1.1. d. Senior Housing Page V-33 Policy HOS 6.1.2. e. Inclusionary Housing Page V-30 Policy HOS 2.2.2. 6. Service Commercial Locations Page II-9 Figure II-2 7. Annexation Areas Page II-18 Policy 1.2 Page II-19 Figure II-5 8. Lot Size Inconsistencies Page II-23 Policy LOC 2.2.1. 9. Colony House Protection Standards Page II-30 Policy 6.3 and 6.4 The City Council held three meetings on the Planning Commission's General Plan recommendations over the summer of 2001. At the September 24, 2001 meeting, the Council approved a "Preferred Land Use Plan" and directed staff on how to proceed with the Policy Options. This direction was used to revise, consolidate and reformat the existing • General Plan into the form of the Draft General Plan. Although, the Draft General Plan has been reformatted to include a hierarchy of goals, policies and programs that is consistent in each element, the underlying foundation is the current General Plan. The Draft EIR was prepared concurrently with the Draft General Plan. This allowed for impacts to be analyzed and mitigation measures to be incorporated as policies into the General Plan. A Draft General Plan and Draft EIR were circulated for a 45-day public review period from February to April of 2002. During this period the Planning Commission and City Council both held workshops to take testimony on the draft documents. The Council did direct staff to make the following changes to the Draft General Plan: • Re-designate the 27-acre Verhyan parcel on Del Rio Road from Public to SFR-Y with a Master Plan of Development Overlay allowing 56-market rate and 14 moderate-income dwelling units. • Incorporate additional open space designations into the land use diagram. • Specify the restrictions for second units. • Prohibit guesthouses in all single-family land uses. The comments of the Planning Commission and City Council have been incorporated into the General Plan. Housing Element.- Housing lement:Housing elements require certification from the State of California's Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). The City has submitted the Housing Element to HCD 0130 ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: 6-25-02 and has received preliminary comments. HCD will not fin • p y o finalize its comments or certify the Housing Element until the final Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) numbers for San Luis Obispo County are agreed to by HCD and SLOCOG. The consultant believes that the information contained in the Housing Element, which has been revised based on HCD comments, is 99% complete. However, it is likely that some minor changes will be required by HCD following resubmittal to obtain certification. This means that minor amendments to the Housing Element will likely have to be approved by the City Council in the future to gain certification of the Housing Element. Zoning Map Update: Update of the Land Use Diagram will create a number of inconsistencies with the City's zoning map. Staff is recommending that a zoning map change be approved concurrently with the Land Use Diagram to ensure that both maps are consistent. Comments Received During the 45-day review period the City of Atascadero received 162 letters on the Draft EIR. As required by CEQA, the City has responded to all of the comments received. In some cases the General Plan and EIR were revised to respond to the comments. The following section outlines the generalize theme of the issues raised. 1. Cost of Services A number of commenters expressed concern regarding the potential costs associated with implementation of the proposed General Plan, and the ability of the City to generate sufficient revenue. The commenters generally requested that the EIR provide an assessment of cost and fiscal impact associated with the plan's implementation. The commenters were most concerned with costs associated with public services, including police, fire, schools and road maintenance. The City currently receives developer's fees for public services; however, use of these fees is limited by law to capital improvements required by new developments. Therefore, such fees can be used for roadway improvements, but cannot be used for hiring new personnel or correcting existing deficiencies. Impacts associated with police and fire under the proposed General Plan are due for the most part to staff shortages, which cannot be mitigated through existing fee structures. Funding of new staff must be obtained through one of two means: (1) reallocation of General Fund monies or (2) increased taxes. Development under the proposed General Plan will increase the tax base for the City, and will increase revenue to help fund new personnel. A specific fiscal assessment was not included in the EIR. According to the CEQA Guidelines, analysis in an EIR must be limited to the environmental effects of a project, including a General Plan. Although some jurisdictions opt to include fiscal assessment in their EIR, it is not required. The EIR does contain mitigation under the public services section as outlined above, which calls for the assessment of such costs. Furthermore, the • proposed General Plan includes policies which support sound fiscal management, and provision of adequate services. 031 ITEM NUMBER: B—1 DATE: 6-25-02 • The General Plan takes a variety of approaches to address this situation. The first is to promote compact development along the existing El Camino Real corridor consistent with the "Smart Growth" principles. New projects in this location will take advantage of existing infrastructure systems and will be easier for police and fire to serve. Secondly, the Plan requires new development to bear the cost of required infrastructure improvements. Therefore a project that requires a sewer main extension would be responsible for funding this improvement without. City assistance. The General Plan requires that all local road maintenance be the responsibility of new projects. The City requires that road maintenance agreements be recorded with all new residential projects. In order to mitigate the impact of the service costs of large projects where a revenue shortfall may exist the General Plan requires the preparation of a Fiscal Impact Report prior to project approval consists with the following policy: 15.3.8. All residential projects of 100 or more dwelling units shall be required to prepare a Fiscal Impact Report prior to any discretionary approvals. The Fiscal Impact Report shall analyze all revenues, service costs and facilities costs associated with a project. The City will require the establishment of Facilities Districts and / or Maintenance Districts to cover revenue shortfalls on a project. 2. Eagle Ranch The properties referred to collectively in the EIR as "Eagle Ranch" are located on the south side of Atascadero and are part of the original 1913 Atascadero Colony. There are 400 separate legal lots with paper roads and Atascadero Mutual Water Company water rights in the Eagle Ranch holdings. Due to the existing development rights, the 400 lots are very likely to be developed in the County. Annexation of the properties will provide the City with the best mechanism to mitigate the impact of the development of these lots. The proposed General Plan contains policies that support the annexation of these properties into the City, and the proposed land use plan includes the properties in the SOI and USL for the City. Potential impacts associated with development of these properties were included in the cumulative analysis contained in the EIR. However, because policies in the proposed General Plan do not include approval of a specific project or land use, and because no specifics as to the development type or size were available at the time of this writing, the analysis was limited to impacts of annexing the properties. Policies contained in the proposed General Plan require additional planning and environmental review of all subsequent actions required for annexation and development, and identifies specific standards, which must be met prior to approval. 3. Creek Setbacks Policy 8.2 in the proposed General Plan identifies the need to "establish and maintain" creek development standards. Commenters expressed general concern about the apparent lack of specificity in this policy and its associated programs, and they requested establishment of 032 ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: 6-25-02 quantified setbacks in the proposed General Plan. A number of policies and programs have been added under Goal LOC 8 to further specify the performance standards that must be met. The reader should note that much of this language is incorporated from the EIR, with minor clarifications and expansions. The following policy has been added to the General Plan to provide an interim creek setback requirement: 8.2.2. Prior to adoption of a creek setback ordinance an interim 20-foot creek setback shall be in effect along Atascadero Creek, Graves Creek and all other 7.5 min USGS quadrangle blueline creeks as follows: a) On Atascadero Creek and Graves Creek setbacks shall be measured from the edge of the creek reservation. b) All other blueline creek setbacks shall be measured from ordinary high water mark. C) The Planning Commission may approve exceptions to the interim creek setbacks in the form of a conditional use permit if the finding can be made that creek or improvements will not be negatively impacted by the exception. • 4. Alternatives A number of commenters have been dissatisfied with the alternatives selected, and have, provided suggestions for additional alternatives. CEQA requires the consideration of a range of reasonable alternatives to the proposed plan. CEQA does not require analysis of every conceivable alternative to a project in an EIR; rather, the range of alternatives selected is guided by the following criteria: • The alternative meets some or all of the project objectives • The alternative appears feasible • The alternative avoids or substantially lessens significant impacts of the proposed project. Sufficient information must be provided about each alternative to allow for "meaningful analysis;" however, the level of detail may be less than the proposed project [Guidelines §15126.6(d)]. The General Plan update process included analysis of four alternatives over the past year. The plan options included the Minimum Infill (Alternative 1), Mixed Use Approach (Alternative 2), the Maximum Development Potential (Alternative 3), and the land use diagram identified in the Draft Plan (preferred alternative). The City has therefore devised a 033 ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: 6-25-02 • number of alternatives as a result of a long-term study and planning effort. The alternatives previously described were considered feasible, logical, and meeting different objectives. 5. Policy 2.2 A number of commenters were concerned with the growth impacts of General Plan Policy 2.2.2. which allows for lots within the Urban Services Line to be subdivided below the zoning district minimums when the lot is surrounded on all sides by non-conforming lots. The process would require a Planned Development rezone to be approved by the City Council and would only allow the minimum lot size to be reduced to the next lowest single family district minimum lot size. Land Use Min Lot Size Min Lot with PD Potential Lots SE Suburban Estates 2.5 acres 1.5 acres (6±lots) SFR-Z Single Family 1.5 acre min 1.5 acres 1.0 acres (4±lots) SFR-Y Single Family 1.0 acre min 1.0 acre 0.5 acre(if sewered) (7± lots) Based on an analysis of the existing lot patterns within the USL it appears there are 20 lots that potentially qualify for the PD process. The majority of potential lots would not be able to meet the requirement of being surrounded by non-conforming lots. The consultant • concluded that the environmental impact of Policy 2.2.2. would be less than significant. 6. Second Units /Guest Houses A number of commenters raised the issue of guesthouses. Guesthouses are currently allowed in all single-family residential districts with a building permit. The guesthouses are permitted to be as large as 50% the area of the main house but may not have cooking facilities. The City Council has directed the General Plan to prohibit guesthouses in all single-family residential districts and allow second units (with cooking facilities) in the Single Family Residential one-acre district (SFR-Y) only. The second units would be required to meet certain design standards (lot size, parking, maximum size, minimal tree impacts and architectural design) and would need to be approved by the Planning Commission through a Conditional Use Permit process. The State of California requires cities to allow second units in single-family districts unless the city adopts certain hardship findings. 7. Buildout A number of commenters raised the issue of the population buildout assumptions. The population buildout number of the current General Plan is 32,873 persons. The new General Plan buildout number is 36,266 persons with a net increase of 3,392 persons. The buildout number was derived based on the General Plan land use changes reflected in the following istable. The total acreage number is zero because no new area is added to the General Plan. 034 ITEM NUMBER: B—I DATE: 6-25-02 • Difference between existing and proposed GP Land Use net changes Units Population A 0.0 ac SE/ RE (315.5) ac -123 du's -325 pp SFR-Z 32.8 ac 32 du's 86 pp SFR-Y 119.7 ac 260 du's 689 pp SFR-X 65.2 ac 252 du's 669 pp MDR 19.9 ac 102 du's 271 pp HDR 58.0 ac 367 du's 973 pp GC-NC (7.7) ac GC-O 3.4 ac GC-R 61.8 ac 189 du's 501 pp CPK (73.2) ac D 0.4 ac Sc (29.8) ac GC-TC (3.7) ac 1 31.2 ac IPK(drop) (31.2) ac • MU 66.6 ac 200 du's 530 pp CREC 6.7 ac REC (177.6) ac P (104.2) ac OS 277.4 ac Total 0.0 ac 1,280 du's 3,392 pp The table includes the following unit adjustments 72 units added to SFR-X(small lot single family planned development policy) 50 units added to SFR-Y (second unit policy) 189 units added to GC (mixed use commercial policy) 8. Industrial Land A number of commenters raised the issue of the supply of industrial land. The availability of industrial land in Atascadero is significantly constrained by topography. In order for industrial development to be viable it must be built on flat land that minimizes development costs. Unfortunately, within the existing Atascadero Colony,there is a very limited supply of vacant flat land that could be designated for industrial development. The General Plan does support making better use of the existing industrial lands within the City. A majority of the light industrial, CPK district along north El Camino Real is vacant and undeveloped due to a lack of sewer. The General Plan supports the sewering of this area, which will make an • 035 ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: 6-25-02 • existing industrial area viable for development. Furthermore there are a variety y o f underutilized industrial properties along Traffic Way. Reuse of these parcels under redevelopment would also increase the availability of land to support industrial development. 9. Parks A number of commenters raised the issue of parkland calculations. The General Plan sets a parkland requirement of 5 acres per 1000 residents. This figure is consistent with the State Map Act's limits on parkland dedication requirements. At buildout, the City will need 181 acres of parkland to achieve this standard. This standard will be met as follows: Atascadero Lake Park 57 acres Paloma Creek Park 65 acres Heilman Park 15 acres Sunken Gardens 2 acres Traffic Way Park 11 acres Chico Road Park 6 acres Stadium Park 26 acres Future Del Rio Park 5 acres Library Pocket Park '/2 acre • Total 187 acres 10. Late Changes A number of commenters raised the issue of having individual lot split changes added to the Final General Plan. The City of Atascadero began the General Plan Update process in January of 2000. During this process a number of land use changes have been studied and analyzed throughout the community. One issue that has been studied is the issue of lot size consistency. Mapping studies of the community have found that a majority of the lots in Atascadero are below current zoning minimums. Furthermore the mix of large lots and small lots is also very common throughout Atascadero. During the review of General Plan Alternatives the Council studied and debated the issue of changing minimum lot sizes throughout the community. The decision was made to leave the minimum lot sizes as is since reducing lot sizes would disrupt the character and quality of life in existing neighborhoods. At this point in the process, the draft General Plan has been analyzed by the draft EIR and has been publicly circulated. Changes to residential neighborhood's lot sizes that have not been previously analyzed would require amendments to the Plan and EIR and are not contemplated at this time. is J �� ITEM NUMBER: B-I DATE: 6-25-02 11. Flexible Zonin • g I A number of commenters raised concerns with the term "flexible" in the Housing Element. The flexible zoning language is contained in the current General Plan. These policies have been revised to eliminate the term"flexible". 12. Wildlife Corridors A number of commenters raised the issue of wildlife corridors. The General Plan is protective of wildlife movement in a number of ways. The following components of the update reduce the impacts to wildlife movement: • The update does not modify rural land use patterns. • The plan is protective of riparian corridors, with setbacks and development restrictions. These areas are very important for wildlife movement. • The plan is protective of trees and the areas they cover. • The following Policy 7.1.2. will require the mapping and identification of wildlife corridors. 7.1.2. Maintain a current Geographic Information System (GIS) based inventory map of all native woodlands, plant communities, sensitive habitats, connective habitat and wildlife corridors. Require lot line . adjustments, subdivision maps, and development permits to minimize impacts on mapped resources that are identified as sensitive, and provide mitigation as requirement by the Native Tree Ordinance. Responsibility: Community Development Department Environmental Consultant Timeframe: 2003-04. 13. Library Park A number of commenters raised the issue of a park site across from the Library. The General Plan proposes to mix both a pocket park with residential development. A Master Plan of Development will be required to be approved by the Planning Commission for this site to ensure the project is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and library. 14. Trails A number of commenters raised the issue of trails. The Circulation Element of the General Plan includes a comprehensive trail and bikeway plan (refer to Figure III-6 of the General Plan. The trail and bikeway plan identifies corridors and standards for on-street Class II bikeways and off-street Class I multi-use trails. Trail corridors include extending the de Anza trail and providing addition staging areas and connections to the Salinas River. • 0 7 ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: 6-25-02 • 15. Sewer A number of commenters raised the issue of sewer expansion outside of the USL. Sewers are an important public facility that protects the public's health and groundwater quality. The General Plan sets strict criteria for minimum lot size that is independent of the availability of sewer. Although sewer is provided in many areas of the Urban Services Line, topographic conditions make sewering many areas infeasible. Additional sewer connections will require expansion of the wastewater collection system. Most new sewer collection system expansions will be limited to areas directly along El Camino Real. Sewering of the entire USL area is not anticipated based on the limited collection system and topographic constraints. Sewering outside of the USL will be limited to areas with soils that have poor percolation and chronic septic system failure problems. Policy 15.5 has been revised to clarify this issue. 16. USL The Urban Services Line (USL) will be expanded to more accurately reflect where the City provides urban services. The primary expansion area is on the north end of town between San Anselmo Avenue and Santa Cruz Road. The following is a list of services that the City provides within the USL. Growth-induced impacts related to the USL have been analyzed as part of the proposed land use changes within these areas. a) Creekway & Horse Trails b) Solid Waste Disposal c) Cultural Facilities d) Storm Drainage (based Master storm drainage plans for selected sub- drainage basins) e) Streets and sidewalks f) Improvement Districts g) Street Sweeping h) County Library i) Street Trees j) Parks k) Public Utilities 1) Emergency Services (Level of Service 1) m) Water n) Sewers 17. Growth Cap A number of commenters raised the issue of numeric growth cap. Establishment of a fixed annual growth cap is a legislative policy decision. The City Council has not directed a growth cap to be included in the General Plan. The General Plan assumes an average growth rate of 1.25% over the life of the plan. Economic cycles will likely result in some years exceeding the growth rate and others being lower. The supply of available land designated • for development in the General Plan ultimately controls the buildout population. The State of California vigorously opposes the adoption of growth caps in its review and certification of Housing Elements. ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: 6-25-02 • 18. Affordable Housing A number of commenters raised the issue of the housing allocation numbers in the Housing Element. The General Plan update includes an update to the City's Housing Element. The City is required to update the housing element every seven years to comply with State Mandated Regional Housing Needs Allocations (RHNA). The City of Atascadero's RHNA is 1,713 housing units or 228 units per year. The General Plan includes a number of new programs to ensure that income restricted housing units are built. These programs include an inclusionary affordable housing requirement, provision for second units in the 1-acre residential district, mixed use residential along El Camino Real, and density bonuses for affordable projects. FINAL EIR: The Atascadero General Plan 2025 includes a comprehensive update of the General Plan guiding development and provision of services within the City. When fully developed, the General Plan area would support as many as 36,266 people in 13,685 dwelling units. The project includes language supporting expansion of the City's Sphere of Influence, Urban Services Line, and eventual annexation of Eagle Ranch to the City. approval of the project, the Commission must first certi the Final EIR • Prior to considering pp p � fy by making certain findings of fact regarding the potentially significant environmental effects. (Refer to Attachment 3) CEQA Compliance Collectively, the Atascadero General Plan 2025 is considered a "project" for purposes of compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The City concluded that the project could result in a significant adverse impact on the environment. This caused an EIR to be prepared which evaluates the potential adverse environmental consequences. The draft EIR was prepared in February 2002 and circulated for public review. The City received several written comments (published separately), and the City's EIR consultants prepared written responses for each comment. The responses were distributed to the commenter at least ten days prior to this hearing in accordance with Section 15089(b) of the State CEQA Guidelines. The draft EIR, together with the comments and written responses, constitute the Final EIR. The EIR is a decision-making tool that provides information to the Commission and the public regarding the potential environmental consequences of approving the Atascadero General Plan 2025. The EIR addresses the following topics: • Land Use and Planning • • Geology 039 ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: 6-25-02 • • Hydrology and Water Quality • Biological Resources • Cultural Resources • Agriculture • Circulation • Air Quality • Noise • Public Services • Aesthetics • Growth-Inducing, Cumulative and Significant Irreversible Effects • Alternatives The EIR also looks at a range of alternatives to the proposed project. The analysis provided in the EIR concludes that mitigation incorporated into the project description, and/or recommended by the EIR, will reduce the anticipated environmental effects to a less than significant level for all topical areas except the following. The following impacts are considered to be significant and unavoidable: . • Hydrology and Water Quality- Groundwater Supply • Projected Traffic Levels—Roadways and Interchanges • Air Quality—Construction Related and Cumulative • Noise—Construction Related and Cumulative • Police Services—Individual and Cumulative • Fire Protection—Individual and Cumulative Impacts associated with each of these topics cannot be reduced to a less than significant level by feasible mitigation measures. Under these circumstances, if the City wishes to approve the project, the Council must adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations that says, in effect, that the benefits of the project outweigh the adverse environmental consequences. Accordingly, we have provided a statement of overriding considerations in Attachment 3 as Exhibit B. All of the recommended mitigation measures described in the EIR are incorporated as conditions of project approval through the Mitigation Monitoring Program in Attachment 3 as Exhibit C. In addition, subsequent projects will be subject to all applicable city, county and school district impact fees. In accordance with State law, CEQA compliance must precede an action to approve a project. Therefore, the City, acting as lead agency, must make certain findings of fact regarding each of the impacts and mitigation measures and the significance of each impact • following mitigation. By making these findings, the lead agency certifies the final EIR, which may then be used for decision-making. 0 4 U ITEM NUMBER: B-I DATE: 6-25-02 Commission has forwarded a recommendation for Resolution "A" regarding of Comm statement in n of a The Planning adoption certification of the Atascadero General Plan 2025 Final EIR and of the California c relevant s overriding considerations m accordance with releva Environmental Quality Act. It should be noted that certain changes to the projectdesc lption have been made since these changes do not result his Draft EIR was distributed for public review. Hoever, significant environmental effects not previously analyzedlsuppl mentis n accord anraft and Fial EIR s ce would necessitate re-circulation or preparation of an addendum or with Sections 15088.5(a) and 15164 (a) of the State CEQA Guidelines. ATTACHMENTS: 1. General Plan Goal Summary 2. Atascadero Smart Growth Principles 3. Draft Resolution"A" EIR Certification 4. Draft Resolution"B" General Plan Adoption 5. Draft Ordinance "A" Zoning Map Amendments • • .. v4 : ITEM NUMBER: B- 1 DATE: 6-25-02 • Attachment 1:General Plan Goal Summary General Plan Goal Summary ProposedExisting General Plan Goal Land Use, Open Space, and Conservation LUE 1. Protect and preserve the rural atmosphere of Goal LOC 1. Protect and preserve the rural the community by assuring"elbow room"for residents atmosphere of the community by assuring"elbow by means of maintenance of large lots sizes that room"for residents by means of maintenance of large increase in proportion to distance beyond the Urban lot sizes that increase in proportion to distance beyond Core. the Urban Core. LUE 3. Preserve residential neighborhoods and Goal LOC 2. Preserve residential neighborhoods respect the winding tree-lined nature of the street and and fespeGf-the winding tree-lined nature of the street road system. and road system. • LUE 10. Transform the existing EI Camino Real"strip Goal LOC 3. Transform the existing EI Camino into distinctive, attractive and efficient commercial, Real"strip"into distinctive attractive and d efficient office and industrial park areas that can provide for the commercial, office and industrial park areas that can long-term economic viability of the community. provide for the long-term economic viability of the community. LUE 9. Provide for a strong and distinctive downtown Goal LOC 4. Provide for a strong and distinctive area. Downtown Area. ECON 2: Promotion of the downtown core area to LOC Policy 4.1: Cooperate with the Atascadero Main preserve its historic function as the City's commercial Street organization to promote downtown as the City's center, to improve the community's entertainment and cultural, entertainment, and commercial center, and to recreation attractions,and to promote tourism and the concentrate governmental facilities downtown. traveler industry as a growth industry in the community. LUE 4. Preserve the contours of the hills. Buildings Goal LOC 5. Preserve the contours of the hills. built on hillsides shall conform to the topography using Buildings built on hillsides shall conform to the the slope of the land as the basis for the design of the topography using the slope of the land as the basis for structure. the design of the structure. • LUE 5. Preserve natural flora and fauna. Goal LOC 6. Preserve natural flora and fauna and protecting scenic lands, sensitive natural areas historic buildings and cultural resources. 042 ITEM NUMBER: B-I DATE: 6-25-02 OS 2: Tree-covered hills shall be preserved to retain to°elta,On the distinctive scenic 7. Tree-covered uality of the community. lls shall be preserved the distinctive scenic quality of the community. OS 3: Watershed areas of Atascadero shall be Goal LOC 8. Watershed areas of Atascadero shall protected. be protected. OS 1: Scenic and sensitive land including creeks, de C Policy de en c and sensitive areas, o historic es not riparian corridors,wetlands and other areas of significant habitat value shall be protected from sites,creeks, riparian corridors,wetlands,woodlands, destruction,overuse, and misuse by the use of zoning, hillsides and other valuable habitats. tax incentives, easements,or fee acquisition. LUE 6. Designate areas where livestock can be owned Goal LC 9.be owned and maintained.e areas where livestock can and maintained. CON 1. Plan and manage to prevent or correct Goal LOC 10. Conserve energy and resources by degradation of the environment. planninto prevent or correct degradation of the environment. Goal LOC 11. Provide an adequate supply of City park facilities to all Atascadero residents. REC 1. Purchase needed parklands for future development of park and recreation facilities. REC 2. Provide an adequate supply of City park facilities to all Atascadero residents. Goal LOC 12. Provide a wide range of recreational activities and leisure experiences for all age groups, REC 4. Provide a wide range of recreational activities designed to foster a healthy community for residents and creative experiences for all age groups,designed and visitors. to encourage and educate participants in today's leisure society while still striving to achieve their desired degree of self-fulfillment. REC 3. Provide some specialized recreation opportunities in each quadrant of the City,including, but not limited to, swimming pools, multi-purpose sports complex,tennis courts, recreation center,play areas for children,equestrian trails,bike and jogging paths, and community center. REC 5. Develop a method of financing park and recreation facilities and services throughout the City using a variety of revenue sources. se LUE 2. Provide for a sound economic base to sustain Goal sustain OC 13. Provide for a sound the City's unique character by establishing sba a to the City's unique character. range of employment and business opportunities and generate sufficient revenue to su port adequate level of public services and environmental social and ECON 5: To provide the resources from business educational quality. activity and increasing tax revenues to support the ITEM NUMBER: B- 1 DATE: 6-25-02 • Existing General Plan Goal Proposed community's high level of environmental,social, and educational quality, and to maintain and improve the City's infrastructure. ECON 1: Protection and promotion of the overall Goal LOC 14. Retain and expand existing commercial service and retail business sectors of the businesses and attract new businesses to improve the local economy to promote local patronage, strong availability of goods and services. performance in satisfying local demand for goods and services, and the creation of entry-level jobs. ECON 3: Recruitment of new commercial services and business enterprises which will broaden the City's economic base, improve the local availability of goods and services, and improve and promote the economic viability of existing businesses ECON 4: Support for the development of industrial areas that lead to the recruitment or development of high technology, emerging technology, and professional service businesses that will provide the community with a base of moderate and high salary career-oriented jobs. LUE 11. Provide for adequate public services. Goal LOC 15. Provide adequate public services for high-quality, orderly and sensible growth. Circulation Element CIR 1. Provide for a balanced,safe,and efficient circulation Goal CIR 1: Provide a balanced, safe and efficient system to serve all segments of the community,while circulation system that serves all segments of the continuing to preserve the rural character. community, and is designed and constructed to preserve rural character. LOC 8. Provide for walkways,horse trails,and bikeways Goal CIR 2: Provide for walkways, horse trails, without curbs and sidewalks in some rural areas. and bikeways without curbs and sidewalks in rural areas. Provide a comprehensive system of routes to LOC 7. Provide for a comprehensive system of routes-to schools and parks that include creekside trails. schools and parks that may include creekside trails. CIR 2. Provide and promote alternative modes of travel, Goal CIR 3: Provide and promote alternative particularly for commute trips. modes of travel to reduce traffic congestion and improve air quality by providing viable transit • alternatives. CIR 3. Provide adequate regional facilities to minimize thru- CIR Policy 1.2: Provide regional facilities to minimize 044 ITEM NUMBER: B- I DATE: 6-25-02 . through-traffic h-traffic intrusion on local streets and to avoid traffic intrusion on local streets and to avoid barriers to local barriers to local traffic. traffic. LOC Policy 4.2: Enhance the appearance of the CIR 4. Enhance access to and travel within the downtown downtown area and improve pedestrian circulation. area of Atascadero. Safety and Noise Element Goal SAF 1. Attain a High Level of Emergency prepSFN 1.aredness. Attain a High Level of Emergency Preparedness. f Goal SAF 2. Reduce damage to structures and Goal SFN 2. Reduce damage to structures and danger to life caused by flooding and dam inundation. danger to life caused by flooding and dam inundation. Goal SAF 3. Reduce the threat to life, structures a d the environment al SFN 3. Redce the threat fire to life,structures and the environment caused by fire. Goal SAF 4. Minimize the potential for loss of life Goal SFN 4. Minimize the potential for loss of life and property resulting from geologic and seismic and property resulting from geologic and seismic hazards. hazards. Goal SAF 5. Reduce the potential for harm to ate a Goal SFN 5. Reduce the potential for harm to individuals and damage to the environment from individuals and damage to the environment from hazardous materials, radiationha ous ,electromagnetic fields, radohazan and unsafe treesradiation, and structures.romagnetic fields, radon,and unsafe trees and structures. harmfulGoal Goal NOS 1. To protect citizens from the effects of a exposure ertoeexcess ct citizens ve not e.from harmful effects of exposure to excessive noise. Goal NOS 2: To protect the economic base of Goal SFN 7: Protect the economic base uses from of Atascadero by preventing incompatible land uses from Atascadero by preventing incompatible encroaching upon existing or planned noise-producing encroaching upon existing or planned noise-producing uses uses. r NOS 3: :be erve the tranquility of Goal SFN 8: Preserve the tranquility of residential ntial areas enting the encroachment of areas by sesnting the encroachment of noise- -producing NOS 4: To educate the residents of Goal SFN 9: Educate the residents of Atascadero cadero concerning the effects of exposure to and the methods available foconcerning the effects of �minimiz ng such sure to e noise ssive noise and the methods available for exposure. mizing such exposure. X45 ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: 6-25-02 rExisting General Plan Goal Proposed Goal NOS 5: To avoid or reduce noise impacts Goal SFN 10: Avoid or reduce noise impacts through site planning and project design,giving second through site planning and project design,giving second preference to the use of noise barriers and/or structural preference to the use of noise barriers and/or structural modifications to buildings containing noise-sensitive modifications to buildings containing noise-sensitive land uses. land uses. Housing Element Goal HOS 1: Adequate Supply of New Housing Goal HOS 1: Promote diverse and high quality Units housing opportunities to meet the needs of all segments of the community. Goal HOS 2: Increase Home Ownership Goal HOS 2: Increase Home Ownership Opportunities Opportunities Goal HOS 3: Ensure an Adequate Rental Housing Goal HOS 3: Ensure an adequate amount of rental Supply housing exists. Goal HOS 4: Decreased Nongovernmental Goal HOS 4: Protect and conserve the existing Constraints housing stock and neighborhoods. Goal HOS 5: Decreased Governmental Goal HOS 5: Encourage energy conservation Constraints measures in new and existing homes. Goal HOS 6: Provide Adequate Public Services for Goal HOS 6: Improve housing opportunities and Housing living conditions for people with low and moderate incomes and those with special needs. Goal HOS 7: Provide an Adequate Land Supply for Goal HOS 7: Expand housing assistance efforts. Housing Goal HOS 8: Maintain and Conserve the Existing Goal HOS 8: Decrease nongovernmental Housing Stock constraints on housing production. Goal HOS 9: Encourage Energy Conservation in Goal HOS 9: Decrease governmental constraints Housing Stock on housing production. Goal HOS 10: Ensure Adequate Housing for People Goal HOS 10: Ensure an adequate supply of land for with Special Needs new housing production. Goal 11: Increase Housing Assistance • X46 ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: 6-25-02 • Attachment 2:Atascadero Smart Growth Principles Draft General Plan Page I-4: Atascadero's Smart Growth Principles 1. Provide for well-planned new growth. Recognize and preserve critical areas of open space, environmental habitats, and agricultural lands, while accommodating new growth in compact forms in areas designated for higher density, in a manner that encourages multi-modal transportation opportunities, integrates the new growth, and creates housing and job opportunities for people of all ages and income levels. 2. Maximize use of existing infrastructure. Accommodate additional growth by first focusing on the use and reuse of existing urbanized lands supplied with infrastructure, with an emphasis on reinvesting in the maintenance and revitalization of existing infrastructure. 3. Support vibrant city centers. Give preference to the redevelopment and reuse of Downtown Atascadero and appropriate nodes along existing transportation corridors through the encouragement and retention of mixed-use development, business vitality, housing opportunities for people of all income levels, and safe, reliable and efficient multi-modal transportation systems. 4. Develop and support coordinated planning for regional impacts. Coordinate . planning with neighboring communities and the County so that there are agreed upon regional strategies and policies for dealing with the regional impacts of growth on transportation, housing, schools, air water, wastewater, solid waste, natural resources, agricultural lands, and open space. 5. Support high quality education and school facilities. Encourage and support high quality public education, neighborhood-accessible school facilities and adequate library services as a critical determinant in making our community attractive to families, maintaining a desirable and livable community, promoting life- long learning opportunities, enhancing economic development, and providing a work force qualified to meet the full range of job skills required in the future economy. 6. Build strong communities. Support and embrace the development of strong families and a socially and ethnically diverse community, by: (1) working to provide a balance of jobs and housing within the community; (2) reducing commute time; (3) promoting community involvement; (4) enhancing public safety; and (5) providing and supporting cultural and recreational opportunities. 7. Emphasize joint-use of facilities. Emphasize the joint-use of existing compatible public facilities operated by City, school, County, and state agencies, as well as take advantage of opportunities to form partnerships with private businesses and non-profit agencies to maximize the community benefit of existing public and private facilities. 8. Support creative entrepreneurial efforts. Support local endeavors to create new products, services and businesses that will expand the wealth and job opportunities for all social and economic levels. U" ITEM NUMBER: B- 1 DATE: 6-25-02 • 9. Encourage full community participation. Foster an open and inclusive community dialogue and promote alliances and partnerships to meet community needs. 10. Establish a secure local revenue base. Create/support the establishment of a secure, balanced, and discretionary local revenue base necessary to provide the full range of needed services and quality land use decisions. U�w Draft Resolution"A" June 25,2002 Page 1 of 33 Attachment 3: Draft Resolution"A" Certification of the Final EIR DRAFT RESOLUTION "A" A RESOLUTION OF THE ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL CERTIFYING THAT THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2000-0001 WAS PREPARED IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) AND THAT THE CITY COUNCIL REVIEWED AND CONSIDERED THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS OF FACT REGARDING THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE, AND ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS AND A MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM WHEREAS the City of Atascadero has prepared an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) • for the comprehensive update of all elements of the Atascadero General Plan; and WHEREAS, the Draft EIR has been prepared and circulated as required by the California Environmental Quality Act("CEQA") and the State CEQA Guidelines; and WHEREAS, the Draft and Final EIR relating to the General Plan Update and responding to the concerns raised during the review period and at the public hearings, have been prepared pursuant to CEQA, the State Guidelines, and the City's rules and procedures for the implementation of CEQA; and WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was held by the Atascadero Planning Commission on June 18, 2002, to consider the Draft and Final EIR at which all interested persons were given the opportunity to be heard and has recommended certification of the Final EIR; and WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was held by the Atascadero City Council on June 25, 2002, to consider the Draft and Final EIR at which all interested persons were given the opportunity to be heard and has recommended certification of the Final EIR; and WHEREAS, the Atascadero City Council has reviewed and considered the information contained in the Draft and Final EIR for the General Plan Update; 049 Draft Resolution"A" June 25,2002 Page 2 of 33 • NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the members of the Atascadero City Council as follows: 1. The Atascadero City Council finds that certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report for the General Plan Update, which is incorporated herein by this reference, has been prepared and completed in compliance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City's rules and procedures. 2. The Atascadero City Council hereby further finds and certifies that the information contained in the Final EIR has been reviewed and considered by the City Council. 3. The Atascadero City Council finds that certification of the Final EIR reflects their independent judgement and analyses. 4. The Atascadero City Council hereby finds and determines that the implementation of the General Plan Update may have a significant adverse effect on the environment. 5. The Atascadero City Council hereby finds with respect to the adverse environmental impacts detailed in the Final EIR: a. That, based on information set forth in the Final EIR Exhibit "A", the Findings of Fact attached to this Resolution as Exhibit "B", the list of mitigation measures • included in the mitigation monitoring program attached as Exhibit "C and incorporated herein by reference, the Atascadero City Council finds and determines that changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the project which avoid or substantially lessen the adverse environmental effects identified in the Final EIR, b. That, based on information set forth in the Final EIR and in the Findings of Fact, the adverse environmental effects associated with the General Plan Update are significant effects which cannot be entirely mitigated or avoided if the project is approved and implemented; 6. The Atascadero City Council hereby finds and determines that: a. All significant effects that can be feasibly avoided have been eliminated or substantially lessened as determined through the findings set forth in Exhibit B.; b. Based on the Final EIR and the Findings of Fact and other documents in the record, specific economic, social and other considerations make infeasible other project alternatives identified in the Final EIR; c. Based on the Final EIR and the Findings of Fact, and other documents in the record, the remaining unavoidable significant environmental effect of the General • Plan Update are outweighed and overridden by the benefits of the project as described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations Exhibit "B", attached to Draft Resolution"A" June 25,2002 Page 3 of 33 this Resolution and incorporated herein by reference, which Statement of • Overriding Considerations is hereby approved and adopted. 7. The Atascadero City Council hereby directs that a Notice of Determination with respect to the Final EIR pertaining to the approval of the General Plan Update and all other actions in furtherance thereof be filed. On motion by Council Member and seconded by Council Member the foregoing resolution is hereby adopted in its entirety by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ADOPTED: • By: J. Michael Arrambide, Mayor Attest: Marcia McClure Torgerson, City Clerk Approved as to form: Roy A. Hanley, City Attorney 05� Draft Resolution"N' June 25,2002 Page 4 of 33 • Exhibit A-1: Volume 1: Final Environmental Impact Report SCH#20011121027 This Exhibit is attached as a separate document. • • 052 Draft Resolution"A" June 25,2002 Page 5 of 33 Exhibit A-2: Volume 11:Comments and Responses • Final Environmental Impact Report SCH#20011121027 This Exhibit is attached as a separate document. • • 053 Draft Resolution"A" June 25,2002 Page 6 of 33 • Exhibit A-2: Volume Il:Comments and Responses Final Environmental Impact Report SCH#20011121027 Complete Response to Letter 154 The comment numbering between the comment letter and the response was out of order on letter 154. The attached letter provides the correct numbering scheme. All comments were responded to the in original comment letter. • Draft Resolution'W' June 25,2002 Page 7 of 33 Letter 154 BOARD OF TR Bob Lavelle,Chair Holly Ziegler.Secretary ,:551 Arlene Winn, Treasurer Tim-O'Kcc* O D Carmel Day ENVIRONMENTAL CENTER iZ,a7ti Joan Carter OF SAN Luis 0131sPo COUNTY Shannon Johnson April 12,2002 UAtp R iVERED City of Atascadro CIO Crawford,Muitari&Clark 641 Higuera Street,Suite 302 San Luis Obispo,CA 93401 Luis Please accept the following comments of the center n l Impact Report Of San ("ECOSLO")on the Draft General Plan C DGP'Jd the Draft EnvC,DEIR")for the City of Atascadero's proposed amendments to its General Plan. ECOSLO submits these comments on behalf of its members who live in and around Organizationt membership working Atascadero,and on human health and the envirof. ECOSLO is a onment through education and community to protect end enhanceRecognizing the interdependence of humanity and based advocacy in San Luis Obispo County name ECOSLnserves as a habitat n harmony with natural systems,alyst for community environmental � ms,now and for futuregen ons. sustainable human Re nirem nts of C CEQA was enacted to require public agencies and decision-makers to document and of their actions before formal decisions are made. consider the environmental implications ge]nsure that the long-term protection Public Resources Code("Pub.Res.C•11§21000,and to of the environment shall nt guiding 1 Su h a mannercriterion in s as to afford Pub. est possible§21001(d) "CEQA was intended to rP authority." protection to the environment 14 within the reasonable scope of the statutory a115003(f), > California Code of Regulations,(hreinafte cited as"CEQA Guidelines")§ r end of Mammoth v Boazd of 4upervisors,(1972?8 Cal•3d 247. "[T]he overriding purpose encies regulating activities that may affect the quality of the CEQA is the of CEQA is to ensure that agental environment give primary consideration to preventing tion be taken to protect,rehaabilitate and Legislature's declaration of policy that all necessary Ila V. Monterey Count-Board enhance the environmental quality of the state. Save T.a a Hei+rhts Imvrovement Assn.v. of SLS msors(2001)87 Cal.App.4th 99,117, is ting --- Re ents f nlversi of ali mia (1988)47 Cal.3d 373,392;and Pub.Res.C§21000 The lead agency must identify all potentially significant impacts of the project,and must therefore consider all the evidence in the administrative record,not just its initial study. Pub- Tel.805/544-1777 ub.Tel.805/544-1777 864Osos Street,Suite C Fax 805/5441871 P.O.Box 1014 Printed on 100% Recycled Paper e-mail ecosioDa loncrorg San Luis Obispo,Califomia 93406 40 055 Draft Resolution"A" June 25,2002 Page 8 of 33 The lead agency must identify all potentially significant impacts of the project,and must therefore consider all the evidence in the administrative record,not just its initial study. Pub. Res. C. §21080(c),(d),§21082.2. CEQA Guidelines direct lead agencies to conduct an Initial Study to"determine if the project may have a significant impact on the environment." §15063(a). "All phases of the project planning,implementation,and operation must be considered in the Initial Study". CEQA Guidelines §15063(a)(1). Besides the direct impacts,the lead agency must also consider reasonably foreseeable indirect physical changes in the environment in the area in which significant effects would occur,directly or indirectly. See CEQA Guidelines§15064(d)& §15360,see,also,Laurel Hei is Improvement Assn,,supr 47 Cat.Ed at 392, An indirect impact is a physical change in the environment,not immediately related to the project in time or distance,but caused indirectly by the project and reasonably foreseeable. CEQA Guidelines §15064(d)(2)& §15358(a)(2). Indirect impacts to the environment caused by a project's economic or social effects must be analyzed if they are"indirectly caused by the project,are reasonably foreseeable,and are potentially significant."CEQA Guidelines §15064(d)-(e). A lead agency may not limit environmental disclosure by ignoring the development or other activity that will ultimately result from an initial approval. City of Antioch v. City Council(1986) 187 CAM 1325(emphasis added). Preparing a proposed negative declaration necessarily involves some degree of forecasting,and the lead agency"must use its best efforts to find out and disclose all that it reasonably can." See,CEQA Guidelines §15144. The guidelines specifically require that an Initial Study must consider"all phases of project planning,implementation,and operation." CEQA Guidelines §15063(a)(1). • Where the CEQA environmental process was procedurally or substantively defective, reviewing courts may find prejudicial abuse of discretion even if proper adherence to CEQA mandates may not have resulted in a different outcome. Pub.Res. Code §21005(a). For example,the Court in Citizens to Preserve Ojai v.County of Ventura(1985) 176 Cal.App.3d 421,428 held that the certification of an EIR that had not adequately discussed the environmental impacts of the project constituted a prejudicial abuse of discretion even if strict compliance with the mandates of CEQA would not have altered the outcome. The Court in Resource Defense Fund v. LAFCQ(1987) 191 Cal.App.3d 886,897-8,went so far as to declare that failure to comply with CEQA procedural requirements was per se prejudicial. The court in Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford(1990)221 Cal.App.3d 692 explained that an agency commits prejudicial error if"the failure to include relevant information precludes informed decision making and informed public participation,thereby thwarting the statutory goals of the EIR process."Id.,at 712 CEQA's environmental review process is intended to provide the public with assurances that"the agency has,in fact,analyzed and considered the ecological implications of its actions." Laurel Heights Improvement Ass.v.Regents of the University of California(1988)47 Ca1.3rd 376,392. The function of the environmental review,then,is not merely to result in informed decision making on the part of the agencies,it is also to inform the public so they can respond to Comments of ECOSLO on Atascadero Proposed General Plan Amendments and DEIR Page 2 of 14 056 Draft Resolution"A" June 25,2002 Page 9 of 33 an action with which they disagree. Id. The Project is Insufficiently Described In the seminal case of County of Inyo v. City of Los Angeles(1977)71 Cal.App.3d 185, 192,the court held that the project description is the sine qua non of an informative,legally adequate EIR. "Without an accurate description of on which to base the EIR's analysis,CEQA's objective of furthering public disclosure and informed environmental decision-making would be stymied." Kostka and Zisehke,Practice Under CEQA, §12.14. The EIR must describe the entire project being proposed for approval in order to ensure that all of the project's environmental impacts are considered. City of Santee v.Coun of San Diego(1989)214 CAM 1438, 1450. Only through an accurate view of the project may affected outsiders and public decision-makers balance the proposal's benefit against its environmental cost, consider mitigation measures,assess the advantage of terminating the proposal... and weigh other alternatives in the balance.An accurate,stable and finite project description is the sine qua non of an informative and legally sufficient EIR County of Info v. City of Los Angeles. 71 Ca1.App.3d 185, 192-193 One of the main problems with the DGP is that as written,it is impossible for the reader 154-1 to decipher where a particular segment is being amended. In fact,the whole document is very confusing to the point of being legally inadequate. A large introductory section is devoted to the delineation of basic policies of the General Plan and the Goal LDCs. Inclusion of these segments within the document is undoubtedly intended to create the impression that the proposed amendments are at least influenced by these goals and policies. The DGP does not,however, include an analytical discussion or description of how or whether the goals and policies were carried out in the course of drafting the proposed amendments. In fact,a careful review of the DGP reveals that despite the lip service to the goals and policies of the general plan,the proposed amendments would frustrate,rather than foster,these objectives. In its comments in response to the Notice of Preparation("NOP"),ECOSLO pointed out that the NOP did not contain the actual text of the proposed changes to the General Plan. ECOSLO urged the City to provide a description of the proposed changes and recirculate the NOP. Not only did the City refuse to correct this problem and recirculate the NOP,the City did not correct the problem with the DEIR. As explained above,it is impossible to know what changes are being proposed to the existing General Plan because the text of existing General Plan is not presented side by side with the proposed changes. ECOSLO contends that for this reason alone the DEIR and the DGP are legally deficient. Comments of ECOSLO on Atascadero Proposed General Plan Amendments and DEIR Page 3 of 14 V57 Draft Resolution"A" June 25,2002 Page 10 of 33 The project description contained in the DEIR does not sufficiently describe the • components of the project. Nor can the recitation of general goals and policies serve as a 154-2 substitute for careful and detailed description of the many residential/commercial projects that were discussed in the City Council meetings leading up to drafting of the DGP. Comments on the Notice of Preparation of EIR ECOSLO's comments relevant to the Notice of Preparation(NOP)are incorporated 154-3 herein by this reference. The City has not responded to these comments. To the extent that issues and concerns raised in the comments to the NOP have not been adequately addressed in the DEIR and DGP,these comments apply equally to the DEn All potential impacts are not analyzed The DEIR does not describe all impacts that are likely as a result of the proposed changes to the General Plan policies and programs. In fact,as already mentioned above,the DGP does 154-4 not contain a description of changes that are being proposed Some of the proposed changes can result in dramatic and significant impacts on the environment. For example,the existing Land Use,Open Space,and Conservation EIement("LOCS")contains the following description of the City's fundamental guiding principle: Atascadero shall retain it overall character and rural atmosphere with the long-term protection of the environment as a primary guiding criterion for public policy decisions. • General Plan,II-1. In contrast,the proposed LOCS proposes the following significantly different language: The overall guiding principle of the General Plan is to maintain the Waal character and identity of Atascadero while assuring orderly development and infill and efficiently providing needed goods and services to the community within the Urban Core. The following goals,policies and programs are designed to help the community achieve this objective. DGP,II-13. It appears that"long-term protection of the environment"is no longer identified as the primary guiding principle. Likewise,the first of the basic community goals identified in the existing General Plan is expressed as: Protect and preserve the rural atmosphere of the community by assuring"elbow room" for residents by means of maintenance of large lot sizes which increase in proportions to distance beyond the urban core. Comments of ECOSLO on Atascadero Proposed General Plan Amendments and DEIR Page 4 of 14 Draft Resolution"A" June 25,2002 Page 11 of 33 General Plan 11-1. The DGP,on the other hand,articulates the same goal in a small but crucially • different way: Preserve the rural atmosphere of the community and the feeling of"elbow room"in areas designated for lower density development by guiding new development into Urban Core to conform to the historic Colon land use patterns of the City neighborhoods. Policy 1.1,DGP I1-13. The iteration of this policy goal in the Draft General Plan no longer assures"elbow room"for residents,rather,it purports to preserve the"feeling"of elbow room, but only in areas designated for lower density development. Whether and to what extent this change in General Plan policies and programs will result in changes to the environment is an. issue entirely ignored by the DGP. Another significant omission from the DEIR is the analysis of the impact of the many 154-5 subdivision that will now be able to seek City approval without the need for General Plan amendments. It is well known that many developers sought that the City approve General Plan Amendments that they would need in order to proceed with their projects. The DGP and DEIR do not discuss which of the proposed projects will benefit from the amendments contained in the DGP. To the extent that some projects have already come before the City and are therefore reasonably certain to occur,the DEIR must name them assess the environmental impacts that will be caused by them. Deferring the analysis of these future projects that are already know to the City violates CEQA's well known prohibition against piecemealing projects. Housing Element The single most important part of the proposed General Plan Amendments are the 154_ proposed changes to the Housing Element. In many instances,the proposed changes to are not adequately described and evaluated in the DEIR and the DGP itself. Not surprisingly,having failed to evaluate the impacts,the City fails to propose adequate mitigation. It is extremely difficult for the average reader to adequately access the impact of the proposed amendments because the Draft General Plan does not make clear when the proposed plan deviates from the existing plan. Thus,the document does not stand on its own,and must be compared side by side with the existing General Plan in order to discern where a change is proposed. Such an approach makes the task of reviewing the proposed changes needlessly difficult,thereby frustrating CEQA's goal of protecting the public's right to take part in the environmental review and land use decision making process. Moreover,by making the public's task of reviewing the documents unnecessarily difficult,the City has substantially confirmed the public's suspicion that it is not interested in promoting public participation in the process. The DEIR claims that the proposed amendments will impact only 5%of the City of 154-7 Atascadero. Careful review of the DGP reveals,however,that some of the proposed changes will impact the entire City. Comments of ECOSLO on Atascadero Proposed General Plan Amendments and DEIR Page 5 of 14 • Draft Resolution"A" June 25,2002 Page 12 of 33 • The Land Use,Open Space and Conservation Element("LOCS")Policy 2.2 intends to Allow for the orderly development of neighborhoods by allowing for the consideration of lot size reductions for lots the(sic)are significantly larger than the surrounding neighborhoods. Programs 1. Within the Urban Services Line allow for planned developments to approve lot sizes below district minimums when an existing lot is surrounded by non-conforming lots. Minimum lot sizes shall not excess maximum General Plan densities. DGP,p.II-23. This proposed policy and the corresponding program will likely result in widespread ead additional density throughout the Urban Reserve Line,and not just 5%of the City,as claimed by the City. The DEIR makes no effort to calculate the total number of additional units this proposed policy could bring to the City. Nor does the DEIR begin to access the potential environmental impact of these additional units on traffic,sewer,water,biological resources,etc... As such,the DEIR fails to adequately describe the potential environmental impacts of the project, and is defective for that reason. The EIR must adequately analyze all potential impacts that will result from allowing such lot splits through out the City,and propose adequate mitigation or alternatives. The goals of the proposed changes to the General Plan are unclear • "A project description must state the objectives sought by the proposed project. The statement of objectives should include the underlying purpose of the project,and it should be clearly written to guide the selection of alternatives to be evaluated in the EIR." Kostka and Zischke,Practice Under CEQA, §12.23b.(Page 485),citing CEQA Guidelines§15124(b). The DGP identifies the twin goals of meeting state mandated affordable housing requirements and the creation of neighborhood serving commercial nodes as the primary goals of 154-8 the project. See,DEIR,at 31. The DEIR also states that certain"goals"are included in the DGP. Id.The DEIR does not describe whether achieving these goals is part of the objectives of the DGP. Nor does the DEIR or the DGP discuss whether these goals are the same or different than the goals and policies of the existing General Plan. While the DEIR and the DGP have not identified additional density and population as a goal of the project,the DGP certainly will result in additional population and density. If achieving additional density and population is not a goal of the proposed project,then it is unclear why changes to the land use designations which will result in additional population and density are being proposed. On the other hand,if additional density and population are intended by the proposed plan,these should be clearly articulated. Comments of ECOSLO on Ataseadero Proposed General Plan Amendments and DEIR Page 6 of 14 • U6 ® Draft Resolution"A" June 25,2002 Page 13 of 33 Some a of the proposed a endments conflict with Goals and uolicies of the general elan 1 The drafters of the DGP have insisted that the centra_1 goals and policies of the GP have survived the process. Yet,many of the proposed plans and policies are in conflict with these goals and policies. ECOSLO's comments on the NOP contains a discussion of some of these conflicts which are specifically incorporated herein by this reference. These comments are included with the DEIR as an attachment. Conversion of Guest Houses One of the central goals of the DGP is to restrict intensive development in the center of 154-9(a) the City,with the density increasing in proportion to their distance from the City center. The proposed across the board policy of permitting rentable guesthouse would result in intensification of development in areas both near and far from City center,in contravention of Goal I of the DGP. (DEIR p.31) Increased Densis in outI - areas The DGP will permit intensified residential development both in the North and South end 154-9(b) of the City. See,Figure 2,Preferred Alternative. As stated immediately above,DGP's Goal I is to provide for increasing density away from City center. By allowing smaller lot sizes in the outlying areas,the DGP will undermine this goal. Ma int ' a strop and disti tive Downtown The DGP cites as one of its objectives the creation of two commercial nodes in the north 15 ) and south end of the City. DEIR,at 31. The DEIR and DGP also site a vital downtown to be a "keystone"feature of the existing General Plan,which should not be altered. See,Goal 4 (Provide for a strong and distinctive downtown")DEIR p.31. The creation of two commercial nodes at some distance from downtown could potentially impact could conflict with the goal of promoting downtown as a vibrant commercial center by taking business away from down town. Yet the DEIR completely fails to consider this potentially significant impact and conflict between these two policies. Maintaininu orderly development of the City Land Use Goal I is to maintain orderly development of residential lots by ensuring that lot sizes 154-9(d) increase in proportion to the distance from City Center. DFG Policy 10.1,bullet 2,contains the following goal"Maintain flexible zoning standards that provide for a range of housing densities in various zones." This policy would undermine the orderly development of residential units by the flexibility to provide for a range of housing densities. This suggesting that the City will have ssure the City to grant variances and amendments that Policy would encourage the public to pre will result in disorderly development of housing throughout the City. This Policy should be Pa e 7 of 14 Comments of ECOSLO on Atascadero Proposed General Plan Amendments and DEIR g • Ubi Draft Resolution"A" June 25,2002 Page 14 of 33 • stricken. Circulation Element In general,it should be noted that the proposed mitigation measures for the Circulation 154-1 O Element are stated in terms so vague terms that do not create any actual commitment on the part of the City to undertake any actual mitigation measures. Nor does the proposed Circulation Element contain actual or discernable criteria to measure the success or failure of the proposed policies and goals of the General Plan. Thus,for example,there are no concrete dates set for an update to the Capital Improvement Plan(DEIR p.71). It is unclear how and when the program of "enhancing vehicular,bicycle,pedestrian access and travel within the Downtown"would be achieved. (DEIR p.71,Policy 1.1,Program 1.2). Nor is it clear how an adequate supply of off street parking can be achieved in the Downtown(as suggested by Policy 1.5). ECOSLO urges the City not to lower any Levels of Service to"D"unless the level service 154-11 for public transportation and pedestrians is maintained at"C"or better and there is a clear commitment by the City to aggressively pursue alternative means of transportation. The City should consider the City of San Luis Obispo's Circulation Element as a model for this purpose. San Luis Obispo has set concrete goals for reducing traffic,enhancing public transportation and pedestrian,and has included objective criteria to measure its progress towards achieving its policies of reducing traffic. Atascadero should do the same. The policy of favoring public transportation and pedestrians should be established as a policy in the General Plan in order to guide future City developments. Some of the goals of the DFG are not advanced by the proposals contained in the circulation element. For example,there • are no concrete provisions for creating bike paths. Moreover,there is no effort to place higher density developments near transportation hubs. The Level of Service(LOS)Calculations for the DGP are inadequate because they are not based on the latest Highway Capacity Manual,which was issued in 2000. The new manual also 154-12 contains LOS levels for pedestrians and public transportation. These LOS measurements were not calculated for the DGP. The Traffic Study does not make clear where the Traffic Demand Management Model 154-13 was tested or calibrated. As such,it is impossible to gauge its accuracy. Growth Inducing Impacts of the Proposed General Plan Amendments are not Addressed Many of the proposed amendments to the General Plan will likely result in or facilitate additional growth in Atascadero. The following are some examples of potential growth inducing impacts of the proposed changes that are ignored by the DEIR. Extension of sewer services to outlying areas will make development in the outlying areas 154-14 Comments of ECOSLO on Atascadero Proposed General Plan Amendments and DEIR Page 8 of 14 062 Draft Resolution"A" June 25,2002 Page 15 of 33 more feasible,thereby inducing additional growth. • Reducing lot sizes in the outlying areas will make it more likely that adjacent lots, whether in the City or the County,will also seek to split into smaller lots,thereby increasing the development potential in these areas. The well-known domino effect on the adjacent properties, especially on the east side of the City has the potential for inducing tremendous growth. Conversion of Guesthouses At the 7/24/01 City Council meeting,Community Development Director Warren Frace 154-15 stated that currently,a substantial number of guest houses in Atascadero are illegally rented. He stated that the City cannot,and has not,been able to enforce those provisions of the General Plan which make the renting of guest houses illegal. Mr. Frace further stated his belief that the City should"acknowledge"that guest houses are being rented,and try to regulate them,in part in order to be credited with additional housing units through the Housing Element. In a subsequent meeting,it was made clear that the only difference between a rentable second unit and a guesthouse is a stove,second units have them,and guest houses don't. Minutes of Atascadero General Plan Meeting,9/1712001. At a 9/28/2001 Council Meeting,it was made clear that decision not to prosecute illegal guest house conversions was a policy decision on the part of City staff. As a partial response to this problem,the City has proposed adopting Policy 8.2,Program 3:"amend the zoning ordinance to conditionally allow guest houses in the SFR-Y land use designation." Likewise,Policy 3.1,Program 3 calls for a plan to"adopt an ordinance that would • conditionally allow second units within the SFR-Y land use designation." DEIR V-27. Given the City's historical failure to enforce the regulations prohibiting second unit rentals,the proposal to begin allowing second units in parts of the City would logically result in future conversion of guest houses to rentable second units in other parts of the City. Once some second unit rentals are sanctioned by the City,even if in the guise of an experiment,the City will be under intense pressure to legalize all second units. Whether through wholesale future amendments or case by case variances,the move to legally sanction some second units would undoubtedly result in many more such conversions. The additional legally rentable second units would in turn result in population growth and the concomitant environmental impacts. Thus,the General Plan amendment to"conditionally"allow rentable guest houses is likely to have serious growth inducing impacts,which were ignored by the DEIR. Additional impacl,5 of permitting rentable Guesthouses Although the DEIR(eg at p.46)and the DGP both admit that soil in most areas in the City is unsuitable for septic systems and note a relatively high rate of septic failures of septic systems,these documents are silent on the impact of the additional residential density in areas Com Comment'of ECOSLO on Atascadero Proposed General Plan Amendments and DEIR Page 9 of 14 • Ub3 Draft Resolution"A" June 25,2002 Page 16 of 33 • without sewer service. The high rate of failure would result in water quality impairments,which may render portions of groundwater reserves unsuitable as a source of drinking water. On the other hand,the high rate of septic system failures may result in the costly decision to extend sewer services outside the urban reserve line. The extension of the sewer service outside of the Urban Reserve Line would be in conflict with the GP's policy of limiting Utilities and Services to the areas within the City. Any extension of sewer services would be extremely costly. Finally, extending sewer service to the outlying areas would also result in the sewer treatment facility reaching maximum capacity at a faster rate than anticipated in the DEIR,which could result in costly expansion of the existing facility. Thus,at a minimum,rentable guesthouses should not be allowed in areas outside the Urban Reserve Line with high risk of septic system failure. Likewise,the additional impacts on the water supplies,biological resources,and traffic from the additional population growth due at least in part on guesthouses is not addressed in the DEIR. Impacts on Overcrowded Schools are not mitimled 154-16 The DEIR acknowledges that many schools in the City are already over crowded. The DEIR admits that the only funds available for funding additional schools would come from new developments. The DEIR contains no mitigation measures to reduce the impact on the already overcrowded public schools. The DEIR cites school mitigation fees as a potential source of revenue for funding new schools,and states that the City would work with the School District to find location for new schools. There is no discussion,however,of whether the funding from schools mitigation fees would be sufficient to mitigate the impact on schools. Nor is there any discussion of what percentage of the new commercial or residential developments would be • required to pay school mitigation fees. The proposed project's impacts on schools,therefore,remains inadequately understood and mitigated. The OGP will result in Reduction of Recreational facilitie 154-17 The DGP will result in a reduction of the total number of acres devoted to recreation and public facilities. DEIR,p.30. Because the DGP will also result in a significant increase in total population over the existing General Plan,the total amount of recreational acreage per resident will also decline,possibly significantly. The DEIR fails to consider this impact. This reduction of total park acreage per resident also seems to be in conflict with Goal 11 of the DGP to "Provide an adequate supply of City park facilities to all Atascadero residents."DEIR p.31. Comments of ECOSIA on Atascadero Proposed General Plan Amendments and DEIR Page 10 of 14 • t) Draft Resolution"A" June 25,2002 Page 17 of 33 Impacts on Bioloyca-Resources • en itive and/or ial Status S ecies: CEQA Guidelines sec. 15126,requires that an EIR must identify and provide adequate information on the significant,and reasonably foreseeable effects of all phases of a proposed project.It is anticipated in the DEIR that if the proposed General Plan alternative�is le enacted, development allowed under the plan may affect sensitive species(DEIR,p )• 154-18 attempts to provides direction for the protection of sensitive and special status species,the collaborative support necessary to conduct research,planning,and habitat management efforts leading to long-term conservation and protection of species is improperly deferred to future anticipated projects. Detailed inventories which include vegetative,herpetological,icthiological, ornithological,and mammalian surveys,including small mammals,fish,bats and insects should be conducted.Future inventories will.Because the land surrounding Atascadero is under development pressures,it is vital to obtain accurate data on the existing species. This will facilitate the ultimate goal of this project and ensure a higher potential for the continued survival of sensitive species. Wetland and th r Sensitive Communities:, Approximately 91%of California's presettlement wetland habitat has been destroyed as a result of past development projects(Cylinder,et al. 1995, Wetlands Regulation).In addition riparian habitats support plants and animals that are not common elsewhere.Riparian and wetland areas can help maintain water quality by reducing pollution,siltation,and erosion.These areas are often sought out for recreation and are generally considered amenities valued by communities and private landowners.Past studies suggest that property values may rise between 5-11%or more due to proximity to open space and water,improved water quality provided by wetlands,and the aesthetic value of wetlands(Kirshner and Moore 1988,Li and Brown 1980, Dornbusch and Barrager 1973). The DEIR anticipates increases in development encroachment in riparian and wetland areas under the proposed General Plan.These impacts are identified as significant but mitigatable X54-19 (DEIR,p 58).However,in reality,there is no mitigation for direct removal of riparian vegetation or wetland areas.Development and other uses within riparian zones decreases stream shading, increases sedimentation and temperature,reduces filtration of pollutants,cause bank erosion,and reduces the amount of nutrients for downstream areas. The DEIR recommends conditions of approval for development proposed within 100 feet of a riparian or wetland area(DEIR p 61).While the mitigation proposed in the DEIR may be sufficient for seasonal drainages,larger creeks and tributaries to the Salinas River should be protected by setbacks of at least 50 feet beyond the dripline of any riparian vegetation,or 100 feet Page I 1 of 14 Comments of RCOSLO on Ataseadero Proposed General Plan Amendments and DEIR Pa g • Draft Resolution"A" June 25,2002 Page 18 of 33 • from the stream bank,whichever is greater. Miexation and Movement Corridors: 154-20 The DEIR has identified reasonably foreseeable harm likely to occur from disruption of well established wildlife movement corridors(DEIR p 58). Corridors are recognized in the scientific literature as critical in providing movement between areas essential to the survival of individuals and species.The physical disruption of wildlife corridors caused by the removal of vegetation and/or introduction of less than mature plants or non-native species could possibly mean significant corridors could be lost as suitable habitat for many of the local or migratory species.Further study to illuminate species composition,routes used or techniques to avoid disrupting this essential habitat element should be concluded prior to certification of the DEIR Alternatives CEQA contains a substantive mandate that public agencies refrain from approving projects with significant environmental effects if there are"feasible alternatives or mitigation measures"that can substantially lessen or avoid those effects. Mountain Lion Foundation v.Fish and Game Cgmmission(1997) 16 CalAth 105, 134;Public Resources Code§§21002,21081. Public Resources Code§21100 requires public agencies to consider alternatives to the proposed project in the EIR. An EIR must"[d]escribe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project,or to the location of the project,which would feasiblely attain most of the basic objectives of the project • but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project,and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives. CEQA Guidelines§ 15126.6(a). The discussion must "focus on alternatives to the protect or its location which are capable of avoiding or substantially lessening any significant effects of the project,even if these alternatives would impede to some degree the attainment of the project objectives,or would be more costly." CEQA Guidelines § 15126.6(b). [The EIR]must contain sufficient detail to help ensure the integrity of the process of decision making by precluding stubborn problems or serious criticism from being swept under the rug. It must reflect the analytic route the agency traveled from evidence to action. An EIR which does not produce adequate information regarding alternatives cannot achieve the dual purpose served by the EIR,which is to enable the reviewing agency to make an informed decision and to make the decisionmaker's reasoning accessible to the public,thereby protecting informed self-government. Kings County Farm Bureau v.QiV of Hanford(1990)221 Cal.App.3d 692,733 (internal citations omitted). A legally adequate EIR"must produce information sufficient to permit a reasonable choice of alternatives so far as environmental aspects are concerned." San Bernardino Valley Audubon Sociely v.Co of San emardino(1984) 155 Cal.App.3d 738,750-751. Comments of ECOSLO on Atascadero Proposed General Plan Amendments and DEIR Page 12 of 14 • �� 6 Draft Resolution"A" June 25,2002 Page 19 of 33 CEQA does not dictate that theg lead a must choose a particular alternative,but if agency alternatives are rejected as infeasible,the EIR must provide a reasoned explanation for their rejection. n Mun.Water Dist.vLand C 1' rnia Co .(1991)235 Cal.App.3d 1652 [1 Cal.Rptr.2d 767]("If the agency finds certain alternatives to be infeasible,its analy�e DEIR fails must 154-21 explain in meaningful detail the reasons and facts supporting that conclusion."). to adequately propose and discuss alternatives to the proposed DGP. The DEIR,at p.97,refers to Alternatives 1-3,which were called the Minimum Infill, Mixed Use Approach,and Maximum Development Potential,respectively. The DEIR also refers to a"land use diagram"as the preferred alternative. The DEIR then goes chose an to epreferred the `°community chose Alternative 1. The City,based on the community input, option combining cf�as the land use scheme in the Draft Plan nents of the existing General Plan,and Aand this EIR."lternatives 1 and jd? his combination is put The DEIR then goes on to present a cursory description of the alternatives referred to above. Alternative I is said to provide for"the most intense land uses,"with housing and retail commercial development dominating the northern portion of the city. Other intense residential development would be envisioned pursuant to this alternative. Figure 7 is said to describe this alternative. This alternative was rejected because it did not meet"objectives regarding rural character,compact development,preservation of elbow room,among others,and would result in greater environmental impacts than the Draft Plan". Id. This alternative was rejected and further considered. The DEIR also refers to"other alternatives"such as"mixed use,minimal development, and Eagle Ranch SOI exclusion"which were deemed not to conflict with project objectives,and • would result in fewer impacts. As a threshold matter,the DEIR's description of the alternatives is inadequate because it fails to provide sufficient detail to allow for`meaningful"analysis. Significantly,the DEIR is unclear which components of Alternative 1 and 2 were selected to arrive at the preferred alternative. While the DEIR admits itself only comparesternative is the whole of Algtemat vtion of e 2 and aspects dof both Alternative 1 and 2,the D Exclusion of Eagle Ranch from the Sphere of Influence. Because the D ate itself elf cones analysis of elements of the different alternatives identified in the DEIR,an appropriate must compare each element within the alternatives,and not the alternatives as whole. Without le and orange to orange"comparison of the components of each strategy,the this apple to app DEIR contains insufficient information about each alternative to allow the public to can e gs wisdom of the City's choice of alternatives and 221 Cal.A rejection 3dthe public's 692,733(intetrnal citations Co Farm B eau V. Ci o Hanford(1990) PP omitted). The analysis of the No Project Alternative is inadequate,and exposes the analytical gaps in the City's analysis. For the most part,although somewhat obliquely,the DEIR does manage to Comments of ECOSLO on Atascadero Proposed General Plan Amendments and DEIR Page 13 of 14 • X67 Draft Resolution"A" June 25,2002 Page 20 of 33 • explain that the impact from the lower population rates envisioned in the existing General Plan will result in fewer and less severe impacts on Agriculture,Air Quality,Biological Resources, Cultural Resources,Water,Noise,Public Services,and Recreation. In short,as the DEIR admits at page 105,the No Project Alternative is environmentally superior. The DEIR identifies a few instances where the DGP contains policies that would reduce the environmental impacts that are likely caused by the existing plan. Thus,for example,the DEIR states that existing plan would result in aesthetic impacts because it does not contain "policies"aimed at preserving"darkness"in the community,or preservation of views,etc. Id., 97-98. The DEIR does not explain why the existing plan could not be amended to incorporate these policies without providing for additional density and population growth as envisioned by the DGP. Significantly,the DEIR does not reject the No Project Alternative(i.e.implementation of the existing General Plan)because it fails to meet the project's objectives,or that it is infeasible. To reiterate,the primary objectives of the DGP are to"meet state affordable housing requirements,and to distribute commercial services in such a way that they form neighborhood- specific commercial areas." DEM,31. 10 additional"goals"which in their original form were included in the existing General Plan and are not new to the DGP. The City does not claim anywhere in the DEIR that the existing GP will fail to meet the goal of meeting state affordable housing requirements,or redistribute commercial services. In fact,there is no analysis of why the additional density and population that will result from implementation of the DGP are necessary to meet the objectives of the DGP. Nor is there any explanation of the origins or the genesis of the stated objectives of the DGP. • Conclusion ECOSLO has demonstrated here that the Alternative discussion contained in the DEIR 154-22 fails to satisfy the minimum requirements of CEQA. The City should draft and re-circulate a legally sufficient Alternatives analysis consistent with the requirements of CEQA. Dated April 12,2002 Pam Marshal Heatherington Executive Director,ECOSLO Comments of ECOSLO on Atescadero Proposed General Plan Amendments and DEIR Page 14 of 14 • 068 Draft Resolution"A" June 25,2002 Page 21 of 33 Letter 154 • ECOSLO April 12,2002 154-1 The commenter states that it is "impossible"to decipher changes from the existing General Plan and the proposed General Plan. The commenter goes on to state that the document (the Draft Plan) is legally inadequate because it is confusing. The commenter further states that contrary to ECOSLO's suggestion in the NOP,the Draft Plan did not include text outlining changes from the existing plan. Finally,the commenter states that the DEIR and Draft Plan are legally deficient for these reasons. Response: The drafting and organization of a general plan is guided by §65300 et seq. of the California Government Code. In fact, §65301(a) of the Code specifically states "the general plan may be adopted in any format deemed appropriate or convenient by the legislative body, including the combining of elements." The law does not require comparison of, consistency with, or reference to, previous general plans in the drafting of a new general plan. CEQA requires that an EIR for a general plan assess impacts based on the environment at the time of the project proposal,not the existing general plan. Comparisons to the existing general plans in terms of relative impact are limited to analysis of the existing general plan in the alternatives section. CEQA requires the analysis of the"no-project" alternative, which must discuss the existing conditions at the time of NOP preparation, as well as what could occur in the future under existing plans and available services. The DEIR prepared for the Draft Plan analyzed two "no project" alternatives; one which addressed the existing condition, and one which compared the Draft Plan to the General Plan. It is important to note that if either of the no-project alternatives is selected as the "environmentally superior alternative,"then the EIR must identify another environmentally superior alternative. Guidelines §15126.6(e). 154-2 The commenter contends that the project description contained in the DEIR does not sufficiently describe the components of the project. The commenter states that a "careful and detailed description of...residential [and] commercial projects" is warranted. Response: An EIR prepared for a General Plan is a programmatic document. The reader is encouraged to refer to the Introduction of the EIR for an explanation of the requirements and specificity of an EIR analyzing a General Plan. The project analyzed in the EIR is the broad land use plan put forth in the Draft Plan and the policies therein. It is not feasible to define and/or assess the impacts of specific projects in such an EIR. 154-3 The commenter states that the comments put forth by ECOSLO in response to the NOP are incorporated by reference. Response: Comment noted. The letter received in response to the NOP is attached and responses to applicable comments follow. Responses are limited to those issues that pertain to the EIR. The reader should note that the lead agency is not required to respond to • 069 Draft Resolution"A" June 25,2002 Page 22 of 33 comments on the NOP. Comments specifically regarding the NOP that do not pertain to the EIR are simply denoted, "not applicable." 154-3(a) The commenter states that the NOP failed to adequately describe the project. Response: Not applicable. 154-3(b) The commenter states that because the text of the Draft Plan was not available at the time of the NOP, the NOP was "patently inadequate." Response: Not applicable. 154-3(e) The commenter sates that the NOP is legally inadequate in part due to the lack of Draft Plan text. Response: Not applicable. 154-3(d) The commenter states that the amendments to the General Plan are in conflict with the existing General Plan and internally inconsistent with guiding policies. • Response: The commenter is referred to the response to 154-1, and 154-9. 154-3(e) The commenter states that internal conflicts among policies and goals warrant identification of potentially significant impacts in terms of land use and planning. Response: The General Plan Update process involved a series of neighborhood workshops, community forums, and public meetings. The public identified a number of issues that were important ranging from preservation of rural character and protection of oak woodlands to the supply of affordable housing. The General Plan has focused on identifying a balance point of focusing growth along the El Camino Real corridor while preserving the large lot patterns found in the hills. All of the General Plan land use changes are located along El Camino Real and Morro Road and affect less than 5% of the land within the City. The General Plan creates a new greenbelt policy that limits the maximum boundaries of the City to the historic E.G Lewis Atascadero Colony boundaries. 154-3(f) The commenter states that traffic generated by the Draft Plan may preclude expansion of existing mineral extraction operations. Response: Comment noted. • 154-3(g) The commenter states that the population increase is confusing. 070 Draft Resolution"A" June 25,2002 Page 23 of 33 Response: The population buildout number of the current General Plan is 32,873 persons. • The new General Plan buildout number is 36,266 persons with net increase 3,392 persons. The buildout number was derived based on the General Plan land use changes reflected in the following table. The total acreage number is zero because no new area is added to the General Plan. Difference between existing and proposed GP Land Use net changes Units Population A 0.0 ac SE/ RE (315.5) ac -123 du's -325 pp SFR-Z 32.8 ac 32 du's 86 pp SFR-Y 119.7 ac 260 du's 689 pp SFR-X 65.2 ac 252 du's 669 pp MDR 19.9 ac 102 du's 271 pp HDR 58.0 ac 367 du's 973 pp GC-NC (7.7) ac GC-O 3.4 ac GC-R 61.8 ac 189 du's 501 pp CPK (73.2) ac D 0.4 ac • SC (29.8) ac GC-TC (3.7) ac 1 31.2 ac IPK(drop) (31.2) ac MU 66.6 ac 200 du's 530 pp CREC 6.7 ac REC (177.6) ac P (104.2) ac OS 277.4 ac Total 0.0 ac 1,280 du's 3,392 pp The table includes the following unit adjustments 72 units added to SFR-X(small lot single family planned development policy) 50 units added to SFR-Y (second unit policy) 189 units added to GC (mixed use commercial policy) 154-3(h) The commenter states that the change from"units"to "bedrooms" if confusing and questions the total population increase. Response: The multi-family density formula will be changed to a unit based formula rather than a bedroom based formula. This will actually improve population • projections since multi-family populations are calculated by the State on a unit basis rather than a bedroom basis. 071 Draft Resolution"A" June 25,2002 Page 24 of 33 • 154-3(i) The commenter states that it is not clear whether conversion of commercial districts to mixed use are accounted for. Response: Refer to 154-3(g) 154-30) The commenter states that the NOP fails to consider the population increases of Policy Option 1, expansion of the USL. Response: Refer to 154-3(g); regarding buildout. 154-3(k) The commenter states that the NOP fails to consider increases in population as a result of guesthouses and second units. Response: Guesthouses are currently allowed in all single-family residential districts with a building permit. The guest houses are permitted to be as large as 50%the area of the main house but may not have cooking facilities. The City Council has direct the General Plan to prohibit guesthouses in all single-family residential districts and allow second units (with cooking facilities) in the Single Family Residential one-acre district (SFR-Y) only. The second units would be required to meet certain design standards (lot size, parking, maximum size, minimal tree impacts and architectural design) and would need to be approved by the Planning Commission through a • Conditional Use Permit process. The State of California requires cities to allow second units in single-family districts unless the city adopts certain hardship findings. 154-3(1) The commenter states that areas converting to mixed use from commercial should be mapped and should be included in density and population assumptions. Response: Refer to 154-3(g) 154-3(m) The commenter states that setback figures have not been provided. Response: Policy 8.2 in the proposed General Plan identifies the need to "establish and maintain" creek development standards. Commenters expressed general concern about the apparent lack of specificity in this policy and its associated programs, and they requested establishment of quantified setbacks in the proposed General Plan. A number of policies and programs have been added under Goal LOC 8 to further specify the performance standards that must be met. The reader should note that much of this language is incorporated from the EIR, with minor clarifications and expansions. The following policy has been added to the General Plan to provide an interim creek setback requirement: II • 8.2.2. Prior to adoption of a creek setback ordinance an interim 20-foot creek setback shall be in effect along Draft Resolution"A" June 25,2002 Page 25 of 33 Atascadero Creek, Graves Creek and all other 7.5 min • USGS quadrangle blueline creeks as follows: a) On Atascadero Creek and Graves Creek setbacks shall be measured from the edge of the creek reservation. b) All other blueline creek setbacks shall be measured from ordinary high water mark. c) The Planning Commission may approve exceptions to the interim creek setbacks in the form of a conditional use permit if the finding can be made that creek or improvements will not be negatively impacted by the exception. 154-3(n) The commenter states that needs to expand streets or intersections may conflict with plan goals. Response: All future street projects will be subject to CEQA review. Projects that violate City policies are create significant impacts will have to be changed or mitigated. 154-3(0) The commenter states that expansion of the URL will require services that must be addressed. • Response: Impacts to services are addressed in Section V.X of the EIR. 154-3(p) The commenter states that adequate park and open space should be set aside. Response: The reader is referred to Section V.X, "Public Services." The amount of parks acreage available was considered sufficient to serve the future population. Furthermore, programs under Policy 11.1 call for the provision of additional park space beyond accepted standards. 154-3(q) The commenter states that the baseline traffic must be studied. Response: The traffic study in the EIR is up-to-date. 154-3(r) The commenter states that the analysis and mitigation of floodplain impacts is insufficient. Response: The City currently has a Flood Hazard ordinance that regulates development in areas of high flood hazard. The ordinance requires special engineering studies and development standards for construction within the high flood hazard zone. • 154-3(s) The commenter states that the school relocation should be addressed. 0'l 3 Draft Resolution"A" June 25,2002 Page 26 of 33 • Response: The relocation of the Junior High School to a site outside of the Downtown is a long term goal of the school district that is supported by the City. There are current plans to move the school. 154-3(t) The commenter states that the NOPs discussion of groundwater is flawed. Response: Updated information was incorporated into the EIR analysis. 154-3(u) The commenter states that impacts to wetlands cannot"readily"be mitigated, and that avoidance is preferred. Response: Refer to 154-3(m), regarding creek setbacks. 154-3(v) The commenter states that proposed housing visible from Highway 101 will require mitigation. Response: The commenter is referred to Section V.Xl, "Aesthetics," for a list of policies and programs intended to reduce the significance of aesthetic impacts. 154-3(w) The commenter states that destruction of oaks and vegetation must be • assessed. Response: The commenter is referred to Section V.IV, "Biological Resources" for a discussion of impacts and mitigation. 154-3(x) The commenter states that growth-inducing impacts of second units must be analyzed. Response: Second units were accounted for in the buildout population. 154-3(y) The commenter states that impacts to prime or important land must be mitigated. Response: The commenter is referred to Section V.VI, "Agriculture" for a discussion of impacts to prime and important farmland. 154-3(z) The commenter that the objectives identified in the NOP are flawed. Response: The commenter is referred to the discussion of objectives in the EIR. 154-4 The commenter states that the DEIR fails to address impacts of the Draft Plan associated with changes to existing General Plan language. • Response: The reader is referred to 154-1. 074 Draft Resolution"A" June 25,2002 Page 27 of 33 154-5 The commenter states that the DEIR omits analysis of subdivisions that will now not • need amendments, including some projects about which the City is knowledgeable. Response: Refer to the response to 154-2. When a general plan is the proposed project, the CEQA Guidelines allow for description and analysis of a broad program, with analysis for consistency with the General Plan and additional impacts for specific projects at a later date. The General Plan EIR does not exempt future projects from environmental review. 154-6 The commenter states that the changes between the existing and proposed housing elements are not described and evaluated in the DEIR and Draft Plan. The commenter goes on to state that the document[s] do not stand on their own. Response: The commenter is referred to the response to comment 154-1. 154-7 The commenter states that the proposed changes will affect 100%, as opposed to the purported 5%, of the city. The commenter specifically cites Policy 2.2 and states that the EIR does not assess the impacts of this policy. Response: General Plan Policy 2.2.2. Allows for lots within the Urban Services Line to be subdivided below the zoning district minimums when the lot is surrounded on all sides by non-conforming lots. The process would require a Planned Development rezone to be approved by the City Council and would only allow the minimum lot size to be reduced to the next lowest single family district minimum lot size. • Land Use Min Lot Size Min Lot with PD Potential Lots SE Suburban Estates 2.5 acres 1.5 acres (6±lots) SFR-Z Single Family 1.5 acre min 1.5 acres 1.0 acres (4±lots) SFR-Y Single Family 1.0 acre min 1.0 acre 0.5 acre(if sewered) (7±lots) Based on an analysis of the existing lot patterns within the USL it appears that potential 20 lots may qualify for the PD process. The majority of potential lots would not be able to meet the requirement of being surrounded by non-conforming lots. 154-8 The commenter states that the objectives of the Draft Plan are unclear. Response: The objectives of the proposed General Plan consist of the goals put forth in the project description of the EIR. Objectives stated in an EIR need to attain a level of detail commensurate with the level of detail of the project. The proposed General Plan would provide the guiding framework for the development of the community, however, objectives remain less than concrete. CEQA allows for this level of specificity in a programmatic EIR, such as the EIR in question. 154-9 The commenter states that internal conflicts exist in the Draft Plan. 154-9(a) The commenter states that allowing guesthouses is inconsistent with • Draft Plan goals. 075 Draft Resolution"A" June 25,2002 Page 28 of 33 • Response: Refer to 154-3(k). 154-9(b) The commenter states that residential development in the north and south is inconsistent with Goal 1. Response: Since the founding of the Atascadero Colony by E.G. Lewis in 1913, Atascadero has been designed with more compact development centered on Downtown and El Camino Real (referred to as the Urban Core). Lot sizes increase in proportion to distance from the urban core. This development pattern exists today along El Camino Real and has been permitted by City General Plans for 20-years. The proposed General Plan is consistent with the existing development pattern and continues to protect the large lot development standards outside the urban core. 154-9(c) The commenter states that commercial nodes are inconsistent with Goal 4. Response: Each node would support different types of uses. The Downtown will focus on civic, dining, tourist serving and entertainment uses. Outlying nodes will provide neighborhood commercial and service uses. 154-9(d) The commenter states that Policy 10.1, bullet 2 is inconsistent with • Goal 1. Response: Comment noted 154-10 The commenter states that in general the mitigation measures for the Circulation Element are vague and lack measurable criteria to measure their success or failure. Response: The proposed General Plan is a programmatic document; it provides policies and programs intended to guide the long-range development of the City of Atascadero. The environmental impacts of such a document are best assessed through a programmatic EIR, which outlines general impacts and mitigation measures, in the form of policies and programs, while incorporating guidance for future projects (Bass et al., 1999). Mitigation may not be deferred, however, guidance may consist merely of performance standards for future mitigation. 154-11 The commenter recommends that the City not lower levels of service standards unless the City aggressively pursues alternative transportation. The commenter recommends review and inclusion of policies and measures contained in the City of San Luis Obispo Circulation Element. Response: Comment noted. • 154-12 The commenter states that LOS Calculations for the Draft Plan are inadequate because they are based on outdated information. The commenter further states that LOS measurements for alternative transportation were not calculated. 076 Draft Resolution"A" June 25,2002 Page 29 of 33 Response: Traffic counts that are less than 3 ears old are considered valid. When the S P Y Circulation Element update started in 2000, the traffic counts were conducted. Therefore, it is not necessary to conduct new traffic counts. LOS analysis for alternative transportation was not calculated for the Draft General Plan. 154-13 The commenter asks where the Traffic Demand Management model was tested or calibrated. Response: The traffic model was calibrated to existing conditions (reference Table 7—Daily Validation by Roadway Type). 154-14 The commenter states that the EIR ignores certain growth-inducing impacts, including extension of sewer and reducing lot sizes. Response: Such assumptions were built into the EIR and were analyzed as part of the project. Sewer is proposed for extension to portions of the community with the USL; the General Plan does not propose extension of sewer to areas outside this area, which may facilitate growth. Reduction of lot sizes is accounted for in terms of additional population potential. Reduction of lot sizes in itself is not growth-inducing. 154-15 The commenter states that impacts from the conversion of guesthouses are ignored by the EIR. • Response: Refer to 154-3(k). 154-16 The commenter states that impacts to schools are not mitigated. Response: The reader is referred to Section V.X, "Public Services." The law limits mitigation for impacts to schools to the levying of specific developer's fees. To further address this issue, the Draft Plan contains a number of policies under Goal LOC 15, including Policy 15.9, which aim for the provision of adequate school facilities. Decisions and planning for the provision of schools ultimately rest with the school district. 154-17 The commenter states that the Draft Plan will result in reduction of recreational facilities and that the EIR fails to address the impact. Response: The reader is referred to Section V.X, "Public Services." The EIR analyzed the proposed recreational acreage against the proposed buildout and national standards and concluded that a sufficient amount of park space would be available. 154-18 The commenter states that implementation of the EIR would have impacts to sensitive species, and that the EIR improperly defers "collaborative support" and inventories to future projects. Response: The proposed General Plan is a programmatic document; it provides policies and • programs intended to guide the long-range development of the City of Atascadero. The 077 Draft Resolution"A" June 25,2002 Page 30 of 33 • environmental impacts of such a document are best assessed through a programmatic EIR, which outlines general impacts and mitigation measures, in the form of policies and programs, while incorporating guidance for future projects (Bass et al., 1999). Mitigation may not be deferred, however, guidance may consist merely of performance standards for future mitigation. 154-19 The commenter states that impacts to riparian and wetland areas are not mitigable, and suggests additional mitigation. Response: Policy 8.2 in the proposed General Plan identifies the need to "establish and maintain" creek development standards. Commenters expressed general concern about the apparent lack of specificity in this policy and its associated programs, and they requested establishment of quantified setbacks in the proposed General Plan. A number of policies and programs have been added under Goal LOC 8 to further specify the performance standards that must be met. The reader should note that much of this language is incorporated from the EIR, with minor clarifications and expansions. The following policy has been added to the General Plan to provide an interim creek setback requirement: 8.2.2. Prior to adoption of a creek setback ordinance an interim 20-foot creek setback shall be in effect along Atascadero Creek, Graves • Creek and all other 7.5 min USGS quadrangle blueline creeks as follows: a) On Atascadero Creek and Graves Creek setbacks shall be measured from the edge of the creek reservation. b) All other blueline creek setbacks shall be measured from ordinary high water mark. c) The Planning Commission may approve exceptions to the interim creek setbacks in the form of a conditional use permit if the finding can be made that creek or improvements will not be negatively impacted by the exception. 154-20 The commenter states that further study regarding wildlife corridors should be concluded prior to certification of the DEIR. Response: The proposed General Plan is a programmatic document; it provides policies and programs intended to guide the long-range development of the City of Atascadero. The environmental impacts of such a document are best assessed through a programmatic EIR, which outlines general impacts and mitigation measures, in the form of policies and programs, while incorporating guidance for future projects (Bass et al., 1999). Mitigation • may not be deferred, however, guidance may consist merely of performance standards for future mitigation. 078 Draft Resolution"N' June 25,2002 Page 31 of 33 154-21 The commenter states that the EIR's description of alternatives is inadequate because . it fails to provide sufficient detail. The commenter goes on to state that the EIR fails to describe which components of 1 and 2 were selected to arrive at the preferred alternative. The commenter further states that the No Project Alternative analysis is inadequate. Response: A number of commenters have been unsatisfied with the alternatives selected, and have provided suggestions for additional alternatives. CEQA requires the consideration of a range of reasonable alternatives to the proposed plan. CEQA does not require analysis of every conceivable alternative to a project in an EIR. Rather,the range of alternatives selected is guided by the following criteria: • The alternative meets some or all of the project objectives • The alternative appears feasible • The alternative avoids or substantially lessens significant impacts of the proposed project. Sufficient information must be provided about each alternative to allow for "meaningful analysis," however, the level of detail may be less than the proposed project [Guidelines §15126.6(d)]. The General Plan update process included analysis of four alternatives over the past year. • The plan options included the Minimum Infill (Alternative 1), Mixed Use Approach (Alternative 2), the Maximum Development Potential (Alternative 3), and the land use diagram identified in the Draft Plan (preferred alternative). The city has therefore devised a number of alternatives as a result of a long-term study and planning effort. The alternatives previously described were considered feasible, logical, and meeting different objectives. 154-22 The commenter states that the EIR should be recirculated. Response: A number of comments received during the public review process resulted in minor changes to the policies and programs contained in the Draft Plan, as well as the land use diagram. New information was also incorporated into the EIR during this period. None of the above changes meet the thresholds for recirculation, including substantial changes in the underlying project, substantial new impacts, or substantial changes in the significance of an impact. The initial 45-day review period is considered adequate. • 079 • Exhibit B: Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations City of Atascadero General Plan 2025 Volume III: Findings of Fact and • Statement of Overriding Considerations Mitigation Measures Monitoring and Reporting Plan SCH No. 2001121027 June 11, 2002 Prepared by: Crawford Multari & Clary ASSOCIATES • - lJ t3 City of Atascadero General Plan 2025 Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Mitigation Measures Monitoring and Reporting Plan Pursuant to Sections 15091 and 15093 Of the State CEQA Guidelines and Section 21081 of the Public Resources Code Final Program Environmental Impact Report State Clearinghouse Number 2001121027 • Project Files May Be Reviewed at: J Y City of Atascadero Community Development Department 6500 Palma Avenue • CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Regarding Significant Environmental Effects of The City of Atascadero General Plan 2025 Section 1: Statutory Requirements for Findings • g The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Public Resources Code §21081) and the CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations,Title 14, §1509 1)require that: "No public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an EIR has been certified which identified one or more significant environmental effects of the project unless the public agency makes one or more written findings for each of those significant effects, accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding. The possible findings are: (1) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the final EIR. (2) Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. (3) Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers,make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR. The findings required shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record." For those significant effects that cannot be mitigated to a less than significant level, the lead agency is required to find that specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of the project outweigh the significant effects on the environment(Public Resources Code Section 21081(b)). Consistent with the requirements of CEQA and the Guidelines, the Final EIR for the Atascadero General Plan identified environmental effects in proportion to their severity and probability of occurrence. The Final EIR identified certain potentially significant adverse environmental effects of the project, which are listed below. The Final EIR also identified mitigation measures, which will reduce or eliminate many of these potentially significant effects. The determination whether or not to incorporate such mitigation measures and the rationale for such determination are set forth below. In making these findings, all of the rationale and data contained in the Final EIR have not been repeated. The Final EIR and other source documents referenced therein are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full in this document. Except to the extent they conflict with the findings and determinations set forth in this document, the analysis and conclusions of the Final EIR, including the responses to comments and any supplemental responses provided by City staff and consultants in connection with the adoption of the Atascadero General Plan, are hereby adopted as findings by the Lead Agency. The City of Atascadero finds that impacts remaining significant after the application of mitigation are considered acceptable in light of the overriding social, economic and other benefits and considerations identified herein. The City also finds that the proposed General Plan is the favored alternative, and that the other alternatives either do not meet the objectives of the project, do not result in reduced levels of impact, or would limit the obtainment of the overriding benefits and considerations identified below. • 2 083 Section 2: Significant Effects that cannot be mitigated to a Less than Significant Level The FEIR identified the following significant impacts that cannot be mitigated to a less than significant level even with incorporation into the Atascadero General Plan of all feasible mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR: 2.1 Hydrology and Water Quality 2.1.1 Groundwater Supply Unavoidable Significant Impacts: Demand for water generated under the proposed General Plan buildout may exceed available supply. Mitigation Measures: Compliance with SB 221. All applicable development projects under the General Plan shall comply with the recent legislation governing water supplies and development approval. Any subdivision proposing 400 or more units shall be subject to the provisions of this legislation. Refer also to mitigation for water quality in Section 3. Findings: Due to uncertainties regarding the safe yield of the City's groundwater supplies, significant impacts remain. The lead agency has determined that impacts associated with the project are significant and unavoidable and are outweighed by the factors discussed in this section. Facts in Support of Findings: Although the result of the Draft Final Paso Robles Groundwater Study is a more defined perennial yield for the basin, sources of error remain in both the areas of supply and demand such that determination of adequate supply is not feasible. The proposed General Plan contains a number of policies and programs designed to support ongoing water conservation and provision of adequate services prior to development; however,impacts are considered significant. In truth, growth in the Atascadero Sub-basin area and the larger Paso Robles Formation will continue irrespective of the adoption of the proposed General Plan. Water supply concerns, as mentioned above, are a regional issue, and do not ally with jurisdictional boundaries. The adoption of certain policies and programs contained in the proposed General Plan would constitute a positive approach towards a regional solution. Policy 10.2: Support ongoing water conservation efforts. Program: • Coordinate water conservation programs with AMWC as required by State Water Efficiency Regulations. • Consider expansion of reclaimed water use. • Encourage the incorporation of water conservation measures in new development. Policy 15.3: Ensure that adequate service capacity and facilities exist prior to approving new development. Programs: • Coordinate with the Atascadero Municipal Water Company to provide for adequate facilities and water supplies. • Require all new projects and new development requiring domestic water to be served by the 10 Atascadero Municipal Water Company unless a waiver is granted by the Planning Commission through a Conditional Use Permit. 3 084 2.1.2 Compliance with SB610 [Section 21151.9 PRC] Unavoidable Significant Impacts: Implementation of the proposed General Plan may result in demand that outstrips the water supply; this impact is in conflict with the applicable plans and programs for projects such as this, specifically SB 610. Mitigation Measures: Incorporate the recommendations of the Urban Water Management Plan and amend the General Plan as necessary. Findings: Because supply and projected demand in the basin remains unclear, impacts are considered significant in terms of compliance with this recent legislation. Facts in Support of Findings: As discussed in the EIR, the Atascadero Mutual Water Company is in the process of preparing the required Urban Water Management Plan. Completion of this document hinged on completion of the Paso Robles Formation Study and the proposed General Plan update. It was important to have both a picture of the underlying water supply and the projected demand. The Atascadero Mutual Water Company prepared an assessment of the impact of the proposed General Plan on water supplies as required under CEQA. Supplies appeared sufficient based on existing information. Moreover, policies identified under 2.1.1, above, aim for the provision of an adequate water supply, and conservation of existing supplies. However, since some question remains as to whether demand will ultimately exceed supply,impacts remain significant and unavoidable. 2.1.3 Cumulative Impacts-Water Supply Unavoidable Significant Impacts: Continued development of Atascadero State Hospital (ASH), rural portions of the County, and development of Eagle Ranch would adversely impact water supplies. Mitigation Measures:No additional. Findings: Due to uncertainties regarding the safe yield of the City's groundwater supplies, significant impacts remain. The lead agency has determined that impacts associated with the project are significant and unavoidable and are outweighed by the factors discussed in this section. Facts in Support of Findings: The City does not regulate development outside its jurisdiction; therefore, mitigation of such impacts is not feasible. Refer to 2.1.1, above, for other facts in support of findings. 2.2 Biological Resources 2.2.1 Cumulative Impacts-Biological Resources Potentially Significant Effects: Development of Eagle Ranch will disrupt habitat, movement corridors, and may directly impact sensitive plant and animal species. The proposed General Plan includes a policy recommending preparation of a Specific Plan for any proposed project on the property. A Specific Plan for the property would be subject to separate environmental review. Impacts are considered potentially significant. Mitigation Measures: No additional measures. Refer to above sections for mitigation. Findings: The lead agency finds that while adopting the above feasible mitigation measures, the potential impacts of the project associated with cumulative impacts on biological resources remain significant. The lead agency has determined that impacts associated with the project are significant and unavoidable and are outweighed by the factors discussed in this section. Facts in Support of Findings: As mentioned above the proposed General Plan recommends preparation of a Specific Plan for any project proposed at Eagle Ranch. The proposed General Plan goes on to further 4 085 recommend that the project not go forward unless the property is annexed. Annexation of the property would bring it under the purview of the City, and analysis for consistency with the proposed General Plan would be required. The project would be required to implement all pertinent measures to reduce impacts • to biological resources. 2.3 Circulation 2.3.1 Projected Traffic Levels-Roadways and Interchanges Unavoidable Significant Impacts: Impacts associated with roadway and interchange operations are considered significant, due to projected deficient levels of service. Mitigation Measures:No additional. Findings: The lead agency finds that significant impacts to roadway and interchange operations remain. The lead agency has determined that impacts associated with the project are significant and unavoidable and are outweighed by the factors discussed in this section. Facts in Support of Findings: The proposed General Plan contains a number of policies intended to reduce traffic and gain consistency with regional traffic planning: Policy 1.1: Plan, fund and implement circulation improvements necessary to comply with adopted City safety and level of service standards and the General Plan Circulation Diagram. Policy 1.2: Provide regional facilities to minimize through-traffic intrusion on local streets and to avoid barriers to local traffic. Policy 1.3: Maintain LOS C or better as the standard at all intersections and on all arterial and • collector roads. Upon City Council approval, accept LOS D where residences are not directly impacted and improvements to meet the City's standard would be prohibitively costly or disruptive. Policy 3.1: Promote alternatives to single-occupancy vehicle travel,particularly for commute trips. Policy 3.2: Encourage expansion of public transit as needed to meet the changing needs of the area for local and regional access, including fixed route and demand response where appropriate. Policy 3.3: Comply with the Transportation Demand Management program requirements of the San Luis Obispo County Clean Air Plan to reduce peak period trip generation. In addition to policies and programs, the Circulation Element contains a number of roadway capital improvements that aim to improve roadway operations. Although the proposed General Plan contains the recommendations of the traffic engineers and numerous policies designed to achieve traffic improvements, it is unclear, considering the scale and funding required, whether such improvements are feasible. Furthermore, the State has placed limits on the fees the City can collect from developers to fund such improvements. Finally, as growth in the region occurs, it is likely that operations on regional traffic routes, such as Highway 101 and 41 will worsen. Growth and resulting traffic at the regional level is administered by other agencies,namely Caltrans. The proposed General Plan contains policies to comply with regional planning documents, such as those put forth by Caltrans. Overall, the updated General Plan • results in positive movement towards regional solutions. 5 086 2.4 Air Quality 2.4.1 Short-Term(Construction-related)Impacts • Unavoidable Significant Impacts: The implementation of the proposed General Plan will result in construction related air quality impacts that may exceed air quality standards in the short term. Mitigation Measures: Construction - The City shall incorporate AP ferfor both De dations oroad r construction ciction in the City. Measures include the use of catalyzed particulate Findings: Changes or alterations have been, or can be incorporated into the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the 2002 Final EIR for the City of Atascadero General Plan update. All feasible mitigation measures that can be applied to the project have been included. Residual significant impacts remain. The lead agency has determined that these significant residual impacts are outweighed by the benefits of the proposed project. Facts in Support of Findings: Construction generally consists of site preparation, grading and excavation. Construction-related emissions include particulates generated by soil disturbance, and combustion emissions from the operation of large earth-moving vehicles during grading and excavating operations. The rate of particulate generation depends on the type of soil, the moisture content, wind speed, activity level and silt content. Particulate generation typically occurs at a rate of about 0.6 tons per acre per quarter year of construction activity. Construction activities can exceed PM10 standards on a short-term basis. Therefore, construction activities can hinder progress toward the attainment of the state 24-hour PM10 standard. In addition, airborne dust can pose substantial nuisance to neighboring properties. Emissions associated with construction equipment and vehicles would be short-term and consist of fugitive dust and exhaust emissions. Combustion emissions generated by construction would degrade local air quality and contribute to exceedances of the nitrogen dioxide (NO2) 1-hour state air quality standard. The nature and extent of such impacts cannot be determined at the General Plan level,but it is likely that some projects undertaken during General Plan implementation will exceed standards. Because the nature and extent of future construction cannot be determined at this stage, the significance of this impact cannot be determined; therefore,it is considered Class I, significant and unavoidable. 2.4.2 Long-Term(Operational)Impacts Unavoidable Significant Impacts: The implementation of the Proposed General Plan would result in development that would create additional traffic throughout the City. Resulting vehicular emissions may have significant impacts. Mitigation Measures:None. Findings: The lead agency finds that significant impacts to air quality remain. The lead agency has determined that impacts associated with the project are significant and unavoidable and are outweighed by the factors discussed in this section. Facts in Support of Findings: San Luis Obispo County is a non-attainment area for 03 and PM10; a condition that far predates this plan. Any future growth would exacerbate existing, deficient air quality. The proposed General Plan aims to lessen impacts resulting from growth while supporting regional efforts to improve air quality. The proposed General Plan includes policies and programs to reduce • vehicle traffic, which may result in fewer vehicle emissions. The inclusion of these programs in the 6 Proposed General Plan largely addresses air quality concerns. However, impacts are not reduced to a less than significant level. Goal CIR 3: Provide and promote alternative modes of travel to reduce traffic congestion and improve • air quality by providing viable transit alternatives. Policy 3.1: Promote alternatives to single-occupancy vehicle travel,particularly for commute trips. Programs: 1. Seek funding for programs that promote transit,ridesharing,bicycling and walking. 2. Support efforts to improve shuttle service to downtown and major shopping and employment centers. Policy 3.2: Encourage expansion of public transit as needed to meet the changing needs of the area for local and regional access, including fixed route and demand response where appropriate. Programs: 3. Work with Central Coast Area Transit and SLORTA to encourage use of local and regional public transit. 4. Provide fixed routed transit with bus shelters along El Camino Real. 5. Encourage the use and expansion of Park&Ride facilities. . Policy 3.3: Comply with the Transportation Demand Management program requirements of the San Luis Obispo County Clean Air Plan to reduce peak period trip generation. Program: 6. Support programs to encourage employers to promote transit use, such as flexible work schedules. 2.4.3 Cumulative Air Quality Impacts Unavoidable Significant Impacts: Development in the region, including development in rural areas, construction and occupation of Eagle Ranch, and, to a lesser extent, planned expansions at ASH, will increase emissions associated with both construction and vehicle traffic. Impacts are considered significant and unavoidable(Class I). Mitigation Measures:No additional Findings: The lead agency finds that significant impacts to air quality remain. The lead agency has determined that impacts associated with the project are significant and unavoidable and are outweighed by the factors discussed in this section. Facts in Support of Findings:Refer to 2.4.2 above. 2.5 Noise • 2.5.1 Long-Term Noise 7 088 Unavoidable Significant Impacts: Traffic-related noise may significantly impacts existing and future noise-sensitive uses along certain roadways. Mitigation Measures:No additional . Findings: The lead agency finds that significant impacts associated with noise remain. The lead agency has determined that impacts associated with the project are significant and unavoidable and are outweighed by the factors discussed in this section. Facts in Support of Findings: The proposed General Plan contains a number of policies and programs aimed at the reduction of vehicle trips, which may reduce impacts associated with noise proximate to major roadways. These policies include the following: Transportation Noise Sources: Policy 2. New development of noise-sensitive land uses shall not be permitted in areas exposed to existing or projected future levels of noise from transportation noise sources which exceed 60 dBn or CNEL(70 Ldn/CNEL for playgrounds and neighborhood parks)unless the project design includes effective mitigation measures to reduce noise in outdoor activity areas and interior spaces to or below the levels specified for the given land use. Policy 3. Noise created by new transportation noise sources,including roadway improvement projects, shall be mitigated so as not to exceed the levels specified in [the Noise Element] within the outdoor activity areas and interior spaces of existing noise sensitive land uses. Implementation of policies in the General Plan will be effective in reducing impacts associated with noise impacts to proposed development, near roadways and the railroad. Impacts are therefore less than significant for new development. However, it is not clear whether mitigation will be as effective for • existing noise-sensitive uses located along roadways that are predicted to experience significant increases in traffic volume. Although impacts to such uses are specifically addressed in the Noise Element implementation measures,impacts are considered significant. A number of implementation measures (and/or programs) accompany these policies in the proposed Noise Element. Policies and programs contained in the proposed General Plan will constitute a positive effort towards minimizing noise exposure. Further noise analysis, in compliance with stated standards, will take place at the project-specific level. Traffic volumes along major roadways will increase under the proposed General Plan, generating noise that may exceed standards in the Noise Element. Although implementation of policies will reduce the impacts to adjoining properties,noise may still exceed these standards. 2.5.2 Cumulative Impacts-Noise Unavoidable Significant Impacts: When growth in the community is considered along with continued growth in rural areas,impacts are considered significant and unavoidable in terms of traffic-related noise. Mitigation Measures:No additional. Findings: The lead agency finds that significant impacts associated with noise remain. The lead agency has determined that impacts associated with the project are significant and unavoidable and are outweighed by the factors discussed in this section. Facts in Support of Findings: Refer to 2.5.1 above. In addition, the proposed General Plan contains the • following policy specific to cumulative impacts. 8 U9 Existing and Cumulative Noise Impacts: Policy 6. The City shall consider implementing mitigation measures where existing noise levels • produce significant noise impacts to noise-sensitive land uses or where new development may result in cumulative increases of noise upon noise-sensitive land uses. 2.6 Public Services 2.6.1 Police Services Unavoidable Significant Impacts: Increased population under the proposed General Plan of 9,855 persons would increase the demand for police protection services. Mitigation Measures: Fiscal Analysis - The City shall prepare a citywide fiscal analysis outlining funding required to support staffing for police and fire throughout buildout of the Draft Plan. The analysis will identify methods to fund staffing, milestones for new hires based on projected growth, and specific policies for implementation of funding methods. Findings: Changes or alterations have been incorporated into the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the 2002 Final EIR for the City of Atascadero General Plan update. All feasible mitigation measures that can be applied to the project have been included. Residual significant impacts remain. The lead agency has determined that these significant residual impacts are outweighed by the benefits of the proposed project • Facts in Support of Findings: The City currently receives developer's fees for public services; however, use of these fees is limited by law to capital improvements. Such fees cannot be used for hiring new personnel. Impacts associated with police under the proposed General Plan are due wholly to staff shortages, which cannot be mitigated through existing fee structures. Funding of new staff must be obtained through one of two means: (1) reallocation of existing General Fund revenues or (2) increased taxes. Development under the proposed General Plan will increase the tax base for the City, and may generate enough revenue to fund new personnel. Mitigation proposed above may result in funds becoming available. The success of such mitigation is not readily foreseeable and therefore the assumption is made that the impacts will remain significant. The proposed General Plan contains the following policies, among others,intended to address public service issues: Goal LOC 15. Provide adequate public services and for high-quality, orderly and sensible growth. Policy 15.1: Growth should be directed to areas where services can be provided in a cost-effective manner. Policy 15.2: Maintain an updated Capital Improvements Program(CIP)that forecasts needs at least five years into the future and conforms to General Plan policies and programs. Policy 15.3: Ensure that adequate service capacity and facilities exist prior to approving new development. Policy 15.4: Extend services only when the City has funding for additional improvements identified in the CIP. • Policy 15.6: Ensure that new development pays the cost of providing and/or installing all capital facilities needed to support it, including the infrastructure necessary to attract high-tech 9 090 and professional support businesses. 2.6.2 Fire Protection • Unavoidable Significant Impacts: Increased population and structure development under the Proposed General Plan would increase demand for fire protection services. Mitigation Measures: See 2.6.1, above. Findings: Changes or alterations have been incorporated into the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the 2002 Final EIR for the City of Atascadero General Plan update. All feasible mitigation measures that can be applied to the project have been included. Residual significant impacts remain. The lead agency has determined that these significant residual impacts are outweighed by the benefits of the proposed project Facts in Support of Findings:Refer to 2.6.1,above. 2.6.3 Cumulative-Police Unavoidable Significant Impacts: Development at Eagle Ranch, if carried out pursuant to the recommendations of the Draft Plan,may require City police service. Service to this area and its residents, because of its rural nature, may have a significant impact on the ability of police to serve the project and the City. Security at ASH is handled internally; however, as the facility expands, there will be continuing risk of escapes that require City police response. Current response plans will continue to be utilized in such an emergency. • Mitigation Measures: See for 2.6.1, above. Findings: Changes or alterations have been incorporated into the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the 2002 Final EIR for the City of Atascadero General Plan update. All feasible mitigation measures that can be applied to the project have been included. Residual significant impacts remain. The lead agency has determined that these significant residual impacts are outweighed by the benefits of the proposed project. Facts in Support of Findings: Refer to 2.6.1, above. 2.6.4 Cumulative-Fire Unavoidable Significant Impacts: Continued development in the region will impact the ability to provide fire service. Mitigation Measures: See for 2.6.2, above. Findings: Changes or alterations have been incorporated into the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the 2002 Final EIR for the City of Atascadero General Plan update. All feasible mitigation measures that can be applied to the project have been included. Residual significant impacts remain. The lead agency has determined that these significant residual impacts are outweighed by the benefits of the proposed project. Facts in Support of Findings:Refer to 2.6.2. • 10 �91 Section 3: Effects determined to be mitigated to less than Significant Levels • The EIR identified certain potentially significant effects that could result from the implementation of the Atascadero General Plan. However, the Lead Agency finds that, based upon substantial evidence in the record, adoption and implementation of the mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR and set forth below will reduce these potential significant effects to less than significant levels. 3.1 Geology 3.1.1 Cumulative Impacts-Eagle Ranch Potentially Significant Effects: Continued development in rural portions of the County and at Eagle Ranch will place additional structures at risk from geologic and seismic hazards. Mitigation Measures: Amend the Proposed General Plan to include the following policy: • Prior to development, the Geologically Sensitive Combining Designation shown in the Salinas River Area Plan shall be further studied for its application to the Eagle Ranch property. Findings: The lead agency finds that the above mitigation measures are feasible, are adopted, and reduce the potential impacts of the project associated with cumulative geologic impacts at Eagle Ranch to a less- than-significant level. Accordingly, the lead agency finds that, pursuant to CEQA guidelines, changes have been incorporated into the project,in the form of mitigation listed above, which mitigate the impacts identified in the EIR. Facts in Support of Findings: Conditioning approval of Eagle Ranch development on its honoring and/or mitigating for the GSA will reduce the impact to a less than significant level. 3.2 Hydrology and Water Quality 3.2.1 Water Quality Potentially Significant Effects: The implementation of the proposed General Plan will result in the construction of additional development that may impact water quality through temporary construction- related runoff, long-term runoff associated with increases in impermeable surfaces, and runoff from specific sources containing pollutants. Mitigation Measures: Implement Best Management Practices for Water Quality Improvement. Condition project approval to include Best Management Practices in construction and operation. Options include,but are not limited to: • Regular inspection,maintenance and clean out of stormwater retention or detention structures • Regular inspection,maintenance and clean out of oil and water separators • Regular inspection maintenance and clean out of sediment traps. • Promotion of self-directed removal of on-site trash, dead vegetation and leaf litter. • Promotion of use of biodegradable herbicides and pesticides and encouragement of the use of biologically-sensitive landscape management • Conduction of regularly scheduled creek clean-ups • • Conduction of regular maintenance of City fleets • Provision of worker education programs 11 X92 Create guidelines for City facilities and discretionary projects to improve the quality of runoff water. Considerations may include: • Install and maintain appropriately sized stormwater retention or detention structures • Install and maintain oil and water separators . • Install and maintain appropriately sized sediment traps • Install and maintain drought tolerant landscaping • Install and maintain landscaping which does not require excessive application of fertilizers and pesticides • Do not permit use of sprinkler and spray systems in areas less than eight feet wide(City facilities) • Encourage the use of drip systems • Encourage the use of more permeable paving materials (not feasible for applications where fueling and vehicle maintenance take place. Ensure Consistency with Applicable Drainage-Related Plans. All new development in or near existing drainage systems and associated tributaries shall be assessed for consistency with applicable existing drainage, grading, erosion control, and water quality-related policies, standards, and programs including but not limited to the following: • Water Quality Control Plan—Central Coast Basin including Best Management Practices(BMPs) • San Luis Obispo County Master Water Plan Update(1998) • Paso Robles Formation Study(in progress). • Future recovery plans for the Salinas River and Atascadero Creek. • Urban Water Management Plan(in progress). Findings: The lead agency finds that the above mitigation measures are feasible, are adopted, and reduce the potential impacts of the project associated with water quality to a less-than-significant level. Accordingly, the lead agency finds that, pursuant to CEQA guidelines, changes have been incorporated into the project,in the form of mitigation listed above,which mitigate the impacts identified in the EIR. Facts in Support of Findings: Along with policies added to the proposed General Plan resulting from consultation with the Regional Water Quality Control Board, the implementation of the above is considered sufficient to address water quality concerns at a programmatic level. Further environmental review for specific projects will address site-specific water quality issues. 3.2.2 Drainage and Flooding Potentially Significant Effects: The implementation of the Proposed General Plan will result in the construction of additional structures in known flood plains in the planning area, namely areas adjacent to Atascadero Creek and the Salinas River. Development of structures in this area will alter drainage in the area, result in runoff that would likely result in the need for additional stormwater conveyance systems, and place structures in 100-year flood hazard areas. Location of structures in the 100-year flood hazard zone increases risk of loss,injury or death in the event of a major flood. Mitigation Measures: Ensure Consistency with Applicable Drainage-Related Plans. All new development in or near existing drainage systems and associated tributaries shall be assessed for consistency with applicable existing drainage, grading, erosion control, and water quality-related policies, standards, and programs including but not limited to the following: • Water Quality Control Plan—Central Coast Basin including Best Management Practices(BMPs) • San Luis Obispo County Master Water Plan Update(1998) • Paso Robles Formation Study(in progress). 12 X93 • Future recovery plans for the Salinas River and Atascadero Creek. • Urban Water Management Plan(in progress). Findings: The lead agency finds that the above mitigation measures are feasible, are adopted, and reduce • the potential impacts of the project associated with drainage and flooding to a less-than-significant level. Accordingly, the lead agency finds that, pursuant to CEQA guidelines, changes have been incorporated into the project,in the form of mitigation listed above,which mitigate the impacts identified in the EIR. Facts in Support of Findings: The proposed General Plan contains a number of policies that support improvement of stormwater facilities,and flood protections. These policies include the following: Policy 6.1, Program 5. Public and private development in close proximity scenic and sensitive lands, including creek reservations, wooded areas, flood plains, prominent view sheds and historic sites shall be design to minimize impacts. Policy 8.1,Program 11. Areas subject to flooding, as identified through flood hazard overlay zoning and flood maps, shall be protected from unsound development consistent with the City's flood hazard ordinance requirements. Goal SFN 2. Reduce damage to structures and danger to life caused by flooding and dam inundation. Policy 2A. Enforce federal regulations regarding placement of structures in floodplains, and maintain appropriate standards for development in flood-prone and poorly drained areas (refer to Figure 11-8). Programs: 6. Require an engineered floodplain and hydrologic analysis to be prepared for new development project within or directly adjacent to known 100-year flood plains. 7. Prohibit development within floodways and areas of high flood hazard potential to the extent practicable. 8. Required the lowest finished floor of new construction in low-lying or other areas with serious drainage or flooding potential to be contracted a minimum of 1-foot above the 100-year water surface elevation. 9. Prohibit development that will create new upstream or downstream flooding or drainage problems. Policy 2B. Reduce flood damage in areas known to be prone to flooding. Programs: 10. Augment existing GIS and other data regarding low-lying areas with information obtained during storms. 11. Develop a prioritized list of proposed capital improvement projects for low-lying, flood-prone areas, and seek funding for those projects. 12. Perform flood-related preventive maintenance and repair,and ensure that all flood-related work in riparian areas minimizes impacts to biological resources. Policy 2C. Prepare the City to respond to flood emergencies. Program: • 13. Train City personnel to a level appropriate to their positions and responsibilities to respond to flood emergencies. 13 094 14. Require new subdivisions to construct a system of all weather emergency access connections consistent with the City's Emergency Evacuation Plan. 15. Identify and map appropriate evacuation routes for neighborhoods along the Salinas River. Policy 2D. Minimize the risk of dam failure. Programs: 16. Work with State and Federal agencies to assist with inspection and maintenance of the Salinas and Atascadero Lake Dams. 17. Maintain a dam failure evacuation plan to guide public officials that includes use of the emergency alert system to notify the public. Inclusion of the above policies and programs, and mitigation measures specified above, reduces impacts to a less than significant level. 3.2.3 Stormwater Conveyance Potentially Significant Effects: Continued development under the Proposed General Plan would require the construction of additional stormwater conveyance facilities, and expansion and/or repair of existing facilities. Construction of such facilities may have a significant impact on the environment. Mitigation Measures: Stormwater Infrastructure. Prior to approval of stormwater infrastructure improvements, ensure that adequate environmental review has been completed. Findings: The lead agency finds that the above mitigation measures are feasible, are adopted, and reduce the potential impacts of the project associated with stormwater conveyance to a less-than-significant level. Accordingly, the lead agency finds that, pursuant to CEQA guidelines, changes have been incorporated into the project, in the form of mitigation listed above,which mitigate the impacts identified in the EIR. Facts in Support of Findings: The General Plan includes a number of policies and programs which support the provision of adequate services and infrastructure prior to development of a project, and which provide for funding of such improvements by the developer. Along with mitigation calling for adequate environmental review, inclusion of such policies and programs adequately addresses impacts associated with provision of infrastructure. 3.2.4 Cumulative Impacts-Water Quality Potentially Significant Effects: Continued development of Atascadero State Hospital (ASH), rural portions of the County, and development of Eagle Ranch would impact water supplies and runoff volumes and quality. Specific environmental review for projects in these areas would assess and lessen impacts associated with runoff and water quality. Mitigation Measures: See 3.2.1 above. Findings: The lead agency finds that the above mitigation measures are feasible, are adopted, and reduce the potential impacts of the project associated with cumulative impacts to water quality associated with Eagle Ranch to a less-than-significant level. Accordingly, the lead agency finds that, pursuant to CEQA guidelines, changes have been incorporated into the project, in the form of mitigation listed above, which mitigate the impacts identified in the EIR. The lead agency finds that development at Atascadero State • Hospital is outside the jurisdiction of the City and that mitigation is not adopted for projects at this site. 14 o�J Facts in Support of Findings: The proposed General Plan contains a number of policies and programs designed to address water quality. Refer to 3.2.1. • 3.3 Biological Resources 3.3.1 Sensitive and/or Special Status Species Potentially Significant Effects: Short-term impacts. Construction associated with development under the proposed General Plan has the most direct impact on plants, animals, and their habitat. The significance of impacts depends on site- specific characteristics and the characteristics of surrounding areas. Long-term impacts. Increased human activity in sensitive areas associated with development under the plan may result in direct disturbance of sensitive plants and animals. Continued human activity may also have indirect impacts on theses species, including, but not limited to, noise, increased light and degradation of water quality. Mitigation Measures: Impacts to Sensitive Species. The City shall condition project approval, where it has jurisdiction, and recommend conditioning of project approval, in areas outside its jurisdiction, with the following measures: • Implement sediment reduction measures. Implement drainage measures recommended in Section V.III to reduce downstream impacts of sediment. • Plant/Animal Survey procedures. Until such time that a city ordinance is adopted, surveys for endangered and sensitive plant and animal species shall be conducted during proper seasons and in • accordance with standard methodologies. Surveys will be prepared on sites with established vegetation, relatively undisturbed character and/or proximity to known occurrences of sensitive species. Appropriate mitigation measures in accordance with California Department of Fish and Game guidelines shall be developed where necessary to reduce impacts to sensitive species to a level of insignificance. • Construction Activity Timing. Where sensitive species are known to occur within a proposed project area, construction activities shall occur outside of species breeding and/or migration seasons in order to minimize impacts. These limitations are often included as provisions within associated permits. For example, construction occurring in or directly adjacent to a perennial stream may be limited to the summer months in order to minimize disturbance of steelhead spawning activities as part of a Section 1601 or 1603 DFG streambed alteration agreement. • Prepare and Submit a Revegetation Plan. For all development expected to result in removal or significant disturbance of native vegetation, the applicant shall contact the City to determine their responsibilities in terms of revegetation and restoration. The plans shall be prepared by a qualified botanist,restoration specialist, or other qualified firm. The plan shall address all natural communities impacted by all phases of the proposed project including chaparral, annual grassland, and oak woodland. The plan shall provide detailed specifications for replacement and restoration of all affected natural communities, including appropriate replacement ratios for disturbed native plants, and shall specify the duration and frequency of monitoring associated with restoration/revegetation efforts. • Implement the Pre-approved Revegetation Plan. Upon completion of construction for all new development, the applicant shall implement the pre-approved Revegetation and restoration plan described above. Following completion of construction, immediately revegetate all areas previously containing natural vegetation and disturbed because of project implementation. Revegetate only with • appropriate native and indigenous vegetation. At a minimum, the structure and composition of habitats restored shall reflect pre-project site conditions or better. The health and maintenance of all 15 096 replacement vegetation shall be monitored and/or otherwise supported for a sufficient duration and frequency to ensure successful establishment of the vegetation. • Control Further Introduction of Invasive Exotic Plants at New Development Sites. During and upon completion of construction, the proponent shall be required to control further introduction of invasive exotic plants. The project proponent shall implement the following measures: • o Use only clean fill material within all construction zones. o Prohibit planting or seeding of disturbed portions of natural communities with non-native plant species. • Avoid Disturbance of Special-status Plants at New Development Sites. During construction associated with all new development, avoid or minimize disturbance of special-status plants. Implement the measures identified below to avoid or minimize unnecessary disturbance of special- status plants either known of having potential to occur in the project area. o Retain a qualified biologist and/or botanist to conduct focused surveys for special-status plant species during the appropriate flowering periods for various species having potential to occur in the project area. o Clearly map and identify each individual or group of special-status plants observed during the surveys with highly visible flagging, and then completely avoid during construction o In the event rare plants cannot be avoided during construction, applicable resource agencies should be contacted to determine appropriate avoidance measures before construction. Various measures may include relocation and transplanting of individual plants, and/or stockpiling of existing soils to retain the seedbank. • Invasive Exotics. The City shall develop and revise current landscaping plan guidelines to include prohibition of the planting of invasive exotics designated by CLAPS. Findings: The lead agency finds that the above mitigation measures are feasible, are adopted, and reduce the potential impacts of the project associated with sensitive and/or special status species to a less-than- significant level. Accordingly, the lead agency finds that, pursuant to CEQA guidelines, changes have been incorporated into the project, in the form of mitigation listed above, which mitigate the impacts identified in the EIR. • Facts in Support of Findings: The mitigation measures above provide a framework against which future projects may be reviewed for impacts and mitigation requirements. The mitigation addresses wildlife and plants, and provides for ongoing monitoring to ensure success. The proposed General Plan contains a number of policies and programs in addition to the mitigation outlined above, which addresses resource protection at a more programmatic level. The implementation of the proposed General Plan will constitute a positive step towards resource protection. 3.3.2 Riparian,Wetland and other Sensitive Communities Potentially Significant Effects: Projects that impact plants and animals may also impact sensitive vegetative communities, such as wetlands, riparian areas, and oak woodlands. The Proposed General Plan would allow increases in development along Atascadero Creek, for example, which may adversely affect the creek. On the other hand, the Proposed General Plan includes specific programs aimed at the restoration of Atascadero Creek, which may offset the negative effects of proposed development in the area. Here again, site-specific conditions will largely dictate the severity of impact. Mitigation Measures: Riparian/wetland habitat avoidance. Until such a time as a creek setback and mitigation program is adopted by the City condition approval of development proposed to be located within 100 feet of a riparian or wetland area,and implement the following: • Adjacent riparian or wetland resources shall be evaluated by a qualified biologist • • Development shall be sited at an adequate distance from riparian or wetland areas as determined necessary by a qualified biologist. 16 - 097 • Setbacks for non-significant riparian or wetland areas shall be determined based on recommendations of the qualified biologist. • Construction and development activities shall employ measures designed to reduce impacts to riparian areas, in addition to respecting specified setbacks. Measures include,but are not limited to: • Clearly delineate construction areas through physical and/or visual barriers. • Do not allow location of fueling or staging areas proximate to waterways when feasible. When no other options exist, protect waterways by berming or otherwise creating barriers to soil and fuel movement. • Do not allow washwater from construction to enter waterways. The City shall develop a preferred set of Best Management Practices to be implemented by developers. Implement Erosion and Spill Control Measures during Construction. To reduce the potential for inadvertent release of sediment or fuel from construction areas to adjacent drainage and wetland areas,the following measures shall be implemented as part of all development projects. • During construction, avoid all cleaning and refueling of equipment and vehicles near existing drainages and associated seasonal wetland habitat. • Following completion of construction-related activities,revegetate all disturbed and barren areas with appropriate native vegetation to reduce the risk of erosion and sedimentation in adjacent drainage areas. Findings: The lead agency finds that the above mitigation measures are feasible, are adopted, and reduce the potential impacts of the project associated with riparian,wetland and other sensitive communities to a less-than-significant level. Accordingly, the lead agency finds that, pursuant to CEQA guidelines, changes have been incorporated into the project, in the form of mitigation listed above, which mitigate the impacts identified in the EIR. Facts in Support of Findings: The above mitigation measures, along with policies and programs identified in the EIR, address water quality from a programmatic and project-specific level. 3.3.3 Movement and Migration Corridors Potentially Significant Effects: Continued development under the proposed General Plan will not likely have a significant effect on the Pacific Flyway; area waterways will not be substantially affected(in terms of area and available water) by the Draft Plan. Development under the Proposed General Plan could result in further obstruction of movement corridors in rural areas as parcels are developed. Movement corridors in creeks may be improved through programs in the Proposed General Plan calling for improvement of habitat and water quality. These improvements may alleviate some of the impacts of increased development along Atascadero and Graves Creek. Mitigation Measures: Condition project approval in rural areas based on an assessment of the project's impacts on migration and movement corridors, including but not limited to, waterways, intact woodland areas, and fringe areas that abut intact habitat. The City should identify important corridor areas and aim for their preservation through conservation easements,where feasible, and through site design. Findings: The lead agency finds that the above mitigation measures are feasible, are adopted, and reduce the potential impacts of the project associated with movement and migration corridors to a less-than- significant level. Accordingly, the lead agency finds that, pursuant to CEQA guidelines, changes have • been incorporated into the project, in the form of mitigation listed above, which mitigate the impacts identified in the EM. 17 Facts in Support of Findings: The proposed General Plan is the first plan in Atascadero to address wildlife corridors. The General Plan contains the following program designed to address this issue: 7.1.2 Maintain a current Geographic Information System(GIS)based inventory map of all native • woodlands,plant communities, sensitive habitats,connective habitat and wildlife corridors. Require lot line adjustments, subdivision maps, and development permits to minimize impacts on mapped resources that are identified as sensitive, and provide mitigation as requirement by the Native Tree Ordinance. Responsibility: Community Development Department/Environmental Consultant Timeframe: 2003-04. Inclusion of such a program is a positive step towards addressing this issue; when combined with mitigation measures outlined above, and policies which address open space, riparian areas (the major corridors in the city) and other existing resources, impacts are reduced to a less than significant level. Moreover,the proposed General Plan does not change densities or land use patterns in rural areas. 3.3.4 Consistency with Applicable Plans Potentially Significant Effects: The planning area is not identified in recovery plans for any of the above- named species; however, indirect impacts to the Salinas River and steelhead trout populations may occur from increased runoff under the Draft Plan. Mitigation Measures: Consistency with Regional, Species Specific Recovery Plans and Other Habitat Conservation Efforts-Project approval shall be conditioned on consideration of consistency with regional conservation plans,including critical habitat designations and recovery plans,where applicable. Findings: The lead agency finds that the above mitigation measures are feasible, are adopted, and reduce • the potential impacts of the project in terms of consistency with planning documents to a less-than- significant level. Accordingly, the lead agency finds that, pursuant to CEQA guidelines, changes have been incorporated into the project, in the form of mitigation listed above, which mitigate the impacts identified in the EIR. Facts in Support of Findings: Requiring analysis of consistency with applicable resource protection plans will effectively mitigate potential impacts associated with consistency. 3.3 Agriculture 3.3.1 Other Farmland Unavoidable Significant Impacts: The implementation of the proposed General Plan could result in the conversion of farmland of local potential. Mitigation Measures: Evaluation and Mitigation. Prior to approval of development on parcels listed with potential for supporting farmland of local potential, evaluate the following criteria: • Do the on-site soils exhibit the necessary characteristics for farmland of local potential? • Is the parcel large enough to support agriculture(refer to the County minimums)? If the parcel meets all of the above criteria, condition development approval with offsets of at least 1:1 . offsite. 18 99 U Findings: The lead agency finds that significant impacts to important agricultural land can be mitigated to less-than-significant levels. Accordingly, the lead agency finds that, pursuant to CEQA guidelines, changes have been incorporated into the project, in the form of mitigation listed above, which mitigate the • impacts identified in the EIR. Facts in Support of Findings: Identification and mitigation of conversion of important farmland effectively mitigates potential impacts. 3.4 Circulation 3.5.1 Projected Traffic Levels -Intersections Potentially Significant Effects: Projected traffic will exacerbate existing deficient levels of service at area intersections. Mitigation Measures: Implement Recommended Intersection Mitigation-The following policy will be included in the Draft Plan: Incorporate the recommendations of the traffic engineers to remedy existing intersection deficiencies. Findings: The lead agency finds that the above mitigation measures are feasible, are adopted, and reduce the potential impacts of the project associated with projected traffic levels at intersections to a less-than- significant level. Accordingly, the lead agency finds that, pursuant to CEQA guidelines, changes have been incorporated into the project, in the form of mitigation listed above, which mitigate the impacts identified in the EIR. Facts in Support of Findings: Requiring suggested intersection improvements will address deficiencies. • 3.5 Noise 3.6.1 Groundborne Vibration Potentially Significant Effects: The implementation of the proposed General Plan will involve siting noise-sensitive uses proximate to the railroad tracks. Sensitive land uses located in this area may experience periodic vibration. Mitigation Measures: Vibration -When reviewing project-specific applications for vibration-sensitive construction within 100 feet of the centerline of the railroad tracks, project approval will be conditioned pending results of vibration studies. Mitigation such as setback or vibration reduction treatments shall be included in the project design and specifications Findings: The lead agency finds that the above mitigation measures are feasible, are adopted, and reduce the potential impacts of the project associated with groundborne vibration to a less-than-significant level. Accordingly, the lead agency finds that, pursuant to CEQA guidelines;changes have been incorporated into the project,in the form of mitigation listed above,which mitigate the impacts identified in the EIR. Facts in Support of Findings: Conditioning development based on vibration studies will mitigate impacts associated with vibration. • 3.6 Aesthetics 3.7.1 Light and Glare 19 i0o Potentially Significant Effects: Development of the land uses proposed in the Proposed General Plan will result in additional sources of light and glare, which may adversely impact the rural character of the City as well as neighboring properties. • Mitigation Measures: The City shall assess the potential glare impacts of a proposed project and apply the following: • Do not allow large expanses of reflective glass or reflective metal roofing in locations visible to residents and/or traffic. The City shall consider establishing minimum and maximum light levels for each of the proposed land uses. Findings: The lead agency finds that the above mitigation measures are feasible, are adopted, and reduce the potential impacts of the project associated with glare to a less-than-significant level. Accordingly,the lead agency finds that, pursuant to CEQA guidelines, changes have been incorporated into the project, in the form of mitigation listed above,which mitigate the impacts identified in the EIR. Facts in Support of Findings: The proposed General Plan contains a number of policies and programs which address lighting and other aesthetic issues. Reduction of light and glare will be achieved by these means. Section 4: Effects Determined Not to Be Significant The Lead Agency finds that, based on substantial evidence in the record consisting of the analysis in the Final EIR and Initial Study incorporated herein by reference, the Atascadero General Plan will result in either no impact or in a less than significant impact with regard to environmental factors listed below and • no mitigation is required. • Land Use and Planning-Population Growth • Land Use and Planning-Consistency with applicable land use planning documents • Land Use and Planning-Atascadero Zoning Ordinance • Land Use and Planning-Cumulative Impacts • Geology-Earthquakes, groundshaking and ground failure. • Geology-Landslide and slope instability • Geology—Erosion • Geology-Expansive or Other Unstable Soil Conditions • Geology- Septic Systems • Geology-Cumulative Impacts-Rural Areas • Biological Resources-Consistency with City Tree Ordinance • Cultural Resources-Direct Impacts • Cultural Resources-Indirect Impacts • Cultural Resources-Sacred Lands • Cultural Resources-Historic Resources • Agriculture-Prime Farmlands • Agriculture-Grazing Land • Agriculture-Williamson Act Conflicts • Circulation-Traffic Safety and Emergency Access • Circulation-Parking • • Air Quality-Consistency with the CAP • Noise-Short-Term Impacts • Noise-Long-Term Noise(Proposed Development) 20 • Public Services -Wastewater • Public Services- Solid Waste • Public Services -Schools • • Public Services -Libraries • Public Services -Parks • Public Services -Cumulative-Solid Waste • Public Services -Cumulative-Schools • Public Services-Cumulative-Parks • Aesthetics-Scenic Vistas • Aesthetics-Trees,Riparian Areas, and other Sensitive Aesthetic Features • Aesthetics-Light • Aesthetics-Cumulative Impacts Section 5: Feasibility of Project Alternatives The FEIR Alternatives section contains an analysis of the following alternatives: (1) No Project alternative which considers no new development; (2) No Project alternative required by CEQA which considers continuation of the current General Plan; (3) Minimal Development, (4) Mixed Use Approach, and(5)Exclusion of Eagle Ranch from the SOI. The following alternatives were also considered but rejected for reasons identified and described below: Maximum Development This alternative would result in the most intense amount and mix of land uses. Housing and retail commercial development would dominate the northern portions of the city, with higher density residential • uses in other areas. This alternative was rejected because it did not meet the objectives of the proposed General Plan regarding rural character, compact development, and preservation of elbowroom, among others. This alternative would also generally result in greater impacts than the proposed General Plan. The following alternatives were considered in the EIR. Alternative 2:No Project—Development Under the Existing General Plan Description: This alternative represents the continued growth and development of the City under the existing General Plan. Under this alternative,the buildout population of the City would be approximately 32,873 and the existing land use designations, development pattern, and associated zoning map (as amended to date)would not change. Environmental Effects: Implementation of this alternative would have greater impacts in the areas of aesthetics and biological resources, fewer impacts to public services, and similar impacts in all other areas. Relation to the General Plan Objectives:This alternative is generally consistent with the objectives of the proposed General Plan. Feasibility: This alternative is not considered feasible. Under CEQA, this alternative is considered the no project alternative. CEQA does not allow for determination of the no project alternative as the environmentally superior alternative. • Alternative 3:Minimal Development Description: This alternative calls for clustered development and is intended to reduce reliance on the automobile. By providing services near residences, vehicular trips are short in nature. Land uses for 21 102 Alternative 1 provide for a jobs-housing mix that locates housing near employment centers. This alternative also discourages competitive specialty retail and entertainment uses that are not in the downtown area(refer to Figure 8). Environmental Effects: This alternative would result in greater impacts to traffic levels and recreational • opportunities. The alternative would result in similar impacts to the proposed General Plan in all other areas. Relation to the General Plan Objectives: The alternative is consistent with the objectives of the proposed General Plan. Feasibility:This alternative is considered feasible. Alternative 4:Mixed Use Approach Description: This alternative focused on increasing commercial development and employment opportunities by extending business areas on both sides of El Camino Real and allowing high-intensity industrial development on Traffic Way near the railroad. Northern Atascadero would allow large scale commercial uses and mixed-use developments would be encouraged. A variety of housing uses are proposed along the State Route 41 corridor south of US 101 to San Gabriel Road. A large mixed use plan development is proposed east of US 101 in the southern portion of the city with low-density housing proposed on the west side of the freeway. The land use diagram for this alternative is shown in Figure 9. The total acreage under this alternative designated to each land use category is outlined in Table 20. Table 20 also shows the difference in land use between the Proposed General Plan and the alternative. Environmental Effects: Impacts associated with traffic and recreation are greater under this alternative, and similar in all other categories. Relation to the General Plan Objectives: This alternative is generally consistent with the proposed • General Plan objectives. Feasibility:This alternative is considered feasible. Alternative S:Exclusion of Eagle Ranch from the Sphere oflnfluence(SOI) Description: This alternative analyzes the environmental consequences of excluding Eagle Ranch from the City's SOI. Environmental Effects: Impacts associated with this alternative would generally be similar to the proposed General Plan, except in the area of public services. Relation to the General Plan Objectives: This alternative is not consistent with the proposed General Plan objectives. Feasibility: This alternative is not considered feasible. Development of Eagle Ranch outside of the Sphere of Influence, and arguably outside of the City limits, would place an undue burden on the community to support the project,without the benefit of taxes and development fees. Section 6: Statement of Overriding Considerations for the Atascadero General Plan The Lead Agency finds that mitigation measures listed in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program will, when implemented, mitigate or substantially reduce most of the significant environmental effects identified in the Final EIR for the proposed Atascadero General Plan. Nonetheless, certain • significant environmental effects of the project are unavoidable, even after incorporation of all feasible mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR. For such effects, the benefits of the project have been 22 103 balanced against the unavoidable environmental effects in its approval. The unavoidable impacts associated with this project are: • • Hydrology and Water Quality—Groundwater Supply • Hydrology and Water Quality-Compliance with SB610 • Hydrology and Water Quality—Cumulative Impacts—Water Supply • Circulation—Projected Traffic Levels—Roadways • Air Quality—Short-term Impacts • Air Quality—Long-term Impacts • Air Quality—Cumulative Air Quality Impacts • Noise—Long-term Noise • Noise—Cumulative Impacts • Public Services—Police Services • Public Services—Fire Protection • Public Services—Cumulative—Police • Public Services—Cumulative-Fire The Lead Agency finds that all feasible mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR which are within the purview of the City will be implemented with the project, and that any significant unavoidable effects remaining are outweighed and are found to be acceptable due to the following specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits, based upon the facts set forth above, in the Final EIR, and in the public record of the considerations of this project. The following statements are based on an overarching concept outlined in the CEQA Guidelines: that a public agency has an obligation to balance a variety of public objectives, including economic, environmental and social factors and in particular the goal of providing a decent home and satisfying living environment for every Californian. • The project will allow the City to meet its affordable housing allocation requirements as imposed • by the State of California through the Regional Housing Needs Allocation. • The project will allow for an increased range of housing opportunities for all income categories thereby promoting a socially integrated and diverse population. • Provision of affordable housing will allow needed service and professional workers including healthcare workers, teachers, and police officers to live and work in Atascadero and thereby maintain adequate levels of service in many critical economic sectors. • The project incorporates Smart Growth Principles that limit urban sprawl, encourage infill, reuse existing utilities, allow for mixed uses and support pedestrian and bicycle transit. • The project will allow for a modest increase in economic development that will support a higher standard of living and increased services to the community. • The project recognizes the inevitability of natural population growth in an area with a high quality of life and growing economy. The project plans to accommodate a reasonable population growth in compact nodes of high quality infill development rather than directing unplanned growth into substandard,illegal and unsafe housing conditions. • The project will meet a long standing City goal of revitalization of the greyfields of El Camino Real corridor by allow new mixed use development that will foster reinvestment and revitalization of an aging strip corridor. • The project will promote the revitalization of the historic downtown core and expansion of tourist related services and facilities. The proposed General Plan achieves the above considerations through its policies,programs, and land • use concept. The attainment of the above considerations outweighs the significant environmental effects put forth in the FEIR. 23 Exhibit C: Mitigation Monitoring Program • =� o Z ° O N a C14L1 O j .— C � - - b GL c cy, C ; `� 0 X 0 m N ° p o as A Uca o. „ b • d a c. n. " w. u b ° 8N ° 6. cl O U o O. O O cl 0u En � O >, 3 �� C/) z o GA c g - a o v a cl HU0 -5 v a .rw c4 c a w oc/) 0'.4 70 0-4 z U w a 'ti v o w W [ n r W 'g °ten, `v° = 0 �a c. a. rWh o co Y Rs °A ao ¢ ❑ " U v v cy tc3 p _ cC 0ai W 0 i' " ° c0 °; cn w Cl CIS p u U' ro 31. A• U", d 0 U .� 0 s � v ^p C 106 ;O Gr � O •h " � O � • p 'G �2o 0 G •c O aci a`i , ;? o ay � Eo0Yo � = (j c aci T vi .o Q O a� id a� c ami Q o Y 3 '> O �D G 3 6b 'N P. of � � Urn w oQ acivo �° 0. Q "0 ca v 3 •° "o A Q U a� C Q CL o � O cxa UAG1 QU s U 0 G � O U � w Ern .b O E .O IM. CdCL > 2 > O Cd cG > a..ost OZ 3 o 2 c o w caj _ z ti E o o ? bio ° ° v a U ° 3 r- cts V o O o O > o G c > 'UO .G C 0 � b0 y G vNi u o °' c .° 3 > 0 o a� ou Q �0 p3 b b 0. r o h oG c a' a C E a`�i C _ 4I 3 •G O O ..0 bA O ttS � in O U abi w EOl 0 0 0 to ° N a ti .b O •ti .� s. � °� O L b4 U U cd G U Cd •y C%2 •� U cd cdo cG3 .� 0i oA fi •� U•yCL aq 3 rn Uc3 cd U c0 0 O 0 N O" cd R. h —y :: ^y °' cGC r.O U aGi 'c7 o -o •� •� �+ cd Q N G C E W U ¢ . CL ,.N c ti •'�..+ a'G.+ Lbpd bA b9,.SCts U G G G G •� O H y y 'b •• N a0.+ t. N O O O O cuC N 3 N N 4�i C O O E 3 y cy '� 7 E a �r a 7 a o a o > G c o z E E E E E E y c E E c c o o v et � . v u bA bA 0 O G G t8 —� .—O. w ' G c E o � b d � � � CiCi oUUa X72 5 � � 5 = aQ0 • U V U W c W A� o. x ti .c • • • e • • U U • • • • • • 107 too i C7 eEi c a o R R ° o c .- c o N y 0, -,a c aciw `° o o o 5 _ 15 n a� [ ° v a� c d c N u a� c aEi pti o I:Le naEx o c v a c c y AU —,M. U o E a °� o a� '> Q ¢ o R aci c o o oa oo a �' a a� u o ° 0. " � � � U cn A o v R .� . R a o E i v a d a R a '•v E u y C v � a ay A A A A A � A; AU A AU AU A U R ° c R N p (u G a s a°i v�V, c aci c a 3 aci y o c d E .o R ° E o Eo ESE n a ° > a 4 S c ° > c ro R ° o o > o ° 2 u — C O R . E a s 1>1 a C E C cl. u o.' a s `° C a > O F a R v R a .. a. C* R U A a. R v pa. c °c^oG c v ci a' N a o i " oo a 3 U 0 Qj E N y � R 0 N .CR. CL o u ^ p o � °a. c0-0 o eco o a"i N w a 7 R y E R O O CL r 4 w v v 3 o ' °- Y' R �, R c� a� c `Ro ¢ N 4) 0 co cz a o n 's c y o O u ti o O rn y v N cV U y Oq . P. V -0 Gy,• N w o 0 3 o 2 CLa 0 C%•� � H Ncu rn N O LL •'O I �' O O R t1. R -Y cl vl t o c to a F- eD R � a rn N vOi 'O-" C 'b O w O a' cGV U R N bOA iscc b ; Upo � � � won cv e3 y bo b0 cC O R • � ww � ,� y � ,c � 3cnawaod • • A W d b • • • • • R U o U R a1 v1 108 o on ej as zi c N 3 y � .V E c o g a oaaoga� zU v E v a� � Q .y \ c c a � � L 67 C O 0 ', y � ? ° ai a) 0 m is C �' a3i cco C7 H o-°= a a a '� e� •" ° w cv c a a 3 c w `� ca. 'n CL on D a s o co ° °aEc u0o a c • .E ° o E 0w c o a o o P ° . E too _ O ° acs •� � . cQ, cEti _ m .c � No � ° M0 ' w > 0 ° 0- m ° v Q ci Ed >ni � > ° as a 'am 0" E �U q •�ti �sv yo O cn cQ fioE cl$U a� o o c ° F s c c a� 3 ' '3 as u .E o y ca F � U � ° cd � �. � U Y y .O � c'� O 'd o w � ami '•r � aY `' � O ami Cd � � � `° � c a°qi `' aci �' � •0 4 w v "" a`ai o V aai iv $ ami Co en ° 3 ° a w ° �c 5 a cj U Cl n t 0 n y ca'> X[o 0 w CL ¢ E 1 aai cca `�' w � E v C E y q o .3 i cO (U E.D X y y •a O Ny C C y O C Cl-•G ' C 'N ° Z 'i7 O C rz 'O C v c.13 'z: . Vae C -.NC+ W '«"aQt'sw U p ° w �0 (U Ow >> - O ° _ "aC ccd In a CIS En E U ¢ ap v E o p ° — „ " 0 O UO ca E y " CE " E0 ' -' UCOO " o N4 � a o w2 W Cd w o 'ca° > E c on. o °w cc O oapU EU ° .Eceo•: " oa� E � � > "' ycN c o � ooE � o ° e•N " ° > e��ioa ° � � > a� Nao � � Oc Y ai oo � •E °' o a°piQ ° o v E oc, Ew enca 3 E C Y ,c �,' '•• cd QJ p,.9 O a� is iS S cEd O y 'b 'O ._ .b y a� C o .O 0> w •ca O c0 •,,, ccd O .� a N ti •� a id c c; c c an � a ' ? V o w w a H _ °' oc v c¢ ° w 'O •N a E ? �' 7�4 to y c c o � c2 uo oec $ "0 V .- q x °' ° w G .� a o ° c a y 0 aci cqsG v a°qi P. w p a`ai yo aCD d Q.O °" o �2 `d �• >>i 8 c a..o p., ami o E o o �Y a� at > Qw C7 o U 'c� S w w 0. '�, °: 3 2 W 4 -o v 08 c� °�' v. U v Oj o • U 109 O CU toC • C Q. to 0 Y ° uF u VI N O u cl E p cLi X A y O N L u p u Ucn O �•o a� u u ol y c u Q (A ` C C O O U cl c 0 e� Cd c ° ° L 8 o n > c C7 F a` o R O a cl Y Y � ,c Y a o (U o 4.) � a� ea ccaa u ca Y o •o u -Y u u 0 o G ++ C O U Ou r. o0 O y U ca rr t cu cl ° V �O b0 N U G O O y b b U N ' oA N P. N '� c N 7 ca au Vc A n a°i •� ca -0 0. eq s 3 o c c3a,c u u ' .D w e E C,3u N U O u > �"+ b ca V O C u u C L O r w N i0 p u� ca N E c C 43 CISN O 'O 0.E u M o' L U C N o � ° rotif� K ° o -0 Ur.oc _ c ° aE o Ci C U •0 c � 0 •U Q. E: QiY u 0 . > C O u ti N 'O Z N N O C 4 is O. sC. O C E O, a -° C d E E a ° • ca ca a e i D aci a� aco p p .14 cp py c N -0E E O . o 'o NO bN u O o C13 U O LA' O ° yb 0 cu u > 0 Cd C-"'t3 >p > O u CCi = ccCv w ' Muu 's 0oa o o 3 > on DUtic o aaci' 3o —u ca L_N boo E cn o - o � o ou ua ❑Nu roo c p > noaE c y60c °' L u $ axi cab C13C ..1C u c u °cOCU - 0wa Cd OoT0 1 Tu> 0 '.0o E au aac O ° cC N -o Cd 0� Nai 0z 5 C M° Nt aui �aYi p E °C°' o s • �n O � 3Es o O O � o c QAccno UAo > Sl- T y p p a u C* c c c c � o c G c ca a� E Fes. .� E 0 O N O a) O O O r- ca •`. c v 003 0: 0 a .c o Q ca= p V ,� m v � p > c `� c � > c O h � q [ ti •> C v ccl ,o A ca .o A ca o A es ai o A cca cQJ 8 o A o Q o A w o U VA CL C o a� a a, o a� a a� o v n E Uv1 � v v EA o $ p E � � s u E A o Zj U � C 6� � a C C O Q. y as AU AU U U m 0 0 0 0 0 (� Fc a8oaca v 0 °cE .0 cl _a avovE iE ."2 > > o o > o o > p-� O 2 pU aC > >¢ > av c a0 avc 0 to w E X C u cd m y � vi � N •� � ,C � � vi � _ 4 Np et�S y y �"' O vi p •.. .,�'+,', ca .- C vi rsw 0 0 fl E T c7 aNi i p Y E •0 0 'd n. cOa c aci cOOi y o o o. ca 2cd cl c000 � c n ° E y 0c Z p ami > v c b a .E 0 "vp o .E O O o to c o c E o 'E s a E c�a aci asci " to u c to p ,a; E ro ami C° b w 0 0 3 .E g N 3 u0 8 v c .n cw 3 ,v. o d CL w 0 p 0 O to 0 0. 0 T W @ac, COo.-° ca al O > 2 T a U o to � .o oS aUi c � 0 ca 0. 0 ss 0 to c`a > c y a`� a• v; aci 0 3 > 0 �� o ° o 3 aEi i r-0 -0 c 0 b 0 Wo C b E a>i `o .Y aUi E c c O 4" to '•' '0 .L ai U ca �' .�, V wr O O O O W ca O as UF" pC oLh `Cer vA � 3Oc � c�❑j, �vO� ' oU _p C> 0 0 ca ca 'O 0 o 0a c ` yv0. °` U p aoo o rj o 0 0 •b U .D CL ; o u o .E E C;3 0 y �s 0 c o c 0 u o 0 ai ° to >o Uoa bto _ a a �i4 E 0 `>° u o too U �4 0 ° � o � °o cj ^ a0i a0, a `a `s as b o > e 0 0"0� rl v v y oo 's c o Z W cl o o . a c c o � y o 0 C13 > 0 ti •" `�'+ 0.y '� ti b (wu N O O W •y v cJ O 3 b O c� 7 S v c 0. O A -C a is b y 0 � � � v 3 h o o 6 Cl oo, 0 0 > .y a s y 0 U c v 0 c •C ^- p p . ce o -° E o y c E oo O y 0 ur 0 OA O c 0 0 vi U 'b 411 z A. 0 0 U > c y d 0 c 'G '- ca ce c 1? oo a .E = "J o oC°n E Q U d > o Q v w 0Ij� t a v 'cE"a y U = u o 0 • • 0.—? v • ^�rr 0C 4^cCIS — 0 *0 c •o� � � a. � �' L 4 0 iG • €c. 4 40 O .L" 0 c • • � ... 3 ca Ua .E QW � � oUzo c c o o U U E :_ d vOi E ++ vOi E O O 00 0 U " O aGi .� 6yi bOA • - V y U O O '� U N r 'C U U U-. 0 N U N O N N O O _ .b p Q ` p Q - 8 E i o U ¢ o U ° ca ac' eoo ac' o a� a N a� a� 0. N a� a� E c E Uva E � v Ou E Z) -6 v E Q Cd d voi u ° c ° N Q G C O 0. 0 A A A A AU AU U AU cl cz 0 0 In 0 C o 0 0 ;aE .� v E 0o p > a� p > CL 0 0 ErL L, a > o ° n > a °b b b Q ❑ 3 � � E aEi o � °- • • z O y U C U �� .O N � U z � ,� p � � C•� � � O 0 o :N o Ew U c rr 4. c u U U U mF W ° to u U C Un. O a N N a a c o b p E g -- ° ur y d `ao 3 u T .c a ° > eo 0. cli Cd w u m O ca M of A y ° tj yQ � pyx Yoo ° w � U " b y � •� o Eos acqs 0 c ,,,,, E. a ten..•b o.� �, °' � �.. E p b ca c� u O (U O O pq tea' c ° a e o c ca p �' ~ N O O0 U O $. w ° c y ° 0 O O G U y U w O d N U cU o O y b e b Wt: a� i a� .c � •E � a � � N � ¢ � � o 10,U N ... ami U c d " O F U y O44 O .0 O b 4' o _ t L L' Qv� U � Z � w '> n o. �, vow od .a C7 • 112 • C7 ° y N a M O Y O r 0 R. 00 O .O O O O bq O a -d a O a o 0. A > w Uw o. �'' � Z UO '� , t -, '° 33 d .o as ° - C7 b 2 Z C d -° kr) ami N 0 ^O N G." C fy. 0. C O Z ° U O cC O c�O � c� C13 � N .. ">• �I 102 'O bA y J ..O o acn W � Z a o>,- C n r-r 'o y b cp >, U :� b 0 0 w ani O 4.) b cu a N0 � 6�' i a 4� Y o ¢ 'dam LYi o ami o ° .W P � 21 U ° O O v a, U 3 3 y N ,o° a�a -°o u m O' C's o y `U° o on 4 •° v o aY yb ° W U G a0i O 04Id 0�4 C', C O >� YIdO .° ° OOH 4oO .> O '�CgC w �+" N ° cql Cd a cz 0 � V3 Q4 i. � 3 cd CO W .�^ i • p C Y O U U t G o o � O �^p _ id O bpi ;� O` cpd U w 3 C. 6'. _ .t+ E c a, 5 c � uv° a R � o i o'� °o cd E 30`0 Uva W oC5 0 "aw ab ^v � Q u Q u Y ° E fxC. UQQ u cl U c p ca p � O N cam api ti `" api K WE o o c ° o > ° > o cd o ,. o E E .p > `o ° Cl. > n. ca• a cpa o cpa c ., o .Y Y L U •� Cd O w w cl EA N p 7 O cz ca O p ° w ° U 'E c p ami chi •° a a cpa N •� a Y y c� U p ' •.0 i, C N ca h C cu vNi 3 b b a 36) c E ° 3 E o o ^ b a o to U ° ° O a� pi p to p cn o Y y p b p 0 3 � S a E o o .°' E o p p O U V U t- N ou c .. 'Zt 0 C b O p O �y •p r/1 v cpd cpa is 6C. C8 •o U O tl •� � 'N c 3 rn vp i s a v U UO p O r- aHc�a. u � 0O 5 V ..p. Q+ '2 .12 � U 0 C cd � a°Ai U U U O .L 3 .L 0 CL ro U O o Cd w - c°o c 5 Y ° c° o p o b0 o ° Q C7 a cl E E W -E ppU bU ca cca c E oC oo to-14 y 0 0 0 N L. o eua a`�i p , 0 b y p � c.'. c, 3 `O > p .0 .E .E 'cd � c a a. 3 a a N o o o o E E � E �ro o c.O., c �' " .E .E .E p p o o ° •� � -o v -o v 'o o cpd 10 C > U � U > � Ca O O 'pq O O ;C! =a> 7 • o E �°' New r4r4 � aa`. s, Uuc, P. a So0 C7 U W e W a o. x 3 .c • • • • • • U U • • • e 114 Y ° ti ° ca0E 0 . Y a� C. O O 1,134 y w. " y ca ca M C Q. y .• y O wM C ry' w vi w 15 G y N fV q U C.1 y N '�' U 0 �O"o �^>� ❑ E '> a y o ❑ E c Y a� o G a o F A .� N a) .O b4 u Q .0 v °L' n d a•� � s o n� a°pi °ate a°'i a ., ca 2 U v E y ° ,. U a. 1,a a. v' E U _U c U � a y � rr `r y i Q A Q Q A GY, C4 Q A A Q q U ca Cd C ° O 1,a o ca o aoi re O aci C Q aKi N 4, y ° E o E .2 ESE v ° E a ° > 0 1,a o > ° > ° `°' s' to u o `a CL Q >00 o tZ+U+ O a c to to c � o b � 1,ao, c � z0 c ° *C; .c p E 'o O '� � � •U E y ,y � y o m Z v >O ca -0 � 0 O acs. Ea 3 ' ❑ a � � � �, FalO v b E N T y y u O U b •y a0.• y C 3 { y oo cl > ° > 1,o a v _o 0 0 U ° y yL 7 O a CL O N � U .� U 3 O �'h p t-. t3 ou ° — Cl cz ° oE 0 1,t 3 ea u o ` �' ° CL y �s �, � o ° Cl. ai Q p 13 3 0- •c 1,a w o 1,a .c $ ca � p p w U aEi Ca p - U vu > 1,oa v� Q a o 1,a a�cvc ob 1,Ca 7 y C 1,0 o o 0 y F P. O u ~R,•� O G >�Cn ~O yOj !S. a3i C y r. o ° -yq .o o 1,°a 1,a `' ¢ > �^' ca v i _ U Gm y o O o o O. 1,Cd v GQ ..• ya o 'uv pO ca y y v R. y y o fl cn 0. L .y to O bOA bOAU 9 •ti >1 tby b b 7 O .O y O ti.� y •� O y C C o mat v — c c „ ca o wo w w w ° � c C G 3 v� a w 0 � o �q � `o c� � v • o � a� • • A W v b n • • • • • c U s o U ca Cq cn x. 15 c I � o � I Y I •� m i LL y@ bow . v� U cZ Z U Uo E v ta ° a ° ' a ri � Q d y U L rx a e 0 F � O a o w vC ,d o .? c _� y Y 0 cz o > C7 voi aUi = 'y ° ° ° 'o, > 0 vS w ° 0 3 0 0 r- -0 o s z„ @ U) a>'i `� 0 @ cs C °� v� o °' o C G N — C > >,..; ° o b 0 E 7 o �«. w w C y 'y w@@ D,•� p O. aoi G. 0 ~ @ 0 F.. .b `� � O O O C. w cd O N >. U C s@. O id �..' O w iO E '0 C C r0i1 Y N C U y U C.1 y C w U y O '% O Q o � onw � 0c yt,yE ' oUa�ao `odoc ❑ � E0w � w U p U @ o w Y 7 C�a 3 o v b 0 U o a @ aUi ro ° _ ai `o ° w ° "0 �? o o � o oq a� c i is ° ab°i `' o ° b C9, ° a@i b c°i aai '�Z �a 0 0 •> o ' of 0 y o , •° a>i y E 0, � t �coi o f E ° o OUa 'o O> oc°a ° c� - '3 =' c_so 0 o'i o0 ° �caYn 'Ecaoa 0 — aw = � nvvEE ° qo .0 °y °� " � Vv� ❑a0i O0 •c °� o0 YEtaEC O 00o0tiC 0m0 ° � EonE E E ° C� . EE EU o0 w > 0.@0. ° N b0 U N ° +U p U � @ C ,= b 0 to. O >N O U � O � °tiQa � a° @0 0 i. a. v E ° U 0. �� F O N C Uo :a ° @ `" E C w b ' C y a� ` a0i C O t^ a79 "a " ° E e aCi " � ° :' 0 0r. >°t � r. L4° io w ai " oc, o >> _E O ° 0 c �Co ObA A 0. 0 °a ° C . 0 c w O o ° E woo pw E "-O ; e is x c 0 ,o �a°i c7i '° -a ? > Q c c« � 0 0 ari P 00 °� o a� ° CL r. a ZCCs Qidn Y '�°of VU5 y VyC w C vC a .ove w ° o cc.EvcCO iQ,y i o '3 � w@° o>> E 0 O •U U 'YO y °p OaO t,E @ IU T ° ° to °� O wN .5j @ C0. 0. C > .., U w 0. C y •C ° w �_ .? 0. w y C p., C •� kU. "p '� G •° ,� y U b [� U > w a� '` C N y O 'O rij 'S7 O w C ' iv N ai i- O bA w 3 O U ° Y IU 03 ;? a.0..Sc `� t .EUyC] �a � o@ ��° yN o c >' > 0 4U @ cv a� Q U st 0 00 zv = gi n g+ c 0 ° ° � o i ° � c 0 �U.. U p w V E E p G ,D ~.d -a C u r E �p E i0 iU. � >.LL o cC0 y P b .y ti °° coi •C @ o °; •� :r o a cz ae •o 0 cs • � o > rY a°i > Ow-0 0 w° v°i �D4 ' 30 � 4v0 "00 coi o :o °�' U o X O V 116 y � o a� aci c`d aEi cCa � •" ° _ E wo c ca • C) 'v 3 �, gc3 _ N .O C5 A d E O ., Urn � oin.Y ° E ° a ° In C O O Q Q U i Cd I c vw E .c 0 0 c ° > o o E ° 0. > a 0. ccaa v ccz O CYr 0 a� 0. cu Y 41 O o ami o 0 c cCa a� Z ami c N oo aci 'c~d ._� c Rs aci `" c -. > N E o p > •a cz C Cto 0 w ro o 3 '0A La o Z ti ° c ° co 0o yto y v c o o �, 0 0 v • a� a>icz a ° awE � o aoc 0 � = 3 Cd.7 a Q N a G o o7n s o F o 'UCISb " n c7 Ov G cCa b t«� O O v to S4 „ C13 V 3 -p b $ Cl O b T C N VIn .O r. 0 .d b4 c^CO U O �O p O in ° cn ao v 0 In Q 3 b G cd �a Y T c •cCi y',C b, 7 0 N N4� b¢A O 'O O n' ` N ° °' CN E C's U -0 — c � •.yE • to r. Y o 3 v � C's ro vc •w c N c. w 3 - o a p �Y '- E 0 E .�. o co 0 o U 0 6b rs " s v C h p ° '� ca Q) L' C '� d X 6� C) p t•. O p Y v� r- .~t3 O C v w C y U .2 vOi j O vC°i cCC ,; cl O 'L7 h 0 t bq ap. 'b 5 > 0 O 'bo " T N , u > 't� C U w O C) 'bo.2. U ca ,C ca y ca ° p w ° tib - 'C ca O O w w ca 0 % U 0 p 3 y O 0 0 ° p a) > V1 � y b '0 0 .O ❑ co Q O p o quo p •�^ 'n m b Ta'y C •.^� y4. Q O O ._+ '""" 'vim U aCi 0 O O C E 'E c tiQo °c' .0 � : c : Y ° c 'nom0 3 ° � w 'an " mac ` c ooi ~api ^ 0.. pvN c 2 a jcl to ca u E 0 ° vX � . .- -ooa o " - � � a� 'b .a c � E aTi °' � ° .E � � � � o •,: " -° w ' co 00 q ai wo ya a SZ ani oo 3 v E �' " � a�i ° cba Too ao O �C 3 E o O O Y d Q c in tu o y y U Q o • • E a .0 3 • • • U t� • • i W O wO C C i o 4 o ed to aoi a aCi ami aoi Ea, °n EO o w -= wo •� cyNa -� w •q eNa t • o u " C y N C 'C U t cd ti V N ea h U ui C L U y ,O y > C C N > C N C U E w °� aUi E ami °n H E u oti ti E acdi on. t E U v) o ° v E � v CL v E LE � co> E a b v U y C O ;a Q C [ 0.S G4 U U U U 0 0 0 c 0 iG C > p YO > p U > p ca O > 0. o O .0 O O F in, U i 3 •o c i a CGQE" ai ci v t i c c`a t Cd } E >,O> W Q "o ° Coo [io a ca C �' t •a� U _ U ca y0 y is 7 N SO F" a. O .S fl .E ` U o c 'E s 0 lojv = o ai 'on r. c 'O .N >., ai C !n c 7 oq O = E ca t v ro n ° O > 3 .5 Qto ° 3 ° c w U E �•= a E v❑ ono d O CL o i C13 o a� °~ U c on 0 . tu N o .c U 3 '� aO�i o N E .2 .' E c aEi �a a Dodd O E . o° `o C " 0 > U '" ` ;? o o ` t o 3 i O j o vp ti . v; b 'C eta > v° n o , 9 0 a g o :Z C's Vi c ' o n v a c �ac°i ° E :d 'i v `ow o o E � •O =° U d > .E vo °�' Win, 0 00. t eon c O b ca Cl.a o a o `� U 9 a. amt 03 'EUE � 0 � o �r ° °' In ti _ 0 r U O L E is O 'C , O _ > on U O 4y U O L1. .b � V •� b '� � a�- y 'O C a U X O O h C > .b C v p ns ci C vj�C CIO w C C aoi ca y .O cz �•, E t on U .� O .E o � o Y : v o _ O0 CO t o t o c«d o Zt E cn y � y I.U. "'� O r ca C ¢' y_.0 r- O ea Wcl C,3 U y O 0. b O U fn O ea U N A' W t "' > U C7 O Y O I` 6) � U fn DA c"a 'ZS ca Y > � t�. Y V U a� W on E ¢ N O E O E m Y c > r- y ,[, on .5 c an E Q U > 3 Q v t° eAa o vro y ati b u_ o o • • :? o c cd o t o s o ° iW> a i N i C v �' • r ti •Eco • • � 3C', � 1� G G N O N O C CG C cd 0 0 E V E u •� E O OQUD W O RS Y W e c7 N N 'J• • ° U O 0 - -Cd N 6) bA 'O N N e�LC 0 O A Q cOd 0.. d 0.y _ O b N E C eya o c`� A —a 6, o c'"i Q n' eNa °C' to 0 t oc0 aNa� 0 in. 00 � � E � Uv� E � E Dov Q Q � u d � a o ° a Q A A C CO 41 L U W N U W N W W O .D .� 'O E .2 G c an o Q o a� 0 0 U • c O O O E U O � U � � ,Ob C7 F a`. �nR acaa Qa Qa Ga. Y o c 0 0 0 0 o U y a N " ° V a c :3c ;d ,� C 'N ai v U O c 32 o a c o ZO a s ao�i ti w y oma° � 7 O o > ° o F " b > N •N a ° cl w u cO p W n C � o 0 C U F o o Nlz CA c a r. K cl 0 .3 °o• U oq ° E °fl �° 0 E a c cd Go ro E L U W (� •O U 00 •X pUw„ Sao b ° a C E ° � QCZx Soo C7 ;: E t E 0 co Y N °� N •C `" i•. ° b c� y ° y p CA � •C T •p'cy � �' bo'O v 0 14 r• N G cv O N L N 4U. pq Y .0 00 C >, ° O W ctf U aT+ tU. W O N N U U o CA ' U 5^ aUi o ❑ 4 b co L H y Fes+ N Vj Q 0 N O U y c g5 W . E. c E N b Q o f y `� c v y ci a F o en. b as ca o N O U 'O "0 .^y. h V r- 4. U f 0. � N4r o -14 V • a 119 Draft Resolution"B" June 25,2002 Page 1 of 5 • Attachment 4: Draft Resolution"B" Approval of General Plan Amendments DRAFT RESOLUTION "B" A RESOLUTION OF THE ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2000-0001 THEREBY ADOPTING UPDATED LAND USE, OPEN SPACE, CONSERVATION, CIRCULATION, SAFETY, NOISE AND HOUSING ELEMENTS AND DIAGRAMS. (GPA 2000-0001) WHEREAS, the City of Atascadero has initiated an update of all elements of the General Plan; and, • WHEREAS, an Final EIR and Statement of Overriding Considerations has been prepared for the project and made available for public review in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA); and, WHEREAS, the laws and regulations relating to the preparation and public notice of environmental documents, as set forth in the State and local guidelines for implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) have been adhered to; and, WHEREAS, the Final EIR and Statement of Overriding Considerations have been certified by the City Council; and, WHEREAS, the Atascadero Planning Commission, at a Public Hearing held on June 18, 2002, studied and considered General Plan Amendment 2000-0001, after first studying and considering the Final EIR and Statement of Overriding Considerations prepared for the project, and, WHEREAS,the Atascadero Planning Commission has recommended approval of the proposed General Plan amendments, and, WHEREAS, the Atascadero City Council, at a Public Hearing held on June 25, 20029 studied and considered General Plan Amendment 2000-0001, after first studying and considering the Final EIR and Statement of Overriding Considerations prepared for the • project, and, Draft Resolution"B" June 25,2002 Page 2 of 5 NOW, THEREFORE, the Atascadero City Council takes the following actions: • SECTION 1. Findinsis for Approval the General Plan Update: The Atascadero City Council finds as follows: 1. The proposed General Plan update has been prepared consistent with the applicable laws and guidelines of the State of California; and, 2. It is in the best interest of the City to adopt this General Plan Update to protect the health, safety and welfare of its citizens by applying orderly development of the City; and, 3. Adoptions of the General Plan Update will assist the City in meeting its Regional Housing Needs Allocation as required by the State of California; and, 4. The General Plan Update incorporates Smart Growth Principles of infill and mixed uses to minimize environmental impacts and facilities requirements of new development. SECTION 2. Approval. The Atascadero Planning Commission, in a regular session assembled on June 25, 2002 resolved to approve the General Plan Update consistent with the following exhibit: 1. Exhibit A: General Plan 2025 Policy Document 2. Exhibit B: General Plan Land Use Diagram • • X21 Draft Resolution"B" June 25,2002 Page 3 of 5 On motion by Council Member and seconded by Council Member the foregoing resolution is hereby adopted in its entirety by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ADOPTED: By: J. Michael Arrambide, Mayor Attest: Marcia McClure Torgerson, City Clerk Approved as to form: Roy A. Hanley, City Attorney • 122 Draft Resolution"B" June 25,2002 Page 4 of 5 Exhibit A: June 7,2001 General Plan Policy Document and Diagrams This Exhibit is attached as a separate document. �. 2 3 1 1 r a Al tit<�'}ig�«i��s � ►� t�rt��`� � f , ,� ,��I•=tte� ,1; 34- „ski«�F,7.'��ftF�y.+' 4i�•��3��, ' � O i� a { � ) i isactic #�Fisv�> ,�� t mlk '� fp1 e Ili i13 , v k ,Nisii +t ssEii� a �.1 r i 1 E t ( } "3 si Fi4» tit Nyy�At�tEr tg Www � � �} ' • ! t`` ! i a �. pat fpsE.� �� FF,:, � f r f s, !a! 1jj F ► � f ��f !1$f,,3! AV- tl'« rte" "Mm N � �'tf�� `s ��`c�s�V��cr � FuireJ'fi"A �P n ' �y�a� i�'� �'"��! . rt �,3st �N��,�s�P��1111�1��111111r �� ,�� ;��;�•...�.•�� 1►►�,i ��•�•-e�///mow■! ; ►. � � eee�� `tl�.��i..■w��1\„�//1� •Rim: 1 1 1 1 1 1 � i • 1 � • Vt mom v Lima +irk ♦�f tt ltfrt�l�l` •' i�sl��Rr�., v+�b.�� v.. Asa !- �w�=�. r' �.Nr `'"��r �'a� t�.��►� ti r 1� mli I4p•hilt.`I.r t aqr a�.,h Q' # +�II��A��L�� 'd'�y, �y o,r«�.J, I-i.�ggl t+••rt 4,• o t�`,`*�61l�.. �a` * +�a��7� ,•`4 aft; R�In�y� tL, .� rRr fir ♦s�+.�I� ��♦�j am JS•:*'Jr y a � `ar �` i\s\•-� •r ♦��' 'k1{ ♦+♦ '' �Q\� !jm✓rr.t eN�i?� �r+71 S L- ii �A7�,►,��,`r�.� . .. I � y�1+/ �i�\O it�r� �'•a.Ca �Z r:1 1 t' #Jl� f��?I'i.�:i►'m✓41si: tti�► fr ♦ ♦ ♦�/#...ri ��wrlt�'kill 4W ��fl+�I�,��.nt. �4t * .��' �•�.~�+ �iet l;r J �� 1 �' ." •�1 ip'• #�y I!j♦ ,A4,1�. ��' rl�lt�`�'�irt�.�:►�,Mr s�/j k�`�h. tea _ r r� , rya. ,Nt+1YY� .�� 1� �k rf� ♦,(Ir►��J 'y,� .hr r.. \j (j � ftyR .,'f�,i. ,as�:►.�r� AMS ONIM f AA %� �,�1��j'��4E ��Ma .� + t1 `� I�WAS ♦R (sti'' Ui4t1 r+ ,�l•�r? ♦ � �+ *j j/i♦1 !<�!1a*♦��//t� f�. ,�.�1..� i4�lf�N�� ;isr►'r''m'v'a�,.+�tr !.."J+ ac'z.) i' t ' f '�► MANN /►' OMAN' � 1 i - : �tL.♦ t:fl + " 1° s'~�lr�ri'3i ��.,,y1 � P-4 � �, � rim r. ♦1. ♦ >I�'""�trar s '•' ,!n {' arc r<�,t m ��R�' *a�+�,•►!+ 1� ~► 1 prr�j�f ��'s 4=1�' •�L,i��+l(��Ir�f.4l�.° ��'rr"r r'• nttas .V y r fi;ty �a ,j /.`.� I�'�..1, !♦r! J�rrrrAlw WIN f � ��1�a�ll`r i r'%•"�Yi: ,,,a �►i� * 't!r_.m� �• riii.•„ f NVa, - G yr,7 u,' � il�ri �`t�rtl fQ FDA ,t�!�tlralr�jl•2'►M,oa Lift.-� �.a2}i, �i mat ��i�I•i,►�il/f�� ' � t 'y * I/� UK►` � * SZ: 5 4-�- Yi1 Iii Jifwi� q w►�s. '4m`1 rsias� fnsH'a a -� ti►`' � 4 .+ sr•`y J ♦.+,' "% ?�� *� •.. s a�. wit Ir �� '"*•��#�.k�lT�i•�r'�'��i�y+��Y r qt+�►�+'�':s►. .I/f1i�S�,.a..�� << �.- t '�' � 7 �� ,`::s1t`�R�}1�i�ar+tom�r� � t �. ��`t ♦ti. � oi4;* Sim- Q4 m ,.��r,.•r .. tg, .lf , 11��t•a.;♦4,,�iTl�j1ji�� Draft Ordinance"A" June 25,2002 Page 1 of 6 Attachment 5: Draft Ordinance"A" • Zoning Map Amendments DRAFT ORDINANCE "A" A RESOLUTION OF THE ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL ADOPTING AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO APPROVING ZONE CHANGE 2002-0026 THEREBY AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF ATASCADERO TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE GENRAL PLAN UPDATE OF 2002. (ZCH 2002-0026) WHEREAS, the City of Atascadero has initiated an update of all elements of the General Plan; and, WHEREAS, an Final EIR and Statement of Overriding Considerations has been • prepared for the project and made available for public review in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA); and, WHEREAS, the laws and regulations relating to the preparation and public notice of environmental documents, as set forth in the State and local guidelines for implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) have been adhered to; and, WHEREAS, the Final EIR and Statement of Overriding Considerations have been certified by the City Council; and, WHEREAS, the Atascadero Planning Commission, at a Public Hearing held on June 18, 2002, studied and considered Zone Change 2002-0026, after first studying and considering the Final EIR and Statement of Overriding Considerations prepared for the project, and, WHEREAS, the Atascadero Planning Commission has recommended approval of the proposed Zone Change, and, WHEREAS, the Atascadero City Council, at a Public Hearing held on June 25, 2002, studied and considered Zone Change 2002-0026, after first studying and considering the Final EIR and Statement of Overriding Considerations prepared for the project, and, i 125 Draft Ordinance"A" June 25,2002 Page 2 of 6 • NOW, THEREFORE, the Atascadero City Council takes the following actions: SECTION 1. Findings for Approval of a Zone Change consistent with the General Plan Update: The Atascadero City Council finds as follows: 1. The proposed Zoning Map amendments are consistent with the updated General Plan Land Use Diagram, and, 2. It is in the best interest of the City to enact this amendment to the Zoning Map to protect the health, safety and welfare of its citizens by applying orderly development of the City, and, 3. Adoptions of the Zoning Map Amendments will assist the City in meeting its Regional Housing Needs Allocation as required by the State of California; and, 4. The Zoning Map Amendments will facilitate the incorporation of Smart Growth Principles of infill and mixed uses to minimize environmental impacts and facilities requirements into new development. SECTION 2. Approval. The Atascadero City Council, in a regular session • assembled on June 25, 2002 resolved to introduce for first reading an ordinance that would rezone portions of the City of Atascadero consistent with the General Plan Land Use Diagram subject to the following: 1. Exhibit A-1: Zone Change Map 2. Exhibit A-2: Zone Change Map North Detail 3. Exhibit A-3: Zone Change Map South Detail SECTION 3. Effective Date. This ordinance shall be effective a 12:01 a.m. on the 31St day after its final passage. '26 Draft Ordinance"A" June 25,2002 Page 3 of 6 On motion b Council Member and seconded b Council • y y Member the foregoing resolution is hereby adopted in its entirety by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ADOPTED: By: J. Michael Arrambide, Mayor Attest: • Marcia McClure Torgerson, City Clerk Approved as to form: Roy A. Hanley, City Attorney 127 oll WPM, gill Zi r. �.��)�►�1 `�wl�igf > .••. 111 At �w ♦ ��r�.\ ��/elf• UII all flff G • �L�IIIIAN w1�.!►�J ��`�� •:"Igll!111�L/�,�w+. �''•%;: c Ilk is io �♦ N,v\ aA••l�lllll %!`2/ \"i-♦ 1\t►� ��♦♦ �� ! ♦ NI 1.' 1 �I ♦, .�� •A�`��j�//I�Ur�1 1��1111 F/ii�' ♦��t�,e}�q+. �♦�� Iie11♦.I" 1,S 1111 ��%�jrs As e��. . � !- ♦� t •. ♦'111/I�iii��. r l IIi I�♦ u, .. . . w,VIP. J AN- •ei��'1#1 ��1♦�� . mall <e� �.•�„AL + . goww r �r. .• ♦� ♦ ��Q■ L��J V�� 1f 94 WA— Rk' i�.rii� \I�•.i 1 �i�...via • per. �� P 1 I I I�� .. .:A1f SII. . �. f 1i� �� i��\s •�� 1��I ♦�� ♦ 1� . IIS<� //// !• •� "` � II II Tel � ��, /i JOIN", •��I!- �i.�i,.'��nit��t :,� V �' = �.re,`� �!�":.- ' ` `�• t.,` ��• /; ��♦C;leu l ��_ •\ _i�L�:��1� V��e�1� \! ► ` • � i�+. •��i._r�i�,`�.�1��Atq��Il/ij, �. � r •ter • \�yr! INVEAS., �1�,�•�.�I ��o- -- , r. 11 'A ZAN NOW IN WffAM I�� ,�a •,`;,�.♦1.\.� -N►i�� .war, 0 ,- M WAY AM- �eri•�i� 'is :itis. 11�` IJ�I�i�w.� ♦j Is p � II �� .,r+t�1��1�i�inm ♦�+ ;.:;`;.�•, ��,♦ �A I� 4' �� kv rwing _ 1, I ��. SIL i■� �► n► M,.. `� 1 1,�i�►1►+�GA.�-►fie �,.,,ie, ��1�► �� i 4,WA VIP ♦r �� .►\111' ME now, ��•; •, /� III_ Illy �� -.fie.'. 111:,..., -1 ►, .,.��.r� ��,�,� � ��'.•�• ''�►��'I��1��o:moi% . ��ieeo'a►�� ♦ ,®`�,w� �,,/� re ��'r� �I��'�� 1��►,��,,�`IIS j._._:��i►e��,�!�.;�= lima IP Op��° ® �� r e ♦fit rw� .► '�.w► /I i7,� /� ..o� io m NOR-117 03 161 "N ® % �� i�o��4 ♦elf �� v�/Q .'.•..,.■ .sir, I •e � �°p•••,oi��.eo�e � •'r . . •...• � _�-� `OG�® ��i.��.�� •� mor,\//��,��%��ih�� .��+�• �►� -�� ice'• •I �..�•,Il°e •'�f • ® :,.,,� �i �1`—•'tA �.�(�i► ��w f� eje��►�.` es ♦�. � :,.�I�►r�j rI ' �. ♦.1♦ ♦art ♦♦ r, �° �� / � � s``N��// `✓`��;��t��%��%ate f,�' ��5`" ♦��t�� t t qhs r�N! 1 aa�0♦ •a b iii 1�� !\ltettt��f�Tj�•� t�ty �, 1♦,�.�� /ii��i\ _�C Vic,',`-Or�j�� 1��.��1�ii�►�%I��s�/��/�iir'1�:moi� ��'.� — ,�� '��\. f♦�t'��:a/f f1� Oma. .�..�1 � Rim pm OA°/ii �� iii► ��.�.��1 .�.y�.• `'1f !� \� e.I �'i��i��e��ir�►� ° N '�► `II ow'`��:•rte �'i�'I J�� .,�.rri�,. '�.,,,;t,'� �.,�►�-® Via,�•-„;.•,;� ,��—.0, 4 �.S ♦ sus'✓s��.��♦ .'1 ♦i .� /jJ��_=�%.%%'.� I�OI It ��-11�� •�01111/11 t / •t�� A.I�II Vili•�1��,,��/�•t',•,,�'/••• ,�\r►a�■ �,�: � a 0 r•1��♦ ®moi moi'?��j� .�Y�■Ilq:Wit;� t�lj:'MUNIVO �� ! �♦.V.�'.�� ♦ !r i:.� . ♦G Sip�i•� �� i�� tti ��a i i�ri�i�Ni i•I••i ��i�1� • ��0� �'� ♦ ►.O •• 1 t tip• ��c�G i�it 00/,, i1`I �1, ”+fie e1/ •Y o.'•Ir:• .'♦ t PF u n/t�� .moi �., ♦1l0. ♦�._,ms's►".'�(�, 1/''�:�=�+►•�(E�I PM ow g7l -�� ,''O�'�'� r�iii s t►"'t ��\�a�� .b4D+�i�� go MAI kWh MOW NO om /i ♦�� •® P-WAR SII �\ X11111 III' �� •� UNION,' •�� . �`-oi♦� ►��!��i��It��■i .111► -,.►. ♦ �� I ��i��o girl .1 ► • ..IIIIIII ., , • `i. ., ♦� �� '� I/ ` �� I MO , ,•��• `�I�i die •,I • ' `1%�♦ ♦ r