HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet 11/21/1989 • BOYD C. SHARITZ
CITY CLERK
•
A G E N D A
PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL
JOINT MEETING
Tuesday, November 21, 1989 - 7 :00 p.m.
Ken Beck Building, 5601 West Mall, Atascadero
(Atascadero Unified School District Administration Building)
Call to Order
Pledge of Allegiance
Roll Call
Public Comment
A. CONSENT CALENDAR
1 . Approval of minutes of regular Planning Commission
meeting of November 7 , 1989
• B. STUDY SESSION
1. GENERAL PLAN UPDATE STATUS (VERBAL)
a. Land Use Element
b. Open Space Element
C. Conservation Element
d. Circulation Element
e. Housing Element
f. Noise Element
g. Safety ( including seismic) Element
h. Parks and Recreation Element
2. OTHER PLANNING STUDIES
a. Interim Growth Management Committee
b. Downtown Master Plan (Verbal)
C . Fire Services Master Plan (Verbal)
d. Fiscal Planning Model
3. GENERAL PLAN COMPLIANCE ISSUES
a. CEQA - 10% slopes, new roads, etc.
b. Drainage Master Plan
C. ADJOURNMENT
M E M O R A N D U M
To: City Council
Planning Commission
From: Ray Windsor, Citv Manager
Subject: Joint Meeting of November 21 , 1989
Date: November 16 , 1989
The following material is intended to both supplement the agenda
for this meeting, as well as to provide an historical record/
overview of the various issues involved with the general Plan.
In some instances , staff will be providing oral reports , as
indicated on the agenda face sheet.
We have also enclosed copies of written material provided by
various concerned citizens.
RW:cw
MEETINGZ ENDA
DAT I 1 AG
I
TEAA
•
'^ NOTE: THE MINUTES FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF NOVEMBER 7TH
WILL BE DISTRIBUTED AT A LATER TIME.
•
•
ora
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: City Council
Planning Commission
FROM: Henry Engen, Community Development Director
RE: Summary of Consensus Position of Interim Growth Management
Committee
DATE: November 21 , 1989
The attached memorandum to the City Council was approved on
September 12, 1989 and forwarded to the County Board of
Supervisors for their consideration in their growth management
deliberations . As rioted, it specifically asks for referral of
any major projects within the designated referral area to the
City for reaction and supports the status quo with regard to
requests for density increases around the periphery of Atasca-
dero' s Urban Reserve Line.
As noted in the memorandum, the Committee supports strengthening
growth management and policies as part of the General Plan Update
including special attention to establishing fire/emergency
response time standards and road and circulation criteria in
relation to growth policies . A 2 1/2 percent growth rate for the
City was projected which would mean theoretical full build-out of
32 ,860 persons in the year 2004 . This projection was endorsed
for inclusion in the General Plan, and staff was directed to
provide quarterly reports on growth within the City (see
attached) .
The Council and Planning Commission earlier arrived at a
consensus to not increase residential densities as part of the
General Plan update nor to propose any expansion of the City's
Urban Service Area other than possible consideration of the
inclusioI] of Chalk Mountain Golf Course, Heilmann Park, Paloma
Creek Park and Atascadero State Hospital within the City' s Urban
Reserve Line/City limits.
HE :ps
Enclosure: September 12 , 1989 Staff Report to City Council
October 4 , 1989 Quarterly Growth Monitoring Report
San Luis Obispo Population Statistics
REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL Agenda Item: C-3 (A)
CITY OF ATASCADERO
Through: Ray Windsor, City Manager
Meeting Date: 9/12/89
From: Interim Growth Management Committee
By: Henry Engen, Community Development Director 4vrl
SUBJECT:
Proposed resolution No. 67-89 to the County Board of Supervisors
regarding their recently adopted growth management measures .
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve the attached Resolution No. 67-89 for the City Manager to
convey to the County Board of Supervisors.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION :
On July 25, 1989 the Mayor appointed an interim growth management
committee comprised of Councilmembers Lilley and Shiers, and the
City Manager, City Attorney, and Community Development Director.
The charge to the Committee was to monitor the County' s actions
with respecasir grthey relatewth atogthe11City' sadvisory
Generalcommittee' s
1ePlanand to
recommend
report back on this subject.
reporting back at
The Committee has council
en meetingst. Theweekly d
intervening
attached resolution evolved
from the deliberations of the Committee to reflect City concerns
regarding growth pressures especially in the fringe areas where
some services are inadequate.
The Committee also supports strengthening growth management
policies as part of the General Plan Update,
including special
attention to establishing fire/emergency response time standards
and road and circulation criteria in relation to growth
policies .
Staff has also been asked to monitor building p
activity to
keep the City Council advised as to whether there is any evidence
of patterns exceeding our historic norm.
E:
H s p
Enclosure: Draft Resolution No. 67-89
RESOLIITION NO. 67-89
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ATASCADERO CONCERNING THE IMPACT
OF THE PROPGSED SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY
GROWTH MANAGEMENT SYSTEM ON THE CITY OF
ATASCADERO.
WHEREAS, the San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors
has adopted an interim ordinance setting a maximum number of
building permits for new residential ' units in the
unincorporated area of the County sufficient to accommodate an
annual household population average of not more than 2 .5
percent per year; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Atascadero has
followed with great interest and concern the public hearings
held by the Board of Supervisors on the report of its Growth
Management Advisory Committee; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Atascadero
recognizes that the action taken by the Board of Supervisors
on the growth management issue may adversely affect the
planning goals and objectives of the City of Atascadero by
focusing and/or accelerating development activity within the
City and on the city fringe, and
WHEREAS, the City of Atascadero is currently undertaking
a comprehensive revision to the City General Plan and Land Use
Element which will address, among other things, the growth
management policies of the City; and
WHEREAS, the City Council supports the concept of
regional cooperation and coordination in planning efforts
between jurisdictions consistent with the City's "home rule"
right to plan its own future, and its obligation* to represent
the voters of the City;
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of
Atascadero hereby resolves as follows:
1. The City supports the County's efforts to implement
a reasonable, meaningful, effective, sustainable growth
management system which will preserve and protect the quality
and character of San Luis Obispo County.
2. Except for the public lands (the Atascadero State,
Hospital, Paloma Creek Park, Heilmann Park and the Chalk
. Mountain Golf Course) presently designated by LAFCO as being
i
RESOLUTION NO. 67-89-
Page Two
within the. City's sphere of influence and sphere of servic&,
no annexation request shall be considered or approved by the
City of Atascadero until such time as the comprehensive
revision of the City General Plan and Land Use Element has
been adopted.
3 . With respect to those unincorporated "areas of
concern" shown on the attached map designated Exhibit "A", the
City Council hereby formally requests the Board of
Supervisors:
a. To refrain from granting General Plan
amendments or any other entitlements which would allow for a
higher intensity or density use than currently allowed under
the County General Plan until such time as the City's General
Plan update has been adopted, and an effective growth
management system has been permanently implemented by the
County.
b. To refrain from approving additional
subdivisions or parcel maps until such time as water,
circulation, fire response, and other infrastructure concerns
have been planned for and resolved to the mutual satisfaction
of the City and County.
C. To refer all applications for development,
except those clearly minor in nature, for City review and
comment.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at the regular meetilnc f the City
Council of the City of Atascadero held Septem P 1 1989
by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers Lilley, Shiers, Borgeson, Mackey and Mayor Dex'
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
DATE ADOPTED: 9-12-89
CITY OF ATASCADERO, CALIFORNIA
BY
-7
. �:O
ROLLIN DEXTER, Mayor .
RESOLUTION NO. 67-89
Page Three
ATTEST:
pe, L• Zc2ct- ,
BOYD C. SHARITZ, Cit erk
APPROVED AS TO FOP14:
J FP EY G. OR,GENSEN, City Attorney
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
JGJ: fr/8/31/89
C:RSATA713
i
Vag o YSABEL
'
Ad. 1 �Ppn►♦- EXHIBIT A
q+ + ":: ' ' Moss lo,,• � R ° 1
°: °`�,' or. \ r F
fil
R10 • • i. / �• ORESTON1 \ q, .,
6 ,
« } PLANNING REFERRAL AREA 1f
~ E.•^r4` �;mde (EXCLUDING SANTA =
MARGARITA TOWN SI TE)
b : 'Asui4cla%
AD
ERO .gf
229 4- 1
�'� - spy m W� .. '''•' ..
-
:
•�,� 70 z stir '� • ItA32
��. � .. '� •, .�►
t
CO
• ' ; Esile Re•k
i T29S 813E
• .,� �° c: Q d Id GAR ,o.`
Z._•r'�•••i. Corr• AN* _ ..._.,. -.:•::.._.... I g ` =A b,
A MARCA ITA . _.3 t•
• •-r. .. FAR crsr -
• _ C _
•'�i e! 2620 r4 i t31'c { C iN i f
a
T.29S. C^ .. R t2 �' — s ,s
t t W!
ptd. ` , . t' 1 Wilts Mjtt•rita . 1� P �s
* 1 2� ,. �•7tt � rjy �i• AEFi'(e^cis SPI r •� n 7j •t r
' r N 0 !♦
�" ► :�._: �b
OFF-
22,-:..,� .� MAARITA' '� , LAS PI
T LUttiil0 •' :�fr,_ - '71 r 31 • _ t \1R tt "• 1 34 '.I !.••
Z' �C:�+ ! ' '`: C 11�• 1:.:` 'SAN L
its 0t�9••,�1ss9� 0eek rd. Rr ; :Rtta�s
I i E�`' SAj ?R
•# •••i
RANCH �> t
Q MARG*RRIpTmA� '
RDAM. H , b • ,
At.••�y,« I.LtA
L•tiM
ypCbom t
Tl�s.,;R.13E:j._;
Ib1+ SR°C . . 1SIt ~► y L tin 0-tL•� SAU15
T CALIP Mt N
•���•I•'••� - •p„ '
r�
O` 09
EPIEATZA
b• C A. ais .1 ”' fiinek�tst.. 1 • W •`t
' .. • •, fft•wsN•t £�T �r• r'. �� o•• •.� 273ss �s. . r �� is 1� "•-:I
ts. 1C1 • ...._ - y"'y�UtpER zliiPOLV' Ls:
V l AN
TE UNIV. V 20 77 tb/ :. •
art
'• ` as 7 ..__ •. '_.tor MI\. -. .M.... . ..._ _..-_.
• R 1 9 • A►.OULPH T
CRNA • �. 1Y C'��•{y, ..2b...�, v ttfSS? .� to
Y 0 Cot"3•i Le <, > :, 0�S o'Mhrb• ��4• .••n.amf1• ►r• .• i
Pft Y f5Lr L4flR+�. S. OBISPO'
-----.- _- ••_• O.� .':_'
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: City Council October 4, 1989
FROM: Henry Engen, Community Development Director.
RE: Quarterly Growth Monitoring Report
RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNIT (D U ) PERMITS ISSUED*
Single Multi- Net
Month Family Family Demolitions Increase
January 8 0 0 8
February 12 0 0 12
March 17 0 0 17
April 11 8 0 19
May 15 0 0 15
June 14 2 3 13
July 10 0 0 10
August 23 0 0 23
September 15 0 1 14
Year-To-Date 125 10 4 131
Source: Atascadero Building Division
ANNUALIZED GROWTH RATE:
131 D.U. = 9 mo. .,
X 12 mo.
X = 175 D.U. 's Projected
175 Projected D.U. 's 8,031 Total D.U. 's = 2. 17% Annual
Growth Rate
*NOTE: Typically, about 2/3 of the permits issued in a given
year are finaled the same year
cc: Ray Windsor, City Manager
Planning Commission
City Department Heads
A ^ •� if N � �t .•/f •[ M y N
O N O N N
PPP •p� •y�•t •■•� N K Np• �• K K �t • .N.pp
q • � � �Sd � S � � � � . M b
N
M a h •- � r• •' a a s a a
N �
M �, O INNr I+P� � � 1M1 O ••M�� N ww�
• E wV. N � � � A V N � A
N
T M
i gO
�■p N N e �•■ ±. 6 w
O P O.M
■ V
A
N �
� � O i � O N M O A N � � M •
A
O
.pp yah
.Mp �qy �p pa
^ 6 O N M d d A S O O P
A 0 0 P M � 8 g � $ g � •
`sas53a C Z9 5
r
N
■ N `• N
pp, M .yp� �y .gyp• .y y� ap • •
N N ^ O O H .N// � O � N � �p • L
0 W �
' W p
► W Y S N ■ •p� M ■ 22
.. oz •� N 8 7 V
� •`e� i `s � lts � ° o � � � 3
i
MEETfN AGEND �
DA 2 ITEM I
M E M O R A N D U M
REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF ATASCADERO Agenda Item C e 3 (B)
From: Ray Windsor, City Manager Meeting Date: 9/12/89
SUBJECT:
Fiscal Planning Model
RECOMMENDATION:
At this time, staff is seeking authorization to develop a
Requests for Proposal in order to obtain input on the cost to
undertake this work along with the timeframe for completion.
BACKGROUND:
The issue of growth management, as it relates to the incor-
porated limits of Atascadero, indicates that our average annual
growth rate since incorporation places us within the recommended
County formula. Perhaps most notable regarding a local growth
management plan is the fact that the City, by virtue of having
been legally sub-divided into rural residential lots, as part of
the original Colony plan, has already established growth meas-
ures through the residential land-use regulations enumerated in
the General Plan, which of course are tied to our ultimate popu-
lation on build-out. If, in fact, there are major concerns
beyond this, they would appear to be in two areas :
1 . The integrity of established land-use densities;
2 . The rate at which growth occurs speeding up ultimate
build-out reflected in the General Plan.
With respect to #1 , this would primarily hinge on the degree
of commitment by the Planning Commission and Council to the land-
use policies and densities reflected in the existing and soon-to-
be updated General Plan. As far as #2 is concerned, this is both
a function of the total permits issued and/or allowed within any
1
given period of time and/or the City' s ability to provide ade-
quate levels of service. It is this last issue that I wish to
address Council via this memo.
DISCUSSION:
Fiscal analyses tied to a city' s general plan are becoming
more in vogue in California as communities grapple with the ques-
tion of growth, its relative costs and the manner in which levels
of municipal services can be maintained or enhanced. Historical-
ly, the approach to who pays for what and how has been primarily
a reactive posture among cities . True, planning tools such as
multi-year capital improvement programs and their funding are
common among local communities, but they tend to be extremely
general in scope and based upon a projection of funding available
over time, using various known or expected revenue sources. Said
another way, capital improvement programs are based more on per-
ceived needs and resources than upon actual impacts from growth
at any given time. So, while such programs can be said to be
projections of future need, they can hardly be classified as pro-
active planning.
A good example of this, in light of the budget allocation
for a Fire Department Master Plan, is the question of additional
fire stations . A typical Capital Improvement Program may very
well identify the need for an additional station or stations
within a given timeframe ( five, ten, fifteen years) , but it won' t
and generally can' t tell you the exact timeframe within which it
(they) must be added, or its (their) location, in order to assure
adequate response time. To this extent, a Fiscal Element to the
General Plan would interface with certain aspects of a Master
Plan for the Fire Department. Without a doubt, it would make the
task of Capital Improvement Planning far simpler and more accu-
rate, because the fiscal model--the data base, if you will--
will allow us to project needs (priorities) , their timing and
their funding by being able to make and test certain assumptions
about growth.
Inherent in the desire to develop a Fiscal Element in the
General Plan is a belief that a city should have a more compre-
hensive and reliable mechanism to forecast the need for municipal
services (e.g. , Public Safety; Parks & Recreation, Utilities,
Traffic Circulation and related needs, etc . ) ; along with both the
timing and funding of such; as a corollary to this, it is criti-
cal to be able to project the ongoing maintenance and operation
costs for these services once in place.
All too often in the past, cities have been faced with sit- is
uations where the cumulative effect of individual land-use
decisions has suddenly and unexpectedly created the need for
various service level improvements or the deterioration of exist-
2
ing service levels ( i. e. , response times for emergencies, traffic
congestion, etc. ) . Solutions have often been an "after-the-fact"
situation, raising questions of adequate funding, equity in tax-
payer expenditure allocation and adequate revenue sources . A
Fiscal Element would provide a data base ( i.e. , Community Pro-
file) that would allow us to project, based upon assumptions of
pre-determined service levels and various types of land-use, its
timing and location, the costs required to provide such, as well
as anticipated revenues to offset these increased costs . A good
fiscal model would also allow us to look at alternatives for
revenue enhancement, which would (could) include expanding the
existing tax base.
Recent events within our County, as well as State-wide, in-
dicate that growth management is becoming an integral part of
land-use decision-making. There are a number of tools to assist
communities in making sound policy decisions on land-use, one of
which involves the development of a computer model to provide
critical data input related to cost/benefit analyses . As this
memo points out, such analyses may (should) include factors tied
to impacts (cumulative and otherwise) of when, where and how much
growth occurs, along with service levels, ongoing costs for main-
tenance and operation and various other growth implications, all
of which at some point add up to "quality of life" , how we main-
tain it and pay for it.
RW:cw
3
MEET�N
DATE z, 8 AENbA,
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: City Council
Planning Commission
FROM: Henry Engen, Community Development Director }+L
RE: Precise Plan Requirements for Construction or Grading on
10% slopes
DATE: November 3, 1989
Upon receipt of the attached legal opinion, we notified appli-
cants, engineers, contractors, etc . , that we would henceforth be
processing development projects that required grading on 10;
slopes to first receive approval of precise plans. The purpose
of this memorandum is to so advise and to also indicate the work
load impacts of this action.
As of October 20th, some 60 precise plans had been processed,
most of which were for grading on 20% slopes and more. Conceiv-
ably, the number of precise plans that we now will have to
process will more than double, and this will have a predictable
negative effect on the workload of the department, including
enforcement response, special projects, permit processing, etc .
Our interpretation of this criteria will be that building permits
for single family homes (the dominant entitlement affected by the
requirement) will be required to submit for precise plan review
and approval prior to applying for a building permit if the
grading proposed on the site would not be exempt under Chapter 70
of the Uniform Building Code. CEQA also requires that grading in
waterways, wetlands, identified scenic areas, etc. , be subject to
an environmental determination, which means a precise plan under
our procedures.
HE:ps
Enclosure: October 19, 1989 Legal Opinion
October 11, 1989 Request for Opinion
CC : Ray Windsor, City Manager
MEMORANDUM
City of Atascadero
October 19, 1989
TO: Henry Engen, Community Development Director
FROM: Jeffrey G. Jorgensen, City Attorney
SUBJECT: Request for Legal Opinion: CEQA vs. Zoning
Ordinance Requirements Relative to Slope Standards
Pursuant to your memorandum of October 11, 1989, I offer the
following analysis.
CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines set forth the minimum standards
which must be met by the City in determining when an environ-
mental determination must be made. Therefore, the City cannot
establish standards in its zoning ordinance for categorical
exemptions which are more permissive than the CEQA Guidelines.
The effect of this is that an environmental determination
needs to be made for grading which is not categorically exempt
under the CEQA Guidelines regardless of what the City zoning
ordinance may say, and the provisions contained in Section 9-
.4. 142 need to be revised. In the interim, it is my conclusion
that the City can administratively process applications so
long as it follows the CEQA Guidelines.
The issue, of when the City requires precise plans is a
separate issue from the environmental determination, so long
as there is some procedure for review. Therefore, it is not
absolutely necessary for the City to require precise plans for
all grading above 10 percent, so long as there is a mechanism
for making an environmental determination on grading above 10
percent. . Therefore, in answer to your specific question, the
City _is not compelled to require precise plans for 010 percent
slope grading post hasten, but is required to make determina-
tions- for
etermina-tions- for grading above 10 percent. If the zoning ordinance
does not provide us with a mechanism for determining when
grading- will occur -between 10 and 20 percent, the zoning
ordinance needs to be revised to do so. With respect to your
final question whether Section 15061 of the CEQA Guidelines
gives-the City."discretion to define a 20 percent standard, the
answer is no
It may be that the City would wish to consider establishing a
work program in conjunction with the new City Attorney and
affected Department Heads to conduct a comprehensive review,
revision, and update of the Municipal Code to make sure that
MEMO: Henry Engen
SUBJ: CEQA vs. Zoning Ordinance
October 19, 1989 - Page 2
its provisions comply with current law. In the past, we have
done this on a case by case basis as issues arise, but this is
not a particularly efficient way to approach it, and there are
concerns that several of the provisions of the Municipal Code
may be out of date. At the same time, a comprehensive
revision of the Municipal Code would be a timely and expensive
process, which should be budgeted for as a separate work
program in addition to the City Attorney budget, and the
budgets of the affected departments.
If you have further questions or comments concerning this
matter, please feel free to contact me at your convenience.
Sincerely,
EEt FREYJORGENSEN
y Att y
JGJ: fr
A:MMATA375
cc: City Manager
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: Jeff Jorgensen, City Attorney
VIA: -Ray Windsor, City Manager
FROM: Henry Engen, Community Dev lopment Director
RE: Request for Legal Opinion: CEQA vs. Zoning Ordinance
Requirements Relative to Slope Standards
DATE: October 11, 1989
BACKGROUND:
Section 15304 of the CEQA Guidelines calls for environmental.
determinations for grading that is done on slopes less than 10%.
The City Zoning Ordinance, on the other hand, under Section 9-
4 . 142, calls for environmental determinations on grading "except
for applications that propose grading on terrain with slopes less
than 20; and that will involve less than 5 ,000 cubic yards of
earth moving, which applications are hereby deemed categorically
exempt from the provisions of CEQA. "
The effect of this procedurally is that any grading on more than
20; slopes is subject to a precise plan process involving envi-
ronmental determination, notification of abutting owners, and
establishment of an appeal period. Frankly, 10% slopes are con-
sidered relatively flat hereabouts, but we clearly have a
conflict between the CEQA Guidelines and the Zoning Ordinance.
QUERY:
Are we compelled to require precise plans for 10% slope grading
Dost haste or would it require an amendment to the Zoning
Ordinance? Alternatively, does Section 15061 of the CEQA
Guidelines give the City discretion for defining a 20% standard?
HE:ps
,vim.
MEMORANDUM
City of Atascadero
September 19, 1989
TO: Ray Windsor, City Manager
FROM: Jeffrey G. Jorgensen, City Attorney
SUBJECT: "Master Road Agreement,
ADVICE REQUESTED:
In response to your Request for Legal Advice dated September
60, 1989, I have reviewed the attached correspondence from
Planning Commissioner Luna, which raises questions about
certain roads within the City now being developed pursuant to
a "Master Road Agreement".
FACTUAL BACKGROUND:
In 1983, the former City Engineer, Larry McPherson, entered
into a road construction agreement for portions of Graves
Creek Road and Santa Ana Road (please see attachments) . I am
unaware of how this agreement came to be executed, whether it
was part of some larger planning and environmental review, or
whether there was any formal Council authorization for the
agreement. I would note that the letter appears to have been
copied to the City Manager at the time. Additional
information concerning the context in which the agreement was
negotiated would be helpful. I am informed that similar
agreements may have been entered into with the County
Engineering Department prior to incorporation of the City.
For the purpose of this memorandum, I will assume there has
been no formal authorization or other review.
In 1986, the Public Works Director entered into a new
agreement (with minor modifications, but in substantially the
same form as the 1983 agreement) expanding the roads to be
constructed to other areas of the City. In previous
discussions with the Public Works Director, it appears this
new agreement was entered into based upon the 1983 agreement,
after discussions between Public Works and Twin Cities
Engineering, Inc. No authorization was given by the City
Council, and I am unaware of any other formal planning or
environmental review conducted in relation to it. I assume
that the road construction work which is now raising concerns
has proceeded in reliance on the 1986 agreement, although I am
informed that there may be additional verbal or written
agreements for other roads as well. (San Marcos?)
t
MEMO: Ray Windsor, City Manager
SUBJ: Master Road Agreement
September 19, 1989 - Page 2
ANALYSIS•
Before answering Commissioner Luna's specific questions, it is
if any, existed to
important to determine what authority, such
enter into the 1983 and 1986 entered agreements.into if required as a
agreements would only specific
condition of development or mitigation measure for a
project, and then only after formal review and acceptance by
the Planning Commission and/or City Council. Although it is
unknown whether this occurred in 1983 , it is clear that it did
not occur in 1986. Part of the problem may involve the unique
circumstances of Atascadero, in that the affected areas wand
already subdivided (along with the road alignments) ,
therefore, there were no parcel maps or subdivision
to review. Nevertheless, it is
applications before the City
activities
difficult to understand how ordinance
potential impact would not be subject to thea grading such scope
City's tree
(ATMC 9-4.140, et seq. ) and, more recently, P
protection ordinance (ATMC 9-4.155, et seq. ) . Upon initial
review it would appear that both apply, but that neither
ordinance was followed with respect to the 1983 or 1986 road
work which has raised the present
agreements, or to the road
concerns.
In discussions with the Community Development Department, I am
informed that, based upon the 1986 "Master Road Agreement", a
division of responsibility has occurred at the staff grading
with respect to the review and processing The Community Development(p
activities within the City. ads,
Department reviews all grading within existing lots
driveways, etc. ) , and as a part of subdivision applications,
under the grading ordinance. Grading within the Colony
rights-of-way is reviewed by the Public Works Department
Y " arguablyrequires
pursuant to the "Master Road Agreement , and
division of
at least an encroachment P concerning the
responsibility has created uncertainty
applicability of the grading and tree ordinances to the road
apaental tion of
situation, and a lack
f interdo should be
evaluation of the City's procedures
by l as careful
review. This uncertainty
and possible amendments to
the Municipal Code.
In any event, independent action by any department of otential the
City
to enter into agreements of such scope and Council is clearly a
impact
without formal authorization by the City adequate
very dangerous procedure and should be avoided by
CONFIDENTIAL
MEMO: Ray Windsor, City Manager
SUBJ: Master Road Agreement
September 19, 1989 - Page 3
internal procedures and management oversight. To the extent
the agreements attempt to supersede, waive, or modify
applicable provisions of the Municipal Code, they are clearly
not authorized. Any such waiver or modification can only be
accomplished through amendment of the Code by ordinance.
With respect to the specific questions raised by Commissioner
Luna, I offer the following:
1. "Is this project exempt from CEOA? If so, was there _a
notice of exemption filed?"
The first step in any analysis of whether CEQA applies is
whether the activity is in fact a "project". A "project"
has been defined as the whole of an action, which has a
potential for resulting in a physical change in the
environment, directly or ultimately, and that is an
activity involving the issuance to a person of a lease,
permit, license, certificate, or other entitlement for
use by one or more public agencies. (CEOA Guidelines,
Sec. 15378 (a) (3) . ) Therefore, whether the road work
involved was required to have a grading permit,
encroachment permit, or could be handled under the
"Master Road Agreement", it would be considered a project
in that it required discretionary approval by the City.
The next step is to determine whether the activity, while
a "project", is nevertheless exempt from environmental
review, either statutorily or categorically. The only
exemption even remotely related to this type of activity
would be a class 4 categorical exemption for minor
alterations to land. A class 4 exemption consists of
minor public or private alterations in the condition of
land, water, and/or vegetation which do not involve
removal of mature, scenic trees, except for forestry and
agricultural purposes. An example would include grading
on land with a slope of less than 10 percent. (CEQA
Guidelines, Sec. 15304. ) In such a situation, if there
was a significant potential for environmental impact, the
class 4 exemption would not apply. Based upon this, it
seems clear that the type of road projects being
discussed would normally not qualify for a categorical
exemption.
MEMO: Ray Windsor, City Manager
SUBJ: Master Road Agreement
September 19, 1989 - Page 4
In this particular case, I am unaware of any
environmental review procedure having been conducted
under CEQA. In fact, there is a serious concern whether
any consistent, adequate environmental review procedures
exist within the Public Works Department. Therefore, in
answer to the second part of the question, no notice of
exemption was filed, although the filing of a notice of
exemption is permitted but not required when a project is
categorically exempt.
2. "Was there a ne ative dec arat'o ? If so is the initial
study available for public review? Did the initial study
consider cumulative impacts of all three phases?"
Based upon the answer to Question No. 1 above, the answer
to each of the above questions is no.
3 . "Even though the project is consistentvested rith the ght ht to General
Plan map (and the developer has
lolp
the existing parcels) , would it not be prudent to
identify the environmental impacts so that those impacts
can be mitigated and the entire protect can be consistent
with the environmental oals and olicies of the General
Plan?"
The answer to this question is yes. In fact, CEQA
requires such analysis. Consistency with the General
Plan is not the primary issue here, but rather whether
CEQA procedures were complied with.
4. "What armeal right does the public -have in this matter?
Has the appeal period lapsed?"
This is not, strictly speaking, a matter for which an
appeal is appropriate, in that the essence of the
question being asked is whether the City has followed
proper review procedures in the processing of road work
within the Colony rights-of-way. The public certainly
has the right to raise this issue as a matter of public
comment before the Council, or administratively hrough
the City Manager. It would also appear right
appeal guaranteed pursuant to Section 1-2.13 of the
Atascadero Municipal Code is broad enough in scope that
it could be utilized if so desired. However, the more
logical process would be to bring the matter to the
attention of the City Council and order a complete review
and report of current procedures.
Y •
MEMO: Ray Windsor, City Manager
SUBJ: Master Road Agreement
September 19, 1989 - Page 5
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. It appears that there was inadequate authorization to the
Public Works Department to enter into the 1983 and 1986
Master Road Agreements, as . well as other verbal or
written agreements of which I am unaware. Such
activities should cease immediately, and a thorough
review should be conducted with revision of city
procedures as necessary.
2 . It appears that there are inadequate procedures in place
within the Public Works Department to ensure that
projects under their review comply with other applicable
provisions of the Municipal Code and state law. As a
related matter, there is inadeequate interdepartmental
coordination of review of projects to ensure compliance
with all city regulations. A thorough investigation,
analysis, and recommendation for changes in procedure is
warranted.
3 . It appears that there are inadequate environmental review
procedures within the Public Works Department pursuant to
CEQA. The endati ns ohow this environmental make
problem can be corrected.
recommendations
if you have further questions or comments concerning this
matter, please feel free to contact me at your convenience.
Please distribute as you consider appropriate, keeping in mind
the confidential nature of this memorandum.
Sincerely,
JORGENSEN
-*ty Attorney
JGJ:f r
A:MMATA338
Attachments
REQUEST FOR LEGAL ADVICE
TO: CITY ATTORNEY APPROVED BY CITY MANAGER:
FROM: CITY MANAGER DATE: Q& INITIAL
r "
SUBJECT: -71D iY),QfW
ADVICE REQUESTED:
"nim i m&,G)e 6 Eos l �A
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
.. (Prepare synopsis ofgiving
attachmany
supportingpossible.
documents��
additional sheets, if necessary,
�•Y S 4`�Z Q`'�"' z v Ns�JYs'����J
P.
. V
Prepared by: _ LW,4A
Approved by: H6Q07
Department Head
Date Prepared: 6q
Date Needed by: S A
�,. SEP - b '1989
September 5 , 1989 CITY MGP.
To: Ray Windsor, City Manager
From: George Luna, Planning Commissioner
Subject : City Attorney Review of the "Master Road Agreement"
Dear Ray:
I have received five complaints about the roads now being
developed in the western part of the city. These
ecomplaints
cite concerns about: grading on steep slopes,
culverting of tributaries to Graves Creek, cumulative
impacts on drainage and seimenttion,
and policiesaof Atascaderoescy with the
General
environmental g
Plan, etc.
It appears that there is no specific plan or permit except
for the "Master Road Agreement" negotiated b= the City
find no
Engineer in 1986 (I. have enclosed a copy) .
City Coilval of such Also,
nationfor
I couldld no
this project.
The purpose of this memo is not to discuss the wisdom of
such a policy (approving a project without knowing if there
are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures) ,
but rather to ascertain its legality. Some specific
questions that I feel deserve -the written opinion of the
City Attorney are:
(1) is this project exempt.- from CEQA? If so, was there
a Notice of Exemption file
(2) Was there a Negative Declaration? If so, is the
Initial study
considerefor cumulativecreview?
impactsofihe
all
Initial Y
three phases?
(3) Even though the project is consistent with the
General Plan Map (and the developer has a vested right
to develop the existing parcels) would it not be
prudent to identify the environmental impacts so that
those impacts can be mitigated and the entire project
can be consistent with the environmental goals and
policies of the General Plan?
( 4 ) What appeal right does the public have in this
matter? Has the appeal period lapsed?
` 14TACPMEN r A
. •
® 805/434*4
TWIN IN CITIES
ENGINEERING
INC.
CIVIL ENGINEERING & SURVEYING
ALLEN W. CAMPBELL RCE 20244
June I3, 1986
Mr. Paul Sensibaugh
Public Works Director
City of Atascadero
PO Boc 747
Atascadero, CA 93423
RE: Road Construction Agreement Portions of Atascadero Colony
(See attached map)
Dear Mr. Sensibaugh:
In accordance with discussions between Gordon T. Davis Cattle
Company and the City, the following is a summary of our under-
standing of the procedures to be followed for the improvement
of the roads shown on the attached plot plan.
I. Developer to enter into an inspection agreement
with the City to 'reimburse City for actual
inspection costs.
2. Every attempt .will be made to maintain the
constructed road at its mapped location.
Centerline monuments will be referenced
prior to rough grading.
3. Developer will rough grade the roadway using
information supplied by developer's engineer and
a qualified soils lab , approved by City, will take
representative compaction tests at developer's
cost and furnish the results to the City.
4. City Engineer's office will make an on-site inspection
of the completeed rough grading with developer's
engineer. Adjustments will be made on recommendation
concerning roadway grades and site distances . Cut and
fill slopes will be examined at the time along with
proposed location and size of drainage structures .
Judgements will be based on well-recognized standards and
practices . Drainage calculations are to be submitted
to City prior to the field inspection.
P.O. BOX 777 . 200 MAIN STREET • TEMPLETON, CALIFORNIA 93465
Page 2 .
Road C
onsturction Ag#ment
C Davis 6-13-86
S. All underground utilities shall be placed prior
to paving. Trenches are to be adequately com-
pacted .with appropriate backfill material.
6. Developer shall place aggregate base. This
work will be inspected .by the City and will require
compaction tests to be' furnished by developer
verifying the satisfactory placement of these
materials.
7. After basing, City will review erosion control
work and roadside drainage facilities . The
City and developer's engineer will determine the
location of any roadside ditches or downdrains .
8. Developer shall re-establish and monument centerline
controls for the• roadway as approved by City.
County standard monument well at road intersections
and on long tangents , S/81' rebar with metal caps at
all other locations . The monument wells are also to
serve as bench marks with elevations shown on the
As-Built Plans .
C9. Developer shall provide accurate As-Built plans -for the roadway including plan and profile, culvert
locations and invert elevations, berm locations ,
utility locations , and any other improvement
features . .
10 . Drive approach _cuts •and fills will be accomplished
along with the subgrade preparation in order to
eliminate the necessity of disturbing the completed
roadway- section when the balance of the driveways
are constructed to serve individual lots . A no
charge grading. permit will be obtained and plans
showing the location of the access tointsa fieldwill
presented to the Planning Dep
review of the driveway location made prior to
approval to proceed with this work . The driveway
grading should be kept to no more that SO C.Y.
11. Final improved sectiono
shall be3aggregate m of base inches
A.C. over at least
The structural section is to be based on a traffic
index of 4 and the R-value of the sub-base soils .
12. The upper 18" of subgrade shall be compacted to
95% relative density
or
ysbycalibatdnuclear
measured
rcCalifornia
Test _Method No .
density instrument.
Page 3
Road Construction Agreement
Davis 6-13-86
C
13. Final pavement width is to be 20 feet with an
additional two foot required where A.C. berms
are placed for drainage control. Aggregate
base width would then be a minimum one foot
outside the edge of pavement. Also an additional
two foot of A.C. widening with adequate tapers
will be required where sharp horizontal curves
are encountered:
14. Cut ditches shall be paved with. 2 inches of AX,
where the road grade exceeds -10%.
15. It is understood that Gordon T. Davis Cattle Co.
also agrees to pay actual costs for City inspec-
tion
nspec-tion and engineering performed on this project.
16. Developer will maintain roads for one 'year after date
of -acceptance.
17. The roads in question will be accepted for City
maintenance when all steps have been completed.
18. Generally the roads are to be developed in
accordance with the attached phasing plan. The
stages of the work is to take place, such as tree
removal , grubbing, rough- gradinCO
g, etc. prior to start
of construction.
Sincerely,
Allen W. Campb 11 :
R.C.E. 20244
AWC/pas
enclosure
cc: Henry Engen ,
I agree with all conditions outlined in this agreement from
Mr. Campbell.
Signed Signed
Paul Sensibaugh Gordon T. Davis' Cattle Co .
Dated �'/�g� _ Dated
• / Y / • 111 .
G�1 ��•. L ( _ 1C .. C C/ Y .C1+ /�...�3 / -' � � •I ► � � ITjo� f l �' - _
7 /
\ e
oy g s � r• 0 • � 'z
Ce -•\ 1 - • r • _ O
ry
OELI
LO
im
VOL
lot
IT
� ' `' a'�\ O�• - ` Z �j o Y "- X01` �
c z r \
vIll
it a
V ^a
N
n
jo
a a
-y� •
CL 0
N
i N O- ♦ • ` i A.
0ow
cm
d • -�
�p ♦ N '!
co
op
G. . • . a,• x :ti a L•
•� � _ _•_ d • N us ..tom• :.�-•• r •• �
•
Ab
41
Ily-Jk, .3 •. • j i FAfir. ,� C
.• q/O� N N • .. t• 3b
1 N Y A O w r..• .S v N •
Y 7
4b G • • r r
of
M
p r f9 N • .." w O
40
IL
• •a w
4A Us
to va
me
..
�• o Ul
^yto
t�? C C • aj j�p4•
in X
kwo
.• 1 _ A • - •
_ • N • u " d! W •• • n
14vo
G .r • Va
; Pf `
io
805/434.1834
26 S '�
TWIN CI TIES
ENGINEERING
INC.
CIVIL ENGINEERING & SURVEYING
ALLEN W. CAMPBELL RCE 20244
January 25 , 1983
Mr. Larry McPherson
City Engineer
City of Atascadero
P. 0. Box 747
nt
Atascadero, CA 93423 Re ' PoortionssofuGraves ction ACreekeRoad
and Santa Ana Road
Dear Mr. McPherson:
In accordance with discussions between Gordon T. Davis Cattle
Co . and the City, the following is a summary of our under-
standing of the procedures to be followed for the improvement
of the roads shown on the attached plot plan.
1. Developer to enter into an inspection agreement
with the City to reimburse City for actual
inspection costs .
2. Every attempt will be made to maintain the
constructed road at its mapped location.
Centerline monuments will be referenced
prior to rough grading.
3. Developer will rough grade the roadway using
information supplied by developer's engineer and
a qualified soil testing service, approved by
City, to establish cut and fill slopes . A
qualified soils lab , approved by City, will
take representative compaction tests at
developer's cost and furnish the results to
the City.
4. City Engineer's office will make an on-site
inspection of the completed rough grading with
developer's engineer. Adjustments will be made
on recommendation concerning roadway grades and
site distances . Cut and fill slopes will be
examined at that time along with proposed location
. Judgements will
and size of drainage structures
be based on well-recognized standards and
P.O. BOX 777 . 200 MAIN STREET . TEMPLETON, CALIFORNIA 93465
Road Construction Agreement
January 25, 19833
practice Drainage calculations artwo be
submitted to City prior to the field inspection.
5. All underground utilities shall be placed prior
to paving. Trenches are to be adequately com-
pacted with appropriate backfill material .
6. Developer shall place aggregate base. This
work will be inspected by the City and will
require compaction tests to be furnished by
--- developer verifying the satisfactory placement
of these materials .
7. After basing, City will review erosion control
work and roadside drainage facilities . The
City and developing engineer will determine the
location of any roadside ditches or downdrains .
8. Developer shall re-establish and monument
centerline controls for the roadway as approved
by City.
9. Developer shall provide accurate as-built plans for
the roadway including plan and profile, culvert
locations and invert elevations , berm locations ,
utility locations , and any other improvement
features .
10 . Drive approach cuts and fills will be accomplished
along with the subgrade preparation in order to
eliminate the necessity of disturbing the completed
roadway section when the balance of the driveways
are constructed to serve individual lots . A no
hcarge grading permit will be obtained and plans
showing the location of .the access points will be
presented to the Planning Department prior to
approval to proceed with this work.
11. Final improved section shall be a minimum of 2"
A.C. over 4" of Class 3 aggregate base assuming
a traffic index of 4 and a minimum "R" value of
50.
12 . The upper 18" of subgrade shall be compacted to
95% relative density as measured by California
Test Method No. 216 or by calibrated nuclear
density instrument.
12A. Developer shall maintain the newly constructed portions of
Graves Creek and Santa Ana roads for one year after the
date of acceptance.
Page #3 ( r
Road Construction4kreement
January 25 , 1983
13. Final pavement width is to be 20 ' with an
additional 2 ' required where A.C. berms are
placed for drainage control . Aggregate base
width would then be a minimum of 241' to
accomodate the final pavement section.
14 . Cut ditches shall be paved with 2" of A.C.
where the road grade exceeds 10% .
15. It is understood that Gordon T. Davis Cattle Co.
also agrees to pay actual costs for City inspec-
tion and engineering performed on this project.
16. The roads in question will be accepted for
City maintenance when all the steps have been
completed.
Sincerely;
Allen W. Campbell
R.C.E. 20244
AWC/ss
enc.
cc: M. Warden
L. Stevens
I agree with all conditions outlined in this agreement from
Mr. Campbell.
7vs
.17
Signed Signed / 1 �-
Larx-y McPherson Gor on avis att a Go.
Dated � 'lS._�"3 Dated
= s
goy
d.
s0i Aloft
-4 7qL
• �� QOM `.�•• � ---._:�" /\ice. i -,. , ��.�. � --<�
.Q `•
62.
60
to
CZ
� � � - ,. �6`• •,� �: � ( Q',j �c, .� •.;��- ' •--•tet .
• �.�`;1•� r'�`'\� V;, ,_. ;1' � `' f r=te �� j•_•---,;,,._,_•i -�-�
/
0400
_ A nCOLONY
M E M O R A N D U M
To: City Council
From: Ray Windsor, City Manager ,
Subject: Public Works Procedures re: Road Improvements
Date: September 20, 1989
As you might recall, I recently had request from Commissioner
.Luna for a legal opinion relative to the appropriateness of cer-
tain procedures followed by the Public Works Department germane
to road improvements and the "Master Road Agreement" in particu-
lar. Jeff ' s opinion is attached hereto and is clear in pointing
out specific deficiencies with respect to our legal obligations
in processing roadway improvements .
In my discussions with Paul and Henry, we had agreed that, until
the receipt of Jeff' s opinion, we would discontinue processing
any improvements under the old methods but that such would remain
informal until the precise language of Jeff' s opinion was avail-
able. I am now, therefore, at a point where I am ready to
promulgate a policy which incorporates the procedures which must
be followed for these kinds of improvements. Interestingly
enough, it was brought to my attention that in July of 1988 a
memo was distributed by the Interim City Manager, Bill Hanley,
relating to construction project guidelines . Apparently, the
memo in question was developed as a result of a City capital im-
provement which had failed to follow established procedures
applicable to the private sector. However, the statement under
GENERAL RULE that "City projects are subject to essentially the
same procedures and standards as private projects" makes clear
that capital improvements are capital improvements, period.
It is my understanding that the issue of procedural handling of
certain capital improvements was the subject of discussion by the
Planning Commission at its meeting of September 19th and, in
light of the growing awareness of this issue, perhaps any addi-
tional policy statement with respect to capital improvements,
whether roadways or other, should be adopted by resolution of the
Council rather than being treated as an internal administrative
matter. I would appreciate some guidance in this respect. In
addition to the procedure outlined in Bill Hanley' s memo, it
would be my intention to reference the reactivation of the staff
Development Review Committee under the chair of the Community
Development Director for purposes of reviewing all proposed cap-
tal projects deemed appropriate for such review by the Community
1
Development Director " and/or the city Manager. In this way,
we
can minimize the problems . of lack of communication and coordi-
nation at the very outset and involve all those departments who
may or may not be _affected by an aspect of ,the proposed devel-
opment.
RW:cw
Attachment
c: Henry Engen
2
M E M O R A N D U M
To: All City Departments
From: Ray Windsor, City Manager
Subject: Construction Project Guidelines
Date: October 3 , 1989
In July 1988 , the Interim City Manager promulgated guidelines for
processing City construction projects . However, inasmuch as
these guidelines apply equally to private as well as City-initi-
ated projects, the administrative directive applies equally to
both. A copy is attached for your review and guidance in all
future applicable improvements .
Concurrent with reissuance of the above referenced guidelines ,
please note that the Director of Community Development is auth-
orized to reconstitute the Staff Development Review process
where applicable as a means to provide better overall communica-
tion and coordination among affected departments at the time
projects are initiated. Such committee meetings will be called
at the convenience of the Director of Community Development and
will require attendance by a member of the affected depart-
ment( s) .
Attachment
RW:cw
(f:constguide)
c: City Council
Planning Commission
M E M O R A N D U M
To: City Department Heads
From: Bill Hanley, Interim City Manager,,,!l �
Re: City Construction Project Guidelines
Date: July 12, 1988
PURPOSE:
The purpose of these guidelines is to provide policy guidelines
to any City department involved in any building activity or
capital project development.
GENERAL RULE:
City projects are subject to essentially the same procedures and
standards as private projects .
ADMINISTRATIVE RESPONSIBILITY:
The Public Works Department shall have the responsibility of
administering any capital project approved by the City Council,
and must be made a part of the planning process in order to
schedule workloads to best accommodate requests . Any department
sponsoring a capital project has the responsibility to anticipate
the lead time. This may or may not entail preparing plans and
specifications leading to construction. In many instances,
private architects or engineers will be responsible for preparing
Plans for public improvement projects with the Public Works
Department being responsible for administering said contracts,
going to bid, etc. Client departments, i.e. , Police, Fire, Parks
and Recreation, will review proposals for compliance with the
intent of the original budget approvals, and shall assist in
project coordination, inspection, authorization of change orders,
etc. The Planning Division will be available for advice on
General Plan, Zoning standards, and site planning. The Building
Division will be available for consultation on code requirements
and assistance with permit applications. Unless otherwise
approved by the Building Official, all plans must be submitted,
stamped and signed by a California-licensed architect or
engineer.
PLAN CHECK AND INSPECTION:
The Community,
development Department wM provide the same
services for City projects as lsdone
rcheckingeandpinspection
i. e. , permit processing including Plan
services except where the project is a public works, road,
drainage, or sewer system improvement. Minimum submission
requirements shall be as determined by the Building official for
the former projects
rinvolved ding the the Creview ity glprocess neer r the at
shall give high
Departments
priority to public projects.
PERMITS AND FEES:
Permit applications will be prepared by either the Public Works
Department or the design professional responsible for the project
and will not be subject to application fees except when the
project is a waste water treatment plaD
plant fund
project. Develop-
ment fees will not be charged public
PERMITS - WHEN REQUIRED:
As a general guide, any building over 120 square feet and any
grading involving more than 50 cubic yards requires a permit
under the Uniform Building Code (see attached for exemptions) .
On site projects which involve uses not involving buildings,
,
i.e. , parking lots , outdoor storage, landscaping,
tree certain types of signage, plus streets, sewer lines, etc. ,
should be submitted as a plot plan toivision for
withethe eneral
aGnning DPlan/Zoning
processing to assure consistency
Ordinance and other City requirements .
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT:
required to have an
Any City capital improvement pry tis heCommunity Development
environmental determination by
Director. Forms for and should dlbetlavailable
outbyathe project
the Planning Division
designer and submitted to the Planning Division for processing.
The Planning Division will be available for advice on form
content.
=NERAL PLAN CONFORMITY:
ion or
Should a proposed project etail land the Planning Commissionitotthe Ci.tydCouncil
tion, a report fromom
is necessary, finding that the project is in conformance with the
City' s General Plan. PrOcrsed construPublic
ction for the7ensuinq�iscal
for "planning, initiation,
year" also requires review by the planning agency for General
Plan conformio Project scheduling neeto take into account
both the environmental determination and General Plan conformity
report.
SITE MASTER PLANS:
Departments should have long range site master plans (which may
only be conceptional in nature) developed for their public land
responsibilities. These plans, upon adoption by the City Coun-
cil, will provide a basis for rational capital project decision
making and will facilitate the permit review and approval
process.
HE:PS:ps
Enclosure: 1985 UHC Administrative Code Excerpt
• G O.•" O u O L u ° G 'C C $ ui ° O w j Tr
.v a G c —
a �. Nth
ta
._
-3Z C6
m 22
43
r u cr
C N O v1 y O q•O _
3
Y u C •N u v U u T S ° .N �; y V as U 0 qj OC
O N 7 u C o0 a
u
u ? Z s
N
OO• Z N N 2.1 Cl.a U C C
tL
tj
v
cl 23
a y v .. u _,_ u ?•
O
v =� °.� _ � < � u e v u eao o 'OQ- •> G u " � ecy eo' eo
7s V
„�>�.� �. C 0 R w ap C a j C°i v O ' .� q OO p •� C �� ._ ` O . L t
> V
u = 3 ° '°•7 L p.� j7... Ua = c iynuiy ; O _ va ONQO. 9as �
OO�. y ; L > 3 U O °'• O� °.V � _Z - ..
G O •C O O� 7 " N !. � .O ` O G O ` ap 3 N `0 c w °'c U S w
H v � a y'a• C. a " .� .0 'G 0 a. .v
`jx3zu � z = is13u .77 « <
W G•;
43
' w
r
W v 7 = _ Z Al as 3 O 17 a S 7 a`o a >_ j n? .`. 'a a.`
J
O NCC
On
La
cn
C' w u`3 `'� 7 7 u ? CCS
6.
go
04 a
a7 .`y? C S a x.� N j= •O a
so CA C3 sp
z cu 06
13
j LCc
< a G
7j 2
W w v '7 ;u U G = 3 7 j 7
a V �'G G r :) •'7 •- A w 7 w 3 % 'E N = 3 G ; L 7•= uUt y G
2L x
.ar� U ; .� n N G= � ^ � 7 = G O zo-
Q = � .J � � �j � -� O j 7 � �� O 3 O + ••J ? � i � w J 3 2a 9 S
44 3 .; c.J y ., g
j. V r S3 tir
wr��
M E M O R A N D U M
To: City Council
From: Ray Windsor, City Manage
Subject: Regulatory Compliance
Date: October 30 , 1989
I am forwarding a copy of a recent memo to me from George Luna
because, apart from the fact that I think you should be aware of
it, I also want to speak to some ( if not all) of the issues
raised.
1 . First and foremost, George begins by referring to a confi-
dential City Attorney' s opinion, which he states was a
response to his September 5th memo on the "Master Road
Agreement. " Unfortunately, George is under some misappre-
hension here. While it is true he requested an opinion,
under our policy the actual request is made by a department
with my approval, and since in this case it involved a Plan-
ning Commissioner, the Chairman' s review and consent was
also sought. While this may appear at first blush as a
technicality and perhaps irrelevant, I don' t feel that to
be the case. The opinion was rendered by the City Attorney
to me, under confidential notice. This action was deemed
appropriate by virtue of the circumstances surrounding a
pending personnel action, which, in Jeff ' s and my opinion,
deserved to be treated with sensitivity. Therefore, when
one later reads of a "complaint that in Atascadero this
quote is answered with confidential memos, . . . " (see para-
graph 3 of George' s memo) , I can only state for the record
that the term "confidential" used here was intended to pro-
tect the ultimate rights and privileges of two parties to a
potential personnel disciplinary matter and not to provide a
mechanism for withholding pertinent information.
2. George goes on in his memo to say, I was led to believe
that there would be a complete review and report of proce-
dures associated with CEQA and that past and current
deficiencies would be corrected. " I don' t know precisely
who may or may not have given George this impression, but I
assume it was either Henry or myself, and I can state un-
equivocally that his understanding went far beyond our
intentions . What Henry and I agreed needed to be acted on
immediately were:
t r
( a) Discontinuance of any and all practices which did not
follow legal, statutory procedures for both public and
private capital improvement projects;
(b) Notice to any and all developers who were currently
under way with a project to immediately cease and de-
sist all work until legal, statutory compliance was
attained;
(c) To seek legal opinions ( initially, verbally because of
time constraints) with respect to the issues raised by
Mrs . Mudgett, Mr. Luna, et al, on the General Plan and
particularly Drainage and Flood Control, as well as the
matter of the conflict between the existing Zoning
Ordinance and CEQA on percentage of slope ( see Attach-
ments I and II) .
At this point, there needs to be Council discussion on this whole
matter because, quite apart from the specific issue of the Gener-
al Plan conflict over the "shall" language of a Drainage Master
Plan, there is the implication by Mr. Luna that the City should
be taking corrective legal, statutory action with respect to
those projects which were completed and signed off under prior
understandings . To assist in this discussion, staff is preparing
a map which will attempt to identify all road projects approved
without benefit of CEQA, etc . However, in light of the reliance
which was placed by developers in the past on written and some-
times verbal agreements , one must question whether any private
individual could now be held responsible for completing environ-
mental review documents on projects which have been completed
and officially accepted by the City. And, perhaps even more
important, to what purpose?
One last comment: I have already spoken to the issue of "confi-
dential memos" . George also goes on to reference "locked gates,
sweetheart deals with developers . . . and cover-ups" . The Fire De-
partment has specific procedures to deal with gates and monitors
these within the limits of its capabilities . After all, while it
is regrettable and certainly not condoned, private citizens do
violate City laws from time to time, thus such things as illegal
grading, construction without permit, tree removal and illegal
gate installation on roadways do occur. And, while I believe
that staff attempts to exercise due diligence in looking out for
such violations , I would also hope the public can understand
that it is virtually impossible to constantly monitor activities
within a 24-square mile area.
Sweetheart deals with developers , I assume, refers to the former
practice of using written and verbal agreements as a means to
facilitate certain public improvements ( the original Colony sub-
division roadways) . As the world now knows , this practice has
2
October 16 , 1989
To: Ray Windsor, City Manager
Via: Dennis Lochridge, Planning Commission Chairman
From: George Luna, Planning Commissioner
Subject: Caesar' s Wife
Dear Ray:
It has been four weeks since I received the City Attorney' s
(CONFIDENTIAL) response to my September 5th memo on the
"Master Road Agreement" . I was led to believe that there
would be a complete review and report of procedures
associated with CEQA, and that past and current deficiencies
would be corrected. I realize that some time was necessary
to separate the personnel issues from the public ones, but
both the Planning Commission and City Council have referred
to these matters during Public Hearings .
I am very concerned about the city' s timely response to
these extremely important public issues . The Brown Act (Gov.
54950 ) states :
The people of this State do not yield their sovereignty
to the agencies which serve them. The people, in
delegating authority, do not give their public servants
the right to decide what is not good for them to know.
The people insist on remaining informed so that they
may retain control over the instruments they have
created.
I sincerely wish to avoid (already heard) complaints that
"in Atascadero this quote is answered with confidential
memos, locked gates, sweetheart deals with developers which
ignore State Law (CEQA) , and cover-ups" . If there has been
abuse of discretion, then let the city acknowledge and
remedy it.
Please consider this memo a formal request for a public
report and an Environmental Impact Report. These reports
should include those areas of the city covered under past
and present road agreements (written or otherwise) which did
not conform to the California Environmental Quality Act.
per!r
MEMORANDUM
City of Atascadero
October 19, 1989
TO: Henry Engen, Community Development Director
FROM: Jeffrey G. Jorgensen, City Attorney
SUBJECT: Request for Legal Opinion: General Plan Language
Regarding Flood Control and Drainage System Plan
Pursuant to your October 11, 1989 memorandum, you have
requested a legal opinion concerning the effect of certain
General Plan language regarding flood control and drainage
system plans (please see attached) .
Analysis•
The language you have referred to on page 116 of the City's
General Plan is mandatory rather than advisory or permissive.
Therefore, so long as the language remains in the General
Plan, it is a policy statement of the City and the City has an
obligation to take reasonable steps to implement it. At the
same time, such an obligation needs to be balanced against
other practical considerations, such as cost, complexity, and
priority of the policy in competition with other City
programs. It is quite common for General Plans to contain
policies concerning programs and studies which need to be
done, or ought to be done, which are delayed because of the
budget process or other priorities. Nevertheless, I am
assuming that this policy has been in the City's General Plan
for a considerable period of .time, perhaps since its first
formulation. Although no time period is specified for
compliance with the policy, if the above assumption is
correct, the City needs to consider whether it would be appro-
priate to implement the policy or modify it in some way
because of this passage of time. Lacking a specific time
line, it is difficult to conclude that the City is not in
compliance, although a court could conceivably rule that the
passage of time has indicated a failure by the City to move
forward in a timely manner.
Another issue which arises is the nature of the "systematic
study" and "comprehensive flood control and drainage system"
referred to in the General Plan policy. The question which
arises is whether this contemplates a single study done all at
one time, or whether it could be accomplished incrementally as
the need arises. Therefore, it could be argued that if the
MEMO: Henry Engen
SUBJ: General Plan Language
October 19, 1989 - Page 2
City prepares major plans for Amapoa-Tecorida and San Jacinto
and has programs to complete other areas of the City, which
together would constitute a systematic study, whether in fact
the City is complying with the General Plan policy. If the
position is taken that a single study done at one time must be
undertaken, including the design of a flood control and
drainage system for the entire City on a road-by-road basis,
obviously, a very massive, expensive, and time-consuming
project would be required which may be beyond the City's
ability to implement because of cost and other practical
considerations.
Conclusion:
This is a grey area. ' Although there are no time lines for
compliance, the question really is what is a reasonable period
of time under the circumstances. The longer the City delays
in addressing the issue, the more likely it is to be subject
to criticism for compliance with its General Plan policies.
Therefore, it would be my recommendation that the City review
this policy and determine whether it should move forward with
a single major project, or revise the General Plan policy to
more accurately reflect the City's intentions and ability to
implement. For example, the study could be broken down into
increments by specific areas of the City, the sum of which
would constitute the systematic study, the language could be
changed from mandatory to advisory, or some other policy
deemed appropriate by the City Council.
If you have further questions or comments, please feel free to
contact me at your convenience.
Sincerely,
*City
tney
GENSEN
JGJ: fr
A:MMATA374
Attachment
cc: City Manager
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: Jeff Jorgensen, City Attorney
VIA: Ray Windsor, City Manager
FROM: Henry Engen, Community De elopment Director
RE: Request for Legal Opinion: General Plan Language
Regarding Flood Control and Drainage System Plan
DATE: October 11, 1989
BACKGROUND:
Page 116 of the City' s General Plan, under a Subsection titled
"Drainage Problems Related to Streets" , states as follows :
"A systematic study of the Colony shall be made, and a
comprehensive flood control and drainage system shall be
designed. implementation of such a plan shall be integrated
with the program of street 'improvement andexpansion of the
sewer improvement district. "
In the past the Public works Department has prepared plans for
the Amapoa-Tecorida and San Jacinto drainage basins . On road
projects, drainage is evaluated as part of the project design
with engineering staff evaluating the ability of the design to
accommodate area drainage properly.
The question has been raised by Mrs . Gail Mudgett and others as
to whether the City is in lack of compliance with the General
Plan' s language indicating "shall" .
QUERY:
Could we be interpreted as not being in compliance with this
General Plan mandate and, if not, is there time line for such
mandatory language?
HE:ps
L r
*1 rTAc CYV 7
MEMORANDUM
City of Atascadero
October 19, 1989
TO: Henry Engen, Community Development Director
FROM: Jeffrey G. Jorgensen, City Attorney
SUBJECT: Request for Legal Opinion: CEQA vs. Zoning
Ordinance Requirements Relative to Slope Standards
Pursuant to your memorandum of October 11, 1989, I offer the
following analysis. -
CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines set forth the minimum standards
which must be met by the City in determining when an environ-
mental determination must be made. Therefore, the City cannot
establish standards in its zoning ordinance for categorical
exemptions which are more permissive than the CEQA Guidelines.
The effect of this is that an environmental determination
needs to be made for grading which is not categorically exempt
under the CEQA Guidelines regardless of what the City zoning
ordinance may say, and the provisions contained in Section 9-
4 . 142 need to be revised. In the interim, it is my conclusion
that the City can administratively process applications so
long as it follows the CEQA Guidelines.
The issue of when the City requires precise plans is a
separate issue from the environmental determination, so long
as there is some procedure for review. Therefore, it is not
absolutely necessary for the City to require precise plans for
all grading above 10 percent, so long as there is a mechanism
for making an environmental determination on grading above 10
percent. Therefore, in answer to your specific question, the
City is not compelled to require precise plans for 010 percent
slope grading post haste", but is required to make determina-
tions for grading above 10 percent. If the zoning ordinance
does not provide us with a mechanism for determining when
grading will occur between 10 and 20 percent, the zoning
ordinance needs to be revised to do so. With respect to your
final question whether Section 15061 of the CEQA Guidelines
gives the City discretion to define a 20 percent standard, the
answer is no.
It may be that the City would wish to consider establishing a
work program in conjunction with the new City Attorney and
affected Department Heads to conduct a comprehensive review,
revision, and update of the Municipal Code to make sure that
MEMO: Henry Engen
SUBJ: CEQA vs. Zoning Ordinance
October 19, 1989 - Page 2
its provisions comply with current law. In the past, we have
done this on a case by case basis as issues arise, but this is
not a particularly efficient way to approach it, and there are
concerns that several of the provisions of the Municipal Code
may be out of date. At the same time, a comprehensive
revision of the Municipal Code would be a timely and expensive
process, which should be budgeted for as a separate work
program in addition to the City Attorney budget, and the
budgets of the affected departments.
If you have further questions or comments concerning this
matter, please feel free to contact me at your convenience.
Sincerely,
E FREY ?nney
RGENSEN
City Att
JGJ: fr
A:MMATA375
cc �City Manager
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: Jeff Jorgensen, City Attorvlopment
VIA: Ray Windsor, City Manager
FROM: Henry Engen, Community Dev Director
RE: Request for Legal Opinion: CEQA vs. Zoning Ordinance
Requirements Relative to Slope Standards
DATE: October 11, 1989
BACKGROUND:
Section 15304 of the CEQA Guidelines calls for environmental
determinations for grading that is done on slopes less than 10%.
The City Zoning Ordinance, on the other hand, under Section 9-
4 . 142, calls for environmental determinations on grading "except
for applications that propose grading on terrain with slopes less
than 20% and that will involve less than 5,000 cubic yards of
earth moving, which applications are hereby deemed categorically
exempt from the provisions of CEQA. "
The effect of this procedurally is that any grading on more than
20% slopes is subject to a precise plan process involving envi-
ronmental determination, notification of abutting owners, and
establishment of an appeal period. Frankly, 10% slopes are con-
sidered relatively flat hereabouts, but we clearly have a
conflict between the CEQA Guidelines and the Zoning Ordinance.
QUERY:
Are we compelled to require precise plans for 10% slope grading
post haste or would it require an amendment to the Zoning
Ordinance? Alternatively, does section 15061 of the CEQA
Guidelines give the City discretion for defining a 20% standard?
HE:ps
VJ
t
ADMINISTRATION BUILDING ..�..
6500 PALMA AVENUE taseadeia POLICE DEPARTMENT
ATASCADERO. CALIFORNIA 93422
PHONE: (805) 466.8000 INCORPORATED JULY 2. 1979 6500 PALMA AVENUE
ATASCADERO.CALIFORNIA 93422
CITY COUNCIL PHONE: (805) 466-8600
CITY CLERK
CITY TREASURER �►�
CITY MANAGER
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DEPARTMENT FIRE DEPARTMENT
:OMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 6005 LEWIS AVENUE
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ATASCADERO.CALIFORNIA 93422
PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT
PHONE: (805) 466.2141
August 31, 1989
Ms. Gail Lee Mudgett
3125 Ardilla Road
Atascadero, CA 93422
Dear Ms . Mudgett:
This is intended to respond to your letter of August 24, 1989
raising questions about the California Environmental Quality Act
and our General Plan, as it relates to the proposed project
behind your property.
In reviewing your concerns with the Community Development Direc-
tor and City Attorney, it was confirmed that landslide area
concerns are incorporated in the City' s General Plan. Whenever
a person applies for a development entitlement, project applica-
tions are referred to appropriate City departments for review for
conformity with the City' s General Plan and ordinance require-
ments . The Building Division and, where appropriate, Public
Works staff inspect properties proposed for development in areas
that appear susceptible to soil problems, and applicants are
required to submit detailed geological/engineering analyses to
prove that they can be constructed safely. In this case, such
analyses will be required at the time permits are requested for
the construction of homes on the lots comprising the project.
With respect to the work that was undertaken recently to clear
underbrush in the general area, such grubbing is exempt from
Title 8 of the Building Code. The Zoning Ordinance contains
Sections 9-4 . 138 (Grading) , and 9-4. 148 (Drainage) , which declare
as categorically exempt from CEQA proposed grading on terrain
with slopes less than 20; that will involve less than 5 ,000 cubic
yards of earth moving. However, the road improvement plans being
developed in conjunction with the extension of Ardilla will be
subject to a sedimentation and Erosion Control Plan ( see Section
9-4 . 145 ) . Hence, we believe the right measures are being taken
to respond to your drainage concerns from development on adjacent
properties, including the development of the road. with respect
to the future development of the properties up the hill , those
would be subject to specific development applications which must;
by code, respond to the concerns that you have addrassed.
r
Summing up, then, before any additional work can be approved by
the developer/contractor, he must first submit an Erosion and
Drainage Plan intended to address both immediate and long-term
runoff; a tree protection and removal plan associated with the
proposed roadway; and finally, a road design profile and cross-
section from a certified engineer as specified in the engineering
agreement for this work. All of these are now being addressed
and once they have been reviewed by us, will be shared with you
and your neighbors . Someone will be in touch with you again in
the near future.
Sincerely,
RaeyJWindsor
City Manager
City of Atascadero
RW:HE:ph
CC: City Council
Planning Commission
Henry Engen, Community Development Director
Jeffrey Jorgensen, City Attorney
Paul Sensibaugh, City Engineer
Bill Barnes
t�
f
41FORM BUILDING CODE : 1985 EDMON
APPENDIX
luired. Chapter 70
ln.e EXCAVATION AND GRADING gas and oil shall not be'
ie to control such lines by' �
Purpose
Sec,7001-The purpose of this chapter is to safeguard life,limb,property and
r spaced exits from a fallout the public welfare by regulating grading on private property.
or outdoors.Exits from the Scope l
i width for every 200 shelter Sec.7002. This chapter sets forth rules and regulations to control excavation,
.4 inches wide. grading and earthwork construction, including fills and embankments: estab= E
fishes the administrative procedure for issuance of permits; and provides for
allout shelters shall have a approval of plans and inspection of grading construction.
Permits Required
Sec. 7003. No person shall do any grading without first having obtained a
he case of dual-use fallout grading permit from the building official except for the following:
se shall govern.except that 1. Grading in an isolated,self-contained area if there is no danger apparent to
private or public property.
2. An excavation below finished grade for basements and footings of a build- 1
five loads for floor design in ing,retaining wall or other structure authorized by a valid building permit.This
per square foot except that shall not exempt any fill made with the material from such excavation nor exempt
any excavation having an unsupported height greater than 5 feet after the comple-
don of such structure.
-om the normal water supply 3. Cemetery graves.
3 on the basis of one toilet per 4. Refuse disposal sites controlled by other regulations.
filets may be provided outside 5. Excavations for wells or tunnels or utilities.
ty be considered as fulfdliag 6. Mining. quarrying, excavating,g. processing, stockpiling of rock, sand.
gravel,aggregate or clay where established and provided for by law,provided
such operations do not affect the lateral support or increase the stresses in or
i pure upon any adjacent or contiguous property.
7. Exploratory excavations under the direction of soil engineers orengineering
�•_--_ . I geologists.
S. An excavation which(a)is less than 2 feet in depth,or(b)which does not
.T` + create a cut slope greater than 5 feet in height and steeper than one and one-half '
' horizontal to one vertical.
W 9. A fill less than 1 foot in depth and placed on natural terrain with a slope
i flatter than five horizontal to one vertical,or less than 3 feet in depth,not intended
"-7 to support structures,which does not exceed 50 cubic yards on any one lot and
does
- i not obstruct a drainage course. j
Hazards
- - See. 7004. Whenever the building official determines that any existing exca-
vation or embankment or till on private property has become a hazard to life and
s! ! ° limb.or endangers property,or adversely affects the safety,use or stability of a '
' Public way or drainage channel, the owner of the proper upon which the
-xcavation or fill is located,or other oerson or agent in control of said proper,,
�L -
763
805/434.1834
TWIN CITIES
ENGINEERING
INC.
CIVIL ENGINEERING & SURVEYING
ALLEN W. CAMPBELL RCE 20244
June 13, 1986
Mr. Paul Sensibaugh
Public Works Director
City of Atascadero
PO Boc 747
Atascadero, CA 93423
RE: Road Construction Agreement Portions of Atascadero Colony
(See attached map)
Dear Mr. Sensibaugh:
in accordance with discussions between Gordon T. Davis Cattle
Company and the City, the following is a summary of our under-
standing of the procedures to be followed for the improvement
of the roads shown on the attached plot plan.
1. Developer to enter into an inspection agreement
with the City to reimburse City for actual
inspection costs .
2. Every attempt will be made to maintain the
constructed road at its mapped location.
Centerline monuments will be referenced
prior to rough grading.
3. Developer will rough grade the roadway using
information supplied by developer's engineer and
a qualified soils lab , approved by City , will take
representative compaction tests at developer' s
cost and furnish the results to the City.
4. City Engineer' s office will make an on-site inspection
of the completeed rough grading with developer' s
engineer. Adjustments will be made on recommendation
concerning roadway grades and site distances . Cut and
fill slopes will be examined at the time along with
proposed location and size of drainage structures .
judgements will be based on well-recognized standards and
practices . Drainage calculations are to be submitted
to City prior to the field inspection.
ice. :. L� V1
P.O. BOX 777 . 200 MAIN STREET . TEMPLETON. CALIFORNIA 93466
Page 2 .
Road Consturction Agement.
Davis 6-13-86
S . All underground utilities shall be placed prior
to paving. Trenches are to be adequately com-
pacted with appropriate backfill material .
6. Developer shall place aggregate base. This
work will be inspected by the City and will require
compaction tests to be furnished by developer
verifying the satisfactory placement of these
materials..
7. After basing, City will review erosion control
work and roadside drainage facilities . The
City and developer' s engineer will determine the
location of any roadside ditches or downdrains .
8 . Developer shall re-establish and monument centerline
controls for the roadway as approved by City.
County standard monument well at road intersections
and on long tangents , 5/8" rebar with metal caps at
all other locations . The monument wells are also to
serve as bench marks with elevations shown on the
As-Built Plans .
9 . Developer shall provide accurate As-Built plans for
the roadway including plan and profile , culvert
locations and invert elevations , berm locations ,
utility locations , and any other improvement
features. ,
10 . Drive approach cuts and fills will be accomplished
along with the subgrade preparation in order to
eliminate the necessity of disturbing the completed
roadway section when the balance of the driveways
are constructed to serve individual lots . A no
charge grading permit will be obtained and plans
showing the location of the access points will be
presented to the Planning Department and a field
review of the driveway location made prior to
approval to proceed with this work . The driveway
grading should be kept to no more that 50 c.y.
11. Final improved section shall be a minimum of Z inches
A.C. over at least 4" of Class 3 aggregate base.
The structural section is to be based on a traffic
index of 4 and the R-value of the sub-base soils .
12 . The upper 18" of subgrade shall be compacted to
95% relative density as measured by California
Test Method No. 216 or by calibrated nuclear
density instrument.
Page 3
Road Construction Agreement
Davis 6-13-36
13. Final pavement width is to be 20 feet with an
additional two foot required where A.C. berms
are placed for drainage control. Aggregate
base width would then be a minimum one foot
outside the edge of pavement. Also an additional
two foot of A.C. widening with adequate tapers
will be required where sharp horizontal curves
are encountered. � .
14. Cut ditches shall be paved with 2 inches of A.C.
where the road grade exceeds 10% . 1
15. It is understood that Gordon T. Davis Cattle Co.
also agrees to pay actual costs for City inspec-
tion and engineering performed on this project.
16 . Developer will maintain roads for one year after date
of acceptance.
17. The roads in question will be accepted for City
maintenance when all steps have been completed.
13 . Generally the roads are to be developed in
accordance with the attached phasing plan. The
stages of the work is to take place , such as tree
removal , grubbing , rough grading, etc. prior to start
of construction.
Sincerely,
Allen W. Campb 1
R.C.E. 20244
AWC/pas
enclosure
cc : Henry Engen
I agree with all conditions outlined in this agreement from
Mr. Campbell .
Signed L5Signed I /i C�-�
Paul Sensibaugh Gordon T. Davis Cattle Co .
Dated 8/�a6 Dated P -'Z
`"i� T� — j� ` 1-�/ ,,'• --f/ "�! ` ;s� . may- •-, , �� - � br
Q—" Cos
G i\lam • - ;/' �1. i���•// ///�' -I�IJy/ �� l
i r--- � �: � �1 a\ •"� =\ � �.,•o ,\ . � � a � • CEL'_�l l r '/';\ �� - • -
tOAM
44
is
cp
CNI
`t •° �- ! / � � 'Y `� " ' - owl
o •- � � ,~ \ 1'.� •/'" 7•' �»jam •
"
�' ••-•'vim -�"�`—�—t�T ' _-� —�_.._._.•s ,' .y '• _ ,�,.� : -
� �; r. � ;•� � rr rr O
�•t 0 (D
tO
f°7
October 4, 1989
Ms . Gail Lee Mudgett
3125 Ardilla Road
Atascadero, CA 93422
Dear Ms . Mudgett,
This is to respond to your September 13th letter to me and your
September 26th presentation to the City Council regarding your
concerns relative to drainage, erosion and seismic hazard in
relation to Ardilla Road.
Ray Windsor, City Manager, has had various affected departments
research the questions posed in your communications , and follow-
ing are responses to specific questions :
( 1) Authority over Public Works Director: Regardless of
whatever comments were made by the Public Works Dir-
ector, please know that all department heads report
directly to the City Manager and operate within the
authority of ordinances and policies set down by the
Council . The annual budget approval by Council does
establish a fiscal program for all operating depart-
ments, but, regardless, Council always retains ultimate
authority over the actions of staff. The Planning
Commission has a unique role in that it acts and rec-
ommends on a wide variety of projects and has some
independent discretion, too--for example, the ability
to disagree with or amend conditions of approval on use
permits that might be offered by various departments,
including Public Works .
( 2 ) Safety Element: The City has complied with the General
Plan and its documentation and policies with respect to
seismic safety. The sale of lots is not subject to the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) . The dev-
elopment of lots , however, may be. Since no project is
being proposed on the area identified as Landslide 7 ,
no action is as yet called for by the City. However,
when someone seeks to develop at this location, or in
other places identified as a seismic safety hazard
Gail Lee Mudgett
October 4 , 1989
area, special soils reports or geological studies will
be required.
(3) Grading ordinance: As explained in Ray Windsor' s let-
ter of August 31 , 1989, it is still the City' s position
that no grading permit was required for the grubbing
undertaken on property uphill from you. The argument
here appears to be what, in fact, constitutes grading,
as defined by ordinance. Staff' s opinion remains that
the initial work on Ardilla still meets the intent of
the law. The Section 1 that you cite provides for an
exemption from the grading permit when grading is done
"in an isolated self-contained area if there is no
ohis
danger apparent to private or public property" .
would allow for large-scale grading, not exempt from
Subsections 8 or 9 in this Section, 7003 . The effect
of your interpretation would mean that anyone who
disced land as part of the weed abatement program would
be subject to CEQA and require a permit. The City does
not take that position_.
(4) CEQA/Slope Criteria: The generalized slope map in the
General Plan shows the properties in proximity tosyour
house as being over 30% slope. Any grading
ed in
sufficient magnitude on that slope area will require an
environmental determination. A Precise Plan will be
required for construction on slopes of over 20%, pursu-
ant to our Zoning Ordinance.
(5 ) September 13th letter: As I indicated at the Council
meeting, I was out of the country for a week and did
not have the opportunity to review your letter prior to
the meeting. However, I was informed by staff that
they were following through with answers to your con-
cerns and was assured that no additional work would be
permitted by Mr. Barnes unless and until he had com-
plied with the various applicable ordinances and
statutes .
Let me just say that, in response to the issues raised in your
series of communications to the Planning Commission and Council,
the following have occurred:
( 1) The City Attorney has, in responding to a request from
a third party, researched the City' s practice of prior
road otphat they
exemptnfromrCEQA. Asn a ddetermined t
result, the improvement
are n
2
Gail Lee Mudgett
October 4 ,- 1989
of Ardilla will be processed under CEQA, albeit and
regrettably after the initial work has begun.
( 2) Approval of road CltrOvement plans
will beand
requiredpbefore
rotec-
tion plan by the Y Council
any further grading can occur.
(3) As part of the environmental review process, the appli-
cants will submit a grading and erosion control plan,
together with a geologic study.
Gail, while it may appear to you that Council and staff have been
unresponsive in this issue, I can assure you that nothing could
be further from the truth, as reflected in text of this letter.
Sinc_ rely,
6 LIN D XTER
Mayor
c: City Council
Planning Commission
Henry Engen, Dir. of Community Development
Jeff Jorgensen, City Attorney
Gary Sims , Senior Civil Engineer
Steve Decamp, Senior Planner
Bill Barnes
3
�lV1EETfN
SATE r 'i l��SEAGENDA �
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: City Council
FROM: Henry Engen, Community Development Director
RE: General Plan Language Regarding Flood Control and Drainage
System Plan Language
DATE: November 6; 1989
BACKGROUND:
The attached legal opinion has been received in response to our
request for same on the issue of the General Plan' s language
indicating that a "systematic study of the Colony shall be made
and a comprehensive flood control and drainage system shall be
designed" .
ANALYSIS:
Although a detailed work program would have to be designed to
generate accurate estimates of the cost of doing such a plan, a
ball park figure of $100,000 would not be unreasonable. Hereto-
fore, the engineering staff has prepared drainage plans for the
Amapoa-Tecorida sub-basin area and for the San Jacinto sub-basin
area. The former led to special fees to pay for planned improve-
ments and the latter is on the shelf due to cost implications of
implementation. on private projects where applicants are af-
fecting drainage (whether roads or building construction) ,
applicant' s engineers are required to submit, for staff review
and approval, analyses showing that proposed improvements would
accommodate drainage resulting therefrom.
In effect then, comprehensive designs have been done for specific
problem drainage basins in the built-up area of the City with
individual projects being required to do sub-basin analyses for
the design of such features as culverts, etc. It would be my
opinion that pursuit of a City-wide detailed drainage master plan
is not a high priority item. In fact, the probability is that
even with such a plan it would not provide the detail some people
would expect without driving the costs to an astronomical level .
This issue has arisen from RS (Suburban Residential) locations
but the General Plan (p. 49) states the following for Suburban
Services Areas : "Services to be provided are similar to the
Urban Services Area, except for the exclusion of sewers and
drainage. "
• 0 .
The attached memorandum► from Gary Sims evaluates our drainage
situation and offers suggestions for thoughtfully dealing with
the problem.
Should, however, the Council wish to pursue an RFP and generate
firm cost figures for such a plan, it would take probably three
to four months to go through such a process . This is a major
effort that is not in this year' s budget. Alternatively, the
General Plan Update provides a timely opportunity to re-think
the language within the General Plan and to clarify the lang-
uage accordingly.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
That the City Council schedule a study session with the Planning
Commission to discuss this issue on Tuesday, November 21 , 1989,
at 7 : 30 p.m.
HE ph
Enclosure: Gary Sims' Memorandum of November 6 , 1989
Legal Opinion of October 19 , 1989
Request for Opinion - October 111 1989
CC: Planning Commission
Ray Windsor, City Manager
Gary Sims, Sr. Civil Engineer
Steve Decamp, City Planner
Bob Fielding, Chief Building Official
MEMORANDUM
TO: Henry Engen November 6, 1989
VIA:
FROM: Gary Sims
SUBJECT: General Plan - Drainage Master Plan
Recently you requested comments concerning the usefulness of
contracting for the preparation of a drainage system master
plan. I have the following comments .
General Comments
1 . Most of the land area within the boundaries of the City
is characterized by steep, localized ravines with only
a few major creeks . Most of our drainage facilities
are small culverts with small upstream drainage areas.
Most of the ravines remain fairly steep all of the way
to the receiving creeks, resulting in few flat flood
plains . Thus, there are few large scale basins to be
addressed by a master plan.
2 . The creeks, Atascadero Creek, Graves Creek, Paloma
Creek and the major tributaries, are characterized by
relatively steep, well defined channels . The flood
levels in these channels have already been addressed by
the FEMA maps . The detailed bridge hydrology studies
for three sites along Atascadero Creek, one site on
Graves Creek, and one site on a tributary to Graves
Creek, have demonstrated that these flood estimates are
fairly accurate up to and including the 100 year flood
predictions .
3 . Development within these flood prone areas is usually
not feasible because the flood waters are generally
confined to the creek channels . Where projects are
proposed within a major flood plain, a detailed study
will be required to address the particular
characteristics of the project .
Rural Drainage Improvements and Conflicts
1 . Most of the rural drainage facilities include small
diameter culverts beneath roads . These culverts
typically drain a very small area .
2 . It will rarely be feasible to construct urban style
storm drain systems, directing flow parallel to the
roads, for two reasons . First, the rural roads
typically run across steep slopes, resulting in
frequent changes in road grade . Second, the density of
the development is too low to make storm drain systems
economically feasible . Diverting water from historic
drainage swales is usually not economically merited.
3 . Most of the conflicts between property owners and
between the City and property owners results from
development within these historic drainage swales and
attempts to limit the flow within these swales . It is
not likely that a master plan will be able to foresee
or address these conflicts .
Urban Drainage Improvements and Conflicts
1 . Currently, the City has control of, or maintenance
responsibility for, few of the large drainage swales or
drainage culverts within the urban areas . The City' s
responsibilities have been largely restricted to
maintaining small culverts beneath the roadways .
2. Implementing subsurface storm drain systems to current
design standards within the urban areas would be
extremely expensive . It is likely that this could only
be accomplished through the formation of assessment
districts . It doesn' t appear that this level of
expense would be merited except in a few cases where
open channels adjacent roadways could be replaced with
underground storm drains, i .e . , along La Linia.
3. Because of the typically steep slopes within the City,
most of the roads are fairly well drained.
4. One area that could use a drainage master plan is the
densely populated Sinaloa, Santa Ysabel , and Sombrilla
region. This area is characterized by a maze of
surface flow accommodations with no thought to
downstream impacts or comprehensive street
improvements.
Drainage Policy
General plan statements concerning drainage policy would be
beneficial and some guidelines are definitely needed. Included
below are some of the potential issues . Perhaps a few of these
items would be better addressed by City ordinance.
1 . Building or filling within surface flow and watercourse
swales should be prohibited unless the drainage impacts
can be mitigated. Most of the conflicts between the
City and landowners concerning drainage result from
Pact deve1opmento within drainage swales . It is likely
that most of the negative impacts can be mitigated if
the requirement for mitigation is identified.
Mitigation might include the identification of formal
drainage easements or constructing improvements so as
to allow future increased flows within the swales .
2 . Actively pursue a policy of identifying and documenting
useful drainage easements in conjunction with new
development .
3. Actively pursue a policy of identifying and restoring
drainage courses that have been filled in. There are
many street culverts in the City that now discharge
well below the ground surface because of downstream
filling.
4. Grade new developments to drain 50 and 100 year flood
waters to the streets and maintain street flood routes
to the watercourses . Identify low lying developments
along these overflow routes that require diking or
protection.
5 . The responsibility for the maintenance of drainage
swales, easements and facilities should be clearly
delineated. A frequent dilemma is whether or not City
crews should work on private property to clear the
approaches to street culverts.
6 . Within the constraints provided by the State Department
of Fish and Game, the City should have the authority to
conduct stream bed and stream bank maintenance
operations necessary to maintain open flood channels.
7. Clearly delineate those watercourses that are intended
to be left in a natural riparian state . Because of the
rapid advance of development it may already be too late
for this . It would be useful in dictating how
drainage swales are to be maintained.
Enclosures :
CC :
END
M EMO RAN D U M
TO: Ray Windsor, City Manager November 2, 1989
VIA: Henry Engen, Community Development Director
FROM: Doug Davidson, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: Tract 1057 (Dovica)
The meeting in your office on November 1, 1989 revealed that
Tract 1057 encompasses many planning and engineering issues.
The conditions of approval for Tract 1057 were established by the
Planning Commission on September 7, 1982. A brief history of how
the City has reacted to changes in State law and recent court
decisions will show that indeed, the decision on the subject
subdivision would be quite different were it proposed today.
Since 1982 the City has established development standards and
environmental guidelines by the adoption of a Zoning Ordinance,
Subdivision Ordinance, and CEQA Guidelines.
Zoning Ordinance
In 1982 the City was still operating under the County Zoning
Ordinance. This set a minimum lot size of 2. 50 acres for
properties in the western part of the City, such as Dovica' s.
The City Zoning Ordinance adopted on June 27, 1983 established a
minimum lot size for this area of 2. 50 to 10 acres depending on
certain performance standards, such as slope, access, and soils
suitability. In other words, lots with steep slopes and poor
percolation rates have a much higher minimum lot size than level
lots with good soils tests. Under the current criteria the
minimum lot size for the Dovica Tract is 3. 40 acres. Thus, what
was an eleven (11) lot subdivision in 1982 would be an eight (8)
lot (maximum) subdivision in 1989.
Subdivision Ordinance
In addition to lot size, the design criteria for subdivisions has
also been greatly modified since 1982. Prior to the adoption of
the City Subdivision Ordinance on February 9, 1988, the City
relied on an antiquated County Ordinance. The current Ordinance
requires special findings to approve the creation of flag lots
(Flag lots are lots situated behind another lot and having access
to a street by the narrow or "flag" portion of the lot) . The
Planning Commission has scrutinized each request for subdivisions
of this type. A quick look at Tract 1057 (see attached) shows it
to contain two flag lots. Although this is more subjective than
the lot size criteria, it is safe to assume that the lot layout
of Tract 1057 would be different under current standards.
i • f
Environmental Review State Law, Court Cases, and City Policies
In light of our meeting yesterday, the environmental review
process is the fundamental aspect of your inquiry. The
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) became law in 1972.
The law has evolved over the years, and consequently, the City
has become more stringent in its environmental determinations.
The most noticeable City reaction has been the adoption of
Resolution 1-86 on January 13, 1986, which adopted City
guidelines for the implementation of CEQA.
A common practice in 1982, and for several years thereafter, was
to condition projects, such as Tract 1057 , to provide grading and
drainage plans. The policy of the City Engineer was to allow
bonding of required drainage, road, and other improvements.
Hence the current Dovica situation; a map has recorded, legal
buildable lots have been created, residential construction is
underway, and the drainage problem identified seven years ago
(see Map conditions #10 And #15) is still not mitigated. Based
upon this and other similar situations, it became clear to the
Planning Division that drainage and road improvements needed to
be completed before the map recorded and construction commenced.
Likewise, to determine what drainage improvements are required
necessitated the submittal of drainage plans during the project
review. How can the Community Development Department issue an
environmental determination if it does not have all the necessary
information? The Engineering Division iso now under
these guidelines and procedures.
Although this environmental review policy was entrenched by
1988, a California Court of Appeal decision in 1988 firmly
reinforced it. You do not need to be a land use attorney to
realize the significance of Sundstrom v County of Mendocino for
review of development projects (see attached MCCutchen Update) -
In summary, the court found that "determining mitigation
measures after, rather than prior to, the adoption of the
negative declaration conflicted with CEQA' s policy requiring
review at the earliest feasible stage in the planning process. "
Furthermore, the court determined that "reliance on a future
study improperly removed review of the studies from the CEQA
process, precluding public scrutiny and review by other
agencies. "
Conclusions
This overview documents that procedures have changed regarding
the processing and approvals of subdivisions since 1982. An 11
lot subdivision of two and one-half acres each could not even be
considered today because the minimum lot size in this location is
3. 4 acres. Thus, under the current Zoning Ordinance a maximum of
eight parcels could be allowed. Furthermore, the flag lot
standards of the Subdivision Ordinance would probably further
reduce the number of lots and could change the lot layout.
Finally, the environmental review procedures have been
strengthened through adoption of City guidelines for the
implementation of CEQA. These procedures call for review of
grading and drainage plans as a part of the initial application
with the necessary improvements being completed prior to final
approval.
DD:dd
Attachments: Tract 1057 (Location Map)
Tract 1057 (Tract Map)
Tract 1057 (Conditions of Approval)
McCutchen Update
EXHIBIT A — LOCATION MAP ,
(z
CITY OF ATASCADERO TENT. MAP AT: 820325, 1
5"'�"1•'�nr /e 1Ni+ 7 ARDILLA & BALBOA ROADS
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DOVICA/CENTRAL COAST ENG,;
DEPARTMENT
SITE: ARD I LLA & BALBOA ROAD`.H)
1. I
/to
S
1
1 �
li yob
O qL�
t
sr
ol
11
y
�b
0
i L( i
11 ��
R a
L(FH) \
o 'ft4ai
n ,l
I
EXHIBIT B -- TENTATIVE MAP
�I
��, 117, ... . CITY OF ATASCADERO TENT. MAP AT: 820325
S� �T�t itis .. t� A.
,—„- ARD I LLA & BALBOA ROADS
—L� 'CADP�: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DovICA/CENTRAL COAST ENG,
� ;up, DEPARTMENT
•.4- ��_I j�Ji , ` r .r, I
r PICAL stcrnw
/•.'•M .,, I 1 1 1 .1 1�',-, \—r 't Y1GIM YL
�`,� :�' 1 '!.'�'� ! � ; i+ i / j ; �' : .''. 1; ' ~'�. ��^'%� o1rNCA7 tfafantl�t•
t .i '; � w'. !.r %' ; •�: ,.• ':..ter.---.:: ��•' � ...:�w��_R_`'':`'.�� ..
S \•t •• , i• 1 1 +� j iI , '•' '� �" �yid'� .....�'...:w."'...""....r.�...r..+...a 5 .{.
to
�c. !�• use•' )) Y i •L' ti .• !� �ESG'nrE'£w�tfw)Yitlsl+
j, _ �sris`� .... A11►s _l j•7. v"''r..+"�'i�iw �':.'..+wnrr.
� ..s.r.��e��\t\•�,w _ `. :.�:f f f� .�..! ,_�'r�"'�•-'tj�. �i Ci.��.��i rri�' '•1
:Jt• �••1\�b \�:• _«.:.�'.'%a• { -Z:7!7 �� �"''' �%.•sYy �•�'~%r� t wO++s••'SMN .7
�i„ a 1�,4� '�'`�.y.• '_'•/r •d�' i`.� _J�.�- �-'MN�,�•�'•'�'r', 'I / •w"..':wnuaar.r •i.:: }9
•�� t / + :�'.._. 4'•+ .ortwltrtsltuw.rtoawrn,&.4
-•a �.�✓.. ...1.__ � rc`� „r •♦ :•{• ere - TENTATNE MAP •�•.
i:y y. t �.•aa•4 ` •.iy .,1�.. _
TRACT NQ IWT •l
:y fr
srero w lssK�t' 7.•._ 1 '', ___— -- .r.......�F.•r.r�..rwr
1 i
IMnrR .n• .}'
�•Y.t�r...,.;.w.�.�w'..`..w.�i�r ��• lw• r � �,• www �r�irrr.rwwrwrs ( +
�j��"�'g1l�'!S•�4'�i'.�+�tSt.,w�f�1�:Y[1''"i.,.:'i: "+��'w,y,;' _,. .� � - . . ...• ,Dw.�N�rf.L/it. . w. ..-
t
EXHIBIT D - Conditiotof Approval
Tentative Tract Map AT 820325
Ardilla & Balboa Roads
Dovica/Central Coast Engineering
September 7, 1982
Conditions of Approval
1. Private sewage disposal systems will be an acceptable method
of sewage disposal if reports, tests, and design are
acceptable. All tests, reports and designs shall conform to
methods and guidelines prescribed by the Manual of Septic
Tank Practice and other applicable City ordinances. The
following shall appear as a Note on the Final Map:
"Appropriate soils reports including a percolation test, a
test to determine the presence of ground water, and a log of
a soil boring to a minimum depth of ten (10) feet shall be
submitted to the Atascadero Planning Department prior to the
issuance of a building permit on each lot. Where soils
reports indicate that conventional soil absorption systems
are not acceptable, City approval of plans for an
alternative private sewage disposal system, designed by a
Registered Civil Engineer, shall be required. Depending
upon the system, more restrictive requirements may be
imposed"
2. Water shall be obtained from the Atascadero Mutual water
Company and water lines shall exist at the frontage of all
parcels prior to filing of the Final Map.
3. other utilities available to the area not already in place
shall be extended underground to the front of each parcel
prior to recordation of the Final Map. Any utility
easements are to be shown on the Final Map.
4. Drainage and erosion control plans, prepared by a Registered
Civil Engineer, shall be submitted for review and approval
by the Planning and Public Works Departments prior to
issuance of building permits in conjunction with the
installation of private driveways. A Note to this effect
shall be placed on the Final Map.
5. Plan and profile drawings of proposed individual driveways
shall be submitted for approval by the Public Works and
Planning Departments in order to determine average grade and
appropriate improvement .requirements at the time of building
permits. If average :lope exceeds 12%, paved improvement
would be a requirement at the time of application for a
building permit. otherwise, an all-weather surface would be
required similarly. In no event will driveways be allowed
which exceed 20% in slope. Driveways shall be improved to a
minimum width of twelve (12) feet with a minimum vertical
clearance of fourteen (14) feet. In the event any portion
of the driveway shall be shared, improvement of that shared
portion shall be a requirement made in conjunction with the
first building permit. Notes to these effects shall appear
on the Final Mag.
6. The common access easement serving Parcels 3, 4, 5 and 61
shall be paved with a minimum 2" AC on adequate base prior
to recordation of the Final Map.
a. The easement may be reduced to 25 feet in width but
shall have adequate width to accommodate 16 feet of
paving and any utilities.
b. Parcels 4 and 5 shall take access from the common
easement only. A Note shall be provided on the Final
Map to indicate that these parcels are prohibited from
having individual driveways on Balboa Road.
7. Ardilla Road along the entire property frontage shall be
constructed to City standards with a twenty (20) foot paved
section (22 feet where drainage control berms are provided)
along Ardilla and with three (3) feet of graded shoulder on
each side of paving.
a. Improvements are to be constructed under an inspection
agreement and encroachment permit issued by the Public
Works Department.
b. Improvement drawings, including improvements to control
drainage and erosion within the road right-of-way,
shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for
review and approval prior to recordation of the Final
Map.
C. Any dedications necessary along Ardilla shall be made
in conjunction with acceptance of the road.
8. The applicant shall upgrade the existing fire hydrant on
Ardilla. The size, type and manner of installation of
hydrant will be as required by the Fire Chief. A letter
from the Fire Chief certifying the installation of required
fire hydrant shall be submitted to the Planning Department
prior to recordation of the Final Map, unless deferred, in
which case the letter shall be" submitted prior to final
inspection and acceptance of the roads.
a. The applicant shall contribute to a partial
reimbursement for the hydrant installed on Graves Creek
Road in conjunction with Parcel Map AT 80-109. The
amount of the reimbursement shall be determined by the
Planning Department.
9. The existing concrete slab located on proposed Parcel 9
shall be removea'"prior to recordation of to Final Map.
10. A drainage plan to resolve the drainage and ponding problems
along the property frontage on Graves Creek Road shall be
submitted to the Public Works Department for r3view and .
approval and any required improvements shall be installed
prior to recordation of the Final Map.
a. Improvements are to be constructed under an inspection
agreement and encroachment permit issued by the Public
Works Department.
11. All drainage swales shall be indicated on the Final Map.
12. Effort shall be made to minimize grading that would be
disruptive to the natural topography and removal of
existing, mature trees. The following shall appear as a
note on the Final Map:
"No trees shall be removed without compliance with
applicable City ordinances. No grading shall commence
without an appropriate permit and compliance with applicable
City ordinances.
13. All pipeline and other easements of record shall be shown on
the Final Map. A letter shall be submitted from each
utility company indicating the nature and extent of any
building restrictions. A Note so stating such restrictions
shall appear on the Final Map.
14. Roof materials for all structures shall be Class C rating or
better and a Note to that effect shall appear on the Final
Map.
15. Improvements required by Conditions 6, 7, 8, and 10 may be
deferred for a period not to exceed three years by entering
into an agreement. Any such agreement shall include a bond,
certificate of deposit or similar improvement guarantee
acceptable to the Public Works Department.
16. Prior to recordation of the Final Map, the applicant shall
pay for a portion of the City Capital Improvement Program
for the reconstruction of Balboa Road; said funding
participation to be in the amount of $5, 689.46.
17. A Final Map in compliance with all conditions set forth
herein shall be submitted for review and approval in
accordance with the Subdivision Map Act and the City Lot
Division Ordinance prior to recordation.
a. Monuments shall be set at all new property corners
created and a Registered Civil Engineer or licensed
land surveyor shall submit a letter certifying that
the monuments have been set prior to recordation of the-
Final Map.
b. A recently updated preliminary title report shall be
submitted for review in conjunction with the processing
of the Final Parcel Map.
18. Approval of this Tentative Tract Map shall expire two years
from the date of this approval unless an extension of time
is granted pursuant to a written request prior to the
expiration date.
Mccut*chen Update September 24 , 1988
l.c,;al (.Ic%.clOpmcnts of imp(Jrtancc tO our clicn(s
Court of Appeal Tightens Requirements for
CEOA Review, Limits Use of Negative Declarations
A condition common to many development project
approvals is additional environmental review, to be undertaken
after an Environmental Impact Report or negative declaration is
adopted for the project. A recent California Court of Appeal
case has limited the situations in which this kind of
subsequent review may take the place of environmental review
during the CEQA process . In addition, the case narrows those
situations in which a negative declaration may be Used 1n I-i'mi-t
of an EIR. Under this case, the absence of evidence of adverse
environmental impact may no longer be enough to justify
adopting a negative declaration. Instead, an EIR is likely to
be required unless there is adequate information showing that a
development project will not have a significant effect on the
environment .
In Sunds rom v.--County of Mendocino, 202 Cal . App. 3d
296 (1988) , a developer sought to build a motel and restaurant
in a small town on the northern California coast. The proposed
development included a private sewage treatment plant. The
County issued a use permit for the treatment plant, adopting a
negative declaration under CEQA. A neighbor challenged the
approval, claiming that the negative declaration was adopted
improperly. The Court of Appeal agreed, finding that the
County had violated CEQA.
Among other procedural issues, the court looked at two
County actions requiring environmental review after the
County' s adoption of the negative declaration. First, the
court rejected the County' s approach to handling possible
hydrological problems associated with the project. Rather than
addressing these concerns as part of the CEQA process, the
County required that the applicant conduct additional
hydrological studies as a condition to the use permit. These
studies were to be approved by the Planning Commission and its
staff and were to provide a basis for establishing mitigation
measures for the project. The court found that determining
mitigation measures after, rather than prior to,. the adoption
of the negative declaration conflicted with CEQA's policy
requiring environmental review at the earliest feasible stage
in the planning process. The court also found that this
reliance on a future study improperly removed .-review of the
studies from the CEQA process, precluding: public scrutiny and
review by other agencies.
zn Francisco san Jose Walnut Creek Washington.D.C. Shanghai
nrcc Emlrarratlero(:enter Starket lkw,rower.Suite 15(X) 1855 Uhmpic Bnwktiant bird Fla)r 7tteVlillard Office Bwltlinl,.,Suite650 Rui Jin Building„Suite 2(X)I
1455 I3nns�hania.'.tenue,V.W 205 Mao MingN)uth Road
Sin ftrictwo.California 94111 55 South Ntarltet Street Pa+t Office Box V i.People's Republic of China
lf!'-phone 015)393•_'0110 Stn J(rsc.Caliti rnu 95113 Wrlnut Creek Calilbrnw 94i)6 Alimttinl4on D.C.-'(X)4)4 S1�nKha P �
litcs 34(NI MACPAG Telephone(408)947-8-+00 l'elrptwnc(415)93'8(X N) TclepMme(202)628•-11X)0 Telephone 336201
Ftcsinule(;1.t1 anal III Teles 30181 St%(SN(:.'I
Psimilr GI,11 acrd tll facsimile Gl,It and 111 1'11:11Ir1nIe Oil,11 and 111 � � 1 � fat.:vimde GL II anti 111
(♦!5)393.2-180 (-tlXi)9a'•8500 (415)930-231X1 (_0_)6..8.01_ Facm1
Second, the court examined the degre*o which the
anticipated exercise of another public agency' s regulatory
authority may excuse the lead agency from making its own
inquiry of environmental effect. The court found the County' s
condition that a sludge disposal plan be approved by the
Regional Water Quality Control Board and the Department of
Public Health an unacceptable substitute for the County' s
review of the plan under CEQA. While the court agreed that a
condition requiring compliance with the environmental
regulations of other agencies is a reasonable mitigation
measure where the lead agency has "meaningful information"
justifying an expectation of compliance, it rejected this
approach where, as in this case, there was no basis for such an
expectation.
In addition to these pronouncements on CEQA procedure,
the court found that an inadequate initial review of potential
environmental impact will make an EIR rather than a negative
deularoulun mu.Le llkCly tU be rt--qui-Led. 1!te CUULC LILeLaLed
that an EIR is required when there is substantial evidence that
a project may have a significant impact on the environment, and
that this standard is met if it can be fairly argued" that a
project may have such an effect. The court stated that while
the "fair argument" must generally be based on substantial
evidence, this requirement should be eased if the
administrative record is not adequate. According to the court,
an agency should not be able to "hide" behind its failure to
investigate potential environmental effects . The court
indicated that in the absence of substantial evidence showing
why adverse impacts will not occur, a fair argument that they
might occur need not be based upon substantial evidence.
The court applied this approach in addressing, among
other issues, potential changes in vegetation resulting from
the project. The neighbor challenging the adoption of the
negative declaration claimed that a significant environmental
impact might result. Although indicating that this charge was
not supported by substantial evidence, the court pointed to the
fact that it was not controverted in the record and, thus,
amounted to a fair argument.
In light of this decision, those concerned with the
level of environmental review given a development project
chnul,ri be eeaary that ua.-..n..oc-v-i--Icnca of i+vta►at23+
adverse environmental effects may not be enough to support a
decision to adopt a negative declaration. There may also need
to be substantial affirmative evidence in the record that
significant impacts will not result.
For further information, contact Daniel J. Curtin, Jr. ,
Stephen L. Kostka, M. Thomas' Jacobson or Jennifer S. Rosenberg
of McCutchen' s Walnut Creek office at (415) 937-8000.
M E M O R A N D U M
To: City Council
From: Ray Windsor, City Manager'
Subject: Graves Creek Drainage
Date: November 7 , 1989
I am referencing communications from Mr. & Mrs . Berry and Fred
Frank, as part of this particular subject, in order to maintain
as complete a record as possible in our ongoing attempts to find
some amicable and feasible solution to this issue. The Berry' s
believe that the answer lies in a storm drain, which is addressed
elsewhere by Gary Sims . In the absence of such an improvement,
Mr. & Mrs . Berry are stipulating to conditions which are impos-
sible to guarantee under any reasonable circumstances .
For Council ' s information, the City presently has two Drainage
Funds : Amapoa-Tecorida, which has accumulated fees to date of
$130 , 000 , and Miscellaneous Drainage Projects , which is expected
to have approximately $200, 000 in accumulated fees by ,lune 30,
1990 . From this latter fund, Council has already budgeted
$94, 248 for the San Andres project, which would leave about
$107 ,000 for other miscellaneous drainage projects, including
Graves Creek. we estimate that the Graves Creek project, as
proposed by staff, should not exceed $20,000 .
RW:cw
( f:GrvsCrkD)
Attachment
1.9 75
.itascadero it C:,
t-raber 17 1989
To dhom It May concern..
City of Aaocader-)
R7: Drainage Plan For Cur ;Lea;
Balboa Rrl. s Ardill a ?fid. 9 Grn.v(-':- Creed:
The foj1O-.rijz
- j)i.lzts :;iu�:t be i.rclu"'.-d in tl'.'a Vrainage pian.
They muat be in :'rritiiig and :are no negro�iau1
1 The plan sh�?1 'ne a?e _:r Pew e, ani�.izl:�, trees and structures.
2. The elan grill not to eP the v^'ue t0 i sur ;1c�;t�a' and :pro;:erty..
3. el'he elan is anesthetically ya:uablc in^r.:veuun. t which Preserves
the natural beauty of the ax-er..
4. he clan iz erosion free.
5.
The nlan doe:, not deLtroy the tutura potential of this land
to ou_r child,^::n and the City of �itascadero; and does =tot ��rgven
the feature develo-ment of the rro'?erty at above address,
5. The -clan will Arevent additional drainage water over our
rrr ,-erty from new devole.menta no j and in the future.
' e .area City nowt and we v1sh to have sur City rrc tact the
41 rod re a owner by carrying drainage water down and through its
streets and not khrough valuab�e private vate -ro n erty.
Sine arae. t
S es h. and Dols terry
cc: City of Atascadero .. C3ty--:Council ss n
PjBNti.ng
P til-ja librk•3 Director
Community Develo].xent Director
City VAnager
/ed
0 COPY FOR YC,.
ADMINISTRATION BUILDING «+INFORMATIG,.,
6500 PALMA AVENUE taseadel® POLICE DEPARTMENT
ATASCADERO, CALIFORNIA 93422
PHONE: (805( 466-8000 INCORPORATED JULY 2. 1979 6500 PALMA AVENUE
ATASCADERO, CALIFORNIA 93422
CITY COUNCIL PHONE: (805) 466-8600
CITY CLERK
CITY TREASURER "'+•
CITY MANAGER
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DEPARTMENT FIRE DEPARTMENT
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 6005 LEWIS AVENUE
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ATASCADERO.CALIFORNIA 93422
PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT PHONE: (805) 466-2141
Mr. F. F. Frank
Hidden Springs Tree Farm November 1 , 1989
3,202 Monterey Road
Atascadero, CA 93422
Subject: Culvert installation across Graves Creek Road from the
property of James A. Berry
Dear Mr.��F
/ I /
In your letter of October 11, 1989 you requested accommodation_
with 12 requirements in consideration of providing the City wito:
a drainage easement. This letter is a response to the twelfth
and final request which is as follows :
'tAn additional culvert across Graves Creek Road on the
drainage south of the Balboa intersection, as discussed in
the letter from Engineer Paul Sensibaugh of September 14th,
shall be replaced by an adequately siced culvert no later
than. January 1991 . "
As you are aware, it was our intent to install the additional
culverts this year as part of our drainage improvements program.
We have since been thwarted in our efforts because of uncertainty
over the road right-of-way location and disputes concerning the
nature of upstream improvements . We would like to comply with
your request but the outcome of current negotiations and investi-
gations is uncertain. Despite these limitations, we can commit
ourselves to pursuing the following course of action:
1 . The City will hire a registered surveyor to clearly
delineate the alignment of Graves Creek road within the
project area.
2. Following the survey and prior to culvert installation,
a meeting will be proposed between the upstream prop-
erty owner, yourself and the City staff. At that
meeting, we will attempt to identify culvert locations
that will be agreeable to all of the involved parties .
S r
Mr. Y.F. Frank
Ncvember 1 , 1939
3 . if there is sufficient room within the right-of-way to
install a culvert headwall without compromising traffic
safety, the City will install the culverts across
Graves Creek Road. If there is insufficient room, then
the outcome is uncertain for two reasons : First, the
Berrys may or may not consent to the granting of an
easement to allow the installation; second, it is not
guaranteed that the City Council would pursue condemna-
tion of a drainage easement.
We hope that the. steps proposed in this letter will demonstrate
our i.ntant to proceed with these drainage improvements within the
limits of our authority. We share your belief that a drainage
Graves Creek Road and appreciate your as-
problem exists across Grasistance in completing the improvements necessary to eliminate
the problem.
S rely,
WI, SO
Ity nager
GS:RW/cw
( f:Frank. 2)
C: Don Leib, superintendent of Public Works
Henry Engen, Director of Community Development
HIDDEN SPRINGS TREE FARM
3202 Monterey Road
Atascadero, CA 93422
October 11, 1989
Gary R. Sims
Senior Civil Engineer
Dept. of Public Works
City of Atascadero
6500 Palma Ave
Atascadero, CA 093422
Dear Gary,
RE: Graves Creek Road Culvert
Thank you for meeting with me to discuss the conditions of our
agreement for installation of culverts across my parents
property. We are anxious to get this long delayed project
finished. As I suggested, we are most concerned that the-
drainage is installed before heavy rains occur, since the
reputation of our tree farm would be severely tarnished if our
customers had to walk through mud while choosing a tree.
My parents will agree to provide the needed right of way subject
to the following conditions.
** Purchase 50 ft permanent right-of-way across 11-D for
$1.95 per sq. ft (This is the city's appraised value of
lot 11 plus a 1% per month inflator) .
** Additional 5 ft working. right-of-way plus creek
reservation would be provided free of cost.
** Large pine trees to be removed will be cut into 18"
lengths and stacked at site. All trees, limbs and
other debris associated with construction will be
cleaned up and hauled away upon completion.
** Woods chips or similar mulch will be used to cover at a
depth of 1" all disturbed soil.
** Fence will be replaced.
** Any trees damaged or removed outside the working right-
of-way shall be purchased at $25 each.
1
1 ` ,
** The 104 trees within the working right-of-way shall be
purchased at $12 each. (An independent registered
professional forester has estimated the value of the
trees within the proposed right-of-way based on selling
price and years to maturity. )
** Any pipes cut, removed or damaged will be repaired in
kind and a 3" valve installed on the main line to allow
for use during construction.
** All work on the above culvert installation shall be
done in conformance with currently accepted engineering
practices.
** The outfall of the culvert shall be protected with rip
rap placed in a manner that will ensure minimum stream
disturbance, and minimize harm to adjacent sycamore
tree roots.
** Small willows and debris
obstruct
distancethe
ogc50nft1 of
the creek shall be removed for a
from the culvert outfall.
** An additional culvert across Graves Creek Road on the
drainage south of the Balboa intersection, as discussed
in the letter from Engineer Paul Sensibaugh of
September 14th, shall be replaced by
y1an adequately
sized culvert no later than January
I hope we can proceed quickly on this matter. If you have any
questions please contact me at 466-2220.
Sincerely,
F. F. Frank
r
IRREVOCABLE AND PERPETUAL
OFFER TO DEDICATE
DRAINAGE EASEMENT
----------------------------------------------------------------
THIS OFFER TO DEDICATE, made the day of November,
19891 by FRED H. FRANK and WANDA M. FRANK, hereinafter termed
Offerors:
WHEREAS, said Offerors desire to make an offer to dedicate,
irrevocably, to the public, an easement, for drainage
purposes, which offer may be accepted at any time by any
governmental entity which has the power to establish, construct
and maintain drainage facilities.
NOW, THEREFORE, said Offerors covenant and promise as
follows :.
1 . That said offerors are the owners of the following
interest described below:
That portion of lots 11C, 11D and Graves Creek
Reservation Number Four in Block 17 of the Map of the Atascadero
Colony as shown on that plat filed for record in Book 3AC of' Maps
at Page 17 in the Office of the Recorder, County of San Luisa
Obispo, State of California, said portion being a strip of land
15 feet wide lying northerly of the following described line..
2. That said Offerors do hereby irrevocably and in
perpetuity offer to such governmental entity a dedication of a
public easement for drainage purposes and incidental uses upon-
the following described property:
Beginning at the northwesterly corner of said Lot 11D;
thence- along the northerly boundary of said Lot 11D South- 73. 09,
East a distance of. 140 . 00 feet; Thence departing said boundary
South 43 09' East. a distance of 50 feet more or less to the.
easterly boundary_ of said Lot I1D, said point also being_ on the
westerly boundary of said Graves Creek Reservation Number 4;
Thence- South- 73 09' East a distance of 37 feet. The side. lines of
the 15' fbot easement are to be lengthened or shortened' to meet at
angle- po-ints..,
3 . That said Offerors agree that said offer of dedication
shall be irrevocable and that such a government- entity may, at
any time in the- future; accept said offer. of- dedication.
Page- - 1-
4 . That said Offerors agree that this irrevocable and
perpetual Offer to Dedicate is and shall be binding on their
heirs, legatees, successors and assignees .
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Offer to Dedicate is hereby
executed by the said Offerors on the day and year first above
written.
FRED H. FRANK WANDA M. FRANK
(Notarized Signatures Required)
Page. - 2
ME rIOR A N D UPI
P3
7f
Ray Windsor November
VIA: Erigen
;-Henry7
FROM-. Gary Sims
SUBJECT Drainage across Lot owned by fames A. and Dolores
Berry
LOCATION Balboa and Graves Creek. Road
CANT:
During the recent California Council of Civil Engineers & Land
Surveyors ciourse on drainage law a nucilber cl+ concepts directIv
a p p 1 J (--:.a b to ti-1e Berrys" case were d i sc ussed. These concepts
a -4
daress. whether or not 'the Ci-ty has incurred increased liability
toy a lowit-IQ improvements related to Tract 10--5' to be constructed
W::I.t h(n(..t t (-I)-.1i.-ti ga t i 1-1 g :.i11 o the downstream impacts. 'The
imiprovement<, installed or proposed to be installed that WOUld
Potentially ini-rease the downstream flow include the following.
1 . The number-- of lots within the Tract 1057 boundary was
increased from fi' ve to eleven, resulting in a net
of si,' lots. All of the si.,,- additional lots
do nodrain to the water COUrSe across the Berrys'
property. It appears that there is an increase of
three lots that drain to the drainage course across
Berrys' parcel .
H CL11 de sac was constructed, reSUl-t-ina ip increased
impermeable Surface area. The net increase is
di +ficul t -to determine because it is likely that the
CUI de sac replaced potentialy extended driveways.
The 30 inch diameter Culvert beneath Ardilla road was
replaced with -a 48 inch diameter Culvert. This,
perhaps, decreased the detention characteristics
provided by Ardilla road.
The potential drainage impacts include the -Following.
1 . There w-.. 11 be slightly increased magnitudes of flow
across downstream parcels, including the Hidden Springs
Tree Farm and the Berrys' property. This increase in
t-ii.agnitUde resin t s from the J ncrease in impermeable
surface ail, ea rest.t"i i I Q I ro(-ii construction of homes and
T
roads.
0
2. upsizing the culvert beneath Arai i1a road, adjacent to
Balboa road, may or may not have reduced the detention
character provided by the Ardilla road alignment.
1. There will be slightly increased Vooding across Graves
Creek road because of the potential increase in flow.
The flooding and erosion problems at the road already
existed before the Tract 1057 improvements.
it is the City. Staff ' s opinion that the path of drainage water
across the Berrys' property can be considered as a "watercourse, ''
as opposed to "surface water. " A "watercouse" can be considered
as a stream, containing a definite bed, banks and channel but not
necessarily wet year round. From the topography of the site the
stream route is clearly defined. "Surface water" is water
diffused over the surface of land, or contained in depressions
therein, and resulting from rain, snowy or which rises to the
surface in springs. Surface water has not yet reached a water
course. At some level of flow the existing ravine will be
surcharged and "flood water" will be released. "Flood water" is
water that has escaped from a watercourse. The question of the
existence of a watercourse is often one of fact to be determined
by a jury or the court.
in the past, court decisions have permitted man-made changes in
improvements to a natural watercourse so long as the improvements
follow the natural drainage of the topography and there is no
diversion of the water from the watercourse. Also, increased
flows in a natural watercourse, as the result of upstream
development, have not resulted in liability upon upper
landowners. Recently cases have been subjected to a
"reasonableness" test. The actions of upper and lower landowners
must be "reasonable. " The California courts are now tending to
favor a case by case "factual " determination. Thus, there is
potential liability if a court subsequently finds that the
upstream developer, or the public agency approving the upstream
development, acted unreasonably.
in the City' s case there are two aspects to this. Is the City
acting reasonably in installing or permitting to be installed
culverts upstream and downstream from the Berrys' property? Does
the City have liability for allowing increased flow to the
Berrys" property as the result of permitting development of the
upstream watershed?
In response to the first question it would be hard to sustain a
position that installing culverts beneath streets, within an
existing watercourse, is acting unreasonably. it could be argued
that by upsizing one of the culverts upstream from the Berrys'
site we decreased the detention characteristics Of the road
crossing but on the other hand street culverts are neither
designed or intended to serve as detention structures. The
public has an interest in preserving streets by installing
adequate culverts. They are installed to convey the water
benea-'Ch the str�_=,et, thereby avoiding tj-.-:t++ic hazards: and street
damage.
The second questir-in is More difficult
CO answer because it
involves CELLA as well as drainage law. In the past, increasing
the +10w in an e--fisting water course as the result of upstream
development clearly would not have resin ted in liability to the
developer or the permitting agency. On the other hand. according
to CEGA, off site negative impacts must be considered for
mitigation.
In issuing the negative declaration for this project the off site
drainage impaci'-*s were presumably identified as the contribution
ti.:) existing -Flkooding and erosion along Graves Creek road because
of the lack: of adequate Culvert capacity beneath the road.
The +1 ood i n q across Graves Creek road was considered
s--:, Qnj.+ic,Rnt, The mitigating actions are to install -additional
CUI VfertS beneath Craves Creek road. Presumably, the small
incr;:ase in the potential pE?ai..-: magni tude of +Iowsq or in -the
e'.,treine case, of flood waters, +Iowl nq across Berrys., property
resulting from -the creation of adds tJonal lots upstream was not
considered significant.
Installing cul-verts to relieve the overflow across Graves Creek
road will decrease flooding along the +rontaLge of the Berrys'
pr .4-- -'y , the roadway, the Hidden Springs Farm, and the
plav-C-0. 1 adjacent to the Berrys' -to the south.
%/
if this projec+- wv
ere to be reiewed today, it is 1k:e 1 ' that the
and result Would be the same, i . e. , the mitigating action would
b( to install culverts across Graves Creek road. The timing of
the installation of improvements and the Method of implementation
would be different.
1. The improvements would be required to be installed
before recording the T`Lnal map.
2. The City Would attempt to have the developer coordinate
all of the construction activities and easement
acquisition rather than have the Director of Public
Works serve as a "middle man" or negotiator.
As a course of action to complete the Tract 1057 project and to
Mitigate the identified significant impacts we recommend the
following cot..tr-se of action.
i . Conti nt te with the current negotiations with Mr. Frank
to obtain a drainage easement for the culverts to be
installed by Larry Roberts. Assist Mr. Roberts in
4 inch
of installing the two 2
Rchiev.ing 1-1 i 7= goal i�
culverts as designed by Central Coast Engine--r4nq.
Hire a registered surveyor to clearly delineate the
alignment of Graves Creek road within the project area.
This is in response to threats by the Berrys' that they
will initiate litigation if any road work is done along
their frontage on Graves Creek road.
T. Following the survey and prior to culvert installation.
propose a meeting between the upstream property owner,
yourself and the City staff . At that meeting we will
attempt to identify culvert locations that will be
agreeable to all of the involved parties.
4. if there is sufficient room within the right of way to
install culvert headwalls, in front of the Berrys'
parcel , without compromising traffic safety, the City
should install the culverts across Graves Creek Road.
If there is insufficient room then the outcome is
uncertain for two reasons. First, the Berrys may or
may not consent to the granting of an easement to allow
the installation. Second, it is not guaranteed that
the City Council would pursue condemnation of a
drainage easement.
We are currently pursuing tasks I and 2. it is likely that Mr.
Roberts' culverts will be installed in the near future and a
meeting has been scheduled with Volbrecht Surveys to initiate the
surveying of the Graves Creek road right of way.
Enclosures:
CcC
END
ADMINISTRATION 9UILDING
6500 PALMA AVENUE a sea en® POLICE DEPARTMENT
ATASCADERO, CALIFORNIA 93422
PHONE: (805) 466.8000 INCORPORATED JULY 2. 1979 6500 PALMA AVENUE
ATASCADERO.CALIFORNIA 93422
CITY COUNCIL PHONE: (805) 466-8600
CITY CLERK
CITY TREASURER
CITY MANAGER -
FIRE DEPARTMENT
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DEPARTMENT
8005 LEWIS AVENUE
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
ATASCADERO.CALIFORNIA 93422
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT PHONE: (805) 466-2141
PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT
.r.
September 14. 1989
Fred Frank
3202 Monterey Rd.
Atascadero . California 93,422
Re : Drainage Culvert across Graves Creek Rd. into Graves Creek
Dear Mx. Frank:
The drainage culvert for the Dovica Tract is scheduled tbe
e
installed between Septe—ner 20 and Jct-ober 10 . The culvert will be a
43" concrete or equivalent PVC or Polyethelene, poszibly 36" . Tie
easeme.^.` t^rough your property to Graves Creek `�` ill be esse^t1a lY
para. lel t0 e northerly DT property line and will
1 be more precisely
h,
described in the easement which we will negotiate in the next week or
two .
The general terms o` "-*he agreement will be (a) a legal
description, (b) payment for the land based upon the appraisal
obtained for the bridge easement on Monterey Rd. , with an escalator
applied. (c) payment for all pine (C:;ristmas) trees removed or damaged–
probably at $12 per tree on the average. (d) future maintenance of the
cu_vert by the City, and (e) correction of the drainage from the Berry
IL
property across Graves Creek Rd. by the City.
I look forward to coming to an agreement soon for the easement
across your property. If 1 have misinterpreted anything from our
conversation of 9/11/89 or if I have not addressed any issues which we
could agree upon. please do not hesitate to contact me . Tnark you for
your anticipated cooperation in this matter.
Very Truly Yours . ,
Paul M. Sensibaugh,
Direc�or of �,�bl is arks/
C.I� � ung=neer
:)a-,,- Y.:i(�. :r. I.iri :tanager
1
M E M O R A N D U M
To: City Council
From: Ray Windsor, City Manager
Subject: Growth Management
Date: November 3 , 1989
A personal , long-time friend and a four-term+ Councilmember in
Escondido, recently sent me the attached, since he felt it might
be of interest to us as we struggle with this whole issue of
growth management. I hope you will take the time to read it,
because some, if not all , of the concepts are relevant, recog-
nizing that every community has its own unique character and
problems .
Directing growth through concepts like "tiering" is now common in
many areas in California. However, in light of the language of
our General Plan, which states : "It is not in accordance with
Atascadero' s development policies to fill up the core before the
lands to the west and south are built upon" , it would seem timely
to rethink and perhaps redirect our development priorities .
I have said a number of times in the past (most recently at the
last Homeowner' s meeting) that Atascadero is most fortunate to
have what, in a sense, is a built-in growth management plan by
virtue of having been subdivided into large, rural residential
lots as part of the Colony creation in 1913-14, and to have a
General Plan which acknowledges and perpetuates this underlying
philosophy outside of the Urban Services Area.
Then, as I pointed out in my memo requesting support for an RFP
for a fiscal model, once the Planning Commission and Council have
given direction to maintain the basic premise of the original
Colony subdivision, there are basically two considerations which
impinge on the whole growth issue:
1 . The integrity of established land-use densities . In
other words , whether or not there will be major modifi-
cations to the plan through amendments .
2 . The rate at which growth occurs, speeding up ultimate
build-out .
With respect to =1 , this would primarily hinge on the degree of
commitment by the Planning Commission and Council to the land-use
t r
policies and densities reflected in the final General Plan Up-
date . As far as n2 is concerned, this is both a function of the
total permits issued and/or allowed within any given time period
and/or the City' s ability to provide adequate levels of service .
Now that the issues of response times, slope and roadway stan-
dards , air quality, noise, seismic safety, etc. , as they relate
to and are affected by cumulative impacts , have surfaced within
the context of continuing lot split and parcel map applications ,
primarily to the west, it would seem timely to have Council ad-
dress the following:
1 . What level
en f environmental
? ;review should be factored
into the G
a. A full EIR on the total Plan?
b . A focused EIR for a designated area or areas?
C . The issue of a Master Drainage Plan?
d. The timeliness and efficacy of continuing to coop-
erate, because of economies of scale, with the
County for the Noise, Safety and Seismic Safety
Elements?
e . What interim measures to apply in addressing emer-
gency response times while awaiting completion of
the Fire Master Plan?
2 . As a corollary to Item #1 , it will also be necessary to
discuss and give direction on ways to fund any or all
the relevent questions raised, whether by development
fees on a formula pay-back method or some other revenue
measure outside the existing General Fund sources .
There may well be other issues to be aired beyond these, but, re-
gardless , I believe there is sufficient substanceand
urgencyon for to
warrant having the Council set aside a study
is
purpose. I also feel that, because it impinges on the General
Plan and its land-use policies, it should be a joint meeting with
d this
the Planning at Council may selectada convenient mtime for to such x
sucha
agenda so that Co
meeting.
RW:cw
Attachment
2
(619) 741-4638
Of E Co
A, pip
U O
�'. JERRY C. HARMON
Councilman
aa.
MEMORANDUM 201 N. Broadway Escondido, CA 92025
To: Jerry Harmon
From: Randy Mellinger
Subjects Development Fees and the General Flan Process
As you are aware, the growth management aspects of the general
plan revision process include basic quality of life standards to
cf ..tc.rmine minimum facilities and service levels, a more detailed
community facilities element based upon these standards and input
from various department and division heads, and the growth
management element to essentially direct the implementation of
the general plan in a strategic manner.
The Growth Management Oversight Committee has recommended a
system establishing a tiering concept in relation with the land
use plan which will result in a maximum buildout of 150-165,000
people. To make this recommendation, the GMOC reviewed the
studies summarized in the note I delivered to your office.
The capital facilities are essentially provided by the impact
fees we have received with past and currnt development and the
fees to be established after the general plan is adopted.
Additional funding for capital facilities will arise from other
sources such as Proposition "Ate funds or perhaps facilities
assessment districts formulated in the adoption of the tier
plans.
The increase in quality of life standards will result in
increased development impact fees both community-wide and within
the various urbanizing tiers. Currently, the department and
division heads are reviewing the studies by Hughes Heiss (service
levels) , Hamilton Rabinovitz and Alschuler (fiscal ) and Jerry
Ogburn and Assopciates (draft community facilities policies) and
will provide their recommendations within the next couple of
weeks.
The GMOC based their recommendations on input from these
consultants, the citizens poll of 500 registered voters (a very
large sample) and staff recommendations. The primary fiscal
impact upon the City is related to operations and maintenance as
opposed to facilities. In addition, state law does not allow for
new development to pay for impacts beyond those created by the
development in the absence of a development agreement .
The tier plans will recognize the increased standards as well as
closely looking at the actual needs and impacts of new
development on both a community-wide and neighborhood basis.
This will result in increased development fees since past
development has created deficiencies in current standards and the
.e
fact that the standards will likely be increased to more
acceptable levels based upon the citizens poll , testimony at the
r r
cf i. Y
In terms of the total number of fire stations, community centers,
proactive police patrol and neighborhood parrs, the recommended
standards by the GMOC are less than the average of the other
cities but are higher than current levels. In addition, the
traffic standard recognizes the impacts of past development and
while traffic flows may not meet the most desirable levels, the
levels will likely be better than those in the more urbanized
areas surveyed. There are other traffic improvement programs
Such as Transoortation System Management which will be included
in the ;ne structures.
A question typically arises as to what the specific dollar
figures will be. Since each of the urbanizing tiers will have
its own ;Pe structure due to needs unique to the specific
neighborhood, the fee will be dependent upon the subarea
facilities plans. Since development impact fees are based upon
the actual cost of facilities, they will be determined by the
subarea plans and community-wide needs.
The fiscal analysis has been based upon existing fees and revenue
sources. Once the general plan is adopted, the community-aide
facilities and service level needs will be evaluated and the
neighborhood needs will be developed with the subarea facilities
plans.
The bottom line is that fees will certainly increase considerably
since standards will lively be increased and deficiencies will no
loncoer be acceetable as in the past. However, those paying the
fees , the new homebuyers or renters, will realize facilities and
services either concurrent to or shortly after occupancy as
opposed to the large time lags which occur under the existing,
less strategic System.
Furthermore, the existing population will finance increased
standards through assessments or general fund diversion since
state law requires that new development cannot pay for
deficiencies. The GMOC recommendations do include the use of
development agreements to pay for deficiencies in return for
timing and density considerations as approved by Council .
However, these cannot be counted upon too heavily and AP I600
requirements will require existing development to pay a fair
share.
�,ocid Planning to the Fescue - the EsccIndido General Plan
Like Southern California as a whole, San Diego County has
e xperiencec4 tremendous growth pre Sures since the early
8011. Since 1980, an average of 5-4r (_)()cr new persons per year
have been added in San Diego L-Ount y, and last year over
eo, 000 persons were added.
One of the areas of strongest growth pressures in San Diego
County is inland north County, extending along the I-15
c=orridor from the City of San Diego into Poway and
Escondido. The City of Es1_ondido alone grew from about
70, i)OO in 1'383 to 95, 000 in 1988. The impacts of this kind
of growth began to manifest themselves in terries Of
overcrowded sc=hools, traffic snarls, and increasingly
hostile political battles over rezoning of semi-rural areas
to urban density residential devel opnIent .
While the political battles over growth in Escondido
paralleled those occuring throughout the County, a major
turning point in Escondido occurred in June 1988, when a
slate of slow-growth candidates replaced the previous pro-
growth majority on the Escondido City Council . The new
Council majority had run on a platform which was based in
large part on a citizens initiative 1-.`nOwn as the Quality of
Life Initiative.
The quality of life initiative included:
1 ) a stringent cap on residential building permits, in the
range of 400 - 600 units per year . This compared with an
average of over 2000 units per year built over the previous
three years.
2) a maximum buildout of 150, 000 to 165,000 in the City' s
general Plan area, compared to a buildout in the current
plan o f over 200, 000.
3) Ten quality of life standards which set performance
standards for traffic , parks, and other urban
services, as well as environmental quality standards.
4) Standards for commercial and industrial develOpment,
which were intended to minimize the growth inducing impacts
of new industrial development On tfle community, and to
recognize what was widely viewed as an Overbuilt retail
market .
Within a month of their election, the new Council majority
voted to adopt all of the key provisions of the quality Of
life initiative by ordinance. While this was a very
clear
and direct statement of policy by the COUnci1 , they
rec,:Ignizcrd that in the loncg tern, it: w07-Uld be better to
I'
incorporate these Policies into the i'i_ ty+ ,-� -eneral Flan.
There were at least three reasons for taking this approach:
1) they recognized the importance of having a legally
defensiblelgrowth management program, and were advised that
the strongest legal approach would be to integrate growth
management policies in the General Flan;
2) they recognized that while the overall policy framework
in the initiative was sound, rezfinements could be made as
part of the General Flare review process;
3) they were advised that the process of incorporating these
policies into the new General Flare, with bread-based public
participation and opinion-gathering, could actually
strengthen public consensus on these policies arid ensure
that were implemented and enforced over time.
The City had recently completed a year-long update of its
General Flan, the first in 17 years, which allowed the City
staff to utilize a great deal of research and review which
had already occurred. Therefore, the City Council appointed
an eleven member citizens committee, rlarnied they Growth
Management Oversight Committee, and charged them with the
following tasks:
1 ) to reduce the residential holding capacity Of the draft
Flare from 185,000 to the range of 150, 000 to 165, 000
population;
2) to review and refine the quality of life standards, and
include them in the new General Flan;
3) to evaluate commercial and industrial land use
designations in the General Flan to assure that a long-term
balance between jobs -Arid housing is achlei ved;
4) to develop a workable and legally defensible residential
growth management program.
From October of last year through August of this year, City
staff and a team of consultants worked with this committee
to address each of these issues. Tile consulting studies
included:
1 ) a management analysis of the proposed service standards
for police, fire, parks and recreation, and other City
services;
2) an economic analysis of the 10'--al and subregional supply
and demand for retail , industrial , and office space over the
next 10 to 20 years;
a public opinion survey regarding participation rates for
various types of park and ,pen space facilities, and
community attitudes about open space conservation;
1
4) a fiscal impact analysis which evaluated the fiscal
health of the City and school districts under various long-
term scenarios and service standards;
It
5) analysis of traffic impacts of various land use and
growth alternatives, using a computerized traffic model
developed by SANDAL;
6) finally, and perhaps most important , reports by 'Freilich
Stone, a firm specializing in land use law, and City staff
which set forth a proposed growth management strategy for
the City of Escondido.
A total of 25 meetings and three major public forums were
held with the GMOC, each of which was televised over the
local cable access channel . GMOC took: several field trips to
review land use proposals, and met with officials from other
cities to discuss different types of growth management
policies.
The end result of this effort was the preparation of a
revised draft General Plan that was superior to previous
efforts in a number of important ways:
1 ) GMOC realized at the midpoint of their review that the
previous draft Plan had lacked a "vision, " a long-term view
of where the community was headed and what it wanted to be.
Therefore, the Committee reviewed and revised the goals and
objectives of the Plan to set forth a clear vision for the
community. This "vision statement" helped the Committee to
focus on agreed-upon goals as it developed specific policies
for tdhe General Plan.
2) In revising the Land Use Element to reduce the
residential buildout, the Committee did not use a "meat-ax"
approach, but carefully reviewed the land use and density
designations throughout the General Plan area. A strong
emphasis was placed on preserving the c=haracter of existing
neighborhoods, and in controlling density as a means of
preserving significant topographic= features and
environmental resources..
3) The revised quality of life standards were in many cases
simply refinements of those in the initiative; in other
cases the committee suggested expanded requirements, or more
easily quantifiable standards. These standards will be
reflected in a Community Facilities Element, whic=h will set
forth long-range policies and plans for all major public
services in the City.
K
4) In reviewing the industrial and commercial land use
designations, the committee relied on economic and fiscal
studies which indicated that a more strategic approach
should be taken to new commercial development , given the
overbuilding of certain general retail uses. With regard to
industrial , they found that new industrial development would
not significantly benefit the city from a fiscal standpoint ,
and they reduced the amount of new industrial land in areas
where land use compatibility problems had been painted out .
5) The committee decided to place a much greater emphasis cin
open space planning, giving the Open Space Element equal
status with the Land Use Element and Community Facility
Element , and inc=luding a specific open space concept map in
the General Flan to give it stronger emphasis in planning
decisions.
E) Finally, the Committee recommended a Growth Management
Element for the new General Plan. The proposed Growth
Management Element is based on the concept of "tiering" of
development , in which a City sets forth differential
policies regarding development in various geographic
subareas, or "tiers, " of the General Flan area. GMOC
recommended three basic tiers; urbanized, urbanizing, and
rural . However, GMOC extended the tiering concept in
several ways which will make it a more effective means of
implementing the General Flan:
a) the tier boundaries were related to identifiable
neighborhood and community boundaries, and were carefully
defined by their existing and future characteristics. For
example, in the urbanizing tier , a distinc=tion is made
between "urbanizing neighborhoods, " which will typically
have urban density development , and urban services such as
sewers and neighborhood parks; and "transitional areas, "
which are semi—rural in character and will likely develop
without sewer service and ether "urban" type services.
b) growth management policies reinforce these community
characteristics; for example, the policies discourage the
construction of new schools in transitional or rural areas,
where urban services will not be available.
c) the growth management element requires the adoption of
subarea facilities plans for each neighborhood in the
urbanizing tier. These plans will require estimates of
facilities needs at buildout , siting of major facilities and
open space areas, and a financing plan for new facilities
prior to any additional development occuring. In areas with
beth City and County jurisdiction, both the City Council and
Board of Supervisors will be asked to adopt these plans, to
ensure coordinated planning and financing of facilities.
d) the tiering concept is designed to encourage in-filling
of partially built-out neighborhoods prier to allowing
development in specified outlying areas. However , the plan
also desigyate s permanent rural and transitional areas,
where urban development will never be permitted, and public
fac=ilities will not be extended. This differs from many
tiering plans which designate future urbanizing areas" or
"urban reserves? " a sort of no-man' s land which creates
ung_ortainty and false expectations.
The end result of UMOC, s effort has rivet all of the City
Council ' s expectations; they have forwarded a plan that is
legally defensible, factually sound, and has already
developed a strong base of community support . However ,
perhaps even more gratifying is that they took it upon
themselves to develop a plan with a vision, as well as a
means of acheiving that vision. They have moved from the
mechanistic approach of many growth management plans, which
are based solely on numbers, and toward a plan that
describes the future of Escondido in human terries, and then
shows how that future can be realized.
Presented by Bob Leiter , Community Development Director ,
at seminar on "Avoiding Land Use Litigation, " held at UCLA
on September 20, 1905.
Ll c. c9 N CAR(_ A
ie -PC YDom0c'c; (61; ^j 'pto4
1 OPENING : 19 g 5
2 WHEN RAN FOR A COUNCIL SEAT IN ESCONDIDO )
3 ABOUT A YEAR AND A HALF AGO , I DECIDED TO DO (Y '-a W 7-/+
4 SOME RESEARCH ON THE TOPIC OF WOMEN IN
5 POLITICS .
6
7 WELL, THINGS ARE ARRANGED AT THE LIBRARY
8 THROUGH THE DEWEY DECIMEL SYSTEM THAT LISTS
9 RELATED ITEMS ONE AFTER ANOTHER, LIKE,
10 FLOWERS ARE NEAR TREES .
11
12 TRUE STORY : I FOUND THE BOOKS ON WOMEN IN
13 POLITICS RIGHT AFTER THE BOOKS ON BLACK
14 MILITANTS---BUT BEFORE THE BOOKS ON
15 ANARCHISTS .
16
SEEMS LIKE DEWEY HAD A POLITICAL POINT OF
17
18 VIEW.
19 WELL IN THE YEAR AND A HALF , I 'VE LEARNED
20 THAT THE BIA HAS ITS POINT OF
21 VIEW. . .GENERALLY SPEAKING , IF YOU HAD TO
22 CHARACTERIZE SLOW GROWTHERS , I REALIZE YOU' D
23 LIKE TO PUT US RIGHT AFTER THE ANARCHISTS .
24
25 IT' S MY HOPE THAT IN THE NEXT TEN MINUTES , I
26 CAN CONVINCE YOU--THAT SLOW GROWTHERS--JUST
27 LIKE WOMAN--HAVE CERTAIN POSITIVE VALUES .
28
1
0
1
TA EN JERRY HARMON, KRIS MURPHY AND I TOOK
20 FICE IN ESCONDIDO IN JUNE 1988 AS A SLOW OR
3
NAGED GROWTH SLATE , THE CITY HAD SOME 8 ,000
4
H MES IN THE PIPELINE . AT THE SAME TIME , WE
5
H D ONLY 7 , 600 SEWER HOOKUPS AVAILABLE .
6
7
If SEEMED PRETTY CLEAR WE WERE ON A COLLISION
8
C URSE. . .THE IMPACTS OF UNBRIDLED GROWTH WERE
E IDEN/r, NOT JUST BY THE SEWER NEEDS , BUT
10
11 ALSO BY THE OVERCROWDED SCHOOLS , TRAFFIC
12 SNARLS , AND THE INCREASINGLY HOSTILE
13 POLITICAL BATTLES OVER REZONING OF SEMI-RURAL
14 AREAS TO URBAN DENSITIES .
15
16 WE STARTED TO MAKE THE CHANGES WE HAD
17 CAMPAIGNED ON. . .AND WE FOUND IT WAS LIKE
18 TRYING TO TURN AN OCEANLINER AROUND . YOU CAN
19 TURN THE ENGINE OFF , BUT THE SHIP KEEPS GOING
20 FORWARD . AND , IF YOU TRY TO TURN TO
21 QUICKLY , YOU LOOSE MEN OVERBOARD .
22
23 WHILE WE DID ENACT AN IMMEDIATE MORATORIUM,
24 WE GRANTED 300 HARDSHIP EXEMPTIONS TO
25 DEVELOPERS WHO WERE ABLE TO PROVE THAT THEY
26 WERE HANGING ON THE RAILINGS .
27
28
1
1
THEN , WE REVISITED DEVELOPMENTS THAT WERE
2
RUSHED THROUGH BY THE PRIOR PRO-GROWTH
3
COUNCIL AS PROTECTION AGAINST OUR POSSIBLE
4
ELECTION .
5
6 I THINK WE HAD CONSIDERABLE SUCCESS :
7
PALOS VISTA: ACHIEVED 100 FEWER HOMES , 63
8
ACRES OF GREENBELT , AND $3 . 5 MILLION FOR THE
9
IMMEDIATE WIDENING OF EL NORTE PARKWAY, A
10
MAJOR ROUTE IN OUR CIRCULATION ELEMENT THAT
11
WILL GO ALONG WAY IN SOLVING SOME OF THOSE
12
TRAFFIC SNARLS .
13
14
LOMAS DEL LAGO : ACHIEVED 90 FEWER HOMES ,
15
LARGER LOTS WITH 20 FOOT SETBACKS , INSTEAD OF
16
THE 10 THAT WAS PLANNED . GETTING AN LPGA
17
18 GOLF COURSE , AND $110 ,000 FOR HIKING TRAIL TO
HOOK UP WITH THE SAN DIEGUITO RIVER VALLEY
19
OPEN SPACE PLAN.
20
21
EAGLECREST: GOT 60 FEWER HOMES AND $4
22
23 MILLION FOR WIDENING OF BEAR VALLEY PARKWAY
24 NORTH OF 78--ANOTHER MAJOR ELEMENT OF OUR
25 CIRCULATION PLAN. WE ALSO GOT 31 ACRES OF
26 OPEN SPACE WHERE WE HOPE TO DO SOME XERISCAPE
BOTANICAL GARDENS . . .OR MAYBE SOME COMMUNITY
27
28 GARDENS .
3
1
EACH OF THOSE PROJECTS WERE TIMED. .GENERALLY
2
AGREEING TO BE BUILT OVER FIVE YEARS . IN
3
4 EACH INSTANCE THOUGH, ALL IMPROVEMENTS WILL
GO IN FIRST .
5
6 MEANWHILE , WE SET OUT TO REVISTED OUR GENERAL
7 PLAN. WE ESTABLISHED A TASK FORCE OF 11
8 PEOPLE . WE ASKED THAT THEY LOOK BEYOND THE
9 TWO DIMENSIONAL RESIDENTIAL LAND PLANNING
10 CONCEPTS . . .OF ZONING AND DENISITY--OR TYPE
11 AND NUMBER--TO A THIRD DIMENSION.
12
13 THE DIMENSION OF TIME . . .OF WHEN .
14 THE CONCEPT OF TIMING DEVELOPMENT TO ASSURE
15 THAT ALL THE FACILITIES NECESSARY TO SERVE
16 THE ADDITIONAL POPULATION IN A SPECIFIC AREA
17 ARE PROVIDED CONTEMPORANEOUSLY WITH THE
18 ARRIVAL OF THE PEOPLE WHO NEED THEM
19
20 THE CONCEPT OF THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
21 WE EXPECT TO ADOPT IS A TIERING SYSTEM. IT
22 WILL PERMIT GROWTH. AT A MODERATE RATE . BY
23 FACILITY DRIVEN GROWTH CONTROLS .
24
25
26
27
28
4
1 HOW IT WORKS : THE CITY WILL BE CON NTRATTNG
2 ITS RESOURCES IN A GIVEN AREA--AT FIRST--THE
3 INFILL AREAS AND . DEVELOPERS IN OUTLYING
4 AREAS WILL BE REQUIRED TO WAIT UNTIL WE FOCUS
5 OUR LIMITED RESOURCES ON THEIR TIER.
6
7 OR THEY' LL BE GIVEN THE CHOICE OR PROVIDING
8 THE NECESSARY CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS OR THE
9 MONEY FOR THEIR IMMEDIATE CONSTRUCTION.
10
11 BASICALLY--THERE ARE FOUR TIERS :
12 A. TARGET TIERS . . .Area we want to
13 revitalize where we might provide incentives
14 such as lower feews or denisty bonuses or
15 public/private partnerships .
16
17 B . SECOND TIER: Areas allowed to develop
18 by paying their own way —by participating
19 in a needs study and funding its conclusions
20 on items such as sewer, parks , schools ,
21 hiking trails , libraries roads , area police
22 and fire stations and so on . ITS LIKE A
23 GIANT ASSESSMENT DISTRICT WHERE THE
24 PARTICIPATING DEVELOPERS FRONT THE COSTS AND
25 ARE REIMBURSED AS OTHERS IN THE TIER DEVELOP .
26
27
28
1
1
2 C . THIRD TIER: Areas that are we will
3 discourage growth for a period of time, until
4 they are no longer leap frog in their nature .
5
6 D . FINAL TIER: Agricultural preserves,
7 ridgeline protections —areas where there is
8 never going to be development .
9
10 IN AREAS with Both City and County
11 jurisdiction, both the City Council and Board
12 of Supervisors will be asked to adopt the
13 plans to ensure coordinated planning and
14 financing of facilities .
15
16 In Developing the General Plan , the GMOC ;cent
17 beyond the mechanistic approach of growth
18 anagement based strictly on numbers . . . to
19 create a vision of a community . It explored
20 here we are . . .defined where we want to
21 Le— and set goals and objectives to get us
22 there .
23
24
25
26
27
28
6
1
t reduced our ultimate buildout from 300 ,000
2
0 165 ,000 . . .not with a meat ax--but instead
3
arefully reviewed the land use and �,ensisty
4
esignation and gave a strong emphasis to
5
reserving the character of existing
6
eighborhoods and in controlling density as a
7
eans of preserving significant topographic
8
eatures and environmental resources .
9
101e expect to adopt that general plan in early
11090 . We ' ll have our constitution, so to
12 peak. Then , we begin the task of
13 stablishing our bill of rights--ordinances
14 o guarantee that the items we hold dear--are
15 rotectedj.
16
17 here will be a noise ordinance to protect
18 ur residents ' quiet enjoyment ;
19
20 rading ordinances to protect the natural
21 lope of land and preserve it whenever
22 ossible .
2311istoric ordinances to make certain we don' t
24 ose sight of our cultural heritage .
25
26
27
28
7
l ee ordinances to increase requirements to
2cae every 20 feet instead of just every 40
3feet . Not just because trees are nice. . .but
ntrary to Ronald Regan' s belief . . .trees
n' t pollute--they generate oxygen. A
ngle one will generate 50 ,000 pounds a year
7 replace smog .
8
' re planning an arbor day. . .and, have
l mmitted to a capital improvement budget to
11p ant at least 1 ,000 good sized trees
l2a nually .
13 3
14 d , in cooperation with one developer, we 've
d vised a middle-class first time home buying
15
1 p ograms , to make certain our children can
1 p rticipate in the american dream.
18
19
20
21
22
{
23
24
25
26
27
28
8
ID
the last year and- a half 'process , - we hav
2
found that there are'- two types of developers .
f
3
4 1 . those who wish -'to fight the system, and ;
I
5 2 . those who' wish to take advantage of the
6
new chA llenges presented . J .
7 My analysis is' that :
,II
8 T e former will. either go— out of
9 business or do business' elsewhere'.
T�e latter will learn ` the new ' rules
10
11
early, play' by them and take their' winnings
to the bank.' < .
12
13 - ,�
14 To those of you who wish' to fight . . .who'
15 say. .youcan` t do this to u's ' : . consider the
16 follow ng quotation :
17
18 "Untilf recent years , urban life was
19 comparatively simple ; but with the great
20 increase' and concentration of population ,
21 problems, have developed, and constantly are
i
22
develo ing, which require additional
23 restrictions in' respect to. the use and
24 occupation of* private lands in ' urban
25 communities .
'i
26 I
i
27
28
9
1 � a � .
quote from Jerry H`armon. .`. Is
That s not q
2 not Kris Miirphy. .'. It '' s not Carla
3 DeDominic -s . .'.nor any of our compatriots who
4 are growing both in 'number and power -in San -
5 Diego ddunty . ' Rather, it ' s the United State '
6 --L—ern Court in a= 1926 decision called
7 Village of 'Euclid Ohio v. Amber Realty . '
8 1
i
9 So , the' best message I can give to you to
10 start your day. is this :
11 Consider� our approach Think about
12 paving ` ,your way as you go . Do not begrudge
13 your community.
i
14 yes . It will - cost you more , but the
15 i
money you put out is going to come back
16 tenfold in liveability.
17
18 If you won' t buy 'that . . .understand at
19 least . . .
that more than 60 years after the
20 Euclid decision. . .growth management is here
21
to stay.
22
23 }
24 f
25
26
27
28
1
4F
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: City Council
Planning Commission
FROM: Ray Windsor, City Manager i'! 'I"L)16
�;
SUBJECT: Attached re: Joint Meeting of 11/21/89
DATE: 11/17/89
The items on the following pages are public concerns expressed to date
on the issues under discussion at the joint meeting. . .
RW:cw
3125 Ardilla7 Road
scadero, Calif
'422
September 26, 1989
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Atascadero City CounciY
This statement is regarding Drainaze, Erosion, and Seismic hazard.
Thank you for eivinz me this opportunity to hear of my anger and deep concern
about two components of our State required Safety Element,- the nine year lack
of a City-wide Drainage Plan, and the lack of heeding the excellent Seismic,
Landslide, and Geological component in our Safety Element.
Only having the General Plan for one day previous to my August 24th Statement
I did not spot that one inch, powerful paragraph on page 116, mandating a
comprehensive flood control and drainaare system for the Colony of Atascadero,
which was to be combined with the street and sewer improvements. On August
24th I spoke only from my sense of what a city drainage system should be. In
my 19th Statement to the Planning Commission I emphasized the nine year lack of ,1
that component of the Safety Element.
Mrs. Karen Caniarlio, a neighbor on our Block, and I spent two hours with Mr.
Sensebauazh on the 15th, during which he said that the City was too poor for a
combination of City wide Drainage with the Street and Sewer Improvements. In
fact, he said that neither the City Council nor the Planning Commission had
authority over his work, - that the only relationship was with the budget. Is
that true? Do you have only the power of the purse strings over Mr. Sensebaugh?
It Was not drainage that aroused my anizer before our meeting on August 24th
with Mr. Windsor, Mrs. Borgeson, and Mr. Sensebaugh with my Block neighbors.
It was what I had read about seismic activity on the hill above me BEFORE my
purchase of the General Plan. I read/inaa copy of the 1977 Advisory Report,
loaned to me by my neighbor Dolores Berry. After my purchase of the General
Plan, for twenty dollars, she and I compared the 1977 Report with the General
?Ian and found that the scientific Advisory Report had been incorporated into
2
the General Plan, wi is maps and tables. 40
When I read what then became Page 139 of the General Plan, I was truly alarmed.
I quote: "Thoughtful Land Use decisions are fundamental to seismic safety. We
should not erect a structure or carry out.*-rrading on ground that is subject to
high levels of seismic activity, or other geologic hazards until the conse-
quences have been evaluated and the work approved by competent professionals.
To this end no structure should be built unless geologists, architects, soil
engineers, and builders, AS WELL AS THS. COMMUNITY ARE SATISFIED THAT ADEQUATE
STANDARDS DESIGNED TO PREVENT LIFE—THREATENING COLLAPSE OR DAIMAGE IN FUTURE
r�
SA_RTHQUAKES." Unquote. The emphasis is mine. See pages 22,24,and 141.
The Table of Contents in the General Plan indicates in Chaters X and Xj, from
page 133 to 14 6, thirteen pages no less, that THAT portion of our Safety
Element was well researched and made a part of the General Plan. 'dHY has it
not been heeded? WHY are lots being sold on that unstable hill despite the
great safety warninx of our General Plan? Is it not exposing people and
5°structures to geologic hazards? CEQA covers that! . See page 299 for the list
'`of Significant Effects!
I have also read in my own search that development is not a right, but a
priviledge. Much knowledge has come to light and many laws have been enacted
since 1914, when Mr. Lewis plotted those beautiful lots on that hill above us.
When Mr. Sensebaugh in his response to my August 24th Statement stated, "I do
not read the General Plan." I was deeply shocked and I said as much that day
to him and the group. I have not gotten over being shocked that our City
Engineer would contemptiously dismiss my quotes from the General Plan, this
iCity's Constitution!
I shall briefly go over my Statements and Letters for the main points: When I
first called the City Engineer I asked for a copy of the State Law on Grading
and Bulldozing. I knew one existed. Mr. Sensebaugh came out without a copy
of either the State Law or the City Ordinance. When I complained, Mr. Barnes
the engineer/owner in charge of the bulldozing said, "Mrs. Mudmett, I don't
have to have a copy of the law. I just go to the city." To which I responded,
"I like to do my own reading."
3
Two or three days later I received from Mr. De Camp a copy of Page 763 of the
Uniform Building Code with the yellow pencil underlining u Section 7003
and Point 8, which allowed the bulldozing with no permit if the cuts were under
two feet. HOWEVER, I read Point 1 , which in effect says a permit IS required
if damage is apparent to private property. Pulverizing alluvial soil above
my property just before the rainy season invites a sea of mud down on my property.
QUESTIONS: Why was Point One skipped? Why also did he skip the deep grading
being done south of me on the side of that steep hill, to die out a road? 'There
was NO permit for that? See pages 21 and 141 of the General Plan.
I go to Page One of Mr. Windsors August 31st reply to my August 24 Statement.
v
I'll mention the 3rd line in Paragraph 3- I quote: "The zoning ordinance con-
tains Section, etc., , which declare as categorically exempt from CEQA proposed
grading on terrain with slope& LESS than 20%, that will involve less than 5,000
cubic yards of earth moving." Unquote. I turned to Page 21 of the General Plan!
The part of the map in gray indicates Sororpes GREATER THAN 3096, and: I found that
the hill above us was all in array! S0, CEQA is NOT catexor.ically. exempt: Was
this pure deceit to agreyhead, who could not possibly know the percentages of
grades? Or know where to find the State and City law for its application? Or is
it just that Mr� oes not read or study our General Plan either?
On page 2 of his letter he indicates ONLY a Drainage Plan is needed to go ahead
on that major grading for a road on that unstable hill! See pares 22 and 24.
On August 31st, Mr. Windsor included a copy of the 1986 Contract on Atascadero
Road Construction with ys. Gordon Davis with Mr. Pa'1 Sensebaugh, signing. I
have asked for the files on that contract on that high risk hill project. See
my September 4th letter to Mr. Windsor about our City daring to approve building
and grading on that unstable hill. I wrote to him that our City Council should
not deceive buyers of lots on that beautiful hill, when our General Plan calls
it a oobtential seismic hazard.
Yy September 9th letter: No response has been made to correct bulldozing and
fill-in of an old ddep, natural ditch, which has been the result of years of
4
drainage from the high curve in the hill above, with the run-off converging
into that natural drain. Nor has anything been planted on the hill above us,
which the City allowed to be cleared and pulverized. And the rainy season
approaches.
This dity faces law suits as a result of its ignoring the safety rights of its
citizens, simply because two components of our Safety Element haa!tbeen ignored.
F
. fr^ina.11y in desperation, because my questions and requests to see the files were
- Ilnot being answered, I sent a certified letter to Mayor Rollin Dexter, on
September 13. I have not received a reply as yet. I, as a citizen of this
City have the right to the public information of our City Government.
Since now I address my complaints to you, the City Council, I shall quote a
portion of my letter to Mayor Dextert
"Did the Sensebaugh/Davis Contract ignore the advice and strictr;,ures of the 1969
California Environmental 41ity Act and of our own 1980 General Plan? And did
the City Council ignore the General Plan, too, when they approved that 1986
Road Contract? to
oDo you not have the power of the budget over our City Engineer?
Mr. Sensebauch said to me on the 15th, that the Budget items are directly
related to you, and I assume that the Budget requires your approval of the
Contract of 1986.
Thank you very 7uch,
r
Gail Lee Mudgett �'
-c1 Wee "u,!Frett
3125 Ard i I la ;oad
AtascZzd ero.
93422
.3e,.terber 13, 19$9
P-e .onorRble - onald -exter
"ayor of Atascadero City
F SCO ;-alma Abenue
Atascadero, ::a lif 93422
-?e: ey correspondence with the City.
dear 51r:
a, �!nclosinn cosies of my correspondence with r. Jensebaugh and
"°r. 41ndsor..
I have an annointment to see Vr. 41ndsor on 'Tiaay at 10 AY on Drainage
and xosion, ;hint Cne of my AuZust 24th Statement (copy enclos:,d .
iowever, :oint Twe has been iarnored. There has been no response on that,
except the inclusion of the coot' of the :ontract of 1986 on the phased
roads of Atascadero, 1 ,have not been able to see the file on the gradinar
for the paper road of krdilla. "•`r. ;ensebaui+h said there :gas no dile:
(:gee my oeptemb er '+th letter to '-r. -,Indsor.)
i also grant to see the file on the 1986 Contract on the roads by : r. .�ense-
baueh and k.r. Levis. `uch knowledge has developed since the 1914 zlots were
for�e` on that '"high risk" hill, to quote the general :-lan. Additional
lass have been passed, es recially the 1969 ..allfornia ::tate .environmental
Act ( 'A), our own 1977 Advisory aeport, dhich was incorporated Into our
1980 ^enera l Aan.
ali1&i''ICNS: Cid the . ensebauahfravis Contract in 1986 on the Atascadero Roads
ianors the advise and strictures of the 1969 � . ,i, y: C %:�. _.' :; .►tascader.o
general ;;-len? vizi the City Council also ignore the Ceneral clan, too, when
they approved that 1986 Road Contract?
Tease, I wish to see that Aueust 1989 Cradina Ale on that "hisrh risk" hill,-
AiNrl. the rile on that 1986 =road Contract, between iensebaugh and La►vis.
-�inc,ere//ly�your, /
Call Lee ,4udsrett 7
�nclosurea: -Iva
cc: Atascadero �lannintt �ahion
Atascadero City Council
Caee Mudgett
D 31�illa. Road
SE? Atascadero, Calif
93+22
September 9, 1989 y/ ,01 .�4�0
Q R
Mr. Ray Windsor'.. � �� -�
6500 Palma avenue f' n� w7 f
Atascadero, Calif 93422 L
Oar
as,
Re: Culvert and &osion 144 DD����
S � in �je' /��o✓l�
ec r� �s�
Dear Mr. Windsor: Q i e 7�
Yesteelay, I discovered the bulldozing had filled in the western end
of the natural, deep culvert, south of our plowed field. A consid-
erable portion of it was smoothed over. That culvert has been
there since before we moved here in 19;8.
Me run-off from the bend in the high hills converged into that
natural culvert. I insist that that culvert be uncovered, restored,
and connected to the eastern portion of the culvert, which remains
undisturbed,
I also call your attention to the ground cover which should be re-
stored to that pulverized, alluvial soil above us, to prevent erosion
and possible landslide from that unstable hillside. (See General Plan)
I thought surely, Mr. Barnes would have cultivated and re-seeded that
new ground cover to prevent serious erosion, when the bulldozing was
stopped on Auzust 24th. It may be too late to restore that arround
cover before the rains came, but the effort should be wade.
I felt that this discovery could not Kai tuntll I see you on Friday.
Sincerely yours,
Gail Lee Mudzett
cc : Atascadero Planning Commission
Gail Lee Mudgett
3125 Ardilla Road
a Atascadero, Calif
SEP 93422
September 4, 1989
Mr. Ray Windsor, City Manager
6500 Palma Avenue
Atascadero, Calif, 93422
Re: Your. August 31, 1989 reply
to my August 24, 1989 Statement.
Dear Mr. . Windsors
Thank you for your reply to my Statement. I hope the Erosion Plan pro-
posed for our Block and the City, will come to us soon. May I review
my contacts with the City Government, having to do with Point Two of my
Statement?
Mr. Steve De Camp sent me a copy of the UNIFCRM BUILDING CODE, Chapter 70,
Excavation and Grading, with his yellow penciling of the words, "Permit
Required. Sect 7003" and the words, "except for the following", and Point 8".
My reply to Mr. DeCamp is to point out, I quote: Section 7003. No person
shall do eay grading without first having obtained a grading permit from
the building official exeept for the following:
I. Grading in an isolated, self contained area Ifthere is no danger
apparent to private or public property." (Underlining mine.)
Those two underlined words release the exception indicated. Of course,
removing the around cover and pulverising the alluvial soil (see General Plan)
above our home creates a possible flood of mud on us below. Also, with
the bulldozer cutting the paper road Ardilla to the south of us on that hill-
side would require a permit, and an Environmental Impact Report. (See the
General Plan, Page 139.)
When Jn August 30, I telephoned you to request to see the file on the "high
risk" project above us, the call was transferred to Mr. Paul Sensibaugh.
0
0 2
who said there was no file to see. I replied, "I can't believe there
was no application, permission, sttdty, etc, ." The City Engineer insisted,
"There is no file. I gave it a Categorical Exemption", meaning that the bull-
dozing would not have a significant effect on the environment, and no further
evaluation would be required. Instead of a Categorical Exemption would not
a Negative Declaration, describing the reasons the project would not have a
significant impact on the environment been informative to the citizens? I
could not understand such a choice after having read the 1977 Advisory Report
which was incorporated into our 1980 General Pian, especially as emphasized
on page 139, and in the maps and tables of the General Plan.
Yet, here in your letter, Mr. . Windsor, you refer to "review", "inspection",,
reports", "ordinary requirements", "applicant required to submit detailed
a teological/engineerinx analysis to g=rove that they can be constructed safely."
(Safety is an important word to me. ) Then you dismiss the above analysis on
the road construction as being unnecessary when permits are requested for
construction of the houses! Why excuse the analysis on the road construction?
Why build a road when you can't be certain you will ever approve of house
construction on that hillside of "high seismic activity"? The 1977 Advisory
Report and our General Plan specifically states that "to grade and to build
on that hillside would invite life-threatening collapse." To repeat my State-
ment, "construction should be permitted only after additional studies by
geologists, architects, soil engineers, and builders, and until the community
is satisfied that it meets adequate standard designed to prevent life-
threatening collapse or damage in future earthquakes." How can there ever
be any mitigating circumstances on that hillside?
Among the four major faults in San Luis Obispo County the Rinconada is three
miles west of the town of Atascadero. We here at the base of that hillside
are almost on top of that fault; Why do you dare to build above it? Why
do you insist on being inconsistent with the General Plan? Are you not
empathetic with the pur.chisers of those 1914 plots and their problem of
caveat emptor, let the buyer beware? Knowing the General Plan, I would never
0 0 3
consider building a home on that "high risk" hill, no matter how much it was
approved.
You did not answer my questions about the notification of the application,
hearing, etc., being well advertised. Was a Ifikdnotification due me, a
contiguous owner? Also, has there been a Notice of Determination?
It is my opinion that it is morally wrong to provide strangers with approval
to build on that range. As a citizen of this community, since 1956, I
protest such deceit by any government.
Earlier, I asked you to drive up the tip of that *high risk" range, where
Graves Creek and San Fernando meet. Did the Atascadero Fire Department
give permission for that steep, curved road on that seismically active hill?
If they did, - why?
Thank you for listening to my deeply felt concerns.
Sincerely yo s,
Gail Lee Mudgett
cc: Atascadero Plannina Commission
Atascadero City Council
Karen 'K. Coniglio
7600 Graves Crk. Rd .
Atascadero , Ca . 93422
November 14, 1989
City Council of Atascadero
6500 Palma Ave .
Atascadero , Ca. 93422
Dear Sirs :
I am writing to you in regards to the proposed road construction
of Ardilla from Balboa to Graves Crk. Rd.- and the future develop-
ment of that hill . At the present time this area is open space,
therefore I will refer to the sections of our city ' s General plan
which pertain to open space. .
As you are well aware the general plan is likened unto the Con-
stitution of our beloved United States . It is our basis for gov-
eraing our city. It gives us insight into the character of the
land we occupy as Atascadero. It also gives us rules to wisely
protect the people who live here. We are deeply indebted to the
many people who contributed much work and effort to make a guide
for us to follow in ruling our city ' s development . They saw great
need for responsible stewardship of this land of Atascadero . I
Quote to you a passage from page 47. . . "The right to use of land
is a privelege conferred by the community and includes responsibil-
ity for considerate stewardship. " I hold the position that it was
definitely not- considerate of our city to allow Bill Barnes the
right to grade over the natural drainage of that hill and put the
residents below that hill in imminent danger should we receive a
heavy rainfall this year.
On page 51 under Land Use Policy Proposals #6 I quote. . . "High pri-
ority is placed upon open space as a land use element. Thi.s in-
clndes'.the'.protection and preservation .of scenic areas , water_ . .
courses , hazard lands ,hilltops, etc. that add much to the quality
of the rural atmosphere in Atascadero . " I would like you to take
note of the words HAZARD LANDS , then to refer to page 57 #9 under
Residential Policy Proposals .
"Hazard areas ( geologic, landslide, flood , ets . ) shall have
appropriate development standards . "
This area is a landslide area as pointed out in your own generatl
plan and assigned a specific number, landslide area V. Therefore ,
This is a hazard area and should be under the: protc�c.tion of. yo�r-
own Land Use Policies as pointed out and quoted above.
Also , listed on page 58 under ResidentioLi Policy Proposals ,. we as
a city are further urged to preserve our "trees , watersheds, a.ad
natural slopes and other natural amenities from abuse and destruc-
tion resulting from poor design and development practices . " I
would like to inform you of the Random House Dictionary definition
of PRESERVE. " a= to keep alive or in existence , make lasting
b- to keep safe from harm or injury; save c- to keep possession
of, to retain. "
Now, P lease refer to-page 70 Preservation• Polic roposals #1 .
" Because water resources are the principal key to the survival
of whole plant and wildlife communities , the watershed areas of
Atascadero shall be allowed to continue to function without dis-
ruption. "
The city has already acknowledged that it was poor practice to
allow Bill Barnes to do preliminary grading on the proposed Ardilla
Rd . It is also very poor practice not to reopen the natural
drainage or watershed ditches since the rainy season is here .
These natural drainage areas of landslide hill #7 should have
been "allowed to function without disruption. " Let us stop this
disruption and destruction and use our own general plan as it was
meant to be used , as a guidebook to the development and preser-
vation of our beautiful city.
To delve further into the general plan , we find page 69 entitled
Open Space and Conservation. "Open space uses are defined by the
State of California as those necessary for public health and safe-
ty . . . . #3 Open space Principles Scenic and sensitive lands shall
be protectred from destruction, overuse and misuse . " Hill #7 is
definitely sensitive and has definitely been misused be Bill Barnes
and the city that gave him permission to rough grade that road.
I will now quote page 71 "Open space for public health and safety s
includes areas which require special management or vegetation be-
cause of hazardous or special conditions , such as earthquake fault
zones , unstable soil areas. . . " Hill #7 is unstable soil , alluvium,
as stated un our general plan and is very hazardous soil in an
earthquake. Mrs . Mudgett has taken up this topic with you and
I feel no need to elaborate more on the topic for she has covered
it extensively.
Therefore, I conclude from reading Atascadero 's general plan that
this area should remain open space and should be protected by the
city from future development. Your action will either ensure the
safety of many future citizens of Atascadero or ensure harm to come
to them at some future time. Which action will you take? Will
you be considerate stewards of the land we call home?
Sj�c�- y�
Karen I. Conigli(d
PU I
1 Lee Mudgett
125 Ardilla :load
Atascad e.ro, Calif
9'3422
Cctober 30, 1989
Ladies and (,entlement of the Atascadero City Council:
This Statement is �.. reply to maycr Dexter's letter �. ..e of Cctober 4th.
Thank you for ac'.kisi nolyleging that prior road agreements were not exempt from
the California Environmental -quality Act. Our 1980 General Plan was created
in agreement with that 1969 California Environmental :quality Act, along with
other California State Law.
I am still concerned with two components of our Safety Element which have not
been implemented . a) We do not nave a comprehensive Drainage Plan as mandated
or. cage 116 of our General Plan. b) !4e have an excellent Seismic Component in
our General Plan, with over 13 cages devoted to it, but in practise we have
ignored`it. I have quoted before the following passage from our General Plan,
but I'll quote it again, because in Mayor Dexter's letter, he insists that "We
have complied with the General Plan and it documentation and policies with
_respect to the seismic safety."
I quote : "Thoughtful land use decisions are fundamental to seismic safety.
We should not erect a structure or carry out major grading on ground
that is subject to high levels of seismic or other geologic hazard,
until the consequences have been evaluated and the work approved by
competent professionals. To this end , no structure should be built
unless the geologist, architect, soils engineer and builder - as well
as the community are satisfied that it meets adequate standards de-
signed to prevent life-threatening collapse or dama?e in future earth-
quakes. (Joint Committee, 1975) Page 140 of the General Plan.
Just to show you how up-to-date that policy is let me bring you up to Tuesday.,'.--
October
uesday,;October 17th, the day of the Santa Cruz quake, 75 miles south of San r^rarcisco, It
shook that City, built on both rock and unstable soil. I quote from the Los
Angeles Times , October the 18th:
"Thomas Ii. Holzer, brandh chief for engineering seismology
for the Geological Survey at Menlo Park, said that .regardless
of whether one is talking about freeways, gas lines, or apart-
ment houses the bottom line is that people should not be
building in these areas."
74AT is a 1989 echo of our Joint Committee's admonishment of 1975 in our General
Flan;
0 2
If it is true, as you write, that our City has comcle�' with t^e ^eneral Plan
how do you explain the Sensebaugh/ravis Contract or 4.996 and th.� invasion of
our seismoloaically hazardous Santa Lucia foot'.tills?
You write in the next sentence, "The sale of Lots is not subject to CEYaA."
In answer: T- quote from caee 299 of the Guide to California Environmental
yu- 1i:y Act:
"A project will normally have a sienficant effect on the environment
if it will,
a)Conflict with the adopted environmental plan and goals
of the community where it is Located ,
q) Cause substantial flooding, eros,-on, or siltation,
r) Expose people or structures to major zeblozic hazards.
Also, from the same volume, Cg.-;A, Faze 344, I shall refer you to a 1980
Court Case having to do with the precise problem of sale of property:
FRIEN-US C^ ° ST:,REET V. CITY OF H.AY dARD (1980)
Point 7. City approval of proposed subdivision's construction
of public improvements, and private sale of subdivided lots may
be enjoined for lack of consistency of the subdivision with the
General Flan.
?oint 8. of that same case states :
City's public works as well as private develooment must be
consistent with the City's :,eneral Plan. (Govt Code 65302-66473.5)
In your letter you state, "Since no project is being proposed on the area
identified as Landslide 7 no action is yet called for by this City."
CIEQA considers grading a project and bulldozing did take place in August of
this year on those Santa Lucia foothills. I am concerned with All the foot-
hills of the Santa Lucias, from the Southern border and Santa Barbara Road to
the :Northern border and Santa Cruz Road. Our ^,eneral Plan refers to the
foothills on Faze 139 as,
"The high risk area in the foothills of the Santa Lucias comprises
8,298.79 acres."
If and when the Nacimiento, or the Rinconada, or the San Adnreas faults "happen"
what do you think will "happen" in our extensive alluvial and oeoloaically
unstable soils and hills? The State calls such areas "special studies zones."
our State Geologist established critiera and policy for approval of real estate
3
development and structures for 'numan occupancy In these "special studies zones. "
According to the Public Resources Code .#2623, "Applications for all real estate
developments and structures for human occupancy within "special studies zones"
must be accompanies! by a geOiOgist's report." (D. Curtin"s Subdivision wap Act Manual;
P-55-
Did ,you comply with our General :'Lan and the State Code when you gave approval
and per^:its to grade and construct foYhuman habitation on those foot ills of the
Santa Lucias, with or without the Sensebauah/Davis Contract? Cid you have a
competent geologist"s report when you grantee permits to build or: those 9,000
acres?
when Mr. Windsor sent me a copy of that Sens ebaugh/_avis Contract on August 31st
I hwv-- requested to see that file. There has been no response. Why?
How could our planning Department have given the go-ahead when they should be
thorou-wkly conversant with the General Plan and our State Planning Code and
CSA? ?id our City Attorney .review that Sens ebaugh/Davis Contract? Did any-
one in the City Government file a Notice of Violation, according to Section
66499.36 of our Government Code?
There are still four more of my questions which remain unanswered . I shall
list them after this Statement.
In conclusion: Ever since Tuesday, Cctober 17th, I have been saddened by our
missed opportunity to avoid building on "high risk hills and soils. General Plans
are fundamental to make cities safe in California, the lard of quakes. By incorp-
orating the 1977 Advisory Report into our adopted 1980 general Plan, we as a young
city had the CHOICE AND THE CHANCE through our General Flan to build roads ar_d
homes as safely as could be possible. We made our CHOICE when we adopted the
general Plan, but we discarded the CHANCE by ignoring and not implementing
the criteria and policies of that General Plan.
WHY did we throw away that CHANCE to keep our young City of Atascadero safe?
Thank you.
Gail Lee Mudgett
4
List of unanswered question I have asked. nail Lee Mudgett 10/30/89
I . On Augt:st 24, as a contiguous landowner was = not entitled' to a notification
of the project taking place across the road from my house?
2. On September 9, I informed you by letter that the bulldozer had filled in and
smoothed over the deep drain ditch that had been there since '1958 or before.
That ditch receives the overflow from the curve in the high hill above
3. On September 19, to the Planning Commission, I asked about the implementation
of the Drainage Component of our Safety Element. In that last paragraph of that
Statement I asked in fewer words than what I shall use now:
?'o you know that the State requires a General Plan to be adequate, meaning
complete in all State required Elements? Do you know that if the General
Plan lacks Elements or Components there-of, it is considered incomplete and
inadequate by the State? That if the General Pian is invalid this City
Government is invalid? That absence of an adequate General Plan precludes
any ena6ment of zoning ordinance and the like'? . R ,:.x
Resources Defense ~end v. County of Santa Cruz
133 Cal APP. 3d 800, 806 (1982)
Ga i 1 Lee Mudge t t ' "
1 appreciate your letters in reply to my written. Statements.
Also, Will you please apply this Statement to the item listed on yoE agenda
as :
4. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 16-89, 9350 SANTA CRUZ Subdivision of
one parcel containing a pprox. 9.63 ac. into two lots of 4.0
ac. and 5.63 ac. (Lobo Investments/dolbrecht Surveys) (Con'd
from 10/10/89 meeting)
GLPF.
ATASCAj),ERO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
OCTOB3o, 1989
MY NAME IS DOLORES BERRY AND I LIVE AT 6955 BALBOA ROAD, ATASCADERO.
HONORABLE MAYOR ROLLIN DEXTER AND HONORABLE MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL:
AT THIS TIME, I WOULD LIKE TO THANK MAYOR DEXTER FOR RESPONDING
TO MY REQUEST THAT HE ANS'NER MRS. GAIL MUDGET' S LETTER. IT SEEMS THAT
ALL OF THE CONCERNS IN HER LETTER HAVE NOT BEEN ADDRESSED. I SUPPORT
HER REQUESTS AND CONCERNS AND ASK THAT MAYOR DEXTER GIVE ATTENTION
AGAIN IN `J'IRITING TO HER CONCERNS.
I AM HERE TONIGHT TO ASK THAT THE CITY OF ATASCADERO RESPOND TO
THE CONCERNS OF RESIDENTS REGARDING DRAINAGE WATER COMING FROM NEW
DEVELOPMENTS. 'WE NEED AN ADEQUATE DRAINAGE FLAN. THE ADDITIONAL
'HATER FROM THE DOVICA DEVELOPMENT AND OTHER DEVELOPMENTS ON ARDILLA
AND BALBOA MUST NOT BE DIRECTED TO RUN THROUGH THE PROPERTY OF THE
RESIDENTS THAT ARE BELOW THESE DEVELOFMENTS. WE NEED THE PROTECTION
OF OUR CITY AND WE NEED IT NOW. OUR PROPERTY AND THE PROPERTY OF
MANY NEIGHBORS SHOULD NOT HAVE TO BE DITCHED TO HANDLE THE EXTRA WATER
CREATED BY NE.'l DEVELOFMENT; ; 'IT SHOULD GO DOWN THROUGH CITY STREETS.
EIR REPORTS ARE REQUIRED WHEN A NEW STREET IS PUT IN, AS HAS BEEN
DONE ON THE DOVICA DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNED FOR THE BARNES DEVELOPMENT
ON ARDILLA (DOVICA IS ON BALBOA TOO) . WHY HASN'T THIS REPORT BEEN
REQUIRED? THERE ARE OTHER REASONS THIS REPORT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DONE
FOR THESE DEVELOPMENTS AND OTHERS ON THE ROADS ABOVE US ON BALBOA
AND ABOVE ARDILLA: LANDSLIDE AREA (PAGE 12 GENERAL PLAN AND PAGE 15
OF THE ATASCADERO GENERAL PLAN. ALLUVIUM SOIL UNDERNEATH ARDILLA AND
LANDSLIDE AREA AND SLOPES OVER 30 PERCENT. GENERAL PLAN STATES THE
STEPS TO AVOID DISASTER IN HIGH RISK AREAS THAT BUILDING PERMI'JS
SHOULD BE GRANTED ONLY AFTER APPROPRIATE ENGINEERING REPORTS AND
EVALUATIONS DESCRIBED IN CHAPTER X OF SEISMIC HAZARDS. HAVE THESE
REPORTS BEEN DONE? IF NOT, WHY NOT? (SEE CHAPTER ON SAFETY GEN. PLAN)
ALLUVIUM IS AN UNSTABLE COIL, THE LANDSLIDE AREA IS UNSTABLE AND BOTH
ARE BUILDING HAZARDS AS IS ANY BUILDING DONE ON THE 30% GRADE AREA.
IN CASE OF EARTHQUAKE THIS AREA IS AT RISK. IN CASE OF CLOUDBURST
THIS AREA IS AT RISK. WE 'RANT PROrItCTION FROM THE DRAINAGE WATER AND
EROSION AND LANDSLIDE SEISMIC RISBfBUILDING ON THIS AREA (FOUR FAULTS
IN THE AR.A: SEE GENERAL PLAN)
IF DRAINAGE WATER FROM NEW DEVELOPMENTS IS DIRECTED ACROSS RESIDENT' S
PROPERTY HOW .SILL THE CITY PROTECT US FROM fUNDATION A CLEAR AND PRESENT
DANGER TO OUR LIVES AND THE LIVES OF OUR ANIMALS. ALL THE NATURAL SHRUBS
ALL THE NATURAL SHRUBS t',HICH HELD BACK THE NATURALLY SPREADING
RAITI:dA ER HAVE BEEAMOVED FROM WE DOVICA DE PMENT AND THE
BARNES DEVELOPMENT. HOW a'IILL THE CITY PROTECT OUR HOME AND PROPERTY?
1-7E HAVE EIGHT HERITAGE OAKE TREES AND MANY OTHER TREES OVER THE
$'r DIAMETER. Will WILL THE DITCHING OF THE AREA ALONG THE OAKS TREE
ROOTS AND THE PROLONGING OF THE DRAINAGE ,`DATER THROUGH THE AREA ON
OUR LAND AFFECT THESE HERITAGE TREES? Y HOW WILL THE INCREASE
IN VOLUME OR VELOCITY AFFECT OUR HOME 1S FOUNDATIONS AND THESE
TREES? WE ASK. FOR THE DRAINAGE PLAN THAT 'vaAS AGREED UPON AT THE
MEETING`THAT WAS ATTENDED BY TME CITY MANAGER AND PUBLIC +gORKS
MANAGER AND TSO OF THIS COUNCIL' S MEMBERS. WE ASK TO BE PROTECTED
BY- THE DRAINAGE PLAN THAT THE GENERAL PLAN CALLS FOR ON PAGE 115.
THIS DRAINAGE WATER IS A CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER TO OUR HEALTH
AND SAFETY AND ASK THAT THE CITY BE RESPONSIBLZ- TO THE RESIDENTS
AND CARRY THE EXIRA MATER CREATED AWAY VIA THE CITY STREETS. I
ASK FOR ANSA L S TO THESE CONCERNS IN 'fRITING.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION AND ATTENTION. :
DOLORES BERRY
Members of the Counci
The lot split before you is only the first of many to come. It was given a Negative
Declaration. It is not deserving of such. The cumulative effects have never been
considered, nor does the City have the necessary information on which to base such
a decision., ' ,
How will this lot split, being only the first of many to come, effect fire protection,
emergency/medical response, police protection,schools,parks and recreational
facilities, roads, and other governmental services in the City?
The present fire protection in our City is adequate. Will it continue to be adequate
when hundreds of acres in the far western portion of the City (an area with very high
response time)get developed. This area is the "interface", a high risk wildfire area.
What additional services will be needed, who will pay for them? Even with
mandatory fire sprinklers the fire department would surely respond to a fire in that
north western area. How long would it take the engines to respond if a second fire
broke out along Hwy. 41, where so many of them have started?Will fire protection
services for existing residential developments be sacrificed to accommodate the new
developments? The Atascadero General Plan states. Fire stations shall be located
so as to provide an average response time of five minutes or less to all parts of the
District. While four minutes is considered acceptable, anything over five minutes is
unacceptable.". A city wide fire protection study has just been authorized by the
Council (to be paid for by the entire city). How can you make the finding that there
will be no significant impact, how can you already know the answer?
It becomes even more obvious in terms of emergency or medical response time. The
response time is above ten minutes. This is surely not sufficient for the critical case
(heart attack, choking victim, gun-shot wound, etc.). The development in that area is
raising the citywide emergency response time and thereby lowering the average
response time for already established residents. Must the entire city pay for this
development?
The cumulative impacts of development in this large area of the City will have a
very definite cumulative impact on the police protection in the City. The 400 unit
Bourdoux apartments required additional police. Consider that the apartments can
be efficiently serviced. They are close to the police station and concentrated close
together. However, the development in the western part of the City is a long way
from the police station and spread far apart. Must the entire City pay for this
development? ,
The schools in this City are already overburdened. The new San Gabriel
Elementary School is already teaching classes in temporary trailers. Where will the
additional children be attending school? Do we develop first, bus the children again
to Santa Margarita and than build the schools in later years?What kind of planning
is that?Where will the additionally needed schools be located? Have appropriate
parcels of land been identified so that they may be acquired before the value of land
has gone out of sight and so that new landowners may know that they will be
neighbors of future schools? Has busing and its effect been considered?What will
entire City pay for this development?
This lots lit is just the fir�f of many to come. Cumulatively, thAill add more
people, stressing he already scarce parks and recreational opportunities in the City.
No additional parks have been identified in this area, there are no plans for open
space. The city has not earmarked money or fees for additional parks and
openspace, although the General Pian calls for acquisition of creek reservations,
stadium park, etc. Must the entire city pay for this development?
What will be the cumulative effect of road maintenance?The recently constructed
roads in the western portion of the City have opened up this very large area for
development. Most of these roads (and driveways)were constructed behind locked
gates. They were built under a developer/city agreement that "was not legally
binding" (North County Tribune, Sep. 21, 1989). "The agreement allowed Davis to
bypass normal environmental review procedures when building roads to serve
development in western Atascadero...The agreement is no longer in force, following
review by the City Attorney"(North County Tribune, Oct. 5, 1989). These roads are
not consistent with the Atascadero General Plan statements: "(p.121 Any
transportation improvements system shall be compatible with the environment.
There shall be a wise use of available resources, avoidance of despoiling
irreplaceable resources, promotion of the aesthetic quality of the area and
minimization of environmental change."and from page 157 "The contours of the hills
shall be preserved....Any land use or activity which would result in major alteration
of the land shall require a grading permit. The permit should require restoration of
the land". In addition, the City is already behind on the maintenance of the city
roads, due to lack of funds. Many existing roads within the City have not been
accepted by the City. Will the entire City be asked to foot the bill to accommodate
the developers interests in this portion of the City?
Have you considered the cumulative impacts that this extensive development will
have on governmental services such as rural postal delivery, dial-a-ride and other
public transportation services?
The questions that come to mind are overwhelming. To state that development in
that area will occur without significant cumulative impacts is wrong and
irresponsible. Where is your supporting evidence to show that the cumulative effects
would not have a significant impact?
"e'( er
`' 6m `
Barbara Schoenike
jonn w . mcrNeil V �
8765 Sierra lista
1 , 0aseadero, CA 93422
06-4128
2 1 October 2v�, 198'
3 ha-or rollin Dexter and Cit;; Council of Atascadero
4 City cull
Atascadero, CA
5 Dear 1�iayor Dexter and City Council members:
6 This refers to the environmental check list completed by the
Community Development staff for the proposed lot split at
9350 .3anta Cruz Road, Atascadero , Tentative Parcel Map 16-89
8 and 89-173. A Negative Declaration was given by the Community
Development Director for this project.
9 I would like to briefly comment on several items in the check
10 list .
II Environmental Impacts: 1 . Earth. a. Unstable earth conditions
11 or in changes in geologic substructures? Checked "NO" .
Is this judgment based on general geological information for
12 the area, specific information on the project site, or was the
item checked "NO" without any general or specific geological
13 information?
14 g. Exposure of people or property to geological hazards such
as earthquakes, landslides, mudslides , ground failure or
15 similar hazards:
16 Now if the answer to l.a. above was based on general informa-
tion only for lack of specific information, as I surmise, then
17 why was this item, l.g. , regarding seismic hazards, not checked
"YES" or "MAYBE" . Map 11--4, Atascadero Major Earthquake Faults,
18 ig the General Flan (Enclosure) , shows the Nacimiento earthquake
fault running, through the center of Atascadero, and the Rinconada
19 fault , the Hosgri fault , and the San Andreas fault within close
proximity to the project site. On this information alone, the
20 check should have been "MAYBE" . An EIR would provide specific
information as to the seismic hazards.
21
Moreover, the roads put in place by the land developer with-
22 out a permit under the presumed authority of the now disavowed
and rescinded road agreements, written and unwritten, have never
23 been evaluated as to seismic safety. In the event of a major
earthquake, these untested, never legally approved roads, could
24 be severely damaged and prevent access to emergency vehicles.
25 f. Changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may,
modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of any lake .
26 This item checked "NO" fails to consider that the project will
require extensive grading to accomodate the building sites to the
27 hilly terrain as shown on the Tentative Parcel Map 0- 9-173• The
contour lines show a 34 foot drop from the edge of one proposed
28 building site, and the other building site is more Drecipitous
I
2 Ion both sides. M"ny chance in the landscape will contribute to
chan�'es in siltation deposition, and erosion, which together
3 with other adjacent developments can cumulatively substantially
modify the channels of streams in this area. Have we forgotten
4 the flood years in Atascadero as recently as : 1967 - 45.40 inches,
1969 - 47.05 inches, and 1976 - 35.21 inches. (Atascadero News
5 1-6-62, page B-4.
6 II 2. Air. a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration of
ambient air quality? Checked "NO" . On what possible information
7 can this item be checked "NO"? Paul Allen of the San Luis Obispo
County Air Pollution Control office informed the Atascadero Home
8 Owners Association several months ago that the County has never
made a study of ambient air movements in the County. Of course
9 two dwellings will have little effect from four or more autos,and
two or more wood burning fireplaces, but the cumulative effect
10 of existing and planned development will seriously impact our
air quality already exceeding air pollution limits.
11 Our city ' s five hundred foot air inversion factor makes us
peculiarly vulnerable to the effects of air pollution. San Ardo
12 oil fields, the P.G.&E. Morro Bay power -olant, and particulates
from farming make any added pollution from residential develop-
13 ment an incontrovertible environmental impact that should be the
subject of an EIR for this project.
14
II 3. Water. a.b.c.d.i. b and c. checked "MAYBE" , a.d.i. "NO" .
15 The answers should be "YES" for all of these items. how can
the anticipa.tea changes in the grading and landscapin, of this
16 project not unouestionably alter to some extent drainage patterns
and the amount of surface water runoff? Why the proposed cul-
17 verts if drainage patterns are unchanged? Would driveways and
paved parking areas not alter the amount and direction of run-
18 offs? Certainly the runoff and diverted water flow will have a
substantial cumulative effect on flood waters. Any urbanization
19 will shorten the flood time and hence the potential for flood
damage.
20 e. Surface water quality. The use of pesticides and herbicide
such as Round Up will undoubtedly alter the auality of surface
21 waters. Why a "NO" check for this item? Also, septic tank fail-
ures are common throughout Atascadero notwithstanding percolation
22 testing. Septic tank contamination of surface waters is certain-
ly a probability. 6hould be checked "MAYBE" .
23 h. Our city water supply is not inexhaustible. The cumulative
effect of adding more and more household consumers cannot be
24 ignored. A multiplicity of Negative Declarations on future
developments on this item, will surely result in the water
25 shortages experienced by our neighboring cities .
26 In conclusion, in using. a check list for a Ne`.ative Declaration,
"the city must disclose the data or evidence upon which the per-
27 son conducting the study relied. Mere conclusions as to the
absence of the possibility of a significant effect are inadequate
28
i
I
ii
I
I
( -3-
2
3 to support a ?negative Declaration. " Citizens Association vs
4 County of Inyo , 172 Cal App 3d 151 (1985) . Unless the Community
Development staff has such convincing evidence controverting
5 all of the material set forth hereinabove, then an EIR should
be required for this project.
6
Respectively submitted,
7
8 _
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26 I
27
28
o:
o—;
s�
�a
3 6w
s'°s
e�
d°o
oft
a� •
y'�y
a
9•f
•
ob. -
a°
can
R'
V._. .
N
ani'• -
\c°
Pr F I
f
f
0
„ 0 >
o0
i�
o
LL
•�°c �/J Q i f�1� c c
tA S \ • y S G
El
W �
Q � >a
LLQ Q � QN
W c ��
G ` U
h
Joan Okeefe
9985 Old Morro Rd. East
Atascadero. Ca
October 30, 1989
Members of the Council;
I am requesting an Environmental Impact Report for the entire area under
the "Atascadero/Gordon Davis road agreement development project." This
should occur prior to any lot splits being granted for that area and I
am requesting that the lot split application at 9350 Santa Cruz, a part
of the "Atascadero/Gordon Davis road agreement development project," be
denied until an Environmental Impact Report is completed. It seems
Community Development has taken a piecemeal approach to projects. This
approach denies citizens an opportunity to be aware of the total impact
of the developments in process. As a result, the Environmental
Checklist filled out by Community Development, has not addressed
cumulative impact effects. I would like to call attention to specific
items in the Initial Study completed by Community Development.
4. Plant Life
a. The more land is divided the more habitat is altered or
destroyed. This results in (1) decline in the number of species
and (2) may result in a reduction of contiguous habitat sufficient
to support a viable population of a species. For example, as you
reduce the size of a stand of oaks the microenvironment is changed
so that more of the trees are exposed to wind, light, temperature
and predation. This principle applies to any species of plant and
especially takes its toll on slow growing species.
b. There is no data available regarding rare or endangered
species. An Environmental Impact Report would provide information
necessary to evaluate this point.
c. House construction brings with it landscaping with exotic
species which are incompatible with native plants. Two of the most
obvious are pampas grass and eucalyptus which once established are
almost impossible to remove.
d. This whole area was originally used for commercial cattle
grazing. Housing development usually removes such areas from
commercial grazing. It is apparent that this entire area was
originally used for a variety of agricultural uses. It is clear
that in conversion to residential use no impact analysis was ever
completed.
5. Animal Life
a. Subdivision of an oak woodland environment will impact wild
life habitat. Animal migration routes are blocked and the
contiguous size of habitat is insufficient to maintain a viable
population. Over 300 species of wildlife have been identified as
oak woodland residents.
0
b. There is no data avilable regarding rare or endangered species
of animals in this area. An Environmental Impact Report would
provide information for this point.
c. Concurrent with housing development domestic animals such as
cats, dogs, and horses will be introduced. Cats and dogs have a
long history of feral activity that can adversely impact many wild
life populations. It is well known that feral cats have become a
serious problem in Atascadero. In addition, horses confined on
small areas eatout and trample all vegetation; this results in
serious soil compaction and potential erosion and run-off hazards.
13. Transportation/Circulation
a. There will be a significant increase in vehicular movement.
c. The main access arteries are already congested. The problem
will be compounded by the increase in vehicular movement. There
are no plans or funds to remedy this existing problem. Access in
and out of these recently developed areas is limited. In case of
fire or other emergency citizens would find it difficult to
evacuate.
f. Pedestrians and bicyclists are already at risk because of the
narrow, shoulderless roads and lack of pathways. Drainage ditches
substitute for walkways. The roads are winding, narrow and steep
and frequently subject to rock slides during the rainy season.
School children are at risk if they walk on the roads. Increasing
the number of people will increase the probability of accidents.
18. Aesthetics
The open vistas of the area that can be viewed from all over the
city will be destroyed by the proposed placement of houses,
driveways and roads. Excessive cut and fill caused by the
construction of the existing roads have already resulted in
irreversible impacts that cannot be mitigated. These roads never
received an environmental review. This proposed lot-split and the
total area development have not addressed the problem of cumulative
impacts under a system of visual resource management.
21. Mandatory Findings of Significance
a. Refer to 4.a, 4.b, 5.a, and 5.b regarding impact on wild life
and plant life. At present there is no plant or wildlife inventory
available to serve as a bench mark reference that would provide a
check on evaluating developmental impacts. Research data in some
other parts of the state indicates that subdivision has serious
impact on native plant and wildlife population.
b. Short term, the profile of the land is disrupted and or altered
by subdivision development. Long term effects from development
include visual pollution, air pollution, massive soil erosion,
water drainage problems, pollution of ground table water due to
septic loading, accumulation in the soil and water table of
pesticides and herbicides. In addition oak regeneration is
seriously impar.
c. Cumulative impacts is the major issue with this development. A
single lot split generally has little effect on resources; many lot
splits, many subdivisions have a significant effect on the
environment and resources of the City. For example, individually,
environmental impact on either wildlife or plant life would be
considered to be medium intensity. However the additive impact on
both resources must be considered a major environmental problem.
d. People's health may be adversely affected due to air and water
pollution.
October 30, 1989
Members of the Council;
Given that this Santa Cruz lot split is only the first of many to come, cumulative
effects have to be considered on all possible.future and already existing
development. This has clearly not been done.
Allowing septic systems with at least a 100 percent expansion area on steep, tree
covered and seismicly hazardous hillsides will cause a significant impact on
vegetation and possible ground and surface water contamination. Atascadero is
already known for failing leachfields. Areas that were never intended to be included
within the Urban Services line are now being served by sewers or are being
considered to be included because of failing systems. In general, this means lowering
minimum lotsizes and more subdivisions. Let us also not forget the 1980
recommendation by the City Council that the minimum lot size outside the Urban
Services Line should be 1.5 acres (see Atascadero News, Feb. 6, 1980). What will be
the longterm cumulative effects?
What effect will the development in the west, of which this parcel is just a part, have
on the Chicago Grade Landfill? How will the City dispose of the additional sludge
from pumped septic systems? This is already a problem.
What effect will urbanization of this huge area have on stormwater run-off? More
driveways, roofs, culverts, and roads, all contribute to decreased lagtime in Graves
Creek, increasing the possibility for flooding in already developed areas of the creek.
Finally, what studies have been done to identify prehistoric archaeological sites in
this large area of the City?
Very truly yours,
�- - ��
Stephen P. LaSalle
See"60B -FEBRUARY.6. 1980 PAGE
Public's I Along the
ast chance
to speak King's '
pe up
for lowdensity �� highway h�
'At no other time in the brief What it comes down to, of by L.W. Allan
history of this community has course, is what is fair for a
public comment been needed. land developer comes into
Both those in favor of and direct conflict with what's fair
opposed to incorporation said for our collective quality of has indicated it will take up density.
they wanted to preserve the life here. the subject early in its next But this Council is divided
rural atmosphere of If-you agree this community meeting,not at midnight as it on where it stands, and only
Atascadero and prevent its would be better off main- did this week. three votes will determine
rapid increase in density. taining a 2.5-acre minimum We can rest assurred the how much of the "rural at-
Battle. lines are currently outside the urban services Commission will probably mosphere" is preserved by
being drawn between line, then make-your wishes stick to its desire for the lower cityhood.
developers and those wanting known before the Atascadero
a reduced density. Planning Commission and the -
City Council.
I wrote in this column about If you believe 1.5-acre
two months ago that this minimums should prevail,
P%nning Commission's action then you also should make
calling for 2.5-acre-minimum your wishes known.
lot size outside the urban This is a time when the
services line would do more for voices of the people must be
the future of the community heard.We'll all be living with
than any other action by our the decision.
local government. The Planning Commission
But a recommendation by
the City Council has opened
the door for 1.5-acre lots
outside the urban services
line.
That area, for -your in-
formation, would include Las
Encinas, 3-F Meadows,
Chandler Ranch, the Old
Santa Catalina Ranch and an
area north of San Benito Road
and east of U. S. 101—literally
thousands of acres in this new
city.
This argument arose during
public comment on the
Proposed Atascadero General
Plan.
A developer told the city he
had spent hundreds of
thousands of dollars
roads to accommodate the 1.5-
acre breakdown of lots.
Restricting those
minimums to 2.5 acres, the
developer contends, would be
unfair after all these-years of
planning.
1N 8765 Sierra Vista Rd.
@Wcadero, CA 93422
ber 28, 1989
Mayor Rollin Dexter
Members of Atascadero City Council
6500 Palma Ave.
Atascadero, CA 93422
Dear Mayor Dexter and members of the Council :
The Santa Cruz lot split (Tentative Parcel Map 16-89 and 89-173)
by itself could present less than a serious environmental impact .
However, this lot split is of major significance as the fore-
runner of thousands of acres of lot splits yet to follow in
western Atascadero.
Atascadero has an overall acreage of about 24,000 acres. The west-
ern area includes Las Encinas I, II and III, Long Valley ranches,
The HiEhlands and all of 3F Meadows which is about to add a huge
area along :pan Marcos Road. In fact the whole western section of
about 1C,000 acres is almost equal in size to the presently de-
veloped and developing other areas of Atascadero.
The Lis Encinas roads have been built by private agreement between
the developer and the former city engineer. No California Environ-
mental :ality Act guidlines were followed. Now this whole area
seems to be proceeding to develop on a lot by lot Negative Declar-
ation for eacs lot split which means no cumulative impacts will be
considered. An environmental study on the entire area is needed in
order to consider the total effects on drainage, traffic, water use
and sources, flooding, siltation of creeks, noise ollution, plant
and animal life including trees, emergency response time, end Cop-
elation growth- rate. Only a Piaster Environmental Impact study can
consider cumulative effects and provide information for kecision-
ma:.Ling. A lot split by lot split Negative Declaration could result
in brief and costliness to she city and to landowners.
Four of my concerns on the Initial Study Environmental COheck List
are land use, population, recreation and noise.
How can anyone without a study say this and subsequent lot splits
will have no significance as to land use? It is common '�:nowledge
that most purchasers of land of more than minimum acreage buy with
the intent to split , and they are often advised by the realtor as
to the probaOility of obtaining a split . ?urchase of the original
lot can be covered by splitting and selling.
Just this evening Mr. Engen has advised us that a 1989 update on
subdivision applications in the city showsthat 25 existing lots
are proposed to be converted to 145 lots, a ;;ain of 120 building
sites. with 2.7 persons per household, that would be a change
from 68 neo-le on P, lots to 391 people on 14sots--a 475% or
almost a fivefold increase.
Now try to picture hundreds of lot splits in the western area
divided to accomodate, if not increases of that proportion, in-
creases of 100;v" and up. Can one honestly give endless Negative
Declarations on all these certain-to-come splits? Can one in good
faith close one' s eyes and one ' s mind to the cumulative effects
of such development?
According to city and state figures Atascadero grew from 2,600
people in 1940 to 9,091 people in 1910• By 1900 the population
was 16, 232. Again, according to city figures, the 1987 popula-
tion was 20,869. The 1988 figures say 22,725 people.
However, in 1987, taking the city' s own figures on building permits
issued from 1980 through December 1986, there were 3,232 single
family and multifamily permits issued. Multiply that number of
permits by 2.7 persons per household and you find an additional
population of 8,726. Add the 8,000 plus to the 16,000 plus and
you'll get 24,958--almost 25,000 people . We are not talking about
building: hermits and lot splits since December 1986• We are not
talking about 1987. 4e are not talking about 1988. Ve are not
talking about 1989. guess, if you can, what our real population
figure is ri ,ht now. Try sitting at the Highway 41 and 101 inter-
section for awhile before making your guess.
Add another 10,000 people in the we-tern areas with no environ-
mental impacts? Preposterous !
Let ' s take a very brief look at recreation, schools and noise.
There are no arovisions as far as I know for open space or parks
in any of these larc-e western areas. Thousands more people will
certainly jut a strain on our public parks, lake facilities,
tennis courts, golf course and creek areas.
Schools. Are there any sitesdesignated? Will we plan ahead with
the developers now, or will we wait to search later and buy at
the developer' s inflated prices?
Noise is an environment factor of which I am acutely aware.
When we built our home in 1974, planes did not fly overhead; a
siren was a rarity; traffic noises seemed non-existent . The bird.
songs were like nothing I had heard in the city--beautiful
sounds. My sister from San Diego could not believe the quiet.
Now planes are. common; 101 and 41 traffic is easily heard; motor-
cyclists and three wheelers rip the environment and the eardrums
as they plow the hillsides and the creek beds; cement trucks,
backhoes, tractors and the like chug past our house; weedeaters,
�d the air• dogs bark incOding my own;
saws and blowers re , � ,
boom boxes in cars and yard radios can spoil a nice day outdoors.
A rock group which played at Atascadero Lake Park on the weekend
of July 4th sent not only music sounds but words of songs all the
way to 3F Meadows. From the 10,C00p.eople here when we arrived
to the probable 25,000 now, the quiet has gone. And the Negative
by Negative Declaration lot splits will take none of these factors
into consideration.
We cannot consider this Santa Cruz lot split by itself. We must
recognize its significance and consider the cumulative impacts
on the developing area and on the entire city.
Sincerely yours,
DorothiP. McNeil
v
000 . s 1HKIn r r rr .<
1
* O (D N• t0. t0 to t0 %0 O
H * I R 01 < m m m m m m w
A 1 w H (D w a w N
CD
I r 1
O m0 1
1 MI R 3 0 1mcn
m it
{Ln ,:a N 'm H•*1
0 ro ro A IPi
3 t0.. 0 w
01 r 1
Q R A lD 1 .� i•�
A A ro I
O
O2 o�r �r
>
w r a ril.7 r'W wrr
R 1 m a m m m m 0-4
21
r�r N�rn r la y
y 1
Z h r w ctCo
►. ., i p: ul �j i 7
J N } r �' r ± (6.4 l�i'
a m m (D 1
N wR to al
O 7 1 m 1h J d m d 0 ltd m r
H H c 1 J m CO n a t N m .j N C
O N O% ct m W a w
Z (D S N R N
r M w H I m al J tp V1 a b m N O
A R w w 1 r N p r N J r 7
R (D 7 r I
H H R 1
w y r• t7 I. 0 >
A w r I to N ,9 3 ro
Do (D r LL I m N N (D 3
r R t0 1 m W J CD J tr H(D
A O•
r I
1.-0 cn
�• to A i m a tNa
C y S 1
tnl
pi r * >
tq H (7 I w %0 J m 111 m r O C `7'
C N I m r t0 a
m w 1 tr
H C 01 m �j rn w w W am w " >
w (D 1'+1 1 m J tp W Ot W ? 7 A
w (,� y
y w 1 n
y O 0 i 3 (no
R
r y I r ro [m=7 3 '�
R S • I H cn
A (D 1
• H n i t0 tr r 03 r r r u.y W
R O I f, m o m m o
°` J N r m A r
R
A r ;A I t0 N r r r r < °'
O t!1
y < 1 O Ut O 0% m r G
OR Q ; . J tp N d 1-, A. w
O Ul fD 1
a
O w
'•1 1 0 1J+ W O a p F,. O
w a y 1 J O O W W
T 1
w w 1
d T 1
z G. .. ,
y 1
3 O 1 m to N r N J u.7
Q• < y n 1 m
_ ri t A n
K t,3- 1 :n •
O J
O
to
O
^ I
� 1 0
D W
W N J
v7 10-44 co
W o U1 N
< V
mm
r.V)
mo i s4
Cil J�.
: n r4
1i u N
lz
O aJ •! r,
tT k
+�
t U w
N p m
.O 04 a c.
f a p m
m �
Ln _
M f �, CO j
N
0
CDCN
f
`
••�•. t� •� 10 ?� til �
\.'.p �f.
f Ln •\ H m
N • N ain
z CC
E-1 C14
o►
N
� f p
a ON
o �+
a o ^'
t I co
a%
O f
W I a
U I rn
H rn
a >4
W EiI M
O co
Ln
U UI y
O1
O
H' M
H
a� /7IRV
ol Ln
134 a%
I3
O
I I1 0
N O
ON
f �+
1
1
0 0 0 0 0 o p o
o Ln o
co 0 o
CD .- c x
� o o
Q
0 0 0
Ln d• p
N N
M M M ,�� Ln
Noily Indoa