HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet 09/17/2001 *PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
Please do not remove
from counter
NOTICE OF A SPECIAL MEETING
ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL
Monday, September 17, 2001
7:00 p.m.
City of Atascadero
6500 Palma Avenue, 4th Floor Rotunda
Atascadero, California
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
1. General Plan Update-Review of Draft Land Use Plan
(CONTINUED FROM AUGUST 28, 2001 MEETING)
■ Fiscal Impact: None
■ Planning Commission recommendations:
1. Council adopt the draft Resolution, thereby endorsing the Draft Land Use
Plan as the Preferred Plan for use in the Draft General Plan policy
document and Draft Environmental Impact Report; and
2. Council direct staff to incorporate Policy Issues 1 through 10 into the
Draft General Plan. [Community Development]
ADJOURNMENT:
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO )
CITY OF ATASCADERO )
MARCIA MCCLURE TORGERSON, being fully sworn, deposes, and says: That she is the duly elected City
Clerk of the City of Atascadero and that on Wednesday,September 12,2001,she caused the above Notice to be posted on the
doors of the City's Administration Building,6500 Palma Avenue in Atascadero,California.
X4W—, C
MARCIA MCCLURE TORGERSON
City Clerk
City of Atascadero
DATE: 09/17/2001
18 1579
Atascadero City Council
Staff Report — Community Development Department
General Plan Update
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Planning Commission Recommends:
1. The City Council adopt the attached draft Resolution, thereby endorsing the Draft
Land Use Plan as the Preferred Plan for use in the Draft General Plan policy
document and Draft Environmental Impact Report; and,
2. The City Council direct staff to incorporated policy issues 1 through 10 into the
Draft General Plan.
DISCUSSION:
On July 24, 2001, the City Council conducted a public hearing on the General Plan Update to consider
recommendations from the Planning Commission on a Draft Land Use Plan and ten policy options. At
the close of public testimony, the City Council continued deliberations to August 28, 2001 and then to
September 17, 2001. This memorandum is intended to supplement the 7/24/01 staff report. Staff has
reviewed the tapes of the meeting and attempted to provide answers to the issues raised at the hearing
and those subsequently raised by Council Members.
General Plan Update Question Staff Response
1 Where is the City in the overall General At the beginning of the General Plan Update process,the City
Plan Update process and when will the Council directed staff to involve the public throughout the
Draft General Plan and Environmental process and specifically in developing the initial policies and
Impact Report(EIR)be released? land use alternatives to be analyzed in the Draft General Plan
and EIR . The public outreach process has been intended to
give the community a variety of opportunities and forums to be
involved in the creation of the updated General Plan.
The update is in a transitional phase where the public
outreach process has produced a Draft Land Use Map and a
series of policy options that are now recommended by the
Planning Commission. The purpose of this Hearing is to give
the Council an opportunity to review the results of the outreach
process and Planning Commission recommendations giving
staff and the consultant direction on how to proceed. The
decisions the Council makes on the Draft Land Use Map and
001
DATE: 09/17/2001
General Plan Update Question Staff Response
the policy options are still preliminary and are the first phase of
the update. They will be used as the foundation for writing the
General Plan Policy Document and EIR. The public will again
be engaged to review the draft documents.
The City Council is not making any final decisions on the
General Plan at this point.The Council is setting the
parameters for the preparation of a Draft General Plan Policy
document and for the analysis of the environmental impacts
likely to result from General Plan implementation.The public
will again be engaged to review the draft documents.
In defining the update process,the City Council reaffirmed the
existing General Plan Goals and adopted Smart Growth
Principles. Community Members participated in a series of
workshops designed to flush out major policy areas and begin
crafting potential land use alternatives that would eventually
be studied. One of the purposes of the update described by
the City Council was to analyze potential land use
amendments citywide so that cumulative impacts could be
better understood and the piecemeal changing of the General
Plan prevented. The Council adopted a moratorium
preventing General Plan amendments during the update
process.
As a result of the community process a study area was
adopted focusing the update on the City's core and protecting
those areas where environmental constraints are highest. This
reduced the study area by 8,370± acres leaving 45%of the
City's land area to be studied. The City adopted 10 major
policy areas from the community sessions and captured a
variety of issues to be reviewed in the General Plan.
The Draft General Plan Policy Document(with all seven
elements)and a Draft EIR will be released later this year.
Refer to Attachment 1
2. What is the status of other General Plan General Plans are required to have seven mandatory
Elements? elements:
1. Land Use
2. Open Space
3. Conservation
4. Housing
5. Circulation
6. Safety
7. Noise
Through the update process all of the mandatory elements will
be consolidated. Thus far the primary focus of the update
process has been on the Land Use, Housing, Open Space
and Conservation Elements. The Land Use Plan and policy
options recommended by the Planning Commission have
components that will be incorporated into all of these
elements. For example,the creek setback policy is a
Conservation and Open Space Element issue. The affordable
housing policy options will serve as the basis for the Housing
Element.
002
DATE: 09/17/2001
General Plan Update Question Staff Response
Refer to Attachment 2.
While the public process has not focused on the Circulation,
Noise and Safety Elements, staff has been reviewing all of the
proposed land use alternatives for potential impacts and
conflicts with these elements. The City's traffic engineering
consultant has been working to develop a City wide traffic
model and has been providing technical analysis of potential
traffic impacts related to each land use proposal. Through the
use of the City's GIS system, safety and noise impacts have
been routinely checked against the land use proposals.
When the Draft General Plan policy document is released
for public review, it will include all seven elements.
In addition,the City has three optional elements: Fiscal,
Economic Development and Parks& Recreation. The update
process will explore consolidating portions of these optional
elements into the mandatory elements.
3. How is the new General Plan build out
number being calculated and what is Refer to attachment 3
included in this number?
The General Plan population build-out figure is a theoretical
number that assumes all land within the City is built to its
"highest and best use" consistent with the General Plan.
Since the General Plan Update closely follows the policy
direction of the 1992 General Plan,the 1992 build-out figure is
used as a starting point for all new build-out figures.
Today,the City is reaching a construction build-out point
where few areas are actually available for new development.
The 2000 Census indicated a population of 25,201 without
the State Hospital. Based on the theoretical build-out identified
in the current General Plan an additional 2,600±housing units
would have to be built in the City. It is unlikely that an
additional 2,600±units could be built on an infill basis,
therefore the actual build-out figure of the current General
Plan is likely closer to 25,000 than 32,873.
2000 Census 9,848 units 25,201 persons*
`State Hospital Census population is 1,210 persons=total population of 26,411
The build out calculations were determined as follows:
1992 General Plan 11,755 units 31,150 persons
Current General Plan 12,504 units 32,873 persons
includes all approved amendments from 93-99
6/21/01 PC Alternative +892 units +2,356 persons
New build out 13,297 units 35,238 persons
The new build out number does not include the population
increases that would be related to the adoption of the policy
options.
003
DATE: 09/17/2001
General Plan Update Question Staff Response .
The population increase for the policy options is
estimated as follows:
Policy Option#3 72 units 190 persons(1)
PD-7 Expansion
Policy Option#5A 50 units 132 persons (2)
Second Units
Policy Option#5B 189 units 500 persons(3)
Mixed Use Multi-Family in GC
Policy Option#5C 312 units 826 persons(4)
Multi-Family Density Increase
Assumptions;
(1) 38 acres @+2 additional du's/ac=72 units
(2) 250 lots>1 ac in MDSF
assume 20%add second units=50 units
(3) 43 ac vacant or under utilized in RC&0 districts
assume 20%build mixed use multi-family @ 22 du's/ac
(8.6 ac x 22 du's/ac=189 units)
(4) 52 ac vacant or under utilized in HDMF existing&proposed
assume all build-out at 22 du's
52 ac x+6 additional du's/ac=312 units)
4. How have the SMART Growth Principles The SMART Growth Principles have been incorporated into
been incorporated into the Draft Land the Update process at a number of levels. A list of the
Use Plan? Atascadero SMART Growth Principles is contained in
Attachment 4. The following summarizes how the Draft Land
Use Plan is consistent with the SMART Growth principles:
Well-Planned New Growth:
The focused General Plan study area that was adopted prior
to preparation of any land use alternatives eliminated the
majority of sensitive habitat, open space and agricultural areas
from being considered for development. Furthermore,the
study area was limited to the historic Colony boundaries
eliminated the possibility of new sprawl outside of the Colony
and requires a more compact, infill approach to development.
The Draft Plan allows for high density residential development
which reduces automobile dependency.
The Plan encourages a variety of housing and job
opportunities by allowing more mixed land use options. For
example, under the current General Plan,the Woodlands
property is allowed 48± single familyunits on 2.5 acre lots. If
the site were to develop this way, it is reasonable to expect
that all of the units would sell for prices exceeding$400,000,
well beyond the financial means of most Atascadero residents.
Likely most of the residents of this type of project would be
"equity migrants"from urban areas who have large cash down
payments. Instead,the Draft General Plan proposes a
SMART Growth approach that allows 269 units with a mix of
densities ranging from apartments to one-acre single family
lots keeping 42%of the site in permanent open space. A
project of this type would provide a wider range of housing
004
DATE: 09/17/2001
General Plan Update Question Staff Response
opportunities for people of all ages and income levels,
consistent with SMART Growth principles.
Maximize Existing Infrastructure
The Draft Plan directs most of the new growth along EI
Camino Real and Morro Road. This approach will allow new
development to take advantage of the existing circulation
system and utility lines that are currently in place. This
approach can be contrasted with sprawl type development in
Paso Robles that requires the construction of new roads,
bridges and utility lines to serve undeveloped land.
Support Vibrant City Centers
A keystone of the General Plan is the Downtown as the focal
point of the community. The General Plan update will
reinforce the role of the Downtown. The Plan will also allow
new mixed use nodes to develop at Dove Creek and Del Rio
Road. These secondary nodes will allow more pedestrian
scale development and new shopping and housing options.
5. How were the private Land Use When the City Council enacted the General Plan moratorium
Amendment(LUA)proposals chosen for in October 1999,a number of active General Plan Amendment
the Refined Alternative. applications were in process. Staff was directed to incorporate
these active applications into the update process. In order to
track these projects,staff developed a numbering system
(LUA's)and database. As the General Plan process
progressed, staff received additional requests to have projects
studied as part of the General Plan Update that were added to
the list. In total 37 LUA requests were received. Refer to
Attachment 5.
The following process was followed for evaluating the LUA's
through the Land Use Alternatives process.
1. All LUA's outside of the General Plan Study area were
eliminated from consideration in the Draft Land Use
Alternatives.
2. The remaining LUA's were incorporated into one of the
three Draft Land Use Alternatives. A majority of the
requests involved requests for lot splits of individual lots
that would require smaller minimum lot sizes than are
currently permitted. These requests were primarily
assigned to Alternative 3.
The larger project size requests were distributed
between Alternatives 1 and 2,with the fewest LUA's
included in Alternative 1.
3. During the open house and public review period, Draft
Alternatives 2 and 3 were identified as being too
intensive and eliminated. The Refined Alternative
evolved primarily from Alternative 1,with a few key
projects from Alternative 2 included.
Understandably,there is some confusing about the
inclusion of LUA 7(east of the railroad tracks and north
of Ferrocarril Road) into the Refined Alternative. During
the Draft Alternative process, it was staffs understanding
that this parcel was owned by the railroad and would not
come under private control. However, following release
005
DATE: 09/17/2001
General Plan Update Question Staff Response
of the Draft Alternatives,the property was purchased by
a private interest. Under the current General Plan the
site has a Public designation that allows residential
development at a density of one unit/2.5 acres. Since,
private residential development of this lot appears likely,
staff added LUA-7 to the Refined Alternative so that the
cumulative environmental and traffic impacts of this
project could be properly analyzed as part of the General
Plan Update.
6. How much new parkland is proposed The Draft Plan proposes the following two new park areas:
under the Draft Plan?
1. Paloma Creek Park expansion 25± acres
2. Mackey Parcel Traffic Way 5±acres
Total 30± acres
Based on the population increase of 2,356 persons under the
new proposed update, new parkland is proposed at a ratio of
more than 10 acres per 1000 residents, higher than the
current ratio. In addition,the Parks and Recreation
Commission is interested in selecting a"floating"
neighborhood park location in the vicinity of Del Rio and EI
Camino Real. This park site was shown on old Alternatives 2
and 3 and could be added to the Draft Land Use Plan.
The Parks and Recreation Commission has recommended
that the General Plan include a parkland standard of 5 acres
per 1000 residents. This standard would be the same as the
City's current QUIMBY Act requirement in the subdivision
ordinance and could be incorporated into the Land Use
Element.
A specific park site in the north quadrant of the City is not
recommended because it potentially creates a"taking"issue.
That means if the City designates someone's property as a
park site it takes away the value for other uses and the City
would be required to purchase the property. A"floating"site
allows the City to place the park as property and funds
become available.
As part of the Open Space Element,the City could adopt new
policies for the requirement of private parks and pocket parks
in new single family and multi-family projects. The Council
could provide this direction to staff as an additional Policy
Option.
Refer to Attachment 6
7. How will trails and equestrian facilities A schematic trail network is currently shown on the large-
be addressed by the Draft Plan? scale maps as a banded black and green line. This schematic
trail plan will be incorporated into the Circulation Element of
the General Plan. The un-adopted Bicycle Circulation Plan
will be used as the basis for developing a trail plan which will
include creekside trails and connections to the De Anza
National Historic Trail along the Salinas River.
Several residents have expressed concern about equestrian
P q
access to the Salinas River. The Planning Commission
recommendation includes a requirement for new subdivisions
along the Salinas River to provide equestrian access points.
Anequestrian unloading and trailhead staging area has been
006
DATE: 09/17/2001
• General Plan Update Question Staff Response
expressed as a community need.
One option available is to designate such a facility at the end
of EI Camino Real on the Rochelle property as a part of the
proposed 50-unit single-family development.
Refer to Attachment 7
8. Why is the Park designation for the According to City zoning maps,the site has been designated
vacant triangular parcel across from the RMF-16 since 1990 and possibly before. When the General
Library at Morro Road&Atascadero Plan was updated in 1992,the land use on the site was
Avenue proposed to be changed? changed from High Density Multi-Family to Recreation but the
zoning map was not changed. Currently the site's General
Plan land use designation and zoning district are inconsistent.
If the property owner were to file for an apartment complex
building permit on the site,the City would be in a difficult legal
position. The City would not be legally authorized to process
an apartment complex building permit on the property because
it would be inconsistent with the General Plan. Refusal to
process a building permit may give the property owner cause
to file a claim that the City has"taken"the use of the property
and must therefore purchase the property.
In order to avoid this scenario,the Planning Commission is
recommending that a split land use designation be adopted for
the site that would allow multi-family development on the
eastern portion of the site, along Navajoa,with a park
designation on the front of the site. The property would be
conditioned to improve the park area as part of any multi-
family development project.
Refer to Attachment 8
In addition to the Planning Commission's recommendation the
Council could pursue the following options:
• Identify the site as a future City park by leaving the
Recreation land use designation and rezoning the parcel
to L(recreation). This option would require the City to
purchase the property from the owner to avoid a possible
takings claim. The City would then assume responsibility
for the maintenance and improvement of the parcel.
• The entire site could be changed to a less intensive multi-
family land use or a mixed-use commercial designation.
9. How does the request for SFR-X along Draft Alternative Land Use Plans 2 and 3 proposed new
Carrizo Road fit with the rest of the Draft residential designations along Carrizo Road. When
Plan? Alternative 1 was selected as the basis for the Refined
Alternative no changes were proposed for Carrizo Road. It
appears based on the testimony of the 7/24/01 Council
Hearing that there is consensus in this neighborhood that re-
designation of this area to SFR-X(1/2 acre single-family)
would be desirable.
The requested area of change shown on Attachment 8 is
comprised of 16 lots. With the exception of a single lot, all of
the lots are under 1-acre in size. Changing this area to SFR-X
would better reflect the existing land use pattern. The Council
007
DATE: 09/17/2001
General Plan Update Question Staff Response .
could add this request to the Draft Land Use Plan in the
motion of approval.
Refer to Attachment 9
10. Is the Planning Commission's The San Benito neighborhood study area(LUA-11) has a long
recommendation to change the San history of requests for smaller lot sizes. This area is basically
Benito neighborhood(LUA 11)to 1 acre flat with sparse coverage of oak trees and located next to San
minimum consistent with the rest of the Benito School. The current General Plan designation is
Draft Plan? Suburban Single Family with a 2.5 acre minimum lot size.
Approximately, one-half of the lots are smaller than 2.5 acres.
Draft Alternatives 2 and 3 proposed redesignating this area to
either allow%2 acre or 1 acre lots. Alternative 1 proposed no
change in this area,which was carried forward into the
Refined Alternative. The Planning Commission is
recommending that this area be designated for 1-acre lots
consistent with the original Alternative 2. Due to the flat
topography, access to Traffic Way, sparse tree coverage and
proximity to a school, staff does not anticipate any significant
impacts from 1-acre development in this area. Furthermore,
the 1-acre minimum appears to be a suitable compromise that
is acceptable to most of the residents.
The Planning Commission is also recommending that this
area be allowed 1-acre lots without sewer. Currently the SFR-
Y land use requires 1.5 acre lots without sewer. Staff is
proposing that the General Plan update look at changing the
entire SFR-Y land use to allow 1-acre minimum lots without
sewer consistent with the RWQCB's Basin Plan. This
proposal in included in Policy Option#2.
Refer to Attachment 10
11. What are the standards and location The expansion of the PD-7 into the SFR-X land use is an
requirements of the new"PD-7 style" issue separate from the lot size consistency matter(refer to
development in the SFR-X designation? next item, no. 12). The PD-7 process allows for small-lot
single family residential development on individual lots.
Because these houses can be built on lots smaller than 1/2
acre,they provide a more affordable ownership housing
product than is available in the single-family districts. The
drawback has been that this type of development is
consuming much of the City's inventory of vacant multi-family
land.
To address this issue, Planning Commission's
recommendation on Policy Option#3 was to allow a new"PD-
7 style"development within the 1/2 acre SFR-X districts. The
specifics of how this PD would work will be a combination of
General Plan policy and adoption of a new"PD-X"zoning
district. At a policy level,the key issues to resolve are density
and location of this product type.
If the Council decides to support Policy Option#3, direction on
both of these issues could be provided as follows:
Density
Staff would recommend the Council set a general density
standard of 4.0 dwellings/acre. This density would be greater
than the SFR-X's current 2.0 dwellings/acre and would
008
DATE: 09/17/2001
General Plan Update Question Staff Response
accommodate a variety of single-family residential products.
Location
The Planning Commission's recommendation was not specific
to any location. The Council could direct staff to limit the
locations where the"PD-X"would be allowed. One approach
would be to limit the PD-X to the newly designated SFR-X
areas while not allowing them within existing SFR-X
neighborhoods.
12. How will the lot inconsistency issue be Based on Policy Option#8,the majority of the non conforming
handled with through a PD process? lots are concentrated within the SFR-X and SFR-Y districts.
Independent of the PD-7 Policy Option,the Planning
Commission is recommending that a PD process be created
to allow lots that are significantly larger than surrounding lots
to be subdivided.
For example, if there was a 0.9 acre lot in the 1/2 acre zone it
could not be split. However, if it were surrounded by 1/4 acre
lots,a PD process could be used to allow the lot to spit
consistent with the neighborhood.
Staff is not recommending the PD process be allowed within
the SFR-Z and SSF land uses due to the topographic and
utility system constraints.
13. When did the City change the way it According to the Municipal Code,the multi-family density
calculated multi-family density from calculation was changed in April 1987 from a unit basis to a
units to bedrooms? bedroom basis. According to previous staff,the change was
made in reaction to hillside multi-family projects that were
considered overbuilt for the sites. The 1987 amendment
added a sliding density scale for sloping lots in addition to the
bedroom calculation.
14. What is the effect of allowing 22 units/ The Planning Commission is recommending increasing the
acre in the High Density Multi-Family High Density Multi-Family density from 16 bedrooms/acre to
areas? 22 units/acre. (Originally, staff recommended changing the
maximum density from 16 bedrooms/acre to 16 units/acre,
assuming that 16 units/acre would encourage more use of the
density bonus process). Staff has calculated the maximum
population increase of this change to be 826 additional
persons.
The Council may adjust the Planning Commission's
recommendation.
Policy Option#5C 312 units 826 persons(4)
Multi-Family Density Increase
(4) 52 ac vacant or under utilized in HDMF existing&proposed
assume all build-out at 22 du's
52 ac x+6 additional du's/ac=312 units)
15. Why are second units being The State of California recognizes second units as an
recommended? important housing product that helps to address affordable
housing issues and requires all cities to allow second units.
However,the City has adopted an ordinance, also allowed by
State Law,that makes specific hardship findings to preclude
second units in Atascadero. The General Plan consultant has
recommended that the City consider allowing second units in
U �9
DATE: 09/17/2001
General Plan Update Question Staff Response
limited areas in order to improve the City's conformance with
State Law and to help ensure that the City's updated Housing
Element will be certified by the State.
The City does allow what is referred to as a guesthouse.
Guesthouses are allowed in all single-family districts with a
building permit only. The only difference between a
guesthouse and a second unit is a stove. The City issues
permits for about 10 to 15 guesthouses each year. It has
been staffs experience that many of these are illegally
converted to second units(stove added)following final
inspection. The end result is that illegal second units are
being built without proper review. These guesthouses have all
of the same impacts(if not more)on the City as second units
would but the City cannot claim any credit for these as
affordable housing products.
The Planning Commission is recommending a pilot program
that would allow second units in the SFR-Y District with a
Conditional Use Permit and subject to development standards.
As part of the program, guesthouses would be not be allowed
in the SFR-Y District, but would still be allowed in the SFR-X,
SFR-Z and SSF Districts.
16. Will the City's multi-family design The multi-family design standards will not be updated as part
standards be changed as part of the of the General Plan Update. Currently the City regulates
General Plan Update process? multi-family development with both the Zoning Ordinance and
Appearance Review Manual. These documents need to be
updated in terms of architectural guidelines, recreational open
space and buffering.
In order to increase the density within the multi-family districts
or allow multi-family within commercial districts,the zoning
code will have to be updated. Staff would recommend that the
multi-family design and open space standards be updated
concurrently with any code text changes.
Staff further recommends a through revision of the zoning
code follows adoption of the General Plan Update. This will
ensure consistency between these two documents that,
together, provide the framework and regulations for the land
use and development. Thus, staff will be recommending
improvements to the multi-family design standards through
zoning code revisions to be proposed following completion of
the General Plan Update.
17. Handicapped Multi-Family Requirements The following requirements apply to multi-family projects of
four or more units:
All ground level units must be Type B accessible which have
door ways and clearance spaces that can be converted to fully
accessible.
For projects of 20 or more units:
Two percent or at least one unit shall be Type A accessible,
which requires accessible sinks,toilets and bathrooms.
010
DATE: 09/17/2001
General Plan Update Question Staff Response
Council Questions 8/28/01
18. Will the Draft General Plan and Draft EIR The General Plan Consultant is preparing the Draft General
be released simultaneously? Plan and Draft EIR simultaneously. The purpose of this
approach is to develop General Plan policies that will serve as
mitigation measures. Staff is proposing that both documents
be released for public review at the same time.
19. Is a fixed growth management cap The current General Plan contains a section on Growth
proposed? Management. That section contains a statement that
"acceptable annual maximum population growth rate goal of
2.5%." However,a growth management ordinance(i.e. San
Luis Obispo County)is not in place to limit the issuance of
building permits based on annual growth rates.
During the period of time from 1980 to 1990 the City grew at
an annual rate of 4.43%. From 1990 to 2000 the City's growth
rate was 0.96%. (SLOCOG 2001)
Staff is recommending that the same growth policies be
carried forward in General Plan update.
20. What is the complete scope of the Staff is looking for Council direction on the appropriate scope
second unit program and what issues of the second unit program. The Planning Commission is
are involved in enforcement of the non- recommending that the program be limited to the SFR-Y (1
rental requirement of guesthouses? acre)district with the following additional restrictions:
Refer to Attachment 11
• lot size(1 ac min)
• unit square footage restriction
• sewer connection requirement
• covered parking
• maximum slope
• native trees impacts
• architectural appearance
• setbacks
• neighborhood compatibility findings
• Planning Commission Conditional Use Permit approval process
Staff did make comments that the second unit pilot program
could be expanded in the future. This comment was based on
staffs opinion that guest houses could be transitioned within
the Urban Services line to conditionally allow second units.
The issue with enforcing the guesthouse no-rental provision is
that there is no mechanism available to staff to track renting
and no time limits on how long a guest may stay.
21. What was the basis of the percentage Staff used the following assumptions for Policy Option
assumptions with the Policy Option populations projections:
build-out projections?
Policy Option#5A 50 units 132 persons(2)
Second Units
• Policy Option#513 189 units 500 persons(3)
Mixed Use Multi-Family in GC
(2) 250 lots>lac in MDSF
assume 20%add second units=50 units
3 43 ac vacant or under utilized in RC&0 districts
011
DATE: 09/17/2001
General Plan Update Question Staff Response
assume 20%build mixed use multi-family @ 22 du's/ac
(8.6 ac x 22 du's/ac=189 units)
Staff used the 20%figure based on a rule of thumb that most
properties within a zoning district will not be built to the highest
permitted use. If these numbers are averaged over 20 years
they would translate into an average of 2.5 guest houses per
year in the SFR-Y and 10 apartments per year in the General
Commercial District. These trends would be consistent with
current development patterns.
The Council can adjust these assumptions as desired.
22. Why have the zoning code The current staff does not know why these changes were not
inconsistencies with the General Plan made following the adoption of the 1992 General Plan. These
not been corrected? issues are being raised today in order to correct these
inconsistencies as part of the update process.
23. What is the current parkland inventory The Community Services Department's inventory of existing
for Atascadero? parkland and protected open space areas is attached as
Attachment 12. Currently, 7.1 acres of improved parkland
exist within the City limits for every 1000 residents.
24. What is the status of the open space The current open space policies will be carried forward into the
policies? new General Plan consistent with the Council's decision to
readopt the Open Space Goals. The General Plan consultant
is recommending that the existing policies be supplemented
with more specific language and standards that can be related
back to the GIS mapping system. Additional policies
regarding wildlife corridors, native tree mapping and protection
and hillside grading will be presented in the Draft General Plan
based upon community input.
25. Why do the current creek setback The General Plan states that:
policies need to changed?
Grading shall not occur and buildings or structures requiring
permit approval shall not be located within any creekway
riparian vegetation boundary unless:
(i) A site specific evaluation pursuant to standards
approved by the City determines that a lesser
setback will provide adequate habitat protection; or
(ii) The City completes a creekway mapping program
and adopts other specific setback requirements
based on that mapping program.
Staff has encountered numerous problems with trying to
implement creekway protection standards. The General Plan
speaks only to riparian vegetation boundaries which has not
proven to be a sufficient protection. For example the
Creekside Lanes bowling alley was outside of the riparian
vegetation boundary because this habitat is confined to the
channel. In many areas of town, application of this standard
could result in structures located very close to the creek bank.
The Planning Commission is recommending that"tiered
setback standards for each area be developed to protect
blueline creeks with special Downtown Master Plan
012
DATE: 09/17/2001
General Plan Update Question Staff Response
consideration." Codified setbacks based on the riparian
vegetation boundary and other criteria could protect all
blueline creeks. Once adopted,these setbacks could be
mapped on the GIS system.
26. How can existing single family The Planning Commission's recommendation was not specific
neighborhoods be protected from infill to any location for PD-X. The Council could direct staff to limit
PD-X's? the locations where the"PD-X"would be allowed. One
approach would be to limit the PD-X to the newly designated
SFR-X areas while not allowing them within existing SFR-X
neighborhoods. Another approach would be to set a minimum
parcel size such as an acre. Since most existing SFR-X
parcels have been subdivided below an acre few PD-X
projects would occur in existing neighborhoods.
Refer to Attachment 13 for all existing and proposed SFR-X
sites with lot size of 1 acre and greater.
27. How will a system of Bikeways and A schematic trail network is currently shown on the large-scale
Trails should be planned along the maps as a banded black and green line. This schematic trail
creeks? plan will be incorporated into the Circulation Element of the
General Plan. The unadopted Bicycle Circulation Plan will be
used as the basis for developing a trail plan which will include
creekside trails and connections to the De Anza National
Historic Trail along the Salinas River.
iStaff envisions that a comprehensive GIS trail map will be
incorporated into the General Plan Circualtion Element. Once
this trail map is adopted,the City could require the dedication
and improvement of these facilities as part of the subdivision
and project entitlement process.
Refer to Attachment 7
28. In which of the following land use areas Staff recommends the following:
should the lot size inconsistency
policies be applied? 1. The SFR-X(1/2 acre)areas should not be part of the lot
size inconsistency PD. The PD-X process could be
1. SFR-X applied within the SFR-X districts and should be treated
2. SFR-Y separately.
3. SFR-Z
4. SSF 2. The SFR-Y(1 acre)areas should be part of the lot size
inconsistency PD. Policies could be created that would
allow 1 acre and larger lots that are surrounded by
smaller lots to be subdivided down to 1/2 acre.
3/4 The SFR-Z(1.5 to 2.5 acre with performance
standards)and SSF (2.5 to 10 acre with performance
standards)districts should not be part of the lot size
inconsistency PD.
Under the current General Plan lot sizes are calculated
based on:
. 1) Distance from City Hall
2) Septic Suitability
3) Slope
013
DATE: 09/17/2001
General Plan Update Question Staff Response
4) Condition of Access
5) Surrounding Lot Size.
Due to the complex performance standards that already
consider surrounding lot size, staff is concerned that no
reliable process could be created for additional lot size
reduction. Those areas that have inconsistent lot size
would be best re-designated to SFR-Y.
29. Could a compromise design of part park Staff has developed a schematic site plan for the Library lot
and part multi-family residential be that provide 12-13 small lot single-family(PD-7)units with a'/2
created for the Library Park site. acre pocket park at the corner.
Refer to Attachment 14.
30. Off-site parking should be allowed in the The City currently allows off-site parking under code section 9-
Downtown area. 4.120. This provision could be used for residential development
in the Downtown.
9-4.120 Off-site parking
(a)Where it is not feasible to provide sufficient on-site parking,
an adjustment(Section 9-1.112) may be granted to allow the
required parking to be located off-site provided that:
(1)The most distant parking space is not more than
four hundred (400)feet from the use;and
(2)The site of the parking lot is in the same ownership
as the principal use, or is under a recorded lease or
similar agreement,with the use that provides that the
parking will exist as long as the use it serves, unless
the parking is replaced with other spaces that satisfy
the requirements of this title; and
(3)The site of the parking is not located in a residential
zone unless the principal use requiring the parking is
allowable in a residential zone.Where any such
principal use is subject to conditional use permit
approval,the off-site parking shall be subject to
conditional use permit approval.
•
014
DATE: 09/17/2001
Attachment 1
General Plan Process
Readoption of'GP Goals
Smart Growth Principles
Public Outreach Process
Public Outreach Events
'. May 2000 Neighborhood Workshops(8)
August 2000 Community Workshop
I January 2001 Townhall Meeting
GIS flapping > January 2001 Design Workshops(3)
March 2001 Open House Draft Alternatives
Environmental Analysis1 May 2001 Joint Session Refined Alternative
--- - -- May 2001 Open House 2 Refined Alternative
June 2001 PC Hearing Refined Alt/P olicy Options
July 2001 Council Hearing Refined Alt/Policy Options
_ - August 2001 Continued Council Hearing
Preferred Land Use Plan
_,. .... Policy Options
V
Draft General Plan
Draft EIR
3 Public Review Period
Public Hearing
Final General Plan
Final EIR
Adoption Hearings
015
DATE: 09/17/2001
Attachment 2
Draft General Plan Organizational Chart
................................................................. ._.......__..._...................__......__......_
Readopted General Plan Goals'
"Smart Growth"Principles
(General Plan Foundation Principles)
. m . w ._._._., _ _..
Land Use Element eM Circulation Element ': Conservatioo Safety I Noise Element
,,OperrSpace=ElneM
rr
I ... ... I .,v,._ ......
lt1E Goals FfS£6oais CIR Goals COS Goats SAF Goals
1 _ f..... l _.._ l . l
Objectives f?hjBCtIV� Objectnrgs 4iijet�fves Objectives
........., i
_ . .
Land Use Diagram Land Use Designations - Circulation Diagram -
__
Standardsl Stan tlards f Standards
. . ..............._.........._..3 f'aograms�
Programs
Standards Standards/ ___ ._..........
Programs Programs Native Tree Ordinance Norse Ordinance
................._.I.. __...._ _._.......... .....__...
Downtown Area Plan/ ZoningOrdinance
Main Street Street Standards
_- .......... -......, ......_... _.......... ..........
Parks&Recreation Plan
Fire Guidelines
....... ................ -
Economic Dev Strategy Redevelopment Plan
Bikeway&Trails Plan :......._._. -_......_... .. ...._._..._.._
,..__.. Flood Protection
Apperance Review Hillside Development Ord :
Manual -
,..... ....
Corridor Design/Gateways
.._.._..
Subdivision Ordinance
ECR/US 101
SR 41(Morro Road) _
Traffic Way
o16
DATE: 09/17/2001
Attachment 3
Buildout Calculations
General Plan Update
Population Calculations
19-Jun-01
1992 General Plan Buildout Current General Plan Buildout PC Recommended Alternative 6/21 New Buildout
includes approved General Plan Amendments 1993-99
Land Use 1994 acres Units Population net changes 2001 Acres Units Population net changes Units Population Acres Units Population
4 43.9 ac 0.0 ac 43.9 ac 0.0 ac 43.9 ac
SE/RE 9,926.2 ac 3,862 du's 10,234 pp (270.3)ac 9,655.9 ac 3,757 du's 9,955 pp (303.5)ac -118 du's -313 pp 9,352.4 ac 3,638 du's 9,642 pp
SFR-Z 626.4 ac 620 du's 1,643 pp (4.01 ac 622.4 ac 616 du's 1,632 pp 32.8 ac 32 du's 86 pp 655.2 ac 648 du's 1,718 pp
SFR-Y 1,320.9 ac 2,316 du's 6,137 pp 138.8 ac 1,459.8 ac 2,559 du's 6,782 pp 92.0 ac 161 du's 428 pp 1,551.8 ac 2,721 du's 7,210 pp
SFR-X 373.6 ac 1,034 du's 2,740 pp 34.0 ac 407.6 ac 1,128 du's 2,989 pp 53.2 ac 147 du's 390 pp 460.8 ac 1,275 du's 3,379 pp
MDR 203.4 ac 1,046 du's 2,772 pp (6.3)ac 197.2 ac 1,014 du's 2,687 pp 19.9 ac 102 du's 271 pp 217.1 ac 1,116 du's 2,958 pp
HDR 214.8 ac 2,877 du's 7,624 pp 30.2 ac 245.0 ac 3,281 du's 8,695 pp 58.0 ac 367 du's 973 pp 303.0 ac 3,648 du's 9,668 pp
GC-NC 21.5 ac 0.0 ac 21.5 ac (7.7)ac 13.8 ac
GC-0 47.4 ac (1.3)ac 46.1 ac (1.4)ac 44.7 ac
GC-R 131.3 ac (3.7)ac 127.6 ac 40.4 ac 168.1 ac
CPK 81.6 ac 74.6 ac 156.2 ac (73.21 ac 82.9 ac
D 62.3 ac (0.4)ac 61.9 ac 50 du's 133 pp 0.4 ac 62.3 ac 50 du's 133 pp
SC 71.5 ac 0.0 ac 71.5 ac (8.4)ac 63.2 ac
GC-TC 37.9 ac 5.1 ac 43.0 ac (3.7)ac 39.3 ac
29.5 ac 4.4 ac 33.9 ac 0.0 ac 33.9 ac
IPK 31.2 ac 0.0 ac 31.2 ac 0.0 ac 31.2 ac
MU 66.6 ac 200 du's 530 pp 66.6 ac 200 du's 530 pp
CREC 6.7 ac 6.7 ac
REC 679.3 ac 0.0 ac 679.3 ac (177.6)ac 501.7 ac
1,279.5 ac (1.1)ac 1,278.5 ac (71.8)ac 1,206.7 ac
277.4 ac 277.4 ac
Total 15,182.6 ac 11,755 dues 31,150 pp 0.0 ac 15,182.6 ac 12,405 du's 32,873 pp 0.0 ac 892 du's 1 2,365
ppil 15,182.7 ac 13,297 dues 35,238 pp
1) buildout assumptions do not include the Atascadero State Hos ' I population(1,210 person 2000 census
2) all acreage calculations are net acres and do not include streets an ' ht-of-ways
3) population per dwelling unit=2.65 persons
1992 General Plan 11,755 units 31,150 persons
Current General Plan 12,504 units 32,873 persons
includes all approved amendments from 93-99
6/21/01 PC Alternative +2,356 units +2.356 ner-
New Buildout 13,297 units 35,238 persons
017
DATE: 09/17/2001
Attachment 4
Smart Growth Principles
Atascadero's Ten Principles for Smart-Growth
1. Well-Planned New Growth: Recognize and preserve critical areas of open space, environmental
habitats, and agricultural lands, while accommodating new growth in compact forms, in a
manner that de-emphasizes automobile dependency, integrates the new growth into existing
communities, and creates housing and job opportunities for people of all ages and income
levels.
2. Maximize Existing Infrastructure: Accommodate additional growth by first focusing on the use
and reuse of existing urbanized lands supplied with infrastructure, with an emphasis on
reinvesting in the maintenance and revitalization of existing infrastructure.
3. Support Vibrant City Centers: Give preference to the redevelopment and reuse of city centers
and existing transportation corridors through the encouragement and retention of mixed-use
development, business vitality, housing opportunities for people of all income levels, and safe,
reliable and efficient multi-modal transportation systems.
4. Coordinated Planning For Regional Impacts: Coordinate planning with neighboring cities,
counties, and other governmental entities so that there are agreed upon regional strategies and
policies for dealing with the regional impacts of growth o transportation, housing, schools, air,
water, wastewater, solid waste, natural resources, agricultural lands, and open space.
5. Support High Quality Education and School Facilities: Develop and maintain high quality public
education and neighborhood-accessible school facilities as a critical determinant in making
communities attractive to families, maintaining a desirable and livable community, promoting
life-long learning opportunities, enhancing economic development, and providing a work force
qualified to meet the full range of job skills required in the future economy.
6. Build Strong Communities: Support and embrace the development of strong families and
socially and ethnically diverse communities, by: (1) working to provide a balance of jobs and
housing within the community; (2) reducing commute times; (3) promoting community
involvement; (4) enhancing public safety; and (5) providing and supporting educational,
mentoring and recreational opportunities.
7. Emphasize Joint-Use of Facilities: Emphasize the joint-use of existing compatible public
facilities operated by cities, schools, counties, and state agencies, as well as take advantage of
opportunities to form partnerships with private businesses and non-profit agencies to maximize
the community benefit of existing public and private facilities.
8. Support Entrepreneurial/Creative Efforts: Support local endeavors to create new products,
services and businesses that will expand the wealth and job opportunities for all social and
economic levels.
9. Encourage Full Community Participation: Foster an open and inclusive community dialogue and
promote alliances and partnerships to meet community needs.
10. Establish a Secure Local Revenue Base: Support the establishment of a secure, balanced, and
discretionary local revenue base necessary to provide the full range of needed services and
quality land use decisions.
018
DATE: 09/17/2001
Attachment 5
LUA Requests
LLA=z City of Alascadero
Rz` zT tY
General Plan Update
ij7
�iLW a 1i .LUR'7
n vl� LW u
c li
\A Proposed land Use Amendments
\rj
LW ss
Lw so!
May 29 2001
N General Plan Study Area
y. $ /� �; LW +e z3. City Boundaries
Y Lw s �;< % City Limits
, s* r T x wY a >� N Proposed Land Use Amendments
Included in Refined Alternative
Excluded in Refined Alternative
^ Lw c� a Z Atascadero Colony Area
LUA 12
-7 sag'
� .. f Ir- o. � Hza aS,' gr ' t 4) Lw a r.lzi
f r 13 Lw 32
77
!�.Y T w � 1 t,�ul' Wt tO Br'w �3"Yi E
{ {
6 r^9 I 1�', ✓fi*�: -
IAN
„t5V �\ CLW-at� K �� 7
LW 22 -
� LLN se
I ,.!Xt /`d' n I J".�Y' .•'-.sem=6�.'kr i-1-1��'4 ����i�ty E".�-,�� ri
r- �j f 'nt57-,Rr
T',
S\ r may: L rj� A` y '• Ts. �''
LW 2e 1 '\ �yW-ts
I � �
„
.. yy
r
C� ,,
� ��H'\ -Y' �•-��1� 1 I`> r -^` f I t � � l��,yl \ N / 1-, E ->�..�
019
DATE: 09/17/2001
Attachment 6
Parks Locations
Planning Commission
Possible
"floating"park .t__ Recommended AIfernolive
�;,
location x
51 acre Mackey
�. *•�^kr Parcel City of Afauadero
_ s eneral Plan Update
`` June 19 2001
- N -
VIA--
a
l
'�e `5 `L,C•a ,`v tY 'a �'+b r
7�.,��Y�':'§
skr
17
§ ` 25t acre Paloma
Creek Park
expansion
i _
j'
r-
•
020
DATE: 09/17/2001
Attachment 7
Schematic Trail Plan
Possible equestrian
staging area
41
> :w.
Schematic trail
routes
4x
Y xINT
'• ':.. r s x
r r -
7 _ ,
Attachment 8
Library Park Site
021
DATE: 09/17/2001
�- .� J V•V 1 rf
3 t
1 0 ,� >
Z
d
M
t S 9
?, t Current Site Land Use:
General Plan: Recreation
Zoning: RMF-16(multi-family)
t => Acreage: 2.2t acres
d ' �= f'
d t '*i' j
~p��
a
- �-�-
, y
II } Planning Commission Recommendation
split designations on site.
( ------ `'� -- 11 Designate the rear portion of the lot of
1 4 ; �` —, multi-family development with a park
T! 1 r "� designation at the corner.
022
DATE: 09/17/2001
Attachment 9
Carrizo Road SFR-X Request
t
� 1
1
Ob
1
� y �o
Area requested
l A for SFR-X land
3_ use designation
90
JJjj �
n
P
\� o
ti 1
i
\\\.
ti
1 F
023
DATE: 09/17/2001
Attachment 10 •
San Benito Neighborhood
Area Planning
Commission
recommended for
1 acre minimum SFR-Y
/ SF Y
OS
024
94
rMi ■
1� IfWEIS
Dark areas indicate
01
Awl It
SFR-Y Lots I acre
fro V�
Al greater in area.
� �,r1( �,���.� t �•i ��r1�� �r�rSR ::0 Lots identified
ROM
NO—
,A "�+5—�i�,
� � 't#+r,r'�r'lf��►1� �t�
-7F r�r1�►, li
Gs- -. `� fir, �'�#` ♦•�f�5�.'«{`��f/�?��;�.lr..:i�" -.t
♦ ♦. +f .�- sIol ♦ ZI+'r+�ar�6
31,
f a �+'♦''4�,,1ttRnt�. a♦lri i''Kr�♦ '�`
0-1
■
•e 'tel /��/�r. ;it��` S+'"�91
� .�rJ ti �L t � �r►cr� � 1
1 �
1 ♦� r�two►�,lt4 '` �iry4 3t .�.'� +�} yif' s� �Nt .,,��•�4� t♦t�,f ���f
"~ Z >�`.� ' `I►. t@.��♦lam _"-Y( �,"'.
ra. .. r .9+ . NO
� rR �� !�'�'►�.+.' . :y.r._. tel i�,'f,, ''0,? '�.�"..,.`'�1,,
` WWI-
-4 b
afiEt� � Y,_�,��l��
lf-`R�t '-'Ef
� 'I ~► ♦ . Z.+: la►lt�t�����,yy1► ♦ �� +two.
`.; 'ttIM'%-ApAv
.i . r .. !�►�' i'n+t `a`i t.►
ArA Do
,
DATE: 09/17/2001
Attachment 12
Parkland Inventory
Location Agency Improved Unimproved Designated Open Privately owned Total Parklandl
Parkland acreage Parkland acreage Space acreage Recreation/Public Open Space
Zoned acreage
City owned/]eased property
Atascadero Lake Park Cit of Atascadero 46.6 ac 46.6 ac
Charles Paddock Zoo Cit of Atascadero 5.9 ac 5.9 ac
Traffic WayPark Cit of Atascadero 5.3 ac 5.3 ac
Sunken Gardens Cit of Atascadero 1.7 ac 1.7 ac
Paloma Creek Park Cit of Atas_ '0 23.0 ac 23.0 ac
Stadium Park Cit of Atascadero 26.0 ac 26.0 ac
Pine Mountain Open Space Cit of Atascadero 18.0 ac 18.0 ac
Treatment PlanU Anza Trail Area Cit of Atascadero 90.0 ac 90.0 ac
Lake View Lots Cityof Atascadero 4.5 ac 4.5 ac
Estrada Adobe Property Cityof Atascadero 16.0 ac 6.0 ac
Creek Reservations 66 parcels) Cit of Atascadero 183.2 ac 183.2 ac
Northeast Quadrant FloatingPark Cityof Atascadero 0.0 ac
Micro Park Parcels 15 arcels Cit of Atascadero 2.4 ac 2.4 ac
County ownedfleased property
Hielmann Park unlyof SLOj 102.0 ac, 102.0 ac
..wnedileased property
Santa Rosa Elementary AUSD7.5 ac 7.5 ac
MontereyRoad Elementary AUSD 7.6 ac 7.6 ac
Oak Hill Continuation AUSD 8.4 ac 8.4 ac
San Gabriel ElementaryAUSD 6.8 ac 6.8 ac
San Benito Elementary AUSD 0.0 ac
Atascadero High AUSD 20.5 ac 20.5 ac
Atascadero Jr.Hi h AUSD 16.3- 16.3 ac
Privately ownedfleased
erty
Shores Development O' n Space Private 5.1 ac 5.1 ac
Lakes Develo ment O en S ace Private 54.1 ac 54.1 ac
Davis/Hi hway41 Recreation land Private 66.0 ac 66.0 ac
Atascadero Ave./Libra Site Private 2.2 ac 2.2 ac
Water COMERUfEeLfty JAMWC i 243.7 ac
Subtotal of Acreage 251.5 ac 34.4 ac 354.8 ac 311.9 ac 952.6 ac
Golf Courses
Chalk Mountain Golf Course Coun of SLO 212.0 ac 212.0 ac
a e ree o nurse I Private 1 W.4 acl 9.4 ac
Total Acreage 463.5 ac 34.4 ac 354.8 ac 321.3 ac 1174.0 ac
Current Parkland Ratios
Population 26,000(current) 7.1 ac 1.3 ac 11.4 ac 19.8 ac
Population 30,000 6.1 ac 1.1 ac 9.9 ac 17.1 ac
Population 35,000 7 5.3 ac 1.0 acl 8.4 acl 14.7 ac
City,County&AUSD owned ParklandlOpen Space only per rr0
Population 26,000(current) 9.1 acl 1.3 acl 11.4 ac 22.4 ac
Population 30,000 8.4 acl 1.1 acl 9.9 ac 19.4 ac
Population 35,000 1 7.2 acl 1.0 acl 8.4 ac 16.6 ac
.Total.f all Parkland/Open Spaceper r00
without Golf Courses
Population 26,000(current) 1 9.7 acl 1.3 aci 13.6 acl 12.0 ac 36.6 ac
Population 30,000 8.4 acl 1.1 acl 11.8 acl 10.4 acl 31.8 ac
Population 35,000 7.2 ac 1.0 ac 10.1 ac 8.9 ac 27.2 ac
,Total of all Parklandl Open Space
Population 26,000(current) 17.8 acl 1.3 aci 13.6 acl 12.4 ac 45.2 ac
Population 30,000 15.5 acl 1.1 acl 11.8 acl 10.7 acl 39.1 ac
Population 35,000 13.2 acl 1.0 acl 10.1 acl 9.2 acl 33.5 ac
026
#r�
ASS
Aft",'ly p
w ��fl1•���+i 1r�'�� �
'i/1■�;i�C���'`:►`��'i�rt2'$�
rte'
♦- 4 ,w
NR'*
/.t'M C.0•{til ftl �! ►+y
gn
/ j I tom•a� .jN�'yq � � - f ,r''�+ s � � ��« wj ;�l�'rl`.
tz f
� 1
�� TIS. �I�r ,�S3S�K � {V? l�1'•':��iM. SI'4 rlfl 3�-4����'.
wI iiu�i� Ft "�.e y��?�'�y yy y •, �.. .`-
Will N ► s � x =•� nab.+ `r`,j ,i.� ►
t._ y r yrs •�"i 't �� ,., a
mica
s
DATE: 09/17/2001
Attachment 14
Library Park Site Alternative Site Plan Concept
Alley loading garages Small lot single family
residential PD-7 project
MDR
Zoning: RMF-10
��,,.� %acre pocket park
site with tot lot
GP: REC
Zoning: L
28
ITEM NUMBER: B- 1
■' ' ' DATE: 07/24/2001
itis 1978
�0
Atascadero City Council
Staff Report— Community Development Department
General Plan Update
Recommendation on Draft Land Use Plan
GPA 2000-0001
SUBJECT:
GPA 2000-0001 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE: REVIEW OF DRAFT LAND USE
PLAN: Consideration of the Planning Commission's recommendation on a Draft Land Use
Plan to the City Council for use in the General Plan Update process. The Draft Land Use
Plan will be used for the preparation of a Draft General Plan Document and Draft
Environmental Impact Report. In addition, the Planning Commission has forwarded 10
separate policy options to be addressed in the Draft General Plan Document.
No actions that would amend the current General Plan will be taken.
RECOMMENDATION:
Planning Commission Recommends:
1. The City Council adopt the attached draft Resolution, thereby endorsing the Draft
Land Use Plan as the Preferred Plan for use in the Draft General Plan policy
document and Draft Environmental Impact Report; and,
2. The City Council direct staff to incorporated policy issues 1 through 10 into the Draft
General Plan.
DISCUSSION:
The adoption of the Draft Land Use Plan represents the conclusion of the public outreach
process to establish a preferred Land Use Diagram and the beginning of the Draft General
Plan document and Environmental Impact Report (EIR) preparation process. The Draft Land
Use Plan will be used as the basis for the written Draft General Plan document. The draft
document and Draft EIR will be released for public review later this year.
Background: A joint study session of the City Council and Planning Commission was held
on May 29, 2001 to review a"refined"Draft Land Use Plan for use as the"preferred project"
in the General Plan Update and EIR. In addition to the Plan, staff presented ten broad policy
issues that need to be addressed in the update process. The purpose of the study session was
099
Print Date:07/18/01 File:072401-GP update.doc
ITEM NUMBER: B-1
DATE: 07/24/2001
to allow staff an opportunity to present the Draft Land Use Plan and policy issues to the City
Council, Planning Commission and public prior to the release of staff reports.
Following the study session and a public open house, the Planning Commission held a
hearing on June 5, 2001 to consider the Draft Land Use Plan. Due to the quantity of public
testimony the item was continued to June 19, 2001. At the second meeting, the Commission
forwarded recommendations to the City Council on a Draft Land Use Plan and ten policy
options. The following staff report is an expanded discussion of the topics and issues that
were presented during the joint study session on May 29, 2001. The Planning Commission's
recommendations are reflected in all of the policy options.
030 .
ITEM NUMBER: B-1
DATE: 07/24/2001
Planning Commission Recommended Draft Land Use Plan:
The June 19, 2001 Planning Commission Recommended Land Use Alternative includes
several changes from the May 29 alternatives. The Commission is recommending the
following changes:
1) change LUA-7 from SFR-Y (1-1%2 ac min.) to SE (Suburban Estates 21/2-10 ac min.)
with a requirement for bikeways and equestrian access to the Salinas River.
2) change LUA-11 (San Benito Area) from SE (Suburban Estates 21/2-10 ac min.) to SFR-Y
(1-11/2 ac min.)
3) change one parcel located between Morro Road and Atascadero Avenue from MDR
(medium density residential)to O (office)
The map has been divided into three separate sub-areas for easy of discussion, the North End,
Central Core, and South End.
Changel
Planning Commission
Recommended Alternative
Change 2
City of Atascadero
General Plan Update
June 19, 2001
Change 3
G3
ITEM NUMBER: B-1
DATE: 07/24/2001
North End
The North End area consists of the following land use proposals: Del Rio Shopping Center
Node, the LUA-7 Railroad Parcel, and the North County Christian School relocation. During
public testimony, property owners in the vicinity of San Benito Road expressed differing
positions about allowing smaller lot sizes in this area. The Planning Commission is
recommending that this area be redesignated to SFR-Y based on the testimony received.
LUA 7 Railroad Parcel
Change to SE(Suburban Estates)2.5—
10 acre min lot size
®d Bikeway to be constructed on Mackey
^ff.
Property
San Benito Road Area
Change to SFR-Y
�9
WIC
NX
a
M
t
S
zf q a
North County Christian School Relocation Del Rio Shopping Center Node
15 acre shopping center
Multi-family and'/2 acre single family
transition to suburban densities.
032
� '`' �•p�eie����,MAS �SrI�liij����J���,;�►!���i ii �� � � . `
I��` ,� �� �,��_�=ol �e� ll�}I►?yam.-a�,,5f � '� � ��� �
WAI'7A
1.�8�/��,�I,f!�nl���♦+�f��s* +1/O`irk
El Camino Curbaril Center
�� ��• �� •.,, . r� 1 ,�I ��ro
'T MA into a single commercial
,:.r..� 3rr����••� � -i.,•.�i�ted/ ' ' Consolidation of parcels
M-1 project
eU,
s=���♦�j K� Imo\
'-WI-. �����{Mlll\� �,� \SAI<�.'✓j 1I. '��♦ ���
�I alie. Lil±Sr �► +► �IJ `404VI'
a♦aa�t♦r ,tea �ia• '� "i% ��\I� ♦ r���,��'I ,/'-'
'.��� 1�'�♦3��i� /tri}� a if�r �Q `, �ra,l r��
�`/� � �• �� `t , a:./�ri�r,•♦i•/♦arm�, I�\�J�;�����ar`.�
�� •1� �/ii ye ��,,' it • �rr+li�ia.�i�i Imo/���I�l���.
/1►// ltrf�i err!_���, �I`I i ,\
�.��� •ir+� \ =♦ems �ii�tarrr
�.�.c�...���..,.�, ,,.-,.gar-�..� . ,��� y♦� ,0 ,`�`��j�,\\,
� � ���,-i •t���.,,�7? _ b�•,4+• v'�� '+'rte \Q.-'.
1� ��•I+\' Q� e,� tom. 4% �r���►��.�• � ��\�► �; a\.�
iii,-•1�\�� �A Me , Planning Commission Change
..�sti�•�
IWO PC recommendation to change
from MDR to Office.
Wig
No
Em
IMIN MR
IND
VI
FIZI
Morro Road Corridor
Additional Retail Commercial
Multi-family transition along ..
ITEM NUMBER: B- 1
DATE: 07/24/2001
South End •
Proposed land use changes at the South End include Mixed Uses at Dove Creek, the
Woodlands Specific Plan, and expansion of Paloma Creek Park.
Paloma Creek Park
Expansion
spaz
�i
Woodlands Specific Plan
Cluster development 269 units
Preservation of hillside and oak
woodlands
4
C"a
•Y
Dove Creek
Mixed Use Land Use Program
Retail,office,theaters,and 200 multi-
family units
034
ITEM NUMBER: B- 1
DATE: 07/24/2001
Revised General Plan Build-Out Calculations
The following table has been updated to include the Planning Commission recommended
changes. Using the same assumptions as the current General Plan, theoretical build-out
would be 35,238 residents.
General Plan Update
Population Calculations
19-Jun-01
1994 General Plan Buildout Current General Plan Buildout PC Recommended Alternative 61211 New Buildout
includes approved General Plan Amendments 1994.98
Land Use 1994 acres Units Population netchanges 2001 Acres Units Population netchanges Units Population Acres Units Population
A 43.9 ac 0.0 ac 43.9 ac 0.0 ac 43.9 ac
SE/RE 9,926.2 ac 3,862 du's 10,234 pp (270.3)ac 9,655.9 ac 3,757 du's 9,955 pp (303.5)ac -118 du's 313 pp 9,352.4 ac 3,638 du's 9,642 pp
SFR-Z 626.4 ac 620 du's 1,643 pp (4.0)ac 622.4 ac 616 du's 1,632 pp 32.8 ac 32 du's 86 pp 655.2 ac 648 du's 1,718 pp
SFR-Y 1,320.9 ac 2,316 du's 6,137 pp 138.8 ac 1,459.8 ac 2,559 du's 6,782 pp 92.0 ac 161 du's 428 pp 1,551.8 ac 2,721 du's 7,210 pp
SFR-X 373.6 ac 1,034 du's 2,740 pp 34.0 ac 407.6 ac 1,128 du's 2,989 pp 53.2 ac 147 du's 390 pp 460.8 ac 1,275 du's 3,379 pp
MDR 203.4 ac 1,046 du's 2,772 pp (6.3)ac 197.2 ac 1,014 du's 2,687 pp 19.9 ac 102 du's 271 pp 217.1 ac 1116 We 2,958 pp
HDR 214.8 ac 2,877 We 7,624 pp 30.2 ac 245.0 ac 3,281 du's 8,695 pp 58.0 ac 367 du's 973 pp 303.0 ac 3,648 du's 9,668 pp
GC-NC 21.5 ac 0.0 ac 21.5 ac (7.7)ac 13.8 ac
GC-0 47.4 ac (1.3)ac 46.1 ac (1.4)ac
44.7 ac
GC-R 131.3 ac (3.7)ac 127.6 ac 40.4 ac 168.1 ac
CPK 81.6 ac 74.6 ac 156.2 ac (73.2)ac 82.9 ac
D 62.3 ac (0.4)ac 61.9 ac 50 du's 133 pp 0.4 ac 62.3 ac 50 du's 133 pp
Sc 71.5 ac 0.0 ac 71.5 ac (8.4)ac 63.2 ac
GC-TC 37.9 ac 5.1 ac 43.0 ac (3.7)ac 39.3 ac
1 29.5 ac 4.4 ac 33.9 ac 0.0 ac 33.9 ac
IPK 31.2 ac 0.0 ac 31.2 ac 0.0 ac 31.2 ac
666a 200 du's 530 pp 66.6 ac 200 du's 530 pp
6.7 ac 6.7 ac
679.3 ac 0.0 ac 679.3 ac (177.6)ac 501.7 ac
P 1,279.5 ac (1.1)ac 1,278.5 ac (71.8)ac 1,206.7 ac
0S 277.4 ac 277.4 ac
Total 15,182.6 ac 11,755 du's 31,150 pp 0.0 ac 16,182.6 ac 12,405 du's 32,873 pp 0.0 ac 892 du's 2,365 pp 15,182.7 ac 13,297 du's 35,238 pp
1) buildout assumptions do not include the Atascadero State Hospital population(1,210 person 2000 census)
2) all acreage calculations are net acres and do not include streets and right-of-ways
3) population per dwelling unit=2.65 persons
Draft Land Use Plan
Planning Commission Recommendation:
1. Adopt the 6/19/01 Draft Land Use Plan as the Preferred Plan for use in the preparation of
the Draft General Plan document and EIR.
The City Council may add, delete or change elements of the map as part of its
recommendation.
G3;5
ITEM NUMBER: B- l
DATE: 07/24/2001
General Plan Update Issues:
The following policy option issues were presented at the Joint Session meeting and have
been reviewed at the Planning Commission Hearing.
Policy Options
* 1. Urban Service Line
* 2. Land Use Designations
* 3. Expansion of the PD-7 District
* 4. Creek Setbacks
* 5. Affordable Housing
* 6. Service Commercial Locations
* 7. Annexation Areas
* 8. Lot Size Inconsistencies
* 9. Downtown Parking Standards (added by Planning Commission)
* 10. Colony House Protection Standards (added by Planning Commission)
Policy Option #1: Urban Service Line
* What is the Urban Services Line?
* Ambulance
* Cultural Facilities
* Fire Protection
* Improvement Districts
* Library
* Parks
* Police
* Solid Waste Disposal
* Storm Drainage
* Streets
* Street Sweeping
* Street Trees
* Utilities
* Water
* Sewer
* What is the Suburban Services Area?
* Ambulance
* Creekway& Horse Trails
* Fire Protection
* Improvement Districts
* Parks
* Police
* Solid Waste Disposal
* Streets
* Utilities
* Water
- Sewer services are not provided except for "cease and desist"septic problem areas and where
approved by the City Council for public uses
G36
1
® 1 1 1
..�„•uu �• atp
�• _ r
Sw
Nami➢►
I'=+r•pM �Y��.�.�4�1'.j h 4 �hy°Q.'�'� £
tU up¢ A
i y
mi�4 ''Yid.-fit t �` �a en•a'
;� .. QOM
Y 1
� N� �
ITEM NUMBER: B- 1
DATE: 07/24/2001
Policy Option #2: Land Use Designations
Planning Commission Recommended Option
1. Recommend incorporation of the following new Land Use Designations in Updated
General Plan
E6dsbng Land uses Uxbled lard Uses NbA
Corservabon
AG Pgialtue AG Aoci ure 0.
Os Open 0.
Pastil rrtial
FR Fa -d Pb§dertial W Kral Fbsidatd
SSF Srx,Je Rmity 3l Am(25-10 acre Ict ruin) FE RM EstAes(25-10 acre k1 rrin)[aA§de LJSQ 0.
SE Stbuban Estates(25-10 axe Ict ruin)[irside LEq 0.
L.DSF LoN Da>sity Sr-ge Fanny SF RZ Saje Fanily Fesid3tai(1.5-25 ale Ict ruin) a
NDBF M9dun D3-&y Srxje Family SHILY Sime Farily Fasdatial(1.0 acre kt ruin) 1.
HX F Hgh Darsty Safe F mily S:PrX Sale Family%ddartal(0.5 a7e Ict ruin) 4.
L13VF Lour DwdV MA--Family(10 bectoam/ac) NCR Wdun Dasity R§datial(10 dis/ac) 10.
FEW Hgh Dasity Wfi-Fas ly(16 bectoars/ac) FDR H ji Demty Pbsidafial(22 cis/ac) 22
Corrmeraal
NC Neilta t=d Cermsrdal Ca T inevAh GC
FC Fatah CmTrerdal GC Gateral C:crm>ydai 16.
SC -%-tie Carmadal SC Service Carrrerdd
TC Tcuist Camrerdd Con binevvith CSC
D Danrtow _ D Dam-tow 16.
O Office CarYbInevrithGC
CPK Ox rradal Pak CPK Ca cordal Park
NC Wed Lbe OmTr erical 16.
Industrial
Irdistrid IND Industrial
IPK Irdstrid Park Calf inevrithlND
Rblic/Cmasi-llbdic
P Rblic Fadlittes PLB Rblic Fadlibes 0
FEC F awfien R30 Rblic Rweatien a
CFEC Carrr-eicd Pa eebcn 10.
038
ITEM NUMBER: B- 1
DATE: 07/24/2001
Policy Option #3: PD-7 District Expansion
* PD-7 is a single-family Planned Development District currently allowed in the Multi-
Family Districts.
* Has worked successfully for years to allow flexible projects with high design standards
* Converts Multi-Family areas to Single-Family
* Could be customized to work in the SFR-X designation
* Would allow new Single-Family Development options
* Protect existing neighborhoods from Multi-Family densities.
Planning Commission Recommended Options
1. Recommend that standards for a new PD-7 type overlay district be developed for the
SFR-X land use designation in order to allow small lot single family infill
development.
2. Recommend that RMF property meeting the following standards be preserved as
"prime"multi-family areas for apartment development and preclude conversion to
PD-7.
a. Lot size: Lots or contiguous ownership of 2+acres.
b. Slope: Below 10%
C. Arterial or collector street access
d. Neighborhood compatibility with apartment development
Policy Option #4: Creek Setbacks
* Atascadero has numerous creeks
* No setback protections existing
* Development encroachment
- damages habitat
- degrades water quality
- increases erosion
- alters flood plains
- increases property damage
Planning Commission Recommended Option
1. Recommend that tiered setback standards for each area be developed to protect
blueline creeks with special Downtown Master Plan consideration.
039
ITEM NUMBER: B- 1
DATE: 07/24/2001
Policy Option #5: Affordable Housing
* Affordable housing is not just"low income"
* Median Prices increased from $152,000 to $215,000 last year(+42%)
* Balanced housing supports a strong economic base and a healthy community
* State of California provides housing allocation requirements to cities
* Atascadero's 1994 allocation was 1,400 units (mostly not built)
* SB 910 would reduce road funds for non-compliance
Affordable Housing Options
* 5A Second Units
* 5B Mixed Use Multi-Family Residential in Retail District
* 5C Multi-Family Density (units vs. bedrooms)
* 5D Senior Housing
* 5E Inclusionary Housing Program
Policy Option #5A: Affordable Housing- Second Units
* Guest Houses currently allowed in all Districts
* Guest Houses are unregulated and lack only a stove
* Second Units have full kitchens and can be attached or detached from primary unit
* Staff estimates that an average of 10-15 Guest Houses are built annually in Atascadero.
* State Law requires cities to conditionally allow second units in at least one SFR district
Planning Commission Recommended Options
1. Develop Second Unit standards that address the following:
5 lot size(I ac min)
size restriction
sewer connection
covered parking
maximum slope
i; native trees impacts
i; architectural appearance
setbacks
neighborhood compatibility
Conditional Use Permit approval process
2. Begin with a pilot program to allow second units in the SFR-Y (1 - 1.5 acre lot min)
land use with annual program report to the Planning Commission.
3. Eliminate Guest Houses in the SFR-Y land uses.
4. Continue to allow Guest Houses in the SFR-X, SFR-Z and SSF land uses.
040
ITEM NUMBER: B- 1
DATE: 07/24/2001
Policy Option #5B: Affordable Housing-Mixed Use Multi-Family Residential in
Retail District
* Strip appearance of El Camino Real result of exclusive Commercial zoning
* Low demand for antiquated commercial structures
* Limited reuse options discourage reinvestment
* Mixed Use residential benefits:
* Reuse/clean-up of deteriorating buildings and vacant lots
* Better architecture and landscaping
• Transitions to residential neighborhoods
* Places workers in proximity to jobs
* Supports existing businesses
* Increase "pedestrianization" of El Camino Real
Planning Commission Recommended Options
1. Allow mixed use multi-family residential projects within the Commercial Retail and
Commercial Professional zoning districts as a conditionally allowed use.
2. Require mixed use residential to be attached, multi-family type development.
3. Require all residential projects along Morro Road to include a commercial or office
storefront along the street frontage with parking to the rear.
4. Allow exclusive multi-family residential development along El Camino Real.
G 4.i1
ITEM NUMBER: B-1
DATE: 07/24/2001
Policy Option #5C: Affordable Housing- Multi-Family Density(units vs. bedrooms)
* Current Standard based on Bedroom Units
* Most units have one-bedroom and a"den"
* Market demand is for 2 and 3 bedroom units
* "Phantom" one-bedroom units result in uncalculated parking
* 16 units/acre is lowest in County
* All cities in San Luis Obispo County set density by units
San Luis Obispo City 24 du's/acre
San Luis Obispo County 26 du's/acre
Paso Robles 22 du's/acre (1 unit/2000 sf.)
* Lending institutions and appraisers use units
* State of California affordable housing allocations and density bonus requirements are
based on units
* It is so confusing it discourages developers and lenders
Planning Commission Recommended Options
1. Recommend that multi-family densities be calculated by units rather than bedrooms.
2. Recommend increasing the maximum allowable multi-family density to 22-units/ac
in certain areas.
Policy Option #5D: Affordable Housing- Senior Housing
* Changing demographics
* Large lot maintenance and expense not appealing to seniors
Planning Commission Recommended Option
1. Recommend that the General Plan provide a density bonus incentive for deed-
restricted senior housing development projects and that staff look into various options
for such.
L•-� 2
ITEM NUMBER: B-1
DATE: 07/24/2001
Policy Option#5E: Affordable Housing—Inclusionary Housing
® San Luis Obispo adopted an Inclusionary Housing Ordinance in 1999.
® The Ordinance requires that new development projects include affordable housing units,
dedicate land for affordable housing, or pay in lieu fee to assist in the development of
affordable housing citywide.
® Residential projects:
The Ordinance requires the developer to build 3% low or 5%moderate cost affordable
dwelling units (adu)but not less than 1 affordable unit per project; or pay in-lieu fee
equal to 5%of building valuation.
® Commercial Projects:
The Ordinance requires 1 adu per acre, but not less than 1 adu per project; or pay in-lieu
fee equal to 2%of building valuation.
® The ordinance excludes projects that are non-commercial in nature or which provide
educational social or related services such as churches, day care centers,private schools,
non-profit housing agencies and social service agencies. It also excludes construction of
previously destroyed structures as long as they are rebuilt within three years.
Planning Commission Recommended Option
1. Consider the adoption of an inclusionary affordable housing program similar to the City
of San Luis Obispo.
043
►ref
WL� � ,
�M � ' til:ai��'•�,f� '�' t•
IVA
Alt
erg
WA
r -o tow
,yr�lt�... ♦ ,mom� ,
I Wit
JIM
vj , 1 %•1\ �,�� -tip►:
ITEM NUMBER: B- I
DATE: 07/24/2001
Policy Option #7: Unincorporated Areas
Planning Commission Recommended Options
1. Area A:
Develop Future Annexation Policies
2. Area B:
Remote: Leave in County
3. Area C:
Developed: Leave in County
4. Area D:
400 undeveloped lots: City Control via Annexation
Develop Future Annexation Policies
5. Area E:
Developed: Leave in County
Unincorporated Colony Areas
May 29, 2001
,{ ply Mr.M.
{ ��\ /` /�•.••y Yom•.
0-
i
045
ITEM NUMBER: B- 1
DATE: 07/24/2001
Policy Option #8: Lot Size Inconsistencies
* Subdivisions prior to City incorporation created numerous lots smaller than 1/2 acre
* Lots that are smaller than the minimum are considered"non-conforming"
* Non-conforming lots are allowed the same uses as conforming lots
* Majority of the lots in the study area are non-conforming
* SFR-X(1/2 acre) 82%non-conforming
* SFR-Y(1 acre) 88%non-conforming
* SFR-Z (1.5 acre) 74%non-conforming
* SSF(2.5 acre) 74%non-conforming
* Requests to split lots to match surrounding lot sizes source of GPA applications
City of Atascadero
General Plan Update
fxisfing Non-conforming Lofs
May 29,2001
♦ 1
� � a
rr 1 � w
It
'--�• A� 1 T-Y -A � t i/ yam,
Lzrt" t T Fr y T
Planning Commission Recommended Option
1. Develop a customized Planned Development (PD) overlay process that could be applied
to individual lots that are inconsistent with surrounding lots.
•
C�� G
ITEM NUMBER: B- 1
DATE: 07/24/2001
Policy Option #9: Downtown Mixed Use Parking Standards
Planning Commission Recommended Options
1. Review the parking standards for mixed-use residential development within the
Downtown land use designation as part of the General Plan Update.
Policy Option #10: Colony Home Preservation
Planning Commission Recommended Options
1. The General Plan will include policies for the historic preservation for Atascadero
Colony homes.
PREPARED BY: Warren Frace, Planning Services Manager
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment 1: Excerpts of Planning Commission Minutes June 5, 2001
Attachment 2: Planning Commission Memo
Attachment 3: Excerpts of Planning Commission Minutes June 19, 2001
Attachment 4: Planning Commission Draft Land Use Plan Recommendation
Attachment 5: Draft Council Resolution
G417
Attachment 1: Excerpts of Planning Commission Minutes June 5, 2001
CITY OF ATASCADERO
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Regular Meeting
June 5, 2001 — 7:00 P.M.
CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Eddings called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and Commissioner Norton
led the Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Bentz, Blaser, Fonzi, Kelley,Norton,Vice-Chairman Jeanes
and Chairman Eddings
Absent: None
Staff: Community Development Director Lori Parcells, Principal Planner Warren Frace,
Assistant Planner Phil Dunsmore, Associate Planner Jamie Kirk, Consultant
Paul Crawford and Recording Secretary Grace Pucci.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: GPA 2000-0001 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE:
REVIEW OF DRAFT LAND USE PLAN: The Planning Commission will be
holding a public hearing to consider recommending a Draft Land Use Plan to the City
Council for use in the General Plan Update process. The Draft Land Use Plan will be
used for the preparation of a Draft General Plan Document and Draft Environmental
Impact Report. No formal action to amend the current General Plan will be taken at
this meeting. The public is encouraged to attend and will be given the opportunity to
speak on the item.
Staff Recommends:
1. The Planning Commission adopt Resolution 2001-026, thereby recommending
that the City Council incorporate the Draft Land Use Plan as the Preferred
Plan in the Draft General Plan policy document and Draft Environmental
Impact Report.
C43
Print Date:07/18/01 File:072401-GP update.doc
2. The Planning Commission provide specific direction on Policy Issues I
through 8 to be forwarded to the City Council for consideration.
Principal Planner Warren Frace provided the staff report and answered questions of the
Commission.
PUBLIC COMMENT
John McGoff, 9192 Maple Street, expressed his concern regarding possible conflict of
interest issues with Planning Commission members on this item. (Attachment 1)
David Jones, 8220 Larga, read from a prepared statement. He feels that the revised plan is a
vast improvement and commended staff for listening to the opinions of the public. He would
like to see additional attention given to the method for reclassification of nonconforming lots.
(Attachment 2)
Livia Kellerman, 5463 Honda, handed out a map of Plot 283 and a written statement to the
Commissioners and gave a brief history of the property. She stated concern regarding the
proposed high density zoning designation for this property. She would like it to
remain in the recreational designation and supports creating more neighborhood parks in the
community. (Attachment 3)
Henry Engen, 9575 Lake View Drive, read from a prepared statement. He feels the process
is going too fast. He is concerned with the population build out figures, wastewater
treatment plant capacity, land use designations, mixed uses and affordable housing.
(Attachment 4)
Becky Pacas, 4305 San Benito Road, stated her opposition to the revised General Plan Land
Use map and proposals. She is concerned with public health and safety and feels that
California Codes do not require the proposed changes.
Shawn Noth, Capistrano Avenue property owner, expressed his concern with the
development around his property. He feels that the zoning designation on surrounding
properties is not consistent with that of his property and he is requesting a zoning change to
RMF-16.
Henry Skibo, 3560 Traffic Way, read from a prepared statement submitted by 18 Traffic
Way property owners. They object to the proposed General Plan Land Use Map, which does
not include zoning changes to reduce minimum lot size in their area. (Attachment S)
Ann Quinn, 7200 Toro Creek Road, is concerned with the lack of recreational facilities in the
proposed general plan update.
Marissa Todd, 4500 Del Rio Road, is opposed to the LUA No. 7 and urged the Commission
to reconsider this action. She does not want access to the river cut off and would like to see
this area remain as a green belt.
C� 9
John Knight, RRM Design Group, spoke on behalf of the Smith-Hobson family who owns
the area known as Eagle Ranch. He supports the annexation of Area D on the proposed land
use map and would like to see this area included in the Urban Services Area.
David Crouch, 7305 Curbaril, feels that the City is having trouble paying for services under
its current general plan, and he worries how the City will afford to pay for services in areas
which are being proposed for annexation. Regarding second units, he sees the potential for
these units as well as the primary residence turning into rentals changing the area from
single-family to multi-family density.
Bill Obermeyer, 4800 Carrizo Road, expressed his concerns regarding the area on the north
end near the river where the switch will take place. He does not want to see river access cut
off and feels that the proposed housing will be too near the railroad tracks. He suggested
easements in new developments that would interconnect and allow access between housing
areas.
Dorothy McNeil, read from a prepared statement regarding her feeling that it was not
necessary to rewrite the entire General Plan as only the Housing Element needed review.
(Attachment 5)
Theresa Wasley, 3060 Traffic Way stated her concern with safety on Traffic Way. She feels
that if the area property owners were permitted to subdivide, they would be able to provide
bike and pedestrian pathways making it safer for children and others to walk on Traffic Way.
She is in favor of half-acre zoning along Traffic Way.
Joan O'Keefe, 9985 Old Morro Road East, is concerned with the process utilized for the
General Plan Update and the fact that there are no written materials available to the public.
She would like to see the changes proposed for zoning inconsistencies be based on terrain
and is concerned with the lack of pedestrian access as well as the lack of parks.
Ann Ketcherside stated three issues of concern: 1) conflict of interest laws as they relate to
this proposal, 2) loss of character within the community, and 3) changes within the
downtown area.
Jerry Johnson, Traffic Way property owner, feels it is unfair that he is not permitted to
subdivide his property when others in the area are permitted to do so. Because the ground is
flat in this area he feels the zoning should be changed to one-half acre.
Richard Shannon, 5070 San Benito Road, stated that he is a property owner, developer and
real estate agent and he feels it is difficult to find housing on smaller lots in Atascadero. He
would like to see more zoning for smaller lots to permit increased housing.
Chairman Eddings called a recess at 9:00 p.m.
Chairman Eddings reopened the Public Hearing at 9:20 p.m.
CrG5O
Carmen Barnett, 6780 Atascadero Avenue, stated her opposition to the proposed changes on
lot 283. She is concerned with the traffic and safety issues in the area, and feels this lot
should be designated as a park.
Principal Planner Frace gave a short history on this property. The property is privately
owned and the current General Plan designation is recreation while the zoning on the parcel
is RMF-16. The Department of Parks and Recreation has recommended that the recreation
designation be eliminated, as there are no plans or funds to improve the lot as a park site.
Under the proposed General Plan,the rear two-thirds of the property would have a multi-
family use and the front corner would remain under a recreation designation.
Mike Zappas, 8189 San Dimas Lane, felt that the previous speakers were very critical of the
proposed changes and at the same time had no other plan to offer. He feels renters have
needs for housing and he congratulated the planning staff on their outreach to the
community.
Raymond Jansen, 6655 Country Club Drive, expressed his concern regarding sewer capacity.
He feels if the proposed General Plan is accepted, the wastewater treatment facility will have
to be expanded to meet increasing need.
John Gorse, Dolores Avenue, stated his pleasure with the staff recommendations as
presented. He had several areas of concern including: 1)proposed changes in the zoning
designation for the Rochelle and Woodlands properties, 2) he is not in favor of changing the
zoning to one-half acre in the San Benito area, and 3) regarding second units, he feels that
each request should be looked at individually to determine what is best for the property.
Harold Meyers, property owner at Chico and Traffic Way, stated that in 1998 he was
approached about the traffic problem in this area. He offered to dedicate a half-acre and in
return he was promised that he would be included in the General Plan Update for a rezone to
one-half acre lots. The proposed General Plan Update has not included his property for a
rezone. He would like to withdraw his offer of dedication if the City is not going to stand by
their promise.
MOTION: By Chairman Eddings and seconded by Commissioner Kelley to remove
Items No. 3 and 4 from the Public Hearing Agenda and move them to the next
Planning Commission meeting on June 19, 2001.
AYES: Commissioners Kelley, Fonzi, Bentz,Norton, Blaser, Jeanes and Chairman
Eddings.
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
Motion passed 7.0 by a roll-call vote.
•
Bill Bright, 11875 Santa Lucia, questioned how many lots are in the Y zone where second
units would be allowed, and if the majority of property owners in the Y zone build second
units,what would that do to the build-out numbers.
Alan Thomas, 9520 Marchant Way, favors more affordable housing in Atascadero, especially
multi-family housing. He is concerned with the heavy traffic in the Morro Road corridor.
John McGoff, 9192 Maple, feels that more time must be given to the consideration of this
update proposal. He feels the process is going too quickly and he is concerned with the lack
of public record.
Hary Pellet, 4320 Del Rio Road, spoke regarding the area from San Benito School back to
the new development on Traffic Way. He feels there is a shortage of parks in
Atascadero and he would like to see a bike path to the school as well as a park in this area.
Ted Molanee, developer of the commercial project at 7730 Morro Road, feels that the
increased traffic on Morro Road due to higher density development could be a real problem.
He supports the idea of utilizing the property next to the library as a park or green belt.
Livia Kellerman, 5463 Honda, expressed her disappointment with the Department of Parks
and Recreation for not asking the people in the neighborhood about having a park in the lot
near the library.
Becky Pacas, 4305 San Benito, supports the idea of a green belt or park near the library. She
has concerns about increasing the build-out figure as a response to developer pressure. The
population is growing and she feels it is important to meet the need for affordable housing.
Jim Patterson, 9312 N. Santa Margarita Road, feels the process for the General Plan Update
has changed and is currently driven by developer demands. He feels every recommendation
made for the General Plan must be evaluated against the Smart Growth Principles and land
use goals established by the community.
Mike Wasley, 3060 Traffic Way, made several comments: 1) regarding the petition of 77
names mentioned by another speaker, not all of those who signed are property owners, 2) he
has concern with the issue of traffic and safety along Traffic Way, 3) will this proposal meet
the requirements for low income housing, and 4) many requests for information from last
week's meeting have not been addressed.
Alan Thomas, Marchant Way, stated that if the policy changes from bedrooms to units for
housing density, he strongly urged that design guidelines be enforced regarding the look of
the units, their position on the property,the space between them, playground areas for
children, etc.
Ray Johnson, stated that he has been told by the City that homes don't pay their way, so he
feels that by increasing density there would be more income for City services. •
G12
Several letters were turned in for the record, but were not read into the minutes.
(Attachments 7,8)
Chairman Eddings closed Public Comment.
Chairman Eddings suggested that the Public Hearing be closed, but that the deliberations
would be continued until the next Planning Commission meeting.
There was agreement to this suggestion and Commissioners asked the following questions
with the request that the information be provided them before the next meeting.
Commissioner Fonzi
1. Re: Preserving prime multi-family areas for apartments -what is the definition of
"Prime Multi-Family?"
2. If creek setback criteria are to be "flexible", they must also make sense—she
would like some guidelines so that she can intelligently vote on this issue.
3. Re: Second Units—Why was the "Y"district chosen, what were the criteria for
making it one acre or larger, and why must the area be sewered?
4. Re: Mixed uses and multi-family residential and commercial service area—she
understands that commercial service should not be next to residential areas, however,
she considers multi-family residential as residential as well and she would like to see
the reasoning behind this.
5. Why are there only senior housing incentives? Should benefits be considered for
extra housing for the handicapped?
6. What kinds of fees are proposed for inclusionary housing and what are they based
upon?
7. She would like more information on the lot sizes in the annexation areas.
8. Re: The Rochelle property and the R.V. Park the Commission voted on. Is the
fact that this area is in a flood zone being considered? She would like more
information regarding the flood zone. Additionally, the access appears to be only
through the back end of Home Depot. Is this a desirable location for access into a
subdivision as it relates to safety, fire and police access and should'there not be two
access points?
Commissioner Norton
1. Requested clarification regarding the discrepancy with the sewer. Can someone
from the Sewer Department speak to the Commission?
2. Where is the appropriate location for density for senior housing?
3. She would like to see an overlay on the map of where second unit housing would
be located(the 400 to 600 lots).
4. Why did the estimate of the number of second units to be built annually go from
10 to 30?
5. What proposals have been done in the past regarding creek setbacks?
6. Re: Affordable housing mixed-use multi-family— She would like to see an
overlay on the map of where those proposed areas would be.
Commissioner Kelley
1. Could someone from Parks and Recreation address the long-range plans the City
has for parks?
2. Can larger projects in the future be mandated to include parks?
3. He would like to see the specifications planned for second units.
4. He would like to see a uniform policy on creek setbacks.
Commissioner Jeanes
1. Requested an inventory by the next meeting of what is currently zoned for
recreation.
2. What would be the length of time for the pilot program on second units?
3. Would like guidelines on the criteria for RMF-16 if there were to be a change
from bedrooms to units.
4. What are the traffic implications on Morro Road if all recommendations are
passed to City Council?
5. She would like a staff report by the next meeting on the Traffic Way properties
and what is happening with this issue. Have they been promised things they have not
been given and if so how should this be addressed?
Chairman Eddings
1. Supports the idea of more community parks. He would like to see more areas
designated for parks mixed in with the multi-family areas.
2. Would like the density bonuses for affordable housing to be kept after the decisions
have been made on density requirements for high and medium density multi-family
areas.
Commissioner Blaser
1. What are the actual numbers on how many lots are "nonconforming" and what is
the total if they were to be split into lots the size of those in surrounding areas?
2. What would be the cost of the infrastructure to support the new General Plan
proposal?
3. Is there a grading ordinance or guideline to follow when developing lots?
MOTION: By Commissioner Fonzi and seconded by Commissioner Norton to
continue the meeting to June 19, 2001, Rotunda Room,Atascadero City
Hall.
AYES: Commissioners Fonzi, Norton, Blaser, Bentz, Kelley,Jeanes and
Chairman Eddings.
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
Motion passed 7.0 by a roll-call vote.
4 Attachment 2: Planning Commission Memo
Memorandum
Date: June 12, 2001
To: Planning Commission
From: Planning Staff
RE: General Plan Update Questions from Planning Commissioners-June
5, 2001
Planning Commission Question Staff Response
Commissioner Fonzi
1. Preserving prime multi-family areas for Staff would recommend that the following factors be
apartments-what is the definition of"Prime included in a definition of"Prime Multi-Family."
.Multi-Family?"
1. Lot size: Lots or contiguous ownership of 2+acres.
2.Slope: below 10%
3.Arterial or collector street access
4. Neighborhood compatibility
2. If creek setback criteria are to be"flexible", Refer to Attachment 1, excerpts of San Luis Obispo's
it must also make sense—she would like creek setback standards. There appeared to be some
some guidelines so that she can misinterpretation of staffs use of the term"flexible."
intelligently vote on this issue. Flexible was meant to describe a hierarchy of setback
standards that would address the various lot sizes and
uses along the creeks. For example the setback for
100-foot deep downtown lots would be different than
the standard for suburban lots with 2.5 acre
minimums.
3. Second Units—Why was the"Y"district Staff recommended the Y district because of the larger
chosen,what was the criteria for making it lot sizes and availability of sewer. As a pilot program,
one acre or larger,and why must the area the larger lot size is desirable because parking,
be sewered? setback and neighborhood compatibility issues are
easily accommodated on a 1 acre lot.
Staff believes sewer is a mandatory requirement for
second units. Multiple septic systems on residential
lots increase the likelihood of failures and absorption
problems that could impact public health and water
quality.
4. How will mixed uses and multi-family Staff is recommending that both multi-family residential
residential and commercial compatibility be and heavy service commercial uses be"conditional
addressed. allowed"uses within the new General Commercial
land use. The CUP process would allow staff and the
Commission the ability to analyze and condition
projects to avoid incompatibilities. In addition,
standards to address buffering and setbacks between �.
residential and commercial uses could be included in J
Planning Commission Question Staff Response to
the zoning ordinance. Projects that could not meet
these standards would not be approved.
5. Why are there only senior housing The Uniform Building Code requires a certain
incentives? Should benefits be considered percentage of all multi-family units to be handicapped
for extra housing for the handicapped? accessible. Staff is not aware of any other jurisdictions
that provide density bonuses for handicapped
accessible units.
6. What kinds of fees are proposed for Policy Option 5E of the staff report outlined the
inclusionary housing and what are they requirements of San Luis Obispo's inclusionary
based upon? program. Their fees are based on building valuations.
On residential projects,the in-lieu fee is 5%of building
value and on commercial the fee is 2%of building
value.
7. Information on the lot sizes in the Eagle Colony Lots=402 parcels
Ranch annexation areas. 2924±acres total
min lot size=.02 acres
ave lot size=7.2 acres
max lot size= 175 acres
8. Is the Rochelle property and the R.V. Park The portion of the Rochelle property approved for the
area in a flood zone? She would like more RV park and now proposed for single-family residential
information regarding the flood zone. is outside of both the 100 and 500-year flood plains.
Additionally,the access appears to be only Refer to Attachment 2.
through the back end of Home Depot,is
this a desirable location for access into a The primary access will come from an extension of EI
subdivision as it relates to safety,fire and Camino Real which is an arterial street designed to
police access and should there not be two accommodate the expected traffic levels. A secondary
access points. emergency access connection will be provided at
Ferrocaril. This secondary access would benefit both
the Rochelle property as well as the Ferrocaril and
Lakes neighborhoods which could have access
impacted by a closure of the Chico Road railroad
crossing.
Commissioner Norton
9. Requested clarification regarding the Staff will provide additional information at the meeting
discrepancy with the sewer. Can someone regarding the wastewater treatment plant.
from the Sewer Department speak to the
Commission?
10. Where is the appropriate location for A senior housing project would likely require the same
density for senior housing? site features as a multi-family project which would
include sewer, major street access, slopes of less than
10%, and parcel area of 2 to 5 acres.
Most of the locations that fit these criteria would be
along EI Camino Real
11. She would like to see an overlay on the Refer to Attachment 3.
map of where second unit housing would 250 lots meet the criteria of having a SFR-Y
be located (the 400 to 600 lots). designation and being at least a 1-acre
12. Why did the estimate of the number of Staff has had difficulty retrieving an accurate number
second units to be built annually go from 10 from the computer based permitting system. Part of
to 30? the issue involves the fact that there is no special
review or approval required for guest houses,
therefore it is difficult to track the permits.
Staff believes that an accurate number for guest house
permits issued in 2000 is 13 units.
13. What proposals have been done in the past i The City used to have a standard 50-foot creek ; ;
Planning Commission Question Staff Response
regarding creek setbacks? setback. Ordinance 236).
14. Affordable housing mixed-use multi-family— Refer to Attachment 4
She would like to see an overlay on the Staff is recommending multi-family residential be
map of where those proposed areas would conditionally allowed in the CR and CP zoning
be. districts.
Commissioner Kelley
15. Could someone from Parks and Recreation Geoff English from the Community Services
address the long-range plans the City has Department will attend the meeting to discuss parkland
for arks? issues and plans.
16. Can larger projects in the future be Currently the City does have an open space/recreation
mandated to include parks? requirement for multi-family projects and the City's
subdivision ordinance does require the dedication of
parkland in conjunction with subdivisions of more than
50 units. Projects of less than 50 units may pay an in-
lieu fee instead of dedicating parkland.
Planning Commission discussion of additional
parkland and open space requirements on larger
residential projects would be helpful to staff.
17. He would like to see the specifications Refer to Policy Option 5A of the staff report.
tanned for second units.
18. He would like to see a uniform policy on Staff recommends the Commission discuss this issue
creek setbacks. and provide direction. Refer to Attachment 1 for
example of San Luis Obispo's creek setback
standards.
Commissioner Jeanes
19. Requested an inventory by the next Refer to Attachment 5.
meeting of what is currently zoned for There are 686 acres designated as Recreation under
recreation. the General Plan. This figure is misleading because it
includes creek reservations and private commercial
recreation areas. Also Paloma Creek Park is
designated as Public so it is not included.
Policy Option 2(land use designations)would address
this issue by creating new Open Space and
Commercial Recreation designations. The Recreation
designation could then accurately reflect park facilities.
20. What would be the length of time for the Staff does not propose any sunset dates. Ideally, if
pilot program on second units? the program is successful it could be expanded,if it is
not successful it should be revised or repealed.
21. Would like guidelines on the criteria for Refer to Attachment 6 for current RMF-16
RMF-16 if there were to be a change from development standards. The Commission may wish to
bedrooms to units. have staff look into changes for these standards.
22. What are the traffic implications on Morro Traffic issues are being addressed by the traffic
Road if all recommendations are passed to consultant as part of the General Plan EIR.The traffic
City Council? study will recommend mitigation measures to address
the impacts of new development.
The current traffic problems on Morro Road (SR 41)
are the result of the Caltrans 41 re-alignment project.
Caltrans and the City are collaborating on an
interchange redesign project that will improve traffic
operations at the freeway.
23. Would like a staff report by the next This issue dates back a number of years and began
meeting on the Traffic Way properties and prior to the current staffs tenure. It appears that as
what is happening with this issue. part of the Mackey Project, discussions occurred about
Planning Commission Question Staff Response
including these parcels(LUA 11)in the General Plan
Amendment process. When that did not happen, a
subsequent discussion occurred about including the
area in the Davis-Shores General Plan Amendment.
Due to the controversy within the LUA-11 area,the
applicant for the Davis-Shores project did not want this
area included. Consequently,a third discussion
occurred that this area would be addressed in the
General Plan Update process.
To date this area has been included in the General
Plan update as LUA-11. LUA-11 was included in Draft
Alternatives 2 and 3 but not 1. Since a refinement of
Alternative 1 has emerged as the preferred option,
LUA-11 has been excluded.
The Planning Commission does have the ability to
recommend changes to the refined alternative.
Chairman Eddin s
24. Supports the idea of more community Refer to previous discussion points(15, 16& 19).
parks. He would like to see more areas
designated for parks mixed in with the
multi-family areas.
25. Would like the density bonuses for The State requires the Cities to grant density bonus for
affordable housing to be kept after the affordable housing regardless of the maximum density.
decisions have been made on density
requirements for high and medium density
multi-family areas.
Commissioner Blaser
26. What are the actual numbers on how many SFR-X 1095 total lots
lots are"nonconforming"and what is the 909 non-conforming lots
total if they were to be split into lots the size 36 lots: possible subdivision
of those in surrounding areas?
SFR-Y 2286 total lots
2035 non-conforming lots
42 lots: possible subdivision
SFR-Z 544 total lots
408 non-conforming lots
19 lots:possible subdivision
27. What would be the cost of the infrastructure Infrastructure costs will be addressed as part of EIR
to support the new General Plan proposal? and a facilities fee study that is currently in process.
28. Is there a grading ordinance or guideline to Preparation of a grading ordinance would require a
follow when developing lots? significant allocation of staff time. If the Commission
wishes to pursue a grading ordinance, policies should
be included in the General Plan identifying the
preparation of a grading ordinance as a staff priority.
The grading ordinance would likely become part of the
zoning ordinance and would be prepared after the
General Plan is adopted.
Attachment 1
San Luis Obispo's Creek Setback Standards
17.16.025 Creek s1lifucks.
A. Purpose. Creek setbacks are intended to:
1. Protect scenic resources,water quality,and natural
creekside habitat, including opportunities for wil oft
habitation,rest,and movement
2. Further the restoration of damaged or degraded
habitat,especially where a continuous riparian habitat
corridor can be established.
3. Allow for natural changes that may occur within the
creek corridor.
4.Help avoid damage to development from erosion and
flooding.
5.Enable implementation of adopted City plans.
B. Waterways Subject to Setbacks. Creek setback
requirements shall apply to all creeks as defined in the
Open Space Element and storm on that element's
Creek Map,and only to those creeks.
C. Measurement of Creek Setbacks. Creek setbacks
shall be measured from the existing top of bank(or the
future top of bank resulting from a creek alteration
refected in a plan approved by the City),or from the
edge of the predominant pattern of riparian vegetation,
whichever is farther from the creek flow line. The
Community Development Director may determine the
predominant pattern of riparian vegetation,where the
edge of the vegetation varies greatly in a short length
along the creek,in a way unrelated to topography(for
example,the Director will not base the setback fine on
individual trees or branches extending out from the
channel or on small gaps In vegetation extending toward
the channeq.Where riparian vegetation extends over a
public street,no creek setback is required on property
which is on the side of the street away from the creek
•�• • •• • • • o1bR••••• • •• �-T�
Saba*
• `F �
�N _
• •'• • • • i•Qu••a SMaatt
i 2onlnq Qeoulanons
L��
D.Plan Information. The location of top of bank and of 3. Larger Setbacks. To mitigate potentially sig
riparian vegetation shall be shown on all project plans environmental impacts in compliance with the Cal'
subject to City approval. The location of these features Environmental Quality Act,or to implement adopted C'
Is subject to confirmation nfrmation by the Community plans, when approving a discretionary application the
Development Director, based on observation of actual City may require setbacks larger than required by parts
conditions and,as needed,the conclusions of persons 1 and 2 above,or further limitations on the items which
with expertise in hydrology,biology,or geology. may be placed within setbacks. (Also, other City
regulations may restrict or prevent development in a
E. Creek Setback Dimensions. Different setback floodway or floodplain.)
dimensions are established in recognition of different
parcel sizes and locations of existing structures for 4. Prior Approvals. Where the City has explicitly
areas within the city in comparison with areas which approved a creek setback smaller than required by this
may be annexed,and in response to different saes of section,prior to adoption of this section,by action on a
creek channels and tributary drainage areas. tract or parcel map (whether or not a vesting map),
architectural review application, use permit, Planned
1.Creeks within the 1996 City Limits. Along all creeks Development zoning,or Special Considerations zoning,
within the city limits as of July 1,1996,the setback shall that smaller setback shall remain in effect so long as the
be 20 feet, except as provided in parts E.3, EA or G approval is in effect
below. Where the city limit follows a creek,the setback
on the side within the 1996 kdty limits shall be 20 feet F.Items Prohibited within Setbacks. The following shall
and the setback on the annexed side shall be as not be placed or constructed within a creek setback,
provided in part 2 below. except as provided in part G below:structures;paving;
parking lots; in nonresidential zones, areas used for
2. Creeks in Areas Annexed After 1996. Along any storing or working on vehicles,equipment,or materials.
creek in an area annexed to the City after July 1, 1996,
the following setbacks shall be provided, unless a G.ExoeptionsTo Creek Setbacks.
specific plan or development plan approved by the City
Council provides a larger or smaller setback,consistent 1. Entitled Replacement Structures. Where a structure
with the purpose of these regulations and with General lawfully existed on or before October 3, 1996,within a
Plan policies. creek setback required by this chapter.
a. Fifty-foot Setbacks. The setback along the following a.Anystructure built in replacement of such a structure
shall be 50 feet: San Luis Obispo Creek(ail of main may occupy the same footprint, within the creek
branch); San Luis Obispo Creek East Fork, from San setback, as the previous structure. (See also part
Luis Obispo Creek(main branch)to the confluence with 17.16.020.E.1.d.)
Acacia Creek;Stenner Creek.
b. Additional floor area shall not be added to the
b. Thirty-five-foot Setbacks. The setback along the encroaching part of the structure (for example, by
following shall be 35 feet Prefumo Creek;Froom Creek; adding stories).
Braziolari Creek; San Luis Obispo Creek East Fork
tributary, from the confluence with Acacia Creek to c. The part of a structure which is nonconforming due
Broad Street (Highway 227); Acacia Creek and its solely to the creek setback encroachment may be
tributaries west of Broad Street (Highway 227); the remodeled without regard to the limits of parts
segment of the tributary of Acacia Creek which flows 17.14,020.Band C of this title.
generally parallel to and on the easterly side of Broad
Street(Highway 227),from Broad Street to Fuller Road. 2. Entitled Accessory Structures and Uses. The
following items may be located within the required creek
c. Twenty-foot Setbacks. The setback along all creeks setback,provided that they:do not extend beyond the
except those listed in parts "a' and "b" immediately top of bank into the creek channel;will not cause the
above shall be 20 feet removal of native riparian vegetation;will not reduce any
flooding capacity pursuant to the City's Flood Damage
(informational map is available in the Community Prevention Regulations;in total occupy not more than
Development Department) bne-half of the setback area; are consistent with other
Property development standards of the Zoning
Regulations.
MY of san Luis osispo 36 zonmq aequlat+ons
•
a. Walls or fences, provided that in combination with d. Findings. Each discretionary exception shall be
buildings they enclose not more than one-half of the subject to each of the following findings,regardless of
setback area on any development site. the type of project application under which the request is
considered.
b. Parking spaces for single-family dwellings; patios;
walkways. I.The location and design of the feature receiving the
exception will minimize impacts to scenic resources,
c. Decks,stairs,and landings which are no more than water quality, and riparian habitat, including
30 inches in height opportunities for wildlife habitation,rest,and movement
d. One-story, detached buildings used as tool and ii.The exception will not limit the City's design options for
storage sheds,play houses,and similar uses,provided providing flood control measures that are needed to
the projected roof area does not exceed 120 square achieve adopted City flood policies;
feet
iii.The exception will not prevent the implementation of
e. Garden structures such as trellises, arbors, and City-adopted plans, nor increase the adverse
gazebos,provided they are constructed using an open environmental effects of implementing such plans;
lattice design and light weight materials
iv.There are circumstances applying to the site,such as
3. Entitled Architectural Features. The following size,shape or topography,which do not apply generally
architectural features may extend into the setback up to to land in the vicinity with the same zoning,that would
30 inches: cornices, canopies, eaves, buttresses, deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by other
chimneys, solar collectors, shading louvers, water property in the vicinity with the same zoning;
heater enclosures,and bay or other projecting windows
that do not include usable floor space. v. The exception will not constitute a grant of special
privilege—an entitlement inconsistentwith the limitations
4.DiscretionarylExceptions. upon other properties in the vicinity with the same
zoning;and
a. Intent Discretionary exceptions to creek setback
standards are intended to allow reasonable use of sites vi. The exception will not be detrimental to the public
which are subject to creek setbacks,where there is no welfare or injurious to other property in the area of the
practicable aftemative to the exception. Generally,such projector downstream.
exceptions are limited to small parcels which are
essentially surrounded by sites that have been e.Biological Survey. A biological survey by a qualified,
developed with setbacks smaller than those in part E independent person shall be required for each
above. discretionary exception request,to provide the basis for
making finding "d.f' above, unless waived by the
b. Application Type. A creek setback smaller than Community Development Director upon determining that
required by part E above may be approved by City no purpose would be served by such a survey because
action on a plan for public facilities approved by the City no biological resources could be affected by the
Council or on a specific plan,development pian under exception.
planned development zoning,land division,use permit,
or architectural review. Where one of these types of f. Application Contents. in addition to any other
applications is not otherwise required for the proposed information required for a project application,a request
feature,an exception request shall be in the form of an for creek setback exception shall include the following:
administrative use permit
I.A description of the feature or features proposed for
c.Public Notice. Public notice for a project involving a exception and the extent of the exception.
creek setback exception,regardless of application type,
shall include a clear description of the feature or features ii. A description of potential design changes for the
proposed to receive the exception,and the extent of the project which would eliminate or reduce the need for the
exception. exception.
Hi.A statement of reasons why an exception is deemed
necessary by the applicant
crty of san tuns oscspo 37 zonrnq nequurions '
� Y
�I•w'ems.
Attachment 2
Rochelle Property Flood Plain
500 year flood plain
100 year flood plain
II
i
I
Proposed collector
street access
Ferrocaril
emergency access
h s (no through traffic)
rd,iil
[-�
Rochelle property
i
I
C
■rte r r■�■� N \�
`v�rL� �ti'^,1r��N�I�r�
+♦I,�11r{fi y��J} �� 1►; �+1r/I+t.:y' :•.�.f•a{�U1��111F�r,f
������ 11��` ����Iy �� ♦ ♦ .i�.T *i �'„fir.G■
OWN,
/fir yRr� rr�t
+,.w}*
�j ♦I�Iitt�rrr+1��►��r /hkf/* rry4a�t�
7 *� ,IIf� ar +a rater+ i, • ��
►r�`rl>�f *sift\`
\ l { ���ir +ur r�� � RFS►� \err r � �
♦�#da
�/'�� rrs *rl ■��`�•r'!1�#�5* �/)�+ ��a*slay■� 4 ---
r�i� .r.�1r� A� •. rr.,,tali �r�i' r r�+ J{ #`
ti��tr�et'�gp
11 fir•l�sr���l� p�14a' � r �.�f� � �``
� �l � �i�r,r�-' �'• � T ♦qtr � ��
�r+�:�►R► ��` �� ,t1t�..�\f�. �r'+.1�� /'
i.!" r��♦ 7 �� {��►.♦ r1► �i�+�t� *�ir/� SIG. =1rrl. 1 I j*l
�1 > > a S�'
�j►�:1+�►►,r +t1, r4+1i' �•�•�'r��t!�� ♦ ' raj���,ii, �� *I49
� 111 s t �li►`� � ,f, lj f�
�iI .�LI� : -I�yr►�Y! * `�,r� .\.+lr I/: rte` `�I .1 ��
w ErrAW Ln s��411�111 JIr\t�a�++! � ���ti�l�rj rr%, �i,, f
ssi� Mk� az*.. +1.•'aI w .r A Jr �1 N+�% y
�'T��t�•• ax* •r i.. `�t'"�.� LIj� � �Irrj'} I�f !.-r
� �i"rsf • * ■<► `r it � ♦ '4\�'rr i/ 4 �
� i t`i�i�7���fst�frrr,+�•. �.r �tr!�
i�,l rjF,
*��� �� is .si:r►7—�� til �t
r r� ++i�yy r+w rJf1 fIJ� ♦pr�
/�11♦ 4- f r tri ♦ .• I'•-' \ + .* r Ob �� 4iri /1 {*r,
..,++•,I0WCA
1�\t,*' ..w.�". +i�i � . ♦ �.r s sf�r.` �G s.'i'�.{L�,"`•a�, �
Cd
gbm
W Lots with SFR-Y zoning
L�,,/i. ♦/.tom y a4♦ 'r 1-X�t�I +. ♦ \1¢\�IL
�`' and>1 acre
Mrd\��r +i�'� `. r . r �� ++».y\ I�a�1�.,ti`�♦
♦ WtI i
IP-
L IAV
.�, �jiR� �r4.�*l���r .-i..r.� �it4+ ♦„ #.I► ` \lM �xird�'I
�!��► ,•-•�►r ~~'441-•`T• .`•' Q I:.
♦�} r `. . Ir: '-•,`► �r��i\ -•'+:�. ,�rtea.vii■h
Ind
VW
01
ggV11, MW
lr�lltir', ♦ �►
rm
lift
141
�ji J� .��4�i��� fir►+� ME�
f i
Areas with CR or CP
zones
IW 4W�
15AM Mr
NVELM SSW
MJ 1 1�1j�� !,}�.��
Is
t►goo
.lrtu � f �__►a t f tam� �
:lil,��i ti:trrj/'li �•� •'o``���til/i *,
`' L
*� �* ANf �� l�rv� tea•:' M a`
�� � 4;.�4utitir�IL1 a;; � �..��1+t ♦ ♦ ��a a�♦+ ��, ,,
�a41VI �fI!"� `��r4 ��♦fit J
� •1�!�I�• �'�►a a R.; as�a � ' ��.
Mira
• m ♦�ii�tttlt��
go
, ��i1 r I/x f�� 1 ��;���►• �` �1
1
VIA
aft
owl m
�►� . ♦� . ♦ ji♦+ rte♦ . r�+i �a+. ► ./1`r���s�r��.t�: ,
'OKI+ -a��f .��*: �y:.,�� 1+I�, � �r►�Ijr���► ♦ 1111► ,,,1;
♦� �� *Swr*_ f* Cir• �`�. r����s� t� .Ij�� 11 l� rj is
'.r Ya ♦+R��it� �tio �j►V /J,
1"4117�i . ���� 4i��
��`' � I ♦a��,.�v ..� �!�., . fid` r'r• � �� 1�>'a*��
�*��� ,_►�+aa ai �_sr��`� :�r�e�rte'�1 moi. �� �0 0��
�. ■'���+� Mil *r� f11/� �� 1 �A N
Fm
Ii
�' �����'�♦'��_� ���1 .:� �; s��� �`�' 'A�,�PA
f ��•���, qtr!►+,`��Ii�' NAA*i� � r►t.�
♦ ��♦ � . ♦ �i.��
•• ��� , �+� ��r i :r H1H:♦i�� �
�������,�, ����,'� � `mil �s♦��a� ``��,���� �i � `♦*,
kvjg-
•, areas
MIM
1A Ik
1��� r�♦fl�j� Recreation land use
11 ♦'r it ►1>t1N�+lam:�� +� a �I •`�>1ttt+¢+,• #
r�r► `jv tr1*�a��r�t� '�♦, n.►1j�rw•� {rl�;>>.rr1
�L7#
� 1r►' �` •� . i .. ♦� Ilr�•�urf, Illi_
� � :`' ♦Q tet+trt.���■R}•1gId�11F�r°.'ry -..
�• tgs.SI
�.•,������`+�� ♦`►��•J��t�i�rlll�j 1�I+���r SLI ti�C =
NO!"'E"A •tom 1�% l�►y����.
.i 1 �. +►.
`�`l,`�`r��_r '�t�►�►� ���ti1��f'��' .*'��►t,� f..+fl�i� , + �'7t p+l�Rij c''� � i�ri,�
� t� �l� r.F
�tr ti`s► .rrta..♦��!!!�r �,�f*f y♦>..,
4 �.���'OWN:
`��b!-
S,` ►ra`����i . II♦�� , t L.✓i ?!�run? r'� i/I
i♦.`�}f�`��'�. � �1R►s+�ylL��tl�a� r�,
! I��y .� ►� , .a *�,
q !4
.t iff/lil
`�� mid• �*�fI L ci.��� t�•�t 1JJ si,�1t��I ��J
411 r
1 low�� ♦ i
��*R �*}rte�-- ± �a�.► . `• M � .
�, t]}ice , ��*trtf��1►._+ 't� �, `
�4*�,�� �.a� "'1 r' �� •IfV /frfll�,,��� at
�WI ♦ ♦,✓A♦ at g,
� �I�D.�;►�1+��J It � ►- A\I�+
5
Attachment 6
RMF-16 Development Standards
Maximum Building Height:30 feet(not to exceed two stories)
Setbacks: Front Rear Side
25 feet 10 feet 5 feet
Parking: 1 bedroom unit 1.5 spaces
2 bedroom unit 2.0 spaces
each additional bedroom.5 spaces
Property Development Standards
a) Percent Coverage:The maximum percent of a lot that may be covered by structures shall be 400/6 for Low
Density Multiple Family projects and 50%coverage for High Density Multiple Family projects.
b) Enclosed Storage:Each dwelling unit shall be provided a minimum of 100 sq.ft.of enclosed storage space,
exclusive of closets,which may be located in either a principle or accessory building.
c) Outdoor Recreation Areas:For developments of 4-7 dwelling units,outdoor recreational open space shall be
provided at a ratio of 300 sq.ft.per unit.
d) Screen Wall:A solid wall or fence not less than six feet in height shall be placed and maintained on interior lot
lines abutting property zoned for single family residential use.
e) Covered Parking:One covered parking space shall be required per dwelling unit of the total off-street spaces
required by the City's Zoning Ordinance.
y �,
Attachment 3: Excerpts of Planning Commission Minutes June 19,2001
REGULAR MEETING, 7:00 P.M.
Chairman Eddings called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m.
PUBLIC COMMENT
None
CONSENT CALENDAR
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF THE REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING OF JUNE 5,2001.
MOTION: By Commissioner Fonzi and seconded by Commissioner Kelley to approve
the Consent Calendar.
AYES: Commissioners Fonzi, Kelley, Blaser,Norton, Jeanes and Chairman Eddings.
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
Motion passed 6:0 by a roll-call vote.
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM CONTINUED FROM 6/5/01
4. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: GPA 2000-0001 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE:
REVIEW OF DRAFT LAND USE PLAN: This project is continued for
deliberation (public hearing portion was closed on 6/5/01). The Planning
Commission will be deliberating the consideration of a recommended Draft Land Use
Map to the City Council for use in the General Plan Update process. The Draft Land
Use Map will be used for the preparation of a Draft General Plan Document and Draft
environmental Impact Report. No formal action to amend the current General Plan
will be taken at this meeting.
Chairman Eddings announced that the public hearing had been closed at the previous
meeting, but that additional public comment would be taken prior to Commission
deliberations. Public comment would be limited to 3 minutes.
Principal Planner Warren Frace gave a brief overview of the staff report given at the June 5,
2001 meeting, and addressed the key points of discussion from that meeting. 067
REOPENED PUBLIC COMMENT
Joan O'Keefe, 9985 Old Morro Road East, read from a prepared statement addressing her
concerns regarding the Urban Service Line, prime multi-family areas, zone changes for the
Rochelle/Gearhart property, parks, bonus densities for affordable housing and the need for a
grading ordinance. (Attachment 2)
Marissa Todd, 4500 Del Rio Road, speaking on behalf of the Atascadero's Horseman's Club,
read from a prepared statement expressing the Club's concern regarding the Kelly Gearhart
housing development located in the LUA-7 section of the general plan update and the need
for public access to the de Anza Historic Trail in that area. (Attachment 3)
Levi Barrett, 1950 Traffic Way, spoke on behalf of himself and Wade Tilly who resides at
4505 Santa Cruz. He feels the build out figure is arbitrary and this method of planning is
fraught with difficulty.
Richard Shannon, 5070 San Benito Road, requested clarification on the zoning for the
intersection of Del Rio Road and El Camino Real.
Jerry Johnson, Obispo Road and Traffic Way, stated that he would like to see smaller lots in
the area near his home.
Mike Baumberger, Atascadero Avenue, encouraged the Commission to change the zoning in
the area near his property to one-half acre lots.
Alan Thomas, 9520 Marchant Way, asked if City Staff would recalculate the population
numbers based on adoption of the eight Policy Options.
Principal Planner Frace responded that staff would communicate the potential impacts of the
Policy Options when the Draft Plan is presented to the Council. The EIR will address all
potential impacts.
A letter was received from the Traffic Way Property Owners regarding the zoning change for
the San Benito School area. (Attachment 4)
Chairman Eddings closed Public Comment.
There was a brief question and answer period before deliberations began.
POLICY OPTION #1: URBAN SERVICES LINE
Commissioner Fonzi referred to page no. 73, second bulleted item, "Provision of all services
should be considered," and stated that she does not feel that statement should be included in
this Policy Option and would like to see it removed.
Commissioner Norton asked for additional information on the wastewater treatment plant
capacities. Principal Planner Frace stated that the Regional Quality Control Board reissued
Atascadero's Discharge Permit in March. At that time the discharge amount was increased ��S
from 1.67 million gallons per day (MGD) to 2.39 MGD. Currently the average daily rate is
1.4 MGD. The actual capacity of the infiltration basins is 11.6 MGD. Occasional storms
which exceed the 10 year event will bring rain water into the system and will cause the
average daily peak to exceed the old 1.67 MGD rate, however, in the past 12 years the rate
has never come close to 2.39 MGD. Based on the new 2.39 MGD rate and the city growing
at an average of I% per year, it will take approximately 40 years to use up that capacity. The
plant meets all State standards. -
Commissioner Jeans asked if it was feasible to remove bulleted item 2 on page no. 73 per
Commissioner Fonzi's recommendation. Mr. Frace stated that staff is looking for a
recommendation from the Commission as to the area to be included in the Urban Services
Line. The USL is not an entitlement but rather an intention for the future; the intent is not to
require all within the area to sewer their properties. Mr. Frace suggested the
recommendation could include language to read "The Urban Service Line be adopted as
shown on the attachment, but the intent would not be to require all parcels within the USL to
connect to sewer."
MOTION: By Vice Chairman Jeanes and seconded by Commissioner Fonzi to
recommend to the City Council the expansion of the Urban Service Line
as proposed under Policy Option #1 as follows:
Recommended Option
1. Recommend adoption of the revised Urban Service Line as shown.
2. Develop a policy that not all lots with the Urban Service Line are required to be served
by sewer.
J� �
/ 1 1 111
`V► ♦ti`` r t � yi'44 ♦ `
ti'il _'.I�"c.i1,r
Aw" ,
• A
WN
IS
+!` t
�[_ it �� t►v►rI ' �`/t.�,y;.qv�!'�`.a�"'=:�' �?
}
A =D. , pp�ili�� Na�z.�
o �
INU
^� �� • , I
as ��IINflIIUllll ��
� M
Chairman Eddings referred to a letter the Commission received from the Chamber of
Commerce pertaining to the Commercial/Industrial zoning in which they recommend two
broad zones, one Commercial and one Industrial, to give applicants more flexibility to handle
issues at the staff level. Mr. Frace indicated that staff agrees with the industrial
recommendation. In the commercial districts staff is recommending consolidation of
neighborhood commercial, tourist commercial, office district and retail commercial into a
single designation called General Commercial. Staff felt it was appropriate to keep Service
Commercial separated at a general plan level so heavier service uses do not encroach into
residential areas. The Downtown designation is one of the commercial uses that is specific to
the downtown and should be kept separate. The Commercial Park designation is a special
district for light industrial and commercial with many specific requirements suited to the
northern El Camino area.
MOTION: By Commissioner Fonzi and seconded by Commissioner Kelley to
recommend Policy Option #2 as follows:
Recommended Option
1. Recommend incorporation of the new Land Use Designations in Updated General Plan
071
Busbrig lard L6es Lofted Land Uses
Cortservadon
AG Agialtue AG Agia m
OS Oen
Ibsidendal _
RR RM Rasidatial RR Rd Rmdatial
SSF SrKje Fmily Wx.rben(25-10 acre Id rrin) RE R-d Estates(25-10 acre Ict nin)[atside L SQ
SE SLbjban Estates(25-10 acre Id nin)[irrida Lf3Q
LDSF Lav Density Sir ge Family SFR,Z S rije Family fksidatial(1.5-25 acre Id;nin)
IVDSF Medun D3-dty Serge Fainly SFR;Y Srye Family Pasidatial(1.0-1.5 acre Id nin)
HX F Hgh Density Sirtje Family SFR:X Serge Family Falsidatiai(Q5 we lct nin)
LCW Lau Daisity Mlti-Family(10 becto=/ac) NM Medun amity FesidEr tial(10 Ws/ac)
FEW Hgh Density IAPW- nily(16 bedDam/ac) Fit Hgh Daisity Residatial(16 ctts/ac)
Ccmrrerdal
IVC N igtaticud Camiacial Combine with GC
RC Fttail Om rudal OC Ganem Ccrrrrerdd
SC Sauoe Cbrmiaaal SC Serdce CarrTudd
TC Tcuist Cbrrr-sdal Combine with CSC
D Dwutw D DairtoAn
O Office Combine with CSC
CPK Carrrraaal Pak CPK Ccnmadd Park
NC Wed Use Cam wcal
Industrial
IrxLstrial IND hdstrial
IPK Ird.strial Park Combine with IND
Public/Qasi-Pttilic
P Rblic Faciftites RB Rtblic Facilities
RBC RBmN cn FM Riblic fiat
CRIB Camrencei PemEtim
AYES: Commissioners Fonzi, Kelley, Blaser,Norton, Jeanes and Chairman Eddings
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
Motion passed 6:0 by a roll-call vote.
POLICY OPTION #3: PD-7 DISTRICT EXPANSION Q,l
Principal Planner Frace provided the staff report and answered questions of the Commission.
Commissioner Fonzi stated that she would like to see the definition of Prime Multi Family
areas included within the General Plan as stated on page no. 92. Additionally, she would like
to add to Option #3 that the PD-7 overlay be applied to properties that can provide a
"demonstrable public benefit" such as open space or recreational use or tree conservation,
etc.
Chairman Eddings indicated that he prefers that PD-7 not be allowed in the high or medium
density multi-family zoned lots. He feels that this is how apartment properties are lost.
MOTION: By Vice Chairman Jeanes to recommend to the City Council the PD-7
recommendations as set forth by staff preserving prime multi-family areas
with the four points as outlined on page no. 92.
Commissioner Fonzi requested the Motion be amended to add that the PD-7 overlay be
applied to properties that can provide a demonstrable public benefit such as open space,
recreational use, affordable and senior housing, etc.
A discussion ensued regarding Commissioner Fonzi's amendment.
MOTION: By Vice-Chairman Jeanes and seconded by Commissioner Kelley to
recommend to the City Council Policy Option #3 as follows:
Recommended Options
1. Recommend that standards for a new PD-7 type overlay district be developed for the
SFR-X land use designation in order to allow small lot single family infill
development.
2. Recommend that RMF property meeting the following standards be preserved as
"prime"multi-family areas for apartment development and preclude conversion to
PD-7.
a. Lot size: Lots or contiguous ownership of 2+ acres.
b. Slope: Below 10%
C. Arterial or collector street access
d. Neighborhood compatibility with apartment development
AYES: Commissioners Jeanes, Kelley, Fonzi,Norton, Blaser and Chairman Eddings
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
• Motion passed 6:0 by a roll-call vote.
073
MOTION: By Commissioner Fonzi that the PD-7 overlay be applied to properties
that can provide a demonstrable public benefit.
Motion failed by the lack of a second.
POLICY OPTION #4: CREEK SETBACKS
Principal Planner Frace provided the staff report and answered questions of the Commission.
Chairman Eddings expressed his belief that the creeks in Atascadero could be used as a
recreational asset for the city with trails and restaurants with balconies, etc. Mr. Frace
responded that this is the reason for different standards for creek setbacks. In the downtown
a better urban interface is desirable but without threatening the health and integrity of the
creek.
Vice-Chairman Jeanes stated that it was important to maintain the integrity of the downtown
master plan. She would like to see the creek be pedestrian friendly and feels flexible
standards are necessary. However, further out from the downtown she feels larger setbacks
must be required.
Commissioner Kelley did not feel private homeowners should be penalized with a flexible
standard, and he would like to see a practical, uniform standard for creeks.
Commissioner Norton would like to see setbacks with teeth in them. She feels standards
have been too vague in the past.
Vice-Chairman Jeanes inquired about small lots and standard setbacks. Mr. Frace stated that
there should be flexibility in areas where one lot may be small and non-conforming, allowing
it to build closer to the creek. Larger lots would be held to a larger setback. He suggested
that staff could come back with a recommendation that combines several approaches if the
Commission feels the issue of creek setbacks should be given consideration.
MOTION: By Commissioner Norton to recommend that bulleted item no. 2 should read
"A need for setback protection," and to recommend setback standards for each
zoning area be developed to protect blue line creeks.
Commissioner Kelley felt that by looking at different zonings, different standards would be
developed. He feels that it is the same creek and the same habitat and therefore standards
should be uniform.
Commissioner Blaser feels that the issue of flexibility must be kept in the recommendation.
MOTION: By Commissioner Norton and seconded by Vice-Chairman Jeanes to
recommend adoption of Policy Option #4 as follows.
Recommended Option
074
2. Recommend that tiered setback standards for each area be developed to
protect blueline creeks with special Downtown Master Plan consideration.
AYES: Commissioners Norton, Jeanes, Fonzi and Blaser
NOES: Commissioner Kelley and Chairman Eddings
ABSTAIN: None
Motion passed 4:2 by a roll-call vote.
POLICY OPTION #5: AFFORDABLE HOUSING
Principal Planner Frace provided the staff report and answered questions of the Commission.
Option #5A: Affordable Housing Second Units
Commissioner Kelley suggested that the Conditional Use Permit process be used during the
trial period to allow for public input.
Commissioner Norton asked about street repair and parking. Mr. Frace indicated that street
repair could be considered as part of the CUP process. Staff is recommending covered off-
street parking for guest homes.
Commissioner Fonzi felt there should be a time frame for the trial period.
MOTION: By Vice-Chairman Jeanes and seconded by Commissioner Fonzi that the
Planning Commission recommend to the City Council Policy Option #5A for
affordable housing on second units to begin with a pilot program and include
all of the recommended options as set forth for the public's information which
include staff looking at lot size, size restrictions, sewer connection, covered
parking, maximum slope, native tree impacts, architectural appearance,
setbacks, neighborhood compatibility, and a Conditional Use Permit process,
and that the program would also include a timeframe for pilot program
review, would eliminate Guest Houses in the SFR-Y land uses and continue to
allow Guest Houses in the SFR-X, SFR-Z and SSF land uses.
Commissioner Norton requested an amendment to the Motion to include road improvement
on the list of recommended options.
Chairman Eddings felt that roads should not be included in the Motion, but rather should be
dealt with during the Conditional Use Permit process and suggested any road improvements
should be limited to the frontage of the parcel to the centerline of the street.
075
MOTION: By Vice-Chairman Jeanes and seconded by Commissioner Fonzi that the
Planning Commission recommend to the City Council Policy Option #5A as
follows:
Recommended Options
1. Develop Second Unit standards that address the following:
lot size(1 ac min)
size restriction
sewer connection
covered parking
maximum slope
native trees impacts
architectural appearance
setbacks
i; neighborhood compatibility
Conditional Use Permit approval process
2. Begin with a pilot program to allow second units in the SFR-Y(1 - 1.5 acre lot min) land
use with annual program report to the Planning Commission.
3. Eliminate Guest Houses in the SFR-Y land uses.
4. Continue to allow Guest Houses in the SFR-X, SFR-Z and SSF land uses.
AYES: Commissioners Jeanes, Fonzi, Kelley,Norton, Blaser and Chairman Eddings.
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
Motion passed 6:0 by a roll-call vote.
MOTION: By Commissioner Norton and seconded by Commissioner Blaser to amend
the Motion to include roads in the developing of the second unit standards and
to limit the road improvement to the front of the property to the centerline of
the street.
AYES: Commissioners Norton, Blaser, Jeanes
NOES: Commissioners Fonzi, Kelley and Chairman Eddings
ABSTAIN: None
Motion nullified 3:3 by a roll-call vote.
Policy Option #5B: Affordable Housing-Mixed Use Multi-Family Residential in Retail
District
076
Principal Planner Frace provided the staff report and answered questions of the Commission.
MOTION: By Commissioner Kelley and seconded by Commissioner Blaser to
recommend adoption of the Policy Option 5B as follows:
Recommended Options
1. Allow mixed use multi-family residential projects within the Commercial Retail and
Commercial Professional zoning districts as a conditionally allowed use.
2. Require mixed use residential to be attached, multi-family type development.
3. Require all residential projects along Morro Road to include a commercial or office
storefront along the street frontage with parking to the rear.
4. Allow exclusive multi-family residential development along El Camino Real.
AYES: Commissioners Kelley, Blaser, Fonzi,Norton, Jeanes and Chairman Eddings
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
Motion passed 6:0 by a roll-call vote.
Policy Option #5C: Affordable Housing—Multi-Family Density (units vs. bedrooms)
Principal Planner Frace provided the staff report and answered questions of the Commission.
Chairman Eddings felt that allowing a density of 16 units was too low and suggested a figure
of 24 units per acre and maintaining the density bonus for affordable housing as currently
written.
Commissioner Kelley would like to see the density at 22 units while encouraging the low-
income density bonus and an architectural design bonus.
077
MOTION: By Chairman Eddings and seconded by Vice-Chairman Jeanes to recommend
adoption of Policy Option#5C as follows:
Recommended Options
1. Recommend that multi-family densities be calculated by units rather than bedrooms.
2. Recommend increasing the maximum allowable multi-family density to 22-units/ac in
certain areas.
AYES: Commissioners Jeanes, Kelley, Fonzi,Norton, Blaser and Chairman Eddings
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
Motion passed 6:0 by a roll-call vote.
Policy Option #51): Affordable Housing—Senior Housing
Principal Planner Frace provided the staff report and answered questions of the Commission.
Chairman Eddings would recommend allowing 26 to 28 deed restricted senior apartments per
acre and allow the density bonus and reduce the parking to one parking space per unit with
consideration for less if it is along a bus route.
Commissioner Fonzi would like a statement as to what specifically the incentive bonus
would be.
MOTION: By Chairman Eddings and seconded by Commissioner Kelley to recommend
the General Plan provide density bonus incentives for deed restricted senior
housing development allowing 24 senior units per acre with an additional 25%
density bonus for affordable senior housing, with a minimum of one parking
space per unit and one guest parking space per five units.
AYES: Commissioners Kelley, Jeanes and Chairman Eddings
NOES: Commissioners Fonzi,Norton and Blaser
ABSTAIN: None
Motion nullified 3:3 by a roll-call vote.
MOTION: B Vice-Chairman Jeanes and seconded b Commissioner Norton to
Y Y
recommend Policy 5D as follows: 078
Recommended Option
2. Recommend that the General Plan provide a density bonus incentive for deed-
restricted senior housing development projects and that staff look into various options
for such.
AYES: Commissioners Jeanes,Norton, Fonzi, Kelley and Blaser
NOES: Chairman Eddings
ABSTAIN: None
Motion passed 5:1 by a roll-call vote.
Policy Option#5E: Affordable Housing—Inclusionary Housing
Principal Planner Frace provided the staff report and answered questions of the Commission.
MOTION: By Vice-Chairman Jeanes and seconded by Chairman Eddings to recommend
Policy Option 5E as follows:
Recommended Option
2. Consider the adoption of an inclusionary affordable housing program similar to the City
of San Luis Obispo.
AYES: Commissioner Jeanes, Blaser,Norton, Kelley, Fonzi and Chairman Eddings
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
Motion passed 6:0 by a roll-call vote.
Chairman Eddings called a recess at 9:25 p.m.
Chairman Eddings called the meeting back to order at 9:35 p.m.
POLICY OPTION #6: SERVICE COMMERCIAL LOCATIONS
Principal Planner Frace provided the staff report and answered questions of the Commission. . p 7 g
an
WON A
OL
® S
`mt ��,hj�j
� � f
WA
�•�� �
III %X YP ,���°"` \ ' ' ,. ♦�
♦�� � lot
�
• ��
AYES: Commissioners Jeanes, Kelley,Norton, Blaser, Fonzi and Chairman Eddings
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
Motion passed 6:0 by a roll-call vote.
POLICY OPTION #7: UNINCORPORATED AREAS
Principal Planner Frace provided the staff report and answered questions of the Commission.
Commissioner Fonzi felt that in the future when recommending annexation policies, the
emphasis be placed on cost/benefit to the City.
MOTION: By Commissioner Blaser and seconded by Commissioner Norton to
recommend Policy Option 7 as follows:
Recommended Option
6. Area A:
Develop Future Annexation Policies
7. Area B:
Remote: Leave in County
8. Area C:
Developed: Leave in County
9. Area D:
400 undeveloped lots: City Control via Annexation
Develop Future Annexation Policies
10. Area E:
Developed: Leave in County
081
Unincorporated Colony Areas
May 29, 2001
qry MMMw
\ YnN Mw.
;\ hnM LYw
II.Y..AwHr.Mo
N� HC
H:
i
i
AYES: Commissioners Blaser,Norton, Fonzi, Kelley, Jeanes and Chairman Eddings
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
Motion passed 6:0 by a roll-call vote.
POLICY OPTION #8: LOT SIZE INCONSISTENCIES
Principal Planner Frace provided the staff report and answered questions of the Commission.
082
Commissioner Norton indicated that in walking many of these lots she has noticed that most
have a rural atmosphere, which she feels must be preserved, and she agrees with option no. 3
where the process is applied to individual lots.
MOTION: By Commissioner Fonzi and seconded by Vice-Chairman Jeanes to adopt
Option No. 8 as follows:
Recommended Option
2. Develop a customized Planned Development (PD) overlay process that could be applied
to individual lots that are inconsistent with surrounding lots.
AYES: Commissioners Fonzi, Jeanes, Kelley,Norton, Blaser and Chairman Eddings
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
Motion passed 6:0 by a roll-call vote.
MOTION: By Vice-Chairman Jeanes and seconded by Commissioner Norton to add an
additional Policy Option 9 as follows.
Recommended Option
2. Review the parking standards for mixed use residential development within the
Downtown land use designation as part of the General Plan Update.
AYES: Commissioners Jeanes,Norton, Fonzi, Kelley, Blaser and Chairman Eddings
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
Motion passed 6:0 by a roll-call vote.
Commissioner Norton expressed concern that there was nothing in the General Plan Update,
which addressed historic preservation for the Colony homes that may be affected by the
proposed zoning changes.
MOTION: By Commissioner Norton and seconded by Commissioner Fonzi to
0 recommend an additional Policy Option 10 as follows:
08-3
Recommended Option
3. The General Plan will include policies for the historic preservation of Atascadero Colony
homes.
AYES: Commissioners Norton, Fonzi, Kelley, Blaser, Jeanes and Chairman Eddings
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
Motion passed 6:0 by a roll-call vote.
REFINED DRAFT LAND USE PLAN MAP RECOMMENDATION RESOLUTION
Principal Planner Frace reviewed the process to date, provided the staff report and answered
questions of the Commission. The Commission agreed to deliberate on the map by
reviewing specific sub areas one by one.
San Benito Area (LUA 11)
Commissioner Kelley discussed the lots on Traffic Way and the proposals submitted by the
property owners over the last several years. He felt their proposals should be included in the
General Plan Update. He recommended one-acre minimums with septic systems.
MOTION: By Commissioner Kelley and seconded by Vice-Chairman Jeanes to
recommend one-acre minimum lots with septic systems for the area along
Traffic Way in the San Benito School area(LUA-11).
AYES: Commissioners Kelley, Jeanes, Blaser, Fonzi and Chairman Eddings
NOES: Commissioner Norton
ABSTAIN: None
Motion passed 5:1 by a roll-call vote.
Commissioner Fonzi expressed concern regarding loss of the Transient Occupancy Tax if the
approved R.V. Park in the current recreation zone at the north end of town goes.
North End
A discussion ensued regarding the north end zoning changes. The Commission felt that they
would like this area at the north end to remain Recreational with access to the proposed
bicycle trail and the de Anza trail and with an adjacent area going to residential. It was
decided to separate this area out of the Motion and return to it separately.
Ogg
MOTION: By Commissioner Kelley and seconded by Commissioner Blaser to
recommend acceptance of that portion of the North End Draft Land Use Map
exclusive of the Rochelle Property area north of Home Depot.
AYES: Commissioners Kelley, Blaser,Norton, Fonzi, Jeanes and Chairman Eddings
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
Motion passed 6:0 by a roll-call vote.
Rochelle Property
MOTION: By Commissioner Kelley and seconded by Chairman Eddings that the
property previously zoned for an R.V. Park be changed to Single-Family
Residential, 50 unit maximum, and change the designation to Suburban Estate
to the south of this area and leave the existing Suburban designation with no
change to the other property as indicated on the map, and the bike path to be
built along the Mackey parcel as a condition of approval for the zone changes
on the other property.
AYES: Commissioners Kelley, Jeanes and Chairman Eddings
NOES: Commissioners Fonzi,Norton and Blaser
ABSTAIN: None
Motion nullified 3:3 by a roll-call vote.
MOTION: By Commissioner Fonzi and seconded by Commissioner Norton that the
property to the north be retained as Recreational zoning and the property south
of that between it and Ferrocaril be designated as Suburban Estates.
AYES: Commissioners Fonzi, and Norton
NOES: Commissioners Blaser, Kelley, Jeanes and Chairman Eddings
Motion failed 4:2 by a roll-call vote.
MOTION: By Commissioner Kelley and seconded by Chairman Eddings that the R.V.
Park be zoned for Single-Family Residential 50 units maximum, change the
designation to Suburban Estates for the property to the south of there, leave
the existing Suburban designation to the one triangle lot and let the bike path
to be built along the Mackey parcel be a condition of approval of the zone
change with the developer improving that parcel as seen fit by the City.
Commissioner Blaser proposed an amendment to the Motion to provide for equestrian access
to the river, which would enable trucks with horse trailers to get to the river.
MOTION: By Commissioner Kelley and seconded by Chairman Eddings that the R.V.
Park be zoned for Single-Family Residential 50 units maximum, change the
designation to Suburban Estates for the property to the south of there, leave
the existing Suburban designation on the one triangle lot and let the bike path
to be built along the Mackey parcel be a condition of approval of the zone
change with the developer improving that parcel as seen fit by the City, and
providing equestrian access to the river.
AYES: Commissioners Kelley, Blaser, Jeanes and Chairman Eddings
NOES: Commissioners Fonzi and Norton
ABSTAIN: None
Motion passed 4:2 by a roll-call vote.
Central Core
Commissioner Kelley suggested a change to the map: the lot at Morro Road and Atascadero
Avenue (Lot 14), currently zoned Multi-Family, be rezoned to Commercial Professional to
make it compatible with surrounding properties.
Chairman Eddings indicated that there was a request before the Commission to rezone a lot
on Capistrano Avenue to High Density Multi-Family. Principal Planner Frace stated that
staff feels the Low Density Multi-Family zoning is appropriate for that site given the slope
and oak trees on the property as well as the access to Stadium Park.
Commissioner Kelley felt that the request for the change to High Density Multi-Family
should be shown on the map.
MOTION: By Vice-Chairman Jeanes and seconded by Commissioner Kelley that the
Commission recommend to the City Council the refined land use plan in the
central area of town as proposed by staff with the change to Office for lot 14
located between Morro Road and Atascadero Avenue.
AYES: Commissioners Jeanes, Kelley,Norton, Fonzi, Blaser and Chairman Eddings
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
Motion passed 6:0 by a roll-call vote.
�8�
Principal Planner Frace asked if the intent of the Motion was to include the recommendation
on the Curbaril/El Camino site. Commissioner Jeanes stated that it was.
South End
MOTION: By Commissioner Kelley and seconded by Commissioner Blaser to accept the
South End proposal as is.
AYES: Commissioners Kelley, Blaser, Fonzi,Norton, Jeanes and Chairman Eddings
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
Motion passed 6.-0 by a roll-call vote.
MOTION: By Vice-Chairman Jeanes and seconded by Chairman Eddings to adopt
Resolution 2001-026 with the all of the amendments to the land use map as
approved by the Commission.
AYES: Commissioners Jeanes, Kelley, Fonzi, Blaser,Norton and Chairman Eddings
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
Motion passed 6:0 by a roll-call vote.
•
Attachment 4: Planning Commission Draft Land Use Plan Recommendation
RESOLUTION NO. PC 2001-026
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF ATASCADERO RECOMMENDING A DRAFT LAND USE PLAN TO THE
CITY COUNCIL FOR INCORPORATION INTO A DRAFT GENERAL PLAN
POLICY DOCUMENT AND DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT.
GPA 2000-0001
WHEREAS, the City of Atascadero is in the process of updating all elements of the
Atascadero General Plan; and,
WHEREAS, a Draft Land Use Plan is required as a Preferred Plan for the
preparation of a Draft General Plan policy document and for analysis in the Draft
Environmental Impact Report; and,
WHEREAS, a publicly held Joint Study Session of the City Council and Planning
Commission was convened on May 29, 2001 to review the proposed Draft Land Use Plan
without taking any action; and,
WHEREAS, a public Open House was held on May 30, 2001 to allow public review
of the Draft Land Use Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a duly advertised Public Hearing
on June 5, 2001 and June 19, 2001 and considered testimony and reports from staff, and the
public.
NOW THEREFORE, the Planning Commission does resolve as follows:
SECTION 1. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The Planning
Commission hereby determines that endorsement of a Draft Land Use Plan for use as the
Preferred Plan in a Draft Environmental Impact Report does not constitute a project as
defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and that no environmental
determination is required at this time; and,
SECTION 2. RECOMMENDATION OF ENDORSEMENT: The Planning
Commission of the City of Atascadero, in a regular session assembled on June 19, 2001, •
resolved to recommend the Draft Land Use Plan (shown on Exhibit A) to the City Council
��n
for use as the Preferred Plan for use in the Draft General Plan policy document and thereon a
Draft Environmental Impact Report.
On motion by Commissioner Jeans, and seconded by Commissioner Eddings the foregoing
resolution is hereby adopted in its entirety by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Blaser, Eddings, Fonzi, Jeans, Kelley, and Norton ( 6 )
NOES: ( 0)
ABSENT: ( 0 )
ABSTAIN: ( 0 )
DATE ADOPTED: June 19, 2001
CITY OF ATASCADERO, CA
Royce Eddings
Planning Commission Chairperson
Attest:
Lori Parcells, Director
Community Development Department
• -
i 1 1 1
50 units nmximum
Equestrian access to River
lrequired
Bike path to beall. constructed on Mackay
♦ ..
—q�W
t .sh■Mi./��'v� �
ON
�� ��E � ♦! �!h'1'9'x' q6���♦• �
� � \l'�{\iii' '� ♦ kv " ,�.�a�`: y! s .i\�
uv
_ s•�H�♦ F 7 C!
„� .nl� I • �S t H�,
d ..
a
Attachment 5: Draft Council Resolution
DRAFT RESOLUTION
A RESOLUTION OF ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL ENDORSING A DRAFT
LAND USE PLAN FOR INCORPORATION INTO A DRAFT GENERAL PLAN
POLICY DOCUMENT AND DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT.
GPA 2000-0001
WHEREAS, the City of Atascadero is in the process of updating all elements of the
Atascadero General Plan; and,
WHEREAS, a Draft Land Use Plan is required as a Preferred Plan for the
preparation of a Draft General Plan policy document and for analysis in the Draft
Environmental Impact Report; and,
WHEREAS, a publicly held Joint Study Session of the City Council and Planning
Commission was convened on May 29, 2001 to review the proposed Draft Land Use Plan
without taking any action; and,
WHEREAS, a public Open House was held on May 30, 2001 to allow public review
of the Draft Land Use Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a duly advertised Public Hearing
on June 5, 2001 and June 19, 2001 and considered testimony and reports from staff, and the
public; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission forward its recommendations to the City
Council to adopt Draft Land Use Plan and incorporate ten Policy Options into the Draft Land
Use Policy document; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a duly advertised Public Hearing on July
24, 2001 and considered public testimony and reports from staff, and the.
NOW THEREFORE, the City Council does resolve as follows:
SECTION 1. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The City Council hereby
determines that endorsement of a Draft Land Use Plan for use as the Preferred Plan in a Draft
Environmental Impact Report does not constitute a project as defined by the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and that no environmental determination is required at
this time; and,
. Og1
SECTION 2. SELECTION OF A PREFERRED LAND USE ALTERNATIVE:
The Atascadero City Council, in a regular session assembled on July 24, 2001, resolved to
select the Draft Land Use Plan (shown on Exhibit A) for use as the Preferred Plan in the
Draft General Plan policy document and thereon a Draft Environmental Impact Report.
On motion by Council Member , and seconded by Council Member
the foregoing resolution is hereby adopted following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
ADOPTED:
By:
Mike Arrambide, Mayor
Attest:
Marcia McClure Torgerson, City Clerk
Approved as to form:
Roy A. Hanley, City Attorney
092
50 units maximum
1 1 1 1
Equestrian access to River
required
Bike path to beconstructed on Mackey
site
ti-
gg
�:
Citi '
kill
��•- si' � � R��` �- III ���,
r.
�T - �' _ �,,;7 •� ',NSR a h
— � �i �A: �' U IN�,i •ALO ��.,/1��Y.?o�w �
• 'G
r � �
*PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
Please do not remove
NOTICE OF A CONTINUE from counter
SPECIAL MEETING
ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL
Monday, September 24, 2001
7:00 p.m.
City of Atascadero
6500 Palma Avenue, 4th Floor Rotunda
Atascadero, California
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE - CONTINUED
The City Council continued this Special Meeting by unanimous vote from the September 17,
2001 Special Meeting. The City Council also determined by unanimous vote that this meeting
will continue from where they left off on September 17, 2001 and in the same format:
1. Staff will review a proposed Policy.
2. Council with ask questions of Staff.
3. The public will be allowed to speak for an amount of time determined by the Mayor.
4. Council will discuss and make a determination.
1. General Plan Update - Review of Draft Land Use Plan
■ Fiscal Impact: None
■ Planning Commission recommendations:
1. Council adopt the draft Resolution, thereby endorsing the Draft Land Use
Plan as the Preferred Plan for use in the Draft General Plan policy
document and Draft Environmental Impact Report; and
2. Council direct staff to incorporate Policy Issues I through 10 into the
Draft General Plan. [Community Development]
ADJOURNMENT:
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO )
CITY OF ATASCADERO )
MARCIA MCCLURE TORGERSON, being fully swom, deposes, and says: That she is the duly elected City
Clerk of the City of Atascadero and that on Wednesday,September 19,2001,she caused the above Notice to be posted on the
doors of the City's Administration Building,6500 Palma Avenue in Atascadero,California.
MARCIA MCCLURE TORGERSON
City Clerk
City of Atascadero
DATE: 09/17/2001
• ��ISCADl�/
Atascadero City Council
Staff Report — Community Development Department
General Plan Update
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Planning Commission Recommends:
1. The City Council adopt the attached draft Resolution, thereby endorsing the Draft
Land Use Plan as the Preferred Plan for use in the Draft General Plan policy
document and Draft Environmental Impact Report; and,
2. The City Council direct staff to incorporated policy issues 1 through 10 into the
Draft General Plan.
•
DISCUSSION:
On July 24, 2001, the City Council conducted a public hearing on the General Plan Update to consider
recommendations from the Planning Commission on a Draft Land Use Plan and ten policy options. At
the close of public testimony, the City Council continued deliberations to August 28, 2001 and then to
September 17, 2001. This memorandum is intended to supplement the 7/24/01 staff report. Staff has
reviewed the tapes of the meeting and attempted to provide answers to the issues raised at the hearing
and those subsequently raised by Council Members.
General Plan Update Question Staff Response
1. Where is the City in the overall General At the beginning of the General Plan Update process,the City
Plan Update process and when will the Council directed staff to involve the public throughout the
Draft General Plan and Environmental process and specifically in developing the initial policies and
Impact Report(EIR) be released? land use alternatives to be analyzed in the Draft General Plan
and EIR . The public outreach process has been intended to
give the community a variety of opportunities and forums to be
involved in the creation of the updated General Plan.
The update is in a transitional phase where the public
outreach process has produced a Draft Land Use Map and a
series of policy options that are now recommended by the
Planning Commission. The purpose of this Hearing is to give
the Council an opportunity to review the results of the outreach
process and Planning Commission recommendations giving
staff and the consultant direction on how to proceed. The
decisions the Council makes on the Draft Land Use Map and
001
DATE: 09/17/2001
General Plan Update Question Staff Response
•
the policy options are still preliminary and are the first phase of
the update. They will be used as the foundation for writing the
General Plan Policy Document and EIR. The public will again
be engaged to review the draft documents.
The City Council is not making any final decisions on the
General Plan at this point.The Council is setting the
parameters for the preparation of a Draft General Plan Policy
document and for the analysis of the environmental impacts
likely to result from General Plan implementation.The public
will again be engaged to review the draft documents.
In defining the update process,the City Council reaffirmed the
existing General Plan Goals and adopted Smart Growth
Principles. Community Members participated in a series of
workshops designed to flush out major policy areas and begin
crafting potential land use alternatives that would eventually
be studied. One of the purposes of the update described by
the City Council was to analyze potential land use -
amendments citywide so that cumulative impacts could be
better understood and the piecemeal changing of the General
Plan prevented. The Council adopted a moratorium
preventing General Plan amendments during the update
process.
As a result of the community process a study area was
adopted focusing the update on the City's core and protecting
those areas where environmental constraints are highest.This
reduced the study area by 8,370± acres leaping 45%of the
City's land area to be studied. The City adopted 10 major
policy areas from the community sessions and captured a
variety of issues to be reviewed in the General Plan.
The Draft General Plan Policy Document(with all seven
elements) and a Draft EIR will be released later this year.
Refer to Attachment 1
2. What is the status of other General Plan General Plans are required to have seven mandatory
Elements? elements:
1. Land Use
2, Open Space
3. Conservation
4. Housing
5. Circulation
6. Safety
7. Noise
Through the update process all of the mandatory elements will
be consolidated. Thus far the primary focus of the update
process has been on the Land Use, Housing, Open Space
and Conservation Elements. The Land Use Plan and policy -
options recommended by the Planning Commission have
components that will be incorporated into all of these
elements. For example,the creek setback policy is a •
Conservation and Open Space Element issue. The affordable
housing policy options will serve as the basis for the Housing
Element.
002
DATE: 09/17/2001
General Plan Update Question Staff Response
Refer to Attachment 2.
While the public process has not focused on the Circulation,
Noise and Safety Elements, staff has been reviewing all of the
proposed land use alternatives for potential impacts and
conflicts with these elements. The City's traffic engineering
consultant has been working to develop a City wide traffic
model and has been providing technical analysis of potential
traffic impacts related to each land use proposal. Through the
use of the City's GIS system, safety and noise impacts have
been routinely checked against the land use proposals.
When the Draft General Plan policy document is released
for public review, it will include all seven elements.
In addition,the City has three optional elements: Fiscal,
Economic Development and Parks& Recreation. The update
process will explore consolidating portions of these optional
elements into the mandatory elements.
3. How is the new General Plan build out
number being calculated and what is Refer to attachment 3
included in this number?
The General Plan population build-out figure is a theoretical
number that assumes all land within the City is built to its
. "highest and best use" consistent with the General Plan.
Since the General Plan Update closely follows the policy
direction of the 1992 General Plan,the 1992 build-out figure is
used as a starting point for all new build-out figures.
Today,the City is reaching a construction build-out point
where few areas are actually available for new development.
The 2000 Census indicated a population of 25, 201 without
the State Hospital. Based on the theoretical build-out identified
in the current General Plan an additional 2,600±housing units
would have to be built in the City. It is unlikely that an
additional 2,600±units could be built on an infill basis,
therefore the actual build-out figure of the current General
Plan is likely closer to 25,000 than 32,873.
2000 Census 9,848 units 25,201 persons"
'State Hospital Census population is 1,210 persons=total population of 26,411
The build out calculations were determined as follows:
1992 General Plan 11,755 units 31,150 persons
Current General Plan 12,504 units 32,873 persons
includes all approved amendments from 93-99
6/21/01 PC Alternative +892 units +2,356 persons
• New build out 13,297 units 35,238 persons
The new build out number does not include the population
increases that would be related to the adoption of the policy
options.
003
DATE: 09/17/2001
General Plan Update Question Staff Response
•
The population increase for the policy options is
estimated as follows:
Policy Option#3 72 units 190 persons(1)
PD-7 Expansion
Policy Option#5A 50 units 132 persons(2)
Second Units
Policy Option#513 189 units 500 persons (3)
Mixed Use Multi-Family in GC
Policy Option#5C 312 units 826 persons (4)
Multi-Family Density Increase
Assumptions;
(1) 38 acres @+2 additional du's/ac=72 units
(2) 250 lots>1 a in MDSF
assume 20%add second units=50 units
(3) 43 ac vacant or under utilized in RC&0 districts
assume 20%build mixed use multi-family @ 22 du's/ac
(8.6 ac x 22 du's/ac=189 units)
(4) 52 ac vacant or under utilized in HDMF existing&proposed
assume all build-out at 22 du's
52 ac x+6 additional du's/ac=312 units)
4. How have the SMART Growth Principles The SMART Growth Principles have been incorporated into
been incorporated into the Draft Land the Update process at a number of levels. A list of the
Use Plan? Atascadero SMART Growth Principles is contained in
Attachment 4. The following summarizes how the Draft Land
Use Plan is consistent with the SMART Growth principles:
Well-Planned New Growth:
The focused General Plan study area that was adopted prior
to preparation of any land use alternatives eliminated the
majority of sensitive habitat,open space and agricultural areas
from being considered for development. Furthermore,the
study area was limited to the historic Colony boundaries
eliminated the possibility of new sprawl outside of the Colony
and requires a more compact, infill approach to development.
The Draft Plan allows for high density residential development
which reduces automobile dependency.
The Plan encourages a variety of housing and job
opportunities by allowing more mixed land use options. For
example, under the current General Plan,the Woodlands
property is allowed 48± single familyunits on 2.5 acre lots. If
the site were to develop this way, it is reasonable to expect
that all of the units would sell for prices exceeding$400,000,
well beyond the financial means of most Atascadero residents.
Likely most of the residents of this type of project would be
"equity migrants"from urban areas who have large cash down •
payments. Instead,the Draft General Plan proposes a
SMART Growth approach that allows 269 units with a mix of
densities ranging from apartments to one-acre single family
lots keeping 42%of the site in permanent open space. A
project of this type would provide a wider range of housing
004
DATE: 09/17/2001
General Plan Update Question Staff Response
•
opportunities for people of all ages and income levels,
consistent with SMART Growth principles.
Maximize Existing Infrastructure
The Draft Plan directs most of the new growth along EI
Camino Real and Morro Road. This approach will allow new
development to take advantage of the existing circulation
system and utility lines that are currently in place. This
approach can be contrasted with sprawl type development in
Paso Robles that requires the construction of new roads,
bridges and utility lines to serve undeveloped land.
Support Vibrant City Centers
A keystone of the General Plan is the Downtown as the focal
point of the community. The General Plan update will
reinforce the role of the Downtown. The Plan will also allow
new mixed use nodes to develop at Dove Creek and Del Rio
Road. These secondary nodes will allow more pedestrian
scale development and new shopping and housing options.
5. How were the private Land Use When the City Council enacted the General Plan moratorium
Amendment(LUA) proposals chosen for in October 1999, a number of active General Plan Amendment
the Refined Alternative. applications were in process. Staff was directed to incorporate
these active applications into the update process. In order to
track these projects,staff developed a numbering system
(LUA's) and database. As the General Plan process
• progressed, staff received additional requests to have projects
studied as part of the General Plan Update that were added to
the list. In total 37 LUA requests were received. Refer to
Attachment 5.
The following process was followed for evaluating the LUA's
through the Land Use Alternatives process.
1. All LUA's outside of the General Plan Study area were
eliminated from consideration in the Draft Land Use
Alternatives.
2. The remaining LUA's were incorporated into one of the
three Draft Land Use Alternatives. A majority of the
requests involved requests for lot splits of individual lots
that would require smaller minimum lot sizes than are
currently permitted. These requests were primarily
assigned to Alternative 3.
The larger project size requests were distributed
between Alternatives 1 and 2,with the fewest LUA's
included in Alternative 1.
3. During the open house and public review period, Draft
Alternatives 2 and 3 were identified as being too
intensive and eliminated. The Refined Alternative
evolved primarily from Alternative 1,with a few key
projects from Alternative 2 included.
Understandably,there is some confusing about the
inclusion of LUA 7(east of the railroad tracks and north
of Ferrocarril Road) into the Refined Alternative. During
the Draft Alternative process, it was staffs understanding
that this parcel was owned by the railroad and would not
come under private control. However,following release
005
DATE: 09/17/2001
General Plan Update Question Staff Response
•
of the Draft Alternatives,the property was purchased by
a private interest. Under the current General Plan the
site has a Public designation that allows residential
development at a density of one unit 12.5 acres. Since,
private residential development of this lot appears likely,
staff added LUA-7 to the Refined Alternative so that the
cumulative environmental and traffic impacts of this
project could be properly analyzed as part of the General
Plan Update.
6. How much new parkland is proposed The Draft Plan proposes the following two new park areas:
under the Draft Plan?
1. Paloma Creek Park expansion 25± acres
2. Mackey Parcel Traffic Way 5±acres
Total 30± acres
Based on the population increase of 2,356 persons under the
new proposed update, new parkland is proposed at a ratio of
more than 10 acres per 1000 residents, higher than the
current ratio. In addition,the Parks and Recreation
Commission is interested in selecting a"floating"
neighborhood park location in the vicinity of Del Rio and EI
Camino Real. This park site was shown on old Alternatives 2
and 3 and could be added to the Draft Land Use Plan.
The Parks and Recreation Commission has recommended
that the General Plan include a parkland standard of 5 acres •
per 1000 residents. This standard would be the same as the
City's current QUIMBY Act requirement in the subdivision
ordinance and could be incorporated into the Land Use
Element.
A specific park site in the north quadrant of the City is not
recommended because it potentially creates a"taking"issue.
That means if the City designates someone's property as a
park site it takes away the value for other uses and the City
would be required to purchase the property. A"floating"site
allows the City to place the park as property and funds
become available.
As part of the Open Space Element,the City could adopt new
policies for the requirement of private parks and pocket parks
in new single family and multi-family projects. The Council
could provide this direction to staff as an additional Policy
Option.
Refer to Attachment 6
7. How will trails and equestrian facilities A schematic trail network is currently shown on the large-
be addressed by the Draft Plan? scale maps as a banded black and green line. This schematic
trail plan will be incorporated into the Circulation Element of
the General Plan. The un-adopted Bicycle Circulation Plan
will be used as the basis for developing a trail plan which will
include creekside trails and connections to the De Anza
National Historic Trail along the Salinas River.
Several residents have expressed concern about equestrian
access to the Salinas River. The Planning Commission
recommendation includes a requirement for new subdivisions
along the Salinas River to provide equestrian access points.
Anequestrian unloading and trailhead staging area has been
006
DATE: 09/17/2001
General Plan Update Question Staff Response
•
accommodate a variety of single-family residential products.
Location
The Planning Commission's recommendation was not specific
to any location. The Council could direct staff to limit the
locations where the"PD-X"would be allowed. One approach
would be to limit the PD-X to the newly designated SFR-X
areas while not allowing them within existing SFR-X
neighborhoods.
12. How will the lot inconsistency issue be Based on Policy Option#8, the majority of the non conforming
handled with through a PD process? lots are concentrated within the SFR-X and SFR-Y districts.
Independent of the PD-7 Policy Option,the Planning
Commission is recommending that a PD process be created
to allow lots that are significantly larger than surrounding lots
to be subdivided.
For example, if there was a 0.9 acre lot in the 1/2 acre zone it
could not be split. However, if it were surrounded by'/<acre
lots, a PD process could be used to allow the lot to spit
consistent with the neighborhood.
Staff is not recommending the PD process be allowed within
the SFR-Z and SSF land uses due to the topographic and
utility system constraints.
• 13. When did the City change the way it According to the Municipal Code,the multi-family density
calculated multi-family density from calculation was changed in April 1987 from a unit basis to a
units to bedrooms? bedroom basis. According to previous staff,the change was
made in reaction to hillside multi-family projects that were
considered overbuilt for the sites. The 1987 amendment
added a sliding density scale for sloping lots in addition to the
bedroom calculation.
14. What is the effect of allowing 22 units/ The Planning Commission is recommending increasing the
acre in the High Density Multi-Family High Density Multi-Family density from 16 bedrooms/acre to
areas? 22 units/acre. (Originally, staff recommended changing the
maximum density from 16 bedrooms/acre to 16 units/acre,
assuming that 16 units/acre would encourage more use of the
density bonus process). Staff has calculated the maximum
population increase of this change to be 826 additional
persons.
The Council may adjust the Planning Commission's
recommendation.
Policy Option#5C 312 units 826 persons(4)
Multi-Family Density Increase
(4) 52 ac vacant or under utilized in HDMF existing&proposed
assume all build-out at 22 du's
52 ac x+6 additional du's/ac=312 units)
15. Why are second units being The State of California recognizes second units as an
• recommended? important housing product that helps to address affordable
housing issues and requires all cities to allow second units.
However,the City has adopted an ordinance, also allowed by
State Law,that makes specific hardship findings to preclude
second units in Atascadero. The General Plan consultant has
recommended that the City consider allowing second units in
0 �9
DATE: 09/17/2001
General Plan Update Question Staff Response
•
limited areas in order to improve the City's conformance with
State Law and to help ensure that the City's updated Housing
Element will be certified by the State.
The City does allow what is referred to as a guesthouse.
Guesthouses are allowed in all single-family districts with a
building permit only. The only difference between a
guesthouse and a second unit is a stove. The City issues
permits for about 10 to 15 guesthouses each year. It has
been staffs experience that many of these are illegally
converted to second units(stove added)following final
inspection. The end result is that illegal second units are
being built without proper review. These guesthouses have all
of the same impacts(if not more)on the City as second units
would but the City cannot claim any credit for these as
affordable housing products.
The Planning Commission is recommending a pilot program
that would allow second units in the SFR-Y District with-a
Conditional Use Permit and subject to development standards.
As part of the program,guesthouses would be not be allowed
in the SFR-Y District, but would still be allowed in the SFR-X,
SFR-Z and SSF Districts.
16. Will the City's multi-family design The multi-family design standards will not be updated as part
standards be changed as part of the of the General Plan Update. Currently the City regulates
General Plan Update process? multi-family development with both the Zoning Ordinance and
Appearance Review Manual. These documents need to be
updated in terms of architectural guidelines, recreational open
space and buffering.
In order to increase the density within the multi-family districts
or allow multi-family within commercial districts,the zoning
code will have to be updated. Staff would recommend that the
multi-family design and open space standards be updated
concurrently with any code text changes.
Staff further recommends a through revision of the zoning
code follows adoption of the General Plan Update. This will
ensure consistency between these two documents that,
together, provide the framework and regulations for the land
use and development. Thus, staff will be recommending
improvements to the multi-family design standards through
zoning code revisions to be proposed following completion of
the General Plan Update.
17. Handicapped Multi-Family Requirements The following requirements apply to multi-family projects of
four or more units:
All ground level units must be Type B accessible which have
door ways and clearance spaces that can be converted to fully
accessible.
For projects of 20 or more units:
Two percent or at least one unit shall be Type A accessible, •
which requires accessible sinks,toilets and bathrooms.
010
DATE: 09/17/2001
General Plan Update Question Staff Response
•
Council Questions 8/28/01
18. Will the Draft General Plan and Draft EIR The General Plan Consultant is preparing the Draft General
be released simultaneously? Plan and Draft EIR simultaneously. The purpose of this
approach is to develop General Plan policies that will serve as
mitigation measures. Staff is proposing that both documents
be released for public review at the same time.
19. Is a fixed growth management cap The current General Plan contains a section on Growth
proposed? Management. That section contains a statement that
"acceptable annual maximum population growth rate goal of
2.5%." However, a growth management ordinance(i.e. San
Luis Obispo County)is not in place to limit the issuance of
building permits based on annual growth rates.
During the period of time from 1980 to 1990 the City grew at
an annual rate of 4.43%. From 1990 to 2000 the City's growth
rate was 0.96%. (SLOCOG 2001)
Staff is recommending that the same growth policies be
carried forward in General Plan update.
20. What is the complete scope of the Staff is looking for Council direction on the appropriate scope
second unit program and what issues of the second unit program. The Planning Commission is
are involved in enforcement of the non- recommending that the program be limited to the SFR-Y (1
rental requirement of guesthouses? acre)district with the following additional restrictions:
• Refer to Attachment 11
• lot size(1 ac min)
• unit square footage restriction
• sewer connection requirement
• covered parking
• maximum slope
• native trees impacts
• architectural appearance
• setbacks
• neighborhood compatibility findings
• Planning Commission Conditional Use Permit approval process
Staff did make comments that the second unit pilot program
could be expanded in the future. This comment was based on
staffs opinion that guest houses could be transitioned within
the Urban Services line to conditionally allow second units.
The issue with enforcing the guesthouse no-rental provision is
that there is no mechanism available to staff to track renting
and no time limits on how long a guest may stay.
21. What was the basis of the percentage Staff used the following assumptions for Policy Option
assumptions with the Policy Option populations projections:
build-out projections?
Policy Option#5A 50 units 132 persons(2)
Second Units
Policy Option#5B 189 units 500 persons(3)
• Mixed Use Multi-Family in GC
(2) 250 lots>lac in MDSF
assume 20%add second units=50 units
3 43 ac vacant or under utilized in RC&0 districts
011
DATE: 09/17/2001
General Plan Update Question Staff Response
•
assume 20%build mixed use multi-family @ 22 du's/ac
(8.6 ac x 22 du's/ac=189 units)
Staff used the 20%figure based on a rule of thumb that most
properties within a zoning district will not be built to the highest
permitted use. If these numbers are averaged over 20 years
they would translate into an average of 2.5 guest houses per
year in the SFR-Y and 10 apartments per year in the General
Commercial District. These trends would be consistent with
current development patterns.
The Council can adjust these assumptions as desired.
22. Why have the zoning code The current staff does not know why these changes were not
inconsistencies with the General Plan made following the adoption of the 1992 General Plan. These
not been corrected? issues are being raised today in order to correct these
inconsistencies as part of the update process.
23. What is the current parkland inventory The Community Services Department's inventory of existing
for Atascadero? parkland and protected open space areas is attached as
Attachment 12. Currently, 7.1 acres of improved parkland
exist within the City limits for every 1000 residents.
24. What is the status of the open space The current open space policies will be carried forward into the
policies? new General Plan consistent with the Council's decision to
readopt the Open Space Goals. The General Plan consultant •
is recommending that the existing policies be supplemented
with more specific language and standards that can be related
back to the GIS mapping system. Additional policies
regarding wildlife corridors, native tree mapping and protection
and hillside grading will be presented in the Draft General Plan
based upon community input.
25. Why do the current creek setback The General Plan states that:
policies need to changed?
Grading shall not occur and buildings or structures requiring
permit approval shall not be located within any creekway
riparian vegetation boundary unless:
(i) A site specific evaluation pursuant to standards
approved by the City determines that a lesser
setback will provide adequate habitat protection; or
(ii) The City completes a creekway mapping program
and adopts other specific setback requirements
based on that mapping program.
Staff has encountered numerous problems with trying to
implement creekway protection standards. The General Plan
speaks only to riparian vegetation boundaries which has not
proven to be a sufficient protection. For example the
Creekside Lanes bowling alley was outside of the riparian
vegetation boundary because this habitat is confined to the
channel. In many areas of town, application of this standard
could result in structures located very close to the creek bank. •
The Planning Commission is recommending that"tiered
setback standards for each area be developed to protect
blueline creeks with special Downtown Master Plan
012
DATE: 09/17/2001
General Plan Update Question Staff Response
•
consideration." Codified setbacks based on the riparian
vegetation boundary and other criteria could protect all
blueline creeks. Once adopted,these setbacks could be
mapped on the GIS system.
26. How can existing single family The Planning Commission's recommendation was not specific
neighborhoods be protected from infill to any location for PD-X. The Council could direct staff to limit
PD-X's? the locations where the"PD-X"would be allowed. One
approach would be to limit the PD-X to the newly designated
SFR-X areas while not allowing them within existing SFR-X
neighborhoods. Another approach would be to set a minimum
parcel size such as an acre. Since most existing SFR-X
parcels have been subdivided below an acre few PD-X
projects would occur in existing neighborhoods.
Refer to Attachment 13 for all existing and proposed SFR-X
sites with lot size of 1 acre and greater.
27. How will a system of Bikeways and A schematic trail network is currently shown on the large-scale
Trails should be planned along the maps as a banded black and green line. This schematic trail
creeks? plan will be incorporated into the Circulation Element of the
General Plan. The unadopted Bicycle Circulation Plan will be
used as the basis for developing a trail plan which will include
creekside trails and connections to the De Anza National
Historic Trail along the Salinas River.
Staff envisions that a comprehensive GIS trail map will be
incorporated into the General Plan Circualtion Element. Once
this trail map is adopted,the City could require the dedication
and improvement of these facilities as part of the subdivision
and project entitlement process.
Refer to Attachment 7
28. In which of the following land use areas Staff recommends the following:
should the lot size inconsistency
policies be applied? 1. The SFR-X(1/2 acre)areas should not be part of the lot
size inconsistency PD. The PD-X process could be
1. SFR-X applied within the SFR-X districts and should be treated
2. SFR-Y separately.
3. SFR-Z
4. SSF 2. The SFR-Y(1 acre) areas should be part of the lot size
inconsistency PD. Policies could be created that would
allow 1 acre and larger lots that are surrounded by
smaller lots to be subdivided down to 1/z acre.
3/4 The SFR-Z(1.5 to 2.5 acre with performance
standards)and SSF (2.5 to 10 acre with performance
standards)districts should not be part of the lot size
inconsistency PD.
Under the current General Plan lot sizes are calculated
based on:
• 1) Distance from City Hall
2) Septic Suitability
3) Slope
013
DATE: 09/17/2001
General Plan Update Question Staff Response
•
4) Condition of Access
5) Surrounding Lot Size.
Due to the complex performance standards that already
consider surrounding lot size, staff is concerned that no
reliable process could be created for additional lot size
reduction. Those areas that have inconsistent lot size
would be best re-designated to SFR-Y.
29. Could a compromise design of part park Staff has developed a schematic site plan for the Library lot
and part multi-family residential be that provide 12-13 small lot single-family(PD-7) units with a'/
created for the Library Park site. acre pocket park at the corner.
Refer to Attachment 14.
30. Off-site parking should be allowed in the The City currently allows off-site parking under code section 9-
Downtown area. 4.120. This provision could be used for residential development
in the Downtown.
9-4.120 Off-site parking
(a)Where it is not feasible to provide sufficient on-site parking,
an adjustment(Section 9-1.112)may be granted to allow the
required parking to be located off-site provided that:
(1)The most distant parking space is not more than
four hundred(400)feet from the use; and
(2)The site of the parking lot is in the same ownership
as the principal use, or is under a recorded lease or
similar agreement,with the use that provides that the
parking will exist as long as the use it serves, unless
the parking is replaced with other spaces that satisfy
the requirements of this title; and
(3)The site of the parking is not located in a residential
zone unless the principal use requiring the parking is
allowable in a residential zone.Where any such
principal use is subject to conditional use permit
approval,the off-site parking shall be subject to
conditional use permit approval.
•
014
DATE: 09/17/2001
• Attachment 1
General Plan Process
Readoption of GP Goals
Smart Growth Principles
Public Outreach Process
Public Outreach Events
May 2000 Neighborhood Workshops(8)
August 2000 Community Workshop
January 2001 Townhall Meeting
GIS Mapping January 2001 Design Workshops(3)
March 2001 Open House Draft Alternatives -
Environmental Analysis May 2001 Joint Session Refined Alternative
-- — �- May 2001 Open House 2 Refined Alternative
June 2001 PC Hearing Refined Alt/P olicy Options
July 2001 Council Hearing Refined Alt/Policy Options
August 2001 Continued Council Hearing
Preferred Land Use Plan
Policy Options
Draft General Plan
Draft EIR
Public Review Period
Public Hearing
Final General Plan
Final EIR
Adoption Hearings
•
015
DATE: 09/17/2001
Attachment 2 •
Draft General Plan Organizational Chart
Readopted General Plan Goals-
"Smart Growth- Principles
(General Plan Foundation Principles)
• Land Use Element Housing El ae,� Circulation Element � ConservattortI 7 Safety t.Nojse Element
Open SpaceEtement
I 1 ...
LUE Goals jISE Goals CIR Goals C05 Goaise SAF Goals
Obeetrves -
-Objective � I Ob ectives db actives W
Objectives j 1 Objectives
_
...........................
Land Use Diagram Land Use Designations p Circulation Diagram --
StandartlsF Standartfs'/ Standards/
...........` :..................................._. Programs: Programs, Programs '
___. _._.. ....__.,
....... ------
$tandarcjS f Standards/ Native Tree Ordinance Noise Ordinance
Programs Programs
---- _ 9........._.._ ..
Downtown Area Plan/ 2omn Ortlinance - - ----_
Main Street Street Standards '-_'—
Parks 8 Recreation Plan `. Fire Guidelines
........
.......
Economic Dev Strategy Redevelopment Plan _�_._, -
Bikeway&Trails Plan ......._ ............................ .; ........... . .....
.............................
...........;
Flood Protection
......... -
__ ._. i....._. ............. ......._.
Apperance Review Hillside Development Ord
_. Manual ............... __..... ....�
.—.............__....�-—__.._. ,__..._........................................................
Corridor Desi /Gateway......s Subdivision Ordinance
ECR/US 101
SR 41(Morro Road)
Traffic Way
•
016
DATE: 09/17/2001
• Attachment 3
Buildout Calculations
General Plan Update
Population Calculations
19-Jun-01
1992 General Plan Buildout Current General Plan Buildout PC Recommended Alternative 6/21j New Buildout
includes approe d General Plan Amendments 1993-99
Land Use 1994 acres Units Population netchanges 2001 Acres Units Population netchanges Units Population Acres Units Population
4 43.9 ac 0.0 ac 43.9 ac 0.0 ac 43.9 ac
SE/RE 9,926.2 ac 3,862 du's 10,234 pp (270.3)ac 9,655.9 ac 3,757 du's 9.955 pp (303.5)ac -118 du's -313 pp 9,352.4 ac 3,638 du's 9,642 pp
SFR-Z 626.4 ac 620 du's 1,643 pp (4.0)ac 622.4 ac 616 du's 1,632 pp 32.8 ac 32 du's 86 pp 655.2 ac 648 du's 1,718 pp
SFR-Y 1,320.9 ac 2,316 du's 6,137 pp 138.8 ac 1,459.8 ac 2,559 du's 6,782 pp 92.0 ac 161 du's 428 pp 1,551.8 ac 2,721 du's 7,210 pp
SFR-X 373.6 ac 1,034 du's 2,740 pp 34.0 ac 407.6 ac 1,128 du's 2,989 pp 53.2 ac 147 du's 390 pp 460.8 ac 1,275 du's 3,379 pp
MDR 203.4 ac 1,046 du's 2,772 pp (6.3)ac 197.2 ac 1,014 du's 2,687 pp 19.9 ac 102 du's 271 pp 217.1 ac 1,116 du's 2,958 pp
HDR 214.8 ac 2,877 du's 7,624 pp 30.2 ac 245.0 ac 3,281 du's 8,695 pp 58.0 ac 367 du's 973 pp 303.0 ac 3,648 du's 9,668 pp
GC-NC 21.5 ac 0.0 ac 21.5 ac (7.7)ac 13.8 ac
GC-0 47.4 ac (1.3)ac 46.1 ac (1.4)ac 44.7 ac
GC-R 131.3 ac (3.7)ac 127.6 ac 40.4 ac 168.1 ac
CPK 81.6 ac 74.6 ac 156.2 ac (73.2)ac 82.9 ac
D 62.3 ac (0.4)ac 61.9 ac 50 du's 133 pp 0.4 ac 62.3 ac 50 du's 133 pp
Sc 71.5 ac 0.0 ac 71.5 ac (8.4)ac 63.2 ac
GC-TC 37.9 ac 5.1 ac 43.0 ac (3.7)ac 39.3 ac
1 29.5 ac 4.4 ac 33.9 ac 0.0 ac 33.9 ac
IPK 31.2 ac 0.0 ac 31.2 ac 0.0 ac 31.2 ac
MU 66.6 ac 200 du's 530 pp 66.6 ac 200 du's 530 pp
CREC 6.7 ac 6.7 ac
REC 679.3 ac 0.0 ac 679.3 ac (177.6)ac 501.7 ac
P 1,279.5 ac (1.1)ac 1,278.5 ac (71.8)ac 1,206.7 ac
0 277.4 ac 277.4 ac
15,182.6 ac 11,755 du's 31,150 pp 0.0 ac 15,182.6 ac 12,405 du's 32,873 pp 0.0 ac 892 du's 2,365 pp 15,182.7 ac 13,297 du's 35,238 pp
1) buildout assumptions do not include the Atascadero State Hos ' I population(1,210 person 2000 census
2) all acreage calculations are net acres and do not include streets an ' ht-of-ways
3) population per dwelling unit=2.65 persons
1992 General Plan 11,755 units 31,150 persons
Current General Plan 12,504 units 32,873 persons
includes all approved amendments from 93-99
6/21101 PC Alternative +2,356 units +2.356 nerso�
New Buildout 13,297 units 35,238 persons
•
017
DATE: 09/17/2001
Attachment 4
Smart Growth Principles •
Atascadero's Ten Principles for Smart-Growth
1. Well-Planned New Growth: Recognize and preserve critical areas of open space, environmental
habitats, and agricultural lands, while accommodating new growth in compact forms, in a
manner that de-emphasizes automobile dependency, integrates the new growth into existing
communities, and creates housing and job opportunities for people of all ages and income
levels.
2. Maximize Existing Infrastructure: Accommodate additional growth by first focusing on the use
and reuse of existing urbanized lands supplied with infrastructure, with an emphasis on
reinvesting in the maintenance and revitalization of existing infrastructure.
3. Support Vibrant City Centers: Give preference to the redevelopment and reuse of city centers
and existing transportation corridors through the encouragement and retention of mixed-use
development, business vitality, housing opportunities for people of all income levels, and safe,
reliable and efficient multi-modal transportation systems. -
4. Coordinated Planning For Regional Impacts: Coordinate planning with neighboring cities,
counties, and other governmental entities so that there are agreed upon regional strategies and
policies for dealing with the regional impacts of growth o transportation, housing, schools, air,
water, wastewater, solid waste, natural resources, agricultural lands, and open space.
5. Support High Quality Education and School Facilities: Develop and maintain high quality public
education and neighborhood-accessible school facilities as a critical determinant in making
communities attractive to families, maintaining a desirable and livable community, promoting
life-long learning opportunities, enhancing economic development, and providing a work force
qualified to meet the full range of job skills required in the future economy.
6. Build Strong Communities: Support and embrace the development of strong families and
socially and ethnically diverse communities, by: (1) working to provide a balance of jobs and
housing within the community; (2) reducing commute times; (3) promoting community
involvement; (4) enhancing public safety; and (5) providing and supporting educational,
mentoring and recreational opportunities.
7. Emphasize Joint-Use of Facilities: Emphasize the joint-use of existing compatible public
facilities operated by cities, schools, counties, and state agencies, as well as take advantage of
opportunities to form partnerships with private businesses and non-profit agencies to maximize
the community benefit of existing public and private facilities.
8. Support Entrepreneurial/Creative Efforts: Support local endeavors to create new products,
services and businesses that will expand the wealth and job opportunities for all social and
economic levels.
9. Encourage Full Community Participation: Foster an open and inclusive community dialogue and
promote alliances and partnerships to meet community needs.
10. Establish a Secure Local Revenue Base: Support the establishment of a secure, balanced, and
discretionary local revenue base necessary to provide the full range of needed services and
quality land use decisions. •
018
DATE: 09/17/2001
• Attachment 5
LUA Requests
Lw-2• City of Alascadero
'Tr General Plan Update
Lw B
a Lw 34
I
Lw as Proposed land Use Amendments
L 37
Lw a Luo 11s'M .
' May 29, 200
h r
General Plan Study Area
City Boundaries
City Limits
1;, roposed Land Use Amendments
Included in Refined Alternative
Excluded in Refined Alternative
? � Atascadero Colony Area
LUM
tun 12
V' ( I SkN P v Z'.d•<`—.�_ F 41 Lw-4 r
4
` `I<✓ ��y Lw az
-4P'> y�LUA 2a 'W Y4`p'.,~A��z�.� ,.
LUA
'W, -31
12 �
Lw
Qm
} Lw za
�
y -a skt
rt r" i
Lw
e' r 'x
" "`<4:c? Lw zs vy.Fa. moi, . ..
27
1'71Lw-zs ` , }\ Lw-1s
r y i
_� I•' ,, \ 4� II {�: LIQ ..•.
K
\Lw
, r� r J v N �y\� yet A a^ t��' - ✓ i.
Kr ` r\ >iiLw 20 zo �
3 J`.t yr Y >.yX 4 I R-1 ✓ \,f1 l l \ a ..t..
A
�___--� �.9�fe ; " k9ae\; it j I �L, r T� � r .t"�' \ ,�. fir'".-•� ,..:..�{.`'''��i-`�,`,,ti_ r�$,
"� \ �,•[.
`,i �'"� •.Y, ".�\. �� .—i g': .ter. �... i1.,��! ..�. � . -_(x..; c_-A
019
DATE: 09/17/2001
Attachment 6
Parks Locations •
... Planning Commission
Possible
"floating"park Recommended Alternative
location
5#acre Mackey
\ •� `�V;4 Parcel
City of Atascadero
eneral Plan Update
t - Yy rA ' June 19, 2001
v �
" '^\t�Y %r ' N -
�� f`.� `e `. X' .-ass ✓` �.'}'�>�R l '� F� � ..
�,
a
,4, N ..
7"t
25#acre Paloma
Creek Park
expansion
CI
hoc >. .• '�''Y ~-�?� >C Y} _
s
•
020
DATE: 09/17/2001
Attachment 7
• Schematic Trail Plan
Possible equestrian
staging area
s,
Schematic trail
routes
fAll
wrl
C
V 4 ly
_�. ,y a. „� I j I 3,,4 mss \ ✓" rz-. _ ,
-......, t k', I f t ,d`.�` �x - ` it .=`'A✓,.. :�<;r'
• Attachment 8
Library Park Site
021
DATE: 09/17/2001
IV
Aft
l { k
cj.
i
44Mm
'a 2v Y
j {
Current Site Land Use:
General Plan: Recreation
Zoning: RMF-16 (multi-family)
Acreage: 2.2± acres
wj7, F
z
Planning Commission Recommendation
split designations on site.
S
Designate the rear portion of the lot of
- —, multi-family development with a park
designation at the corner.
•
022
DATE: 09/17/2001
• Attachment 9
Carrizo Road SFR-X Request
r
' V
s �a
.. Son
Area requested
�i for SFR-X land
} !1 use designation
kz
,
IN
1 =
G
-
t 1\
t
`\l
�w
i
023
DATE: 09/17/2001
Attachment 10 •
San Benito Neighborhood
,
r
Area Planning
Commission
r recommended for
r
1 acre minimum SFR-Y
/ r1SFR Y
Si R �'
SF Y
Os
fx-
r rl
•
024
DATE: 09/17/2001
• Attachment 11
Second Unit Locations(SFR-Y lots/1 acre and larger)
li5 Dark areas indicate
SFR-Y Lots 1 acre
and greater in area.
t
250 Lots identified
ofA
7 I
_ n
'(cr
� � 1
•
U25
DATE: 09/17/2001
Attachment 12 •
Parkland Inventory
Location Agency Improved Unimproved Designated Open Privately owned Total Parkland/
Parkland acreage Parkland acreage Space acreage Recreation/Public Open Space
Zoned acreage
City owned]leased property
Atascadero Lake Park City of Atascadero 46.6 ac 46.6 ac
Charles Paddock Zoo City of Atascadero 5.9 ac 5.9 ac
Traffic Way Park City of Atascadero 5.3 ac 5.3 ac
Sunken Gardens City of Atascadero 1.7 ac 1.7 ac
Paloma Creek Park City of Atascadero 23.0 ac 23.0 ac
Stadium Park City of Atascadero 26.0 ac 26.0 ac
Pine Mountain Open Space City of Atascadero 18.0 ac 18.0 ac
Treatment Plant/Anza Trail Area City of Atascadero 90.0 ac 90.0 ac
Lake View Lots City of Atascadero 1 4.5 ac 4.5 ac
Estrada Adobe Property City of Atascadero 6.0 ac 6.0 ac
Creek Reservations 66parcels) City of Atascadero 183.2 ac 183.2 ac
Northeast Quadrant Floating Park City of Atascadero 0.0 ac
Micro Park Parcels 15parcels) City of Atascadero 2.4 acl 2.4 ac
County ownedileased property
Hielmann Park County of SLO 1 102.0 aci l 102.0 ac
AUSD ownedileased property
Santa Rosa Elementary AUSD 7.5 ac 7.5 ac
MontereyRoad ElementaryAUSD 7.6 ac 7.6 ac
Oak Hill Continuation AUSD 8.4 ac 8.4 ac
San Gabriel ElementaryAUSD 6.8 ac 6.8 ac
San Benito ElementaryAUSD 0.0 ac
Atascadero High AUSD 20.5 ac 20.5 ac
Atascadero Jr.High AUSD 16.3 ac 16.3 ac
Privately ownedileased property
Shores Develo ment O en S ace IPrivate 5.1 ac 5.1 ac
Lakes Development Open Space Private 54.1 ac 54.1 ac .
Davis/Highway 41 Recreation land Private 66.0 ac 66.0 ac
Atascadero Ave./Library Site Private 2.2 ac 2.2 ac
Water Company Property AMWC 243.7 ac
Subtotal of Acreage 251.5 ac 34.4 ac 354.8 ac 311.9 ac. 952.6 ac
Golf Courses
Chalk Mountain Golf Course iCounty of SLO 1 212.0 acl 212.0 ac
Eagle(;reeK Uoltourse I Private 9.4 acl 9.4 ac
Total Acreage 463.5 ac 34.4 ac 354.8 ac 321.3 ac 1174.0 ac
Current Parkland Ratios
ity&County owned Parkland/Open Space only per 1000
Population 26,000(current) 7.1 ac -==
ac 11.4 ac a
Population 30,000 6.1 ac 1.1 9.9 ac 19c
Population 35,000 5.3 ac 1.0 acl 8.4 ac 1 14.7 ac
"City,County& D owned Parkland/Open Space only per 1000
Population 26,000(current) I 9.7 ac 1.3 ac 11.4 ac 22.4 ac
Population 30,000 8.4 ac 1.1 ac 9.9 ac 19.4 ac
Population 35,000 1 7.2 ac 1 1.0 acl 8.4 acl 16.6 ac
Parkland/OpenJotal of all iir without Golf Courses
Population 26,000(current) 1 9.7 acl 1.3 acl 13.6 acl 12.0 acl 36.6 ac
Population 30,000 8.4 ac 1.1 ac 11.8 ac 10.4 ac 31.8 ac
Population 35,000 1 7.2 acl 1.0 acl 10.1 acl 8.9 acl 27.2,Total of all Parkland/ ac
Open Space
Population 26,000(current) 1 17.8 acl 1.3 ac 13.6 acl 12.4 ac 45.2 ac
Population 30,000 1 15.5 acl 1.1 acl 11.8 acl 10.7 acl 39.1 ac
Population 35,000 1 13.2 acl 1.0 acl 10.1 acl 9.2 acl 33.5 ac
•
026
DATE: 09/17/2001
Attachment 13
SFR-x Site 1 acre and greater
NUh
l
s„
%fir % I ♦
,/ .k. t=' 'i > � ♦♦♦lam^ :�rl��;
5 �I �♦
1 � K
1 f � ♦
�'E'er t J '\ I I�./" -� �/♦/�'!\� \ �� ..�
0407
DATE: 09/17/2001
Attachment 14 •
Library Park Site Alternative Site Plan Concept
Alley loading garages Small lot single family
residential PD-7 project
GP: MDR
Zoning: RMF-10
acre pocket park
site with tot lot
GP: REC
Zoning: L
NJ 1'
1
D
�s�J �.tJPP-E•�� 4.�r.,J��
s
012&
ITEM NUMBER: B- 1
e;® An! DATE: 07/24/2001
leis is, 979
Atascadero City Council
Staff Report— Community Development Department
General Plan Update
Recommendation on Draft Land Use Plan
GPA 2000-0001
SUBJECT:
GPA 2000-0001 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE: REVIEW OF DRAFT LAND USE
PLAN: Consideration of the Planning Commission's recommendation on a Draft Land Use
Plan to the City Council for use in the General Plan Update process. The Draft Land Use
Plan will be used for the preparation of a Draft General Plan Document and Draft
Environmental Impact Report. In addition, the Planning Commission has forwarded 10
separate policy options to be addressed in the Draft General Plan Document.
No actions that would amend the current General Plan will be taken.
RECOMMENDATION:
Planning Commission Recommends: _
1. The City Council adopt the attached draft Resolution, thereby endorsing the Draft
Land Use Plan as the Preferred Plan for use in the Draft General Plan policy
document and Draft Environmental Impact Report; and,
2. The City Council direct staff to incorporated policy issues 1 through 10 into the Draft
General Plan.
DISCUSSION:
The adoption of the Draft Land Use Plan represents the conclusion of the public outreach
process to establish a preferred Land Use Diagram and the beginning of the Draft General
Plan document and Environmental Impact Report (EIR) preparation process. The Draft Land
Use Plan will be used as the basis for the written Draft General Plan document. The draft
document and Draft EIR will be released for public review later this year.
Background: A joint study session of the City Council and Planning Commission was held
on May 29, 2001 to review a"refined" Draft Land Use Plan for use as the "preferred project"
in the General Plan Update and EIR. In addition to the Plan, staff presented ten broad policy
issues that need to be addressed in the update process. The purpose of the study session was
Print Date:09119/01 File:072401-GgOp&.0
ITEM NUMBER: B- 1
DATE: 07/24/2001
to allow staff an opportunity to present the Draft Land Use Plan and policy issues to the City
Council,Planning Commission and public prior to the release of staff reports. •
Following the study session and a public open house, the Planning Commission held a
hearing on June 5, 2001 to consider the Draft Land Use Plan. Due to the quantity of public
testimony the item was continued to June 19, 2001. At the second meeting, the Commission
forwarded recommendations to the City Council on a Draft Land Use Plan and ten policy
options. The following staff report is an expanded discussion of the topics and issues that
were presented during the joint study session on May 29, 2001. The Planning Commission's
recommendations are reflected in all of the policy options.
•
030
ITEM NUMBER: B- 1
DATE: 07/24/2001
• Planning Commission Recommended Draft Land Use Plan:
The June 19, 2001 Planning Commission Recommended Land Use Alternative includes
several changes from the May 29 alternatives. The Commission is recommending the
following changes:
1) change LUA-7 from SFR-Y (1-1%2 ac min.) to SE (Suburban Estates 2%2-10 ac min.)
with a requirement for bikeways and equestrian access to the Salinas River.
2) change LUA-11 (San Benito Area) from SE (Suburban Estates 2'/2-10 ac min.) to SFR-Y
(1-li/2 ac min.)
3) change one parcel located between Morro Road and Atascadero Avenue from MDR
(medium density residential) to O (office)
The map has been divided into three separate sub-areas for easy of discussion, the North End,
Central Core, and South End.
Change1
Planning Commission
1 Recommended Alternative
7 S
*> m< Change 2
k City of Atascadero
General Plan Updafe
j xvU '` June 19 2001
N
A
Y i, i Tf x^xa v cx 4 Neil
'1 & � n.sm- L ,• : �Y?�"""� , ��' Xy]rs" � t fix'. � - ^"
�1. : " .Z k� s ] �� �• -�^rS `sL � �# ,fi. ��JAt�t.F F.p9'� * '..
� - x l ✓ r �!, Change 3
r'
A
i
r i \
• `f'n ,yam � �T S � 7 - , / � ,.
031
ITEM NUMBER: B- 1
DATE: 07/24/2001
North End
The North End area consists of the following land use proposals: Del Rio Shopping Center •
Node, the LUA-7 Railroad Parcel, and the North County Christian School relocation. During
public testimony, property owners in the vicinity of San Benito Road expressed differing
positions about allowing smaller lot sizes in this area. The Planning Commission is
recommending that this area be redesignated to SFR-Y based on the testimony received.
LUA 7 Railroad Parcel
• Change to SE(Suburban Estates)2.5—
10 acre min lot size
Bikeway to be constructed on Mackey
Property
Via*
f
1 �
l , San Benito Road Area
Change to SFR-Y
,7
✓ ,, � `SLI .a
North County Christian School Relocation Del Rio Shopping Center Node
• 15 acre shopping center
• Multi-family and'/2 acre single family
transition to suburban densities.
032
ITEM NUMBER: B- 1
DATE: 07/24/2001
Central Core
• Proposed changes within the Central Core include a consolidated commercial center at El
Camino Real and Curbaril, and additional retail commercial and multi-family uses along
Morro Road. The revised traffic study and Circulation Element update will address traffic
impacts and mitigations at Curbaril and El Camino.
1 �, } �F \ T ✓ t ) EI Camino/Curbaril Center
Consolidation of parcels
ect
into a single commercial
�� C';"f���`T`y�'�`,Z''?`�1� � ;.`�`• �-, j�.f� r,, Y<, 't;- ���i�",fit P 1
✓$"Y' �'(/ �'•.,IJ-`Yk�T�t�C. � � �.� '`� i��5 /�`Cr :�I. V" fir...;
��-.a,�-�'��..,:�;���y'(, ly-. •�dt tir�:\ � f�� HJT,!
j""• �,r' ry��'. 11�'�' !�
• `e-cam'i' •%'�-. %' 6.���.X~`� '� r ''/' � �����•,j'\`�
Planning Commission Change
rNT k' �f
PC recommendation to change
from MDR to Office.
L � fU
.� / � .��'7 � ` tlt
• t " i`< 1�J ` i
Morro Road Corridor
• Additional Retail Commercial
• Multi-family transition along Navajoa
•
033
ITEM NUMBER: B- 1
DATE: 07/24/2001
South End
Proposed land use changes at the South End include Mixed Uses at Dove Creek, the •
Woodlands Specific Plan, and expansion of Paloma Creek Park.
Wr
Paloma Creek Park
Expansion
r \
`r
Woodlands Specific Plan
0 Cluster development 269 units
' 0 Preservation of hillside and oak
woodlands
l , S
f \4 \
CRHC
I \1
f Dove Creek
Mixed Use Land Use Program
• Retail,office,theaters,and 200 multi-
family units
034
ITEM NUMBER: B- 1
DATE: 07/24/2001
Revised General Plan Build-Out Calculations
• The following table has been updated to include the Planning Commission recommended
changes. Using the same assumptions as the current General Plan, theoretical build-out
would be 35,238 residents.
General Plan Update
Population Calculations
19-Jun-01
1994 General Plan Buildout Current General Plan Buildout PC Recommended Alternative 6/21/New Buildout
includes approved General Plan Amendments 1994.99
Land Use 1994 acres I Units Population netchanges 2001 Acres Units Population netchanges Units Population Acres Units Population
A 43.9 ac 0.0 ac 43.9 ac 0.0 ac 43.9 ac
SE/RE 9,926.2 ac 3,862 du's 10,234 pp (270.3)ac 9,655.9 ac 3,757 du's 9,955 pp (303.5)ac -118 du's -313 pp 9,352.4 ac 3,638 du's 9,642 pp
SFR-Z 626.4 ac 620 du's 1,643 pp (4.0)ac 622.4 ac 616 du's 1,632 pp 32.8 ac 32 du's 86 pp 655.2 ac 648 du's 1,718 pp
SFR-Y 1,320.9 ac 2,316 du's 6,137 pp 138.8 ac 1,459.8 ac 2,559 du's 6,782 pp 92.0 ac 161 du's 428 pp 1,551.8 ac 2,721 du's 7,210 pp
SFR-X 373.6 ac 1,034 du's 2,740 pp 34.0 ac 407.6 ac 1,128 du's 2,989 pp 53.2 ac 147 du's 390 pp 460.8 ac 1,275 du's 3,379 pp
MDR 203.4 ac 1,046 du's 2,772 pp (6.3)ac 197.2 ac 1,014 du's 2,687 pp 19.9 ac 102 du's 271 pp 217.1 ac 1,116 du's 2,958 pp
HDR 214.8 ac 2,877 du's 7,624 pp 30.2 ac 245.0 ac 3,281 du's 8,695 pp 58.0 ac 367 du's 973 pp 303.0 ac 3,648 du's 9,668 pp
GC-NC 21.5 ac 0.0 ac 21.5 ac (7.7)ac 13.8 ac
GC-0 47.4 ac (1.3)ac 46.1 ac (1.4)ac 44.7 ac
GC-R 131.3 ac (3.7)ac 127.6 ac 40.4 ac 168.1 ac
CPK 81.6 ac 74.6 ac 156.2 ac (73.2)ac 82.9 ac
D 62.3 ac (0.4)ac 61.9 ac 50 du's 133 pp 0.4 ac 62.3 ac 50 du's 133 pp
Sc 71.5 ac 0.0 ac 71.5 ac (8.4)ac 63.2 ac
GC-TC 37.9 ac 5.1 ac 43.0 ac (3.7)ac 39.3 ac
I 29.5 ac 4.4 ac 33.9 ac 0.0 ac 33.9 ac
IPK 31.2 ac 0.0 ac 31.2 ac 0.0 ac 31.2 ac
MU 66.6 ac 200 du's 530 pp 66.6 ac 200 du's 530 pp
C 6.7 ac 6.7 ac
679.3 ac 0.0 ac 679.3 ac (177.6)ac 501.7 ac
1,279.5 ac (1.1)ac 1,278.5 ac (71.8)ac 1,206.7 ac
1277.4 ac 277.4 ac
Total 15,182.6 ac 11,755 1 's 31,750 pp 0.0 ac 15,182.6 ac 12,405 du's 32,873 pp 0.0 ac 892 du's 2,365 pp 15,182.7 ac 13,297 du's 35,238 pp
1) buildout assumptions do not include the Atascadero State Hospital population(1,210 person 2000 census)
2) all acreage calculations are net acres and do not include streets and right-of-ways
3) population per dwelling unit=2.65 persons
Draft Land Use Plan
Planning Commission Recommendation:
1. Adopt the 6/19/01 Draft Land Use Plan as the Preferred Plan for use in the preparation of
the Draft General Plan document and EIR.
The City Council may add, delete or change elements of the map as part of its
recommendation.
•
035
ITEM NUMBER: B- 1
DATE: 07/24/2001
General Plan Update Issues:
The followingpolicy option issues were resented at the Joint Session meeting and have •
P Y p P g
been reviewed at the Planning Commission Hearing.
Policy Options
■ 1. Urban Service Line
■ 2. Land Use Designations
■ 3. Expansion of the PD-7 District
■ 4. Creek Setbacks
■ 5. Affordable Housing
■ 6. Service Commercial Locations
■ 7. Annexation Areas
■ 8. Lot Size Inconsistencies
■ 9. Downtown Parking Standards (added by Planning Commission)
■ 10. Colony House Protection Standards (added by Planning Commission)
Policy Option #l: Urban Service Line
■ What is the Urban Services Line?
■ Ambulance
■ Cultural Facilities
■ Fire Protection
■ Improvement Districts
■ Library
■ Parks
■ Police
■ Solid Waste Disposal
■ Storm Drainage
■ Streets
■ Street Sweeping
■ Street Trees
■ Utilities
■ Water
■ Sewer
■ What is the Suburban Services Area?
■ Ambulance
■ Creekway& Horse Trails
■ Fire Protection
■ Improvement Districts
■ Parks
■ Police
■ Solid Waste Disposal
■ Streets
■ Utilities
■ Water
— Sewer services are not provided except for "cease and desist"septic problem areas and where
approved by the City Council for public uses
•
036
ITEM NUMBER: B- 1
DATE: 07/24/2001
• Policy Option #1: Urban Service Line (USL)
■ Urban Services should be based on logical boundaries
■ Provision of all services should be considered
■ Sewer service should be provided based on public health& water quality
■ Lot size and density should be based on zoning, proximity, slope, tree cover and
neighborhood compatibility
■ WWTP capacity is adequate
■ Collection system/pump stations inefficiencies are created by current USL
Planning Commission Recommended Option
1. Recommend adoption of the revised Urban Service Line as shown .
2. Develop a policy that not all lots with the Urban Service Line are required to be served
by sewer.
USL Expansion
General Plan Service Areas
City of Atascadero
General Plan Update
a ., May 29, 2001
City limits
Legend
k
r 1 ,
ti I e }
' is ,tir
USL Area
,�`•,f`���SC � - { � . .� "�T�' °Y 'Rai `l�`��'aa�r�:
MFj
{�
Outside USL �v `
/ �` 4 `moit.+ ��'
4
037
ITEM NUMBER: B- 1
DATE: 07/24/2001
Policy Option #2: Land Use Designations •
Planning Commission Recommended Option
1. Recommend incorporation of the following new Land Use Designations in Updated
General Plan
Embng Land Lues LO&ftd Land Lyes Ift
C menrabon
AG A0aJ ue AG Aoakue 0.
CS - 0.
Fbddlerfal
W Ruai P sida tial _ RR Rid Resider al
SSF Sirx,je Family Slbutan(25-10 acre lot rrin) RE -A
F —Estates(25-10 axe id rrin.)[a,tside U3] _ 0.
-- - SE �fxrben Est2tes(25-10 acre lot airy)[rside USL] 0.
LDSF Lav Dersity Sirge Family SFR Z Engle F"- ly Resider ial(1.5-25 aae lot nin.) 0.
NDSF Msciun DamitySirx,je Fa-rily SFRY Srxje Family Resideribal(1.0 acre lot n in) 1.
FESF Figh Doty Sirx,je Family SFR-X SrKje Faiily Residerkial(0.5 acre lot n irt) 4.
LDNF Lav Dersity Mlb-Fan ily(10 bedoorrs/ac) NM Mad=Density%§dential(10 ckts/a_;) 10.
FEW Figh Derdty Mlti-Fanily(16 bedwrrs/ao) FDR Hgh Density Feder tial(22 duds/ar) 22
Comneriaal
-- --- •
IVC IV?iltahood Conrrsrdal Carbine Wth OC
RC Retail Camudal GC Coal Carrrsrdal 16.
SC Service Cara erdal SC Service Carrrerdal
— — - - --- — ------ -------
TC Touist Catrrerdal Carbine Wth GC
D Dowtonn --—— --- p--- — -- 16.
0---Cffice -- —-- — -- —Carbine w►th GC —CPK Corrr►-erdd Park CR( Canrreraal Rrk —
MC Wed Use Co m-encd 16.
Irxir atrial
I Ind.strial _ IIID Ind.strid
IPK Indistriai Pcrk Cor brevwth-1—
R.iblic/Ckassi-R.blic
P Public Fadlibtes PLB Rblic Fadlities 0.
RBC Reaction FEC Rhic Reaeaticn 0.
CREC CaTrn Tical Peae<ticn 10.
038
ITEM NUMBER: B- 1
DATE: 07/24/2001
Policy Option #3: PD-7 District Expansion
■ PD-7 is a single-family Planned Development District currently
allowed in the Multi-
Family
Districts.
■ Has worked successfully for years to allow flexible projects with high design standards
■ Converts Multi-Family areas to Single-Family
■ Could be customized to work in the SFR-X designation
■ Would allow new Single-Family Development options
■ Protect existing neighborhoods from Multi-Family densities.
Planning Commission Recommended Options
1. Recommend that standards for a new PD-7 type overlay district be developed for the
SFR-X land use designation in order to allow small lot single family infill
development.
2. Recommend that RMF property meeting the following standards be preserved as
"prime" multi-family areas for apartment development and preclude conversion to
PD-7.
a. Lot size: Lots or contiguous ownership of 2+ acres.
b. Slope: Below 10%
C. Arterial or collector street access
• d. Neighborhood compatibility with apartment development
Policy Option #4: Creek Setbacks
■ Atascadero has numerous creeks
■ No setback protections existing
■ Development encroachment
— damages habitat
— degrades water quality
— increases erosion
— alters flood plains
— increases property damage
Planning Commission Recommended Option
1. Recommend that tiered setback standards for each area be developed to protect
blueline creeks with special Downtown Master Plan consideration.
•
039
ITEM NUMBER: B- 1
DATE: 07/24/2001
Policy Option #5: Affordable Housing
■ Affordable housing J is not just"low income" •
■ Median Prices increased from $152,000 to $215,000 last year (+42%)
■ Balanced housing supports a strong economic base and a healthy community
■ State of California provides housing allocation requirements to cities
■ Atascadero's 1994 allocation was 1,400 units (mostly not built)
■ SB 910 would reduce road funds for non-compliance
Affordable Housing Options
■ 5A Second Units
■ 5B Mixed Use Multi-Family Residential in Retail District
■ 5C Multi-Family Density(units vs. bedrooms)
■ 5D Senior Housing
■ 5E Inclusionary Housing Program
Policy Option #5A: Affordable Housing- Second Units
■ Guest Houses currently allowed in all Districts
■ Guest Houses are unregulated and lack only a stove
■ Second Units have full kitchens and can be attached or detached from primary unit
■ Staff estimates that an average of 10-15 Guest Houses are built annually in Atascadero.
■ State Law requires cities to conditionally allow second units in at least one SFR district
Planning Commission Recommended Options
1. Develop Second Unit standards that address the following:
• lot size(1 ac min)
• size restriction
• sewer connection
• covered parking
• maximum slope
• native trees impacts
• architectural appearance
• setbacks
• neighborhood compatibility
• Conditional Use Permit approval process
2. Begin with a pilot program to allow second units in the SFR-Y (1 - 1.5 acre lot min)
land use with annual program report to the Planning Commission.
3. Eliminate Guest Houses in the SFR-Y land uses.
4. Continue to allow Guest Houses in the SFR-X, SFR-Z and SSF land uses.
•
040
ITEM NUMBER: B- 1
DATE: 07/24/2001
Policy Option #513: Affordable Housing- Mixed Use Multi-Family Residential in
• Retail District
■ Strip appearance of El Camino Real result of exclusive Commercial zoning
■ Low demand for antiquated commercial structures
■ Limited reuse options discourage reinvestment
■ Mixed Use residential benefits:
. Reuse/clean-up of deteriorating buildings and vacant lots
. Better architecture and landscaping
. Transitions to residential neighborhoods
. Places workers in proximity to jobs
. Supports existing businesses
. Increase "pedestrianization" of El Camino Real
Planning Commission Recommended Options
1. Allow mixed use multi-family residential projects within the Commercial Retail and
Commercial Professional zoning districts as a conditionally allowed use.
2. Require mixed use residential to be attached, multi-family type development.
3. Require all residential projects along Morro Road to include a commercial or office
• storefront along the street frontage with parking to the rear.
4. Allow exclusive multi-family residential development along El Camino Real.
041
ITEM NUMBER: B- 1
DATE: 07/24/2001
Policy Option #5C: Affordable Housing- Multi-Family Density (units vs. bedrooms)
•
■ Current Standard based on Bedroom Units
■ Most units have one-bedroom and a"den"
■ Market demand is for 2 and 3 bedroom units
■ "Phantom" one-bedroom units result in uncalculated parking
■ 16 units /acre is lowest in County
■ All cities in San Luis Obispo County set density by units
San Luis Obispo City 24 du's/acre
San Luis Obispo County 26 du's/acre
Paso Robles 22 du's/acre (1 unit/2000 sf.)
■ Lending institutions and appraisers use units
■ State of California affordable housing allocations and density bonus requirements are
based on units
■ It is so confusing it discourages developers and lenders
Planning Commission Recommended Options
1. Recommend that multi-family densities be calculated by units rather than bedrooms.
2. Recommend increasing the maximum allowable multi-family density to 22-units/ac
in certain areas.
•
Policy Option #5D: Affordable Housing- Senior Housing
■ Changing demographics
■ Large lot maintenance and expense not appealing to seniors
Planning Commission Recommended Option
1. Recommend that the General Plan provide a density bonus incentive for deed-
restricted senior housing development projects and that staff look into various options
for such.
•
042
ITEM NUMBER: B- 1
DATE: 07/24/2001
• Policy Option #5E: Affordable Housing—Inclusionary Housing
■ San Luis Obispo adopted an Inclusionary Housing Ordinance in 1999.
■ The Ordinance requires that new development projects include affordable housing units,
dedicate land for affordable housing, or pay in lieu fee to assist in the development of
affordable housing citywide.
■ Residential projects:
The Ordinance requires the developer to build 3% low or 5%moderate cost affordable
dwelling units (adu) but not less than 1 affordable unit per project; or pay in-lieu fee
equal to 5% of building valuation.
■ Commercial Projects:
The Ordinance requires 1 adu per acre, but not less than 1 adu per project; or pay in-lieu
fee equal to 2% of building valuation.
■ The ordinance excludes projects that are non-commercial in nature or which provide
educational social or related services such as churches, day care centers, private schools,
non-profit housing agencies and social service agencies. It also excludes construction of
previously destroyed structures as long as they are rebuilt within three years.
Planning Commission Recommended Option
• 1. Consider the adoption of an inclusionary affordable housing program similar to the City
of San Luis Obispo.
•
043
ITEM NUMBER: B- 1
DATE: 07/24/2001
Policy Option #6: Service Commercial Locations •
■ Service Commercial areas are intended to allow intensive uses such as auto repair.
■ Locations along residential neighborhoods create conflicts.
■ Re-designation to General Commercial would allow mixed use and make intensive uses
conditionally allowed.
Planning Commission Recommended Option
1. Re-designate Service Commercial land uses on the east side of El Camino to General
Commercial.
� 1
�r Y�N U4x"''\'moi f 1`xtf l�ai•--}�r--{�" �: ��./ �'3i''�'
ZU*���\ '� \ moi` �� ✓'"'l l� �•.+^
T '
y '
1
i
�k' 1� !.
•
044
ITEM NUMBER: B- 1
DATE: 07/24/2001
• Policy Option #7: Unincorporated Areas
Planning Commission Recommended Options
1. Area A:
Develop Future Annexation Policies
2. Area B:
Remote: Leave in County
3. Area C:
Developed: Leave in County
4. Area D:
400 undeveloped lots: City Control via Annexation
Develop Future Annexation Policies
5. Area E:
Developed: Leave in County
Unincorporated Colony Areas
May 29, 2001
��j^���e=,3''�I 5Z
y ! y
AM 4W,
AL
-�. k
SO
045
ITEM NUMBER: B- 1
DATE: 07/24/2001
Policy Option #8: Lot Size Inconsistencies
■ Subdivisions prior to Ci incorporation created numerous lots smaller than 1/2 a •
p City rp acre
■ Lots that are smaller than the minimum are considered"non-conforming"
■ Non-conforming lots are allowed the same uses as conforming lots
■ Majority of the lots in the study area are non-conforming
■ SFR-X (1/2 acre) 82%non-conforming
■ SFR-Y(1 acre) 88% non-conforming
■ SFR-Z (1.5 acre) 74%non-conforming
■ SSF(2.5 acre) 74%non-conforming
■ Requests to split lots to match surrounding lot sizes source of GPA applications
City of Atascadero
General Plan Update
Existing Non-conforming lots
May 29,2001
e
Planning Commission Recommended Option
1. Develop a customized Planned Development (PD) overlay process that could be applied
to individual lots that are inconsistent with surrounding lots.
ITEM NUMBER: B- 1
DATE: 07/24/2001
. Policy Option #9: Downtown Mixed Use Parking Standards
Planning Commission Recommended Options
1. Review the parking standards for mixed-use residential development within the
Downtown land use designation as part of the General Plan Update.
Policy Option #10: Colony Home Preservation
Planning Commission Recommended Options
1. The General Plan will include policies for the historic preservation for Atascadero
Colony homes.
PREPARED BY: Warren Frace, Planning Services Manager
ATTACHMENTS:
• Attachment 1: Excerpts of Planning Commission Minutes June 5, 2001
Attachment 2: Planning Commission Memo
Attachment 3: Excerpts of Planning Commission Minutes June 19, 2001
Attachment 4: Planning Commission Draft Land Use Plan Recommendation
Attachment 5: Draft Council Resolution
•
047
Attachment 1: Excerpts of Planning Commission Minutes June 5,2001
CITY OF ATASCADERO
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Regular Meeting
June 5, 2001 — 7:00 P.M.
CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Eddings called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and Commissioner Norton
led the Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Bentz, Blaser, Fonzi, Kelley,Norton, Vice-Chairman Jeanes
and Chairman Eddings
Absent: None
Staff. Community Development Director Lori Parcells, Principal Planner Warren Frace, .
Assistant Planner Phil Dunsmore, Associate Planner Jamie Kirk, Consultant
Paul Crawford and Recording Secretary Grace Pucci.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: GPA 2000-0001 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE:
REVIEW OF DRAFT LAND USE PLAN: The Planning Commission will be
holding a public hearing to consider recommending a Draft Land Use Plan to the City
Council for use in the General Plan Update process. The Draft Land Use Plan will be
used for the preparation of a Draft General Plan Document and Draft Environmental
Impact Report. No formal action to amend the current General Plan will be taken at
this meeting. The public is encouraged to attend and will be given the opportunity to
speak on the item.
Staff Recommends:
1. The Planning Commission adopt Resolution 2001-026, thereby recommending
that the City Council incorporate the Draft Land Use Plan as the Preferred
Plan in the Draft General Plan policy document and Draft Environmental
Impact Report.
•
Print Date:09/19/01 File:072401-GP update.doc 048
2. The Planning Commission provide specific direction on Policy Issues 1
• through 8 to be forwarded to the City Council for consideration.
Principal Planner Warren Frace provided the staff report and answered questions of the
Commission.
PUBLIC COMMENT
John McGoff, 9192 Maple Street, expressed his concern regarding possible conflict of
interest issues with Planning Commission members on this item. (Attachment 1)
David Jones, 8220 Larga, read from a prepared statement. He feels that the revised plan is a
vast improvement and commended staff for listening to the opinions of the public. He would
like to see additional attention given to the method for reclassification of nonconforming lots.
(Attachment 2)
Livia Kellerman, 5463 Honda, handed out a map of Plot 283 and a written statement to the
Commissioners and gave a brief history of the property. She stated concern regarding-the
proposed high density zoning designation for this property. She would like it to
remain in the recreational designation and supports creating more neighborhood parks in the
community. (Attachment 3)
• Henry Engen, 9575 Lake View Drive, read from a prepared statement. He feels the process
is going too fast. He is concerned with the population build out figures, wastewater
treatment plant capacity, land use designations,mixed uses and affordable housing.
(Attachment 4)
Becky Pacas, 4305 San Benito Road, stated her opposition to the revised General Plan Land
Use map and proposals. She is concerned with public health and safety and feels that
California Codes do not require the proposed changes.
Shawn Noth, Capistrano Avenue property owner, expressed his concern with the
development around his property. He feels that the zoning designation on surrounding
properties is not consistent with that of his property and he is requesting a zoning change to
RMF-16.
Henry Skibo, 3560 Traffic Way, read from a prepared statement submitted by 18 Traffic
Way property owners. They object to the proposed General Plan Land Use Map, which does
not include zoning changes to reduce minimum lot size in their area. (Attachment 5)
Ann Quinn, 7200 Toro Creek Road, is concerned with the lack of recreational facilities in the
proposed general plan update.
Marissa Todd, 4500 Del Rio Road, is opposed to the LUA No. 7 and urged the Commission
• to reconsider this action. She does not want access to the river cut off and would like to see
this area remain as a green belt.
049
John Knight, RRM Design Group, spoke on behalf of the Smith-Hobson family who owns
the area known as Eagle Ranch. He supports the annexation of Area D on the proposed land •
use map and would like to see this area included in the Urban Services Area.
David Crouch, 7305 Curbaril, feels that the City is having trouble paying for services under
its current general plan, and he worries how the City will afford to pay for services in areas
which are being proposed for annexation. Regarding second units, he sees the potential for
these units as well as the primary residence turning into rentals changing the area from
single-family to multi-family density.
Bill Obermeyer, 4800 Carrizo Road, expressed his concerns regarding the area on the north
end near the river where the switch will take place. He does not want to see river access cut
off and feels that the proposed housing will be too near the railroad tracks. He suggested
easements in new developments that would interconnect and allow access between housing
areas.
Dorothy McNeil, read from a prepared statement regarding her feeling that it was not
necessary to rewrite the entire General Plan as only the Housing Element needed review.
(Attachment 5)
Theresa Wasley, 3060 Traffic Way stated her concern with safety on Traffic Way. She feels
that if the area property owners were permitted to subdivide, they would be able to provide
bike and pedestrian pathways making it safer for children and others to walk on Traffic Way.
She is in favor of half-acre zoning along Traffic Way. •
Joan O'Keefe, 9985 Old Morro Road East, is concerned with the process utilized for the
General Plan Update and the fact that there are no written materials available to the public.
She would like to see the changes proposed for zoning inconsistencies be based on terrain
and is concerned with the lack of pedestrian access as well as the lack of parks.
Ann Ketcherside stated three issues of concern: 1) conflict of interest laws as they relate to
this proposal, 2) loss of character within the community, and 3) changes within the
downtown area.
Jerry Johnson, Traffic Way property owner, feels it is unfair that he is not permitted to
subdivide his property when others in the area are permitted to do so. Because the ground is
flat in this area he feels the zoning should be changed to one-half acre.
Richard Shannon, 5070 San Benito Road, stated that he is a property owner, developer and
real estate agent and he feels it is difficult to find housing on smaller lots in Atascadero. He
would like to see more zoning for smaller lots to permit increased housing.
Chairman Eddings called a recess at 9:00 p.m.
Chairman Eddings reopened the Public Hearing at 9:20 p.m.
•
050
Carmen Barnett, 6780 Atascadero Avenue, stated her opposition to the proposed changes on
• lot 283. She is concerned with the traffic and safety issues in the area, and feels this lot
should be designated as a park.
Principal Planner Frace gave a short history on this property. The property is privately
owned and the current General Plan designation is recreation while the zoning on the parcel
is RMF-16. The Department of Parks and Recreation has recommended that the recreation
designation be eliminated, as there are no plans or funds to improve the lot as a park site.
Under the proposed General Plan, the rear two-thirds of the property would have a multi-
family use and the front corner would remain under a recreation designation.
Mike Zappas, 8189 San Dimas Lane, felt that the previous speakers were very critical of the
proposed changes and at the same time had no other plan to offer. He feels renters have
needs for housing and he congratulated the planning staff on their outreach to the
community.
Raymond Jansen, 6655 Country Club Drive, expressed his concern regarding sewer capacity.
He feels if the proposed General Plan is accepted, the wastewater treatment facility will have
to be expanded to meet increasing need.
John Gorse, Dolores Avenue, stated his pleasure with the staff recommendations as
presented. He had several areas of concern including: 1) proposed changes in the zoning
designation for the Rochelle and Woodlands properties, 2) he is not in favor of changing the
. zoning to one-half acre in the San Benito area, and 3) regarding second units, he feels that
each request should be looked at individually to determine what is best for the property.
Harold Meyers, property owner at Chico and Traffic Way, stated that in 1998 he was
approached about the traffic problem in this area. He offered to dedicate a half-acre and in
return he was promised that he would be included in the General Plan Update for a rezone to
one-half acre lots. The proposed General Plan Update has not included his property for a
rezone. He would like to withdraw his offer of dedication if the City is not going to stand by
their promise.
MOTION: By Chairman Eddings and seconded by Commissioner Kelley to remove
Items No. 3 and 4 from the Public Hearing Agenda and move them to the next
Planning Commission meeting on June 19, 2001.
AYES: Commissioners Kelley, Fonzi, Bentz,Norton, Blaser, Jeanes and Chairman
Eddings.
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
Motion passed 7.0 by a roll-call vote.
•
051
Bill Bright, 11875 Santa Lucia, questioned how many lots are in the Y zone where second
units would be allowed, and if the majority of property owners in the Y zone build second •
units, what would that do to the build-out numbers.
Alan Thomas, 9520 Marchant Way, favors more affordable housing in Atascadero, especially
multi-family housing. He is concerned with the heavy traffic in the Morro Road corridor.
John McGoff, 9192 Maple, feels that more time must be given to the consideration of this
update proposal. He feels the process is going too quickly and he is concerned with the lack
of public record.
Hary Pellet, 4320 Del Rio Road, spoke regarding the area from San Benito School back to
the new development on Traffic Way. He feels there is a shortage of parks in
Atascadero and he would like to see a bike path to the school as well as a park in this area.
Ted Molanee, developer of the commercial project at 7730 Morro Road, feels that the
increased traffic on Morro Road due to higher density development could be a real problem.
He supports the idea of utilizing the property next to the library as a park or green belt.
Livia Kellerman, 5463 Honda, expressed her disappointment with the Department of Parks
and Recreation for not asking the people in the neighborhood about having a park in the lot
near the library.
Becky Pacas, 4305 San Benito, supports the idea of a green belt or park near the library. She .
has concerns about increasing the build-out figure as a response to developer pressure. The
population is growing and she feels it is important to meet the need for affordable housing.
Jim Patterson, 9312 N. Santa Margarita Road, feels the process for the General Plan Update
has changed and is currently driven by developer demands. He feels every recommendation
made for the General Plan must be evaluated against the Smart Growth Principles and land
use goals established by the community.
Mike Wasley, 3060 Traffic Way, made several comments: 1) regarding the petition of 77
names mentioned by another speaker, not all of those who signed are property owners, 2) he
has concern with the issue of traffic and safety along Traffic Way, 3) will this proposal meet
the requirements for low income housing, and 4) many requests for information from last
week's meeting have not been addressed.
Alan Thomas, Marchant Way, stated that if the policy changes from bedrooms to units for
housing density, he strongly urged that design guidelines be enforced regarding the look of
the units, their position on the property, the space between them, playground areas for
children, etc.
Ray Johnson, stated that he has been told by the City that homes don't pay their way, so he
feels that by increasing density there would be more income for City services. •
052
Several letters were turned in for the record, but were not read into the minutes.
• (Attachments 7,8)
Chairman Eddings closed Public Comment.
Chairman Eddings suggested that the Public Hearing be closed, but that the deliberations
would be continued until the next Planning Commission meeting.
There was agreement to this suggestion and Commissioners asked the following questions
with the request that the information be provided them before the next meeting.
Commissioner Fonzi
1. Re: Preserving prime multi-family areas for apartments - what is the definition of
"Prime Multi-Family?"
2. If creek setback criteria are to be "flexible", they must also make sense—she
would like some guidelines so that she can intelligently vote on this issue.
3. Re: Second Units—Why was the "Y" district chosen, what were the criteria for
making it one acre or larger, and why must the area be sewered? -
4. Re: Mixed uses and multi-family residential and commercial service area—she
understands that commercial service should not be next to residential areas, however,
she considers multi-family residential as residential as well and she would like to see
the reasoning behind this.
5. Why are there only senior housing incentives? Should benefits be considered for
extra housing for the handicapped?
6. What kinds of fees are proposed for inclusionary housing and what are they based
upon?
7. She would like more information on the lot sizes in the annexation areas.
8. Re: The Rochelle property and the R.V. Park the Commission voted on. Is the
fact that this area is in a flood zone being considered? She would like more
information regarding the flood zone. Additionally, the access appears to be only
through the back end of Home Depot. Is this a desirable location for access into a
subdivision as it relates to safety, fire and police access and should there not be two
access points?
Commissioner Norton
1. Requested clarification regarding the discrepancy with the sewer. Can someone
from the Sewer Department speak to the Commission?
2. Where is the appropriate location for density for senior housing?
3. She would like to see an overlay on the map of where second unit housing would
be located (the 400 to 600 lots).
4. Why did the estimate of the number of second units to be built annually go from
10 to 30?
5. What proposals have been done in the past regarding creek setbacks?
6. Re: Affordable housing mixed-use multi-family— She would like to see an
overlay on the map of where those proposed areas would be.
053
Commissioner Kelley
1. Could someone from Parks and Recreation address the long-range plans the City •
has for parks?
2. Can larger projects in the future be mandated to include parks?
3. He would like to see the specifications planned for second units.
4. He would like to see a uniform policy on creek setbacks.
Commissioner Jeanes
1. Requested an inventory by the next meeting of what is currently zoned for
recreation.
2. What would be the length of time for the pilot program on second units?
3. Would like guidelines on the criteria for RMF-16 if there were to be a change
from bedrooms to units.
4. What are the traffic implications on Morro Road if all recommendations are
passed to City Council?
5. She would like a staff report by the next meeting on the Traffic Way properties
and what is happening with this issue. Have they been promised things they have not
been given and if so how should this be addressed?
Chairman Eddings
1. Supports the idea of more community parks. He would like to see more areas
designated for parks mixed in with the multi-family areas.
2. Would like the density bonuses for affordable housing to be kept after the decisions
have been made on density requirements for high and medium density multi-family
areas.
Commissioner Blaser
1. What are the actual numbers on how many lots are "nonconforming" and what is
the total if they were to be split into lots the size of those in surrounding areas?
2. What would be the cost of the infrastructure to support the new General Plan
proposal?
3. Is there a grading ordinance or guideline to follow when developing lots?
MOTION: By Commissioner Fonzi and seconded by Commissioner Norton to
continue the meeting to June 19, 2001,Rotunda Room, Atascadero City
Hall.
AYES: Commissioners Fonzi,Norton, Blaser,Bentz, Kelley, Jeanes and
Chairman Eddings.
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
Motion passed 7.0 by a roll-call vote. •
054
• Attachment 2: Planning Commission Memo
Memorandum
Date: June 12, 2001
To: Planning Commission
From: Planning Staff
RE: General Plan Update Questions from Planning Commissioners - June
5, 2001
Planning Commission Question Staff Response
Commissioner Fonzi
1. Preserving prime multi-family areas for Staff would recommend that the following factors be
apartments-what is the definition of"Prime included in a definition of"Prime Multi-Family."
• Multi-Family?"
1. Lot size: Lots or contiguous ownership of 2+acres.
2.Slope: below 10%
3.Arterial or collector street access
4. Neighborhood compatibility
2. If creek setback criteria are to be"flexible", Refer to Attachment 1, excerpts of San Luis Obispo's
it must also make sense—she would like creek setback standards. There appeared to be some
some guidelines so that she can misinterpretation of staffs use of the term"flexible."
intelligently vote on this issue. Flexible was meant to describe a hierarchy of setback
standards that would address the various lot sizes and
uses along the creeks. For example the setback for
100-foot deep downtown lots would be different than
the standard for suburban lots with 2.5 acre
minimums.
3. Second Units—Why was the"Y"district Staff recommended the Y district because of the larger
chosen,what was the criteria for making it lot sizes and availability of sewer. As a pilot program,
one acre or larger,and why must the area the larger lot size is desirable because parking,
be sewered? setback and neighborhood compatibility issues are
easily accommodated on a 1 acre lot.
Staff believes sewer is a mandatory requirement for
second units. Multiple septic systems on residential
lots increase the likelihood of failures and absorption
problems that could impact public health and water
quality.
4. How will mixed uses and multi-family Staff is recommending that both multi-family residential
residential and commercial compatibility be and heavy service commercial uses be"conditional
addressed. allowed"uses within the new General Commercial
land use. The CUP process would allow staff and the
. Commission the ability to analyze and condition
projects to avoid incompatibilities. In addition,
standards to address buffering and setbacks between
residential and commercial uses could be included in
055
Planning Commission Question Staff Response
•
the zoning ordinance. Projects that could not meet
these standards would not be approved.
5. Why are there only senior housing The Uniform Building Code requires a certain
incentives? Should benefits be considered percentage of all multi-family units to be handicapped
for extra housing for the handicapped? accessible. Staff is not aware of any other jurisdictions
that provide density bonuses for handicapped
accessible units.
6. What kinds of fees are proposed for Policy Option 5E of the staff report outlined the
inclusionary housing and what are they requirements of San Luis Obispo's inclusionary
based upon? program. Their fees are based on building valuations.
On residential projects,the in-lieu fee is 5%of building
value and on commercial the fee is 2% of building
value.
7. Information on the lot sizes in the Eagle Colony Lots=402 parcels
Ranch annexation areas. 2924±acres total
min lot size= .02 acres
ave lot size=7.2 acres
max lot size= 175 acres
8. Is the Rochelle property and the R.V. Park The portion of the Rochelle property approved for the
area in a flood zone? She would like more RV park and now proposed for single-family residential
information regarding the flood zone. is outside of both the 100 and 500-year flood plains.
Additionally, the access appears to be only Refer to Attachment 2.
through the back end of Home Depot, is
this a desirable location for access into a The primary access will come from an extension of EI
subdivision as it relates to safety,fire and Camino Real which is an arterial street designed to
police access and should there not be two accommodate the expected traffic levels. A secondary
access points. emergency access connection will be provided at •
Ferrocaril. This secondary access would benefit both
the Rochelle property as well as the Ferrocaril and
Lakes neighborhoods which could have access
impacted by a closure of the Chico Road railroad
crossing.
Commissioner Norton
9. Requested clarification regarding the Staff will provide additional information at the meeting
discrepancy with the sewer. Can someone regarding the wastewater treatment plant.
from the Sewer Department speak to the
Commission?
10. Where is the appropriate location for A senior housing project would likely require the same
density for senior housing? site features as a multi-family project which would
include sewer, major street access, slopes of less than
10%, and parcel area of 2 to 5 acres.
Most of the locations that fit these criteria would be
along EI Camino Real.
11. She would like to see an overlay on the Refer to Attachment 3.
map of where second unit housing would 250 lots meet the criteria of having a SFR-Y
be located (the 400 to 600 lots). designation and being at least a 1-acre
12. Why did the estimate of the number of Staff has had difficulty retrieving an accurate number
second units to be built annually go from 10 from the computer based permitting system. Part of
to 30? the issue involves the fact that there is no special
review or approval required for guest houses,
therefore it is difficult to track the permits.
Staff believes that an accurate number for guest house
permits issued in 2000 is 13 units. •
13. What proposals have been done in the past The City used to have a standard 50-foot creek
056
Planning Commission Question Staff Response
•
regarding creek setbacks? setback. Ordinance 236).
14. Affordable housing mixed-use multi-family— Refer to Attachment 4
She would like to see an overlay on the Staff is recommending multi-family residential be
map of where those proposed areas would conditionally allowed in the CR and CP zoning
be. districts.
Commissioner Kelley
15. Could someone from Parks and Recreation Geoff English from the Community Services
address the long-range plans the City has Department will attend the meeting to discuss parkland
for arks? issues and plans.
16. Can larger projects in the future be Currently the City does have an open space/recreation
mandated to include parks? requirement for multi-family projects and the City's
subdivision ordinance does require the dedication of
parkland in conjunction with subdivisions of more than
50 units. Projects of less than 50 units may pay an in-
lieu fee instead of dedicating parkland.
Planning Commission discussion of additional
parkland and open space requirements on larger -
residential projects would be helpful to staff.
17. He would like to see the specifications Refer to Policy Option 5A of the staff report.
tanned for second units.
18. He would like to see a uniform policy on Staff recommends the Commission discuss this issue
creek setbacks. and provide direction. Refer to Attachment 1 for
example of San Luis Obispo's creek setback
standards.
. Commissioner Jeanes
19. Requested an inventory by the next Refer to Attachment 5.
meeting of what is currently zoned for There are 686 acres designated as Recreation under
recreation. the General Plan. This figure is misleading because it
includes creek reservations and private commercial
recreation areas. Also Paloma Creek Park is
designated as Public so it is not included.
Policy Option 2(land use designations)would address
this issue by creating new Open Space and
Commercial Recreation designations. The Recreation
designation could then accurately reflect park facilities.
20. What would be the length of time for the Staff does not propose any sunset dates. Ideally, if
pilot program on second units? the program is successful it could be expanded, if it is
not successful it should be revised or repealed.
21. Would like guidelines on the criteria for Refer to Attachment 6 for current RMF-16
RMF-16 if there were to be a change from development standards. The Commission may wish to
bedrooms to units. have staff look into changes for these standards.
22. What are the traffic implications on Morro Traffic issues are being addressed by the traffic
Road if all recommendations are passed to consultant as part of the General Plan EIR.The traffic
City Council? study will recommend mitigation measures to address
the impacts of new development.
The current traffic problems on Morro Road (SR 41)
are the result of the Caltrans 41 re-alignment project.
Caltrans and the City are collaborating on an
interchange redesign project that will improve traffic
operations at the freeway.
• 23. Would like a staff report by the next This issue dates back a number of years and began
meeting on the Traffic Way properties and prior to the current staffs tenure. It appears that as
what is happening with this issue. part of the Mackey Project, discussions occurred about
057
Planning Commission Question Staff Response
•
including these parcels(LUA 11)in the General Plan
Amendment process. When that did not happen, a
subsequent discussion occurred about including the
area in the Davis-Shores General Plan Amendment.
Due to the controversy within the LUA-11 area,the
applicant for the Davis-Shores project did not want this
area included. Consequently, a third discussion
occurred that this area would be addressed in the
General Plan Update process.
To date this area has been included in the General
Plan update as LUA-11. LUA-11 was included in Draft
Alternatives 2 and 3 but not 1. Since a refinement of
Alternative 1 has emerged as the preferred option,
LUA-11 has been excluded.
The Planning Commission does have the ability to
recommend changes to the refined alternative.
Chairman Eddin s
24. Supports the idea of more community Refer to previous discussion points(15, 16& 19).
parks. He would like to see more areas
designated for parks mixed in with the
multi-family areas.
25. Would like the density bonuses for The State requires the Cities to grant density bonus for
affordable housing to be kept after the affordable housing regardless of the maximum density.
decisions have been made on density
requirements for high and medium density •
multi-family areas.
Commissioner Blaser
26. What are the actual numbers on how many SFR-X 1095 total lots
lots are"nonconforming"and what is the 909 non-conforming lots
total if they were to be split into lots the size 36 lots: possible subdivision
of those in surrounding areas?
SFR-Y 2286 total lots
2035 non-conforming lots
42 lots: possible subdivision
SFR-Z 544 total lots
408 non-conforming lots
19 lots: possible subdivision
27. What would be the cost of the infrastructure Infrastructure costs will be addressed as part of EIR
to support the new General Plan proposal? and a facilities fee study that is currently in process.
28. Is there a grading ordinance or guideline to Preparation of a grading ordinance would require a
follow when developing lots? significant allocation of staff time. If the Commission
wishes to pursue a grading ordinance, policies should
be included in the General Plan identifying the
preparation of a grading ordinance as a staff priority.
The grading ordinance would likely become part of the
zoning ordinance and would be prepared after the
General Plan is adopted.
0
058
• Attachment 1
San Luis Obispo's Creek Setback Standards
17.16.025 Creek sacks.
A. Purpose. Creek setbacks are intended to:
1. Protect scenic resources,water quality,and natural
creekside habitat, including oppbrtunfties for wildlife
habitation,rest,and movement
2. Further the restoration of damaged or degraded
habitat,especially where a continuous riparian habitat
corridorcan be established.
3.Allow for natural changes that may occur within the
creek corridor.
4.Help avoid damage to development from erosion and
flooding.
5.Enable implementation of adopted City plans.
B. Waterways Subject to Setbacks. Creek setback
requirements shall apply to all creeks as defined in the
Open Space Element and shown on that element's
Creek Map,and only to those creeks.
C. Measurement of Creek Setbacks. Creek setbacks
shall be measured from the existing top of bank(or the
future top of bank resulting from a creek alteration
reflected in a plan approved by the City), or from the
edge of the predominant pattern of riparian vegetation,
whichever is farther from the creek flow line. The
Community Development Director may determine the
predominant pattern of riparian vegetation, where the
edge of the vegetation varies greatly in a short length
along the creek,in a way unrelated to topography(for
example,the Director will not base the setback line on
individual trees or branches extending out from the
channel or on small gaps in vegetation extending toward
the channel).Where riparian vegetation extends over a
public street,no creek setback is required on property
which is on the side of the street away from the creek.
• • asses Ube&
Top of w*
C
I
• • • • • • • •R•Qur•d SMOu�k
I Zomn4 aeGulations
•
f?59
D.Plan Information. The location of top of bank and of 3. La •
rger Setbacks. To mitigate potentially sgnill
riparian vegetation shall be shown on all project plans environmental impacts in compliance with the Cal'
subject to City approval. The location of these features Environmental Quality Act,or to implement adopted City c.
is subject to confirmation by the Community plans, when approving a discretionary application the
Development Director, based on observation of actual City may require setbacks larger than required by parts
conditions and, as needed,the conclusions of persons 1 and 2 above,or further limitations on the items which
with expertise in hydrology,biology,or geology, may be placed within setbacks. (Also, other City
regulations may restrict or prevent development in a
E. Creek Setback Dimensions. Different setback floodway or floodplain.)
dimensions are established in recognition of different
parcel sizes and locations of existing structures for 4. Prior Approvals. Where the City has explicitly
areas within the city in comparison with areas which approved a creek setback smaller than required by this
may be annexed,and in response to different sizes of section,prior to adoption of this section,by action on a
creek channels and tributary drainage areas, tract or parcel map (whether or not a vesting map),
architectural review application, use permit, Planned
1.Creeks within the 1996 City Limits. Along all creeks Development zoning,or Special Considerations zoning,
within the city limits as of July 1,1996,the setback shall that smaller setback shall remain in effect so long as the
be 20 feet, except as provided in parts E.3, EA or G approval is in effect
below. Where the city limit follows a creek,the setback
on the side within the 1996 city limits shall be 20 feet F.Items Prohibited within Setbacks. The following shall
and the setback on the annexed side shall be as not be placed or constructed within a creek setback,
provided in part 2 below, except as provided In part G below:structures;paving;
parking lots; in nonresidential zones, areas used for
2. Creeks in Areas Annexed Atter 1996. Along any storing or working on vehicles,equipment,or materials.
creek in an area annexed to the City after July 1, 1996,
the following setbacks shall be provided, unless a G.Exceptions To Creek Setbacks.
specific plan or development plan approved by the City
Council provides a larger or smaller setback,consistent 1. Entitled Replacement Structures. Where a stricture
with the purpose of these regulations and with General lawfully existed on or before October 3, 1996,within a
Plan policies. creek setback required by this chapter.
a. Fifty-foot Setbacks. The setback along the following a.Any structure built in replacement of such a structure
shall be 50 feet: San Luis Obispo Creek (all of main may occupy the same footprint, within the creek
branch); San Luis Obispo Creek East Fork, from San setback, as the previous structure. (See also part
Luis Obispo Creek(main branch)to the confluence with 17.16.020.E.1.d.)
Acacia Creek;Stenner Creek.
b. Additional floor area shall not be added to the
b. Thirty-five-foot Setbacks. The setback along the encroaching part of the structure (for example, by
following shall be 35 feet Prefumo Creek;Froom Creek; adding stories).
Brizziolad Creek; San Luis Obispo Creek East Fork
tributary, from the confluence with Acacia Creek to c. The part of a structure which is nonconforming due
Broad Street (Highway 227); Acacia Creek and its solely to the creek setback encroachment may be
tributaries west of Broad Street (Highway 227); the remodeled without regard to the limits of parts
segment of the tributary of Acacia Creek which flows 17.14.020.8 and C of this title.
generally parallel to and on the easterly side of Broad
Street(Highway 227),from Broad Streetto Fuller Road. 2. Entitled Accessory Structures and Uses. The
following items may be located within the required creek
c. Twenty-foot Setbacks. The setback along all creeks setback,provided that they:do not extend beyond the
except those listed in parts 'a' and V immediately top of bank into the creek channel;will not cause the
above shall be 20 feet removal of native riparian vegetation;will not reduce any
flooding capacity pursuant to the City's Flood Damage
(Informational map is available in the Community Prevention Regulations;in total occupy not more than
Development Department) bne-half of the setback area; are consistent with other
property development standards of the Zoning
Regulations.
city of san Luis osispo 36 zoning aequlavons
060
•
a. Walls or fences, provided that In combination with d. Findings. Each discretionary exception shall be
buildings they enclose not more than one-half of the subject to each of the following findings,regardless of
setback area on any development site. the type of project application under which the request is
considered.
b. Parking spaces for single-family dwellings; patios;
walkways. I. The location and design of ttte feature receiving the
exception will minimize impacts to scenic resources,
c. Decks,stairs,and landings which are no more than water quality, and riparian habitat, including
30 inches in height opportunities for wildlife habitation,rest,and movement;
d. One-story, detached buildings used as tool and ii.The exception will not limitthe City's design options for
storage sheds,play houses,and similar uses,provided providing flood control measures that are needed to
the projected roof area does not exceed 120 square achieve adopted City flood policies;
feet
iii.The exception will not prevent the implementation of
e. Garden structures such as trellises, arbors, and City-adopted plans, nor increase the adverse
gazebos,provided they are constructed using an open environmental effects of implementing such plans;
lattice design and lightweight materials
iv.There are circumstances applying to the site,such as
3. Entitled Architectural Features. The following size,shape or topography,which do not apply generally
architectural features may extend into the setback up to to land in the vicinity with the same zoning,that would
30 inches: cornices, canopies, eaves, buttresses, deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by other
chimneys, solar collectors, shading louvers, water property in the vicinity with the same zoning;
heater enclosures,and bay or other projecting windows
that do not include usable floor space. v. The exception will not constitute a grant of special
privilege—an entitlementinconsistentwith the limitations
4.Discretionary Exceptions. upon other properties in the vicinity with the same
zoning;and
a. Intent Discretionary exceptions to creek setback
standards are intended to allow reasonable use of sites vi. The exception will not be detrimental to the public
which are subject to creek setbacks,where there is no welfare or injurious to other property in the area of the
practicable alternative to the exception. Generally,such project or downstream.
exceptions are limited to small parcels which are
• essentially surrounded by sites that have been e.Biological Survey. A biological survey by a qualified, .
developed with setbacks smaller than those in part E independent person shall be required for each
above. discretionary exception request,to provide the basis for
making finding "d.i" above, unless waived by the
b. Application Type. A creek setback smaller than Community Development Director upon determining that
required by part E above may be approved by City no purpose would be served by such a survey because
action on a plan for public facilities approved by the City no biological resources could be affected by the
Council or on a specific plan, development plan under exception.
planned development zoning,land division,use permit,
or architectural review. Where one of these types of f. Application Contents. In addition to any other
applications is not otherwise required for the proposed information required for a project application,a request
feature,an exception request shall be in the form of an for creek setback exception shall include the following:
administrative use permit
I.A description of the feature or features proposed for
c.Public Notice. Public notice for a project involving a exception and the extent of the exception.
creek setback exception,regardless of application type,
shall include a clear description of the feature or features ii. A description of potential design changes for the
proposed to receive the exception,and the extent of the project which would eliminate or reduce the need for the
exception, exception.
iii.A statement of reasons why an exception is deemed
necessary by the applicant.
crcy of san Luis osispo 37 zomnq Re4ulations '
•
061
Attachment 2 •
Rochelle Property Flood Plain
E5,00 year flood plain
100 year flood plain
t
Proposed collector
d " r street access
III
Ferrocaril
emergency access
(no through traffic)
e
1
Rochelle property , �`►
f
062
��.����r I��. f `r'•� f• iii ��
rYltf/�7 i
w �
*, `� � ` *fir !� ,.�;�►���+ui+.;.
po-
• wl,
• rr
Lots with SFR-Y zoning
and>1 acre
t '
■
ra Y
J
A * �
d
rr�•�
►.moi �...
w
�, IAI
r
•r �\
.mill
Recreation land use
. , .• . areas
mO
I Ile
No
t
Y 'SY *.Mejq ►
�{, ,x,11, �«�''� ••..a �,r',.,"'�►,a��i .:, �r=�sa,��\� ,�e
yry 4
�►►tel
Attachment 6
RMF-16 Development Standards
Maximum Building Height:30 feet(not to exceed two stories)
Setbacks: Front Rear Side
25 feet 10 feet 5 feet
Parking: 1 bedroom unit 1.5 spaces
2 bedroom unit 2.0 spaces
each additional bedroom.5 spaces
Property Development Standards
a) Percent Coverage:The maximum percent of a lot that may be covered by structures shall be 40%for Low
Density Multiple Family projects and 50%coverage for High Density Multiple Family projects.
b) Enclosed Storage:Each dwelling unit shall be provided a minimum of 100 sq.ft.of enclosed storage space,
exclusive of closets,which may be located in either a principle or accessory building.
c) Outdoor Recreation Areas:For developments of 4-7 dwelling units,outdoor recreational open space shall be
• provided at a ratio of 300 sq.ft.per unit.
d) Screen Wall:A solid wall or fence not less than six feet in height shall be placed and maintained on interior lot
lines abutting property zoned for single family residential use.
e) Covered Parking:One covered parking space shall be required per dwelling unit of the total off-street spaces
required by the City's Zoning Ordinance.
•
C,C6
Attachment 3: Excerpts of Planning Commission Minutes June 19,2001
REGULAR MEETING, 7:00 P.M.
Chairman Eddings called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m.
PUBLIC COMMENT
None
CONSENT CALENDAR
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF THE REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING OF JUNE 5,2001.
MOTION: By Commissioner Fonzi and seconded by Commissioner Kelley to approve
the Consent Calendar.
AYES: Commissioners Fonzi, Kelley, Blaser,Norton, Jeanes and Chairman Eddings.
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None •
Motion passed 6:0 by a roll-call vote.
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM CONTINUED FROM 6/5/01
4. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: GPA 2000-0001 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE:
REVIEW OF DRAFT LAND USE PLAN: This project is continued for
deliberation (public hearing portion was closed on 6/5/01). The Planning
Commission will be deliberating the consideration of a recommended Draft Land Use
Map to the City Council for use in the General Plan Update process. The Draft Land
Use Map will be used for the preparation of a Draft General Plan Document and Draft
environmental Impact Report. No formal action to amend the current General Plan
will be taken at this meeting.
Chairman Eddings announced that the public hearing had been closed at the previous
meeting, but that additional public comment would be taken prior to Commission
deliberations. Public comment would be limited to 3 minutes.
Principal Planner Warren Frace gave a brief overview of the staff report given at the June 5,
2001 meeting, and addressed the key points of discussion from that meeting. •
06i
REOPENED PUBLIC COMMENT
• Joan O'Keefe, 9985 Old Morro Road East, read from a prepared statement addressing her
concerns regarding the Urban Service Line, prime multi-family areas, zone changes for the
Rochelle/Gearhart property, parks, bonus densities for affordable housing and the need for a
grading ordinance. (Attachment 2)
Marissa Todd, 4500 Del Rio Road,speaking on behalf of the Atascadero's Horseman's Club,
read from a prepared statement expressing the Club's concern regarding the Kelly Gearhart
housing development located in the LUA-7 section of the general plan update and the need
for public access to the de Anza Historic Trail in that area. (Attachment 3)
Levi Barrett, 1950 Traffic Way, spoke on behalf of himself and Wade Tilly who resides at
4505 Santa Cruz. He feels the build out figure is arbitrary and this method of planning is
fraught with difficulty.
Richard Shannon, 5070 San Benito Road, requested clarification on the zoning for the
intersection of Del Rio Road and El Camino Real. -
Jerry Johnson, Obispo Road and Traffic Way, stated that he would like to see smaller lots in
the area near his home.
Mike Baumberger, Atascadero Avenue, encouraged the Commission to change the zoning in
the area near his property to one-half acre lots.
Alan Thomas, 9520 Marchant Way, asked if City Staff would recalculate the population
numbers based on adoption of the eight Policy Options.
Principal Planner Frace responded that staff would communicate the potential impacts of the
Policy Options when the Draft Plan is presented to the Council. The EIR will address all
potential impacts.
A letter was received from the Traffic Way Property Owners regarding the zoning change for
the San Benito School area. (Attachment 4)
Chairman Eddings closed Public Comment.
There was a brief question and answer period before deliberations began.
POLICY OPTION 91: URBAN SERVICES LINE
Commissioner Fonzi referred to page no. 73, second bulleted item, "Provision of all services
should be considered," and stated that she does not feel that statement should be included in
this Policy Option and would like to see it removed.
Commissioner Norton asked for additional information on the wastewater treatment plant
• capacities. Principal Planner Frace stated that the Regional Quality Control Board reissued
Atascadero's Discharge Permit in March. At that time the discharge amount was increased
06�
from 1.67 million gallons per day (MGD) to 2.39 MGD. Currently the average daily rate is
1.4 MGD. The actual capacity of the infiltration basins is 11.6 MGD. Occasional storms
which exceed the 10 year event will bring rain water into the system and will cause the
average daily peak to exceed the old 1.67 MGD rate, however, in the past 12 years the rate
has never come close to 2.39 MGD. Based on the new 2.39 MGD rate and the city growing
at an average of I%per year, it will take approximately 40 years to use up that capacity. The
plant meets all State standards.
Commissioner Jeans asked if it was feasible to remove bulleted item 2 on page no. 73 per
Commissioner Fonzi's recommendation. Mr. Frace stated that staff is looking for a
recommendation from the Commission as to the area to be included in the Urban Services
Line. The USL is not an entitlement but rather an intention for the future; the intent is not to
require all within the area to sewer their properties. Mr. Frace suggested the
recommendation could include language to read "The Urban Service Line be adopted as
shown on the attachment, but the intent would not be to require all parcels within the USL to
connect to sewer."
MOTION: By Vice Chairman Jeanes and seconded by Commissioner Fonzi to
recommend to the City Council the expansion of the Urban Service Line
as proposed under Policy Option 91 as follows:
Recommended Option
1. Recommend adoption of the revised Urban Service Line as shown.
2. Develop a policy that not all lots with the Urban Service Line are required to be served •
by sewer.
•
069
City of Alascadero
General Plan Update
j
Urban Services Area
May 29, 2001
s
> t k7 z r
'jai
itk ,
a
?2 �� _.
E, i
l X
f t
AYES: Commissioners Jeanes, Fonzi, Norton, Blaser, Kelley and Chairman Eddings.
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
Motion passed 6:0 by a roll-call vote.
POLICY OPTION 92: LAND USE DESIGNATION
Commissioner Fonzi asked about performance requirements for the SFR-X land use
designation. Principal Planner Frace explained that this was the high-density single family
district which under the current zoning ordinance is a flat one-half acre, however, if the
parcel does not have sewer then it falls under the Basin Plan which requires at least one acre.
070
Chairman Eddings referred to a letter the Commission received from the Chamber of
Commerce pertaining to the Commercial/Industrial zoning in which they recommend two
broad zones, one Commercial and one Industrial, to give applicants more flexibility to handle
issues at the staff level. Mr. Frace indicated that staff agrees with the industrial
recommendation. In the commercial districts staff is recommending consolidation of
neighborhood commercial, tourist commercial, office district and retail commercial into a
single designation called General Commercial. Staff felt it was appropriate to keep Service
Commercial separated at a general plan level so heavier service uses do not encroach into
residential areas. The Downtown designation is one of the commercial uses that is specific to
the downtown and should be kept separate. The Commercial Park designation is a special
district for light industrial and commercial with many specific requirements suited to the
northern El Camino area.
MOTION: By Commissioner Fonzi and seconded by Commissioner Kelley to
recommend Policy Option #2 as follows:
Recommended Option
1. Recommend incorporation of the new Land Use Designations in Updated General Plan
•
071
Bfttirig Land Uses Lofted Land Usm
Cawrvalion
AG AgicUtLre AG AgialtLre
CS Open-gDa,-e
%siderifial
RR Rral Residential RR RA ResidEftial
SSF SrKje Family SLbAm(25=10 acre Ict nin) FE RxJ Estates(25-10 acre Ict nin)[aAside LGL
SE S-bAm—Estates(25-10 acre lot nin)[inside L&j
LOW LoNlDa'dty Saje Family SFRZ SrxjFamily Fb�ddertai(1.5-25 am Ict nin)
IVIDSF MEdLm Da-dty Srge Family SFRY Snje Fa Lily Re§dertiel(1.0-1.5 acre Ict nin)
FIDSF Hgh Dar-6ty Srge Fancily SFRX Gr ge FaTily Rrssideftiei(0.5 acre Ict nin)
U3VF Lour Density Wti-Family(10 bed=m ac) NIM Medun Dansity FLasideftid(10 Ws/ac)
FEIVF Hgh Dffrfty MAti-FaMly(16 bedwm ac) HR Hgh tensity FbsidErtial(16 cUs/w)
GomTerdal
NC l b4bahood CanTed2l CaTb rte with GC
FU Retail CcnTnffdal GC Ga-ed Cam-a
SC SeNce OmTnerdal SC SeNce CarnBdal
TC Twist CcnTremal Carb ne with GC
D Dwtom D Dwtmn
• 0 Office Con-drie with GC
CPK OmTradal Park CPK CwTnerdd Pak
IVIC Nixed Use OmTrEncd
Irdushrial
I Irdstdal IND lrdust-6.al ............................
Combine with IND
---------..........................
Public/Quasi-Public
P Relic Farifitites PLB PLdic Facilities
FEC PmlEdicn RIX; Rbic Pewatim
a;E-- CaTnisical Peaeatim
AYES: Commissioners Fonzi, Kelley, Blaser,Nor-ton, Jeanes and Chairman Eddings
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
Motion passed 6:0 by a roll-call vote.
• POLICY OPTION #3: PD-7 DISTRICT EXPANSION
072
Principal Planner Frace provided the staff report and answered questions of the Commission.
Commissioner Fonzi stated that she would like to see the definition of Prime Multi Family •
areas included within the General Plan as stated on page no. 92. Additionally, she would like
to add to Option #3 that the PD-7 overlay be applied to properties that can provide a
"demonstrable public benefit" such as open space or recreational use or tree conservation,
etc.
Chairman Eddings indicated that he prefers that PD-7 not be allowed in the high or medium
density multi-family zoned lots. He feels that this is how apartment properties are lost.
MOTION: By Vice Chairman Jeanes to recommend to the City Council the PD-7
recommendations as set forth by staff preserving prime multi-family areas
with the four points as outlined on page no. 92.
Commissioner Fonzi requested the Motion be amended to add that the PD-7 overlay be
applied to properties that can provide a demonstrable public benefit such as open space,
recreational use, affordable and senior housing, etc.
A discussion ensued regarding Commissioner Fonzi's amendment.
MOTION: By Vice-Chairman Jeanes and seconded by Commissioner Kelley to
recommend to the City Council Policy Option #3 as follows:
Recommended Options •
1. Recommend that standards for a new PD-7 type overlay district be developed for the
SFR-X land use designation in order to allow small lot single family infill
development.
2. Recommend that RMF property meeting the following standards be preserved as
"prime" multi-family areas for apartment development and preclude conversion to
PD-7.
a. Lot size: Lots or contiguous ownership of 2+acres.
b. Slope: Below 10%
C. Arterial or collector street access
d. Neighborhood compatibility with apartment development
AYES: Commissioners Jeanes, Kelley, Fonzi,Norton, Blaser and Chairman Eddings
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
Motion passed 6:0 by a roll-call vote.
MOTION: By Commissioner Fonzi that the PD-7 overlay be applied to properties
• that can provide a demonstrable public benefit.
Motion failed by the lack of a second.
POLICY OPTION #4: CREEK SETBACKS
Principal Planner Frace provided the staff report and answered questions of the Commission.
Chairman Eddings expressed his belief that the creeks in Atascadero could be used as a
recreational asset for the city with trails and restaurants with balconies, etc. Mr. Frace
responded that this is the reason for different standards for creek setbacks. In the downtown
a better urban interface is desirable but without threatening the health and integrity of the
creek.
Vice-Chairman Jeanes stated that it was important to maintain the integrity of the downtown
master plan. She would like to see the creek be pedestrian friendly and feels flexible
standards are necessary. However, further out from the downtown she feels larger setbacks
must be required.
Commissioner Kelley did not feel private homeowners should be penalized with a flexible
standard, and he would like to see a practical, uniform standard for creeks.
• Commissioner Norton would like to see setbacks with teeth in them. She feels standards
have been too vague in the past.
Vice-Chairman Jeanes inquired about small lots and standard setbacks. Mr. Frace stated that
there should be flexibility in areas where one lot may be small and non-conforming, allowing
it to build closer to the creek. Larger lots would be held to a larger setback. He suggested
that staff could come back with a recommendation that combines several approaches if the
Commission feels the issue of creek setbacks should be given consideration.
MOTION: By Commissioner Norton to recommend that bulleted item no. 2 should read
"A need for setback protection," and to recommend setback standards for each
zoning area be developed to protect blue line creeks.
Commissioner Kelley felt that by looking at different zonings, different standards would be
developed. He feels that it is the same creek and the same habitat and therefore standards
should be uniform.
Commissioner Blaser feels that the issue of flexibility must be kept in the recommendation.
MOTION: By Commissioner Norton and seconded by Vice-Chairman Jeanes to
recommend adoption of Policy Option #4 as follows.
• Recommended Option
0974
2. Recommend that tiered setback standards for each area be developed to
protect blueline creeks with special Downtown Master Plan consideration. •
AYES: Commissioners Norton, Jeanes, Fonzi and Blaser
NOES: Commissioner Kelley and Chairman Eddings
ABSTAIN: None
Motion passed 4:2 by a roll-call vote.
POLICY OPTION#5: AFFORDABLE HOUSING
Principal Planner Frace provided the staff report and answered questions of the Commission.
Option #5A: Affordable Housing Second Units
Commissioner Kelley suggested that the Conditional Use Permit process be used during the
trial period to allow for public input.
Commissioner Norton asked about street repair and parking. Mr. Frace indicated that street •
repair could be considered as part of the CUP process. Staff is recommending covered off-
street parking for guest homes.
Commissioner Fonzi felt there should be a time frame for the trial period.
MOTION: By Vice-Chairman Jeanes and seconded by Commissioner Fonzi that the
Planning Commission recommend to the City Council Policy Option #5A for
affordable housing on second units to begin with a pilot program and include
all of the recommended options as set forth for the public's information which
include staff looking at lot size, size restrictions, sewer connection, covered
parking, maximum slope, native tree impacts, architectural appearance,
setbacks, neighborhood compatibility, and a Conditional Use Permit process,
and that the program would also include a timeframe for pilot program
review, would eliminate Guest Houses in the SFR-Y land uses and continue to
allow Guest Houses in the SFR-X, SFR-Z and SSF land uses.
Commissioner Norton requested an amendment to the Motion to include road improvement
on the list of recommended options.
Chairman Eddings felt that roads should not be included in the Motion, but rather should be
dealt with during the Conditional Use Permit process and suggested any road improvements
should be limited to the frontage of the parcel to the centerline of the street. •
075
MOTION: By Vice-Chairman Jeanes and seconded by Commissioner Fonzi that the
• Planning Commission recommend to the City Council Policy Option #5A as
follows:
Recommended Options
1. Develop Second Unit standards that address the following:
• lot size(1 ac min)
• size restriction
• sewer connection
• covered parking
• maximum slope
• native trees impacts
• architectural appearance
• setbacks
• neighborhood compatibility
• Conditional Use Permit approval process
2. Begin with a pilot program to allow second units in the SFR-Y (1 - 1.5 acre lot min) land
use with annual program report to the Planning Commission.
3. Eliminate Guest Houses in the SFR-Y land uses.
4. Continue to allow Guest Houses in the SFR-X, SFR-Z and SSF land uses.
• AYES: Commissioners Jeanes, Fonzi, Kelley,Norton, Blaser and Chairman Eddings.
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
Motion passed 6:0 by a roll-call vote.
MOTION: By Commissioner Norton and seconded by Commissioner Blaser to amend
the Motion to include roads in the developing of the second unit standards and
to limit the road improvement to the front of the property to the centerline of
the street.
AYES: Commissioners Norton, Blaser, Jeanes
NOES: Commissioners Fonzi, Kelley and Chairman Eddings
ABSTAIN: None
Motion nullified 3:3 by a roll-call vote.
• Policy Option #5B: Affordable Housing - Mixed Use Multi-Family Residential in Retail
District
076
Principal Planner Frace provided the staff report and answered questions of the Commission.
MOTION: By Commissioner Kelley and seconded by Commissioner Blaser to •
recommend adoption of the Policy Option 5B as follows:
Recommended Options
1. Allow mixed use multi-family residential projects within the Commercial Retail and
Commercial Professional zoning districts as a conditionally allowed use.
2. Require mixed use residential to be attached, multi-family type development.
3. Require all residential projects along Morro Road to include a commercial or office
storefront along the street frontage with parking to the rear.
4. Allow exclusive multi-family residential development along El Camino Real.
AYES: Commissioners Kelley, Blaser, Fonzi,Norton, Jeanes and Chairman Eddings
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
Motion passed 6:0 by a roll-call vote. •
Policy Option #5C: Affordable Housing—Multi-Family Density (units vs. bedrooms)
Principal Planner Frace provided the staff report and answered questions of the Commission.
Chairman Eddings felt that allowing a density of 16 units was too low and suggested a figure
of 24 units per acre and maintaining the density bonus for affordable housing as currently
written.
Commissioner Kelley would like to see the density at 22 units while encouraging the low-
income density bonus and an architectural design bonus.
•
077
MOTION: By Chairman Eddings and seconded by Vice-Chairman Jeanes to recommend
• adoption of Policy Option#5C as follows:
Recommended Options
1. Recommend that multi-family densities be calculated by units rather than bedrooms.
2. Recommend increasing the maximum allowable multi-family density to 22-units/ac in
certain areas.
AYES: Commissioners Jeanes, Kelley, Fonzi,Norton, Blaser and Chairman Eddings
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
Motion passed 6:0 by a roll-call vote.
Policy Option #51): Affordable Housing—Senior Housing
• Principal Planner Frace provided the staff report and answered questions of the Commission.
Chairman Eddings would recommend allowing 26 to 28 deed restricted senior apartments per
acre and allow the density bonus and reduce the parking to one parking space per unit with
consideration for less if it is along a bus route.
Commissioner Fonzi would like a statement as to what specifically the incentive bonus
would be.
MOTION: By Chairman Eddings and seconded by Commissioner Kelley to recommend
the General Plan provide density bonus incentives for deed restricted senior
housing development allowing 24 senior units per acre with an additional 25%
density bonus for affordable senior housing, with a minimum of one parking
space per unit and one guest parking space per five units.
AYES: Commissioners Kelley, Jeanes and Chairman Eddings
NOES: Commissioners Fonzi,Norton and Blaser
ABSTAIN: None
Motion nullified 3:3 by a roll-call vote.
• MOTION: By Vice-Chairman Jeanes and seconded by Commissioner Norton to
recommend Policy 5D as follows:
0 17 8
Recommended Option
2. Recommend that the General Plan provide a density bonus incentive for deed-
restricted senior housing development projects and that staff look into various options
for such.
AYES: Commissioners Jeanes,Norton, Fonzi, Kelley and Blaser
NOES: Chairman Eddings
ABSTAIN: None
Motion passed 5:1 by a roll-call vote.
Policy Option #5E: Affordable Housing—Inclusionary Housing
Principal Planner Frace provided the staff report and answered questions of the Commission.
MOTION: By Vice-Chairman Jeanes and seconded by Chairman Eddings to recommend
Policy Option 5E as follows:
Recommended Option
2. Consider the adoption of an inclusionary affordable housing program similar to the City
of San Luis Obispo.
AYES: Commissioner Jeanes, Blaser,Norton, Kelley, Fonzi and Chairman Eddings
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
Motion passed 6:0 by a roll-call vote.
Chairman Eddings called a recess at 9:25 p.m.
Chairman Eddings called the meeting back to order at 9:35 p.m.
POLICY OPTION#6: SERVICE COMMERCIAL LOCATIONS •
Principal Planner Frace provided the staff report and answered questions of the Commission.
079
• Commissioner Fonzi stated that she felt it was important to have a Conditional Use Permit
process attached to this option. Mr. Frace indicated that within the General Commercial the
Planning Commission has already made this recommendation. This would simply create
more General Commercial areas.
MOTION: By Vice-Chairman Jeanes and seconded by Commissioner Kelley to
recommend Policy Option 6 as follows:
Recommended Option
2. Re-designate Service Commercial land uses on the east side of El Camino to General
Commercial.
7)�,,.rc r ter '/"?-p. •�' _\ �j'
'�� � � �� ``"1,•�r�y(\. �`Zy fir` 7 � ��'`'� I
-�� 4�`. �. ire'°'{`-�-`�'`��•y:�1 r tr1 J�r'� tj
iit
t /
000
AYES: Commissioners Jeanes, Kelley,Norton, Blaser, Fonzi and Chairman Eddin
Y s g
NOES: None •
ABSTAIN: None
Motion passed 6:0 by a roll-call vote.
POLICY OPTION #7: UNINCORPORATED AREAS
Principal Planner Frace provided the staff report and answered questions of the Commission.
Commissioner Fonzi felt that in the future when recommending annexation policies, the
emphasis be placed on cost/benefit to the City.
MOTION: By Commissioner Blaser and seconded by Commissioner Norton to
recommend Policy Option 7 as follows:
Recommended Option
6. Area A:
Develop Future Annexation Policies
7. Area B: .
Remote: Leave in County
8. Area C:
Developed: Leave in County
9. Area D:
400 undeveloped lots: City Control via Annexation
Develop Future Annexation Policies
10. Area E:
Developed: Leave in County
0
031
• Unincorporated Colony Areas
May 29, 2001
AN
41
X � � >�✓
X.
f
Y ,
41
Vg
77,
y
r z
AYES: Commissioners Blaser,Norton, Fonzi, Kelley, Jeanes and Chairman Eddings
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
Motion passed 6:0 by a roll-call vote.
POLICY OPTION 98: LOT SIZE INCONSISTENCIES
Principal Planner Frace provided the staff report and answered questions of the Commission.
•
0
Commissioner Norton indicated that in walking many of these lots she has noticed that most
have a rural atmosphere, which she feels must be preserved, and she agrees with option no. 3 •
where the process is applied to individual lots.
MOTION: By Commissioner Fonzi and seconded by Vice-Chairman Jeanes to adopt
Option No. 8 as follows:
Recommended Option
2. Develop a customized Planned Development(PD) overlay process that could be applied
to individual lots that are inconsistent with surrounding lots.
AYES: Commissioners Fonzi, Jeanes, Kelley,Norton, Blaser and Chairman Eddings
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
Motion passed 6:0 by a roll-call vote.
MOTION: By Vice-Chairman Jeanes and seconded by Commissioner Norton to add an
additional Policy Option 9 as follows.
Recommended Option
2. Review the parking standards for mixed use residential development within the
Downtown land use designation as part of the General Plan Update.
AYES: Commissioners Jeanes,Norton, Fonzi, Kelley, Blaser and Chairman Eddings
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
Motion passed 6:0 by a roll-call vote.
Commissioner Norton expressed concern that there was nothing in the General Plan Update,
which addressed historic preservation for the Colony homes that may be affected by the
proposed zoning changes.
MOTION: By Commissioner Norton and seconded by Commissioner Fonzi to
recommend an additional Policy Option 10 as follows:
•
033
Recommended Option
• 3. The General Plan will include policies for the historic preservation of Atascadero Colony
homes.
AYES: Commissioners Norton, Fonzi, Kelley, Blaser, Jeanes and Chairman Eddings
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
Motion passed 6:0 by a roll-call vote.
REFINED DRAFT LAND USE PLAN MAP RECOMMENDATION RESOLUTION
Principal Planner Frace reviewed the process to date, provided the staff report and answered
questions of the Commission. The Commission agreed to deliberate on the map by
reviewing specific sub areas one by one.
San Benito Area (LUA 11)
Commissioner Kelley discussed the lots on Traffic Way and the proposals submitted by the
• property owners over the last several years. He felt their proposals should be included in the
General Plan Update. He recommended one-acre minimums with septic systems.
MOTION: By Commissioner Kelley and seconded by Vice-Chairman Jeanes to
recommend one-acre minimum lots with septic systems for the area along
Traffic Way in the San Benito School area (LUA-11).
AYES: Commissioners Kelley, Jeanes, Blaser, Fonzi and Chairman Eddings
NOES: Commissioner Norton
ABSTAIN: None
Motion passed 5:1 by a roll-call vote.
Commissioner Fonzi expressed concern regarding loss of the Transient Occupancy Tax if the
approved R.V. Park in the current recreation zone at the north end of town goes.
North End
A discussion ensued regarding the north end zoning changes. The Commission felt that they
would like this area at the north end to remain Recreational with access to the proposed
• bicycle trail and the de Anza trail and with an adjacent area going to residential. It was
decided to separate this area out of the Motion and return to it separately.
034
MOTION: By Commissioner Kelley and seconded by Commissioner Blaser to
recommend acceptance of that portion of the North End Draft Land Use Map •
exclusive of the Rochelle Property area north of Home Depot.
AYES: Commissioners Kelley, Blaser,Norton, Fonzi, Jeanes and Chairman Eddings
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
Motion passed 6:0 by a roll-call vote.
Rochelle Property
MOTION: By Commissioner Kelley and seconded by Chairman Eddings that the
property previously zoned for an R.V. Park be changed to Single-Family
Residential, 50 unit maximum, and change the designation to Suburban Estate
to the south of this area and leave the existing Suburban designation with no
change to the other property as indicated on the map, and the bike path to be
built along the Mackey parcel as a condition of approval for the zone changes
on the other property.
AYES: Commissioners Kelley, Jeanes and Chairman Eddings
NOES: Commissioners Fonzi,Norton and Blaser •
ABSTAIN: None
Motion nullified 3:3 by a roll-call vote.
MOTION: By Commissioner Fonzi and seconded by Commissioner Norton that the
property to the north be retained as Recreational zoning and the property south
of that between it and Ferrocaril be designated as Suburban Estates.
AYES: Commissioners Fonzi, and Norton
NOES: Commissioners Blaser, Kelley, Jeanes and Chairman Eddings
Motion failed 4:2 by a roll-call vote.
MOTION: By Commissioner Kelley and seconded by Chairman Eddings that the R.V.
Park be zoned for Single-Family Residential 50 units maximum, change the
designation to Suburban Estates for the property to the south of there, leave
the existing Suburban designation to the one triangle lot and let the bike path
to be built along the Mackey parcel be a condition of approval of the zone •
change with the developer improving that parcel as seen fit by the City.
035
Commissioner Blaser proposed an amendment to the Motion to provide for equestrian access
to the river, which would enable trucks with horse trailers to get to the river.
MOTION: By Commissioner Kelley and seconded by Chairman Eddings that the R.V.
Park be zoned for Single-Family Residential 50 units maximum, change the
designation to Suburban Estates for the property to the south of there, leave
the existing Suburban designation on the one triangle lot and let the bike path
to be built along the Mackey parcel be a condition of approval of the zone
change with the developer improving that parcel as seen fit by the City, and
providing equestrian access to the river.
AYES: Commissioners Kelley, Blaser, Jeanes and Chairman Eddings
NOES: Commissioners Fonzi and Norton
ABSTAIN: None
Motion passed 4:2 by a roll-call vote. -
Central Core
Commissioner Kelley suggested a change to the map: the lot at Morro Road and Atascadero
Avenue (Lot 14), currently zoned Multi-Family, be rezoned to Commercial Professional to
• make it compatible with surrounding properties.
Chairman Eddings indicated that there was a request before the Commission to rezone a lot
on Capistrano Avenue to High Density Multi-Family. Principal Planner Frace stated that
staff feels the Low Density Multi-Family zoning is appropriate for that site given the slope
and oak trees on the property as well as the access to Stadium Park.
Commissioner Kelley felt that the request for the change to High Density Multi-Family
should be shown on the map.
MOTION: By Vice-Chairman Jeanes and seconded by Commissioner Kelley that the
Commission recommend to the City Council the refined land use plan in the
central area of town as proposed by staff with the change to Office for lot 14
located between Morro Road and Atascadero Avenue.
AYES: Commissioners Jeanes, Kelley,Norton, Fonzi, Blaser and Chairman Eddings
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
• Motion passed 6:0 by a roll-call vote.
086
Principal Planner Frace asked if the intent of the Motion was to include the recommendation
on the Curbaril/El Camino site. Commissioner Jeanes stated that it was. •
South End
MOTION: By Commissioner Kelley and seconded by Commissioner Blaser to accept the
South End proposal as is.
AYES: Commissioners Kelley, Blaser, Fonzi,Norton, Jeanes and Chairman Eddings
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
Motion passed 6:0 by a roll-call vote.
MOTION: By Vice-Chairman Jeanes and seconded by Chairman Eddings to adopt
Resolution 2001-026 with the all of the amendments to the land use map as
approved by the Commission.
AYES: Commissioners Jeanes, Kelley, Fonzi, Blaser,Norton and Chairman Eddings
NOES: None •
ABSTAIN: None
Motion passed 6:0 by a roll-call vote.
087
Attachment 4: Planning Commission Draft Land Use Plan Recommendation
RESOLUTION NO. PC 2001-026
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF ATASCADERO RECOMMENDING A DRAFT LAND USE PLAN TO THE
CITY COUNCIL FOR INCORPORATION INTO A DRAFT GENERAL PLAN
POLICY DOCUMENT AND DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT.
GPA 2000-0001
WHEREAS, the City of Atascadero is in the process of updating all elements of the
Atascadero General Plan; and,
WHEREAS, a Draft Land Use Plan is required as a Preferred Plan for the
preparation of a Draft General Plan policy document and for analysis in the Draft
• Environmental Impact Report; and,
WHEREAS, a publicly held Joint Study Session of the City Council and Planning
Commission was convened on May 29, 2001 to review the proposed Draft Land Use Plan
without taking any action; and,
WHEREAS, a public Open House was held on May 30, 2001 to allow public review
of the Draft Land Use Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a duly advertised Public Hearing
on June 5, 2001 and June 19, 2001 and considered testimony and reports from staff, and the
public.
NOW THEREFORE, the Planning Commission does resolve as follows:
SECTION 1. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The Planning
Commission hereby determines that endorsement of a Draft Land Use Plan for use as the
Preferred Plan in a Draft Environmental Impact Report does not constitute a project as
defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and that no environmental
determination is required at this time; and,
SECTION 2. RECOMMENDATION OF ENDORSEMENT: The Planning
Commission of the City of Atascadero, in a regular session assembled on June 19, 2001,
• resolved to recommend the Draft Land Use Plan (shown on Exhibit A) to the City Council
088
for use as the Preferred Plan for use in the Draft General Plan policy document and thereon a
Draft Environmental Impact Report. •
On motion by Commissioner Jeans, and seconded by Commissioner Eddings the foregoing
resolution is hereby adopted in its entirety by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Blaser, Eddings, Fonzi, Jeans, Kelley, and Norton ( 6 )
NOES: ( 0 )
ABSENT: ( 0 )
ABSTAIN: - ( 0 )
DATE ADOPTED: June 19, 2001
•
CITY OF ATASCADERO, CA
Royce Eddings
Planning Commission Chairperson
Attest:
Lori Parcells, Director
Community Development Department
•
089
EXHIBIT A:Draft Land Use Plan
GPA 2000-0001:General Plan Update
50 units maximum
Equestrian access to River Planning Commission
required
` Recommended Alternative
;.M
y T , Bike path to be
constructed on Mackey
site
Cif of Afascadero
General Plan Updafe
t,$ , June 19 2001
r`' iJ
, C J.T !/� X.` :✓'/;,}f.,.\��t �} •F fL,.t<t t J� > 4. r - Leged
r"+A" _Yi .�s ° '' e `� ' P:y R �� J ' Y<4',fig'
z
r
t o f
�,
a
1-7
� � � F� t ti T t ��ri-3 s}�.� a•�i,��t. X.uz f
X� r ✓ y y v w�/
a E � ; r•3
—
= VO
Attachment 5: Draft Council Resolution
DRAFT RESOLUTION
A RESOLUTION OF ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL ENDORSING A DRAFT
LAND USE PLAN FOR INCORPORATION INTO A DRAFT GENERAL PLAN
POLICY DOCUMENT AND DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT.
GPA 2000-0001
WHEREAS, the City of Atascadero is in the process of updating all elements of the
Atascadero General Plan; and,
WHEREAS, a Draft Land Use Plan is required as a Preferred Plan for the
preparation of a Draft General Plan policy document and for analysis in the Draft
Environmental Impact Report; and,
WHEREAS, a publicly held Joint Study Session of the City Council and Planning
Commission was convened on May 29, 2001 to review the proposed Draft Land Use Plan
without taking any action; and, •
WHEREAS, a public Open House was held on May 30, 2001 to allow public review
of the Draft Land Use Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a duly advertised Public Hearing
on June 5, 2001 and June 19, 2001 and considered testimony and reports from staff, and the
public; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission forward its recommendations to the City
Council to adopt Draft Land Use Plan and incorporate ten Policy Options into the Draft Land
Use Policy document; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a duly advertised Public Hearing on July
24, 2001 and considered public testimony and reports from staff, and the.
NOW THEREFORE, the City Council does resolve as follows:
SECTION 1. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The City Council hereby
determines that endorsement of a Draft Land Use Plan for use as the Preferred Plan in a Draft
Environmental Impact Report does not constitute a project as defined by the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and that no environmental determination is required at •
this time; and,
SECTION 2. SELECTION OF A PREFERRED LAND USE ALTERNATIVE:
. The Atascadero City Council, in a regular session assembled on July 24, 2001, resolved to
select the Draft Land Use Plan (shown on Exhibit A) for use as the Preferred Plan in the
Draft General Plan policy document and thereon a Draft Environmental Impact Report.
On motion by Council Member , and seconded by Council Member
the foregoing resolution is hereby adopted following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
ADOPTED:
i By:
Mike Arrambide, Mayor
Attest:
Marcia McClure Torgerson, City Clerk
Approved as to form:
Roy A. Hanley, City Attorney
EXHIBIT A: Draft Land Use Plan
GPA 2000-0001:General Plan Update
50 units maximum
`r Equestrian access to River
\, x required Planning Commission
Bike path to be
Recommended Alternative
t ti constructed on Mackey
? y ✓w� asite
r� City of Afascadero
'�. ✓s r r ii+- �'; �k _� {a r
T ,g General Plan Update
June 19, 2001
\K Ys -1.
r--'•7Y d e" �.... , t�ti / > r °C`✓ �;,.� I�y'(��^' r rJ I1T�' ',,£ Y9''f..\1\ (T
�-� r Y •<.. F w�—J .�� ( x, ,✓i; �' '"F'C?, 'Rr-��afnr�y; Legend
ya- i "� a a > ✓ '.w' xf`L
„nrX ,
�.1$ a.,
�• �' "i s S ,j'
--4
�o° .-•✓� �� � v'/ 1.
tX"\�, c Y 1J P �a .€ ylvv'+Y3hyi, s,'..
: ' ,o
� � .r„t °g /• r_ , � � � : '.
J";. r �`A �; `°a. -<� ) � � �'�, � ��'a F ��:�. t .ate �.��aT 3t ;��gE_ -ad✓.�; ..,,,
'§.- � '\ � r ria e. r �Mt �.n f��,� _t�R,✓� \
r ss'� \ -- ''� a '` F. ✓Y z r is t�.� a4h 1 ,,+ �'•W � �.
ri s I ,, �# „✓ -r �� �e \•`� , r r \""1' i°E``r-♦ -� _$ � fst
r` I ✓ t 4 v y d
LY A
A n., \ a r ,w k; r � "4;� ✓ 1._�.,V �\i.� /`:,>�'iry�, 1�' Li `�✓�•)I°..'t �°1,y <°?^'�
N.
��s.r r Y•-.,� .r.J\T'�. ;��\ .._� t t { / \ ly.�/--, ger'.' � x,` I yY -1 �'\ � r�' I
a �I \
i It
fes. �� .�"+".w4',)\..�.'/ r -�i.i1,✓�r.f<
0 9 j