Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC_2002-03-21_Minutesr CALL TO ORDER *« - APR 16 2002 CITY OF ATASCE PLANNING CITY OF PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Special Meeting March 21, 2002 — 7:00 P.M. Chairman Bentz called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. and Commissioner Kelley led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Kelley, Norton, O'Malley, Fonzi and Chairman Bentz Absent: Commissioners Blaser and Eddings Staff: Community Development Director Warren Frace, City Engineer Steve Kahn, Assistant Planner Glenn Rider, General Plan/EIR Consultants Paul Crawford and Nicole Phillips, and Recording Secretary Grace Pucci. PUBLIC COMMENT None Commissioner Eddings arrived at 7:06 p.m. PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP 1. GENERAL PLAN UPDATE WORKSHOP The Draft EIR and Draft General Plan were released for public comment on February 27, 2002. Release of the Draft EIR started a mandatory 45 -day public review period as required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The public review period for commenting on the Draft EIR ends on Friday April 12th at 5:00 p.m. Although no public meetings are required during the 45 -day public review period (Section 15087(I)), it is considered a good practice to hold meetings for the public to provide testimony on the Draft EIR. The City will be holding two public meetings during the review period, one for the Planning Commission on March 21, 2002 and one for the City Council on April 8, 2002. The overall purpose of the workshop is to gather public testimony on the Draft EIR and Draft General Plan and to provide recommendations to the City on any issues that need to City of Atascadero Planning Commiss—n Minutes Special Meeting March 21, 2002 Page 2 of 10 be addressed in the Draft documents. The Draft EIR and Draft General Plan have already been distributed to the Planning Commission and are attached by reference only to this staff report. Members of the public may obtain printed copies or CD-ROM's of the Draft documents by purchase at City Hall or view them for free at the Atascadero Library or City website at www.atascadero.org. No formal action will be taken on either the EIR or the General Plan at this workshop. Staff Recommends: 1. The Planning Commission take public testimony on the Draft EIR and Draft General Plan, reminding the public that only written comments will be formally responded to in the Final EIR. 2. The Planning Commission make a recommendation to the City Council identifying any issues that should be addressed in either the Draft EIR or Draft General Plan. 3. The Planning Commission make a recommendation to the City Council regarding the inclusion of additional Open Space designations on the Land Use Diagram. Community Development Director Warren Frace gave a brief overview of the General Plan update process; Nicole Phillips spoke on the background of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the purpose of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR), and both answered questions of the Commission. Ms. Philips stated that only written comments on the EIR would be acted upon. PUBLIC COMMENT Chairman Bentz informed those present that they are encouraged to make verbal comments at tonight's meeting, however only comments in writing received before the close of the 45 day period would be responded to and included in the General, Plan/EIR document. Patti Dutton, 14650 Morro Road, read from a prepared statement suggesting several additions to the Draft General Plan and EIR. (Attachment A) Joan O'Keefe, 9985 Old Morro Road East, stated that she had never supported the idea that the General Plan needed to be updated and indicated that land zone changes ignoring the General Plan had been made for years. Mrs. O'Keefe expressed several concerns with the draft document and feels that the issues given most importance in the current draft are not those as presented at the public meetings. She feels there is a lot of policy language in the Draft General Plan that has no teeth and therefore provides no mitigation. Eric Greening, 7365 Valle, read from a prepared statement expressing his concerns with the open-ended policies in the Housing Element. Mr. Greening indicated that though he felt there are other areas of concern within the seven elements of the draft plan, he focused tonight on that which he considered the most urgent. (Attachment B) City of Atascadero Planning Commiss,�n Minutes Special Meeting March 21, 2002 Page 3 of 10 Fred Frank, 3615 Ardilla Road, stated that he felt most of the comments made in the workshops have been ignored. Mr. Frank outlined his concerns with the Draft General Plan in a prepared statement that he read to the Commission. (Attachment C) Geraldine Brasher, 3202 Monterey Road, expressed concern with blue line creeks and setbacks. Reading from a prepared statement, she questioned why mitigation for proposed development would be deferred to the future. She urged the Commission to reject the proposed draft document and EIR. (Attachment D) Robin Phemister, 7109 San Gregorio Road, read from a prepared statement expressing his conviction that the proposed Draft General Plan ignores all principals of sound planning and stating that the existing General Plan should be left in place and enforced. (Attachment E) Eric Peterson, 4500 Del Rio Road, stated his opposition to the proposed General Plan revision and his concerns with the draft EIR. Mr. Peterson, in two prepared statements, gave his objections including his belief that single family residential construction does not provide enough income to the City to cover the cost of the services it provides, and his concerns regarding the flood plain. (Attachments F and G) Rosemarie Carrington, San Luis Obispo, urged the Commission to look carefully at the proposed General Plan Update before adopting it. She feels there are not enough zoning provisions made for industrial property. Pam Heatherington, 7790 Yesal Avenue, indicated that 45 days was not adequate to digest and respond to the General Plan documents. She expressed her concerns with creek setbacks, preservation of the rural character of Atascadero and the need to define the words "in the future" as they are used in the documents. Dave Carey, 4000 Santa Cruz, spoke for several of his neighbors indicating their concerns with the zoning designation for the areas around their homes. He requested that the Draft General Plan be further reviewed with consideration given to the property they own being zoned to allow for affordable single-family residences on half -acre lots. Dennis Moresco, 6955 El Camino Real, referred to a letter previously sent to the Commission regarding a property located between Del Rio Road and Conejo. He requested that this property be rezoned to single family residential with a half -acre density and a PD overlay. Doug Lewis, citizen at large, asked for clarification on the word "respect" as used in the Draft General Plan, Land Use Element. Bill Obermeyer, Carizzo Road, spoke on the trails plan in the General Plan Update. He would like to see bike lanes and trails (hiking, equestrian, etc.) differentiated in the plan, he feels those trails should be interconnecting and posted for hikers, bicyclists and equestrians only. Mr. Obermeyer would also like to see the City of Atascadero adopt the D'Anza Trail. Eric Greening, indicated that he shared some of the concerns raised by other speakers including cultural resource protection, tree protection, creek setbacks and the precise use of language. City of Atascadero Planning Commiss �n Minutes Special Meeting March 21, 2002 Page 4 of 10 Regarding the flood plain, he suggested that a specific set of maps of inundation areas in the event of dam failures, utilized in the EIR by the City of San Luis Obispo in their project to raise the Salinas Dam, be incorporated into Atascadero's General Plan. Becky Pacas, citizen at large, felt the General Plan Update is full of errors and is puzzled why the citizens of Atascadero must review the documents to find those errors and point them out. Joan O'Keefe questioned who had written the General Plan document and Draft EIR, staff or the firm of Crawford Multari. She asked how, if the same group did both, they maintained their objectivity with the analysis. Chairman Bentz closed the Public Comment period. Commissioner Norton addressed her concerns with the document: 1. Creek Setbacks, page II -30, Policy 8.1: the policy is too vague and must be more specific. 2. Tourist and Commercial, page II -40: would like to preserve hotel locations as a potential tax -base generator for Atascadero. 3. Historic Preservation, page II -22, Policy 1.5: this section should include a map of the overlay area for zoning. Additionally she would like to insure that primary historic buildings will be preserved and their historic integrity kept intact. She would like to see a map of the historic residential buildings in Atascadero. 4. Recreational Activities, page II -39, Policy 12.2: add the following: 4. Promote all parks and facilities, 5. Provide for a public transportation connection with all public resources like parks, etc., 6. The promotion of pedestrian walk/hike ways, which should be posted, 7. The promotion of bike/jogging/equestrian public trails, which should be posted. Additionally, Commissioner Norton feels that 12.2.3 "Develop a program to improve water quality in Atascadero Lake" should be included in 12.2:1 rather than have it as a separate point. 5. Regarding the zoning ordinance: currently the ordinance states that eating and drinking establishments are considered as a single entity. She would like to see these separated so that the Conditional Use Permit process can be utilized for the establishment of bars. Additionally, she would like to see a further separation between restaurants and drive- through restaurants, which would also require the use of the CUP process. Commissioner Fonzi addressed some of the concerns raised during the Public Comment period before outlining her own concerns: 1. Protection of all water sources including the springs and the lakes. 2. Address the issue of prehistoric and cultural resources. 3. The document should be reviewed so that the language used is concise and has criteria that are easy to follow. 4. Second units should be referred to as second units and not "granny flats" or "guest quarters." These two terms imply that there will be no cooking facility and this was not the intent. 5. Industrial zoning should be stressed in the plan and locations should be clearly defined with specific development criteria. 6. Traffic congestion in certain areas should be addressed, specifically the El Camino area between Curbaril and Santa Rosa, and the downtown area near the Junior High School. It City of Atascadero Planning Commiss .,n Minutes Special Meeting March 21, 2002 Page 5 of 10 is important to insure that the industrial and commercial nodes proposed for street corners and intersections do not increase traffic congestion in these areas. 7. The EIR should address the cumulative impacts more fully. 8. The flood plain map on page 48 shows most of the interior of the City being within the 500 -year flood plain, she would like to see further information on this issue. Director Frace suggested the 500 -year plain may be erroneous and should be removed in favor of showing the 100 -year plains only. 9. Inclusion of the two inundation areas for a dam failure at the Santa Margarita Lake. 10. Population projections: would like to see supporting documentation for the figures. 11. Would like more information regarding the impacts from the removal of the Del Rio private school. 12. Questioned the necessity for another park at the north end of town. The public in earlier hearings indicated they would like a park behind the library in the Atascadero Avenue triangle; she would support putting the park here. 13. Retail nodes at arterial intersections are of concern. Creating additional traffic through development at intersections is a safety hazard that has not been addressed. 14. What is the definition of the term "Civic Gateway"? 15. Inclusion of a downtown gateway at intersections such as Morro Road, Mid -State Bank, Police Station. 16. Historic homes and buildings in the plan are not really covered. She would like to see something similar to the native tree ordinance to protect these properties. Additionally, she would like to see historic homes eligible for some other usage if they are in a zoning area that is not really feasible for residential use. 17. Policies should be put in place for protection of homes or businesses built in liquefaction zones. 18. Promote accommodation for the disabled through a density bonus for providing multifamily residential projects that include disabled modifications in one or more units. 19. More specific information is needed regarding the pilot program for second units, including criteria for sewage options. Commissioner Eddings thanked staff and the consultants for the draft documents. His concerns include: 1. Provide for a higher density for affordable housing in the medium and high-density multifamily zones. 2. Provide a density bonus for units of affordable housing for the disabled. 3. Designation of areas for high-tech industrial parks and promotion of those parks to bring good paying jobs into Atascadero. Commissioner O'Malley thanked the public for participating and feels it is important for the many differing points of view within the community to be considered before reaching a consensus on what is most important for Atascadero and then to work on preserving those ideals over time. Commissioner O'Malley's points on the draft plan were: 1. A plan is needed to map out the City's prehistoric, historic and cultural sites, and to make these areas part of a plan similar to the tree ordinance. 2. Inclusion in the General Plan of the Main Street Program's ideas for historic preservation and downtown development. City of Atascadero Planning Commis:, „,i Minutes Special Meeting March 21, 2002 Page 6 of 10 3. Economic development within the business community to provide shopping opportunities for Atascadero residents in their own town thus keeping tax revenues within the City. 4. Strongly supports development of parks and open space. He encourages pocket parks linked to community trails that would incorporate art on display for the public enjoyment. 5. Supports differentiating trails for equestrian, hiking, biking, etc. 6. Words like "flexible" and "in the future" must be defined. 7. There is room for compromise to allow for different areas of the city to develop individually in order to meet the differing needs of key groups within the community. 8. Inclusion of flood plain maps which may already exist. 9. Civic gateways are important and should be encouraged. Commissioner Kelley thanked the public for participating in the process and his fellow Commissioners for bringing up many of the points made by the members of the community. He feels there are several important issues to consider: 1. The quality of life enjoyed in the community must be kept. 2. Maintain and encourage the development of parks. 3. Promote affordable housing. 4. Smart growth and flexibility are important principles to promote in the General Plan. 5. Implementation of a smart growth overlay (similar to a PD overlay) for certain properties to encourage flexibility in the use of the property utilizing design factors and other smart growth principles. 6. Identification and preservation of historic Colony homes. 7. Traffic element is important and problems must be addressed. 8. Consideration of the needs of younger members of the community when planning for the future. Chairman Bentz commented on the following points: 1. Higher densities should be available for affordable housing and housing for the disabled. 2. Industrial parks need to be expanded. 3. Historic, prehistoric and cultural areas of the City must be preserved. 4. There are a lot of creative ideas and solutions recommended in the General Plan Update that deal specifically with planning for future needs such as traffic circulation, intersection rating, financing for implementation of the policies contained in the General Plan, etc. 5. Support for the idea of a smart growth overlay. 6. Development of a strategic plan for financing needed community improvements. Commissioner Bentz stated that the General Plan document has done an excellent job of laying out and addressing the future problems to be faced in the community; he thanked staff and the consultants for a job well done. Commissioner Norton added several more issues of concern for her: 1. Page II -20, Policy 1.3:3: would like a copy of the Neighborhood Preservation Program document. 2. Page II -36, Policy 11.2: have all appropriate parties such as the School Superintendent been contacted for their input into the update? City of Atascadero Planning Commiss,,.n Minutes Special Meeting March 21, 2002 Page 7 of 10 3. Page II -24, Policy 4.1: would like to have the Main Street Program mission statement included in its entirety and to have the words "work with Main Street" in each of the program statements. 4. Page II -46, Policy 14.8 — Expansion of the County library: would like to see included within this policy that the location be near public transportation and be handicapped accessible. She would also like to see the interests and goals of the library itself included in the General Plan document. Chairman Bentz asked for Commission discussion on the inclusion of additional Open Space designations on the Land Use Diagram. Community Development Director Warren Frace answered questions of the Commission regarding this item. John Neil, Atascadero Mutual Water Company answered questions of the Commission. Commissioner Norton asked why the Water Company has chosen to donate some of its property while keeping other areas. Mr. Neil indicated that the area they would like to keep houses their permanent facility including the shop building, pole barns and equipment storage. Mr. Neil stated that this offer is in general terms and that their wells will be excluded from the open space designation. Usage of the open space trails would be limited to hiking, walking and equestrian; motorized vehicles would not be permitted. Commissioner O'Malley asked Mr. Neil if the Water Company was comfortable with the open space map as presented. Mr. Neil responded that the map needs some fine-tuning, and he intends to schedule an appointment with Mr. Frace to more accurately map the area in question. Chairman Bentz inquired if the Water Company Board of Directors has approved the open space designation. Mr. Neil stated that the Board has approved it in concept. Commissioner O'Malley questioned whether the Water Company would be open to allow either expansion of or additional access routes. Mr. Neal answered that they have generally been amenable to allowing access to the D'Anza Trail, and their Board has encouraged this access. Commissioner O'Malley suggested that staff include into the document that all viable access routes and staging areas be considered. MOTION: By Vice Chairman Fonzi and seconded by Commissioner Eddings that the additional open space designation be included into the General Plan, preferring that it be designated as permanent additional open space to public. AYES: Commissioners Fonzi, Eddings, O'Malley, Kelley, Norton and Chairman Bentz NOES: None ABSTAIN: None Motion passed 6:0 by a roll -call vote. City of Atascadero Planning Commisb_n Minutes Special Meeting March 21, 2002 Page 8 of 10 Chairman Bentz asked the Commission for a recommendation on the request by Midland Pacific Building Corporation regarding the General Plan designation of 28 -acre Verheyen property located between Del Rio Road and Conejo Road. A specific recommendation has been made of a SFR -X with a PD overlay; this would remove the designation for public use. Commissioner O'Malley stated that he feels there is potential community benefit to this request. He would like to see some entry-level workforce housing incorporated in the proposal and if the applicant would bring the sewer across and underneath the freeway to allow for higher density, it would be worth considering. Additionally, it is an opportunity for a larger park/recreational area in the north end of town. He would like to see some portion of this area considered for dedication to the City and reserved for passive and active recreational activities with a larger parking area and perhaps a public restroom. He is uncomfortable with clustering the low-income area to one side and would rather see some condominiums or other entry-level housing in that area. Commissioner Kelley agreed with the use change to the property. He feels this is an excellent site for utilization of the smart growth principles and he would like to see this go back to staff with the understanding that staff could work with the applicant in fine-tuning the property to increase the density and provide more affordable housing. Commissioner Norton expressed several concerns with this request: 1. Will the park be for the public or simply a neighborhood park? 2. Will the road go through to help with the flow of traffic? 3. Will the sewer be connected to other properties in the area? Commissioner Norton felt it was premature to look at this request at this time. Vice Chairman Fonzi stated that it is an interesting idea and something that needs to be studied by staff, the Commission and City Council. She does not feel ready at this time to vote for this request. She is uncertain if this will promote a lot more density in that area. Commissioner Eddings agreed with Commissioners O'Malley and Kelley. He feels this is a zone change that he can support and he does not think this can be put off until a later time. Commissioner Kelley stated that he feels it is very important to make the zone change at this time and address the project at a later date. He believes that if the zone change is not made now, that lot will stay empty for many years, and with a smart growth overlay there will be flexibility and a variety of options that the Commission will then have the ability to approve or disapprove. MOTION: By Commissioner Kelley and seconded by Commissioner Eddings that the zoning change for the Verheyen property and the proposal as submitted by Midland Pacific Corporation be recommended under a smart growth overlay that would provide some flexibility at a later date for the Midland Pacific Corporation to come back with a plan that the Planning Commission can approve. Commissioner O'Malley asked if the Commission approved this zoning change, what would the applicant then be permitted to do with that zone change if they chose to not come back and incorporate any smart growth overlay. Director Frace stated that any action taken this evening City of Atascadero Planning Commissivn Minutes Special Meeting March 21, 2002 Page 9 of 10 by the Commission would not actually change the General Plan or zoning as tonight only a draft is being looked at. Staff is looking for direction on how to designate this area under the General Plan so that future project entitlements have a framework within the General Plan to proceed. Mr. Frace stated that there are several options to look at for this site; the applicant has produced one option only. If a recommendation is made to the City Council, staff could work with the applicant to refine that based on issues raised by the Commission, then it would come back again for a final recommendation for approval to the General Plan. Regarding the smart growth overlay, this could lead to a mixed-use concept so there would be a flexibility to do a number of things on a single property. Commissioner Norton commented that there would be e a third option to leave the land in its current designation of 2-%i acre residential suburban. Commissioner O'Malley suggested amending the Motion to include the language that in addition to incorporating smart growth principles, there would be consideration to this as a public access park. Commissioner Kelley was concerned with the maintenance involved in a proposal of this sort and questioned whether it would be the responsibility of the homeowners to take care of the city park when they would have no control over usage of it. MOTION: By Commissioner Kelley and seconded by Commissioner Eddings that the zoning change for the Verheyen property and the proposal as submitted by Midland Pacific Corporation be recommended under a smart growth overlay that would provide some flexibility at a later date for the Midland Pacific Corporation to come back with a plan that the Planning Commission can approve. AYES: Commissioners Kelley, Eddings, Fonzi and Chairman Bentz NOES: Commissioners Norton and O'Malley ABSTAIN: None Motion passed 4:2 by a roll -call vote. MOTION: By Vice Chairman Fonzi and seconded by Commissioner Eddings that the Draft EIR be revised to reflect any growth inducing effects that the extension of the sewer would have to this area. AYES: Commissioner Fonzi, Eddings, O'Malley, Kelley, Norton and Chairman Bentz NOES: None ABSTAIN: None Motion passed 6: 0 by a roll -call vote. City of Atascadero Planning Commisb.. n Minutes Special Meeting March 21, 2002 Page 10 of 10 ADJOURNMENT Chairman Bentz adjourned the meeting at 9:20 p.m. to the next regular meeting of the Planning Commission on April 2, 2002. MEETING RECORDED AND MINUTES PREPARED BY: brace Tucci, Kecordmg secretary Attachment A — Patti Duton, Attachment B — Eric Greening, Attachment C —Fred Frank. Attachment D — Geralding Brasher, Attachment E — Robin Phemister, Attachment F— Eric Peterson, Attachment G — Eric Peterson, Minutes adopted at the 4/16102 Regular Planning Commission Meeting Cdvlpmnt/PC Minutes 02/PC Minutes on the General Plan Meeting/ 03-21-02.gp.doc Atta, nent # PC Minutes of ,F 2002 TO: CITY OF ATASCADERO MARCH 21,2002 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS SUBJECT: PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD, CITY OF ATASCADERO DRAFT GENERAL PLAN & DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT. DEAR COMMISSIONERS, THE FOLLOWING ARE ADDITIONS I FEEL SHOULD BE MADE TO THE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE. 1. SECTION (OS1 EXISTING PLAN) READS ONLY THE PROTECTION OF HISTORIC RESOURCES. PROPOSED PLAN (LOC POLICY 6.1) PREHISTORIC RESOURCES SHOULD ALSO BE ADDED TO THIS POLICY. WHAT ORDINANCES ARE IN PLACE TO ENSURE THAT THESE POLICIES WILL BE INACTED AND THESE RESOURCES ARE PROTECTED DURING DEVELOPMENT? (ZONEING ORDANINCES). 2. SECTION (OS7 EXISTING PLAN) READS WATER SHED AREAS OF ATASCADERO SHALL BE PROTECTED. PROPOSED PLAN (LOC POLICY 8) READS THE SAME AS ABOVE. I WOULD LIKE TO SEE ALL WATER SOURCES BE ADDED, SUCH AS SPRINGS AND LAKES. HOW WILL THESE AREAS BE PROTECTED DURING DEVELOPMENT? WILL THE CITY PLANNING DEPARTMENT WORK WITH FISH & GAME ALONG WITH THE ARMY CORP. OF ENGINEERS? 3. SMART GROWTH PRINCPLES: READS THAT EXISTING OPEN SPACE SHOULD BE CONSIDERED PERMANENT OPEN SPACE. I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE AREAS ALONG THE SALINAS RIVER THAT ARE NOW OPENSPACE (UNDEVELOPED) BE CONSIDERED AS PERMANENT OPENSPACE. AND KEEP AS A FLOOD PLANE AND UNDEVELOPED. ALSO PRHISTORIC SITES THAT ARE PRESENTLY UNDEVELOPED OPENSPACE BE KEPT UNDEVELOPED AND DISIGNATED AS PEMANANTE OPENSPACE. THESE AREAS ARE BOTH NONRENEWABLE RESOURCES AND SHOULD BE PROTECTED FOR FUTURE GENERATIONS TO ENJOY AND LEARN FROM. PATTI DUNTON, CULTURAL RESOURCE SPECIALIST AND ATASCADERO RESIDENT 0000111 Attachment # PC Minutes of ~ To: City of Atascadero % Nicole Phillips Crawford Multari & Clark Associates 641 Higuera St. , Suite 302 San Luis Obispo, CA, 93401 To Whom it May Concern, These remarks are focused on the open-ended policies in the Housing Element which represent my greatest concern for the adequacy of the EIR and the future of my community, but it is not to be assumed from this focus that other concerns are lacking. Reviewing and commenting on all seven elements of a General Plan is a Herculean task, and not knowing how far I will get during the time allotted, I begin with what I see as most urgent. Page V-25, Goal HOS 1, Policy 6 reads: "Adopt an ordinance to allow the flexible use of specific plans throughout the City." How does one quantify the potential impact of such a policy? Again, on page V-27, Goal HOS 3, Policy 3: "Adopt an ordinance that would conditionally allow second units in the SFR -Y land use designation." While the estimated rate of creation of these units is 6 per year, there is no reason to believe that the impact would be limited to this, nor is there any point short of saturation at which the accumulation of these units would necessarily stop. Page V-31, Goal HOS 6, Policy 6. 1, Program 1: "Maintain flexible zoning standards for use permits, planned developments, and residential accessory uses to allow housing for special groups, such as seniors and disabled person (sic)." The words "such as" open the policy out to anyone in the community who can claim membership in a "special group," while the entitlements created would continue to run their course on the land, since land use decisions convey entitlements which run with the land, not with specific occupants. Again, the word "flexible" makes the impacts of the program impossible to define or analyze. But most overwhelming of all is the language on page V-36, under Goal HOS 10, Policy 10.1, bullet 2: "Maintain flexible zoning standards that provide for a range of housing densities in all zones." Timeframe, "Ongoing;" responsible agencies: "CDD, Planning Commission, City Council." How broad can you get? It is wise to remember that the cumulative impacts of these policies cannot be limited by any snapshot in time. Units allowed by these policies will continue to get built; they will rarely if ever get unbuilt (demolished) unless it is to make way for replacement units. 0O0fl1 Either these open-ended policies must be stricken, or the EIR must be revised to recognize the enormous impacts of a vastly bigger buildout than is currently recognized. Among the impacts not explored in the EIR at any level, much less the level needed here, are those inherent in the continuing construction itself. the impact of construction -related traffic in all neighborhoods in accelerating deterioration of the roads; the impact of increased activity at the neighboring quarries (Rocky Canyon, Huerhuero Creek, etc) and resulting truck traffic on routes passing through Atascadero. (By the way, these quarries, and the east bank of the Salinas River, are not in the Salinas River Planning Area, but the El Pomar-Estrella. Table 1-4 on page I-9, under "Regional Considerations," must be corrected.) Quarry and truck activity will be directly driven by an increase in building pads and by the accelerated rate of road repair necessitated by the construction traffic. It would be simpler, and more consistent with our community's expressed vision, if the offending policies were removed, rather then that the EIR be stretched to try to cover the possible consequences. Regardless on the intent behind policies in other elements that claim to protect community character, the language of these housing element policies would tear a gigantic loophole through them all; their message is that anything goes, and their net effect would be to make Atascadero an overbuilt, congested bedroom community with all the physical and fiscal ills that such an imbalance creates. But if these policies stay, a huge amount of work must be done to make the EIR fit the desperate circumstances it would need to describe. For once, I hope you will take the easy way out. Thank you, !, Eric Greening =J Attac, ent # (2i PC Minutes of c _ 3-21-02 Chairman, Atascadero City Planning Commission: I have many concerns about the Draft General Plan but due time constrains I will only discuss the most critical. In general, the draft contains a lot of planning jargon and some good ideas but includes few mandates to fund or implement measures to enhance our quality of life. Conversely, the Plan includes many changes in land use that will degrade quality of life but inadequate offsets. New development and density increases must provide full infrastructure support and enhancement of all public services. Special funds should be collected to provide parks, open space, trails, as well as, roads, fire and police services etc. The comments of the public seems to have been ignored. A few of my specific concerns are as follows: • While "granny homes" on existing lots where sewer service is present my be ok in some neighborhoods, second homes on lots with septic systems could trigger a need for sewer service. The cost of providing sewer service in Atascadero would be many times that of Los Osos and would drive my from their homes. The long term goal of sewering the entire city is unrealistic. • The lack of land zoned industrial has created a bedroom community with a lack of tax base and services, traffic congestion and inconvenience. The plan does little to address this problem. It is suggested that the plan include incentives to work with the State and County to provide industrial land west of the river near the RR tracks. • As written, the plan will create unacceptable traffic congestion in many areas. Development should completely mitigate both offsite and on site traffic problems. The plan simply does not effectively address traffic congestion. • The plan gives lip service to "smart growth" but encourages growth at `nodes." This is sprawl not good planning. Please give consideration to these few comments. 7Tha ou, Fred Fra 00001" Attact hent # PC Minutes of March 21, 2002 Good evening Mr. Chairman and members of the Planning Commission. I am Geraldine Brasher. I reside at Although the proposed General Plan and DEIR are fraught with problems, omissions and discrepencies, I will limit my comments to certain vageries, to wit: In referring to protection of "blue line" creeks, although the Council requested that setbacks for each area be developed, the DEIR states that the city should develop them "in the future." The DEIR states that the mitigation for proposed development be. developed " in the future." The proposed plan gives higher densities but the constraints and methods to lessen the impacts are deferred "to the future." Just what is going on here? How can you as members of the Planning Commission possibly address these documents when so little of what will impact our city as a result of the proposed changes is actually stated.? Do you really believe that these problems will be adequately addressed sometime in the vague future? I urge you to reject this ill conceived plan and the accompanying DEIR. 00001 Attachment # L March 21,M 42- PC Minutes of i^q,7 1 20U./ City of Atascadero Planning Commission Good evening Mr. Chairman and members of the Planning Commission. am Robin Phemister residing at It has been said that history repeats itself. If this is true, Atascadero is heading toward another planning disaster. Mistakes made in the past reflect very bad planning decisions. To name a few: the burning of the E. G. Lewis Headquarters House to accommodate a shopping center, the placement of Highway 101 splitting the town in half, the re -alignment of Highway 41 further splitting the town, and allowing the Bowling Center to be built too close to the creek. Parenthetically, what happened to creek setbacks? The proposed General Plan ignores all principals of sound planning and would lead to more trouble. The existing General Plan should be left alone and enforced! 0000i(; Attachme►, - V PC Minutes of .4l I _ Atascadero, CA 93422 March 21, 2002 Atascadero Planning Commission 6500 Palma Avenue Atascadero, CA 93422 Gentlemen: I want to go on record opposing this General Plan Revision project. The early neighborhood meetings provided the mechanisim for just a few people to insert their development wishes into the plan because they were changes. The gross majority did not insert anything into the plan because they did not want any changes. This majority is being ignored in the process and the minority few is being recognized because these changes still exist in your draft revision. This is not how the democratic process is supposed to work. One of my principal objections is the fact that single family residence construction does not provide enough income to the city to cover the cost of the services the city provides. Yet, most of the re -zoning proposed will provide for increased construction of single family residences. This puts our strapped City finances further in the hole. I would rather see the cost of this revision put into worthwhile projects like fixing our streets or supporting library and recreation facilities. Very truly yours, Eric Peterson 000011'7 Attachm� # PC Minutes of March 21, 2002 City of Atascadero c/o Nicole Phillips Crawford Multari & Clark Associates 641 Higuera St., Suite 302 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Dear Ms. Phillips: I have been reviewing the DEIR and find it very confusing. It repeatedly points out that the Draft General Plan creates environmental impacts that cannot be mitigated. The view of the general public is that the existing General Plan is OK and does not need a comprehensive revision so why are we going to the trouble and expense of the revision. The DEIR points out areas where the City needs to develop guidelines and policies to regulate development. Many of these are already identified in the existing General Plan and they are not being enforced now. Apparently the City either does not have interest in enforcement of their own guidelines or they cannot fiscally afford to. Either way, it doesn't make much sense to repeat the message. One specific area I question is in regard to the flood plain. I have attached a copies of the flood plain taken from the FEMA and ESRI website on the internet. By inspection this is the same map as in your DEIR as shown on page 48. I note the Lakes project is not in the flood plain which surprises me since there are residents that have observed flooding in that area. I also notice the area bounded by the Salinas River, Highway 101, Atascadero Creek and San Jacinto Road which probably never has flooded is considered within the 500 year flood plain where the Lakes area is not. The area between Traffic Way and San Jacinto Road is hilly and, certainly, cannot be flooded by either Atascadero Creek or the Salinas River. Also, there is sufficient gradient to carry any precipitation waters away. I question the validity flood plain statements in the DEIR and their acceptance without verification. o N, Eric A. Peterson 000018 ESRI/FEMA Project Impact Hazard Site OS FLOOD HAZARD AREAS HoW Data [] 100 - * Flood ❑ 500 - * Flood ❑ Water Bodies ❑ No Dda (c) 2002 ESRI .�1 Sanluis Obispo Co -N -4, 4 Page 1 of 1 ►tea. lick map to: .reenter recenterin recenter out L Email mi f 2.4 km across Map Notes: The FEMA Digital Mood Data displayed on this Web site is developed by scanning the existing Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) hardcopy and capturing a thematic overlay of flood risks. Digital Q3 Flood Data files contain only certain features from the FIRM hardcopy in effect at the time of scanning and do not replace the existing FIRM hardcopy maps. The Q3 Flood Data is being displayed here with basemap data from the GDT Dynamap/2000 data set. The Q3 Flood Data is currently available for approximately 1,200 counties across the United States. The maps displayed on this site should be considered an advisory tool for general hazard awareness, education, and flood plain management. The flood hazard maps displayed on this site are not the legal documen to be used when making a single site flood hazard determination. For more information on these maps, please refer to the Frequently Asked Questions page. Make New Map Return to Home Page Current Map View: Flood Hazard Areas Com- View Copyright 0 Environmental Systems Research Institute, Inc. Mon Mar 18 21:39:26 2002 http://mapserver2.esri.com/cgi-bin/hazard.adol?s=0&c=-120.676215,35.514062&p=3&cd... 3/18/2002 00()0 19 Flood Hazard Map l:ti:�irJ rNl�rlr'1ii�li(i]l1.t►Nf : �;'l�ir-?ri�?�3 Flood Hazard Map e 01 � �- 9 r -'N i s ml� 2002 ESRI f Avenu Edwd �i -1.9mi13.1km Map Centerpoint: -120.67621,35.50074 Map Produced: Mon Mar 18 21:31:47 2002 ESRI/FEMA Project Impact Hazard Information and Awareness Site http://www.esri.com/hazards Page 1 of 1 http://mapserver2.esri.com/cgi-binlhazard.adol?s=0&cd=x&p=1 &c=-120.676215,35.5007... 3/18/2002