Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC_2002-06-18_MinutesCALL TO ORDER A''PROVED JUL - 2 2002 CITY OF ATASCADERO PLANNING CITY OF A TASCADERO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting June 18, 2002 — 7:00 P.M. Chairman Bentz called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m. and Commissioner Jones led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Eddings, Jones, Kelley, Norton, O'Malley, Fonzi and Chairman Bentz Absent: None Staff: Community Development Director Warren Frace, City Engineer Steve Kahn, Planning Services Manager Steve McHarris and Recording Secretary Grace Pucci. PUBLIC COMMENT None PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. GPA 2000-0001 / ZCH 2002-0026: COMPREHENSIVE UPDATE OF ALL ELEMENTS OF THE CITY GENERAL PLAN AND FINAL EIR CERTIFICATION Project Title: Atascadero General Plan Update Project Proponent: City of Atascadero Project Location: The City limits of Atascadero and portions of the Atascadero Colony. Project Description: A comprehensive update of the General Plan including the Land Use, Open Space, Conservation, Circulation, Safety, Noise, Housing Elements, Land Use Diagrams and Zoning Map. The full project description is on file at the City of Atascadero. City of Atascadero Planning Commission �..,nutes Regular Meeting June 18, 2002 Page 2 of 9 Environmental Determination: Certification of Final EIR SCH# 2001121027 Staff Recommends: 1. The Planning Commission adopt resolution PC 2002- 0033 thereby recommending the City Council certify Final Environmental Impact Report SCH #2001121027 subject to findings, a Statement of Overriding Considerations and a Mitigation Monitoring Program; and, 2. The Planning Commission adopt resolution PC 2002- 0034 thereby recommending the City Council approve General Plan Amendment 2000-0001 to adopt a new General Plan Policy document and diagrams for the Land Use, Open Space, Conservation, Circulation, Safety, Noise and Housing Elements; and, 3. The Planning Commission adopt resolution PC 2002- 0035 thereby recommending the City Council approve Zoning Map amendment 2002-0026 to amend the zoning map consistent with the General Plan. Community Development Director Warren Frace provided the staff report and consultant Nicole Phillips from Crawford Multari and Clark reported on the Environmental Impact Report (EIR); both answered questions of the Commission. PUBLIC COMMENT Jon E. Eklund, 5155 Santa Cruz Road, expressed his concerns regarding the impact of the updated General Plan on Santa Cruz Road. Mr. Eklund is concerned with the quality of life in this area and is worried about traffic increases on the road. He is strongly opposed to any changes on Santa Cruz Road. Karen Fraser, 4055 Santa Cruz Road, spoke on behalf oftthe Santa Cruz Road neighborhood and stated they are opposed to repaving the street and making it a truck route/through road to El Camino Real. She is worried about increased traffic and high speeds through the area and supports the concept of speed humps along the street if it is paved. Pat Schulz, 4500 Santa Cruz Road, agreed with the previous speakers and is concerned about traffic speeds if the street is paved. Ms. Schulz asked three questions: 1) Is there an alternative plan for this area and when will it be presented, 2) will there be a grandfather clause for existing guest houses, and 3) is the area known as the Mackay project still designated for affordable housing and will a project be going forward in this area? Pam Marshal Heatherington, Yesal Avenue, Executive Director of the Environmental Center of San Luis Obispo, commented on the unsightly fence between the Salinas River/creek and the road and feels the creek is one of the town's biggest assets and it appearance should be enhanced not detracted from. Ms. Heatherington also expressed concern regarding responses 154.23 City of Atascadero Planning Commission ...nutes Regular Meeting June 18, 2002 Page 3 of 9 through 154.33 that are missing from the EIR and would like to know where the answers to those responses are located. Jessica Colmeyer, 8670 Santa Rosa Road, environmental intern at the Environmental Defense Center, spoke on behalf of their client ECOSLO in opposition to the adoption of the General Plan update and accompanying EIR. Ms. Colmeyer read from a prepared statement by Pam Marshal Heatherington regarding: 1) Sensitive and/or special status species, 2) riparian, wetland and other sensitive communities, and 3) migration and movement corridors. (Attachment 1) Baback Nefesian, staff attorney at the Environmental Defense Center, spoke on behalf of their client ECOSLO, and stated that there must be a clear inventory to identify all biological species as well as policies to protect both habitat and species. Mr. Nefesian felt the EIR is deficient, and that there should be more time allotted to the public to review the document. ECOSLO is willing to work with the City of Atascadero to assist them in amending the General Plan. Dean Coker, professional land planner, read from a prepared statement urging the Commission to approve this segment of the process for updating the General Plan. Mr. Coker felt that the General Plan is not a specific plan but rather a guideline, which must be flexible and changing. (Attachment 2) Eric Greening, 7365 Valle Avenue, indicated that he was uneasy with the speed with which the General Plan update is proceeding and is concerned that the Commission will not have time to fully deliberate. Mr.. Greening felt this would lead to situations such as the precedent set recently in the 3F Meadows project, which allowed reinterpretation and amendments to mitigations after they were written. Additional concerns included: 1) What in the General Plan document guarantees affordable housing, 2) incorporation of the Flood Hazard Maps of the Salinas River from the City of San Luis Obispo Salinas Dam EIR in the document, 3) industrial zoning in the flood plain south of River Gardens, 4) timetable for future action on Creek Setbacks, and how would the resultant fragmentation of wildlife corridors be mitigated, and 5) the need for more biological surveys given the rural character of Atascadero and the desire of the people to live in a meaningful natural environment. Joanne Main, 8940 San Gabriel Road, Executive Director Chamber of Commerce, read from a prepared statement urging the Commission to adopt the three resolutions and pass the General Plan document on to the City Council. (Attachment 3) Chuck Shillings, 3300 San Fernando Road, indicated that he desires to build a structure next to his house that consists of a two -car garage with a guesthouse above. Under the new General Plan he would not be permitted to build the guesthouse and he asked the Commission to reconsider their stand on this issue. Steve Goode, 8830 San Gabriel Road, stated that he was opposed to the updated General Plan because it allows for an increase in population and more development. Mr. Goode questioned who of the Commission was not involved in real estate, development or construction in the community. Mike Jackson, 5502 Ensenada, is in the process of doing a PD -7 overlay for property along the creek. He feels that a 20 -foot creek setback can work, however, any more than that would not be City of Atascadero Planning Commission minutes Regular Meeting June 18, 2002 Page 4 of 9 workable. He asked how many properties would be affected by the creek setbacks as most creek side parcels are already built out and he would rather see efforts made to put the houses already along the creek on sewer. Don Ritter, 8895 Pino Solo Avenue, stated that affordable housing is much needed in Atascadero and he supports the updated General Plan as it makes a good attempt at addressing the affordable housing issue. Pamela Jardini, Westland Engineering, representing John Kuden who owns property on the North East corner of San Anselmo and Monterey, indicated that early in the General Plan update process they had submitted a request for a zone change and a tentative map (AT99-255), neither of which was addressed in the General Plan document. She requested that the Commission not adopt the General Plan until their request is looked at or at least pull this portion out for further consideration. (Attachment 4) Henry Skibo, 3650 Traffic Way, stated that he supports the Commission and the General Plan update. He indicated that his neighborhood has appreciated the support the City has given it and are very happy with the compromise reached. Doug Lewis, citizen at large, complimented the consultants for their revisions to their report, which more accurately represented Atascadero's history, and stated that the basis for any forward progress should clearly reflect where the City has been. Mr. Lewis was concerned with the absence of any mention of a multi -modal transportation center for the City. Chairman Bentz closed the Public Comment period Chairman Bentz asked City Engineer Steve Kahn to address the issues raised by the residents of Santa Cruz Road. Mr. Kahn stated that the City received $400,000 of State Transportation Improvement Funding to pave Santa Cruz Road. He has met with residents of the neighborhood and heard their concerns regarding speeding and accidents along the road. The City is looking to mitigate the speeding problem by traffic calming measures. A neighborhood meeting is planned in approximately three weeks to go over these measures. Vice Chairman Fonzi asked for an explanation of "traffic calming" measures. Mr. Kahn indicated these included: 1) placement of three chicanes along the street, 2) narrowing roadway surface, and 3) increased enforcement. Commissioner O'Malley requested the Commission and City Council be notified of the dates for the public workshop on the Santa Cruz Road issue. Vice -Chairman Fonzi asked about Santa Cruz Road being designated as a truck route. Mr. Kahn stated that in the past, this was designated as a truck route, however that has been taken out of the current circulation element in the General Plan. Chairman Bentz inquired about ECOSLO's question regarding missing responses 154-23 through 154-33 as well as the detailed inventory of species referred to in their statement. Paul Crawford, consultant with Crawford, Multari and Clark, stated that they are unable at this point to determine where those missing responses went, however the substance of the comments and responses would have been the same as responses to similar comments raised elsewhere in their City of Atascadero Planning Commission imnutes Regular Meeting June 18, 2002 Page 5 of 9 same letter and in other letters of comment in the EIR. Mr. Crawford indicated that he would provide the Commission and City Council with those responses prior to final action by the Council. Nicole Phillips addressed the issue of wildlife migration and movement corridors, and remarked that the EIR states that this is an increasingly important issue. Ms. Phillips referred to letter 68-6 which included a comment regarding wildlife corridors and read the response into the Minutes. Commissioner O'Malley referred to Policy 8.2, page II -34 in the General Plan, and page 44 of the staff report. He was happy to see the creek setback issue addressed along with more research as well as a committee to look into it. Commissioner O'Malley felt the 20 -foot setback would most likely resolve all of the problems the City is currently dealing with, however he is concerned in comparing this with the staff report on page 44, which referred to a 100 -foot wetlands/riparian area. Community Development Director Frace stated that the 100 -foot mitigation measure is in addition to the 20 -foot setback, which is a blanket setback to apply along all creeks and all creek reservations regardless of habitat patterns. In addition there is a requirement that if a development is within 100 feet of a sensitive area a qualified professional must assist with a review of the site plan to insure there isn't an additional wetland or habitat issue that would be impacted beyond what would be protected by the 20 -foot setback. Commissioner O'Malley asked Mr. Frace to review how the 20 -foot creek setback figure was arrived at. Director Frace stated that most of the lots adjoining the creek reservations are rear yards and standard setbacks for rear yards is 10 feet in residential areas with no setback requirements in commercial areas. The 20 -foot requirement was a doubling of the standard residential rear yard setback, which was then applied to all districts including commercial. Mr. Frace stated that there is a process by which the Commission can grant exceptions to the 20 -foot setback based on the recommendation by qualified professionals that the 20 -foot setback is not needed for the site, as no impacts would be created. Vice Chairman Fonzi followed up on several questions raised by the public: Question: Grandfather clause for existing granny houses. Answer: Existing granny units would be allowed to remain. The prohibition would be against the City approving permits for new units. Those permits in process would be allowed to continue, as they existed prior to the adoption of this regulation. Question: Zoning for the area known as the Mackey project. Answer: Current zoning for that parcel is residential suburban, the updated General Plan changes that zone to recreation. The affordable multi -unit project is no longer proposed and would not be allowed under the changed zoning. Question: Loss of open space, density increases and annexation of Eagle Ranch. Answer: Overall open space impacts are focused on the urban core (El Camino, Morro Road corridors). Most of those areas have been developed and are not pristine habitat or open space areas. The majority of development proposed under the updated General Plan is within that corridor and no new densities or entitlements are proposed outside of that urban core. The General Plan takes steps to further protect from development those areas where open space and sensitive habitats currently exist. Regarding Eagle Ranch, the General Plan will bring this development into the City to permit better regulation and control of environmental impacts than would be possible if the area remained under the regulation of the County. City of Atascadero Planning Commission minutes Regular Meeting June 18, 2002 Page 6 of 9 Question: Timeline for mapping of sensitive habitat areas. Answer: Staff is working with the Atascadero Native Tree Association on getting an RFP ready for high-resolution photos of the entire colony, which will be used to identify different plant communities, and then do habitat analysis. Projected timeline would be 2003/2004. Question: Inclusion of Flood Hazard and Inundation Map of the Salinas River Dam. Answer: That map has been in the General Plan all along, at page IV -2, Dam Failure Inundation Map. There is no boundary for the raised dam as this is not currently an approved project. If this does become an approved project, staff will comment on their EIR to properly identify those impacts (page IV -7). Question: Zone change request for Mr. John Kuden. Answer: This request was addressed in one of the alternative land use maps reviewed by the Commission and City Council; however, it was not included in the selected preferred plan. Question: Can the guesthouse issue be readdressed and why was the "Pilot Program" wording dropped from the second unit plan. Answer: The City Council made a motion during the EIR review process, carried by a majority vote, to eliminate the guesthouse provision from City policy. The proposed General Plan does not include guesthouses or any of their associated impacts, to put guesthouses back in the document at this point would raise the issue that there are impacts that haven't been adequately analyzed. That would trigger a re -circulation of the documents adding on approximately three to four months review time. Guesthouses are accessory structures and there are issues with these structures in residential areas that need to be dealt with. Policy 1.1.6 of the Land Use Element, directs staff to look at updating the entire accessory structure ordinance to bring it into conformance with current city norms and to ensure they are compatible with neighborhood development standards. The Commission can recommend to the City Council that when that process comes back through, the issue of guesthouses be looked at. Regarding the Pilot Program for second units, this was originally included in some of the staff reports but the terminology proved to be confusing so it was dropped. Commissioner Norton asked for clarification on several issues: 1) Referring to a public comment made by Mr. Shilling, would he be permitted to build a granny unit on his property? Mr. Frace stated that Mr. Shilling could submit for a permit today, however, after the General Plan has been updated, his application would not be accepted. Anything residential in nature that would be independent from the main living unit would be considered a guesthouse and thereby no permit could be issued after the update is adopted by the City Council. 2) Page II -24, No. 11: Is it possible to list each use requiring a CUP separately? Director Frace responded that each listed use is considered a separate land use, therefore any one of those by itself would become conditionally allowed uses rather than by right uses so the Planning Commission would have to approve them and look at their neighborhood compatibility and site adequacy. City of Atascadero Planning Commission i nutes Regular Meeting June 18, 2002 Page 7 of 9 3) Creek Setbacks: With research done in the past for 25 -foot setbacks, why was 20 feet selected? Mr. Frace indicated that many options had been discussed, 20 feet was decided upon, however the Commission can adjust that number if it so chooses. 4) Regarding Mr. Lewis' comment on the transportation element, Commissioner Norton felt this issue had been very adequately addressed in the General Plan, III -28. Commissioner Eddings asked for clarification on what action could be taken by the Commission regarding guesthouses without delaying the General Plan from moving forward. Mr. Frace recommended the Commission made a separate motion on just that issue and request that the City Council direct staff to prioritize bringing back the accessory structure ordinance (Policy 1. 1.6) to the Planning Commission and City Council including the guesthouse issue. Commissioner Jones commented that the guesthouse issue is a hot -button item and he would encourage a motion to bring the issue back. He feels as the population ages, this issue will come forward again and again. Chairman Bentz closed the Public Hearing portion of the meeting. Commissioner O'Malley thanked the public for their participation in the process and Commissioners Fonzi and Norton for making sure that all questions raised were answered. Commissioner O'Malley inquired about the triangular lot across from the library. Community Development Director Frace stated that the current General Plan shows the entire site as recreation, but Community Services/Parks Department has no plan for the site, as the City does not own it. The zoning map shows it as multi -family, RMF -16. This conflict was addressed by a compromise in which the development community would improve the park. There is a half -acre which would be a pocket park with green space next to the library and Morro Road, the remainder of the site would be allowed to develop with multi -family residential. MOTION: By Commissioner O'Malley and seconded by Commissioner Jones to recommend that the City Council prioritize revisiting accessory structures policy 1. 1.6 and include with that revisiting policies regarding guesthouses, and that it be reconsidered outside of the General Plan process. AYES: Commissioners O'Malley, Jones, Norton, Eddings, Kelley, Fonzi and Chairman Bentz NOES: None ABSTAIN: None Motion passed 7.0 by a roll -call vote. MOTION: By Commissioner O'Malley and seconded by Commissioner Norton for a word change on Policy 8.2, page 2-34 of the General Plan, changing the 20 -foot creek setback to a 30 -foot creek setback. City of Atascadero Planning Commission iY mutes Regular Meeting June 18, 2002 Page 8 of 9 Commissioner Eddings stated that he would like to stay with the 20 -foot setback. He feels once the 30 feet is locked in, it tends to direct people towards the 30 feet. He would like to give as much flexibility as possible and would like it to be looked at on a case-by-case basis. Commissioner Kelley indicated that he would also like to keep setbacks at 20 feet and feels most houses built along the creek are set back further than that by the owner to give a larger back yard. He agrees with looking at the issue on a case-by-case basis. Commissioner Jones concurred with keeping the 20 -foot setbacks. He feels most people don't abuse the setbacks and usually prefer to set back further. Commissioner Jones believes that if the setback were too large, an opportunity would be missed to look at some decent projects. Commissioner O'Malley stated that he is not opposed to a shorter setback, but would like an opportunity for some public discussion regarding each project that might come up, at least in this interim period until more guidelines are set down. Commissioner Fonzi stated that she was uncertain what the appropriate number is, but as one of the goals is to attract businesses to the community to provide jobs, a larger setback might eliminate some businesses along the creek, particularly along Traffic Way. She would therefore hesitate without further information to increase the setback from 20 feet, and would be more inclined to consider each project on a case-by-case basis. MOTION: By Commissioner O'Malley and seconded by Commissioner Norton for a word change on Policy 8.2, page 2-34 of the General Plan, changing the 20 -foot creek setback to a 30 -foot creek setback. AYES: Commissioners O'Malley and Norton NOES: Commissioners Jones, Kelley, Eddings, Fonzi and Chairman Bentz ABSTAIN: None Motion failed 5:2 by a roll -call vote. MOTION: By Commissioner Eddings and seconded by Commissioner Kelley to adopt resolution PC 2002-0033 thereby recommending the City Council certify the Final Environmental Impact Report SCH #2001121027 subject to findings, a Statement of Overriding Considerations and a Mitigation Monitoring Program; and, the Planning Commission adopt Resolution PC 2002-0034 thereby recommending the City Council approve General Plan Amendment 2000-0001 to adopt a new General Plan Policy document and diagrams for the Land Use, Open Space, Conservation, Circulation, Safety, Noise and Housing Elements; and, the Planning Commission adopt Resolution PC 2002-0035 thereby recommending the City Council approve Zoning Map Amendment 2002-0026 to amend the zoning map consistent with the General Plan. City of Atascadero Planning Commission minutes Regular Meeting June 18, 2002 Page.9 of 9 AYES: Commissioners Eddings, Kelley, O'Malley, Jones, Norton, Fonzi and Chairman Bentz NOES: None ABSTAIN: None Motion passed 7:0 by a roll -call vote. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORTS None COMMISSIONER COMMENTS & REPORTS Commissioner Kelley thanked everyone who participated in the General Plan process, he feels the City has a tool it can work with and it will be for the best interests of the City. He thanked staff for all the work they put in on the update. ADJOURNMENT Chairman Bentz adjourned the meeting at 9:06 p.m. to the next regularly scheduled meeting on July 2, 2002. MEETING RECORDEDNNND MINUTES PREPARED BY: Grace 1ucci, Recording Secretary Cdvlpmnt/PC Minutes 02/PC Minutes 06-18-02.gp.doc Attachment 1 - Jessica Colmeyer, 8670 Santa Rosa Road Attachment 2 — Dean Coker Attachment 3 — Joanne Main, 8940 San Gabriel Road Attachment 4 — Pamela Jardini, Westland Engineering Attachment # PC Minutes of Et ENVIRONMENTAL CENTER OF SAN LUIS OmPo COUNTY P.O_ Box 1014 San Luis Obispo, CA 93406 TeL (805) 544-1777 Fax: (805) 54fd11� 18, 2002 ecosio@slonet.org Warren Frace City of Atascadero 6500 Palma Avenue Atascadero, CA 93422 RE: Atascadero General Plan Update Hearings: Comments on Biological Resources Mr. Frace and Honorable Planning Commission, IOARD OF TRUSTEES Bob Lavelle, Chair Bene Winn, Treasurer molly Ziqkr, Secretary Tim O'Keefe Carmel Day Sharmon Johnson Joan Carter ECOSLO would like to submit the following comment for the June 18, 2002 Planning Commission meeting to hear the Atascadero General PlanUpdate and Environmental Impact Report Certification. The City of Atascadero and the area surrounding the community, including areas affected by the proposed General Plan Update contains suitable habitat for a variety of wildlife and plant species. It is noted, "buildout under the Draft Plan will continue the conversion of undeveloped land, reducing the quantity and quality of wildlife habitats and vegetation" (FEIR, p 63). ECOSLO's primary concern is that the FEIR fails to adequately identify and analyze significant impacts and the GP Update lacks the inclusion of specific mitigation measures that will be required. In addition, ordinance proposals, and identification of agencies responsible to implement the programs and policies described, or concrete time lines to support the policies and programs proposed to sustain or enhance the City's biological resources are absent. Specific examples follow: Sensitive and/or Special Status Species: CEQA Guidelines sec. 15126 requires that an EIR must identify and provide adequate information on the significant, and reasonably foreseeable effects of all phases of a proposed project. It is anticipated in the FEIR that if the proposed General Plan alternative is enacted, development allowed under the plan may affect significant sensitive species (FEIR, p 63). While the FEIR attempts to provide direction for the protection of sensitive and special status species, the collaborative support necessary to conduct research, planning, and habitat management efforts leading to long-term conservation and protection of species continues to be improperly deferred to future anticipated projects. The FEIR further fails to identify appropriate mitigation and details of implementation. In Printed on 1009A Reclaimed Paner 00006A addition, the FEIR is silent on foreseeable impacts to special status species, sensitive habitat areas, and aquatic resources resulting from the goals of the GP Update to promote and increase access to the Salinas River and the De Anza Trail. Because the proposed General Plan amendments could result in significant impacts, detailed inventories that include vegetative, herpetological, icthiological, ornithological, and mammalian surveys, including small mammals, fish, bats and insects should be conducted. The land surrounding Atascadero is under development pressure and it is vital to obtain accurate data on the existing species. This will facilitate the ultimate goal of this project and ensure a higher potential for the continued survival of sensitive species. These inventories should, at a minimum, address the federally listed endangered San Joaquin wooly threads; the endangered Arroyo toad; the endangered least Bell's vireo; endangered California condor; endangered longhorn fairy shrimp; threatened vernal pool fairy shrimp; threatened steelhead trout; the threatened California red -legged frog; and the State endangered bald eagle. Riparian Wetland and other Sensitive Communities: Approximately 91 % of California's presettlement wetland habitat has been destroyed as a result of past development projects (Cylinder, et al.1995, Wetlands Regulation). In addition riparian habitats support plants and animals that are not common elsewhere. Riparian and wetland areas can help maintain water quality by reducing pollution, siltation, and erosion. These areas are often sought out for recreation and are generally considered amenities valued by communities and private landowners. Past studies suggest that property values may rise between 5-11 % or more due to proximity to open space and water, improved water quality provided by wetlands, and the aesthetic value of wetlands (Kirshner and Moore 1988, Li and Brown 1980, Dornbusch and Barrager 1973). The FEIR anticipates increasing encroachment in riparian and wetland areas under the proposed General Plan. These impacts are identified as significant but mitigatable (FEIR, p 64). However, in reality, there is no mitigation for direct removal of riparian vegetation or wetland areas. Development and other uses within riparian zones decreases stream shading, increases sedimentation and temperature, reduces filtration of pollutants, cause bank erosion, and reduces the amount of nutrients for downstream areas. It is likely that adverse impacts will result from construction projects anticipated in the riparian zone. The proposed 20 foot interim setback will be inadequate to prevent adverse impacts to riparian corridors or the species dependent on healthy streams. Policy 8.1 addresses development along river and creek corridors and Atascadero Creek, Graves Creek, and the Salinas River are specifically mentioned and the policy includes all blue line streams as well as other riparian areas. The need to take as conservative approach to this policy as possible is underscored by recent confirmed sightings of the federally threatened California red -legged frog in Graves Creek and Paso Robles Creek (FWS comment letter, Feb 19, 2002). The FEIR recommends conditions of approval for development proposed within 100 feet of a riparian or wetland area (FEIR p 67). While the mitigation proposed in the FEIR may be sufficient for seasonal drainages, larger creeks and tributaries to the Salinas River should be protected by setbacks of at least 50 feet beyond the drip line of any riparian vegetation, or IOC feet from the stream bank, whichever.is greater. Also, the FEIR fails to adequately elucidate alternatives of the reasonably foreseeable loss of intact oak woodlands within the planning area under the GP update. The loss of oak woodlands (as opposed to the loss or mitigation of individual oak trees) and their interconnectivity to ecosystems outside the City limits, but within the sphere of influence, are likely to be significant. Migration and Movement Corridors: The FEIR has identified reasonably foreseeable harm likely to occur from disruption of well- established wildlife movement corridors (FEIR p 67). Corridors are recognized in the scientific literature as critical in providing movement between areas essential to the survival of individuals and species. The physical disruption of wildlife corridors caused by the removal of vegetation and/or introduction of less than mature plants or non-native species could possibly mean significant corridors could be lost as suitable habitat for many of the local or migratory species. The ultimate aim of planning for habitats is the conservation of associated natural communities, as well as aesthetic qualities and the general health and well-being of the citizens. Therefore, further study to illuminate species composition, routes used or techniques to avoid disrupting this essential habitat element should be concluded prior to certification of the FEIR. At a minimum, this discussion should include how dispersal corridors for species such the federally threatened California red -legged frog will be maintained during the anticipated General Plan build out. Additional attention should be given to how wildlife corridors will be maintained or created along Highway 101 as it passes through the City's planning area. Respectively submitted, am Marshal Heatherington, Executive Director, ECOSLO ` 000066 Attachment PC Minutes of JU(� Atascadero Planning Commission - Public Comment — June 18, 2002 By Dean Coker, Land Planner Good evening Planning Commissioners, staff and members of the public. My name is Dean Coker and I am a land planner and I have practiced planning for 26 years. I would like to thank the Planning Commission for the opportunity to speak about the Atascadero General Plan. Currently, I work for a company who owns a large parcel of land in Atascadero, however, this evening I am speaking as an individual and the views I share are based upon my past experiences and professional observations. After a great deal of time, numerous meetings, study and analysis by third parties, the Atascadero General Plan is ready for final approval. Even though there will be critical comments made by a host of individuals and organizations this evening and before the City Council, I urge you to move ahead and approve this draft. It is a difficult decision to make under fire but it is ripe and appropriate that this segment of the planning process for Atascadero be concluded. I use the phrase "this segment of the planning process" specifically because often, and particularly my experience in California has shown, there is a tremendous urge to over analyze a plan to the point of an often used but applicable cliche "analysis paralysis". General planning, or perhaps more correctly, comprehensive planning, is a great idea. Planning schools have been propounding its benefits and my peers and many others were trained to adopt it and implement it through models developed as early as the British Planning Act, which was devised just after World War II to guide the reconstruction of war torn Britain. The practice of comprehensive planning is widely accepted across the country and I have participated in it first hand from New England, to the Great Lakes and now here in the California central coast. But there is a certain aspect of this activity I have observed developing here in California I believe has evolved somewhat recently. Perhaps over the last five or maybe ten years. This is a growing urge to turn a General Plan into a Specific Plan. In each instance where I have seen this happen I can't help but conclude that it has hampered the on-going planning process, not helped it. A General Plan is meant to be just that, GENERAL. It is a guideline and not a construction drawing. It offers parameters for managing a variety of issues and it includes a feedback loop and methods for correcting course as the plan is implemented in real time. The old adage that a plan is meant to be changed is not a bad thing. Remaining flexible, responding to ever changing influences and ideas, is the natural course of events in our cities and good plan is indeed a plan that keeps benefiting from the dynamics of change. The plan prepared by this administration addresses a number of important issues currently experienced by its citizenry. It does so in a general way and is supposed too since it is a general plan. It has been a good faith effort by everyone involved. To continue to hammer out every minute detail, examining and re-examining every exhaustive detail, will in my experience, not result in a better plan, but rather a more frustrated, antagonistic and divided citizenry. If we can all agree that land use planning is about peaceful resolution of land -use conflict, then the last thing a planning process should do is fuel the very conflict it is trying to resolve. The more land -use is micro -managed, the deeper the conflict becomes. I suggest that the current good faith effort be endorsed and approved. As time goes on and decisions need to be made and for that matter, re -made, regarding this general plan, I encourage you to do so in a positive spirit of cooperation and recognition that land use planning is an on-going and recurring process. Thank You Dean Coker 0000 ;s tascadero Chamberofommeree Attachr, —;nt # 3 PC Minutes of JUN I c' _ 6550 EI Camino Real • Atascadero, CA 93422 • (805) 466-2044 • Fax (805) 466-9218 • www.atascaderochamber.org City. of Atascadero Planning Commission Chairperson Bentz Vice Chairperson Fonzi Commissioner Eddings Commissioner Jones Commissioner Kelley Commssioner Norton Commissioner O'Malley June 18, 2002 It is the recommendation of the Atascadero Chamber of Commerce Legislative Committee and Board of Directors for the Planning Commission to adopt the resolutions before you and recommend that the City Council certify the final Environmental Impact report SCH#2001121027. We also urge you to recommend to the City Council to adopt the new General Plan Policy document. The Chamber also urges you to recommend the City Council adopt the Zoning Map consistent with the General Plan, The new General Plan supports the smart growth principals to encourage compact development along the existing El Camino Real and Highway 41 corridors. The plan supports increased Industrial land development on the north end of EI Camino Real with the addition of sewer, which is something the Chamber also supports. The plan also supports increased utilization of industrial areas on Traffic Way and through Redevelopment these areas can improve our industrial base. Housing is a major issue for the Chamber's members. Affordable housing for the workforce is imperative to keep our businesses strong and viable. When we hear the hospital can not attract the needed workforce here for they can not find housing the issue is very real. These are not low paying jobs. These jobs are in the mid to upper income level that are being pushed out of our community. The new plan also addresses second units, mixed use residential along El Camino Real; density bonuses for affordable housing that may ease our housing issues. There are also a variety of provisions in the new plan for supporting the economic vitality of our business community that we are in agreement with. We urge you to listen to the over 100 letters that were written early on in these proceedings by Chamber members in support of the new General Plan that were Submitted to the City Council along with the current support of the Board of Directors who represent the Chambers membership of 500. Respectfully Submitted J2 Main Executive Director 0000f;s Jun' 18 02 134-t,56r 29,1 -W� Paul 841dana, D Community Del City of Atascadi Atascadero, CA Wes, 'ina tnCineering Dep"ent Attachrn- A # q - PC Minutes of jt,!k:I 1,999 Justificatio'n for rezoning Pircei 2 of proposed tentative map AT99-255 to mercial TWrist SaIdaria, We 6a"Ife re—quesu g a rezone/general plan amendment on a portion of the property dopi. onpr6possed to live map AT99-255. A copy of the proposed tentative map is incl. inthii application for your reference. The, subject property is located at the intersection of San Anselmo Road and Monte, ie�y: Road in the City of Atascadero. This intersection is just westerly of the off ramp frdiii Highway 101 to San Anselmo. The City's General Plan designates this interchange-, as a commercial tounst node. Uses that primarily serve the traveling public needs are for in the commercial tourist land use categcry. Therefore, rezoning ParcelZo 4qi. :- " proposed ten tative map to commercial tourist would be consistent with the Genzr i11. e properties to the east of this parcel are zoned commercial tourist and!:" devewith services consistent with this zoning. An AM/PM Mini Market Burgerand I,..,. out r are adjacent to the east side of the property. A76gas stationis locate immediately south of the property. Vacant land located southeasterly of the property is zoned commercial service and a commercial developmvat is being proposed on the property. Kentucky Fried Chicken is currently constricting a building on the property adjacent to and outh of the 76 gas station. Therefore rezoning Parcel 2 of the tentative instil, would be consistent with surrounding zoning and therefore consistent with the. Qtneral Plan. According to thet City's General Plan, the purpose of Commercial Tourist zowngts,to; ridefor I—p limned commercial uses intended to serve the public -raveling fib -Highway ;O]". Rezoning Parcel 2 of the tentative map would provide for �'Ivoapment of a commercial tourist service close to the interchange of Highway 16 & 1'. and-SanAnsch,60. This development would be easily accessible to the traveling p, ., '. t ` i , , * Providing services close to an interchange prevents traveling tourist from Inipactin, ifo � 000070 Jun 18 02' `04--57p streets, services ;'::consisient with ry is 1 of the 1 y � Id be concis eatis i orth and I `*ish to thank If you have any Sincerely, 16in kuden r` A ; t' i" Wes'` and Engineering bUS 41 -e4jm i I facilities. Therefore rezoning Parcel 2 of the tentative map would general plan. )osed tentative map would remain zoned single family residence. Thi t with the current development on the site. Single family residences t of proposed Parcel 1. for; considering this application fol a rezone/general plan amendment . ;stions, please call me at 541-2394. P. j 000071 :Tura 18 02 0+4:5'7p ELAND � '��. �• .NEERl, E ft(G CIVIL EM Iles' and Engineering 805. 41-2439 p.4 j COMPANY ;AD FAUX !LNG & SURVEYING 75 ZACA LANE, SUITE 100 • SRN LUIS OBIS_ CA 93401 TELEPHONE: (805) 541.2394 • FAX. (805) 541.2439 November 30, 1999 Paul Saldana, irector 4Qxnunity velopment Department `` city of Atasc ero, CA 93422 1 .'.'Rezoning request Dear Mr. Sald a, 4n September 9, 1999, we submitted a rezone/general plan arnendment' request to the �ity of Atascadero. The rezone/€eneral plan amendment request was fo , a portion of the property depicted on proposed tentative inap AT'99=255. Since submittal of the request, we have not had any o re 'pondenc4 from the City. t , ri'`u could pi arndment re attention on thi Sincerely, Pamela Jardini Westland Engi gclJohn Kuder f:.. .��y�\([; • .� iso i ase up date us on the progress of the rezone/general plan nest, I will forward this information to our client. Your matter is greatly appreciated. 1 QC-LL'•��.�L 000072 :Jun 18 02 04'.-B?p West and Engineering WEERING 6OMPANY CONSULTING CIVIL ENGIN ERING SURVEYING Dec I 6mber 27, �1999 805- 11-2439 75 ZACA LANE, SUITE 100 * SAN LUIS TELEPHONE: (805) 547-2394 a FAX I Paul -Saldana, " )irector ,cominunity Development Department t� of Atasca#ero C'% 93422 .kE: Rezonmig, request De4kfir. Said a, On September 29, 1999, we submitted a rezone/general plan amendment request to the City of Atascadero. The rezone/general plan amendment request was for a portion of the property depicted on proposed tentative snap A Our clients name is John Kuden. ,T,99,-255. submitt of the request, we have not had any correspondence from the On November 30, 1999, we submitted a letter requesting an update on the progress of the rezone/general plan amendment request. If you could please inform 4s of the status of this project, I Will forward this information tai our client. our attention on this matter is gr6tly appreciated. Sincerely, Pamb Jardini ...40poi Planner, Westland Engineering J,ohn Kuden ade McKinney, City Manager p.5 C4 93401 541-2439 0000-3 d' , JUn" 28 02.'04:56p I West ind Eng i neer i ng Ili u5' .1 -r✓14JtJ 1p. e January' 3, 2000 Pamela Jardini Senior Planner, West] 75 Zaca Lane, Suite I San Lu s C)� ispo, CA SU i� Atasca a Comm Dear 141 .-' ordini, CITY OF ATASCADERO COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Engineering 401 2000 General Plan update Process Tourist Rezone Proposal (San A,nselmo Road and Monterey Rol 1 Thank you for inquiryxegarding the status of the Atascadero General Plan Update Process. 'A., you are;4wa.re, the City is in the process of updating the General Plan. The City is completing contract negotiations v ith the planning firm of Crawford, Muitari, Clark and Moctre to update General. Plan this calendar year. The initial phases of the piklic involvement program and information, gathering asks for the update will begin this month. 5taffh45ineluded your project in the list of development proposals that will be analyzed .as pal of tho ,. 1-1 update pj' ocess. Based on the results of the analysis process, a recommendation regal n tlti~ merits of! your project will be developed for the Planning Commission and City Couh `Maur name rill also be added to future mailing lists to receive information on the updatir-Dews. d � Please call me at (805)1461-5035 if you have any questions or need additional information. i Sincerely, Warred frgce, Plarlmn Services Manager :1�''R• r3= k: RECEi'VED JAN 2000 i PMI Date: WOW 4:$7 PM File. GVA %400. Wemst LU Resr9nse:1.3• .Mml 16500 PALMA AVENUE • ATASCADERI3, CA 93422 Building FP fflfi0s: (805) 461.5040 i Planning (805) 461-5035 Enforcement (805) 461.5034 Director (805) 461-5097 City Fax: 1805) 4617615 ouc) s "!