Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout032712 CC PC Joint Mtg-Combined SPECIAL JOINT MEETING Atascadero City Council Atascadero Planning Commission Eagle Ranch Study Session Tuesday, March 27, 2012 Special Joint Meeting / Study Session follows the conclusion of the March 27, 2012 City Council Regular Session City Hall, Council Chambers 6907 EI Camino Real, Atascadero, California AGENDA ROLL CALL: City Council and Planning Commission TOPIC TO BE DISCUSSED: 1. Study Session - Eagle Ranch Specific Plan — Joint City Council & Planning Commission Review — PLN 2008-1280 (Eagle Ranch, LLC / RRM Design Group) ■ Fiscal Impact: The fiscal impact is contingent on the direction provided by the Council and Commission. ■ Recommendation: City Council and Planning Commission take public comment on the current project design, and provide direction to staff and the applicant on the following issues: 1. Project scale and density 2. Fiscal impacts of annexation 3. County tax share policy 4. Neighborhood street connections 5. On-site maintenance 6. Off-site improvements / freeway interchange funding 7. Impact on City Fire Department and Wildfire Risk 8. San Rafael lot size consistency 9. Affordable / inclusionary housing requirements 10.Keeping of farm animals and trails 11.Neighborhood pocket parks and community park at Village Center The funding of the freeway interchanges represents a significant potential cost impact to both the project and City. Additional analysis of this issue appears warranted at this time. PUBLIC COMMENT: Members of the public may address the legislative bodies concerning the subject of this Special Joint Meeting. ADJOURNMENT: Please note: Should anyone challenge any proposed development entitlement listed on this Agenda in court, that person may be limited to raising those issues addressed at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Council at or prior to this public hearing. Correspondence submitted at this public hearing will be distributed to the Council and available for review in the City Clerk's office. I, Victoria Randall, Deputy City Clerk of the City of Atascadero, declare under the penalty of perjury that the foregoing agenda for the March 27, 2012 Special Joint Meeting of the Atascadero City Council and Planning Commission was posted on March 20, 2012 at the Atascadero City Hall, 6907 EI Camino Real, Atascadero, CA 93422 and was available for public review in the Customer Service Center at that location. Signed this 20th day of March, 2012, at Atascadero, California. Victoria Randall, Deputy City Clerk City of Atascadero ITEM NUMBER: 1 DATE: 03/27/12 1979 6-D­ Joint Session Atascadero City Council & Planning Commission Staff Report— Community Development Department Study Session Eagle Ranch Specific Plan Joint City Council & Planning Commission Review PLN 2008-1280 (Eagle Ranch, LLC / RRM Design Group) RECOMMENDATION: City Council and Planning Commission take public comment on the current project design, and provide direction to staff and the applicant on the following issues: 1. Project scale and density 2. Fiscal impacts of annexation 3. County tax share policy 4. Neighborhood street connections 5. On-site maintenance 6. Off-site improvements / freeway interchange funding 7. Impact on City Fire Department and Wildfire Risk 8. San Rafael lot size consistency 9. Affordable / inclusionary housing requirements 10. Keeping of farm animals and trails 11. Neighborhood pocket parks and community park at Village Center REPORT-IN-BRIEF: Over the past year the applicant has continued to refine the Eagle Ranch project design. A preliminary environmental constraints analysis has been completed by the City's EIR consultant (Michael Brandman Associates), and the applicant has incorporated findings into the design. The current project proposal was recently reviewed by the Planning Commission, the public, and the Design Review Committee (DRC) in November and December 2011 . ITEM NUMBER: 1 DATE: 03/27/12 The applicant is now looking for feedback from the City Council and Planning Commission in order to make final modifications to the project description and site plan. The applicant would like to move forward with the Notice of Preparation for the formal EIR process in the near future. Once the formal EIR begins, it is difficult to make changes to the scope of the project, so it is important that the Council is satisfied with the project plans and key project issues prior to beginning the EIR process. In addition to review of the overall site plan, staff and the applicant have identified specific project components which require Council direction to move forward. The applicant's next step will be to incorporate Council and Commission comments from this meeting, as well as recent information provided by the DRC, the November 2011 community workshop, and on-site ground truthing, to finalize the project description and site plan, and move towards beginning the EIR process. DISCUSSION: Eagle Ranch Site Background: With 452± Existing Colony Lots and Roads Eagle Ranch is an undeveloped 3,450± acre area located adjacent to Atascadero's southern boundary. The project contains approximately 452± undeveloped Colony lots and a - network of un-built Colony roads, originally established by E.G. Lewis' 1914 Atascadero Colony Map. The area has been used historically for ranching, and is characterized by oak covered hillsides and — r '�"� l many areas with extremely steep, mountainous terrain. c i The City of Atascadero General Plan provides policy direction for the annexation of the Eagle Ranch to the City of Atascadero. The General Plan requires a Specific Plan to be approved by the City in order to provide a comprehensive development plan for the property. The Specific Plan will reconfigure the lots and roadways into a master planned community of clustered lots with a variety of land uses including housing, commercial uses, parks, trails, open space, and tourist-serving resort facilities. In May of 2008, the City Council authorized the processing of a General Plan Amendment and annexation application for the Eagle Ranch project. Eagle Ranch is within the City's Sphere of Influence, and there is a Memorandum of Understanding ITEM NUMBER: 1 DATE: 03/27/12 between the County of San Luis Obispo and the City which outlines the goals of the project. The City and the County recently worked with LAFCO to update the MOU, as well as the City's Municipal Service Review (MSR) in the summer of 2011. In August 2010 the Council authorized Michael Brandman Associates (MBA) to begin the environmental constraints analysis for the project in order to identify environmental issues early on and create a self-mitigating plan. The applicant has incorporated MBA's findings into the design to minimize environmental impacts to the greatest extent feasible. No environmental or archeological resources were identified by MBA that would preclude development of the project. Mitigation will be incorporated into the formal EIR process to address direct and indirect impacts of the development. The environmental constraints analysis and the Eagle Ranch applicant's current site plan were presented to the public at a Community Workshop hosted by the Planning Commission and on November 15, 2011 . There were about 100 members of the public in attendance, and comments were received regarding the following issues: • Traffic, especially on San Rafael, Atascadero Avenue and San Diego Road • San Rafael Road maintenance and drainage issues • Smaller lot sizes proposed along San Rafael inconsistent with existing large lots • San Diego Road emergency access • Horse issues: manure on trails, noise, buffering of existing pasture areas, keeping of animals in project area • Existing offsite drainage and flooding conditions • Construction phasing, timelines, developers, character of housing tracts The Design Review Committee has also met on two separate occasions over the past year to review the project and provide feedback on specific elements of the proposal. The site plan currently being presented to the Council and Planning Commission are the same plans which were reviewed at the November 15 Community Workshop, and the December 15 DRC meeting. The applicant shall incorporate comments from all three meetings into a final site plan proposal. Analysis: Current Project Proposal: The site plan has been developed to cluster development areas in parts of the site which have the least environmental constraints, such as steep slopes, creeks, native trees, and potential archeological sites. The proposed site plan identifies locations for the roads, trails, open space, commercial and hotel development, residential areas, and connections to existing City roads as follows: ITEM NUMBER: 1 DATE: 03/27/12 Residential Lots - Site Plan proposes 696 single-family lots, ranging in size from small 4,500 sq. ft. lots to large 5-20 acre estate lots. The lots are configured in small neighborhoods which vary in lot size. In addition, there are 50 multi-family residential lots proposed near the Village Center. Open Space - The majority of the 3,500 acre site (approximately 80%) is proposed to remain as open space to be utilized for agricultural activities and conservation. The owners intend to continue to run cattle in the open space areas, which will help with vegetation management. School Site - The Atascadero School District is currently in the process of reviewing the need for a possible school site at Eagle Ranch. There are two 13-acre sites that are being evaluated by the school district, most likely for construction of a new elementary school. The first site is near the project entrance off Atascadero Avenue (as shown on the attached map) and the second possible site is near San Rafael Road, which would be in place of the currently proposed residential lots. Commercial & Hotels - There are three (3) commercial components in the project. Site plans for each commercial site are attached to this staff report. 1. Highway Commercial: 10-15 acre area near the US 101/Santa Barbara interchange for a highway commercial. This would be a highway serving hotel site, and could accommodate up to 200 rooms, a pool, and a restaurant. 2. Resort Hotel: Located at the existing historic Ranch headquarters. Up to 100 luxury rooms, equestrian amenities, a lodge, restaurant and spa. The resort facility is envisioned to be similar to Alisal Ranch in Santa Ynez. 3. Village Center: This is the center of the residential community, located along the main loop road. Would include some small scale retail, such as a sandwich shop, and possibly some offices and second floor residential. A neighborhood public park (4-7 acres) is proposed within walking distance of the Village Center. The multi-family residential component would also be located nearby, which would include some affordable and possibly senior housing. ITEM NUMBER: 1 DATE: 03/27/12 Current Land Use Plan (Presented Nov. 15, 2011 at Planning Commission /Community Workshop) ? v 7o �;`ter • r School Site - (option 2) t: ` - a 1 Village Center with � �'`,• �, Public Park & .�� -- Multi-family units School Site 40 j t (option 1) \ Highway 41K Commercial . Z. - •. 001 J R r �ti Resort Hotel �tw..re►e�rts �ncamwrbA ��.� _�rw errr. �•iwra�rf�ur %-00'aft mom= �'++ �.Ioor areur us was—*snaw ®''"�C,2U-.... vmrars.ur +�..w byr ®UMd�.orr+Il _c.1...r rwu rrlc�:.fr +��rrrw�.rrw rwre•w� ..�r►o.�r anr _��.� �. i.�ra•w� tirrr.ur gh.—i t+..a r [0�10•trO 001m0Yta[ .1rJm•pO nuts fg—U.M rrw........r......,r.... ®•s.0Ar-cWft n.r aa. r�r.rr�..r�.r ' N♦„w Crwr I"�wr- s.w:aa.• Ylr Frr�4r/ .Laxr..rrin 4r.lrrNr�R M— ITEM NUMBER: 1 DATE: 03/27/12 Roads - A variety of rural character road types have been developed for Eagle Ranch, with designs based on neighborhood density, slope, and drainage. Roads are, to the extent practicable, aligned to coincide with existing ranch roads and will include minimal curb and gutter improvements. Public Works, Fire and Community Development staff have worked closely with the applicant in the development of the road standards. The goal is to provide the rural character of a country road, while also ensuring the roads are wide enough for safe speeds, bicycles, pedestrians, and emergency access. The main loop road through Eagle Ranch is designed as a split road, with a center landscaped median to filter runoff at the center, and a Class 1, paved multiuse path on one side. The secondary loop road extends up to the resort area and some large estate lots, and is proposed to connect near San Rafael via a one way emergency access road as the secondary connection for this neighborhood and the resort. Main Loop Road Cross Section 1 � ■ _ s r 17 17 Mlramum 11' Otalnage Muh►V e Travel I ane Dratnage Swain: Ttatw4 Late Swale• Path t T. " N!r"ht-of-Way Trails — During the 2008 Eagle Ranch community meetings, there was considerable comment from the public regarding the desire for trail systems through Eagle Ranch. The applicant has worked with several local groups to develop a comprehensive trail system with a variety of types of public trails and connection points. There are three (3) types of trails proposed- 1. roposed-1. Equestrian Trail- Unpaved trails located mostly on existing ranch roads. The equestrian trails would connect to the existing neighborhood at the San Rafael Road, meander throughout the Ranch, and continue south along the freeway frontage to an underpass connection and an existing trail easement at Santa Margarita Ranch. An equestrian staging area is proposed south of the Eagle Creek neighborhood off Atascadero Avenue, near the freeway frontage. ITEM NUMBER: 1 DATE: 03/27/12 2. Class 1, Multiuse path: Cross Section: Unpaved & Class 1 Trail 8-foot wide paved trails for use by bike and pedestrians, similar to the Post and Rail Fence s v� Bob Jones Trail in Avila Beach. The Existing Road I� paved multiuse path would be installed instead of standard + sidewalks along most of the main loop road. The path would connect � c to San Rafael Road, run through the ,y park and Village Center, and continue to the project entrance near J s'-to' J 2�J $� J 2 J the Santa Barbara interchange. Unpaved Class 1 Multi-Use Trail Bike Path 3. National Forest Trail Corridor: In response to public input, the applicant has identified a possible connection through the Ranch to connect with Los Padres National Forest and Cerro Alto. An easement corridor is proposed on the far west side of the Ranch to connect the ALPS property off HWY 41 to the National Forest. This would be a very steep, narrow hiking trail that could be developed at a later time; only the easement corridor is proposed with this project. Trail Map �• moi• ` Equestrian...,t, Staging r Area " r� 1 ' •� +�. + i:Y- A - � c 1, � t ' NFS Connectol - J Trail (orange),'.'-"-' Unpaved Trails . -Multi-Use Class I 4 (green) Path (pink) • — i r ITEM NUMBER: 1 DATE: 03/27/12 Council Direction Needed on Specific Items: As the project design has evolved, a number of items have emerged that require Council direction on how to shape the issue. Many of these issues which will require full analysis in the EIR before final decisions are possible, but it is important for the Council to be aware of the issues as the project moves forward: 1. Project Scale and Density There are currently 452+/- existing Atascadero Colony lots in Eagle Ranch with certificates of compliance that would allow for construction of residential units within the County. As a master planned community with an application for a Specific Plan, the Eagle Ranch development is not capped by existing zoning, and therefore can propose to increase the number of lots with the annexation to the City. The applicant is currently proposing 696 single-family lots, and 50 multi-family units. The applicant has stated that the number of units is intended to balance the project costs associated with the construction of roads, trails, facilities, etc. The final lot count is expected to be in the range of 500-800 total residential lots. 2. Fiscal Impact of Annexation: A draft Fiscal Impact Analysis is being prepared to determine the financial impact the annexation would have on the City. The preliminary results of the draft study were consistent with the 2004 "Taussig study," which found that residential uses are fiscally negative to the City, as property taxes alone are insufficient to cover the added ongoing cost of City services to serve the additional population at Eagle Ranch. In order to be fiscally neutral, the residential lots could annex into the City's Community Facilities District (CFD) and the County tax sharing agreement could be renegotiated (see next issue). Annexation to the CFD is a requirement of all new development projects in the City which require legislative approval. The Eagle Ranch project is proposing two hotels (up to 300 rooms total) and some small commercial spaces in addition to the residential lots. Hotels are excellent tax generators for the City, and development of both a highway hotel and a resort hotel would make the project fiscally positive for the City. However, there are existing hotel sites in the City which have a more favorable location with all site improvements completed, and are expected to develop first. The hotels should be considered as possibilities in later phases of the project with a possibility that one, or both, hotels are not constructed at all. 3. County Tax Share Policy The County of San Luis Obispo adopted a Master Tax Agreement in 1996, and all annexations throughout the County have conformed with this policy since that time. The policy states "For annexations prezoned residential, the County retains the existing property tax base and two-thirds (66%) of the future tax increment." This leaves only one-third (1/3) of the future property taxes for the City, and the existing tax base subtracted out of the City's share. However, the City will be ITEM NUMBER: 1 DATE: 03/27/12 responsible for 100% of the services upon annexation. This is one of the primary reasons the project is fiscally negative to the City of Atascadero despite the relative high value of the proposed homes. City staff believes this policy is not equitable for the City and would like Council direction to negotiate a different agreement with San Luis Obispo County. 4. Neighborhood Street Connections: Since the majority of Eagle Ranch was originally plotted with the 1914 EG Lewis Colony map, there is a complete network of existing undeveloped colony roads (paper road right-of-ways) throughout the Ranch. There are several locations where existing City roads dead end at the Ranch, but are intended to continue through on existing road right-of-ways. The Municipal Code requires that all road connections and road frontages are developed to current standards with new development in order to complete the City's road system and provide safe and logical access through the City. As part of the Eagle Ranch Tentative Map and Specific Plan, some of these road connections will be developed, and some will be proposed to be abandoned. As some of the connections to existing roads are being proposed for emergency access only, staff and the applicant have discussions about how access at these points could be controlled to prevent daily use. The Fire Department has had experience with controlled access such as gates and bollards in other developments in the City, and has not yet found a solution that works well. Options for restricted vehicular access will need to be further explored. Atascadero Road/Santa Barbara Road — The applicant is proposing a main project entry feature to Eagle Ranch slightly west of the existing ranch entrance on the south end of Atascadero Road, just past the Santa Barbara off-ramp. A second access point is proposed on Atascadero Avenue between San Diego Road and San Rafael Road. Atascadero Avenue will require minor widening and frontage improvements to handle the increased traffic and improve safety. San Rafael Road — The west side of San Rafael Road currently dead ends at Eagle Ranch. The un-built road right-of-way extends through the Ranch, directly to Atascadero Avenue where it connects with the other side of San Rafael Road. City staff has advised the applicant that development of this road connection through to Atascadero Avenue is very important for Fire Department access, evacuation of the neighborhoods on the west side, and to accommodate increased traffic requirements. Due to steep slopes and creeks in this area, the applicant is proposing to realign San Rafael through the Ranch so that is meanders as a neighborhood street through the terrain. This realignment should help to slow down through traffic in this area and reduce through traffic impacts to the existing neighborhoods, instead of providing a straight shot through to ITEM NUMBER: 1 DATE: 03/27/12 Atascadero Ave. This new section of San Rafael would be constructed to City standards with traffic calming. San Carlos Road — Like San Rafael, San Carlos currently dead ends at the Ranch. San Carlos would be extended to connect with a new neighborhood in Eagle Ranch. Los Osos Road — Los Osos Road is a frontage road for Eagle Ranch, but does not extend through the ranch. The applicant is proposing five (5) new 2'/2 acre lots along Los Osos Road; however, no road connections would extend through to the rest of the development due the steep terrain in this area. The street frontage would be improved to current standards. Ortega Road — Like San Rafael, the Colony Road right-of way on Ortega Road extends into the Ranch beyond the existing dead end street. The applicant is proposing to connect to the end of Ortega for emergency access and a possible trail connection only. Ortega Road would not be a standard road entry for the project. It is unclear at this time how access will be controlled at this connection in order to provide only emergency access. If Ortega does not extend through to the Ranch, the Fire Department will request that a cul-de-sac, or other fire truck turn around, be installed at the existing dead end road. San Diego Road — The Fire Department has identified the west side of San Diego Road as a key connection point required for emergency access. San Diego road was originally planned on the 1914 Colony maps to extend all the way through the Ranch. The existing neighborhood within City limits located off San Diego, San Dimas, and Toloso Road currently does not have a secondary emergency access route because the existing Colony Roads have not been fully developed. There are approximately 50 lots in this existing neighborhood which currently do not comply with Natural Resource Code for dead end roads, and in the event of a fire, these residents would not have a second way out. Because this area is in a high fire severity zone, the Fire Department does not recommend abandoning this right-of-way as it would exasperate this existing problem by making the single access point permanent. The existing road-right of-way at San Diego is extremely steep, so the applicant has proposed a new road alignment to connect the Eagle Ranch development to San Diego Road. This would be a one way, emergency access road with some type of controlled access. The applicant is not proposing development of this road connection with the project; it is currently proposed by the applicant as easement for future construction by the City only. City staff is recommending the project be required to build a minimum width emergency access road at San Diego Road. ITEM NUMBER: 1 DATE: 03/27/12 Old Morro Road East — The applicant is not proposing any development or road connections on the west side of the Ranch. Any existing road right-of-way connections which connect to Old Morro Road East would be proposed to be abandoned. The applicant is requesting that the City waive any frontage improvement requirements in the vicinity of Old Morro Road East. Potential Road Connection Map Old Morro East: Los Osos Road: Atascadero Ave: No road connection 5 new lots on existing Ortega Road: San Rafael to extend proposed; existing right-of- road; No new road Emergency through via new ways to be abandoned connection access &trail residential street San Diego Road: San Rafael & San Carlos: Atascadero/Santa Emergency access Extend existing right-of-way Barbara:2 main project entry points V. Secondary/Fire Minor Minor Minor _ _ ',• +� / • .- :,* :11r,l Prima rt 7 Sicondary/Fire Primary .� � „��.� � Awa. +'•;5 5. On-site Maintenance: The Eagle Ranch development will include a system of internal roads, landscape medians, common landscape areas, trails, parks, entry features, decorative fencing, lighting, etc. which will be funded by the applicant and maintained by either the Homeowners Association or separate road and landscape maintenance districts. Self-funded maintenance is a standard City requirement for any new development in order to minimize the project's fiscal impact on the City. ITEM NUMBER: 1 DATE: 03/27/12 6. Off-site Road Improvements and Freeway Interchanges: The project will create off-site traffic impacts to existing streets and intersections that will require improvements as mitigation. The Municipal Code requires that all project street frontages be improved to current standards with new development. For Eagle Ranch, this would include frontages along: • Atascadero Avenue • Los Osos Road • Old Morro East • San Rafael Road While improvements along Old Morro East may be found to be unnecessary as there is no impact to this road from the development, other frontages, such as Atascadero Avenue and San Rafael, are currently deficient and will need to be improved to current standards. Through the EIR process, necessary road improvements, controlled intersections, and improvements to the interchanges will be identified. During the Environmental Constraints Analysis, a preliminary traffic study completed by W-trans identified that both the Santa Rosa and Santa Barbara interchanges will require roundabouts, with build-out of the project. How these interchange improvements will be funded has not yet been determined. The funding of the freeway interchanges represents a significant potential cost impact to both the project and City. Additional analysis of this issue appears warranted at this time. Staff is recommending additional analysis of the interchange funding issue to determine the City's potential funding obligation. 7. Impact to City Fire Department and Wildfire Risk: The entire Ranch is located in the "high" and "very high" wildland fire severity categories. In the 1990's much of the Ranch burned in the Highway 41 Fire. Consequently, the Fire Department has a number of concerns regarding the threat of wildfire and the potential cost to the City to fight a fire. A vegetation management plan, fuel breaks, safety zones, ongoing maintenance, and an emergency management plan will be crucial elements of the Specific Plan and project design in order to minimize the wildfire risk. Adding residential units and open space in this high fire severity zone will have an impact on the City's Fire Department and represents a fiscal risk for the City. A wildland fire will likely require outside resources including aerial tankers which can cost upwards of $8,000 to $10,000 per hour. Depending on many complex factors, the possibility exists that firefighting costs for a wildfire on the Ranch would not be covered by State or Federal agencies and will be a City's responsibility. This could ITEM NUMBER: 1 DATE: 03/27/12 translate into hundreds of thousands of dollars of expenses that the City would be required to cover. The Fire Department estimates a major fire incident could cost the City between $300,000 to $500,000. Currently, major fire incidents in this area occur every 20 to 30 years. However, as the area becomes developed, the likelihood of more frequent fires is likely. For example, in the Malibu hills and Santa Monica Mountains, fire history shows the fire cycle was ever 20 to 30 years before development, and increased to every 8 to 10 years once developed. Based on these assumptions ($500,000 fire every 10 years), there is likely a $50,000 / year wildland fire cost associated with the project. Response times and the number of Fire personal to serve the project are also considerations for the annexation. The Fire Department estimates that there would be a response time of 8 to 10 minutes to the most remote areas of the project, as currently designed. Although 4 to 5 minutes responses are ideal in urban areas; there are parts of the City which currently have response times in excess of 10 minutes. The majority of the residential units proposed would have a response time under 8 minutes from the West Front Fire Station assuming that San Rafael Road is extended to Atascadero Avenue. Due to the proximity of the West Front Station to the Ranch, there is not a need for an additional fire station to serve the project. The Fire Department estimates that Eagle Ranch will generate the need for an additional three (3) full time fire fighters due to the remote location of the proposed lots and high fire severity zone. Additional fire personnel costs are included in the project fiscal analysis. Staff is recommending that a modified annexation boundary be studied that minimizes the size of the perimeter open space areas that would be added to the City's jurisdiction. The wildfire and staffing costs will be included in the project's fiscal analysis. 8. San Rafael Lots Size Compatibility: At the November 15, 2010 Community Workshop, neighborhood compatibility was identified as one of the main concerns with the current site plan. There are several areas where new lots are proposed in close proximity to existing neighborhoods. The area of particular concerns has been the development directly adjacent to San Rafael Road. This is one of the flattest and least constrained parts of the Ranch, and therefore, the applicant has proposed a neighborhood comprised of 10,000 square foot to 1 acre lots. The developed lots along San Rafael Road are zoned Residential Suburban, where the minimum lot size is 2'/2 acres. Neighbors in this area have submitted numerous letters expressing their concern that the proposed lot sizes are not consistent with the existing development (See Attachment 6). Staff and the applicant are looking for Council direction regarding an acceptable lot size and lot configuration for the San Rafael area, and any other areas where the proposed lots interface with existing City lots. The applicant recently met with the ITEM NUMBER: 1 DATE: 03/27/12 neighbors near San Rafael to discuss alternative options. Alternative site plans for this neighborhood are provided in the applicant's letter (See Attachment 7). The applicant's Option D appear to be the most consistent with addressing the existing neighborhood's concerns. This option includes a 25 foot landscape buffer along San Rafael, with lots ranging from 1'/2 to 2'/2 acres each along the perimeter of the Ranch, and non-build easements over hilltops and creeks. As the development moves further away from the existing San Rafael residences towards the center of Eagle Ranch, lot sizes would be smaller. San Rafael Neighborhood: Applicant's "Option D" •r_.� BAGLH RA:.i .. I f 0. '!.M •• i y • Map iva[uew a..�►r tarMvt soft Q ♦r.rrr...rr�., .r.rre. w + ns•ss. +.. w....�"q rte. 9. Affordable / Inclusionary Housing Requirements: In 2003, the City Council adopted an Inclusionary Housing Policy which applies to all residential projects that require legislative approval, such as Eagle Ranch. The current policy requires a minimum of 20% of the units within a project to be deed restricted affordable for a period of 30 years. For single-family projects, the policy allows for all of the affordable units to be Moderate Income units. With multi-family projects, the policy identifies a distribution of 20% Very Low Income units, 37% Low Income, and 43% Moderate Income units. By directly applying the current Council Inclusionary policy to all of 746 proposed units annexed into the City with Eagle Ranch, the project would be required to ITEM NUMBER: 1 DATE: 03/27/12 produce 139 deed restricted Moderate Income single-family units, and 10 affordable multi-family units (including 4 Moderate, 2 Low, 2 Very Low Income multi-family): Application of City's Existing Inclusionary Policy to Eagle Ranch Multi-family component Single-family component Inclusionary Housing Council Policy Inclusionary Housing Council Policy MFR Units 50.00 units SFR Units 696 units 20% Affordable 10.00 units 20% Affordable 139 units Affordable Distribution Affordable Distribution 20% Very Low 2.00 units 100% Moderate 139 units 37% Low 4.00 units SFR Affordable 139 units 43% Moderate 4.00 units MFR Affordable 10.00 units Application the current policy would produce numerous Moderate Income units, but very few Low or Very Low Income units. Given the City's Housing Element RHNA requirements and the current market conditions, direct application of the 2003 Inclusionary Policy does not seem to produce the most desirable outcome for the City or the developer. The Council Policy allows for alternative options to be developed to fulfill the affordable housing requirement for discretionary projects. Phasing and distribution of the affordable units is another key factor to consider in the development of the affordable housing plan for the project. Another issue with the Inclusionary Policy is whether or not it should apply to the 452 existing Colony lots. The City has never has a project with so many existing lots, and therefore has always applied the 20% requirement to the entire project. The Eagle Ranch applicant has proposed that the existing 452 Colony lots be exempt from the Inclusionary Policy since these are existing lots of record and not a new entitlement. The City Council has complete discretion on this issue and can set the inclusionary housing requirement to apply to all the units or just a portion of the units. The applicant has provided an affordable housing proposal in the attached letter. The applicant's proposal is based on the following principles: • Emphasis should be on actual built units, in modest numbers, at Eagle Ranch - not on payment of fees and development of units elsewhere. • Emphasis should be on the most difficult to achieve portions of the affordable housing spectrum, Low and Very Low Income. ITEM NUMBER: 1 DATE: 03/27/12 • There should be some component of Moderate Income units that are distributed throughout the project in higher density areas, rather located in only one area. • The existing 452 original colony lots of record, for which certificates of compliance have already been issued, are exempt from the Affordable Housing Policy. Based on the applicant's proposed principals, the project would provide 2 Very low Income rental units, 17 Low Income rental units, and 31 Moderate Income "by design" units. The Low and Very Low Income units would be located in the multi-family area near the Village Center, and the Moderate Income units would be distributed throughout the development as small single-family for-sale lots and rentable second units on large lots (refer to applicant's letter for complete proposal and calculations.) The phasing of the affordable units and what type of deed restriction or other long term affordability guarantee has not yet been identified. At this point, the applicant's proposal is very preliminary and would require significant refinements prior to adoption. Staff is looking for direction regarding whether the applicant's principles are a reasonable starting point for discussions or is another approach needed. 10.Keeping of Farm Animals: The question of whether or not farm animals would be allowed on the Ranch was raised at the November 15, 2011 community workshop, and the issue was addressed again at the December DRC meeting. The applicants do not plan to allow horses and farm animals on residential properties within the Ranch due to the sloped terrain and potential problems with site appearance if property owners do not maintain their farm animals properly. The applicant intends to have an equestrian center at the Ranch headquarters, which residents could be used to board horses. Neighbors have questioned the compatibility of not allowing farm animals, given that the large lots currently surrounding the Ranch allow for farm animals. If the equestrian center is not constructed until a later phase, there would not be an option for having horses on the Ranch. Maintenance of the equestrian trails, especially those that interface with the small lot residential and the Class 1 paved trails has also been questioned. 11.Neighborhood Pocket Parks & Community Park Village Center: The applicant is proposing a community park at the center of the development, located along the main loop road. The park is adjacent to creek areas and the ITEM NUMBER: 1 DATE: 03/27/12 equestrian and Class 1 trails. The park includes a playground and large grass area. The Village Center is adjacent to the park and would include a limited amount of retail space of a small deli or coffee shop, plus some office, second floor rental units, and a sales office. The park and Village Center would be constructed in one of the first phases of development as selling features for the residential lots. Multi-family lots would be located in the vicinity, and are currently proposed as semi-detached with yard space and green belts behind. Current Proposal for Village Center, Park and Multi-family Component \ - \ Pavprauna WO ...\\ yCnK Area fnlStfn� � S vets lYR Creek - 1hlpawd tnU IAIthFfYAIYt � 1 Ia0 unhu \Yl v_na area C4Ss I n usei- path Acdva p1aY ;- Area pwal 1,[.1 L/ Decorative oaving t Cammerclw plan _\ r f pi l Volpe Commoroa, II:,OOosn ' V COmmerclallaaamq \ - - Crass I mutt,use—• �-- V AREA BY LAND USE path _ 'erk 10 AC --— M4tge Commnvat 2 AC Unpaved trail W connect—• UU11iamlry mWtrtam"y to the rllape 160 vwv •� i AC With other developments, the City has required small pocket parks or tot lots within walking distance to small lot residential neighborhoods. For example, Dove Creek has the main park at the center of the development near the single- family lots, and a small tot lot playground near the Villas off Santa Barbara. The Las Lomas development is located adjacent to Paloma Park and a trail system, however, the developer was also required to install a tot lot in the small lot single- family neighborhood. The Eagle Ranch development is configured with several groupings of small lot residential neighborhoods branching off the main loop road. Some of these small lot neighborhoods are made up of as many as 60 clustered lots, located over a mile away from the public park at the Village Center. Staff believes that a few of these small lot neighborhoods would benefit from a tot lot or neighborhood ITEM NUMBER: 1 DATE: 03/27/12 pocket park within walking distance for young children. The large lot neighborhoods which consists of one acre lots and larger, obviously do not need additional park space or playgrounds. Staff is looking for direction from City Council regarding the question of neighborhood pocket parks in the small lot neighborhoods, and if those are needed in addition to the large public park near the Village Center. Conclusion: Preliminary project designs for Eagle Ranch have been developed by the applicant based on an Environmental Constraints Analysis completed by MBA, as well as coordination with staff, DRC, and community meetings. Staff and the applicant are currently looking for City Council and Planning Commission input on the current plans, as well as direction on specific elements of the project. The applicant's next step will be to incorporate Council and Commission comments from this meeting, as well as recent information provided by the DRC, the November 2011 community workshop, and on-site ground truthing, to finalize the project description and site plan and begin the EIR process. FISCAL IMPACT: The fiscal impact is contingent on the direction provided by the Council and Commission. The fiscal impact of the project is undetermined based on the following issues: 1. The project EIR will include a complete analysis of the fiscal impacts of the project on the City of Atascadero. City policies require residential portions of a project to be revenue neutral to the City. This is typically accomplished through a CFD tax on the properties to make up the additional cost of City services to the residences. 2. The existing County Tax Share policy identifies the existing residential property tax base and two-thirds (66%) of the future tax increment going to the County. The City would receive only one-third (33%) of any future property tax increase, but would be responsible for 100% of the services to the development. 3. Tourist services and resort components of the project are expected to be revenue positive with TOT tax to the City when / if they are constructed. 4. The project, as currently designed, will likely require the installation of round- abouts at two freeway interchanges. There is no funding plan in place for these interchanges and the City's share of costs is currently undetermined. ITEM NUMBER: 1 DATE: 03/27/12 ATTACHMENTS: Attachment 1: Eagle Ranch Specific Plan Area Map Attachment 2: Eagle Ranch Existing Lot Layout Attachment 3: County of San Luis Obispo Annexation Tax Share Policy Attachment 4: 2003 City Council Inclusionary Housing Policy Attachment 5: Applicant's Current Project Proposal (Presented Nov. 15 2011) a. Site Plan b. Roads Map c. Road Cross Sections d. Trails Map e. Trail Cross Sections f. Village Commercial, Park & Multi-family Site Plan g. Highway Hotel/Commercial site plan h. Resort Hotel Site Plan i. Current project statistics Attachment 6: Public Comment Cards & Letters Attachment 7: Letter from Eagle Ranch Applicant ITEM NUMBER: 1 DATE: 03/27/12 Attachment 1: Eagle Ranch Specific Plan Area Map CW,144\1 C� 3 � C K � n t 5 C to MWro 9&i ,' P •\ 'f X101 Eagle Ranch 1 nJ Specific Plan Area Atascadero Sphere of Influence I ITEM NUMBER: 1 DATE: 03/27/12 Attachment 2: Eagle Ranch Existing lots C1 i Oar r // ' ---- s W ITEM NUMBER: 1 DATE: 03/27/12 Attachment 3: County of San Luis Obispo Annexation Tax Share Policy 048762 IN THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO,STATE OF CALIFORNIA Tues--day-_Anci1__23-----------, Evelyn Delany, Ruth E. Brackett, David Blakely, and Chairperson PRESENT: Supervisors Laurence L. Laurent ABSENT: Supervisor Harry i.. ovitt C), z► %ir csl RESOLUTION NO. 96-158 A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ESTABLISHING N A COUNTYWIDE POLICY FOR PROPERTY TAX EXCHANGE UPON ANNEXATION The following resolution is hereby offered and read: WHEREAS,changing governmental fiscal relationships have required a modification to the earlier approach to determining property tax exchange between cities and the County upon annexation; and WHEREAS,the extent and nature of this modification has been agreed upon through a process of negotiation between the cities and the County based upon a shared-goal of producing a countywide tax exchange agreement that is fair to all parties, and WHEREAS,a fair agreement is one that respects the following two principles: (1) that the County should not"profit"from annexations,nor should annexations result in a net fiscal loss to the County; (2) that tax exchange practices should not undermine good land use planning by discouraging cities from pursuing logical and appropriate annexations; and WIIEREAS,in order to provide objective data upon which to develop an equitable agreement,the cities commissioned an independent fiscal study of the impact of annexation and development of vacant lands around cities on County government ; and WHEREAS, the results of this study assisted in the development of a new countywide tax exchange agreement; and WHEREAS,upon adoption of the agreement,the County and the cities will continue to collaborate on related matters of shared importance,including:(a)following adoption by the Board of Supervisors, reconsidering a countywide development impact fee program, which may include appropriate city impact fees for county development occurring in the unincorporated fringe of cities for which a clear City impact can be determined; and (b) support existing policies which encourage urban like development within the boundaries of cities. NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED,by the San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors: I. For "raw land" annexations prezoned commercial or industrial, the County retains the existing property tax base and all of the future property tax increment. 2. For annexations prezoned residential,the County retains the existing property tax base and two-thirds(66%)of the future property tax increment. ITEM NUMBER: 1 DATE: 03/27/12 3. For commercial and industrial -onnexatitin arras alrsaJy substk0iollj; developed, tax exchange will be negotiated on a case-by-case basis between the annexing city and the County to determine an appropriate property tax- sharing arrangement, based upon the principle of fiscal neutrality for the County. 4. For annexations prezoned agricultural, the County retains the existing property tax base and all of the future ptupeiiy tax hivienrefrt. S. The County and the cities agree to re-examine the above policies at five-year intervals to assure that they rentain appropriate and current for all parties. Upon nrodon of Supervisor Delany _ seconded by Supetvisor Blakely , and on the following roll call Vote, to wit: AYES: Supervisors Delany, Blakely, Brackett, Chairperson Laurent NOES: None AR.SFN` -Supervisor Ovitt ABSTAINING: None The foreforing resolution is hereby adopted. LAUREW*L LAUREM Chairman, Board of Supervisors ATTEST: I�li� L._ RndeWnld Clerk of the Hoard of Supervisors BY: +'I.AfeAJUf"t 9 Deputy Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGAL EFFECT' JAMES B. LINDHOLM.JR. County Counsel STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) V)UNrf OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 1 as i I, JULIE L ROOEWALD,County CWk c!the above By: L netted County.net OaOdtco c1l'I:of tete Board d ^Ileputy-County Co e1 SiehtvIwrsibereof.dohere!ycer:y the rofoOngto Gosta,true and curreetc'.anoiduenteredInMe rulnuttenf sold Board U Syler visors,and new re;Ral1 ing of retard an my W.lce Date. WItrrist.my nand and seal of sold auerd of St"fvl- caru III �_�day of rJni'unnral.pu }y y 16 JULIE L.RODEWALD County Ctork and Ex•Oltkle Clerk of the Board lot Su hors Llrt[.t By Deputy Clerk f ITEM NUMBER: 1 DATE: 03/27/12 Attachment 4: 2003 City Council Inclusionary Housing Policy Interim Inclusionary Housing Policy (Adopted) Table 0-1 Interim Inclusionary Housing Policy Adopted by City Council June 24,2003 Amended by City Council November 25,2003 Inclusionary Section Interim Policy A. Project Requirements a) All residential projects that require legislative approval are subject to the inclusionary requirement as follows: a. Projects of 1-10 units: pay in-lieu fee or build units. b. Projects of 11 or more units must build units or receive a Council approval to pay in-lieu fees. B. Percent Affordable 1. The percentage of units within a project that must be affordable shall be 20%. 2. The distribution of affordable units in single-family land use areas shall be as follows: a. 100% Moderate 3. The distribution of affordable units in multi-family and mixed use commercial land use areas shall be as follows: a. 20%Very Low Income b. 37% Low Income c. 43% Moderate 4. In-lieu fees shall be collected for all fractional units up to 0.499 units,fractional units of 0.50 and greater shall be counted as 1.0 units. 5. All inclusionary units shall be deed restricted for a period of 30 years. C. Exceptions 1. Projects that do not require a legislative approval from the City shall not be subject in the interim policy. 2. Projects that qualify for the State density bonus are exempt from additional inclusionary housing requirements. 3. Second units are exempt from the inclusionary requirement. D. Affordable Housing Standards 1. The exterior design and quality standards for affordable units shall be comparable to those of market rate units. Affordable units may be of a smaller size and utilize less expensive interior finishes. 2. Affordable units shall be distributed throughout a project site and not concentrated in one location. 3. Inclusionary units shall be built concurrently with market rate units. A construction timeline shall be approved by the City Council prior to construction. ITEM NUMBER: 1 DATE: 03/27/12 E. In-Lieu Fees 1. In-lieu fees for units and fractions of units shall be based on 5.00% of the construction valuation of the market rate unit. F. Alternatives 1. The developer may request and the City Council may approve any of the following alternatives to on-site construction or payment of in-lieu fees for inclusionary units: a. Off-site construction b. Land dedication c. Combinations of construction,fees and land dedications. G. Incentives 1. As an incentive to provide affordable units, all inclusionary units shall be treated as density bonus units that are not counted as part of the maximum density entitlement of a site. ITEM NUMBER: 1 DATE: 03/27/12 Attachment 5: Applicant's Current Project Proposal (Presented Nov. 15 2011) a. Applicant's Current Project Proposal - Site Plan > 177117 400 r, 7>Edi l•file 111111111 x Z t LU n t—— ITEM NUMBER: 1 DATE: 03/27/12 b. Applicant's Current Project Proposal - Roads Map by IA '• Y 4 '� �•�, 7 J:' - 4 yF� � 4 \ `ot 1211 All Ills It C .�'1 r t: •�` -. si •. > - ._. ,ACr•' � S3�yfy��S ` fr O•.T'°V'.� I ♦ 4 A I. C ?T aft. .�? .�• . wt� � *� �� ,, '� ��I I � ii may. as LL Alilit C � Z o a o U 11 ITEM NUMBER: 1 DATE: 03/27/12 C. Applicant's Current Project Proposal - Road Cross Sections a CL n c a m ryyya T :j LLJ r, -t . CL a $ 4 7 • i g F ! . a i• t L ITEM NUMBER: 1 DATE: 03/27/12 d. Applicant's Current Project Proposal - Trails Map +-J Y e� • -Wit• _•s��/' .� C1 � � :rte � CC St All" —4or •�.i�.•�•�+ zf�.. � •� _ X11 LL L a• s;' � Z I to g ` s' ITEM NUMBER: 1 DATE: 03/27/12 e. Applicant's Current Project Proposal - Trail Cross Sections tt 7 75 W • 3i f s � V 4 0 C a' a ITEM NUMBER: 1 DATE: 03/27/12 f. Applicant's Current Project Proposal - Village Commercial, Park S Multi-family Site Plan r ig� L• a " - 2 E �o Q a � ` s VQ Qe 6 IJP U g E / E E • � m A V M ITEM NUMBER: 1 DATE: 03/27/12 g. Applicant's Current Project Proposal - Highway Hotel/Commercial Site Plan =z �z „o '...1 / Ji y / t,d �I I� 1 i 1, r� Y - - ITEM NUMBER: 1 DATE: 03/27/12 h. Applicant's Current Project Proposal - Resort Hotel Site Plan � r Jib x ISO b �y =m ProposalITEM NUMBER: 1 DATE: 03/27/12 Applicant's Current Project Pro ' ect Statistics Summar � y • Total Project Area: 3,487 ac Single Family: 600-800 Lots Multi-Family: 50-100 Units Resort Hotel: 30-40 ac Village Center: 2-5 ac Highway Commercial: 10-1 5 ac Public Park: 4-7 ac Elementary School: 1 3 ac Equestrian Staging Area: 1 -2 ac Roads - Paved Area: 1 5-20 miles/50-60 ac Trails: 12-1 5 miles/10-12 ac Open Space/Agriculture: 2,800+/- ac Estimated % of OS/AG: 80+/-% 'NOTE: Lots and units not to exceed estimated max. of 800 ITEM NUMBER: 1 DATE: 03/27/12 Attachment 6: Public Comment Cards & Letters Click here to access Attachment. ITEM NUMBER: 1 DATE: 03/27/12 Attachment 7: Letter from Eagle Ranch Applicant Click here to access Attachment. Callie Ta for From: Stephen&Nina Harrison Sent: Monday, March 19, 2012 1:36 PM To: Callie Taylor Subject: [Eagle Ranch]Eagle Ranch Comment Card CITY OF ATA.SCADERO Eagle Ranch Comment Card DATE March 19,2012 - 1:36 pm NAME Stephen&-Nina Harrison f :s ADDRESS r�■. PRONE �r EMAIL r a COMMENTS We strongly urge the Council &Planning Commission to require the Eagle Ranch to adjust its density plan for the a proposed residential lots immediately adjacent to San Carlos Road and San Rafael.The proposed lots are some of the smallest proposed in the entire project and do not blend well j with the existing lots in the city. For instance, our lot is 7.5 acres and the smallest existing lot among our neighbors is 2 acres.The proposed lots that would be immediately adjacent are 10,000 to 20,000 sq.ft. (less than I/2 acre each!).. This proposed density does not reflect good planning. The answer given by the developer at the 11/15/11 meeting at City Hall 1. was that the density is being driven by the need to make the project work economically. I would suggest that the developer be required to phase in the cluster development further into r the project rather than to have such a stark change in neighborhood density. While we love to be able to currently view peaceful pastures and green hills we understand that the current owners have property rights to develop their land. We only ask that it be done wisely with appropriate concern for the rights and concerns of neighboring properties. With 3450 acres they should be able to do that in a better manner than the current Specific Plan. s i Annette Manier From: Terence Grebel �� RECEIVED nt: Friday, March 16,2012 7.52 PM -ICc: Annette Manier MAR 16 201Z Sul?ject: RE: Eagle Ranch Study Session March 27 �L i0 f '" l?`'�' COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Cour interest is the safety of the road system for the project. we expressed this concern at the last sleeting. The roads that we are concerned about are Atascadero Rd north of San Diego,San Diego between Atascadero Rd and the frwy. People walk, run and bike these roads. San Diego Rd is not currently safe since there is no place for walkers to walk off the roadway and cars currently exceed the speed limits today. We cannot imagine the impact of additional traffic on this road. Several people have been killed clue to traffic accidents at the intersection of Atascadero Rd and San Diego, including the s curves to the north. Can we please Put a stop sign at Atascadero Rd and San Diego that will slaw traffic down? Please provide the project proposed road improvements for these areas of interest. From: Annette Manier[mailto:amanier@atascade'ro.org] Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2012 2:45 PM Subject: Eagle Ranch Study Session March 27 Annette Manier,Administrative Assistant Community Development Dept. 6907 EI Camino Real,Atascadero CA 93422 Direct(805)670-3402(Office(805)461-5035 'ect Fax:(805)470-3403 I Office Fax(805)463-7612 .-AV.atascadero.o[8 1 I j' i:i;i' RECEIVE TO: City of Atascadero E � Atascadero Planning Commission COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Re: Eagle Ranch Specific Plan - Neighbor Comment LOT SIZE AND DF, TYCONCE.RNs Please attach to minutes As neighbors of Eagle Ranch, many of whom border the property, we welcomed appropriate development of Eagle Ranch. Eagle Ranch's original stated plan was to build out approximately 450 original colony lots, albeit re-clustered, while maintaining agricultural preserve land and creating open,usable community space. Eagle Ranch stated, and stAmaintain.s on its website, that its vision is that "Eagle Ranch will be a .low density... development that reflects and builds upon the unique Atascadero rural .landscape" and that they wish to create a "low-impact compatible community." Because Eagle Ranch's statements in planning meetings, in meetings with the neighbors, and on their website seemed to conform to current residential neighborhood attributes, we were stunned to see in the updated specific plan that Eagle Ranch Inas doubled the number of proposed lots and created a density that is completely out of conformance with the bordering neighborhoods. As such, we submit our cornments to the proposed specific plan and ask for your thoughtful consideration: Impact of Proposed Density • EG Lewis' vision of the Atascadero Colony was of a "wagon wheel" concept. This created high-density residential lots near the central town/central corridor with lower and lower density to the edge of city limits. The ER project is at the city Limit and any lots less than 2.5 acres is in opposition to this vision. Granted,economic times require a different look at things,but we should maintain the lower density of 2.5 acres or more at the border of existing properties and any higher density lots should only border NEW development. Higher density lots should be situated further into the development. Some neighbors who border ER were assured by both the city and county when they purchased their property that no development was expected on ER and that it would maintain its status as agricultural preserve. More recent property owners who border ER purchased their homes with the expectation that neighboring properties would be similar in character and limited to the 2.5 acre maximum. These owners understood and understand that ER would eventually be developed with residential lots,but limited to the 450 or so lots of EG Lewis' original plan and similar in size. Any plan that includes lots of less than 2.5 acres bordering existing neighborhoods that are subject to such maximum will cause a loss in property value for the bordering properties. View Shed: High density lots next to existing, developed 3-5 acre lots obliterate the view shed of those existing lots, particularly when they climb the hills on the subject property, or on property lower than the neighboring properties. Either alternative creates an undesirable view of high density yards. Traffic and Safety: The proposed development will have a huge impact on the traffic patterns in the neighborhood. The volume of traffic will also completely change the rural aspects of the neighborhood, and there are also significant safety concerns associated with making San Rafael a thruway passage from Highway 41 onto Santa Barbara road and thence onto Highway 101, Conclusions: We all purchased our homes with the understanding that the Eagle Ranch would eventually develop the 452 lots in accordance with the original plan set forth by EG Lewis. We are not trying to stop the development of the Eagle Ranch, but would litre theta to "keep the faith"with the property owners who wish to maintain their own property values, by maintaining the lot size of at least 2.5 acres on the outside lots and cluster smaller lots on the inside where it is not visible from the existing properties. Many of us purchased our lots from Eagle Ranch and are constrained to these lot sizes, not able to subdivide nor build on hillsides, and are subject to other CC&R's specifically entailed by the Eagle Ranch, We are only asking that they observe the same kinds of restrictions on their own development for us. PRINT NAME (S) ADDRESS i' /l Jr SIGNATURE SIGNATURE _ REC I o!ED Date : 20 February 2012 To : Atascadero City Council and Planning Commission FEB 2 12012 6905 EI Camino Real Atascadero, Ca. 934.22 gCtMMIJNlTY DEVELOPMENTReference : Eagle Ranch Specific Plan—Neighbor comments 3 a ;, Density Concerns and Traffic Issues Council members and planning commissioners, ?' (1{ � ,T-i We are new property owners to the San Rafael Road neighborhood having just purchased our home in December of 2010. We have been residents of Atascadero for 31 years. We have been aware of the Eagle Ranch project from its beginning and welcome the idea of annexing a portion of the ranch to the city provided it can be determined that it will truly be of economic benefit, and not just a drain on already thinning resources. We wholeheartedly agree with the cluster concept of development as originally proposed and conceived...low density and low impact. The revised plan for the San Rafael Road corridor that was presented at the November 2010 workshop was definitely NOT low density and low impact. We feel that if high density neighborhoods are necessary, they should be situated in areas that are not directly adjacent to already developed larger parcel size zoning districts. This is definitely not "smart growth". It is simply inconsistent with good planning principles, to locate 10000 s.f. lots adjacent to 2.5 to 5 acre parcels. Traffic is a major concern for us. The majority of this development should create and utilize its own ingress and egress circulation patterns. San Rafael Road is a 'local' street. If allowed to develop at this density, and as shown on the November plan, it would then become a 'collector' street that empties onto San Gabriel Road...already an adjacent 'collector' street. The San Rafael Road extension is the shortest section of road the developers would need to build, but would immediately create the MOST impact on this 'local' neighborhood street. The San Rafael area cluster should be one of the LAST phases and not the first to be built. Internal ingress / egress roads should first be constructed that are closer to the Santa Barbara Road interchange. This development should carry itself as much as possible on roads it designs and builds for the high density neighborhoods it creates, not on the backs of already established `local' neighborhood streets. A recent neighborhood meeting of the San Rafael Road residents with the ranch owners and their planning consultants several weeks ago was a step in the right direction towards alleviating some of those concerns. Sketches were presented to us that eliminated the 10000 s.f. lots directly across the street and in our viewshed, and replaced them with 1.0 to 1.5 acre lots on one less parallel roadway. The earlier plan for a San Rafael Road extension all the way to Atascadero Avenue was altered as well, turning it back into the development several hundred feet beyond where it ends at the present time. In closing, we ask that you give consideration to our concerns and maintain all lot sizes . within the viewshed of the San Rafael neighborhoods to 2.5 acre minimums, and restrict the smaller lot clusters to areas of the ranch not visible from the already developed properties. in addition we also request that you look carefully at the proposed phasing for the specific plan. Early phases should be isolated, and create the most impact, closer to the Santa Barbara Road interchange which will be the main entrance to the project, not further north on Atascadero Avenue and into the San Rafael Road area. We also encourage you to study and consider the revised / proposed layout from our recent on-site meeting between the neighbors and the ranch owners with their planning consultants. Thank you. -� R bert and Wend Fisher �t T4: City of Atascadero _ Atascadero Planning Commission F 6907 El Camino Real Atascadero, Ca. 93422 F COMMUNITY DEVELoraMfihlT Re: Eagle Ranch Specific Plan --- Neighbor Comment -- ---- LOT SIZEAND DENSITY CONCERNS P 1 slf ba-kd Please attach to minutes As neighbors of Eagle Ranch, many of whom border the property, we welcomed appropriate development of Eagle Ranch. Eagle Ranch's original stated plan was to build out approximately 450 original colony lots, albeit re-clustered, while maintaining agricultural preserve land and creating open,usable community space. Eagle Ranch stated and still maintains on its website, that its vision is that "Eagle Ranch will be a low density... development that reflects and builds upon the unique Atascadero rural landscape" and that they wish to create a "low-impact compatible community." Because Eagle Ranch's statements in planning meetings, in meetings with the neighbors, and on their website seemed to conform to current residential neighborhood attributes, we were stunned to see in the updated specific plan that Eagle Ranch has doubled the number of proposed lots and created a density that is completely out of conformance with the bordering neighborhoods. As such, we submit our comments to the proposed specific plan and ask for your thoughtful consideration: Impact of Proposed'Density • EG Lewis' vision of the Atascadero Colony was of a "wagon wheel" concept This created high-density residential lots near the central town/central corridor with lower and lower density to the edge of city limits. The ER project is at the city limit and any lots less than 2.5 acres is in opposition to this vision. Granted,econornic times require a different loot:at things,but we should maintain the lower density of 2.5 acres or more at the border of existing ,properties and any higher density lots should only border NEW development. Higher density lots should be situated further into the development • Some neighbors who border ER were assured by both the city and county when they purchased their property that no development was expected on ER and that it would maintain its status as agricultural preserve. More recent Property owners who border ER purchased their homes with the expectation that neighboring properties would be similar in character and limited to the 2.5 acre maximum. These owners understood and understand that ER would eventually be developed with residential lots,but limited to the 450 or so lots of EG Lewis'original plan and similar in size. Any plan that includes lots of less than 2.5 acres bordering existing neighborhoods that are subject to such maximum will cause a loss in property value for the bordering properties, View Shed: High density lots next to existing, developed 3-5 acre lots obliterate the view shed of those existing lots, particularly when they climb the hills on the subject property,or on property lower than the neighboring properties. Either alternative creates an undesirable view of high density yards. Traffic and Safety: The proposed development will have a huge impact on the traffic patterns in the neighborhood. The volume of traffic will also completely change the rural aspects of the neighborhood, and there are also significant safety concerns associated with making San Rafael a thruway passage from Highway 41 onto Santa Barbara road and thence onto Highway 101. Conclusions: We all purchased our llonles with the understanding that the Eagle Ranch would eventually develop the 452 lots in accordance with the original plan set forth by EG Lewis. We are not trying to stop the development of the Eagle Ranch, but would like them to "keep the faith" with the property o owners wh i wish to maintain. their own property values, by maintaining the lot size of o side lots and cluster smaller lots on the inside where least 2.5 acres on the out it is not visible from the existing properties. .Many of us purchased our lots from Eagle Ranch and are constrained to these tot sizes, not able to neither subdivide nor build on hillsides, and are subject to other CC&R's specifically entailed by the Eagle Ranch, We are only asking that they observe the same kinds of restrictions on their own development for US. PRINT NAME (S) A�AV ADDRESS SIGNATURE SIGNATU , TO: MY of Atascadero RECEIVED Atascadero Planning CommissionFEB , 6907 A Camino Real I /11-,-v, gow-/,v* COMMUNITY DI.-.'Vr Atascadero, Ca. 93422 t�T Re: Eagle Ranch Specific Plan -.Neighbor Comment (= ,1 L 0 T SIZE A AID DENS]TY CoNCERN.V Please attach to minutes As neighbors of Eagle Ranch, many of whom border the property, we welcomed appropriate development of Eagle Ranch. Eagle Ranch's original stated plan was to build out approximately 450 original Colony lots, albeit re-clustered, while maintaining agricultural preserve land and creating open,usable community space. Eagle Ranch stated and still maintains on its website, that its vision is that "Eagle Ranch will be a low density... development that reflects and builds upon the unique Atascadero rural landscape" and that they wish to create a "low-impact compatible community." Because Eagle Ranch's statements in planning meetings, in meetings with the neighbors, and on their website seemed to conform to current residential neighborhood attributes, we were stunned to see in the updated specific plan that Eagle Ranch has doubled the number of proposed lots and created a density that is completely out of conformance with the bordering neighborhoods. As such, we submit our comments to the proposed specific plan and ask for your thoughtful consideration: Impact of Proposed Density 0 EG Lewis' vision of the Atascadero Colony was of a "wagon wheel" concept This created high-density residential lots near the central town/central corridor with lower and-loWer density to the edge of city limits- The ER project is at the city limit and any lots less than 2.5 acres is in opposition to this vision. Granted,economic times require a different look at things, but we should maintain the lower density of 2.5 acres or more at the border of existing properties and any higher density lots should only border NEW development. Higher density lots should be situated further into the development 0 Some neighbors who border ER were assured by both the city and county when they purchased their property that no development was expected on ER and that it would maintain its status as agricultural preserve. More recent property owners who border ER purchased their homes with the expectation that neighboring properties would be similar in character mid limited to the 2.5 acre maximum. These owners understood and understand that ER would eventually be developed with residential lots,but limited to the 450 or so lots of EG Lewis'original plan and similar in size. Any plan that includes lots of Iess than 2.5 acres bordering existin such maximum will cause a loss g neighborhoods that are subject to properties, in property value for the bordering • View Shed: High density lots next to existing, developed 3-S acre lot, obliterate the view shed of those existing lots, particularly when they climb the hills on the subject property, or on property lower than the neighboring Properties. Either alternative creates an undesirable view of high density yards. Traffic and Safety: The proposed development will have a huge impact on the traffic patterns in the neighborhood. The volume of traffic will also completely change the rural aspects of the neighborhood, and there are also significant safety concerns associated with malting San Rafael a thruway Passage from Highway 41 onto Santa Barbara road and thence onto Highway 101. Conclusions: We all purchased our homes with the understanding that the Eagle Ranch would eventually develop the 452 lots in accordance with the original plan set forth by EG Lewis. We are not trying to stop the development of the Eagle Ranch, but would Iike them to "keep the faith"with the property owners who wish to maintain their own property values, by maintaining the lot size of at least 2.5 acres on the outside lots and cluster smaller lots on the inside when it is not visible from the existing properties. e Many of us purchased our lots from Eagle Ranch and are constrained to these lot sizes, not able to neither subdivide nor build on hillsides, and are subject to other CC&R's specifically entailed by the Eagle Ranch. We are only asking that they observe the same kinds of restrictions on their own development for US. PRINT NAME (S) aRESS --- — SIGNATURE r i SIGNATU T0: City of Atascadero �._.•. -- C EllVI ' (F7i�tr:,l`eclr� Atascadero Planning Commission FEB 6907 El Camino Real. ,fes; Atascadero, Ca. 93422 COMMUITT x + TKVROPMENT Re: Eagle Ranch Specific Plan - Neighbor CommelIt L0TSIZE AND DENSI CONCERNS Please attach to minutes As neighbors of Eagle Ranch, many of whom border the property, we welcomed appropriate development of Eagle Ranch. Eagle Ranch's original stated plan was to build out approximately 450 original colony lots, albeit re-clustered, while xnaintainingagricultural preserve land and creating open,usable community space. Eagle Ranch stated and ill maintains on its website, that its vision is that "Eagle Ranch will be a low density... development that reflects and builds upon the unique Atascadero rural landscape" and that they wish to create a "low-impact compatible community.•' Because Eagle Ranch's statements in planning meetings, in meetings witli the neighbors, and on their website seemed to conform to current residential I neighborhood attributes, we were stunned to see in the updated specific plan that Eagle Ranch has doubled the number of proposed lots and created a density that is completely out of conformance with the bordering neighborhoods. As such, we submit our comments to the proposed specific plan and ask for your thoughtful consideration: Impact of Proposed.Density • EG Lewis' vision of the Atascadero Colony was of a "wagon wheel" concept This created high-density residential lots near the central town/central ER corridor with lower and lower density to the edge of city limits. The r Project is at the city limit and any lots less than 2.5 acres is in opposition-to this vision. Granted,economic times require a different look at things,but we should maintain the lower density of2.5 acres or more at the border of existing Properties and any higher density lots should only border NEW development Higher density lots should be situated further into the development • Some neighbors who border ER were assured by both the city and county when they purchased their property that no development was expected on ER.and that it would maintain its status as agricultural preserve. More recent property owners who border ER purchased their homes with the expectation that neighboring properties would be similar in character and limited to the 2.5 acre maximum. These owners understood and understand that ER would eventually be developed with residential lots,but limited to the 450 or so lots of EG Lewis'original plan and similar in size. Any plan that includes lots of ;q.., 041 V , less than 2.5 acres bordering existing neighborhoods that are subject to such maximum will cause a loss in proper y value for the bordering Properties. View Shed: High density lots next: to existing developed 3-5 acre lots obliterate the view shed of those existing lots, particulazly when they climb _. . the hills on the subject property, or on property lower than the neighboring pri�perties_ Either alternative creates an undesirable view of high densi ty yards. e Traffic and Safety: The proposed development will have a huge impact on the traffic patterns in the neighborhood. The volume of traffic will also completely change the rural aspects of the neighborhood, and there are also significant safety concerns associated with making San Rafael a thruway passage from Highway 41 onto Santa Barbara road and thence onto Highway 101. Conclusions: We all purchased our homes with the understanding that the Eagle Ranch would eventually develop the 452 lots in accordance with the original plan set forth by EG Lewis. We are not trying to stop the development of the Eagle Ranch, but would like them to "keep the faith" with the property owners who wish to maintain their own property values, by maintaining the lot size of at least 2.5 acres on the outside lots and cluster smaller lots on the inside where it is not visible from the existing properties. Many of us purchased our lots from Eagle Ranch and are constrained to these lot sizes, not able to neither subdivide nor build on hillsides, and are subject to other CC&R's specifically entailed by the .Eagle Ranch. We are only asking that they observe the same kinds of restrictions on their own development for u s. PRINT NAMES f ADDRES SIGNATURE SIGNATURE QE I V E w TO: City of Atascadero, (E) 'JAN Atascadero Planning Commission T112 6907 El Camino Real COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Atascadero, Ca. 93422 VITH) Re: Eagle Ranch Specific Plan - Neighbor Comment UJI-EX-1 .. u L 0 T SIZE AND DENSITY CONCERNS Please attach to minutes As neighbors of Eagle Ranch, many of whom border the property, we welcomed appropriate development of Eagle Ranch. Eagle Ranch's original stated plan was to build out approximately 450 original Colony lots, albeit re-clustered, while maintaining agricultural preserve land and creating open,usable community space. Eagle Ranch stated and still maintains on its website, that its vision is that "Eagle Ranch will be a low density.., development that reflects and builds upon the unique Atascadero rural landscape" and that they wish to create a "low-impact compatible community. " Because Eagle Ranch's statements in planning meetings, in meetings with the neighbors, and on their website seemed to conform to current residential neighborhood attributes, we were stunned to see in the updated specific plan that Eagle Ranch has doubled the number of proposed lots and created a density that is completely out of conformance with the bordering neighborhoods. As such, we submit our comments to the proposed specific plan and ask for your thoughtful consideration: Impact of Proposed Density • EG Lewis' vision of the Atascadero Colony was of a "Wagon wheel" concept This created high-density residential lots near the central town/central corridor with lower and lower density to the edge Of city limits- The ER project is at the city limit and any lots less than 2.5 acres is in opposition to this vision. Granted,economic times require a different look at things, but we should maintain the lower density of 2.5 acres or more at the border of existing Properties and any higher density lots should only border NEW development. Higher density lots should be situated further into the development. • Some neighbors who border ER were assured by both the city and county when they purchased their property that no development was expected on ER and that it would maintain its status as agricultural preserve- More recent Properly owners who border ER purchased their homes with the expectation that neighboring properties would be similar in character and limited to the 2.5 acre maximum. These owners understood and understand that ER would eventually be developed with residential lots,but limited to the 450 or so lots of EG Lewis'original plan and similar in size. Any plan that includes lots of I! V less than 2.5 acres bordering existing neighborhoods thatare subject to such maximum will cause a loss in property value for the bordering properties. View Shed: High density lots neat to existing, developed 3-5 acre lots obliterate the view shed of those existing lots, particularly when they climb the°hills-on the subject roe property Properties- Either,alternative creates an undesirable view tof highe h de ring yards. g density • Traffic and Safety: The proposed development will have a huge impact on the traffic patterns in the neighborhood. Tile volume of traffic will also completely change the rural aspects of the neighborhood, and there are also significant safety concerns associated with making San Rafael a thruway Passage from Highway 41 onto Santa Barbara road and thence onto Highway 101. Conclusions: We all purchased our homes with the understanding that the Eagle Ranch would eventually develop the 4.52 lots in accordance with the original plan set forth by EG Lewis. We are not trying to stop the development of the Eagle Ranch, but would like them to "keep the faith" with the property owners who wish to maintain their own property values, by maintaining the lot size of at least 2.5 acres on the outside lots and cluster smaller lots on the inside where it is not visible from the existing properties. Many Of us purchased Our lots from Eagle Ranch and are constrained to these lot sizes, not able to neither subdivide nor build on hillsides, and are subject to other CC&R's specifically entailed by the Eagle Ranch. We are only asking that they observe the same kinds of restrictions on their own development for us. PRINT NAME (S) ADDRESS &Z4 SIGNATURE SIGNATURE RECD IVE-D _ T0: City of Atascadero 1JANAtascadero Planning Commission { ` G? 6907 El Camino RealEJr� ;,vry Atascadero, Ca. 93422 __..._ Re: Eagle Ranch Specific Plan - Neighbor Comment k .'F CT' LOT SIZEAND DENSITY CONCERNS Please attach to minutes As neighbors of Eagle Ranch, many of whore border the property, we welcomed appropriate development of Eagle Ranch. Eagle Ranch's original stated plan was to build out approximately 450 original colony lots, albeit re-clustered, while maintaining agricultural preserve land and creating open,usable community space. Eagle Ranch stated and still maintains on its website, that its vision is that "Eagle Ranch will be a low density... development that reflects and builds upon the unique Atascadero rural landscape" and that they wish to create a "low-impact compatible community." Because Eagle Ranch's statements in planning meetings, in meetings with the neighbors, and on their website seemed to conform to current residential neighborhood attributes, we were stunned to see in the updated specific plan that Eagle Ranch has doubled the number of proposed lots and.created a density that is completely out of conformance with the bordering neighborhoods. As such, we submit our comments to the proposed specific plan and ask for your thoughtful consideration: Impact ofProposed Density • EG Lewis' vision of the Atascadero Colony was of a "wagon wheel" concept This created high-density residential lots near the central town/central corridor with lowerandlower density to the edge of city limits. The ER project is at the city limit and any lots less than 2.5 acres is in opposition to this vision. Granted,economic times require a different look at things,but we should maintain the lower density of 2.5 acres or more at the border of existing properties and any higher density lots should only border NEW development Higher density lots should be situated further into the development. • Some neighbors who border ER were assured by both the city and county when they purchased their property that no development was expected on ER and that it would maintain its status as agricultural preserve. More recent property owners who border ER purchased their homes with the expectation that neighboring properties would be similar in character and limited to the 2.5 acre maximum. These owners understood and understand that ER would eventually be developed with residential lots,but limited to the 450 or so lots of EG Lewis'original plan and similar in size. Any plan.that includes lots of less than 2.5 acres bordering existing neighborhoods that are subject to such maximum will cause a loss in property value for the bordering properties, • View Shed: High density lots next to existing, developed 3-5 acre lots obliterate the view shed of those existing lots, particularly when they climb the hills on the subject property, or on property lower than the neighboring properties. Either alternative creates an undesirable view of high density yards. • Traffic and Safety: The proposed development will have a huge impact on the traffic patterns in the neighborhood. The volume of traffic will also completely change the rural aspects of the neighborhood, and there are also significant safety concerns associated with making San Rafael a thruway passage from Highway 41 onto Santa Barbara road and thence onto Highway 101. • Knowledge of the Area_ The proposed lots include two lots on our property which we have owned and lived on since 1994. It is of great concern the knowledge of the designers/developers of the area and expectations of the neighbors and the city of Atascadero. Conclusions: We all purchased our homes with the understanding that the Eagle Ranch would eventually develop the 452 lots in accordance with the original plan set forth by EG Lewis. We are not trying to stop the development of the Eagle Ranch, but would like them to "keep the faith"with the property owners who wish to maintain their own property values, by maintaining the lot size of at least 2.5 acres on the outside lots and cluster smaller lots on the inside where it is not visible from the existing properties. Many of us purchased our lots from Eagle Ranch and are constrained to these lot sizes, not able to neither subdivide nor build on hillsides, and are subject to other CC&R's specifically entailed by the Eagle Ranch. We are only asking that they observe the same kinds of restrictions on their own development for US. r� T_i � r, PRINT NAME (S) f ADDRESS 41 SIGNff-rUR'E- SIGNAT RE bljp T0: City of Atascadero RECEIVED f Atascadero Planning Commission JAN 6907 El Camino Real ] 26'2 Atascadero, Ca. 93422 CCAP UN cV fl=ue{DPMENT Re: Eagle Ranch Specific Plan - Neighbor Comment LOT SIZEAND DENSITY CONCF,RNS Y ,v►� • .i='� Please attach to minutes As neighbors of Eagle Ranch, many of whom border the property, we welcomed appropriate development of Eagle Ranch. Eagle Ranch's original stated plan was to build out approximately 450 original colony lots, albeit re-clustered, while maintaining agricultural preserve land and creating open,usable community space. Eagle Ranch stated and still maintains on its website, that its vision is that "Eagle Ranch will be a low density... development that reflects and builds upon the unique Atascadero rural landscape" and that they wish to create a "law-impact compatible community." Because Eagle Ranch's statements in planning meetings, in meetings with the neighbors, and on their website seemed to conform to current residential neighborhood attributes, we were stunned to see in the updatedspecific plan that Eagle Ranch has doubled the number of proposed lots and created a density that is completely out of conformance with the bordering neighborhoods. As such, we submit our comments to the proposed specific plan and ask for your thoughtful consideration: Impact of Proposed Density • EG Lewis' vision of the Atascadero Colony was of a '"wagon wheel" concept. This created high-density residential lots near the central town/central corridor with lower and lower density to the edge of city limits. The ER. project is at the city limit and any lots less than 2.5 acres is in n oppositioto this vision. Granted,economic times require a different look at things,but we should maintain the lower density of 2.5 arses or more at the border of existing properties and any higher density lots should only border NEW development Higher density lots should be situated further into the development • Some neighbors who border ER were assured by both the city and county when they purchased their property that no development was expected on ER and that it would maintain its status as agricultural preserve. More recent property owners who border ER purchased their homes with the expectation that neighboring properties would be similar in character and limited to the 2.5 acre maximum. These owners understood and understand that ER would eventually be developed with residential lots,but limited to the 450 or so lots of EG Lewis' original plan and similar in size. Any plan that includes lots of ((Ef less than 2.5 acres bordering existing neighborhoods that are subject to such maximum 'n' I cause a lass in property value for the bordering properties. • View Shed: High density lots next to existing, developed 3-5 acre lots obliterate the view shed of those existing lots the hills on the subject prope b. particularly when they climb Properties. Either alternative cr creates anoundesi able view perty lower than tof high he boring yards. high density • Traffic and Safety: The proposed development,+rill have a huge impact on the traffic patterns in the neighborhood. The volume of traffic will also completely change the rural aspects of the neighborhood, and there-are also significant safety concerns associated with making San Rafael a thruway passage from Highway 41 onto Santa Barbara road and then e onto Highway 101. Conclusions: We all purchased our homes urith the understanding that the Eagle Ranch would eventually develop the 4S2 lots in accordance with the ori- forth by EG Lewis. We are not trying to stop thfinal plan set e development Of the Eagle le Ranch,but would like them to "keep the faith"with the property owners w wish to maintain their own property values, by inaintaining the lot size of o least 2.5 acres on the outside lots and cluster smaller lots on the inside where it is not visible from the existing properties. Many of us purchased our lots from Eagle Ranch and are constrained to these lot sizes, not able to neither subdivide nor build on hillsides, and are subject to Other CUR'S specifically entailed by the Eagle Ranch. We are only asking that they observe the same kinds of restrictio US. ns on their own development for + lam' f PRINT (S) f�'c,t ?l NNMNWADDRESS SI NSA RE. �'fG TURE --- i. �EI���;j ('i X.19iCI"I?:4--":Y•I2 r T0: City of Atascadero t RECE E Atascadero Planning Commission U1 6907 El Camino Real Atascadero, Ca. 93422ONIMUNTTYDEvE�c�PMENT Re: Eagle Ranch.Specific Pla _ g P n _ Neighbor Comment SOT SIZEAND DENSITYCONCERNS Please attach to minutes As neighbors of Eagle Ranch, many of whom border the property, we welcomed appropriate development of Eagle Ranch. Eagle Ranch's original stated plan was to build out approximately 450 original colony lots, albeit re-clustered, while maintaining agricultural preserve land and creating open,usable community space. Eagle Ranch stated and still maintains on its website, that its vision is that "Eagle Ranch will be a low density._. development that reflects and builds upon the unique Atascadero rural landscape" and that they wish to create a "IoW-impact compatible community. Because Eagle Ranch's statements in planning meetings, in meetings with the neighbors, and on their website seemed to conform to current residential neighborhood attributes, we were stunned to see in the updated specific plan that Eagle Ranch has doubled the number of proposed lots and created a density that is completely out of conformance with the bordering neighborhoods. As such, we submit our comments to the proposed specific plan and ask for your thoughtful consideration: Impact of Proposed Density • EG Lewis' vision of the Atascadero Colony was of a "wagon wheel" concept. This created high-density residential lots near the central -town/central corridor with lower and lower density to the edge of city limits. The ER project is at the city limit and any lots less than 2.5 acres is in opposition to this vision. Granted,economic times require a different look at things, but we should maintain the lower density of 2.g acres or more at the border of existing properties and any higher density lots should only border NEW development Higher density lots should be situated further into the development. • Some neighbors who border ER were assured by both the city and county when they purchased their property that no development was expected on ER and that it would maintain its status as agricultural preserve. More recent property owners who border ER purchased their homes with the expectation that neighboring properties would be similar in character and limited to the 2.5 acre maximum. These olnrners understood and understand that ER would eventually be developed with residential lots,but limited to the 450 or so lots of EG Lewis'original plan and similar in size. Any plan,that includes lots of less than 2.5 acres bordering existing properties. neighborhoods that are subject to such maximum will cause a loss in property value for the bordering • View Shed: High density lots next to existing, developed 3-S acre lots obliterate the view shed of those existing lots, particularly when they climb the hills on the subject property, or on property lower than the neighboring properties. Either alternative creates an undesirable view of high density yards. • Traffic and Safety: The proposed development will have a huge impact on the traffic patterns in the neighborhood. The volume of traffic will also completely change the rural aspects of the neighborhood, and there are also significant safety concerns associated with making San Rafael a thruway passage from Highway 41 onto Santa Barbara road and thence onto Highway 101. Conclusions: We all purchased our homes with the understanding that the Eagle Ranch would eventually develop the 452 lots in accordance with the original plan set forth by EG Lewis, We are not trying to stop the development of the Eagle Ranch, but would like them to "keep the faith" with the property owners who wish to maintain their own property values, by maintaining the lot size of at least 2.5 acres on the outside lots and cluster smaller lots on the inside where it is not visible from the existing properties. Many of us purchased our lots from. Eagle Ranch and are constrained to these lot sizes, not able to neither subdivide nor build on hillsides, and are subject to other- CC&R`s specifically entailed by the Eagle Ranch. We are only asking that they observe the same kinds of restrictions on their own development for US. kRZT NAME (S) ADDRES SIGNATURE , SIGNATURE Callie Ta for Sent: Tuesday,January 10,2012 12:30 PM To: Victoria Randall;Callie Taylor Subject: Comments on Eagle Ranch January 10,20012 Dear Council, Planning Commission Some thoughts to explain why I am still trying to understand what the Eagle Ranch Project is all about; An analogy might be the WalMart project and the reluctance of citizens to finance with tax dollars the traffic mitigation's at the Del Rio overpass due to the WalMart and Annex proposals. Just Ike the WalMart project,the neighborhood surrounding-Eagle Ranch do not want to finance the development of Eagle-Ranch. Finance not in dollars, but unwanted impacts on the surrounding properties. As was said, to mitigate improvements required of the Eagle Ranch project a still to be determined number of lots and different lot sizes must be sold as well as two retail hotel developments. More lots and overnight rooms needing to be sold/rented result in more impacts on the neighborhood. If Eagle Ranch owners want a R©1 that is high (?), citizens and the city will be taxed not with dollars but with greater levels of intangible taxes like higher increased traffic, noise, pollution, loss of viewscape, etc. The less"profit",the less intangible taxes on the neighborhood. The greater the"profit", the higher the intangible taxes are for the neighborhood! So my question to try and understand what is the primary driver of the project; profit,legacy,conservation, or something else becomes germane to understanding what the neighborhood might be expected to bear by way of intangible taxes- This was first rolled out as a win-win. Now that the 460 lots have morphed into an 800 plus lot and two 200 room hotel eject, the"win"for the residents and the city start to have less resonance(conservation designation for the back half of 'a ranch notwithstanding). At one point, Vic said the owners could have put up 460 For Sale signs. That starts to look like an idea that should be explored. Thanks for listening, Paul EIVED _ T0: City of Atascadero ¢ )AN Atascadero Planning Commission s Re: Eagle Ranch Specific Plan-- Neighbor Comment LOT SIZEAND DENSITY CONCERIVS n Please attach to minutes `1 �'� �'` As neighbors of Eagle Ranch (we and. many of our neighbors border the property), we welcomed appropriate development of Eagle Ranch. Eagle Ranch's original stated plan was to build out approximately 450 original colony lots, albeit re- clustered, while maintaining agricultural preserve land and creating open, usable community space. Eagle Ranch stated, and still maintains on its website, that its vision is that "Eagle Ranch will be a low density... development that reflects and builds upon the unique Atascadero rural landscape" and that they wish. to create a "low-impact compatible community." Because Eagle Ranch's statements in planning meetings, in meetings with the neighbors, and on their website seemed to conform to current residential neighborhood attributes, we were stunned to see in the updated specific plan that Eagle Ranch has doubled the number of proposed lots and created a density that is completely out of conformance with the bordering neighborhoods. As such, we submit our comments to the proposed specific plan. and ask for your _!. thoughtful consideration: Impact of Proposed Density • EG Lewis'vision. of the Atascadero Colony was of a "wagon wheel" concept This created a high density residential neat=the central town/central corridor with Iower and lower density to the edge of city limits. The Ell.project is at the city limit and any lots less than 2.5 acres is in opposition to this vision. Granted, economic times require a different look at things, but we should maintain the Cower density of 2.5 acres or more at the border of existing properties and any higher density lots should only border NEW development. Higher density lots should be situated.further into the development. • Property owners who border ER purchased their hornes with the expectation that neighboring properties would be similar in character and limited to the 2.5 acre maximum_ In fact, some owners were assured by Eagle Ranch and. the City that the property would remain agricultural. Most of us understood and understand that ER would eventually be developed withresidential lots, but limited to the 9.50 or so lots of EG Lewis' original plan and similar in size. Any plan that includes lots of less than 2.5 acres bordering existing neighborhoods that are subject to such maximums will cause a toss in property value for the bordering properties, not to mention, a loss of valuable lifestyle attributes and view. l'! F:IT.. i View Shed: High density lots next to existing, developed 3-5 acre lots obliterate the view shed of those existing lots, particularly when they climb the hills on the subject property, or on property lower than the neighboring properties. Either alternative creates an undesirable view of high density yards. • Traffic and Safety:The proposed development will have a huge impact on the traffic patterns in the neighborhood. The volume of traffic will also completely change the rural aspects of the neighborhood, and there are also significant safety concerns associated with malting San Rafael a thruway passage from Highway 41 onto Santa Barbara road and thence onto Highway 1.01. Conclusions: We purchased our homes with the understanding that the Eagle Ranch would eventually develop the 452 lots in accordance with the original plan set forth by EG Lewis.We are not trying to stop the development:of the Eagle Ranch,but would like them to "keep the faith." with the property owners who wish to maintain their own property values, by maintaining the lot size of at least 2.5 acres on the outside lots and cluster smaller lots on the inside where it is not visible from the existing properties. Many of us purchased our lots from Eagle Ranch and are constrained to these lot sizes, not able to subdivide nor build on hillsides, and are subject to other CC&R's specifically entailed by the Eagle Ranch. We are only asking that they observe the same kinds of restrictions on their own development for us. Lori Mello Jos�Me2 i .. .- ..<.....;rJ.:..�JA: 1 1 .....� �:-�.�.��...�._...i!�..�:...��.n•�����.� . ...6_:E�.I.�J.i. II� i I .! 1. �". t O NEI Ak. LO C� 7 } O y Yv span Rt If 4-1 0 T0: City of Atascadero Ata.scadero Planning Commission Members ..._ " From: a Arlt # Dennis and Sara Derickson i Re: Eagle Ranch Specific Plan - Neighbor Comment SOT SIZEAND DENSITY CONCERNS Please attach to minutes Executive Summary. We live on 87.35 San Rafael Road adjacent to Eagle Ranch. We request that the Eagle Ranch development adjacent to Son Rafael.Road start with 2.5 acre parcel density and taper to higher density housing as one moves south. The attached map sketch.highlights the suggested changes. When my wife and l purchased our eagle ranch parcel in 2005,we understood that Eagle Ranch would be developed. We attended our first Colony days celebration in 2005 and saw the original colony snap associated with the ranch. We were shocked when we attended the Nov 15, 2011 Eagle Ranch workshop to see that 1/2 acre lot density was proposed across the street from our property at 8735 San Rafael Road. At this Eagle Ranch meeting, l stated to the participants that the Eagle Ranch development could go a long ways to having happy neighbors if the developer could more gradually transition from the 2.5 acre minimum zoning to the higher density neighborhoods that Eagle Ranch is proposing. The attached map sketch illustrates the concept of lot size tapering. Eagle Ranch stated, and still maintains on its website, that its vision is that "Eagle Ranch will be a.low density...development that reflects and builds upon the unique Atascadero rural landscape" and thatthey wish to create a "low-impact compatible community. " Please consider the impact to our San Rafael Road neighborhood in planning. Sincerely, Dennis Derickson Sara Derickson F { :; .:. .. a _.:.• 33 1 - w. r.Y:{. :.aeK' }'..�;.• >.S - iS:�:•Jr.:_.,- r� "ie'r s.P t• x :'il..;w ;t 'C T .. q,Y J ref J i. 3. 4 + -:'7E1•. �'�� r � r � Z c.� 7 •P.� ~M.t. i i,• •x 'i .vy3 P �� � Y. :^ cy, ;btu � 7 '�C' •w�a .' r qp gwpfie" .`.. '..✓r �s x�'�+ 2,• 1''$ �'"P' krS " `1 s��1" }fh+T� L`t.Y^salt,}.• � '+ai• �`.. -NE .:r -•, ":. �•,Y•+ �''L`Y y.Mk#iV i?k .:: F�wS.YR 'S J. 3 \•, � .d � ��vC�_ � 4k �° '7rti 3`� �yw C. ��?Lv�(v` i }.,�y" }:..ip+Sb'Y���,�' �py; ' '' ,�• is k {nl ; ¢� '/RRI.r�: a � x.,t .. 't F� � �. •,Fh wk+''.. M y11.�s, AIS (� :•; Sl Ul '.."t............. MR0z- PC jwgN _vrl MAT 1�ff ALE. —31 is rx � +� r _�*�� <_L.yAf�ry2 ,iF.,; �r%�"° e �'�c,� j. � �r'�,'+• , 'f." , ".; ON'7y`,•,, IR 7 T yt -,P iiA�. . .......... tM S tlz t 'Ki RE IN Jj R ;AH V4 5 .0 PIT: IN ,*.ffi�M&NT. RCnR"- 06 OR )L ar 1� MIN r.W14 q4 v: ,dlft�i ........... V-M �W tlwM r ZW4 N11 P- 3,01Aka. !3gM W ms R e. WN, Wr V- 4. W). -g,I-Wea.53: Nil It V ma. 'RW a lbKK+ X 00, IMA f lilt. al aim "NO R.-AviiR 2zl�§ -Si I 7i od" "All Callie Taylor From; Rodney Hiltbrand� w Seam: Tuesday, December 13,2011 8A Callie Taylor Subject: [Eagle Ranch] Eagle Ranch Comment Card _... ................. _.........._......_....,,....: CITY OF ATASCADER0 Eagle Ranch Comment Card DATE December 13,2011 -8:40 am NAME Rodney Hiltbrand. ADDRESS PHONE r EMAIL COMMENTS I attended the community workshop. I ani concerned with the I impact of the proposal.The density and proximity to existing properties is a concern. It appears that higher density development is planned adjacent to very low density existing properies. The impact on current residents quality of life seems to be greatly jeopordized. I would recommend higher density development properies be adjacent to existing higher density development.I would also like to see the i developmnent restricted to the 400 or individual lots as was 5 the original development. i Alfredo Castilla Fron3: Kathy Longacre pnt: Friday, December 02,20117:23 AM Alfredo Castillo Subject: [Eagle Ranch] Eagle Ranch Comment Card _ _ __ CITY OF ATASCADERO Eagle Ranch Golntnent Card DATE December 02,2011 -7:22 am E a 3 i NAME Kathy Longacre , ADDRESS 3 7 I � rxoNr i EMAIL f I COMMENTS Hello, I attended the Community Workshop on the Eagle Ranch 11/15 and 2 of the previous workshops.My comments are as follows: r The trail opportunities for both the development and the public are wonderful. It will add to the health of the community but as we have found with other large { developments with public trails.theexpense of maintenance for the trail system i ( will most likely fall to the City. Since the developer has already increased the number of proposed lots from 4$2 to 800 to help pay for the required °€ infrastructure why not require that the proceeds for several of those extra lots go into a"endowment fund" for future trail maintenance so the City Parks and Recreation has some finding for maintenance. It would of been a very good idea. # for the Woodlands project in Nipomo where there is a great trail system that the developers are anxious to give to the County and the County has no funding for the maintenance. Please think to the future and ask for an endowment fund. t , i i Alfredo Castillo From: Fran Zohns� � Sent: Tuesday,November 29,2011 11;08 AM To: Alfredo Castillo Subject: [Eagle Ranch] Eagle Ranch Comment Card CITY OF ATASCADERO Eagle Ranch Comment Card i DATE November 29, 2011 - 1.1:08 am NAME Fran 7-ohns i I i ADDRESS I PHONE I .i EMAIL COMMENTS Dean-Sirs: I i As a twenty two year resident of Chandler Ranch I am appalled by the current ' proposal recently revealed at the Planning Commission meeting.Two years ago the project had a much different approach. This new proposed density is not in keeping with the existing neighborhood and will have a negative impact on..our j Iives. ! I work for the Board of Supervisors. I understand how"Smart Growth"is A affecting this project.Extreme density,more open space.Looks great on paper, I but in reality this is an intolerable approach.Have any of you actually been to the I area and looked at it?1 did just this morning, if this was your neighborhood I can jguarantee you would feel the same way I do. Traffic increase,noise and light pollution,decrease in value of our homes-all j these will be a result of this proposed project. Isn't it possible to continue the I larger sized lots a bit further up San Rafael into the ranch,then allow more density? Instead of 50 new homes before even reaching the current end of the street,why not 15??if you were to match the lot sizes across onn the developed side of San Rafael all the way to the end it would ease the transition for us. We 1 will still have many unhappy residents but the majority of us live in reality and understand the building is going to happen.Just make it more tolerable-that isn't i :i ... I i ;�..��...a}�...q.. ..f� 1��TT.i 1�.Cl'."7"::« .':f .. r• i ..n. ...,_..., . too much to ask I think. Please consider building higher density toward the Santa Barbara Road end of the project,where the freeway will absorb more of the traffic. We already suffer from speeders on San Rafael.-adding the proposed homes as is will make traffic a ' E nightmare. Unsafe for kids walking to school,unsafe for people to walk their dogs f or partake in other forms of exercise(we have people drive here to walk,it is such ( a nice area). Consider also the distance to town. Increased density makes sense I closer in.These will be lower value lots(although not affordable!)The type of people that can afford lower value homes will more than likely be those people t who rely on public transportation.Not available way out here. If the whole idea of increased density is to reduce impacton the area,it should be closer to existing infrastructure,not way out in the sticks. Ag cluster type development is more in keeping with the neighborhood that exists here.If nothing # else a transition between the two should be sought to prevent such an ugly blight in this lovely neighborhood. Thank you for taking the time to read this. ; Fran Zohns I { ! t 2 i. T i.l CITY of ATASCADER0 i'sis,j � tn78I � COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Eagle Ranch Specific Plan COltt Mummy Workshop comment Card 74Address: * Phone: E-mail: ., , r, Please provide contact information if you wish to be notified of future meetings. Please provide any comments that you have regarding the proposed Eagle Ranch Specific Plan- ZL! -- ' G/� f !�`�7�%� � i'/�_ /�l f'?l C 6711I..51 ficp2A I rt1 � � �'1 L}�-- {I`� v' F �, (�/3 ,r�i,'t f:�/`�(�-/1�I .�,�:.(_ ,�tq., ���`� .l�t� �-;rll`,�,•��' . 1 r>/ F Return your comments to: City of Atascadero Community Development Department 6907 EI Camino Real Atascadero,CA 83422 (805)469-5040 CITY OF A 1 ASCADER® COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Eagle Ranch Specific Plan Community Workshop Comment Card Name: * Address: Phone: � r E-mail: Please provide contact information if you wish to be notified of future meetings. Please provide any comments that you have regarding the proposed Eagle Ranch Specific Plan: t c, Return your comments to: City of Atascadero Community Development Department 6907 El Camino Real Atascadero,CA 93422. (805)461-5000 �s i�6 '�l; j �b'i:hi'T' :I"Y,y:•-�:..Y,,.r^:r :....;.... .. �P . CITY OF ATASCADERO COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Nagle Reach Specific Plan c®MMUnity Workshop Comm"ent card Name: L * Address: Phone: ANNIOW * E-mail: Please provide contact information it you wish to be notified of future meetings. Please provide any comments that you have regarding the proposed Eagle Ranch Specific Plan- V � c f t,r C;) a r V1 iCl 11�1 S LIjJ t y f 1 Return your comments to; City of Atascadero community Development Department 6907 El Camino Real Atascadero,CA 93422 (805)461-5000 H:11: �.... i..... `}}� • �: � CITY OF ATASCADERO _irrtli1119f$t ri !' I l 1197 L COMMU DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT eagle 11��nh Specific Flan omniunity Workshop Comment Name: _ c.; * Address: Phone: f� E-mail: Mori_ *Please provide contact information if you wish to be notified of future meetings. Please provide any cofnrnents that you have regarding the proposed Eagle Ranch Specific Plan_ 1 Return your comments to: ~ City of Atascadero Community Development Department 6907 El Camino Real Atascadero, CA 93422 (805)461-5000 Call ie-.Taylor prom: diane mandala .ent: Friday, November 18, 20117:45 PM To: Callie Taylor Subject: [Eagle Ranch] Eagle Ranch Comment Card CITY OF ATASCADERO Eagle Raneb Comment Card DATE November 1.8, 2011 -7:44 prn NAME diane mandala ADDRESS i PHONE 1 EMAIL COMMENTS The area off San Rafael is commonly known as Chand.Ier Ranch The area consists of 1.5-5 acre parcels. Having .5 acre parcels on San Rafael at the entrance to the Eagle ranch is k ineonsistant with the larger parcels of Chandler ranch. I just suggest you move the.5 acre parces to around the village where they belong,not on San Rafael Rd. Thank you for your attention to this matter. D Mandala. rrm group iii creating environments people enjoy' RRM Design Group March 15 , 2012 3765 S. Higuera St.,Ste. 102 Mayor Bob Kelley and Atascadero City Council San Luis Obispo,CA 93401 City of Atascadero P:(805)543-1794 6907 EI Camino Real F:(805)543-4609 Atascadero, CA 93422 www.rrmdesign.com Re: Eagle Ranch Update, Issues and City Council Guidance Dear Mayor Kelley and members of the City Council, Recently the Eagle Ranch owners and consultant team have had two important public meetings. The first was a public workshop held with the Planning Commission on November 15, 2011 . The second was a Design Review Committee meeting held on December 15, 201 1 . Members of the public attended both of these meetings and spoke out on issues of concern to them. Based upon the public testimony several issues emerged that are now going to be reviewed at your joint City Council and Planning Commission workshop scheduled for March 27, 2012. The purpose of this third public workshop, as we understand it, is to update the Council on the progress of the planning effort and for City decision makers to give guidance to the applicants on several key issues which are as follows: 1 . Affordable housing requirements (refer to Attachment A) 2. Lot sizes for lots located at the perimeter of the Eagle Ranch project where they are adjacent to existing neighbors (refer to Attachment B, color map alternatives and Exhibits A-E) 3. The keeping of farm animals on lots within the Eagle Ranch project (refer to Attachment C) 4. Connections to existing streets adjacent to Eagle Ranch (refer to Attachment D) 5. The current overall number of units proposed for the Eagle Ranch project (refer to Attachment E) More recently we held 2 meetings with the neighbors along San Rafael Road to discuss the design of the project, lot sizes and configuration for the area of the ranch directly adjacent to them. We have made progress toward defining what they feel is a more appropriate design solution with larger lots. We have a third meeting scheduled with these neighbors on the afternoon of March 16, 2012 to discuss a design that will hopefully reflect their view of a more favorable resolution of the lot size and configuration issue. These discussions have been difficult from a project feasibility perspective as this area is one with comparatively fewer development constraints and was envisioned to have substantially more lots (40+ more lots) than are contained in the latest design (alternative site plan - Exhibit Q. The purpose of this letter is to present the applicant's perspective on each of these issues based upon our understanding of the issue, the public comments and the role of the issue in the Eagle Ranch project design, function and vision. Where appropriate, we have also included a description of the applicant's proposed approach to the issue. For clarity and to give ample review of the issue, each is addressed in a separate attachment to this letter. COMMUNITY I CIVIC&PUBLIC SAFETY I RECREATION I URBAN ARCHITECTS ENGINEERS i LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS i PLANNERS SURVEYORS A California Corporation Victor Montgomery,Architect#C11090 1 Jerry Michael,PE#36895,LS#6276 Jeff Ferber,LA#2844 rrm group i1i Mayor Bob Kelley and Atascadero City Council creating environments people enjoy' March 15, 2012 Page 2 We would like to thank City staff for facilitating the scheduling of the two community meetings and for their assistance in reviewing and clarifying the issues. We appreciate the opportunity to present our perspective regarding these issues to the City and the public. We will be listening closely to your opinions and your guidance regarding these issues. Sincerely, RRM DESIGN GROUP C% �;4 a .0 Victor Mont Principal cc: Greg Smith,Jeff Smith - Eagle Ranch, LLC Tim Walters,Jeff Ferber - RRM Design Group Warren Frace - City of Atascadero Attachments: Key Issues, Attachments A-E Color Maps, Exhibits A-E dii-A1Apollo\on-Ii'fe\Z01011010010-Eagle-Ranch SP-VTM-GPA-LAFCOVProject-Mcnargemevit\38-Public Outreach Neighborboocl Mee tings\To-From City\vin ltrCo city council-03-I; 12.doc Eagle Ranch Key Issues March 16, 2012 Attachment A - Affordable Housing Affordable Housing, Applicant's Perspective and Proposal A. Principles: The applicant believes strongly in the following principles as the basis for providing Affordable Housing at Eagle Ranch: 1 . Emphasis should be on actual built units, in modest numbers, at Eagle Ranch - not on payment of fees and development of units elsewhere. 2. Emphasis should be on the most difficult to achieve portions of the affordable housing spectrum, low and very low income. 3. There should be some component of moderate income units that are distributed throughout the project in higher density areas, rather located in only one area. 4. The existing 452 original colony lots of record, for which certificates of compliance have already been issued, are exempt from the Affordable Housing Policy. B. Total Project Housing Unit Assumptions: Total Number of Units Currently Proposed: • 696 Single-Family Residential (SFR) • 50 Multi-Family Residential (MFR) C. Proposed Affordable Housing Units Calculations: 1 . 452 existing SFR lots of record - exempt from the affordable housing requirement 2. 696 currently proposed SFR - 452 existing lots = 244 SFR subject to City requirement 3. 244 x .20 (20% required)= 48.8 or 49 affordable units ("moderate") required 4. 50 multi-family units proposed 50 x .20 = 10 affordable units required 10 x .20 = 2 very low income units required 10 x .37 = 3.7 or 4 low income units required 10 x .43 = 4.3 or 4 moderate income units required D. Eagle Ranch Proposed Conversion of Moderate to Low Income Housing: Eagle Ranch is required to provide 53 moderate income units (49 +4). The applicant proposes to convert 50% (26.5 units) of the moderate units to low income units consistent with the principles listed above. Using guidance from the State Density Bonus Law, two moderate income units equates to one low income unit. The remaining 50% (26.5 units) will remain as moderate units. 1 . 49 SFR moderate units + 4 MFR units = 53 moderate income units required 2. 53 x .50 = 26.5 units each for moderate and for conversion to low income 3. 26.5 (moderate income) x .50 = 13.25 or 13 low income units 4. 26.5 or 27 units to be moderate income "by design" E. Summary of Total Proposed Affordable Housing Units: Based on the assumptions in sections B and C above, the following represents a summary of the total number of affordable units proposed for Eagle Ranch (based upon the current site plan). These calculations are subject to change based upon the final lot/unit count of approved final map. 1 . Two (2) very low income units 2. Seventeen (17) low income units (4 + 1 3) 3. Thirty One (31) moderate "by design" units (4 + 27) Eagle Ranch Key Issues March 16, 2012 Attachment A - Affordable Housing Page 2 Eagle Ranch proposes to provide the following affordable housing_ Very low income units - 2 units total. These units will be between 500-700 sf each and will be built as rental housing on the second floor above commercial building(s) within the Village Center area. In-lieu fees are not allowed in place of these units. These units shall be deed restricted for 30 years. Low income units - 17 units total. These units will be between 650-850 sf each and will be built as rental housing, dispersed within the Village on the second floor, or any multi-family housing or senior housing project constructed within the Village Center. In-lieu fees are not allowed in place of these units. These units shall be deed restricted for 30 years. Moderate Income - "For Rent" units - These units will be secondary units of up to 1 ,000 sf, allowable on residential lots over one acre in size, located throughout the Eagle Ranch project. The number of units will vary but may be up to 153 (the current number of lots over one acre), depending upon the home owner preference for secondary units. These units will not be deed restricted as they are affordable by design and are not required to be implemented. These units will be above and beyond the required affordable units for the project. Moderate Income - "For Sale" units - 31 units total. These units will be affordable by design and located on smaller lots ranging in size from 4,500 sf to 6,000 sf and distributed throughout the project where these lot sizes are available. Eagle Ranch - Comments on Affordable Housing Priorities and City Policy Consistences This proposal for Eagle ranch Affordable Housing accomplishes the following priorities: 1 . Emphasizes the delivery of affordable housing - not payment of in-lieu fees 2. Focuses on the most difficult types of affordable housing to actually deliver - low and very low income, while providing moderately affordable housing by design. 3. Emphasizes affordable housing implemented on Eagle Ranch - not shuffled off to some other off-site location 4. Distributes required affordable housing into at least three different styles of housing and locations 5. Allows for developer delivery of units and/or delivery by a housing non-profit entity 6. Locates low and very low income housing in proximity to the Village Center at the heart of Eagle Ranch and closest to shopping, services, trails, parks, cultural amenities and a potential future location of a transit stop - thereby recognizing the reality of daily needs and transportation difficulties within these income groups 7. Affordable housing is widely distributed throughout Eagle Ranch 8. Converts 50% of required "moderate" income affordable units to low income units in recognition of current market conditions and the greatest actual need 9. The proposal is consistent with the City of Atascadero Affordable Housing Policy dli C_1Douunients oo d Set tingsVIli)vnon\M} Documents'ibop In yee Work Pivduds\Jeff Fci bet ,m nffordi ble housing ottocImiento.3 76-1 Z.doc 2nd Unit and Affordable Housing Distribution N*'�..,rr „a. - I_i!..S Lti •.�. Y ' +;:tri, � � \ �'+x"-' � ,,:•?a ,� r� , .��' 6-0 r + •"us: .ate! ..tr�1 1 `i� _.^ Y y _ R #. 17, it s y trt V •. Y,L i'� 4 EAGLE RANCH Notes/Sources: 701Map Features 1)Aerial photo from National Agricultural Imagery Program "'d.ign, (NAIP)-photo dated 2009. 0 Ranch Boundary -• i City of Atascadero CA 2)Boundary data from existing data/information. r 3)This map is for illustrative purposes only. Land Use Area Boundary -4 Affordable Housing Distribution -P„ Roads and Lots (Excluding 2nd Units) Scale: Not To Scale February 13,2012 �� 037 Potential Affordable Housing .. _J r Eagle Ranch Key Issues March 16, 2012 Attachment 8 - Perimeter Lot Sizes Perimeter Lot Sizes at Eagle Ranch, Applicant's Perspective and Proposal At the Planning Commission Workshop and at the Design Review Committee meeting the issue of lot sizes at the perimeter of the Eagle Ranch project was raised by neighbors, primarily neighbors located along San Rafael and San Carlos Roads adjacent to Eagle Ranch. The neighbors are requesting that lot sizes in this area be larger and consistent with the lot sizes across San Rafael Road. The current Eagle Ranch plan proposes lots ranging in size from 10,000 sf to one acre in this area of the Eagle Ranch. These lot sizes were proposed in this area primarily because it is one of the least constrained areas of the ranch. The vision for this area was to have smaller lots buffered from the neighbors by placement of a vegetated buffer (trees) on the lots along the San Rafael frontage on the Eagle Ranch side. Access to all lots in this area is proposed to be from within Eagle Ranch, not directly on to San Rafael Road (see Exhibit A - existing plan). At the request of staff and based upon the input from the neighbors at the two public meetings the applicant has prepared alternative sketches for other potential solutions to lot sizes in the San Rafael area (see attached Exhibits A-E) Exhibit B - this sketch depicts lots that are minimum 1 acre in size along San Rafael Rd. There is a buffer (trees) proposed along the San Rafael frontage of the Eagle Ranch. The buffer would vary between 50 to 100 feet. The lots would have access from inside Eagle Ranch, not from San Rafael Road. The number of lots would be approximately four. This is a reduction of 10 lots from the current plan. Exhibit C - this sketch depicts lots that are a minimum of 1 acre in size. These lots have a minimum lot frontage of 200 feet along San Rafael Road. This is approximately the same as the existing lots along San Rafael Road. There is a buffer (trees) proposed along the San Rafael frontage of the Eagle Ranch. Additionally, several of the existing internal lots visible from San Rafael have been increased in size. The lots would have access from inside Eagle Ranch, not from San Rafael Road. This version of the plan represents a reduction of 15 lots from the current plan. Exhibit D - On February 2, 2012 the owners of Eagle Ranch and consulting team held a meeting with neighbors along San Rafael and San Carlos. Plan Exhibits A, B, and C were discussed as well as neighbor concerns and proposals. The consultant (RRM) prepared a new version of the plan based on the discussion. Exhibit D depicts a new plan version incorporating neighbor input. The lots adjacent to San Rafael and San Carlos in plan D range in size from 1 .5 to 3 acres. These lots have frontage along San Rafael Road that are equal to or larger than the existing lots across the street. A buffer along San Rafael Road is proposed. The lots will have access from inside Eagle Ranch. The number of lots would be approximately 1 5. This is a reduction of approximately 34 lots from the current plan. Exhibit E - On March 16, 2012 the Eagle Ranch consulting team held a meeting with neighbors to present and discuss this alternative containing lots of a minimum 2.5 acres in the area across San Rafael Road. dll-CVDoctiments and Settings\dhrimon\My Documents'tEmployee Work PPOdttcts\Jeff Ferber\vnrperimeter lot sizes-attachmeot-02-10-12_do( EXHIBIT "A" low:1 I's a • /- iW1 1111 A► T C� p 0 6 5 `Sah 1% �- _ Ra 8 9r r 10 � 24 11 + 12 3 4 22 21 13 25 14 / t AI. 1 26 2� 39 ^� 27 19 • IWAA28 4 17 38 s r 0 16 � 'J 15 37 32 33 36 Map Features i 34 GENERAL MAP ELEMENTS 35 •• Ranch Boundary 0 City of Atascadero Boundary 10,000 to 20,000 S.F.Lots 0.5 Acre to 1 Acre Lots 0 1 Acre to 5 Acre Lots EAGLERANCH ' a 50'Landscape Buffer / Adjacent Parcel Boundaries O Existing Ranch Roads AcaEs Notes/Sources: `� ® Proposed Road ROWS 1)Aerial photo from Google Earth-location is approximate- p 5 deSlgn --__ photo dated 6-2007. K,,sn .owo"^�' o0000o Unpaved Trails --' 2 Topographic •Multi-Use and Single Track City of Atascadero CA ) ry, contour interval is o feet. O Class 1 Multi-Use Path r 3)Boundary,road and topo data from existing data/information. 000000 4)This map is for illustrative purposes only. •8'wide Paved MAPk San Rafael Rd Lots: Exhibit A Scale: Not To Scale January 10,2011 �� 1)Lots+/-From Original Concept:0 EXHIBIT "Brr low:1 Is a ` - iW1 11111 / �# a � �._ '" � ,�` ter,,,:#,. �. .;:. •` kk I Jr F { C� b Sao 5 Ra fa�� (�� r,•. Q1 ac) f6 7 18 (1 ac) M` N �' — 1 �Zj 16 15 8 3 4 19 20 14 (1 ac) 33 r �, 21 13 - • 22 °p 11 32 s , 9 31 26 27 0 Map Features i 28 GENERAL MAP ELEMENTS 29 ■■ Ranch Boundary 0 City of Atascadero Boundary 10,000 to 20,000 S.F.Lots ! 0.5 Acre to 1 Acre Lots 0 1 Acre to 5 Acre Lots EAGLERANCH ' a 50'Landscape Buffer / Adjacent Parcel Boundaries O Existing Ranch Roads Notes/Sources: E .�� ® Proposed Road ROWS 1)Aerial photo from Google Earth-location is approximate- deSlgn photo dated from G. o0000o Unpaved Trails 2 Topographic •Multi-Use and Single Track City of Atascadero CA ) contour interval is 10 feet. O Class 1 Multi-Use Path r 3)Boundary,road and topo data from existing data/information. 000000 4)This map is for illustrative purposes only. •8•wide Paved MAPk San Rafael Rd Lots: Exhibit B Scale: Not To Scale January 10,2011 1)Lots+/-From Original Concept:-6 7: EXHIBIT "Crr low, _4 �% bs �� ��'` - �# a � _ •�._ '" � ,�` ter,.,:#,. �. .;:. •` a �- '�• IN 11 r•. �: may; -_�� � - ,,\- ,� _ 7"� C� a Raf ael '.r �•4r� �' (1 ac) 7 (1 ac) ` + (1 ac) : 3 4 10 11 (1 ac ) 24 13 r 1*AA 23 7 22 1 1 Map Features GENERAL MAP ELEMENTS 20 ■■ Ranch Boundary 0 City of Atascadero Boundary 10,000 to 20,000 S.F.Lots ! 0.5 Acre to 1 Acre Lots 0 1 Acre to 5 Acre Lots EAGLERANCH a 50'Landscape Buffer / Adjacent Parcel Boundaries O Existing Ranch Roads Notes/Sources: ^°REs � A �,.�� ® Proposed Road ROWS 1)Aerial photo from Google Earth-location is approximate- design - photo dated 6-2007. 0.5 o0000o Unpaved Trails 2 Topographic •Multi-Use and Single Track City of Atascadero CA ) contour interval is 10 feet. O Class 1 Multi-Use Path r 3)Boundary,road and topo data from existing data/information. 000000 4)This map is for illustrative purposes only. •8'wide Paved MAPk San Rafael Rd Lots: Exhibit C Scale: Not To Scale January 10,2011 Q LC_1 1)Lots+/-From Original Concept:-15 ,�: EXHIBIT "D" EAGLE RANCH City of Atascadero,CA San Rafael Rd Lots: Exhibit D w r N r Q 19 18 d (2.0 ac) (1.5 ac) �;. 17 (1.5 ac) 6 16 �@ (1.5 ac) 4 20 (2.5 ac) 13 2.1 ac) (2.0 ac) 2 11 24 10 (2.0 ac) — (2.1 ac) 21 (1.3 ac (1.4 ac) a (2 0 ac) 14 (2.5 ac) )1 r (2:0 ac) 22 (1.4 ac) 25 r° - y, r j �� r ✓� �� (1.O ac) `� ` 2 Map Features GENERAL MAP ELEMENTS ,1._. l � ■■ Ranch Boundary 8 City of Atascadero Boundary J . ' 3 (1.0 ac) / • Adjacent Parcel Boundaries ' (1.1 ac) �� 6,500 to 10,000 s.f.Lots 10,000 to 20,000 s.f.Lots 7I 1 Acre to 5 Acre Lots nc • 1.0 ac 4 (1.0 ac) i�/� d .� 25'Landscape Buffer f Non-Build Area Notes/Sources: t.o / yu. Utility Line Location-20'corridor 1)Aer al photo from Google Earth local on a eppro i..W- prom galea a zow c-� 5 6 ztTopogapmeeeamur aterval.10faal (1.0 ac) / (1.0 ac) * Proposed Road ROWs 3l6oundary road and mpo data from aA tinq daw nfora,auoa. o.zs (� '� ' Stream Flowlme-NHD Data 4)This map s Por 1lust,.V-purposes-1y. \ Scale: w Ml Entry Monument 400 200 100 o tooFeel Drainage Basin February29,2011 i EXHIBIT "E" EAGLE RANCH City of Atascadero,CA San Rafael Rd Lots: Exhibit E a,y 6 j 7 - (3.7 ac) • • 6 - 2 (4.3 c) (3.2 ac) 5 _(2.3 ac) -- I (3.1 ac) 4 A _ (3.3 ac) (2.9 ac) 3 , - B; (3.3 ac) 9 16 (• 6 ac) (1.5 ac) Map Features r GENERAL MAP ELEMENTS y' ■■ - Ranch Boundary City of Atascadero Boundary j Adjacent Parcel Boundaries � 6,500 to 10,000 s.f.Lots 15 (3.4 ac) 10,000 to 20,000 s.f.Lots / 0.5 Acre to 1 Acre Lots I A 1 Acre to 5 Acre Lots P 14 25'Landscape Buffer (3.2 ac) Non-Build Area Notes/Sources: to /� 1)Aerial photo from Google Earth looaton s epp.x male mndesigngroup® Utility Line Location-20'Corridor photo dated 6-2 07 0.5 2)Topographicu,mour otan-al s10 fast Ff'€ i '. i Proposed Road ROWs 3 Boundary,road and ta/top.data from ez st ng danformaho, 0.25 13 4)Ths map is for nustatma purposes only. (2.7 ac) ./+. Stream Flowlme-NHD Data i 1 Qq) Ent Monument Scale: �.�C tl�1H1 LOSS Entry tfaoo zoo 100 o wormer MaDrainage Basin roh 2,2012 l '.F s it Eagle Ranch Key Issues March 16, 2012 Attachment C- Farm Animals Farm Animals (hoofed animals, primarily horses) at Eagle Ranch, Applicant's Perspective and Proposal The applicants do not want to allow keeping of hoofed farm animals on individual lots at Eagle Ranch for the following reasons: 1 . Lots below 1 acre in size are clearly unsuited to the keeping of farm animals due to size and topography of most lots 2. Regulation and enforcement of standards for keeping of farm animals on individual lots is very difficult within the context of a planned neighborhood. Such items as out building design standards, fencing, building and lot appearance & maintenance become nightmarish issues for home owner associations. 3. Lot sizes between 2.5 and 5 acres may have suitable gross acreage for a very limited number of farm animals. However, the circumstances at Eagle Ranch such as topography, presence of Oaks trees, drainage issues and retention of potential pollutants on the individual lots are significant issues that are difficult to enforce. These are in addition to the issues in number 2 above regarding maintenance and enforcement. The vision for Eagle Ranch is to provide an onsite equestrian facility near the ranch headquarters for use by owners of lots and units within Eagle Ranch. This equestrian facility may be in injunction with equestrian facilities associated with the proposed resort hotel. This type of central facility may allow a broader range of activities than any individual lot can achieve, things such as a riding arena, hot walker, pasture access, hay storage, coaling stall, etc. The presence of a central equestrian facility also facilitates such things as regular visits by veterinarians, horse shoeing, etc necessary for good health of the animals. A central facility also helps build a sense of community among the animal owners at Eagle Ranch by having a place for events, social gatherings, training, trailer storage, trail rides and other activities. A central facility approach will also allow all owners of lots and/or units within Eagle Ranch to be part of the equestrian lifestyle if they desire. A key to the success of an equestrian facility is to have sufficient critical mass to allow the provision of adequate facilities and staffing to properly care for the animals and the facilities. Allowing the onsite keeping of farm animals will deprive the proposed facility of potential customers and thereby reduce its feasibility. The owners of Eagle Ranch are willing to designate a temporary location for use by lot owners of early phases for keeping horses. The location may be relocated or eliminated when necessary to construct additional project phases. For all of these reasons the applicant proposes to prohibit keeping of hoofed animals on individual properties at Eagle Ranch. Other non-hoofed animals will be allowable consistent with City regulation and subject to the CCR's for Eagle Ranch. 4ll CVDoc tunents and SettinlWC1linma7\My Documents\Employee Work Pi oductslJ`ff Ferber\vm-farm animals-attachment-02-70-72.doc Eagle Ranch Key Issues March 16, 2012 Attachment D - Street Connections Connections from Eagle Ranch to Adjacent Public Streets (Traffic), Applicant's Perspective and Proposal This issue was raised by residents along several streets with either direct connections to proposed Eagle Ranch roads or with potential indirect traffic impacts from Eagle Ranch. It is related to perceived impacts from the total number of lots/units proposed at Eagle Ranch. In the design of the Eagle Ranch plan staff has encouraged as many connections to existing streets as reasonably possible. The reasoning is to distribute the traffic widely as opposed to concentrating traffic in a few locations. The current plan envisions traffic connections to Atascadero Avenue (2 separate connections), San Rafael Road, and San Carlos Road. The plan includes extension of San Rafael Road to connection with Atascadero Avenue. The plan as proposed also includes controlled emergency access connections to Ortega Road and to San Diego Road. The Ortega Road connection would be designed as a controlled emergency access for vehicles and as a "open connection" for pedestrians and bicycles. The applicant proposes to provide right of way for an emergency access connection to San Diego Road west from the end of a proposed cul de sac serving 5 acre lots in the western portion of the Eagle Ranch development. The first part of the environmental review for Eagle Ranch, the Constraints analysis is currently underway. The portions of the analysis completed so far (as of the date of this letter) has focused on offsite road capacities, particularly the US 101 interchanges at Santa Barbara and San Rafael. Recently additional traffic constraints work was authorized to look at traffic on interior Eagle Ranch traffic and select off site road connections. The applicants understand the neighbors' concerns about traffic. The applicant and staff have anticipated that this would be an area that would need careful review and guidance from the City environmental/traffic consultant. However, if there is to be development at Eagle Ranch there will be traffic and it will need to exit off the ranch and connect to the existing street system at select locations. In the applicants opinion it is premature to make access decisions at this time when environmental review and specifically traffic impact review is ongoing. dl!-C Documents and tettwys\dlinman\My Docume Msl[mployee Work Products�_lerf Ferber\vrrr-street connections-attachment 02 09 12.doc Street Connections �l �`.t'.,� �t" �� -A�iTG p_iYN .1✓ _� \ _ , - �., .l`jy�Wi`t r W. T- � ► ^�Secondary Minor - Emergency/FireI s Secondary _ Primary t Emergency/Fire l �. Primaryz `trLI . Nat Ae it A. IN X �kAL KUP Features ,.. •� GE1FRK wPElEl.FM3 ROWS RJWSI<fKl C- •\ Rin fb/bV �t3r,up Rr[D Rub -dr $.,uJrr 1 Notea9outcexTMS Kcnf ROW `�: �• Y EAGLE RANCH .w• droe.xnvNW.wga.m�+.m1 enu9o■ RyL—T �w.r.a.«.,.. rm•�gq.an„,.m r.,eaa.,Re�..,w.,w, L"�r<�..'°"��..,.,'�” w.71.m.a�l �� ]'a�V<<avw.ew•n�orn, Real loop MCWe,.$•t. TAAlS nt�.A�.a�•y�eu.asm�io.Fgwpwav� P ®U/�Ky..Olreol� -Z ��•I,.M��F 91�0IO CvDMGuC1 i, qrm r.tr.brsen R.W...a. %oa wa eu �CW.4ww�a SOfwe. _o;:7w uc•- •. of Ataecaw,o.CA atY mow' 'e O rwgtr+uRma ®?�t•ros.aonrt�.«<on.q ' q _� ,Or QR•q•nyla Ku, On•5.1• _R.uoa ROW Conceptual Site Plan Vr Ka ©,�a.i C'STM RoaCs Exhibit Rwwu.,.alp N CbW 5_.R_ i Eagle Ranch Key Issues March 16, 2012 Attachment 8 - Perimeter Lot Sizes Perimeter Lot Sizes at Eagle Ranch, Applicant's Perspective and Proposal At the Planning Commission Workshop and at the Design Review Committee meeting the issue of lot sizes at the perimeter of the Eagle Ranch project was raised by neighbors, primarily neighbors located along San Rafael and San Carlos Roads adjacent to Eagle Ranch. The neighbors are requesting that lot sizes in this area be larger and consistent with the lot sizes across San Rafael Road. The current Eagle Ranch plan proposes lots ranging in size from 10,000 sf to one acre in this area of the Eagle Ranch. These lot sizes were proposed in this area primarily because it is one of the least constrained areas of the ranch. The vision for this area was to have smaller lots buffered from the neighbors by placement of a vegetated buffer (trees) on the lots along the San Rafael frontage on the Eagle Ranch side. Access to all lots in this area is proposed to be from within Eagle Ranch, not directly on to San Rafael Road (see Exhibit A - existing plan). At the request of staff and based upon the input from the neighbors at the two public meetings the applicant has prepared alternative sketches for other potential solutions to lot sizes in the San Rafael area (see attached Exhibits A-E) Exhibit B - this sketch depicts lots that are minimum 1 acre in size along San Rafael Rd. There is a buffer (trees) proposed along the San Rafael frontage of the Eagle Ranch. The buffer would vary between 50 to 100 feet. The lots would have access from inside Eagle Ranch, not from San Rafael Road. The number of lots would be approximately four. This is a reduction of 10 lots from the current plan. Exhibit C - this sketch depicts lots that are a minimum of 1 acre in size. These lots have a minimum lot frontage of 200 feet along San Rafael Road. This is approximately the same as the existing lots along San Rafael Road. There is a buffer (trees) proposed along the San Rafael frontage of the Eagle Ranch. Additionally, several of the existing internal lots visible from San Rafael have been increased in size. The lots would have access from inside Eagle Ranch, not from San Rafael Road. This version of the plan represents a reduction of 15 lots from the current plan. Exhibit D - On February 2, 2012 the owners of Eagle Ranch and consulting team held a meeting with neighbors along San Rafael and San Carlos. Plan Exhibits A, B, and C were discussed as well as neighbor concerns and proposals. The consultant (RRM) prepared a new version of the plan based on the discussion. Exhibit D depicts a new plan version incorporating neighbor input. The lots adjacent to San Rafael and San Carlos in plan D range in size from 1 .5 to 3 acres. These lots have frontage along San Rafael Road that are equal to or larger than the existing lots across the street. A buffer along San Rafael Road is proposed. The lots will have access from inside Eagle Ranch. The number of lots would be approximately 1 5. This is a reduction of approximately 34 lots from the current plan. Exhibit E - On March 16, 2012 the Eagle Ranch consulting team held a meeting with neighbors to present and discuss this alternative containing lots of a minimum 2.5 acres in the area across San Rafael Road. dll-CVDoctiments and Settings\dhrimon\My Documents'tEmployee Work PPOdttcts\Jeff Ferber\vnrperimeter lot sizes-attachmeot-02-10-12_do(