HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 092401 - Special Mtng Approved October 9,2001
MINUTES
SPECIAL MEETING
ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL
Monday, September 24, 2001
7:00 p.m. _
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE - CONTINUED
Mayor Arrambide called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and Mayor Pro Tem Scalise led the
Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL:
Present: Council Members Clay, Johnson, Luna, Scalise and Mayor Arrambide
Absent: None
Others Present: City Clerk Marcia McClure Torgerson
Staff Present: City Manager Wade McKinney, Assistant City Manager Brady Cherry,
Community Development Director Lori Parcells, Planning Services
Manager Warren Frace, Police Chief Dennis Hegwood, and City Attorney
Roy Hanley
Mayor Arrambide welcomed those present and announced that the meeting was a continuation of
the September 17t` meeting, and would proceed as before with staff reviewing each policy,
Council Members to ask questions of staff, the public allowed to speak for three minutes on each
policy and then the Council to discuss and make a determination on each item.
1. General Plan Update -Review of Draft Land Use Plan
■ Fiscal Impact: None
■ Planning Commission recommendations:
1. Council adopt the draft Resolution, thereby endorsing the Draft Land Use
Plan as the Preferred Plan for use in the Draft General Plan policy
document and Draft Environmental Impact Report; and
2. Council direct staff to incorporate Policy Issues I through 10 into the
Draft General Plan. [Community Development]
Planning Services Manager Warren Frace continued his presentation from the September 17,
2001 meeting.
Atascadero City Council
Special Meeting 09/24/01
Page 1
Approved October 9,2001
Policy Option#5: Affordable Housing (#5A: Second Units, #511: Mixed Use Multi-
Family Residential in Retail District, #5C: Multi-Family Density
(units vs. bedrooms), #51): Senior Housing, #5E: Inclusionary
Housing)
Mr. Frace explained the Planning Commission's recommendations for Policy Options #5A - #5E
and answered questions of Council.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Eric Greening, 7365 Valle, stated his concerns with second units and the uses and densities they
introduce into neighborhoods whose infrastructure was not designed for these additional
densities. He expressed his feeling that Mixed Use Multi-Family Residential zoning in Retail
Districts might lead to the creation of strips and suggested it only be applied to the Downtown
Master Plan area. Regarding units vs. bedrooms, increases should be tied to the availability of
substantial outdoor play and exercise areas.
Joanne Main, 8940 San Gabriel Road, Chamber of Commerce Executive Director, expressed the
Chamber's support for this policy option. She questioned the need for sewer hookups on second
units.
Lana Adams, Chair of Atascadero Youth Task Force, expressed her support for more affordable
housing in a prepared statement read by Joanne Main. (Attachment A)
Livia Kellerman, 5463 Honda, supported the idea of Multi-Family Residential zoning in Retail
Districts being restricted to the downtown area. She encouraged the use of open space in future
planning and supports the idea of diversity in affordable housing.
Sharon Turner, 7040 Navajoa Avenue, expressed support of cleaning up the property across
Atascadero Ave. from the library but urged the Council to use caution in the development of the
property.
Becky Pacas, 4305 San Benito Road, expressed her opposition to the proposed policies.
Henry Engen, 9575 Lakeview Drive, read from a prepared statement expressing his concerns
with the proposed policy that would provide for 22 units of housing per acre. (Attachment B)
Alan Thomas, 9520 Marchant Way, stated he supports affordable housing but cautioned the
Council to create policies that would result in affordable housing and not just increased densities.
Steve LaSalle, Atascadero, expressed his concern with the increase in housing costs in the past
year. He feels there needs to be very creative approaches to inclusionary housing.
Richard Shannon, 5070 San Benito Road, told the Council that Atascadero already allows granny
units and the City only issues 4-5 permits per year, which makes their impact negligible.
Additionally, he feels that by allowing higher densities in certain zones, apartments and other
high-density housing will stay affordable.
Mayor Arrambide closed the Public Comment period.
Atascadero City Council
Special Meeting 09/24/01
Page 2
Approved October 9,2001
There was lengthy Council discussion on the Policy Options#5A - #5E.
Council Member Johnson expressed his opinion that affordable housing is important as well as
mandated and he is committed to providing this sort of housing.
Council Member Clay stated, using a PowerPoint presentation, his support for the second unit
pilot program in the SFR-Y zone. He recommended that septic be allowed for this pilot
program. (Attachment C) .
Mayor Pro Tem Scalise indicated that she could support a pilot program for second units in the
SFR-Y zone, but felt strongly that the CUP process must be utilized.
Council Member Luna stated that second units are growth inducing, and their impact on roads
must be considered. He expressed concern that the pilot program would go citywide eventually
and he would be unable to support this. Council Member Luna indicated his support for the
inclusionary housing program. Regarding the unitsibedroom ratio, he could support 16 units and
a density bonus to 22 units to encourage affordable housing.
Mayor Arrambide asked the Council to discuss and vote on Policy Option#5A.
Policy Option#5A
Mayor Arrambide expressed his opposition to #5A.
There was a discussion regarding allowing septic for second units.
Mayor Arrambide asked if the Council Members could support an affordable rental rate for
second units.
Council Member Luna stated that if rents on second units could be required to be affordable, he
might be able to support them.
MOTION: By Council Member Johnson and seconded by Council Member Clay
to include the recommended Policy Option #5A - second units, and to
include a study of the septic issue and the affordability issue.
Motion passed 3:2 by a roll call vote. (Luna and Arrambide opposed)
Recommendations Policy Option#5A:
1. Develop Second Unit standards that address the following: lot size (1
acre minimum), size restriction, sewer connection, covered parking,
maximum slope, native tree impacts, architectural appearance,
setbacks, neighborhood compatibility, Conditional Use Permit
approval process.
2. Begin with a pilot program to allow second units in the SFR-Y (1 to
1.5 acre lot minimum) land use with annual program report to the
Planning Commission.
3. Eliminate Guest Houses in the SFR-Y land uses.
4. Continue to allow guest Houses in the SFR-X, SFR-Z and SSF land
uses.
Atascadero City Council
Special Meeting 09/24/01
Page 3
Approved October 9,2001
Policy Option #511: Affordable Housing — Mixed Use Multi-Family Residential in Retail
District.
Mayor Pro Tem Scalise suggested that for consistency, rather than refer to the land use as Multi-
Family Residential, it be called High-Density Residential.
Mayor Arrambide expressed his concern with allowing exclusive high-density residential
development along El Camino Real and its impact in the pedestrian atmosphere in the downtown
area.
Council Member Clay also stated his concerns with allowing high-density residential along El
Camino Real (Recommended Option #4.) and felt that this would restrict zoning to either all
residential or all commercial; he prefers the idea of mixed use. He would like to see #4
eliminated.
MOTION: By Council Member Clay to accept the Planning Commission's
Recommendation #511, eliminating#4.
Motion failed by the lack of a second.
MOTION: By Council Member Johnson and seconded by Mayor Pro Tem
Scalise to approve the Planning Commission Recommendations plus:
1) inclusion of language to protect key commercial corners from
residential development, 2) designation of the areas in which this will
be allowed, and 3) change of the term Multi-Family Residential to
High-Density Residential.
Motion passed 3:2 by a roll-call vote. (Clay and Luna opposed)
Recommended Policy Option #511:
1. Allow mixed-use m�•'� high-density residential projects
within the Commercial Retail and Commercial Professional zoning
districts as a conditionally allowed use.
2. Require mixed use residential to be attached, multi-family type
development.
3. Require all residential projects along Morro Road to include a
commercial or office storefront along the street frontage with
parking to the rear.
4. Allow exclusive m��'� high-density residential development
along El Camino Real.
Policy Option 95C: Affordable Housing—Multi-Family Density (units vs. bedrooms)
Council Member Johnson stated that he would like to see a spread of options as to the correct
number, but with the emphasis placed on giving benefits to affordable housing.
Council Member Clay indicated that he is in favor of the 16 units with bonuses for affordable
housing of 25% or more. He would like to see a built in bonus for superior projects that provide
areas for recreation and other amenities.
Atascadero City Council
Special Meeting 09/24/01
Page 4
Approved October 9,2001
Mayor Pro Tem Scalise expressed her support for basing density on units and feels the Planning
Commission recommendations are in line with surrounding areas. She supports the density
recommendation of 22 units.
Council Member Luna stated he couldn't support this policy unless it is 16 units per acre and a
density bonus for affordable housing.
Mayor Arrambide indicated that while 22 units per acre is not unreasonable, he would like to see
that 22 made up of a composite of 16 units per acre and then a density of 6 guaranteed affordable
housing deed-restricted for senior housing or handicapped.
MOTION: By Council Member Luna and seconded by Council Member Clay to
convert bedrooms to units, the number of units allowable to be 16
with the density bonus of up to six units per acre plus the possibility of
two extra units depending upon exemplary design characteristics.
Motion passed 5:0 by a roll-call vote.
Recommended Policy Option # 5C:
1. Recommend that multi-family densities be calculated by units rather
than bedrooms.
2. Recommend increasing the maximum allowable multi-family density
to ''� 16 units/ac in certain areas with a density bonus of un to
six units per acre plus two extra units for exemplary design
characteristics.
Policy Option #51): Affordable Housing—Senior Housing
MOTION: By Council Member Johnson and seconded by Mayor Pro Tem
Scalise to approve the Planning Commission Recommendation.
Motion passed 5:0 by a roll-call vote.
Recommendation Policy Option#51):
1. Recommend that the General Plan provide a density bonus
incentive for deed-restricted senior housing development projects
and that staff look into various options for such.
Policy Option #5E: Affordable Housing—Inclusionary Housing
Council Member Johnson stated that the language in this option referring to "similar to the City
of San Luis Obispo" should be left open-ended to include good programs elsewhere.
Mayor Pro Tem Scalise indicated that she would like to see specifics for both residential and
commercial projects.
MOTION: By Council Member Clay and seconded by Mayor Airambide to
accept the Planning Commission's recommendation for inclusionary
housing with the elimination of "similar to the City of San Luis
Obispo," and to address both residential and commercial projects.
Motion passed 5:0 by a roll-call vote.
Atascadero City Council
Special Meeting 09/24/01
Page 5
Approved October 9,2001
Lon Allan, 6815 Santa Lucia, representative of the Atascadero Historical Society, stated there are
approximately 350 Colony Homes still standing in Atascadero. He stated the Society endorses
this policy.
Steve LaSalle, stated he supports the preservation of the Colony Homes.
Mayor Arrambide closed the Public Comment period.
Council Member Clay would like to see the policies include provisions for moving Colony
homes both on their lots and to other locations.
Mayor Arrambide endorsed the idea of considering historic neighborhoods for the Colony
homes.
MOTION: By Council Member Luna and seconded by Council Member Johnson
to approve the Planning Commission Recommendation on Policy
Option #10.
Motion passed 5:0 by a roll-call vote.
Recommended Policy Option #10:
1. The General Plan will include policies for the historic preservation for
Atascadero Colony homes.
Policy Option#3: PD-7 District Expansion
Planning Services Manager Warren Frace provided the staff report and answered questions of
Council.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Alan Thomas, 9520 Marchant Way, asked for clarification on the zones where PD-7 would be
permitted and the lot sizes required. Mr. Thomas felt that using the standard of "lots or
contiguous ownership of 2+ acres"would work against affordability.
Kelly Gearhart, 6205 Alcantara, stated he supports the PD program, which he feels provides for
affordability and nicer projects.
Alan Thomas, 9520 Marchant Way, indicated that though he agrees with some of Mr. Gearhart's
comments he still feels that this does work against affordability. He would encourage the
construction of more condominiums and apartments.
Richard Shannon, Atascadero, stated the PD-7 is the best tool Atascadero has had for the last few
years to promote affordability.
Livia Kellerman expressed her concern with PD-7 districts being open to the entire town. She
feels that this would go against the goal of slower growth.
Mayor Arrambide closed the Public Comment period.
Atascadero City Council
Special Meeting 09/24/01
Page 7
Approved October 9,2001
Council Member Luna stated that the PD-7, while providing additional single-family housing,
has done so at the expense of apartments and other multi-family housing.
MOTION: By Council Member Johnson and seconded by Council Member Clay
to approve the Planning Commission Recommendations for Option
#3.
Motion passed 4:1 by a roll-call vote. (Luna opposed)
Recommended Policy Option#3:
1. Recommend that standards for a new PD-7 type overlay district be
developed for the SFR-X land use designation in order to allow small
lot single-family infill development.
2. Recommend that RMF property meeting the following standards be
preserved as "prime" multi-family areas for apartment development
and preclude conversion to PD-7.
a. Lot size: Lots or contiguous ownership of 2+acres
b. Slope: Below 10%
c. Arterial or collector street access
d. Neighborhood compatibility with apartment development.
Policy Option #8: Lot Size Inconsistencies
Planning Services Manager Warren Frace provided the staff report and answered questions of
Council.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Alan Thomas, Marchant Way, supports limiting this option to the SFR-Y for the study.
Mayor Arrambide closed the Public Comment period.
Mayor Pro Tem Scalise stated that she would support including both SFR-Y and SFR-Z.
Council Member Clay indicated, with the use of a PowerPoint presentation, that correcting lot
size inconsistencies was one of the main reasons he supported the General Plan Update process.
Because some of the one-acre or more lots can be split under the current rules, he does not
support including the SFR-X zone. He supports including the SE, SFR-Y and SFR-Z zones or
rezoning all to SFR-Y. (Attachment D)
MOTION: By Council Member Clay to approve the recommended option with
the addition that staff look at the most egregious areas in the SFR-Z
and SE zone for the possible recommendation to change those to Y.
Motion failed for lack of a second.
MOTION: By Council Member Johnson to approve the option as recommended.
Motion failed for lack of a second.
Atascadero City Council
Special Meeting 09/24/01
Page 8
Approved October 9,2001
MOTION: By Mayor Pro Tem Scalise and seconded by Council Member Clay to
develop a customized PD overlay process to be applied to individual
lots that are inconsistent with surrounding lots both in the Y, Z and
SE zones.
Motion passed 3:2 by a roll-call vote. (Luna and Arrambide opposed)
Recommended Policy Option
1. Develop a customized Planned Development(PD) overlay process that
could be applied to individual lots that are inconsistent with
surrounding lots.
REFINED LAND USE PLAN MAP
Planning Services Manager Warren Frace provided the staff report covering the three areas of the
map and answered questions of Council.
MAP—North End
PUBLIC COMMENT
Ursula Luna, asked when a map would be available which would reflect the density increases,
and if an actual holding capacity number would be available at some point.
Mayor Arrambide closed the Public Comment period.
Council Member Luna stated that conservation policies should apply to the Salinas River area
and wildlife corridors should be required for all areas including the open space parcels.
MOTION: By Council Member Johnson and seconded by Mayor Pro Tem
Scalise to approve the North End Map including the Carizzo Road
extension, including studying the office section on the corner of the
school property and including equestrian access.
Motion passed 4:1 by a roll-call vote. (Luna opposed)
MOTION: By Council Member Johnson and seconded by Council Member Clay
to go past 11:00 p.m.
Motion passed 4:1 by a voice vote. (Luna opposed)
MAP—Central Core
PUBLIC COMMENT—None
MOTION: By Council Member Johnson and seconded by Council Member Clay
to approve the Central Core Map.
Motion passed 4:1 by a roll-call vote. (Luna opposed)
Atascadero City Council
Special Meeting 09/24/01
Page 9
Approved October 9,2001
MAP—South End
PUBLIC COMMENT
Alan Thomas, Marchant Way, encouraged the Council to increase the total public park space.
With increases in density, more park space than is currently planned will be needed to keep pace
with current ratios.
Mayor Arrambide closed the Public Comment period.
Council Member Luna expressed his agreement with Mr. Thomas' comments on increasing park
space.
MOTION: By Mayor Pro Tem Scalise and seconded by Council Member
Johnson to approve the South End Map.
Motion passed 4:1 by a roll-call vote. (Luna opposed)
MOTION: By Council Member Johnson and seconded by Mayor Pro Tem
Scalise to approve the draft Resolution to reflect those changes made
on each segment of the map.
Motion passed 4:1 by a roll-call vote. (Luna opposed)
(Resolution No. 2001-036)
ADJOURNMENT:
Mayor Arrambide adjourned the meeting at 11:35 p.m. to the next regularly scheduled meeting
on Tuesday, September 25, 2001.
MEETING RECORDED AND MINUTES PREPARED BY:
t8k&IJE4 C
1
Marcia McClure Torgerson, City Clerk
Attachment A—Lana Adams
Attachment B—Henry Engen, 9575 Lake View Drive
Attachment C - Council Member Jerry Clay PowerPoint presentation
Attachment D - Council Member Jerry Clay PowerPoint presentation
Attachment E—Becky Pacas (Statement given to City Clerk but not read into Minutes)
Attachment F—Dorothy F. McNeil (Statement given to City Clerk but not read into Minutes)
Atascadero City Council
Special Meeting 09/24/01
Page 10
Attachment : A
Special City Council Mtg
9/24/01
September 20, 2001
City Council Members,
As the Chair of the Atascadero Youth Task Force,the District Five Appointee to the
Children's Services Network,and management of youth and family development at the
Economic Opportunity Commission I am a part of, and represent a large contingency and
voice who seldom speak before the Council.
I came last Monday to address Policy Option#5 Affordable Housing. Listening
throughout the evening I heard no one voice opposition to providing "affordable
housing"but there were and are many questions and concerns as to what"affordable
housing" is and how do we provide that rather than giving developers the
opportunity to further drive the market up. In fact increasing the supply of housing
will assist in moderating the cost of housing but there needs to be more.
Perhaps a definition, or at least a clear understanding, as to what"affordable"housing is
needs to be included in the General Plan. "Affordable"would hopefully represent a
diversity of populations, including low income, in entry-level housing. Perhaps
developers should not be given the choice to pay in-lieu fees but rather provide the 3%
low and 5%moderate cost dwelling units. Is it even possible to develop standards,
guidelines or regulations to do this?
Though I originally came to support the adoption of a General Plan that provides for
affordable housing I now see that there needs to be more clarity, if that is at all possible,
on this issue and urge the Council to address that as this goes on to the consultants.
Sincerely,
Lana Adams
r
Attachment: B
Special City. ,Council Mtg.
9/24/01
City Councileeting
September Y, 2001
pis Henry Engen and I live at 9575 Lake View Drive.
vast majority of people in
Atascadero said they wanted to retain our small town, rural
character, you continue to go in the opposite direction.
'vftHs that the "Refined Land
Use Alternative" has become the "Preferred Land Use
Alternative." Well, tiWAimb kam9wwebtit are the land
speculators that you seem intent on rewarding.
lift 111
. . ° the impact of the ill-advised 22 units per
acre multi-family density standard recommended by the planning
commission. ,- � r s ad,W full build-out of multi-
family zoning mew�,to the City's population.
� xacw, - which isn't based on bedroom
count--theeat; .tmea ,.:3R le
(520 ac. x 22 units/ac.=11,440 units x 2.65 persons /unit--30,300
people)l ,y to more than double the population
capacity of the city tQAwjerAQAWpeepIeTAfthough this figure is
the theoretical maximum population, it becomes . e
when you consider that
development of , .nthe..4 ..acm&,zo .commercial in
the "Preferred" plan. And why would we want to copy the density
standards n1u . ' yr h?
i that the population holding capacity of
the 1992 General Plan W4WA*qpemens, and that number is the
figure the 1 :,, Cojnp=VJhas used for
planning purposes.
Allowing apartments to be built at
And ' ; ,,ander
the notion of providing AWWAwda
A
aaway_ ,does - . ,a: ,w
4able housing in exchange for °densi a r.
I W" Mc ,ie.". " \ has beendriven by the council
majority's desire to _Wqr the density increase requests of a
handful of your supporters.
s
i.
m -� U O O O
4-0
N .—
O C co-0 ` O � •� Q
co
L
� � V co JC (D -0 5
+r � E Y z c O
Q � co
No N Q) 'O 04—
;+= U COC N N CO LZL„ O O
co E
R3
. . Lool— �' � � -0 co � �-- con
ME L-
cD E E >
o .Y �
o ID
-
N � N " � i0 � NU co c .w � 0° � >C. Q�ttS
0 0 O CL U O -C .c
LL co
c •� N 0 - -a O cn o S
q} (�•� O LO .O LO N
4- •E= u) N of
� Eg� :p0 = 4-= co
� O
oo vco0 c
� cn •�
0- O °) o co im � c
•- cu -�
� oo _o
:3� U cnoE •� a�
�n cn a)
O. Cy CoC O :�' o t2
o � Uo U CO 72CO
F— o O cOn 0E- co � H v a- co
04-- O aL-
O O ._ N
+�+ o cu
CO O � O
M c ^ O N N
o 0 —c
LD _ L-
O O U 0- 0
O E N o
.�
v 07 •� Y tj E t O
_ E II y- s. � '� L- E
0 CU co
. . '� •—t 4-0 OMS O
O
_ m 'QO CO O O O
N a O N
O L O � CD
L- N Cf)
X
• c:� .t2 N O N R5-'S
N
.�
;O L % O U
.._ Q O O
Q � L o v :: O O O
0. � Cu .� ONO � � M U � N � 0
•-
cm
v ~ _ O �, C U v
t'v r- MIS — O o .� _� O
O O L U U 4-, U N
C.1 F- O � � .c � � � v,
L +r cb OO
cu E 0 U cn
N O = tN C L O
.� Na) O n-
N ♦"� -CU
O O. O O
co
Zto = � a) � � U
C) r
.� O � Q 0 N
0 y = Q- ( }>—,CU Cl)
N 'acu
c0 .� •� 0 :3
U
C,4
cu '�'' -� N O v E
■� p N ._ ,O O 0 to '
O I.I_ a E O �
-10000 O O N � N � Oo
. . •_• N — U -F.r O CD
O ,0 C: cQ 0 Q 000
._
O= Vpo L—
O O O __ .� .t� O 0 C O
—
L- V LO U O -0 O 0O o •E
• V O
tip � � � o 1 0Q 0) QO2
p 4) L. u-ff% cam � CD
CL cu 0
= CO O .0 00 m N N to -0 O � 0
E 'd I v � •�� � � O � CU
C �+ 4a C -i-0 = 0 [V 0 +�-+
N
Lo O -_ � .� U � �- O
p 0 �+ , U Cl)
F- i 0 o O � ,� � � � o
cc = O 0 N cm 00
O N 4� U \ O O 00
i 0 V N
~ O " 0 V- c O O
NCo �o E O � �- � '� . . N
{-' o O Q C Z7 O •�
Z 4 e= sZ 0 C O O U
N � s. Z tCS
I "
-0 (DO N � 1 C
.
Cf) 0 C O •C4- � O
cu 0
O N Um
� �
J
CU N �
o
U
LtCL o V CU CU
N � V � CD �
r. CU N
_ O � 'O
m � ._ oo � �
LZ Q O N E O
O Z3
. . •N �y G� �; O `- — C.) N .0
00 c � Q � � N
o O �
= U m 0 o � U o � U) 0
co
N N .� U O to O
cu cc N
0 co CL 0
to —
F— (u — Nccp �
�.? 0 0 RS • B O O U O
L. O U)cu a) co � o 4-a = O
N C O
U o � � - O Ems '- `�' O
O O .� N =O 'O U)N 0 � � N A V O N
CO Z N W p -v
R3 -a •- (j)
LI—) cu cOc •F N O -�
O N ._ W O O V
I— '� N U) in N -J td
Attachment : E
fv Special City Council Mtg
9/24/01
Becky Pacas
4305 San Benito Rd.
Atascadero
Mayor and City Council,
I sympathize with those supporting affordable housing in Atascadero; however, it will
not be accomplished with the Planning commission's recommendations for this
rewrite.
The city is handing out tremendous entitlements for density, without affordability
requirements. In a similar situation, in the face of developer's promises of homes
starting at 169 thousand dollars, the city handed out density entitlements without
affordability requirements, and we have a project whose homes are selling for over
400 thousand dollars.
The current proposals will make it even worse.
Recently, in anticipation of the entitlements that the Planning Commission has
proposed in the General Plan rewrite, there is a simple old home on our block that is
listed at 565 thousand dollars. If your proposed changes are imposed they will result
in a potential three lots, and you can easily see that at almost 200,000 dollars per
building lot, it is impossible for any developer to provide affordable housing.
Similarly, in the highest density areas of the city where we currently have a maximum
of 16 bedrooms per acre, or between five to eight housing units per acre, the prices
will also skyrocket and the developers will need to build the new maximum of 22
housing units, without affordable housing, in order to pay the cost of the land.
In contrast, if the city leaves the current housing densities on all properties, but
offers reasonable incentives for moderate income housing, it is much more likely
that developers sincerely interested in building moderately priced housing will be
able to do so.
The city could also offer to match the density bonus for low income housing that the
state offers, if they honesty wanted to meet the state's quota for affordable housing.
Atascadero could even look at deed restrictions to sell to Atascadero residents before
handing out density entitlements.
If Atascadero chose to adopt any of these policies instead of the proposed density
increases, the city could provide a great deal more affordable housing than it could
with the current proposed changes, meanwhile, imposing very little increase in
Atascadero's planned housing density.
The Update, in it's current form, would undermine future efforts to provide affordable
housing; however, it does provide high housing densities not only In the center
of the city, but also at the poles of the city, that set a precedent to expand and fill
in, at least the entire east side of Atascadero with uncomfortably high housing
densities.
Even Paso Robles with its fast paced growth that strains its school district, does not
have a Housing Element that is compliant.
In Los Angeles County only 10 out of 80 cities have housing elements in compliance.
They followed your methods and produced crowding but not affordable housing.
This General Plan Rewrite is a step toward being like 85% of the Los Angeles County
cities, that are crowded and still can not meet their quota of affordable housing.
Don't crowd us! Eliminate the policies that increase housing density but don't
guarantee affordable housing. Eliminate the unnecessary entitlements that increase
density and disturb so many of your residents.
Stop promoting the deception that these density Increases promote
affordable housing. Don't ruin our General Plan.
Attachment : F
Special City Council Mtg
9/24/01
September 2L, 2001
Atascadero City Council
From Dorothy McNeil
Honorable Council :
Since it is impossible for me to attend yet another one of
these= off-night meetings, I ask that the City Clerk or someone
else read my brief statement.
The two proposals from you which cause great concern are the
second units all over the city, thus making Atascadero unique
in that it will have no single fEmily neighborhoods. I doubt
that most people who came here expected it to become a totally
rental city. Not only will the second unit be rented, but many
of those who prefer single family areas will sell or rent , and
speculators from here and out of town will have a field dayl
If you think the roads are bad ncw, try to imagine their condi-
tion with major population increEses .
Also, you lied to us when you said the white areas were out-
side the study for the Rewrite.
The other concern I have, among NANY,is the effort to make all
lots in town the same size. That is such a ludicrous proposal
that it doesn't deserve comment . You must have listened to
someone from la la land whenYftollowed him on that stupid idea.
The geography of this town could never accept it . Forget it !
This whole Rewrite process has been anything but open, honest and
intelligent . The citizens of Atascadero deserve, and have had in
the past ,much better treatment .
Dorothy F. cNeil