Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 040802 Approved April 23,2002 MINUTES 19 rA1, 97e ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL MEETING SPECIAL MEETING Monday, April 8, 2002 7:00 p.m. GENERAL PLAN UPDATE WORKSHOP CALL TO ORDER, 7:00 P.M. Mayor Arrambide called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL: Present: Council Members Clay, Johnson, Luna, Scalise and Mayor Arrambide Others Present: City Clerk Marcia McClure Torgerson Staff Present: City Manager Wade McKinney, Community Development Director Warren Frace, Public Works Director Steve Kahn, Deputy City Attorney David Fleischman, and Consultants Paul Crawford and Nicole Phillips of Crawford Multari and Clark. 1. GENERAL PLAN UPDATE WORKSHOP The Draft EIR and Draft General Plan were released for public comment on February 27, 2002. Release of the Draft EIR started a mandatory 45-day public review period as required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The public review period for commenting on the Draft EIR ends on Friday April 12th at 5:00 p.m. Although no public meetings are required CC Special Meeting 04/08/02 Page 1 Approved April 23,2002 during the 45-day public review period (Section 15087(1)), it is considered a good practice to hold meetings for the public to provide testimony on the Draft EIR. The City will be holding two public meetings during the review period, one was held for the Planning Commission on March 21 , 2002 and one for the City Council on April 8, 2002. The overall purpose of the workshop is to gather public testimony on the Draft EIR and Draft General Plan and to provide recommendations to the City on any issues that need to be addressed in the Draft documents. The Draft EIR and Draft General Plan have already been distributed to the City Council and are attached by reference only to this staff report. Members of the public may obtain printed copies or CD-ROM's of the Draft documents by purchase at City Hall or view them for free at the Atascadero Library or City website at www.atascadero.org. Staff Recommendations: 1 . The City Council take public testimony on the Draft EIR and Draft General Plan, reminding the public that only written comments will be formally responded to in the Final EIR. 2. The City Council review recommendations from the Planning Commission and Parks and Recreation Commission and direct staff on any issues or changes that should be addressed in either the Draft EIR or Draft General Plan. 3. The City Council provide staff with direction regarding the inclusion of additional Open Space areas on the Land Use Diagram. 4. The City Council provide staff with direction regarding the 28-acre Verheyen parcel located on Del Rio Road. No formal action will be taken on either the EIR or the General Plan at this workshop. Community Development Director Warren Frace gave the staff report, explained staff's recommendations and answered questions of Council. Consultant Paul Crawford gave an overview of the CEQA process and also answered questions of Council. Council Member Luna expressed his concerns with portions of the Draft EIR and the Draft General Plan relating to population projections, growth management and impacts of guest houses/second units using PowerPoint. (Attachment A) Mayor Arrambide interrupted Council Member Luna and asked him to express his opinions after the Public Comment period. CC Special Meeting 04/08/02 Page 2 Approved April 23,2002 MOTION: By Council Member Luna and seconded by Council Member Clay to overrule the Chairman. Motion passed 4:1 by a roll-call vote. (Mayor Arrambide opposed) Council Member Luna continued by expressing his concerns with the lack of a cost/benefit analysis, diminished services, inadequate review of water issues, emergency service levels, and sewer expansion outside the Urban Services Line and its fiscal and environmental implications. In addition Council Member Luna indicated that under the Draft General Plan, the City would lose 42.4 acres of commercial and gain one-tenth of an acre of industrial. Council Member Johnson asked if the average lot size has changed. Community Development Director Frace stated that the amount of area affected by the General Plan Update in terms of land use changes is about 5% of the City; therefore in 95% of the City there is no change to lot sizes. The average lot size in the Community at this time is close to one acre it will most likely drop to a little below an acre. Council Member Clay questioned population build-out percentages and felt the figures used are very high. PUBLIC COMMENT Dorothy McNeil stated her opposition to an update to the General Plan and the financial impacts an update will create. (Attachment B) Letha Musgrave, 9196 Ash Street, expressed her opposition to the General Plan update because of the effect it will have on the quality of life in Atascadero. She urged the Council to keep the existing General Plan and enforce it. (Attachment C) Howard Marohn, 9265 Barranco Heights, 3F Meadows Road Committee, stated he supports the alternate access proposal for 3F Meadows connecting Morro Road and Carmelita Ave. Gregg Cobarr, 9560 Gallina Court, expressed his opposition to the General Plan update and referred to a letter he submitted for the record that explains in detail his concerns. (Attachment D) Steve LaSalle, Atascadero, expressed his opposition to the General Plan update. (Attachment E) Robert Huot, 3850 Ardilla Road, explained his concerns with updating the General Plan: increase in traffic, noise levels, secondary routes, building at the north and south ends of town, affordable housing and smart growth. CC Special Meeting 04/08/02 Page 3 Approved April 23,2002 Rosemarie Handy, 8240 Larga Avenue, listed her concerns with updating the General Plan: creek setbacks, Fire Department standards and planning for increased population needs, and enforcement of laws regarding second units. (Attachment F) Raymond K. Jansen, 6655 Country Club Drive, shared with the Council his opposition of the General Plan update. He also read a list of specific concerns of the Homeowners Association with the proposed update. (Attachment G) Betty Scanlon, Flores Road, stated her concerns with the inconsistent land use designations proposed in the Draft General Plan. (Attachment H) John Moss, 5020 Ardilla Avenue, stated he felt the Draft General Plan seems well written and well prepared. He supports utilizing the concept of smart growth as a foundation for General Plan and listed some specific areas where he felt additional language would be appropriate. (Attachment 1) Alan Thomas, 1680 Encino, San Luis Obispo, explained to the Council his specific concerns with the proposed General Plan update including affordable housing and smart growth. He feels the impacts of the update will be opposite of the goals as set for the General Plan and would like to see the current General Plan retained. (Attachment J) John Heatherington, Atascadero, recommended to the Council that they update the existing General Plan by changing words and/or paragraphs one section at a time so the public can contribute to the process. He went through a list of items that the updated General Plan does not address and asked for a longer public review period for the Draft General Plan and Draft EIR. (Attachment K) Sorrel Marks, 11275 Atascadero Avenue, stated that some of the sections of the proposed update are vague and need more detail to ensure that discretionary decisions made by this or future Councils truly consider the smart growth principles. Mayor Arrambide recessed the hearing at 8.34 p.m. Mayor Arrambide called the meeting back to order at 8.52 p.m. Dave Carey, 4000 Santa Cruz Road, speaking for himself and some of his neighbors, expressed their concern regarding the zoning designation under the Draft General Plan for their neighborhood and feel it is inconsistent with the current and planned development for the area surrounding them. Michael Bentley, 2955 Monterey Road, described the area surrounding his property and discussed his request for a proposed lot split in this area. Bob Aknafesian, staff attorney for the Environmental Defense Center, listed specific sections of the Draft General Plan that were unclear to him. He urged the Council to clarify these areas and extend the public review period. CC Special Meeting 04/08/02 Page 4 Approved April 23,2002 Bruce Bonifas, speaking on behalf of the Atascadero Native Tree Association, urged the Council to include more emphasis on open space and native tree preservation in the updated General Plan. He gave specific suggestions of additional language that would satisfy these concerns. (Attachment Q George Molina, Atascadero, said that he empathizes with the Council and feels this process has taken too much time. He feels it is important to address industrial and commercial zoning as well as affordable housing. Mr. Molina stated that he owns 30 acres on Pine Mountain and requested that the area retain its current recreational zoning designation. He is willing to speak to all those concerned with open space issues and gave his phone number for anyone interested, 462-8943. David Crouch, 7305 Curbaril, expressed his opposition to updating the existing General Plan. (Attachment M) Doug Chisholm, President of Atascadero Land Preservation Society (ALPS), outlined several items in the Draft General Plan that ALPS agrees with and fully supports and encouraged the Council to make sure the goals are being met with this proposed update. Gretchen Gray, read from a prepared statement expressing her opposition to the Draft General Plan. (Attachment N) Paul Gray, Atascadero, expressed his opposition to updating the existing General Plan. Susan Meigs, 5560 Tunitas, shared her concerns with the Draft General Plan and urged the Council to preserve the existing General Plan. (Attachment 0) Marissa Todd, 4500 Del Rio Road, expressed her opposition to the update of the General Plan. (Attachment P) Eric Peterson, Atascadero, felt the proposed update concentrates on single-family residential housing to a greater degree than on providing incentives for commercial development that would provide additional tax revenue. (Attachment Q) Bill Obermayer, representing the Atascadero Horsemen, expressed appreciation for the additional open space included in the update and asked the Council to include more detailed language in the master trail plan. Dan Knutson, 1775 San Ramon, requested that San Ramon be included in the General Plan revision to bring it into conformity with the surrounding parcels. (Attachment R) David Broadwater, 6604 Portola Road, stated he is opposed to updating the existing General Plan. CC Special Meeting 04/08/02 Page 5 Approved April 23,2002 Sonia Sera, 8805 Santa Cruz Road, stated the documents proposed are inadequate and she urged the Council not to approve the General Plan update. (Attachment S) Ursula Luna, Atascadero, said she is concerned that the Council is now being asked one week before the end of the public comment period, to amend the Draft General Plan to include a high density housing development where the proposed Draft Plan now shows a school. This would mean extending sewer service across Highway 101 causing a potentially significant growth-inducing impact. (Attachment T) Joan O'Keefe, 9985 Old Morro Road East, stated she has been opposed to updating the General Plan since the first meetings concerning this issue. (Attachment U) Craig Dingman, 6620 Atascadero Avenue, is opposed to the rewrite of the General Plan. He expressed concern regarding his own neighborhood, which would be surrounded by increased density under the current proposal. (Attachment V) Joyce Zimmerman, 6225 Lomitas Road, felt the current General Plan has served Atascadero well and would continue to do so if Council would allow it to remain unchanged. (Attachment W) Daphne Fahsing, asked the Council to remember the editorial in the Atascadero News a few weeks ago that expressed opposition to updating the existing General Plan. (Attachment X) Livia Kellerman, stated her comments regarding Overlay #12, the Atascadero Avenue Triangle, and the area on Tunitas Avenue, in a prepared statement read into the record by Martin Kellerman. (Attachment Y) Becky Pacas, 4300 San Benito Road, listed specific sections of the DEIR that she feels contain errors. Fred Frank, 3615 Ardilla, asked the Council to take the comments of the public tonight seriously. He suggested the Council carefully review the details of the Draft General Plan and respond to the wishes of the community. Ellen Berand, expressed her opposition to updating the General Plan, pointing out several areas in the proposed plan which do not match the smart growth principles. (Attachment Z) Rosemarie McCane Carrington, Atascadero, is concerned with the economics of the proposed General Plan Update. Brian Carney, 9580 Carmelita, shared his concern with the over-population of Atascadero and feels this new General Plan does not adequately address the issue. (Attachment AN CC Special Meeting 04/08/02 Page 6 Approved April 23,2002 Geraldine Brasher, 3202 Monterey Road, expressed her opposition to updating the General Plan. (Attachment BB) Bill McFarlen, Atascadero, stated that both he and his wife are opposed to the proposed update of the General Plan. (Attachment CC) James Patterson, 9312 North Santa Margarita Road, stated that most people, who have moved here, came because of the natural environment. He spoke about the economic health of the community and suggested the Council continue the public comment period on the Draft General Plan and Draft EIR for at least another 30 days to give people the opportunity to look at some of the information which has only recently come out regarding water resources, housing requirements from the State Department of Housing, adequacy of commercial and industrial zoning and to allow the Council to address questions raised at tonight's meeting. Robin Femister, 7109 San Gregorio, asked the Council not to repeat the mistakes of the past. Mary Pellett, Atascadero, stated that almost everyone that has spoken tonight is opposed to the update of the General Plan and many are opposed to second unit housing. He asked how the provision for second units came to be included in the General Plan Update. Jerry McDaniel, San Gabriel Road, stated his support of the proposed update of the General Plan and indicated he was in favor of second units in the "Y" area. Doug Lewis, citizen at large, stated that the Draft General Plan Circulation Element contains a historical error in reference to the road system in Atascadero. Alice Rew, 4500 Hidalgo Avenue, felt that the current General Plan has 17 years of life remaining and amendments, which are allowed four times a year, should be sufficient to address any potential problems. (Attachment DD) Bruce Buckingham, San Caeytano Road, spoke regarding the Dove Creek mixed used land use designation and offered several suggestions for this area. John Knight, planner with the RRM Design Group, stated he has seen several General Plan updates and knows they are difficult and time consuming. Mr. Knight spoke on behalf of the Smith-Hobson family regarding property referred to as "Eagle Ranch," and who propose clustering an existing 400 Colony lots, which will provide the City with an opportunity to create open space within the city limits. He also suggests adding senior housing as an appropriate use on the Eagle Ranch property. MOTION: By Council Member Clay and seconded by Council Member Johnson to go past 11 :00 PM. Motion passed 4:1 by a voice vote. (Luna opposed) CC Special Meeting 04/08/02 Page 7 Approved April 23,2002 Mayor Arrambide closed the Public Comment period. The Council asked additional questions of staff. Mayor Arrambide asked the Council it they would be opposed to re-opening the Public Comment period. There was Council consensus to do so. John McGoff, 9192 Maple, asked if the subdivision proposed at Del Rio will need a public hearing if the Council directs staff to include it in the General Plan. He also stated he is opposed to the update of the General Plan. Mayor Arrambide closed the Public Comment period. Mayor Arrambide reviewed the process and intent of tonight's meeting and urged the public to submit their written comments before Friday. Mayor Arrambide expressed his appreciation to all those who took the time to read through the Draft General Plan and Draft EIR and present their comments tonight. Mayor Arrambide reviewed several issues which were raised including: second units, '/2 acre lots outside of the original study area, open space, trail system and water resources. Council Member Clay stated he supports second unit housing as the least intrusive method of providing affordable housing in the community. Council Member Luna felt if there was support for second units, an analysis should be done by the consultants. Mayor Arrambide stressed that there should be a very viable control in regard to the build-out and believes that the plan must be dynamic and should contain a mechanism to monitor build-out. Council Member Luna referred to the County's growth management plan to monitor the rate of growth allowing a moratorium if growth exceeds the determined acceptable rate. He stated that there is no growth management in either the existing General Plan or the proposed Draft General Plan. Therefore, the build-out figure is the only mechanism for controlling growth and this figure is totally inaccurate and does not reflect the policy options or guesthouses. Council Member Clay referred to guesthouses and stated that in the Y Zone, as proposed, the guesthouse would be eliminated, leaving only 250 lots that would be suitable for second units. Council Member Luna observed that the housing and community development in the State of California does not give credit for second units so the housing element cannot be validated through the use of guesthouses. Therefore, guesthouses should be deleted and staff should be instructed to come back with a second residential unit ordinance with appropriate parameters. CC Special Meeting 04/08/02 Page 8 Approved April 23,2002 Council Member Johnson reminded everyone that the average lot size in Atascadero is still approximately one acre, which retains its rural character. He said the affordable housing issue must be addressed to meet the needs of all income levels in the community. Council Member Johnson encouraged staff to look at possible alternatives to industrial or commercial property to enhance the local economy. He supports looking at the open space recommendations from the Planning Commission and possibly to delete the guesthouse option at this time. He would also like staff to follow up on the legal arguments on the Draft EIR. Council Member Clay referred to the pilot program in the Y Zone and feels this would be a good step in determining if the extra unit would work. He encouraged more condo projects in the community to provide entry-level housing. Mayor Pro Tem Scalise stated that historically second units were not to be rental units but rather to provide housing for elderly family members, etc., and this will continue to be a niche that must be filled. She referred to the senior housing bonus as discussed in an earlier General Plan meeting as a possible way to provide this housing and felt strongly that it must be included in the update. A discussion ensued regarding the Verheyen parcel on Del Rio Road. Council Member Clay asked Mr. Moresco to address the Council. Dennis Moresco, 6955 EI Camino Real, developer for the Verheyen parcel, answered questions of Council. MOTION: By Council Member Johnson and seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Scalise to include the Verheyen parcel in concept. Motion passed 4:1 by a roll-call vote. (Luna opposed) Council Member Luna referred to the Draft EIR and the 2001 levels of service at key intersections. The problem he sees is that the recommended improvements have not been made conditions of the Draft General Plan. He feels that when the Draft EIR points out significant deficiencies in the circulation system, they need to be addressed and made part of the conditions of the Draft Plan. MOTION: By Council Member Clay and seconded by Council Member Johnson to accept the open space proposal. Motion passed 5.0 by a roll-call vote. MOTION: By Council Member Luna and seconded by Council Member Johnson that staff be instructed to come back with the parameters for a second unit ordinance for SFR-Y greater than one acre with the deletion of the guesthouses from the zoning ordinance. Council Member Clay asked if this motion would mean that there would no longer be guesthouses built in Atascadero. CC Special Meeting 04/08/02 Page 9 Approved April 23,2002 Council Member Luna stated this was correct unless they were second units. Guesthouses would be out and there would be a pilot program for second units. MOTION: By Council Member Luna and seconded by Council Member Johnson that staff be instructed to come back with the parameters for a second unit ordinance for SFR-Y greater than one acre with the deletion of the guesthouses from the zoning ordinance. Motion passed 3:2 by a roll-call vote. (Arrambide & Clay opposed) MOTION: By Mayor Pro Tem Scalise and seconded by Council Member Luna to instruct staff to continue to look at what the Planning Commission and Parks and Recreation Commission put forward. Motion passed 5:0 by a roll-call vote. Council Member Clay discussed water shed areas and non-native plants that have encroached into the creek. He feels that non-native trees and vegetation should be on the list to remove from creek areas. ADJOURNMENT: Mayor Arrambide adjourned the meeting at 12:26 a.m. to the next regularly scheduled meeting on April 9, 2002. MEETING RECORDED AND MINUTES TRANSCRIBED BY: 1 , �� � 1 Marcia McClure Torgerson, City Clerk Attachment A — Council Member Luna Powerpoint Presentation Attachment B - Dorothy McNeil, 8765 Sierra Vista Road Attachment C — Letha Musgrave, 9196 Ash Street Attachment D — Gregg Cobarr, 9560 Gallina Court Attachment E — Steve LaSalle, Atascadero Attachment F — Rosemarie Handy, 8240 Larga Avenue Attachment G — Raymond K. Jansen, 6655 Country Club Drive Attachment H — Betty Scanlon, Flores Road Attachment I — John Moss, 5020 Ardilla Avenue Attachment J —Alan Thomas, 1680 Encino, San Luis Obispo Attachment K— John Heatherington, Atascadero Attachment L — Bruce Bonifas, Atascadero Native Tree Association Attachment M — David Crouch, 7305 Curbaril Attachment N — Gretchen Gray Attachment O — Susan Meigs, 5560 Tunitas CC Special Meeting 04/08/02 Page 10 Approved April 23,2002 Attachment P — Marissa Todd, 4500 Del Rio Road Attachment Q — Eric Peterson, Atascadero Attachment R — Dan Knutson, 1775 San Ramon Attachment S — Sonia Sera, 8805 Santa Cruz Road Attachment T— Ursula Luna, Atascadero Attachment U — Joan O'Keefe, 9985 Old Morro Road East Attachment V— Craig Dingman, 6620 Atascadero Avenue Attachment W—Joyce Zimmerman, 6225 Lomitas Road Attachment X— Daphne Fahsing Attachment Y— Livia Kellerman Attachment Z— Ellen Berand Attachment AA— Brian Carney, 9580 Carmelita Attachment BB — Geraldine Brasher, 3202 Monterey Road Attachment CC — Bill McFarlen, Atascadero Attachment DD —Alice Rew, 4500 Hidalgo Avenue CC Special Meeting 04/08/02 Page 11 Attachment: A Atascadero City Council Special Mtg. April 8, 2002 �t cV J, O W O � � ct O caCt3 w O O c U a � w 045 w Q r4s� ct ct o � a� 046 3 I V as p r o ct � o 4-j cn ictO • � • U ct 4� ,-� 047 w T4^U V 1 .;.A a� to o .4 r PIZ O 0 POO •~ 7 .� P-4 ct PC rA PC nz CC34-4 P= 048 0 � o � ct3 4� O ct 4-j ~ 1 049 W con Poo P-0 U � > 5 4-0 .� ZA Pooe� Q •° '= o �* 4 s'Z' vs o E� � .. y v ..� .. � OPO POO •� 4W. ° PM-4 PON* 050 .� ci c Cd .� O o •� Cldp u o w o 4 ptz (D 0 pmol o -� ~ ~ r7 W H 051 POONA .= '� c ►� o PC rA -4 > a -PZ En .� ce� PC := � w .o „C a u" Immum P= 0 Poo . .PO4 A 052 a) o "C a) ct 6 CtO coo O cc3 ct� �., O u �-� •° � C) C� c CA > cnct �...� 0 ct . O m bj ;-.4 ;-.4 H >1 U c� ct . •� � � a� ct Q �' ct =� 03 O (1) ccs U 053 Description Policy District District Draft Plan DEIR Staff Option Draft Plan Council Direction Table 11-3 Table 2 calculated includes includes PD-7 3 SFR-X SFR-X 72 du none 72 du 190 pop 190 pop 2 Units 5 A SFR-Y only on 1 - 1.5 50 du none 50 du/132 pop acre lots in SFR-Y 132 pop @ 20% on lots > 1 ac. Mixed Use 5 B GC-R 16 units per acre 189 du 189 du 189 du plus bonuses 501 pop 501 pop 501 pop 20% @ 20% @ 20% PD lot size 8 city-wide and SFR-Y none none SFRX 36 du inconsistency sometimes in: SFR-Z SFR-Y 42 du SFR-X SE SFR-Z 19 du SFR-Y SE ? SFR-Z RE ? SE RR ? Guesthouses 5A RR RR none none none RE RE SE SE SFR-X SFR-X SFR-Z SFR-Z SFR-Y My attached Maximum Potential Development Table does not include: 1. Increases from PD non-conforming lot splits in the SE district. The number of additional units is unknown since staff did not provide data for this district. 2. Increases from PD non-conforming lot splits in the RE and RR districts. The number of additional units is unknown since staff did not provide data for these districts. 3. Increases from PD non-conforming lot splits because there are not standards limiting when it can be applied (Staff Report example on page 009 response 12). The number of additional units is unknown since staff did not provide data for unrestricted application of PD lot splits to maximum density. 4. Any additional higher densities from allowing 16 housing units instead of 16 bedroom units. Staff did not provide data for this change. The number of additional units is unknown since staff did not provide the data. 5. Allowed density bonuses. The number of additional units is unknown since staff did not provide data. 6. Guesthouses and second units in SFR-Y if policy 8.2.3 is not amended per Staff Report 3- 21-02 page 12.The number of additional units 7,322. This includes 42 units from new PD lot size inconsistencies. The number will rise if the PD is not restricted as explained in the Staff Report example on page 009 response 12. 7. Higher densities allowed in the future by"corresponding zoning districts". The number of additional units is unknown. 8. Any additional higher densities allowed by"flexible zoning standards". The number of additional units is unknown. 054 N y y N G V N ttj� cva ag o X m �f N Irl) N Cl) " ti IL �� �y cc 04 M ttt n N m Off N 8 b N r r 1A ai N O 0. #A >a0y> a gnifc,uj,ni ° g co et to co o co ao 0 0 0o CL umi &> <O Cl) N Go e- et co Ln O t- Eo 9 Y3 � $.N w LL. I Cl) Ln co r V) t0 N Lf) co c a N 3 N Q L O y aR m N gm$U' D:IV CO ICl) to nN O C N cli Ln O1 V) f^'7 N Ol f�V C'f C�'f i0 cN' >>$ mtd �n oU x m 3 N W a maR min �gU' KtV y � l7 N .�e�p� CO M y N C4 N N {+1 t0 L Y3D _� d W i'V1 � A> Wx �U) f(pp tff pN� ffpp N l`7 M Q 10 }a m aQ: m � H LL_aR � b $ a $ Ag co 51) aOm d am x tv c a � �eCC > La LL0 E = g�co M N Q) A aR y tMt�� 1` 1QA� �t(ppD O f7 O 0 N C4 N > dF, co co N I r R aR d — D y C (O�p N In In N h P 1(lp'f C'f O N Of O j W Of r V f^'1 N N /") f"1 f�7 04 / 11!333 a O e'1 'X N" CL aeCA co �N A co co C4 0 N f7 N t7 N co V . V O r C 7 C 7 i6 N A spy �p C. j• �p 1� fV p^�j tp !") 1n r eNef IQ rrsYV Ol r fV OI i'7 T N (n 3o N to N M a N c Cl) Al L w� wIDy C c R' LL U. LL O O K y N to C S U' 1- O ! %KS! � ■8 .� . � � � 2■a!@� § � � !!�§u■ 2 kd§/#p 1 � !!!•t § § � , | $ R , § � =s�■e 3Jl IZ2 | ; §)K ■IZ§ a . . . ; )} . 2 . . . . . . . . . •a a § , IR 7 § #SU) § � k2�kt k �GKt . 5 • � . \�K� 2 7 kk§ 2 & ^ » § !#! . !/■ �7 ! � Ix zCLa � ! aa: �ka mg 056 6k§ 2 ` ' \ kk� . . $K %N . ] . ■!$� _ $ - . . !!2§)a 2 \�ka�\ GI!!cr ® f § 5�-2fur ur k kU. LL ■ ' 2 \§kk�j r D 2 @ ! �U. ; . / � k C4 2LL S 2 2 k{kt ! \A . � K{K! . aco K a . k �k ■ . . . . N,A \2 _ i 2 Z $§ � 2 - ■ . of 2 f!�kk k!- ' 2 ) t !, i / ! 2� 057 �2■`� ),!a �Il2 < 9 ■$ a.- ) (n/§£! |�! kACL$ ■ �\§! ���§ �� � • m, / §U-)!!■ 2 �§i 2kIL . § §\§ 3 !t)•K § � . !&�■� . a § f;LU 2 £ aa,, � (L ce cr N _ $ .2.Ci k 2Ia77J 2k2k//\ k\k . 2 ® § 2 I ]A 2 kt,k) .§ aka $ r`j . . 7&■ k R §R5 . . . . . !K . . co . i k i ® to - i ` ' - 058 ! � !2E . � 2lIk % A %22 �, ■§` k `� k ) . . ■a .� !r .!@ . §sa§ui U. ! ,�, .�� . k §k§!lz . l2taK / ! �A! k | . -2aL. E � ; k ■ 2!7■LU . §�x 2,2«!� k §k§!car: � . ■sA . . \ . . . . £ at k_ . ! )�}k . ! I bag k k \I . . !k� I-! . § K�(! q I:! k K2K !a )k o . . k ■ . co a . k I) 0. k \ !$�§ §k k ) 059 � � ■ �\)2) . ! . %3$§! 9j U. ! l.,f N w IL ) l LL �f2 §e§ , �U. M ,� ■a$ S . /g §\ ! k�!luj . /)k/�\ ©•§ /. §e ,! U- §\2d#N- D S G k04LL . . 2kk! ,A § / \19 2) . ! aR^ # § 2{§! co 04 ! . \\\\ !Ken 2 k{J � i . I . ■ . � �� ` � �§j ■ § ° . !! 22 2 2 060 .@, i!! ,d, !( . . 2l2J ■/ B 28 S§ � §k!�«\ � | !•K& !a2|k§ to k �d§ ck !■} � . !2¢�§ ) kt!!uj u2 Ir $ .fj�� . `!2§� )�K W§ }� k !LL m m } k §2K§t !k§t / $$ ! . � � $� 2 ■ f/!, $ . . � � § co 2� § d . 061 � s ak! C6 | k\ff ! Rla�S 5I2§Q§ ! K§aR § -, J�pi !�2§U . k kU- WJ kkk/af . 2 tlUL A A 7;2 §u �2a uj ! `© ■M» ! �U- W Go . . . off$ . 2 \2KkD . . . ; 2&Kt ) k I�! k ©^ ' � C4 . K{Kt . � k■ . k 14A 2 �i . 2 | a2 $i $ ■f !� § . . 2 !% IL . - 062 � ®- ■ �a§ /} ■U)� . 2 .taKl §f� §@■ 2w2� � ! aft aK §M�a =!$•t a 7&a2Ld LL \ \kk\}j $ .ta§ . 221 !§ .x ! /K8 eU) ; . k ■ka . . . C4 2 \2\kt k 3{kt k)J , �AaR . ■ . R § � ! . \)I CRI 89 . � �� k■ � . . . � 2 � ^ 2 k A ! i� . a . � ■ . � IS � CL !% � � 2# � ! k ' ® i « ! £! �2 2 - 063 � ) E . U- ,2� ■u � 2 �§ UX � J 0 LL ,22 ■u - ]0:!!k2 k §\k$CCN ! ;i! a .�a . � A a ® t 14A . . $ . � 7 . # � . � ■ � � « k7 , r ` - 064 $ )K 2 \Od � R 2 l�t,� . ■ V ctL ` eq LU § §#7cr ) .!!t Ld /N w . � § , ! U. § _; a�� c D S R 4 \U. 2 §§ a . ;aU. ± §§§§ ! . AaR ! % §�k$ k{Kt � . . mk ■ . ]A ' K -�k . . . . � � ■ . � ! � ■ . Attachment: B Atascadero City Council Spe te. April 8, 2002 1 City of Atascadero April 8, 2002 APR 8 2270 C/o Nicole Phillips Crawford Multari and Clark Associates cin or krA;cA—" IDE 641 Higuera St., Suite 302 CIEJtKSOrrI , San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 The stated reason (or excuse) given by then Mayor Johnson and City Manager Wade McKinney for a rewrite of the current General Plan was "to correct the inconsistencies". That was more than two years and hundred of thousands of dollars ago. The so-obvious goal of this Draft Plan has been to give developers, speculators and realtors city-wide rezonings to higher densities so they would not have to apply or pay for such changes. Also, they would not have to give the affected neighborhoods an opportunity to object. If this plan passes, these high density gifts cannot be reversed by electing a better council. Here is some evidence of these gifts: 1. Zoning "Flexible zoning standards that provide for a range of housing densities in various zones." "Flexible" —whatever council wants to make it? "Various zones"— anywhere, everywhere? In your neighborhood? In mine? 2. Rentals Second units and guest houses (the latter in all areas), all rental units. No more single family neighborhoods. Police Chief Hegwood told an audience soon after his arrival that towns with many rental areas have higher crime rates than those with fewer rentals. 3. Population The buildout figure in the Draft Plan (36,137) is erroneous. As written now, the Draft Plan figure should be over 60,000 without adding the Eagle Ranch. Our population as of January, 2001 was 26,900. 4. Water and Sewer With such explosive growth, the adequacy of our water supply and sewer Treatment Facility will need mitigation. Sources of new water are very expensive and so will be the expansion of the sewage treatment. The Draft Plan proposes to sewer the entire city. Being forced to hook up to sewer could cost some residents on limited incomes their homes. 5. Roads The March 12' Council meeting made it clear that if residents want their roads fixed, they will have to get together with their neighbors and pay for it themselves. With the heavy increase in population, the roads will deteriorate more quickly. 066 Page 2 McNeil 6. Traffic Traffic is backed up now. Picture the problem we will have with high densities at both the north and south ends of town. We are not like Paso and most other cities. We have only EI Camino and the freeway. People will probably hop on the freeway and go to Paso Robles to shop. 7. Mitigation Mitigation of all kinds of impacts such as creek setbacks have been left"to the future". Have residents noticed all the Kelly Gearhart houses being built 2 feet from the creek? Can we believe councils like this one will provide and enforce setbacks in "the future". 8. Library Apartments allowed on the small lot by the library? Incredible! The parking lot is full most of the time. How can the library keep out the cars of the apartment tenants? 9. Costs Residential growth never pays for itself. This plan does not provide jobs, just dwellings. Who will pay, and how, for the impacts on roads, water, sewer, traffic control, schools, added police and fire protection? It won't be the developers. They will take their profits and move on. This General Plan Rewrite process has been one of smoke and mirrors. Now you see it; now you don't. Here is a fine example: The current General Plan says: "Preserve the rural atmosphere of the community by assuring `elbow room' for residents by means of maintaining large lots." The Draft Plan says: "Preserve the rural atmosphere of the community and the feeling of elbow room in areas designated for lower density development." With rental guest houses in all areas, where are the areas of lower density? Don't assure elbow room; just use the old smoke and mirrors to make them feel they have it. Dorothy F. McNeil 6'. 0 Q )�8765 Siena Vista Road Atascadero, CA 93422 067 Attachment: C Atascadero City Council Special Mtg. April 8, 2002 COMMENTS TO CITY COUNCIL ON PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN, April 8, 2002 It is hard to understand why our Atascadero City Council is considering a General Plan which would do so much to destroy the quality of life we are accustomed to in our beautiful and beloved city. While a certain amount of growth is necessary, it must be controlled. The number of new units allowed in the proposed Plan, with their accompanying traffic, noise and air pollution, would change the nature of life in Atascadero beyond recognition. In the short run the developers may make a profit, but in the long run they are likely to defeat their own purpose because people wanting to escape the drawbacks of big city life will find most of the same evils here and will not choose to stay, or even to come in the first place. Those needing low income housing will also be disappointed, because the proposed new units will be out of their price range, especially if their taxes are increased to pay for the necessary street maintenance, schools, sewage disposal and other items not provided for in the plan. In fact, such increased assessments may cause some present residents, especially seniors, to lose their homes. We have a good General Plan, which, contrary to what we have been led to believe, has several years to run. It allows for reasonable growth while preserving our uniquely attractive area. The present plan needs to be better enforced, but needs no drastic changes now. Whatever may be ruined by such changes can never be brought back. The citizens of Atascadero love their charming city for various reasons. Some grew up under its venerable oaks and enjoy their happy childhood memories. Others, like my husband and me, are relative newcomers, but love those same oaks and the spacious, leisurely atmosphere of Atascadero. Still other people, longing to get away from the traffic, pollution and crowds of Los Angeles or the Bay area, have seen Atascadero and are regarding it as a desirable place to move into. Don't make them change their minds. We can make room for a desirable number of new citizens under the present Plan. All in all, those wishing to preserve our lovely city are definitely in the majority. According to our principles of American democracy the will of the majority should rule. Do not oppose or even ignore the clear mandate of this majority of Atascadero lovers by pushing through a General Plan that will benefit only a very few. Letha Musgrave (Mrs. Brian Musgrave) 9196 Ash Street Atascadero, CA 93422-5802 Phone: (805) 466-3956 068 Attachment: D Atascadero City Council Special Mtg. April 8, 2002 April 8, 2002 City of Atascadero C/o: Nicole Phillips Crawford Multari & Clark Associates 641 Higuera St. Suite 302 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Dear Ms. Phillips, I felt that it was important to address a few issues that I'm very concerned about regarding the proposed Draft General Plan and Draft Environmental Impact Report. First is the issue of a sewer provided in all areas of the city, inside and outside the Urban Services line. The DEIR does not address the impacts, including, but not limited to potential growth as a result of expanding the sewer line.The DEIR doesn't address other related issues to an expanded sewer line such as impacts of digging, possible destroying of habitat, trucking, noise, cost of repairing roads that have been torn up as a result of the expansion and other environmental issues. Septic systems already in place in outlying areas outside the Urban Services line are serving the needs of the residents satisfactorily and the idea of providing an expanded sewer line would only seem to serve the purpose of expanding areas to provide for more housing. Any DEIR must address this issue. Secondly,the issue of Second Units and second houses must be addressed in the DEIR with all potential impacts included.To allow Second Units in the SFR-Y and second houses on all single family lots without fully addressing all the potential impacts of doubling our population and every impact that would result from that is intolerable. Granted, it might be difficult to enforce what"Guesthouses"or second houses are rented and which are not, however,just because it might be difficult to enforce is no excuse for allowing them.The potential to destroy the present quality of our city is at risk if Second Units in SFR-Y zones and second houses in all single family lots are allowed without addressing the impacts fully in the DEIR.This issue must be taken seriously and addressed at every step of the way or our city could be changed forever in a way that I'm sure very few people now living in Atascadero would support. Lastly, I would like to address some of my thoughts to the City Council of Atascadero. I want you to ask yourselves—is your vote going to enhance the quality of life or damage 069 the quality of life here in Atascadero?If your vote enhances the quality of life then you can be proud of what you've done for our beautiful city,but if your vote damages the quality of life here in Atascadero then shame on you for taking one of the most wonderful cities to live in and destroying it. We are all so fortunate that a visionary, E.G. Lewis, gave us a General Plan to protect the quality of life here based on a balance of city and rural residential areas.The rural atmosphere throughout most of Atascadero and protected by the current General Plan is why I moved here with my family 16 years ago. I felt that even though I could have settled with my family anywhere, I chose Atascadero because of it's incredible rural character and the special qualities that were protected by our General Plan. My family and I live in one of the most rural parts of Atascadero and recently my son, who has lived in Atascadero his entire life, said to me that he wanted to move and live in the country. I told him that I moved to Atascadero because of the beautiful country settings. He then turned to me and said, "Dad, have you looked around lately?". If he said that now, can you imagine what people will be saying about Atascadero in the future if the General Plan Update is left"as is"? So I ask each of you,our representatives, to give serious thought to whether your vote is going to improve the quality of life here or degrade it acre by acre. Atascadero deserves the right to grow,but only in the most precious way. Thank you for your time. Respectfully submitted, Gregg Cobarr 9560 Gallina Court Atascadero, CA 93422 070 1 - 8 - � a Attachment: E Atascadero City Council Special Mtg. April 8, 2002 Stephen P. LaSalle 7505 Marchant Ave. - Atascadero, CA 93422 461-3559 Atascadero City Council The DER is a fatally flawed document. The latest water study on Atascadero's water basin was just released last week after the DER had already come out. The water use figurers do not address use outside of the city limits but still within the Atascadero Colony district mandated supply area nor does it address or analyze the future growth and use of water by the San Luis Obispo County areas that tap the same water basin that Atascadero uses. In addition, the future Atascadero population figures as speculated by the DER are grossly under estimated which make the results invalid. Sincerely, 071 Attachment: F Atascadero City Council Special Mtg. April 8, 2002 REGARDING THE DRAFT ETR AND DRAFT GENERAL PLAN April 8, 2002 My concerns for our city are the following: The bowling alley has a suit against the city because the creek bank is eroded and affecting their property. By allowing build- ings too close to creek and river beds we are inviting more law suits against the city. Our fire department does not meet the standards recommended by the National Fire Safety Board for our present population. Poorly planned growth in too short a time would put a burden on the fire department that could put all of us in jeopardy. Many of our houses are in fire hazard areas and the planning should take this into consideration. I find the proposed General Plan sloppily written with too many vague phrases such as "in the future." Re-writing the Plan has been a colossal waste of time and money. And worse than that, it has caused enormous antagonism between the concerned citizens and the business community. These hard feelings are felt more in a town of this size than in a larger place because we all interact with one another on a daily basis . Let' s keep' the General Plan we have and restore harmony to this pleasant place. If the rental of guest houses cannot be enforced, as the city advises us , then they should not be built. Unenforced laws lead to further law breaking. I .always feel good when I return to Atascadero on the freeway from either north or south because of our lovely wooded hills . If we continue removing the trees and allowing used car lots , storage sheds and ugly buildings on our main street, people will start calling this city Trashcadero, and it will cease to be a pleasant place to live and do business . Rosemarie Handy 8240 Larga Avenue Atascadero 072 Attachment: G Atascadero City Council Special Mtg. April 8, 2002 Raymond K. aanhen, 6655 Countay Caul Da.ive Elonoaal-2e P9emleah o/ Atazeadeao City Council: auht ah oua god.ieh conh.iht o� heveaai .intea-gelated hyhtemh .2.ike the c.iacaXatoay, d.igeht.ive, zeZ12isat_ozy, and muhcu$aa ;,Ouact.ionh in oadea to live, a Xu.2l.i.22ed community hah heveaal ah- pacth to -ith cha2actez which .i.nte2dapendent.0y and haamon.iouziy woak togethea. The motet .impoataat o,,P thehe .ih ouahe.2veh, collectively, ah aeh-identh, oua demonhtaat.ionh o�e la.ith, oua comm.itmenth to edu- cat.ion, oua commeac.ia.2 act.iv.it.ieh, and 6da admin.ihtaaLive.-/aol it.ica.P 4enhe 0,2 d.iaect.ion. No h.iagie one 0,1 thehe -ih moat -imiroatant oa adequate alone. Vithout a d.iveah.ity oZ ta.2enth a 12.2ace will have ne.ithea a 2.a.2- anced mind, heaat, oa lody. An ael2ha at.icai gizi-ing of these ah- /2ecth o,,E community $.ire would &e ah &.E2owz adm.in.iht sat.ion, mea- chantz coml2a.ih.ing the:.:luh.inehh commun.ity, -inte.24ectuai .integ2.ity thorough education, o/2i2oatun.it.ieh boa emfl2o me t, adtig a moaa.2 coml2ahh jeaom ith h/2h iaitua2 vaPue � a41 Atahcadeao •ih not ,eike that, howevea. What I .see heae z a well oagan.ized and heavily hu9zid.ized guh.inehh commun,ity�ed gy a hmaii ;eact.ion oI aeaitoah and de e eat �hqh�a cal2tuaed the City Council Zoa a decade. A�� n d $y/A ��.et ite boa plto,,e.ityand hk.i2.2ed .in the azt o,,O advd,t.i.o.ing to. caeate matea.ia-e wantzT By the hheea volume o/ adveath oua hoca$led /tee p4azs and media age 8 ehoiden to them. Iaon.icaiiy, oua council majoa.ity- and many othea mem9eah who have come and gone- aan on the paem.ihe that they loved Atahcadezo ah .it wah: iaage Qoth, a auaa2 atmohl2heae, wonde4,Zu2 t2ee4, and a hp.i.a.it o� live and tet live. 7heae .ih &at one thing to say agout that--to you and thohe who have gaet the zzath o�/Powea: 'You .tied to uh .in woad and deed". Finally, aegaad.ing th.ih aev.ihed jCeneaa.2 Plan, •i.h it not ilae-. P hh-teaouh and 12,tehumL2tuouh to /2ao/2ohe that no eutuae council can c/zange what .ih to Re done? I faaehume. .it .ih Qazefect --,oz thohe wh@7 will 1240"P-it Ay .it. c X -��_ Attachment: H I ^r`' Atascadero City Council Special Mtg. rtc rc s PJ �¢�`E� SC' April 8, 2002 There are too many inconsistencies and self- contradictions in the Draft General Plan to address in one letter or one comment to the City council tonight. I will simply address one issue that seems most ambiguous and poorly thought out. The Land use element of the DGP is divided into Residential, Mixed, and non-residential, with corresponding zoning listed on table II-4. The guiding principle of the LOC is to be retention of historic pattern and rural character of the city (p. II-1). Yet the LOC goal #3 is to TRANSFORM the EI Camino strip to commercial office and industrial areas that can provide economic viability. This would seem contradictory to the overall goal'retention of historic pattern-"Until you read the 10 policies of this goal: *Retail commercial centers at the very North and south ends of town •Allow mixed use and multi-family developments along EI Camino Real • Mixed useand multifamily along Morro Road These policies are in direct conflict with the LOC goal to provide economic viability. They are similar to this city's current policies of incongruent uses along the urban strips. Currently, we have used cars next to thrift shops. Auto dealers are next to restaurants, Chiropractors and grocery stores are mixed in everywhere. Instead of planning future development that is compatible, these land use goals make more chaotic policies. Now you can have the massage parlor, tattoo parlor, trailer park and day care center all on the same block with high density housing. This goal LOC #3 creates far more inconsistencies than it corrects and is bad planning. The same situation is true for LOC #4. The strong, distinctive downtown will allow so many uses that it will be impossible to meet the goal of a downtown cultural center. There are so few lots to develop downtown but programs states that "mixed use multifamily residential up to 16u/ac." or higher may be allowed. This program will preclude any space for cultural, "vibrant dining" areas. Indeed, all of the downtown area is a mix of commercial and residential uses. m4f F, •��-a� Retail, offices, service, commercial and residential are all allowed 074 under the Downtown designation (II-8). This is chaotic and ambiguous planning that creates more problems than it solves. Just a look at the color coded map (fig. II-2) reinforces a hodgepodge of land use designations. The zoning designations along EI Camino are a mixture of residential and non-residential along with some mixed uses. There are service commercial and commercial parks sprinkled in with high, medium and low density residences. The same vague plan is proposed along Morro rd. where general commercial is allowed . General commercial is a mixed use designation(11-7) and will allow everything from retail, to office, commercial tourist and residential. This is the same as the current plan where the proposals are granted on an individual basis and don't have to be compatible with surrounding uses. This plan will only put into writing for the next 20 years a plan for incompatible land uses and a chaotic town where anything goes. Betty Scanlan 3j 0 Flores Rd. ) 4-8-02 075 Attachment: I Atascadero City Council Special Mtg. April 8, 2002 John E. Moss April 8, 2002 Mayor Mike Arrambide and City Council City of Atascadero 6500 Palma Ave. Atascadero, CA 93422 Subject: Draft General Plan Dear Mayor and City Council: This letter is provided as a comment letter on the General Plan—Draft Plan-Version 1. I have reviewed the plan in some detail and for the most part find it to be well prepared, appropriate and reasonable. I do have some areas of specific comment for your consideration as you proceed with the development and adoption of a final plan. I appreciate your providing myself and the community with the opportunity to comment on the plan and help shape the City. The concepts of smart growth and the General Plan Framework Principles are an excellent foundation for this general plan. It is and will be the balancing of these principals, as they may at times be in conflict with each other, that will indeed be the challenge. As I read through the plan, I felt that the framework principals for open space and hillside protection,wildlife protection,protecting the rural atmosphere and development of primary wage earner jobs should receive a greater emphasis and additional development in the document. The comments that follow will provide some specific recommendations relative to bolstering these framework principles. The designation of the Dove Creek property as Mixed Use is inappropriate for the site. Mixed use makes perfect sense for downtown commercial where commercial with residential in the upper potions of multi story structures is essential to a vibrant and viable downtown. I can not picture what 200 dwelling units, combined with 300,000 square feet of commercial development would look like on the Dove Creek property, much less how it will function. The scale of the commercial development will be too large to serve a neighborhood commercial function and will likely be a regional draw, impacting the quality and desirability of the residential function. If the development is retail commercial, the 300,000 square feet of commercial is roughly equivalent to a Home Depot and Costco on the site. The City is in need of high quality,primary wage earner employment and provides little space or incentive for such development. The Dove creek property would be ideal for a commercial park designation,where facilities for professional and technology sector jobs could be integrated into the existing land form and provide an attractive and needed use of the property that would not be in conflict with the existing neighborhood. Atascadero 076 General Plan Recommendations Page 2 of 3 has both the resources and housing sought by many high tech and research and development type businesses. Development of a commercial/research park on this site would provide a desirable and attractive location for such businesses. At the very least, if the current planned land use designation moves forward as is,you should require a full development plan for the site,prior to any development. It would be a shame to see this property incrementally developed without an overall plan, given that it is at the southern gateway to our City. Goal LOC 1,Policy 1.4 seeking to ...ensure"darkness"remain a rural characteristic... is an excellent goal and policy. We have seen both good and bad examples of how this policy has been implemented in the past,with the Home Depot and Central Coast Auto as good examples of neighborhood sensitive lighting, and Atascadero Ford and Albertsons as the bad examples. In addition to the policy,I would recommend that staff research and develop a"night sky ordinance"to provide greater direction and consistency to developers and commercial businesses relative to allowable lighting standards. Goal LOC2,Policy 2.2 is an appropriate approach to achieving infill within the City without negatively impacting neighborhoods. My only precaution relative to this policy is that it not facilitate the creep of smaller lot sizes and zonings to areas currently dominated by larger lot sizes. Goal LOC 5. is an excellent goal and I hope that it will provide a higher degree of protection for our hillsides and natural landforms. Development of the old mushroom farm property is an example of how this policy was not adhered to excessive grading was completed to accommodate increased development density. This should be avoided in the future. Updating the ordinance to include standards for hillside grading, etc. will be a welcome improvement to our regulations. Goals LOC 6. would be enhanced with provisions for wildlife protection similar to those proposed in Policy 7.1 for trees. Using the City's GIS mapping system, the City could identify areas through town that currently function as wildlife corridors, other than just creeks, that should be considered for protection as development occurs. This is not inconsistent with goals for hillside and riparian protection as many of these corridors are steep hillsides, canyons and seasonal stream areas. A key component to the quality of life in Atascadero is the relative abundance of wildlife species such as deer, for us all to see and enjoy. This is possible because corridors currently exist which allow for the movement of these species throughout town. Goal LOC 10. and the conservation element should include programs to ensure that energy efficient building standards,including natural lighting,tree canopy, solar orientation, etc. are developed and considered as part of any development proposals, especially for any large scale residential developments. There is some discussion in the Housing Element,however it does not address this recommendation specifically. 077 General Plan Recommendations Page 3 of 3 Goal LOC 11. would be improved with the addition of programs specifically aimed at the acquisition of open space resources for the community. The City should not rely on the County to ensure it retains a green belt around the City. Open space resources are tremendous assets to a growing community. They provide passive recreational opportunities for the residents, without having to travel to more remote areas,while also serving to protect the borders of the community from development in the County. The Eagle Ranch development provides and excellent opportunity for the City to acquire a substantial amount of open space as a condition of development and service. Additionally, an active open space acquisition program would demonstrate the City's commitment to the preservation of our natural community resources and may relieve some of the tension over proposed infill development projects. Finally, the State's numbers relative to the City's fair share of housing development have not been finalized. The numbers originally proposed by the State are what are currently reflected in the Draft General Plan Housing Element and should not be used to drive the decision making of the Council. I am not saying that the build-out or rate of growth as proposed are inappropriate, assuming that they are not solely based on the housing distribution identified in the General Plan Housing element. In closing,I feel the City and consultant have done a good job in the development of the General Plan update. The balancing of the competing goals and policies are always going to be the subject of debate,yet the document in my view provides a reasonable balance, appropriate for a city of our size and character. I appreciate your consideration of the recommendations contained in this correspondence. If you have any questions regarding any of the recommendations,please don't hesitate to contact me. F oss 5020 Ardilla Ave. Atascadero, CA 078 Attachment: J Atascadero City Council Special Mtg. __ April 8, 2002 DATE: April 8, 2002 RE: Proposed General Plan FROM: Alan Thomas, 1680 Encino, SLO, CA 93401 For the last two years, I followed the update of Atascadero's General Plan. I attended the workshops and meetings. I studied the maps. I read the policy changes. And what keeps jumping out at me is this: in many areas, the impact of the proposed plan will be just the opposite of the goals that were set. For example -- instead of fixing inconsistencies, this plan creates new ones. It allows widespread, random subdivision of residential properties, and the addition of second units in many areas. With the proposed plan, you will have no idea what your neighbor might decide to build someday. It might be a four or six house PD in some cases. This will create inconsistent pockets of higher density. Just the opposite of the goal. Another example. The goal was to follow Smart Growth, which calls for decreasing density as you move out from the city's core. Instead, this plan dramatically increases density at the far north and south ends of town. It calls for two new "mini-cities" that will place a heavy burden on police and fire services, as well as the city's roads and sewer capacity. Even the draft EIR predicts traffic congestion and increased air pollution. Again, just the opposite of the goals. You also promised that this plan would reflect what the people want. Well, at countless workshops and meetings the vast majority said they wanted to keep the current plan with minor corrections. In the last election, 53% of the people who voted in Atascadero cast a vote for George Luna who openly campaigned on keeping the current General Plan. So please don't claim that it's a small vocal minority who are objecting to this plan. It's just the opposite. In fact, many of the changes in this plan are based on requests by a small group of developers who want higher densities on properties they happen to own around town. In my opinion, requests for amendments to the current general plan should not have played any part of this process. That's not listening to the people. It's political influence at work. Finally, you said one of the key reasons for increasing density is the need for affordable housing. I support that goal. But again, the proposed plan does just the opposite. For example, it totally eliminates the multi-family zoning designation, while expanding the ability to put Planned Unit Developments on those parcels. The problem is, apartments and condominiums are really the only types of new housing that are "affordable" for low and moderate income families. If you build PD's on that land instead, you will reduce the amount of affordable housing, not increase it. For example, one developer explained last year how he bought a piece of property zoned for 48 rental apartments, got a PD approved with 19 houses, 079 three of which, he said, are affordable. So we went from what could have been 48 affordable units to actually building 3. And the new plan makes this process easier than ever before. The problem is, this will result in a systematic and sanctioned reduction in affordable housing in Atascadero. If you pass this plan, the city of Atascadero will effectively be discriminating against lower income individuals and groups— a violation of both Federal and State fair and open housing laws in my opinion. Unless the proposed plan is changed to guarantee that the property in the current General Plan designated multi-family is protected, and an increasing supply of rental units, town homes and condominiums are built, I believe the courts will find it discriminatory and illegal. To sum up, if you are serious about increasing affordable housing, fixing inconsistencies, following smart growth and listening to the majority of the people, then you cannot possibly in good conscience vote for this plan. 080 77 y Q F,$ a / u e„ Attachment: K /� Atascadero City Council Special Mtg. cc( CJ (f'A C1.3 Ltpji 8, 2002 Good Evening, I'm John Heatherington and I live here in Atascadero. I am here this evening, to speak in favor of the current General Plan. Our General Plan is the result of years of negotiation and compromise. It was written by citizens of Atascadero and it reflects the views and concerns of Atascadero. If the purpose of this project is simply to clear up some inconsistencies in our current General Plan, that could easily be done by deleting a few words here and there and maybe adding a couple of paragraphs. In fact I would encourage you to make whatever changes are necessary, but make them one at a time. That way the issues are clear to everyone and the ramifications of our actions are far easier to discern. The Housing Element, which is required to be updated, actually meets the requirements of the Department of Housing and Community Development as it is written now. Updating this Element could be accomplished easily. -This new Draft Plan however is so full of intentionally vague wording that you could use it to justify building anything anywhere, shacks by the tracks, apartment buildings by the freeway and people living in converted garages. What this Plan 081 does not do however, is just as important. It does not create, nor does it encourage, any high-tech, manufacturing or other head-of-household jobs. It does not create any more park land or open space. It does not solve any traffic problems nor does it create any new hiking trails or bicycle paths. It does not establish creek setbacks nor does it protect riparian corridors. Therefore, I would submit to you that contrary to the Draft Environmental Impact Report, the Environmentally Superior Alternative is No Project. Finally I would like to speak to the issue of public participation. I believe it is unreasonable in the extreme to expect the public to analyze and comment on both the Draft Plan and the Draft Environmental Impact Report in forty-five days. While this may satisfy the statutory minimum, it does not provide much opportunity for public discussion. Therefore, I would respectfully ask for a longer period of public review so that a consensus can* be achieved before we move forward with such an important decision. Thank You 082 Attachment: L Atas a ero City Council Special Mtg. ATASCADERo NATIVE TREEAg§8dl7?flbN Dedicated to the preservation of Ataecadero'e native forest. April 8, 2002 Atascadero City Council 6500 Palma Avenue Atascadero, CA 93422 Dear Mayor Mike Arrambide and City„•Council Members: The Atascadero Native Tree"Assaciatior (ANTA)urges you to place more emphasis on preservation of openapace in-the�urrent update of the general plan. We agree with the Parks and Recreation Cornmissibn in theirle' of August 15,2001_.,. iat the preservation of open space and the protection of native trees and wildlife habitat are`of paramount importance in order to retain the rural character of Atascadero. The i~eservation of open space and the protection of native trees and wildlife habitat should recti-6,We=utmost`aftenhon in the General Plan update process." The Draft Plan version 1 of the Land Use, Open Space and Conservation Element emphasizes reaction to development pressures. It is fortunate that we are generally in the position of preserving rather than trying''fo restore the natural beauty of Atascadero. To make sure we remain in this position, we`believe amore proactive stance mu`st-be taken by the city with regard to open space preservation over the life of the next gene,tal plan. As you know it is the mission of the Atascadero-Native Tree Association to"preserve,protect and enhance the Native Tree Habitat of our community.".We simply believe that we must take proactive steps to better understand how.the se natural systems_function so that we can make sure they continue to do so as our city moves forward: It can not be assumed that repeated unanalyzed impacts to these ecosystems will be absorbed_harmlessly.-It is also.certain that the cumulative effects of incremental change will inevitably erode our native woodlands unless intelligent, informed policies and programs are at work to protect them. We applaud the City's interest in the development of a•native•tree and open space inventory and analysis. We view this as the vital first step toward'a"Natural Areas Plan. We encourage the City to develop a"Natural Areas Plan"to'be used muclias the new Parks and Recreation Master Plan. In addition to providing guidance for the enhancement of Atascadezo's natural assets, development of such a plan will also be:a valuable tool in planning and land use decisions. Models for such a plan can be obtained by reviewing similar plans_for both the City and County of San Luis Obispo. We will leave the issues of enforcement and,exemptioiis to the general plan for another time,_ other than to say that without enforcement of'and adherence to the plan, its success, along with- the best future for our city, is truly in jeopardy. 3 We.would like to suggest a few changes.in following sections of the Open Space Policies of the Draft Land Use Element(additions are in italics). Thank you for your consideration. Sin ly, Bruce Bonifas, Presider) Atascadero Native Tree Association Board P.O. Box 1432 Atascadero, CA 93423 (805) 461-7610 083 ®rrineed om recycled paper. ATASCAIDERo 1. � ATI'VE TRFE ASSOCIATION Dedicated to the preservation of Atascadero's native forest. (Open Space Policies, Page U-26,2nd paragraph) add: In order to provide these functions for the community our open spaces must have the ability to continue functioning biologically. The city government shall develop and implement policies and programs to provide connectedopen spaces in adequate size, location and variety to ensure their sustainability in the face of d , ;eyel©pment pressures. - (Goal LOC 6,Policy 6;1,Page I�127) Programs: add: ! ' 5. *entire program statement to read l'6 c and private development inclose proximity to or over such lands shall,�e..'o dully evaluated to protect scenic and sensitive lands, including'creek reservations;wooded areas,`flood plains,prominent view sheds and historic places. :Those lands identift d as'especially critical or endangered shall be subject to additional restrictions. 10. Consolidate open space functions in one existing city department under one person to be designated'as natural resources-.manager. 11. The City should regularly contact landowners and provide education materials on the value and techniques for resource protection,and land conservation. (Goal LOC 7,Policy 7.1,Page H-29) Programs: add: , 5. Develop and maintain a siteapecific`plahJbr proposed Natural Area Preserves. 6. Establish a conservation easement program with specific criteria andformulae to ensure appropriate mitigation is accomplished for loss of native woodlands. (Goal LOC 7,Policy 7.2, Page II-29) Programs: 1. *entire program statement to read: Continue-to'implement and enforce the Native Tree Ordinance to protect and replenish native tree species within the City. Permits for both residential and non-residential development shall take into c6nsideration the trees existing on the property. Buildings shall be designed to utilize existing trees in the landscaping pattern. Any trees removed shall either be replaced with like species, in-lieu contributions made to the City's_tree replacement fund,or have approved conservation easements created, depending on the characteristics of the affected site. No exceptions will be permitted. P.O. box 1432 Atascadero, CA 93.423 (805) 461-7610 0$4 ®frinced on recycled paper. Attachment: M Atascadero City Council Special Mtg. April 8, 2002 To the Council members and Planning Commission for the City of Atascadero, In the General Plan 2025, Draft Plan — Version 1 dated February 27, 2002 there are numerous goals presented under the Proposed General Plan. Among these goals are: "Preserve residential neighborhoods and respect the winding tree- lined nature of the street and road system. (Goal LOC 2)", "Preserve the tranquility of residential areas by preventing the encroachment of noise producing uses (Goal SFN 8)"and "Protect and conserve the existing housing stock and neighborhoods (Goal HOS 4)." These goals are very similar, if not identical, to the goals of the Existing General Plan and it seems that what the community of Atascadero wanted originally is the same as what is wants now. This consistent similarity is shown clearly in the community input from the "dozen neighborhood meetings, workshops and charettes"which were presented by this city to determine "what the residents thought was important about Atascadero, and what they would like Atascadero to be in the future." The results of this input are stated in the General Plan Overview under Community Involvement: "the community is deeply concerned about maintaining the small-town/rural atmosphere of Atascadero." In the General Plan 2025, General Plan Housing Element, it is stated that "The City of Atascadero last updated its Housing Element in 1994." Under B. Evaluations Of Previous Housing Element it is stated: "The goals and policies contained in the previous housing element were appropriate to meet the housing needs of the City." In fact, it is stated: "To a considerable extent, the City has been successful in achieving this objective Table V-1" (Table V-1 being the Evaluation of Previous Housing Element). So, according to this Proposed General Plan the Existing General Plan is successful and successful to a "considerable extent."That being said, I request, as a resident of Atascadero and someone deeply concerned about the future of Atascadero, that the Existing General Plan, with regards to the Housing Element be left as it stands. 085 Another goal found both in the Existing General Plan and the Proposed General Plan has to do with providing a sound economic base for Atascadero. Under the Proposed General Plan this goal is stated: "Provide for a sound economic base to sustain the City's unique character by establishingnae of employment and business opportunities and generates sufficient revenue to support adequate levels of public services, and environmental, social and educational quality. (Goal LOC 13)." Under the Existing General Plan this goal is stated as: "Provide for a sound economic base to sustain the City's unique character (LUE 2)." Of course we need to have an adequate level of public services and environmental, social and educational quality but the manipulation of the Existing Housing Element will not provide the economic base to do this. I believe that this need for a "sound economic base is important for us all and I believe that, as a goal, it should be pursued. However it should be pursued with intelligence, consensus, and with a great deal of consideration toward maintaining that small-town/rural atmosphere of Atascadero that makes Atascadero so unique and so desirable. Sincerely, )��k CLo David Crouch 7305 Curbaril Atascadero, CA 93422 April 9, 2002 - 086 Attachment: N Atascadero City Council Special Mtg. April 8, 2002 April 8,2002 I have taken the liberty Of writing a very small farce that I would like to have put into the public record. The first scene is fictional;meaning that I surmised the facts,but I wasn't actually there. The next three scenes,however, are factual,because I was in attendance. 'Here goes: "' SCENE: Behind Closed Doors. �—�ACRS: Interested members of the City Council,Planning Commission, the City Manager and ply other interested developers,contractors, real estate people. DEVELOPERI You know, every time we want to build something,we have to go through all kinds of waiting for approvals,permits and all that other crap. DEVELOPER2 Yeah,we know you always approve everything we want in the long run,but we don't want it to be such a long run. We want to make our money now! ��rErrr MAYOR You have a point there. Anybody got any ideas? CITY MANAGER I've got a great idea! What if we change ckky,-V-°L�4 the @ftq Plan? That's what's holding up the works! Those kooks who wrote that plan want to keep Atascadero just the way it is! They just don't understand progress. wy f-e,A-r CITY COUNCIL MEMBER , But thWlan vi- ed-fer45-years?-k-1 e ms's How can we change it? rle CITY MANAGER Just leave that to me. I'll say it has some "inconsistencies" or something like that and we'll just set about revising it. DEVELOPER Just be sure to get rid of all those damn 087 restrictions. We want to get building and we want to do it yesterday! MAYO ly"t).�aW This might not look MAYOR- &0 We'd better hire some consultants.We'll just "direct" them, if you know what I mean. (general laughter) COUNCIL MEMBER Maybe we better have something like "community input" too. Then it won't look like we're just ramming it through. CITY MANAGER Great idea! We know how that goes. Who could sit through all those City Council meetings. We'll always put the Revised G*,f Gcv,eraA Plan at the end. By then, everybody will be asleep or gone home. I can hardly stay awake myself! (laughter again) DEVELOPER Just get rid of all those restrictions on lot sal Int vl� gds We need room to build more houses damn it! MAYOR Don't worry. We'll have so many community input meetings, no-one will be able to keep track of them all. Then we'll just have the consultants put whatever we want in the r draft for the General Plan. As I said,this is all fictional. I only surmised it based on the three Community Input Meetings that I did attend. So the following is factual. The first meeting was at the Lake Park Pavilion. The room was packed and 99.9% of the input was the same: Of most concern was maintaining the rural atmosphere of Atascadero with large lots,trees,wildlife corridors,etc. Next, a viable and attractive downtown. Parking lots with trees were mentioned. A plan for Highway 41 West so that it wouldn't just build out helter skelter. Creation and enforcement of visual architectural standards. In other words,people were concerned about the LOOK and FEEL of our city. 088 Only one man mentioned jobs and one City Council Member mentioned taxes I believe that a car dealership brought in. HOWEVER!!!, at the next meeting I attended,the Consultants put up a chart in the front of the room supposedly showing the results of this meeting. At the top of the list were jobs and taxes!!!! At the bottom of the list were the real concerns of rural atmosphere,etc. I was so disheartened and angry that I vowed not to use my valuable time attending another meeting. I did give in,however and attended one final meeting at the San Gabriel Junior High School. And this was the last straw. The large room was filled with tables covered with maps and the consultants were urging all attendees to go around and mark on the maps where they wanted to split their lots! I just couldn't believe it. Whatever happened between that first meeting with "large lots and rural atmosphere" and now??? One man told me he was here because he wanted to split his lot. The only people at this meeting were those wanting to split their lots. I asked the man how much acreage he had and he answered: "one acre." One acre!!!!! And he wanted to split that! So these are the facts. Whatever happened to "rural atmosphere" and large lots? I can only guess that the little farce that I invented actually happened, or something like it. How else could we have gotten from L'_:t_ `_ '__ �?� ?- j hie( i 5( rne6 to aA-X- My suggestion is to throw this revised plan out and stick with the original plan— and to throw out of office anyone who votes for it. Gretchen Gray 10420 San Marcos Road March 8, 2002 089 Attachment: 0 Atascadero City Council Special Mtg. April 8, 2002 April 4, 2002 - City of Atascadero c/o Nicole Phillips Crawford Multani & Clark Associates 641 Higuera Street; Suite 302 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Subject: General Plan 2025, Draft Plan - Version 1 I enjoy living in Atascadero because of its rural atmosphere, native beauty and the many other benefits that a relatively low population density provides. I strongly believe that our mutual quality of life is irrevocably tied to how we protect our natural resources and manage our growth. I am not alone in this opinion. In the new General Plan 2025 under Community Involvement, it states: " The results of this outreach effort found that the community is deeply concerned about maintaining the small-town/rural atmosphere of Atascadero. This concern included preserving the natural qualities of the community; protecting native oaks, creeks, open vistas, hillsides and natural habitats; providing good public services and amenities, maintaining safe, clean neighborhoods; providing a range of commercial opportunities; increasing local employment and improving the appearance of the community." Therefore, I believe that the new General Plan focused on increased development entitlements and higher density increases throughout .the town is not in any way serving the interests of the community. Allowing guest houses that can potentially be rented out on all the single family lots, second units that can be rented out in a very large area in Atascadero (SFR-Y), high density developments on the extreme ends of our town,zand lotsplits within the entire Urban Services Linej"is a direct attack on our quality of life. When you build additional units and split lots you increase population and denude our landscape. When you widen streets or add a sidewalk to accommodate increased density, you lose our valued oaks and natural habitat. Increased population density brings with it a strain on our water supply, problems with delivering public services, increased 090 traffic and noise level, degradation of the darkness our night sky, degradation of animal and plant habitat, and air quality deterioration. Through these proposed changes, the Atascadero we enjoy today will become only a nostalgic memory. Let's not use the state's mandate to build affordable housing as an excuse to overdevelop with housing that possibly does not address the state's requirements.-We must not let this new plan go through, because there is no turning back once quality of life is an auctioned commodity available to the highest bidder. Our community if far better served by sticking to the Smart Growth Principles adopted by the Council. We need a plan that has stringent protection of those things that define our rural environment. We simply cannot afford a proposed General Plan that capitulates to the interests of those who have something to gain by destroying what we hold dear. Sincerely, 40 Susan Meigs 5560 Tunitas Avenue Atascadero, CA 93422 091 Attachment: P Atascadero City Council Special Mtg. April 8, 2002 4500 Del Rio Road Atascadero, CA 93422 805-462-2241 eapmt@earthlink.net April 8,2002 Atascadero City Council 6500 Palma Avenue Atascadero, CA 93422 Gentlemen: I want to go on record as opposing approval of the Draft General Plan Revision. This plan does not maintain the rural character of Atascadero which originally attracted me to reside in this city. In fact,the area around my residence is no longer considered rural in the revised plan. Aside from my general disapproval of this whole process,I have spoken before requesting provision of equestrian trails, specifically on the east side of the city. In the last few months,trail access has be systematically restricted by developers efforts. I have not yet seen any action by the city to provide the requested access. If it is not done prior to the proposed developments under your Plan revision, it will be too late because houses and fences will be built and there will be no access to trails. To me,this is another case where we,the general public, are not being listened to by the City government. Very truly yours, Marissa Todd 092 Attachment: Q Atascadero City Council Special Mtg. April 8, 2002 4500 Del Rio Road Atascadero, CA 93422 805-462-2241 eapmt@earthlink.net April 8, 2002 Atascadero City Council 6500 Palma Avenue Atascadero, CA 93422 Gentlemen: I have been told ever since this General Plan Revision fiasco began,that single family residential housing does not generate enough tax revenue to support the services provided by the City. The Draft General Plan Revision that appears to already be cast in our good developers concrete focuses much more on providing increased single family housing density than it does on providing incentives for commercial development that would provide additional tax revenue. Approval of the Draft Plan will only put Atascadero further behind in providing and maintaining essential services for our residents. To add insult to injury, we are now asked to participate in formation of assessment districts to give us the privilege of paying for the maintenance our own streets. Somehow,this does not make a lot of sense. If the City Council was genuinely interested it's constituents, it would be looking at ways to increase income into the City coffers rather than simplifying the process of development of single family residences. So,what do we have to look forward to in the future?? Will we have assessment districts for providing sewers so we can help pay for increased housing density. Or will it be increased taxes for expansion of the sewage treatment plant. Or maybe raising our taxes so we can put in more traffic control to handle all these people in the second housing units and guest houses. It is time to get real and recognize your constituency does not want this revision. Very truly yours, we_i" --. Eric Peterson 093 Attachment: R Atascadero City Council Special Mtg. April 8, 2002 General Plan Revision I'm Dan Knutson; I live at 1775 San Ramon Rd. I respectfully request San Ramon Rd. be included in the general plan revision, to bring it into conformity with the surrounding parcels. • The majority of the surrounding parcels are below the 2.5 — 10 zoning of suburban- estate. • The EIR for the general plan should not be effected, as it would bring us into conformity with surrounding parcels. • Close proximity to 101 freeway, where infill needs to take place. • I have signatures of neighbors who are supportive of the plan change. C:\DATA\WORD\DEK\GENERAL PLAN REVISION 094 The following property owners are in an area of non-conforming lots. We wish to be considered for a zone change to bring us into conformity with the surrounding lots. Named ) Siannattu_•r-eI - 'f Address ?A Q �^ ���5 �.1Cth lQi,ow /ia. Ai-r2s. ((2vZ2 7C6 7-CA s c� 'Oki Z C c ecl I v� / ejS 095 Attachment: S Atascadero City Council Special Mtg. April 8, 2002 April 8, 2002 City of Atascadero c/o Nicole Phillips Crawford, Multari and Clark Associates 641 Higuera St., Ste 302 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 To say that the Draft General Plan and the DEIR are flawed is not only an understatement, but in fact, these two documents are a blueprint for the desecration of our city. The issues of standards for Second Units and creek building setbacks are among items still not addressed in the General Plan Draft. A maximum population build-out number of 36,137 does not make sense given the higher density increases allowed throughout the city as written in the plan. Of the unavoidable significant impacts identified in the DEIR, the potential for inadequate water supply is a major one. What about the impact of expanding the Urban Services Line to the northern and southern ends of the city? The notice of availability that we received from the city for the Draft General Plan and DEIR reports and workshops stated: "The General Plan update process is your opportunity to get involved in planning the future of Atascadero." Well, the future of our city looks bleak. I truly want to believe that you were addressing ALL of the citizens of Atascadero, because to date, as written, these proposed changes are a thinly veiled opportunity for developers , speculators, and realtors to benefit at our expense. The Draft General Plan and DEIR are not acceptable as written. We need the leadership and vision of our City Council to direct us through careful, planned growth. Sincerely Yours, Sonia Sera 8805 Santa Cruz Rd. Atascadero, CA 93422 096 Attachment: T Atascadero City Council Special Mtg. April 3, 2002 - Ursula Luna Atascadero, CA 93423 Re: Comments on the DEIR for the Atascadero General Plan The public is given 45 days to comment on a 109 page DEIR based on a rewrite of a Draft General Plan, released at the same time. However, one week before the end of the comment period the Council is considering amending the Draft Plan and the DEIR to include a high-density housing development where the proposed Draft Plan now shows a school. It includes extending sewer service across US 101, causing potentially significant growth-inducing impacts. By amending the Plan at this time the Council would deny the public the mandatory 45-day comment time. Although we have been told by the City Manager and Mayor that the public's comments are valued, the evidence does not support it. The proposed Draft Plan does not reflect what the overwhelming majority of people asked for during the General Plan meetings. The stated purpose of the last Planning Commission meeting was to "gather public testimony on the Draft E I R and Draft General Plan..." Although 14 people spoke, staff only considered comments made by Planning Commissioners in their report to the Council. I guess they felt that the public's comments were not worthy of consideration. The only letter or statement staff included in the package to the City Council was the one from development applicant Mr. Moresco. No letters or statements from the public were included. I guess staff felt that the public's comments were not worthy of inclusion. It is also telling which comments from Commissioners staff listed and addressed. For example, staff did list the request that "flexibility" is an important principle to promote in the General Plan. Staff did NOT list the request that words like "flexible" and "in the future" be defined. This viewpoint is reflected throughout the Draft Plan and DEIR. Most Policies and Programs are flexible, vague or to be defined in the future. The Draft Plan and DEIR failed to define standards, failed to.establish times by which these standard have to be adopted, and failed to include mitigation monitoring to assure implementation. The proposed Draft Plan and DEIR generally fail to assure mitigation of the impacts from the proposed development. UA�U& [_�� Ursula Luna 097 Attachment: U Atascadero City Council Special Mtg. April 8, 2002 Joan O'Keefe April 8, 2002 9985 Old Morro Rd E On file is a letter from Ecoslo that describes very clearly the problems with the GP update process. I agree with everything in that letter. I along with many other people did not want the GP updated. We were promised that community input would count. I spent a lot of time attending the meetings and giving input. Three alternatives came out of this but keeping our present plan wasn't a choice. The community, as DEIR says, choose alt 1 but the Council ignored us and chose a combination of 1 & 2 and other stuff which kept complicating the process. The DEIR has analyzed our existing plan and the 3 alternatives. About all the consultants could find wrong with our present plan is that it lacks a darkness policy and they say it doesn't contain strict language for hillside development. We do have strict language but the repeated mantra of the planning commission and planning staff is we have no hillside ordinance to enforce the strong language in our current plan. Further the planning commissioners believe people should be able to build on the top of hills if they want. The preferred draft won't make an ordinance happen. A"darkness policy" certainly doesn't warrant spending $140,000. The driving range light pollution problem did not happen because we lacked a"darkness policy." Alternative 1 As I evaluate it Alternativel has fewer impacts than the Draft Plan. The report says there will be less land for recreation under Alt l but it does not quantify less. The analysis repeatedly omits quantified comparisons and changes its format. For example, it says impacts to agriculture land are significant but it doesn't add that impacts to agriculture are also significant under the Draft Plan as well. This implies they are only significant under AM but in other places in the analysis it will say impacts are the same as in the Draft Plan. Impacts to air quality are considered significant and are caused by increase in traffic and construction. Construction activity would be less under alt 1. The difference in traffic between Altl and the Draft Plan is about 1%. Allowing for error in calculations this does not appear significantly different. Goal 1 to Protect and preserve the rural atmosphere by assuring elbow room by mans of maintaining large lots can only be achieved with our present plan. We have major traffic problems already. If this plan is approved traffic congestion and delays will be a very serious problem. Atascadero was designed to be rural and the community has said they want to keep it that way l 098 Please address the following: 1. p.I 1 SFR-Y Second dwelling units may be permitted .... 1. As I recall the instructions were for a set of standard to be developed for 2nd units and limited to lot size larger than 1 acre. Without standards the impacts cannot be assessed. What are the standards and what is lot size. P.V-27 The 2nd units are being tied to 6 very low income rental units. Please provide more details regarding how these 6 units will happen. LOC Element 2. Land Use and Rural Character Figurel 1-3 is unclear. Urban Core is defined as a concept but the map points to a place. Please be more explicit by providing definitions of rural residential, single family neighborhoods and urban core. All lines are black, areas cannot be differentiated. 3. Policy 1.3 does not make sense. Enhance rural character....of city, including....Those areas following"including" are not rural areas. How do these programs enhance the rural character? 4. p. 11-23, policy 2.2. This policy will continue the pattern of reducing lot size without a corresponding zone change. The justification is that surrounding non-conforming lot sizes should there fore be the basis for further reduction. At what point does this stop? Define surrounding. One side,three sizes, across the street? 5. Open Space Policy Definition of open space is an area that is essentially unimproved. It has been recommended that portions of The Lakes be designated Open Space. If this includes the man made Lakes, they are not natural. Further this is a gated development and all that can be seen from the road is a sea of roofs. There is no benefit to the public as view shed. 6. Goal: LOC 5 Preserve the contours of the hills. Buildings built on hill-sides shall conform to the topography. Programs sound good however we do not have any ordinances to support the programs so there is nothing to update. The language should read implement a grading ordinance, implement an ordinance that requires structures to be built below prominent ridge lines. Etc. 7. Policy 5.2 Program 5. New lots with slope averaging 30% or greater shall not be created except.... Creation of such lots often causes the destruction of many trees. I suggest that New lots should not be created if it will result in the destruction of trees. 8. Policy 5.3 Prevent unnecessarily intensive grading of development sites "limit grading to minimum area necessary...is subject to significant interpretation. Planning commissioners vary on what they consider to a significant amount of grading. If there is a good building site closer to the road impacts to air pollution(less driving up and down and construction activity), to erosion and to removal of vegetation are all reduced. 2 099 9. Goal LOC 6 Preserve natural flora and fauna.....Program 9. Building designs inappropriate for hillside locations shall not be approved. Define inappropriate. If it is not defined somewhere it will be subject to interpretation. People are always bringing in plans to build a house on the top of the hill. "Shall not be approved" Without an ordinance the"shalls"in our current GP are ignored. p.60 DEIR Biological Resources . Recommended mitigation is to implement pre- approved revegetation plan....which shall be monitored for a sufficient time. Monitoring is not feasible. It is more practical to require that a functioning irrigation system be in place and that plants be protected from gophers and deer so the plants can survive. Riparian areas, creeks etc. We need a creek set back ordinance. With out one all the recommends and suggests are toothless. For ten years we've been trying to get set backs. 10. Fish& Game addressed the need to identify habitat corridors and to plan development around the corridors. This is possible with aerial photography and GIS and should be incorporated as a program. Where has this been dealt with in the DEIR or DGP? 11. Goal LOC 7 Tree-covered hill shall be preserved. The"shall"is ignored because there is no ordinance. Recently the Planning Commission approved a site plan at the top of the hill because that is where the applicant wanted the house. Thirty two trees had to be destroyed and another 20 impacted. There was a building site closer to the road but the commissioners ignored that—the applicant wanted the view. 12. Policy 7.1 Ensure that native trees are protected. Without a hillside grading ordinance and hillside design ordinance there will be no "ensurance" Program 1. Continue to enforce all provisions of the Native Tree Ordinance as a high priority. Sounds great and its all rhetoric. I'm tired of spending my life trying to get compliance. 13. Goal LOC 8 Watershed areas. Runoff and erosion would be decreased by placing building sites where the least amount of grading and hardscape (pavement)will occur. Due to the terrain in Atascadero there are many wetland areas that have not been identified. These areas provide cover and food for wildlife. A program similar to 9 that addresses wetlands would mitigate building impacts. 14. GOAL LOC 10 Conserve energy and resources Many cities require development to recycle by having waste bins for land fill material and one for recyclable materials such as cardboard. Trees have been cut and hauled to the dump. Trees and shrub should be chipped either on site or taken to a place where this can be done. Same applies to major remodels. 15. GOAL LOC 13 Economic Development Policy 3 100 Policy 13.4 program 4 The city will review its developer fees on a regular basis. The fees have not been reviewed for a long, long time. There either needs to be a definitive time interval, eg. Every three years or its tied to some index. The city rezones commercial and industrial land for residential. This does not promote the economic goal. Most recently the quarry near the RR had a designation of residential or industrial. Houses are now there. Storage units have been built on lands that had a commercial or industrial designation. This type of development does not provide jobs. Strong policy language about uses for commercial and retention of industrial would prevent this from happening. 16. Goal LOC 15, p.11-44. Rural Services Area has sewer listed as one of its services. Is this intentional and if so please justify extension of sewer. 17. Circulation Element City has designated Level C as minimum acceptable. Policy 1.3 provides exception that could make it possible to approve a discretionary development project that would cause LOS D if the project were prohibitively costly. There should be no exceptions for discretionary projects. Atascadero has a long history of not requiring development to pay for road infrastructure and now the citizens are being asked to pay. Caltrans said that the GP/EIR needs to discuss the feasibility of implementing a development impact fee program that will help offset the cost of improving the State Transportation System necessitated by the intensification of use. Where has this been addressed? Atascadero's"circulation system was laid out for low-intensity land uses." (p.66) The Draft Plan is ignoring this very basic concept. Atascadero was designed to be rural. The DEIR has also questioned whether the recommended improvement are feasible. Traffic impacts cannot be mitigated. The Community identified road maintenance as the number 1 problem. This DGP will seriously exacerbate the problem. GOAL CIR 2 p.111-3 Policy 2.3 ,Program 3 It says sidewalks"shall"and trails "should". Is there a difference between shall and should? It is an issue when decisions are being made. 18. Wildfires Policy 3A Carefully site and configure new development in higher fire risk areas. Citing building off hill tops and at lower levels reduces fire threat to the structure. Pier or pole construction, which decrease site impacts when building on hillsides, increases fire risk as fires move rapidly up hill. 19.Noise Element GOAL: SFN 8 Preserve the tranquility of residential areas by preventing the encroachment of noise producing areas. ATV's are using the large lots for recreational riding. For certain neighborhoods this has become a problem. Citizens have spoken at public comment regarding this intrusion but the Council has been silent on the issue, I think its time to address this issue of noise from recreation. . 4 101 Attachment: V Atascadero City Council Special Mtg. April 8, 2002 Craig L. Dingman 61620 Atascadero Ave. Atascadero, CA 93422 805-466-4547 April 8, 2002 City of Atascadero C/o Nicole Phillips Crawford Multari& Clark Associates 641 Higuera St. Suite 302 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 RE: Draft General Plan Gentlepersons: I oppose the rewrite of the General Plan. I believe the proposal only serves to streamline a process of change in the nature of our City that is already taking place, and it provides no mitigating benefits. I am also concerned about the process whereby this proposal has come into being,especially as compared to the process whereby the existing General Plan was generated. I believe the existing General Plan is entirely adequate. My largest concern is for the livability of our neighborhoods including, specifically,my neighborhood,which stands to be surrounded by increased density under the proposal. By livability, I mean the ability to move about and live with the least possible intrusion from traffic and noise and the benefit of surroundings that have a natural ambience. This is the promise that Atascadero held for us when we purchased our home here. If, indeed,mandates or simple human need require us to adjust our expectations,the changes to the nature of our City should be not only in the extent of development,but in the nature of the development, as well. Mitigation and progressive demands on development should be part and parcel of any new General Plan,not deferred until oppressive and overwhelming needs force us to play catch-up with the impacts of increased density. Each successive generation of development has to pay its own unique costs. It wasn't that long ago that a sharp stick was all one needed to lay claim to the land. Today's developers have a new obligation to tread lightly and be good new neighbors. Sinc l , (hD­gman 102 Attachment: W Atacadero City Council Special Mtg April 8, 2002 6225 Lomitas Rd. Atascadero, CA 93422 April 8, 2002 Members of the Atascadero City Council Atascadero City Hall Atascadero, CA 93422 Mayor Arrambide and Members ofthe City Council: The present General Plan,with all of its warts and wrinkles, has served us well and will continue to do so if you have the foresight to allow it. As a famous philosopher once said, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." Thank you. Sincerely, Joyce Zimmerman (805) 462-1518 103 Attachment: X Atascadero City Council Special Mtg. _ City Council Special Meeting April 8, 2002 Monday, April 8, 2002 Daphne Fahsing I have nothing specific to add to what has already been said, or will be said, but I would like to bring your attention to the editorial in Atascadero News a couple weeks ago, many letters to editors, and comments of the public before the Planning Commission, Parks & Recreation Commission and City Council, almost all in agreement that the current General Plan is a good plan, should remain and be enforced. My understanding of the General Plan is that it is required to be long-term and consistent. The current General Plan still has 17 years of growth. Planning activities including zoning approval and amendments, subdivision approvals . . . .need to comform to the City 's General Plan. Instead, developers have been allowed to build on creek banks (sometimes almost in the creek) , on flood plains and on postage stamp size lots . In an interview in The Gazette, Mr. McKinney says Atascadero is virtually built out. Then why are we talking about increasing lot density and massive growth, specifically in north and south of the city, and with second rental units allowed on every lot? It ' s probably not going to happen, but if you are listening to the public (and it ' s been said over and over that you want public input) , you will scrap the Draft General Plan and the Draft EIR, and stay with, and enforce, the current General Plan. Rle_ uov 6rayz o&n oU5% __ "a J I, ? My only regret is the amount of money already spent could have been put to some good use, such as fixing roads, which is what the public has been telling you we want. Now, with all the extra building, you want homeowners to pay extra to fix the roads. Sure, you have your Chamber of Commerce people and developers here, but for every one ordinary citizen who speaks or writes letters, there are thousands who will not speak out in public, who want Atascadero to remain as you promised when you were elected. We could learn a good lesson from Paso Robles . Look at their massive growth and overbuilding; and the problems they are now facing. As the editorial said, 'If it ain ' t broke, don' t fix it. ,, Daphne Fahsing 104 Attachment: Y Atascadero City Council Special Mtg. April 8, 2002 5463 Honda Atascadero, CA 93422 April 8, 2002 To The Members of The City Council , I wish to comment on Overlay No.12,the Atascadero Avenue Triangle, as well as on Tunitas Avenue. On the Triangle the recommendation is to have 10 residential units with a pocket park, a minimum of 1/2 acre. The flyer says this meeting is a workshop- you want public input. The people in the neighborhood have brought you petitions, have brought concerns,have brought you information about the piece of property,making it as clear as they can that they want it to be a park because of the congestion in the area, and because of the benefit a park would be for that area. Ten units will not lessen the congestion. If there is not a separate play area in place for the children in those units there will be more children in a much smaller park. If you feel there needs to be housing on that property then have the park on 1 1/2 acres, and two modest low income houses on the half acre,which would be in keeping with the neighborhood , single family housing, and would help with low income housing, one of your goals. It would also create minimum traffic impact. It would give the people in the neighborhood a workable park, and retain both the dignity and the value of the neighborhood. It was mentioned in a different meeting that the city should help prevent having apartments and encourage preserving neighborhoods that had historical homes This neighborhood has such a home, and the home does have a plaque Tunitas Avenue also has a historical home with a plaque. It is a street that was zoned for single families. Some plots are an acre. The zoning was changed to moderate density. People fought hard to keep the character of their neighborhood.Now with the upcoming general plan there is a danger of 18 units per acre being allowed. The people feel that 18 units will encourage speculation building and neighborhood ruining. They chose the neighborhood because of the bit of elbow room close to the center of town. These are their homes,not just pieces of property. They feel that raising the zoning to 18 units,which is now moderate density, is not respecting the neighborhood. They are not here now because they feel that they have no voice, that the decision has already been made. On the rest of the projects in Atascadero,each of them separately will affect these neighborhoods. You have heard comment over and over concerning these projects. All the projects together will profoundly change the face of Atascadero. People moved up here so they would not feel like a sardines in a can. Please respect the neighborhoods as you make your decisions. Prove the people, who have lost faith in you, wrong. Respectfully yours, Livia Kellerman 105 Attachment: Z Atascadero City Council Special Mtg. l - April 8, 2002 M.S CacL CA,,I CA 31I a� -n� rc - Swrt asi- C� rvv'¢ fN. ;,�-f's ~ c eve 3tr, kl• s g o (I<et7 to, P� oE.t,► ;d.1 c.,t�,, N 'i- S 0,t_a, 0 VO-LA aul tv-tk& cls berme ' �-�. c�dd%►-� e `^ .1 KA-e v4 w, 6K � � tic �►� � t�vt s.n.�rv��v� i —��-e.r-e_f� ►�nn.L c.t�. ��L � x d��. �w,cc�.c..�.� , �� ��c'-c�-�r� Attachment: AA Atascadero City Council Special Mtg. April 8, 2002 My first experience in Atascadero was in 1958. It took many years of living to finally get into a position where I could move to Atascadero. That was-in 1980. My first experience with the city council in Atascadero was around 1980 as the city set out to plan its zoning codes. I went to every meeting. Most of the meeting did not draw a large amount of people. When we discussed things like storage of toxic and explosive material just a hand full of residents were there to input their ideas. There were many items and problems to discuss with very few people at the meetings. When it came to the animal zoning section you could not find a seat in the rotunda. People were representing their ideas and fighting to get their ideas heard. They did not want to give up their many horses and others did not want too many horses next to where they lived. Through debate the residents finally arrived at an animal density that represented the will of the residents. Atascadero made it through this process and the zoning plan was finished and set in place. Atascadero was now ready to move on and develope in an orderly fashion with resident approval of its General Plan. Now we are discussing changing the zoning plan again. This time to deal with the density of the human population. The General Plan from the 80's just will not allow the developers to keep as busy as they would like. Someone wants to increase the residential population density to suit their needs not the needs of the residents of Atascadero. In the 80's there was more consideration given to the needs of horses than we are now giving to humans. How many horses could humanly be housed on a piece of land was very important to the horse involved person. The non horse involved resident was also heard and an agreement was reached as to how many horses and other animals could be put on an acre. This agreement was put into the animal zoning plan. The Draft General Plan of the the new century does not seem to understand that like the horse and other farm animals the human population also needs to be controlled. The residents of Atascadero quality of life needs to be protected. Like the debate on too many horses in a finite area we need to realize that too many humans in a finite area needs to be limited. The growth in the Draft will make some residents (and non resident builders and developers) happy. This happiness for the developer will come at the sadness of the resident who still wants a rural atmosphere. Increased density will only cause a negative impact on our movement on streets that can't handle the present traffic, our access and price of water, the air we breathe, the wild animals and plants that share Atascadero with us. We are presently meeting the State of California requirements for new housing. Our schools are doing a good job of educating our children. We have enough room for our children to play in relative safety. Our parks and zoo get used because they are not crowed and are safe. Our Police and Fire Departments are covering the city. We are increasing the population of Atascadero in an orderly manner. The city can, taking into consideration both sides of population density, move on to remain a great place to live. Once this equation becomes lop sided the city is upset. The residents feel their voice is not being heard. The city does not move forward in an orderly fashion. Its a given that increased population will require more water. When the time comes that we have exhaused all water sources, could the Atascadero Water Company refuse to issue water meters to new construction? What is the plan for when the Central Coast has used all possible utilities? Can we then say no to expansion? Do we have to run out of water before we say stop? 107 Please stop this rewrite of our General Plan. Stay with the present zones. Continue with a small controlled growth plan. As I see the proposed General Plan I can't find an area in Atascadero that will be zoned for only single family residences. The poster piece of construction going on in Atascadero right now is the Yellow Rose subdivision. Six houses in a flood plain that feeds our lake. When I talk with friends and neighbors about the Draft General Plan I take them by this piece of property and show them what the future Atascadero will look like. Brian Carney 9580 Carmelita Atascadero, Ca 108 Attachment: BB Atascadero City Council Special Mtg. April 8, 2002 April 8, 2002 To: Atascadero City Council From: Geraldine Brasher Mr. Mayor and members of the Atascadero City Council, I am unalterably opposed to the proposed General Plan because even at the very questionable projected buildout figure of 36,137 people, the Draft Environmental Impact Report cites the following SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS: • The potential for inadequate water supply • The degradation of habitat and movement corridors for our wildlfe • The degradation of our air quality from additional traffic • The conversion of prime agricultural land • Unacceptable traffic on Highway 101 and El Camino Real And this is just a partial list. Tell me, members of the Council,just how our rural life style, which you all agree is a top priority, can possibly be maintained if it is significantly and unavoidably impacted? Geraldine Brasher 3202 Monterey Rd. Atascadero 109 Attachment: CC Atascadero City Council Special Mtg. April 8, 2002 City of Atascadero City Clerk Subject: Comments on Draft General Plan/DEIR -VWe moved to Atascadero to enjoy an environment conducive to a rural atmosphere, ample open space, minimum traffic and noise, high air quality and a well thought out city plan for controlled growth and expansion. The current proposed General Plan is 100% counter to these living needs and goals. The city of Ataseadero is already a jumble of commerical businesses and residential units with no central city theme. This type of mix works completely against the ability to develop a centralized core of commercial businesses within the city. The existing "Main Street" effort is a prime example where ultimate success will likely be dependent upon limiting traffic on El Camino Blvd to one lane and expanding commerical businesses into areas currently comprised of residential units. A thrust of the proposed General Plan to encourage the mix of commerical and residential units works against the development of a centralized core city. The city of Atascadero already has geographical boundaries that far exceed the ability of the city to provide adequate city services. These include road maintanence, police and fire service and an adequate water supply in the event of drought years. The impact of the proposed General Plan to the above services is neither assessed or discussed: a gaping oversight in an already flawed plan. The proposal in the draft General Plan to allow a "Guesthouse"(aka rental unit) on any existing parcel in the city completely destroys the 110 concept of single-family neighborhoods. While an obvious boon to developers, speculators and realtors there is nothing in the public interest served by this proposal. If one wants to see what this proposed General Plan will yield downstream to the citizens of Atascadero just take a drive south of Santa Barbara and have a good look around. If that is the kind of environment that you want to live and raise your families in then by all means support the existing proposed General Plan. I/We the undersigned are completely opposed to this plan as written. Signed: ,_ Date: lli Attachment: DD Atascadero City Council Special Mtg. April 8, 2002 April 8, 2002 Concerns regarding the proposed General Plan My first concern is that this rewrite is being done at all. You have heard this many times, from many people, but I will say it again. Our present plan has seventeen years of life remaining. Amendments are allowed four times a year, which should be enough to satisfy anyone. The proposed plan disregards public input. People expressed a strong desire to protect the rural environment but it appears to me that the proposed plan will eliminate what precious little of that remains today. I was born and raised here when the population was less than five thousand. There was plenty of open space to fly kites, climb trees, dig holes and ride my bicycle in relative safety. Many of our children today cannot enjoy any of these things spontaneously. The more we subdivide the worse it becomes. I strongly object to allowing second houses and guesthouses on single family residential lots. When things are being named the names should be descriptive of the objects. Single family means just that. You cannot have two(or three?) houses on a lot and call it Single Family. ABC or XYZ designations don't make it right. These lots then become multi residential. Guesthouses pose a special problem. They must be built without kitchen facilities but nothing can prevent cooking with appliances, which subverts the original intention. I understand that guesthouses do not count toward the state-mandated number of new dwellings thus potentially requiring additional subdivision to meet this misguided mandate. Goal LOC 1 reads, "Protect and preserve the rural atmosphere of the community by assuring "elbow room"for residents by means of maintenance of large lot sizes which increase in proportion to distance beyond the Urban Core."That apparently means jam as many dwellings as possible within the Urban Core and expand the extent of the core. Write a lofty goal and then qualify it with numerous special considerations. This plan will not protect, let alone improve our quality of life nor preserve our rural atmosphere. The writers and promoters of this plan need to look truth in the face and call it by name. Submitted by: Alice Rew 4500 Hidalgo Ave. Atascadero, CA 93422 112