HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC_2013-03-19_AgendaPacket http://www.facebook.com/planningatascadero
@atownplanning
CITY OF ATASCADERO
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
Regular Meeting
Tuesday, March 19, 2013 – 7:00 P.M.
City Hall Council Chambers
6907 El Camino Real
Atascadero, California
CALL TO ORDER
Pledge of Allegiance
Roll Call: Chairperson Ward
Vice Chairperson Vacant
Commissioner Anderson
Commissioner Bentz
Commissioner Colamarino
Commissioner Cooper
Commissioner Dariz
Commissioner Wolff
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
PUBLIC COMMENT
(This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons wishing to address the Commission on any matter not
on this agenda and over which the Commission has jurisdiction. Speakers are limited to three minutes.
Please state your name for the record before making your presentation. The Commission may take action
to direct the staff to place a matter of business on a future agenda.)
PLANNING COMMISSION BUSINESS
City of Atascadero Planning Commission Agenda Regular Meeting, March 19, 2013
Page 2 of 4
http://www.facebook.com/planningatascadero
@atownplanning
CONSENT CALENDAR
(All items on the consent calendar are considered to be routine and n on-controversial by City Staff and will
be approved by one motion if no member of the Commission or public wishes to comment or ask questions.)
1. APPROVAL OF ACTION MINUTES OF THE REGULAR PLANNING
COMMISSION MEETING ON MARCH 5, 2013.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORTS
2. PLN 2099-0931 / TREE REMOVAL PERMIT FOR 9535, 9545 CASA BELLA CT
Property
Owner/Applicant:
TAG Investors, LLC & The Barratt Group, 1292 San Marcos Boulevard,
Suite #120, San Marcos, CA 92078
Certified Arborist: Ted Elder, 128 Florin Street, Shell Beach, CA 93449
Project Title: PLN 2099-0931 / Tree Removal Permit 2013-0159
Project Location: 9405, 9535 & 9545 Casa Bella Court (Lots 18, 25 & 26), Atascadero, CA
93422, APN: 030-481-033, 034, and 006 (San Luis Obispo County)
General Plan Designation: High Density Residential (HDR)
Zoning: Residential Multi-family (RMF-20) with Planned Development 18
overlay
Project Description:
The project includes a request to remove two (2) multi-trunk Live Oak trees in
order to construct the proposed residential units on Lots 25 and 26 of the
Villas at Montecito Planned Development. Tree #33 totals 49-inches DBH,
and Tree #35 totals 52-inches DBH.
A third tree (Tree #44, a 9-inch Blue Oak) is proposed for removal on Lot 18.
This tree is not obstructing proposed improvements, but is a dead tree, and
recommended for removal by the arborist.
Staff
Recommendation:
The Planning Commission adopt Resolution PC 2013-0005 to approve a
request to remove three (3) native oak trees subject to the guidelines and
mitigation required by the Atascadero Municipal Code and Native Tree
Ordinance.
City of Atascadero Planning Commission Agenda Regular Meeting, March 19, 2013
Page 3 of 4
http://www.facebook.com/planningatascadero
@atownplanning
PUBLIC HEARINGS
DISCLOSURE OF EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS:
Prior to a project hearing Planning Commission Members must disclose any communications they have had on any
quasi-judicial agenda items. This includes, but is not limited to, Tentative Subdivision Maps, Parcel Maps,
Variances, Conditional Use Permits, and Planned Development Permits. This does not disqualify the Planning
Commission Member from participating and voting on the matter, but gives the public and applicant an opportunity
to comment on the ex parte communication.
(For each of the following items, the public will be given an opportunity to speak. After a staff report, the Chair will open the public
hearing and invite the applicant or applicant’s representative to make any comments. Members of the public will be invited to provide
testimony to the Commission following the applicant. Speakers should state their name for the record and can address the
Commission for three minutes. After all public comments have been received, the public hearing will be closed, and the Commission
will discuss the item and take appropriate action(s).)
3. PLN 2011-1417, HOUSING ELEMENT IMPLEMENTATION MEASURES
WORKSHOP: DISCUSSION OF HOMELESS SHELTER LOCATIONS, SINGLE
ROOM OCCUPANCY UNITS, DENSITY BONUS STANDARDS, AND
ACCESSIBILITY ACCOMODATIONS
Applicant: City of Atascadero, 6907 El Camino Real, Atascadero, CA 93422
Project Title: PLN 2011-1417 / Housing Element Workshop
Project Location: Citywide
Project Description:
The City’s Housing Element was adopted in 2011. As a part of that adoption,
the City is in the process of updating its Zoning Ordinance for consistency
with the 2011 Housing Element and State Housing Law. The Planning
Commission will hold a workshop to discuss implementation of the City’s
Adopted Housing Element including discussion on:
Homeless Shelters (Emergency Shelters)
Single Room Occupancy Units
City’s Density Bonus Regulations
Reasonable Accommodations for those with disabilities.
Staff
Recommendation:
No final decisions will be made at this meeting. See staff report.
COMMISSIONER COMMENTS AND REPORTS
DIRECTOR’S REPORT
ADJOURNMENT
The next regular meeting of the Planning Commission is scheduled for April 2, 2013, at
City Hall, Council Chambers, 6907 El Camino Real, Atascadero.
Please note: Should anyone challenge in court any proposed development entitlement listed
on this Agenda, that person may be limited to raising those issues addressed at the public
hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning
Commission at, or prior to this public hearing.
City of Atascadero Planning Commission Agenda Regular Meeting, March 19, 2013
Page 4 of 4
http://www.facebook.com/planningatascadero
@atownplanning
City of Atascadero
WELCOME TO THE ATASCADERO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
The Planning Commission meets in regular session on the first and third Tuesday of each month at 7:00 p.m. at City
Hall, Council Chambers, 6907 El Camino Real, Atascadero. Matters are considered by the Commission in the order
of the printed Agenda.
Copies of the staff reports or other documentation relating to each item of business referred to on the Agenda are on
file in the office of the Community Development Department and are available for public inspection during City Hall
business hours at the Front Counter of City Hall, 6907 El Camino Real, Atascadero, and on our website,
www.atascadero.org. An agenda packet is also available for public review at the Atascadero Library, 6850 Morro
Road. All documents submitted by the public during Commission meetings that are either read into the record or
referred to in their statement will be noted in the minutes and available for review in the Community Development
Department. Commission meetings are audio recorded, and may be reviewed by the public. Copies of meeting
recordings are available for a fee. Contact the City Clerk for more information (470-3400).
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in a City
meeting or other services offered by this City, please contact the City Manager’s Office or the City Clerk’s Office,
both at (805) 470-3400. Notification at least 48 hours prior to the meeting or time when services are needed will
assist the City staff in assuring that reasonable arrangements can be made to provide accessibility to the meeting or
service.
TO SPEAK ON SUBJECTS NOT LISTED ON THE AGENDA
Under Agenda item, “PUBLIC COMMENT”, the Chairperson will call for anyone from the audience having business
with the Commission to approach the lectern and be recognized.
1. Give your name for the record (not required)
2. State the nature of your business.
3. All comments are limited to 3 minutes.
4. All comments should be made to the Chairperson and Commission.
5. No person shall be permitted to make slanderous, profane or negative personal remarks concerning any
other individual, absent or present.
This is when items not on the Agenda may be brought to the Commission’s attention. A maximum of 30 minutes will
be allowed for Public Comment Portion (unless changed by the Commission).
TO SPEAK ON AGENDA ITEMS (from Title 2, Chapter 1 of the Atascadero Municipal Code)
Members of the audience may speak on any item on the agenda. The Chairperson will identify the subject, staff will
give their report, and the Commission will ask questions of staff. The Chairperson will announce when the public
comment period is open and will request anyone interested to address the Commission regarding the matter being
considered to step up to the lectern. If you wish to speak for, against or comment in any way:
1. You must approach the lectern and be recognized by the Chairperson.
2. Give your name (not required).
3. Make your statement.
4. All comments should be made to the Chairperson and Commission.
5. No person shall be permitted to make slanderous, profane or negative personal remarks concerning any
other individual, absent or present.
6. All comments limited to 3 minutes.
If you wish to use a computer presentation to support your comments, you must notify the Community Development
Department at 470-3402 at least 24 hours prior to the meeting. Digital presentations brought to the meeting on a
USB drive or CD is preferred. Access to hook up your laptop to the City's projector can also be provided. You are
required to submit to the Recording Secretary a printed copy of your presentation for the record. Please check in with
the Recording Secretary before the meeting begins to announce your presence and turn in the printed copy.
The Chairperson will announce when the public comment period is closed, and thereafter, no further public
comments will be heard by the Commission.
Atascadero Planning Commission
March 5, 2013
Page 1 of 3
CITY OF ATASCADERO
PLANNING COMMISSION
DRAFT ACTION MINUTES
Regular Meeting - Tuesday, March 5, 2013 – 7:00 P.M.
City Hall Council Chambers
6907 El Camino Real, Atascadero, California
CALL TO ORDER
Commissioner Bentz called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. and Commissioner Wolff led the
Pledge of Allegiance.
Commission Present: Commissioners Bentz, Colamarino, Cooper, Dariz, Wolff, and
Anderson
Absent: Chairperson Ward (excused absence)
Others Present: City Clerk / Assistant to City Manager Marcia McClure Torgerson
Staff Present: Community Development Director Warren Frace, and Assistant
Planner Alfredo Castillo
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
MOTION: By Commissioner Dariz and seconded by Commissioner Colamarino
to approve the agenda.
Motion passed 6:0 by a roll-call vote.
PUBLIC COMMENT - None
PLANNING COMMISSION BUSINESS - NONE
ITEM NUMBER: 1
DATE: 3-19-13
Atascadero Planning Commission
March 5, 2013
Page 2 of 3
CONSENT CALENDAR
1. APPROVAL OF ACTION MINUTES OF THE REGULAR PLANNING
COMMISSION MEETING ON FEBRUARY 19, 2013.
MOTION: By Commissioner Colamarino and seconded by Commissioner Dariz
to approve the Consent Calendar.
Motion passed 6:0 by a roll-call vote.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORTS
2. PLN 2006-1133, ANNUAL HOUSING REPORT
The State of California requires all cities to file an Annual Housing Report to the Department of Housing and
Community Development (HCD). The purpose of the Housing Report is to monitor the implementation of the
City’s General Plan Housing Element and progress toward meeting the City’s Regional Housing Needs
Allocation (RHNA).
Assistant Planner Alfredo Castillo gave the staff report and answered questions from the
Commission.
PUBLIC COMMENT: None
MOTION: By Commissioner Dariz and seconded by Commissioner Colamarino
to recommend the City Council submit the 2012 General Plan Annual
Progress Report to the State of California.
Motion passed 6:0 by a roll-call vote.
PUBLIC HEARINGS - NONE
COMMISSIONER COMMENTS AND REPORTS
Commissioner Wolff thanked the City for sending herself and Commissioner Anderson to the
League of California Cities’ Planning Commission training. Commissioner Anderson agreed.
DIRECTOR’S REPORT
Community Development Director Frace updated the Commission on upcoming projects,
meetings, and issues.
Atascadero Planning Commission
March 5, 2013
Page 3 of 3
ADJOURNMENT
Commissioner Bentz adjourned the meeting at 7:45 p.m. to the next regular meeting of the
Planning Commission, scheduled for March 19, 2013, at City Hall, Council Chambers, 6907 El
Camino Real, Atascadero.
MINUTES PREPARED BY:
______________________________________
Marcia McClure Torgerson, C.M.C.
City Clerk / Assistant to the City Manager
\\cityhall\cdvlpmnt\~ planning commission\pc minutes\pc minutes 2013\pc draft minutes 3 5 15.mt.docx
ITEM NUMBER: ITEM NUMBER: 2
DATE: 3-19-13
Atascadero Planning Commission
Staff Report – Community Development Department
Callie Taylor, Associate Planner, 470-3448, ctaylor@atascadero.org
Tree Removal Permit
TRP 2013-0159 / PLN 2099-0931
(Casa Bella Court / TAG Investors, LLC)
SUBJECT:
Application is a request to remove three (3) existing native trees at the Villas at
Montecito Planned Development project. One 49-inch Live Oak and one 52-inch
Live Oak (both multi-truck trees) are proposed to be removed for the construction of
residences on Lots 25 and 26. There is one (1) dead 9-inch Blue Oak on Lot 18
which is not obstructing proposed improvements, but is recommended to be
removed to avoid a future hazardous situation.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends:
The Planning Commission adopt Resolution PC 2013-0005 to approve a request to
remove three (3) native oak trees subject to the guidelines and mitigation required by
the Atascadero Municipal Code and Native Tree Ordinance.
Situation and Facts:
1. Applicant/Owner: TAG Investors, LLC, 1292 San Marcos Boulevard, Suite
#120, San Marcos, CA 92078
2. Certified Arborist: Ted Elder, 128 Florin Street, Shell Beach, CA 93449
3. Project Address: 9535, 9545 & 9405 Casa Bella Court (Lots 25, 26 & 18),
Atascadero, CA 93422
APN: 030-481-033, 034, & 006
4. Zoning: Residential Multi-Family 20 (RMF-20) with Planned
Development 18 overlay (PD18)
5. General Plan: High Density Residential (HDR)
ITEM NUMBER: ITEM NUMBER: 2
DATE: 3-19-13
Background:
The Villas at Montecito was originally approved in 2003 as a Planned Development
18, which was designed with duplex style attached homes on individual lots. In 2010,
TAG Investors, LLC purchased the property and processed an amendment to the
CUP (Master Plan of Development) in order to allow redesigned detached units on
the existing lots.
During development of the construction and grading plans over the past year, it
became clear the trees on Lots 25 and 26 were going to be heavily impacted by the
proposed construction. The arborist recently resurveyed the trees and determined
that the trees will not be able to survive if the units are constructed as proposed. The
applicant has submitted a tree removal permit to request removals.
Site Plan for Lots 25 & 26
ANALYSIS:
The project arborist resurveyed the trees on March 1, 2013, and found that they had
grown significantly since the original 2002 project design. Based on the precise
grading plans and foundation designs which have recently been recently prepared,
the arborist does not believe trees #33 and #35 will be able to survive and will need
to be removed in to construct the proposed units on Lots 25 and 26.
Tree #33 is a multi-trunk Live Oak tree measuring a total of 49-inches DBH. The tree
is located approximately 4 feet from the foundation of the building on Lot 25. A
critical amount of roots and tree canopy would be removed or heavily impacted by
Tree #33 and Tree #35
on Lots 25 & 26
Crowns of trees
intermingle and appear
as one tree
ITEM NUMBER: ITEM NUMBER: 2
DATE: 3-19-13
the proposed construction; therefore the arborist is recommending removal.
Tree #35 is a multi-trunk Live Oak tree measuring 52-inches DBH. This tree is
located within the building envelope of the residential unit on Lot 26 and removal is
required in order to construct the unit.
As described in the applicant’s letter and arborist report (Attachments 2 & 3), t he
buildable area for the recorded lots in this development is extremely tight, and the
slope of the hillside adds to the difficulty of designing homes to fit on the parcels.
The 2010 redesign of the units from duplexes to single-family homes shifted the
footprint of the homes only a few feet, and staff believes that the trees would be
heavily impacted by either attached or detached units on these lots. As described in
the applicant’s letter (Attachment 3) the lot configuration would need to be
significantly redesigned, and possibly number of units reduced, in order to save
these trees. The applicant is requesting removal at this time in order to proceed with
the development of the site plan as previously approved in the Conditional Use
Permit.
Tree #33 and Tree #35
proposed for removal on Lots
25 & 26
Both are multi-trunk trees,
with 4 trunks each, totaling
49” and 52” DBH.
ITEM NUMBER: ITEM NUMBER: 2
DATE: 3-19-13
In addition to the trees on Lots 25 and 26 being requested for removal by the
applicant, Tree # 44 is a 9-inch DBH Blue Oak on Lot 18 which staff is
recommending for removal. In 2002, the arborist identified this tree as being in
decline. Upon inspection this year, the arborist determined the tree is completely
dead. The tree is not obstructing the applicant’s proposed improvements, however,
removal is recommended by the arborist and City staff in order to eliminate a future
hazard. This tree is located at the front entrance to the development, next to two
other blue oaks which are healthy and proposed to remain. Removal will not create
a visual impact to the site and will eliminate any future conflict or hazard that could
result from the dead tree. Staff recommends that the developer remove the tree
prior to installing the final landscape so that the dead tree does not become a
problem for the future homeowner.
The City of Atascadero’s Native Tree Ordinance requires mitigation for native tree
removals. Per the Ordinance, mitigation is required for dead trees as well in order to
ensure regeneration of native trees within the City. As identified in the conditions of
approval, the applicant shall either replant 40 five-gallon native trees within the PD 18
development project site, or pay $1,983.33 to the Atascadero Native Tree Mitigation
fund. A combination of replanting (as identified on the landscape plan approved with
the on-site improvements permit) and payment of fees (to meet any remaining
mitigation left over), is recommended.
ITEM NUMBER: ITEM NUMBER: 2
DATE: 3-19-13
FINDINGS:
As a Planned Development, the Villas at Montecito require Planning Commission
review in order to make changes to the Master Plan of Development. This Planning
Commission review also applies to native tree removals in the project area. In
addition, the Atascadero Native Tree Ordinance (Ordinance No. 214) states that
“decisions on native tree removals of 24-inch dbh-size or larger shall be made by the
Planning Commission.”
In considering any tree removal permit request, at least one of the findings must be
made. Staff has identified finding #5 (v) as appropriate for the applicant request for
removal of Trees #33 and #35, and finding #1 (i) as the appropriate finding for the
removal of Tree #44:
(v) The tree is obstructing proposed improvements that cannot be reasonably
designed to avoid the need for tree removal, as certified by a report from the
Site Planner and determined by the Community Development Department
based on the following factors:
Early consultation with the City;
Consideration of practical design alternatives;
Provision of cost comparisons (from applicant) for practical design
alternatives;
If saving tree eliminates all reasonable uses of the property; or
If saving the tree requires the removal of more desirable trees.
(i) The tree is dead, diseased or injured beyond reclamation, as certified by a
tree condition report from an arborist;
CONCLUSION:
The applicant has submitted a tree removal application with an arborist report and
applicant’s statement (Attachments 2 and 3). According to the applicant’s architect
and the arborist, tree #33 (49-inch Live Oak) and tree #35 (52-inch Live Oak) need
to be removed as they are obstructing proposed development on Lots 25 and 26.
In addition, staff is recommending tree #44 (9-inch Blue Oak) be removed as this is
a dead tree.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment 1: Aerial Photo
Attachment 2: Arborist Report
Attachment 3: Applicant’s Statement
Attachment 4: Draft Resolution PC 2013-0005
ITEM NUMBER: ITEM NUMBER: 2
DATE: 3-19-13
Attachment 1: Aerial Photo
Tree #44:
9-inch DBH Blue Oak
Dead tree
recommended for
removal
Tree #33 and Tree #35 proposed
for removal on Lots 25 & 26
Both are multi-trunk trees, with
4 trunks each, totaling 49” and
52” DBH.
Crowns of trees intermingle and
appear as one tree
ITEM NUMBER: ITEM NUMBER: 2
DATE: 3-19-13
Attachment 2: Arborist Report
ITEM NUMBER: ITEM NUMBER: 2
DATE: 3-19-13
Attachment 2: Arborist Report
ITEM NUMBER: ITEM NUMBER: 2
DATE: 3-19-13
Attachment 3: Applicant’s Statement
ITEM NUMBER: ITEM NUMBER: 2
DATE: 3-19-13
Attachment 4: Draft Resolution PC 2013-0005
DRAFT RESOLUTION PC 2013-0005
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF ATASCADERO APPROVING A TREE REMOVAL PERMIT
TO ALLOW THE REMOVAL OF THREE (3) NATIVE TREES
LOCATED IN THE VILLAS AT MONTECITO
APN: 030-481-033, 034, AND 006
(PLN 2099-0931 / TRP 2013-0159)
WHEREAS, an application for a Tree Removal Permit has been received from TAG
Investors, LLC & The Barratt Group, 1292 San Marcos Boulevard, Suite #120, San Marcos,
CA 92078 (applicant and owner) to allow the removal of three (3) native oak trees located at
9405, 9535 & 9545 Casa Bella Court (Lots 18, 25 & 26), APN: 030-481-033, 034, and 006,
and, within the Villas at Montecito Planned Development project; and,
WHEREAS; the Planning Commission reviewed the proposed Tree Removal
application on March 19, 2013 and considered testimony and reports from staff, the
applicants, and the public; and,
NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Atascadero takes the
following actions:
SECTION 1. Findings for Approval of Tree Removal Permit. The Planning
Commission finds as follows:
Tree #44 is dead, diseased or injured beyond reclamation, as certified by a tree
condition report from an arborist; and
Trees #33 and #35 are obstructing proposed improvements that cannot be reasonably
designed to avoid the need for tree removal, as certified by a report from the Site
Planner and determined by the Community Development Department based on the
following factors:
Early consultation with the City;
Consideration of practical design alternatives;
Provision of cost comparisons (from applicant) for practical design
alternatives;
If saving tree eliminates all reasonable uses of the property; or
If saving the tree requires the removal of more desirable trees; and,
ITEM NUMBER: ITEM NUMBER: 2
DATE: 3-19-13
SECTION 2. Approval. The Planning Commission hereby approves Tree Removal
Permit 2013-0159 subject to the following Conditions and Exhibits:
Exhibit A: Conditions of Approval and Mitigation Chart
On motion by Commissioner ______, and seconded by Commissioner ________ the
foregoing resolution is hereby adopted in its entirety by the following roll call vote:
AYES: ( )
NOES: ( )
ABSENT: ( )
ABSTAIN: ( )
ADOPTED:
CITY OF ATASCADERO, CA
______________________________
Chuck Ward
Planning Commission Chairperson
Attest:
______________________________
Warren M. Frace
Planning Commission Secretary
T:\- TRP - Tree Removal Permits\TRP 06\TRP 2006-0084\TRP 2006-0084.PC-SR.pt.doc
ITEM NUMBER: ITEM NUMBER: 2
DATE: 3-19-13
Exhibit A: Conditions of Approval
Tree Removal - TRP 2013-0159 Villas at Montecito
Conditions of Approval
Tree Removal - TRP 2013-0159 Villas at Montecito
Timing
PR: Prior to Removal
BL: Business License
BP: Building Permit
TO: Temporary Occupancy
FO: Final Occupancy
Responsibility
/Monitoring
PS: Planning Services
BS: Building Services
FD: Fire Department
PD: Police Department
CE: City Engineer
WW: Wastewater
CA: City Attorney
Planning Services
1. The applicant shall mitigate the removal of the trees in accordance with
the requirements of the Atascadero Native Tree Ordinance as identified
in the attached tree removal mitigation chart.
Applicant shall either replant 40 five-gallon native trees within the PD
18 development project site, or pay $1,983.33 to the Atascadero Native
Tree Mitigation fund, or a combination of both payment of fees and
replanting.
PR PS
2. An updated arborist report shall be submitted to address impacts, tree
protection, monitoring, and any recommended mitigation measures to
ensure the remaining trees within the development are protected during
construction the remaining units.
PR/BP PS
ITEM NUMBER: ITEM NUMBER: 2
DATE: 3-19-13
Exhibit A continued: Conditions of Approval
Tree Removal - TRP 2013-0159 Villas at Montecito
Evergreen Native Trees (inches)Deciduous Native Trees (inches)Totals
dbh notes dbh notes
1 49-inches 1 9-inches
2 52-inches 2
3 3
4 4
5 5
6 6
Total 101-inches Total 9-inches 110-inches
Mitigation Requirement
req'd tree replacements: 34 five gal trees req'd tree replacements: 6 five gal trees 40 five gal trees
Proposed Replanting 0 five gal trees Proposed Replanting 0 five gal trees 0 five gal trees
0 box trees (24'')0 box trees (24'')0 box trees (24'')
Remaining Mitigation 34 five gal trees Remaining Mitigation 6 five gal trees 40 five gal trees
Tree Fund Payment:1,683.33$ Tree Fund Payment:300.00$ 1,983.33$
Applicant shall either replant 40 five-gallon native trees within the PD 18
development project site, or pay $1,983.33 to the Atascadero Native Tree Mitigation
fund, or a combination of both payment of fees and replanting.
t:\- pre 06 plns (old planning docs)\- gpa - general plan amendments\gpa 03\gpa 2003-0004.9500 las lomas ave- the villas at
monticito\trp 2013-0159\trp 2013-0159.pc-sr.pt.doc
Atascadero Planning Commission
Staff Report – Community Development Department
Alfredo R. Castillo, AICP, Assistant Planner, 470-3436, acastillo@atascadero.org
PLN 2011-1417
2007 - 2014 Housing Element
Implementation of Program and Policies
(City of Atascadero)
RECOMMENDATION:
The purpose of this staff report is to update the Planning Commission on information
regarding Housing Element Implementation programs, hear public testimony, and
provide feedback and direction to staff.
REPORT-IN-BRIEF:
The Housing Element contained policies that the City needs to modify or create
ordinances for consistency with State and Federal Housing Law. The City has retained
a consultant, Lisa Wise Consulting (LWC) to assist the City in implementing its Housing
Element Policies. This workshop is intended to review four (4) policies from the Housing
Element that the City will need to adopt, as well as review the City Council’s Affordable
Housing Policy. These include:
1. Revise the affordable housing density bonus ordinance to establish procedures
for obtaining and monitoring density bonuses in compliance with State law.
2. Review of the City Council’s Inclusionary Housing Policy.
3. Establish an ordinance to provide reasonable accommodations to afford disabled
persons equal access to housing.
4. Establish policies, standards, and procedures that encourage and facilitate the
development of single-room occupancy units (SROs).
5. Amend Zoning Ordinance to comply with SB 2, permitting emergency shelters.
In addition to these new ordinances to the City’s zoning code, the Housing Element
includes policies for minor updates to the zoning code that the Planning Commission
may direct Staff to proceed with as a part of this implementation update. Those include
the following:
Allow residential multi-family on the second floor in the Commercial Retail (CR)
and Commercial Professional (CP) and Commercial Neighborhood (CN) zones
with a Conditional Use Permit and horizontal mixed-use subject to a PD and
General Plan Amendment.
ITEM NUMBER: 3
DATE: 3-19-13
Establish a minimum required density in the Residential Multi-Family-10 (RMF-
10) zone to preserve the limited supply of multi-family zoned land for multi-family
uses, similar to the RMF-20 densities already adopted.
DISCUSSION:
Background:
In February of 2011, the City Council adopted the 2007-2014 Housing Element, one of
the seven required elements that comprise the City’s General Plan. The State of
California certified the Housing Element in Spring of 2011. The Housing Element
requires the City to set goals, policies, and programs to address the community’s
housing needs. The State, through the San Luis Obispo Council of Governments
(SLOCOG) determines how much housing must be planned for during the 2007-2014,
however, the City determines where to plan for new housing to accommodate
anticipated growth.
The Housing Element contains policies to adopt new ordinances and modify sections of
the Zoning Ordinance for consistency with State Housing Law. City staff has been
collaborating with the City’s consultant, Lisa Wise Consulting (LWC), on various
strategies in implementing State Housing Law and its effects on the City’s residents,
business, and other interested groups. This initial work has included preliminary
discussions with focus groups, review of the City’s existing ordinances and policies, and
preliminary discussion on the new ordinances.
ANALYSIS:
Density Bonus Ordinance Revisions (Atascadero Municipal Code § 9-3.175(f))
The City of Atascadero adopted the State Density Bonus as a part of its 1983 Zoning
Ordinance adoption after incorporation. The State Density Bonus was enacted in 1979
by the State Legislature is to encourage cities to offer bonuses and incentives to
housing developers that will “contribute significantly to the economic feasibility of lower
income housing in proposed developments. The Density Bonus Law rewards a
developer who agrees to build a certain percentage of low-income housing with the
opportunity to build more residences than would otherwise be permitted by the City’s
Zoning Ordinance.
The best example of the use of the City’s Density Bonus Ordinance is Dove Creek. The
City’s General Plan identified the maximum density for the project at 200 units. The
applicants were granted a 35% density bonus above the base density (a total of 70
more units) for providing 10% of the base density units as 30-year deed restricted very-
low income units (20 units total). The total units developed at Dove Creek were 279
residential units (an addition 9 units were given as a bonus for exceptionally high quality
design, consistent with the City’s General Plan). Of these, 259 units were market rate,
20 units were deed restricted affordable units, with the developer afforded an additional
59 market rate units above the maximum of 200 units. Currently, 8 units have been
constructed, with an additional 4 units under construction and the remaining to be
developed over the next two years.
To further streamline the development of affordable housing, major overhauls of the
State Density Bonus were enacted in 2002 (SB 1818) and 2008 (AB 2280). These
streamlines provide additional relief from development Standards in the Zoning
Ordinance and new calculations for the percentage of affordable housing units required
tied to the amount of density bonus received. The City has not revised its ordinance to
reflect these changes in State Housing Law.
The following revisions to the ordinance will include the following for consistency with
State Housing laws:
A minimum number of units in order to qualify for the density bonus (existing
ordinance has no minimum);
Rewarding developers a greater percentage of bonus units for the inclusion of
deed restricted very low income housing;
Provide developers flexibility or relief from certain zoning standards to construct
affordable housing units such as parking demand reduction, setback reductions,
etc.
Provide developers the ability to waive certain zoning code requirements with
Planning Commission approval;
Specific application process for the Density Bonus.
The Planning Commissions should weigh in on any additional developer incentives that
it would like to include as a part of this ordinance revision.
City Council Inclusionary Housing Policy
The 2003 Inclusionary Housing Policy was adopted by the City Council and focuses on
expanding housing opportunities to low and moderate income households by requiring
construction of affordable units or paying of an in-lieu fee when projects of a certain size
or scope are proposed in the City. The Policy applies to all development projects
requiring a legislative approval such as a Zone Change or General Plan amendment.
Projects of 1 to 10 units must pay the in-lieu fee or build units
Projects of 11 units or more must build inclusionary units on-site or receive City
Council approval to pay an in-lieu fee.
If the developer chooses to construct the inclusionary units on the project site they are
required to provide 20 percent of the units in the project as affordable and deed restrict
these units for a period of no less than 30 years. If the developer chooses to pay the in-
lieu fee, it is calculated as five percent of the construction valuation of the market rate
units within the project. This fee is collected by the City and placed into a non-general
fund account that may be utilized for the development of affordable housing.
The policy requires that all affordable units in single-family land use areas be
designated for moderate-income households. The distribution of affordable units in
multi-family and mixed-use commercial land use areas area: 20 percent very low-
income, 37 percent low-income and 43 percent moderate-income. Affordable units must
be constructed at the same time as the market-rate units and affordable units must be
physically distributed throughout the project site, rather than concentrated in one area.
With City Council approval, alternatives to onsite construction or payment of in-lieu fees
for inclusionary units may be allowed, including: offsite construction, land dedication, or
combinations of construction, fees, and land dedications. As an incentive to provide
affordable units, all inclusionary units shall be treated as density bonus units that are not
counted as part of the maximum density entitlement of a site.
Some issues with the current policy have emerged due to changes in the housing
market over the last decade. All moderate-income units produced due to the
Inclusionary Housing Policy are administered through the City’s Moderate Income
Affordable Housing Program, which was established in response to concerns raised
regarding the financing and resale of these units. The equity-sharing program calls for
the home to eventually be re-sold at the fair market value, with the City receiving its
share of the proceeds to re-invest in affordable housing.
When housing prices dropped near the end of the last decade, it became difficult to
administer this program effectively and some of the homes in the program went through
short sales or foreclosure. The City adopted revisions to the Moderate Income
Affordable Housing Program to clarify steps to take in the event of a short sale as well
as how closing costs are dealt with in the resale transaction. Another market-related
effect is the decrease in housing prices which has resulted in market-rate units being
priced in the same range as moderate-income units. This has made moderate-income
units more difficult to sell and it is debatable whether they are contributing to providi ng
affordable units in the City since the moderate units are priced at Market Rate values
currently.
The Planning Commission may weigh in on the City Council’s Affordable Housing Policy
and its effectiveness. Staff will receive those comments and forward them to the City
Council for further evaluation.
Reasonable Accommodations
The City needs to adopt an ordinance that provides reasonable accommodation (i.e.
modifications or exceptions) in its zoning regulations and practices when such
accommodations may be necessary to afford disabled persons equal access to
housing. The purpose of the reasonable accommodation ordinance is to remove
constraints to the development, improvement, and maintenance of housing for persons
with disabilities.
A Reasonable Accommodation is typically an adjustment to physical design standards
(e.g., setbacks) to accommodate the placement of wheelchair ramps or other exterior
modifications to a dwelling in response to the needs of a disabled resident. This
ordinance would bring consistency with the City’s Zoning Code with State and Federal
Housing Law.
As this time Staff is proposing an ordinance similar to what other jurisdictions have
done. The reasonable accommodations will be a ministerial process rather than a
discretionary (i.e. no Planning Commission review unless appealed). Staff is seeking
Planning Commission clarification or questions in regards to this proposed ordinance.
Single Room Occupancy Units
Government Code Section 65583(a) requires quantification and analysis of existing and
projected housing needs of extremely low-income (ELI) households. ELI is a subset of
very low-income households and is defined as households that earn 30 percent or less
of area median income. The State requires that the City establish regulations that
encourage and facilitate the development of single-room occupancy units (SROs).
An SRO unit usually is small, between 200 to 350 square feet. These units provide a
valuable source of affordable housing and can serve as an entry point into the housing
market for formerly homeless people. The City needs to in identify zoning and
development standards that will allow the construction or conversions to SROs. Those
standards include the maximum size of the unit, whether or not they should contain a
small kitchen facility, on-site management, etc.
As a part of an ordinance adoption, the City can apply development standards to ensure
compatibility with surrounding uses, as well as an orderly development of these uses.
Development Standards would include parking requirements, minimum and maximum
size of units, common area facilities such as dining rooms, meeting rooms, etc,
occupancy limits, and whether to require on-site management.
The Planning Commission should provide direction to Staff on some key issues with the
implementation of SROs in the Community, including:
Determine how much Single-Room Occupancy Units (SROs) pay in capital
facility fees. Staff is recommending revising the existing “Mobile Home” fee to
include SROs for the encouragement of retention or development of these fees;
Should SROs be a permitted or conditionally permitted use? Staff is
recommending SROs to be a conditional use.
What zones should SROs be allowed in? Staff is recommending the RMF zone,
but the Planning Commission should weigh in on commercial zones such as the
Commercial Tourist. The Commission should be aware that any existing hotel
conversions to SROs does reduce the City’s Transient Occupancy Tax (TO T),
which is a major source of revenue for the City.
What Standards should be applied for these conversions?
SB 2 –Emergency and Transitional Shelter
Senate Bill 2 requires that every City and County identify potential site (s) or zones
where new emergency shelter(s) can be located without discretionary review. SB-2
increases protections for providers seeking to open a new emergency shelter,
transitional housing, or supportive housing development, by limiting the instances in
which local governments can deny such housing types.
City Staff is proposing to amend the City’s Zoning Ordinance to comply with the SB 2
requirements. The City’s Housing Element identified zoning districts within the City for
future consideration of the Emergency and Transitional Shelter. Those zones included
the Commercial Service (CS), Commercial Park (CPK), and Public (P) Zoning Districts.
With assistance from its consultant, City Staff has determined that only one site is
necessary at this time to adequately zone for an emergency and transitional shelter.
SB 2 requires that the City allow an Emergency shelter “by right” meaning that the
emergency shelter could operate without the use of an entitlement permit such as a
conditional use permit (CUP) within a zoning district. If the City wishes to, it can also
choose a site specific property that provides adequate space to provide the emergency
shelter services. The City does have discretion to apply written, objective management
standards for the emergency shelter ordinance. These include any of the following:
The maximum number of beds or persons served nightly by the facility;
Off-Street parking requirements;
Size and location of waiting or intake areas;
Requirements for on-site management;
Length of stay;
Lighting;
Limit proximity to other shelter(s);
On-site security during hours of operation;
Any additional standards that do not render the use infeasible.
Currently, a temporary emergency shelter is located at 6370 Atascadero Avenue out of
an existing church. This shelter is operated by the El Camino Housing Organization
(ECHO). The exiting shelter serves the Community’s Homeless population at this time.
The Shelter’s location was intended to be a temporary use.
The shelter is the only homeless shelter in the northern San Luis Obispo County. Staff
has reviewed the site and size and has determined that the existing ECHO homeless
shelter site is an adequate size to potentially serve the existing and future needs of the
Community’s emergency homeless services. The Planning Commission may
recommend to Staff to utilize a “site specific” location and apply objective management
standards for ECHO or any future operator of that site.
The Planning Commission should provide direction to Staff on some key issues with the
with the proposed SB-2 ordinance, including:
Specify a zone or a specific site such as the existing ECHO site to be designated
as the City’s SB-2 homeless shelter.
Provide direction on the objective management standards that the City may apply
to emergency shelters.
Any additional input that the Planning Commission can provide regarding the
regulation of emergency shelters within the City.
Minor Zoning Ordinance Updates
In addition to these major ordinance adoptions and revisions, the Planning Commission
is being asked to weigh in on minor updates to the following code sections.
Allow Multi-Family Residential in the CP / CR/ CN Zones
This proposed code text change would allow residential multi-family on the second floor
in the Commercial Retail (CR) and Commercial Professional (CP) and Commercial
Neighborhood (CN) zones with a Conditional Use Permit and horizontal mixed-use
subject to a PD and General Plan Amendment. This would provide a discretionary
review for both the Design Review Committee (DRC) and the Planning Commission.
This would bring the City’s Zoning Ordinance consistent with not only the Housing
Element, but the City’s Land Use section of the General Plan.
Establish a minimum density in the RMF-10 Zone
This proposed amendment would establish a minimum required density in the
Residential Multi-Family (RMF-10) zone to preserve the limited supply of multi-family
zoned land for multi-family uses. As a part of the Housing Element adoption in 2011, the
City Council adopted a minimum 20 units to the acre for the RMF-16 zone (now RMF-
20). The density adjusts based on site topography.
By establishing a minimum, the remaining vacant sites designated RMF-10 would no
longer be allowed to simply place one (1) residential unit on the site. For instance, if a
property owner would develop a vacant piece of property, which is approximately ½
acre in size, the property owner would develop it a minimum density established by t he
zoning ordinance. Staff has not established a minimum density, however the Planning
Commission may recommend a number that it deems satisfactory to address the
adequate multi-family zoning provisions in the City’s Housing Element.
Conclusion:
While the City has some latitude in the language of these proposed ordinances, not
adopting these ordinances will cause the City additional Staff time and expenses for the
2014-2021 Housing Element Update Cycle. The State has implemented a
“Streamlining” review for housing element updates for the 2014-2021 cycle. This
“streamline” review would review only changes made in the Housing Element, and not
review areas that have not been changed since its content would continue to be
sufficient to meet the requirements established by the Housing and Community
Development (HCD) department. These proposed ordinances, if adopted, would make
the City in substantial compliance with State Housing Law. This is a requirement for the
City to qualify for “streamline” review, thus reducing the cost to the City in updating the
required Housing Element in 2014.
It is important that the Planning Commission provide Staff direction and input on these
major ordinance adoptions and revisions. Staff will take the comments received by the
Planning Commission and Public testimony and return to the Planning Commission in
May 2013 to introduce these ordinances for its review, considerations and
recommendations to City Council for final approval.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment 1: Atascadero Municipal Code § 9-3.175 – RMF Density
Attachment 2: 2003 City Council Inclusionary Housing Policy
Attachment 3: HCD – SRO information
Attachment 4: HCD – SB 2 Technical Document
Attachment 5: Site Location – ECHO Homeless Shelter
\\cityhall\cdvlpmnt\- 11 plns\pln 2011-1417 zoning updates_housing element implementation\planning commission - 3.19.12\housing
implementation workshop.sr.docx
ATTACHMENT 1: Existing Density Bonus Regulations - Atascadero Municipal Code § 9-3.175(f)
9-3.175 Density.
The maximum allowable density in the Residential Multiple Family Zone shall be
designated on the official zoning maps as provided by Section 9-3.104(c) and be established in
accordance with the general plan as follows:
(a) Areas Designated Low Density Multiple Family Residential. The maximum number of
dwelling units per net acre is ten (10).
(b) Areas Designated High Density Multiple Family Residential. The minimum number of
dwelling units per net acre is twenty (20).
(c) Hillside Density Standards. The densities permitted by subsections (a) and (b) of this
section shall be modified to the following densities based on-site topography, as
follows:
Average Slope Low Density Multiple Family
units/acre
High Density Multiple
Family units/acre
0—10.99% 10 20
11—15.99% 7 14
16—20.99% 5 10
21—25.99% 3 6
26—30.0% 2 4
> 30% 1 2
(d) Group Quarters. The maximum population density for group quarters shall be as
follows:
Maximum Population Density
Low density multifamily
residential 22 persons/net acre*
High density multifamily
residential 36 persons/net acre*
For skilled nursing facilities where residents are primarily non-ambulatory, the following
maximum bed/net acre densities may be permitted, subject to planning commission conditional
use permit approval:
RMF-10 District Thirty-four (34) beds/net acre
RMF-16 District Fifty-five (55) beds/net acre
Such approval shall require a finding that the average daily traffic generated by the project
would not exceed that of a multifamily project. The project would be further subject to the
“percentage coverage” constraints of Section 9-3.176(a) of the district. Off-street parking
requirements would be as established by the planning commission.
(e) Sewer Service. Sewer service and the inclusion of property within the urban services
line (USL) shall be a prerequisite to developing multiple family projects to the density
standards of the RMF zone. RMF-zoned properties outside of the urban services
areas shall develop in accordance with the standards of the RS Residential
Suburban District.
(f) Density Bonus. A density bonus of up to thirty-five percent (35%) may be granted
through conditional use permit approval in exchange for provision of the following in
accordance with Government Code Section 65915:
(1) Ten percent (10%) of the base density units for very low-income households;
(2) Twenty percent (20%) of the base density units for low-income households; or,
(3) Fifty percent (50%) of the base density units for moderate income seniors.
(g) g) In lieu of granting a density bonus, the Planning Commission shall consider other
bonus incentives allowable under Government Code Section 65915. (Ord. 554 § 2,
2011; Ord. 457 § 3 (part), 2004: Ord. 194 § 2 (Exh. A), 1989; Ord. 149 § 2 (part),
1987: Ord. 68 § 9-3.175, 1983) 149 § 2 (part), 1987: Ord. 68 § 9-3.175, 1983)
ATTACHMENT 2: 2003 City Council Inclusionary Housing Policy
Inclusionary Section Interim Policy
A. Project Requirements a) All residential projects that require legislative approval are subject
to the inclusionary requirement as follows:
a. Projects of 1-10 units: pay in-lieu fee or build units.
b. Projects of 11 or more units must build units or receive a
Council approval to pay in-lieu fees.
B. Percent Affordable 1. The percentage of units within a project that must be affordable
shall be 20%.
2. The distribution of affordable units in single family land use areas
shall be as follows:
a. 100% Moderate
3. The distribution of affordable units in multi-family and mixed use
commercial land use areas shall be as follows:
a. 20% Very Low Income
b. 37% Low Income
c. 43% Moderate
4. In-lieu fees shall be collected for all fractional units up to 0.499
units, fractional units of 0.50 and greater shall be counted as 1.0
units.
5. All inclusionary units shall be deed restricted for a period of 30
years.
C. Exceptions 1. Projects that do not require a legislative approval from the City
shall not be subject in the interim policy.
2. Projects that qualify for the State density bonus are exempt from
additional inclusionary housing requirements.
3. Second units are exempt from the inclusionary requirement.
D. Affordable Housing Standards 1. The exterior design and quality standards for affordable units shall
be comparable to those of market rate units. Affordable units may
be of a smaller size and utilize less expensive interior finishes.
2. Affordable units shall be distributed throughout a project site and
not concentrated in one location.
3. Inclusionary units shall be built concurrently with market rate units.
A construction timeline shall be approved by the City Council prior
to construction.
E. In-Lieu Fees 1. In-lieu fees for units and fractions of units shall be based on 5.00%
of the construction valuation of the market rate unit.
F. Alternatives 1. The developer may request and the City Council may approve any
of the following alternatives to on-site construction or payment of
in-lieu fees for inclusionary units:
a. Off-site construction
b. Land dedication
c. Combinations of construction, fees and land dedications.
G. Incentives 1. As an incentive to provide affordable units, all inclusionary units
shall be treated as density bonus units that are not counted as part
of the maximum density entitlement of a site.
ATTACHMENT 3: HCD SRO Information
ATTACHMENT 4: SB -2 Technical Documents
See Following Attachment
ATTACHMENT 5: Site Location – ECHO Homeless Shelter