Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet 01/27/2006 - CC Strategic Planning WorkshopCITY OF ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL Strategic Planning Workshop AGENDA [The issues listed on this agenda are only a partial list of topics the Council may discuss during this workshop. They may table some of the listed items and discuss other issues not listed.] Friday and Saturday, January 27 - 28, 2006 Friday 7:00P.M. – 9:00P.M. (approx) Saturday 8:30 A.M. – 3:00 P.M. [The Council will be served lunch on Saturday at 12:00 p.m. Members of the public planning to attend should provide their own lunch.] Atascadero City Hall, Conference Room 4 6907 El Camino Real, Atascadero, CA ROLL CALL: Mayor O’Malley Mayor Pro Tem Pacas Council Member Clay Council Member Luna Council Member Scalise COMMUNITY FORUM: The public is encouraged and welcome to attend the annual Strategic Planning Workshop. This is an opportunity for the City Council to discuss in a less formal way the various issues facing the City. The public’s input on the issues before the Council is very important. There will be an opportunity at the beginning of the workshop to provide public input. FRIDAY: Welcome and Check in: (Mayor) ‰ Personal update ‰ Any time constraints? 2 Council Discussion Items. (Dr. Mathis) ‰ A discussion led by Dr. Mathis regarding the strategic planning process, City Council issues, the workshop agenda and general information. City Council Mission Statement and Values. ‰ This section will include a discussion of the Council to determine if there is interest in developing a Mission Statement and/or Values and what those might be. City Council Norms. ‰ Annual discussion and review of the Council norms. This discussion may include amending, revising or reaffirming the City Council norms. SATURDAY: Welcome and Check in: (Mayor) ‰ Personal Update ‰ Any time constraints? Continued Discussion of Council Items. (Dr. Mathis) ‰ A discussion led by Dr. Mathis regarding the strategic planning process, City Council issues, the workshop agenda and general information. Progress of Council Strategic Initiatives (Executive Management Team) The City Manager and Executive Management Team will use a PowerPoint presentation to share with the Council the progress made on the City Council Strategic Initiatives. The City Council will have an opportunity to discuss the Initiatives and amend, revise or reaffirm them for the 2006-07 year. The Strategic Initiatives are: 1. Enhance Public Safety 2. Improve the City’s Financial Condition 3. Construct the Youth/Community Center 4. Continue the Emphasis on Road Maintenance 5. Repair the Historic City hall Building Development projects and Study Sessions. (Community Development Director) This section will include a discussion of how to implement additional public workshops on certain development projects. The discussion will include information regarding the type of workshops and potential thresholds to trigger a workshop requirement. Accessory Structures. (Community Development Director) This section will include a discussion of the issues which have emerged regarding accessory buildings and second units. Staff will share code problems they have encountered and ask the Council to consider policy questions regarding future development policies. 3 Community Development Update. (Community Development Director) This section will include an update on a variety of projects and development policies/codes. The issues include: ‰ Building Code Updates ‰ Handicapped Access Requirements ‰ Oak Ridge Estates Project ‰ Affordable Housing Policies Tourism. (Assistant City Manager) This section will include the PowerPoint presentation of the Visitor/Tourism Assessment developed for the Redevelopment Agency by Destination Development. The discussion will include next steps proposed by staff. Wrap up Adjournment Atascadero City Council Study Session – Public Works Department Atascadero Road Program ISSUE: This is an informational update. DISCUSSION: Atascadero Road Program Update Atascadero has 141 miles of City Maintained Roads and 29 miles of Non-City Maintained Roads. This is the most road miles per capita of any city in the County. The Atascadero Road Program is intended to focus the City’s efforts to maintain these roads. The program has made a difference in the condition of the roads by reduction in the deferred maintenance, by more than $7 million in the last six (6) years. Public Works Operations We have made many changes in Public Works Operations to focus the use of time, staff and funding on improving the condition of our roads. We have: • Included all Public Works Operations staff in the annual local road repair program. • Created a program to inspect and clean all culverts on an annual basis. This will help keep water off our roads. • Worked with residences to trim and remove vegetation from the traveled way. • Created a more aggressive campaign to repair pot holes and failed trenches. • Created a program to identify and repair road problems as they are found. Circulation Plan Road Maintenance Circulation Plan Roads are roads that have higher volumes of traffic and affect a larger percentage of the community. They are also roads that are eligible for State and Federal funding. These are roads that the City spends a majority of its funding and effort on. Staff monitors the condition of the roads and the traffic volumes to create a Pavement Management System. This information is used to select roads for rehabilitation. Listed below are the projects planned for the summer of 2006. 9 San Jacinto Road – El Camino Real to Nogales Ave 9 Curbaril Ave – SR 41 to US 101 9 Del Rio Road – Obispo Road to Chico Road 9 Atascadero Ave – various locations Staff will continue to update and use the Pavement Management System to select future projects. Local Road Maintenance Public Works Operations Division will be continuing to perform “maintenance work” paving City Maintained Local Roads in the spring and fall. These are roads where Federal and State funding is not available. The purchase of asphalt and other materials will be funded from the Public Works Operations Operating Supplies. Contract services such as street sweeping, water truck rental, tack coat application and other service to assist the operation will be funded out of Public Works Operations Contract Services. The criterion that is used in selecting City Maintained Local Roads for paving is as follows: • Poor condition of road surface. (Pot holes, base failure, alligator cracking) • City Maintained Local Road per the Circulation Element. • Traffic Control. Public Works Maintenance has a small staff. Proper traffic control can require considerable manpower. We will look for roads that can easily be closed to through traffic or traffic control is not too difficult. • Population served by the road. We will select Local Roads that serve the most residences. Last year repaired the following roads: 9 Arena – San Anselmo to Yerba 9 Yerba – Dolores to Estrada 9 Nacimiento – Atascadero Ave to End 9 Via Ave – Traffic Way to Bridge 9 El Dorado – La Linea to Arcade Following is a list of potential roads to pave and roads with strikethrough were paved in pervious years; LOCAL ROAD PAVING PROJECTS Road From To San Gabriel Atascadero Ave West Front San Rafael Rd. West Front Street Atascadero Ave Alamo Ave. Barrenda Ave. Rosario Ave. Cortez Ave. Curbaril Ave. End Mountain View Dr. Portola Road Santa Rosa Rd. Violeta Ave. Santa Lucia Rd. Aguila Ave. Arena Ave. San Anselmo Yerba Yerba Ave. Dolores Ave. Estrada Ave. Nacimiento Atascadero Ave End Via Ave Traffic Way Bridge El Dorado La Linia Arcade Castano Ave. Curbaril Ave. Palomar Ave. Estrada Ave. San Anselmo Ave. San Jacinto Ave. Dolores Ave. Traffic Way San Jacinto Ave. San Vicente Ave. San Jacinto Ave. End Serra Ave. Atascadero Ave San Andres Ave. Yasel Ave. Curbaril Ave. Castano Ave. Sycamore Road Soledad Ave Hidalgo Ave Hidalgo Ave Sycamore Road Miramonn Ave Staff is working on the list of roads to be paved this spring and fall. Road Rehabilitation Loan Program The City Council created the Road Loan Program to allow neighborhood the ability to pave local roads. A local bank loans the funds for the work to the homeowners. The City guarantees the loan, which provides a low fixed rate for the homeowner. Residences on Otero Road and Ortega Road have already taken advantage of this program and their roads have been repaved. Residences on Encinal Ave are preparing to pave their road this spring through the program. Atascadero City Council Study Session – Community Development Department Workshop and Study Session Requirements for Planning Entitlements ISSUE: Discuss a potential policy regarding additional study sessions for development projects and bring the item back to a regular meeting. DISCUSSION: Background: The City of Atascadero does not have a formal policy requiring public workshops or study sessions for planning entitlement projects. The City’s codes and policies require a single Planning Commission public hearing for conditional use permits and tract maps. General Plan amendments and zone changes require a second public hearing before the City Council. Property owners within 300 feet of the project site are mailed a notice of the hearing. This process typically works well for small infill projects with limited controversy. On larger, more complex, and controversial projects, this process significantly limits the ability of the public, Planning Commission, and City Council to have meaningful input into the design of a project. Larger projects typically take over a year of work between staff and the applicant to prepare prior to the public hearing. By the time a project is ready for hearing, many hundreds of hours of staff and applicant time have been invested into a project, not to mention many tens of thousands of dollars in engineering and architectural fees. At this point in the process anything more than superficial changes to a project can be extremely expensive and time consuming to resolve. Staff is aware of this issue and has worked hard to avoid this situation. On larger projects such as Woodridge (279 dwelling units), Dove Creek (280 dwelling units), Apple Valley (70 dwelling units), Colony Square (127,000 sq ft retail and 70 dwelling units), staff has held special joint study sessions with the Commission and Council. Staff also held a neighborhood workshop for the Yellow Rose Ranch (six unit subdivision next to Atascadero Lake) due to the expected neighborhood concern. These workshops and study sessions early in the project process improved these projects and the hearing process. The smaller West Front project (25,000 sq ft retail, 79 hotel rooms and 32 dwelling units), did not have a study session prior to its first hearing. Ultimately, this project was denied at Council due to design flaws and inconsistencies with the Council’s policies. Following denial, the project was redesigned and reviewed through a joint study session process. The resulting project was superior to the original project and approved. The reason the West Front project did not participate in a study session is attributed to the fact that the City does not have a policy that required one to be held. In retrospect, the applicant and City probably could have saved time and money had a study session process been required early in first submittal. Analysis: The Council and Commission have both discussed the need for a public workshop process to review any development proposals in the area of Del Rio and El Camino Real. In order to provide staff and all future applicants with a predictable process, staff is recommending that the Council adopt a policy that requires all projects of certain sizes to participate in a public workshop process with a joint session of the Planning Commission and City Council. The following are proposed as possible thresholds and requirements that could be incorporated into the workshop requirement policy. The thresholds are based on project size, approval process, or neighborhood controversy. Draft Public Workshop Requirements Project Type Workshop Requirement Threshold Single-Family Residential (detached) 50 dwelling units Multi-Family Residential (attached) 75 dwelling units Commercial, Office, Industrial 100,000 square feet General Plan Amendment / Horizontal Mixed Use >½ acre project area Expected Controversial Project any size at staff’s discretion Workshop Requirements • Workshops require a public joint session of the City Council and Planning Commission. • Property owners within 300 feet of the project site will be provided ten (10) days notice via US Mail of the workshop. • The public will be given an opportunity to speak at the workshop. • Workshop will be held prior to or concurrently with the first plan check. • The applicant shall be responsible for providing an informative presentation with color renderings and will need to respond to questions from the public, Commission, and Council. • The Council may require as many additional workshops as needed. Application of these thresholds would have required workshops for the Woodridge, Dove Creek, Apple Valley, Colony Square, and West Front projects. Any project at Del Rio and El Camino Real would trigger a workshop requirement. The Yellow Rose Ranch project would not meet the size thresholds, but could be included under the controversial project requirement. The Council should be aware that any new steps in the project review process will increase the timeframes for a project. A public workshop process will be require staff resources and will likely add four to six additional weeks to a project review. However, the workshops should improve the design and neighborhood compatibility of projects that will likely result in time savings later in the project development cycle. Atascadero City Council Study Session – Community Development Department Interpretation of Second Residential Units And Accessory Structures ISSUE: This report is intended to discuss the implementation of the accessory unit rules and their impact on projects. DISCUSSION: Background: In June 2004, the City Council adopted an ordinance allowing residential second units to be constructed in all residential single-family areas throughout the City. Second units are completely independent dwelling units and are required to meet all of the residential construction standards and pay full capital impact fees (approximately $10,000 per unit). The City has received approximately 50 building permits for the construction of second residential units to date. In August 2005, the City Council adopted an amnesty program to register and legalize non-permitted guesthouse and accessory structure conversions to second units. In October 2005, the City Council revised the second unit amnesty program to exempt non-permitted guesthouse conversions from paying all associated capital facilities fees. The City has received approximately 10 applications to date for amnesty and staff expects that number to increase with the exemption from capital facility fees. As part of the second unit ordinance, accessory structure definitions were updated to clarify allowable uses, building configurations, allowable plumbing devices, allowable heating and cooling devices, and allowable size. The primary difference between a second unit and an accessory structure is the construction requirements and the payment of capital facility fees. Second units are constructed to residential “R” construction standards that require fire sprinklers, Title 24 heating and insulation standards and cooking facilities. Accessory structures are constructed to utility “U” standards which do not require fire sprinklers, Title 24 or the payment of capital facility fees. Over the past year, staff has encountered a number of situations where accessory structures have been submitted for permits with residential construction standards. The Council needs to be aware that the public is beginning to figure out that accessory structures provide a potential loop hole to the second unit fee and fire sprinkler requirement. Analysis: Under current code, accessory structures (such as garages and workshops) can be built up to 50% of the size of the main house and are intended to be non-conditioned, non- habitable spaces which means that no heating or cooling equipment is allowed to be installed. A bathroom with a utility shower is permitted with a deed restriction. Current code allows “studios” which can have heating and cooling equipment installed and to be fully conditioned but are limited in size to 450 square-feet and may not have a shower or any bathing facilities. The studio definition is broad and includes detached offices, pool houses, cabanas, game rooms and entertainment spaces as long as they are less than 450 square feet. These requirements were established to limit the viability of the structure as a non-permitted secondary unit while allowing for detached conditioned office or studio-type spaces on residential properties. In some cases, applicants may want to create a conditioned building that is over 1,000 square feet in area that is not intended for residential use. This is currently not allowed under City policy since only studios and second units are permitted as conditioned space and must not exceed 1,000 square feet. If the Council wishes to allow conditioned, accessory structures in excess of 1,000 square feet, staff would recommend a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) process. The CUP process would allow the City to review and condition the structure to insure that it was not for residential purposes and would not be converted to residential in the future. Recently, applications have been submitted for accessory structures with heating and cooling equipment that exceed the 450 square-foot limitation. These structures have followed the ordinance related to workshops and garages and are proposed with full bathrooms, multiple rooms, and do not have garage or utility-type doors. In staff’s opinion, these buildings appear to be intended for residential use and could easily be converted as such without City permits or knowledge. Staff has reviewed the California Building Code and the new 2005 Building Energy Efficiency Standards required by the State. Based on these codes, garages may be heated with energy obtained from non-depletable sources such as wood. No portion of the heating equipment can require electrical or gas to function. If the structure uses gas, electricity, or propane heating, the building must meet Title 24 standards. Title 24 standards require complete weather proofing and insulation of the entire structure. At this point the space is considered “conditioned” and may be used as residential according to the building code if there is a bathroom and “cooking facilities”. The following chart outlines current code requirements for accessory structures. Staff’s position is that workshops and garages should not be permitted as conditioned space. If these structures are allowed to be built as conditioned space, it is very easy to construct large guest houses with no requirement for fire sprinklers or capital facility fees. Habitable and Conditioned Non-habitable and conditioned Non-habitable and non-conditioned Primary Residential Units Studios (limited to 450sf w/o bathing facilities) Garages Second Units Workshops Barns (can have non-mechanical space conditioning per State building and energy codes) Accessory Structure Definitions Second Unit Conditioned Space (HVAC) Habitable (Kitchen & full Bathroom) Studio** Conditioned Space (HVAC) Non-Habitable (no Kitchen & partial Bath) Accessory Structure Non-Conditioned Space (no HVAC) Non-Habitable (no Kitchen & partial Bath) 1000 sf or 800 sf max 450 sf max Size = 50% of primary unit Dev impact fees No Dev Impact Fees No Dev Impact Fees School Fees No School Fees No School Fees HVAC HVAC Wood stove only Full bathroom(s) Toilet and Sink only ** Bathroom w/ utility shower Kitchen No Kitchen or Wet Bar No Kitchen or Wet Bar Multiple Rooms Multiple Rooms limited Multiple Rooms limited Residential Occupancy U - Occupancy U – Occupancy Title 24 compliant Title 24 compliant No Title 24 1 per lot 2 per lot total w/o CUP approval Fire Sprinklers No Fire Sprinklers No Fire Sprinklers Bedroom egress windows No Egress windows No Egress Windows ** Requires Deed Restriction of Use Utility Door NOT required Atascadero City Council Study Session – Community Development Department New Building Codes ISSUE: This item is intended to update the Council regarding various code requirements and encourage a discussion about their impacts. DISCUSSION: Background: In the past year and a half there have been a few code changes that have had an impact on the construction industry and our community. These changes include: • The adoption of the 2000 Urban Wildland Interface Code (UWIC) • Our new local fire sprinkler ordinance • The adoption of the 2004 California Electrical Code • The 2005 Title 24 State Energy Regulations • California Disabled Access Regulations Some of these changes are periodic updates to existing codes that the State requires us to enforce, while some are our City’s efforts to address safety concerns that result from our unique conditions such as our vast array of native trees, our hilly terrain, and our long, winding roads. While these features contribute to our distinctive character, they also provide an opportunity for loss of life and/or property in the event of a disaster such as a wildland fire. In an effort to protect the life safety of our citizens, and to protect property on the newly developed parcels in remote areas the City of Atascadero adopted a new fire sprinkler ordinance that requires the installation of fire sprinklers on every new residential and commercial building, as well some additions, and on some commercial remodel projects that include a “change of use”. There were also two recent code changes that were mandated by the State of California. August 1, 2005 was the effective date of the 2004 California Electrical Code, and on October 1 of 2005 the 2005 Title 24 State Energy Regulations became effective. While the State Disabled Access regulations and the Americans with Disabilities Act have not changed in the past several years, public awareness and scrutiny of these code requirements has increased. Analysis: URBAN WILDLAND INTERFACE CODE On October 15, 2004 our City adopted the 2000 edition of the Urban Wildland Interface Code (UWIC), that imposes restrictions on exterior wall covering in High and Very High Fire Severity Zones, and limits construction methods and materials for exterior decks and other similar projections. The UWIC divides the City into three fire severity zones: • The Moderate Fire Severity Zone, which is primarily the downtown commercial corridor along El Camino Real, is the least restrictive as far as new code requirements. • Outside of that area is the High Fire Severity Zone, which encompasses most of the City. • The Very High Severity Zone covers the most remote areas of the City. There has been some confusion in the construction industry regarding determining the appropriate fire severity zone, interpreting the restrictive and sometimes confusing code requirements, and in trying to complete projects that comply with the new requirements, but still meet the intentions of the project owners. The fire severity zone map, is available at Fire Station 1, at the Community Development Permit Counter, and on-line on our City web site, at times is difficult to interpret, especially on borderline properties. It is also somewhat outdated, and doesn’t always make sense due to actual field conditions. The map is developed and maintained by the California Department of Forestry (CDF). High and Very High Fire Severity Zones require the exterior wall covering to be stucco, approved non-combustible sidings, and similar materials. The exterior deck projections require specific decking materials and require “skirting” of the underfloor areas with stucco or approved, fire resistive siding, or must be constructed with non-combustible materials or “heavy timber”. These requirements have caused some problems with applicants who want a certain “look” that doesn’t meet the requirements, or when they are trying to match exterior features on their existing home. The Building Official and Fire Marshall have been proactive in working with applicants and builders to meet the intent of the UWIC, and provide interpretations and alternatives that address their unique site specific modifications. LOCAL FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM ORDINANCE This local Ordinance, effective October 15, 2004, requires a fire sprinkler system to be installed in all new commercial and residential buildings, including attached garages. It also requires fire sprinkler systems to be installed in commercial buildings when there is a change of use to certain hazardous occupancies. As well as residential additions that create a building over 3000 square feet, including attached garage. Detached accessory structures, to a single family residence, are exempt from the fire sprinkler system requirement. The fire sprinkler ordinance adds approximately $1.50 to $2.00 per square foot to the cost of a new building. Overall the community has been supportive of this new ordinance, and we have had very few complaints. 2005 CALIFORNIA STATE ENERGY REGULATIONS The 2005 Title 24 State Energy Regulations became effective on October 1, 2005. This updated version of the State Energy Regulations further increases the already restrictive energy code. The most obvious changes in this code are with residential structures. Residential heaters (forced air units, or FAU’s) have new efficiency requirements, and their ducting systems must be sealed, and in some cases tested, to assure minimum leakage. Residential electrical changes include either fluorescent lights in most areas of house, or require the installation of motion sensors and/or occupancy sensors that turn off and on when lighting is necessary. Because of the complexity of these requirements, we now require a separate lighting plan with the house plans, to be reviewed during the submittal process. This way the electrician and the inspector will be consistent on the requirements throughout the project. It is estimated that the cost to implement the new energy saving features on a new single-family residence may be approximately $4,000.00. CALIFORNIA DISABLED ACCESS REQUIREMENTS, AND THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT Although these regulations have not significantly changed in the past several years, heightened awareness has made these, often costly and confusing, regulations a source of complaints and frustration with the local construction industry. There is often confusion over which regulations we enforce, what constitutes a “new”, or an “existing” building, or when an applicant can declare a “hardship”. Here are some key points that will help us understand the basic requirements: • Our Building Division enforces the California Disabled Access Requirements that are in Chapters 11A (Housing Accessibility) and 11B (Public and Commercial Accessibility) of the 2001 California Building Code. • The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), is a Federal Regulation, and the City does not enforce them. These first two points must be emphasized. In most cases the regulations are consistent, however, interpretation and enforcement by the City is limited to the State Building Code. It is not uncommon for an applicant to present an argument based on information from Federal Government websites or documents that offer interpretations of ADA requirements. Our code research, and our code interpretations, must be based on the Disabled Access regulations in the California Building Code. We are always willing to consider the latest code interpretations, product information, and other information from State Government sources that are based on Chapter 11A and 11B of our Building Code. • The Disabled Access Regulations in the California Building Code cover all new public and commercial buildings, and new multi-family residential buildings with three or more dwelling units. • Buildings built after January 26, 1992 are “new” buildings, built after the effective date of the code, and are required to be in full compliance with the State’s Disabled Access regulations. Full compliance includes: 1. Accessible parking with required signage. 2. An accessible “path of travel” that provides access to a person in a wheelchair, or with other disabilities, beginning at the entrance to the site, and connecting to each building entrance and facility on the site. (An exception to “path of travel” requirements may be granted when the building official determines that these regulations create an “unreasonable hardship” because of topography or natural barriers, and when equivalent facilitation is provided through other methods and materials). 3. Accessible entrances and exits at all ground floor doors with a doorway that is minimum 32 inches wide. 4. Accessible features as required throughout the building. • Buildings built prior to January 26, 1992 are “existing” buildings, constructed prior to the effective date of the code, and are not expected to be in full compliance with Disabled Access regulations. They are, however, required to improve disabled access features on their site and on their building whenever there are improvements to the building. The level of improvement is based on the cost associated with any addition, remodel, or other improvement. If the cost of an improvement is $108,202.79 or less, the applicant is required to spend an additional 20% toward disabled access improvements. If the cost of the improvement exceeds $108,202.79, the code requires that the site and building be brought into full compliance. • In addition to all of the compliance issues listed above, all public and commercial buildings are required to remove barriers that, with minimal cost to the business, will improve access into and throughout the facility to persons with disabilities. These “readily removable barriers” include: 1. Installing van accessible parking spaces with the appropriate signage. 2. Installing curb cuts and ramps where necessary to provide an accessible “path of travel”. 3. Provide accessible entrance to the building. 4. Lowering public counter spaces to accommodate the disabled. 5. Install accessible features such as grab bars, lever type faucet handles, toilet seat extensions, etc. in restrooms. Atascadero City Council Study Session – Community Development Department Update on Planning Projects and Issues ISSUE: This item is intended to provide the Council with an update on several key planning areas and illicit a discussion about next steps. DISCUSSION: 3F Meadows Project Update: Background The 3F Meadows project was approved by the City in 1995 as Planned Development 11 (PD-11). The original project was a lot line adjustment of 115 Colony Lots that covered 802 acres of western Atascadero. The project sat dormant until 2001 when Castlerock Development acquired the property and began to process the final map and construction permits. The project, which is now marketed as Oak Ridge Estates, has been under construction since 2003. The project was approved as a four phase project with 111 single family lots, three large open space lots, and a lot for a water tank owned by the Atascadero Mutual Water Company. Phase 1, is located off of San Marcos Road, includes approximately 34 dwelling units, and is nearing completion. Staff has been reviewing road improvement plans for Phases 2, 3 and 4 over the past year. The plans have been approved and will likely be issued in the coming months, once the applicant submits bonds. Cenegal Road Connection One of the requirements of PD-11 is that a road connection be built between San Marcos Road and Cenegal Road. This connection will provide an important circulation and emergency evacuation route between San Marcos Road and Santa Lucia Road. This emergency evacuation route will benefit a large area outside of the 3F project area. Despite the safety and convenience benefits of this connection, staff expects this road to be controversial. The road connection will affect Cenegal Road and Laurel Road by introducing through traffic to a street that is currently a long cul-de-sac. This road segment will require construction on a very steep and wooded hillside at the end of Cenegal Road. Although, it is required by PD-11 and consistent with the EIR, the road improvement will result in significant grading, tree removal, and the filling and piping of a portion of creek. Staff has worked closely with the applicant to minimize these impacts to the greatest extent possible and to ensure the impacts are consistent with PD-11 and the EIR. 3F Meadows Location Map 3F Meadows open space lots Cenegal Road connection Cenegal Road Aerial Photo Existing Cenegal Road New Cenegal Road connections 3F Meadows buiding lots 3F Meadows open space lots Phase 2-4 Road Construction Plan 3F Meadows open space lots 3F Meadows Phases 2, 3 & 4 Cenegal Road connection San Marcos and Los Altos Road Maintenance Access to Oak Ridge Estates can also be found off State Route 41 by way of Los Altos Road and San Marcos Road. PD 11 conditioned this project to make certain improvements and maintenance to Los Altos and San Marcos Roads as follows: (3) Road Improvements—Off-Site. (i) Curve widening shall be constructed on Los Altos Road from Highway 41 to San Marcos Road where curve radii is less than two hundred (200) feet. Curve widening shall be constructed in conformance with Section 4, Paragraph F of the City Standard Specifications, or as approved by the City Engineer. Plans for the curve widening shall be submitted for review and approval by the City Engineer prior to the approval of the Master Development Plan……… (iii) San Marcos Road between Los Altos Road and the project boundary shall be improved preparatory to acceptance of this portion of road into the City maintained system. (iv) The applicant shall enter into a maintenance agreement with the City for the portion of San Marcos Road between Los Altos Road and the project boundary. The agreement shall guarantee that damage to the road which results from construction traffic generated by the development of the project is properly repaired. The agreement shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer and the City Attorney. The agreement shall remain in-force throughout construction of Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the project. The 3-F Meadows Environmental Impact Report also addresses mitigation measures for Los Altos and San Marcos Roads as follows: 3. Mitigation Measures c. “San Marcos Road from the project boundary to the intersection of Los Altos Road shall be upgraded to previously constructed standards and accepted by the City for maintenance prior to the construction of projects roads”…………..”The Los Altos Improvements require upgrades as described above in items 3b-2 through 3b-4”. 3b-2) Identify below minimum radius curves and widen the pavement at the inside edge…….. 3b-3) Provide centerline striping and stop bars. Provide addition signage and striping as deemed necessary by the City Engineer. 3b-4) Repair all cracks and holes and repair deteriorating or inadequate paving edges and shoulders. Full text of applicable sections of PD 11 and the 3-F Meadows Environmental Impact Report are attached. Staff and the City Attorney have carefully reviewed both documents. We are unclear about sections of both documents and the conflict between the two as follows. 1. “(iii) San Marcos Road between Los Altos Road and the project boundary shall be improved preparatory to acceptance of this portion of road into the City maintained system.” What is the meaning of “improved”? 2. “c. San Marcos Road from the project boundary to the intersection of Los Altos Road shall be upgraded to previously constructed standards and accepted by the City for maintenance prior to the construction of projects roads…………..”. What does “previously constructed Standard” mean? Why was this condition not listed in PD 11? 3. “3b-4) Repair all cracks and holes and repair deteriorating or inadequate paving edges and shoulders.” Why was this condition not listed in PD 11? Staff is looking for discussion and direction on this issue. San Marcos and Los Altos Road Maintenance Los Altos Road San Marcos 3F Meadows Planned Development Inclusionary Housing Policy: Background General Plan Policy HOS 2.2.2 directs the City to adopt an inclusionary ordinance. In June 2003 the City Council adopted an interim inclusionary housing policy that applies to all planned development and general plan amendment projects. The interim policy was adopted instead of a formal ordinance to expedite the process and provide flexibility for future adjustments. The Council reconsidered the policy in November 2003 and increased the in-lieu fee from 2.5% to 5.0% of the construction valuation. In November 2005 the Council revised the restrictions for the resale of moderate income, single family units. These units may now be sold at market rate subject to the repayment of a silent second and an equity sharing agreement. The new deed restrictions have been completed and are now being used. Analysis: Affordable housing issues continue to expand and demand more staff attention and resources. The inclusionary program, density bonus, and condominium conversion policy will require attention this year. • The interim inclusionary policy needs to be codified into a final ordinance. An ordinance would allow the City to require affordable housing as part of conditional use permits, tract maps, and building permits. A formal ordinance would improve the City’s position if legally challenged. The ordinance needs to resolve the conflict between the inclusionary policy’s 30 year affordability term and the 45 to 55 year affordability term required by the State in redevelopment areas. • The City needs to revisit its density bonus policies and adopt a density bonus ordinance. A major revision of the State’s density bonus law last year has opened a number of loop holes in the City’s housing policies. The State significantly reduced the requirements for a developer to request a density bonus and significantly increased the number of concessions that a City must make to a density bonus project. • Condominium conversions of existing rental projects present a significant threat to the City’s rental housing supply. In addition, the majority of new multi-family developments are also being processed as condominiums. The net result is that the existing supply of rental housing may decline and little replacement rental housing is being produced. Staff will present an issues and options report on this issue at the February 24, 2006 City Council meeting. City of Atascadero Table 4: Interim Inclusionary Housing Policy Adopted by City Council June 24, 2003 Amended by City Council November 25, 2003 Inclusionary Section Interim Policy A. Project Requirements 1. All residential projects that require legislative approval are subject to the inclusionary requirement as follows: o Projects of 1-10 units: pay in-lieu fee or build units. o 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: o 100% Moderate 3. The distribution of affordable units in multi-family and mixed use commercial land use areas shall be as follows: o 20% Very Low Income o 37% Low Income o 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 form 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: o Off-site construction o Land dedication o 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.