HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet 04/08/2002 *PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
Please do nor remove
NOTICE OF A SPECIAL MEETIN
ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL
Monday, April 8, 2002
7:00 p.m.
City of Atascadero
6500 Palma Avenue, 4" Floor Rotunda
Atascadero, California
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE WORKSHOP
CALL TO ORDER, 7:00 P.M.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Mayor Arrambide
ROLL CALL: Mayor Arrambide
Mayor Pro Tem Scalise
Council Member Clay
Council Member Johnson
Council Member Luna
1. GENERAL PLAN UPDATE WORKSHOP
The Draft EIR and Draft General Plan were released for public comment on
February 27, 2002. Release of the Draft EIR started a mandatory 45-day
public review period as required by the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA). The public review period for commenting on the Draft EIR ends on
Friday April 12"' at 5:00 p.m. Although no public meetings are required
during the 45-day public review period (Section 15087(1)), it is considered a
good practice to hold meetings for the public to provide testimony on the
Draft EIR. The City will be holding two public meetings during the review
period, one was held for the Planning Commission on March 21 , 2002 and
one for the City Council on April 8, 2002.
The overallpurpose of the workshop is to gather public testimony on the
Draft EIR and Draft General Plan and to provide recommendations to the City
on any issues that need to be addressed in the Draft documents. The Draft
EIR and Draft General Plan have already been distributed to the City Council
and are attached by reference only to this staff report. Members of the
public may obtain printed copies or CD-ROM's of the Draft documents by
purchase at City Hall or view them for free at the Atascadero Library or City
website at www.atascadero.org.
Staff Recommendations:
1. The City Council take public testimony on the Draft EIR' and Draft
General Plan, reminding the public that only written comments will be
formallyresponded to in the Final EIR.
2. The City Council review recommendations from the Planning
Commission and Parks and 'Recreation Commission and direct staff on
any issues or changes that should be addressed in either the Draft EIR
or Draft General Plan.
3. The City Council provide staff with direction regarding the inclusion of
additional Open Space areas on the Land Use Diagram.
4. The City Council provide staff with direction regarding the '28-acre
Verheyen parcel located on Del Rio Road.
No formal action will be taken on either the EIR or the General Plan at this
workshop.
ADJOURNMENT;
•
Please note: Should anyone challenge any proposed development'entitlement-listed on this Agenda in courts
that person may be limited to raising those issues addressed at the public hearing described in this notice, or in
written correspondence delivered to the City Council at or prior to this public hearing.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA 1
COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 1
CITY OF ATASCADERO
MARCIA MCCLURE TORGERSON, being fully sworn, deposes, and says: That she is the duly
elected City Clerk of the City of Atascadero and that on.Tuesday, April 2, 2002, she caused the above
Notice to be posted on the doors of the City's Administration Building, 6500 Palma Avenue in Atascadero,
California.
LJ,_-D
MARCIA MCCLURE-TORGERSON
City Clerk
City of Atascadero
2
ITEM NUMBER: 1
DATE: 4-8-02
i
leis '4 1979
Atascadero City Council
Workshop Report Community Development Department
General Plan Update Workshop
Draft EIR
Draft General Plan
GPA 2000-0001
SUBJECT:
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE WORKSHOP: The Draft EIR and Draft General Plan were
released for public comment on February 27, 2002. Release of the Draft EIR started a
mandatory 45-day public review period as required by the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA). The public review period for commenting on the Draft EIR ends on Friday
April 12th at 5:00 p.m. Although no public meetings are required during the 45-day public
review period (Section 15087(I)), it is considered a good practice to hold meetings for the
• public to provide testimony on the Draft EIR. The City will be holding two public meetings
during the review period, one for the Planning Commission on March 21, 2002 and one for
the City Council on April 8, 2002.
The overall purpose of the workshop is to gather public testimony on the Draft EIR and Draft
General Plan and to provide direction to staff on any issues that need to be addressed in the
Draft documents. The Draft EIR and Draft General Plan have already been distributed to the
City Council and are attached by reference only to this staff report. Members of the public
may obtain printed copies or CD-ROM's of the Draft documents by purchase at City Hall or
view them for free at the Atascadero Library or City website at www.atascadero.org.
No formal action will be on either the EIR or the General Plan at this workshop.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff Recommends:
1. The City Council take public testimony on the Draft EIR and Draft General Plan,
reminding the public that only written comments will be formally responded to in the
Final EIR.
2. The City Council review recommendations from the Planning Commission and Parks
and Recreation Commission and direct staff on any issues or changes that should be
• addressed in either the Draft EIR or Draft General Plan.
Print Date:04/01/02 File:040802-GP workshop.doc
00i
ITEM NUMBER: 1
DATE: 4-8-02
3. The City Council provide staff with direction regarding the inclusion of additional •
Open Space areas on the Land Use Diagram.
4. The City Council provide staff with direction regarding the 28-acre Verheyen parcel
located on Del Rio Road.
DISCUSSION:
Draft General Plan:
The General Plan update process was begun in early 2000 with the readoption of the current
General Plan Goals (see Attachment 1) and the creation of the Atascadero Smart Growth
Principles (see Attachment 2). The City Council then directed staff to develop a public
outreach campaign to gather input on updating the General Plan consistent with the existing
Goals while incorporating the Smart Growth Principles.
In the spring of 2000 the outreach campaign was begun with a series of eight neighborhood
workshops. As part of a comprehensive public outreach campaign, the City has conducted
21 public meetings and workshops on the General Plan update. This outreach campaign
produced a "Preferred Land Use Plan" and a list of Policy Options.
A joint study session of the City Council and.Planning Commission was held on May 29,
2001 to review a "refined" Draft Land Use Plan for use as the "preferred project in the
General Plan Update and EIR. In addition to the Plan, staff presented ten broad policy issues
that needed to be addressed in the update process. The purpose of the study session was to •
allow staff an opportunity to present the Draft Land Use Plan and policy issues to the City
Council, Planning Commission and public.
Following the study session and a public open house, the Planning Commission held a
hearing on June 5, 2001 to consider the Draft Land Use Plan. Due to the quantity of public
testimony the item was continued to June 19, 2001. At the second meeting, the Commission
forwarded recommendations to the City Council on a Draft Land Use Plan and ten policy
options. The following table summarized the Policy Options that were endorsed by City
Council and where they are addressed in the Draft General Plan.
Policy Options Draft General Plan Reference
1. Urban Service Line Pages II-42-45 Figure II-10
2. Land Use Designations Pages II-5- 10 Table II-3
3. Expansion of the PD-7 District Pages II-7, V-24 Policy HOS 1.1.4.
4. Creek Setbacks Pages II-30-32 Policy LOC 8.2.1
5. Affordable Housing
a. Second Units in SFR-Y Page 11-7, V-27 Policy HOS 3.1.3.
b. Mixed Use in Commercial Page V-36 Policy HOS 10.2.1.
Page 11-8, 11-23 Policy LOC 3.1.9.
C. Unit Density Page 11-5 Table II-3
Page II-22 Policy LOC 2.1.2. •
Page V-26 Policy HOS 2.1.1.
002
ITEM NUMBER: 1
DATE: 4-8-02
d. Senior Housing Page V-26 Policy HOS 2.1.1.
Page V-31 Policy HOS 6.1.2.
e. Inclusionary Housing Page V-26 Policy HOS 2.2.2.
6. Service Commercial Locations Page II-12 Figure II-2
7. Annexation Areas Page II-18 Policy 1.2
Page II-19 Figure II-5
8. Lot Size Inconsistencies Page II-23 Policy LOC 2.2.1.
9. Downtown Parking Standards referred back to Planning Commission as a zoning
code issue.
10. Colony House Protection Standards Page II-22 Policy 1.5.2.
Over the summer of 2001, the City Council held three meetings on the Planning
Commission's General Plan recommendations. At the September 24, 2001 meeting, the
Council approved a "Preferred Land Use Plan" and directed staff on how to proceed with the
Policy Options. This direction was used to revise, consolidate and reformat the existing
General Plan into the form of the Draft General Plan. Although, the Draft General Plan has
been reformatted to include a hierarchy of goals, policies and programs that is consistent in
each element, the underlying foundation is the current General Plan. Concurrently with the
preparation of the Draft General Plan, the Draft EIR was prepared. This allowed for impacts
to be analyzed and mitigation measures to be incorporated as policies into the General Plan.
• Open Space Issues:
During the preparation of the Draft General Plan and Draft EIR staff met with the Atascadero
Mutual Water Company (AMWC), Public Works Department, Atascadero State Hospital and
the Parks and Recreation Commission to discuss open space issues. Based on these
discussions and further GIS analysis of open space issues staff has prepared a map of
additional open space designations (see Attachment 4).
Staff is proposing two generalized changes regarding open space. The first involves
establishing an open space designation along the Salinas River consistent with greenbelt
Policy 1.2.3. Most of this area is owned by AMWC. AMWC is not opposed to the Open
Space designation as long as the areas outside of the 100-year flood plain, that are used as
well fields, remain designated as Public and that a General Plan boundary problem be
corrected at the confluence of Atascadero Creek and the Salinas River. The boundary
problem involves the current General Plan that shows Atascadero Creek's Recreation
designation crossing the AMWC work yard. AMWC would like the boundary to be adjusted
to correctly follow Atascadero Creek and for the site designation to be changed from Public
to Industrial to better reflect the existing site use. These changes are all included on
Attachment 4.
The second change involves designating existing open space areas as Open Space. For
example the Lakes project includes a large open space that is a planned development
requirement yet the General Plan designation is residential. Making these changes would
• better reflect existing conditions and previous planned development requirements.
ITEM NUMBER: 1
DATE: 4-8-02
The Planning Commission and Parks and Recreation Commission are recommending the •
additional open space areas be added to the Land Use Diagram.
Additional Open Space Designations
rrY77 ��
Additional Open
'r
' t ` Space
Designations
r ` 1
41
1. '" •!", � .� (y` �- `���, �•, � //
AMWC requested e^A
industrial
designation
f
41
/, 004
ITEM NUMBER: 1
DATE: -
4 8-02
•
Drat EIR:
The review and approval process for the EIR is tightly regulated by CEQA. The 45-day
review period is a State requirement and allows time for agencies and the public to respond
to the analysis and conclusions of the Draft EIR. Written comments that are received during
the 45-day review period will be responded to in the Final EIR.
The Draft EIR analyzes the environmental impacts that would occur if the Draft General Plan
is approved and buildout occurs. CEQA requires the impact analysis to include all changes
from the current condition. Therefore, the impact analysis includes all the existing
development entitlements of the current General Plan. For example, the Home Depot Center
is currently allowed under the General Plan, but because portions of the site have not been
built the impact of those future projects must be analyzed as new impacts by the EIR. This is
important to remember when discussing the significance of impacts. The Draft EIR (DEIR)
identifies a number of environmental impacts as Significant and Unavoidable. A reader
should keep in mind that those impacts exist as Significant and Unavoidable under the
current General Plan. So while there will be a cumulative increase to environmental impacts
resulting from the General Plan Update, in no case is a Significant and Unavoidable impact
created that does not currently exist under the current General Plan.
Table 1 on page 15 of the DEIR summarizes the overall impact analysis. The impact
analysis is defined in four classes by CEQA
Class I g
Impacts that are "Significant and Unavoidable."
Class II Impacts that can be mitigated to a level of"Less than Significant."
Class III Impacts that are "Less than Significant."
Class IV Impacts that are beneficial.
Class I impacts will require a "Statement of Overriding Consideration" to be adopted prior to
certification of the Final EIR.
The DEIR is required to analyze alternatives to the project to determine if there are practical
alternatives that would reduce impacts to the environment. Discussion of alternatives is
contained in Section VII (page 97) of the DEIR. The "Draft Alternative Land Use Plans" that
were developed in the winter of 2001 were analyzed as alternatives. Also the option of
excluding Eagle Ranch from the Urban Reserve Area and letting it develop in the County
was analyzed as an alternative. A comparison of the impacts is provided in Table 21 (page
107) and concludes that the proposed General Plan Update would have fewer impacts than
the alternatives.
Planning Commission Workshop
The Planning Commission Workshop on the Draft EIR and General Plan was held on March
21". The minutes of the meeting are attached at Attachment 5. The Planning Commission
• received testimony from thirteen people. Following public testimony, the Commissioners
individually provided comments on issues that should be addressed in the final plans. Staff's
response to the Commissioner's comments is summarized in Attachment 1. One new issue
ITEM NUMBER: 1
DATE: 4-8-02
that was raised b Dennis Moresco concerning the 28-acre V •
y g Verheyen site located on Del Rio
Road. This site is identified as a school site under the current draft General Plan land use
diagram. Since the adoption the preferred land use diagram, the option agreement that North
County Christian School had with the property owner has lapsed and will not be renewed.
Consequently, designating this site for a public use may no longer make sense. Mr. Moresco
requested the Planning Commission recommend the site for a clustered single family
residential development with a maximum density of 2-units per acre (1/2 acre minimum lot
equivalent). The Commission is recommending that the site be redesignated to allow for
residential development with a"smart growth overlay." Attachment 7 is a revised project
design from Mr. Moresco that is intended to address the Planning Commission's request for a
project that incorporates Smart Growth principles. The proposal includes a clustered
residential development with 56 market rate units, 14 deed restricted affordable units, a park,
and creekside buffers. The project would be served by City sewer.
• ' , . . .. w c� Creek
w + Setback
Buffer
Park
Affordable
, Units
1
s
4 .y
w't
i
1 1 \
r
to /g •� �,n if n � vi I ! "
Market
# � m
Rate
Units
W
X'C7 •^.zoi�p
ITEM NUMBER: 1
DATE: 4-8-02
•
Parks &Recreation Workshop
The Parks and Recreation Commission held a workshop on March 28 to review the parks and
recreation policies of the Land Use Element. Following brief public testimony, the
Commissioner provided comments primarily regarding open space issues. Staff response to
the Commissioner's comments is summarized in Attachment 1.
PREPARED BY: Warren Frace, Community Development Director
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment 1: Recommended General Plan Changes
Attachment 2: General Plan Goal Summary
Attachment 3: Atascadero Smart Growth Principles
Attachment 4: Map of Additional Open Space Designations
Attachment 5: Planning Commission Minutes
Attachment 6: Parks & Recreation Commission Minutes
• Attachment 7: 4/l/02 Letter from Dennis Moresco
Attachment 8: February 27, 2002 Draft General Plan(by reference only)
Attachment 9: February 27, 2002 Draft EIR
•
007
ITEM NUMBER: 1
DATE: 3-21-02
Attachment 1: Recommended Changes from Planning and Parks Commissions
ResponseDraft General Plan DEIR
Comment Staff
New text
Deleted
Planning Commission Workshop
1
1. Creek setbacks The policy and program could be revised to have
Policy 8.2.1. is too vague and not time specific implementation timelines similar to housing
specific. element policies. Blue line creeks could also be
added to the program.
Program 8.2.1. •
1. Adopt and maintain a creek setback ordinance
that will establish building setbacks and
development standards along the banks of
Atascadero Creek, Graves Creek, blueline
creeks and the Salinas River to ensure the
uninterrupted natural flow of the streams and
protection of the riparian ecosystem.
esponsibility: Community Developmen
Department, Planning Commission, City
Council.
Timeframe: Adopt ordinance in 2003.
2. Need to preserve sites for motels and hotels Program 13.1.2.
Encourage hotel, conference and resort
development and protect potential sites from
conversion to other uses.
3. Historic preservation The policy and program could be revised to have
Historic Preservation, page 11-22, Policy 1.5: specific implementation timelines and a
this section should include a map of the requirement for GIS based map to be developed. •
overlay area for zoning. Additionally she
would like to insure that primary historic
Print Date:04/01/02 File:040802-GP workshop.doc
008
ITEM NUMBER: 1
DATE: 3-21-02
ResponseDraft General Plan DEIR
Comment Staff
Deleted te
buildings will be preserved and their historic Policy 1.5: Protect historic buildings and sites.
integrity kept intact. She would like to see a
map of the historic residential buildings in
Atascadero. Programs:
1.5.1. Apf4y Actively utilize the Historic Overlay
zoning district to protect
known historic structures, significant
colony homes and colony sites.
Responsibility: Community Development
Department, Planning Commission, City
Council.
Timeframe: Adopt ordinance in 2003
1.5.2. Develop ars GIS based mapping inventory
and protection ordinance ppegFan; for the
historic Colony homes.
esponsibility: Community
Development Department, Planning
Commission, City Co uncil
Timeframe: Adopt ordinance in 2003
4. Recreational Activities, page 11-39, Policy 12.2: The policy could be revised as follows:
add the following:
4. Promote all parks and facilities, Policy 12.2: Emphasize the importance of
5. Provide for a public transportation recreation facilities as community
connection with all public resources like parks, resources.
etc.,
6. The promotion of pedestrian walk/hike Programs:
ways, which should be posted,
7. The promotion of bike/jogging/equestrian 12.2.1. Promote the Zoo,-arid Lake Park, and
public trails, which should be posted. other City parks as unique and valuable
attractions.
Additionally, Commissioner Norton feels that
12.2:3 "Develop a program to improve water 12.2.2. Establish a community/youth recreation
quality in Atascadero Lake"should be included center in the vicinity of downtown.
in 12.2:1 rather than have it as a separate
point. 12.2.3. Provide for a public transportation
• connections to public Darks and
Parks and Recreation Commission recreation facilities.
recommended that the Loake Water Quality
- 009
ITEM NUMBER: 1
DATE: 3-21-02
Draft General Plan DEIR
Comment Staff •
Response
Deleted -
program be revised. 12.2.4. Provide a comprehensive signage
program for pedestrian walkways,
ikeways, equestrian trails an
recreation trails.
Policy 12.2: Develop a program to improve
water quality in Atascadero Lake
with specific water quality
standards to be provided in the
Parks and Recreation Master
Plan.
5. Regarding the zoning ordinance:currently the A new Program 3.1.11 could be added as follows:
ordinance states that eating and drinking 3,1.11. Amended the zoning ordinance to
establishments are considered as a single maka bars, dance halls, night clubs.
entity. She would like to see these separated and drive through restaurants
so that the Conditional Use Permit process conditionally allowable uses instead of •
can be utilized for the establishment of bars. allowable uses.
Additionally, she would like to see a further
separation between restaurants and drive-
through restaurants, which would also require
the use of the CUP process.
6. Protection of all water sources including the Policy 8.1. could be revised as follows:
springs and the lakes.
Policy 8.1 Ensure that development along
Atascadero Creek, Graves Creeks, the Salinas
River, blue line creeks, natural springs, lakes or
other riparian areas does not interrupt natural flows
or adversely impact riparian ecosystems and water
quality.
7. Address the issue of prehistoric and cultural Policy 6.2 could be revised as follows:
resources.
Policy 6.2: Protect historic and prehistoric
cultural resources from disturbance associated with
development.
8. Second units should be referred to as second The term "second unit" will be used in the General
units and not"granny flats"or`guest quarters." Plan to refer to units with cooking facilities. Policy
These two terms imply that there will be no 8.2.3. incorrectly uses the term guest house.
cooking facility and this was not the intent. Revised language is contained under comment
#21. The term guest house will be used to refer to
units without cooking facilities consistent with the
zoning ordinance. •
9. Industrial zoning should be stressed in the Much of the available industrial land within
ITEM NUMBER: 1
DATE: 3-21-02
Comment Staff• Draft General Plan / DEIR
Response
Deleted te
plan and locations should be clearly defined Atascadero is located on North EI Camino Real in
with specific development criteria. the CPK zoning district. Much of this area cannot
be developed today as industrial uses because of a
lack of sewer. The City is preparing plans and bids
to construct that sewer line this summer.
Additional, underutilizied industrial land exists along
Traffic Way but would likely require RDA
investment to encourage reuse and reinvestment.
10. Traffic congestion in certain areas should be A focused traffic study was prepared for the EI
addressed, specifically the EI Camino area Camino and Curbaril intersection. Traffic mitigation
between Curbaril and Santa Rosa, and the measures will be required of any development in
downtown area near the Junior High School. this location to improve traffic operations. The City
It is important to insure that the industrial and Engineer is working the School District to improve
commercial nodes proposed for street corners circulation around the junior high school.
and intersections do not increase traffic
congestion in these areas.
11. The flood plain map on page 48 shows most The FEMA map's 500-year flood plain are know to
• of the interior of the City being within the 500- be wrong along Atascadero Creek. Staff
year flood plain, she would like to see further recommends removing the 500-year flood plain
information on this issue. from Figure IV-1.
12. Inclusion of the two inundation areas for a The inundation area is shown on Figure IV-2.
dam failure at the Santa Margarita Lake.
13. Population projections: would like to see The 1.25% growth rate is based on the maintaining
supporting documentation for the figures. growth rate similar to the last 10-years.
14. Would like more information regarding the Schools (K-12) are very intensive uses that
impacts from the removal of the Del Rio generate high traffic peaks, have large buildings,
private school. lighted fields and tend to be noisy. A residential
project would have significantly less environmental
impacts and be more compatible with the existing
neighborhood development patterns.
15. Questioned the necessity for another park at The General Plan identifies parks in both locations.
the north end of town. The public in earlier Refer to Figure II-9.
hearings indicated they would like a park
behind the library in the Atascadero Avenue
triangle; she would support putting the park
here.
16. Retail nodes at arterial intersections are of The traffic study has addressed this issue.
concern. Creating additional traffic through
development at intersections is a safety
hazard that has not been addressed.
• 17. What is the definition of the term "Civic The term is intended to imply a feature that
Gateway"? identifies an entry into Atascadero. The feature
- Oil
ITEM NUMBER: 1
DATE: 3-21-02
Draft General Plan DEIR
Comment Staff Response •
maybe signage, a building, landscaping or any
combination of the three.
18. Inclusion of a downtown gateway at This is currently shown in the Downtown Plan.
intersections such as Morro Road, Mid-State
Bank, Police Station.
19. Policies should be put in place for protection of Building department requires soils reports on new
homes or businesses built in liquefaction construction.
zones.
20. Promote accommodation for the disabled The Council could add this as a policy.
through a density bonus for providing
multifamily residential projects that include
disabled modifications in one or more units.
21. More specific information is needed regarding 8.2.3. Amend the zoning ordinance to
the program for second units, including criteria conditionally allow second units guest
for sewage options. houses in the SFR-Y zoning district based
on performance standards and prohibit
guesthouses.
Responsible Agency: CDD, •
Planning Commission, City Council
Timeframe:
Mid-term
Quantified Objective: N/A
22. Provide for a higher density for affordable The densities are consistent with Council approved
housing in the medium and high-density Policy Options.
multifamily zones.
23. Designation of areas for high-tech industrial Refer to comment#9.
parks and promotion of those parks to bring
good paying jobs into Atascadero.
24. A plan is needed to map out the City's Refer to comment#7.
prehistoric, historic and cultural sites, and to
make these areas part of a plan similar to the
tree ordinance.
25. Inclusion in the General Plan of the Main Refer to comment#3.
Street Program's ideas for historic
preservation and downtown development.
26. Implementation of a smart growth overlay The Mixed Use (MU) land use designation on page
(similar to a PD overlay) for certain properties II-8 of the General Plan is intended to provide a
to encourage flexibility in the use of the flexible Planned Development process to allow
property utilizing design factors and other "Smart Growth" projects. •
smart growth principles.
01121
ITEM NUMBER: 1
DATE: 3-21-02
Comment Staff• Draft General Plan I DEIR
Response
■- -
27. Development of a strategic plan for financing Policy 13.4 is intended to address this issue.
needed community improvements.
WorkshopParks & Recreation Commission Staff Response
DeletedNeWAOA
3/28/02
28. Revise Policy 6.1 to include inventory of A new program 6.1.10. could be added:
wildlife corridors.
6.1.10: Develop a comprehenseve open
space program that includes an
inventory and mapping of
wildlife corridors and sensitive
habitat areas.
•
•
013
ITEM NUMBER: 1
DATE: 3-21-02
•
Attachment 2: General Plan Goal Summary
General Plan Goal Summary
ProposedExisting General Plan Goal
Land Use, Open Space, and
Conservation
LUE 1. Protect and preserve the rural atmosphere of Goal LOC 1. Protect and preserve the rural
the community by assuring"elbow room"for residents atmosphere of the community by assuring"elbow
by means of maintenance of large lots sizes which room"for residents by means of maintenance of large
increase in proportion to distance beyond the Urban lot sizes which increase in proportion to distance
Core. beyond the Urban Core.
LUE 3. Preserve residential neighborhoods and Goal LOC 2. Preserve residential neighborhoods •
respect the winding tree-lined nature of the street and and respect the winding tree-lined nature of the street
road system. and road system.
LUE 10. Transform the existing EI Camino Real"strip" Goal LOC 3. Transform the existing EI Camino
into distinctive, attractive and efficient commercial, Real"strip" into distinctive, attractive and efficient
office and industrial park areas which can provide for commercial, office and industrial park area which can
the long-term economic viability of the community. provide for the long-term economic viability of the
community.
LUE 9. Provide for a strong and distinctive downtown Goal LOC 4. Provide for a strong and distinctive
area. Downtown Area.
ECON 2: Promotion of the downtown core area to LOC Policy 4.1: Cooperate with the Atascadero Main
preserve its historic function as the City's commercial Street organization to promote downtown as the City's
center, to improve the community's entertainment and cultural,entertainment, and commercial center, and to
recreation attractions, and to promote tourism and the concentrate governmental facilities downtown.
traveler industry as a growth industry in the community.
LUE 4. Preserve the contours of the hills. Buildings Goal LOC 5. Preserve the contours of the hills.
built on hillsides shall conform to the topography using Buildings built on hillsides shall conform to the •
the slope of the land as the basis for the design of the topography using the slope of the land as the basis for
structure. the design of the structure.
014
ITEM NUMBER: 1
DATE: 3-21-02
• Existing General Plan Goal Proposed
LUE 5. Preserve natural flora and fauna. Goal LOC 6. Preserve natural flora and fauna while
protect4ng scenic landssensitive natural ar as end
cultural resources.
OS 2: Tree-covered hills shall be preserved to retain Goal LOC 7. Tree-covered hills shall be preserved
the distinctive scenic quality of the community. to retain the distinctive scenic quality of the community.
OS 3: Watershed areas of Atascadero shall be Goal LOC 8. Watershed areas of Atascadero shall
protected. be protected.
OS 1: Scenic and sensitive land including creeks, LOC Policy 6.1: Ensure that development does not
riparian corridors,wetlands and other areas of degrade scenic and sensitive areas, including historic
significant habitat value shall be protected from sites, creeks, riparian corridors,wetlands,woodlands,
destruction,overuse, and misuse by the use of zoning, hillsides and other valuable habitats.
tax incentives, easements,or fee acquisition.
LUE 6. Designate areas where livestock can be owned Goal LOC 9. Designate areas where livestock can
and maintained. be owned and maintained.
isCON 1. Plan and manage to prevent or correct Goal LOC 10. Conserve energy and resources by
degradation of the environment. planning to prevent or correct degradation of the
environment.
Goal LOC 11. Provide an adequate supply of City
REC 1. Purchase needed parklands for future
park facilities to all Atascadero residents.
development of park and recreation facilities.
REC 2. Provide an adequate supply of City park
facilities to all Atascadero residents.
Goal LOC 12. Provide a wide range of recreational
REC 4. Provide a wide range of recreational activities activities and leisure experiences for all age groups,
and creative experiences for all age groups,designed designed to foster a healthy community for residentsand visitors.
to encourage and educate participants in today's
leisure society while still striving to achieve their
desired degree of self-fulfillment.
REC 3. Provide some specialized recreation
opportunities in each quadrant of the City, including,
but not limited to, swimming pools, multi-purpose
sports complex,tennis courts, recreation center, play
areas for children, equestrian trails, bike and jogging
paths, and community center.
REC 5. Develop a method of financing park and
recreation facilities and services throughout the City
using a variety of revenue sources.
•
LUE 2. Provide for a sound economic base to sustain Goal LOC 13. Provide for a sound economic base to
015,
ITEM NUMBER: 1
DATE: 3-21-02
ProposedExisting General Plan Goal
the City's unique character. sustain the City's unique character by establishing a
range of employment and business opportunities and
generate sufficient revenue to support adequate levels
ECON 5: To provide the resources from business of public services, and environmental social and
activity and increasing tax revenues to support the educational quality.
community's high level of environmental, social, and
educational quality, and to maintain and improve the
City's infrastructure.
ECON 1: Protection and promotion of the overall Goal LOC 14. Retain and expand existing
commercial service and retail business sectors of the businesses and attract new businesses to improve the
local economy to promote local patronage, strong availability of goods and services.
performance in satisfying local demand for goods and
services, and the creation of entry level jobs.
ECON 3: Recruitment of new commercial services and
business enterprises which will broaden the City's
economic base, improve the local availability of goods
and services, and improve and promote the economic
viability of existing businesses
ECON 4: Support for the development of industrial
areas that lead to the recruitment or development of
high technology, emerging technology, and •
professional service businesses that will provide the
community with a base of moderate and high salary
career-oriented jobs.
LUE 11. Provide for adequate public services. Goal LOC 15. Provide adequate public services for
high-quality, orderly and sensible growth.
' Circulation Element
CIR 1. Provide for a balanced,safe,and efficient circulation Goal CIR 1: Provide a balanced, safe and efficient
system to serve all segments of the community,while circulation system that serves all segments of the
continuing to preserve the rural character. community, and is designed and constructed to
preserve rural character.
LOC 8. Provide for walkways, horse trails,and bikeways Goal CIR 2: Provide for walkways, horse trails,
without curbs and sidewalks in some rural areas. and bikeways without curbs and sidewalks in rural
areas. Provide a comprehensive system of routes to
LOC 7. Provide for a comprehensive system of routes-to schools and parks which include creekside trails.
schools and parks which may include creekside trails.
CIR 2. Provide and promote alternative modes of travel, Goal CIR 3: Provide and promote alternative
particularly for commute trips. modes of travel to reduce traffic congestion and
- � 1�
ITEM NUMBER: 1
DATE: 3-21-02
• Existing General Plan Goal Proposed
improve air quality by providing viable transit
alternatives.
CIR 3. Provide adequate regional facilities to minimize thru- CIR Policy 1.2: Provide regional facilities to minimize
traffic intrusion on local streets and to avoid barriers to local through-traffic intrusion on local streets and to avoid
traffic. barriers to local traffic.
CIR 4. Enhance access to and travel within the downtown LOC Policy 4.2: Enhance the appearance of the
area of Atascadero. downtown area and improve pedestrian circulation.
Safety and Noise Element
Goal SAF 1. Attain a High Level of Emergency Goal SFN 1. Attain a High Level of Emergency
Preparedness. Preparedness.
Goal SAF 2. Reduce damage to structures and Goal SFN 2. Reduce damage to structures and
danger to life caused by flooding and dam inundation. danger to life caused by flooding and dam inundation.
Goal SAF 3. Reduce the threat to life, structures Goal SFN 3. Reduce the threat to life, structures
. and the environment caused by fire. and the environment caused by fire.
Goal SAF 4. Minimize the potential for loss of life Goal SFN 4. Minimize the potential for loss of life
and property resulting from geologic and seismic and property resulting from geologic and seismic
hazards. hazards.
Goal SAF 5. Reduce the potential for harm to Goal SFN 5. Reduce the potential for harm to
individuals and damage to the environment from individuals and damage to the environment from
hazardous materials, radiation, electromagnetic fields, hazardous materials, radiation, electromagnetic fields,
radon, and unsafe trees and structures. radon, and unsafe trees and structures.
Goal NOS 1. To protect citizens from the harmful Goal SFN 6. Protect citizens from the harmful
effects of exposure to excessive noise. effects of exposure to excessive noise.
Goal NOS 2: To protect the economic base of Goal SFN 7: Protect the economic base of
Atascadero by preventing incompatible land uses from Atascadero by preventing incompatible land uses from
encroaching upon existing or planned noise-producing encroaching upon existing or planned noise-producing
uses. uses.
Goal NOS 3: To preserve the tranquility of Goal SFN 8: Preserve the tranquility of residential
residential areas by preventing the encroachment of areas by preventing the encroachment of noise-
noise-producing uses. producing uses.
•
Goal NOS 4: To educate the residents of Goal SFN 9: Educate the residents of Atascadero
01-7
ITEM NUMBER: 1
DATE: 3-21-02
ProposedExisting General Plan Goal •
Atascadero concerning the effects of exposure to concerning the effects of exposure to excessive noise
excessive noise and the methods available for and the methods available for minimizing such
minimizing such exposure. exposure.
Goal NOS 5: To avoid or reduce noise impacts Goal SFN 10: Avoid or reduce noise impacts
through site planning and project design,giving second through site planning and project design, giving second
preference to the use of noise barriers and/or structural preference to the use of noise barriers and/or structural
modifications to buildings containing noise-sensitive modifications to buildings containing noise-sensitive
land uses. land uses.
Housing Element
Goal HOS 1: Adequate Supply of New Housing Goal HOS 1: Promote diverse and high quality
Units housing opportunities to meet the needs of all
segments of the community.
Goal HOS 2: Increase Home Ownership Goal HOS 2: Increase Home Ownership
Opportunities Opportunities
Goal HOS 3: Ensure an Adequate Rental Housing Goal HOS 3: Ensure an adequate amount of rental
Supply housing exists.
Goal HOS 4: Decreased Nongovernmental Goal HOS 4: Protect and conserve the existing •
Constraints housing stock and neighborhoods.
Goal HOS 5: Decreased Governmental Goal HOS 5: Encourage energy conservation
Constraints measures in new and existing homes.
Goal HOS 6: Provide Adequate Public Services for Goal HOS 6: Improve housing opportunities and
Housing living conditions for people with low and moderate
incomes and those with special needs.
Goal HOS 7: Provide an Adequate Land Supply for Goal HOS 7: Expand housing assistance efforts.
Housing
Goal HOS 8: Maintain and Conserve the Existing Goal HOS 8: Decrease nongovernmental
Housing Stock constraints on housing production.
Goal HOS 9: Encourage Energy Conservation in Goal HOS 9: Decrease governmental constraints
Housing Stock on housing production.
Goal HOS 10: Ensure Adequate Housing for People Goal HOS 10: Ensure an adequate supply of land for
with Special Needs new housing production.
Goal 11: Increase Housing Assistance
•
018
ITEM NUMBER: 1
DATE: 3-21-02
•
Attachment 3:Atascadero Smart Growth Principles
Draft General Plan Page I-4: Table I-2: Atascadero's Smart Growth Principles
1. Provide for well-planned new growth. Recognize and preserve critical areas of
open space, environmental habitats, and agricultural lands, while accommodating
new growth in compact forms in areas designated for higher density, in a manner
that encourages multi-modal transportation opportunities, integrates the new
growth, and creates housing and job opportunities for people of all ages and
income levels.
2. Maximize use of existing infrastructure. Accommodate additional growth by first
focusing on the use and reuse of existing urbanized lands supplied with
infrastructure, with an emphasis on reinvesting in the maintenance and
revitalization of existing infrastructure.
3. Support vibrant city centers. Give preference to the redevelopment and reuse of
Downtown Atascadero and appropriate nodes along existing transportation
corridors through the encouragement and retention of mixed-use development,
business vitality, housing opportunities for people of all income levels, and safe,
reliable and efficient multi-modal transportation systems.
• 4. Develop and support coordinated planning for regional impacts. Coordinate
planning with neighboring communities and the County so that there are agreed
upon regional strategies and policies for dealing with the regional impacts of growth
on transportation, housing, schools, air water, wastewater, solid waste, natural
resources, agricultural lands, and open space.
5. Support high quality education and school facilities. Encourage and support
high quality public education, neighborhood-accessible school facilities and
adequate library services as a critical determinant in making our community
attractive to families, maintaining a desirable and livable community, promoting life-
long learning opportunities, enhancing economic development, and providing a
work force qualified to meet the full range of job skills required in the future
economy.
6. Build strong communities. Support and embrace the development of strong
families and a socially and ethnically diverse community, by: (1) working to provide
a balance of jobs and housing within the community; (2) reducing commute time;
(3) promoting community involvement; (4) enhancing public safety; and (5)
providing and supporting cultural and recreational opportunities.
7. Emphasize joint-use of facilities. Emphasize the joint-use of existing compatible
public facilities operated by City, school, County, and state agencies, as well as
take advantage of opportunities to form partnerships with private businesses and
non-profit agencies to maximize the community benefit of existing public and
private facilities.
8. Support creative entrepreneurial efforts. Support local endeavors to create new
• products, services and businesses that will expand the wealth and job opportunities
for all social and economic levels.
1
ITEM NUMBER: 1
DATE: 3-21-02
9. Encourage full community participation. Foster an open and inclusive •
community dialogue and promote alliances and partnerships to meet community
needs.
10. Establish a secure local revenue base. Create/support the establishment of a
secure, balanced, and discretionary local revenue base necessary to provide the
full range of needed services and quality land use decisions.
•
020
ITEM NUMBER: 1
DATE: 3-21-02
•
Attachment 4: Map of Additional Open Space Designations
Additional Open
X 1 ,~ Space
?kms' Designations
AMWC requested
industrial
designations "
+ ,
e
1 - 021
ITEM NUMBER: 1
DATE: 3-21-02
Attachment 4: Map of Additional Open Space Designations •
3
i = � � � �y� � � � Atascadero Creek
�T Open Space Areay
l` R &M, w
Px
AMWC requested
industrial
designation
Nk
0001,
9. v
f f'
Jff f t w a
FSC; x
t fir. l��f fix$ ��'� .J.•-- �- ��`"`,. 1 ,�, �� `.g� f �-
Recreation
Designation
0-22
ITEM NUMBER: 1
DATE: 3-21-02
•
Attachment 5: Draft Planning Commission Minutes
s e R-s Draft
1915' 1978 CITY OF A TASCADER O
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Special Meeting
March 21, 2002 — 7:00 P.M.
CALL TO ORDER
• Chairman Bentz called the meeting to order at 7.02 p.m. and Commissioner Kelley led
the Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Kelley,Norton, O'Malley, Fonzi and Chairman Bentz
Absent: Commissioners Blaser and Eddings
Staff: Community Development Director Warren Frace, City Engineer Steve Kahn,
Assistant Planner Glenn Rider, General Plan/EIR Consultants Paul Crawford
and Nicole Phillips, and Recording Secretary Grace Pucci.
PUBLIC COMMENT
None
Commissioner Eddings arrived at 7:06 p.m.
PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP
•
023
ITEM NUMBER: 1
DATE: 3-21-02
1. GENERAL PLAN UPDATE WORKSHOP •
The Draft EIR and Draft General Plan were released for public comment on February
27, 2002. Release of the Draft EIR started a mandatory 45-day public review period
as required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The public review
period for commenting on the Draft EIR ends on Friday April 12th at 5:00 p.m.
Although no public meetings are required during the 45-day public review period
(Section 15087(I)), it is considered a good practice to hold meetings for the public to
provide testimony on the Draft EIR. The City will be holding two public meetings
during the review period, one for the Planning Commission on March 21, 2002 and
one for the City Council on April 8, 2002.
The overall purpose of the workshop is to gather public testimony on the Draft EIR
and Draft General Plan and to provide recommendations to the City on any issues that
need to be addressed in the Draft documents. The Draft EIR and Draft General Plan
have already been distributed to the Planning Commission and are attached by
reference only to this staff report. Members of the public may obtain printed copies
or CD-ROM's of the Draft documents by purchase at City Hall or view them for free
at the Atascadero Library or City website at www.atascadero.org.
No formal action will be taken on either the EIR or the General Plan at this
workshop.
Staff Recommends:
5. The Planning Commission take public testimony on the Draft EIR and Draft
General Plan, reminding the public that only written comments will be
formally responded to in the Final EIR.
6. The Planning Commission make a recommendation to the City Council
identifying any issues that should be addressed in either the Draft EIR or
Draft General Plan.
7. The Planning Commission make a recommendation to the City Council
regarding the inclusion of additional Open Space designations on the Land
Use Diagram.
Community Development Director Warren Frace gave a brief overview of the General Plan
update process, Nicole Phillips spoke on the background of the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) and the purpose of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR), and both
answered questions of the Commission. Ms. Philips stated that only written comments on
the EIR would be acted upon.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Chairman Bentz informed those present that they are encouraged to make verbal comments
at tonight's meeting, however only comments in writing received before the close of the 45 •
day period would be responded to and included in the General Plan/EIR document.
024
ITEM NUMBER: 1
DATE: 3-21-02
•
Patti Dutton, 14650 Morro Road, read from a prepared statement suggesting several
additions to the Draft General Plan and EIR. (Attachment A)
.loan O'Keefe, 9985 Old Morro Road East, stated that she had never supported the idea that
the General Plan needed to be updated and indicated that land zone changes ignoring the
General Plan had been made for years. Mrs. O'Keefe expressed several concerns with the
draft document and feels that the issues given most importance in the current draft are not
those as presented at the public meetings. She feels there is a lot of policy language in the
Draft General Plan that has no teeth and therefore provides no mitigation.
Eric Greening, 7365 Valle, read from a prepared statement expressing his concerns with the
open-ended policies in the Housing Element. Mr. Greening indicated that though he felt
there are other areas of concern within the seven elements of the draft plan, he focused
tonight on that which he considered the most urgent. (Attachment B)
Fred Frank, 3615 Ardilla Road, stated that he felt most of the comments made in the
workshops have been ignored. Mr. Frank outlined his concerns with the Draft General Plan
in a prepared statement that he read to the Commission. (Attachment C)
Geraldine Brasher, 3202 Monterey Road, expressed concern with blue line creeks and
• setbacks. Reading from a prepared statement, she questioned why mitigation for proposed
development would be deferred to the future. She urged the Commission to reject the
proposed draft document and EIR. (Attachment D)
Robin Phemister, 7109 San Gregorio Road, read from a prepared statement expressing his
conviction that the proposed Draft General Plan ignores all principals of sound planning
and stating that the existing General Plan should be left in place and enforced. (Attachment
E)
Eric Peterson, 4500 Del Rio Road, stated his opposition to the proposed General Plan
revision and his concerns with the draft EIR. Mr. Peterson, in two prepared statements, gave
his objections including his belief that single family residential construction does not provide
enough income to the City to cover the cost of the services it provides, and his concerns
regarding the floodplain. (Attachments F and G)
Rosemarie Carrington, San Luis Obispo, urged the Commission to look carefully at the
proposed General Plan Update before adopting it. She feels there are not enough zoning
provisions made for industrial property.
Pam Heatherington, 7790 Yesal Avenue, indicated that 45 days was not adequate to digest
and respond to the General Plan documents. She expressed her concerns with creek
setbacks, preservation of the rural character of Atascadero and the need to define the words
"in the future" as they are used in the documents.
•
02�
ITEM NUMBER: 1
DATE: 3-21-02
Dave Carey, 4000 Santa Cruz, spoke for several of his neighbors indicating their concerns •
with the zoning designation for the areas around their homes. He requested that the Draft
General Plan be further reviewed with consideration given to the property they own being
zoned to allow for affordable single-family residences on half-acre lots.
Dennis Moresco, 6955 El Camino Real, referred to a letter previously sent to the
Commission regarding a property located between Del Rio Road and Conejo. He requested
that this property be rezoned to single family residential with a half-acre density and a PD
overlay.
Doug Lewis, citizen at large, asked for clarification on the word "respect" as used in the
Draft General Plan, Land Use Element.
Bill Obermeyer, Carizzo Road, spoke on the trails plan in the General Plan Update. He
would like to see bike lanes and trails (hiking, equestrian, etc.) differentiated in the plan, he
feels those trails should be interconnecting and posted for hikers, bicyclists and equestrians
only. Mr. Obermeyer would also like to see the City ofAtascadero adopt the D'Anza Trail.
Eric Greening, indicated that he shared some of the concerns raised by other speakers
including cultural resource protection, tree protection, creek setbacks and the precise use of
language. Regarding the flood plain, he suggested that a specific set of maps of inundation
areas in the event of dam failures, utilized in the EIR by the City of San Luis Obispo in their
project to raise the Salinas Dam, be incorporated into Atascadero's General Plan. •
Becky Pacas, citizen at large, felt the General Plan Update is full of errors and is puzzled
why the citizens ofAtascadero must review the documents to find those errors and point them
out.
Joan O'Keefe questioned who had written the General Plan document and Draft EIR, staff or
the firm of Crawford Multari. She asked how, if the same group did both, they maintained
their objectivity with the analysis.
Chairman Bentz closed the Public Comment period.
Commissioner Norton addressed her concerns with the document:
1. Creek Setbacks, page II-30, Policy 8.1: the policy is too vague and must be more
specific.
2. Tourist and Commercial, page II-40: would like to preserve hotel locations as a
potential tax-base generator for Atascadero.
3. Historic Preservation,page II-22, Policy 1.5: this section should include a map of the
overlay area for zoning. Additionally she would like to insure that primary historic
buildings will be preserved and their historic integrity kept intact. She would like to
see a map of the historic residential buildings in Atascadero,
4. Recreational Activities, page II-39, Policy 12.2: add the following: 4. Promote all
parks and facilities, 5. Provide for a public transportation connection with all public •
resources like parks, etc., 6. The promotion of pedestrian walk/hike ways, which
02US
ITEM NUMBER: 1
DATE: 3-21-02
should be posted, 7. The promotion of bike/jogging/equestrian public trails, which
should be posted. Additionally, Commissioner Norton feels that 12.2:3 "Develop a
program to improve water quality in Atascadero Lake" should be included in 12.2:1
rather than have it as a separate point.
5. Regarding the zoning ordinance: currently the ordinance states that eating and
drinking establishments are considered as a single entity. She would like to see these
separated so that the Conditional Use Permit process can be utilized for the
establishment of bars. Additionally, she would like to see a further separation
between restaurants and drive-through restaurants, which would also require the use
of the CUP process.
Commissioner Fonzi addressed some of the concerns raised during the Public Comment
period before outlining her own concerns:
1. Protection of all water sources including the springs and the lakes.
2. Address the issue of prehistoric and cultural resources.
3. The document should be reviewed so that the language used is concise and has
criteria that are easy to follow.
4. Second units should be referred to as second units and not "granny flats" or "guest
quarters. " These two terms imply that there will be no cooking facility and this was
not the intent.
5. Industrial zoning should be stressed in the plan and locations should be clearly
• defined with specific development criteria.
6. Traffic congestion in certain areas should be addressed, specifically the El Camino
area between Curbaril and Santa Rosa, and the downtown area near the Junior High
School. It is important to insure that the industrial and commercial nodes proposed
for street corners and intersections do not increase traffic congestion in these areas.
7. The EIR should address the cumulative impacts more fully.
8. The flood plain map on page 48 shows most of the interior of the City being within
the 500 year flood plain, she would like to see further information on this issue.
Director Frace suggested the 500 year plain may be erroneous and should be
removed in favor of showing the 100 year plains only.
9. Inclusion of the two inundation areas for a dam failure at the Santa Margarita Lake.
10. Population projections: would like to see supporting documentation for the figures.
H. Would like more information regarding the impacts from the removal of the Del Rio
private school.
12. Questioned the necessity for another park at the north end of town. The public in
earlier hearings indicated they would like a park behind the library in the Atascadero
Avenue triangle; she would support putting the park here.
13. Retail nodes at arterial intersections are of concern. Creating additional traffic
through development at intersections is a safety hazard that has not been addressed.
14. What is the definition of the term "Civic Gateway"?
15. Inclusion of a downtown gateway at intersections such as Morro Road, Mid-State
Bank, Police Station.
16. Historic homes and buildings in the plan are not really covered. She would like to
• see something similar to the native tree ordinance to protect these properties.
027
ITEM NUMBER: 1
DATE: 3-21-02
Additionally, she would like to see historic homes eligible for some other usage if they
are in a zoning area that is not really feasible for residential use.
17. Policies should be put in place for protection of homes or businesses built in
liquefaction zones.
18. Promote accommodation for the disabled through a density bonus for providing
multifamily residential projects that include disabled modifications in one or more
units.
19. More specific information is needed regarding the pilot program for second units,
including criteria for sewage options.
Commissioner Eddings thanked staff and the consultants for the draft documents. His
concerns include:
1. Provide for a higher density for affordable housing in the medium and high-density
multifamily zones.
2. Provide a density bonus for units of affordable housing for the disabled.
3. Designation of areas for high-tech industrial parks and promotion of those parks to
bring good paying jobs into Atascadero.
Commissioner O'Malley thanked the public for participating and feels it is important for the
many differing points of view within the community to be considered before reaching a
consensus on what is most important for Atascadero and then to work on preserving those
ideals over time. Commissioner O'Malley's points on the draft plan were:
1. A plan is needed to map out the City's prehistoric, historic and cultural sites, and to •
make these areas part of a plan similar to the tree ordinance.
2. Inclusion in the General Plan of the Main Street Program's ideas for historic
preservation and downtown development.
3. Economic development within the business community to provide shopping
opportunities for Atascadero residents in their own town thus keeping tax revenues
within the City.
4. Strongly supports development ofparks and open space. He encourages pocket parks
linked to community trails that would incorporate art on display for the public
enjoyment.
5. Supports differentiating trails for equestrian, hiking, biking, etc.
6. Words like 'flexible" and "in the future" must be defined.
7. There is room for compromise to allow for different areas of the city to develop
individually in order to meet the differing needs of key groups within the community.
8. Inclusion offood plain maps which may already exist.
9. Civic gateways are important and should be encouraged.
Commissioner Kelley thanked the public for participating in the process and his fellow
Commissioners for bringing up many of the points made by the members of the community.
He feels there are several important issues to consider:
1 The quality of life enjoyed in the community must be kept.
2. Maintain and encourage the development of parks.
3. Promote affordable housing. •
4. Smart growth and flexibility are important principles to promote in the General Plan.
028
ITEM NUMBER: 1
DATE: 3-21-02
• 5. Implementation of a smart growth overlay (similar to a PD overlay) for certain
properties to encourage flexibility in the use of the property utilizing design factors
and other smart growth principles.
6. Identification and preservation of historic Colony homes.
7. Traffic element is important and problems must be addressed.
8. Consideration of the needs of younger members of the community when planning for
the future.
Chairman Bentz commented on the following points:
1. Higher densities should be available for affordable housing and housing for the
disabled.
2. Industrial parks need to be expanded.
3. Historic,prehistoric and cultural areas of the City must be preserved.
4. There are a lot of creative ideas and solutions recommended in the General Plan
Update that deal specifically with planning for future needs such as traffic
circulation, intersection rating, financing for implementation of the policies
contained in the General Plan, etc.
S. Support for the idea of a smart growth overlay.
6. Development of a strategic plan for financing needed community improvements.
Commissioner Bentz stated that the General Plan document has done an excellent job of
laying out and addressing the facture problems to be faced in the community; he thanked staff
and the consultants for a job well done.
•
Commissioner Norton added several more issues of concern for her:
1. Page II-20, Policy 1.3:3: would like a copy of the Neighborhood Preservation
Program document.
2. Page II-36, Policy 11.2: have all appropriate parties such as the School
Superintendent been contacted for their input into the update?
3. Page II-24, Policy 4.1: would like to have the Main Street Program mission
statement included in its entirety and to have the words "work with Main Street" in
each of the program statements.
4. Page II-46, Policy 14.8—Expansion of the County library: would like to see included
within this policy that the location be near public transportation and be handicapped
accessible. She would also like to see the interests and goals of the library itself
included in the General Plan document.
Chairman Bentz asked for Commission discussion on the inclusion of additional Open Space
designations on the Land Use Diagram.
Community Development Director Warren Frace answered questions of the Commission
regarding this item.
John Neil, Atascadero Mutual Water Company answered questions of the Commission.
• Commissioner Norton asked why the Water Company has chosen to donate some of its
property while keeping other areas. Mr. Neil indicated that the area they would like to keep
029
ITEM NUMBER: 1
DATE: 3-21-02
houses their permanent facility including the shop building, pole barns and equipment •
storage. Mr. Neil stated that this offer is in general terms and that their wells will be
excluded from the open space designation. Usage of the open space trails would be limited
to hiking, walking and equestrian; motorized vehicles would not be permitted.
Commissioner O'Malley asked Mr. Neil if the Water Company was comfortable with the
open space map as presented. Mr. Neil responded that the map needs some fine-tuning, and
he intends to schedule an appointment with Mr. Frace to more accurately map the area in
question.
Chairman Bentz inquired if the Water Company Board of Directors has approved the open
space designation. Mr. Neil stated that the Board has approved it in concept.
Commissioner O'Malley questioned whether the Water Company would be open to allow
either expansion of or additional access routes. Mr. Neal answered that they have generally
been amenable to allowing access to the D'Anza Trail, and their Board has encouraged this
access. Commissioner O'Malley suggested that staff include into the document that all
viable access routes and staging areas be considered.
MOTION. By Vice Chairman Fonzi and seconded by Commissioner Eddings that the
additional open space designation be included into the General Plan,
preferring that it be designated as permanent additional open space to public.
AYES:Commissioners Fonzi, Eddings, O'Malley, Kelley, Norton and Chairman Bentz
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
Motion passed 6:0 by a roll-call vote.
Chairman Bentz asked the Commission for a recommendation on the request by Midland
Pacific Building Corporation regarding the General Plan designation of 28-acre Verheyen
property located between Del Rio Road and Conejo Road. A specific recommendation has
been made of a SFR X with a PD overlay; this would remove the designation for public use.
Commissioner O'Malley stated that he feels there is potential community benefit to this
request. He would like to see some entry-level workforce housing incorporated in the
proposal and if the applicant would bring the sewer across and underneath the freeway to
allow for higher density, it would be worth considering. Additionally, it is an opportunity for
a larger park/recreational area in the north end of town. He would like to see some portion
of this area considered for dedication to the City and reserved for passive and active
recreational activities with a larger parking area and perhaps a public restroom. He is
uncomfortable with clustering the low-income area to one side and would rather see some
condominiums or other entry-level housing in that area. •
030
ITEM NUMBER: 1
DATE: 3-21-02
Commissioner Kelley agreed with the use change to the property. He feels this is an
excellent site for utilization of the smart growth principles and he would like to see this go
back to staff with the understanding that staff could work with the applicant in fine-tuning the
property to increase the density and provide more affordable housing.
Commissioner Norton expressed several concerns with this request:
1. Will the park be for the public or simply a neighborhood park?
2. Will the road go through to help with the flow of traffic?
3. Will the sewer be connected to other properties in the area?
Commissioner Norton felt it was premature to look at this request at this time.
Vice Chairman Fonzi stated that it is an interesting idea and something that needs to be
studied by staff, the Commission and City Council. She does not feel ready at this time to
vote for this request. She is uncertain if this will promote a lot more density in that area.
Commissioner Eddings agreed with Commissioners O'Malley and Kelley. He feels this is a
zone change that he can support and he does not think this can be put off until a later time.
Commissioner Kelley stated that he feels it is very important to make the zone change at this
time and address the project at a later date. He believes that if the zone change is not made
now, that lot will stay empty for many years, and with a smart growth overlay there will be
flexibility and a variety of options that the Commission will then have the ability to approve
or disapprove.
MOTION: By Commissioner Kelley and seconded by Commissioner Eddings that the
zoning change for the Verheyen property and the proposal as submitted by
Midland Pacific Corporation be recommended under a smart growth overlay
that would provide some flexibility at a later date for the Midland Pacific
Corporation to come back with a plan that the Planning Commission can
approve.
Commissioner O'Malley asked if the Commission approved this zoning change, what would
the applicant then be permitted to do with that zone change if they chose to not come back
and incorporate any smart growth overlay. Director Frace stated that any action taken this
evening by the Commission would not actually change the General Plan or zoning as tonight
only a draft is being looked at. Staff is looking for direction on how to designate this area
under the General Plan so that future project entitlements have a framework within the
General Plan to proceed. Mr. Frace stated that there are several options to look at for this
site; the applicant has produced one option only. If a recommendation is made to the City
Council, staff could work with the applicant to refine that based on issues raised by the
Commission, then it would come back again for a final recommendation for approval to the
General Plan. Regarding the smart growth overlay, this could lead to a mixed-use concept
so there would be a flexibility to do a number of things on a single property.
• Commissioner Norton commented that there would be a third option to leave the land in its
current designation of 2-'/-z acre residential suburban.
ITEM NUMBER: 1
DATE: 3-21-02
•
Commissioner O'Malley suggested amending the Motion to include the language that in
addition to incorporating smart growth principles, there would be consideration to this as a
public access park.
Commissioner Kelley was concerned with the maintenance involved in a proposal of this sort
and questioned whether it would be the responsibility of the homeowners to take care of the
city park when they would have no control over usage of it.
MOTION.• By Commissioner Kelley and seconded by Commissioner Eddings that the
zoning change for the Verheyen property and the proposal as submitted by
Midland Pacific Corporation be recommended under a smart growth overlay
that would provide some flexibility at a later date for the Midland Pacific
Corporation to come back with a plan that the Planning Commission can
approve.
AYES:Commissioners Kelley, Eddings, Fonzi and Chairman Bentz
NOES: Commissioners Norton and O'Malley
ABSTAIN: None
Motion passed 4:2 by a roll-call vote. •
MOTION. By Vice Chairman Fonzi and seconded by Commissioner Eddings that the
Draft EIR be revised to reflect any growth inducing effects that the extension
of the sewer would have to this area.
AYES:Commissioner Fonzi, Eddings, O'Malley, Kelley, Norton and Chairman Bentz
NOES: None
ABSTAIN. None
Motion passed 6:0 by a roll-call vote.
ADJOURNMENT
Chairman Bentz adjourned the meeting at 9:20 p.m. to the next regular meeting of the
Planning Commission on April 2, 2002.
•
032
EXCERPT FROM THE
MINUTES OF THE
PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
CITY OF ATASCADERO
March 28,2002
E. STAFF REPORTS
1. General Plan Workshop regarding Parks and Recreation Issues
Deputy Community Services Director, Geoff English introduced Warren Frace, Director of
Community Development. Mr. Frace explained that he wanted to get the comments from the
Parks and Recreation Commission to add to the Planning Commission comments to forward to
the City Council for the April 8, 2002 meeting. Mr. Frace then briefed the Commission on the
status of the General Plan Draft document. He then gave his PowerPoint presentation to the
Parks and Recreation Commission and the public present.
Mr. Frace said there are three things that they are recommending the Parks and Recreation
Commission look at tonight:
• Take any public testimony that might be related to parks and recreation issues;
• Make a recommendation to the City Council on any parks and recreation issues that should
be addressed or clarified in the draft General Plan that is before the Commission;
• Make any recommendations on the open space land use changes that Mr. Frace presented to
the Commission.
COMMISSION COMMENTS:
Commissioner Gobler asked about creek setbacks and corridors. Policy 8-2 states, "adopt and
maintain a creek set back ordinance". He wondered where the Atascadero Lake fits into this.
Mr. Frace answered that any information regarding set backs should be in the zoning ordinance
under set back standards and not in the General Plan. He also added that it might be best to
address Atascadero Lake separately.
Commissioner Mathews addressed the letter included in the Agenda packet, dated August 15,
2002, to the Atascadero Planning Commission and signed by Chairman Hood. Commissioner
Mathews asked Warren to address the 9 points from that letter. Warren addressed each issue
individually.
1. Establish an Open Space Zoning Designation in the General Plan revision.
Mr. Frace said there is open space designation on the map and it also shows some
additional areas that could be designated as open space.
• 2. Create a map of the native tree cover and wildlife habitat areas in Atascadero.
6 ayes U nos
Motion passed 6:0
DISCUSSION ON MOTION:
Commissioner Butz asked Commissioner Mathews if that motion covered everything
Commission discussed. Commissioner Mathews said it does not but what it does do is is alter the
that the
tone from one of reaction to development pressures, to a proactive stance, trying to provide
the open space preservation. g p vide for
•
Parks& Recreation Commission
Minutes of March 28,2002
Page 3
01 jjuls paloa.zip
'Idax aq pluu,Y, s
zualo si 1! os «uuld zalsuW ONU-1 olapuosrlV ;)ql ut papinozd aq of spzupums ip!m axLIZ o.zapuosuId
ui XIilunb aaiunn anoiduii of wLjBo.zd u dolanap 01„ `pua.z o2mOuul ails jugj pajso�2ns aoua3 •alnl
•slo2jul autos xjiluopl puu uuld xalsuW oVI ozapuosuly ails ui uoiloas
Xlilunb nium u olut stip ppu of Xl!unpoddo pooO u aq Kuui stip plus puu do axods gsil2uH -.IW
•11 ut Limns uuo om ajup still WOJJ SJ'UOX 3AIJ u1
juill os bus ol papnlout aq pinoils aftn2uul 3i pajapuonn OH -I! ut UTMS ol alga Buiaq jo juiod ails
01 pan ozdwi aq of .zaiunn aNu l onpuosrlV ails sluunn aH o2unOuul loch ui lu02 luaz ou sunn azaill
lull} 1133 PUL, «XIilunb zajunn anojdLui,,jo z&mOuul atll Inoqu pau oouoo sono �loo}l aouotsstuzu D
•ajaill gluouoq w-eiSoid zo Xoilod iz)glouu 3wojo jo `juiod}uqj ju Xlilunb njum aNu7
o.zapuosuIV ailI outp.1u2az ouiqlauios ppu of juunn f,uui uoissiuluio:) ;)ql jvgj 2ui,(us Xq panuiluoo
OH •aqu-I ojopuosuIV ui ,ililunb .zalunn an.oiduii of u LjSojd u dolanap 01 £ uiuiBo.id Z'Zi Xoilod
`Zi iuo2 npun `6E-Z o2ud uo ivgi pazannsuu aouJJ 'JW •u-em iuiauar.
•
ITEM NUMBER: 1
DATE: 3-21-02
•
Attachment 7:4/1/02 Letter from Dennis Moresco (5 pages)
March 29,2002 INAdland
FIECEIVE� POCZC
APR 1" 2002 .On
COMMUWry DEVELOPAAENt 6955 EL CAMINO REAL
SUITE 200
Mike Arrambide,Mayor ATASCADERO,CA 93422
City Council Members 805/466-5100
6500 Palma Avenue
FAX 805/466-5105
Atascadero,CA 93422
Re:General Plan Designation of the 28 acre Verheyen Property located between Del Rio
Road and Conejo Road
Dear Mike:
On March 21,2002 during the public workshop on the General Plan update we made a proposal •
to the Planning Commission regarding the above reference Verheyen Property. You have
previously received a copy of that proposal. The Planning Commission on a 4-2 vote
recommended that our proposal go forward to the City Council,but with some changes. The
primary change was that we should incorporate additional"smart growth"concepts into our
proposal. In discussions with individual members after the meeting it appears there is a desire
that the park be a public park,developed by us,dedicated to and maintained by the city. The
reasoning for this was that there currently are no public parks in this area of the city. Also there
is a desire for a larger number of affordable housing units. Accordingly,in response to the
Planning Commission's recommendation we offer the following revised proposal for your
consideration which is illustrated on exhibit"B"attached.
Specifically,our revised proposal is for a"clustered"residential project based on a%x acre density
with a 25%density bonus for affordable housing. Our proposal includes:
• 56 lots each at approximately 8000 SF in size
• 14 lots designated for"affordable"housing
• Landscaped buffer zones and open space
• A passive park adjacent to the creek
• All lots to be on city sewer
• Establishment of a`Benefit Maintenance District"
56—Approximately 8000 SF size Lots
These lots are clustered in cul-de-sacs for the most part and they would be somewhat secluded
given the topography of the site. We will propose specific floor plans and elevations as part of
the development plan review process. Our intention is to develop a"Colony"style of
architecture.
034
ITEM NUMBER: 1
DATE: 3-21-02
28 Acre Verheyen Property
March 29,2002
Page 2
14 Affordable housing units
We recognize that the city does not have affordable housing unit guidelines at this time,however,
we see this as an opportunity to work with the city in developing them. We have had a great deal
of experience in the City of Coalinga,working with their Redevelopment Agency,the State of
California and the Federal Government to build and sell over 200 affordable housing units for
low and moderate income homebuyers. Currently we are working with the state and the County
of San Luis Obispo on a similar project in San Miguel.
Our revised proposal is as follows:
• The lots to be 4,800 SF minimum
• The lots are located in a cluster in the center of the project adjacent to the park.
They are surrounded by landscaped common area which would be maintained by the
"benefit maintenance district".
• The lots would share in the cost of the"benefit maintenance district"
• The architecture for these homes would also be"Colony"style.
• We would work with city staff to establish criteria for sales price and homeowner
qualifications and responsibilities
Landscape buffer zones and open space
The site offers some unusual opportunities because of its topography and surrounding uses. In
order to minimize grading and visual impacts both to and from the site we have proposed a series
•
of buffer zones and open space. Landscape treatment of these areas would depend on the desired
effect.
• 30'wide buffer along Del Rio road would be.landscaped to tie in with the entry to the
project
• Buffer between the commercial uses to the east and the proposed project would be
landscaped to reduce visual impacts both to and from the site and to maintain slope
stability
Passive Park
The park is proposed to be passive with picnic areas,walking trails,volleyball courts,a turf play
area,parking lot and a public restroom facility. The final layout,design,costs and financial
arrangements for developing the park will be determined during our development plan review
process.
City Sewer
We asking for what might be considered a denser project than the traditional 1-acre density in
order to afford bringing the sewer across the freeway. We believe that bringing sewer to the
project is the prudent course for developing the property,however,without the increase in
density,sewer would not be financially feasible.Sewer would also make the existing commercial
zoned parcels on the west side more feasible for development.
~ 03�
ITEM NUMBER: 1
DATE: 3-21-02
i
28 Acre Verheyen Property
March 29,2002
Page 3
Benefit Maintenance:District
The homeowners would pay for maintenance of certain streets and common areas through the
establishment of a benefit maintenance district.
Summary
The following is a chart,which highlights the significant differences between our original
proposal and our revised proposal.
Original Proposal Revised Smart Growth
Proposal
Market Rate Lots 46 56
Affordable Lots 6 14
Minimum Lots Size 10,890 SF 7,600 SF
Market Rate
Minimum Lots Size 6,000 SF 4,800 SF
Affordable
Park Type Private/Passive Public/Passive
Park Size 6.2 acres 6.7 acres
We think our proposal represents a very good use of the property and would be a benefit to the
city for the following reasons:
• The project brings sewer to the west side of the freeway which will be important in •
attracting commercial uses in the area
• The project offers the city an"infill"opportunity that is one of the tenants of"smart
growth"
• The project adds to the city's dwindling supply of available new housing
• The project would address the city's need for affordable housing in a unique way to
Atascadero
• The project is less dense and would have fewer impacts on the area than the
previously proposed school project. Specifically,traffic would be significantly
reduced. Noise would be reduced. There would be less grading on the site and the
creek area would be left in its natural condition.
For these reasons we ask that the City Council adopt our proposal,as illustrated on exhibit"B"
and outlined in this letter,as the designated use for the subject property.
Sincerely.
AND PA BUILDING CORPORATION
Dennis Moresco
CEO
Enclosure
•
030
ITEM NUMBER: 1
DATE: 3-21-02
•
5
q
1, 4 z'-"I
l — \
t% iltt .0
-
@ #
E
S A i S 111 P� 1
p ,
a
� a}y
• 4/1/02 Revised Site Concept Plan based on Planning Commission Comments
037
ITEM NUMBER: 1
DATE: 3-21-02
x� ea E
cq s o =
3
14
ViN
� N
t
{ A
s
! � I
W w
O N '
N �
N `
8 "
Y � ,
3/18/02 •
Site Concept Plan
- 033-
ITEM NUMBER: 1
DATE: 3-21-02
•
Attachment 8: February 27,2002 Draft General Plan
This document was previously distributed
to the City Council on February 27, 2002.
Copies of the document are available in Room 104 in City Hall and
on the Internet at www.atascadero.org.
•
•
039
ITEM NUMBER: 1
DATE: 3-21-02
•
Attachment 9: February 27,2002 Draft EIR
This document was previously distributed
to the City Council on February 27, 2002.
Copies of the document are available in Room 104 in City Hall and
on the Internet at www.atascadero.org.
•
•
040