[0:03] Welcome everybody. All right, can you hear me okay? All right, there we go.

[0:08] All right, I'll bring this session to order of the Atascadero Planning

[0:13] Commission this August 18th, 6:00 p.m. Uh we'll start with the flag salute. Uh

[0:19] would you go ahead and do the fleet us in that?

[0:21] » Please rise.

[0:45] » Uh are we waiting for one commissioner?

[0:53] » We can continue with business and we'll note the time that she arrives.

[0:56] » Okay, just wanted to make sure we didn't want to hold anything up.

[0:59] All right, can I get a roll call, please?

[1:02] » Chairperson Anderson. >> Here.

[1:04] » Vice Chairperson Manazzio.

[1:07] » Present. >> Commissioner Farrell.

[1:10] » Present. >> Commissioner Heath is absent.

[1:12] Commissioner Jones. >> Present.

[1:14] » Commissioner Keen is not here yet. Commissioner O'Malley.

[1:17] » Here. >> Thank

[1:19] Uh Five present, one absent, one late.

[1:23] » All right. Uh

[1:28] All right, thank you, Ms. Horn. Um okay. All right, I just want to welcome

[1:32] everybody here and online. Do we have anybody online that is listening in? Can

[1:36] we see that? If you are, you got two people

[1:40] » We no longer allow online participation, but we do have our consultants online

[1:43] for the second item. >> She gave me a either a peace sign or

[1:47] there are two people are online. Welcome. Thank you for tuning in.

[1:51] Uh hopefully I'll get uh

[1:54] more followers as we go.

[1:58] All right, Okay, well, we're going to go ahead and move on to our public comment.

[2:02] Um this is the portion of the meeting where

[2:05] um the public has

[2:08] the ability to comment on any of the matters that are under the

[2:13] commission's purview that is not on the agenda right now. So, if we have anybody

[2:18] who would like to comment now. Seeing none, we'll go ahead and close

[2:23] public comment. And oh, thank you.

[2:26] All right. And now we'll go ahead and open

[2:29] um comment public comment for the consent

[2:32] calendar.

[2:37] Okay, do we have anybody who would like to comment on the consent calendar?

[2:41] Nope. All right, seeing none, I'll go ahead and close public comment on the

[2:44] consent calendar. >> [clears throat]

[2:48] » And any of the commission members would like to comment on the consent calendar

[2:52] or pulling item from the consent calendar, there's one item.

[2:56] The minutes, no, no. No corrections to minutes, okay.

[2:59] » I'll be Mr. Chairman, I'll be recusing myself for the minutes since I was not

[3:03] present at that meeting. >> Oh, thank you. Okay, perfect.

[3:06] All right. Can I get a motion to accept the uh

[3:12] approve the consent calendar? >> I motion to approve the consent

[3:16] calendar. >> I'll second.

[3:19] » Okay, motion by Commissioner Farrell, seconded by Vice Chair Panaccio. Can I

[3:24] get a roll call, please? >> Commissioner Farrell?

[3:27] » Yes. >> Vice Chairperson Panaccio?

[3:29] » Yes. >> Chairperson Anderson?

[3:31] » Yes. >> Commissioner O'Malley?

[3:35] » Yes. >> That passes 4

[3:39] 0. >> Okay, perfect.

[3:42] Moving right along.

[3:45] » [clears throat] >> We don't have any

[3:49] uh any old business, no old business, so that's good. And community development

[3:53] staff reports were we're going to go right on to

[3:56] our first agenda item. So,

[4:02] I guess um we've got uh Mr. Gomez, our associate uh

[4:07] planner here, who's going to give us a as our predecessor would say, a dazzling

[4:12] presentation.

[4:15] » Yes, good afternoon, planning commissioner. I'm ready to dazzle.

[4:17] » Thank you. >> I know you guys had a long night ahead

[4:19] of you, hopefully, so um or we're not. But I want to make this as quick as

[4:23] possible. So, um project in front of me today is pretty

[4:26] straightforward one, hopefully. Uh this is the Santa Inez Small Lot Subdivision.

[4:31] It's project number SP DV 26-0030. Um and it's located at 6375 Santa Inez

[4:39] Avenue. There's a three other addresses up to 63 6385 Santa Inez Avenue

[4:44] associated with those lots. So, we'll go ahead and jump uh right

[4:49] into it. Um as I mentioned, uh the project is located at 6375 and 6385

[4:55] Santa Inez Avenue. Um it is near the intersection of Santa

[4:59] Inez and Atascadero uh Avenue.

[5:03] It has a land use designation of high-density residential and a zoning uh

[5:08] designation of residential multi-family with a

[5:12] uh 24 unit per acre uh density.

[5:16] Um it is two existing lots as they stand right now. Each of those lots have two

[5:23] detached single-family homes, and together those two lots total uh 0.56

[5:28] acres.

[5:32] Um so, the applicant is requesting a vesting tentative parcel map

[5:38] uh AT 26-0015 and a master plan development. Um and

[5:44] so, they uh essentially are hoping to subdivide

[5:47] those two lots uh into a total of four lots. And the goal is to have one house

[5:53] on each of those resulting four lots. So on your screen right now it's kind of

[5:57] a depiction of their tentative map which I

[6:01] marked up so you can see the personal lines a little bit easier

[6:04] with lot one being on the bottom left, lot two top left, lot three top right,

[6:10] and lot four bottom right.

[6:15] So you will notice that those lots range from about 3,200

[6:20] square feet to about 6,800 square feet. We'll talk a little bit more about

[6:25] minimum lot sizes here in the next section.

[6:30] So as I mentioned earlier the lots are zoned residential multi-family with a 24

[6:35] unit per acre density for that zone. The minimum parcel size is typically 0.5

[6:45] or half an acre net. However, our multi-family standards and

[6:51] cottage cluster standards do allow small lot subdivisions of multi-family

[6:56] properties. And provide requirements for them to

[7:02] meet our cottage cluster standards. This project is unique in that

[7:06] all the units are already existing. So basically it required us to go back,

[7:11] review for what standards were still at play,

[7:14] and see you know what we can bring the site into compliance with if we needed

[7:18] to. And for those things that would be kind

[7:21] of onerous for an already developed couple of lots, we

[7:26] work with the applicant to request some as exceptions.

[7:29] In this case the site as developed is kind of a pretty good

[7:34] example of what we would expect a cottage cluster to look like even under

[7:38] our new code standards. And so there are two exceptions that

[7:42] they're really requesting here. Um, one is a unit footprint size. So,

[7:46] cottage clusters are really supposed to have an 800 square foot footprint. All

[7:51] these units are already existing, and so they existed before that standard was in

[7:56] play. Um, we're obviously not going to require the applicant reduce the size of

[8:00] those structures. So, the exception is included in the in the request for that

[8:04] CUP um, for a master plan development. Um, similarly, there's a requirement

[8:10] that um, for new units they have a a designated pedestrian path. Um, and so

[8:16] in this case the driveway is already existing. Sorry, pedestrian path to the

[8:19] right-of-way, to any common areas. Um, in this case the uh

[8:24] » [clears throat] >> the driveway to the right-of-way is

[8:26] already existing. And so,

[8:29] uh there were some uh logistical issues with putting in a new pedestrian path

[8:33] there without requiring, you know, a level of improvement that would

[8:36] potentially uh subject them to some level of grade differentiation to

[8:40] building code and then still meet uh fire access requirements. Um, so that

[8:43] was a good one to also uh request an exemption for.

[8:47] Um, there are a couple of items that we're asking for compliance with and

[8:50] they're being conditioned uh as part of their condition of of

[8:53] approvals. Um, first and foremost, uh you know,

[8:57] the fencing as is shown on that image there um

[9:01] is way above uh our front yard setback uh sorry, front yard fencing standards.

[9:06] Um, it's basically a 6-ft tall fence. It actually just a few years ago per Google

[9:11] Street View used to be compliant with our code and and those got installed by

[9:15] the previous owner. So, um we are conditioning that fencing to be uh cut

[9:19] down to meet our current code requirements.

[9:22] Um, and the other one is parking because uh

[9:25] uh each parking or the parking lot has a a few of the spaces that are needed for

[9:30] parking on the site. Um, they aren't particularly marked. They also need a

[9:34] guest space. Um, so we're asking that those uh this driveway be uh striped and

[9:40] signed accordingly um to make sure that those spaces are clearly designated for

[9:45] the units that they're for um and that our guest park is uh clearly designated

[9:49] as well. Um, and then again here just the

[9:53] environmental review wasn't required for this. It is uh subject to a class 15

[9:58] exemption under the California Environmental Quality Act, which exempts

[10:02] uh minor subdivisions for these kind of small urban lots with uh no major

[10:07] slopes.

[10:11] Um, so there was a small correction that I had to make to the conditions of

[10:15] approval, which you'll see on your screen um and largely it has to do with

[10:19] we have a standard condition for uh all utilities being underground. And

[10:23] again, that one just I apologize flew over my head because everything's

[10:27] already built on this one. It's not uh just undeveloped property. So, um

[10:32] my recommendation here is that the Planning Commission adopt draft BC

[10:35] resolution approving uh this master plan development and vesting tentative parcel

[10:40] map AT 2600111, 11. Uh

[10:45] it's project number SPV 260030 based on findings and subject to

[10:50] conditions of approval uh with minor revisions to the conditions of approval

[10:53] to remove condition number 20 about uh undergrounding the utilities.

[11:00] Nope. And with that, I will open it to uh

[11:03] questions and discussion. >> All right, fantastic. Well, before we do

[11:06] um questions, I'd I'd like to back up a little and do ex

[11:09] parte for this project, if that's okay. Can I get an ex parte for Commissioner

[11:15] Jones? >> No communications with any parties.

[11:18] » Okay. And Commissioner Keen?

[11:21] » No ex parte. >> Commissioner Farrell?

[11:24] » No communications. >> Vice Chair Penucci?

[11:27] » No ex parte. >> Uh Commissioner O'Malley?

[11:31] » No ex parte. >> No ex parte uh

[11:33] the chair has no ex parte, so um we can [clears throat] go ahead and

[11:38] uh discuss with questions would uh be

[11:43] have any particular questions of uh Mr. Goldman at the time at this time?

[11:50] » I have no questions. I thought the staff report was thorough and takes into

[11:52] account the existing conditions, so I thought it was nice work and

[11:55] um straw poll, I'd be willing to make the motion to move ahead after any other

[11:58] discussion. >> Okay.

[12:00] » I could I just have a question. More of a curiosity question. Are these going to

[12:04] be single level or two levels?

[12:07] Has that been >> What is that?

[12:09] » The existing homes are all one story. >> Correct.

[12:14] » Okay. >> [clears throat]

[12:16] » And there's no external uh enforcement for that uh

[12:20] guest uh parking. It'll all be amongst the

[12:25] uh tenants or >> We did condition a easement, so they're

[12:29] showing a driveway easement uh on their map right now. Um and we're also going

[12:34] to condition that agreement that goes along with that easement that tells us

[12:37] who maintains what and how who's responsible. We'll also include

[12:41] provisions for uh the guest parking spot.

[12:43] » Okay. I just didn't want us to be responsible

[12:46] for that. >> I have a question. I'm I'm just curious.

[12:49] So the zoning for the lot is RMF 24, correct?

[12:54] » That is correct. >> And is that Is it going to be RMF 24

[12:57] after um the general plan approval as well?

[13:02] » I believe so. >> So if the vision for this area is to be

[13:07] higher density, wouldn't a larger lot kind of align with that vision more so

[13:13] than breaking it down into a smaller cluster?

[13:19] » Yes, except that this lot is already developed as it stands, so

[13:25] it is God, it's also Thank you, Kelly. It's also technically two lots. Um

[13:30] so, they could theoretically sell a lot individually and continue with those two

[13:34] properties. Um they have the infrastructure there for it to be to act

[13:38] as a small lot subdivision, and they still are um going to be four lots zoned

[13:44] RMF 24. Uh if the property owner were to come

[13:47] back and want to utilize that density, they'd likely have to figure out the

[13:51] driveway extents and how to orient the houses in those units and that are small

[13:56] enough to accommodate uh additional units there. Um but, this is a good

[14:00] example of kind of those postage stamp subdivisions that

[14:04] allow a a variety of housing and not just really dense apartment buildings in

[14:08] our community. >> Great. Thank you.

[14:10] » Okay. All righty. Well, um let's let's go

[14:15] ahead and invite the applicant up to speak if if he's here.

[14:18] Is the applicant here? If you'd like to speak, it's not

[14:22] necessary.

[14:27] » Yeah, Max Appis, uh local resident developer, uh representing the owners of

[14:31] the property. Um just kind of speaking to that last

[14:36] question. Um

[14:38] by doing this, we give four different lots four different owners. Um those

[14:44] four individual owners can take better advantage of state um

[14:48] law, so they can do multi-family kind of like junior ADUs, ADUs on all these

[14:54] lots, hopefully. Who knows, but um as like an investor, you can't do that. So,

[14:59] it should help densify. Um but, hope you vote for it. Thanks.

[15:05] » Well, thank you. Okay. Are there any members of the

[15:09] public wishing to speak on this item? No? Okay, seeing none, we're going to go

[15:13] ahead and close public comment. Uh are there any more discussion items that

[15:17] the commissioners would like to field any other questions? Okay.

[15:22] Um and Commissioner Jones, do wanted to make that motion?

[15:26] » Yeah, sure. I'll move the staff recommendation as modified with

[15:30] condition 20 with the strike through on the underground utilities.

[15:33] » Okay. Do I get a second? >> I'll second.

[15:37] » All right. We have a motion from Commissioner Jones and a second from

[15:41] Vice Chair Panuccio. Um

[15:44] Can I get a roll call? >> Commissioner Jones.

[15:47] » Aye. >> Vice Chairperson Panuccio.

[15:50] Chairperson Anderson. >> Yes.

[15:52] » Commissioner Farrell. >> Yes.

[15:54] » Commissioner Keen. >> Yes.

[15:56] » Commissioner O'Malley. >> Yes.

[15:58] » Motion passes 6-0. >> All right. Congratulations. Good luck

[16:02] with your project. All right.

[16:06] All right. Well, we're going to go ahead and move on to number two on our

[16:11] agenda item. Now, um this is going to get a little

[16:17] um jittery, so bear with us. We're going to We're going to try to do this as

[16:21] smoothly as possible. Uh so, what I was thinking is that we

[16:24] would do ex parte for the portion that is not

[16:29] recused because we're going to have some recusals here. So, I'll just run through

[16:33] ex parte. This is just on the portion that you're not recusing for. Okay?

[16:38] All right. Ex parte Commissioner Jones. >> None.

[16:43] » Commissioner Keen. >> I have none.

[16:45] » Commissioner Farrell. >> None.

[16:48] » None. Commissioner Vice Chair Panuccio.

[16:51] Panuccio, sorry. >> No ex parte.

[16:52] » No ex parte. >> [laughter]

[16:53] » Commissioner O'Malley. >> No ex parte.

[16:56] » I need water. And the chair has no ex parte.

[16:59] All right. Um we're going to go ahead and ask uh

[17:04] um Ms. Gleason to go ahead and dazzle us with her presentation on what I know

[17:08] she's worked very hard on.

[17:11] » Good evening. Thank you all for joining us today.

[17:15] Um we are able to go through the entire presentation uh before recusal and then

[17:19] we can uh do our recusal after that. So, this is the finale of the 2045 uh

[17:27] general plan and its final EIR. Um, so going over process tonight, we will do

[17:33] the staff's presentation. Um, the commission can ask clarifying questions

[17:37] after staff's presentation um that are not necessarily related to specific

[17:42] areas of recusal. Um, we will open it for public comment.

[17:46] People might show up. Um, and then we will do our recusal

[17:50] after the public comment period and that will allow us to vote on different

[17:55] segments of the general plan without um overstepping with conflicts of interest.

[18:01] So, it's been broken into uh three segments for uh your vote on

[18:05] recommendation this evening. Um, so tonight's presentation, we're

[18:09] going to go over a little bit of the draft 2045 general plan. Some of this

[18:12] you've seen before, um, but it's a large document. It's a great document. We only

[18:16] do it once every 20 25 years. Um, so it's exciting that we're at the finish

[18:21] line. Um, we'll talk a little bit about the final EIR that was prepared with any

[18:25] response to comments that we received. Um, and then the planning commission

[18:28] will take action. So, a little bit about where we are. We

[18:33] made it to the end. Um, started this process in 2021 and here we are in 2026

[18:38] and we have made it. Um, so this process was a five-phase process. Every single

[18:42] phase of the process had uh commission input, council input, community input um

[18:48] to get to where we are today, which is the very very almost very end.

[18:56] So, this is kind of our last phase of the project. We did post our draft 2045

[19:00] general plan for the public and anybody to comment um on anything that they saw

[19:05] that that might need comment or clarification. Um, after that we did do

[19:10] another community engagement series where we went through some of the draft

[19:13] general plan policies and requested some input and went over the outline of of

[19:18] what that framework looked like. During that time we were preparing a

[19:22] draft environmental impact report and fiscal analysis for

[19:27] review by the public and decision-makers. We did post the draft

[19:33] environmental impact report for its required 45-day

[19:36] public comment period in April of 2026 and we brought the fiscal analysis to

[19:41] council in May. Since then the public comment period is

[19:45] closed so we've been working on revisions to the draft general plan and

[19:49] preparing the final environmental impact report.

[19:52] Today we are at the first of our public hearings for adoption. We'll be going to

[19:56] council next and then we will have our final 2045 general plan in place.

[20:02] So just a little bit of background on some of our public participation

[20:05] process. This was a

[20:09] five-year process. We had over 17 public outreach events and meetings to garner

[20:13] input from the community. We did our consultant set us up with

[20:17] this fabulous online interactive survey. We had almost 700 people participate

[20:22] and kind of take pictures of ideas and place types as we call them and stick

[20:27] them all over the city so that we could understand what people's vision was both

[20:31] from a land use perspective and a built environment perspective.

[20:35] And we also did a semester-long project with the Atascadero High School

[20:38] students. We were trying to engage the youth and

[20:41] get them to provide some input. Really all they wanted was chicken

[20:45] restaurant and Chick-fil-A is coming so I think we have checked that one off the

[20:48] list. What we did as we moved forward with

[20:53] sort of these focus areas of change and we really looked at areas that had

[20:57] services that had um

[21:01] the ability to sort of increase additional density and maybe there are

[21:05] commercial areas where we're looking at how we really hone

[21:08] uh business enterprise and what kind of um businesses and services would best

[21:13] serve Atascadero residents and visitors um as well as provide us with a lot of

[21:17] fiscal sustainability and health over the years.

[21:20] So, we kind of broke the city up into these focus areas and these are the

[21:23] areas where the most change is happening throughout the city. Obviously, the west

[21:27] side not changing very much, not a lot of access to utilities out there.

[21:34] So, all of this was based on our overarching general plan vision

[21:37] statement that the council came up with early in the process um through our

[21:41] public meetings. Um and that is that Atascadero provides opportunities for

[21:46] all residents and business owners to thrive. And our community-focused

[21:49] culture pursues investments and land use strategies that create a diversity of

[21:53] housing types, support local businesses, improve all mobility modes, and respect

[21:57] our natural environment. Collective community actions improve conditions for

[22:02] current and future generations. So, this is the overarching vision statement that

[22:06] the document and policies were based on. So, we did draft um a general plan with

[22:12] that in mind, included our land use diagram, and numbers of goals and

[22:16] policies uh to achieve that vision statement.

[22:20] This was our resulting land use plan where we changed a number of place types

[22:24] from what our current land use designations are today um and kind of

[22:28] really honed that vision uh into something that was graphically

[22:32] represented with our map.

[22:35] In terms of our key policy framework, we started with sort of this idea of really

[22:39] big moves and what we needed to see and do um into the future.

[22:43] Um that included supporting a mix of housing types throughout the city um for

[22:47] all types of residents that want to come live here, um attracting new industries

[22:51] and higher wage jobs to really again provide that foundation for fis- fiscal

[22:55] sustainability and health throughout um the future.

[22:59] Um we looked at improving mobility, access, and safety throughout our roads

[23:03] um and our circulation system. We addressed public infrastructure needs

[23:07] and ensured fiscal sustainability.

[23:15] A typo on what? Okay, well, we're past it now.

[23:25] Okay. Thank you.

[23:28] » Thank you. >> Thank you.

[23:30] We'll fix it. You know, you're just staring at me.

[23:34] » [laughter]

[23:39] » Um so, our general plan, there's a number of elements that are required as

[23:42] part of a general plan, but you can choose to combine those into whatever

[23:46] structure of chapters you wish to do. So, we combined those essential elements

[23:52] into seven chapters, six of which are included in this 2045 general plan. Our

[23:57] housing element, as a side note, is adopted on a totally different schedule,

[24:01] so that gets incorporated, but is not part of what we're looking at this

[24:04] evening. So, our first chapter was land use and

[24:07] community form. So, this chapter has a lot of the policies that talk about

[24:12] preserving neighborhood character and the type of character that we envision

[24:15] our city having into the future when we explore opportunities for

[24:20] growth. So, we have a number of goals and policies that address development

[24:24] citywide including sort of unique areas within the city and what we envision for

[24:29] some of our new job centers and light industrial areas of the city.

[24:33] Again, our focus is maintaining our rural character, especially on the west

[24:37] side and some of our larger lot areas, supporting a vibrant city center, and

[24:42] providing places for a variety of uses to support us with our economic base.

[24:48] We chose to add a economic development chapter. This was a big focus of the

[24:52] city and city council and what we heard from the community. This is not a

[24:55] required element, um, but it does bring together sort of the the vision and

[24:59] focus on a certain level of economic development that, um, our town is very

[25:03] interested in. Um, so we have policies that look at diversifying the economic

[25:08] base and expanding employment opportunities throughout the city, um,

[25:11] and that's done through, um, attracting new businesses, but also supporting

[25:15] existing businesses to thrive and grow in the city as well. Um, helps us sup-

[25:19] support emerging business trends that we might be able to capitalize on um, for

[25:24] some economic growth, um, ensuring for a wide range of goods and services for

[25:28] both residents and visitors to the area, and again, that focus on fiscal health,

[25:32] which is a theme throughout most of our chapters.

[25:36] Our mobility chapter is kind of what a lot of people would think of as our

[25:39] circulation chapter. Um, so here we kind of have policies that balance more

[25:44] multimodal, um, developments and and travel throughout the city with an

[25:48] emphasis on, um, bike and pedestrian enhancements throughout the city. Um,

[25:53] also looking to support inter-change improvements. So we don't have a lot of

[25:56] control over Caltrans, but always looking for ways that we can support,

[26:00] um, sort of cross traffic from east to west in the city.

[26:05] Our recreation, open space, and natural resources element talks a lot about

[26:09] resource preservation, providing adequate park space and recreation

[26:13] resources for people within the community. Um, we want to ensure

[26:16] adequate park facilities throughout the city so that, um, kids have places to

[26:20] play, and we also have a lot of natural environments that we can enjoy. Um, and

[26:24] this chapter does recognize our natural areas as valuable sort of park and open

[26:28] space resources as well.

[26:31] And our public services and infrastructure chapter, this one's

[26:34] always a big one for us, um, because we do have a lot of infrastructure in the

[26:39] city, um, a lot of miles of roads, um, more limited, uh, waste water system,

[26:44] um, and so this chapter really focuses on, um, ensuring that we respond to

[26:49] long-term growth with our, um, growth plan for the 2045 vision and ensuring

[26:56] adequate services and capacity.

[26:59] And lastly, we have our safety and emergency preparedness chapter.

[27:03] So, this focuses a little bit more on staffing and making sure that we have

[27:07] adequate support for our emergency responders.

[27:10] It addresses a lot of risks that the city sees, wildfire risks,

[27:14] flood risks, geologic hazards. It also addresses noise

[27:19] and so it kind of overlaps with circulation and mobility and making sure

[27:23] that we have adequate connections for evacuations and access.

[27:29] And so, while we worked on the general plan, it was being reviewed

[27:32] through the sequa process where we prepared our environmental impact

[27:36] report. So, sequa does require that any

[27:38] discretionary access go any discretionary action go through a

[27:43] process of sequa analysis. For general plans, it usually ends up in an EIR

[27:47] because there's always regional impacts that we don't have a whole lot of

[27:50] control over and we can't move our project to a

[27:54] different city. So, there are some factors that we are just stuck with.

[27:59] » [clears throat] >> We it's basically a public disclosure

[28:01] document, so we disclose those impacts to the public as part of this

[28:06] process. So, we did circulate the EIR for 45

[28:09] days. We dropped that on April 20th, 2026 and

[28:13] it went through June 4th. And it outlined three main classes of

[28:18] impacts as well as all the analysis that went behind it. So, class one are those

[28:22] significant and unavoidable impacts that no matter kind of what you do, there are

[28:26] not a lot of options to mitigate those. We do have some significant impacts, but

[28:31] they were able to be mitigated and we'll go through those in the next

[28:35] slides. And then less than significant impacts. Most of our analyses and

[28:39] impacts were the class three level. Our document did a lot to sort of

[28:43] self-mitigate a a of the impacts um, in our policies and our goals.

[28:51] So, our first class two impact was to, uh, paleontological resources.

[28:56] Um, so, we did incorporate a mitigation measure to address this and require some

[29:01] additional, uh, studies if somebody was, um, signi- doing significant building or

[29:05] development within a sensitive area. We also had a class two impact

[29:10] identified to public services to ensure that we have adequate wastewater

[29:14] capacity. Um, as you guys know, we are working on upgrades to our wastewater

[29:17] treatment plant, and we want to make sure we don't get ahead of ourselves

[29:20] with development. So, we did add, um, a policy to the

[29:24] general plan through a mitigation measure that re- requires us to look at

[29:28] adequate service capacity. Um, air quality is, um, our class one

[29:33] impact. Um, and so, this has a lot of, uh, regional implications. Um, air

[29:38] doesn't stop at the city limits, people drive through the city, there's

[29:42] projected regional growth, and so, this was an expected class one impact. We did

[29:46] have some mitigation measures identified that would help to reduce some of those

[29:50] impacts, but even with those mitigation measures identified, it remained

[29:54] significant and unavoidable.

[29:58] Um, again, these thresholds are set by the state, so there's not much we can

[30:01] do, you know, at a local level to modify those thresholds. Um, it's important to

[30:06] point out that the 2045 general plan actually has less of an impact on air

[30:10] quality than the current general plan. That is because we have numerous

[30:14] policies for infill development and densifying around our core where there

[30:17] might be future transit opportunities and people can,

[30:21] um, walk or bike to where they are going. Um, and so, that was just kind of

[30:24] important to note, even though there is an impact, it's less than if we

[30:27] continued developing under our existing general plan. Um, we also had some

[30:32] population estimates that might be a little bit high compared to what

[30:35] regional trends are doing. This will allow us flexibility in the future so,

[30:38] should we experience, uh, that any sort of growth in a certain area, we have

[30:43] some flexibility to allow that without revisiting the general plan in the EIR.

[30:48] We did receive three comments during the public review process period. Um

[30:54] one from Caltrans, the Atascadero Mutual Water Company had some comments, and

[30:57] Fish and Wildlife had some comments. So, Fish and Wildlife and Caltrans um sort

[31:02] of reiterated um some of the general premise of our of our uh general plan

[31:08] and kind of clarified that they have some requirements when people go through

[31:12] a construction process that need to be followed. Um we didn't need to make any

[31:15] modifications to the general plan based on this because those were already

[31:18] included in there um as as part of the normal development

[31:23] process that we go through. Um Atascadero Mutual Water Company did have

[31:26] some comments just clarifying some of their ownership and and maintenance and

[31:30] their um kind of responsibilities um referring to one of their newer plans.

[31:34] So, we did make some updates based on their comments.

[31:38] So, as part of a um recommendation to adopt an EIR, there's a couple

[31:42] accompanying legal documents that are super super fun to read through, and I

[31:45] hope that you all did so in great detail. Um and so, part of your

[31:50] recommendation um to adopt the final EIR for Council tonight will be also

[31:55] adoption of these three uh accompanying documents. So, the first one is our

[31:59] mitigation monitoring and reporting plan.

[32:02] Um this one includes our five mitigation measures. Happy to say that all five of

[32:06] those mitigation measures have already been incorporated into the general plan,

[32:09] and so, we can check that off the box, but it is part of our um required

[32:13] adoption. We will also be recommending that the

[32:16] Council adopt a statement of overriding considerations. This is for those class

[32:20] one impacts that cannot be mitigated, um and the state does allow us to balance

[32:25] the economic, legal, social, technological, um all sorts of other

[32:29] benefits um associated with um any action that we're going to take against

[32:34] those unavoidable environmental impacts. Um and so we can

[32:39] make statements and statements of overriding consideration that state what

[32:42] those benefits are and that we are, you know, uh openly making um those

[32:48] statements to allow for some significant unavoidable impacts

[32:52] um with benefits that outweigh those. And then we'll be recommending that the

[32:57] council adopt findings of fact. So these are findings associated with all of the

[33:01] impacts addressed in the uh general plan and the final EIR. Um and again

[33:07] highlighting that finding number three where benefits do outweigh um any sort

[33:12] of negative environmental impact.

[33:16] I did want to point out it's not necessarily part of a standard general

[33:19] plan in terms of its analysis, but the council did ask for a fiscal impact

[33:23] study to be brought forward um for the general plan to ensure that whatever we

[33:27] were planning for the future uh was fiscally sustainable and would not put

[33:32] the city um in a bad spot. So we did do a long-term fiscal analysis uh for the

[33:38] proposed plan um and it did show that in that we would be fiscally positive.

[33:42] Again, it's a little bit of a crystal ball moment um but we did have some

[33:46] consultants that were able to dial down. Um worked really hard with our finance

[33:50] team to come to some of these assumptions and we do believe that uh

[33:54] build out of the 245 2045 general plan will be fiscally positive for the city.

[34:01] So in terms of next steps, tonight we'll make a recommendation that will be

[34:04] forwarded to city council. Um I did want to let you all know,

[34:08] remind you that our comprehensive zoning code update is following almost right

[34:12] behind on the heels of this. So we are doing a policy at last policy

[34:17] check-in at city council on September 8th. We'll be coming to planning

[34:21] commission for a recommendation on October 6th. That's going to be a great

[34:24] document. It's even longer than the general plan, so be prepared. Um we'll

[34:29] go to city council for first reading October 27th and our plan is to do

[34:32] second reading November 10th. So our new zoning will be in place by the end of

[34:36] the year.

[34:39] So this is staff's recommendation. It is to adopt the draft resolution

[34:43] recommending adoption of the 2045 General Plan certification of the final

[34:49] EIR and adoption of all of the accompanying documents that come along

[34:53] with that.

[34:56] We will have a revised section related to recusals. I believe I handed that out

[35:00] for you this evening and then there'll be another modification to that as we

[35:04] move forward. And that does conclude our presentation.

[35:09] We are available for clarifying questions and then we will get into

[35:13] recusals, discussions, votes, and all of those fun things.

[35:20] » All right, that was a fantastic presentation.

[35:23] Thank you so much for that. I know you worked really hard on

[35:26] that. All the staff has worked really hard on this for the last 5 years. I've

[35:29] I've been here for much of it. And I know it's

[35:33] it's great to see the city move along like this.

[35:36] Um many years to come. Uh with great growth and economic

[35:42] growth. So Uh right now I'm

[35:46] going to ask a question. Are we going to do um

[35:50] commissioner questions prior to public comment or are we going to hold that off

[35:54] until after? >> We can do commissioner questions if they

[35:56] are kind of clarifying or procedural questions at this point.

[36:00] » Okay. So I would just advise that we limit our questions to things that do

[36:04] not include any recused um topics. Okay?

[36:09] Any Any questions? Any clarifying questions

[36:12] or procedural questions? There we go.

[36:17] Commissioner King. >> I just want to clarify. This might be a

[36:21] dumb question. This is the environmental impact of the General Plan on our city

[36:26] for the next until 2045?

[36:31] » Yes. >> Okay.

[36:32] » So, certain resources within the city and the impacts on those.

[36:37] » Thank you. That was That was all. I just wanted to like make sure we

[36:40] » No, that was That was a clarifying question. Perfect.

[36:43] Any other questions? No? Okay. Well, we'll go ahead and open

[36:48] Oh. Go ahead. Go ahead.

[36:54] » I was looking at the table 7-1 and there's a couple items on here that

[36:59] I just had a question about. Uh GHG-1.1

[37:04] says the updated City of Atascadero Climate Action Plan to identify ways to

[37:09] reduce greenhouse gas emissions and limit climate change impacts on

[37:13] residents to the extent possible. The Climate

[37:16] Action Plan shall integrate the state's future

[37:19] GHG reduction goals such as the state's goal of attaining carbon neutrality

[37:25] by 2045. I was just curious if you could clarify

[37:31] how we are integrating

[37:35] the state's goal of attaining carbon neutrality by 2045.

[37:39] Could you expand on that a little bit? >> Sure. I guess the shorter answer is we

[37:44] don't know exactly how we're doing that yet because we don't have an updated

[37:47] climate action plan. But I can say that around that also we work with our

[37:51] regional partners. Air Pollution Control District comes out with a lot of best

[37:54] management practices for projects um to try and achieve that. So, a lot of the

[37:59] details will come out during the update to a climate action plan. Um but we are

[38:03] on track with our regional partners in the way that certain project details are

[38:07] implemented um to make headway towards that goal.

[38:12] » Great. Thank you. Cuz carbon neutrality is a pretty That's

[38:15] a big jump. Um the another section on utilities and services systems

[38:22] Um this is USS-3.1. It says action D require all proposed

[38:27] new projects and new development requiring wastewater collection and

[38:31] treatment service to be reviewed for adequate adequate

[38:35] uh wastewater collection and treatment capacity prior to issuance of building

[38:40] permits. How are we doing on treatment capacity?

[38:44] » I can speak to that briefly. Thank you, Commissioner Panaccio. So right now, we

[38:48] are nearing capacity at our wastewater our treatment plant. So the stopgap is

[38:52] to put in this particular condition, this mitigation measure, to kind of wait

[38:57] and see how development goes over the next few years. But if we don't get our

[39:00] wastewater treatment plant project completed, which we do

[39:04] anticipate we will, but if for some reason something happens and it's

[39:07] significantly delayed, we will have to get into a spot where we need to monitor

[39:11] growth in the city. And particularly, you know,

[39:15] the addition of things that will hook to the wastewater treatment system. So,

[39:20] this is sort of a stopgap kind of measure. We just hope we don't

[39:24] have to get to that spot because we're working feverishly to

[39:28] get the the project done. So. >> Sounds good. Thank you for the

[39:32] clarifications. >> Good questions. Good questions.

[39:36] Any other questions? All right. Okay. Well, we'll go ahead and move on to uh

[39:41] public comment. If we have anybody Remember we don't have any members of

[39:45] the public to comment, so um we'll give it 30 seconds. 10 seconds.

[39:51] Okay. Seeing no one, we'll go ahead and close public comment.

[39:55] And at this point, I believe uh our city

[40:00] attorney will go ahead and take over in figuring out how we're going to handle

[40:04] these recusals. >> Thank you, Chair Anderson and members of

[40:07] the commission. Um what I'm going to be talking about now

[40:10] may seem unnecessary or over paranoid uh in terms

[40:16] of the segmenting that we have presented to you, but uh as the city's city

[40:21] attorney and chief paranoia officer, I have to look as if the

[40:25] FPPC is overseeing each of these decisions. So, we want to make sure that

[40:28] each of you remains in the FPPC's good graces, and that's why we are going

[40:33] through this process. It may seem somewhat unfair if you can't

[40:37] participate, but the FPPC rules are that you are not supposed to participate in a

[40:42] matter in which it affects your financial interests. And

[40:46] for actually unusually, we have a little bit

[40:49] of updated information. We have yet another

[40:53] commissioner who has a conflict this evening. So, there's only one of you who

[40:56] does not have a conflict, Commissioner Keen. So, you will be the one that will

[41:00] be the sole person when we start flipping coins. But, the reason is not

[41:05] because conflicts are a bad thing. It's just the proximity of where your

[41:08] properties are to some of the changes that we're doing. They're changes in

[41:13] intensity of use that can be a material impact on your financial interest. So,

[41:18] that's why we're doing it this way. So, basically what we're going to do is

[41:21] we're going to segment into A and B. We're going to flip a coin to determine

[41:25] which we hear first, and we'll determine how we bring back

[41:30] commission members based on whether it's A or B. So, if we do

[41:34] segment A, there are are it looks like four of you

[41:40] that have conflicts on there. So, four of you

[41:44] would have to participate in this process. Because Chair Anderson has

[41:47] conflicts in both, we'll probably exclude him

[41:50] from that process. The other reason that we're doing it

[41:53] this way is your seventh member, Commissioner Heath, has a personal

[41:58] matter that prevents attendance at this meeting.

[42:02] It's not simple absence for personal for convenience. There's a serious issue,

[42:08] and I'm not going to get into it any more than that. But, under the FPPC's

[42:12] opinion letters, that is a sufficient basis not to have

[42:16] to continue this to the next meeting where that commissioner is present. So,

[42:21] that's a lot of information. I wish I could say I'm as smart as the

[42:26] person who prepared most of this, but Taylor Folland who is currently on a

[42:30] plane somewhere probably over Greenland at this point, has done the lion's share

[42:35] of this work. I'm grateful for her having done this. She has done a

[42:39] fantastic job not only on the segmenting, but the underlying work with

[42:43] the general plan and zoning. So, I wanted to give her a shout out when I

[42:47] have that opportunity. So, at this point,

[42:51] it appears that we have some conflicts of the five of you.

[42:55] I can summarize them if you would like. It would probably go a little bit

[42:59] faster. The conflicts are in the two zones that we'll be discussing and I

[43:04] believe it's the Let me get these right here.

[43:07] There is the low density multi-family and medium

[43:12] density.

[43:15] » I believe it's medium density and mixed use.

[43:17] » And mixed use, that's correct. And some of the commissioner members have

[43:21] properties within 500 ft of potential changes in those zones. So, that is the

[43:25] general nature of the conflicts for each of the five commissioners who have those

[43:29] conflicts. So, the recommendation would be to go ahead and have those

[43:34] commissioners step away from the dais and then we will

[43:38] bring you back depending on what the coin flip is going to be whether not

[43:43] we're doing segment A or segment B first.

[43:50] » So, I think do they need to make individual statements or can they just

[43:52] say, I recuse, go down the line? >> I would just say very generally because

[43:58] it involves my real property interests. >> And I just wanted to make a quick

[44:03] comment that because this is a general plan and it covers such a broad basis.

[44:08] This is not really uncommon for this type of recusal. So, it's not

[44:13] affecting anybody. Nobody should be ashamed of recusing themselves.

[44:17] » Yeah. >> So, uh should I go first?

[44:20] All right. Um I'm going to recuse myself because I have a a real estate interest

[44:24] in the two of the affected zones. So.

[44:33] » Dave, I just want to clarify. Can they step into the rear room or do they

[44:36] » as long as they step out of the room. That that's adequate. Yes.

[44:44] You can turn off your microphone, please.

[44:45] » walk us the rest of us through that and so

[44:48] » Hold on. Wait. We have the A and B sections, right? That not everybody's

[44:52] recusing for both. >> Uh

[44:54] because we have uh conflicts on them, you can't participate in the decision as

[45:00] to whether it's A or B because that's influencing what comes first. So, that's

[45:04] why all five have to step down right now. And then we'll bring you back

[45:08] depending on what happens with A and B. And I have a coin to do the flip for A

[45:13] and B. >> Got you. Okay. Um I am recuse myself

[45:17] from the portions of the 2045 general plan identified in the draft planning

[45:21] commission resolution due to that decision affecting property within

[45:25] 500 ft of my real estate interest. >> I am recusing myself from the portions

[45:31] of the 2045 general plan identified in the draft planning commission resolution

[45:36] due to that decision affecting property within 500 ft of my

[45:40] real property interest.

[45:44] » I am recusing myself from the portion of the 2045 general plan identified in the

[45:49] draft planning commission resolution due to that decision affecting property

[45:53] within 500 ft of my real property interest. Thank you.

[45:58] » I'll be recusing myself for the same matters uh for Portola uh proper real

[46:03] interest properties related at Portola and Moro Avenue.

[46:07] » And with the exception of Chair Anderson, don't go too far because we're

[46:10] going to be making this decision on ARB very quickly and uh we'll be bringing

[46:14] some of you back fairly quickly.

[46:18] » I have all the power now.

[46:22] » Commissioner Keen, at this point um I will go ahead and uh flip a coin. Uh

[46:26] heads will be A uh and tails will be B. And I'll let you know and then we'll go

[46:31] from there. >> Great.

[46:36] » Tails, so we'll be starting with segment B. And with segment B, um we only have

[46:42] uh two commissioners who are conflicted out, Commissioner Jones and Commissioner

[46:46] Anderson, so we can bring back Commissioners Pinacchio, um

[46:50] Farrell, and O'Malley for this matter.

[46:58] » Okay.

[47:02] » This is what I get for living in the sticks.

[47:05] Nobody wants to rezone my property.

[47:09] » And I had straws ready to go if if had been A, and then we would have picked

[47:14] who would who'd be coming back, but because they don't have conflicts, each

[47:16] of them can participate.

[47:24] » When you said I was the only one without a conflict, I thought you were being

[47:26] hyperbolic.

[49:10] » Okay, at this point we've gone ahead and seated the commissioners and brought

[49:14] them back without the conflicts on segment B. So we'll go ahead and start

[49:18] discussing the portion of the general plan that involves segment B.

[49:23] » And just as a reminder, uh segment B deals with medium density

[49:28] uh residential and mixed-use land use designations. So if you have any

[49:34] questions or comments on discussion on that, and then we will take a vote

[49:39] on that segment.

[49:42] » Okay. Does anyone have any questions on that

[49:44] section?

[49:52] Uh resolution B.

[50:02] No questions? Anyone want to make a

[50:06] motion? >> So, the motion would be if you look at

[50:10] draft resolution A, um

[50:14] there is a in section four, we are discussing item number two.

[50:21] And so, it would be a recommendation to city council to adopt the medium-density

[50:27] multi-family land use designation and mixed-use land use designations in

[50:31] accordance with the 2045 general plan. >> Sorry, I have a question.

[50:37] » Mhm. >> Go for it.

[50:39] » Okay, I I'm overall, I just realized I'm very confused as to why we had to split

[50:44] this up and how this has to deal with the environmental impact report and

[50:47] maybe it's cuz I did not do enough reading, but

[50:50] can you just like walk me through like I have never been in planning commission

[50:54] before cuz I have no I don't understand what we're doing.

[50:58] » Yeah, so our our general plan covers everything

[51:02] pretty generally, but sometimes a little specifically, um including the design

[51:06] designation of each individual parcel with a specific land use. So, the

[51:10] commissioners that recused themselves and the remained recused, um have

[51:15] property within 500 ft of areas that will change and some of our changes are

[51:20] minor and some of our changes are greater, but they all affect the

[51:22] development potential of those properties. So,

[51:25] for the medium-density residential, um it's going from uh

[51:32] 20 to 24 units an acre to 13 to 24 units an acre, but some of those properties

[51:38] also used to be zoned low-density uh multi-family that were 10 units per acre

[51:43] and now they're bumping up into that higher category. So, that's a a

[51:46] significant density change and development potential for those

[51:49] properties. Um for the properties um that are now

[51:53] being zoned mixed use, those used to be zoned a different commercial

[51:57] designation. And while we allowed mixed use development there, we're getting

[52:00] much more specific about development standards and types of mixed use

[52:04] development that are allowed. And we've established different densities for

[52:08] those zones as well. So, because of those factors um those commissioners

[52:13] can't participate in this particular discussion. Um what we're doing tonight

[52:17] is we're adopting one really long resolution that has all of the segments

[52:21] broken out in draft resolution A. And so,

[52:25] um what you guys are asked to do immediately as part of this vote is just

[52:31] make a recommendation on the medium-density multi-family designations

[52:36] within the general plan and any such policies related to such and the mixed

[52:41] use designations as well. And so, just by sort of segmenting our vote

[52:45] differently, even though it's not as graphically represented in in that level

[52:50] of detail, it will allow us to um have everybody participate and make a

[52:54] full overall recommendation on the general This deals more with the general

[52:59] plan than the EIR. And then when we all come back together, we'll make a

[53:02] recommendation on remaining sections and the EIR.

[53:07] » Okay. Thank you for walking me through that. Now, I understand. So, what we're

[53:12] deciding right now is changing some stuff into that medium

[53:20] » density >> density multi-family and mixed use land

[53:22] use designation. And it's just what is changing into that in the general plan.

[53:28] » So, you're you're recommending action on anything on our general plan land use

[53:31] map that is zoned medium-density residential and mixed use at this point

[53:36] regardless of specific location. >> Okay. Perfect. Thank you.

[53:42] Okay. >> Can you put the reso the uh resolution

[53:45] on the screen? >> I can, but that is not the words that

[53:48] you need to say right now. Um so if we look at draft resolution A

[53:52] in section 4 uh number two, that second sentence

[53:58] um has a recommendation statement in it that you would recommend that the city

[54:03] council adopt the medium density multi-family land use designation and

[54:07] mixed use land use designation in accordance with the 2045 general plan.

[54:12] And so that's the motion that would be made.

[54:16] » So I will make a motion for the planning commission to recommend the city council

[54:20] of the city of Atascadero adopt the medium density multi-family land use

[54:24] designation and mixed use land use designation in accordance with the 2045

[54:28] general plan as shown in exhibit B.

[54:34] » I will second that motion. You need me to repeat it?

[54:40] » And now we need a roll call. >> Roll call.

[54:48] » Full. >> You're good.

[54:50] » Yeah, I've I've done it like a thousand times. You're good. Yeah, you're fine.

[54:54] » Commissioner Keen. >> Yes.

[54:56] » Commissioner Farrell. >> Yes.

[54:58] » Vice Chairperson Panaggio. >> Yes.

[55:01] » Commissioner O'Malley. >> Yes.

[55:03] » Uh motion passes 4-0.

[55:10] » Okay, and at this point um we can invite uh

[55:13] the the commissioner I'm looking at the at my list here,

[55:18] Commissioner Jones back. Uh he does not have a conflict on the re uh

[55:23] segment A.

[55:26] No, um the FPPC rules say once you're brought back, you can sit on the rest of

[55:30] it. Yeah.

[55:35] » So now we're going to do low density. Okay.

[55:40] » Will I need to recuse myself for this section?

[55:42] » So in in looking at the FPPC rules, once you're brought back as a result of the

[55:48] rule necessity, um you're not required to leave after

[55:51] that. So that's why we just bring back Commissioner Jones at this point, but

[55:55] the remainder of you, since you were brought back due to the rule of

[55:58] necessity to make that quorum, you're not required to exit at that point.

[56:02] » Okay. Will we be participating in the discussion and the voting?

[56:05] » Yes, you can participate. >> Thank you.

[56:14] So now we're going to be discussing A.

[56:19] I got it here.

[56:24] Dra- uh draft resolution A regarding low density.

[56:28] » So this is section four, number one. Okay.

[56:36] Can you put the graphic back on there?

[57:11] So low density multi-family is kind of the more orangey color.

[57:28] » Does anyone have any questions or comments?

[57:42] » I'll make a motion to recommend the City Council of the city of Atascadero adopt

[57:46] the low-density multi-family land use designation in accordance with the 2045

[57:51] General Plan as shown in exhibit B.

[57:57] » I'll second.

[58:05] » Commissioner Keen? >> Yes.

[58:07] » Vice Chairperson Panecio? >> Yes.

[58:09] » Commissioner Farrell? >> Yes.

[58:13] » Commissioner Jones? >> Yes.

[58:14] » Commissioner O'Malley? >> Yes.

[58:16] » Motion passes 5-0.

[58:21] » And at this point we can bring back uh Chair Anderson for the balance of the

[58:25] determination.

[58:34] » [laughter] >> Welcome back from timeout.

[58:36] » You need to be absent more often so Panecio can get more practice.

[58:40] » [laughter]

[58:51] » Crystal's responsible for my cheat sheet so she does a wonderful job. Thank you.

[58:56] Okay, well um thank you for for doing that. We're

[59:00] going to go ahead and continue on to the general portion of discussion on the

[59:07] uh the item. So

[59:11] does anybody have any questions or would like to have any discussion? That's

[59:15] discussion only so do you would you guys like to have make

[59:18] any have any discussion on the remaining portion of the EAR on the General Plan?

[59:25] » I had one for staff with The resiliency examination of wildfire

[59:29] risk in the long term,

[59:32] is that likely to help change some of the

[59:37] um classifications of fire risk for our residents to have better outcomes for

[59:41] their insurance ability their insurability of their homes?

[59:44] I know that this has been an ongoing issue and I'm I don't know how that

[59:47] interface works where we have the wildland interface.

[59:51] » That's a yet to be determined factor. It's not going to change our local

[59:55] classifications which are set by the state at this time, but it could have

[59:58] impacts on insurance and insurance does use all of their own parameters for that

[1:00:03] and we are very hopeful that that will take place and that's the end goal.

[1:00:08] » Thank you.

[1:00:14] Any other questions? Any other discussion items? No?

[1:00:18] I'll I'll go ahead. I just had one other one. Um I didn't know if we had a

[1:00:22] benchmark on the

[1:00:25] what the ultimate goals of the recreational areas were compared to

[1:00:28] other cities particularly in Paso Robles? Like do we have a

[1:00:32] acreage or facility per per capita? Is there a benchmark that we look at in a

[1:00:36] planning standard from the League of Cities or others to see how we're doing

[1:00:40] for those opportunities? >> There are established standards. We

[1:00:43] don't necessarily compare ourselves to other regional communities, but since

[1:00:47] you bring this topic up, one of our next activities for next year is a parks and

[1:00:51] recreation master plan for the city. We'll be starting that activity and

[1:00:55] bringing some pieces of that activity to you and doing some public outreach on

[1:00:59] it. So, although it's not a piece of the general plan, I mean we

[1:01:03] do have the park section of the general plan,

[1:01:05] but it doesn't get into the the things that we're going to get into with this

[1:01:08] detailed master plan that looks at all the ratios and all the things. So,

[1:01:11] » Thank you.

[1:01:17] » All right. Well, I don't see any more questions or comments.

[1:01:21] Uh do I hear a motion to accept the remainder of the or the

[1:01:26] the item in whole?

[1:01:31] Right? This is a vote to to adopt the the whole

[1:01:35] » Yes, and I believe the motion Do we need to read the title of the resolution

[1:01:39] minus sections 1 and 2? So, we would read the title of the resolution as your

[1:01:44] recommendation, and we would make clear that we are

[1:01:48] subtracting out from that sections 1 through 2 of section 4 of the

[1:01:54] resolution.

[1:01:58] Just to make it as confusing as possible.

[1:02:01] » Could you repeat that sub- sub-section 1 and 2?

[1:02:04] » Yeah, if you look at section 3 of section 4, it has some language about

[1:02:07] excluding sections 1 through 2 of section 4.

[1:02:11] Um a lot of numbers.

[1:02:14] » [laughter] >> Okay.

[1:02:15] » So, you would make a motion to adopt draft resolution A,

[1:02:20] all of those words that are in there, and then accepting out those sections

[1:02:28] that are described in section 1 through 4 or 1 through 2 of section 4 of the

[1:02:33] resolution that were already voted on.

[1:02:42] » Anyone? There you go.

[1:02:45] I'll do it. >> This is so monumental. I'll do it.

[1:02:48] » There you go. >> You know me.

[1:02:50] » It's for your team. >> Okay.

[1:02:52] Um I move that the Planning Commission um

[1:02:56] accept draft PC resolution A, the resolution of the Planning Commission of

[1:03:00] the city of Atascadero, California, recommending the City Council certify

[1:03:04] the final environmental impact report, adopt findings of fact pursuant to the

[1:03:08] California Environmental Quality Act, adopt a mitigation and monitoring and

[1:03:12] reporting program, and adopt a statement of overriding considerations for the

[1:03:16] Atascadero 2045 General Plan and Zoning Code Update schedule number 2024070598

[1:03:25] and adopt the City of Atascadero 2045 General Plan consisting of the following

[1:03:29] elements: Land Use and Community Form, Economic Development, Mobility,

[1:03:34] Recreation and Open Space, Public Services and Infrastructure, and Safety

[1:03:38] and Emergency Preparedness minus section 4 numbers 1 and 2.

[1:03:45] » Excellent. >> Do I hear a second?

[1:03:47] » the motion, please? >> [laughter]

[1:03:51] » If you have another 30 minutes, yes, I can.

[1:03:54] » Do I hear a second? >> I I'll second that.

[1:03:58] » Okay, Commissioner O'Malley seconds. Okay, can we get a roll call, please?

[1:04:03] » Commissioner Keen? >> Yes.

[1:04:04] » Commissioner O'Malley? >> Yes.

[1:04:07] » Chairperson Anderson? >> Yes.

[1:04:09] » Vice Chairperson Panachia? >> Yes.

[1:04:11] » Commissioner Farrell? >> Yes.

[1:04:13] » Commissioner Jones? >> Yes.

[1:04:14] » Motion passes 6-0. >> All right, everybody give yourself a

[1:04:18] round of applause. And the staff, that was wonderful.

[1:04:23] Thank you very much for that. All righty, so

[1:04:27] Okay. What do we have next? We have Do we have

[1:04:32] any reports?

[1:04:37] No, let me get to that section. Hold on.

[1:04:43] No management reports, anything that the commissioners would like to speak about,

[1:04:48] anything interesting going on they'd like to make comments on?

[1:04:53] » Well, I'm I'm a middle school mom, so I was

[1:04:56] out there out downtown >> Mhm.

[1:04:58] » first day of school, watching everything. Um it was

[1:05:02] wonderful and it went smoothly and it was lovely to see the whole community

[1:05:06] out there taking photos by City Hall and I grabbed my coffee and I sat on the

[1:05:11] corner cuz I wanted to watch uh El Camino and watch the the traffic. And it

[1:05:16] it went very smooth and I ran into several city officials out there and our

[1:05:20] police chief in uniform, which I think is wonderful. Helps the kids uh behave.

[1:05:25] So, it was a really nice first day of school out there. So, I just wanted to

[1:05:30] thank everybody for that.

[1:05:34] » Uh our school school uh went pretty well. First day of school is kind of

[1:05:38] always a uh scary day with the traffic and everything, but uh went really well,

[1:05:43] so. Any other comments? >> Yes, I have a comment.

[1:05:46] I was out uh in downtown on Tuesday and I could not find a parking spot. So,

[1:05:51] we're going to need more parking, please. Uh I had to park all the way on

[1:05:55] Entrada to go to the Hawaiian place, which is delicious, by the way. But, uh

[1:06:01] I had to walk really far away. So, we're going to need more parking. I don't know

[1:06:04] why we don't have enough parking here. City should get on that. Just wanted to

[1:06:08] report back.

[1:06:11] » And I would like to request the ability to turn off mics from here. No, I'll

[1:06:14] just >> [laughter]

[1:06:18] » Okay, um any other comments? >> Just add to that. I'm so glad that we're

[1:06:21] starting to have a minuscule parking problem for our downtown uh then our

[1:06:25] downtown businesses. So, that's always a good thing.

[1:06:29] Lots of activity. >> What's the timeline on the archways

[1:06:32] being installed? Is that still set for the end of August, I believe, on the

[1:06:35] north and south end of El Camino? The entry, the gateways.

[1:06:38] » Commissioner Farrell, you're getting into the director's report, which I was

[1:06:42] going to give you just in a moment, so. >> Jumping the gun.

[1:06:45] » Yeah, I'll answer that along with a whole bunch of other things.

[1:06:48] » And parking.

[1:06:51] » Already? >> Okay, if

[1:06:52] if everybody's No, we we got a comment from

[1:06:54] » Got one last comment. Uh if you remember way back when at our last meeting a few

[1:07:00] months ago, we had discussed uh we'd requested

[1:07:05] » We actually need your mic to be that loud.

[1:07:07] » Really? >> To pick it up for the record. Yeah,

[1:07:09] thank you. >> [clears throat]

[1:07:11] » We we had requested a presentation on uh how parks get developed through the

[1:07:16] city and then also sidewalk development through the city.

[1:07:21] If you remember that. I was just curious where we were

[1:07:25] with something like that.

[1:07:30] » I don't know. That's a good one. I will follow up later. Thank you for reminding

[1:07:34] us of that. Thank you.

[1:07:36] » I would refer him to the general plan.

[1:07:42] Okay, if that's all the comments from the commission

[1:07:45] I will go ahead and hand it over to the director. Uh Phil, would you like to

[1:07:49] fill us in on your report, please? >> Yes, Phil can fill you in.

[1:07:53] » Thank you. >> Absolutely. There's lots of things

[1:07:55] filling in downtown, which is really nice as well. As you've seen the La Moda

[1:07:59] project take shape, the new three-story building that's going to be mixed-use

[1:08:03] with a nice restaurant downstairs and residential above and restaurant spaces

[1:08:07] that are being built next door to that in the old Winters Garage and Trungs Pho

[1:08:12] Place is going to move into there first and other things will follow along with

[1:08:15] that. So, downtown is really taking shape. You've probably also seen that

[1:08:18] Beachin' Biscuits is finally starting their construction on their corner site

[1:08:22] right there. So, that's happening. And um

[1:08:26] couple bigger projects aren't moving as quickly as we'd like

[1:08:30] to. Two of those are Del Rio Ranch and Dove Creek. Both of those are probably

[1:08:35] going to go through some changes of ownership before we see anything happen

[1:08:39] on them. So, they are stalled long-term. I'll just let you know that you're

[1:08:42] probably not going to see anything happen there for quite a bit. Good thing

[1:08:46] is we're starting to final out some new buildings on the Del Rio Marketplace

[1:08:50] site though, adjacent to the Valley Fresh Market. We just gave some

[1:08:54] uh final occupancies to the shell buildings. Not occupancy, but final

[1:08:57] approval for the shell building on that property. You can see that that whole

[1:09:01] area is sort of taking shape and developing as a theme. It's really nice.

[1:09:05] Um and as Commissioner Farrell asked, the downtown, the arches, the phase two

[1:09:09] of the downtown, which is actually three projects. It's two arches and then

[1:09:13] repainting of the tunnel um underneath Highway 101 and relighting

[1:09:18] that with a new theme. And there's been some engineering hurdles with the

[1:09:23] arches, especially the one on the south end. It's it's a pretty substantial

[1:09:27] structure. We're getting through that. I don't have an exact start date on that.

[1:09:32] I hope to know that soon when that project's actually going to start, but

[1:09:35] um the construction plans are coming together and

[1:09:39] and uh Pier Rademaker has done a wonderful uh design with the metal work

[1:09:44] with those signs and really hopeful to see that. It's really going to add such

[1:09:48] a nice touch to downtown. And then um in terms of policy work

[1:09:53] upcoming, um just when you thought we were done

[1:09:56] looking at policy stuff, of course we have a lot of zoning to look at.

[1:10:00] Our team has been spending hours and hours making sure the zoning

[1:10:04] is looking good. We've not only had to amend that for the general plan, but

[1:10:09] we're also amending that for um just state law changes and some of the things

[1:10:14] that needed to get cleaned up in there over the years. You've seen a lot of it

[1:10:17] already, but it's going to come to you for final look soon. It's going to go to

[1:10:21] council for final look soon. But right on the heels of that, we're already

[1:10:24] sending out an RFP to write a new housing element, which is a chapter in

[1:10:28] the general plan that we didn't touch this time, but its due date is in 2028

[1:10:34] and it's a year-long activity. So, 2027 is going to be the year of the

[1:10:38] housing element. And um this year the state is asking us to increase

[1:10:45] the number of uh housing units that we should see in Atascadero and increase

[1:10:50] those affordability levels. They call that the RHNA, as you recall, is the

[1:10:52] regional housing needs assessment and or allocation. And each of the communities

[1:10:57] now is still kind of deciding what those numbers will be, but

[1:11:01] the entire number is bigger, um,

[1:11:05] probably 30 or 40% bigger than our last read number for our county, our region.

[1:11:11] So, I don't know how those will be allocated yet. We'll find out and as

[1:11:14] soon as we have some more information on that, we'll have that to you. What that

[1:11:16] does, it feeds back into our housing element and, um, establishes our

[1:11:22] baseline for each affordability level and and the general number of units.

[1:11:26] Now, I'm always happy to report that we've

[1:11:28] done really well in years past on developing the housing numbers we need

[1:11:32] to have. It's always difficult to get the

[1:11:35] extremely low, but we've been fortunate in this last cycle to have projects like

[1:11:39] Del Rio Ridge, which is now starting construction on the north end end of El

[1:11:43] Camino Real, which has affordable housing units built by, um, with

[1:11:47] People's Self-Help Housing. Um, we've had other affordable projects, um, on

[1:11:52] the south end of town as well, and those are taking shape. Um,

[1:11:57] so, we've had a lot of, you know, voluntary direction in that particular

[1:12:01] arena. Um,

[1:12:04] and then, um, other policy work that we're probably working on, I mentioned

[1:12:08] earlier parks and recreation, um, master plan,

[1:12:12] and then, um, what other things are going to be doing? Kelly, do you recall

[1:12:16] the other list of items that we talked about the other day?

[1:12:19] » I think, uh, short-term rental ordinance is coming back for review.

[1:12:23] » we got to bring back. That one is That one that everyone loves, short-term

[1:12:28] rentals. Um, that's really tough. Airbnbs, we've had a lot of outreach on

[1:12:33] those. We've done a couple policy things on it. Council kind of tabled it, but we

[1:12:37] got to bring it back. Um, and also, um, council has asked me

[1:12:41] to look at, um, community facility districts, so I'll be doing

[1:12:46] a presentation on that to council, um,

[1:12:50] especially for the downtown for mixed use projects in October.

[1:12:55] And so we'll see how that plays out. And that's the

[1:12:59] additional, I'll call it, tax that we put on larger residential projects. But

[1:13:03] what we're finding is that mixed use projects in the downtown are actually

[1:13:07] fiscally neutral to positive. So um might alter that a little bit. So

[1:13:12] lots of work going on. We have a great team in community

[1:13:15] development and um I'm also happy to answer questions you

[1:13:20] might have about any other policy or development projects that are

[1:13:23] going on in town.

[1:13:27] » Ear- Earlier you said that a project stalled. You say Dove Creek or Barrel

[1:13:31] Creek? >> Dove Creek.

[1:13:32] » Dove Creek. >> Barrel Creek is actually still active

[1:13:35] and there's a new owner for the property. We just met with them last

[1:13:38] week. Um thanks for reminding me of that

[1:13:40] project and uh they're thinking about changing the land use just a little bit,

[1:13:45] tweaking it on site, but they haven't quite decided yet, but they're all in.

[1:13:49] Um and there's you know, um energy towards the public

[1:13:53] improvement plans, private improvement plans on site. So I think they've got

[1:13:56] that nailed down. Um and they want to build it. So that's

[1:14:01] that's still on the table. So Barrel Creek's on the table,

[1:14:04] uh which will complete kind of Del Rio quite a bit except for the Del Rio Ranch

[1:14:08] property at the south

[1:14:11] east corner of Del Rio and El Camino. We'll probably sit like that for quite

[1:14:16] some time. It's just a challenging property. Not to

[1:14:19] mention the property has deed restrictions that Walmart left our

[1:14:23] community, which is really frustrating that they did that to us. So

[1:14:27] um it's challenging. So we'll see what what

[1:14:30] happens with that. >> Okay.

[1:14:35] All right. Well, thank you. Wonderful. Did you have any questions?

[1:14:39] » Yeah. >> Keating?

[1:14:40] » Well, >> Commissioner Keating would like to ask a

[1:14:43] question. If you would indulge her.

[1:14:45] » Bill, what's up with Chick-fil-A?

[1:14:49] » Tori, what's going on with Chick-fil-A? >> Yeah.

[1:14:52] » So, Eric, tell us what's going on with Chick-fil-A. Eric is actually the

[1:14:55] project planner for Chick-fil-A. >> Okay, I'm going to give you her number.

[1:14:58] » Here, did you have >> I'm going to give your number to my

[1:15:00] daughter so she can stop bothering me and she can bother you because

[1:15:04] » I know we reviewed the construction plans and they came in for a second

[1:15:07] check, but are they ready? Are they >> He was told she was going to get chicken

[1:15:10] nuggets this year and if she doesn't get those chicken nuggets, you need to deal

[1:15:14] with her wrath. I'm done. >> Hey indicator, I think we should be

[1:15:18] fine. We'll figure it out. Um yeah, Chick-fil-A is uh

[1:15:23] still going. So, they we have building permit applications in for the

[1:15:26] Chick-fil-A building and for uh the building right next to it which is a

[1:15:31] retail shell which I'm sure you care about just as much as the Chick-fil-A.

[1:15:35] Um and they are in their second uh plan

[1:15:38] check right now. So, we're actually in the throes of that review um with us,

[1:15:42] fire, um building, and public works per usual.

[1:15:46] Um and you know, hopefully if they have any more corrections uh left, they'll be

[1:15:50] pretty minor. Um what we typically try to do with our uh plan checks is on the

[1:15:55] second plan check for this these like major projects or you know, larger

[1:15:58] commercial projects, is we'll try to meet with them the actual applicant team

[1:16:03] so as to avoid any further reviews after the second if we can.

[1:16:07] Um so, that'll be probably next steps here if they have any leftover

[1:16:10] corrections, but Chick-fil-A specifically on my end, I just finished

[1:16:13] my review yesterday and they do not have any more corrections for me. So.

[1:16:17] » So, are we going to get chicken nuggets this year or what?

[1:16:20] » I mean, depends on how quickly they can build, but I'll I'll be out there with

[1:16:23] the hammer and that makes it go by better.

[1:16:24] » Me too. And my daughter, too. So, you just let me know.

[1:16:28] » Seriously doubt they could build in 3 months, but you never know. I think it's

[1:16:32] more like a 6-month. We'll see. Cut with that attitude.

[1:16:35] » I'll tell her I'll tell her she'll get chicken nuggets by next summer.

[1:16:39] Okay, perfect. >> All righty. Well, they did want to say

[1:16:43] that there is a new uh Wingstop in town. So,

[1:16:46] if you need your chicken fix, you know, you can always offer that up.

[1:16:52] Alrighty. >> I'll see what she thinks about that.

[1:16:56] » Okay. Well, it looks like we are coming to the end of this uh

[1:17:02] Oh, one more question. Go ahead. I'm sorry.

[1:17:04] » I just wanted to compliment the city staff both on the presentation today but

[1:17:07] on on both things, the general plan and the the applicant for the subdivision.

[1:17:12] But also um I'm friends with a couple of tenants off

[1:17:15] of Dale Rio and they've had some challenges with the

[1:17:19] state for certain components of their business but they were very

[1:17:21] complimentary of the planning and building department every time and felt

[1:17:24] that they had an ally to help them through the process rather than

[1:17:27] impediments. So, I wanted you to hear that.

[1:17:30] » Thank you. >> Always.

[1:17:34] Always helpful. And you know what? I I just want to say

[1:17:37] something. A lot of cities aren't as wonderfully helpful. They are an

[1:17:41] impediment and you go there and you just groan,

[1:17:44] you know? So, wonderful. That's good to hear. Thank you.

[1:17:48] Sure they appreciate the feedback. And uh okay, so we're going to go ahead

[1:17:52] and uh adjourn this meeting until I guess September 1st is our next meeting?

[1:17:58] Yeah? Okay. Until September 1st. We'll see you all then. Thank you.

Planning Commission Meeting - August 18, 2026

Transcript