[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.