HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC_1999-02-02_AgendaPacketCITY OF ATASCADERO
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
Regular Meeting
February 2,1999 — 7:00 p.m.
City of Atascadero
6500 Palma Avenue - e floor - Atascadero, California
CALL TO ORDER
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL: Chairman Zimmerman
Commissioner Bentz
Commissioner Clark
Commissioner Eddings
Commissioner Fonzi
SEATING OF COMMISSIONERS
Harold L. Carden, III
Royce Eddings
SELECTION OF COMMISSION OFFICERS 1999
Selection of Chairman
Selection of Vice Chairman
PUBLIC COMMENT
rAis portion of the meeting is reserved for persons wishing to address the Commission on any matter not on this
agenda and over which the Commission has jurisdiction. Speakers are limited to five minutes. Please state your
name and address for the -record before making your presentation. The Commission may take action to direct the
staff to place a matter ofbusiness on a future agenda.)
A. CONSENT CALENDAR - None `
(All items on the consent calendar are considered to be routine and non -controversial by City Staff and
will be approved by one motion ifno member. of the Commission or public wishes to comment or ask
questions.)
B. PUBLIC HEARINGS
(For each of the following items, the public will be given an opportunity to speak. After a staff report, the
Chair will open the public hearing and invite the applicant or applicant's representative to make any
comments. Members of the public will be invited to provide testimony to the Commission following the
applicant. Speakers should state their name and address for the record and can address the Commission
for five minutes After all public comments have been received, the public hearing will be closed, and the
Commission will discuss the item and take appropriate action(s).)
1. Conditional Use Permit 97013 (Albertsons/Curbaril Center) 8080 El Camino
Real (Applicant Halferty Development Company, Represented by Courtney
Architects). Consider a request to review compliance with Planning condition
number 4 relating to exterior lighting. Staff Recommendation: Planning
Commission modify condition number 4 to clam light level requirements for
proposed shopping center.
C. STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS & REPORTS
1. City Attorney Presentation regarding Brown Act & Conflict of Interest Laws
2. Redevelopment Project Update.
3. Director's Report
D. COMMISSIONER ANNOUNCEMENTS & REPORTS
E. ADJOURNMENT
Please note: Should anyone challenge any proposed development entitlement listed on this
Agenda in court, that person may be limited to raising those issues addressed at the public
hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the. Planning
Commission at or prior to this public hearing.
The Next regular meeting of the Planning Commission will be February 16, 1999.
ITEM NUMBER: B-1
DATE: February 2, 1998
Planning Commission Staff Report
Conditional Use Permit 97013
(Albertson's/Curbaril Center)
SUBJECT:
Consideration of clarification to condition 4 of the approved Conditional Use Permit relating to
exterior lighting.
RECOMMENDATION(S):
Staff recommends that the Commission:
Approve Resolution PC 1999-005 clarifying condition 4 of Conditional Use Permit
97013 relating to exterior lighting.
DISCUSSION:
Background: On February 17, 1998, the Planning Commission approved Resolution 1998-001
approving Conditional Use Permit 97013. A copy of the Resolution and Conditions of Approval
is attached as "A". Among the conditions approving the project included one requiring the
parking lot lighting be of similar intensity as the original lighting in the adjacent (Longs/Food 4
less) Center. On July 29, 1998 the Community Development Department reviewed the proposed
building plans and requested verification that this condition could be satisfied. On January 12,
1999, the applicant's representative submitted a request to have the condition reviewed for
substantial conformance.
Analysis: Courtney Architects have investigated the lighting level in question, including
reviewing the original drawings of the Food 4 Less Center and by conducting a field survey of
lighting levels at the existing center and the adjacent Burger King site. Staff also reviewed the
record drawings and found that there was insufficient information on the original design of the
adjacent center to determine if the proposed Albertson's Center would be in substantial
conformance.
The applicant's engineer conducted light level measurements using a light meter to measure the
light levels access the existing parking lot of the adjacent site. They compare the information to
the planned lighting levels of the new Center. The following chart provides a comparison of
their study.
ITEM NUMBER: B-1
DATE: February 1-1998
Measured in foot-candles.
Based on the lighting measurements, the proposed lighting at Albertson's would be less then the
Burger King area, but higher then the Food 4 Less Center. Since no design information is
available for the Food 4 Less Center it is difficult to ascertain the original design level. It should
also be noted that the study did not take into account the age of the lighting fixtures and their
operational condition (age of bulbs, condition of lenses, etc.)
The applicant's representative will be available to discuss particulars of the lighting study and
their findings. Based on the information submitted, staffs recommendation is to clarify the
condition and make a determination that the proposed design is in conformance with the
condition.
Environmental Review: A Negative Declaration was adopted for the project on January 17, 1998.
Conclusion: Conclusive information is unavailable to ascertain that the proposed Albertson's
lighting levels would be similar to those designed for the Food 4 Less Center. However, based
on the design and compared to the field analysis, the proposed lighting seems to meet the intent
of the condition that "parking lot lighting shall be of similar to the original lights in the adjacent
center"
ALTERNATIVES:
1. The Commission could modify Condition 4 of the CUP to specify a lighting level for the
parking lot. This alternative is not recommended, as it would be too specific to ascertain.
A range would be preferable.
2. The Commission could leave the Condition as it is stated, however, this alternative is not
recommended, as the design information for the Food 4 Less Center is not available.
PREPARED BY: Paul M. Saldana, Director
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Resolution PC 1998-001 (with Conditions of Approval)
B. Planning Commission Minutes of February 17, 1998
C. Resolution PC 1999-005 modifying Condition 4
100000
1i; zill Iii!
Directly
under tandem fixture poles
3.4 to 6.2
8.6 to 14.1 9.2 to 11.9
Directly
under sin le fixture poles
2.3 to 2.8
4.1 to 6.1
Midway
between fixtures
1.0 to 2.1
12 2.41 to 6.44
Measured in foot-candles.
Based on the lighting measurements, the proposed lighting at Albertson's would be less then the
Burger King area, but higher then the Food 4 Less Center. Since no design information is
available for the Food 4 Less Center it is difficult to ascertain the original design level. It should
also be noted that the study did not take into account the age of the lighting fixtures and their
operational condition (age of bulbs, condition of lenses, etc.)
The applicant's representative will be available to discuss particulars of the lighting study and
their findings. Based on the information submitted, staffs recommendation is to clarify the
condition and make a determination that the proposed design is in conformance with the
condition.
Environmental Review: A Negative Declaration was adopted for the project on January 17, 1998.
Conclusion: Conclusive information is unavailable to ascertain that the proposed Albertson's
lighting levels would be similar to those designed for the Food 4 Less Center. However, based
on the design and compared to the field analysis, the proposed lighting seems to meet the intent
of the condition that "parking lot lighting shall be of similar to the original lights in the adjacent
center"
ALTERNATIVES:
1. The Commission could modify Condition 4 of the CUP to specify a lighting level for the
parking lot. This alternative is not recommended, as it would be too specific to ascertain.
A range would be preferable.
2. The Commission could leave the Condition as it is stated, however, this alternative is not
recommended, as the design information for the Food 4 Less Center is not available.
PREPARED BY: Paul M. Saldana, Director
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Resolution PC 1998-001 (with Conditions of Approval)
B. Planning Commission Minutes of February 17, 1998
C. Resolution PC 1999-005 modifying Condition 4
100000
March 9, 1998
ATTACHMENT "All
CITY OF ATASCADER0
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
Daniel R. Lloyd
Engineering Development Associates
1320 Nipomo Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 932401
Subject: Conditional Use Permit 97013/Lot Line Adjustment 97005
Albertson -'s .Center: 8080 El Camino Real
Dear Mr. Lloyd:
At their regular meeting of February 17, 1998, the Atascadero
Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on your request for
the development of a 75,822 square foot retail shopping center on
an 8.99 acre site at the above referenced address. After
discussion, the Planning Commission voted unanimously 6:0 (one
Commissioner was absent) to approve Conditional Use Permit 97013
and Lot Line Adjustment 97005 in accordance with the Findings
contained.in the staff report, dated February 17, 1998 and the
attached Revised Conditions of Approval.
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact . the
Planning Division.
Sincerely,
Steven L. Decamp, City Planner
Community Development Department
City of Atascadero
\ph
cc: James Halferty
Thomas Courtney
Thomas McNamara
000002
6500 PALMA AVENUE ATASCADERO, CA 93422
Building Permits: (805) 461-5040 Planning: (SOS) 461.5035 Enforcement: (505) 461.5034 Director: (805)461'-509'7 City Fax: (805) 461-0606
RESOLUTION NO. PC 1998-001
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING CON NUSSION
OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO "
'APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
FOR THE CURBARIL CENTER LOCATED AT 8080 EL CAMINO REAL
(CUP 97013; Albertson's)
WHEREAS, Albertson's Inc. has applied for a Conditional Use Permit to allow for
development of a 75,822 square foot retail shopping center on an 8.99 acre site located at 8080 El
Camino Real; and
WHEREAS, the proposed project is in conformance with the land use designation of the
City of Atascadero General Plan Land Use Element; and
WHEREAS, the site is located in the Commercial Retail (CR) zoning district which allows
for the proposed use by Conditional Use Permit; and
WHEREAS; the Planning Commission of the City of Atascadero conducted a public
hearing on the proposed Conditional Use Permit on February 17, 1998; and
WHEREAS, Zoning Ordinance Section 9-2.109.(c)(4) requires that the Planning
Commission make certain "Findings" prior to approving a Conditional Use Permit;
NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Atascadero finds that the
proposed project, as conditioned, will not have potentially significant environmental effects. The
Negative Declaration prepared for the project complies with the requirements of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and is hereby approved as adequate.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission finds as follows:
1. The proposed project, as conditioned, is.consistent with the General Plan.
2. The proposed project, as conditioned, satisfies all applicable provisions of the Zoning
Ordinance.
3. The establishment, and subsequent operation or conduct of the use will not, because of the
circumstances and conditions applied in this particular case, be detrimental to the health,
safety, or welfare of the general public or persons residing or working in the neighborhood
of the use, or be detrimental or injurious to property orimprovements in the vicinity of the
use.
000003
4.. The proposed project,' as conditioned, will not be inconsistent with the character of the
immediate neighborhood nor contrary to its orderly development.
5. The proposed project will not generate a volume of traffic beyond the safe. capacity of all
roads providing access to the project, either existing or to be improved in, conjunction with
the project, or beyond the normal traffic volume of the surrounding neighborhood that .
would result from full development in accordance with the Land Use Element.
6. The proposed project, as conditioned, will be in compliance with the City's adopted
Appearance Review Guidelines.
7. Closure and conversion of the existing non -conforming mobilehome park will not have a
significant adverse affect on displaced residents because there exists adequate alternative
housing opportunities within the north county.
BE IT_FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission of the City of Atascadero
does hereby approve Conditional Use Permit 96013 for a retail shopping center of 75,822 square
feet on an 8.99 acre site located at 8080 El Camino Real as generally shown on Exhibit A subject
to the Conditions of Approval shown in Exhibit B.
On motion by Commissioner Hageman and seconded by Commissioner Clark, the
foregoing resolution is hereby adopted in its entirety by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Eddings, Hageman, Clark, Arambide, Fonzi; and Zimmerman
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Sauter
ADOPTED: February 17, 1998
CITY OF ATASCADERO, CA
WILLIAM ZIMMERMAN, Chair
PREPARED BY:
STEVEN L. DeCAMP, sting Community
Development Director
[IZIZIIIIIZI
EXHIBIT A
Site Plan
Resolution No. PC 1999-001,
Conditional Use Permit #97013,
8080 El Camino Real (Albertson's/Curbaiii. Center)
loll
I MIN
0
cn
OC
LU
IF -
Z t,7'
LIJ uj
pl i • Q p
I W 0
....... 11HV.9Vn3.
000005(.) C)
EXHIBIT B
Conditions of Approval (as revised 2/17/98)
Resolution No. PC 1998-001
Conditional Use Permit 97013
8080 E1 Camino Real (AibertsonWCurbaril Center)
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
Planning Division:
1. All development of the site shall be in conformance with the plans as contained in the
Attachments, all conditions of approval contained herein, and all applicable provisions of the
Atascadero Municipal Code. Any and all substantial modifications of the intent or details of.
the project shall require approval of the Planning Commission.
2. The entire project shall be subject to all ordinary requirements of the Uniform Building Code
that are necessary to secure and final building permits. This requirement shall extend to a
separate review and permit issuance for signs. Any additional information deemed necessary
for the review and approval of building permits shall be provided.
3. Revised landscape plans shall be reviewed and approved prior to the issuance of building
permits. Landscape plans shall include the planting of additional oak trees in conformance
with the requirements of the Tree Ordinance, and the provision of low (36") wall or .
landscaped berm along the El Camino Real and Curbaril Avenue frontages of the project.
where parked vehicles would face those streets. A Certified Arborist shall monitor the
,condition of the two (2) oak trees to be retained throughout the construction of the project.
4. Exterior lighting shall comply with Zoning Ordinance Section 9-4.137 to ensure that site
lighting does not adversely affect surrounding properties. Parking lot lighting shall be of an
intensity similar to the original lights in the adjacent shopping center.
5. All outdoor storage,. loading areas, and utility facilities shall be adequately screened from
adjacent streets, highways and adjacent properties.. Trash enclosures shall be designed and
located in conformance with the requirements of Zoning Ordinance Section 9-4.129. Trash .
enclosures shall be designed so as to be architecturally compatible with the other structures on
the site.
6. A sign program for the site shall be submitted and reviewed for approval as an Administrative
Use Permit. Sign size, location and design shall be in conformance with the City's Sign
Ordinance or as otherwise approved through the AUP process.
7. Architectural elevations of all buildings shall be consistent throughout the project. -Revised
elevations providing architectural treatment and detailing shall be submitted for review and
approval prior to the issuance of building permits. Flat, void surfaces shall be eliminated and
000.006
EXHIBIT B
Page 2
replaced with appropriate architectural treatment. Side and rear building elevations shall
e building facades. Building materials shall be reviewed for
reflect the architectural theme of th
consistency and conformity with the architectural theme of the structures prior to issuance of
building permits.
8. The appearance or architectural treatment of the retaining wall along the western boundary of
the project shall be reviewed and approved prior to issuance of any -building or grading
permits. The retaining wall shall not exceed twenty feet (20') in height.
9. This Conditional Use Permit approval shall expire one (1) year from the date of final approval,
unless:
ard establishing the authorized use has been performed, as
a: Substantial site work tow
defined in Section 9-2.114 of the Zoning Ordinance; or Ordinance;
b. The project is completed, as defined in Section 9-2.115 of the Zoning
C. An Extension has been granted, as defined in Section 9-2.118 of the Zoning
Ordinance; or
d. A building moratorium is imposed on the project site.
10. Building Pad "E" shall be reconfigured to insure that the distance betn any
d Avenue is
iveway
exiting that pad and the main shopping center entrance/exit driveway on
maximized.
.11. The mobilehome park owner shall provide relocation assistance to the residents of the
mobilehome park in conformance with the provisions of Government Code Section
65863.7(e) in the amount of one thousand dollars ($1000.00) per mobilehome. In the event a
resident of the mobilehome park elects to relocate his/her mobilehome, the amount of the
assistance shall be increased to three thousand five hundred dollars ($3,500.00).
Engineering Division:
Site
1. All improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the City of Atascadero Engineering
Department standard Specifications and Drawings or as directed by the City Engineer.
2. The applicant shall enter into a Plan Checkllnspection Agreement with the City. Prior. to the
final inspection, all outstanding plan check/'inspection fees shall be paid.
3. No buildings shall be occupied until all public improvements are completed and approved by
the City Engineer, and accepted by the City Council.
4. Prior to issuance of building permits for each phase, the applicant shall submit a revised Site
00000")
EXHIBIT B
Page 3
Plan that.substantially complies with the approved Site'Plan for review and approval. The`
revised Site Plan shall incorporate by drawing and/or reference all other site plan
changes/modifications contained in this resolution of approval.
5. The applicant shall acquire title or interest in any off-site land that may be required to allow
for the construction of the improvements. The applicant shall bear all costs associated with
the necessary acquisitions. The applicant shall also gain concurrence from all adjacent
property owners whose ingress or egress is affected by these improvements.
6. All existing and proposed utility, pipeline, open space,. scenic or other easements are to be
shown on the improvement plans. If there are building or other restrictions related to the
easements, they shall be noted on the improvement plans.
7. Any work performed within the Caltrans right-of-way shall be subject to review by Caltrans.
A Caltrans encroachment permit may be required.
Streets
1. An encroachment permit shall be obtained from the City Engineering Department prior to. the
issuance of the building permits.
2. A blackline clear Mylar (0.4 MIL) copy and a blueline print of as -built improvement plans,
signed by the engineer of record, shall be provided to the City Engineer prior to the final
inspection.
3. Any construction within an existing street shall require a Traffic Control Plan. The plan shall
include any necessary detours, flagging, signing, or road closures requested. Said plan shall.
be prepared and signed by a registeredcivil or traffic .engineer.
4. All off-site public improvement plans shall be prepared by a registered civil engineer and shall
be submitted to'the City Engineer for review and approval prior to the issuance of building
permits. R value,testing shall.be done, and the pavement section designed by a registered civil
engineer to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Road improvements shall include, but not be
limited to the.following:
5. El Camino Real shall be improved from centerline to the property frontage in conformance
with City Standard 407 (Arterial) contiguous to the entire property frontage, or as approved
by the City Engineer. The improvements may require the overlaying of the existing pavement
to remedy an inadequate structural section or to remedy a deteriorated paving surface.
Transitions shall be constructed where required to achieve.a smooth join with'existing
improvements.
6. The applicant shall construct the following improvements along Curbaril Avenue between the
000008
EXHIBIT B
• Page 4
centerline of the existing right-of-way and the property frontage:
a. The existing roadway shall be widened as required to provide two (2) 12 foot
traffic lanes and a five (5) foot bike lane between the State Route 101 northbound off -
ramp and the easterly property frontage, or as directed by the City Engineer.' Transitions
shall be constructed where required to achieve a smooth join with existing improvements.
The improvements may require overlaying of the existing pavement to remedy an
inadequate structural section or to remedy a deteriorated paving surface. .
b. Concrete curb, gutter, and a five (5) foot sidewalk shall be constructed between
State Route 101 northbound off -ramp and the easterly property frontage or as directed by
the City Engineer. Transitions shall be constructed where required to achieve a smooth
join with existing improvements.
c. Traffic striping, pavement marking, pavement markers, regulatory signs, warning
signs and delineators shall be installed between the State Route 101 northbound off -ramp
and El Camino Real as directed by the City Engineer.
d. A four (4) foot wide raised concrete median shall be constructed between San Luis
Avenue and El Camino Real as directed by the City Engineer. The median shall be'
constructed in conformance with AASHTO's "A Policy of Geometric Design of
Highways and Streets", latest edition.
e. Offers of dedication shall be provided for all public improvements which are
constructed outside the existing right-of-way. The offers of dedication shall include a five
(5) foot wide area behind the sidewalk.
7. Slope easements shall be provided on each side of the right-of-way as needed to accommodate
cut or fill slopes.
8. All public improvements shall be secured with a 100% Performance Guarantee and a 50%.
Labor and Materials Guarantee until the improvements are deemed substantially complete by
the City Engineer. Prior to the final inspection of the improvements, and before the other
guarantees mentioned in this condition are released; a 10% Maintenance Guarantee shall be
posted to cover.the improvements for a period of one. (1) year from the date of the final
inspection. The guarantee amounts shall be based on an engineer's estimate submitted by the
project engineer and approved by the City Engineer. The estimate shall be based on City
standard unit prices. The Guarantees posted for this project shall be approved by the City
Attorney.
9. No buildings shall be occupied until all improvements are substantially completed and
accepted by the City for maintenance, or as approved by the City Engineer. 000009
EXHIBIT B
Page.5
10. The applicant shall reimburse the City for all costs associated with re -timing the signal at El
Camino Real and Curbaril as well as coordinating this signal with the existing signal at El
Camino Real and Palomar.
11. Within one (1) year of full occupancy of the Center, the applicant shall retain a Traffic
Engineer to perform a warrant analysis at the main project entrance on El Camino Real and at
the intersection of El Camino Real and Curbaril Avenue. The applicant shall enter into an
agreement with the City and shall construct an additional traffic signal or make necessary
improvements as determined by the warrant analysis. The City Council may extend or shorten
the time for the warrant analysis if it is determined to be in the best interest of the City.
WaterM ilities
1. The applicant shall submit a composite utility plan signed as approved by a representative of
each public utility, together with the improvement plans. The composite utility plan shall also
be signed by the Fire, Wastewater, and Street Division heads.
2. A Master Water. Plan shall be prepared for the project by a registered civil engineer. This plan
shall include hydraulic calculations and shall demonstrate that fire and domestic flows are
adequate for the project.
3. The relocation and/or alteration of existing utilities shall be the responsibility of the applicant.
4. The applicant shall install all new utilities (water, gas, electric, cable TV, and telephone)
underground. Utilities shall be extended to the property line frontage of each lot or its public
utility easement.
5. Any utility trenching in existing streets shall be overlaid to restore a smooth riding surface as
required by the City Engineer.
Grading /Drainage /Erosion
1. A complete grading and drainage plan prepared by a registered civil engineer shall be included
with the improvement plans.
2. A Preliminary Soils Report shall be prepared for the property to determine the presence of
expansive soil or other soil problems and shall make recommendations regarding grading of
the proposed site. A final soils report shall be submitted by the soils engineer prior to the final
inspection and shall certify that all grading was inspected and approved and that all work done
is in accordance with the plans and the preliminary report.
000010
EXHIBIT B
Page 6
3. The applicant shall submit.a written statement from a registered civil engineer that all work
has been completed and is in full compliance with the approved plans and the Uniform
Building Code (UBC) prior to the final inspection.
4. Roof drainage and site drainage shall be conducted under or around pedestrian pathways.
5. A Sedimentation/Erosion Control Plan addressing interim erosion control measures to be used
during construction shall be submitted for review and approval by the City Engineer prior to
the issuance of building permits. The Sedimentation/Erosion Control Plan shall be prepared
by a registered civil engineer.
6. Re -vegetation of disturbed soils shall be complete prior to final inspection. Re -vegetation
includes landscaping, hydroseeding, and other acceptable erosion control.
7. Construct a Detention Basin that will effectively detain storm water run-off from a 50 -year
post development storm and release the equivalent flow from the undeveloped site in a 2 -year
storm. As an alternate, the Detention Basin may be reduced or eliminated where it can be
demonstrated that there are adequate downstream facilities to handle the total flow without
adverse affects on other properties. The detention basin or alternate shall be subject to review
and approval by the City Engineer.
8. A Master Drainage Plan shall be prepared for the project by a registered civil engineer. This
plan shall include drainage calculations and shall describe the design basis for handling
drainage on the project.
9. The applicant shall submit Drainage Maintenance Agreements for all private drainage facilities
to the City Engineer and the City Attorney for review and approval. Recorded copies of the
Drainage Maintenance Agreements shall be submitted to the City Engineer prior to issuance of
building permits.
10. The on-site drainage inlets shall be contracted for through cleaning periodically throughout
the year but specially prior to the onset of winter rains. This service shall be secured in a
contract and manner to be approved by the City prior to the issuance of Certificates of
Occupancy for any buildings.
11. Prior to the issuance of the Certificates of Occupancy, the applicant shall establish a parking
lot sweeping program to assure on-going cleaning of the parking lots on a regular basis, as
well as thorough cleaning after storms. The program shall concentrate on providing thorough
parking lot cleaning prior to the onset of winter rains and shall be performed with high quality
equipment operating at a slow rate to maximize the amount of silt collected and the
effectiveness of the operation.
0000-1i
EXHIBIT B
Page 7
12. The applicant shall secure a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) storm
water permit from the Regional Water Control Board prior to issuance of.
grading/unprovement permits.
Fire
The project shall meet the U.F.C. fire flow minimum. of 1500 gallons per minute for
commercial development or as approved by the Fire Marshal. The required fire flow may
increase based on square footage, as provided in U.F.C. Appendix III -A. Verification shall be
provided from the Water Company or Fire Department records. A proof of design test shall
be performed at the final inspection.
2. The number of required hydrants shall be determined by the Fire Department. Plans shall
show the location of the proposed new hydrants and the existing on -street fire hydrants. The
fire hydrants throughout shall be Clow 960 with one 4-1/2" and two 2-1/2" outlets.
3. The water supply mains and hydrants shall be designed, installed, tested, flushed,. and
approved by the Water Company and Fire Department prior to any stockpiling or installing
any combustible materials. Water supply systems for phased construction shall provide
required fire flows at all phases.
4. Underground fire service mains and appurtenances shall confirm to NFPA 24 minimum
standard, as approved by the Fire Department, prior to installation. Sectional valves shallbe
installed to ensure that no more than one hydrant will be out of service should a break occur
anywhere along the underground main.
5. No combustible material shall be stored and no combustible construction shall be commenced
until the water system has been completed and approved, and a based access road installed
sufficient to support the City's fire trucks per Fire Department recommendation.
000012
ATTACHMENT "B"
Planning Commission Meeting - February 17, 1998
Page Seven of Seventeen
NOES: None
ABSENT: Sauter
MOTION PASSED: 6:0
. . . The Chairman called for a break at 8:00 p.m. - the meeting
reconvened at 8:15 p.m. . .
B. 3. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 97013/LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT
97005:
Consider the application of Albertson's Inc. and the
Halferty Development Company to allow for the
development of a 72,000 square foot retail shopping
center on an approximately 9.0 acre site. Included
with this hearing will be a request for a Lot Line
Adjustment and consideration of the impact statement
relative to the closure of the existing non -conforming
mobilehome park on the project site. Subject site is
located on El Camino Real southwest of the intersection
with Curbaril Avenue.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: (Steve DeCamp)
Staff Recommends that the Commission:
1. Find the Negative Declaration prepared for the project to be
adequate under the provisions of the California Environmental
Quality Act.
2. Adopt Resolution PC 1998-001 approving.Conditional Use Permit
97013 based on the Findings for Approval and the Conditions of
Approval incorporated within said resolution.
3. Approve Lot Line.Adjustment 97005 based on the Findings for
Approval shown in Attachment H and the Conditions of Approval
shown in Attachment I.
Steve DeCamp provided the staff report and said that staff
recommended amending Condition No. 3 under Planning Division and
Condition No. 6 under Streets and the addition of two new con-
ditions under Streets., as follows:
3. Revised landscape plans shall be reviewed. . . . . . .
. . . . .in conformance with the requirements of the
TreeOrdinance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
000013
Planning Commission Meeting - February 17, 1998
Page Eight of Seventeen
6. Curbaril Avenue shall be improved from centerline to
the entire property frontage in conformance . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .Curbaril
Avenue improvements shall extend to the northbound
Highway 101 off -ramp.
"10. The applicant shall reimburse the City for all costs
associated with re -timing the signal at E1 Camino Real
and Curbaril as well as coordinating this signal with
the existing signal at E1 Camino Real and Palomar."
"11. Within one (1) year of full occupancy of the Center,
the applicant shall retain a Traffic Engineer to
perform a warrant analysis at the main project entrance
on El Camino Real and at the intersection of El Camino
Real and Curbaril Avenue. The applicant shall enter
into an agreement with the City and shall construct an
additional traffic signal or make necessary improve-
ments as determined by the warrant analysis. The
City Council may extend or shorten the time for the
warrant analysis if it is determined to be in the best
interest of the City."
"12. The applicant agrees not to protest the formation of an
assessment district for providing traffic improve-
ments."
Steve informed the Commission that the City has employed the
services of RRM Consulting Group to help assist staff with their
review of engineering on this project. Steve introduced Frank
Honeycutt, Registered Civil Engineer, and Robert Marsh, Traffic
Engineer, and offered to answer any questions that the Commission
may have at this time.
Commissioner Arrambide - asked the difference in the amount of
parking spaces required for the Outlet Center and this project.
Steve did not know the exact figure but said the Outlet Center
was designed to be "over -parked Commissioner Arrambide felt
that the conditioning of traffic control for this project was
very modest and was concerned with the southbound exit at
Curbaril. Steve said that the traffic analysis is based.on some
assumptions, and one assumption is that the bridge at Curbaril
going over the Salinas River will be removed. The other con-
sideration is that it isn't anticipated that this project will
generate significant volumes of new traffic.
Commissioner Eddings - wondered when the new bridge was scheduled
for.construction. Steve said that construction was to begin
000014
Planning Commission Meeting - February 17, 1998
Page Nine of Seventeen
toward the end of this year with completion about two years down
the road.
Commissioner Fonzi inquired about the widening of Curbaril.
Steve explained that the widening will be one full lane across
the entire frontage of this property from the off ramp to the 711
with a pedestrian walk -way and will allow for right turns only.
Commissioner Eddin s - wondered if there had been any attempt to
negotiate a ramp between this shopping center and the Food -4 -Less
shopping center. Steve said there -was a significant grade change
between the two parking lots that would make a ramp very diffi-
cult.
Discussion continued regarding the possibility of an entrance
into the Food -4 -Less shopping center from this center.
Chairman Zimmerman - asked if left-hand turns would be allowed
entering and exiting this center from El Camino Real and if it is
imperative that there be an exit on to Curbaril. Steve said yes,
that the current proposal would allow for left turns from both
driveways, and the exit at Curbaril would relieve some of the
pressure for exiting on to El Camino Real.
Commissioner Fonzi - said that the exit for the drive-through
restaurant looked like'it would cause the same exiting problems
as the Burger King; she inquired if it could be redesigned to
alleviate that problem. Steve agreed that a redesign would be in
order for the drive-through facility.
Chairman Zimmerman - stated that the "Circulation Element" of the
General Plan says that "the worst signalized intersection in the
City is El Camino Real and Curbaril which is approaching
unacceptable conditions"; asking if we are meeting the needs of
the "Circulation Element" of the General Plan? Steve said he
believed that we are. By combining these parcels we will see
less driveways exiting on to E1 Camino Real than if we had
individual applications for each of the parcels that currently
fronts along El Camino: Real. He stated that the.traffic analysis
shows that the signal timing at Curbaril and E1 Camino Real is
already creating part of the problems and by simply changing the
timing at that intersection would improve the existing situation
and provide for some of the additional traffic generated by this
site.
Commissioner Fonzi - expressed concern over the retention basin
and asked about safety issues. Frank Honeycutt said there is a
condition requiring that the basin be designed per City Standards
which adequately address fencing, standing water, etc.
000015
Planning Commission Meeting - February 17, 1998
Page Ten of Seventeen
Commissioner Clark - asked about the exterior appearance of the
building and the appearance of the 20 foot high retaining wall.
Steve said there had been preliminary discussion on the treatment
of the retaining wall; however, to date there had been no
discussion with the architect regarding the rear or side walls,of
the building- ,Hesaid he was relying on past Commission actions
and the City adopted "Appearance Review Guidelines" for guidance
on the type of architectural detail we'd be looking for.
Commissioner_ Eddings - inquired if the retardation basin was
designed for a 100 -year storm or greater. Frank Honeycutt
responded that it was designed for a "50 -year storm event in and
a 2 -year storm out".
TESTIMONY:
Jim Halferty, developer of the Albertson's Center - introduced
the "development team" and said they would be able to answer any
questions the Commission may have so they can make an informed
decision.
Scott Thayer, Real Estate Manager for Albertsons - discussed
Albertsons' new village market concept which provides lots of
services. He explained that they.are a convenience oriented user
and tailor their stores to meet the profile of customer needs.
Tom Courtney, Albertsons' Architect - said the architectural
character was based on what would be appropriate for this
particular area. He provided a video which showed the village
market concept they propose for the City of Atascadero.
Dan Lloyd, EDA - addressed some of the previously asked questions
from the Planning Commission regarding access to Food -4 -Less, the
retention basin, Curbaril access, traffic signal timing and
traffic circulation. He asked for clarification of some of the
conditions:
Exhibit B, Page 3, Condition No. 3 —wanted to confirm that it
applies -to the project frontage and not the other side of the.
street which would not be under their control. They would like
to see that condition amended to read - .and improve the
project frontage.of the following street(s). . . . . . . . . .
Exhibit B, Page 4, Condition No. 10 - would like some language
inserted that would.allow some items to be bonded for.
000016
Planning Commission Meeting - February 17, 1998
Page Eleven of Seventeen
Exhibit B, Page 6, Condition No. 5 - would like to remove the
first six words of this paragraph and insert: No combustible
construction shall be commenced . . . . . . . . until the water
system. .. .. . . . . .
Mr. Lloyd said the creation of an assessment district for the
Curbaril over -crossing over Highway 101 wasn't the right vehicle
to use for that situation. The way to address this is through
"AB 1600 Fees" where you identify an improvement that needs to be
done; you hold public hearings and establish cost estimates for
those improvements and then you establish a mechanism or program
for collecting fees to pay for such improvements.
Dick Pool, Associated Transportation Engineers - explained how
the signal timing works and how re -timing the existing signals at
Curbaril and at the Food -4 -Less center would improve the traffic
flow.
. . . The Chairman called for a break at 9:50.- the meeting was
reconvened at 9:58 . . .
Raymond Jansen, 6655 Country Club Drive.- read a prepared
statement pertaining to the displacement of the approximately
thirty (30) people in the mobilehome park. He said the
possibility existed that some of these people could become
homeless. He suggested that the developer contribute funds
towards their relocation.
Robert Hewett - 3850 Ardilla Road - is opposed to the project; he
doesn't think we need another supermarket.
Rush Kolmaine - P.O. Box 1990 - hopes that the Commission will
address Ray Jansen's concerns for the people that are being
displaced. He asked if the retention basis would have a drain
and suggested adding a condition that would require the applicant
to establish a linkage from the project property to the Food -4 -
Less center. He asked the Commission to look at the possibility
of requiring a traffic signal at the Curbaril southbound off -
ramp.
Greg Jones, 8126 El Camino Real - stated that it will be very
difficult for the tenants in the mobilehome park to relocate
because of the expense. He pointed out a conflict between the
cars from the 711 that are turning left on to Curbaril and the
cars exiting this shopping center that can only turn right on to
Curbaril.. He opposes the project because of too much traffic.
00001'7
Planning Commission Meeting - February 17, 1998
Page Twelve of Seventeen
Ron Harris, 8130 E1 Camino Real, #13 - Asked where the water goes
from the retention basin; how the basin would be fenced to
protect children..
John Heatherington, 7825 Via - asked the Commission to deny this
project; traffic is bad enough already and will only get worse.
Martin 'Hernandez, 9189 Birch Street - owns -a trailer in the park
and asked the Commission to remember the people that live there
and consider giving them some help.
Sandra Newshaffer, 8953 Junipero - informed the Commission that
it was almost impossible at the present time to turn left on to
E1 Camino Real from Junipero. She say it will only get worse if
this project is allowed to proceed. She said Beth Quaintance had
submitted a petition signed by the homeowners on Junipero which
opposed this project. (attached hereto as Exhibit "B")
Tom McNamara, owns the project property - He thinks that the
displacement of people is a community problem and not a problem
that should fall on just one or two people. He said the mobil-.
home park is "old and tired" and even if this project was turned
down the rents couldn't stay the same; repairs.and improvements
need to be done, the cost for services has risen; he would have
to raise the rents.
Bill Bright, 11875 Santa Lucia - expressed concern with the big
rigs that will service Albertsons; will they be able to make a
safe left turn on to El Camino to exit the site.
Kim Tweedy, 7912 Castano - has worked at the Atascadero Vons for
over thirteen years. She is opposed to the project; she doesn't
think the City needs another supermarket.
Milt Souza, representative from Food -4 -Less - expressed his
concern with the potential traffic problems and the adverse
effect this project could cause on the accessibility of emergency
vehicles to the area. He doesn't think that re -timing of the
traffic signals is going to help an already congested area.
ACTION: Move that the Planning Commission meeting be continued
beyond 11:00 p.m.
Motion: Hageman
Second: Fonzi
MOTION PASSED: Unanimously
000018
Planning Commission Meeting - February 17, 1998
Page Thirteen of Seventeen
Jim Halferty - project developer - stated that in listening to
the public comments, they basically break down in to three
categories: Traffic, concern for the mobilehome park tenants,
and competition. Mr. Halferty said they are receptive to some
kind of condition from the Planning Commission that would require
a "reasonable" payment of cash to the tenants to assist them in
their relocation expenses. He said competition benefits the
whole community because it will make the competition work harder
to keep up with the new store concept. This means the
competition will have to remodel, lower their prices, offer more
products and better service.
Dan Lloyd, EDA - responded to some of the questions raised by the
Commission and the public. He informed the Commission that in
their meetings with Caltrans, they "emphatically said no signals
at any of the on or .off -ramps at Curbaril". With respect to the
retention basin, Mr. Lloyd said there are presently two (2)
outlets.that drain the water from this property. This is a
retardation basin which slows down the water and lets the water
out; it's not a retention basin which holds the water until it
percolates or evaporates; it slows down the peak so you have the
constant out -flow regardless of the in -flow.
With respect to delivery trucks, Mr. Lloyd explained that they
will gain access to the site via the Curbaril entrance; they will
unload at the back of the facility then exit, right turn only, on
to E1 Camino Real and go down to Santa Rosa.
Referring to the concerns of the residents on Junipero, Dan said
that re -timing the schedules will cause breaks in the traffic for
both the traffic exiting the Albertsons' center and the traffic
exiting from Junipero. The signal re -timing has been identified
as a mitigation measure to really improve the traffic flow in
that area.
Commissioner Clark - asked how much run-off the retardation can
hold at any one time? Mr. Lloyd answered that the basin has been
designed to take.care of a "50 -year in; 2 -year out"; however,
they have such a.large area, they're going to make the basin as
large as possible. Commissioner Clark wondered about visual
impacts of the retaining wall and asked if there was a way to
mitigate the height of the wall. Mr. Lloyd thought if they took
out some parking spaces and moved the wall back 20 feet, they
could reduce the height of the wall by ten feet which would make
the wall less offensive. He explained that the entire wall face
will have planting pockets and landscaping at ground level which
will also help improve the appearance. Commissioner Clark asked
000019
Planning Commission Meeting - February 17, 1998
Page Fourteen of Seventeen
Mr. Lloyd why they want to omit the condition which requires
bonding for a traffic study after one year. Mr. Lloyd, referred
that question to Dick Pool.
Dick Pool - explained the traffic signal warrant procedures;
saying that if the traffic volume does not meet the warrant
requirements, the worse thing you can do is put in a traffic
signal. He said that at this particular location, the signals at
Curbaril and Palomar are about right for system progression.
Commissioner Hageman - asked Mr. Halferty if he could agree with
adding the following condition:
"The mobilehome park owner shall provide relocation assistance to
the residents of the mobilehome park in conformance with the
provisions of Government Code Section 65863.7(e) in the amount of
one thousand dollars. ($1,000.00) per mobilehome. In the event a
resident of the mobilehome park elects to relocate his/her
mobilehome, the amount of the assistance shall be increased to
three thousand five hundred dollars ($3,500.00)."
Mr. Halferty agreed with the above condition.
Commissioner Eddings asked how many jobs this project would
provide? Mr. Halferty thought the number of new jobs would be
around 150.
Commissioner Arrambide - suggested that Condition No. 5 under
Fire, be changed to read as follows:
"5. No combustible material shall be stored and no combustible
construction shall be commenced until the water system has been
completed and approved, and a based access road installed
sufficient to support the City's fire trucks per Fire Department
recommendation."
Mr. Lloyd agreed with the revised language.
. . . . . . end of. public testimony. . . . . .
Commissioner Hageman - asked Steve about revising Condition No.
10 under Engineering. Steve suggested the following wording:
"10. No buildings shall be occupied until all improvements are
substantially completed and accepted by the City for maintenance,
or as approved by the City Engineer".
Commissioner Hageman had some additions she would like to see in
the Conditions of Approval.
000020
Planning Commission Meeting - February 17, 1998
Page Fifteen of Seventeen
Condition No. 3 under Planning - add the following sentence:
"A Certified Arborist shall be retained throughout the construc-
ion phase of the project to routinely monitor the condition of
the two (2) oak trees."
Condition No. 5 under Planning - changed to read:
"5. All outdoor storage, loading areas, and utility facilities
shall be adequately screened from . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . .. . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . . . lb. . . . . .
V.
Condition No. 7 -
under Planning changed to read:
"7. Architectural elevations of all buildings shall be . . . . .
Side and rear building
elevations shall reflect the architectural theme of the building
facades and flat, void surfaces shall be alleviated with either
architectural or landscaping details. Building materials shall
be reviewed for . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Commissioner Hageman feels that most, if not all, of the traffic
problems are caused from the site configuration and not from this
specific development. She feels there could never be viable com-
mercial development on this site if we insist on alleviating
traffic.
Commissioner Arrambide - asked Steve to explain the warrant
analysis that the applicant is required to perform within one (1)
year of full occupancy. Discussion followed.
Commissioner Clark - requested that there be a condition added to
address the issue of exiting from the fast food pad E. Steve
said he would include a condition that would redesign that pad
that would maximize the distance between the exit from the fast
food restaurant to the intersection of Curbaril; obviously we
need more stacking distance than is shown on the site plan. Com-
missioner Clark wanted a condition which would maximize the
height of the retaining wall to 20'. —which now stands at 27' -
and make the wall a crib wall versus a vertical face. Mr. Lloyd
agreed to a condition that would limit the wall height to a
maximum of 20', as follows:
"8. The appearance or architectural treatment of the retaining
wall along the western boundary of the project . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . The retaining wall shall not exceed twenty feet
(20") in height."
000021
Planning Commission Meeting - February 17, 1998
Page Sixteen of Seventeen
.the chairman called for a break at 11:30 p.m. - meeting
reconvened at 11:40 p.m. . . . . .
Discussion continued regarding architecture, traffic congestion,
traffic analysis, possibility of a fueling station, etc.
ACTION: Find the Negative Declaration prepared for the project
to be adequate under the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act.
Motion: Arrambide
Second: Clark
AYES: Arrambide, Clark, Eddings, Hageman, Fonzi,
Zimmerman
NOES: None
ABSENT: Sauter
MOTION PASSED: 6:0
ACTION: Adopt Resolution PC 1998-001 approving Conditional Use
Permit 97013 based on.the`Findings for Approval and the
Conditions of Approval incorporated within said
resolution, as amended.
Motion: Arrambide
Second: Eddings
AYES:. Arrambide, Eddings, Hageman, Clark, Fonzi,
Zimmerman
NOES: None
ABSENT: Sauter
MOTION PASSED: 6:0
ACTION: Approve Lot Line Adjustment 97005 based on the Findings
for Approval shown in Attachment H and the Conditions
of Approval shown in Attachment I.
Motion: Arrambide'
Second: Eddings
AYES: Arrambide, Eddings, Hageman, Clark, Fonzi,
Zimmerman
000022
Planning Commission Meeting - February 17, 1998
Page Seventeen of Seventeen
MOTION PASSED: 6:0
Mr. Halferty thanked the Commission for working so late on their
behalf and said they would do a good job for us.
C. INDIVIDUAL COMMENT
Planning Commission:
Commissioner Clark - welcomed the new Commissioners.
City Planner:
Steve informed the Commission that at their March 3rd meeting.the
new Community Development Director, Paul Saldana, will be here.
He announced that on March 31, 1998 there will be a joint meeting
with the City Council and the Planning Commission.
Economic Round Table - Commissioner Hageman said that the
February meeting has not been scheduled as of yet.
MEETING ADJOURNED: 12:32 A.M.
Minutes Prepared By:
Patricia Hicks
Administrative Secretary
000023
EXHIBIT "B"
CV of:�tascadero
Attn: Piaalning Cominissioners
1,5500 Pahna -,'ivenue
"Aascadero. 934' L
.Dear Commissioners:
We the undersigned would like this letter read into the minutes on the Planning Commission. held on
February 17, 1998..
INP, rhe residents of Junipero Avenue located one biosis south of Curbaril) are concerned and do
not approve the building of the Albertson's Shopping Center. Currently, we have difficulty exiting
our street while attempting to make {eft hand turns. This occ-ars during peals traffic times as well as
weekends. An additional shopping .center would make it impossible for us to make left hand turns.
We have two shopping complexes within approximately 1/2 mile .and feel a third is not necessary.
Many residents are forced to make right hand turns and use the freeway to get to the south end of
town. By :approving a new shopping center in our location, the situation =rviI1 be much worse. The
proximity of our street to the Curbaril and Palomar traffic signals will not warrant another traffic
signal for Junipero :venue. We ask that you not approve this shopping center at this location.
Please consider a site at either the north or south ends of Atascadero.
Q1
Address Address
r_ -,I
o 7 5 Tr_, ././ i PP ^.-1 .4 r /c
n
U4—
000024
C
fAtascade-(*
Attn: Planning Conirnissioners
= 500 T"ahna Wenue
`•.tascadero. "I `) 422
Dear (7)mmissioners:
We the undersigned would like this letter read into the rninutes on the Nanning I-ommission held on
Febtuary 17, 1998.
'A e, -he residents of junipero Avenue located one block south of Curbaril) are concerned and do
not approve the building of the Mbertson's Shopping Center. Currently, we have difficulty exiting
our street while .attempting to make lent hand turns. 'This occurs during peak traffic times as well as
weekends.r-kn additional shopping center would make it impossible for us to make left hand turns.
We have two shopping complexes within approximately 112 mile and feel a third is not necessary.
Many residents are forced to make light hand turns and use the freeway to `et to the south end of
town. By approving a new .shopping center in our location, the situation will be much worse. 'The
proximity of our street to the Curbaril and Palomar traffic signals will not warrant another traffic
signal, for Junipero Avenue. We ask that you not approve this shopping center at this location.
Please consider a site at either the north or south ends of Atascadero.
Name/Signature
.Address
cg%so �
�5 � C7 U /I "Del LV Ave-,
000025
Attn: Planning CotjiIniSSi()fiet's
6.500 Pairna :]venue
?dear C mulissioners:
We :he undersignedwould Tike this letter read into the minutes on the Planning Commissionheld on
February 17. 1993.
We. they residents =f junipero :Avenuelocated one. ]dock south of +.:urharil) are concerned and do
not approve the building of the Albertson's Shopping Center. Currently, we have difficulty exiting
our street while atteaiipting to snake lett hand turns. This occurs during peak traffic times as well as
weekends. An additional shopping center would make it impossible for us to make !eft ]land turns.
We have two shopping complexes within approximately 1/2 mile and feel a third is not necessary.
Many residents are forced to make right hand turns and use the freeway to get to the south end of
town. 3y approving a new shopping :enter in our location, the siti.2ation will be much worse. Tile
Proximity of our street to the Curbaril and Palomar traffic signals will not warrant another traffic
signal for:lunipero Avenue. We ask that you Trot approve this shopping center at this location.
Please consider a site at either the north or south ends of Atascadero.
Name/Signature Address
El 7 4) —Jc- W 11 Pati q c,X%
70 MUNI piP-v 14 VC
FRT JI per
000026
t`d' r - ta:scadem
At n: Nanning CUi11i11.1SSi�?.ile.
s?r'l it P;ii a :'venue
Uas
Dear Commissioners:
We the undersigned would like this letter read into the minutes on the Planning Commission Held = n
Fe brualy 1?. 1998.
We, size residerits of .;unipero Avenue s aocated-one block south of Carbaril are concerned and do
aot approve the building of the Albertson's Shopping Center. Currently, we have difficulty exiting
our street while attempting to snake left hand turns. ?'his oeoars during pea:K traffic times as well as
weekends.. An additional shopping center would make it impossible for us to make left hand turns.
We have two shopping complexes within approximately 1/2 mile and feel a third is not aecessarv.
Manresidents are forced to make right hand turns and use tin. freeway to get to the south. end c)f
!own. 3y approving a new shopping center in our location, the situation tiff be much worse. file
proximity of our street to the Curbarii and Palomar traffic sigpals will not warrant another traffic
signal for Junipero Avenue. We ask that you not approve this shopping center at this location.
Please consider a site at either the north or south ends of Atascadero.
:dame/Signage address
J l ,
TIA-
Sis-3 Jun
000027
ATTACHMENT "C"
RESOLUTION PC 1999-005
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF ATASCADERO AMENDING CONDITION 4 OF
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 97013 FOR THE CURBARUL CENTER
LOCATED AT 8080 EL CAMINO REAL
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission approved. Conditional Use Permit 97013 to allow
for the development of a 75,822 square foot retail shopping center on 8.9 acres at 8080 El
Camino Real; and
WHEREAS, among the conditions of approval for said Conditional Use Permit was a
condition relating to exterior lighting in the parking areas (Condition 4); and
WHERAS, the applicant has requested clarification of the intent of Condition number 4
and conduct an analysis to justify proposed lighting design; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Atascadero conducted a public
hearing on February 2, 1999 on the requested clarification of Condition 4 of the subject CUP;
NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Atascadero does hereby
find that the proposed design of the parking lot lighting at the above referenced location
conforms to the intent of Condition 4 of Conditional Use Permit 97013.
On motion by Commissioner and seconded by Commissioner ,
the foregoing resolution is hereby adopted in its entirety by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Adopted this 2nd day of February 1999.
City of Atascadero Planning Commission
CHAIRMAN
ATTEST:
Paul M. Saldana
Community Development Director
000028