The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAgenda Packet 06/09/1992 PLIC REVIEW CCPV # IPLEASE DO NDT REMOVE EM CMWER A G E N D A ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING CITY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING 6500 PALMA AVENUE, 4TH FLOOR ROTUNDA ROM I JUNE 9, 1992 7:00 P.M. I This agenda is prepared and posted pursuant to the requirements of Governor nt Code Section 54954.2. By listing a topic on this agenda, the City Council has expressed its intent to discuss and act on each item. In addition to any action identified in the brief general description of each item, the action that may be taken shall include: A referroal to staff with specific requests for information; continuance; specific direction to staff( concerning the policy or mission of the item; discontinuance of consideration; authorization to enter into negotiations and execute agreements pertaining to the item; adoption or� approval; and, disapproval. Copies of the staff reports or other documentation relating to each item of business referred to on the agenda are on file in the office of the City Clerk (Room 208) and inj the Information Office (Room 103), available for public inspection during City Hall business ours. The City Clerk will answer any questions regarding the agenda. E In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in a City meeting or other services offered by this City, please Oontact the City Manager's Office ((805) 461-5010) or the City Clerk's Office ((805) 461-5074). Notification at least 48 hours prior to the meeting or time when services are needed willIassist the City staff in assuring that reasonable arrangements can be made to provide acce4sibility to the meeting or service. 'f RULES OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: * Members of the audience may speak on any item on the agenda. * A person may speak for five (5) minutes. * No one may speak for a second time until everyone wishing to speak has had an opportunity to do so. * No one may speak more than twice on any item. ; * Council Members may question any speaker; the speaker may respond but, after the allotted time has expi ed, may not initiate further discussion. * The floor will then be closed to public participation` and open for Council discussion. f k Call to Order Pledge of Allegiance Roll Call j City Council Comments Proclamations: • "Special Olympics/Law Enforcement Torch Run Day", 6/15/92 COMMUNITY FORUM: The City Council values and encourages exchange of ideas and comments from you, the citizen. The Community Forum period is pro- vided to receive comments from the public on matters other than scheduled agenda items. To increase the effectiveness of Community Forum, the following rules will be enforced: A maximum of 30 minutes will be allowed for Community Forum, unless Council authorizes an extension. * All remarks shall be addressed to Council, as a whole, and not to any individual member thereof. * No person shall be permitted to make slanderous, profane or personal remarks against any Council Member, commissions and staff. A. COMMITTEE REPORTS (The following represent ad hoc or standing committees. Informative status reports will be given, as felt necessary. ) : 1. S.L.O. Area Coordinating Council/North Coastal Transit 2. Solid/Hazardous Waste Management Committee 3. Recycling Committee 4. Economic Opportunity Commission 5. City/School Committee 6. Traffic Committee 7. County Water Advisory Board 8. Economic Round Table 9. Colony Roads Committee - Wells Fargo Financial Participa- tion (City Attorney) 10. Procurement Committee 11. Homeless Coalition B. CONSENT CALENDAR: All matters listed under Item B, Consent Calendar, are consid- ered to be routine, and will be enacted by one motion in the form listed below. There will be no separate discussion on these items. A member of the Council or public may, by request, have any item removed from the Consent Calendar, which shall then be reviewed and acted upon separately after the adoption of the Consent Calendar: 1. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - MAY 12, 1992 2. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 21-89, 8555 EL CORTE AVE. - Consideration of time extension (Bunnell/Schott & Associates) 2 I k r f 3. DIRECT CITY CLERK TO RECRUIT FOR MEMBERS OF TH PLANNING CON- MISSION AND THE PARRS &RECREATION COMMISSION ; E C. HEARINGS: 1. ORDINANCE NO. 250 - CONSIDERATION OF ZONING ORD NANCE REVISION TO ALLOW POLE-MOUNTED FREEWAY SIGNS FOR NEW AUT MOBILE DEALERS (Zone Change 03-92 - City of Atascadero) (Recommendation to waive reading in full and a prove on first reading, by title only) 2. AUTO MALL/RV PARR GENERAL PLAN/ZONING AMENDME , 905 EL CAMINO REAL A. Certification of Final EIR prepared in conjunction with GPA 2A-91/Zone Change 02-91 for 103-acre parcel B. Resolution No. 56-92 - Amending General Plan (GPA 2A-91) C. Ordinance No. 249 - Revising Zoning Ordinance to allow a proposed automobile sales mall and a recreational vehicle park (ZC 02-91) (Recommendation to waive reading in full and approve on first reading, by title only) 3. ORDINANCE NO. 246 - AMENDING TITLE 7 OF THE ITY MUNICIPAL CODE (SANITATION ORDINANCE) (Cont'd from 5/1 and 5/26/92) REQUEST ADOPTION BY RESOLUTION: A. Resolution No. 57-92 - Declaring the intention to exer- cise all powers afforded by State of California Health & Safety Code Section 5463 D. REGULAR BUSINESS: 1. ORDINANCE NO. 251 - REGULATING CIGARETTE VEND NG MACHINES E. INDIVIDUAL DETERMINATION AND OR ACTION: 1. City Council 2. City Attorney 3. City Clerk 4. City Treasurer h 5. City Manager * NOTICE: THE COUNCIL WILL ADJOURN TO A CLOSED SESSI N FOR PURPOSES OF DISCUSSION REGARDING PERSONNEL MATTE S PURSUANT TO GOVT. CODE SEC. 54957.6. c 3 E r P R O C L A M A T I O N "SPECIAL OLYMPICS/LAW ENFORCEMENT TORCH RUN DAY" June 15, 1992 WHEREAS, Law enforcement agencies contribute to the well-being of our community and our residents; and WHEREAS, Participation in Special Olympics contributes to the physical, social and psychological well-being of the developmental- ly disabled participants; and WHEREAS, Special Olympics provides developmentally disabled participants with the opportunity for successful experiences in sports which develops confidence and builds a positive self-image; and WHEREAS, Representatives from various law enforcement agencies in the County will be participating in the torch run through S.L.O. County; and WHEREAS, A ceremony honoring the Special Olympics torch run will be held in front of the Atascadero Police Department at noon • on June 15th; THEREFORE, The Council of the City of Atascadero does hereby declare June 15 1992 to be "Special Olympics/Law Enforcement Torch Run Day" in the City of Atascadero and urges all citizens to give their sup- port to this unique and highly beneficial program which gives the developmentally disabled theirbestopportunity to experience athletic competition and share in a mainstream community event. ALDEN F. SHIERS, Mayor City of Atascadero, CA Dated: June 9, 1992 M Agenda Item: B-1 Meeting Date: 6/9/92 ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL MAY 12, 1992 MINUTES The Mayor called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. and led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL: Present: Councilmembers Nimmo, Lilley, Borgeson, Dexter and Mayor Shiers Absent: None Also Present: Muriel "Micki" Korba, City Treasurer and Lee Raboin, City Clerk Staff Present: Ray Windsor, City Manager; Art Montandon, City Attorney; Mark Joseph, Administrative Services Director; Greg Luke, Public Works Director; Andy Takata, Director of Community Services; Mike McCain, Acting Fire Chief; Steve DeCamp, City Planner; Doug Davidson, Senior Planner and Lt. Bill Watton, Police Department COUNCIL COMMENTS: Mayor Shiers announced that the North County Womens' Resource Center had been awarded a Community Development Block grant funds in the amount of $30,000. He also noted that the Police Department had recently been the recipient of the San Luis Obispo County District Attorney' s Office Law Enforcement Award for 1992 based upon assistance to the North County Womens' Shelter and congratu- lated Lt. Watton on behalf of the Department. Councilman. Lilley mentioned that the Council had received a letter from Mr. Warren Miller expressing recognition of the difficult tasks faced by members of the City Council. Councilwoman Borgeson requested a written response from the City Attorney about why certain budget materials had been distributed to Council under confidential cover. Mr. Montandon responded that his response would be available without delay. CCO5/12/92 Page 1 PROCLAMATIONS: Mayor Shiers read the following proclamations: "National Flag Day" , June 14, 1992, "Deaf Awareness Month", May 1992 and "National Public Works Week" , May 17-23, 1992. COMMUNITY FORUM: David Evans, Regional Director for Local Government and Community Relations for Western Mobilehome Association, introduced himself and reported that he works with local government on issues of concern to mobilehome park residents. A. COMMITTEE REPORTS (The following represent ad hoc or standing committees. Informative status reports were given, as follows) : 1. S.L.O. Area Coordinating Council/North Coastal Transit - Councilwoman Borgeson reported that the next meeting would be on Wednesday, May 20, 1992 beginning at 9:00 a.m. in the Board of Supervisors Chambers in San Luis Obispo. Discussion, she added, will include a number of transportation items. 2. Solid/Hazardous Waste Management Committee - Greg Luke reported that he was preparing a detailed memo to Council regarding formation of a Joint Powers Agreement with authority placed under SLOACC. 3. Recycling Committee Mayor Shiers reported the next meeting would be Thursday, May 14, 1992. 4. City/School Committee - Councilman Dexter reported that the committee would meet on May 21, 1992. 5. County Water Advisory Board - Councilwoman Borgeson announced that she had attended the meeting of May 6, 1992 and heard County Engineer, Clint Milne, presentation on action by the County to reserve non-allocated portions of the State Water project for future uses. 6. Homeless Coalition - Councilman Dexter reported that the coalition would meet on Friday, May 15, 1992 in Room 102 of City Hall. B. CONSENT CALENDAR: Mayor Shiers read the Consent Calendar, as follows: 1. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - APRIL 14, 1992 (Cont'd from 4/28/92) CC05/12/92 Page 2 40 010GOC- 2. AWARD OF ROAD IMPROVEMENTS CONTRACT, EL CAMINO REAL (State Hospital frontage) MOTION: By Councilman Nimmo, seconded by Councilman Dexter to approve the Consent Calendar; motion carried by roll call vote. C. HEARINGS• 1. NOISE ELEMENT A. Resolution No. 41-92 - Approving the adoption of an updated Noise Element to be incorporated as New Chapter IV of the General Plan (GPA 1C-91; City of Atascadero) B. Ordinance No. 245 - Deleting Section 9-4.163 of the Zon- ing Ordinance text and adding a new Noise Ordinance as Chapter 14 to Title 9 of the Atascadero Municipal Code (ZC 01-91; City of Atascadero) (Recommendation to waive reading in full and approve on first reading, by title only) Steve DeCamp, City Planner, briefly provided the staff report and recommendation. He noted that Doug Davidson, Senior Planner, had been responsible for coordinating the effort and was present to respond to questions. • Councilwoman Borgeson asserted that this item was of technical nature and suggested that a work/study session would have been helpful. Councilman Lilley proposed that a practical summary be written of the Noise Element so the general public could fully understand it. Public Comments: Russ Kolemaine, 4580 Potrero Road, spoke in opposition to the ordinance and proclaimed that staff had failed to provide enough information about how the ordinance would affect the general public. He urged Council to direct staff to go back to the drawing board. Whitey Thorpe, 8025 Santa Ynez, also opposed the ordinance and declared it to be un-enforceable. He argued that it would be costly to send out law enforcement personnel on these matters and vocalized agreement with the previous speaker that the matter should be postponed until the public has had an opportunity to learn more about the document. Sandy Clarke, 9204 Mountain View, informed the Council that she represented about forty residents around Atascadero Lake who were CC05/12/92 Page 3 in support of the ordinance. She described both the Noise Element and the Noise Ordinance as well-written and noted that she was glad to finally see conformance with state mandates. In addition, she pointed out, for other members of the public, exemptions allowed in Section 9-14.03 of the proposed ordinance. ---End of Public Testimony---- Staff responded to questions from Councilwoman Borgeson. Doug Davidson reported that Section 9-14.09 allows three or more neighbors to petition for noise nuisance abatement and provided background for this provision. Steve DeCamp reported that law enforcement would become involved only after a hearing has been held before the City Council. The Mayor and Councilmembers Lilley and Dexter offered favorable comments. MOTION: By Councilman Dexter, seconded by Councilwoman Borgeson to approve Resolution No. 41-92 adopting a new Noise Element to the General Plan; motion unanimously carried by roll call vote. MOTION: By Councilman Lilley, seconded by Mayor Shiers to approve Zone Change 01-91 and waive the reading of Ordinance No. 245 in full; motion unanimously carried. MOTION: By Councilwoman Borgeson, seconded by Councilman Dexter to approve Ordinance No. 245 on first reading; motion passed 5:0 by roll call vote. 2. ORDINANCE NO. 246 - AMENDING TITLE 7 OF THE CITY MUNICIPAL CODE (SANITATION ORDINANCE) (Recommendation to waive reading in full and approve on first reading, by title only) Greg Luke, Public Works Director, presented the staff report and recommendation. He pointed out that the primary purpose of the ordinance was to establish an equitable and enforceable triggering mechanism for requiring hook-up to the public sewer system. Responding to brief questions from Council, Mr. Luke reported that hook-up is mandatory only for those within the Urban Services Line (USL) . He also clarified that if a septic system fails, a property owner cannot get a permit for another septic tank. Public Comments: Whitey Thorpe spoke in support of the ordinance claiming that it made sense and urged adoption. CC05/12/92 Page 4 jaGOC3 • Carl Rounds, 9550 Marchant Way, shared concern for possible pollution to the Atascadero Lake from lots in "Cease & Desist" areas that have not yet hooked up to the sewer and inquired about the status of compliance with Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) mandates. In addition, Mr. Rounds urged the Council to extend the USL to include lots on Santa Rosa also part of the "Cease & Desist" area. ----End of Public Testimony---- Councilman Nimmo asked if extending the USL to include lots on Santa Rosa could be added to the first cycle of General Plan amendments. The mayor indicated that the matter could be brought back at a later date. Greg Luke emphasized that the order of the RWQCB requires that sewer be made available to all lots in Cease & Desist areas. He reported that the proposed ordinance provides that sewers be constructed, costs to the properties in the assessment district affected will be placed on the tax rolls and hook-up will be required when septic systems fail. Councilwoman Borgeson indicated opposition to the procedure proclaiming that some will never hook-up and yet they will be paying for the sewer. Councilman Lilley mentioned that he believed it would simplify the matter to mandate hook-up and assess properties not only for the sewer line but for the cost of the hook-up as well. He further suggested that the property owner could be given a choice of paying up front or having the cost placed on the tax rolls. By consensus, Council directed staff to prepare an alternative ordinance outlining this kind of approach and bring the matter back at the next meeting. 3. P.E.R.S. TWO YEARS ADDITIONAL SERVICE CREDIT A. ORDINANCE NO. 247 - Authorizing an amendment to the contract between the City of Atascadero and the Board of Administration of the California Public Employees' Retirement System (Recommendation to waive reading in full and approve on first reading, by title only) B. RESOLUTION NO. 42-92 - Giving Notice of Intention to approve an amendment to contract between the Board of Administration of the Public Employees ' Retirement System and the City of Atascadero Mark Joseph introduced the matter. Councilman Lilley indicated CCO5/12/92 • Page 5 ,.,,a60C that he wanted to know what, in dollars and cents, the costs savings would be to the City. In addition, members of Council had . questions regarding specifically how long a position would have to remain "permanently" unfilled. The City Attorney suggested that the matter be put over until Thursday, May 14th, following the Closed Session to give staff ample time to clarify the issues. MOTION: By Councilman Lilley, seconded by Councilwoman Borgeson to continue the matter until Thursday, May 14th; motion unanimously carried. D. REGULAR BUSINESS: 1. INITIATION OF PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS - CYCLE 92-1 Steve Decamp provided a the staff report outlining three proposed amendments to the General Plan. Public Comment: Tammy Bull, 4500 Del Rio Road, asked Council to consider changing back the designation of this property from Public to Suburban Residential. She mentioned that the zoning had been changed as part of the General Plan Update and that this action was making it difficult to sell her home. Mr. DeCamp provided an explanation for the land use change noting that at the time the General Plan Update was underway, the School District had expressed an interest in purchasing the property and had only recently been informed by Paul Monn, Atascadero Unified School District, that they would not pursue acquisition. Staff, Mr. DeCamp continued, did not object to reverting it back to its' original designation. Councilwoman Borgeson stated that this would be highly appropriate. Councilman Lilley agreed and indicated that he was dissatisfied with the creation of a single-family island around publicly-owned property. Peter Bonnisar, 5212 Magdelena, asked why there was a street running through school property. Mr. DeCamp explained that the street separated two different schools: San Benito Elementary School and Oak Bills Continuation High School. ----End of Public Testimony---- Discussion ensued regarding GPA 93-3 (6010 Del Rio) . Councilman Nimmo objected to extending the USL for two lots. He stated that it made little sense, from a planning perspective, to create a node of commercial development for two lots and recommended that the application either be denied or the area of study expanded. Councilman Lilley agreed. Councilwoman Borgeson asserted that she CCO5/12/92 Page 6 could not support the amendment. Councilman Nimmo asked the City Planner if study of an expanded area for possible inclusion within the USL and commercial development would be consistent with the General Plan. Mr. DeCamp reported that the General Plan calls for a "node" of commercial zoning at the Del Rio Road intersection but clarified that the General Plan does not specify the size of the term "node" . Councilman Nimmo spoke in support of extending the study area and asserted that it is time to do long-range planning rather than "piece-meal, one lot at a time" development. Councilwoman Borgeson pointed out that if sewer becomes available, parcel sizes can be reduced to one-half acre. Steve DeCamp confirmed that zoning density is tied to sewer availability and suggested that because the item did not have a time requirement on it, it might be helpful to Council for staff to come back at the next meeting with revised maps showing the proposed additional area for inclusion in the study. By consensus, Council approved the initiation of GPA 92-1 and GPA 92-2. GPA 92-3 was continued and staff directed to bring back expanded area for study. A fourth amendment was added; GPA 92-4, a request by Tammy Bull to change 4500 Del Rio Road from Public (P) to Suburban Residential (RS) . 2. HIGHWAY 41 REALIGNMENT EIR - STAFF COMMENTS ON FINDINGS • The City Manager introduced the matter pointing out that Council was being asked to approve staff responses to the Draft Environ- mental Impact Report on the proposed Highway 41 realignment and emphasized that all comments were due no later than May 22, 1992. Councilman Nimmo voiced objection to #3, Long Range Design of Highway 101141 Intersection because it is a separate project from the realignment. Councilwoman Borgeson mentioned that she was a delegate to the San Luis Obispo Area Coordinating Council (SLOACC) and reported that the intersection had not been funded by Caltrans or been prioritized by the SLOACC. Councilman Dexter mentioned that he had circulated to Council a draft letter to Caltrans indicating his support for Alternate "B". Councilwoman Borgeson and Mayor Shiers revealed that they could not support Alternative A or A-Modified. Councilman Nimmo asserted that the agenda did not call for comments on the proposed project and emphasized that the matter before the Council was simply the responses to the EIR. The City Attorney remarked that Councilman Nimmo' s observation was correct and reminded the Council and public that the draft responses to the EIR were the only matters on the agenda. CC05/12/92 Page 7 Public Comments: The following citizens spoke regarding the proposed realignment project: Howard Gaylord, Whitey Thorpe, Doug Lewis, Russ Kolemaine and Peter Bonnisar. (Note: These comments are not included in the Minutes because they did not pertain to the agenda item as noticed to the public) . Mayor Shiers and Councilwoman Borgeson mentioned a letter from Caltrans asking for formal action from the Council regarding a preferred alternative. Mr. Windsor read a portion of the letter (dated May 1, 1992 from Marty Nicholson, Chief of Project Studies) and clarified that Caltrans had not specified a date for formal response on the project. He emphasized that Caltrans must first publish and circulate the responses to the Draft EIR. Public Comment: Peter Bonnisar, 5212 Magdelena, addressed the Draft EIR and claimed Caltrans had not thoroughly evaluated traffic impacts from Alternate "A" or "A-Modified" on the intersection of Capistrano and Highway 41. He indicated that he had completed his own wait-time study and that his figures differed substantially from those prepared by Caltrans. He urged Council to study the Capistrano intersection further. ---End of Public Testimony--- Additional Council discussion ensued regarding Item #3. Councilman Nimmo reiterated that he did not feel the comment should be included because it has no relation to the Highway 41 realignment. Councilwoman Borgeson disagreed asserting that the City must address this item and get some kind of commitment from Caltrans for improving the Highway 101/41 intersection. Councilman Dexter suggested that the City' s response to the EIR should include the fact that there are other concerns in addition to the four selected issues. He noted that he would be sending to Caltrans his own personal comments. Councilwoman Borgeson reported that she would do the same. MOTION: By Mayor Shiers to approve Items #1 through 4. Motion died for lack of a second. MOTION: By Councilman Nimmo, seconded by Councilman Lilley to approve Items #1, 2 and 4; motion carried unanimously by voice vote. MOTION: By Borgeson, seconded by Shiers to approve Item #3 and to add Item #5 concern for traffic problems at the CC05/12/92 Page 8 AUG intersection of Capistrano and 41. Discussion: Greg Luke pointed out that technically Capistrano is the existing 41 and asked for clarification of the exact area. There was consensus that the word "intersection" would clarify the matter. Vote on the motion: Motion carried 3:2 (Lilley and Nimmo in opposition) . 3. FISCAL YEAR 1991-92 BUDGET ADJUSTMENT - FIRE DEPARTMENT Acting Fire Chief, Mike McCain, provided a brief staff report and recommendation. MOTION: By Councilwoman Borgeson, seconded by Mayor Shiers to direct staff to return with the necessary confirming resolution authorizing additional appropriations; motion carried unanimously. 4. ORDINANCE NO. 244 - Amending Map 17 of the official zoning maps by rezoning certain real properties at 8005 and 8025 Amapoa Ave. from RMF/10 (FH) to RMF/10 (FH) (PD7) (ZC 91016: Miller/Montanaro) (Recommendation to waive reading in full and approve on second reading, by title only) MOTION: By Councilman Nimmo, seconded by Councilman Lilley to adopt Ordinance No. 244 on second reading; motion carried 5:0 by roll call vote. 5. IMPLEMENTATION OF MANDATORY WASTE COLLECTION A. ORDINANCE NO. 243 - Amending Title 6 of the City Munici- pal Code (Health and Sanitation) (Recommendation to waive reading in full and approve on second reading, by title only) The Mayor introduced the matter and brief Council discussion followed. Greg Luke, responding to questions from Councilwoman Borgeson, reported that Wil-Mar Disposal's rate structure would be before the Council for review in the early Fall of 1992. He noted it would be appropriate to look at possible exemptions for the disabled, senior citizens and economically deprived during that time. Public Comments: Doug Lewis, Tunitas Avenue resident, spoke in opposition to mandatory garbage pick-up and urged Council to postpone it at least CC05/12/92 Page 9 juwct— until a policy for exemptions could be adopted. Chuck Walden, Graves Creek Road resident, also spoke against the adoption of the ordinance and proclaimed that he was able to recycle nearly all of his garbage. ---End of Public Testimony--- MOTION: By Councilman Nimmo, seconded by City Manager to approve Ordinance No. 243 on second reading; motion carried 4: 1 with Councilwoman Borgeson voting in opposition. E. INDIVIDUAL DETERMINATION AND/OR ACTION: 1. City Attorney Art Montandon reported that he would have different office hours during the current week, only. MOTION: By Councilman Dexter, seconded by Councilman Lilley to adjourn the meeting to 4:00 p.m. on Thursday, May 14, 1992 for the purpose of discussions regarding potential litigation, labor negotiations and compensation, and personnel matters; motion carried unanimously. (Said Closed Session to be held pursuant to Government Code Sections 54956.9(a) ) , 54957.6) and 54957) . THE MEETING WAS ADJOURNED AT 9:40 P.M. M T S O AND PREPARED BY: LEE RABOIN, City Clerk CC05/12/92 Page 10 REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL CITY OF ATASCADERO ITEM: B-2 VIA: Ray Windsor, City Manager Mtg. Date: 6/9/92 FROM: Henry Engen, Comm. Dev. Director File No: TTM 21-89 SUBJECT: Time extension for Tentative Tract Map 21-89 at 8555 E1 Corte Avenue (Chalk Mountain Village) -Ray Bunnell RECOMMENDATION: Per the Planning Commission's recommendation, approval of a three year time extension. BACKGROUND: On May 19, 1992, the Planning Commission considered this item under its consent calendar. The matter was pulled for further discussion which revolved around the reasons for the three year time extension • request. It was noted that the applicant has continued ongoing work on the map and has made substantial progress. The applicant requested the time extension due to the nature of the general economy. HE:ps cc: Ray Bunnell Attachment: Staff Report - May 19, 1992 ITEM: A-3 MEMORANDUM DATE: May 19, 1992 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Gary Kaiser, Associate Planner(Sklz SUBJECT: Time Extension -- TTM #21-89 8555 E1 Corte Avenue --Chalk Mountain Village RECOMMENDATION• Staff recommends approval of a three-year time extension for Tentative Tract Map #21-89. DISCUSSION• The above-referenced project, commonly referred to as Chalk Mountain Village, consists of the following three (3) approved applications: (1) a Conditional Use Permit (CUP 09-89 ) , which established a Master Plan of Development for the site; (2) a Zone Change (ZC #15-89) , which amended the pre-existing RMF-4 (PD6) zoning of the property; and (3) the subject Tentative Tract Map, which allowed for the creation of 72 single family residential lots and one ( 1) large open space parcel. On August 21, 1990 the Planning Commission voted to deny this • project (which then proposed to create 77 lots) . The applicant appealed this action, however, and all three applications were approved by the City Council on October 30, 1990. The use of the subject property is now limited to precisely that shown on the approved Master Plan of Development for the site, and allowed by the Council-approved zoning. That is, neither the Master Plan of Development nor the zoning of the property are currently in question. Because the subject Tentative Tract Map would only serve to implement the approved Master Plan and zoning for this site staff sees no reason to delay or question the granting of this extension. Please note that the applicant has requested a three (3) year extension. Although time extensions beyond twelve (12) months are uncommon, the requested three year extension is allowed under the State Subdivision Map Act (Government Code Section 66452.6(e) ) . By virtue of the magnitude of the project, and the extent of public improvements required, this is unquestionably an uncommon project. Staff also understands the need for a time extension in light of today's unfavorable economic conditions. For these reasons, staff supports the applicant' s request. Attachments (2) : Extension Request & October 9, 1990 Staff Report :}i��(A - TTACHMENT A -- - Extension Request BunnELL TTM #21-89 Extension R IVEIVED APR u 0 1992 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT April 17, 1992 Mr. Henry Ingram Community Development Director Atascadero City Hall 6500 Palma Ave. Atascadero, CA 93422 RE: Extension of Chalk Mountain Village Tentative Map 21-89 Dear Henry: I am hereby requesting a three year extension on our Tentative Map which was approved October 30, 1990. We are unable to proceed with the project at this time due to the current recession. Enclosed is a copy of the engineer's estimate for the offsite improvements required by the City. I understand that due to the dollar amount involved, we are entitled to at least a three year extension. Approval of this request will eliminate the need for processing annual requests. The extension fee of $330.00 is enclosed. Please process as soon as possible. Sincere Ray Bunnell Bunnell Develogrent Corp. Enclosures: Engineer's estimate Check in the amount of $330.00 ("� $ -3 00 tt 3sa3y 5-7-Q.2 Bunnell Construction,Inc. 4d' 420 141 Suburban Road,A-5 San Luis Obispo,CA 93401 805/544-4300 FAX 805/541-3985 9 j G �.`? PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE CHALK MOUNTAIN VILLAGE, OFF-SITE, LA LINEA, EL DORADO & EL CENTRO PUBLI-- IC VEMENTS ---- ---MPRO-------- October 1 , 1990 DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT COST TOTAL COST SURFACE IMPROVEMENTS Remove Ex. Curb & Gutter ,A.C.Pavmt LS $23,000, 00 6" Concrete Curb & Gutter 1, 4.85 LF $ 8. 50 12,622. 50 6" Concrete Curb 200 LF 7. 50 1 , 500.00 X-Gutter & Spandrel - Reinforced Over Storm Drain 1, 950 SF 5.00 9,750.00 Sidewalk 2, 280 SF 2.20 5,016. 00 Sidewalk - Reinforced Over S.D. 3, 132 SF 3. 50 10,962.00 .20' A. C. Paving/ . 42' Cl II Base 18, 350 SF 1 .50 27,525. 00 Wheel Chair Ramps 4 EA 350. 00 1, 400. 00 Stop Signs 3 EA 125. 00 375. 00 Street Signs 3 EA 150.00 300.00 Street Monuments 14 EA 275.00 3,850. 00 Sawcut 1 , 425 LF 1.25 1, 781 . 25 Joint Pole And/Or Guy Wire Relocation 4 EA 2, 000.00 8,000.00 Driveways & Match Exist. Grades 8 EA 500.00 4,000. 00 Landscape & Irrig. Mod's To Match Exist . LS 4,500_00 --- Sub-Total Surface Improvements . . . . . . . $114,581 . 75 STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENTS Drop IrIlets 5 EA $2.500.00 $12,500.00 Manhole 1 EA 2.000.00 2, 000.00 Terminal Structure W/Drop Inlet 1 EA 5.000.00 5, 000. 00 24" . . . .S. D. 135 LF 40.00 5, 400. 00 42" . . . .S. D. 895 LF 60.00 53,700. 00 A.C. Dike 70 LF 2. 50 175. 00 A. C. Swale & Tie Into D. I . L$ 3, 000.00 Sub-Total Storm Drain Improvements . . . . . . . $81, 775. 00 EXCAVATION & GRADING Excavation & Grading � 2, 000 CY $5. 00 $10,000. 00 Sub-Total Excavation & Grading . . . . . . . $10, 000. 00 LANDSCAPE WORKS Remove 6"-8" Tree 3 EA $100. 00 $ 300.00 Remove 9"-12" Tree 6 EA 180.00 1, 080.00 Remove 14" Tree 2 EA 250.00 500.00 Sub-Total Landscape Works $1, 880. 00 i)il�iUg j PRELIMINARY -COST ESTIMATE CHALK MOUNTAIN VILLAGE, OFF-SITE, E1 CORTE ROAD PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS October 1 , 1990 DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT COST TOTAL COST SURFACE IMPROVEMENTS Remove Ex. Curb & Gutter , A.C. Pavmt And Masonry Driveway Markers LS $8, 000.00 6" Concrete Curb & Gutter 1 , 113 LF x 8. 50 9, 460. 50 X-Gutter & Spandrel 810 SF 4. 50 3, 645. 00 A. C. Apron To Match Ex. Driveway 57o SF 2.00 1 , 140. 00 Sidewalk 2, 720 SF 2. 20 5,984. 00 f�0' A.C. Paving/ . 4'2' Cl II Base 11 ,500 SF 1 . 5o 17, 250. 00 eel Chair Ramps 1 EA 350.00 350.00 Stop Signs 3 EA 125. 00 375. 00 Street Signs 1 EA 150.00 150.00 Street Monuments 4 EA 275. 00 1, 100. 04 Sawcut 2, 440 LF 1. 25 3,050. 00 Joint Pole And/Or Guy Wire Removal 7 EA 1 , 200. 00 8, 40ii. 00 Sub-Total Surface Improvements . . . . . . . .$58,904. 00 STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENTS A. C. Dike 480 LF 2. 50 1 ,200. 00 42" . . . . SD 50 LF 60.00 3, OOi�. 00 Inlet Structure 1 EA 2, 000. 00 2, 000. 00 Sub-Total Storm Drain Improvements 6, 200. 00 EXCAVATION & GRADING Excavation & Grading 650 CY $3.00 $1 ,950.00 Sub-Total Excavation & Grading . . . . . . . $1 , '950. 00 Total .Cost $275,290.75 EXIiIBIT A CITY OF ATAS CADERO CUP 09-89/TTM 21-89 Nit ` , �."'„ COMMUNM DEVELOPMENT zc 15-89 DEPARTMENT10 GENERP,L PLAN MAP to 40 •T � PUBLIC ZZ G FA MIL y < it - . . ... �± 8555 ElCor-e !' • RECREATION MULTI FAMILY r Cow to DE' S T �s ftyFc� 1ULTl AMILY +� h i 1 lodQ,;o—� ;• �• . '°gib , t e'%; • FA IL TEOy or COMIjA J —..E,.t OE,NS)TY�'. � II�EI R ,, r �ERE t °o �� ,= S NGC.E� C. S1NGLE, AMIG "I FAAA1tY� = b" p 'K 1sfEAV COM. v V� \. ` INDUS DENSITY`- D �. r E��UN Y � paRK JV` _MULTI f� I N G LLG.�c�.• f I•+ VI �__ \ :,R I �. . FAMILq vu • • •sin� ��• 4• Ofc,+: .i ;,�� '^• � � �vl� � - - o '•f�ieY.{S EXHIBIT C CITY OF ATASCADERO CUP 09-89/TTM 21-89 Nips t 7, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT zC 15-89 DEPARTMENT TENTATIVE TRACT MAP Wi 40 Li ' 1 f' • J.e P. � ,ll � �f � •s r'�• � i` . (r —6 . REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL Meeting Date: 6/9/92 CITY OF ATASCADERO Agenda Item # B-3 Through: Ray Windsor, City Manager j From Lee Raboin, City Clerk,/�- SUBJECT: Expiring terms on the City' s Planning Commission and Parks and Recreation Commission. RECOMMENDATION: Direct the City Clerk to open recruitments for citizen appointments to the Planning Commission and the Parks and Recreation Commission. BACKGROUND: Because of expiring terms and results of the recent election, it will be necessary to recruit to fill the following seats on the • Planning Commission and the Parks & Recreation Commission: Planning Commission (5 out of 7 seats) : George Luna Council-Elect (seat expires Aug. ' 92) Dennis Lochridge 4-yr. term, expires Aug. '92 George Highland 4-yr. term, expires Aug. '92 Ken Waage 4-yr. term, expires Aug. '92 Marty Kudlac Council-Elect (seat expires Sept. 194) Parks & Recreation Commission (3 out of 5 seats) : Tom Bench 4-yr. term, expires June 192 Victor Smart 4-yr. term, expires June '92 Ken Meyer 4-yr. term, expires June 192 The City Clerk will begin immediately, if so directed. uv�ll�;► REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL CITY OF ATASCADERO ITEM: C-1 VIA: Ray Windsor, City Manager Mtg. lDate: 6/9/92 FROM: Henry Engen, Comm. Dev. Director File No: ZC 03-92 SUBJECT: Revision to the Zoning Ordinance standards to allow pole mounted freeway oriented signs for new automobile dealerships. RECOMMENDATION: That Ordinance No. 250 approving Zone Change 03-92 be approved as follows: a) Motion to waive reading Ordinance 250 in full and approve on first reading, by title only. BACKGROUND: On May 19, 1992, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on this subject. On a 6: 1 vote, the Commission recommended approval of the zone change request. There was discussion and public testimony as evidenced by the attached minutes excerpt. HE:ps Attachments: Staff Report - May 19, 1992 Minutes Excerpt - May 19,1992 Ordinance No. 250 91)0018 CITY OF ATASCADERO Item: B-5 STAFF REPORT 92 • FOR: Planning Commission Meeting Date: May 19, 1992 BY W)Osteven L. Decamp, City Planner File No: ZC 3-92 SUBJECT: Revision of the Zoning Ordinance' s standards to allow pole mounted freeway oriented signs for dealers of new automobiles . RECOMMENDATION. The Commission should recommend that the Council adopt the attached draft Ordinance amending the "Freeway Sign" standards . SITUATION AND FACTS: 1 . Applicant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .City of Atascadero 2 . Project Location. . . . . . . . . . . . . IP, CR, CS CT, & CPK Zones adjacent to US 101 3 . Environmental Status . . . . . . . . .Categorically Exempt (Class 1 - Sec . 15301) 1 BACKGROUND: In May of 1988, the City' s "sign ordinance" (Section 9-4 . 130 of Title 9) was amended to restrict pole mounted freeway oriented signs to uses providing gas, food, or lodging in zoning districts adjacent to the freeway. This amendment was, in large part, a response to the perceived proliferation of freeway signs for businesses not related to or serving freeway travelers . As a result of continued concern regarding the restrictive nature of the current regulations, the Planning Commission, at your April 7, 1992 meeting, initiated a Zoning Ordinance Text amendment directed at liberalizing the "freeway sign" rules . ANALYSIS: Section 9-4 . 134 (f) of the Zoning Ordinance regulates freeway oriented signs . This Section states : Freeway Identification Signs: In addition to signs allowed by Subsection a of this Section, sites located in the CR, CS, CT, and CPK zones adjacent to Highway 101 or a Highway 101 frontage road may be authorized through Conditional Use Permit approval to use an onsite freeway identification sign as provided below: (1) Where the principal use provides food or lodging, or is a service station as defined in Section 9-3.701, a pole mounted sign may be allowed with a maximum area not to exceed 125 square feet. The maximum height for pole mounted freeway identification signs is to be 50 feet above grade, provided that the Planning Commission may require a reduced height where deemed appropriate. (2) Where the principal use is a planned shopping, office, or industrial complex with five or more tenants, a building mounted freeway oriented sign, which states the name of the center or the principal tenant(s), may be allowed with a maximum area not to exceed 60 square feet (per principal tenant) . (3) Where the building area of a single tenant building exceeds 10,000 square feet, a building mounted freeway oriented sign may be allowed with a maximum area not to exceed 60 square feet. In reviewing a Conditional Use Permit, the following findings shall be made: (i) The type of activity requesting the signing is specified in Section 9-4.134 (f) and the need for such signing is based on the purposes set forth in Section 9-4.131; and (ii) The opportunity to combine signs for more than one use on the same pole has been considered; and (iii) The sign area and height are the minimum needed to achieve adequate visibility along the freeway due to ramp locations and grade differences. This portion of the sign ordinance was intended to promote maximum visibility and advertising opportunities for businesses located along the freeway which provide goods and/or services for the traveling public. The ordinance fails, however, to recognize the legitimate need for other types of businesses to achieve the same level of exposure to travelers on Highway 101 . Specifically, those businesses which rely on regional trade areas, as opposed to strictly local trade, require greater freeway exposure. Most communities along Highway 101 allow automobile dealers to utilize freeway oriented signs . The market area for auto dealers is clearly regional in scope, and that requires highway exposure to compete successfully. Auto dealers without such exposure are placed at a competitive disadvantage. Increased exposure leading to increased sales for automobile dealers will have a positive impact on the City' s revenues as well . The Zoning Ordinance includes new automobile dealers in the definition of "Auto, Mobilehome and vehicle Dealers and Supplies" . This land use category also includes motorized farm equipment, utility trailers, used automobiles and other uses which may not warrant freeway signs . It appears, however, that new automobile dealers would be the primary beneficiary of increased freeway exposure. . For this reason, staff believes that the ordinance revision should be limited to new automobile dealers only at this time. If other uses within this land use -2- 00 category are deemed appropriate for freeway signs, they can be added to the list as the sign ordinance undergoes comprehensive revision in the next few months. CONCLUSIONS: Staff believes that businesses with a regional market place, specifically dealers of new automobiles, should be allowed greater exposure to the traveling public on the freeway. These businesses cannot adequately advertise their goods and services to their markets solely through local advertising. Amending the Zoning Ordinance' s sign provisions to allow dealers of new automobiles to utilize pole mounted freeway signs, approved through the conditional use permit process, should provide adequate exposure for these uses to freeway travelers . ATTACHMENTS : Attachment A - Draft Ordinance • -3- ATTACHMENT A DRAFT ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT TO MAKE POLE MOUNTED FREEWAY SIGNS CONDITIONALLY ALLOWED FOR NEW AUTOMOBILE DEALERS IN SPECIFIC ZONING DISTRICTS (ZC 03-92; City of Atascadero) WHEREAS, the proposed zoning text amendments are consistent with the General Plan as required by Section 65860 of the California Government Code; and WHEREAS, the proposed amendments are in conformance with Section 65800 et seq. of the California Government Code concerning zoning regulations; and WHEREAS, the proposed amendments will not have a significant adverse impact upon the environment . The Negative Declaration prepared for the project is adequate; and WHEREAS, the Atascadero Planning Commission held a public hearing on May 19, 1992 and has recommended approval of Zone Change 03-92 . NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Atascadero does ordain as follows : Section 1 . Council Findings. 1 . The proposals are compatible with the surrounding land use and zoning. 2 . The proposals are consistent with the General Plan land use element. 3 . The proposals will not result in any significant adverse environmental impacts . The Negative Declaration prepared for the project is adequate. Section 2 . Zoning Text . The Zoning Ordinance text is hereby amended by the addition of the language shown on the attached Exhibit A. Section 3 . Publication. The City Clerk shall cause this ordinance to be published once within fifteen (15) days after its passage in the Atascadero News, a newspaper of general circulation, printed, published, and Ordinance No. circulated in the City in accordance with Section 36933 of the Government Code; shall certify the adopting and posting of this ordinance and shall cause this ordinance and this certification together with proof of posting to be entered into the Book of Ordinances of the City. Section 4 . Effective Date. This ordinance shall go into effect and be in full force and effect at 12 :01 a.m. on the 31st day after its passage. On motion by and seconded by , the foregoing Ordinance is approved by the following role call vote: AYES : NOES: ABSENT: DATE ADOPTED: By. •ALDEN SHIERS, Mayor City of Atascadero, California ATTEST: LEE RABOIN, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO CONTENT RAY WINDSOR, City Manager APPROVED AS TO FORM: ART MONTANDON, City Attorney PREPARED BY: HENRY ENGEN, Community Development Director Section 9-4 . 134 (f) : EXHIBIT A Freeway Identification Signs : In addition to signs allowed by Subsection a of this Section, sites located in the IP, CR, CS, CT, and CPK zones adjacent to Highway 101 or a Highway 101 frontage road may be authorized through Conditional Use Permit approval to use an onsite freeway identification sign as provided below: (1) Where the principal use provides food or lodging, or is a service station as defined in Section 9-3 .701, or is a dealer of new automobiles, a pole mounted sign may be allowed with a maximum area not to exceed 125 square feet . The maximum height for pole mounted freeway identification signs is to be 50 feet above grade, provided that the Planning Commission may require a reduced height where deemed appropriate. (2) Where the principal use is a planned shopping, office, or industrial complex with five or more tenants, a building mounted freeway oriented sign, which states the name of the center or the principal tenant (s) , may be allowed with a maximum area not to exceed 60 square feet (per principal tenant) . (3) Where the building area of a single tenant building exceeds 10, 000 square feet, a building mounted freeway oriented sign may be allowed with a maximum area not to exceed 60 square feet . In reviewing a Conditional Use Permit, the following findings shall be made: (i) The type of activity requesting the signing is specified in Section 9-4 .134 (f) and the need for such signing is based on the purposes set forth in Section 9-4 . 131; and (ii) The opportunity to combine signs for more than one use on the same pole has been considered; and (iii) The sign area and height are the minimum needed to achieve adequate visibility along the freeway due to ramp locations and grade differences . NOTE: New language shown underlined. 0 o x{3 PLANNING COMMISSION - MINUTES EXCERPT - MAY 19, 1992 4. ZONE CHANGE 03-92: Application filed by the City of Atascadero to revise the Zoning Ordinance's standards to allow pole mounted free- way oriented signs for dealers of new automobiles. Steve DeCamp presented the staff report and provided a background noting that Section 9-4. 130 was amended in 1988 to restrict pole mounted freeway oriented signs to only those uses providing gas, food, or lodging. Approval is recommended to amend the "Freeway Sign" standards. Commission questions and discussion followed. Commissioner Johnson asked how this amendment would affect businesses such as the Factory Outlet. Mr. DeCamp reminded the Commission that 2 pole-mounted freeway signs of a larger size were approved for that particular project. Mr. DeCamp noted that at the present time, staff is in the process of revising the Sign Regulations and are grappling with the issue of freeway oriented signs. This particular amendment was the result of a specific request to add auto dealerships to the list of freeway oriented signs. He added that there are numerous uses that could fall within that category. Staff is attempting to not discriminate against any of those uses but at the same time, are not attempting to revise the entire freeway sign ordinance in conjunction with this application. Discussion followed relative to "piecemeal" applications; regional type businesses, etc. In response to question by Commissioner Johnson, Mr. DeCamp explained that the "post-1988" sign ordinance was a result of direction by the Council to be more restrictive for what types of uses would warrant freeway oriented signs. Commissioner Johnson expressed opposition to the growing number of trees along freeways that are shaped like signs. It was his feeling that to allow more and more pole mounted signs along the freeway is a mistake. Further discussion ensued. - Public Testimony - Ted Miles, indicated support of the amendment to add new car dealerships to the current Sign Ordinance. Whitey Thorpe, 8025 Santa Ynez, commented that anything one can do to promote the businesses of this community, should go ahead and do it. He noted that it is aggravating for the traveling public to have difficulty in trying to locate a business while driving on the freeway. - End of Public Testimony - MOTION: By Commissioner Highland, seconded by Commissioner Kudlac to recommend that the Council adopt the draft Ordinance amending the "Freeway Sign" standards. The motion carried 6:1 with the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Highland, Kudlac, Lochridge, Hanauer, Waage, and Chairperson Luna NOES: Commissioner Johnson ORDINANCE NO. 250 • AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT TO MAKE POLE MOUNTED FREEWAY SIGNS CONDITIONALLY ALLOWED FOR NEW AUTOMOBILE DEALERS IN SPECIFIC ZONING DISTRICTS (ZC 03-92; City of Atascadero) WHEREAS, the proposed zoning text amendments are consistent with the General Plan as required by Section 65860 of the California Government Code; and WHEREAS, the proposed amendments are in conformance with Section 65800 et seq. of the California Government Code concerning zoning regulations; and WHEREAS, the proposed amendments will not have a significant adverse impact upon the environment . The Negative Declaration prepared for the project is adequate; and WHEREAS, the Atascadero Planning Commission held a public hearing on May 19, 1992 and has recommended approval of Zone Change 03-92 . NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Atascadero does ordain as follows : Section 1 . Council Findings . 1 . The proposals are compatible with the surrounding land use and zoning. 2 . The proposals are consistent with the General Plan land use element . 3 . The proposals will not result in any significant adverse environmental impacts . The Negative Declaration prepared for the project is adequate. Section 2 . Zoning Text . The Zoning Ordinance text is hereby amended by the addition of the language shown on the attached Exhibit A. Section 3 . Publication. The City Clerk shall cause this ordinance to be published once within fifteen (15) days after its passage in the Atascadero News, a newspaper of general circulation, printed, published, and 0G0 r Ordinance No. 250 • circulated in the City in accordance with Section 36933 of the Government Code; shall certify the adopting and posting of this ordinance and shall cause this ordinance and this certification together with proof of posting to be entered into the Book of Ordinances of the City. Section 4 . Effective Date. This ordinance shall go into effect and be in full force and effect at 12 : 01 a.m. on the 31st day after its passage. On motion by and seconded by , the foregoing Ordinance is approved by the following role call vote: AYES : NOES : ABSENT: DATE ADOPTED: By. ALDEN SHIERS, Mayor City of Atascadero, California ATTEST: LEE RABOIN, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO CONTENT RAY WINDSOR, City Manager APPROVED AS TO FORM: ART MONTANDON, City Attorney PREPARED BY: HENRY ENGEN, Community Development Director EXHIBIT A Section 9-4 .134 (f) : Freeway Identification Signs : In addition to signs allowed by Subsection a of this Section, sites located in the IP, CR, CS, CT, and CPK zones adjacent to Highway 101 or a Highway 101 frontage road may be authorized through Conditional Use Permit approval to use an onsite freeway identification sign as provided below: (1) Where the principal use provides food or lodging, or is a service Station as defined in Section 9-3 .701, or is a dealer of new automobiles, a pole mounted sign may be allowed with a maximum area not to exceed 125 square feet. The maximum height for pole mounted freeway identification signs is to be 50 feet above grade, provided that the Planning Commission may require a reduced height where deemed appropriate. (2) Where the principal use is a planned shopping, office, or industrial complex with five or more tenants, a building mounted freeway oriented sign, which states the name of the center or the principal tenant (s) , may be allowed with a maximum area not to exceed 60 square feet (per principal tenant) . (3) Where the building area of a single tenant building exceeds 10, 000 square feet, a building mounted freeway oriented sign may be allowed with a maximum area not to exceed 60 square feet . In reviewing a Conditional Use Permit, the following findings shall be made: (i) The type of activity requesting the signing is specified in Section 9-4 . 134 (f) and the need for such signing is based on the purposes set forth in Section 9-4 . 131; and (ii) The opportunity to combine signs for more than one use on the same pole has been considered; and (iii) The sign area and height are the minimum needed to achieve adequate visibility along the freeway due to ramp locations and grade differences. NOTE: New language shown underlined. . REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL CITY OF ATASCADERO AGENDA ITEM: (�_9(A,R,C) VIA: Ray Windsor, City Manager Mtg. Date: 6/9/92 FROM: Henry Engen, Comm. DeV. Director }6 File No: FINAL EIR/ GPA 2A-91 ZC 02-91 SUBJECT• "Auto Mall/Recreational Vehicle Park" : Public hearing to consider certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report, General Plan Amendment, and Zone Change. The request seeks to change the land use designation on 103 acres at 905 E1 Camino Real to allow for a proposed auto sales mall and recreational vehicle park. RECOMMENDATION: 1. That the Final Environmental Impact Report be certified as an adequate document under the provision of CEQA, including a Statement of Overriding Considerations with respect to water supply and air quality impacts owing to economic and social benefits of the project. 2. That Resolution 56-92 approving proposed General Plan Amend- ment 2A-91 be approved. 3 . That Ordinance 249 approving Zone Change 02-91 be approved as follows: (a) Motion to waive reading Ordinance 249 in full and approve on first reading, by title only. BACKGROUND• Public hearings have been held on this project on January 7th, April 21st, and May 19th, 1992 before the City Planning Commission. The recommendation of the Planning Commission was to certify the EIR on a 6: 1 vote, and to recommend approval of the General Plan and Zoning amendments on 5:2 votes. The project proposes a different land use approach to the so-called Rochelle property in the northwest portion of the City which was prezoned and annexed to the City in 1984. Currently, some ten acres are designated for Tourist Commercial use and this is proposed to be expanded to 27 acres of Commercial Park usage between Highway 101 and the Southern Pacific Railroad tracks. A Planned Development Overlay Zone (PD9) is proposed to be attached • which would allow development of an auto mall or other selected commercial uses subject to approval of a specific master plan by the Planning Commission. 00Q02 The remaining portion of the property northeast of the railroad tracks is proposed to be changed from Recreation and Suburban Residential to Recreation to allow establishment of a recreational vehicle park and open space uses. The applicant proposes a 444 space RV park facility. Conformance to the mitigation measures in the Environmental Impact Report will reduce that to some 300 to 360 spaces. As with the proposed commercial portion of the property, development of detailed project plans would be required and hearings before the Planning Commission before any project could be developed. HE:ps cc: Daven Investments Ltd. Cosmic Astro Corporation Guy Greene, Project Representative Enclosures: Planning Commission Staff Report - 5/19/92 Planning Commission Staff Report - 4/21/92 Planning Commission Staff Report - 1/7/92 Planning Commission Minutes - 5/19/92 Planning Commission Minutes - 4/21/92 Planning Commission Minutes - 1/7/92 Resolution No. 56-92 - General Plan Amendment 02A-91 Ordinance No. 249 ' - Zone Change 02-91 Separate cover: Final Environmental Impact Report - Rochelle/Auto Mall and RV Park Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, SEDES - February, 1992 9()Cis�A ITEM: B-2 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Q ,Doug Davidson, Senior Planner RE: General Plan Amendment 2A-91/Zone Change 02-91 Auto Mall/RV Park EIR DATE: May 19, 1992 (Continued from April 21, 1992) RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission should recommend to the City Council the actions as proposed in the April 21, 1992 staff report. BACKGROUND: A public hearing was held before the Planning Commission on April 21, 1992 on the certification of the EIR and the related General Plan Amendment and Zone Change applications. After considering public testimony and discussing the issues, the Commission continued the matter. Staff has prepared additional analysis in . an attempt to resolve the Commission's remaining issues about this project. ANALYSIS• After further review of the April 21st meeting, staff has focused on the following three main issues: 1. Further discussion and contrast among the types of EIRs - project specific, tiered, program, etc. 2. A comparison between the other possible land uses of the proposed Commercial Park and Recreation zones, in addition to the auto mall and RV park. 3. The economic/fiscal advantages of other possible Commercial Park uses to justify the Statement of Overriding Concerns in the event the auto mall is not developed. CEQA - Types of EIRs CEQA devotes much discussion to the different types of EIRs and at what level of project review they are most appropriate. Indeed, a major focus of CEQA is to analyze significant environmental effects at the earliest possible stage, and subsequently to apply this information at the appropriate project phase to avoid the duplication of previous efforts. The following excerpts show that CEQA envisions an EIR such as the 06Ci 3'? subject one an EIR which in level of specificity falls in between the full program EIR for a new General Plan and a project specific EIR. "An EIR on a project such as the adoption or amendment of a comprehensive zoning ordinance or a local general plan should focus on the secondary effects that can be expected to follow from the adoption or amendment, but the ETR need not be as detailed as an EIR on the specific construction projects that may follow. " (Section 15146 (b) "The tiering recognizes that the approval of many projects will move through a series of separate public agency decisions, going from approval of a general plan, to approval of an intermediate plan or zoning, and finally to approval of a specific development proposal. Tiering is an effort to focus environmental review on the environmental issues which are relevant to the approval being considered. " (Section 15152) "Tiering recognizes that not all effects can be mitigated at each step of the process. There will be some effects for which mitigation will not be feasible at an early step of approving a particular development project, and this section allows a Lead Agency to defer mitigation of that kind of effect to a later date. (Section 15152) "A program EIR is an EIR which may be prepared on a series , of related actions that can be characterized as one project. It allows the Lead Agency to consider broad policy alternatives and programwide mitigation measures at an earlier time when the agency has greater flexibility to deal with basic problems or cumulative impacts. If a later activity would have effects that were not examined in the program EIR, a new Initial Study would need to be prepared leading to either an EIR or a Negative Declaration. This approach offers many possibilities for agencies to reduce their cost of CEQA compliance and still achieve high levels of environmental protection. " (Section 15168) The proposed General Plan Amendment is a combination of EIR types. It uses a tiered approach to build on the environmental record at each stage of the process. It attempts to analyze the environmental issues and effects in a comprehensive manner, while recognizing that not all environmental effects can be mitigated at this time. As in a program EIR, the submittal of more detailed development plans may or may not require further environmental review. In this case, any proposed land use requires a Conditional Use Permit, at which time a new Initial Study will reveal if the EIR is adequate. Of course, the Conditional Use Permit will also address the appropriateness of the proposed land uses, both individually and in relation to one another. -2- n,aC 3 . Staff believes that the Environmental Impact Report before the Commission is prepared at an adequate level of detail for the level of project approval requested. Compatibility of Land Uses - Commercial Park and Recreation Although a single piece of property, the site contains two distinct landforms; the commercial upland area adjacent to the freeway and the remaining lowlying area of 76 acres along the Salinas River and Graves Creek. In addition to this topographic contrast, the railroad right-of-way forms a physically distinct separation. Thus, the characteristics of this site (size, shape, and topography) provide unique opportunities for development. What might be incompatible uses in many instances, such as small scale manufacturing and outdoor recreation, can function collectively in this case. The environmental issues of noise and glare as discussed in the EIR offer a good example of this premise. Auto sales lots have high lighting requirements. The EIR focuses on glare in relation to the surrounding single family residences, not the proposed RV park. This is because the surrounding residences are elevated above the commercial site, while the RV park is located approximately 40 feet below (see Page 4 of applicant' s Commercial Park plan) . Similarly, the noise conflict of the project is between the RV park and the railroad, not the recreational use and the auto mall. The auto mall and RV park are the most intensive land uses proposed in the CPK and L (PD9) zones. This aptly coincided with CEQA' s "worst-case" emphasis. The other land uses in the two proposed zones will have less impact on the surrounding neighborhood and on each other. Many of the possible CPK uses are indoor activities, while most of the other recreational uses are outdoor and seasonal. The light industrial/manufacturing emphasis of the CPK zone could present a significant impact in high density areas, but this site location and topography should prevent these conflicts. Fiscal Impact of Other Possible Projects A Statement of Overriding Considerations (for water supply and air quality) is recommended because of the economic and social benefits of the project. While the auto mall could provide up to $900,000.00 in direct fiscal impact to the City, valid questions were raised at the April 21st meeting: What if the auto mall is not developed? What are the fiscal benefits of the other conditionally allowed uses proposed in the CPK (PD9) Zone? Staff has run our fiscal model for building materials/hardware and farm equipment/supplies (Attachment B) . Although the fiscal benefits of these land uses are not as great as the auto mall, they would still result in a positive fiscal benefit to the City. As the consultant stated on April 21st, any commercial development should generate revenue for the City, because the transient occupancy tax from the RV park would almost offset the costs associated with the whole project. Other Issues Much of the public testimony raised at the April 21st hearing was calling for protection of the biological resources of the site. No new information is presented in this regard, for added safeguards for riparian protection were generated during the response to comment period. This effort included a wildlife biologist field survey, communication with the Department of Fish & Game, and additional mitigation measures. Buffer zones are provided along all waterways, either in conjunction with the utility easements, or as separate measures. Water supply and sewage disposal are fundamental development questions, since the site is not within the respective service districts. There are limited options available, particularly for water supply: either hooking up to the Atascadero Mutual Water Co. or providing adequate on-site supply through groundwater extractions. Much doubt was expressed over sewage disposal at the site, given the opposition of the Public Works Director to on-site disposal and the larger questions of growth inducement for an extension of the Urban Services Line. Although, the idea of conventional septic systems was broached, the concern expressed over septic tanks and leachfields in areas prone to flooding is a legitimate one. This leaves the construction of a pump station and extension of a force main for the subject site only, as the most feasible option. Even as an exclusive sewer hookup, the "leapfrogging" of the Urban Services Line necessitates separate environmental review to analyze the potential impacts on land use patterns of extending the sewer to the north part of town. CONCLUSIONS: Staff has attempted to prove that program EIRs of a tiered nature, particularly one done in the initial phase of project development, do not have to provide mitigation for all possible future impacts. The subject EIR is a comprehensive analysis of the site's natural resources and the environmental impacts of an auto mall and RV park. Many of the environmental issues are site related, a fact which staff believes justifies the certification of an EIR for a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change only. Although the auto mall and RV park are conceptual at this time, it is wise to address project impacts for these more intensive uses. Further environmental review will occur during submittal of a Conditional Use Permit application. Attachments: Attachment A - Fiscal Model (Auto Mall) Attachment B - Fiscal Model (Farm/building supplies) Attachment C - April 21, 1992 staff report 031 • • � � . . • � � �, I • � � � - � ' • • - - �• • '�. / 1 '� 11 , � 11 '� 11 • 11 j \ \ � \ \ \ \ \ '� 11 � � � \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ Q � \ \ \ Q \ \ Q '.1 • • • • • • • • • 11 / 1 / 1 1 / 11 • 1 • • � • • . • • : i11 11 11 � 11 . 11 : 1 / i -. A • ' 1 ' i 1 NN nN \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ • • � • • . • • : i11 1 ! -e IM� •a- • 0 9- - '- - - CITY OF ATASCADERO Item: B . 1 STAFF REPORT MTG. DATE : 4/21/92 FOR: Planning Commission Meeting Date: April 21,. 1992 BY: Doug Davidson, Senior Planner File No: Final EIR GPA 2A-91 ZC 02-91 SUBJECT: Public hearing to consider the certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report prepared in conjunction with General Plan Amendment 2A-91/Zone Change 02-91. The request is to change the Land Use and Zone designations to allow a proposed automobile sales mall and a Recreational Vehicle Park. The General Plan Amendment and Zone Change are also being reviewed and recommended for action. RECOMMENDATION: • The Planning Commission should recommend to the City Council the following actions: 1. That the Final EIR be certified as an adequate document under the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) . 2. That General Plan Amendment 2A-91 be approved based on the Findings for Approval contained in the Draft Resolution (Attachment E) . 3. That Zone Change 02-91 be approved based on the Findings for Approval contained in the Draft Ordinance (Attachment F) . SITUATION AND FACTS: 1. Applicant. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Daven Investments Ltd. Cosmic Astro Corp. 2. Representative. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Guy Greene 3. Project Address. . . . . . . . . . . . . .905 E1 Camino Real 4. General Plan Designation. . . . .Retail Commercial Recreation Residential Suburban 5. Zoning District. . . . . . . . . . . . . .CT (Commercial Tourist) L (FH) (Recreation) (Flood Hazard) RS (FH) (Residential Suburban) (Flood Hazard) 6. Site Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103 acres 7. Existing Use. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Mobile home residence 8. Environmental Status. . . . . . . . .Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report BACKGROUND: The application for General Plan Amendment 2A-91/Zone Change 02- 91 was received in March, 1991 and included in the General Plan Amendment cycle by the City Council in June, 1991. Based upon the initial study, the proposed project could result in a significant effect on the environment. Thus, under the guidelines of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) , a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared, focusing on the areas of concern identified in the initial study. The Final EIR is attached for review (under separate cover) and must be certified as an adequate document under CEQA before any project approvals or land use changes are granted. On January 7, 1992, a public hearing was held on the draft EIR. This hearing occurred during the 45 day public review period (November 25, 1991 through January 8, 1992) to gather public comment. The consultant has since prepared the responses to each comment received. These responses to comments, along with the draft EIR, comprise the final EIR. (Comments on the Draft EIR and the associated responses are contained on Pages R-1 through R-39 of the Final EIR. ) PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The site is located on the northeast corner of the City, bounded on the west by U.S. 101 and to the east by the Salinas River. The Southern Pacific Railroad traverses the site in an east-west direction. Graves Creek intersects the site in a north-south fashion and Paso Robles Creek runs along the northwest property line. The current development pattern in the area is rural in nature, with scattered suburban residential uses in a historically agricultural area. The General Plan Amendment and Zone Change would allow for the proposed auto sales mall and Recreational Vehicle (RV) park, specifically a five dealership auto mall on the upland area adjacent to the freeway and a 444 space RV park north of the -2- `r JY �3D link railway and along the Salinas River. Under this scenario, the recreational portion of the site expands to 76 acres, and the residential designation is eliminated. In conjunction, the commercial area increases from 10 acres to 27 acres with a Commercial Park category replacing that of the existing Commercial Tourist. ANALYSIS: With the 45 day review period complete and all comments to the EIR received and responded to, the application can be reviewed in its entirety - the certification of the EIR and review of the proposed changes in land use designations. The subject EIR is different, and possibly more difficult to comprehend, than the other recent EIRs processed by the City. Whereas the EIR for the factory outlet was triggered by a particular project, and the Land Use Update was a broad scale programmatic EIR in response to changing the General Plan, this EIR was prompted by the request for a change in the General Plan and Zoning Maps on a specific large parcel. To support the request and show potential projects, the auto mall and RV park were proposed. Thus, environmental issues were analyzed with these land uses in mind. CEQA dictates that environmental assessment occur at the earliest possible stage, including General Plan and Zone Changes, even if the proposed development is only in the conceptual stage. It is anticipated that the EIR is comprehensive enough to apply to other similar recreational and commercial projects, for many of the environmental factors are site related. However, upon submittal of detailed site development plans, further environmental review may be necessary. The following analysis will focus on the environmental factors which raise special concerns and the two issues for which there are no adequate mitigation measures at this time. Biological Resources The site contains three riparian corridors of significant wildlife and vegetation values: the Salinas River, Graves Creek, and Paso Robles Creek. It was concern over protection of these resources that triggered the most response from the public during the review period. In response to this environmental setting and comments from the public, a wildlife biologist walked the site using the updated State lists of threatened and endangered species. No evidence was uncovered of rare or endangered species. Development within the utility easements is prohibited by P.G. & E restrictions. This 425 feet wide building limitation effectively provides a 100 riparian setback along Graves Creek. Similar riparian setbacks are recommended in the EIR for the remaining sections of Graves Creek, as well as Paso Robles Creek and the Salinas River. The report goes on to encourage the -3- �Q�t1 preservation of all oak woodlands and that a botanical survey be conducted in the springtime. Effluent Disposal The site is located outside the Urban Services Line and thus is not within the City' s Sewer District. Hence, the applicant is proposing the development of a private on-site sewage disposal system. The facilities needed for a private system are a network of gravity sewers, lift station(s) , treatment plant, and a disposal system of two 1.80-acre ponds. The size of these ponds and the constraints of the P.G.& E. easement would eliminate approximately 120 proposed RV spaces. The environmental effects associated with these facilities are the degradation of groundwater quality, odor nuisance, visual impacts, and increased energy use. The section concludes that these impacts can be mitigated to insignificance with proper separation between the disposal ponds and surface waters or wells. Careful siting and screening of the effluent disposal ponds can avoid odor or visual nuisance impacts. The Director of Public Works has indicated (Page R-26) that an on-site private system is not appropriate. These systems often experience maintenance shortcomings in which the result can be nuisances, health problems, or pollution. Furthermore, should such a system fail, the City would be responsible for taking over the operation of the system. The Regional Water Quality Control Board has verified that these are legitimate concerns and that connection to the City sewer system should be further evaluated. The closest City wastewater facility is 10,000 feet from the property on El Camino Real and the 1990 Sewer Master Plan does not include the site in its future service area. The facilities necessary for connection to the City sewer include an on-site lift station, force main, and gravity sewer to transport sewage to proposed lift station #I. The construction of Lift Station #I, along with the necessary force main and gravity sewer along El Camino Real to connect to the existing collection system would also be necessary. The proposed auto mall and RV park could result in degradation of wastewater entering the City collection system. The extension of the Urban Services Line (USL) becomes a major policy question with its implications on growth inducement and sewer system capacity. The enlargement of the USL is a significant variation from the General Plan and Sewer Master Plan and was not part of this original application. Growth inducement due to a sewer line is speculative and should not override the City' s long held land use policies of a decreasing density pattern from the City core to the outlying areas. Nevertheless, it is a valid concern that the EIR briefly analyzed in the worst- case scenario. A maximum of 32 new lots could be created if zone changes were granted for one-half acre lot sizes along E1 Camino Real from Del Rio Rd. to the subject site. Pressure could also -4- 90C 01`. increase for a return to multiple family zoning. A large area at Carrizo and E1 Camino Real was historically designated High Density Multiple Family until the recently adopted Land Use Update changed the area to Residential Suburban. Paradoxically, this change was deemed necessary because the area lacks sewer facilities. In sum, staff believes that expanding the USL was not part of this application, was not addressed in the EIR, and is a topic worthy of an independent EIR. In fact, the policies of the new General Plan would direct this approach. For these reasons, staff is recommending that the specific PD Overlay limit development to that which can be served by on-site sewage disposal, unless the USL is extended to include the site. The latter would require a General Plan Amendment and full evaluation of growth inducement impacts. Water Supply Water supply is a similar dilemma to that of sewage disposal. The two alternatives to obtain an adequate water supply are: 1) the development of a new water supply or, 2) connection to the Atascadero Mutual Water Co (AMWC) . The request to connect to the AMWC system, although environmentally preferred, has been denied three times during the last decade. Thus, the analysis focuses on the environmental consequences of producing a new private water supply and delivery system. To develop an adequate water supply would require facilities, such as two potable wells, water treatment system, water storage tank, distribution lines, and all the necessary supporting pumps, generators, etc. The environmental impacts of this system would be increased withdrawals from the Paso Robles Ground Water Basin, possible effects on river flows, visual implications of an above- grade water storage tank, and increased energy use. The lack of other available water supplies and further withdrawals from the Ground Water Basin present a significant adverse impact. A Statement of Overriding Considerations as defined by CEQA is mandatory if the project is approved. In this case, the City must determine that the benefits of a project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental impacts. The specific Finding called for in CEQA is that "specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR. " If the annual safe yield is being exceeded now, any new development of this scale would necessitate this finding. Air Ouality Air quality impacts of the project are analyzed under short term, long term, and cumulative scenarios. The deterioration of air quality during construction can be mitigated by the suggested measures, such as watering the site, spreading soil binders, and planting of ground cover. The report concludes, however, that short term exceedance of ozone levels will occur if the site is fully developed with both proposed land uses prior to 1995. This -5- 900047 becomes the second unavoidable environmental impact of the project. Improvements to the vehicle fleet and the anticipated progress brought about by the Clean Air Plan are expected to lower emissions to the Air Pollution Control District thresholds by 1995. Other Environmental Issues Approximately 48 acres of the site is within the 100 year flood plain. Approval of an engineered drainage plan is required prior to any development within the flood plain. As an additional safety feature, the consultant has recommended that any RV sites within the Flood Hazard Zone should be prohibited from being occupied during the rainy season (October 15 through April 15) . Project traffic impacts are significant, however, minor traffic improvements, such as stop signs, left turn channelization, and an offramp lane extension will maintain the highest level -of service. Again, the traffic analysis was based on models and projections for automobile dealers, RV parks, and cumulative scenarios. Another traffic related issue is the crossing of the Southern Pacific Railroad. A grade track crossing (surface level) is possible if the crossing is maintained by the City. Otherwise, a bridge crossing is necessary. Although the site is adjacent to single family residences, the noise analysis concludes that operation of the auto mall should have a negligible effect on neighborhood quality of life. The noise conflict presented by the project is between the RV park and the railroad. Indeed, the EIR states that, "whether or not train noise will include whistles, the disturbance which would be caused by the peak noise levels during pass-bys - particularly those occurring at night and in the early morning - cannot be completely mitigated by any feasible setback distance. " A combination of a bridge crossing, setback, and noise barrier would reduce noise to acceptable levels. The proposed auto mall and RV park would not have an adverse impact on the City's housing supply, in fact by increasing employment opportunities the project has a beneficial effect on the City' s jobs/housing balance. Lastly, the EIR demonstrates that the auto mall and RV park will generate more revenues than necessary to offset the ongoing maintenance and operating costs of the project. General Plan/Zone Change As mentioned earlier, the action being considered is certification of an EIR in conjunction with a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change. Approvals and appropriate development standards for an auto mall and RV park are not being reviewed at this time. What is being offered by the EIR is the -6- identification of environmental issues and mitigation measures associated with development of an auto mall and RV park. This supplements, and in large part replaces, the previous EIR prepared for a mixed-use project of industrial, hotel, and residential uses. Many of the environmental issues, such as archeological resources, biological resources, utility restrictions, and sewage disposal are characteristic of the site and must be respected in any development scenario. Likewise, impacts on water supply and air quality are unavoidable upon development of the property. This fact, along with the employment and fiscal benefits provided by commercial development, should warrant the Statement of Overriding Considerations. Several policies from the newly adopted Land Use Element support this position: "Provide for a sound economic base to sustain ,the City' s unique character. " (Page II-1) "Transform the existing E1 Camino Real "strip" into distinctive, attractive, and efficient commercial, office, and industrial park areas which can provide for the long- term economic viabilty of the community. " (Page II-2) "Large lot commercial uses, generally on sites of two acres or more, although smaller lot sizes may be allowed for planned unit developments, which shall include but not be limited to automobile sales agencies (Page II-15) Impacts due to traffic, noise, glare, drainage, and appearance can be adjusted to the particular project using the EIR analysis and City policies and standards. The proposed General Plan Amendment and Zone Change would result in the 10 acre Commercial Tourist property expanding to 27 acres devoted to Commercial Park. The existing residential designation would be removed and the recreational portion of the site enlarged to 76 acres. The RV park appears to recognize the constraints of the site, while the auto mall would maximize the commercial potential of the upland piece of the property. Staff has recommended a PD Overlay for the site similar to the existing Commercial Park Overlay Zone. This requires a Conditional Use Permit for any development in order to review the specifics of the project, and in this case, determine if the EIR is completely adequate. The PD Overlay includes a list of conditionally allowed uses in the event the auto mall and RV park are not pursued. This list of land uses is a scaled down version of the uses currently allowed in the CPK and L zones. Minor modifications to the Land Use Element text are also proposed in this recommendation. These are simply to update the Commercial Park locations and to delete the reference to eliminating the Commercial Park classification. CONCLUSIONS: The report concludes that the mitigated project as outlined above is the environmentally preferred alternative, for it eliminates or reduces to insignificance most of the adverse effects identified in the EIR. In this case, a Statement of Overriding Considerations as defined by CEQA is justified for the issues of ground water extraction and the short term exceedance of APCD threshold for ozone emissions. The PD Overlay Zone limits the type of uses, mandates Conditional Use Permit review for any development, and correlates to the Environmental Impact Report. SEPARATE COVER: Final Environmental Impact Report, Site and Environmental Design - February 1992 ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A - Zoning Map Attachment B - General Plan Land Use Map Attachment C - Existing v. Proposed Zoning Attachment D - Conceptual Site Plan Attachment E - Draft Resolution Attachment F - Draft Ordinance -8- ATTACHMENT 'A ZONING MAP ,M ,.. CITY OF ATASCADERO GFA 2A-91/ZC 02-91 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FINAL EIR DEPARTMENT SITE _ P ( F RS ( F I TRAFFIC= i Y r j r \ V� t n 1 �� II i F• S j� w Lk ) 90004'7 ATTACHMENT -B-- CITY OF ATASCADERO GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP �I - ,14.11gi�, _ GPA 2A-91 / Z C 02 91 =sem-CAD 4 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FINAL EIR DEPARTMENT -�_ S 17 E R� PUBLI E TRI►FF1C� IL c ` IY � rr rr r, r ( E SI Y TFF t N IA I ! ' rt �� . . . � � � � ° I '` -� i _� ATTACHMENT D CITY OF ATASCADERO CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN GPA 2A-91 / Z C 0 2-9 1 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT �� FINAL EIR DEPARTMENT ------�'"------------------------------------ ------------- RIVER ---- -- RIVER t_------ I zt __r-- ' !:.;:%-2=-- _ �".L-'--�_`a._a___- _-rte - •-;� Boz J - "�--=- ✓' J ---- ,I 10"t / 4� I ! \\ ATA5CACCRO ( ^O MALL I IL J ;t x ez0 500 zeo — � — 740 SECTION - MOP.'wONTAL SCALE, ?_ ZOO- VERTICAL SCALE, V- 40- P.O(-"Fi ' = PP,:)AEp7Y - r!L'-i OP LEVEL nmEP.S - GUY GREENE. PLANNER ATTACHMENT E GPA 2A-91/ZC 02-91 FINAL EIR RESOLUTION NO. - A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE LANDS USE MAP AND TEXT OF THE GENERAL PLAN. (GPA 2A-91 - City of Atascadero) WHEREAS, the City of Atascadero has grown considerably since incorporation; and WHEREAS, the City's General Plan, which was prepared in the 1970' s and adopted in 1980 to guide the City' s general growth is in need of updating; and WHEREAS; the Planning Commission of the City of Atascadero conducted a public hearing on the subject amendment on April 21, 1992; and WHEREAS, Government Code Section 65356 provides that a General Plan be amended by the adoption of a resolution; and WHEREAS, the Council of the City of Atascadero finds as follows: 1. The proposed General Plan Amendment reflects policies and goals appropriate for the city of Atascadero. 2. The proposed General Plan amendment will not have a significant adverse affect on the environment. The Environmental Impact Report prepared for the project is adequate. 3. Mitigation measures have been incorporated into the project, which avoid or substantially lessen most of the significant environmental effects as identified in the Final EIR. A Statement of Overriding Considerations is warranted because the unavoidable adverse impacts on air quality and water supply are outweighed by the economic and social benefits of the project. THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Atascadero does resolve to approve General Plan Amendment GPA 2A-91 as follows: Amendment to the General Plan Land Use Map as shown on attached Exhibit A, changing the subject property from Retail Commercial, Suburban Residential, and Recreation to Commercial Park and Recreation. Amendment to the text of the General Plan Land Use Element as shown on attached Exhibit B. Page 2 Resolution No. On motion by and seconded by the foregoing resolution is hereby adopted in its entirety by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: DATE ADOPTED: CITY OF ATASCADERO, CA ALDEN SHIERS, Mayor ATTEST: LEE RABOIN, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: RAY WINDSOR, City Manager APPROVED AS TO FORM: ARTHER MONTANDON, City Attorney PREPARED BY: HENRY ENGEN, Community Development Director EXHIBIT A A��" CITY OF ATASCADERO ATTACHMENT 1g COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT RESOLUTION NO. • ,� DEPARTMENT R� • � , TRAFf1C= I j � 1` W • >l a E( S1TY f I U TI- F 1 � o 1. i ' EXHIBIT B ATTACHMENT E RESOLUTION NO. CHANGES TO THE GENERAL PLAN TEXT: Changes are proposed as follows: ------ for deletions and bold text for additions. Page/Location Change Proposed P. II-15 (g) An area of Commercial Park is designated nerth ef .AselmeRead— te- just south of Del Rio Road, and is bounded east and west by Highway 101 and E1 Camino Real, -=_Lee ' An additional area of Commercial Park is located on the northeast part of the City at Santa Cruz Road. The intent of this land use designation is to set aside an area for uses included but not limited to: P. II-15 (g) (1) Large lot commercial uses, generally on sites of two acres or more, although smaller lot sizes may be allowed for planned unit developments, which shall include but not be limited to automobile sales agencies, mobile home sales facilities, ne=ading at least ene aReheE tenant, factory outlet centers, traveler destination/recreation complexes, craftsman parks, and nurseries. P. II-36 (2) Hiiminatlen ef the-eemmeEei pa 2nd proposed e-isti iet-nfaver-ef Indus al pa=k amendment ATTACHMENT F GPA-2A-91/ZC 02-91 FINAL EIR ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO AMENDING MAP 4 OF THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAPS BY REZONING CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY AT 905 EL CAMINO REAL FROM CT, RS (FH) , AND L (FH) (COMMERCIAL TOURIST, RESIDENTIAL SUBURBAN, RECREATION, FLOOD HAZARD OVERLAYS) TO CPR AND L (PD9) (FH) (COMMERCIAL PARK AND RECREATION, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY NO. 9 AND FLOOD HAZARD OVERLAY) (ZC 02-91: Daven Investments) WHEREAS, the proposed zoning map amendments are consistent with the General Plan as required by Section 65860 of the California Government Code; and WHEREAS, the proposed amendments are in conformance with Section 65800 et seq. of the California Government Code concerning zoning regulations; and WHEREAS, the proposed amendments will not have a significant adverse impact upon the environment. The Environmental Impact Report prepared for the project is adequate; and WHEREAS, the Atascadero Planning Commission held a public hearing on April 21, 1992 and has recommended approval of Zone Change 02-91. NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Atascadero does ordain as follows: Section 1. Council Findings. 1. The proposal is compatible with the surrounding land use and zoning. 2. The proposal is consistent with the General Plan land use element. 3. The proposal will not result in any significant adverse environmental impacts. Mitigation measures have been incorporated into the project, which avoid or substantially lessen most of the significant environmental effects as identified in the Final EIR. A Statement of Overriding Considerations is warranted because the unavoidable adverse impacts on air quality and water supply are outweighed by the economic and social benefits of the project. 4. Modification of development standards or processing requirements is warranted to promote orderly and harmonius development. Page 2 Ordinance No. 5. Modification of development standards or processing requirements will enhance the opportunity to best utilize special characteristics of an area and will have a beneficial effect on the area. 6. Benefits derived from the overlay zone cannot be reasonably achieved through existing development standards or processing requirements. 7. The proposed plans offer certain redeeming features to compensate for requested modifications. Section 2. Zoning Map. Map number 4 of the Official Zoning Maps of the City of Atascadero on file in the City Community Development Department is hereby amended to reclassify the parcels listed below and as shown on the attached Exhibit A which is hereby made a part of this ordinance by reference. Assessor's Parcel Number 049-043-001 Section 3. Zoning Ordinance Text. Development of said parcels shall be in accordance with the standards of the Planned Development Overlay No. 9, as established in Exhibit B and hereby made a part of this ordinance by reference. Section 4. Publication. The City Clerk shall cause this ordinance to be published once within fifteen ( 15) days after its passage in the Atascadero News, a newspaper of general circulation, printed, published, and circulated in the City in accordance with Section 36933 of the Government Code; shall certify the adopting and posting of this ordinance and shall cause this ordinance and this certification together with proof of posting to be entered into the Book of Ordinances of the City. Section 5. Effective Date. This ordinance shall go into effect and be in full force and effect at 12:01 a.m. on the 31st day after its passage. Page 3 Ordinance No. On motion by and seconded by the foregoing Ordinance is approved by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: DATE ADOPTED: By. •ALDEN SHIERS, Mayor City of Atascadero, California ATTEST: LEE RABOIN, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: RAY WINDSOR, City Manager APPROVED AS TO FORM: ARTHER MONTANDON, City Attorney PREPARED BY: HENRY ENGEN, Community Development Director C\ EXHIBIT A CITY OF ATASCADERO ATTACHMENT 9-7 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE NO. DEPARTMENT : :' 4 I a • o - r Y N • {1 � i i i r aoGo517 Exhibit B Attachment F Ordinance No. 9-3.653. Establishment of Commercial Park Planned Development Overlay Zone No.9 (PD9) . Commercial Park Planned Development Overlay Zone No. 9 is established as shown on the Official Zoning Maps (Section 9-1.102) . The following development standards are established: (a) A Master Plan of Development shall be approved prior to approving a Plot Plan, Precise Plan, Conditional Use Permit, Tentative Parcel Map, or Tract Map. The Master Plan shall be applied for and processed in the manner prescribed for a Conditional Use Permit (Section 9- 2. 109) . (b) The proposed Master Plan of Development shall generally incorporate the mitigation measures as contained in the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (EIR) , prepared by Site and Environmental Design, February, 1992. Depending on the proposed project, the EIR may need to be modified or expanded to address unforeseen environmental impacts. (c) In approving a Master Plan of Development, the level of processing for subsequent projects or phases may be reduced to a Plot Plan provided that the Master Plan contains sufficient detail to support a such a determination. (d) No subsequent Plot Plan, Precise Plan, Conditional Use Permit, Tentative Parcel Map or Tract Map shall be approved unless found to be consistent with the approved Master Plan of Development. Any amendment to the Master Plan, including conditions thereof, shall be accomplished as set forth in Subsection (a) of this Section. (e) In approving a Master Plan of Development for the site, the conditionally allowed land uses are limited to the following: 1. Automobile, mobilehome, and vehicle dealers and suppliers (see Section 9-6. 163) 2. Accessory Storage (see Section 9-6.103) 3. Building materials and hardware (Section 9-6. 165) 4. Business support services 5. Contract construction services 6. Electronic and scientific instruments 7. Farm equipment and supplies 8. Furniture and fixtures 9. Horticultural specialties (see Section 9-6. 116) 10. Sales lots (see Section 9-6. 139) 11. Small scale manufacturing 12. Temporary events (see Section 9-6. 177 ) 13. Temporary/seasonal sales (see Section 9-6.174) 14. Utility transmission facilities 15. Vehicle and equipment storage (Section 9-6. 183) 16. Indoor Recreation 17. Pipelines 18. Public assembly and entertainment (f) Any development shall be served by an on-site sewage disposal system, unless an extension of the Urban Services Line is granted through a separate General Plan Amendment. Exhibit B (cont. Attachment F Ordinance No. 9-3.654. Establishment of Recreation Planned Development Overlay Zone No.9 (PD9) . Recreation Planned Development Overlay Zone No. 9 is established as shown on the Official Zoning Maps (Section 9- 1. 102) . The following development standards are established: (a) A Master Plan of Development shall be approved prior to approving, a Plot Plan, Precise Plan, Conditional Use Permit, Tentative Parcel Map, or Tract Map. The Master Plan shall be applied for and processed in the manner prescribed for a Conditional Use Permit (Section 9- 2. 109) . (b) The proposed Master Plan of Development shall generally incorporate the mitigation measures as contained in the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (EIR) , prepared by Site and Environmental Design, February, 1992. Depending on the proposed project, the EIR may need to be modified or expanded to address unforeseen environmental impacts. (c) In approving a Master Plan of Development, the level of processing for subsequent projects or phases may be reduced to a Plot Plan provided that the Master Plan contains sufficient detail to support a such a determination. (d) No subsequent Plot Plan, Precise Plan, Conditional Use Permit, Tentative Parcel Map. or Tract Map shall be approved unless found to be consistent with the approved Master Plan of Development. Any amendment to the Master Plan, including conditions thereof, shall be accomplished as set forth in Subsection (a) of this Section. (e) In approving a Master Plan of Development for the site, the conditionally allowed land uses are limited to the following: 1. Recreational vehicle park (see Section 9-6. 180) 2. Accessory Storage (see Section 9-6. 103) 3. Sports assembly 4. Caretaker's residence (see Section 9-6. 104) 5. Temporary events (see Section 9-6. 177) 6. Rural sports/group sports/groupfacilities (Section 9-6. 124) 7. Outdoor recreation services (see Section 9-6. 123) 8. Fisheries and game preserves 9. General merchandise stores, where related to recreational uses on the site 10. Temporary/seasonal sales (see Section 9-6. 174) 11. Forestry (f) All development shall be served by an on-site sewage disposal system, unless an extension of the Urban Services Line is granted through a separate General Plan Amendment. s CITY OF ATASCADERO Item: B-3 STAFF REPORT FOR: Planning Commission Meeting Date: January 7, 1992 BY: b Doug Davidson, Senior Planner File No: Draft EIR GPA 2A-91 ZC 02-91 SUBJECT: Public review of the Draft Environmental Impact Report prepared in conjunction with General Plan Amendment 2A-91/Zone Change 02- 91. The request is to change the Land Use and Zone designations to allow a proposed automobile sales mall and a Recreational Vehicle Park. RECOMMENDATION: Following public testimony and Planning Commission direction, continue the meeting to a future date in order to respond to comments and consider certification of the Final ETR. • SITUATION AND FACTS: 1. Applicant. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Daven Investments Ltd. Cosmic Astro Corp. 2. Representative. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Guy Greene 3. Project Address. . . . . . . . . . . . . .905 El Camino Real 4. General Plan Designation. . . . .Retail Commercial Recreation Residential Suburban 5. Zoning District. . . . . . . . . . . . . .CT (Commercial Tourist) L (FH) (Recreation) (Flood Hazard) RS (FH) (Residential Suburban) (Flood Hazard) 6. Site Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103 acres 7. Existing Use. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Mobile home residence 8. Environmental Status. . . . . . . . .Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 9aC0G1' C l BACKGROUND: An EIR was prepared on the subject site in 1981 resulting in the prezoning and annexation of the property into the City in 1982. The project proposed at that time included a mix of land uses - tourist commercial, industrial, residential, and open space. The original zoning of CT (Commercial Tourist) , RS (Residential Suburban) , and L (Recreation) reflected this mixed use scheme. This proposed project did not progress beyond the conceptual stage offered in the EIR. Tentative Parcel Map 11-89 was approved on September 12, 1989. This two-way division also reflected the site' s zoning by separating the commercial land into ten acres and the remaining 90 acres for residential and recreational purposes. This tentative approval has now expired. The application for General Plan Amendment 2A-91/Zone Change 02- 91 was received in March, 1991 and included in the General Plan Amendment cycle by the City Council in June, 1991. Based upon the initial study, the proposed project could result in a significant effect on the environment. Some of these potential environmental impacts were not adequately addressed in the original EIR, because the project has been substantially modified. Furthermore, State and local environmental regulations have greatly changed in the last ten years. Thus, under the • guidelines of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) , a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared, focusing on the areas of concern identified in the initial study. The draft EIR is attached for review (under separate cover) and must be certified as an adequate document under CEQA before any project approvals or land use changes are granted. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The site is located on the northeast corner of the City, bounded on the west by U.S. 101 and to the east by the Salinas River. The Southern Pacific Railway traverses the site in a an east-west direction. Graves Creek intersects the site in north-south fashion and Paso Robles Creek runs along the northwest property line. The current development pattern is rural in nature, with scattered suburban residential uses in a historically agricultural area. The General Plan Amendment and Zone Change would allow for the proposed auto sales mall and a Recreational Vehicle (RV) park, specifically a five dealership auto mall on the upland area adjacent to the freeway and a 444 space RV north of the railway and along the Salinas River. This would expand the recreational zoning of the property to 76 acres and eliminate the portion designated for single family residential. In conjunction, the proposed commercial area increases from 10 acres to 27 acres with a Commercial Park category replacing that of the existing 2 Commercial Tourist. The proposed project is an attempt by the applicant to recognize the flood hazard potential of the Salinas River and provide a necessary commercial use in a concentrated manner. The proposed RV park would have direct access to the freeway, but would not be visible from most of the surrounding properties. The proposed RV spaces are situated in a manner that would maintain in excess of 50 acres of open space along the Salinas River. The proposed project would eventually necessitate review of several different entitlements, in addition to the General Plan Amendment and Zone Change. A resubdivision of the property (Tentative Parcel Map) would be needed to carry out the project and conform to the land use designations. The proposed Zone Change includes a Planned Development Overlay Zone (PD) to establish specific development standards, but further review in the Precise Plan/Conditional Use Permit level will be necessary upon submittal of more detailed development plans. Further environmental review could take place at that time, however, it is expected that these actions could take place under the scope of the EIR. The purpose of the meeting on January 7th is to gather public comment on the draft EIR and the recommended mitigation measures contained therein, not to consider the pros and cons of the auto mall/RV park project. This meeting is timely considering that the 45 day review period for the draft EIR is running from November 25, 1991 through January 8, 1992. Thereafter, the consultant will prepare the responses to each comment received. These responses to comments, along with the draft EIR, comprise the final EIR. The final EIR will be brought back to the Planning Commission to review the adequacy of the complete environmental review document. The Planning Commission then recommends a final action on the EIR and the associated land use changes to the City Council. ANALYSIS: The initial study of the project revealed some potential significant impacts resulting from project construction. The lack of public water and sewer systems makes the issues of water supply and effluent disposal prominent. The impacts of the land use change on the surrounding area is also fundamental to the analysis - how a project such as an auto mall and RV park will affect the air quality, noise levels, intensity of glare, and traffic generation of the community. The impacts of the project on the natural resources of the site, such as oak woodland and riparian vegetation, are also examined. The report also views the project in a City-wide perspective, such as housing, employment, and fiscal implications. 3 Draft EIR Highlights The draft EIR, prepared by Site and Environmental Design (SEDES) , focuses on the following issues: 1. Land Use 2. Utilities 3. Cultural Resources 4. Biological Resources 5. Visual Resources 6. Glare 7. Surface Hydrology 8. Water Supply 9. Effluent Disposal 10. Traffic 11. Air Quality 12. Noise 13. Housing, Employment, and Population 14. Fiscal Impacts Each of these subject areas is broken down into five sections: Environmental Issue, Environmental Setting, Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Analysis of Significance. A summary of environmental impacts and mitigation measures is contained in Table S (Page II-3) . The Initial Study and Notice of Preparation are contained in Appendix A. These are the documents used in the first phase of the environmental review the initial determination of potential impacts and the solicitation of information to be provided in the EIR from State and local agencies. Appendix B contains the technical studies used in the report, such as the traffic analysis. This report will look briefly at each environmental issue. Land Use The report cites policies from the General Plan Update and the 1988 Economic Base Analysis that could support the proposed change. The reduction in land designated for single family residential and tourist commercial uses is not significant in the context of the Land Use Update. Nor does the proposed General Plan Amendment/Zone Change have a significant environmental effect in itself. Utilities The major site constraint regarding utilities is the three contiguous P.G.&E. easements of 425 feet in width. Development restrictions within the easements will satisfy this concern. Cultural Resources Archeological resources as a development constraint is a topic that was thoroughly covered in the 1981 EIR. The current report 4 concludes that the mitigation measures originally prescribed are still appropriate for the current proposal. Biological Resources Although no development activity has occurred on the site over the last ten years, the list of threatened and endangered species has been modified. The report evaluates the site' s biological resources in this updated manner and concludes that with proper mitigation techniques, the impacts of the project diminish to insignificance. The biological resources of the site can be maintained by preservation of oak and riparian habitat and by not increasing the runoff into the water courses. Visual Resources By conforming to City appearance, sign, and setback standards, the potential visual impacts of the project are insignificant. Glare This issue could potentially be detrimental to the surrounding community due to the intensive illumination associated with automobile dealers in a largely rural setting. The report recommends compliance with the Zoning Ordinance for light pole heights, as well as limiting light intensity to that of a low competitive level suitable in rural areas. Surface Hydrology Approximately half of the site (48 acres) is within the 100 year flood plain providing a natural limitation to site development. Additionally, the proposed project will increase runoff three to four times the existing flow. The suggested alternatives include decreasing the impervious surface of the site, installing a detention/siltation basin, and improving the Graves Creek channel at point of discharge. Water Supply This section of the report compares the two feasible alternatives to obtain an adequate water supply: 1) the development of a new water supply or, 2) connection to the Atascadero Mutual Water Co (AMWC) . The request to connect to the AMWC system, although environmentally preferred, has been denied three times during the last decade. Thus, the analysis focuses on the environmental consequences of producing a new private water supply and delivery system. To develop an adequate water supply would require facilities, such as two potable wells, water treatment system, water storage tank, distribution lines, and all the necessary supporting pumps, generators, etc. The environmental impacts of this system would be increased withdrawals from the Paso Robles Ground Water Basin, C possible effects on river flows, visual implications of an above- grade water storage tank, and increased energy use. The lack of other available water supplies and further withdrawals from the Ground Water Basin present a significant adverse impact. A Statement of Overriding Considerations as defined by CEQA is mandatory if the project is approved. Effluent Disposal The issue of sewage disposal is similar to water supply - the two choices are connection to the public sewer system or development of a private system. The closest City wastewater facility is 10,000 feet from the site and the 1990 Sewer Master Plan does not include the site in its future service area. Furthermore, the site is not within the Urban Services Line. This option should be examined further, however, because the on-site disposal system, as proposed by the applicant, has potential flaws. The facilities needed for an on-site sewage disposal system are a network of gravity sewers, lift station(s) , treatment plant, and a disposal system of two 1.80-acre ponds. The size of these ponds and the constraints of the P.G.& E. easement would eliminate approximately 120 proposed RV spaces. The environmental effects associated with these facilities are the degradation of groundwater quality, odor nuisance, visual impacts, and increased energy use. The section concludes that these impacts can be mitigated to insignificance with the recommended measures. Traffic Traffic impacts are anticipated to be most significant at the Highway 101/El Camino Real/San Ramon Road Interchange, with secondary impacts on El Camino Real and San Ramon Road. Although, traffic generation is substantial, the report concludes that with minor improvements the impacts can be reduced to insignificance. These suggested improvements include the installation of stop signs, left turn channelization on E1 Camino Real, and extending the right lane of the northbound offramp of US 101. Cumulative traffic impact mitigation is also offered, much of it focused on the Del Rio Road/El Camino Real/US 101 Interchange. These improvements were also incorporated into the mitigation measures for the proposed factory outlet center at this intersection. Noise Noise is generated by project construction, auto traffic, and railroad traffic. The two major components of the analysis are the impact of the auto mall and RV park on surrounding residential properties and the effect of the railroad on the proposed RV park. 6 C, The report states tates that standards of the current City Noise Ordinance would be exceeded slightly in the proposed RV park along the railroad tracks. The noise levels of the draft Noise Ordinance would be further exceeded, however, since the new unit of measurement is sensitive to high pitched noise of short duration, such as a train whistle. The noise levels on surrounding residential properties will increase slightly - some of the these residential locations currently exceed the established noise limits. Air Quality Air quality impacts of the project are analyzed under short term, long term, and cumulative scenarios. The deterioration of air quality during construction can be mitigated by the suggested measures, such as watering the site, spreading soil binders, and planting of ground cover. The report concludes, however, that short term exceedance of ozone levels will occur if the site is fully developed with both proposed land uses prior to 1995. This becomes the second unavoidable environmental impact of the project. Improvements to the vehicle fleet and the anticipated progress brought about by the Clean Air Plan are expected to lower emissions to the Air Pollution Control District thresholds by 1995. Housing, Employment, and Population This section looks at the impacts of the proposed project on the City' s job/housing balance and population capacity as defined by the General Plan. The impact of the project on housing is two- fold: (1) does the project uphold the housing policies of the General Plan and, (2) how will the project impact the housing opportunities in the City? The elimination of residential zoning on the site will result in a slight decrease of potential single family residences. (Note: The report states that 17.5 acres of the site is zoned RS - a maximum decrease of seven (7) residences. Approximately 40 acres of the site are currently zoned RS, however, resulting in a maximum decrease of sixteen ( 16) single family residences. ) This decrease in single family residential land is not significant particularly given the proposed increase of potentially 94 such units under the Draft General Plan Land Use Update. It is expected that the vacancy rate (currently 4.4%) and additional residential construction will provide ample housing opportunities for employees of the project. Furthermore, the development will generate approximately 400 new jobs, thus reducing the City' s jobs/housing imbalance. Lastly, the phased nature of the project should not contribute a noticeable contribution to the City' s population. 7- Fiscal Impacts The fiscal impacts of the project are positive, in other words, the project will generate more revenues than the associated City service and maintenance costs. CONCLUSIONS: The report concludes by analyzing alternatives, including the no project scenario, other commercial uses on the site, and alternate sites for the proposed project. The report concludes that the mitigated project as outlined above is the environmentally preferred alternative, for it eliminates or reduces to insignificance most of the adverse effects identified in the EIR. In this case, a Statement of Overriding Considerations as defined by CEQA is necessary for the issues of ground water extraction and the short term exceedance of APCD threshold for ozone emissions. A summary of project alternatives is contained on Table A (Page V-4) . SEPARATE COVER: Draft Environmental Impact Report, Site and Environmental Design - October 1991 8 PLANNING COMMISSION - MINUTES EXCERPT - MAY 19, 1992 2 . FINAL EIR/GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2A-91/ZONE CHANGE 02-91: Certification of Final EIR in conjunction with GPA 2A-91 and ZC 02-91 - request to change the Land Use and Zone designations to allow a proposed automobile sales mall at 905 El Camino Real (Daven Investments Ltd. /Cosmic Astro Corporation/Guy Greene, representative) . (CONTINUED FROM MEETING OF APRIL 21, 1992) Doug Davidson presented the staff report which included such issues as: the different types of EIRs; comparison between other possible land uses of the proposed Commercial Park and Recreation zones and compatability of these two land uses; economic/fiscal advantages of other possible Commercial Park uses to justify the Statement of Overriding Concerns in the event the auto mall is not developed; the two distinct land forms for the auto mall and RV park, etc. Commission questions followed. - Public Testimony - Chairperson Luna reminded the public that this is a continued hearing and requested that any testimony be focused on new items not discussed at the prior hearing. Guy Greene, agent for the applicant, noted that when the application was initially submitted, it was viewed as a first step in a longer process. Since the residential and commercial zoning has been in place on the property for several years, Mr. Greene stated that the applicants simply want to remove the single family portion as it was not felt that housing would be appropriate. Mr. Greene further stated that retaining the property under one ownership would allow more flexibility in resolving mitigation measures. In addition, since the last hearing, he has submitted further information on a more specific project. In conclusion, Mr. Greene conveyed his belief that the two primary concerns, sewer and water, can be resolved as the project is developed. Mr. Greene then responded to questions from the Commission. Chairperson Luna inquired if there is any information as to whether any local auto dealerships will locate in the auto mall. Mr. Greene indicated that he was not aware of any at this time, but discussions of this option will take place. He added that the process for the auto mall development takes a long time. In response to question by Chairperson Luna as to whether there will be a back-up project if the auto mall is not a viable project, Mr. Greene responded that at this time, there is no such other project and that the auto mall project is probably the best proposal. All efforts will be directed toward that end. Mr. Greene addressed issues on the fiscal analysis noting that the projected revenues and expenditures are entirely consistent; the proposed use would be of great benefit to the City, more so than what the property is currently zoned for. Eric Greening, 7365 Valle, spoke on the concern contained in the EIR relative to off-road vehicles and firearms with regard to adequate law enforcement protection. Mr. Greening also conveyed concern on the lack of an earthquake fault analysis. He hoped there would be a tighter reassurance before any disaster may occur. Rush Kolemaine, Box 1990, stated there are still questions not answered by staff or the developers relative to pollutants from the RVs and how they would be handled. Mr. Kolemaine expressed concern on the use of the lower section of land as to how access will be provided both by public agencies and by the park users. He urged the Commission to take a closer look at how these issues will be handled and whether adequate protection could be provided in the future. - End of Public Testimony - In responding to Mr. Greening's comments, David Foote (EIR consultant) referred to a study done by the City of San Luis Obispo in which the Rinconada fault was cited. With regard to Mr. Kolemaine's comments concerning public and emergency access, he noted that the EIR assumes there will be some sort of crossing of the railroad tracks, and the EIR basically recommends that it be an overpass crossing which would be wide enough for people to get in and out; he did not see this as a problem. In addressing pollutant loading of the river basin, Mr. Foote stated he is currently working on another project in Paso Robles which studied this aspect specifically. It was determined that pollutants attach themselves to silts and do not get into the aquifer. It was Mr. Foote's belief that this would not be an issue in terms of groundwater contamination. 0 0000 a Mr. Foote noted that the EIR did not specifically address the area of law enforcement with regard to off-road vehicles and firearms. Commissioner Waage questioned whether there would be more effluent with the RV park as opposed to', single family development. Mr. Foote explained that the existing zoning would allow a motel and restaurant as well as a certain number of residential lots. The proposed zoning would allow a different mix of uses. The RV park would use more water and produce more effluent than the residential use, but the auto mall would use considerably less than a motel and restaurant, so the net change between the two zoning scenarios would be less - effluent and less water under the proposed project. MOTION: By Commissioner Highland and seconded by Commis- sioner Hanauer to certify the Final EIR as an adequate document under the provisions of the California Environmental Quality ACT (CEQA) . The motion carried 6:1 with the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Highland, Hanauer, Lochridge, Rudlac, Johnson, and Chairperson Luna NOES: Commissioner Waage MOTION: By Commissioner Highland and seconded by Commis- sioner Hanauer to recommend approval of General Plan Amendment 2A-91 based on the Findings for Approval contained in Attachment E. Chairperson Luna stated that he cannot support the General Plan amendment; it necessitates two (2) Overriding Consid- erations when the proposed zoning is from 10 acres of Commer- cial to 27 acres of Commercial as well as the project not being cast in concrete. He further expressed concerns about the RV park and the number of units that would be allowed. Commissioner Waage noted that although he missed the April 21st hearing, he did listen carefully to the tapes and agrees with Chairperson Luna's statements. Some of the lists of allowable and conditionally allowed uses are not appropriate. He further stated his feeling that the chances of developing the auto mall are slim to none. The motion carried 5:2 with the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Highland, Hanauer, Rudlac, is Lochridge, and Johnson OUC 0 77' NOES: Commissioner Waage and Chairperson Luna MOTION: By Commissioner Highland and seconded by Commis- sioner Rudlac to recommend approval of Zone Change 02-91 based on the Findings for Approval contained in Attachment F. The motion carried 5:2 with the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Highland, Rudlac, Johnson, Lochridge, and Hanauer NOES: Commissioner Waage and Chairperson Luna 90G077 PLANNING COMMISSION - MINUTES EXCERPT - 4/21/92 ITEM: A. 1 . MINUTES - ATASCADERO PLANNING COMMISSION Regular Meeting Tuesday, April 21, 1992 - 7:00 p.m. Atascadero Administration Building The regular meeting of the Atascadero Planning Commission was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairperson Luna followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Kudlac, Johnson, Highland, Lochridge, Hanauer, and Chairperson Luna Absent: Commissioner Waage (excused) Staff Present: Steve Decamp, City Planner; Doug Davidson, Senior Planner; David Foote (EIR consultant) , Pat Shepphard, Administrative Secretary PUBLIC COMMENT No public comment was received. A. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Approval of minutes of the regular Planning Commission meeting of March 17, 1992 2. Approval of minutes of the regular Planning Commission meeting of April 7, 1992 3 . Consideration of time extension request for Precise Plan 04-90 at 7405 Morro Road - Coldwell Banker (Joe Elkins) Chairperson Luna noted that Item A-2 was not ready for consideration. MOTION: By Commissioner Highland, seconded by Commissioner Johnson and carried 6:O .to approve Items A-1 and A-3 of the Consent Calendar. B. HEARINGS, APPEARANCES, AND REPORTS 1. FINAL EIR/GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2A-91f ZONE CHANGE 02-91: Certification of Final EIR in conjunction with GPA 2A-91 and ZC 02-91 - request to change the Land Use and Zone designations to allow a proposed automobile sales mall and a Recreational Vehicle Park. Subject site is located . at 905 E1 Camino Real (Daven Investments Ltd. & Cosmic Astro Corporation/Guy Greene, representative) Doug Davidson presented the staff report and provided an • analysis on the environmental factors which have raised special concerns along with two issues for which there are no adequate mitigation measures at the present time (water and air quality) . Commission questions and discussion followed. Chairperson Luna noted that the EIR utilized the San Luis Obispo model to calculate fiscal benefits to the City on the basis of 17 acres of Commercial property, yet this project entails 27 acres.. He questioned what will be developed on the remaining 10 acres of Commercial zoning. Mr. Davidson explained the graph of the Fiscal Model reflecting revenues, operating expenses, etc. of an auto mall use. Chairperson Luna voiced concern that the Commission is being asked to make overriding considerations on an economic basis without knowing what exactly the project will be. Mr. DeCamp stated that in looking at what might be the more significant impacts, the auto mall provides a worst case scenario; the other potential uses that could occur probably would not have the same level or magnitude of impact as the auto mall. Discussion followed. David Foote, EIR consultant, added that when looking at the RV park alone, the 6% transient occupancy tax was estimated to generate about $97, 000 per year. In considering any other kind of commercial enterprise on the remainder of the property, it probably would exceed what it would cost the City. Commissioner Hanauer inquired about projected water usage for the project, and stressed that unless the site can obtain water from the Atascadero Mutual Water Company and unless the sewer concerns can be resolved, it would appear that the property is undevelopable. He added that he would object to any well installations. Mr. Foote responded that the projected usage would be approximately 133,300 gallons per day adding that this is not a large usage by any means compared to what municipal wells normally draw. In response to question by Commissioner Lochridge relative to breakdown on acreage, Mr. Foote stated that there are approximately 10 acres for Tourist Commercial, 60 acres Residential, and 30 acres for Recreation (and flood hazard) . Chairperson Luna referenced the Public Works Directors' feelings against any on-site sewage disposal which would mean hooking up to the sewer system, and noted that the General Plan's policies do not speak to extending sewer to an area that will not affect services to priority areas, so a finding would need to be made noting that the impacts of the project on the sewer system would not overburden the system. Mr. Davidson reported that that finding is not for consideration at this hearing. He referenced the General Plan that would direct need for a separate Environmental Impact Report for major extensions of the Urban Services Line, along with a separate General Plan amendment and full evaluation of growth inducement impacts. Chairperson Luna commented that this is premature; that the Commission is being asked to rezone property without knowing whether the zoning can be adequately handled by the sewer system. It appears to be piecemeal amendments. Mr. Davidson replied that at this time, the private sewage disposal system is proposed in concept and the Public Works Director has legitimate concerns. One item that may have potential would be the development of septic systems and leach fields to serve the site. Discussion followed. In responding to question, Mr. Davidson pointed out that based on the environmental document, there are two major limitations regarding the size of the RV park: 1) the 425 foot utility easement of PG&E in which no development will occur within that wide stretch through the middle of the property, 2) and no RVs will be allowed in the 100 year flood plain. From the concept proposed of 444 RV spaces, the EIR was using 320 approximate spaces. Discussion continued. Commissioner Hanauer pointed out that the Water Quality Control Board will be involved with the issues on septic suitability for the project. Mr. Davidson spoke on the need to recognize some proposed land uses that might better reflect these constraints on the subject property. He reminded the Commission that there are presently 10 acres of Commercial Tourist where the applicant could apply for a conditional use permit for some type of gas, food or lodging type of use of high intensity; and that these same questions will be raised and need to be dealt with. Chairperson Luna expressed concern that the problem is being compounded without having a specific project for consideration. It will be difficult for the Commission and Council if the applicant should decide that he no longer wants the auto mall project. Mr. DeCamp explained that at this point, staff is attempting to utilize some of the "tools" CEQA provides for analyzing projects. CEQA requires that an environmental review be done at the earliest possible stage of a project, but also recognizes that all necessary information will not be ready at particular stage. He noted that this is more of a "programmatic" EIR which is looking at hypothetical development of the property. As plans become more specific, it will then be necessary to do more specific environmental analysis. He cautioned the Commission that with a programtic EIR, not all project level questions will be able to be answered. Chairperson Luna countered that on the other hand, staff and the EIR consultant have been very specific about the benefits the City might reap with sales tax revenue, etc. He expressed concern that these benefits may not be realized with another project. Discussion ensued with regard to statements contained in the Economic Research Associates report and Fiscal Analysis report concerning commercial activities, development in Atascadero. Mr. DeCamp remarked that this project represents an opportunity to have a regional type draw; this location is a potential one for those types of commercial activity. Commissioner Lochridge expressed concerns with the compatibility of an auto mall with an RV park which he found it difficult to see how the two projects will mesh together. Mr. Foote conveyed his feeling that there is a significant topographic difference between the two general areas, and discussed the land use buffers, setbacks, etc. which would be incorporated. The two portions of the site are so distinct that Mr. Foote could not think of any serious conflicts. In responding to Commissioner Hanauer's earlier question relative to water usage, Mr. Foote noted an annual usage of 53 acre feet per year. He observed given development of the existing zoning of the site, that more water would be used than with the proposed project. - Public Testimony - Guy Greene, planning consultant to,the applicant, proceeded to address various comments, questions of the Commission. He discussed the various areas on the property worthy of development and those pieces that would not be developable. In addressing the sewer disposal concerns, Mr. Greene replied that the applicant would be happy to construct a 4 inch pressure line to the sewage treatment plant which would be utilized only for this property, and would safely take care of sewage affluent. With regard to the water issue, Mr. Greene noted that he will pursue negotiations with the Water Company to secure water for 900074, the site. He added that there is a type duality to this process in that the EIR deals with the proposed project yet the Commission is being asked to deal with the General Plan amendment and Zone Change. Mr. Greene noted that when the existing zoning was first considered, it was assumed that some of these questions had already been dealt with exclusively by the City. Mr. Greene further commented that the applicant has no intention of putting in RV spaces in the 100 year flood plain, but pointed out that RVs are not particularly vulnerable to slight flooding_(6-8") which is what would probably occur if the 100 year flood limit was exceeded. Mr. Greene remarked that larger pieces of land can be manipulated to satisfy a great number of requirements. If residences are built, lot lines will have been changed; clear title to the entire property will be impossible. He suggested that the property remain under one ownership and discussed benefits resulting from this type of ownership. In explaining why the applicant has not presented a more precise set of plans, Mr. Greene stated it was their desire to have the environmental assessment conducted very early in the process rather than going through the expense of detailed plans for something that may never happen. . In addressing concerns relative to petroleum deposits washing into the river, etc. , Mr. Greene explained that auto malls are constrained by so many scrubbers, traps, etc. that they are among the cleanest users with regard to oil spills, etc. He added that Atascadero has the opportunity to put in place basins, shallow areas lined with grass which can receive all of the runoff from every part of the site that is used and be filtered out. In concluding his remarks, Mr. Greene stated that this project is in the beginning stages of design. The applicant is prepared to work closely with staff, the Commission and Council to satisfy the proposed mitigation measures and perhaps go beyond them. As well, the applicant is prepared to enhance environment by adding trees and take other measures deemed reasonable and appropriate. He then responded to questions by the Commission. Commissioner Hanauer inquired if negotiations with Atascadero Mutual Water Company are ongoing at the present time. Mr. Greene responded that they are not yet but the Water Company seems to be the only rational way to deal with the water situation. If negotiations fail, the next step would be to consider developing wells and forming a mutual water company for the site. In response to question by Chairperson Luna as to whether any of the auto dealerships would be local, Mr. Greene stated that there have only been preliminary conversations with them to date. He added that he cannot offer specifics at this point; there are too many variables involved. Commissioner Hanauer commented that Mr. Greene has pointed out the "Catch 22" situation the City has backed itself into over a period of time with the existing zoning, yet no one has been sure up to this time whether water can be developed to serve a good project. _As well, serious concerns have been expressed about sewage disposal. Mr. Greene reiterated that the applicant is willing to put in a 4 inch pressure line to the treatment plant to alleviate those concerns, and restated his earlier comments relative to water alternatives. Phil Ashley, 1586 Casita Court, San Luis Obispo, stated he has submitted 3 letters on the project to date. He referenced the EIR section in which Mr. Ashley suggested seven recommendations for mitigation measures and proceeded to cover these items. He indicated that a plant study is needed now, and not later. It was his opinion that the Department of Fish and Game should be contacted to determine whether a kit fox study needs to be done as the EIR consultant cannot make that determination. Mr. Ashley then reviewed other species of special concern that are not listed in wildlife study. He did not feel there had been a real study on fish and there was no assessment. Mr. Ashley further stated that Atascadero has protracted, extended rains that cause a different type of flood, and that the 100 year flood line is only an imaginary line. In concluding his remarks, Mr. Ashley recommended that the EIR not be certified as there are too many questions remaining concerning wildlife, botany and the lack of mitigation. He suggested that the Commission, Council, etc. take a field trip to really determine whether the site is appropriate for an RV park. He further recommended no development north of the railroad tracks or only acreage parcels as surrounding areas to be developed. Judy Pullen, Lupine Lane in Templeton, stated she was speaking on behalf of the Upper Salinas-Las Tablas Resource Conservation District which has initiated a coordinated resource management plan for the Salinas River and its water shed; the plan itself will be ongoing for several years. She noted cities, county, state and federal agencies, private landowners, as well as the public that have been asked to participate in this endeavor. f=079 �, i Mrs. Pullen further explained that the plan will deal primarily with the resource issues regarding the Salinas and its watershed along with specific wildlife and biological issues and uses by man of these resources. She inquired whether the developer had considered transfer of development rights of parts of those sensitive areas, as it was her understanding that this is a very lucrative manner of exercising one's financial gains from the property. In conclusion, Mrs. Pullen expressed her hope that the Commission and Council will deal with this project in a most sensitive manner. Rush Kolemaine, Box 1190, echoed the concerns expressed by Mrs. Pullen and Mr. Ashley. He stated that Commissioner Lochrid a best pinpointed q p p what may be the biggest problem in accepting the report - which has to do with two totally different pieces of land and two different land uses. He expressed concern that emergency services were given less importance in the EIR; that there are many questions that have not yet been answered satisfactorily. Mr. Kolemaine urged the Planning Commission to stress to the Council that this particular piece of property needs to be given special attention to those issues raised; and added that he would like to see two separate applications between the two uses. - End of Public Testimony - Mr. Foote, in responding to Mr. Ashley's comments, noted that Fish and Game was notified when the Notice of Preparation was sent and that they did respond; many of the concerns raised were similar to Mr. Ashley's. With regard to the plant study, Mr. Foote stated that the site was studied before and that it is common practice to forestall botanic studies to spring time to pick up annual plants that are not there any other time of the year. It is not unusual to require that study to occur as a condition of project approval. With regard to the kit fox study, Mr. Foote advised that Fish and Game as well as the wildlife biologist that was consulted for the EIR basically noted that it was their belief that this site is out of range for the kit fox. He noted that Mr. Ashley elicited comments on many species and said they weren't mentioned in the EIR; yet most of the ones mentioned are contained in Appendix B of the EIR. Mr. Decamp read into the record a statement by Eric Greening, 7365 Valle requesting that conceptual approval not be voted upon this evening (Attachment A) . Commissioner Hanauer felt Mr. Greening's letter is irrelevant because it speaks to a specific project. Chairperson Luna inquired about Mrs. Pullen's comments on a resource management agency being formed as to whether the City has been contacted. Mr. DeCamp replied that he is not aware of this but that the resource analyst working in the Public Works Department may have been contacted in this regard. Commissioner Highland offered that this particular property was not part of the original Colony and was annexed to the City in 1982; which is why Atascadero Mutual Water Company shares are not available to the property. He discussed prior development schemes that went nowhere primarily due to the lack of water and lack of sewage disposal. But when it was annexed, it was prezoned and that is the zoning that appears on it now. Commissioner Highland expressed his feeling that the current proposal has far more of a chance of doing something with the than what currently exists. Commissioner Hanauer concurred adding that once a specific project does come back to the Commission, there will be considerable conditions to comply with. Chairperson Luna stated that he cannot make the findings of overriding considerations; that unavoidable adverse impacts are outweighed by economic and social benefits of the project. He added that he is not convinced that anybody really knows what the project is. Commissioner Kudlac noted that he is more comfortable with the proposed zoning than what currently exists, but does have problems with the sewage disposal. If a specific proposal comes back in the form of a project, it will be conditioned quite heavily; a lot of things can be mitigated, and he would support the zoning. Commissioner Lochridge cautioned that just because this property is ripe for rezoning is no call for the Commission to grab the first project that comes our way; the plan does nothing to address the compatibility of the conceptual plan as presented. He added that given the flood zone limits, the easement limits, etc. , it only ,makes the site much more difficult to accommodate this conceptual plan. Commissioner Johnson also expressed severe reservations with the project before us. He did not believe that the EIR adequately addresses many of the impacts (water, sewer, impacts to resources in the area) . Conditioning the EIR to future studies is not the appropriate way to proceed. He further stated that until he receives more specifics, he cannot make an affirmative vote. Discussion ensued relative to what options the Commission could take in light of a 3:3 vote. Mr. DeCamp urged that !�i�i�N Commissioner Waage listen to the tapes and participate in the next hearing and see if that results in a ' decision. He further noted that if there is specific information that the Commission would like explored as part of EIR that would allow a vote one way or the other for action, then staff can negotiate with applicant what would be required to provide additional environmental documentation. Commissioner Lochridge stated that he feels adamant that there is absolutely no discussion in the EIR on the compatibility of the two projects together; until there is, he did not feel the EIR is adequate_ Chairperson Luna conveyed his concern that the project isn't well defined enough; he fears that this major tax generator discussed in the EIR could turn out to be something like a lumber yard, etc. that will take from existing businesses. He added that one of the most positive projects the Commission has looked at was the Factory Outlet; one knew exactly what one was getting. That is the way he would like to see all of these projects looked at. After further discussion, by order of the Chair, the hearing was continued to May 19, 1992. Chairperson Luna declared a recess at 9:05 p.m. ; meeting reconvened at 9:15 p.m. 2 . GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT CYCLE 92-1: Initiation of three (3) applications to amend the City's adopted General Plan. Subject sites proposed for amend- ment are located within the City of Atascadero, San Luis Obispo County, State of California. Mr. Decamp presented the staff report and reported on one additional amendment that may come at a later date. When the Parks and Recreation Element was adopted, it included the addition of a community center at the Lake Park; however, the Downtown Element and Land Use Element of the General Plan argue persuasively for a location of that center in the downtown area. Commissioner Highland asked if GP 92-3 would include extending the Urban Services Line or would it be simply looking at a change from Suburban Single Family to Tourist Commercial. Mr. DeCamp responded that that property was changed from Suburban Single Family to Tourist Commercial as part of the GP Update so this application involves an extension of the Urban Services Line. There was no public testimony received. PC 4/21/92 Comments to the Atascadero Planning Commission to ATTACHMENT A be read into the record at the hearing of April 21st, 1992,regarding the Rochelle Project,as given by Eric Greening,7365 Valle Ave.,Atascadero,CA,93422: My recommendation to your commission is that you withhold even conceptual approval of this project until this EIR is supplemented or redone,and that you recommend that the City Council not certify it in its present form. While commercial use of the land above the Southern Pacific tracks is very appropriate, the land between the tracks and the River is admitted- ly tricky to access,lies largely in a flood hazard zone, and represents a rare convergence of three riparian corridors. The recent catastrophe in Ventura should demonstrate the folly of using such a site for what amounts to "affordable housing." This is especially true of the peninsula where Paso Robles and Graves Creek converge toward the Salinas River. These creeks,undammed and largely unmonitored,represent a flood hazard that could be more sudden than that of the Salinas itself, and the alluvial deposits in the area show that they have shifted their course many times in the past Before one accepts the revenue projections in the EIR,it would be wise to compare notes with other ju- risdictions where RV parks increase the demands on 1 police, schoolsroa" (the site is several miles from a Po I �, SC�i o4 v,►-f !/'��s• (TX j G supermarket a Templeton [!] school+tclThe ans- jf 5 vGrs� ' S� �.t wer given to-Roger Zachary's concerns on shooting �'►d��S e y� 4 S Oq and off-road vehicles in the riparian zone, for ins- yh�r _ �Oer 0 Lance,presuppose a police department that can afford G ' �� o enforce intrusion into the creekways, something S ` ��+ yes leyl that is not now the case. Chief McHale,in fact,told S /G me, shortly after the City Council passed our new or- e�C• dinance on that subject,that the main benefit thereof was that it gave citizens. a law to cite in attempting to deter the illegal behavior; the police would not be able to spend routine patrol time checking out the creeks. Would the revenue stream from this project be sufficient to obviate the need for our Chief to make tough choices of this nature? If not,how can the EIR assure that the shooting and off-road use would not occur? This is just one of many possible examples of ducked questions throughout this document I hope that other members of the public come forward to address them, and that your own scrutiny of the docu- ment has led you to question its glib conclusions. The land between the railroad and the River doesn't have to be used to be "good for something." However, if the land must provide a financial return to its owner and the City,there are other uses far more appropriate than transient housing. The California Living Museum,on the eastern edge of Bakersfield, next to the Kern River,provides one model worthy of emulation. A close study of what other communities . have done with similar sites should provide other springboards for creative thinking. Please insure that this aaeet benefits from the most infQmmd choices! PCl/7/92 PLANNING COMMISSION M,ItNUTES EXCERPT - 1/7/92 P . 7 Commissioner Johnson disagreed pointing out that even without the lot split, the house could still be built on the lowest portion of the lot. The fact that there are limited building sites is a guarantee that no lots will be allowed to further subdivide in the future. MOTION: By Commissioner Johnson and seconded by Commis- sioner Hanauer to approve Tentative Parcel Map 91- 009 based on the Findings and subject to the Condi- tions of Approval contained in the staff report. Commissioner Lochridge questioned whether the motion includes a condition to address proper identification. Mr. DeCamp noted that this assurance can be provided through the building permit process, but the Commission has the discretion to add it as a condition. Motion was amended and seconded to include a condi- tion to read: "7. A reflectorized house number master sign shall be located at the intersection of the street and accessway, and individual reflectorized address signs shall be placed on the right hand side of the driveway to each individual lot. " The motion carried 4:2:1 with the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Johnson, Hanauer, Lochridge, and Rudlac NOES: Commissioner Waage and Chairperson Luna ABSENT: Commissioner Highland Chairperson Luna called a recess at 8:25 p.m. ; meeting recon- vened at 8:40 p.m. 4. DRAFT EIR (GPA 21-91/ZC 02-91: Public review of the Draft Environmental Impact Report prepared in conjunction with General Plan Amendment 2A- 91/Zone Change 02-91. Request is to change the Land Use and Zoning designations to allow a proposed automobile sales mall and a recreational vehicle park (at 905 E1 Camino Real - Applicant: Daven Investments Ltd./Cosmic Astro Corporation) Mr. Davidson presented the staff report which focused on the background involved with prior applications for this property; project description for the current proposal; the 14 issues addressed in the draft EIR; project alternatives, etc. r. PC1/7/92 P. 8 Commission questions and discussion followed. Commissioner Hanauer relayed Commissioner Highland' s concern with the traffic issue. Commissioner Hanauer spoke about the revenue that would benefit the city as well as the creation of new jobs. Chairperson Luna referenced certain sections in the draft EIR that he is concerned with (drainage mitigation measures, P G & E easements, ) . He questioned the cost of a railroad crossing, and questioned the insignificance noted in the EIR of looking for alternative sites. Discussion and clarification ensued between Mr. Foote and Chairperson Luna on these issues. - Public Testimony - Guy Greene, planning consultant on the project, stated that he has been working with the City for a year on the project and he looks forward to continuing the professional working relationship. Eric Greening, 7365 Valle, read the attached statement (Attachment B) which asks that the Final EIR address 5 questions he has raised. - End of Public Testimony - Commissioner Waage noted that in reviewing the document, he would have difficulty with the EIR as being an adequate document to address the scope of the proposed' auto mall/RV park development. He expressed his feeling that the EIR is adequate as far as the zone change request, but not a project of that scope. Chairperson Luna concurred that he has the same difficulty. As pointed out by staff, with the Factory Outlet proposal, one could see the entire project. This proposal is rather open- ended, i.e. , the comment in the EIR that the ponding area would reduce the number of RV spaces by 120, yet he does not know what the size of the RV Park is. Commissioner Johnson noted problems he has with the traffic analysis and impacts to the highway overcrossing (Santa Cruz) . He expressed his feeling that the section on air quality is not adequate, and spoke on additional concerns with the noise and glare sections of the EIR. Commissioner Rudlac asked if anything was addressed on the offramp of Highway 101 and Santa Cruz for the RV park useage. He expressed his feeling that the offramp for long RVs (30-35 feet) was not long enough; that backing up problems may �J►f�iJ�`;. PCl/7/92 P.9 result. In addition, he asked if the overcrossing at Santa Cruz was wide enough to handle two RVs coming in opposite directions. Chairperson Luna pointed out the suggestion that it might be necessary to extend the offramp in the northbound direction; if this is the case, who will pay? Mr. Foote stated that he did not believe that extending the northbound lane was recommended as a mitigation, but it was noted that the lane is somewhat short for the volumes it will be handling. However, lengthening it would probably not be possible due to the Graves Creek bridge, but that the lane is adequate. Commissioner Waage advised that Southern Pacific Railroad is not known to look kindly on new grade crossings and rightfully so as they create a tremendous hazard. Mr. Foote reported that the Railroad has been contacted and upon review, they indicated that they were amenable to an at- grade basically because it is far enough away from the next one to the south. However, the Railroad did stipulate that if such a grade crossing becomes a reality, they would want it to be part of the City street system. Mr. Foote further noted that at this time, it is unknown as to what mechanism the applicants may propose. Discussion followed. Upon conclusion of the public hearing, Chairperson Luna announced that a public hearing will be scheduled (and noticed) and some point in the future. 4. PLANNING COMMISSION "RULES OF PROCEDURE": Consideration of amendment to the Planning Commission Rules and Regulations (Section 2 of Draft Resolution No. 1-92) to reflect a 7:00 p.m. meeting starting time (rather than 7:30 p.m. ) Mr. DeCamp noted that this resolution reflects a change in Section 2 of the Planning Commission Rules and Regulations to amend the starting time of the Commission meetings to 7:00 p.m. MOTION: By Chairperson Luna, seconded by Commissioner Rudlac and carried 6:0 to adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 1-92. RESOLUTION NO. 56-92 A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE MAP AND TEXT OF THE GENERAL PLAN. (GPA 2A-91 - City of Atascadero) WHEREAS, the City of Atascadero has grown considerably since incorporation; and WHEREAS, the City' s General Plan, which was prepared in the 1970' s and adopted in 1980 to guide the City's general growth is in need of updating; and WHEREAS; the Planning Commission of the City of Atascadero conducted public hearings on the subject amendment on April 21, 1992 and May 19, 1992; and WHEREAS, Government Code Section 65356 provides that a General Plan be amended by the adoption of a resolution; and WHEREAS, the Council of the City of Atascadero finds as follows: 1. The proposed General Plan Amendment reflects policies and goals appropriate for the city of Atascadero. 2. The proposed General Plan amendment will not have a significant adverse affect on the environment. The Environmental Impact Report prepared for the project is adequate. 3. Mitigation measures have been incorporated into the project, which avoid or substantially lessen most of the significant environmental effects as identified in the Final EIR. A Statement of Overriding Considerations is warranted because the unavoidable adverse impacts on air quality and water supply are outweighed by the economic and social benefits of the project. THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Atascadero does resolve to approve General Plan Amendment GPA 2A-91 as follows: Amendment to the General Plan Land Use Map as shown on attached Exhibit A, changing the subject property from Retail Commercial, Suburban Residential, and Recreation to Commercial Park and Recreation. Amendment to the text of the General Plan Land Use Element as shown on attached Exhibit B. . Page 2 Resolution No. On motion by and seconded by the foregoing resolution is hereby adopted in its entirety by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: DATE ADOPTED: CITY OF ATASCADERO, CA ALDEN SHIERS, Mayor ATTEST: LEE RABOIN, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: RAY WINDSOR, City Manager APPROVED AS TO FORM: ARTHER MONTANDON, City Attorney PREPARED BY: HENRY ENGEN, Community Development Director EXHIBIT A CITY OF ATA ,� .... : .. ,� SCADERO C1i�NNC — � ,:a•--. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT RESOLUTION NO. 56-92 DEPARTMENT I I PUBLI TAMC- • 1 � w • EhfSITY U TI- F i 7- " f 1 IA EXHIBIT B RESOLUTION NO. 56-92 CHANGES TO THE GENERAL PLAN TEXT: Changes are proposed as follows: ------ for deletions and bold text for additions. Page/Location Change Proposed P. II-15 (g) An area of Commercial Park is designated aeEt-h-e San Anselme Read te just south of Del Rio Road, and is bounded east and west by Highway 101 and E1 Camino Real __ peed"^'" An additional area of Commercial Park is located on the northeast part of the City at Santa Cruz Road. The intent of this land use designation is to set aside an area for uses included but not limited to: P. II-15 (g) (1) Large lot commercial uses, generally on sites of two acres or more, although smaller lot sizes may be allowed for planned unit developments, which shall include but not be limited to automobile sales agencies, mobile home sales facilities, department steEes, factory outlet centers, traveler destination/recreation complexes, craftsman parks, and nurseries. P. 11-36 (2) Eliminatien ef the-eemmr-e-ral paw 2nd proposed distriet—in faveE of ladustEial park amendment e af eat ^ . 9f3f;U�L� ORDINANCE NO. 249 AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO AMENDING MAP 4 OF THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAPS BY REZONING CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY AT 905 EL CAMINO REAL FROM CT, RS (FH) , AND L (FH) (COMMERCIAL TOURIST, RESIDENTIAL SUBURBAN, RECREATION, FLOOD HAZARD OVERLAYS) TO CPK AND L (PD9) (FH) (COMMERCIAL PARK AND RECREATION, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY NO. 9 AND FLOOD HAZARD OVERLAY) (ZC 02-91: Daven Investments) WHEREAS, the proposed zoning map amendments are consistent with the General Plan as required by Section 65860 of the California Government Code; and WHEREAS, the proposed amendments are in conformance with Section 65800 et seq. of the California Government Code concerning zoning regulations; and WHEREAS, the proposed amendments will not have a significant adverse impact upon the environment. The Environmental Impact Report prepared for the project is adequate; and WHEREAS, the Atascadero Planning Commission held public hearings on April 21, 1992 and May 19, 1992 and has recommended approval of Zone Change 02-91. is NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Atascadero does ordain as follows: Section 1. Council Findings. 1. The proposal is compatible with the surrounding land use and zoning. 2. The proposal is consistent with the General Plan land use element. 3. The proposal will not result in any significant adverse environmental impacts. Mitigation measures have been incorporated into the project, which avoid or substantially lessen most of the significant environmental effects as identified in the Final EIR. A Statement of Overriding Considerations is warranted because the unavoidable adverse impacts on air quality and water supply are outweighed by the economic and social benefits of the project. 4. Modification of development standards or processing requirements is warranted to promote orderly and harmonius development. ' i)v119-& Page 2 Ordinance No. 5. Modification of development standards or processing requirements will enhance the opportunity to best utilize special characteristics of an area and will have a beneficial effect on the area. 6. Benefits derived from the overlay zone cannot be reasonably achieved through existing development standards or processing requirements. 7. The proposed plans offer certain redeeming features to compensate for requested modifications. Section 2. Zoning May. Map number 4 of the Official Zoning Maps of the City of Atascadero on file in the City Community Development Department is hereby amended to reclassify the parcels listed below and as shown on the attached Exhibit A which is hereby made a part of this ordinance by reference. Assessor' s Parcel Number 049-043-001 Section 3. Zoning Ordinance Text. Development of said parcels shall be in accordance with the standards of the Planned Development Overlay No. 9, as established in Exhibit B and hereby made a part of this ordinance by reference. Section 4. Publication. The City Clerk shall cause this ordinance to be published once within fifteen ( 15) days after its passage in the Atascadero News, a newspaper of general circulation, printed, published, and circulated in the City in accordance with Section 36933 of the Government Code; shall certify the adopting and posting of this ordinance and shall cause this ordinance and this certification together with proof of posting to be entered into the Book of Ordinances of the City. Section 5. Effective Date. This ordinance shall go into effect and be in full force and effect at 12:01 a.m. on the 31st day after its passage. 90CU92 Page 3 Ordinance No. On motion by and seconded by the foregoing Ordinance is approved by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: DATE ADOPTED: By: ALDEN SHIERS, Mayor City of Atascadero, California ATTEST: LEE RABOIN, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: RAY WINDSOR, City Manager APPROVED AS TO FORM: ARTHER MONTANDON, City Attorney PREPARED BY: HENRY ENGEN, Community Development Director EXHIBIT A .... ; CITY OF ATASCADERO COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE NO. 249 DEPARTMENT re n rr ,,i o ' f r Y r� • r 1 EXHIBIT B ORDINANCE NO. 249 9-3.653. Establishment of Commercial Park Planned Development Overlay Zone No.9 (PD9) . Commercial Park Planned Development Overlay Zone No. 9 is established as shown on the Official Zoning Maps (Section 9-1. 102) . The following development standards are established: (a) A Master Plan of Development shall be approved prior to approving a Plot Plan, Precise Plan, Conditional Use Permit, Tentative Parcel Map, or Tract Map. The Master Plan shall be applied for and processed in the manner prescribed for a Conditional Use Permit (Section 9- 2. 109) . (b) The proposed Master Plan of Development shall generally incorporate the mitigation measures as contained in the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (EIR) , prepared by Site and Environmental Design, February, 1992. Depending on the proposed project, the EIR may need to be modified or expanded to address unforeseen environmental impacts. (c) In approving a Master Plan of Development, the level of processing for subsequent projects or phases may be reduced to a Plot Plan provided that the Master Plan contains sufficient detail to supporta such a determination. (d) No subsequent Plot Plan, Precise Plan, Conditional Use Permit, Tentative Parcel Map. or Tract Map shall be approved unless found to be consistent with the approved Master Plan of Development. Any amendment to the MasterPlan, including conditions thereof, shall be accomplished as set forth in Subsection (a) of this Section. (e) In approving a Master Plan of Development for the site, the conditionally allowed land uses are limited to the following: 1. Automobile, mobilehome, and vehicle dealers and suppliers (see Section 9-6. 163) 2. Accessory Storage (see Section 9-6. 103) 3. Building materials and hardware (Section 9-6. 165) 4. Business support services 5. Contract construction services 6. Electronic and scientific instruments 7. Farm equipment and supplies 8. Furniture and fixtures 9. Horticultural specialties (see Section 9-6. 116) 10. Sales lots (see Section 9-6.139 ) 11. Small scale manufacturing 12. Temporary events (see Section 9-6. 177) 13. Temporary/seasonal sales (see Section 9-6. 174) 14. Utility transmission facilities 15. Vehicle and equipment storage (Section 9-6.183) 16. Indoor Recreation 17. Pipelines . 18. Public assembly and entertainment (f) Any development shall be served by an on-site sewage disposal system, unless an extension of the Urban Services Line is granted through a separate General Plan Amendment. EXHIBIT B (cont. ) ORDINANCE NO. 249 9-3.654. Establishment of Recreation Planned Development Overlay Zone No.9 (PD91 . Recreation Planned Development Overlay Zone No. 9 is established as shown on the Official Zoning Maps (Section 9- 1.102) . The following development standards are established: (a) A Master Plan of Development shall be approved prior to approving a Plot Plan, Precise Plan, Conditional Use Permit, Tentative Parcel Map, or Tract Map. The Master Plan shall be applied for and processed in the manner prescribed for a Conditional Use Permit (Section 9- 2. 109) . (b) The proposed Master Plan of Development shall generally incorporate the mitigation measures as contained in the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (EIR) , prepared by Site and Environmental Design, February, 1992. Depending on the proposed project, the EIR may need to be modified or expanded to address unforeseen environmental impacts. (c) In approving a Master Plan of Development, the level of processing for subsequent projects or phases may be reduced to a Plot Plan provided that the Master Plan contains sufficient detail to support a such a determination. (d) No subsequent Plot Plan, Precise Plan, Conditional Use Permit, Tentative Parcel Map. or Tract Map shall be approved unless found to be consistent with the approved Master Plan of Development. Any amendment to the Master Plan, including conditions thereof, shall be accomplished as set forth in Subsection (a) of this Section. (e) In approving a Master Plan of Development for the site, the conditionally allowed land uses are limited to the following: 1. Recreational vehicle park (see Section 9-6.180) 2. Accessory Storage (see Section 9-6. 103) 3. Sports assembly 4. Caretaker' s residence (see Section 9-6. 104) 5. Temporary events (see Section 9-6.177) • 6. Rural sports/group facilities (Section 9-6. 124) 7. Outdoor recreation services (see Section 9-6. 123) B. Fisheries and game preserves 9. General merchandise stores, where related to recreational uses on the site 10. Temporary/seasonal sales (see Section 9-6.174) 11. Forestry (f) All development shall be served by an on-site sewage disposal system, unless an extension of the Urban Services Line is granted through a separate General Plan Amendment. CC06/09/92 Agenda Re: #C-2(A) Insert following Page 000098 Statement of Overriding Considerations Certification of Final EIR (Rochelle/Auto Mall and RV Park) Resolution 56-92 (GPA 2A-91) Ordinance 249 (ZC 02-91) (This supplements Finding #3 in both Resolution 56-92 and Ordinance 249 relating to the Statement of Overriding Considerations. ) Statement of Overriding Considerations The EIR identifies two environmental impacts which cannot be mitigated to insignificance by the adoption of mitigation measures. These two unavoidable environmental impacts are water supply and air quality. The City Council finds that these impacts will be mitigated to the maximum extent reasonably feasible by incorporating the recommended mitigation measures of the EIR. 1. Water Supply. The site is located outside of the original Atascadero Colony and thus is not within the service boundaries of the Atascadero Mutual Water Company (AMWC) � Furthermore, the AMWC has continually denied the request to extend water supply to the property. For this reasons the analysis of the EIR focuses on the feasibility of developing an on-site private water supply system. The construction of deep groundwater wells will increase withdrawals from the Paso Robles Groundwater Basin. Withdrawals from the groundwater basin are nearing or exceeding the estimated safe annual yield for the basin. Project water demands represent a relatively small portion of basin yield, approximately one percent of the estimated safe annual yield. The impact of these increased withdrawals can be partially mitigated by efforts to minimize water demand. Low flow fixtures and drought tolerant landscaping will be incorporated into the project as mitigation measures from the EIR. 2. Air Quality. Air quality impacts are due to two factors:. increased traffic generated by the project and potential of particulate matter being generated during construction. According to the Air Pollution Control District (APCD) estimates of ROG (reactive organic compounds) emissions from automobiles are exceeded if both the auto mall and RV park are developed before 1995. After 1995 it is projected that the overall vehicle fleet will improve with respect to emissions and lower the project impacts to acceptable. Furthermore., reductions in the number of proposed RV spaces by way of creek setbacks and area needed for effluent disposal, will further reduce overall project emissions. 000098.1 Grading operations,erations, construction traffic, and wind blowing over exposed surface all will generate dust during construction. A list of air quality mitigation measures is recommended on page IV-66 of the EIR. These run the full spectrum from dust control during construction to trip reduction plans and. transit incentives. These mitigation measures should reduce emissions by 5% to 15% and result in acceptable levels by 1995. 3. Statement of Overriding Considerations The City Council has balanced the benefits of the proposed project against the unavoidable adverse effects and makes the following findings of overriding significance: a. Project could provide a small potential increase in affordable residential rental units by providing RV spaces. b. ' The City revenues will exceed the costs of maintenance and operation if the project is constructed. {Although other commercial projects may not provide the revenues of the auto mall, any commercial development should result in a positive fiscal impact, because costs and �. revenues are close to balanced with the RV park alone. C. The project will generate significant employment opportunities within Atascadero, and thus improve the jobs/housing balance. 000098.2 CC06/09/92 Agenda Re: #C-2(A) Insert following Page 000098 • Statement of Overriding Considerations Certification of Final EIR (Rochelle/Auto Mall and RV Park) Resolution 56-92 (GPA 2A-91) Ordinance 249 (ZC 02-91) (This supplements Finding #3 in both Resolution 56-92 and Ordinance 249 relating to the Statement of Overriding Considerations. ) Statement of Overriding Considerations_ The EIR identifies two environmental impacts which cannot be mitigated to insignificance by the adoption of mitigation measures. These two unavoidable environmental impacts are water supply and air quality. The City Council finds that these impacts will be mitigated to the maximum extent reasonably feasible by incorporating the recommended mitigation measures of the EIR. 1. Water Supply. The site is located outside of the original Atascadero Colony and thus is not within the service boundaries of the Atascadero Mutual Water Company (AMWC) o Furthermore, the AMWC has continually denied the request to extend water supply to the property. For this reason, the analysis of the EIR focuses on the feasibility of developing an on-site private water supply system. The construction of deep groundwater wells will increase withdrawals from the Paso Robles Groundwater Basin. Withdrawals from the groundwater basin are nearing or exceeding the estimated safe annual yield for the basin. Project water demands represent a relatively small portion of basin yield, approximately one percent of the estimated safe annual yield. The impact of these increased withdrawals can be partially mitigated by efforts to minimize water demand. Low flow fixtures and drought tolerant landscaping will be incorporated into the project as mitigation measures from the EIR. 2 . Air Quality. Air quality impacts are due, to two factors: increased traffic generated by the project and potential of particulate matter being generated during construction. According to the Air Pollution Control District (APCD) estimates of ROG (reactive organic compounds) emissions from automobiles are exceeded if both the auto mall and RV park are developed before 1995. After 1995 it is projected that the overall vehicle fleet will improve with respect to emissions and lower the project impacts to acceptable. Furthermore., reductions in the number of proposed RV spaces by way of creek setbacks and area needed for effluent disposal, will further reduce overall project emissions. 000098.1 Grading operations, construction traffic, and wind blowing • over exposed surface all will generate dust during construction. A list of air quality mitigation measures is recommended on page IV-66 of the EIR. These run the full spectrum from dust control during construction to trip reduction plans and transit incentives. These mitigation measures should reduce emissions by 5% to 15% and result in acceptable levels by 1995. 3. Statement of Overriding Considerations The City Council has balanced the benefits of the proposed project against the unavoidable adverse effects and makes the following findings of overriding significance: a. Project could provide a small potential increase in affordable residential rental units by providing RV spaces. b. The City revenues will exceed the costs of maintenance and operation if the project is constructed. (Although other commercial projects may not provide the revenues of the auto mall, any commercial development should result in a positive fiscal impact, because costs and revenues are close to balanced with the RV park alone. C. The project will generate significant employment opportunities within Atascadero, and thus improve the jobs/housing balance. 000096.2 REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL Meeting Date: 6/9/92 CITY OF ATASCADERO Agenda Item: C-3 (A) Through: Ray Windsor, City Manager From: Greg Luke, Director of Public Works SUBJECT: Compulsory connection to sewer system. BACKGROUND At the May 26, 1992 meeting, Council continued the public Hearing on Ordinance No. 246, amending Title 7 of the City Municipal Code (Sanitation Ordinance) . This item had initially been considered at the May 12, 1992 Council meeting. Council will recall that the proposed ordinance would require connection either upon septic tank failure or sale of the residence. Council expressed several concerns about this ordinance. The primary concern was that the proposed ordinance would allow properties to delay hooking up to the sewer, which could cause water pollution problems and place an unfair cost burden on those residents already connected to the sewer. The Council, by consensus, directed staff to prepare an alternative ordinance implementing a compulsory connection procedure for those buildings located within a Regional Water Quality Control Board Cease and Desist area. DISCUSSION Council's action is particularly timely in light of recent correspondence received from the RWQCB regarding the City's responsibility to comply with their Cease and Desist Order. The Regional Board is proposing a new Order to require hook up of all structures in the C&D area within the next two to three years (see attachment A) . Ordinance No. 246 originally proposed by staff would not meet this schedule. Therefore it is appropriate that the Council proceed with a program to connect the remaining structures in a timely manner. If Council adopts this Resolution, staff will proceed to develop an enabling ordinance specifying the mechanics of . implementing this policy. The ordinance will address issues such as noticing requirements, hearing procedures, appeal rights, etc. A complete implementing ordinance will be brought back to the Council for review and consideration at a future date. State Health and Safety Code 5463 provides the authority for the City to implement a compulsory connection program. A copy of this code section is included as an attachment to Resolution No. 57-92 . Staff is recommending that the Council adopt Resolution 57-92 stating that it is City policy to exercise the authority setforth in State Code 5463. This will firmly establish the policy of compulsory connection. FISCAL IMPACTS Implementing compulsory sewer connection in Cease and Desist Areas will require considerable staff time. An accurate estimate of the time is not possible until further details are developed. Attachments: A - Resolution No. 57-92 7 92 B - Tentative Regional Board Order 92-68 RESOLUTION NO. 57-92 RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO DECLARING THE INTENTION TO EXERCISE ALL POWERS AFFORDED BY STATE OF CALIFORNIA HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE SECTION 5463 Whereas, The City of Atascadero is subject to the Regional Water Quality Control Board, Central Coast Region Cease and Desist Order No. 81-60 which requires the City to provide sewer service to certain areas; and Whereas, The Council has desires to abate any condition which is presently or has the potential to degrade surface or ground water quality; and Whereas, sewers have been constructed or will be constructed to provide public sewer service in the Cease and Desist areas; and Whereas, the City Council finds that it is necessary to exercise all of the enforcement powers endowed by the State of California to ensure that all structures with plumbing fixtures within the Cease and Desist areas are connected to the public sewer when available; Therefore, be it resolved that the City of Atascadero assumes and will proceed to exercise all of the powers afforded the City under the State of California Health and Safety Code Section 5463, a current copy of which is attached for reference purposes. On motion by Councilman and seconded by Councilman the foregoing Resolution is hereby adopted in its entirety on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ADOPTED: ,90GILC- Resolution No. 57-92 page two ATTEST: CITY OF ATASCADERO LEE RABOIN, City Clerk ALDEN SHIERS, Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: MARY REDUS GAYLE Asst. City Attorney APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: GREG LUKE Director of Public Works 0CIC27 § 5463. Refasal to connect dwelling with sewer, oonnectioa Upon order of health officer or governing board; lien for cost; enforcement of lien Any health officer or governing board of any city, county, or sanitary district, having served written notice upon the owner or re- puted eputed owner of land upon which there is a dwelling house, and such owner or reputed owner. after 30 days, having refused, neglected, or failed to connect such dwelling house, together with all toilets, sinks, and other plumbing therein, properly vented, and in a sanitary man- ner, anner, with the adjoining street sewer, may construct the same at a reasonable cost, and the person doing said work at the request of such health officer or governing board has a lien upon said real es- tate for his work done and materials furnished, and such work done and materials furnished shall be held to have been done and furnished at the instance of such owner or reputed owner,or person claiming or having any interest therein. Such governing board may pay all or any part of the cost or price of such connection to the person or per- sons who furnished labor, materials, or equipment for the same, and, to the extent such governing board pays the cost or price of said connection, it shall succeed to and have all the rights, including the lien provided for above,of such person or persons against the real es- tate and against the owner or reputed owner thereof. As an alternative power to the enforcement of the lien provided for in this section, the governing body of the public agency perform- ing the work of connection to the public sewer may, by order entered upon its minutes, declare that the amount of the costs of such work and the administrative expenses incurred by the governing body inci- dent to the proceedings,together with other charges uniformly appli- cable within the jurisdiction of the governing body for the connection of the premises to the public sewer, shall be transmitted to the asses- sor and tax collector of the public agency, whereupon it shall be the duty of those officers to add the amount of the assessment to the next regular bill for taxes levied against the lot or parcel of land. The liens provided for by this section shall be enforced in the same manner as those provided for by Title 15 (commencing with Section 3082),Part 4,Division 3,of the Civil Code. (Added by Stats.1951, c. 1159, p. 2958, 13. Amended by Stats-M5, c. 1874, p. 3472, § 1; Stats.1969, c. 1362, p. 278% § 6, operative Jan. 1, 1971.) t �i��1V 41T. 6.. CAq RNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD r� r`i '":` ENTRAL COAST REGION �n .CFA E% DESIST ORDER NO. 92-68 AiStu 1st Draft 5/29/92 ORDER REQUIRING THE CITY OF ATASCADERO, SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY, TO CEASE AND DESIST FROM DISCHARGING WASTE CONTRARY TO REQUIREMENTS PRESCRIBED BY THE CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD, CENTRAL COAST REGION The California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Central Coast Region (hereafter Board) , finds: 1 . The City of Atascadero (hereafter Discharger) operates a wastewater collection, treatment, and disposal system to provide sewerage service to the City. 2. Treated municipal wastewater is discharged to disposal ponds adjacent to the Salinas River and reclaimed on a nearby golf course (shown on Attachment A) . 3. The discharge is subject to Waste Discharge Requirements Order No. 88-84 adopted July 8, 1988. Waste Discharge Requirements imp,.ement state regulations and specify, in part: "A. Prohibitions "1. Discharge to areas other than the golf course irrigation areas and wastewater disposal ponds shown in Attachment "A" , is prohibited. "2 . Effective July 1, 1989, the discharge of sludge and septage, not in accordance with an Executive Officer Approved Sludge and Septage Management Plan, is prohibited. "3 . Bypass of the treatment facility and discharge of untreated or partially treated wastes directly to disposal ponds or golf course irrigation areas is prohibited. "B. Discharge Specifications "2 . Effluent shall not exceed the following limitation: . C & D Order No. 92-68 -2- Daily Parameter Units Maximum Total Dissolved Solids mg/1 1,000 Sodium mg/1 200 Chloride mg/1 250 Total Nitrogen (as N) mg/l 50 Biochemical Oxygen mg/1 100 Demand, Soluble, 5-Day " 3 . Ef fluent shall not have a pH less than 6 .5 or greater than 8.4 . "D. Reclamation Specifications 1 . Reclaimed water discharged to the golf course irrigation area shall not contain constituents in excess of the following: Monthly Unit of (30-Day) Constituent Measurement Averacre Maximum Biochemical Oxygen mg/1 40 100 Demand, Soluble, 5-Day Total Suspended Solids mg/1 60 100 Settleable Solids ml/1 0 . 1 0 . 3 2 . The median number of coliform organisms in reclaimed water supplied to the golf course shall not exceed 23 per 100 milliliters, as determined from the bacteriological results of the last 7 days for which analyses have been completed, and the number of coliform organisms shall not exceed 240 per 100 milliliters in any two consecutive samples . 4. Free chlorine residual in reclaimed water supplied to the golf course shall equal or exceed 1 mg/l, as measured within the chlorine contact zone. 5 . A minimum freeboard of two feet shall be maintained in the reclamation pond. 6 . Use of reclaimed water shall cease and all wastewater shall be diverted immediately to disposal ponds if : a. Disinfection of wastewater ceases at any time; or, b. Reclamation specifications are violated or threaten to be violated. C & D Order No. 92-68 -3- "E. Provisions "4 . b. Complete a Sludge and Septage Report Due Management Plan, with January 15, 1989 implementation schedule. "5 . The City of Atascadero shall prepare a Salt Management Plan, addressing all practical means of reducing dissolved salts. in the discharge and addressing the impacts of the discharge upon downstream beneficial uses . This report shall be the basis of establishing final salts limitations cited in finding No. 4 of this Order. The assessment shall be prepared as follows : Item Compliance Date Commence Salt Management and January 1, 1989 Impact Assessment Plan Progress Report July 1, 1989 Final Report February 1, 1990 This Plan is subject to written approval of the Executive Officer. 4 . On June 12, 1981, the Board adopted Cease and Desist Order No. 81-60 . Order 81-60 required the Discharger to submit a workplan (including time schedule) to provide sewer service for unsewered areas F, G, I and K (as indicated on Attachment B) . On March 31, 1992, the Discharger submitted the required workplan. According to its report, the Discharger has provided sewer service to area K. Sewer service has recently been made available to area I, and residents have been notified that they must connect to the City sewer system within two years . The Discharger plans to provide sewer service to area F in July, 1992, and area G by July, 1993 . Residents in these areas shall also be required to connect to the City sewer system within two years . 5 . On March 14, 1989, the Board adopted Cleanup or Abatement Order No. 89-89 . Order No. 89-89 specifies, in part: 3 . Submit engineering reports specified by Provision E.4 . of Order No. 88-84, by April 1, 1989 . 9 0 G ZX C & D Order No. 92-68 -4- 6 . The Discharger has violated effluent limitations for BOD and pH (B. 2. and B. 3 . of Finding No. 3 above) . Furthermore, the Discharger has violated reclamation requirements for BOD, Suspended Solids, Chlorine Residual, disinfection and pond free board as specified in Finding No. 3 above. 7 . The Discharger has failed to implement the provisions of Order Nos . 88-84 and 89-89 . Specifically, Discharger has failed to submit the reports required in E.4.b. and E.5 . of Order No. 88-84 and Item 3 . of Order No 89-89 (described above) . 8. After due notice to the Discharger and other affected persons, the Board, on July 10, 1992, in San Luis Obispo, California, held a public hearing at which evidence was presented concerning adoption of a time schedule for achieving full compliance with permit conditions . 9 . The Discharger has experienced repeated spills of untreated or partially treated wastewater in violation of the Standard Provisions of Order 88-84. 10 . This enforcement action is taken for the protection of the environment and as such is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code, Section 21100 et seq. ) in accordance with Section 15321, Chapter 3, Title 14, California Code of Regulations . IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, pursuant to Section 13301 of the California Water Code, : 1 . The requirements of Cease and Desist Order No. 81-60 have been completed. Order No. 81-60 is hereby rescinded. Furthermore, this document replaces Cleanup or Abatement Order No. 89-89 . Order No. 89-89 is hereby rescinded. 2 . The City of Atascadero shall immediately cease and desist from discharging waste in violation of Waste Discharge Requirements Order No. 88-84 according to the following time schedule: a. Immediately cease from delivering reclaimed water to the golf course until consistent compliance with reclamation requirements has been demonstrated. The City must submit a report describing corrective measures and contingency plans to address reclamation requirements, disinfection, pond free board and overflows . Reclaimed water deliveries may resume after approval of the Executive Officer. • �ilti.�v',. C & D Order No. 92-68 -5- b. Submit the Sludge and Septage AUGUST 10, 1992 Management Plan required in Order No. 88-84. C. Submit a plan for maintaining SEPTEMBER 10, 1992 consistent compliance with effluent limitations. The plan must include a time schedule for completion of any necessary facility upgrades . d. Submit the Salts Management Plan SEPTEMBER 10, 1992 required in Order No. 88-84. e. Progress Reports on sewering SEPTEMBER 10, 1992 Cease and Desist Areas I,F,&G MARCH 31, 1993 SEPTEMBER 30, 1993 f. Complete sewering (including MARCH 31, 1994 residential hookups) of Cease and Desist area I (see Attachment B) . g. Complete sewering (including AUGUST 31, 1994 residential hookups) of Cease and Desist area F (see Attachment B) . h. Complete sewering (including AUGUST 31, 1995 residential hookups) of Cease and Desist area G (see Attachment B) . 3 . The City of Atascadero shall submit written reports within fifteen (15) days after each due date explaining the current status of the project relative to the time schedule in sufficient detail to enable Regional Board staff to determine compliance status and the circumstances of any noncompliance. 4. If, in the opinion of the Executive Officer, the City of Atascadero fails to comply with the provisions of the Order, including compliance with the above mentioned schedule, the Executive Officer is authorized to request the Attorney General to take appropriate enforcement action against the Discharger, including injunction and civil remedies, if appropriate; issue an Administrative Civil Liability Complaint; or refer the City back to the Board for further enforcement action. SJM/M/sm33:Atas.0&D +:t, �1 "•.. ��•'L`� ��' !.' �]\`.\nom i� •� �• /l /i N6 �.� � %�e,h�. 14 •da 1 �r' ��I•� ��\=_;-,h_•"�� l� r �o lei P_ / t. Tank. ` �� 1 1 3 •8Mi6 :•^, •\, .. .dry e �ArmO�('\. �)i I '1\ �`�i)('/'. 1 ��// t� _�,. "r✓ /'/-t'�?: . •••\ /�� t /�a� a Mo fi�'S' Jl'i!\• It1e' 1. \\ _ tOragC I1 gins i•4 - ��`� a 'Fire.• Gewl\ �qi, '�• \�•,.Sta..=�L Sek - 4 ,y+^�� ,1_.•` 1 °o 1N //67:,� 39 a.- l� ,`J',iaa •1►' .�. I-r`-�� d,1,,-S� \` t '-t�" � � �� 846 ;�• \�. e• •/♦ Q: `. •o// Off ,i i ' c• 'f ' \- '�_• �-.j p 1076• -^S•��7\~J J ;Hen e• \ �� Derr �: Q., �.'• i. Cours :\ ` _` \ -. 'Qsi•; \ ,�`; o. ` ` �Q��( ff0�iJ... is RQ260 % ••J'`'-'•� ;�"_ ;�'�' `� c'-�• ;• ,--��s�� ' �'!�e{ O :SCI tdr� � '.. � .:..: I ¢hSch I \ _�/ , ^ !- .,� •• {yiA.��}�f,(�/rr ,y�/� o V\ �^I_ \vl ^ 1�' \• , •••' •� „L`% !yid ya�/ � ��ii �'f+(NwI�IIYG fMV 39_ _. / �- !�'A1. ` �I �,� ��•. .f: moi.-t' a� •�- 1j Z �.'; •• r., l � � t Y�•�� tin 91j •.d' :.Y, .1,—\ t4JRgA f w•••• •i• i { � ` ` �63 001 \4 \~/<! t ; _ ••�..�q 995 t �� /(`iF"�.�� "�' •'•• �� 88��' ( <, ai�sg`Q+v �� 1 i _1k\ ;Y. \�`I a •.... S.: q ., a 1 Oji..°v •' :3924 ;i� •�` "� l , •: �.� L- '1.9Z • ,�' �• f ,. /�yy1..1:. ��, ✓ J �,.7�� aa:e 4� 4. \ 11- ,v •.p761' ROR .PI WpI N/ 064 v\1.1 ..970 C% Zoos — e r x a vas• '.\ �� y a � Sewa e. 4. • %yefls Dissal ' � _ • I tiasacttt Lake SP _po subta, (County Park) SanW.�o \ •i N\.. ��rll •`\�p . •_y'_•�� 970 . .� ••••"- RO \ i -'� f �9� f'•. '� 1•N. 'ae`1`\ i " 1 •. .RDA + �(+ •A ADERO•, la X21 TE HOSPITA �, f_; 5 ow �'.� 1�1\ 'y 48 �^ •t^' ;965 ;�J _ \ Sao _1 ��✓Sscc ROA elk c= to } r I tl d _ .�_ memIr/. _ c: :o -- �, --:y�— --.3925 Ole _SA�tA— •o ` C1 � Cr 1� -.� ��1/�730 �_ � O\-_:s,�\�� _�_ /1_, ` JI� .\� 9JB I t :�� • f. Alp ?ver ��-) / • Q.1 .` �._ rjv rl000fi � �, p� o :�4/ '�• ;q CZ 1 t �, �� ; �"- - �r�:V'", ••// Ofd, :'; N'\ �a CL . , 41 iAltt � a t ,X + t Z W i `• � Wil:" \i .� \ o (n1°- REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL CITY OF ATASCADERO Agenda Item: D-1 From: Staff Meeting Date: 6/9/92 SUBJECT: Ordinance regarding cigarette vending machines BACKGROUND• Attached is a proposed ordinance pertaining to cigarette vend- ing machines which staff recommends be adopted by the City Council. Staff reviewed several similar ordinances from other cities and decided the ordinance recently adopted by the County of San Luis Obispo is as good a model as any. It would allow our City to be consistent with County requirements, which we feel would help minimize resistance during the implementation period. Changes made in the County ordinance were approved by the City Attorney. RW:cw Attachment ililfily,� e" tj ORDINANCE NO. ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 6 OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO ORDINANCE CODE BY ADDITION OF A NEW CHAPTER 15 PROHIBITING CIGARETTE VENDING MACHINES THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO, CALIFORNIA, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1 : Legislative Findings . Adoption of this ordinance is necessary to the promotion of the public health, safety and welfare . Each of the reasons set forth below provides a separate and independent basis for the adoption of this ordinance: A. Overwhelming scientific evidence supports the conclusion that there is a causal relationship between using tobacco products and deadly diseases such as lung cancer, heart disease, emphysema and other types of cancer . The Surgeon General of the United States has determined that smoking is the leading cause of preventable death in this country. B. An estimated annual 31, 000 deaths in the State of California and 434, 175 deaths nationwide are caused by cigarette smoking. The estimated annual economic burden to the State of California resulting from smoke-related health care costs and lost productivity is over $7 . 1 billion. C. Nicotine, found in all tobacco products, is strongly addictive, much more so than alcohol . The United States Surgeon General has concluded that nicotine is as addictive as heroin and cocaine. D. Ninety percent of adults who now smoke started smoking between the ages of nine and eighteen years . E. Three million children smoke daily in the United States, and over 75 percent buy their own cigarettes . Children currently have ready access to cigarettes and other tobacco products as a result of the availability of cigarette vending machines . Scientific studies have shown that minors are successful in buying tobacco products from cigarette vending machines 800 of the time . Such studies have also shown that cigarette vending machines in areas such as bars or cocktail lounges, where minors are not legally permitted to be present, are also readily utilized by minors to obtain tobacco products . F . The current United States Surgeon General Novello and her two immediate predecessors as United States Surgeon General, have consistently favored the elimination of cigarette vending machines for public health reasons . J1li1-'? ORDINANCE NO. Page 2 G. The American Cancer Society, American Lung Association, American Heart Association, American Medical Association, and California Medical Association, representing the overwhelming view of recognized professional medical associations, support the elimination of cigarette vending machines for public health reasons . H. No other dangerous product or drug, cancer-causing product or drug, or addictive product or drug is sold through vending machines . No other product or drug which minors are prohibited from purchasing is sold through vending machines . I . The compelling purpose and intent of this chapter includes : 1 . To prevent minors from using and becoming addicted to nicotine in tobacco products and preventing minors from being harmed thereby: 2 . To significantly reduce the ability of minors to illegally obtain tobacco products by banning cigarette vending machines; and 3 . To generally promote the health and welfare of all people in the community against the health hazards and harmful effects of using addictive tobacco products . Rection 2 . Title 6 of the City Municipal Code is amended by addition of a new Chapter 15 to read as follows : Chapter 15 CIGARETTE VENDING MACHINES 6-15 . 01 Definitions . For the purposes of this chapter, the following terms shall be defined as set forth below: (1) "CIGARETTE VENDING MACHINE" means any electronic or mechanical device or appliance the operation of which depends upon the insertion of money, whether in coin or paper bill, or other thing representative of value, which dispenses or releases a TOBACCO PRODUCT and/or TOBACCO ACCESSORIES. (2) "PERSON" shall mean an individual, firm, partnership, joint venture, unincorporated association, corporation, estate, trust, trustee, or any other group of combination of the above acting as a unit, excepting however, the United States of America, the State of California, and any political subdivision or unit thereof. ORDINANCE NO. Page 3 (3) "TOBACCO ACCESSORIES" means cigarette papers or wrappers, pipes, holders of smoking materials of all types, cigarette rolling machines, and any other item designed primarily for the smoking or ingestion of TOBACCO PRODUCTS. (4) "TOBACCO PRODUCT" means any substance containing tobacco leaf, including but not limited to cigarettes, cigars, smoking tobacco, and smokeless tobacco. 6-15 . 02 Sale of Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products from Vending Machines Prohibited. (1) No PERSON shall locate, install, keep, maintain or use, or permit the location, installation, keeping, maintenance or use on his, her or its premises of any CIGARETTE VENDING MACHINE used or intended to be used for the purpose of selling any TOBACCO PRODUCTS or TOBACCO ACCESSORIES therefrom. (2) Any CIGARETTE VENDING MACHINE in use on the effective date of this chapter shall be removed within one hundred twenty (120) days after the effective date of this chapter. 6-15. 03 Violations and Penalties . Any PERSON violating this chapter shall be deemed guilty of an infraction, and upon conviction thereof, shall be punished as provided by Chapter 1-3 of this Code . 6-15 . 04 Violative Cigarette Vending Machines . Any CIGARETTE VENDING MACHINE not removed from the premises or converted to a permissible use within the time limit set forth by Section 6- 15 .02 (2) shall be deemed to be a public nuisance, and may be abated by the City in a civil action or other appropriate legal proceedings . Section 3. Effective Date. This ordinance shall go into effect and be in full force and effect at 12 : 01 a.m. on the 31st day after its passage. On motion by Councilperson , seconded by Council- person , the foregoing ordinance is hereby adopted in its entirety on the following roll call vote : AYES : NOES: ABSENT: ADOPTED: . ��lfil ORDINANCE NO. Page 4 CITY OF ATASCADERO BY: ALDEN F. SHIERS, Mayor ATTEST: LEE RABOIN, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: ARTHER MONTANDON, City Attorney PREPARED BY: MICHAEL P . MCCAIN, Acting Fire Chief R1 r CITY COUNCIL MINUTES EXCERPT 'Public Comment: John herty, 11900 Cenegal Road, indicated that he had bee , involved the issues for over a year and was supportive of,--the ordinance. stated that although he did not wish to d y the matter he did e some proposed changes and outlined M. Brief discussion fol ed. The City Attorney re ed that he had not heard of the change suggested by Mr. Fl arty until now and advised that Council adopt a ordinance as itten. He added that the ordinance could be amende t a lat date. Mr. Engen pointed out that the or ' a e had been modeled after the State' s and that the State d alre given approval to the ordinance as introduced. The City Manager pro sed, to avoid delay, that uncil adopt the ordinance and di t staff to meet with Mr. Flahe to discuss suggested cha s and determine further action. ` MOTION: By Councilman Lilley seconded by Councilwoman Borge n to adopt, Ordinance 242 by title only; motion carried 5: roll call vote. E. INDIVIDUAL DETERMINATION AND/OR ACTION: 1. City Council: *6 A. Public Smoking Issue - Clarification of Direction Councilman Dexter reported that he had conducted an informal survey and had changed his position on a smoking ban. Referring to his memo dated 4/6/92, he highlighted suggestions for efforts to educate the youth about the harmful effects of smoking and proposed that staff be directed to develop an ordinance banning cigarette machines. He also proposed that a coalition for a smoke-free environment be formed and suggested membership could comprise of a member of the City Council, representatives from the County Health Department, Chamber of Commerce, school district, Police Department and members of the public-at-large. Brief discussion ensued. Councilwoman Borgeson criticized Councilman Dexter for changing his mind on the matter and for putting the staff and public to so much trouble. The mayor, Councilman Lilley and Councilman Nimmo indicated that they could support the suggested made by Councilman Dexter. By consensus, Council directed staff to draft an ordinance banning cigarette machines. CC04/28/92 Page 13