The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutDRC_2012-07-24_AgendaPacketCALL TO ORDER CITY OF ATASCA DER 0 DESIGN RE VIE W COMMITTEE A GENDA Committee Meeting Tuesday, July 24, 2012 3:30 P.M. City Hall City Council Chambers 6907 El Camino Real Atascadero, California Roll Call: Chairperson, Roberta Fonzi Committee Member, Bob Kelley Committee Member, Chuck Ward Committee Member, Christian Cooper Committee Member, Susan DeCarli APPROVAL OF AGENDA PUBLIC COMMENT CONSENT CALENDAR 1. APPROVAL OF DRAFT MINUTES OF MAY 31, 2012 2. APPROVAL OF DRAFT MINUTES OF JUNE 21, 2012 ®find us o -a FacebooWti)://www.facebook.com/i)lanningatascadero City of Atascadero Design Review Committee Agenda DEVELOPMENT PROJECT UPDATE Regular Meeting, July 24, 2012 Page 2 of 3 3. RECONSIDERATION: PLN 2012-1437 / DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATIVE USE PERMIT HEARING FOR 5890 TRAFFIC WAY (THE ARTERY) Property Owner: William Arkfeld, 9135 Santa Margarita Road., Atascadero, CA 93422 Project Title: PLN 2012-1437 / Administrative Use Permit 2012-0060 / Design Review Project 2012-0025 Project 5890 Traffic Way, Atascadero, CA 93422 Location: APN 029-322-010 (San Luis Obispo County) Project Reconsideration to allow murals on the side and rear of The Artery building Description: at 5890 Traffic Way in the downtown. The Atascadero Municipal Code limits wall paintings to the maximum size of a wall sign (50 sq. ft. on a maximum of two sides of the building), however, the code allows larger murals through approval of an Administrative Use Permit (AUP). The Proposed Design Review Committee (DRC) will conduct the AUP hearing. Environmental General Plan Designation: Downtown (D) Determination: Zoning District: Downtown Commercial (DC) Proposed Class 11 of the California Environmental Quality Act (Section 15311) Environmental exempts the construction of new on-site signs. Determination: 4. PLN 2012-1438 / DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATIVE USE PERMIT HEARING FOR 6305 MORRO ROAD Property Owner: Don Giessinger, PO Box 791, Atascadero, CA 93423 Project Title: PLN 2012-1438 / Administrative Use Permit 2012-0061 Project 6305 Morro Road, Atascadero, CA 93422 Location: APN 030-212-026 (San Luis Obispo County) Project The application is a request for a 73 -foot freeway -oriented pole sign located near Description: the intersection of Marchant Avenue and Morro Road (Highway 41). The pole sign will include 128 square feet of signage per side (256 square feet total) for an existing gas station and drive-through restaurant facility. General Plan Designation: General Commercial Zoning District: Commercial Tourist Proposed Categorically Exempt Section 15311; Class 11 exemption for construction or Environmental placement of a minor accessory to an existing structure (e.g. new sign). Determination: City of Atascadero Design Review Committee Agenda COMMITTEE MEMBER COMMENTS AND REPORTS DIRECTOR'S REPORT ADJOURNMENT Next regular meeting of the Design Review Committee: to be announced. Regular Meeting, July 24, 2012 Page 3 of 3 Agendas, Minutes and Staff Reports are available online at www.atascadero.org under City Officials & Commissions, Design Review Committee. ITEM NUMBER: 1 DATE: 7-24-12 CITY OF A TASCADERO DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Regular Meeting — Thursday, May 31, 2012 4:00 P.M. City Hall Council Chambers 6907 El Camino Real, Atascadero, California CALL TO ORDER — 4:00 p.m. Chairperson Fonzi called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Chairperson Fonzi, Committee Member Kelley, Committee Member Ward, Committee Member Cooper, Committee Member DeCarli Absent: None Recording Secretary: Warren Frace, Community Development Director Staff Present: Callie Taylor, Associate Planner Others Present: Applicants: Rick Scott, John Boggs, Kevin Crook Total of 12 in audience including: Nancy Ayres Karen (last name not known) Scott Alderati Cathy LeMome Murry Hunter Corin Laraute APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION: By Committee Member Kelley and seconded by Committee Member Ward to approve the Agenda. Motion passed 5:0 by a roll -call vote. 1 City of Atascadero Design Review Committee Draft Action Minutes May 31, 2012 Page 2 of 4 PUBLIC COMMENT None CONSENT CALENDAR (All items on the consent calendar are considered to be routine and non -controversial by City Staff and will be approved by one motion if no member of the Committee or public wishes to comment or ask questions) 1. APPROVAL OF THE DRAFT MINUTES OF APRIL 26, 2012 MOTION: By Committee Member DeCarli and seconded by Committee Member Kelley to approve the minutes. Motion passed 5:0 by a roll -call vote. DEVELOPMENT PROJECT REVIEW 2. PLN 2099-0079 / DRC 2012-0019, LAS LOMAS SFR -2 REVISIONS Associate Planner Callie Taylor gave a PowerPoint presentation on the four floor plans, which included a two story plan. Applicant Presentation: (Rick Scott) - 2000 sq. ft. is smallest size plan. - No exterior door locks to the studio units. - Biggest floor plans on lots next to existing homes (3 end lots). - Model homes to be located on Alcotan Court. Keep construction gate closed on Eliano as long as possible. Use a different name for development (not La Terraza). Plot mix of units with each phase as they go (subject to staff approval). PUBLIC COMMENT Nancy Ayres Karen - Plans are better. - CC&R issues remain. - Planning Commission should approve architecture, these are Specific Plan changes. - Should not use blue paint colors on exterior. - Where does 1St phase start? - Status of street paving? (Applicant — will pave street in front of the lots the build out) Scott Alderati 2 City of Atascadero Design Review Committee Draft Action Minutes May 31, 2012 Page 3 of 4 - Concerned about potential to rent out studios — removing locks is not sufficient, looks too much like apartment, concerned about parking DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE QUESTIONS: ■ CC&R's — status? - Rick Scott - Subdivision history issues. Sunwood is now Declarant — no CC&R changes. SB800 — warranty issues /Declarant issues. Sunwood has appointed 3 members to Architectural Control Committee. ■ Amendment process? - Warren Frace — Referred DRC to Page 20 of Specific Plan for amendment process, DRC has decided they will approve Architectural changes. ■ Concerned with blue paint color on colorboard. - Sunwood agreed to change it to something else. ■ Final road paving? - Sunwood would finish their part. - Warren Frace — performance bond pending legal decision. ■ Studio entries - Rick - Need for studio/social-market demand. One sided door hardware. - Neighborhood - Streets too narrow for rentals. Worried about parking/neighborhood compatibility. Don't want outside door. Committee Member Ward ■ Ok with studio. Design Review Committee ■ Ok with slate blue color. Rick Scott ■ Exterior materials (stucco, roof & decorative treatments) same as existing homes. DESIGN REVIEW COMMISSION DELIBERATIONS Committee Member Kelley ■ Ok with design & studio areas as proposed by applicant. Committee Member Ward ■ Ok as submitted. Should build to market demands. Committee Member DeCarli ■ Ok as submitted. Two story floor plan helps the mix. V City of Atascadero Design Review Committee Draft Action Minutes May 31, 2012 Page 4 of 4 Committee Member Cooper ■ Ok as submitted. Applicant has made concessions. Chairperson Fonzi ■ Ok as submitted, recent improvements help. MOTION: By Chairperson Kelley and seconded by Committee Member Ward to approve this project as submitted by applicant, with the additional changes discussed by applicant at this meeting. Motion passed 5:0 by a roll -call vote. COMMITTEE MEMBER COMMENTS AND REPORTS None DIRECTOR'S REPORT None ADJOURNMENT - at 5:05 pm meeting continued at 6:00 pm CALL TO ORDER — 6:00 pm meeting reconvened - Cal Poly Student presentation. - No Design Review Committee Action. ADJOURNMENT - at 7:15 p.m MINUTES PREPARED BY: Warren Frace, Community Development Director 4 ITEM NUMBER: 2 DATE: 7-24-12 CITY OF A TASCADERO DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Regular Meeting — Thursday, June 21, 2012 3:30 P.M. City Hall Council Chambers 6907 El Camino Real, Atascadero, California CALL TO ORDER — 3:33 p.m. Chairperson Fonzi called the meeting to order at 3:33 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Chairperson Fonzi, Committee Member Kelley, Committee Member Ward, Committee Member Cooper, Committee Member DeCarli Absent: None Recording Secretary: Warren Frace, Community Development Director Staff Present: Alfredo Castillo, Assistant Planner Others Present: Applicants: Barbara Nunez & William Arkfeld (Artery) Thom Jess (Colony Square) Peter Hilf (Colony Square) Steve Williams Kelly Evans Joe Bentson Christine Alanis Chance Arkfield Sam Kowall Ivy Arkfields Mike Zaliski 4i City ofAtascadero Design Review Committee Draft Action Minutes June 21, 2012 Page 2 of 6 APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION: By Committee Member Kelley and seconded by Committee Member DeCarli to approve the Agenda. Motion passed 5:0 by a roll -call vote. PUBLIC COMMENT None CONSENT CALENDAR (All items on the consent calendar are considered to be routine and non -controversial by City Staff and will be approved by one motion if no member of the Committee or public wishes to comment or ask questions) DEVELOPMENT PROJECT REVIEW 1. PLN 2012-1437 / ARTERY MURAL / AUP HEARING Community Development Director Warren Frace gave the staff report. Committee Member Ward AUP Process and why this is required for a mural. What was the Council's Policy in regards to murals? — Staff explained the process. Committee Member Kelley Questions in regards to consistency with Downtown Design Guidelines. Also questioned how the mural was consistent with the City's Sign Ordinance. There was a discussion between committee members on what was the allowable signage area per the code. Chairperson Fonzi: Requested that the applicant answer some questions in regards to the mural and the applicant's intent of the mural. Applicant — Bill Arkfeld - Did not have time to get approval thought City encouraged murals. - A traveling artist was going through Atascadero and going away on a trip. The applicant felt this was the only time to get the mural done. - It was not intentional to subvert the process. - Took a chance on painting the mural. - The applicant understood that a permit was required, and knew the rules behind the permitted process. - Don't want to defend art, trying to encourage art/good for business. - Understands that there is concern in regards to the figure under the tree looking depressed. - Understands that the mural is large, however this is a piece of art. 6 City ofAtascadero Design Review Committee Draft Action Minutes June 21, 2012 Page 3 of 6 Committee Member Kelley ■ How long did it take to go from concept to painting? Applicant: ■ A few days. The mural concept was formed on Friday around midnight, and completed over the course of a weekend. Committee Member DeCarli ■ Did you know City had a Process? Concerned with the size of the mural and how it keeps going from wall to wall. Committee Member Kelley ■ Based on comments, you understood you needed a permit but you did not follow the process. Chairperson Fonzi ■ Concerned with Peeling paint and can it be repainted? PUBLIC COMMENT 1) Steve Williams - Size affects content. Be careful with the terms of "spreading" and size and content. 2) Kelly Evans - Gifty Things/need to support downtown. - The Mural don't fit downtown character. Looks like graffiti. - The size is too large and out of context. - Should follow the City process / rules. - Go back and repaint the wall and apply for a new permit. 3) Joe Bentson - Art work is out of character. - Not the content / size is an issue. - Should have asked for permission. - We set bad precedent. - Too big / doesn't fit. 4) Christine Alanis - City beautification encourages art. - Mural is an enhancement. - Not a sign. - This cultivates interest and it is near the fine arts academy. 5) Chance Arkfeld (Applicant's son) - Mural is not graffiti. - Understands parents broke the rules. - Downtown needs diversity of ideas. 7 City of Atascadero Design Review Committee Draft Action Minutes 6) Sam Kowall - Size changes art. Limiting the size is like limiting 1St Amendment Right. 7) Ivy Arkfeld - Mural is good for business. 8) Mike Zaliski - Mural is nice / should have gotten a permit. - Variety is a good thing. 9) Zoe Arkfeld - Santa Cruz has numerous murals. - People love to see the art. DESIGN REVIEW COMMISSION DELIBERATIONS Committee Member Cooper ■ Should have gotten permit. ■ May set a precedent. ■ May support approval. ■ Concerned with neighborhood consistency finding. Committee Member DeCarli ■ Supports Mural Program. ■ Should have requested permit / reviewed size. ■ Mural is out of scale. Committee Member Kelley ■ Should have gotten a permit. ■ Historic downtown — important to City. ■ Too big / out of scale. ■ Concerned with size and not consistent with character. ■ Cannot support. Committee Member Ward ■ City rules are reasonable. ■ Will echo what Committee Member Kelley said. ■ Very difficult to make people happy in this case. Chairperson Fonzi ■ Likes mural — not graffiti. ■ Need to follow rules — get public buy -in. ■ Worried about the precedent it sets. ■ Remove mural by repainting. Committee Member Kelley ■ Remove mural. 8 June 21, 2012 Page 4 of 6 City of Atascadero Design Review Committee Draft Action Minutes June 21, 2012 Page 5 of 6 ■ Should have got neighborhood buy in. MOTION: By Committee Member Kelley and seconded by Committee Member Ward to deny the application based on finding # 4, in addition to the size, location, and that the applicant did not follow the proper permit process, consistent with findings required for an AUP. Motion to deny passed 4:1 by a roll -call vote. Committee Member Cooper dissented. COMMITTEE MEMBER COMMENTS Committee Member Kelley ■ Wants to work with the applicant. DEVELOPMENT PROJECT REVIEW 2. PLN 2099-0904 / DRC 2012-0003, COLONY SQUARE Community Development Director Warren Frace gave a staff report on the project. PUBLIC COMMENT None DESIGN REVIEW COMMISSION DELIBERATIONS Chairperson Fonzi ■ Commercial sq ft changes? Peter Hilf - Finance issues. Thom Jess - ECR frontage valuable. Building D — defer changes. Committee Member Kelley ■ Even better plan / good plan. Committee Member DeCarli ■ Any tenant leads? Thom Jess - Fence next week. Chairperson Fonzi ■ How much retail reduction? 12% total reduction. 9 City of Atascadero Design Review Committee Draft Action Minutes Need space for restaurants. Committee Member DeCarli ■ Additional housing as an option. Two story scale important. Store front location. Committee Member Cooper ■ Supports redesign. What is phasing? (whatever tenants want) Chairperson Fonzi ■ Building C2 pushed back. (Tom Jess — view corridor to City Hall) Committee Member Ward ■ Supports. June 21, 2012 Page 6 of 6 MOTION: By Committee Member Kelley and seconded by Committee Member Fonzi to recommend that the project is presented to the Planning Commission, with the recommendation that the developer adjusts the elevations on Building C-2 to enhance with additional character and color. Motion passes 5:0 by a roll -call vote. ADJOURNMENT - 5:30 pm meeting DIRECTOR'S REPORT None MINUTES PREPARED BY: Warren Frace, Community Development Director 10 ITEM NUMBER: 3 DATE: 7-24-12 Atascadero Design Review Committee Staff Report - Community Development Department Alfredo R. Castillo, AICP, Assistant Planner, (805) 470-3436 acastillo@atascadero.org Reconsideration The Artery Mural Administrative Use Permit PLN 2012-1437 / AUP 2012-0060 / DRC 2012-0025 Owner / William Arkfeld, 9135 Santa Applicant: Margarita Road, Atascadero, CA 93422 5640 P70 5866 �65 Address: 5890 Traffic Way APN: 029-322-010 General Plan: Downtown (D) Zoning: Downtown Commercial (DC) 4 ,, Nr/ Project Area: 0.03 acres Existing Use: Existing retail art supply store Environmental Exempt from the Status requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Section 15270 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends.- Consistent ecommends. Consistent with Staff's original recommendation, the Design Review Committee adopt Resolution AUP 2012-0006, approving Administrative Use Permit 2012-0060, to allow artistic wall murals at 5890 Traffic Way in the Downtown Commercial zone, as proposed with modification by the applicant. June 22, 2012 DRC / AUP Hearing On June 22, 2012, the Design Review Committee (DRC) acted as the hearing officer for an Administrative Use Permit (AUP) consistent with Atascadero Municipal Code (AMC) 11 ITEM NUMBER: 3 DATE: 7-24-12 section 9-2.107(d)(2). The DRC has the authority to approve and make recommendation in regards to the architectural appearance, signage, site plan and landscape plan on all nonresidential projects, including commercial, office, mixed-use, and industrial developments. At the hearing, the DRC considered the Artery's wall murals, that require permits consistent with AMC section 9-15.006. At the meeting, the DRC heard from Staff and the applicant, and the public. The DRC's questions included requirements for an AUP, whether the applicant knew about the process for obtaining permits, and general questions in regards to allowable signage. The DRC was advised by Staff to avoid discussion or decisions based on the artistic content of the mural. The DRC determined that the murals were too large and did not fit the scale of the neighborhood. The DRC denied the AUP for the wall murals, based on their size and location, being inconsistent with the neighborhood character. This is a required finding for an approval of an AUP consistent with AMC section 9-1.112(c). Reconsideration: On July 6, the applicant submitted a proposal for re -consideration of the wall murals. The applicant proposed the following changes to the wall mural facing Palma Avenue (tree mural): • Remove foliage from the tree so that it does not run off the edge of the building and reduce foliage on the other side of the tree so it has a balanced look; • Remove the words "Thank Arkfelds" from the lower right corner of the mural; • Repair peeling paint and re -paint areas to match wall. 2012 Peeling Paint 15 12 ITEM NUMBER: 3 DATE: 7-24-12 Staff has reviewed the changes proposed by the applicant. The removal of the words "Thanks Arkfelds" would remove approximately two (2) square feet (sf) of written words from the mural. The applicant did not indicate if this area would be repainted. The DRC should clarify with the applicant on the proposed changes in terms of repainting in this area. The applicant also proposed repairing peeling paint and re -paint areas to match the wall. The issue of peeling paint was a comment made by the DRC at the last meeting. Attachment 3 illustrates some of the paint that is peeling from the wall mural at this time. The applicant proposes to remove foliage from the tree on both sides, effectively reducing the size of the existing mural. The applicants did not indicate the total square footage size the reduction of the foliage would entail. Staff performed preliminary measurements of potential reduction of the mural based on the image provided as a part of the reconsideration. Staff estimates that elimination of the foliage on both sides of the tree may reduce the wall mural by approximately 70 sf. The DRC should clarify the approximate reduction in size with the applicant as a part of their decision making process. In the reconsideration, the applicant did request that the monster mural on the rear side of the building be discussed separately during the AUP reconsideration. The applicant has not proposed any changes to the monster mural on the rear of the property. The DRC should provide direction on the monster mural and clarify if any modifications need to take place as a part of an AUP approval. No Changes Proposed for this mural. ('Monster Mural') 13 IBo5lastAsre — _ ITEM NUMBER: 3 DATE: 7-24-12 Background: The Artery located in Downtown Atascadero painted wall murals on its building facing Palma Avenue and the adjacent alley prior to obtaining the required permits. Based on testimony given at the June 21, 2012 DRC meeting, the mural was painted between the weekend of June 1, 2012 and June 3, 2012. Staff does not know when the western mural or "monster mural" was completed. Consistent with the City's Sign Ordinance and mural policy, the murals require an approval of a no -fee AUP. City Council Mural Policy: The sign ordinance (Section 9-15) is Chapter 15 of the zoning ordinance. The purpose of the sign ordinance is as follows: 9-15.001 Title and Intent The purpose of this chapter is to establish sign regulations that are intended to: (a) Maintain and improve the aesthetic environment and overall community appearance to foster the City's ability to attract sources of economic development and growth; (b) Encourage the effective use of signs as a means of communication in the City and reduce possible traffic and safety hazards from confusing or distracting signs; (c) Implement quality sign design standards that are consistent with the City's General Plan, Zoning Ordinance and Appearance Review Guidelines; (d) Enable fair and consistent enforcement of these sign regulations; (e) Minimize possible adverse impacts of signs on private and public property in order to maintain property values and to maintain a positive City image; (f) Enhance traffic safety by ensuring that signage does not distract, obstruct or otherwise impede traffic circulation and to safeguard and preserve the health, property, and public welfare of Atascadero residents through prohibiting, regulating, and controlling the density, location, and maintenance of signs; (g) Permit noncommercial signage wherever other signage is permitted within Chapter 9-15 subject to the same standards and total maximum allowances for a site of each sign type specified in this chapter. (Ord. 400 & 1 (part), 2002: Ord. 255 & 2 (part), 1992) Signs involve speech and therefore are afforded certain free speech protection under the Constitution. Consequently, the City does not regulate the message of a sign, but regulates the size, location and manner of sign construction. Although murals are not defined under the sign ordinance, murals generally involve a pictorial image on a wall. Under the sign ordinance, any color, form, graphic, illumination, symbol or writing constitutes a sign. Staff's interpretation of the code is that murals are subject to the sign ordinance's size restrictions. 9-15.002 Definitions (Sign Ordinance) (tt) Sign. Any device, fixture, placard, or structure that uses any color, form, graphic, illumination, symbol, or writing to advertise, announce the purpose of, or identify the 14 ITEM NUMBER: 3 DATE: 7-24-12 purpose of a person or entity, or to communicate information of any kind to the public, with the exception of the following: (1) Such devices not exceeding one (1) square foot in area and bearing only property numbers, post box number, names of occupants or other similar identification on a site; (2) Flags and other insignia of any government not displaying a commercial message; (3) Legal notices, identification, informational or directional/traffic controlling devices erected or required by government agencies; parts; (4) Decorative or architectural features of buildings, except letters, trademarks or moving (5) Holiday decorations and lights; (6) Government traffic controlling devices are not considered signs for purposes of this chapter due to their distinct purpose. On February 23, 2010, the City Council adopted the following mural policy: MOTION: By Mayor Pro Tem O'Malley and seconded by Council Member 1. Determine that murals are signs and are subject to the requirements of the sign ordinance; murals exceeding the size limitations of the sign ordinance will be subject to an 2 Direct staff to establish a new stimulus program to cover the cost of the permit fee and the noticing costs for AUP's for murals located outside of the RDA boundary: and, 3. Direct staff to consider the K -Man Cyclery permit as retroactive to the new stimulus program: and, 4. Direct staff to bring any AUP permit applications, where they have questions of their appropriateness, to the City Council for consideration. Motion passed 5:0 by a roll -call vote. Based on this adopted Policy, murals are regulated under the City's Sign Ordinance but are not subject to any permitting fees. Murals exceeding the size limitations of the Sign Ordinance are subject to an Administrative Use Permit (AUP) approval for the size and location of the mural. The Content of the mural is not subject to the AUP approval process. Both Artery murals exceed the maximum allowed sign area within the Downtown Commercial (DC) Zone. An issue that has been brought to Staff's attention is that the murals should be exempt from the sign ordinance because they are a "decorative feature" of the building, consistent with AMC section 9-15.002(tt). Staff's position is that the murals are not considered a "decorative or architecture feature of a building". Decorative or architectural features of a building are considered affixed appendages such as dormers, windows, trim, balconies, etc. The Design Review Committee should continue to focus review of the murals based on 15 ITEM NUMBER: 3 DATE: 7-24-12 their size and location. The DRC should not consider the artistic message of the mural. Existing Building Signage: The City's Sign Ordinance regulates signage in the Downtown zoning districts as follows: Atascadero municipal Code V-15.UU5(b)(3) Maximum Allowed Sign Area. Each business shall be allowed a total of one (1) square foot of sign area per linear foot of the street frontage occupied by the business, with a minimum total of twenty (20) square feet allowed for each business, and a maximum total sign area of fifty (50) square feet. Maximum Number. Each business may have one (1) wall sign, except corner buildings, which may have two (2). A single facade may have a wall sign or awning sign (subsection (d)(2) of this section), but not both. The Artery has approximately 32 linear feet of street frontage along Traffic Way and 50 linear feet of street frontage along Palma Avenue. Thus the total maximum allowable sign area for The Artery is 50 square feet (sf). This includes all existing signage and murals. The Artery has two permitted signs, one painted wall sign facing Traffic Way and projecting non -illuminated sign totaling 38 square feet. The existing signage is consistent with the City's Sign Ordinance and is within the maximum total sign area of 50 square feet. For the purposes of sign calculations, the individual letters on the painted wall sign are calculated as shown below. 16 ITEM NUMBER: 3 DATE: 7-24-12 The Artery has a total, permitted signage area of approximately 38 square feet. This is calculated based on totaling all the permitted signage on both sides of the building. Based on AMC 9-15.005(b)(3), the remaining square footage allowable under the municipal code is 12 square feet. Consistent with AMC 9-15.006, the applicant can increase the total signage for their business through an approval of an AUP. Murals: The Artery has completed artistic murals on both the west and south elevations of the building. The south elevation mural covers the majority of the 625 sf wall (tree mural), based on the building's frontage along Palma Avenue and the height of the wall facing Palma, which is approximately 14 -feet in height. The applicant is proposing to reduce the size by an estimated 70 square feet or 11 % of the total existing size of the mural. The west elevation of the building that faces the rear Alley also has a mural that has been painted (monster mural). The estimated size of this mural is approximately 200 sf. The location of this mural is near the top of the building and thus can be seen from both the alley and surrounding neighborhood. Both murals are calculated to be approximately 825 to 850 sf in total size. 17 ITEM NUMBER: DATE West Elevation- Facing Alley - Estimated 200 sf in size S GEMUnExul (805)461.0976 - 3 7-24-12 Public Comments: City staff has received numerous comments from local residents, business owners, and outside interest groups regarding the murals (see Attachment 4). Some of the comments raised concern about the artistic message of the existing mural. Other comments questioned what authority the City has to regulate murals, or voiced general support for the mural. In addition to the public comments received via email and letters, there have been numerous stories and opinion pieces in the media. California Art Preservation Act / Federal Visual Artist Rights Act It has been brought to City's Staff attention that the mural may be protected under California Civil Code section 987, the California Art Preservation Act (CAPA), as well as the Federal Visual Artist Rights Act (VARA), enacted by Congress in 1991. While this code protects artist's rights, it is Staff's position that this mural would not be protected under CAPA nor VARA because the wall mural did not receive the proper permits prior to installation, as required by the City's adopted mural policy. Environmental Review: Class 11 of the California Environmental Quality Act (Section 15311) exempts the construction of new on-site signs. Findings for Approval: An Administrative Use Permit (AUP Resolution 2012-0006) shall be approved if the DRC officer makes the following findings in the affirmative: 1. The proposed project is determined to qualify for a Class 11 Categorical Exemption from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), consistent with Section 15311. 2. The proposed project, as conditioned, is consistent with the General Plan; 3. The proposed project, as amended, will result in a project that is consistent with 18 ITEM NUMBER: 3 DATE: 7-24-12 the character of the immediate neighborhood or contrary to its orderly development; 4. The proposed project will not result in a project that is not in compliance with pertinent City policy or criteria adopted by ordinance or resolution of the City Council; and 5. The proposed project will not result in the authorization of a use not otherwise allowed. If the DRC determines that one or more of the findings cannot be made, then the project may be denied based on that finding. Attachments: Attachment 1: General Plan / Zoning Attachment 2: Applicant Reconsideration Letter Attachment 3: Additional Photos Attachment 4: Public Comment letters Attachment 5: CEQA Exemption Attachment 6: AUP Resolution 2012-0005 Attachment 7: AUP Resolution 2012-0006 19 Attachment 1: General Plan / Zoning 029-322'pp9 ummft 3-019 029323-020 029-323-020 3-019 322-027 ITEM NUMBER: 3 DATE: 7-24-12 029 3-12022 0 pa3q�02p 029 3q7 �9 011.3-1200 4 029-323-023 029_342 005 029-323-025 029-342-006 029-342-012 General Plan: Downtown (D) Zoning: Downtown Commercial (DC) 20 0 Attachment 2: Reconsideration Letter J i r- F .. r i ��i31;'flri)$lt? Ji:'•:�`s.i�F_:�'��:i47_i July 6, 2012 William Arkfeld, Co -Owner The ARTery 5890 Traffic Way Atascadero, CA 93422 (805)468-9209 The'lartery@gmail,com ITEM NUMBER: 3 DATE: 7-24-12 Dear Wade McKinney, SUBJECT: Reconsideration of "The Tree Mural" at The ARTery by the Design Review Committee. PLN 2012-1437/AUP 2012-0060 This letter is in response to your e-mail dated July 5, 2012. Your e-mail offered me the choice of either 1! Filing an appeal to the June 22, 2012 "Notice of Denial, or 2) Reconsideration of the Tree Mural by the Design Review Committee. We would like to accept the second choice and bring our request for a permit back to the DRC. We are receptive to discussing changes to the Tree Mural, but we wish to maintain its artistic composition as much as possible. We propose the Following modifications to the Tree Mural: • Remove foliage from the Tree so that it doesn't run off the edge of the building near the corner of Palma and Traffic Way. Foliage on both sides of the Tree will be painted to be in balance. • We also propose to remove the words "Thanks Arkfelds" from the lower right corner of the Mural • Rerr ove peeling paint and repaint this area to match the wall. Attached is a photo of the Tree Mural showing where changes are proposed, We are not proposing any changes to the "Monster Mural" on the back wall of The ARTery. We are receptive to changes on the Monster Mural as well. We request that the Monster Mural and Tree Mural be discussed separately during the URC meeting, if possible. Sincerely, fi William Arkfeld cc (via e-mail): Roberta Fonzi, Bob Kelly, Warren Frace, Alfredo Castillo, Reilly Baker, Barbara Nunez 21 ITEM NUMBER: DATE: 7-24-12 Attachment 2: Reconsideration Letter 22 w � PA ITEM NUMBER: 3 DATE: 7-24-12 Attachment 3: Additional Photos 23 &U u&1JII LS&ULS U`V°L'SU Attachment 4: Public Comment Please see attached 24 ITEM NUMBER: DATE: 7-24-12 Alfredo Castillo From: Josh, SLO Co. BAC <slowroads@yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2012 10:30 PM To: DRC; Roberta Fonzi; Bob Kelley; Chuck Ward; Christian Cooper, sdecarli@prcity.com; Alfredo Castillo; Callie Taylor; Warren Frace Subject: The ARTery's Tree Mural, Honorable Board member & distinguished Staff of the City of Atascadero: RE: The ARTery's Tree Mural, Atascadero, California. I like the The ARTery's Tree Mural. The Mural is Art not advertising, there are no word or logos in the Mural so I think sound be exempted fro the Sign ordinance like what was done for the K -Man mural on the wall of a bicycle shop. J. Olejczak P.O. Box 4355 San Luis Obispo, Ca. 93403 1 25 Alfredo Castillo From: Anonymous <anonymous_user@atascadero.org> Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2012 11:04 AM To: Alfredo Castillo Subject: City Hall Connection: You are the new Rep For Anonymous I really don't think you are doing your city, state or country anv favors by forcing a small `-;usiness owner to either pay to remove a tasteful mural that he already paid to have painted, or pay a nearly $500 "reconsideration fee". I've never been to Atascadero, but if you continue this persecution, I and my offspring will always remember your city as being another stop on the fascism bus. You know, right after the PATRIOT ACT and drone strikes with no charge or trial against American citizens. Sincerely, Dan Desmond Jeffersonville, NY ddesmond1969@g_mail.com Please Click Link Below to View The Ticket. http://www.atascadero.org/legacysites/index.php?option=com chc&page=ticketinternal&ticket id=1333 126 Alfredo Castillo From: Anonymous <anonymous_user@atascadero.org> Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2012 11:05 AM To: Alfredo Castillo Subject: City Hall Connection: You are the new Rep For Anonymous I Paye the art stns art i,n_ It adds vait,P to vniur rnmmunity. Personally I love graffiti also if it is non -lewd; non-violent - no bad words - graffiti is like weeds - symbolizing to me the indominatable human spirit despite all that is done to it. This art is so tame, it is not even graffiti but the sane amongst us love anything celebrating the uniqueness and variation that is our legacy as humans. Please let it stand. Please Click Link Below to View The Ticket. http://www atascadero org/legacysites/index.php?option=com chc&page=ticketinternal&ticket id=1331 1 27 Alfredo Castillo From: Terrida <terrida2@mac.com> Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2012 11:00 AM To: Alfredo Castillo Subject: City Hall Connection: You are the new Rep For Terrida To: members of the "Design Review Committee" Re: ARTery painted wall project "tree mural" Having been an urban designer and educator, as well as an architect for over 40 years, I offer you my unsolicited but considered opinions: I urge you to reconsider your position condemning the artwork on the ARTery building. The people of Atascadero have vested power in your committee to review urban design issues in the public space, and the responsibility for doing so in a manner that protects the public health, safety and welfare. Protecting the welfare of the citizens from ART seems a most difficult to defend if not egregious ethic. How can your committee 'approve' the vastly inferior art/design of the Faces of Freedom veterans memorial as well as that of the'American Heritage Monument' [neither a good monument nor a good design]? I urge you all to at least read Kevin Lynch's "Image of a City" as well as his "What Time is this Place?" Please be mindful that the 'Faces of Freedom memorial' is about'freedom to' notjust'freedom from'... and that is an essential motive to nearly all creative processes whether in art or in good design. I will not speak to the obvious intellectual property Rights of the Artist in this case nor will I raise the legal Artist - Ownership issues that your committee is demanding the ARTery transgress. Those are laws that certainly are well known to your committee, or are assumed to be by any reasonable person. Thank you for listening. Terry Hargrave Atascadero resident since 1982 Emeritus Professor of Architecture, Cal Poly MARCH MIT, 1978 BArch Eng WSU, 1965 Please Click Link Below to View The Ticket. http://www.atascadero.org/legacysites/index.php?option=com chc&page=ticketinternal&ticket id=1352 28 Alfredo Castillo From: Anonymous <anonymous_user@atascadero.org> Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2012 11:01 AM To: Alfredo Castillo Subject: City Hall Connection: You are the new Rep For Anonymous please leave the art; by removing it or fining the man you violate his rights and set tyrannical example. it is his own building which he already has to pay taxes for. the fact that it has made the news will bring publicity and business to the neighbors. what if Michael Angelos frescos had been called graffiti and forced the church to remove it, thousands of people a year funnel tourist dollars into that area now. please let us not be the kind of humans who extinguish the beautiful expression of anothers soul and take someone opportunity to be successful and fulfill his American dream just so we.can live in. a pale drab Stepford society. surely, you had a dream once too. hopefully it came true but let us not put out someone elses dream. thank you Amy Walker iodyhatton60@yahoo.com I have been to your city and find things like this inspiring.and beautiful. it certainly wouldn't.keep me from spending time and money there. have a blessed day. Please Click Link Below to View The Ticket. http://www.atascadero.org/legacysites/index.php?option=com chc&page=ticketinternaI&ticket id=1342 1 29 Alfredo Castillo From: Anonymous <anonymous_user@atascadero.org> Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2012 11:02 AM To: Alfredo Castillo Subject: City Hall Connection: You are the new Rep For Anonymous why destrov a piece of art ? Be thankful you have businesses in vour community . Come to Tower Citv PA or Williamstown PA and see what happens when you loose local small business, you soon become a HUD dump. Let the man do business in your community and help your tax base. John Hall Blues Creek Guitars Hegins PA 17938 Please Click Link Below to View The Ticket. http://www.atascadero.org/legacysites/index.php?option=com chc&page=ticketinternal&ticket id=1341 1 30 Alfredo Castillo From: Anonymous <anonymous_user@atascadero.org> Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2012 11:02 AM To: Alfredo Castillo Subject: City Hall Connection: You are the new Rep For Anonymous disappointed to hear about the Bill Arkfeld art store "problem". Maybe it would he ;dist better if we all painted Our building grey as not to offend each other. Ridiculous and absurd. Please Click Link Below to View The Ticket. http://www.atascadero.org/legacysites/index.php?option=com chc&page=ticketinternal&ticket id=1338 i 31 Alfredo Castillo From: Anonymous <anonymous_user@atascadero.org> Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2012 11:03 AM To: Alfredo Casti►lo Subject: City Hall Connection: You are the new Rep For Anonymous in the case of harassing Bill Arkfeld for his mural, DON'T YOU HAVE BETTER THINGS TO BE DOING??? He's beautified the city, and you are FINING him??? I guess, in Atascadero, no good deed goes unpunished. Please Click Link Below to View The Ticket. http://www.atascadero.org/legacysites/index.php?option=com chc&page=ticketinternal&ticket id=1337 132 Alfredo Castillo From: Anonymous <anonymous_user@atascadero.org> Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2012 11:03 AM To: Alfredo Castillo Subject: City Hall Connection: You are the new Rep For Anonymous Concerning the unreasonable treatment of Bill Arkfeld As the owner of a picture frame shop, I hired an artist to paint the outside of my business. A very large meditating Buddha amid lotus leaves and trees adorns a previously grey building. Thankfully, I didn't have to deal with uneducated residents, making inane comments about art. Grow up ADRC. This reflects badly on your intelligence! Please Click Link Below to View The Ticket. http://www.atascadero.org/legacysites/index.php?option=com chc&page=ticketinternal&ticket id=1334 1 33 Alfredo Castillo From: Lisa Cava Sent: Monday, July 09, 2012 11:57 AM To: Warren Frace Cc: Alfredo Castillo Subject: Re the mural FW: City Hall Connection: You are the new Rep For Anonymous -----Original Message ----- From: Anonymous (mailto:anonymous user@atascadero.orgl Sent: Friday, July 06, 2012 9:24 PM To: Lisa Cava Subject: City Hall Connection: You are the new Rep For Anonymous Dear Community Development Department, Planning Commission, Mayor, and City Councilfolk: If the Government forces the ARTery to remove the lovely and rare native blue oak painted on the wall along Palma Ave at Traffic Way, it will be violating the Native Tree Ordinance, Title 9 of the City Code. That is, of course, in addition to the obvious 1st amendment violation that I'm sure you haven't overlooked. Removal of a native tree greater than 4 inches in diameter at breast height requires Planning Commission approval of a tree removal permit. [AMC Sec. 9-11.105(a)] Such a permit will only be granted when the removal of the tree is necessitated due to one of the following reasons (i.e. the Commission finds one of the following): -- The tree is dead diseased or injured. -- The tree is crowded by other healthier trees. -- The tree is interfering with utilities/structures. -- The tree is inhibiting sunlight. -- The tree is obstructing proposed development. [AMC Sec. 9-11.105(d)] Clearly, none of these specific circumstances exist at the ARTery. You'll note that one person's subjective artistic analysis is not one of the criteria for allowing removal of a native tree. How then could you require removal of the last remaining Quercus douglasii (blue oak for the lay man) of this distinguishing size and color in our historic downtown district? On top of that, even if the City were to somehow approve a tree removal permit, they would still need to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act and standard tree mitigation requirements. May I suggest that we mitigate the removal of this one larger tree by painting hundreds of little oak trees on buildings throughout town? I think I know some folks that would be delighted to craft a template, get some paint, and make that happen. Big brother (uh, that would be you folks) looks at the ARTery tree and sees a sign -- subject to arbitrary and capricious regulation under a sign ordinance. I, and many of my downtown neighbors, look at the ARTery tree and see a native blue oak -- protected by ourtree ordinance. Along with our historic city hall building, the blue oak is a distinguishing feature of this town. We Atascaderans saw reason to stop the unnecessary removal of native trees. I suggest we do so. 34 to: City of Atascadero Design Review Committee (DRC) re: The Artery Tree Mural - Conflict Resolution date: 7-9-12 This letter is intended to serve as a request for reconsideration of the 6-21-12 DRC rejection of the Staff Report recommendation to approve an Administrative Us.- Permit sePermit (AUP) for the ARTery's "Tree Mural"" This letter proposes a three-point resolution to this conflict, and future ones: 1. Allow the ARTery to seek reconsideration and file appeals exempt from fees and fines. 2. Retroactively approve the ARTery mural. 3. Create a mural procedure/ordinance separate from the sign ordinance. This proposal is based on an intensive examination of records and reports regarding Atascadero sign/mural conflicts since 2010 to the present. The primary findings of this analysis are that: • The City's jurisdiction over murals is illegitimate. • The City's 2.5 -year negligence of the predicted emerging "sign/mural" conflict exacerbated the situation. • Waiver of fees and fines is warranted and consistent with precedent, as is retroactive mural approval (K -Man 2010). • Establishing a procedure exclusively for murals is essential. The time to do so is now. #1: Immediate / Urgent Actions • DRC - Grant the ARTery the capacity to petition for a redress of grievances to city governmental bodies without paying filing fees and fines. • DRC - Schedule a meeting to reconsider denial of the ARTery mural AUP. • City - Notify the public about the meeting and hearing. #2: Murals are NOT Signs / Invalid Jurisdiction According to the sign ordinance, "signs" are defined as devices designed for specific purposes, i.e., "to advertise, announce the purpose of, or identify the purpose of a person or entity, or to communicate information of any kind to the public". Decorative features on buildings are exempt from the sign ordinance. The ARTery mural fails to qualify as a sign &/or is exempt therefrom. #3: Design a Mural Policy (separate from sign ordinance) It is imperative for the City to develop a procedure for dealing with murals outside the limitations of the sign ordinance. It's time for negligence of this issue to end. This is the ultimate conflict resolution goal. Subsequent submissions will contain substantiating information supporting #1, #2 & #3 and advocating responsive and accountable city government. David Broadwater Atascadero 35 Alfredo Castillo From: Anonymous <anonymous_user@atascadero.org> Sent: Monday, July 09, 2012 12:03 PM To: Alfredo Castillo Subject: City Hall Connection: You are the new Rep For Anonymous liihr R 2012 Atascadero Calif • ARTary mural naintari on tha drip of thair hiicinacc is rraatari XMithniit a narmit City requires a payment of $460.00 from the business to appeal the city's decision to have it removed. When did we decide that what colors are painted on a wall of a business are subject to permit and destruction, if the permit is not granted. I've seen a lot of murals around our state of Calif., and few offended me, but the creative juices of the creators of those murals is representative of the human spirit that the powers that be want to crush. Yes, I know, offensive murals leading to the destruction of civilization would be created if we didn't have local bureaucrats to quash them. Please Click Link Below to View The Ticket. http://www.atascadero.org/legacysites/index.php?option=com chc&page=ticketinternal&ticket id=1350 136 Alfredo Castillo From: Anonymous <anonymous_user@atascadero.org> Sent: Monday, July 09, 2012 12:03 PM To: Alfredo Castillo Subject: City Hall Connection: You are the new Rep For Anonymous The mural should stay. Please Click Link Below to View The Ticket. http://www.atascadero.org/legacVsites/index.php?option=com chc&page=ticketinternal&ticket id=1351 i 37 Alfredo Castillo From: Anonymous <anonymous_user@atascadero.org> Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2012 3:52 PM To: Alfredo Castillo Subject: City Hall Connection: You are the new Rep For Anonymous niitIAWina ANAI IRA1 ? Thic is vary cars 1A/hat kind of tn\A/n is CI r17 Please Click Link Below to View The Ticket. http://www.atascadero.org/legacysites/`index.php?option=com chc&page=ticketinternal&ticket id=1325 138 Alfredo Castillo From: Anonymous <anonymous_user@atascadero.org> Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2012 2:34 PM To: Alfredo Castillo Subject: City Hall Connection: You are the new Rep For Anonymous Mural art You folks really know how to (paint) your city in an ugly light!! Let the mural stay, encourage more businesses to paint murals, maybe tourists will come to see them and you tight asses can make some money from it. Please Click Link Below to View The Ticket. http://www.atascadero.org/legacysites/```index.php?option=com chc&page=ticketinternal&ticket id=1323 X39 Alfredo Castillo From: Mark Hennessy <surfcitty@yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, July 02, 2012 3:40 PM To: City Council; Alfredo Castillo Cc: info@theartery.info Subject: Stop the ARTery building mural removal I am vacationing in Cambria as I have for years. I always visit neighboring cities, wineries, art galleries, restaurants, and points of interest. Unfortunately, I will not be visiting nor spending any money in Atascadero, as I have in the past, specifically because the City plans to remove the mural at ARTery. I understand there is an appeal process underway. Until that decision is clarified, I will stay away. Please reconsider removing this mural. Since the City has allowed post mural approvals in the past, (according to the July 2nd article in the San Luis Obispo Tribune) this appears to be a personal grudge against the gallery owners from an anonymous source. Censorship of community art seems a waste of taxpayers' resources and your valuable time. If the mural in question was offensive or divisive, I would agree with the removal decision. However, this in not the case. I am certain my spending will be welcomed in Templeton, Paso Robles, and other locations. I an not associated with the ARTery in any way, nor do I know the owners. Respectfully, Mark Hennessy San Jose, California surfcittv@vahoo.com 140 Atascadero Design Review Committee via Atascadero City Hall 6907 El Camino Real Atascadero CA 93422 re: Mural at 5980 Traffic Way Dear DRC - 20 Ti -"v N)V) 2 I must say that I find it strange that the DRC would prefer a blank wall to the mural that is now found on the west wall of the ARTery. It is an attractive piece of art, perhaps not on a par with Picasso's "Guernica" or Diego Rivera's "Detroit Industry", but a heck of a lot better than a bare wall. And to paint it over would be a crime. I understand the problem arises from the fact that Bill Arkfield did not get prior permission from the DRC to have the mural done. As Bill has said, the artist, Reilly Baker, was only in town for a short while, and Reilly has the opportunity to do the work. Those of us who have done service in the military know that usually it is better to act now and ask for permission later. I do trust that the DRC will reconsider its decision and allow the mural to stay in place. All the best, Clement Salvador' 8240 Toloso Road Atascadero CA 93422 cc: Bill Arkfield, ARTery, 5890 Traffic Way, Atascadero CA 93422 New Times, 1010 Marsh St, SLO CA 93401 41 C Clement Salvador' 8240 Toloso Road Atascadero CA 93422 cc: Bill Arkfield, ARTery, 5890 Traffic Way, Atascadero CA 93422 New Times, 1010 Marsh St, SLO CA 93401 41 ."'No F71VED tiN 2 0 Z 0 V_ From: Mike Sherer Frnailtonike � abcd lum.com Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2012 8:35 AM To: Warren Frace�.�i1�`t'lg R� Cc: Chuck Ward Forward Address Subject: downtown mural Please make note that I oppose the mural that has been placed on the side of the Artery on Traffic Way. Sincerely, Michael Sherer Broker/Co-owner Peabody& PLUM Realtors Inc. DRE400930139 6755 El Camino Real Atascadero, CA 93422 Direct: (805) 466-9888 Fax: (805) 466-2810 www. mikesherer.com 42 RECEIVED PL, N) '2-C, il - i �l 3J ,JUN 9, Ff� N ONMENT y c— TeLe -Av 41UL",/ 5 i ft C -Lye -1 U-5 d& -'D Yl L lo -4t ie I xe)A C-1 v it JG� a f GO U-� 16-6 K,-�; 01 y�G C) 7�kI6 "�._`�1:, z f l71_y r + a� a�z �Y� -_.' a -e ee" 43 From: Alfredo Castillo Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2012 9:38 AM To: Callie Taylor Subject: FW: City Hall Connection: ` Alfredo R. Castillo, AICP Community Development Department I City of Atascadero -----Original Message ----- From: , Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 201L 9:31 AM To: Alfredo Castillo Subject: City Hall Connection: You are the new Rep For I am writing about the mural that has recently been painted on the West side of The Artery on Traffic Way. I know everyone\'s opinion of \"art\" is different than their neighbors\' but in my opinion that mural is in total violation of the sign ordinances in Atascadero. Almost all of the merchants downtown have been working hard to improve the appearance of our downtown. The RDA money was meant to improve communities and prevent them from looking like ghettos! Well, that mural DOES NOT compliment the \"Historic Colony District\" in any way! It looks like graffiti in Downtown Los Angeles and does nothing to celebrate the history of our town. I am just writing to ask'that if there is anything you can do to remove this eyesore, please do it! Thank you! Please Click Link Below to View The Ticket. http://www.atascadero.org/legacysites/index.php?option=com chc&page=ticketinternal&ticket id 1313 144 ITEM NUMBER: 3 DATE: 7-24-12 Attachment 5: CEQA Exemption CITY OF ATASCADERO t'q, NOTICE OF EXEMPTION 6907 El Camaro Real Atascadero, CA 93422 805.461.5000 Date Received for Filing TO: ® File FROM: Alfredo R. Castillo, AICP Assistant Planner City of Atascadero 6907 El Camino Real Atascadero, CA 93422 SUBJECT: Filing of Notice of Determination in Compliance with Section 21152 of the Public Resources Code. Project Title: Administrative Use Permit 2012-0060 Project Location: 5890 Traffic Way, Atascadero, CA 93422, San Luis Obispo County Project Description: Artistic Well Mural. Name of Public Agency Approving Project: City of Atascadero Name of Person or Agency Carrying Out Project: William Arkfeld. (applicant) Exempt Status: ❑ Muusterial (Sec. 15073) ❑ Emergency Project (Sec. 1507 (h) grid (c)) ❑ Declared Emergency (Sec. 15061 (a)) ❑ General Rule Exemption (Sec. 15061.c) ® Categoncally Exempt (Sec. 15301) Reasons why proiect is exempt: Class i l of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Section 15311. Accessory Structures) exempts the construction of on -premise signs. Contact Person: Alfredo R. Castillo. AICP (805) 461-5000 ext. 3436 Date: June 15, 2012 Alfredo R. Castillo, AICP Assistant Planner 45 ITEM NUMBER: 3 DATE: 7-24-12 Attachment 6: AUP Resolution 2012-0005 PLN 2012-1437 / AUP 2012-0060 / DRC 2012-0025 ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER RESOLUTION 2012-0005 DENIAL OF PLN 2012-1437, ADMINISTRATIVE USE PERMIT 2012-0060 €lTY OF ATA5C. ; 3� TO ALLOW AN ARTIST IC WALL MURAL IN THE DOWNTOWN COMMERICAL ZONE (APN 029-322-010) AT 5890 TRAFFIC WAY THE 11FARING OFFICER OF THE CITY OF ATASC'ADERO DOES HEREBY RESOLVE THAT: WHEREAS.. a request has been received fi om W; [liam Arkfeld. 9135 Santa Margarita Road, Atascadero, CA 93422 (Owner/Applicant) to allow an artistic wall mural in the Downtown Commercial zone. located 41 5890 Traffic Way, Atascadero, CA 93422 (APN- 029- 322-010); and, WHEREAS, the ptroject is exempt from the requirements of the Cal iftrrnia LpAronmentai Quality Act (CJ1QA) under. Section 15270, Projects Which Are Disapproved; and, WHEREAS, the Design Review Committee acting as the Hearing Officer of the City of Atascadero field a duly noticed Administrative L1se Permit hearing at the City I tall on June 21, 2012; at 3:30 pm; and, I OW, T'HEREFORF, the Design Review Committee o: the city of Atascadero. acting as the hearing officer herby makes the following findings and determinations: SE01ON 1. FINDINGS OF DENIAL. T'hc Design Review Cora nittee finds that: .O The Administrative Use Permit does not meet the required findings consistent with 9- Z f1 12(d) of the Cita- of Atascadero Municipal erode due to the following: the proposed wall neural is inconsistent with the character of the immediate ,,.� / neighborhood duc to the size and location of the wall tnurals. DENIED SECTION 2. Denial. The Design Review Committee does hereby deny Administrative Use Permit 2012-0060, as shown in Exhibit A and B, wall murals on the structure located on APN 029-211-010 (5890 Traffic Way). The applicant shall repaint the wall(s) to its previous color scheme or an approved color scheme by either City Staff or the Design Review Committee within 30 days of this denial. 46 ITEM NUMBER: 3 DATE: 7-24-12 Attachment 6: AUP Resolution 2012-0005 PLN 2012-1437 / AUP 2012-0060 / DRC 2012-0025 AYES: Chairperson Fonzi, Vice Chairperson Kelley, Committee Mcmbors, (A) Ward and DeCarli NOES; Cooper (1) ABSENT: None (0) ABS'LA1N: None (CI) A17t31''1FD: 6-21-i2 CITY 01` ATASCAD1.: 0, CA Roberta Fonzi, Chairoer>0n o 'the. Design Review Committee Designated Hearing Officer Attest: •` �'' -A . •ter ° Warren M. Fracc ' Planning Commission Secretary 'h 1. M- 12 pins',pin 2012-1437 uup arluy m walzesoludooll2012-143 7.dmx 47 ITEM NUMBER: 3 DATE: 7-24-12 Attachment 6: AUP Resolution 2012-0005 PLN 2012-1437 / AUP 2012-0060 / DRC 2012-0025 Exhibit A- Mural Elevation - Southside PLN 2012.13371 AUP 2012-0060 / DRG 2012.002S 5890 TMditq -1Kj-1Y _... ..... _ Area of wall mural to be removed 48 ITEM NUMBER: DATE: 7-24-12 Attachment 6: AUP Resolution 2012-0005 PLN 2012-1437 / AUP 2012-0060 / DRC 2012-0025 Exhibit 13: Mural Elevation - West Side PLN 2012-14371 AUP 2012-00601 DRC 2012-0025 $890 Traffic Way 49 ITEM NUMBER: 3 DATE: 7-24-12 Attachment 7: AUP Resolution 2012-0006 PLN 2012-1437 / AUP 2012-0060 / DRC 2012-0025 ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER DRAFT RESOLUTION 2012-0006 APPROVAL OF PLN 2012-14379 ADMINISTRATIVE USE PERMIT 2012-0060 TO ALLOW AN ARTISTIC WALL MURAL IN THE DOWNTOWN COMMERICAL ZONE (APN 029-322-010) AT 5890 TRAFFIC WAY THE HEARING OFFICER OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO DOES HEREBY RESOLVE THAT: WHEREAS, the Design Review Committee acting as the Hearing Office of the City of Atascadero held a duly noticed Administrative Use Permit Hearing at City Hall on June 21, 2012 at 3:30 pm and; WHEREAS, the Design Review Committee adopted AUP resolution 2012-0005 denying artistic wall murals at 5890 Traffic Way based on its incompatibility with the surrounding neighborhood due to their size and location and; ; WHEREAS, a request for reconsideration has been received from William Arkfeld, 9135 Santa Margarita Road, Atascadero, CA 93422 (Owner/Applicant) to allow an artistic wall mural in the Downtown Commercial zone based on modifications, located at 5890 Traffic Way, Atascadero, CA 93422 (APN 029-322-010); and, WHEREAS, the Design Review Committee acting as the Hearing Officer of the City of Atascadero held a duly noticed Reconsideration of Administrative Use Permit Hearing at the City Hall on July 24, 2012; at 3:30 pm; and, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE HEARING OFFICER FOR THE CITY OF ATASCADERO MAKES THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS AND DETERMINATIONS: 1. The proposed project is determined to qualify for a Class 11 Categorical Exemption from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), consistent with Section 15311. 50 ITEM NUMBER: 3 DATE: 7-24-12 2. The proposed project, as conditioned, is consistent with the General Plan. 3. The proposal, as conditioned, will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or welfare of the general public or persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the use, or be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity of the use. 4. The proposal will be consistent with the character of the immediate neighborhood. 5. The proposed project will not result in the authorization of a use not otherwise allowed. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE HEARING OFFICER FOR THE CITY OF ATASCADERO APPROVES THIS RESOLUTION. Exhibit A: Conditions of Approval Exhibit B: Mural Elevation — Southside Exhibit C: Mural Elevation — Westside The foregoing resolution is hereby adopted this 24th day of July 2012. Roberta Fonzi, Chairperson of the Design Review Committee Designated Hearing Officer 51 ITEM NUMBER: DATE: 7-24-12 Exhibit A: Conditions of Approval PLN 2012-1437 / AUP 2012-0060 / DRC 2012-0025 5890 Traffic Way Condition of Approval Timing Responsibility PLN 2012-1437 / AUP 2012-0060 I DRC 2012-0025 /Monitoring 5890 Traffic Way BL: Business License GP: Grading Permit PS: Planning Services BP: Building Permit BS: Building Services FI: Final Inspection FD: Fire Department TO: Temporary Occupancy F0: Final Occupancy PD: Police Department CE: City Engineer WW: Wastewater CA: City Attorney Standard Conditions 1. The granting of this Administrative Use Permit shall On Going PS, BS apply to 5890 Traffic Way, APN: 030-322-010. BP PS 2. The hearing officer's decisions shall be final unless appealed as provided in Section 9-1.111 of the Atascadero Municipal Code. On -Going PS 3. The applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Atascadero or its agents, officers, and employees against any claim or action brought to challenge an approval by the City, or any of its entities, concerning the mural or removal of the mural. BP PS 4. An artistic wall mural shall be allowed on the building side facing Palma Avenue and the rear alley at 5830 Traffic Way consistent with Exhibits B and Exhibit C. The wall mural(s) shall not exceed the sizes as established by the Design Review Committee. BP PS 5. The repainting of peeling of paint shall be consistent with likeness of colors as directed by the Design Review Committee. BP PS 6. The wall mural(s) shall be properly maintained at all times. No paint shall be peeling or other show visible signs of discoloration. BP PS 7. Additional Changes to the wall mural shall be submitted to the City and reviewed by the Design Review Committee prior to the commencement of a new mural. 8. Prior to removal of the wall mural(s) the property owner shall consultant with City Staff for colors to be utilized in repainting the wall(s). 52 ITEM NUMBER: 3 DATE: 7-24-12 Exhibit B: Mural Elevation - Southside PLN 2012-1437 / AUP 2012-0060 / DRC 2012-0025 5890 Traffic Way •Foliage' removal 53 Exhibit C: Mural Elevation - West Side PLN 2012-1437 / AUP 2012-0060 / DRC 2012-0025 5830 Traffic Way . i 1 Pc -f-,OW 54 ITEM NUMBER: 3 DATE: 7-24-12 City of Atascadero Office of the Secretary to the Design Review Committee TO: Design Review Committee COPIES (via email): Marcia Torgerson FROM: Warren Frace Community Development Director SUBJECT: Additional Information and Comment Letters Provided to Design Review Committee after Agenda Packet Distribution DATE: July 23, 2012 Attached is additional information that was provided after the Design Review Committee Agenda Packets were distributed. This information pertains to: Description: Letters received from: I. Croft T. Smith C. Kleemann M. McPartlan G. Provensen M. Tuohey-Mote A. Carlin A. Dedini D. Broadwater J. Blackham N. Reich Mural Policy Options Staff Report — 2/23/10 Design Review Committee Meeting Date: July 24, 2012 Alfredo Castillo From: Annette Manier Sent: Monday, July 23, 2012 10:49 AM To: Alfredo Castillo Subject: FW: City Hall Connection: You are the new Rep For Ian Cocroft -----Original Message ----- From: Ian Cocroft fmailto:iancocroft@gmail.coml Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2012 12:05 AM To: Annette Manier Subject: City Hall Connection: You are the new Rep For Ian Cocroft To Whom it May Concern: I am writing in support of the Tree Mural painted on the wall of the ARTery art supply store. I would like to applaud the city staff for making a well reasoned and articulate recommendation to the DRC, but am very disappointed that the DRC chose to disregard that recommendation. The Tree Mural is the epitome of the type of city Atascadero should strive to be; a place where citizens take the initiative to beautify their property, exercise their freedom of speech, and express themselves. The small minority of people who complain that the mural is "an eyesore" are missing the point! No piece of art is universally loved or appreciated, and what a business owner decides to paint on his or her own property is his/her business, and is constitutionally protected. Like the city staff said, the issue at hand never was the artistic merit or message of the mural, which is what the majority of the complaints received by the city have addressed. I believe the mural fits the character of the downtown area well, as it depicts an oak tree, a representation of the other oaks scattered throughout town. Murals and public works of art, more than burned out lots and chain stores, should define the character of Atascadero's downtown. Finally, I would like to address a few important legal points. I disagree that the mural can be considered a sign simply because it is a "color, form, graphic, illumination, symbol or writing". According to the sign ordinance, a sign must "announce the purpose of, or identify the purpose of a person or entity, or to communicate information of any kind to the public." This mural is abstract, and does not communicate any information to the public. Also, the argument that "this mural would not be protected under CAPA nor VARA because the wall mural did not receive the proper permits prior to installation, as required by the City's adopted mural policy" makes little sense. CAPA and VARA protect artists' rights regardless of wether the proper permit process was followed, and the city would be open to litigation if it orders the mural to be altered or destroyed. CAPA states, in part, "No person, except an artist who owns and possesses a work of fine art which the artist has created, shall intentionally commit, or authorize the intentional commission of, any physical defacement, mutilation, alteration, or destruction of a work of fine art." The law makes no mention of obtaining proper permits or approval prior to the creation of said art, and the city would clearly be "authoriz[ing] the intentional commission of ... alteration [and] destruction" of a work of art if it forced the ARTery to remove the mural. The changed proposed by the Arkfelds could also be considered to be in violation of CAPA, if prior approval is not obtained from the artist. In summation, the mural should be permitted to remain intact due to its beneficial impact on the Atascadero downtown area, the free speech rights of the artist and the ARTery owners, and the legal protections offered by CAPA and VARA. Sincerely, Ian Cocroft Cambria/Atascadero Resident DO NOT REPLY DIRECTLY TO THIS EMAILI I I Please Click Link Below to View The request and respond from there. http://www.atascadero.org/legacysites/index.php?option=com chc&page=ticketinternal&tracking id=1363 Alfredo Castillo From: tishassmith@gmail.com on behalf of Tisha Smith I Boyd & Bradley Studio <tisha@artwithmrssmith.com> Sent: Monday, July 23, 2012 7:18 AM To: DRC; Roberta Fonzi; Bob Kelley; Chuck Ward; Christian Cooper; sdecarli@prcity.com; Alfredo Castillo; Callie Taylor; Warren Frace Subject: Tree Mural Dear Atascadero City Staff and Design Review Committee members, I am writing to share my view that the "Tree Mural" on the side wall of the The Artery is an asset to the City of Atascadero and should be supported by you. Many opinions and options in dealing with the outcome of the "Tree Mural" have been voiced in our local newspapers and online media. I hope that you will use both these opinions and scholarly research in making your decisions regarding what measures taken will benefit Atascadero as a whole and its future. When googling "benefits of culture in small cities" more than hundreds of studies show up detailing the social and economic benefits that occur when a city embraces the arts. Embracing the arts means welcoming diversity. While Envisions Gallery on one side of Traffic Way is available for people who enjoy art by Robert Kincaid and other artists portraying mainstream styles, The Artery on the other side of the street is available for people who support eclectic art, sometimes with an edgy style. Both of these businesses are a good thing. With the outpouring of opinions on the Tree Mural, it is apparent that our community is made up of both types of people, to simplify, ones who like Robert Kincaid art and others who like the Tree Mural. This too is a good thing. The first time I drove by the Tree Mural, which was about one day after it was painted, (I drive Traffic Way everyday to and from work), I was so surprised and pleased to see such a difference on a wall that had previously been nondescript. I was grateful that the owners of the The Artery made the effort to bring some additional culture to Atascadero because I fully believe that public art is an integral part of a city that thrives. And with this, I also believe that now more than ever a concerted effort needs to be made to heighten the aesthetic value of downtown Atascadero in order to balance the big box store atmosphere coming soon with the opening of a Wal-Mart. I appreciate the courage you have to serve the public. I hope you'll use that courage to find a creative solution for this creative dilemma where a worthy project was completed while falling under the jurisdiction of some grey area rules that exist within the City's process of monitoring public art. Sincerely, Tisha Smith ********************************* North County Christian School, Art Teacher Art with Mrs. Smith, Owner 805.440.9048 www.artwithmrssmith.com artwithmrssmith.blo gsi2ot. com Alfredo Castillo From: Charles Kleemann <chazkleemann@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, July 22, 2012 10:54 PM To: Alfredo Castillo Cc: Callie Taylor Subject: RE: Reconsideration of AUP for ARTery Attachments: DRC -re- ARTery.pdf Please forward my attached comments to the DRC members re: July 24, 2012 Reconsideration AUP. Thank you, Charles Kleemann 438-4139 July 23, 2012 To: City of Atascadero Design Review Committee Re: The ARTery Mural Administrative Use Permit PLN 2012-1437 / AUP 2012-0060 / DRC 2012-0025 As a resident of Santa Margarita, I often shop in Atascadero. Atascadero is not exactly known for it's colorfulness or cultural diversity, so what a breath of fresh air to see what appeared to be just that on the side of The ARTery. Because vibrancy, diversity, and color are such vital signs of a healthy community, it was surprising to witness controversy develop around such a seemingly simple expression of ideological free speech. Brightness, activity, color, things that are alive, would usually be welcome additions anywhere, but particularly in an area of town with so many lifeless, dark empty buildings displaying For Lease signs. I encourage your committee to consider the bigger picture before coming to a decision. • Clearly this mural is not a sign or it would tell us something about the business on the other side of the wall. • This constitutes ideological speech as opposed to commercial speech, as there is no ad. • Ideological speech is well protected under the First Amendment to the Constitution. • Public health or safety is not at risk but the rights of private property owners may be. • Regulation of murals only for aesthetic purposes is not valid. It is unfortunate that the voices of many working members of the community will likely go unheard as a result of choosing such an inconvenient meeting time. In lieu of my attendance, please consider my written comments. Charles Kleemann Santa Margarita, Ca. Alfredo Castillo From: Maureen McPartlan <maureen.mcpartlan@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, July 21, 2012 10:24 PM To: DRC; Roberta Fonzi; Bob Kelley; Chuck Ward; Christian Cooper; sdecarli@prcity.com; Alfredo Castillo; Callie Taylor; Warren Frace Subject: Tree Mural To Whom It May Concern: I am a seven year resident of Atascadero and an artist (at heart - I don't actually have much time right now to create). I am writing you in support of the Tree Mural at the ARTery. I hereby request the following actions: 1. Stop imposing the sign ordinance on The ARTery Tree Mural, over which the City and that ordinance have no authority or jurisdiction. 2. Stop threats of imposing fees, fines and requirements on The ARTery's owners regarding the mural, and allow The ARTery owners to appeal agency decisions exempt from filing fees. 3. Exclude and exempt murals from the sign ordinance. 4. Make DRC membership more representative of the community. I also request that you consider allowing more public art downtown and work together with the Arkfelds and anyone else who's interested in participating to create a way to do that. I love the unique character of our town. We are not particularly oriented toward wine tourism or college students or coastal travelers. We are unto ourselves here, nestled among the oaks and the hills and I feel so blessed by our natural beauty and our quiet charm. But I also believe that it is important to continue to evaluate how we can improve our city's lifestyle, our culture, and our economy. Art is important. It must be accessible. I believe we have a pretty high percentage of artists who reside here. Let's support them. Maybe art could be Atascadero's "thing". There are worse "things" to be oriented towards. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, Maureen McPartlan Alfredo Castillo From: gina provensen <ginapro56@hotmail.com> Sent: Friday, July 20, 2012 4:50 PM To: DRC; Roberta Fonzi; Bob Kelley; Chuck Ward; Christian Cooper; sdecarli@prcity.com; Alfredo Castillo; Callie Taylor; Warren Frace Subject: Artery Mural Hello to you all. I truly appreciate all that you do for our community. I want you to know that I like the tree mural on the Artery building. It shows off the funky coolness of the shop. It's like a jazz band in paint. I would like it to stay there until the proprietors change it. Which you know they will. They seem to love to have fun just like we all do here in Atascadero. Gina Provensen 9650 Santa Cruz Road Atascadero California Resident since 1985 Alfredo Castillo From: marie tuohey-mote <mltm1252@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, July 21, 2012 12:34 PM To: DRC; Roberta Fonzi; Bob Kelley; Chuck Ward; Christian Cooper; sdecarli@prcity.com; Alfredo Castillo; Callie Taylor; Warren Frace Subject: ARTery Mural As a concerned citizen of Atascadero, I am writing to you. The issue of ART, not advertising, is at stake. Unlike K -Man's bicycle mural, the ARTery has showcased something that is strictly for the pleasure of the beholder. Do you really believe your job is to define, curtail and impose fines on art? There are enough petty and useless dictums and so-called ordinances in this city without you adding to them. Cut the ARTery a break from your micro -management and listen to what the residents of Atascadero have to say and what they feel about our hometown environment. Anything that brightens up our "Downtown" can only be a good thing. Sincerely, Marie Tuohey-Mote, Atascadero Alfredo Castillo From: anetcarlin@gmail.com on behalf of Anet Carlin <Anet@charley.net> Sent: Friday, July 20, 2012 3:37 PM To: Anet Marie Carlin Subject: The Mural at the Artery Dear Committee Members, I am a 26 year resident of Atascadero. I have seen our downtown go from retail stores through rather seedy times to a more vibrant era of today. We now have events, activities and LIFE in our downtown. The frequent, and quality events given by the Artery have brought much life to that area. The mural at the Artery is part of that growth. Please make sure that you look at the intrinsic value of art and not at missed permits. It would be such an insensitive decision to not approve this project eventho it exists. Thank you, A -a &44o Anet Carlin he aim of art is to represent not the outward appearance of things, but their inward significance. Aristotle Alfredo Castillo From: jeo/albion <jowl@sbcglobal.net> Sent: Friday, July 20, 2012 2:41 PM To: Warren Frace Cc: Roberta Fonzi; Bob Kelley; Chuck Ward; Christian Cooper; sdecarli@prcity.com; Alfredo Castillo; Callie Taylor Subject: I support the mural Please allow The Artery's mural to stand as it is with little or no changes. As a lifelong artist and art collector and as a 12 -year resident of Atascadero, I wholeheartedly support the transformation of that once - blank wall. I think it is mildly "edgy" and I believe that it adds character and charm to our developing downtown. Over time I can see it being cherished, much like an eccentric old friend. I also urge you to waive any fees/fines associated with the owner's pursuing this project. We should not be penalizing business owners for contributing to the revitalization of Atascadero. Sincerely, Albion Dedini Alfredo Castillo From: Warren Frace Sent: Friday, July 20, 2012 10:03 AM To: Bob Kelley; Christian Cooper; Chuck Ward; Roberta Fonzi; Susan DeCarli Cc: Wade Mckinney; Marcia Torgerson; Jim Lewis; Alfredo Castillo; Callie Taylor; Annette Manier; Brian Pierik Subject: 2/23/10 City Council - Mural Policy Options Staff report Attachments: 2b0e015C-2SignOrdinance-MuralPolicy.pdf Hello DRC members, The City has received a number of comment letters that reference the City's current mural policy. I have attached the 2010 "Mural Policy" Council staff report for the DRC's information and reference. At the 2010 meeting the Council adopted the recommended actions of the staff report. Warren Warren Frace Community Development Director I City of Atascadero wfrace@atascadero.org Atascadero City Council ITEM NUMBER: C - 2 DATE: 02/23/10 Staff Report — Community Development Department Sign Ordinance Mural Policy Options RECOMMENDATIONS: Council: 1. Determine that murals are signs and are subject to the requirements of the sign ordinance. Murals exceeding the size limitations of the sign ordinance would be subject to an Administrative Use Permit (AUP); and, 2. Establish a new stimulus program to cover $505 of the permit fee and the noticing costs for AUP's for murals located outside of the RDA boundary. (The resulting cost for applicants will be $100) DISCUSSION: Background: The issue of murals on buildings has recently become a topic of discussion in the community. The issue arose following a staff interpretation that murals of two bicycles on the K -Man Bike Shop at 9530 EI Camino Real fall under the definition of sign. As signs, the murals are limited to the size restrictions of the sign ordinance. Since the murals exceeded the allowable size area, an AUP was required to allow the additional size area to be approved. Under the City's cost recovery fee schedule, staff is required to collect $605 for an AUP application. The owner of the K -Man shop believes this fee is not equitable, since the Redevelopment Agency (RDA) will cover the cost of an AUP within the RDA boundary and also that the murals are art and should not be considered signs. The K -Man bike shop is not located within the RDA boundary. ITEM NUMBER: C-2 DATE: 02/23/10 K -Man murals at 9530 EI Camino Real Summary: The sign ordinance (Section 9-15) is Chapter 15 of the zoning ordinance. The purpose of the sign ordinance is as follows: 9-15.001 Title and Intent (a) Maintain and improve the aesthetic environment and overall community appearance to foster the City's ability to attract sources of economic development and growth; (b) Encourage the effective use of signs as a means of communication in the City and reduce possible traffic and safety hazards from confusing or distracting signs; (c) Implement quality sign design standards that are consistent with the City's General Plan, Zoning Ordinance and Appearance Review Guidelines; ITEM NUMBER: C-2 DATE: 02/23/10 (d) Enable fair and consistent enforcement of these sign regulations; (e) Minimize possible adverse impacts of signs on private and public property in order to maintain property values and to maintain a positive City image; (f) Enhance traffic safety by ensuring that signage does not distract, obstruct or otherwise impede traffic circulation and to safeguard and preserve the health, property, and public welfare of Atascadero residents through prohibiting, regulating, and controlling the density, location, and maintenance of signs; (g) Permit noncommercial signage wherever other signage is permitted within Chapter 9-15 subject to the same standards and total maximum allowances for a site of each sign type specified in this chapter. (Ord. 400 § 1 (part), 2002: Ord. 255 § 2 (part), 1992) One of the underlying issues is what constitutes a sign? Signs involve speech and therefore are afforded certain free speech protection under the Constitution. Consequently, the City does not regulate the message of a sign, but regulates the size, location and manner of sign construction. Although murals are not defined under the sign ordinance, murals generally involve a pictorial image on a wall. Under the sign ordinance, any color, form, graphic, illumination, symbol or writing constitutes a sign. Staff's interpretation of the code is that murals are a type of sign and therefore subject to the sign ordinance's size restrictions. 9-15.002 Definitions. (Sign Ordinance) For the purposes of this chapter, the following definitions shall apply: (tt) Sign. Any device, fixture, placard, or structure that uses any color, form, graphic, illumination, symbol, or writing to advertise, announce the purpose of, or identify the purpose of a person or entity, or to communicate information of any kind to the public, with the exception of the following: (1) Such devices not exceeding one (1) square foot in area and bearing only property numbers, post box number, names of occupants or other similar identification on a site; (2) Flags and other insignia of any government not displaying a commercial message; (3) Legal notices, identification, informational or directional/traffic controlling devices erected or required by government agencies; (4) Decorative or architectural features of buildings, except letters, trademarks or moving parts; (5) Holiday decorations and lights; ITEM NUMBER: C - 2 DATE: 02/23/10 (6) Government traffic controlling devices are not considered signs for purposes of this chapter due to their distinct purpose. Analysis: Staff has two primary responsibilities when processing sign permits: 1. Don't regulate message 2. Be consistent Staff believes that the current mural interpretation is the only way to accomplish those responsibilities. If murals are not considered signs, then staff will be put in a position of trying to determine if a painted image is a commercial message or art. This determination would be subjective and it would be very difficult for staff to apply a consistent standard. Once anything painted on a wall is defined as "art" and therefore exempt from the sign ordinance, a giant loop hole will be opened in the sign ordinance. Staff is very concerned that any image of any size, color or appearance could be placed anywhere in town under the definition of art, including residential zones. While staff believes that murals should be regulated under the sign ordinance, the Council could consider reducing or eliminating the AUP fee for certain types of murals. This would be consistent with San Luis Obispo's process. Both the cities of Paso Robes and San Luis Obispo consider mural to be signs. Both cities have an application fee and discretionary review process for approving murals. If the City of San Luis Obispo determines that a mural is non-commercial, then the processing fee is waived for the approval process. Council Options: 1. Determine that murals are signs and are subject to the requirements of the sign ordinance. Murals exceeding the size limitations of the sign ordinance would be subject to an Administrative Use Permit (AUP); and, a. Require AUP's outside of the RDA to pay a $605 application fee; or, b. Establish a new stimulus program to cover $505 of the permit fee and the noticing costs for AUP's for murals located outside of the RDA boundary. The resulting cost for applicants will be $100; or, c. Amend the City's cost recovery fee schedule to either reduce or eliminate the AUP's for murals. ITEM NUMBER: C - 2 DATE: 02/23/10 2. Determine that painted images except for letters are not signs but "decorative architectural features" and are exempt from the sign ordinance and any City review. 3. Create a new process outside of the sign ordinance for the review and approval of murals. Staff is recommending option lb as the best course of action. This option would continue to regulate murals under the sign ordinance but would subsidize the cost of the AUP so there would be no permit cost to the applicant. Conclusion: Signs and art may become high profile issues. The City's current policy of regulating murals under the sign ordinance allows staff to consistently regulate images attached to buildings without regulating the message. In order to encourage murals throughout the community, the Council could consider subsidizing, reducing or eliminating the AUP process fee for murals. FISCAL IMPACT: City payment of AUP fees for murals would likely result in a total cost of $1000 to $2000 annually. ALTERNATIVES: 1. The Council could direct staff to implement any of the listed options or another option. 2. The Council could determine that additional information and analysis are required and refer the item back to staff. ATTACHMENT: 1. 2/4/10 Staff Memo regarding K -Man Mural ITEM NUMBER: C-2 DATE: 02/23/10 CITY OF ATASCADERO 1Ha8 19791 7 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Memorandum Date: February 4, 2010 To: Marcia Torgerson CC: Wade McKinney Jim Lewis From: Warren Frace Subject: K -Man Mural follow-up (9530 EI Camino Real) Following is a summary of the staff actions and interpretations related to the K -Man bike shop mural at 9530 EI Camino Real. The week of December 1st, 2009, Callie Taylor spoke with an employee of K -Man about putting a mural on the building. Callie explained that a mural would require an Administrative Use Permit (AUP). Staff's Interpretation AUP's are described in the zoning ordinance, and allow for a special staff level review hearing to approval exceptions to the sign ordinance standards. Under the zoning ordinance there is no definition of mural or art. Staffs interpretation has been that words, symbols, pictures and patterns placed on structures fall under the definition of signs and are subject to the requirements of the sign ordinance. In the K -Man case, the mural consists of two bicycles with riders, which appears to be related to the commercial use of selling bicycles. The mural exceeded the allowable area for a sign and therefore requires an AUP to allow for the additional size. The City of San Luis Obispo's sign ordinance has definitions of both commercial and non- commercial murals. According to SLO staff, all murals go through the Architectural Review Committee (ARC). SLO charges either $1,012 or $1,332 for ARC review. The City waives they ARC fee for non commercial murals. Fee'C"Documents ane Set4nys�Ml=, LxW Set. p,'TemplOn,"te'O'•KmW m,,I memo 2<.10 dm. 6907 EL CAMINO REAL a ATASCADERO, CA 93422 a (805) 461-5000 • FAX 461-7612 pont Dale: 07n2/' CITY OF ATASCADERO COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT February 12, 2010 Page 2 of 4 ITEM NUMBER: C-2 DATE: 02/23/10 The following week of December 7th, 2009 Callie spoke with Kathleen King a muralist. She wanted to discuss murals as public art, and the benefits of mural bringing more tourism to the City. Callie explained the sign ordinance (sign area = 1 sq ft per linear feet of building frontage, 40 sq. ft. max.) and that an AUP could be approved for larger signs or murals. Apparently Kathleen was not happy with this and wanted a different process for allowing murals. Staff discussed the situation at the weekly Planning meeting on Dec 8 and agreed that an AUP was the proper process to allow the murals. Callie called her back and went over the size allowances and AUP process again. She was not happy and called back a few times over the next few days to explain why it was so good to create public art and how she did not agree with the permit process. On January 7th staff received a report that there was painting occurring on the K -Man building. Being familiar with the issue, Callie went out to the site. Callie spoke with a K - Man employee who said that Keith Schmidt (owner) was out of town. Callie then spoke with Kathleen King and asked her if she knew how large the painting would be, reminded her of the maximum size allowances for signs without a permit and the AUP process. She said she was commissioned to do the work and I needed to discuss it with the owner. On January 11, 2010, Callie sent a letter to K -Man regarding the unpermitted wall sign with directions on how to apply for an AUP and consequences of non compliance. The week of January 18, 2010, 1 spoke with Keith Schmidt about the letter and the AUP process. He was not that concerned with the AUP process but rather the $605 fee. He thought the City's stimulus program was unfair since it would cover sign painting and AUP's in the Downtown area but not for his property. I explained the RDA boundaries and funding restrictions, but he was not satisfied. I told him I would look into any other potential options for AUP fee relief. I spoke with Wade about the issue and we both concluded at there was not a mechanism available to waive or reduce the fee. I called Keith on February 151 and explained that he would need to apply for an AUP and it would cost $605. On February 4, 2009, a story ran in the New Times regarding this issue (see following). Fie K -1.111-1.2-<-i0 PnMD-02"2/1011:55AM CITY OF ATASCADERO COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT February 12, 2010 Page 3 of 4 Painting? Pony up! ITEM NUMBER: C — 2 DATE: 02/23/10 pocket Is to sign ora meal?Is arta sign? Whatis a moat? Ifyou Fie in.Atascadero.lhese are tough quesionsto arwAw—andforalleastom business owrher:t A orty answeristhis: Amuralcosts 5605. 1 r Keith Sctrrw fs atemptto gassy Lip a bare while wall on his Ka,tan cycle and fdn bike store kl&-started some city bureaucrats and a 5605 sign permit. &RSdhmiddoesn't " oonsiderthe painlingto be a sign Neilierdoes Kathleen King the aBstwho painted t -I've never—absolutely never—encountered this.' King said of the city's PRICEY PAINTING policy toward murals. 'In fact usually municipalities are praising businesses that o out of to beautify city streets ' K -.fan Cycle and Run ohmer g Keith Schmidt learned the Indeed. Atascadero has a signage policy in its codes but no definition of a painting on his Atascadero store mural in that policy. While applying for a permit to put up an awning. counts as a sign and requires a Schmidt—who was recently named business person of the year. he S605permit said—also asked about painting a mural. A city planner told him murals PHOTO BY STEVE E. YIILER quality as signs, which require a permit. Had Schmidt's business been located a few blocks away within the city's redevelopment area. the city would have waived the fees and there would have been state funds to help him pay for the painting. Schmidt thinks that's a -double standard.- so he had the mural painted anyway and soon city officials were telling him he had a bill to pay. Act IellerarrmigJan.11 rftTnedSchmidt hethadviolatedlhesignordnance. designedtoproledrieeconornyand aestihelicsofthe corrmnt-; He was ordered togetapemrtorface ties ofS100to5500per day. Sdhrrhidmety&pbnrkgogjalstotytDm*oL#arhather sokAon butwas unsumessIJ, he said. Schmidt's mural is a sign. as far as the code is concerned, explained Community Development Director Warren Frace. The city defines paintings on buildings as signs. 'It's not that were trying to prevent these things from happening.' Frace said. -tt's just that we have a process. - 'For what I paid [King] to do that mural. I could've put up a butt -ugly sign.' Schmidt said. He said he plans to pay the fee. but will lobby the city council to amend its ordinance. 'We didn't play exactly by the rules.- he admitted, 'but I still don't agree with them.' FleKmmmura1memo.2+10 Pn Date: 0211211011:55 AM CITY OF ATASCADERO COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT February 12, 2010 Page 4 of 4 ITEM NUMBER: C — 2 DATE: 02/23/10 Bicycle Murals Ifoicyc;ies or sale — Fie: K— mural memo.2+10 Alfredo Castillo From: sonyabluel@juno.com Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2012 12:07 PM To: DRC; Roberta Fonzi; Bob Kelley; Chuck Ward; Christian Cooper; sdecarli@prcity.com; Alfredo Castillo; Callie Taylor; Warren Frace Subject: save mural 1. Stop imposing its sign ordinance on The ARTery Tree Mural, over which the City and that ordinance have no authority or jurisdiction. 2. Stop threats of imposing fees, fines and requirements on The ARTery's owners regarding the mural, and allow The ARTery owners to appeal agency decisions exempt from filing fees. 3. Exclude and exempt murals from the sign ordinance. 4. Make DRC membership more representative of the community. 5 Diet Pills that Work 2012's Top 5 Weight Loss Pills. Updated Consumer Ratings. Free Report. http://th i rd pa rtyoffers. i u n o.com/TG L3131/50085 b65e341 b l7fc0stO2d u c Alfredo Castillo From: David Broadwater <csi@thegrid.net> Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2012 8:10 PM To: DRC; Roberta Fonzi; Bob Kelley; Chuck Ward; Christian Cooper; sdecarli@prcity.com Cc: Alfredo Castillo; Callie Taylor; Warren Frace Subject: DRC 7-24 - ARTery Tree Mural Attachments: Atas City Mural DRC Reconsid 7-24-12.pdf Atascadero Design Review Committee cc: Community Development Department re: The Artery Tree Mural — Reconsideration / Resolution Please find attached my comments on DRC agenda item #3. Please read them prior to the July 24 DRC meeting. They contain four recommendations (page 4) and address four subject areas under these headings: Precursor / Negligence / Opportunity Missed (page 1) Sign Ordinance — Invalid Jurisdiction / Subjective Implementation (page 1-2) Mural Policy / Sign Ordinance Conflict = Counterproductive (page 3) DRC Membership / Community Representation (page 4) Thank you, David Broadwater Atascadero to: City of Atascadero Design Review Committee (DRC) re: The Artery Tree Mural — Reconsideration / Resolution date: 7-24-12 It is imperative for the City to declaratively remove murals from review under the City's sign ordinance. The City's two -and -a -half-year negligence of this necessity, and the debilitating conflicts it produces, must come to and end. It should do so in response to the current conflict over The ARTery's Tree Mural. These comments are organized into four categories and are based on an extensive review of the record (see citations and references), and include conclusions and recommendations. (They accompany my 7-9-12 letter to the DRC requesting a reconsideration of its 6-21-12 decision.) Precursor / Negligence / Opportunity Missed The City Council was warned in a 2-23-10 Staff Report (during the K -Man mural conflict) that conflicts over murals and signs were likely to escalate: Conclusion: Signs and art may become high profile issues. (1) The Council was presented with a number of options, including the two below (emphasis added): Council Options:... 2. Determine that painted images except for letters are not signs but "decorative architectural features" and are exempt from the sign ordinance and any City review. 3. Create a new process outside of the sign ordinance for the review and approval of murals. (1) The Council also received a majority of public comments in favor of treating murals and signs differently. The Council declined to do so, and voted to continue regulating murals as signs. It also exempted the K -Man mural and others outside the RDA borders from AUP fees. (2) The City must recognize its responsibility in creating the current conflict through its chronic failure to seize an opportunity to resolve predictable disputes. It must demonstrate responsive and accountable City government by healing this festering sore. Sign Ordinance — Invalid Jurisdiction / Subjective Implementation The City's ability to regulate murals is nullified by the fact that they fail to qualify as signs under the sign ordinance. The Municipal Code explicitly defines signs by their purpose, and as certain types of objects. Signs are things designed to serve a commercial and communicative purpose, and decorative features like the ARTery's page 1 of 5 Tree Mural are exempt from the ordinance. The Atascadero Municipal Code clarifies the above (emphasis added): Chapter 15 Signs 9-15.002 Definitions For the purposes of this chapter, the following definitions shall apply:... (tt) Sign. Any device, fixture, placard, or structure that uses any color, form, graphic, illumination, symbol, or writing to advertise, announce the purpose of, or identify the purpose of a person or entity, or to communicate information of any kind to the public, with the exception of the following:... (4) Decorative or architectural features of buildings, except letters, trademarks or moving parts; ... (3) The application of the sign ordinance to murals is based solely on City Staff's subjective and reactionary interpretations of that ordinance, left to their own devices and discretion by decision -makers' abdication of responsibility to clarify policy. The Staff Reports of 2-23-10 and 7-24-12 demonstrate this fact, as do the old alarming/worst-case-scenario perspective employed, and new denial of murals as decorative features (emphasis added): oo 2-23-10 City Council Staff Report Summary: ... Although murals are not defined under the sign ordinance... Staff's interpretation of the code is that murals are a type of sign and therefore subject to the sign ordinance's size restrictions. Analysis: Once anything painted on a wall is defined as "art" and therefore exempt from the sign ordinance, a giant loop hole will be opened in the sign ordinance. Staff is very concerned that any image of any size, color or appearance could be placed anywhere in town under the definition of art, including residential zones..... (1) cc 7-24-12 DRC Staff Report (note false definition of signs) City Council Mural Policy:... Although murals are not defined under the sign ordinance, murals generally involve a pictorial image on a wall. Under the sign ordinance, any color, form, graphic, illumination, symbol or writing constitutes a sign. Staff's interpretation of the code is that murals are subject to the sign ordinance's size restrictions. Staff's position is that the murals are not considered a "decorative or architecture feature of a building". Decorative or architectural features of a building are considered affixed appendages such as dormers, windows, trim, balconies, etc. (s) page 2of5 Mural Policy / Sign Ordinance Conflict = Counterproductive The City frequently and consistently asserts its support for art and murals, especially in the downtown area. Yet, its reactions to recent murals indicate otherwise. This City can no longer afford to allow these debilitating conflicts to obstruct economic and civic development. The City's purported policy is exemplified by the following excerpts (emphasis added): oo 6-21-12 DRC Staff Report Mural:... City Council... policy direction that encourages public art throughout the City... Conclusion: Staff recommends approval of the artistic mural sign based on Council direction to encourage public art. (4) o0 2-23-10 City Council Staff Report Council Options:... ... encourage murals throughout the community... (1) 0o Downtown Design Guidelines 10-6-09 Atascadero Planning Commission: 3. Downtown Design Guidelines ... Downtown Design Guidelines/Toolbox and Idea Book... The purpose of the guidelines is to help and encourage and facilitate more creativity in the downtown zone. (5) Downtown Design Toolbox and Idea Book (emphasis added) (6): Public Art The City was founded as California's first planned community in 1913 by E. G. Lewis who was inspired by the City Beautiful Movement. The City encourages the placement of public art in new and existing buildings, parks, streets, and other development projects for the enjoyment of its citizens and visitors to further the development of and public awareness of, and interest in, the visual arts and fine crafts to increase employment opportunities in the arts, and to encourage the integration of art into the architecture of Downtown. The City's collection of art including sculptures, fountains, objects and murals will be a museum with no walls, no fees and no hours posted, accessible to everyone every day. New buildings are encouraged to include exterior artworks that invite participation and interaction, reveal local culture or history, and capture or reinforce the unique character of the City, the downtown, or the site. (7) It is readily apparent that the City's attempts to regulate murals has been, and is, counterproductive relative to its declared objectives. page 3of5 DRC Membership / Community Representation On 9-14-10, the City Council created the five -member Design Review Committee (DRC) composed of two City Council, two Planning Commission and one at large resident (9). Currently, the DRC consists of Roberta Fonzi and Bob Kelley (Councilmembers and former Commission members), Chuck Ward and Christian Cooper (Commission members) and Susan DeCarli (Paso Robles Planning Department). The composition of the DRC is not representative of the Atascadero community. All current members are regulation makers and enforcers. This fails to incorporate members of the art community and the general public. CONCLUSIONS cc Further delay in reforming City policy is not a viable option. It's causing undue distress and disruption. oo The sign ordinance is the wrong tool for regulating murals. oo The City cannot meet its objectives on this course. oo The City cannot afford repeated conflict through inaction. oo Sufficient evidence exists to support the necessity of urgent action. RECOMMENDATIONS The DRC and City should: 1. Discontinue attempting to impose the sign ordinance on The ARTery's Tree Mural, and direct City Staff to discontinue that imposition. 2. Relieve The ARTery of all fees and fines relative to the Tree Mural, including appeals of agency decisions. 3. Exempt murals from the sign ordinance. 4. Make DRC membership more representative of the community. David Broadwater Atascadero References: 1. Atascadero City Council 2-23-10 Staff Report, C-2, Sign Ordinance / Mural Policy Options (http://www.atascadero.org/media/council/2b0e015C- 2SignOrdinance-MuralPolicy. pdf). 2. Atascadero City Council 2-23-10 Minutes, C-2, Sign Ordinance / Mural Policy Options... Public Comment... Motion... passed (http://www.atascadero.org/media/council/8d6fd5eO22310.pdf). 3. Atascadero Municipal Code, Title 9 Planning and Zoning, Chapter 15 Signs, 9- 15.002 Definitions (http://gcode.us/codes/atascadero/). 4. Atascadero Design Review Committee 6-21-12 Staff Report, 2, The Artery Mural Administrative Use Permit (http://www.atascadero.org/media/dre/meetings/2012_06_21/Supplemental%2 0Info/The%20Artery. pdf). page 4 of 5 5. Atascadero Planning Commission 10-6-09 Minutes, Community Development Staff Reports... 3. Downtown Design Guidelines (http://www.atascadero.org/media/plancom/39af5bePCMinutes100609.pdf). 6. Downtown Design Toolbox and Idea Book, Table of Contents, Appendix A (http://www.atascadero.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=5 34&Itemid=1504). 7. Appendix A: Downtown Design Guidelines, page 46 (http://www.atascadero.org/files/CD/downtown_design/Atascadero%20DT%20D esign%20Toolbox%2OAppendixA. pdf). 8. Design Review Committee 7-24-12 Staff Report, Reconsideration The Artery Mural Administrative Use Permit (http://www.atascadero.org/media/dre/meetings/2012_07_24/Supplemental%2 01nfo/Item3- Recon sideration -Artery. pdf). 9. Atascadero Municipal Code, Title 9 Planning and Zoning, Chapter 2: Applications, Content, Processing, and Time Limits, 9-2.107 Design Review Committee (http://gcode. us/codes/atascadero/). page 5of5 Alfredo Castillo From: Janice Blackham <elevenfifteen@hotmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2012 8:26 PM To: DRC; Roberta Fonzi; Bob Kelley; Chuck Ward; Christian Cooper; sdecarli@prcity.com; Alfredo Castillo; Callie Taylor; Warren Frace Subject: ARTery Tree Mural To Whom It May Concern: I am writing to voice my support of the beautiful mural decorating the ARTery store. I am a 32 year old professional. I work in San Luis but try to shop and patronize Atascadero businesses as much as I can. Before the mural was painted, I had not been downtown in several months. The construction on the city hall building and burned out lots made the area uninviting. However, when I heard there was a new mural I immediately went downtown to check it out. While I was there, I ate at the restaurant across the street and bought item from several nearby shops. I was very disappointed when I later learned that the city was demanding the mural be removed. I would hope that the DRC and city council would be in favor of something that brings people like me (i.e. people who actually have money to spend in local businesses) downtown. I understand that the owners of the ARTery have been told to either remove the mural, change it, and/or pay fees and file costly appeals. I urge those concerned to reconsider these demands. The mural is public art. It is not a sign. Please leave it alone. Sincerely, Janice Blackham Alfredo Castillo From: Nicole Reich <specklavender@yahoo.com> Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2012 4:42 PM To: DRC; Roberta Fonzi; Bob Kelley; Chuck Ward; Christian Cooper; sdecarli@prcity.com; Alfredo Castillo; Callie Taylor; Warren Frace Subject: in support of the Tree Mural Dear distinguished DRC and staff, Please accept this letter as a new member of the community who thinks that the Tree Mural is an example of how charming and unique Atascadero is, and that the subsequent brooha over it and its threat of being removed is an example of what is scary in this world; over regulation, control, intolerance, ignorance and take over by an elite, zealot few. What's next? Book burning? I have faith in right action and believe that you all will do the right thing. Sincerely, Nicole Reich, Teacher ITEM NUMBER: 4 DATE: 7-24-12 Atascadero Design Review Committee Staff Report - Community Development Department Alfredo R. Castillo, AICP, Assistant Planner, (805) 470-3436 acastillo@atascadero.org Liz Brighton, Planning Intern, (805) 470-3470 ebrighton@atascadero.org Freeway Oriented Sign Administrative Use Permit PLN 2012-1438 / AUP 2012-0061 / DRC 2012-0026 Owner / Donald Giessinger Applicant: `` 9070 La Paz Lane o, Atascadero, CA 93422 Address: 6305/6435 Morro Road Atascadero, CA 93422 APN: 030-212-026/030-015- 018/030-212-018 General Plan: General Commercial (GC) Zoning: Commercial Tourist (CT) Project Area: 1 acre Existing Use: Existing gas station and A&W Restaurant�,_�"' t Environmental Categorical Exempt Section Status: 15311; Class 11 exemption for construction of new on- site signs. ❑ Approval of proposed size, height, and location of a freeway oriented pole sign. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends.- The ecommends. The Design Review Committee adopt Resolution AUP 2012-0007 approving Administrative Use Permit 2012-0061, with conditions, permitting the height, size, and location of a freeway oriented pole sign at 6305 Morro Road in the Commercial Tourist zone. 55 ITEM NUMBER: 4 DATE: 7-24-12 Background: The applicant owns the 76 gas station located at 6305 Morro Road and the adjoining A&W fast food restaurant. The 76 Gas station has approximately 200 lineal feet of the parcel fronting Highway 101 (47 feet of building frontage). The applicant has an approved Precise Plan for the construction of the Gas Station. The applicant is proposing to install new signage, adding to the existing 60 square foot monument sign that was approved as part of the 2001 Precise Plan. The 2,425 square foot mini- mart/gas station is located in the Commercial Tourist zoning district and is designated as General Commercial. The applicant is requesting a 73 -foot tall pole sign with the two neighboring businesses (76 and A&W) being advertised. The 200 square foot, 55 foot tall McDonald's/Chevron pole sign located across Morro Road from the proposed pole sign was approved by the Board of Supervisors (by way of CUP) in 1976. The Board allowed the joint sign as the two businesses were owned by one corporation. The applicant owns the adjacent A&W restaurant, the businesses to be advertised in the proposed pole sign are owned by one entity and thus follows existing precedent. Per AMC §9-15.005(a)(6)(i), an Administrative Use Permit (AUP) is required for the approval of a freeway oriented pole sign. Sign Detail I-r-►� �r 9-15.UU5(a)(6)N reeway ,igns. Sites located adjacent to Highway 101 or a Highway 101 frontage road may be authorized, through administrative use permit, approval to use a freeway oriented sign as provided below: (i) Businesses located on freeway frontage of Highway 101, and that are a restaurant, service station, provide lodging, or are a dealer of new automobiles, may have a pole mounted freeway oriented sign with an area not to exceed one (1) square foot of sign area per lineal foot of freeway oriented building frontage up to one hundred fifty (150) square feet, whichever is less. Pole mounted signs shall not exceed fifty (50) feet in height or the minimum height necessary for effective visibility (see Section 9-15.006(c)). The site's current signage consists of a 60 square foot monument sign off of Morro Road and approximately 600 square feet of color banding, recently approved by the AUP process in 2011. The total amount of currently permitted signage on the site is 660 square feet, which includes the color banding. 56 ITEM NUMBER: 4 DATE: 7-24-12 The allowed aggregate sign square footage allowed per site is one hundred twenty-five (125) square feet (AMC Code 9-15.005(a)). With the existing monument sign, the total permitted square footage remaining for the site is 65 square feet. With the AUP process, the Committee can find that the amount of allowable signage square footage can be increased pursuant to the following section of the AMC: 9-15.006(c) Exceptions to Sign Standards For freeway oriented signs, the sign area and height are the minimum needed to achieve adequate visibility along the freeway due to highway ramp locations and grade differences. The above code also applies to the height of the proposed pole sign. The applicant has proposed a pole height of 73 -feet in order for the sign to be visible to highway drivers over existing trees that separate the highway from the project site. The pictures below depict a hot air balloon that the applicant raised in order to ascertain the height needed for visibility from Highway 101. K, View on 101 Heading North 57 ITEM NUMBER: DATE: 7-24-12 View on 101 Heading North 58 ITEM NUMBER: DATE: 7-24-12 View on 101 Heading South View on 101 Heading South 59 ITEM NUMBER: 4 DATE: 7-24-12 Conclusion: Staff recommends approval of the proposed freeway -oriented pole sign. The proposed height will allow for adequate visibility from Highway 101 and the total signage square is approximately 264 square feet. The sign meets the findings required for approving an AUP including: • The signs is consistent with the General Plan, particularly since the sign would attract customers off the of freeway • The sign is not detrimental to the health, safety, or welfare of the general public or persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the use; • The sign is not detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity of the use; • The sign is consistent with the character of the immediate neighborhood. • The sign will not result in the authorization of a use that is otherwise not allowed. Environmental Review: Class 11 of the California Environmental Quality Act (Section 15311) exempts the construction of new on-site signs. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL: An Administrative Use Permit shall be approved if the hearing officer makes the following findings in the affirmative: 1. The proposed project is determined to qualify for a Class 11 Categorical Exemption from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), consistent with Section 15311. 2. The proposed project, as conditioned, is consistent with the General Plan. 3. The proposal, as conditioned, will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or welfare of the general public or persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the use, or be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity of the use. 4. The proposal will be consistent with the character of the immediate neighborhood. 5. The proposal will not result in the authorization of a use not otherwise allowed. Attachments: Attachment 1: General Plan / Zoning Attachment 2: CEQA Exemption Attachment 3: AUP Resolution 2012-0007 60 Attachment 1: General Plan / Zoning Map 030 212 026 030�212-015 030-212-018 ITEM NUMBER: 4 DATE: 7-24-12 707 Project Location.- 6305 ocation:6305 Morro Road I -qq 1_kqlow� General Plan: General Commercial (GC) Zoning: Commercial Tourist (CT) 61 Attachment 2: CEQA Exemption ITEM NUMBER: 4 DATE: 7-24-12 CITY OF ATASCADERO NOTICE OF EXEMPTION 6907 EI Camino Real Atascadero, CA 93422 805.461.5000 Date Received for Filing FROM: Liz Brighton Planner City of Atascadero 6907 El Camino Real Atascadero, CA 93422 SUBJECT: Filing of Notice of Determination in Compliance with Section 21152 of the Public Resources Code. Project Title: Administrative Use Pemlit 2012-0061 Project Location: 6305 Morro Road, Atascadero, CA 93422, San Luis Obispo County Project Description: On-site pole signage. Name of Public Agency Approving Proj: City of Ataseadero Name of Person or Agency CMing Out Project: Wnald Giessinger (property owner) Exempt Status: ❑ miniaciial (Sec. 15073) ❑ Emergency Pmjw (Sec. 1507 (b) and (c)) ❑ 0.elared Emergency (Sec. 15061 (a)) ❑ General Rule Exemption (Scc. 15%1.c) ® Categoricully Exempt (Sec. 15311) Reasons why project is exempt: Class 11 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Section 15311, Accessory Structures) exempts the construction of on -premise signs. Date: July 5, 2012 Liz Brighton Planner 62 ITEM NUMBER: 4 DATE: 7-24-12 Attachment 4: AUP Resolution PLN 2012-1438 / AUP 2012-0061 / DRC 2012-0026 ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER DRAFT RESOLUTION 2012-0007 APPROVAL OF PLN 2012-14389 ADMINISTRATIVE USE PERMIT 2012-0061 TO ALLOW A FREEWAY ORIENTED POLE SIGN IN THE COMMERCIAL TOURIST ZONE (APN 030-212-026) AT 6305 MORRO ROAD THE HEARING OFFICER OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO DOES HEREBY RESOLVE THAT: WHEREAS, a request has been received from Donald Giessinger, 9070 La Paz Lane (Owner/Applicant), to allow a freeway oriented pole sign in the Commercial Tourist zone, located at 6305 Morro Road, Atascadero, CA 93422 (APN 030-212-026); and, WHEREAS, the Design Review Committee acting as the Hearing Officer of the City of Atascadero held a duly noticed Administrative Use Permit Hearing at the City Hall on July 24, 2012; on or after 3:30 pm; and, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE HEARING OFFICER FOR THE CITY OF ATASCADERO MAKES THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS AND DETERMINATIONS: 1. The proposed project is determined to qualify for a Class 11 Categorical Exemption from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), consistent with Section 15311. 2. The proposed project, as conditioned, is consistent with the General Plan. 3. The proposal, as conditioned, will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or welfare of the general public or persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the use, or be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity of the use. 4. The proposal will be consistent with the character of the immediate neighborhood. 63 ITEM NUMBER: 4 DATE: 7-24-12 5. The proposal will not result in the authorization of a use not otherwise allowed. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE HEARING OFFICER FOR THE CITY OF ATASCADERO APPROVES THIS RESOLUTION. Exhibit A: Conditions of Approval Exhibit B: Site Plan Exhibit C: Elevation Exhibit D: APN Exhibit The foregoing resolution is hereby adopted this day the 24th of July 2012. Roberta Fonzi, Chairperson of the Design Review Committee Designated Hearing Officer 64 ITEM NUMBER: DATE: 7-24-12 Exhibit A: Conditions of Approval PLN 2012-1438 / AUP 2012-0061 / DRC 2012-0026 6305 Morro Road Conditions of Approval Timing Responsibility PLN 2012-1438 / AUP 2012-0061 / DRC 2012-0026 /Monitoring 6305 Morro Road BL: Business License GP: Grading Permit PS: Planning Services BP: Building Permit BS: Building Services FI: Final Inspection FD: Fire Department TO: Temporary Occupancy PD: Police Department F0: Final Occupancy CE: City Engineer WW: Wastewater CA: City Attorney Standard Conditions 1. The granting of this Administrative Use Permit shall On Going PS, BS apply to 6305 Morro Road, APN 030-212-026. BP PS 2. The hearing officer's decisions shall be final unless appealed as provided in Section 9-1.111 of the Atascadero Municipal Code. BP PS 3. A freeway oriented pole sign shall be allowed at the property, 6305 Morro Road (APN 030-212-026). The freeway sign should not exceed height and square footage as shown in Exhibit C of this approval subject to the following: 3a. Highest point of sign structure shall not exceed 73'- 0" above finished grade. 3b. Total sign face area of both sides shall not exceed 256 sf. 3c. Entire sign structure, including overhangs, shall be located within the property boundaries. 3d.The sign may only advertise business uses located on parcels APN 030-212-026, 030-212-015 and 030- 212-018. BP PS 4. At the time of building permits, City shall approve earthone color swatches of proposed pole and sign cabinets. 65 Exhibit B: Site Plan PLN 2012-1438 / AUP 2012-0061 / DRC 2012-0026 6305 Morro Road ITEM NUMBER: 4 DATE: 7-24-12 Proposed Location of Pole Sign. Entire Sign Area to be located within applicant's property boundary. n zz- ZE 0 HWY 101 s ZE R t t. MORRO RD (HWY 41) 66 a -< � r n Proposed Location of Pole Sign. Entire Sign Area to be located within applicant's property boundary. n zz- ZE 0 HWY 101 s ZE R t t. MORRO RD (HWY 41) 66 a -< ITEM NUMBER: 4 DATE: 7-24-12 Exhibit C: Sign Elevation PLN 2012-1438 / AUP 2012-0061 / DRC 2012-0026 6305 Morro Road Santa Maria Neon _ Sign Company License #930390 2710 EI Camino Real Atascadero, CA 93422 Sign shall not exceed 128 sf on each side facing Highway 101. Total Sign Area shall not exceed 256 sf Pole and cabinet color to be earthtone per City approval 67 ITEM NUMBER: 4 DATE: 7-24-12 Exhibit D: APN PLN 2012-1438 / AUP 2012-0061 / DRC 2012-0026 6305 Morro Road IVA 030 2,03q 030-211-030 4 6500 030-282-028 Q3q� mar X3,0 �(( 030-213-0215085 019 5050 030-213-0286115 5995 ' 030-213.036 6105 030-213-035 030-213024 6125 6135 030-213-034 o -3g21 030-T13-02�g155 8145 3•033 030-213-026 030-213.032