HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC_2010-04-20_AgendaPacketCITY OF ATASCADERO
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
Regular Meeting
Tuesday, April 20, 2010 — 7:00 P.M.
City Hall
Council Chambers
6907 El Camino Real
Atascadero, California
CALL TO ORDER
Pledge of Allegiance
Roll Call: Chairperson Moreno
Vice Chairperson Bentz
Commissioner Colamarino
Commissioner Jack
Commissioner Schmidt
Commissioner Sturtevant
Commissioner Ward
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
PUBLIC COMMENT
(This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons wishing to address the Commission on any matter not
on this agenda and over which the Commission has jurisdiction. Speakers are limited to three minutes.
Please state your name and address for the record before making your presentation. The Commission may
take action to direct the staff to place a matter of business on a future agenda.)
PLANNING COMMISSION BUSINESS
A. Chairperson Moreno
1. Motion to reconsider Commission action —April 6, 2010
#2 Consent Calendar - Approval of March 2, 2010 Minutes
(If Commission votes to reconsider April 6, 2010 #2)
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF THE REGULAR PLANNING
COMMISSION MEETING ON 3/2/10
City of Atascadero Planning Commission Agenda
CONSENT CALENDAR -NONE
Regular Meeting, April 20, 2010
Page 2of4
(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 Commission or public wishes to comment or ask questions.)
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORTS
1. PLN 2007-1222, TREE REMOVAL PERMIT FOR 5000 LLANO RD
Property Owner/
Glenn Millhollin, 8758 E. Barstow, Clovis, CA 93611
Applicant:
Janet & Bill Stockton, 8761 E. Barstow, Clovis, CA 93611
Certified Arborist:
Robert Schreiber, 170 Terra St., Morro Bay, CA 93442
Project Title:
PLN 2007-1222 / TRP 2008-0122
Project Location:
5000 Llano Road, Atascadero, CA 93422
Project Description:
APN 055-451-031 (San Luis Obispo County)
Project Description:
A request to remove fifteen (15) native Blue Oak trees and one (1) native Live Oak
tree in order to construct a single-family residence and access driveway on a vacant
lot. The trees proposed for removal range in size from 4 -inches to 29 -inches with a
total DBH of 197 -inches requested for removal. Two of the trees are over 24 -inches
DBH, and therefore Planning Commission approval of the tree removals is required.
Trees shall be mitigated according to the Atascadero Native Tree Ordinance.
Proposed
General Plan Designation: Rural Estate (RE)
Environmental
Zoning District: Residential Suburban (RS)
PUBLIC HEARINGS
2. PLN 2009-1341, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR 6320-6490 EL
CAMINO REAL, LA PLAZA CINEMA/RETAIL PROJECT
Property Owner:
Ben Hoff, LLC, PO Box 2153, Paso Robles, CA 93447
Applicant:
Larry M. Wysong, 7025 Morro Road, Atascadero, CA 93422
Project Title:
PLN 2009-1341 / CUP 2009-0244, RAB 2010-0019 La Plaza Cinema / Retail Project
Project Location:
6320 — 6490 EI Camino Real, Atascadero, CA 93422
(San Luis Obispo County) APN 030-191-030, 031, 016, 017, and 030-193-003
Project Description:
The project consists of a Conditional Use Permit for a 10 screen /1400 seat movie
theatre (33,000± sf), retail space (2350± sf), and sit down restaurant (4330± sf) on a
1.5± acre site with no on-site parking, a height waiver exception request, a Tree
Removal Permit for one 6 -inch White Oak and a Road Abandonment of a portion of
Atascadero Mall and an easement along the EI Camino Real frontage.
General Plan Designation: D (Downtown)
Zoning District: DC (Downtown Commercial)
Proposed
Based on the initial study prepared for the project, a Mitigated Negative Declaration is
Environmental
proposed. The proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration is available for public review
Determination:
through 4/20/10 at 6907 EI Camino Real, City Hall, from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday
through Friday, or at www.atascadero.org.
City of Atascadero Planning Commission Agenda
Regular Meeting, April 20, 2010
Page 3of4
DISCLOSURE OF EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS:
Prior to a project hearing Planning Commission Members must disclose any communications they have had on any
quasi-judicial agenda items. This includes, but is not limited to, Tentative Subdivision Maps, Parcel Maps,
Variances, Conditional Use Permits, and Planned Development Permits. This does not disqualify the Planning
Commission Member from participating and voting on the matter, but gives the public and applicant an opportunity
to comment on the ex parte communication.
(For each of the following items, the public will be given an opportunity to speak. After a staff report, the Chair will open the public
hearing and invite the applicant or applicant's representative to make any comments. Members of the public will be invited to provide
testimony to the Commission following the applicant. Speakers should state their name and address for the record and can address the
Commission for three minutes. After all public comments have been received, the public hearing will be closed, and the Commission
will discuss the item and take appropriate action(s).)
COMMISSIONER COMMENTS AND REPORTS
DIRECTOR'S REPORT
ADJOURNMENT
The next regular meeting of the Planning Commission is scheduled for May 4, 2010, at City
Hall, Council Chambers, 6907 El Camino Real, Atascadero.
Please note: Should anyone challenge in court any proposed development entitlement listed
on this Agenda, that person may be limited to raising those issues addressed at the public
hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning
Commission at, or prior to this public hearing.
City of Atascadero Planning Commission Agenda Regular Meeting, April 20, 2010
Page 4 of 4
City of Atascadero
WELCOME TO THE ATASCADERO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
The Planning Commission meets in regular session on the first and third Tuesday of each month at 7:00 p.m. at City
Hall, Council Chambers, 6907 EI Camino Real, Atascadero. Matters are considered by the Commission in the order
of the printed Agenda.
Copies of the staff reports or other documentation relating to each item of business referred to on the Agenda are on
file in the office of the Community Development Department and are available for public inspection during City Hall
business hours at the Front Counter of City Hall, 6907 EI Camino Real, Atascadero, and on our website,
www.atascadero.org. An agenda packet is also available for public review at the Atascadero Library, 6850 Morro
Road. All documents submitted by the public during Commission meetings that are either read into the record or
referred to in their statement will be noted in the minutes and available for review in the Community Development
Department. Commission meetings are video-taped and audio recorded, and may be reviewed by the public. Copies
of meeting recordings are available for a fee. Contact the City Clerk for more information (470-3400).
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in a City
meeting or other services offered by this City, please contact the City Manager's Office or the City Clerk's Office,
both at (805) 470-3400. Notification at least 48 hours prior to the meeting or time when services are needed will
assist the City staff in assuring that reasonable arrangements can be made to provide accessibility to the meeting or
service.
TO SPEAK ON SUBJECTS NOT LISTED ON THE AGENDA
Under Agenda item, "PUBLIC COMMENT", the Chairperson will call for anyone from the audience having business
with the Commission to approach the lectern and be recognized.
1. Give your name for the record (not required)
2. State the nature of your business.
3. All comments are limited to 3 minutes.
4. All comments should be made to the Chairperson and Commission.
5. No person shall be permitted to make slanderous, profane or negative personal remarks concerning any
other individual, absent or present.
This is when items not on the Agenda may be brought to the Commission's attention. A maximum of 30 minutes will
be allowed for Public Comment Portion (unless changed by the Commission).
TO SPEAK ON AGENDA ITEMS (from Title 2, Chapter 1 of the Atascadero Municipal Code)
Members of the audience may speak on any item on the agenda. The Chairperson will identify the subject, staff will
give their report, and the Commission will ask questions of staff. The Chairperson will announce when the public
comment period is open and will request anyone interested to address the Commission regarding the matter being
considered to step up to the lectern. If you wish to speak for, against or comment in any way:
1. You must approach the lectern and be recognized by the Chairperson.
2. Give your name (not required).
3. Make your statement.
4. All comments should be made to the Chairperson and Commission.
5. No person shall be permitted to make slanderous, profane or negative personal remarks concerning any
other individual, absent or present.
6. All comments limited to 3 minutes.
If you wish to use a computer presentation to support your comments, you must notify the Community Development
Department at 470-3402 at least 24 hours prior to the meeting. Digital presentations brought to the meeting on a
USB drive or CD is preferred. Access to hook up your laptop to the City's projector can also be provided. You are
required to submit to the Recording Secretary a printed copy of your presentation for the record. Please check in with
the Recording Secretary before the meeting begins to announce your presence and turn in the printed copy.
The Chairperson will announce when the public comment period is closed, and thereafter, no further public
comments will be heard by the Commission.
ITEM NUMBER: 1
DATE: 4-20-10
Atascadero Planning Commission
Staff Report — Community Development Department
Callie Taylor, Associate Planner, 470-3448, ctaylor@atascadero.org
PLN 2007-1222/TRP 2008-0122
Tree Removal Permit
5000 Llano Rd
SUBJECT:
The proposed project includes a request to remove sixteen (16) native trees in order to
construct a 3115 square foot single-family residence. Fourteen (14) of the trees are
native Blue Oaks and two (2) are native Live Oaks.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff Recommends:
The Planning Commission adopt Resolution PC 2010-0010 to allow the removal of
sixteen (16) native trees subject to conditions of approval.
Situation and Facts:
1. Property Owner/Applicant: Glen Millhollin, 8758 E. Barstow Ave, Clovis, CA
93611
Janet and Bill Stockton, 8761 E. Barstow Ave,
Clovis, CA 93611
2. Project Address: 5000 Llano Rd, Atascadero, CA 93422
3. Certified Arborist: Robert Schreiber, Arbor First, 170 Terra St., Morro
Bay, CA 93442
4. Project Biologist Althouse and Meade, Inc. 1875 Wellsona Road,
Paso Robles, CA 93446
5. General Plan Designation: Residential Estate (RE)
ITEM NUMBER: 1
DATE: 4-20-10
6. Zoning District: Residential Suburban (RS)
7. Site Area: 27.53 acres
8. Existing Use: Vacant
Background:
The applicants are requesting the removal of sixteen (16) native trees totaling 197 -
inches DBH in order to construct a residence, driveway, and creek crossing. The
project consists of an application to construct a two story, 3115 square foot single-
family residence. The residence includes a 3115 square foot unfinished basement,
834 square foot garage, porches, and decks. The proposed driveway is 1,300 feet
long and the construction will result in a 1.90 acre area of disturbance. The project
site is approximately 27 acres and has an average slope of approximately 30% at the
building site.
Location Map
* Site must be accessed through neighbor's property. Contact staff or applicant for site visit.
ITEM NUMBER: 1
DATE: 4-20-10
ANALYSIS:
The applicants have applied to develop a single-family residence on their property.
There are 86 trees located within 20 feet of proposed construction. The applicants have
worked extensively with staff in conjunction with the project arborist and biologist. The
driveway has been redesigned to impact as few trees as possible. The proposed
construction requires the removal of fourteen (14) Blue Oaks and two (2) Live Oaks,
which totals 197 -inches DBH. Two (2) of the Blue Oaks (#48 and # 78) are greater than
24 -inches DBH, thus requiring Planning Commission approval.
The applicants have submitted an Arborist Report and Tree Protection Plan consistent
with the Atascadero Native Tree Ordinance. The Atascadero Native Tree Ordinance
allows for the removal of native trees over 24 -inches DBH with a Tree Removal Permit
and payment into the Tree Mitigation Fund. Native trees larger than 24 -inches DBH
require approval from the Planning Commission prior to removal.
Sixty-six native trees on site will require tree protection fencing per the arborist's Tree
Protection Plan. The minor impacts on these trees range from 0% to 28%. Twelve (12)
of these trees will require monitoring by the arborist during grading and excavation to
ensure that impacts are minimal and any necessary mitigation is implemented.
ITEM NUMBER
DATE: 4-20-10
Native Trees Requested for Removal
#
Type
Condition
Diameter
Height
Width
% Impact
1B
Live Oak
Fair
19.5"
54'
39'
100%
23
Blue Oak
Good
8"
27'
11'
100%
43
Blue Oak
Poor
6"
24'
16'
100%
44
Blue Oak
Fair
8"
18'
18'
100%
45
Blue Oak
85% Dead
2 leaders, 10"
each
36'
26'
0% (Hazard
Tree Removal)
46
Blue Oak
Fair
13"
40'
27'
100%
47
Blue Oak
Fair
8"
22'
18'
100%
48
Blue Oak
Poor
3 leaders, 9"
each
42'
21'
100%
72
Blue Oak
Fair
4"
10'
7'
100%
73
Blue Oak
Poor
10"
22'
18'
100%
77
Blue Oak
Fair
10"
33'
14'
100%
78
Blue Oak
Fair
3 leaders
11 ",11",7"
37'
35'
100%
78
B
Blue Oak
Fair
4"
16'
11.6
100%
81
Blue Oak
Fair
6"
30'
16'
100%
84
Live Oak
Poor
6 trees, 2" each
10'
25'
Cluster of 6
85
Blue Oak
Poor
4 trees, 3" each
10'
25'
Cluster of 4
ITEM NUMBER: 1
DATE: 4-20-10
Tree Mitiaation
The Atascadero Municipal Code requires mitigation for all trees approved for removal.
In accordance with Section 9-11.105 of the Atascadero Native Tree Ordinance, staff
has included a condition in the attached resolution which requires payment of fees
to the tree fund as mitigation for the proposed removal. The applicant shall make a
mitigation payment of $3,012.50 into the tree fund rather than replant on site due to the
large number of trees on the property.
Evergreen Native Trees (inches) Deciduous Native Trees (inches)
Totals
dbh notes dbh notes
1 20 -inches #1B _f-) 1 8 -inches #23 BO
2 12 -inches #S4 LO 1. 6 -inches #43 BO
3 3 8 -inches #44 BO
4 4 20 -inches #45 BO
5 5 13 -inches #46 BO
0 ,3 8 -inches #47 BO
7 7 27 -inches #48 BO
8 s 4 -inches #72 BO
9 9 10 -inches #73 BO
10 10 10 -inches #77 BO
11 11 29 -inches #78 BO
12 12 4 -inches #78B BO
13 13 6 -inches #81 BO
14 14 12 -inches #85 BO
15
Total 32 -inches Total 165 -inches
Mitigation Requirement
req d tree replacements: 5 fi•: a gal trees req d tree replacenents 55 fi; a gal tree=
Proposed Replanting 0 fi✓e gal trees Proposed Replanting 0 five gal tree--
0 five gal trees
0 fifteen gal trees 0 f6tee n gal tree=
a fifteen gal trees
0 box trees 1:24 0 bo= trees 2-
0 box trees (24")
Remaining 1:litigation 0 4;e gal trees Renroining Glitigation 55 fi; a gal trees 55 fi�,e_g_I trees
i
Tree Fund Pay ment: 5 2,32.50 Tree Fund Pa, n-ent: $ _.'=Ci 00 ( $ 3.012.50 j
FINDINGS:
In considering any tree removal request, at least one of the required findings must be
made. Staff has identified the following finding as appropriate for the application
request:
The tree is obstructing proposed improvements that cannot be reasonably
designed to avoid the need for tree removal, as certified by a report from the site
planner and determined by the Community Development Department based on
the following factors:
ITEM NUMBER: 1
DATE: 4-20-10
a. Early consultation with the City,
b. Consideration of practical design alternatives,
C. Provision of cost comparisons (from applicant) for practical design
alternatives,
d. If saving tree eliminates all reasonable use of the property, or
e. If saving the tree requires the removal of more desirable trees.
CONCLUSIONS:
The applicant is proposing to remove sixteen (16) Blue Oaks and Live Oaks totaling
197 -inches DBH in order to construct a 3115 square foot house, access driveway and
creek crossing. Based on the arborist evaluation and above analysis, findings can be
made to approve the requested removal, subject to the required mitigation.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. The Commission may approve the project with additional or revised project
conditions.
2. The Commission may deny the project if it is found that the required findings cannot
be made. The Commission's motion to deny must include a finding basis for denial.
3. The Commission may continue the hearing and refer the item back to staff for
additional information or analysis. Direction should be given to staff and the
applicant on required information.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment
1
— Location Map (General Plan & Zoning)
Attachment
2
— Aerial Photo
Attachment
3
— Tree Protection Plan/Arborist Report
Attachment
4
— Site Plan/Tree Protection Fencing
Attachment
5
— Draft Resolution PC 2010-0010
ITEM NUMBER
DATE: 4-20-10
ATTACHMENT 1: Location Map (Zoning Map)
PLN 2007-1222 / TRP 2008-0122
5000 Llano Rd
General Plan Land Use Designation: Residential Estate (RE)
Zone: Residential Suburban (RS)
Surrounding Zoning: Residential Suburban (RS)
iAmm,I�
5000 Llano w
m
General Plan Land Use Designation: Residential Estate (RE)
Zone: Residential Suburban (RS)
Surrounding Zoning: Residential Suburban (RS)
ITEM NUMBER: 1
DATE: 4-20-10
ATTACHMENT 2: Aerial Photo
PLN 2007-1222 / TRP 2008-0122
5000 Llano Rd.
Y-
,7t•�
Project Site:
5000 Llano Road
.+
A.
+� -
ITEM NUMBER
DATE: 4-20-10
ATTACHMENT 3: Tree Protection Plan/Arborist Report
/S�� 1�
Tree
Protection
Plan
Lot 21 in Tract 1422
Atascadero, CA 93422
Certified Arborist Report
by Robert Schreiber
RECEIVED
FEB 1 6 2010
Cotatuwrrr DENUOPMEN"
Prepared for
Glenn Millhollin
ITEM NUMBER
DATE: 4-20-10
Summary
I have prepared this Tree Protection Plan for Gary Millhollin & Bill and Janet Stockton (property owners and
applicants) for the proposed construction on their property at 5000 Llano road at Lot 21 in Tract 1422 in the
City of Atascadero. This report conforms to City guidelines for such a plan. All trees within twenty feet of
construction are included on the map and index.
This report includes analysis of potential impact and proposed protection and mitigation measures for coast
live oak (Quercus agrifolio), blue oak (Quercus douglasii), valley oak (Quercus lobota), Aleppo pine (Pinus
holepensis), and hollyleaf redberry (Rhamnus ilicifolia) trees located near the proposed site disturbance on the
applicant's property. Other standards and conditions can be found in the discussion element of this report.
The report is intended for use by the City of Atascadero, the monitoring arborist and the property owner(s)
and/or their agent.
Background
Mr. MillholLn's property is in the hills of north western Atascadero and is characterized by rolling hills of
various elevations, large swaths of grass, and countless trees. The property is undoubtedly among the top ten
properties in Atascadero and surrounding areas for the number of trees per acre.
Mr. Millhollin is proposing to construct a single-family residence and improve an access road that has existed
for at least 50 years. (Mr. Millhollin remembers having to walk the road as a child when picked up or let off by
the school bus.)
Mr. Millhollin is dedicated to the conservation of trees and has expressed a desire on multiple occasions to
save as many trees on his property as possible. His family has always preserved trees in the fifty -plus years
they have owned the property, going so far as to keep trespassers from cutting down trees over the years to
obtain firewood.
Site and Trees Description
The existing access road runs along a seasonal creek which bisects the property, and the house site will sit
between two hills approximately 1030 feet in elevation. There are eighty-six (86) trees located within twenty
(20) feet of the proposed construction area: fifty-two (52) blue oaks (Quercus douglasii), seventeen (17) coast
live oaks (Quercus agrifolio), thirteen (13) valley oaks (Quercus lobota), two (2) Aleppo pines (Pinus holepensis)
and two (2) hollyleaf redberry (Rhamnus ilicifolia).
Generally, oaks are sensitive to the addition of fill soil around the base of the trunk, sensitive to sunburn
following pruning, intolerant of frequent summer irrigation, intolerant of major root loss and saturated soils,
and have a Good Relative Tolerance to development impacts. Practical experience has proven that blue oaks
thrive in dry, hot climates. They have Good to Moderate Relative Tolerance to developmental impacts. Valley
oaks have a Moderate Relative Tolerance and are intolerant to summer irrigation and fill soil. Documented
information on coast live oak trees by Harris, et. al. identifies the species as a hearty tree that can generally
withstand minor impacts to the root system (up to 30% removed) as long as significant grading does not occur
within the drip line. Aleppo pines thrive in dry sites and have a relative hardiness of 10-30%.
An index of all trees on the project site as mapped and numbered on the Site Plan for the proposed project
(starting on the eastern portion of the property) is included as an appendix.
1 of 9
07,29!2010
ITEM NUMBER
DATE: 4-20-10
DISCUSSION
In discussions with Mr. Millhollin and in looking at the project plans, it is clear that the applicant has taken
great steps to avoid the kind of significant tree impacts usually found in development projects of this nature.
Both the house footprint and the road improvements are designed to avoid impact to trees in general and
more specifically to preserve mature, healthy trees. The majority of trees on the property will be minimally
impacted by construction, and should thrive if given proper protection and care.
Even with careful consideration in siting, eighteen trees will experience significant impact and must be
removed: 18, 23, 43, 44, 45-48, 72, 73, 77, 78, 78B, 81, 84-87.
Tree #45 was found to be 85% dead, is an imminent danger to life and property, and should be removed
regardless of development plans.
Proposed retaining walls will be close to a number of trees. They will protect trees 79 and 80 from impact
greater than 28%, such that survival is expected. However, trees 77, 78, and 81 cannot be saved by the
addition of a retaining wall, due to close proximity to construction and the resulting Impact to their roots.
Trees 2 and 3, though located downhill in a creek, and thus should receive zero impact from construction,
should be monitored because of their proximity to the proposed bridge.
CONCLUSIONS
There are steps the applicant should take during development to protect the healthy trees on this property.
Protection Fencing (PF)
Before any construction begins, protection fencing must be installed completely around original tree driplines
to avoid compaction from vehicles and material during construction. Requirements for fencing:
• 4'6" metal stakes, beneath dripline.
• 4 foot high, chain link, snow, or safety fence
• 3 wire or nylon zip ties per stake
• Maximum distance is 8'-0" from each stake.
Tightly stretch the fencing 4'-0 high to prevent drooping. Tie fence and stake together in upright position with
a minimum of three ties per stake. Trees requiring fencing are indicated in the index by "PF".
Excavation Monitoring (EM)
Because of their location and proximity to the project site , some trees require monitoring by a certified
arborist of record during construction (see chart below).
Tree Numbers) Reason for Monitoring
38, 49, 50
Proximity to grading
61
Septic & leach lines run under tree 61's dripline, causing an 8% impact
39, 42, 51, 68, 71, 79, 80
Impacts of retaining wall
All trenching done under the driplines of trees must be done by hand. All excavation and trenching holes must
be left open for the arborist of record to inspect the roots to make sure that major roots are avoided
whenever possible. Roots larger than 1" in diameter that cannot be avoided must be cut clean with a saw, not
left with a ragged edge. Trees requiring excavation monitoring are indicated in the index by "EM".
2of9
O VM2010
ITEM NUMBER
DATE: 4-20-10
TERMS OF ASSIGNMENT
The following terms and conditions apply to all oral and written reports and correspondence pertaining to the consultations
inspections and activities of Arbor First:
I . All property lines and ownership ofproperty, trees, and landscape plants and fixtures are assumed to be accurate
and reliable as presented and described to the consultant, either verbally or in writing. The consultant assumes no
responsibility for verification of ownership or locations ofproperty, lines, or for results of any actions or
recommendations based on inaccurate information.
2. It is assumed that any property referred to in any report or in conjunction with any services performed by
Arbor First, is not in violation of any applicable codes, ordinances, statutes, or other governmental regulations,
and that any titles and ownership to any property are assumed to be good and marketable. Any existing liens and
encumbrances have been disregarded, and any and all property is appraised and/or assessed as though free and
clear, under responsible ownership and competent management.
3. All reports and other correspondence are confidential and are the property ofArbor First and its named clients
and their assigns or agents. Possession of this report or a copy thereof does not imply any right of publication or
use for any purpose, without the express permission of the consultant and the client to whom the report was
issued. Loss, removal or alteration of any part of a report invalidates the entire appraisal/evaluation.
4. The scope of any report or other correspondence is limited to the trees and conditions specifically mentioned
in those reports and correspondence. Arbor First and the consultant assume no liability for the failure oftrees or
parts of trees, either inspected or otherwise. The consultant assumes no responsibility to report on the condition
of any tree or landscape feature not specifically requested by the named client.
S. All inspections are limited to visual examination of accessible parts, without dissection, excavation, probing,
boring or other invasive procedures, unless otherwise noted in the report, and reflect the condition of those items
and features at the time of inspection. No warrantee or guarantee is made, expressed or implied, that problems or
deficiencies of the plants or the property will not occur in the future, from any cause. The consultant shall not be
responsible for damages caused by any tree defects, and assumes no responsibility for the correction of defects or
tree related problems.
6. The consultant shall not be requited to provide finther documentation, give testimony, be deposed, or to attend
court by reason ofthis appraisal/report unless subsequent contractual arrangements are made, including payment
of additional fees for such services as described by the consultant or in the fee schedules or contract.
7. Arbor First makes no warrantee, either expressed or implied, as to the suitability ofthe information contained in
any reports or correspondence, either written or verbal, for any particular purpose. It remains the responsibility of
the client to determine applicability to his/her particular case.
8. Any report and the values, observations, and recommendations expressed therein represent the professional
opinion of the consultant and the fee for services is in no manner contingent upon the reporting of a specified value
nor upon any particular finding to be reported.
9. Any photographs, diagrams, graphs, sketches, or other graphic material included in any report, being intended
solely as visual aids, are not necessarily to scale and should not be construed as engineering reports or surveys,
unless otherwise noted in the report. Any reproductions of graphic material or the work product of any other
persons is intended solely for the purpose of clarification and ease of reference. Inclusion of said information does
not constitute a representation by Arbor First or the consultant as to the sufficiency or accuracy of that information.
10. Payment terms are net payable upon receipt of invoice. All balances due beyond 30 days of invoice date will
be charged a service fee of 1.5 percent per month (I8 % APR). All checks returned for insufficient funds or any
other reason will be subject to a $30.00 service fee. Advance payment of fees may be required in some cases.
4of9
01/29/2010
ITEM NUMBER
DATE: 4-20-10
5000 Llano, Atascadero, Ca
Key To Abbreviations
AP = Aleppo Pine BO = Blue Oak LO = Live Oak VO =Valley Oak
PF = Protection Fencing EM= Excavation Monitoring
#
Tyoe
Condition
Diameter (in
laches)
Height
(in feet)
Width
(in feel)
Mitigation
%+impact
1
VO
Good
8"
24
19
PF
3%
1B
LO
Fair
19.5"
54
39
Remove
100%
2
LO
Good
22"
54
66
PF
0%
3
LO
Good
27"
68
66 1
PF
0%
4
LO
Good
48"
90
98
PF
0%
5
VO
Good
39"
87
87
PF
0%
513
LO
good
13"
30
52
PF
0%
6
VO
Poor
14"
54
22
PF
0%
68
VO
Good
53"
102
129
PF
0%
6C
AP
Fair
15.5"
37
26
PF
22%
6D
AP
Fair
19-
39
24
PF
15%
7
VO
Poor
40"
99
85
PF
0%
8
VO
Poor
24"
99
85
PF
4%
9
LO
Poor
16"
45
25
PF
6%
10
VO
Fair
15"
66
54
PF
5%
11
LO
Fair
4"& 6"
39
18
PF
2%
12
VO
Good
26"
75
8
PF
14%
13
LO
Poor
13"
36
23
PF
4%
14
VO
Fair
13"
45
22
PF
5%
15
VO
Fair
3Q*
72
88
PF
15%
16
LO
Good
23°A 20"
57
68
PF
12%
18
VO
Good
28"
53
65
PF
0%
19
VO
Poor
10"
35
17
PF
96/0
20
LO
Fair
10.5"
25
17
PF
5%
21
22
LO
LO
Fair
Fair
18.5"
8"
55
10
40
25
PF
PF
4%
15%
23
BO
Good
8"
27
11
Removo
100°11.
24
LO
Fair
14"
31
35
PF
18%
25
LO
Fair
13"
31
15
PF
13%
29
BO
Fair
6"
24
76
PF
13%
30
LO
Fair
8"
20
14
PF
13%
31
BO
Poor
14"
35
25
PF
0%
32
BO
Fair
8"
24
27
PF
0%
33
BO
Fair
10"
27
33
PF
0%
34
1 VO
Fair
26"
1 46
46
PF
0%
5of9
0112&2010
Hobert Schre be•
ISA k FL0314A
ITEM NUMBER
DATE: 4-20-10
AP
5000 Llano, Atascadero, Ca
Key To Abbreviations
= Aleppo Pine BO = Blue Oak LO = Live Oak VO =Valley Oak
PF = Protection Fencing EM= Excavation Monitoring
#
Type
Condition
Diameter (in
inches)
Height
lin feet)
Width
(in feet;
Mitigation
961maact
35
BO
Fair
9"
31
19
PF
p%
36
BO
Fair
14"
38
26
PF
0%
37
BO
Fair
14"
42
28
PF
0%
38
LO
BO
Fair
Fair
10"
14"
19
38
15
36
EM 8 PF
EM 8 PF
16*,,.39
0°J-
40
BO
Fair
17'
39
48
PF
_
0%
42
BO
Fair
14'
37
38
EM & PF
8%
43
BO
Poor
6"
24
16
Remove
100`. _ �
44
BO
Fair
8"
18
18
Remove
100°,
45
BO
85% Dead
2 leaders.
10"each
36
26
Hazard Tree Removal
0%
46
BO
Fair
13"
40
27
Remove
100%
47
BO
Fair
8"
22
18
Remove
1009•_
48
BO
oor
3 leaders.
9"each
42
21
Remove
100°.
49
BO
Fair
22"
37
32
EM & PF
18%
50
80
Fair
24"
39
2.3
EM & PF
24%
51
BO
Fair
19'
35
42
EM & PF
_
28%
52
BO
Poor
7"
22
16
PF
10%
53
BO
Fair
12"
30
21
PF
6°/°
53B
BO
lair
3.5"
16
10
PF
0%
54
BO
Fair
6"
33
12
PF
0%
55
BO
Fair
6"
2.0
10
PF
0%
56
BO
Fair
15-
38
34
PF
0%
18"
43
57
58
BO
80
Fair
Fair
27"
6 leaders
9" each
_ 41
22
31
17
_ PF
PF
0%
0%
12
PF
59
BO
Fair
27"
35.5
30
PF
0°'0
3%
65
60
BO
Fair
6"
16
14
PF
0%61
BO
Fair
9"
BO
Fair
30"
65
51
EM 8 PF
12-14%
6 of 9
01;29,2010
9A S'
Robert Schreiber
ISA 8 FL0314A
62
BO
Fair
18"
43
33
PF
d%
63
BO
Fair
7"
21
12
PF
0%
64
BO
Fair
5"
22
10
PF
3%
65
BO
Poor
8"
21
9
PF
0%
66
BO
Fair
9"
20
15
PF
0%
ITEM NUMBER
DATE: 4-20-10
5000 Llano, Atascadero, Ca
Key To Abbreviations
AP = Aleppo Pine BO = Blue Oak LO = Live Oak VO =Valley Oak
PF -. Projection Fencing EM= Excavation Monitoring
tl
Type
Condition
Diameter fin
Inches
Height
(in Leet;
Width
in feet)
Mitigation
%Impact
67
BO
Poor
9"
25
16
PF
0%
68
BO
Fair
2 leaders
1111.10-
41
30
EM & PF
0%
70
1 BO
Poor
2 leaders
1 6".8"
24
12
PF
0%
71
BO
Poor
8"
23
20
EM & PF
0%
72
BO
Fair
4"
10
7
Remove
100%
73
BO
Poor
10"
22
18
Remove
100%
74
BO
Poor
16"
47
27
FM & PF
Cluster
76
BO
Fair
8-
7
3
PF
0%
77
BO
Fair
10"
33
14
Remove
100%
78
BO
Fair
3 leaders
11" 11%7"
37
35
Remove
100°i
78B
BO
Fair
4"
16
11.6
Remove
100%
79
BO
Fair
9"
36
14
EM & PF
28°%
80
BO
Fair
13"
33
21
EM & PF
28%
81
BO
Fair
6"
30
16
Remove
100%
82
BO
Fair
11"
39
27
PF
28%
84
LO
poor
6 trees - 2" each 1
10 1
25
Remove
Cluster of 6
85
BO
poor
4 trees 3" each
10
25
Remove
Cluster of 4
86
Holly
poor
9"
21
10 1
Remove
100%
87
Holl
oor
12"
18
9
Remove
t00%
any numbers missing or changed is because the road was moved
and/or beinq over 20' from construction.
7 or 9
0112W"10
g s.�4
Robel Schreibe,
ISA # (LO314A
ITEM NUMBER: 1
DATE: 4-20-10
ATTACHMENT 5: Draft Resolution PC 2010-0010
PLN 2007-1222 / TRP 2008-0122
DRAFT RESOLUTION NO. PC 2010-0010
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF ATASCADERO APPROVING
PLN 2007-1222 / TRP 2008-0122, TO ALLOW THE REMOVAL OF
SIXTEEN (16) NATIVE TREES TOTALING 197 INCHES DBH
AT APN 055-451-031
WHEREAS, an application was received from Glenn Millhollin, 8758 E. Barstow,
Clovis, CA 93611 and Janet and Bill Stockton, 8761 E. Barstow, Clovis CA 93 611 (Property
Owners and Applicants) for a Tree Removal Permit to remove sixteen (16) native trees totaling
197 inches DBH; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the proposed Tree Removal Permit
application on April 20, 2010, at 7:00 p.m. and considered testimony and reports from staff, the
applicants, and the public; and,
NOW THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Atascadero, California
takes the following actions:
SECTION 1. Findinjjs for tree removal. The Planning Commission finds as follows:
The tree is obstructing proposed improvements that cannot be reasonably designed to
avoid the need for tree removal, as certified by a report from the site planner and
determined by the Community Development Department based on the following factors:
a. Early consultation with the City,
b. Consideration of practical design alternatives,
C. Provision of cost comparisons (from applicant) for practical design alternatives,
d. If saving tree eliminates all reasonable use of the property, or
e. If saving the tree requires the removal of more desirable trees.
ITEM NUMBER: 1
DATE: 4-20-10
SECTION 2. Approval. The Planning Commission of the City of Atascadero, in a
regular session assembled on April 20, 2010, resolved to approve Tree Removal Permit 2009-
0137, subject to the following:
EXHIBIT A: Conditions of Approval
EXHIBIT B: Tree Mitigation Chart
On motion by Commissioner , and seconded by Commissioner
, the foregoing resolution is hereby adopted in its entirety by the
following roll call vote:
AYES: ( )
NOES: ( )
ABSENT: ( )
ADOPTED:
ABSTAINED:
CITY OF ATASCADERO, CA
Heather Moreno
Planning Commission Chairperson
ATTEST:
Warren Frace
Planning Commission Secretary
ITEM NUMBER
DATE: 4-20-10
EXHIBIT A: Conditions of Approval / Mitigation Monitoring
PLN 2007-1222 / TRP 2008-0122
Conditions of Approval
Timing
Responsibility
/Monitoring
PLN 2007-1222 / TRP 2008-0122
FM; Final Map
BL: Business License
GP: Grading Permit
BP: Building Permit
FI: Final Inspection
PS: Planning Services
BS: Building Services
FD: Fire Department
PD: Police Department
5000 Llano Rd
TO: Temporary Occupancy
CE: City Engineer
FO: Final Occupancy
WW: Wastewater
CA: City Attorney
Standard Planning Conditions
1. The approval of this application shall become final, subject to the completion
Tree removal
PS
of the conditions of approval, fourteen (14) days following the Planning
Commission approval unless prior to the time, an appeal to the decision is
filed as set forth in Section 9-1.111(b) of the Zoning Ordinance.
2. The applicant and/or subsequent owners shall defend, indemnify, and hold
On going
PS
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 proposed development.
3. The applicant shall pay $3,012.50 into the tree mitigation fund. Mitigation
BP
PS
shall be paid prior to removal of the trees.
4. All recommendations identified by the project arborist and biologist shall be
On going
PS
implemented during construction, including placement of tree protection
fencing, preconstruction meeting, and arborist monitoring during
excavation beneath drip lines.
EXHIBIT B: Tree Mitigation Chart
Evergreen Native Trees (inches)
Mitigation Requirement
req d tree repl3eer-ents 5 five gal trees
Proposed Replanting 0 five gal trees
Of fifteen gal trees
0 box trees (24')
ITEM NUMBER: 1
DATE: 4-2a
Deciduous Native Trees (inches)
dbh notes
1
20 -inches #1B LO
2
12 -inches #84 LO
3
8 -inches #44 BO
4
20 -inches #46 BO
5
13 -inches #46 BO
e
8 -inches #47 BO
7
27 -inches #48 BO
8
4 -inches #72 BO
9
10 -inches #73 BO
10
10-inclles #77 BO
11
29-inclles #78 BO
12
4 -inches #786 BO
13
6-inclles #81 BO
14
12-inclles #85 BO
15
165 -inches
Total
32 -inches
Mitigation Requirement
req d tree repl3eer-ents 5 five gal trees
Proposed Replanting 0 five gal trees
Of fifteen gal trees
0 box trees (24')
ITEM NUMBER: 1
DATE: 4-2a
Deciduous Native Trees (inches)
req'd tree replacements 55 five gal tree --
Proposed Replanting
Remaining Mitigation 0 five gal trees Remaining klitigation
Tree Fund Pay r-ent: $ 282.50 Tree Fund Payment: $
Totals
dbh notes
1
8 -inches #23 BO
2
6 -inches #43 BO
3
8 -inches #44 BO
4
20 -inches #46 BO
5
13 -inches #46 BO
8
8 -inches #47 BO
7
27 -inches #48 BO
6
4 -inches #72 BO
9
10 -inches #73 BO
10
10-inclles #77 BO
11
29-inclles #78 BO
12
4 -inches #786 BO
13
6-inclles #81 BO
14
12-inclles #85 BO
Total
165 -inches
req'd tree replacements 55 five gal tree --
Proposed Replanting
Remaining Mitigation 0 five gal trees Remaining klitigation
Tree Fund Pay r-ent: $ 282.50 Tree Fund Payment: $
Totals
\\Cityhall\cdvlpmnt\- 07 PLNs\PLN 2007-1222 PPN Llano\PLN 2007-1222 SR.doc
0 five gal trees
0 five gal trees
0 fifteen gal trees
0 fifteen gal trees
0 box trees (24")
0 box trees (24")
55 five gal trees
55 five gal trees
2.750.00
(
$ 3.012.50
\\Cityhall\cdvlpmnt\- 07 PLNs\PLN 2007-1222 PPN Llano\PLN 2007-1222 SR.doc
ITEM NUMBER: 2
DATE: 4-20-10
Atascadero Planning Commission
Staff Report — Community Development Department
Warren Frace, Community Development Director, 470-3488, wfrace@atascadero.org
PLN 2009-1341
CUP 2009-02441 RAB 2010-0019
Conditional Use Permit for a
10 Screen Movie Theater / Retail / Restaurant building
Request to Summarily Vacate a Portion of
Atascadero Mall Ave. and EI Camino Real
6320 - 6490 EI Camino Real
(Hoff / Wysong)
SUBJECT:
The proposed application consists of a request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow a
39,680± square foot building containing a 10 Screen Movie Theatre (33,000± sf), retail
space (2350± sf), and sit down restaurant (4330± sf) on a 1.5± acre site, with a height
waiver exception request, a tree removal permit for one 6 -inch White Oak and road
abandonment of a portion of Atascadero Mall Road and an easement along the EI
Camino Real frontage.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff Recommends.-
1.
ecommends.1. The Planning Commission adopts Draft Resolution PC 2010-0011
recommending the City Council approve a Conditional Use Permit, height waiver,
and Tree Removal Permit for the La Plaza theater project based on findings and
subject to conditions; and,
2. The Planning Commission adopts Draft Resolution PC 2010-0012
recommending the City Council approve Road Abandonment 2010-0019 to
summarily vacate a 10 -foot wide road and landscape easement along the EI
Camino Real right-of-way, and a portion of Atascadero Mall Ave based on
findings and subject to conditions of approval.
ITEM NUMBER: 2
DATE: 4-20-10
SITUATION AND FACTS:
1. Property Owner: Ben Hoff LLC, PO Box 928, Atascadero, CA 93423
2. Project Applicant: Larry M. Wysong, Wysong Construction,
7025 Morro Road, Atascadero, CA
3. Project Address: 6320 — 6490 EI Camino Real, Atascadero, CA 93422
(San Luis Obispo County)
APN 030-191-030, 031, 016, 017, and 030-193-003
4. General Plan Designation: Downtown (D)
5. Zoning District:
6. Site Area:
7. Existing Use:
8. Environmental Status
DISCUSSION:
Background
Downtown Commercial (DC)
1.5 acres
Retail Commercial, Fire Damaged Commercial,
Cellular Communication Tower
Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration 2010-0001
On March 11, 2010 the City held a Joint City Council / Planning Commission Study
Session to review the proposed project. The purpose of the meeting was to provide the
applicant with an opportunity to present the project and for the Council, Commission
and public to ask questions. The Council was supportive of the project and directed
staff to provide additional information on the following issues:
• Information about how films are distributed to theater operators.
• Additional parking information including possible diagonal parking on EI Camino
Real, recommendations of Downtown parking study, passenger loading zone,
and provision of accessible ("ADA") parking.
• Additional information on road abandonment, reuse of road area and access to
the pedestrian tunnel.
• More information on the height waiver, appearance of the rear of the building
and signs.
This information is included in the staff report.
ITEM NUMBER: 2
DATE: 4-20-10
Analysis:
The proposed project consist of a 39,680± square foot building that will contain a 10
screen movie theater, retail stores and a sit down restaurant. The project is located in
the center of downtown directly across from the Sunken Gardens. The project site is
1.5 acres that has been owned by the Hoff family for many decades. A large building
that housed a thrift store burned down in 2008. A coffee shop, beauty parlor and cell
tower still remain on the site. The project would provide a significant activity anchor and
architectural feature in the middle of the City's Downtown Redevelopment area. The
project appears to be consistent with the City's redevelopment goals and vision for the
Downtown. The project will be in direct competition with the Colony Square theaters
that are currently under construction. This issue was discussed at length during the
study session and no direction was given to staff to analyze the possible economic
issue of two competing theaters.
'•1'aA)0KWNT
r
PROPERTYHOFF
1-11,.uo s .uv
auu s r
! T,
R E S T AU
3
._e
I
4,330 yr
�
.�...
rri: Gr::� i:a r e�ryrJy� r�!`>vy.P �rOSCMNO
•ix'r,. °•vtL::..
CINEMA
`
Iwo
II
.400 SEATS
'•1'aA)0KWNT
us r p�
!0I
GROUND FLOOR / SITE PLAN
1-11,.uo s .uv
auu s r
! T,
R E S T AU
3
._e
I
4,330 yr
�
.�...
rri: Gr::� i:a r e�ryrJy� r�!`>vy.P �rOSCMNO
•ix'r,. °•vtL::..
`
II
... j ivy" r.
':.c• 'i�': tir�:.v�4_
i •pj.'• �.; i f1b' f'r� ,v r..
i:r•..•.,•`ry��w. •e•..�..4-f:.. _i'�. �' �..
"�tK,;'�+s;?:� �f...
Q
Y�r•,i �y
TR
us r p�
!0I
GROUND FLOOR / SITE PLAN
ITEM NUMBER: 2
DATE: 4-20-10
Project Design and Appearance
The project proposes to create a grand architectural statement with a large glass lobby
surrounded by two high towers. The building will be primarily stucco with decorative
features included on the street frontages. Two retail spaces will be provided along the
EI Camino Real frontage to break-up and enhance the street appearance and
pedestrian scale. A sit down restaurant space is provided past the lobby near the
freeway property line. The rear and northwest end of the building are purely utilitarian
and lack in significant architectural treatment. The applicant is requesting that the
standard requirements for colors, materials, trim details and signs be deferred. Staff
has conditioned the project that final architectural elevations, details and signs be
resubmitted for Planning Commission approval prior to approval of building permits.
Staff is also recommending that additional architectural features and detailing be added
to the portions of the rear and northwest elevations that are visible off site.
t
The building is located directly adjacent to the sidewalk consistent with City's Downtown
Design Guidelines and the building occupies over 90% of the site. The project is not
proposing to provide any off-street parking and a narrow landscape area will be
provided at the rear along the freeway frontage. The primary exterior amenity of the
ITEM NUMBER: 2
DATE: 4-20-10
project will be the sidewalks and streetscape. The applicant is requesting the
landscape plan, grading plan, drainage plan, utility plan and handicapped accessibility
plans be deferred. Due to the flat site and minimal grading required, staff is not
objecting to this request and has conditioned these items to be provided at time of
building permit. Staff is recommending that the landscape and streetscape plans be
approved by the Planning Commission prior to building permit issuance.
NORTH ELEVATION - La Plaza Cinema
FILE Fl. I FILICIN I I
SOUTH ELEVATION - La Plaza Cinema
WEST AND EAST ELEVATIONS - La Plaza Cinema
REN xon, tLC, M—
JOHNROVSKCCEE LCO CINEMAS. La Plaza Cinemas / Retail Project �RUGIa A �
a�ism ✓mien
MRRV WVSONG CONST -ON, rtWu[rtsnert,f�m.�
MICHAEL SHERER/FM- CO- REAL ESTATE, Ataacadero, California
s,�/id P.Eny.P..Rie.n L..oy March 8, zoto
ITEM NUMBER: 2
DATE: 4-20-10
Height Exception
The proposed project is located in a special Downtown Zone that restricts the height of
buildings to 18 feet. This requirement was adopted as part of the Redevelopment Plan
in 2000. The purpose of the restriction was to provide a visual window between the
freeway and the historic City Hall. However, due to the presence of vegetation within
the freeway right-of-way, there is limited visibility of City Hall from the freeway.
18 feet
Carlton Tower and short La Plaza Tower are the about same height (56 feet)
The applicant is requesting a height exception consistent with section 9-4.113 of the
Zoning Ordinance to allow a 40± foot tall building with tower features up to 72± feet tall.
The proposed building will be similar in size to the Carlton Hotel and the tower features
will be taller than the existing cellular tower on the site. Architecturally, this will be a
very large and tall building that will be visible from the freeway. Staff is recommending
that portions of the building that are visible from the freeway receive additional
architectural detailing and treatment.
ITEM NUMBER: 2
DATE: 4-20-10
9-3.263 Downtown district general development standards
Forty-five (45) feet not to exceed three (3) stories; eighteen (18) feet on the
west side of EI Camino Real between Atascadero Creek and the lot line
common to Lots 19 and 20, Block H-B,Atascadero Colony Map.
Applicant requesting waiver for 40 to 72 feet
9-4.113 Height limitations.
(b) Exceptions to Height Limitations.
(1) Planning Commission Waiver. The height limitations of this
section may be modified through conditional use permit approval,
provided the Planning Commission first finds the project will not
result in substantial detrimental effects on the enjoyment and use
of adjoining properties and that the modified height will not
exceed the lifesaving equipment capabilities of the Fire
Department.
�juuunu�r.,...r...�.--.����munn� .--'_;����--_i^>x►y�niun _�nuw�
�1'����n►.s�t:n _.a�:-a:, g:-gra.�:88b XX M, ¢.•.sem _
Common lot line lots
.:.�i
19 • 20 Block
Area of 18 foot
height restriction
Atascadero
Creek
ITEM NUMBER: 2
DATE: 4-20-10
Deferred Submittals
The applicant is requesting that the Planning Commission defer the submittal
requirements for the following plans.
• Color & Material Board
• Signage Plan
• Grading Plan / Accessibility Plan
• Drainage / LID Plan
• Utility Plan
• Landscape Plan
Although these plans are standard requirements for CUP applications, the Council
provided direction at the Study Session to defer the requirement for these plans. The
project is conditioned that these plans be provided at time of building permit submittal.
Economic Issues
A 10 screen movie theater is currently under construction downtown in the Colony
Square project. The Colony Square project is a mixed use entertainment, retail and
residential project that is considered a significant part of the City's Downtown
Revitalization Plan.
The proposed La Plaza Theater would also have 10 screens bringing a total of 20
movie screens to downtown Atascadero. The City has no current policy or ordinance
that requires the economic analysis of commercial projects. Under CEQA, economic
impacts are not considered environmental issues unless they have the potential to
create off-site blight. Blight is considered an environmental impact. There does not
appear to be a likelihood that the La Plaza theater would cause blight to occur at the
Colony Square project. Therefore, the proposed CEQA document does not include an
economic / blight analysis. The economic feasibility of 20 screens in Atascadero was
discussed at length during the Study Session. In the end, the Council did not request
that an economic analysis of the project be prepared. The Council did request
additional information regarding how films are distributed to theater operators. This
information is included as Attachment 4.
Parking
Downtown parking continues to be a cyclic issue in Atascadero. When the Carlton
Hotel and restaurant opened in 2004, downtown parking became a significant issue.
Currently, with the economic down turn, downtown parking is not an issue at this time.
The Downtown Zoning Ordinance does not require parking for commercial uses in the
downtown north of Atascadero Creek. Consistent with section 9-3.263, the proposed
ITEM NUMBER: 2
DATE: 4-20-10
project does not include any off-street parking. In addition, under the latest CEQA
guideline revisions, parking is not considered an environmental impact. Although the
ordinance does not require downtown parking, due to the size of the project there is
likelihood that the project will create parking impacts. One of the required CUP findings
is that a project will not have a negative impact on the surrounding neighborhood.
9-3.263 Downtown district general development standards
Off-street marking
except as required
b-,- Section 9.114
for h otels. motels.
1 .and residential .........:......... .
us es. and for all
developmenteast of
Atascadero Creek
Based on the Downtown Parking Model, the theater, retail stores and restaurants will
have a parking peak demand on weekend evenings. According to the parking model,
the monthly weekend parking demand will range from 110 spaces in September to 428
spaces in the last weekend in December. If the Christmas weekend peak is excluded,
the average weekend parking demand is 157 spaces (see following pages). The
applicant has provided a letter stating that they believe the project's parking demand is
31 spaces (see Attachment 3).
Based on the Downtown Parking Action Plan's recommendations, projects of this size
should provide 25% of the required parking on-site. In addition, the California Building
Code requires six (6) handicapped accessible parking spaces to be provided for a
project of this size. Due to the site configuration, on-site parking does not appear to be
feasible.
Therefore, to minimize the project's potential neighborhood impact, staff is
recommending that the applicant be required to permanently provide 46 off-street
parking spaces within 500 feet of the property. The off-site parking requirement can be
satisfied through a long term lease agreement with neighboring properties.
ITEM NUMBER
DATE: 4-20-10
Project parking calculations:
• 25% of 157 average parking spaces = 40 parking spaces
• Handicapped parking requirement: 6 spaces
Total 46 spaces
May 2006 City of Atascadero Parking Utilization and Management Study — Action Plan
Action Plan Item A-6
Update the Downtown Parking Ordinance to address the following:
Any parking deficits created by small in -fill developments could be covered through the usage of in -lieu
fees to fund the construction of future public parking. However, if the development is substantial and
will require a large number of parking spaces (50 or more spaces), at least a portion of the
required parking spaces should be provided on-site by the developer. This will help ensure
sufficient parking is provided overall, but also help ensure close, accessible parking is provided. The
remaining portion could be covered through the use of in -lieu fees and public parking. For larger
projects, a minimum of 25% of the required parking should be provided by the developer on-site.
The Council requested additional information regarding the possibility of providing
diagonal parking along EI Camino Real. Staff has reviewed this issue and determined
that EI Camino Real would need to be narrowed to one lane in each direction to provide
for diagonal parking. Any additional analysis of potentially reducing the lanes on EI
Camino Real would require an in depth traffic and engineering analysis. Staff is not
recommending that any resources be devoted to this issue.
Downtown Parking Model
4
P.
Peak Basi
Share
ITEM NUMBER
DATE: 4-20-10
Source Inforrnation:
The data used in this model is based on intorl`nation provided in -Shared Parking - Second EOftron-. published tsy the Urban Land Inst'dute.
Principal Author: Smfr, 14.
Title: Shared Parking - Second Edition
Copyright Bate: 2305
Pubksher: Urban Land Institute
Vieekday
weekend
Land Use
U1
lit
isitor Emr)lovee
Visitor E
Corrinvinity Shoppina Center i <400,000 sa. ft.
1.000
sf.
2.50 0.70
3.20
0.80
Regional ShoppingCenter (400.000 to 600,000 sq. ft.)
1.000
sf.
Win Scale between 400,000 and 600.00
Super R anal Shopping Center (>600.000 sq. ft.)
1.000
sf.
3.20 0.80
3.60
0.90
Fine/Casual Dining
1.000
sf.
15.25 2.75
17.00
3.00
Fa= Restaurant
1.000
sf.
9.00 1.50
12.75
2.2`-
Fasm,000 KestaurantTr
.
Nightclub
1.000
sf.
15.25 1 1.25
1 17.50
1.50
Active Entertainment
Custom to each situation
Cine lex
1 1
seat
0.19 1 0.01
1 0.26
0.01
Source Inforrnation:
The data used in this model is based on intorl`nation provided in -Shared Parking - Second EOftron-. published tsy the Urban Land Inst'dute.
Principal Author: Smfr, 14.
Title: Shared Parking - Second Edition
Copyright Bate: 2305
Pubksher: Urban Land Institute
ITEM NUMBER: 2
DATE: 4-20-10
Environmental Issues
Staff has prepared and posted a Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration for the
project (refer to attachment 5). Due to the downtown, infill nature of the project, staff
did not identify any unusual or significant environmental impacts. Standard mitigation
measures have been added for air quality and water quality issues.
Tree Removal
A single, small 6 -inch white oak tree in good condition is located in the landscape
planter along the EI Camino Real frontage. Do to the location of the theater building
and the growth characteristics of a white oak tree, this tree is being recommended for
removal. Project is conditioned to pay a $200 mitigation fee consistent with the Native
Tree Ordinance for the removal of the tree. Due to the size of the tree and the
likelihood it was planted as a landscape feature, staff did not require an arborist report
to be prepared.
Evergreen Native Trees (inches) Deciduous Native Trees (inches) I Totals
ilbh (lutes
l u"=Pies
Tutal - inches
Mitigation Requirement
regd tree replacements: 0five gal trees
Proposed Replanting 0five gal trees
0 box trees (24")
tlbh notes
2
3
4
5
6
Total 6 -inches
req d tree replacements
Proposed Replanting
4 five gal trees
0 five gal trees
0 box trees (24 ;
Remaining Mitigation 0 f N e gal trees Remaining hlitigation 4 five gal trees
Tree Fund Payment: 5 Tree Fund Pay ment: 5 200.00
6 -inches
4 five gal trees
0 five gal trees
0 box trees (24"
4 five gal trees
ITEM NUMBER: 2
DATE: 4-20-10
Findings - Conditional Use Permit
The Planning Commission must make the following findings in order to approve the
Conditional Use Permit. If the Commission chooses to deny the project, one of the
following findings must be sited as the reasons for denial.
1. The proposed project or use is consistent with the General Plan and the City's
Appearance Review Manual.
Staff Comment:
The project architectural, site design and land use are consistent with the goals
of the General Plan and the design standards of the Appearance Review
Manual.
2. The proposed project or use satisfies all applicable provisions of the Title (Zoning
Ordinance).
Staff Comment:
As conditioned the project would be consistent with the zoning ordinance once
the Planning Commission approved the request height waiver.
3. The establishment, and subsequent operation or conduct of the use will not,
because of the circumstances and conditions applied in the particular case, be
detrimental to the health, safety, or welfare of the general public or persons residing
or working in the neighborhood of the use, or be detrimental or injurious to property
or improvements in the vicinity of the use.
Staff Comment:
Due to the size of the project and the lack of off-street parking, the project does
have the potential to create parking impacts in the surrounding neighborhood.
The project is conditioned to provide 25% of its required parking off-street in
order to reduce this impact to an acceptable level.
4. That the proposed project or use will not be inconsistent with the character or the
immediate neighborhood or contrary to its orderly development.
Staff Comment:
The proposed project is consistent with the Downtown design guidelines and will
not be detrimental to the surrounding neighborhood uses and character.
5. That the proposed use or project will not generate a volume of traffic beyond the
safe capacity of all roads providing access to the project, either existing or to be
improved in conjunction with the project, or beyond the normal traffic volume of the
ITEM NUMBER: 2
DATE: 4-20-10
surrounding neighborhood that would result from full development in accordance
with the Land Use Element.
Staff Comment:
A traffic analysis was prepared as part of the CEQA document and indicates that
the project will not have a significant traffic impact on the surround
neighborhood.
Based on staff's analysis in the preceding sections, it appears that all of the required
findings for approval of a Conditional Use Permit can be made.
Findings — Height Waiver
The Planning Commission must make the following findings in order to approve the
Height Waiver.
1. The project will not result in substantial detrimental effects on the enjoyment and
use of adjoining properties.
Staff Comment:
The proposed project will create a significant architectural change in the downtown
and will change character of the area surrounding the Sunken Gardens. Due to the
architecturally character of the building, and the potential to reduce freeway noise
in the Downtown, these changes would not be detrimental to the enjoyment of
surrounding properties.
2. The modified height will not exceed the lifesaving equipment capabilities of the Fire
Department.
Staff Comment:
Although the proposed building is quite tall, the theater, retail store and restaurant
are one story uses. The tower elements are architectural features that will not be
occupied. The proposed height waiver will not exceed the capabilities of the Fire
Department's equipment.
Road Abandonment
The requested right-of-way abandonment will increase the size of the adjacent
commercial property. At present, a commercial development and theatre complex has
been proposed for the site. The requested abandonment is for two parcels of land:
1.) All of the existing right-of-way on the north side of Atascadero Avenue (also
refered to as "Atascadero Mall") between EI Camino Real and the Highway
101 right-of-way, which is approximately 0.24 acres, as shown below, and
2.) An excess 10 -foot wide strip of land along the southwest side of EI Camino
Real, which is approximately 0.11 acres, as shown below.
ITEM NUMBER: 2
DATE: 4-20-10
The portion of the Atascadero Avenue right-of-way has served as essentially a driveway
to the adjacent commercial properties since the construction of the freeway in the mid
1950's. The strip of land along EI Camino Real was negotiated for as part of a previous
road abandonment proceeding between the Hoff's and the City in the early 1990's for
landscape, sidewalk and road purposes.
10 FOOT ROAD AND / Wk
ii •. LANDSCAPE '
EASEMENT ON EL
t CAMINO REAL.
Abandonment Process
t
RIGHT-OF-WAY
o ABANDONMENT OVER
ATASCADERO
ERTIE IN AVENUE. (ALSO
CALLED
)UESTI N ATASCADERO MALL)
AT SCADERO
MALL -
1
Right-of-way abandonments are governed by the following code sections from the
California Streets and Highways Code and the Atascadero Municipal Code. In order for
the proposed abandonment to be approved, the project must comply with all of the
provisions and requirements set forth in each code section.
California Streets and Highway Code Requirements
Requirements for summarily vacating a road are found in the Streets and Highways
Code, Section 8331 and 8334, which provides:
8331. The legislative body of a local agency may summarily vacate a street
or highway if both of the following conditions exist:
ITEM NUMBER: 2
DATE: 4-20-10
(a) For a period of five consecutive years, the street or highway
has been impassable for vehicular travel.
(b) No public money was expended for maintenance on the street
or highway during such period.
8334. The legislative body of a local agency may summarily vacate any of
the following:
(a) An excess right-of-way of a street or highway not required for
street or highway purposes.
(b) A portion of a street or highway that lies within property under
one ownership and that does not continue through such
ownership or end touching property of another.
El Camino Real Easement
The EI Camino Real right-of-way under consideration is a 10 -foot wide strip of land
created by an offer of dedication per Official Record 88-O.R.-114, and is in addition to
the standard EI Camino Real right-of-way width. The subject portion of right-of-way has
never been constructed or used. The current alignment of EI Camino Real and location
of future sidewalks and streetscape features are, and will be, inside the standard 100 -
foot wide EI Camino Real right-of-way alignment. In addition no structures have been
built in the right-of-way and the open area has been impassable for five or more years.
Atascadero Mall Right -of -Way
The Atascadero Ave right-of-way under consideration was created by the original
Atascadero Colony Subdivision map in 1914. In 1982 there was a San Luis Obispo
Superior Court order (2397 OR 908) that required the north half of Atascadero Mall
Avenue between EI Camino Real and the freeway be quitclaimed by Gordon Davis (as
successor trustee of the Atascadero Development Syndicate) in favor of the Hoff
Family. The Hoff Family has been paying property taxes on the subject land since the
subject court ruling. Regardless of the court action the public right to use the land as a
public street was never waived by San Luis Obispo County, or later the City of
Atascadero.
The subject portion of right-of-way along the north side of Atascadero Mall Avenue has
curb, gutter and sidewalk, and a paved street. The street right-of-way is bisected by a
City owned parcel where the current Main Street Office is located. The businesses on
the south side of Atascadero Mall Avenue and the Main Street office will continue to
use the southerly portion of the street to park and access their property.
ITEM NUMBER: 2
DATE: 4-20-10
It is the staff's recommendation that the entire right-of-way (0.24 acres) be abandoned
to accommodate the currently proposed project. The proposed abandonment is
acceptable since the City would maintain access via public easements for vehicles and
pedestrians.
City Requirements
California Government Code Section 65402 requires that all abandonments be
consistent with the legislative bodies General Plan, as follows:
"If a general plan or part thereof has been adopted ... no real property shall
be ... vacated or abandoned... until the location, purpose and extent of
such ... street vacation or abandonment... has been submitted to and reported
upon by the planning agency as to the conformity with said general plan or part
thereof."
EI Camino Real is identified in the General Plan Circulation and Bikeway/Trail diagrams
as an arterial road; and, Atascadero Avenue is identified in the General Plan Circulation
and Bikeway/Trail diagrams as a local road. Commercial areas typically front to
collector roads and they are two-way streets with maximum acceptable traffic volumes.
The acceptable traffic volumes are dictated by residential concerns regarding intrusions
rather than traffic capacity considerations. Currently are three businesses (other than
Hoff) with driveways on Atascadero Avenue. The existing road way is comprised of two
travel lanes with sidewalk on the eastern side. The 101 freeway borders Atascadero
Avenue to the west.
The Public Works Department has evaluated Atascadero Mall Avenue and has
determined that the current southerly half of the right-of-way and existing improvements
are sufficient to support the surrounding area at build -out. Therefore, abandonment the
northern portion of the right-of-way would be consistent with the General Plan street
classification and would maintain sufficient traffic capacity for future build -out.
Zoning Designation
Staff has determined that when a right-of-way or portion thereof is abandoned, the
zoning shall become the same as the adjacent zoning designation. The requested
abandonment will be for the benefit of the adjacent parcel and will become part of the
Downtown Commercial zoned parcel. No new parcels will be created as a result of this
abandonment.
Fiscal Impact
The applicant shall pay all fees and expenses to abandon the Right -of -Way. City
Council will be considering issues regarding right-of-way compensation and final terms
of the property transfer.
ITEM NUMBER: 2
DATE: 4-20-10
CONCLUSIONS:
The proposed theater project would be consistent with the City's downtown
revitalization goals and guidelines. The project will compete with the Colony Square
theater project but would not create an inconsistency with any adopted City policy.
Parking is likely the biggest impact related to the project, but can be minimized with
conditions to provide off-street parking. The proposed building will be very large and
tall and requires the Commission to grant a height waiver. Views from the freeway to
downtown will be permanently changed by the project.
The proposed abandonments meet the criteria of the State Streets and Highways Code
since:
1.) the portion of the EI Camino Real right-of-way has not been constructed on
and has been impassable for vehicular travel for a period of five consecutive
years, and no public money has been expended for maintenance on the subject
right-of-way during the stated time period; and
2.) the portions of EI Camino Real and Atascadero Mall Avenue right-of-way is
considered excess right-of-ways not required for area circulation.
The abandonment is also consistent with the City's Circulation Element of the General
Plan and will not reduce or interfere with necessary improvements to the road at build-
out, future bikeways, or planned trails.
ITEM NUMBER: 2
DATE: 4-20-10
ALTERNATIVES:
1. The Commission may recommend approval of the project with additional or revised
project conditions.
2. The Commission may recommend denial of the project if it is found that the required
findings cannot be made. The Commission's motion to deny must include a finding
for denial.
3. The Commission may continue the hearing and refer the item back to staff for
additional information or analysis. Direction should be given to staff and the
applicant on required information.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment
1
— Location Map (General Plan & Zoning)
Attachment
2
— Municipal Code Sections
Attachment
3
— Applicants parking letter
Attachment
4
— Film Distribution Fact Sheet
Attachment
5
— Public Comments received
Attachment
6
— Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration
Attachment
7 — Draft Resolution PC 2010-0011: CUP
Attachment
8
— Draft Resolution PC 2010-0012: Road Abandonment
ITEM NUMBER: 2
DATE: 4-20-10
ATTACHMENT 1: Location Map (General Plan and Zoning)
6490 El Camino Real
!AF
0�4rxv
el
0
ite
amino Real
/40
)c
'Ian: D ov,
y
77'
ITEM NUMBER: 2
DATE: 4-20-10
ATTACHMENT 2: Municipal Code Sections
Municipal Code Sections
9-3.263 Downtown district general development standards
Off-stmetparking.. . ..... .... i .'None -required . .. .. ..... .........
except as required
by Section 9 114
for hotels. motels.
........ .......... .:....... ....i.an.dresidential......................
uses, and for all
development east of
atascadero Creek.
9-3.263 Downtown district general development standards
Forty-five (45) feet not to exceed three (3) stories; eighteen (18) feet on the
west side of EI Camino Real between Atascadero Creek and the lot line
common to Lots 19 and 20, Block H-B,Atascadero Colony Map.
Applicant requesting waiver for 40 to 72 feet
9-4.113 Height limitations.
(b) Exceptions to Height Limitations.
(1) Planning Commission Waiver. The height limitations of this
section may be modified through conditional use permit approval,
provided the Planning Commission first finds the project will not
result in substantial detrimental effects on the enjoyment and use
of adjoining properties and that the modified height will not
exceed the lifesaving equipment capabilities of the Fire
Department.
ITEM NUMBER
DATE: 4-20-10
ATTACHMENT 3: Applicant's Parking Letter
February 18, 2010
Warren Frace
Community Development Director
City of Atascadero
RE: La Plaza project parking
Dear Sir;
Pursuant to item #4 of Items of Incompleteness PLN 2009 1341, dated October
28, 2009, which requests an analysis of the parking needs for the proposed cinema
theatre the following information is submitted to satisfy your request.
Project owner and theater operator, John Roush, has provided statistics from his
theatre being similar in size and location in Paso Robles. For the year 2008, total
admissions were 335,667. This number extrapolates to 6,993 per week and 922 per day.
The Park Cinema has an average of 4.5 showings per day and therefore 205 persons per
show. With 4 persons per vehicle, the total vehicle count would be 51. This is
consistent with Section 94.114 of the City Zoning Ordinance which calls for one parking
space per 4 fixed seats for `seated spectator facilities'. Note: Section 9-3.263 waives the
requirement for off street parking.
Peak attendance is 674 admissions. This occurred on the Friday following
Thanksgiving. Larger than average admissions also occur during Christmas vacation,
Memorial Day weekend and Friday/Saturday nights.
Mr. Roush's projection based upon the demographics of Atascadero is that the La
Plaza Cinemas will create admissions of approximately 60% of the Park Cinemas. This
is due to competition from the Park Cinemas and the proposed Galaxy Cinemas.
Reducing all of the above figures by 60% results in an average need for parking of 31
vehicles and no significant impact on downtown parking. Actually, this can be
construed to have a very positive impact on the downtown commercial district. Referring
to the City's `Downtown Revitalization Plan' of 2005, it is quite clear that this project
contributes to and is consistent with the Plan's `Vision of Downtown Atascadero' #8 and
#9 plus Priority #6 which states that the City shall "Support a theater and entertainment
complex in the Downtown with the adoption of a zoning amendment creating an
exclusive Downtown Entertainment Zone" It should also be noted that it was
determined in the Plan that a 5 year priority was to "Install Downtown parking
improvements (#11)" and "Encourage reuse and reinvestment of under utilized area
surrounding the Carlton Hotel and along El Camino Real (#21)".
If, after reviewing this information, Staff has the opinion that this project may
have a negative impact on the Downtown, I encourage you to review the `Colony Square
Parking Study' prepared by Nelson/Nygaard Consulting Associates as well as the `City of
Atascadero Parking Uitlization and Management Study'. These documents should assist
ITEM NUMBER
DATE: 4-20-10
in confirming Mr. Roush's statistics and the existance of adequate available parking in
the downtown. It has always been my contention that one of the very best things that we
can have in our downtown IS a parking problem.
We, the developers of the La Plaza Cinema and Restaurant project, look forward
to presenting this application to the Planning Commission in the very near future.
And one last thought to ponder as stated on the first page of the brochure
produced for the City Office of Economic Development in July of last year;
"Atascadero is ideal for establishing, relocating or expanding your business. With
advantages like ..................... a fast track development process and a forward -thinking
business friendly local government; Atascadero is the place to be."
Sincerely,
Michael K. Sherer
ITEM NUMBER
DATE: 4-20-10
ATTACHMENT 4: Film Distribution and Film Finance Facts
Provided for Commission information
FILM DISTRIBUTION AND FILM FINANCES
The following is sourced from How Stuff Works- Movie Distribution'
Here's the path a film usually takes to get to your local theater:
• Someone has an idea for a movie.
• They create an outline and use it to promote interest in the idea.
• A studio or independent investor decides to purchase rights to the film.
• People are brought together to make the film (screenwriter, producer, director, cast, crew).
• The film is completed and sent to the studio.
• The studio makes a licensing agreement with a distribution company.
• The distribution company determines how many copies (prints) of the film to make.
• The distribution comoanv shows the movie (screenina) to prospective buvers reoresentina the
thpntprs.
• The buyers negotiate with the distribution company on which movies they wish to lease and the
terms of the lease agreement.
• The prints are sent to the theaters a few days before the opening day.
• The theater shows the movie for a specified number of weeks (engagement).
• You buy a ticket and watch the movie.
• At the end of the engagement, the theater sends the print back to the distribution company and
makes payment on the lease agreement.
Once a distributor is interested in a film, the two parties arrive at a distribution agreement based on one of
two financial models:
Leasing
Profit sharing
In the leasing model, the distributor agrees to pay a fixed amount for the rights to distribute the film. If the
distributor and the studio have a profit-sharing relationship, on the other hand, the distributor gets a
percentage (typically anywhere from 10 to 50 percent) of the net profits made from the movie. Both
models can be good or bad, depending on how well a movie does at the box office. The goal of both the
studio and the distribution company is to predict which model will benefit them the most.
Most theaters use buyers to represent them in negotiating with the distribution companies. Large chains
such as AMC Theatres or United Artists employ buyers while small chains and independent theaters
contract with a buyer. The negotiating process is very political. The buyers often will accept a movie that
the theater is not very interested in to make sure thev aet a film thev reallv want. Distributors try to balance
the movies they lease to theaters in the same local area to make sure all of the theaters will continue to
' Entertainment.howstuffworks.com/movie-distribution.htm/printable
ITEM NUMBER
DATE: 4-20-10
work with them. Sometimes a theater will get an exclusive or special engagement to premiere a
movie in its area. Once a buyer is interested in a movie, the lease terms are discussed.
The Need for Concessions
There are two ways for a theater to lease a movie:
Bidding
Percentage
Bidding requires that the theater agree to pay a fixed amount for the right to show the movie. For
example, a theater might bid $100,000 for a four-week engagement of a new movie. During that time, it
could make $125,000 for a profit of $25,000. Or it might take in only $75,000, which means the theater
has a loss of $25,000. Few distribution companies use bidding anymore. Most agreements are for
a percentage of the box office (ticket sales).
In this sort of deal, the distributor and the theater agree to several terms:
• The theater negotiates the amount of the house allowance, or nut, with the distributor. This is a
set figure to cover basic expenses each week.
• The percentage split for the net box office is set. This is the amount of box office left after the
deduction of the house allowance.
• The percentage split for the gross box office is set.
• The length of engagement is set (typically four weeks).
The distributor will get the vast majority of the money made by the movie. The agreement gives the
distributor the agreed-upon percentage of the net box office or gross box office, whichever is greater.
While first run movies that have just been released are loss leaders, movies that have been out for a
while can be profitable for the theaters that show them. Second run theaters often get very attractive
leasing terms from the distributor. These theaters are facing increasing competition though, as first run
theaters continue to show more movies past the traditional four to six week time frame.
ITEM NUMBER
DATE: 4-20-10
ATTACHMENT 5: Public Comments received
From: 8054617612 Page: 1/15 Date. 4/13!2.010.9:3.4. 36 AM
RE: LaPlaza Theatres & Theatre operating information
Prom: George Wm. Schroff, IV
City Manager: Wade G_ MclGnne_v
i
Atascadero Redevelopment Agency
City Council
Mayor Roberta Fonzi
Mayor Pro -Tem Tom O'Malley
Council Member .Jerry Clay
Council Member Bob Kelley
Council Member Ellen Beraud
Pc., w1=
' P1~N Zoog-l�cll E
£iPP 1 2 2010
C011Y.'UplPfY
Dear Members of Atascadero City Leadership,
April 11, 2010
Planning Commission
Chairperson Heather Moreno
Vice Chairperson David Bentz
Commissioner Sandy Jack
Commissioner Dennis Schmidt
Commissioner Brian. Sturtevant
Commissioner Len Colamarino
Connnissioner Chuck Ward
After attending the recent study session I returned home after listening to the proposals of
the LaPlaza theatres with a desire to seek out more information. First let me express that I
could aggressively support the LaPlaza theatres if they were introducing themselves as a solitary
venture to provide first run movies to Atascadero and it's neighbors.
As we know Galaxy Theatres was approached to satisfy the first run movie needs of the
community. Frank Rimkus, CEO, introduced himself and his theatres very much in the same
fasbion as John Roush of Century Cinema Group. Additional functions, Digital Projection, etc.
At this study session I did see a number of requests for Repertory Theatre applications for the
theatres by the audience but I also did recognize Mr. Roush expressing his primary intention is a
first run theatre complex and his contractual commitments. Additional conversation
surrounded extras that would in my opinion only offer theatre usages encompassing less than
S% of the projects proposed business model. It seemed the other 9.5% of the proposal was only
briefly visited.
Galaxy theatres had already introduced its theatres ability to provide community oriented
functions with it's Atascadero theatres.
I did learn a lot and also found questions unanswered at the Study Session for LaPlaza
theatres. What was voiced was a desire for a Repertory Theatre.
The enthusiasm I saw with the LaPlaza proposal was more about location compared to the
sensibility of expanding an industry where success is specific to the number of ticket sold.
I took the time to write 8 movie making studios, my mistake, I should have written movie
distributors, I am still waiting, for replies. I also took the time to write Galaxy Theatres to learn
more about their methods of getting their movies for their theatres.
I was extremely surprised to have Mr. Frank Rimkus, CEO of Galaxy Theatres call me to offer
some conversation about his theatre currently being built in Atascadero. Of course he
expressed his regret that another complex is being considered for Atascadero. He did explain to
me that the community was studied for its potential to support a Multiplex theatre. It was
determined Atascadero could support S screens; he is building zo screens anticipating growth.
This type of a study is what Atascadero needs as it proceeds with the LaPlaza application.
These numbers concur with most of the thoughts of those that question the correctness of
additional screens in Atascadero.
This fax was received by GFI FAXmaker fax server. For more information, visit: http://www.gfi.com
ITEM NUMBER
DATE: 4-20-10
From: 8054617612 Page: 2/15 Date: 4/13/2010 9:34:37 AM
I hope I found specific answers with an online search with regards to movie distribution and the
breakdo"m of the revenue generated by movie theatres. I have included information that in
some respects mirrors comments by Mr. Roush about distributors and their movie distribution
methods.
The greatest concern is the ability of any theatre to generate ticket sales. It is clearly outlined
that most all ticket revenue for movies is returned to the studios upon the initial openings of
first run movies. The snack bar remains the primary means of survival for any theatre.
A division of top first run movies by their location decreases the amount of ticket sales per venue
and in turn the recovery of operating expenses will then be returned with high ticket and snack
bar prices. Unlike a grocery store the selection and demand of movies are small and extremely
limit.
With the duplicity of theatres in Atascadero there will be an impact. A more prolific study needs
to be conducted and I would encourage an Environmental Impact Report
Attached are two online piece of information I located that defines the Movie Distribution
process. Sorry the print is so small for "How Movie Distribution Works" located at:
htt entertainment.howstuffworks.com movie-distribution1.htm
Also "Economics of the Movie Theater" located at:
http://themovieblog.com/2007/10/economics-of-the-movie-theater-where-the-money-goes-and-why-
it-costs-us-so-much
And finally, a few pages from the Galaxy Theatre Corporate website. As Mr. Rimkus explained when he
introduced himself at a Redevelopment Agency meeting last fall. His theatres are very much community
oriented and already has in place civic usage as well as educational events for his theatres. Included in
these pages is an editorial from the Tulare newspaper praising the wealth of community success
returned as a result of Galaxy Theatres and the theatres strengths. located at:
http://www.galaxytheatresinternational.com/corporate profile.pd
I thank you for your time to consider all aspects of a second theatre in Atascadero and 1 do understand
the dire situation of the downtown businesses. 1 will hope an effort to overcome the 300 yards between
Colony Square and downtown will receive a forum such as an introduction of a Trolley type of car similar
t e used in Sa ui Obispo nce Galaxy Theatres premieres in Atascadero.
orgeh°: Schroff, lV�
P.O. Box 1599
Atascadero, CA 93423
gwschroffayahoo.com
805-975-2856 (cell)
This fax was received by GFI FAXmaker fax server. For more information, visit: http://www.gfi.com
ITEM NUMBER
DATE: 4-20-10
From: 8054617612 Page: 3/15 Date: 4/13/2010 9:34:37 AM
rage 1 of 4
E5 �..
Soreh rbwbtum,von�z rna+nc »cr- ..-�
E
wool RSS 1 Rlntlom
Noma Atl>crtlwa• Anlm•H Avla COmmunlnnl,on Lampeter PMCfroMG• Emanaltvw.lt Fool
aeaarinhy NMkh >,IFMry HomOR anryen Mnr.y Mlmta 5eNmr+
;Ad• Lenunt Toys M-ks Mrnk Spode
Humn> fittlaraMrhent> M•Ylao> M*ACIedletrya AWV
How Mo%i¢ Distribution Works
W Jae Tyson
egwsC IrM erllds Haw Movtc pHlAbutbn W arks
Introduction to How Movie Dlatrtbullon works
You have probably seen advartisenrent in your local paper for movies playing et a theater near yOu. sometimes the
9d wAl say ^Held over^ a "3peeial engagement.` IAstst exactly does that mean? And Just how do those movie• Oct from �\
the motion picture studio to the theater?
In this ende, youll see the path of a film from an tied In someone's head toe movie screen at your local muttlplek. 1�
You'll learn what the nut, is, find out the dskrtence between negotialittg and bidding, and liinegy understand why movie _
popcom M so ekdenslvei - f
HEWS the path a film usually takes to gat to your local theator
•
Someone has an Wes for a rrmvie,
Y
• They Create an outline and vee h b promote Interest In the Idea
• A studio or Independent Invest r decides to purchase rights to the film.
• People are brought together to make the III (acteenwnter. producer, director. cast crew).
• The film is eontpieted and sem to the studio.
• The studio makes a Ikensing agreement with a dKtdbvtlon company.
. The distrIbutlorn company determines how many copies (prints) of the film to make.
• The distribution company shows the movie (Screening) to prospective buyers mprose riing the theaters.
• The buyers negotiate with the distribution Company on which movies they wish to lease and the terms of the lease egresr-nt.
• The prints are sent to the theaters a few days before the opening day.
• The Iheetorshown the movie for a SMIliied number of weeks (engagement).
You buy a ticket and watch the movie.
• At the end Of the engagement. the IASA(er sends the print beth to the distAbueon Company and makes payment on the IapSe apreament
This fax was received by GFI FAXmaker fax server. For more information, visit: hltp:/twww.gfi.com
ITEM NUMBER
DATE: 4-20-10
_ _ From:.8054617612 Page: 4/15 _ _ Date: 4/13/2010 9:34:37 AM
- •• --• ---- --• --
rage z 0I.4--
I . ". , I!
4z 1. MAW
SOM d these step,$ may be combined and, particularly in the ease Of omen Indspendord (inns, additional steps maybe necessary. As you can eve, them
L$ It lot that goes on before a movie is ever shown to a paying sudiencel
The Art of the Deal
It has been sold that making a movie is not Ready ae difficult es getting It distributed. Because of the enormous amount of cost in money and time involved
In distributing 0 movie, a distributor must feet confident that they can make a shafidortt return on their Invesbnent. Having the backing of a major studio or a
well known directors spar can greedy Improve the clwkns of securing a pool distribution deal. Independent fikhmakom often use Firm festivals as an
opportunity to gat the ahenson Of dlstrlbtdora. Once a distributor is Interested in a film, theiwe parties arrive et a distribution agre—M based on ono of
l" financial modern:
• Leasing
•
From sharing
In the tossing model, the distributor agrees to pay a fixed amount for the right, to dfabibum the Kim. If the dlatdbutor and the etidlo have a proRt-sharing
ego nshlp, on she other hand, the distributor gets a Peroanteige (typically anywhere from 10 to So percent) of the net profits made from the movie. Both
models cad be good or bad, depending on how wen a movie 6006 at the box dKce. The goal of both the studio and the distribution company is to predict
which Modell wIll benefit them the most
Most of the major studios have their own distribution componles. Far example, plsnpy owns Buena Vlsta, a major distributor. The otmous advemepes of
this ere that It Is very simple to set up a distribution deal And the pormt c , Any doesn't nave p there, the profits with ancthermmpany. The big problem
ts when an expensive movie Is a hop - MOWS no one else to share the costs, That's the mein roa,on several studies have partnemd on major moves In
recent yeers, For example. "Smr LEpisode one" was produced etlbrely by J.ucasKlm but dlsirtbuted by Fix,
The next big step occurs once the distribution company nos riots to the form, Most distributors not only provide the movie t0 theaism, but obtain anelliary
tights to dlsMbute the moAa an vii , DVD, gable and nelw0rk N- Other rights can include soundkack C s, posters,
rnerchora�ng p games, loys and other
When a distributor note leased a move, they wkl fry to determine the best strategy for opening the movie. Opening refers to the Official debut of a movie.
There are Several fedora to conslder;
• Studio
• Target Audience
. Stsrpowor
• Buzx
• Season
Obviously.
bvioC ll seamovie
y a that has everything - M)Or studio backing. big eters Ond a greet story - is probably going m open big end do very wen, n It hes blg
store ppeer to have tags (meaning that it will hot atsy Popular for lap), the distributor may opt to put me move M as many theaters es
possible dump ns last engagement. Fewer theatarswill be Imemested Ing movie wlthan unkrhown mat Orgoor bus (unofficial erformetion about the
movie). SemONMes s movie has gotten good bu¢ , but Isn't likely to hove masa appeal because of the audience it Is directed at. It might also be the wrong
time of year for a pArticuler type of move. For example. a hear(wamhahg Christmas story Is not likely to do wen opeift on Memorial DAy weekend.
All of mese factors help the distributor determine the number of prints to Make. Each print typically coals SbOut 61.500 to $2,000 to make, to the dieMbutor
This fax was received by GFI FAXmaker fax server. For more information, visit: http:/twww.gfi.com
ITEM NUMBER
DATE: 4-20-10
-- - --
From:.8054617612 Page: 5/15 _ Date: 4/13f2010 9:34; 37 AM
- rate 1 01 14
must collPopular
moria mrmher Of the•ain s reovie ca' suxe " y Open m. Many tX the 27.000 , ; In the Uried States am CoMoonsated in .roan areas.
A popular movie mlpM fill the aeau in several fheatom h the some
City while anomer Movie ovoid have a much 9ma6ar audience, Smce opening a movie
wORhwhse,
On 9,000 screens Codd Cost $6 motion fa be Prints alone, the distributor moat be sure that the movie can draw enough people to make the Costa
Most therelers use buyers to represent them In negotinkng with the distribution Companies. Large chemo Such as AM t r arras Or L1rLer�Arpsts employ
buyam while small chains and independent meritere eAlntectwith a buyer. The r"Ot eing pmCe" Is very polhleel The buyom often wRI et_f.b a movie
that the theater is not very Interested in to make am they gets film they realty want DWrlbumre try m balance the movies they lease b theaters In the
same meal area to make sure en of the theaters will continue m work wM them. sometimes 4 fearer will get an exclusive or "Clel engagement to
premlero a movie in its aros. Once a buyer is interested In A movie, the lease 10nns are discussed.
The Need for Concessions
There are two ways for a nester to Iseae a movie.
•
Bidding
• Percentage
Bidding requires that the thoeur agme to pay 0 fixed arnCum for the right to show the movie. For example, a theater mipht bid 5100.000 for a four.wask
engagement of s new movie. During that bme, it could make $125,000 fore profit of $25,000. Orn might take In only $75,000, which means tho theater
has a loss of $25,000. Few distribution companies use bidding anymem. Most agreements are to, a pomestago of the box office (ticket sales)
In this sort of deal, the dNtributor and the theater agree to several term:
• The theater negoiatas the amount of the house asowarxx,, or nut with the distHhumr. This is a set figure b cove basic expenses each weak
• The percentage split for the not box office Is set This Ia the amount of bOx office left after the deduction of the house allowance.
• The percentage split for the gross box office is set.
• This fengf of engagement is set ftyploolty four weeks).
The distributor wGl get fns vast majority of the money made by the moble. The 90lament gives the distributor the a0med-upon percentage of the net box,
Office or gloss box Office. whichever is greater. The way this works is amazing!
Consider this example. Theater A is negosating with Dlahibulpr 8 over a new movie. The Reetar MAs figured that expenses, the nut are about $4,500 per
week. The net emcee to to go to the distributor is s a set at 95 percent ter the first two weeks, 90 percent for week throe and 05 percent for the fmsl week.
TM prose percentage to W fi the tlixb(butor h set at 70 percont for the first two weeks. So percent for week three and 50 percent for the find week.
One
116.000 104"0 � (0.1176 H0,600 t0
�•^ '13000 �'xa.b0fi K72e >AiroO �-11IM
_.
lane •12.000 - - r -
,,.. ;-'80600 116.710 t7rt00 r ei2pp .....
Fµ.600 1"�43f6
you ran ase that dung weeks one, two and three, the gross percemngC is higher. The net perConhtae is higher for week four. So the distributor would
take gross percentage on one through thme than net fm week four. The theater breaks neon the first week. loses nldney it* second and makes a profh on
weeks three and four.
The moNe itself Is considered a baa loader by the theater owner. It is meant to pet people Into the theater. The theater makes Its money selling
refreshments to the movie Audience. That's why Concessions are so expensive — without the profits generated by things like popmm and soda, most
theaters could not afford to stay in business.
At the end dthe negotiated engagement, fine theater pays the dixttibutor its share of the box o}fifa earnings and returns the print Na movie Is very
Popular and can continue to draw a steady Crowd, the theater may renegotiate to extend the lame. Bpmament Any time you see the phrase -Hold Over,'
you brow that the feOter hes expended the movie lease.
Mile flit run movies fat have Just bean released are lose slider.. movies Shot have berth out for a whits can be PhOfitable for the masters thatahow
them, Second run feasor efMn gat very attractive leasing terms from the distributor. These theaters am feeing Ineteasing Competition though, as amt run
Teeters Continue to show mom MO des past the traditional four b six week time frame.
Lots Moro tnfohneto ,
Related How Stuff Works articles
aw 0�8 Wmk
• Mow Movie aw�ra Work
• t ._cute Sound W_ Orics
• How THLykbr s
How Cen . peso FX Cmetes visual ERects
• ) RV JN1t.:_SFmen Soedal_Ettxb wg�t
• Yyh6lLdo movie refirhSs mean. end wno aodiea them+
• �dpea a mots cieppert>oard w.>� _—
• )ioW d0 U18Y tOlOr did bladt And w tl iB DyJ-qbi
More Great Links
• mol n Eu it"Pfetlucibn and wbbutbn
• � Real DOW on the Film Dlstnbutien Deal
• Mo n Pitxum-proquction a 0 atr
M>ror Disylb.ion Comosnks Or the.Maio" P�qure Intlustn
This fax was received by GFI FAXmaker fax server. For more information, visit: http:/twww.gfi.com
ITEM NUMBER
DATE: 4-20-10
From: 8054617612 Page: 6/15 Date: 4/13/2010 9:34:37 AM
Economics OF The Movie Theater — Where The Money Goes
And Why It Costs Us So Much
%October 22nd, 2007 -- Written by John Campea 79 Comments
day
this
The attention and interest generated by the article I put up the other
on Why Commercials Before Movies Is Worse Than piracy
continues to generate a lot of discussion (and so the topic should).
One of the recurring emails I've been getting from a lot of people
the question about why it costs so much to go to the movie
theater(iun light of the commercials and ad revenue the industry is
making for itself), where does the money go and how do we make
stop?
Much of what I'm writing here now is a lot of paraphrasing from a chapter in my abandoned
book project from a few years ago. But here's the gist:
1) Who Gets Wbat From Your $.10 Ticket?
Ok, so you walk up to the box office and drop down your $10 to buy your ticket. Who gets that
money? A lot of people assume (as did I at one point) that the movie theater keeps 50% of it, and
the rest goes off to the studios. That's not really true.
Most of the money that a theatre takes in from ticket sales goes back to the movie studio. The
studio leases a movie to your local theater for a set period of time. In the first couple of weeks
the film shows in the theatre, the theatre itself only gets to keep about 20% — 25% of the green.
That means, if you showed up to watch Bridget Jones' Diary on opening night, then of the $12
you put out for a ticket, the movie theatre only got to keep between $2.40 and $3.00 of it.
That's not a lot of money, especially when you think about how much bigger and elaborate
theatres are these days. It's not cheap running one of these places. It can get even worse. This
percentage will vary from movie to movie depending on the specifics of the individual leasing
deal. For instance, 2 movie theatre managers told me that for Star Wars Episode 11: Attack of the
Clones, the studio took 100% of the box office take for the first week of release. Can you
imagine that? They had to over staff and have above normal capacity flood into their theatres...
and they got to keep $0.00 from the ticket sales. That almost seems criminal.
Now, as you move into the second and third weeks of release, the percentage starts to swing to
anywhere from 45% — 55% that the theatre gets to keep. It gets better after the fourth week when
theatres generally can keep up to 80% or better of the ticket sales. There is an obvious inherent
problem with this arrangement. I don't know about you, but when I finally get around to seeing a
film that's already been in the theatres for 4 or 5 weeks, I'm usually one of the only people in the
place. It doesn't do the establishment a lot of good to keep 80% of the ticket sales when only 14
tickets are sold per show. And with more and more and more movies getting released every
week, the length of time that a movie stays in theaters is shrinking. Bad news for the movie
theaters.
This fax was received by GFI FAXmaker fax server. For more information, visit: http://www.gfi.com
ITEM NUMBER
DATE: 4-20-10
From: 8054617612 Page: 7/15 Date: 4/13/2010 9:34:37 AM
Movie theaters are then forced to really make their money off concessions. One theater manager
said "We're not in the movie business... we're in the candy business,,. Very true, So if you ever
another $4... it's because
wondered why a $0.15 bag of popcorn is costing you $5, and a $0.08 cup of Coke is running you
the economics of the industry system is so screwed up that the
concession stand is where theaters have to make most of their money.
2) The Cost Of Making The Movies
With the cost of today's movies getting higher and higher, the studios leverage their position
with the theaters to squeeze more and more out
Years ago they weren't paying of the arrangement mentioned in point #1.10
work.., ahack Chris Tucker $25 million dollars for one movie... for 3 months
-.. CHRIS TUCKER... $25 million. Superman Returns did NOT need to cost
$200 million to make. Spider -Man 3 did NOT need to cost $250 million to make. These numbers
are astounding when you consider that just 7 years ago they would have called you mad. The
Pace of costs is far outpacing the requisite inflation... and there is really no excuse for it.
This is directly tied to how much you and I pay at the box office, and thus tied to why popcorn
has to cost so much, and thus tied to why we see commercials. The higher the costs go for for
making films, the higher my costs wilt be to enjoy a night at the theater. Sure, Transformers
made tons of money... but the studios have to squeeze us for everything they can get to make up
for their flops... their films that DON'T make money.
And people always wonder why I get so pissed off whenever I think about Chris Tucker getting
$25 million. Because ultimately that money (at least in part) is coming out of my wallet.
3) The Organism of the Studio/Theater Relationship
To really make sense of all this, you have to step back and look at the Studios and the Theaters
as one industry entity and view it from the perspective of how the parts work together to truly get
a grasp on how big and out of control the problem is. You can't just try to blame the Studios...
our exxpensepense..
nor can you just blame the Theaters. You have to look at them both (in this situation anyway) as
one e.. how it functions... and ultimately how it affords its mistakes and inefficiencies at
The studios spend too much money making movies (and make too many movies), they squeeze
as much box office revenue as they can from the Theaters thus forcing the theaters to charge us
high ticket prices to make what little they can from each ticket, gouge us at the concession stand
to make ends meet and show commercial after commercial after bloody commercial to pad some
profit.
Do you see what happens? book over #3 again. Ultimately, the studios don't have to learn from
their mistakes, theaters don't have to manage themselves smarter.., because as costs and losses
and expenditure add up... they just keep passing off the bill to us. We pay for their
mismanagement and spiraling costs. Why should they change anything or fix anything when they
know that we'll just pay more to make up for their mistakes.
We pay for their mismanagement with our high ticket prices.
This fax was received by GFI FAXmaker fax server. For more information, visit: http://www.gfi.com
ITEM NUMBER
DATE: 4-20-10
From: 8054617612 Page: 8/15 Date: 4/13/2010 9:34:37 AM
We pay for their mad decisions with $6 bags of popcorn
We pay for Chris Tucker's $25 million paycheck with our time watching in -theater commercials
All the while the industry continues happily along its downward spiral feeling no ill effects of
their stupidity... because they've taken those ill effects and shoved them up our rectums for US
to deal with,
4) The Solution Has To Start With The Theaters
If this insanity is ever going to stop... if change in the economics of going to the movies is going
to ever happen, I'm convinced it will have to first start with the theaters. Movie theaters have to
better organizes themselves and collectively stand up the the Studio system and REFUSE to let
80% of the box office dollar for a films first week of release go flying out the door to
Hollywood. By not standing up collectively, the movie theaters act as complicit enablers to the
studios behavior.
WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF THEATER OWNER ASSOCIATIONS REFUSED TO GIVE
ANY MORE THAN 50% OF OPENING WEEK BOX OFFICE MONEY TO THE STUDIOS?
I'll tell you what would happen:
a — Studios would be forced to SERIOUSLY look at their own economics and financial
responsibility. There would be no more $25 million dollar pay days for B string actors
b — Theaters would actually start making some money on... you know... MOVIES
c — With added revenue from the actual box office, the pressure on theaters to add more ads,
to raise ticket prices, to jack up popcorn costs... would be at least a little bit alleviated.
It has to be a collective effort by the theater owners or else the studios will just refuse to give
their movies to the stubborn theaters and give all the business to others. If the Theater Owner
associations collectively said "no", the studios would have no choice but to start to fix their leaky
boat
5) Why Not Going To The Theaters Won't Fix The Problem
Some people will say "Well then let's not go to the movie theaters until we force them to
change". That will NEVER work, because as I've demonstrated above, when there are financial
losses, the current industry system just takes back those loses from those who are buying the
tickets, They'll blame piracy for the dip in thater attendance and raise prices even more. It's a
systemic problem.
And if you think you're safe from these rises and gouges because you just watch movies at home
on DVD.... guess where the systemic problem will strike next once they've bleed the theater
goers as much as they possibly can? DVDs and HD discs will suddenly start costing $60 a shot
and Hollywood will pressure Washington to pass tax laws on Big TVs to pay a fee to the studios
for each unit sold, thus raising prices there too.
This fax was received by GFI FAXmaker fax server. For more information, visit: http://www.gfi.com
ITEM NUMBER
DATE: 4-20-10
From: 8054617612 Page: 9/15 Date: 4/13/2010 9:34:37 AM
The Vision
A new Galaxy Theatre is designed, built,
and operated to be a profitable first class,
high impact movie entertainment experience.
A new Galaxy Theatre will be the first choice
of moviegoers near and far ... and a continuing source of civic
pride... for generations to come,
0
This fax was received by GFI FAXmaker fax server. For more information, visit: http://www.gfi.com
ITEM NUMBER: 2
DATE: 4-20-10
From: 8054617612 Page: 10/15 _ _ Date: 4/13/2010 9:34_37 AM
This fax was received by GFI FAXmaker fax server. For more information, visit: hftp:/twww.gfi.com
ITEM NUMBER: 2
DATE: 4-20-10
From: 8054617612 Page: 11/15 Date: 4/13/2010 9:34:37 AM
GALAXY
THEA'TRE5®
VISION STATEMENT
An Introduction
Galaxy theatres, LLC is a fully integrated movie thea-
tre comperny. Privately owned, it is ranked, by sizc, in
the top 10% of its industry, according to the National
Theatre Association. Formed in 1998. its focus is to
capitalize on emerging growth opportunities within the
Exhibition Industry by developing and operatinp a port-
folio of high impact. state-of-the-art movie enten:ain-
ment theatres in selected secondary markets of the
western United States. Its properties are controlled by
ownership, leases and management contracts. The
primary objective of Management is to maximize the
value of the Company's individual and collective as-
sets and build consistent Cash flow for the Company
and its shareholders.
Geographically, the Company's growth has been in
secondary markets and niche opportunities in larger
markets. Unlike most urban markets. these mid-sized
markets are traditionally underserved, have pent-up
demand, often with outdated, sub -standard theatres (if
any) Experience has shown that this "only game in
town" strategy, coupled with the Company's philoso-
phy of social entrepreneurialism and talented •fiefd''
management can create strong market dominance.
provide above average revenue -per -patron results,
and lower the costs of local operation.
Galaxy Theatres is a fully integrated Exhibition com-
pany. From site location, to design & development,
finance, operations, and film buying, the Company's
key management team has over 70 years of combined
experience. On the strength of their long term relation-
ships, Galaxy Theatres can assure access to all first
run movies available to Exhibitors nationally. As of the
end of 2007 Galaxy Theatres LLC Principals will have
been involved in developing and/or operating theatres
totaling more than 177 screens.
Provide a consistent first class entertainment
experience in the communities we serve through
effective management; friendly service; quality
presentations in comfortable clean surroundings,
thereby increasing customer satisfaction, market
sham and profitability.
EXPERIENCE
iheaKeLoCailonlieased!
wo
ate
T%'ri9lfidinilr10, •.,::,
�• ;QEF:..;;
r
k fry; X`" ';7�t.•'.�`. _' fi`��� •..-,'.
r:F;'•`_' R"'x'�'"'p""x _•;"Y??'14*� ryrW^y:,- sa, a°rte:. M'<::
�.f.::^:'- � t��y.. :',`:p•�-.'� .?!: .,:^a r��.:aid-�f� '.
ti:1 SINIYrili' � A
�.
=^
a; < l'.'?C',;•.
�!'3:.. -�ti;� .' ^..;ter =ti��.. ,J':lx::.' r:• >.:::;
,.•� �uYAfri f�:. � i0 X
%'�' �.�Ti71�T •�;�•: y � '{ii `"�69 133 135 i.
This fax was received by GFI FAXmaker fax server. For more information, visit: http://www.gfi.com
Sl! PIE RVI SOR5
!7r
ITEM NUMBER: 2
DATE: 4-20-10
From: 8054617612 Page: 12/15 _ Date- 4/13/2010 9:34_37 AM
Awarding Winning Business Philosophy.,,,.
Community Service and participation builds strong
bonds and goodwill in all the communities we
serve.
Y'onp rriaie»n/ .yi •r.� ui /.r �.
dry:: fay.
eo
LU
e7
V+ r Q
2007
arw,ry �s
M• OEAbsgp' CHOICE
ri. r,Mrr�u+rw.eaw.�a.d
The lYlodeato IBee
Church Services & organizations
City of Riverbank Development Conferences
City of Monroe Development Conferences
City of Tacoma Summer Firms in ltre Park
Elementary School Reading Programs
Miss Riverbank Pageant
Modesto Junior College Classes
Police & Fire Depa unenl Fund Raising Benefits
Snohomish County Annual Real Estate Conference
Stanford Women's Drrgani..alion
Stanislaus County Economic Conference
Slate of California Labor Conference
U.S. Air Force Thunderbirds
Wine h Cheese Festival - Slanislaus County
This fax was received by GFI FAXmaker fax server. For more information, visit: http:/twww.gfi.com
ITEM NUMBER: 2
DATE: 4-20-10
From: 8054617612 Page: 13/15 Date: 4/13/2010 9:34:38 AM
EDITORIAL �4►dvance-Recg. aster
Theater already entrenched in community
November 28, 2006
When the Tulare Galaxy Stadium 10 opened in late 2004, residents were awed by its size, lights,
decor and more.
The awe led to a common thought among longtime Tulareans.
Geez, sure hope this lasts.
After all, Tulare had a long history of struggling to keep downtown theaters in business. And
movie money was typically just another loss Tulare had suffered at the hands of Visalia busi-
nesses.
But today that's dated as a silent movie. In only two years, the Galaxy theater has become en-
trenched in Tulare culture — and it's more than the movies it shows. Last month the theater
hosted the Veterans Day -themed Stories of Service event, where local veterans told their memo-
ries.
The theater will regularly show a free welcome -to -Tulare movie the Chamber of Commerce has
created to help newcomers assimilate into town culture.
Theater management has proven very hospitable to locals, from local "Star Wars" fan dubs to
birthday parties to the chamber's employee Oscars gala: (The "Star Wars" junkies were even al-
lowed to re-enact light saber duels in the theater lobby.)
The theaters -other strengths:
• Location. With bright lights visible from Highway 99, the theater is hard to miss. It now an-
chors Preferred outlets at Tulare. And with a few more restaurants, it will be as appealing as
any Valley shopping spot.
• Youth appeal. The outlet center and theater are cool hangouts for kids - especially the
teeny-bopperset that is too young to drive yet doesn't want to hang with parents.
• Parents:can drop their kids to hang out with friends there and know they are in a relatively
safe, confined area with security and no seedy dives.
• And with hip stores like Nike and Aeropostale around the theater, kids are happy to be there.
• Proxirrtity to Visalia. Visit the theater and you'll see evidence of Visalia patrons. Look for
Visalia schools on sweatshirts, caps, bumper stickers and license plate holders and you'll find
plenty, torexample.
We're obviously getting some of Visalia's cash, a nice change.
Credit.the theaters overall cleanliness and personable staff; Those are reasons many Viselians
also shop at Wal-Mart and Mervyn's in Tulare rather than in their hometown.
And Msalia's theater faults add to Tulare's strengths. The streets around Visalia's downtown thea-
ter are cramped. The theaters inside the Sequoia Mail themselves are cramped, with no stadium
seating.
It appears that Tulare will have no problem sustaining its theater, a vibrant part of the community.
And that's more heartwarming than your typical Hollywood saga.
This fax was received by GFI FAXmaker fax server. For more information, visit: http://www.gfi.com
ITEM NUMBER: 2
DATE: 4-20-10
From: 8054617612 Page: 14/15 Date: 4/13/2010 9:34_38 AM
Always able to enjoy the finest in first run films ....
On the strength of our long term relationships, Galaxy Theatres G. -A LAA Y
can assure access to all first run movies available to exhibitors T H E.A TR* E SA
Charles Goodman, Vice President - Operations
for the Company Mr. Goodman is responsible for the
executive management and supervision of the day -to•
day operations of the Company's theatre circuit. En-
tering the business in 1981, Mr. Goodnran brings
twenty years of theatre management experience tic
the Company. From 1986 to 1999, he held various
positions of management and administration with
United Artists Theatres. While working for UP. Thea-
tres his responsibilities included general and financial
management, staffing, training and developing cus-
tomer service and employee policy for United Artists'
San Diego region. Mr. Goodman has over twenty
years of field experience in managing multiplex thea-
tres, which include United Artisl$7 famous Horton
Plaza 14 in downtown San Diego. and ten years of
property management experience. Prior to 1986, Mr.
Goodman was employed by a regional theatre com-
pany serving Colorado.
During the past twelve years Mr. Goodman
has distinguished himself both personally and corpo•
rately in civic and Charitable organizations, which in-
clude The Easter Seal Society, Variety Club, and Ro-
tary Club (2004 President), and Riverbank Chamber
of Commerce (2003 President). He has received
several awards for his accomplishments on behalf of
The Will Rogers Foundation, San Diego Community
College, San Diego "Kids to careers pr jW and San
Diego Disabilities Program. Under his leadership.
individual theatres within Galaxy Theatres have com-
peted and received numerous business awards which
include Business of the Year, Readers Choice Award
for Best Theatre, City Business Development Award,
Best Concessions Award. and Best Theatre Expert.
ence in the County.
Lee E. Josselyn, Vice President, Film Buyer tm
Galaxy Theatres. I1c. Mr. Josselyn has over 31 years
of experience in the movie exhibition business. From
1992.1994 he served as an executive with Savoy Pic,
lures with principal responsibility for new film release,
budoets. adverlising, and theatre share. From 1966 to
1992 he served Will United Artists Theatres in posi-
lions of operational responsibility. Serving as film buyer
and district manager from 1974 to 1978, his responsi-
bilities included over 220 theatres nationally. Named
National Director of Advertising and Development in
1987, he served in that position through 1992,
Mr. Josselyn is a graduate of Los Angeles City
College, majoring in Business and Advertising. He
currently serves on the Codes Committee of the Na-
tional Association of Theatre Owners. During the pas(
fifteen years Mr. Josselyn has been active in civic and
charitable organizations including United Way and The
Easter Seal Society. He has also served with the Spina
Bifida Association and worked extensively with Junior
Athletes in Wheelchairs.
This fax was received by GFI FAXmaker fax server. For more information, visit: http://www.gfi.com
Galaxy Theatres' Film
Studio Relationships;
Buena Vista Pictures
Castle Hill Productions
Columbia Pictures
Disney Studios
DreamWorks Pictures
Fox Searchlight Pictures
Lions Gain Films
MGM Studios
Miramax Films
New Line Pictures
Paramount Pictures
Trimark Pictures
Twentieth Century Fox
Universal Pictures
Warner Bros. Films
ITEM NUMBER
DATE
From: 8054617612 Page: 15/15 _Date; 4/13/2010 9_34_38 AM
ArANAGEMENT
Snninr management of Galaxy Theatres is halanced and
diversified among four individuals. Each member averages
Over 20 years experience in his respective executive resport-
sibilrties. These include real estate development. finance, and
theatre operations. Galaxy Theatres enjoys an excellent rela-
lionship with all major studios including Disney, Sony Pic
tures, Warner Bros., Paramount / Dreamworks. 20th Century
Fox, MGM. Universal. and PolyGram. It has equally strong
relationships with indPpendent companies such as Miramax.
Lions Gate Entertainment, New Market Films, New Line, Fo-
cus Films, etc:. On the strength of these relationships Galaxy
Theatres is able to access all first run movies released nation-
elly to exhibitors. The Executive Officers of the Company are:
Rafe Cohen. CPA, President & Chief Operating Officer of
Galaxy Theatres, lic. Previously, he was a co-founder and Chief
Operating Officer of Cinema Properties Corporation. Founded in
1987, that Company specialized in the location and development
of multi -screen theatre =PleXs. it developed-tnese'Najecas
for the Company's account as well as other U.S. theatre opera-
tors.
Mr. Cohen has over twenty years experience in financial
management and theatrical exhibition. During that time he also
served as an advisor to real estate firms and financial compa-
nies. As president of Cinema Properties, and as a real estate
broker, he has participated in all phases of real estate acquisi-
tion. development and management. His development expeh-
ence includes movie theatres, apartments, single-family houses
and mobile home parks.
Mr. Cohen received both a Bachelors Degree in Political
Science, and a Masters Degree in Finance from the
University of California, Los Angeles, Additionally, he holds a
Masters of Business Taxation from the University of Southern
California. Previously, Mr. Cohen was affiliated with the national
accounting firm of S.D. Liedesdorf, which subsequently merged
with Deloitte & Touche. Mr. Cohen's interests include politics
and he is a member of the Los Angeles Chapter of the Lincoln
Club.
4-20-10
Rafe Curren IPe Josselyn Frank Rimkus. Charles Goodman
Frank J. Rimkus, Chairman & Chief Executive Officer of Galaxy
Theatres, lie. His professional background encompasses over 30 years
in real estate and investment banking experience. From 1983.1995 he
was affiliated with Winthrop Financial Associates, a privately owned
nationat'reafestate company4,$6.5 hitlion.in-aswts)se, ing,,,s :oaftncr - -
and Managing Director from 1985.95.
Previously, from 1975-1983 Mr, Rimkus served as a Vice Presi-
dent with Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc. with his emphasis in investment
structuring and private placements. From 1970-1975 he was an execu-
tive of Environmental Systems International, an engineering and plan-
ning firm which provided economic; design and planning services to
real estate development companies throughout the United States and
Asia.
Mr. Rimkus is a graduate of California State Polytechnic Univer-
sity. Over the past twenty five years, he has been active in various
professional and civic organizations, which include the YMCA Board of
Managers, St. Johns Hospital, Santa Monica, CA, Rotary International;
the Urban Land Institute, and the National Parents Committee of the
University of Virginia. He currently is a member of the Owners Com-
mittee, National Association cf•Thcatra-Otivrrars-and serves-oftlhc- -
Board of Directors of the Association's California/Nevada Chapter.
This fax was received by GFI FAXmaker fax server. For more information, visit: http:/twww.gfi.com
ATTACHMENT 6: Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration
ITEM NUMBER: 2
DATE: 4-20-10
CITY OF ATASCADERO
PROPOSED MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION 2010-0001
6907 EI Camino Real, Atascadero, CA 93422 805�461-5000
Property
Ben Hoff, LLC, PO Box 2153, Paso Robles, CA 93447
Owner:
April 1, 2010
Applicant:
Larry M. Wysong, 7025 Morro Road, Atascadero, CA 93422
Project Title:
PLN 2009-1341 / CUP 2009-0244, La Plaza Cinema / Retail Project
Project
6320 — 6490 El Camino Real, Atascadero, CA 93422 (San Luis Obispo County)
Location:
APN 030-191-030, 031, 016, 017, and 030-193-003
Project
The project consists of Conditional Use permit for a 10 screen /1400 seat movie theatre (33,000± sf),
Description:
retail space (2350± sf), and sit down restaurant (4330± sf) on a 1.5± acre site with no on-site parking,
a height waiver exception request, a tree removal permit for one 6 -inch White Oak and a Road
Abandonment of a portion of Atascadero Mall and an easement along the EI Camino Real frontage.
Findings:
1. The project does not have the potential to degrade the environment.
2. The project will not achieve short-term to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals.
3. The project does not have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable.
4. The project will not cause substantial adverse effects on human beings either directly or indirectly.
Determination:
Based on the above findings, and the information contained in the initial study 2002-0040 (made a part hereof by
reference and on file in the Community Development Department), it has been determined that the above project will
not have an adverse impact on the environment when the following proposed mitigation measures are incorporated
into the project (see attachment).
Prepared By:
Warren Frace
Date Posted:
April 1, 2010
Public Review Ends:
April 20, 2010
Attachments:
Initial Study
Fik: PLN' ZM-1341. U PL- CEQA IS -'M Prim Dme: W,131109A Au
6907 EL CAMINO REAL • ATASCADERO, CALIFORNIA 93422 • (805) 461-5035 • FAX 461-5036
ITEM NUMBER
DATE: 4-20-10
CITY OF ATASCADERO
INITIAL STUDY
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
Environmental Review 2010-0001
Property Owner:
Ben Hoff, LLC, PO Box 2153, Paso Robles, CA 93447
Applicant:
Lary M. Wysong, 7025 Morro Road, Atascadero, CA 93422
Project Title:
PLN 2009-1341 / CUP 2009-0244, La Plaza Cinema / Retail Project
Project Location:
6320 — 6490 El Camino Real, Atascadero, CA 93422 (San Luis Obispo County)
APN 030-191-030, 031, 016, 017, and 030-193-003
Project Description:
The project consists of a Conditional Use permit for a 10 screen /1400 seat movie theatre
(33,000± sf), retail space (2350± sf), and sit down restaurant (4330+ sf) on a 1.5± acre site
with no on-site parking, a height waiver exception request, a tree removal permit for one
6 -inch White Oak and a Road Abandonment of a portion of Atascadero Mall and an
easement along the El Camino Real frontage.
Lead Agency Name
City of Atascadero
and Address:
6907 El Camino Real, Atascadero, CA 93422
Contact Person and
Warren Frace, (805) 470-3402
Phone Number:
City of Atascadero, 6907 El Camino Real, Atascadero, CA 93422
General Plan
D - Downtown
Designation:
Zoning:
DC — Downtown Commercial
Surrounding Land
North: Vacant commercial buildings
Uses and Setting:
South: Gas Station and Auto Repair
West: US 101 Freeway
East: Sunken Gardens community park and retail commercial.
Other public agencies
None
whose approval is
required (e.g., permits,
financing approval, or
participation agreement)
04/13110 PLN 2omim.La Plaza CEQA IS -MND
ITEM NUMBER: 2
DATE: 4-20-10
1., *0411
CVD CITY OF ATASCADERO
INITIAL STUDY
Attachment I
Location Map
'A0
!1ftwikq-6
-44�-
0
04/13,10 PLN 2009-1341. La Plaza CEQA IS -MND
Project
Site
0
04/13,10 PLN 2009-1341. La Plaza CEQA IS -MND
lm�
010 40
ITEM NUMBER: 2
DATE: 4-20-10
CITY OF ATASCADERO
INITIAL STUDY
Attachment 2
Site Plan and Floor Plan
i
a uwa aat
HOFF PROPERT
44i:d"
�_ iAEa u ao.o
afrmaratrr
� 5
.t
Y
30
GROUND FLOOR / SITE PLAN
La Plaza Cinemas / Retail Project
Sp,JP"
Atascadero, California
March, 2010 `
JOHN ROUSH. CENTRAL COAST CINEMAS,
LARRY WYSONG CONSTRUCTION, d. -I -P r
MICHAEL SHERER/ PEABODY COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE,
bo},/—I pmpmy NrW,, &Lui g
UESUGI & ASSOCIATES
architects interiors planning sustainability
ap MARKET STREET, SUITE yol
SAN FRANCISCO. CALIFORNIA 9aw1
r'tJV LIAltl-IJV I. W 11a1LG ♦..Ll(A 1J�lYa1V
Attachment 3
Elevations
E
ITEM NUMBER: 2
DATE: 4-20-10
CITY OF ATASCADERO
INITIAL STUDY
ucc -
�
IIP/
�V� IIIA t'
L
L
n
E
Wi=
3!�
u
a"
a
a
04113110 aua 2009.1341. La Plaza CEQA IS -MND
ITEM NUMBER
DATE: 4-20-10
It *Aw!
CITY OF ATASCADERO
INITIAL STUDY
Exhibit A
Timing
Responsibility
Mitigation
Mitigation Monitoring Program
(Monitoring
Measure
GP: Gredng Permit
PS Panning Services
BP 8A.V Pend
BS: wading Services
PLN 2009-1341 / CUP 2009-0244 La Plaza
TO: Tempmq Cdr
FD Fre DepaMant
Fc Final uapeoton
PD. Police Dep&lmnt
F0: Find Ocwptewy
CE CAy Engineer
WW: WWLk kr
CA Cay Aft m y
AMWC. Water Comp.
BP
PS
1.0
Mitigation Measure 1.c.
The rear elevation of the building that is visible from US 101 shall
include substantive architectural treatments and materials.
Mitigation Measure 3.b.1:
BP
PS
3.b.1.
The project shall be conditioned to comply with all applicable District
regulations pertaining to the control of fugitive dust (PM -10) as
contained in sections 6.3, 6.4 and 6.5 of the April 2003 Air Quality
Handbook.
Section 6.3: Construction Equipment
• Maintain all construction equipment in proper tune
according to manufacturer's specifications.
• Fuel all off-road and portable diesel powered
equipment, including but not limited to bulldozers,
graders, cranes, loaders, scrapers, backhoes,
generator sets, compressors, auxiliary power units,
with ARB certified motor vehicle diesel fuel (Non -taxed
version suitable for use off-road).
• Maximize to the extent feasible, the use of diesel
construction equipment meeting the ARB's 1996 or
newer certification standard for off-road heavy-duty
diesel engines.
Section 6.4: Activity Management Techniques
• Develop a comprehensive construction activity
management plan designed to minimize the amount of
large construction equipment operating during any
given time period.
• Schedule of construction truck trips during non -
peak hours to reduce peak hour emissions.
• Limit the length of the construction workday
period, if necessary.
• Phase construction activities, if appropriate.
Section 6.5: Fugitive PM10
All of the following measures shall be included on grading,
demolition and building plan notes:
A. Reduce the amount of the disturbed area where possible.
B. Use of water trucks or sprinkler systems in sufficient
quantities to prevent airborne dust from leaving the site.
Increased watering frequency would be required whenever
wind speeds exceed 15 mph. Reclaimed (non -potable)
water should be used whenever possible.
C. All dirt stockpile areas should be sprayed daily as needed.
D. Permanent dust control measures identified in the
04Y 13/10 PLN2009-1341. La Plaza CEQA 1S -MND
ITEM NUMBER
DATE: 4-20-10
& CITY OFATASCADERO
INITIAL STUDY
Exhibit A
Timing
Responsibility
Mitigation
Mitigation Monitoring Program
/Monitoring
Measure
GP. Grading Perml
PS: Planning Se—C
BP Mm Permit
BS: Budduy Serves
PLN 2009-1341 / CUP 2009-0244 La Plaza
To- Temponay 0ccvpancy
Fl. Final inspecaon
FD: Fin, Deparanenl
PD: Poke Depeftent
FO. find Occupancy
CE City Engineer
WW: Waslimlar
CA City Aftnay
AMC: Water Comp.
approved project re -vegetation and landscape plans should
be implemented as soon as possible following completion
of any soil disturbing activities.
E. Exposed ground areas that are planned to be reworked at
dates greater than one month after initial grading should be
sown with a fast -germinating native grass seed and
watered until vegetation is established.
F. All disturbed soil areas not subject to re -vegetation should
be stabilized using approved chemical soil binder, jute
netting, or other methods approved in advance by the
APCD.
G. All roadways, driveways, sidewalks, etc, to be paved
should be complete as soon as possible. In addition,
building pads should be laid as soon as possible after
grading unless seeding or soil binders are used.
H. Vehicle speed for all construction vehicles shall not exceed
15 mph on any unpaved surface at the construction site.
I. All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials
are to be covered or should maintain at least two feet of
freeboard (minimum vertical distance between top of load
and top of trailer) in accordance with CVC Section 23114.
J. Install wheel washers where vehicles enter and exit
unpaved roads onto streets, or wash off trucks and
equipment leaving the site.
K. Sweep streets at the end of each day if visible soil material
is carried onto adjacent paved roads. Water sweepers with
reclaimed water should be used where feasible.
L. The contractor or builder shall designate a person or
persons to monitor the dust control program and to order
increased watering, as necessary, to prevent transport of
dust off site. The name and telephone number of such
persons shall be provided to the APCD prior to land use
clearance for map recordation and land use clearance for
finish grading of any structure.
Mitigation 5.d.1: In the event that human remains are discovered on
BP
PS
SAA.
the property, all work on the project shall stop and the Atascadero
Police Department and the County Coroner shall be contacted. The
Atascadero Community Development Department shall be notified.
If the human remains are identified as being Native American, the
California Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) shall be
contacted at (916) 653-4082 within 24 hours. A representative from
both the Chumash Tribe and the Salinan Tribe shall be notified and
present during the excavation of any remains.
9.f.1. The project shall prepare a Storm Water Management Plan
BP
PS
9.f.1.
that incorporates Low Impact Development (LID) measures to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer.
04/13110 PLN2009-1341 La I'IU/8 CI.QA I", -`IND
ITEM NUMBER
DATE: 4-20-10
CITY OF ATASCADERO
INITIAL STUDY
Exhibit A
Timing
Responsibility
Mitigation
(Monitoring
Measure
Mitigation Monitoring Program
GP. Grading Pommt
PS. Ranning S --
8P Bmbug Penna
S& Binding S—s
PLN 2009-1341 / CUP 2009-0244 La Plaza
TO Tempmn O-pancr
FD: Am Department
R. Final inspection
PD: Poke Department
FO. Final Occupancy
CE Crty Engineer
WW: Wasimlar
CA Citi All -q
AMWC. WaWOomp.
9.f.2. The project shall prepare an Erosion and Sedimentation
BP
PS
9.f.2.
Control plan and shall submit a Storm Water Pollution Prevention
Plan (SWPPP) as part of the project grading plans.
04/1300 PLN 2009.1341. La Plaza CEQA IS -MND
ITEM NUMBER
DATE: 4-20-10
CITY OF ATASCADERO
INITIAL STUDY
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially alTected by this project, involving at least
one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
❑ Aesthetics
❑ Biological Resources
❑ Greenhouse Gas
Emissions
Land Use / Planning
❑ Population / Housing
Transportation/Traffic
❑ Agriculture and Forest
Resources
Cultural Resources
Air Quality
Geology /Soils
Hazards & Hazardous
Materials
❑
Mineral Resources
❑
Public Services
Utilities / Service Systems
Air Quality
Geology /Soils
Mandatory Findings of
Significance
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
❑ I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
® I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will
not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have
been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant effect' or "potentially significant
unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an
earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures
based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there
WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been
analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards
and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION,
including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project.
Warren Frace Date
04/13/10 PLN 2oos-134i. La Plaza CEQA IS -MND
Hydrology / Water
Quality
Noise
❑
Recreation
Mandatory Findings of
Significance
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
❑ I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
® I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will
not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have
been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant effect' or "potentially significant
unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an
earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures
based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there
WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been
analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards
and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION,
including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project.
Warren Frace Date
04/13/10 PLN 2oos-134i. La Plaza CEQA IS -MND
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL LNIPACTS:
ITEM NUMBER
DATE: 4-20-10
CITY OF ATASCADERO
INITIAL STUDY
1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the
information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is
adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to
projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be
explained where it is based on project -specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not
expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project -specific screening analysis).
2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as
well as project -level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.
3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers
must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than
significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be
significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an
EIR is required.
4) "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of
mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Than Significant
Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect
to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from "Earlier Analyses," as described in (5) below, may be
cross-referenced).
5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has
been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief
discussion should identify the following:
a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.
b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such
effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated,"
describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the
extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.
6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential
impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document
should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.
7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals
contacted should be cited in the discussion.
8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should
normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in
whatever format is selected.
9) The explanation of each issue should identify:
a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and
b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance.
04/13/10 PLN 2009-1341. La Plaza CEQA IS -MND
ITEM NUMBER
DATE: 4-20-10
CITY OF ATASCADERO
INITIAL STUDY
Initial Study 2010-0001
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant with Significant Impact
PLN 2009-1341 / CUP 2009-0244
Impact Mitigation Impact
❑
Incorporation
6320 — 6490 EI Camino Real
Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-
1. AESTHETICS -- Would the project:
of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
❑
❑
❑
Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not
El
El
0
Z
limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings
11
El N
Williamson Act contract?
within a state scenic highway?
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or
quality of the site and its surroundings?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare that
El
El
would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
SOURCES: Project Description;
DISCUSSION:
1.c. The project will consist of a 35 foot tall and 320 long building along US 101. Due to the existing vegetation
along the freeway the building will be partially screened from the freeway. The applicant is requesting a height
exception from the current 18 foot height limit. The purpose of the 18 foot height limit was to maintain a view corridor
between US 101 and the historic Atascadero Administration Building. Due to the size and height of the proposed
building there is a potential to degrade the visual character of the surrounding area.
Mitigation Measure 1.c.
The rear elevation of the building that is visible from US 101 shall include substantive architectural treatments and
materials.
2. AGRICULTURAL AND FOREST RESOURCES -- In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are
significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site
Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing
impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are
significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of
Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state's inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range
Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and the forest carbon measurement methodology
provided in the Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland
of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps
prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring
Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-
agricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a
El
11
El N
Williamson Act contract?
04/13n0 PLN2009-1341_La Plaza CEQA IS -MND
ITEM NUMBER: 2
DATE: 4-20-10
'05. CITY OF ATASCADERO
INITIAL STUDY
Initial Study 2010-0001
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
air quality plan?
Significant
Significant with
Significant
Impact
PLN 2009-1341 / CUP 2009-0244
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
El
to an existing or projected air quality violation?
land to non -forest use?
Incorporation
6320 — 6490 EI Camino Real
El
H
El
due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of,
r...,...# i....A i.,., A r...,.A :., o.. ki:,, o ............... �..a.... ,.6;,...
Farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land
12220(g)), timberland (as defined in Public Resources Code
El
El
El
section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production
air quality plan?
(as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))??
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially
El
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest
N
El
to an existing or projected air quality violation?
land to non -forest use?
e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which,
El
H
El
due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of
criteria pollutant for which the project region is non -
Farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land
attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air
to non -forest use?
quality standard (including releasing emissions that exceed
SOURCES: Project Description;
3. AIR QUALITY -- Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or
air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable
El
El
El
N
air quality plan?
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially
El
El
N
El
to an existing or projected air quality violation?
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any
El
H
El
El
criteria pollutant for which the project region is non -
attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air
quality standard (including releasing emissions that exceed
quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
El
El
El
E-21
concentrations?
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number
El
❑
❑117
of people?
SOURCES: Air Pollution Control District (APCD) CEQA Air Quality Handbook 2009; Project Description -
DISCUSSION:
3.a.c.) The Air Quality Handbook projects that a 40,000 square retail project will produce over 25 lbs/day of ROG +
NOx emissions which would have a significant effect on air quality. However, 33,000 sq ft of the project consists of a
movie theater which is not included in the APCD handbook, but it appears the theater would generate traffic similar to
a regional shopping center. The project is located in Downtown Atascadero and designed to encourage pedestrian
circulation, has no on-site parking and is near a regional transit stop. The project incorporates most of the APCD's
recommended urban design mitigation measures. No additional mitigation measures are proposed.
3.b.) Construction activities, including site grading, may produce small quantities of air pollution, including dust and
equipment exhaust. Any air quality impacts will be temporary and short term. The project shall be conditioned to
comply with all applicable District regulations pertaining to the control of fugitive dust (PM -10) as contained in sections
6.3, 6.4 and 6.5 of the April 2003 Air Quality Handbook.
04/13/10 Page 2
PLN 2009-1341 La Plaza Cl -"QA IS -MN))
ITEM NUMBER
DATE: 4-20-10
-". CITY OF ATASCADERO
�,,�,,;
" � INITIAL STUDY
Initial Study 2010-0001 Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant with Significant Impact
PLN 2009-1341 / CUP 2009-0244 Impact Mitigation Impact
6320 —6490 EI Camino Real Incorporation
Mitigation Measure 3.b.1: The project shall be conditioned to comply with all applicable District regulations pertaining
to the control of fugitive dust (PM -10) as contained in sections 6.3, 6.4 and 6.5 of the April 2003 Air Quality Handbook.
Section 6.3: Construction Equipment
• Maintain all construction equipment in proper tune according to manufacturer's specifications.
• Fuel all off-road and portable diesel powered equipment, including but not limited to bulldozers,
graders, cranes, loaders, scrapers, backhoes, generator sets, compressors, auxiliary power units, with
ARB certified motor vehicle diesel fuel (Non -taxed version suitable for use off-road).
• Maximize to the extent feasible, the use of diesel construction equipment meeting the ARB's 1996
or newer certification standard for off-road heavy-duty diesel engines.
Section 6.4: Activity Management Techniques
• Develop a comprehensive construction activity management plan designed to minimize the amount
of large construction equipment operating during any given time period.
• Schedule of construction truck trips during non -peak hours to reduce peak hour emissions.
• Limit the length of the construction workday period, if necessary.
• Phase construction activities, if appropriate.
Section 6.5: Fugitive PM 10
All of the following measures shall be included on grading, demolition and building plan notes:
M. Reduce the amount of the disturbed area where possible.
N. Use of water trucks or sprinkler systems in sufficient quantities to prevent airborne dust from leaving the site.
Increased watering frequency would be required whenever wind speeds exceed 15 mph. Reclaimed (non -
potable) water should be used whenever possible.
O. All dirt stockpile areas should be sprayed daily as needed.
P. Permanent dust control measures identified in the approved project re -vegetation and landscape plans
should be implemented as soon as possible following completion of any soil disturbing activities.
Q. Exposed ground areas that are planned to be reworked at dates greater than one month after initial grading
should be sown with a fast -germinating native grass seed and watered until vegetation is established.
R. All disturbed soil areas not subject to re -vegetation should be stabilized using approved chemical soil binder,
jute netting, or other methods approved in advance by the APCD.
S. All roadways, driveways, sidewalks, etc, to be paved should be complete as soon as possible. In addition,
building pads should be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used.
T. Vehicle speed for all construction vehicles shall not exceed 15 mph on any unpaved surface at the
construction site.
U. All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials are to be covered or should maintain at least two
feet of freeboard (minimum vertical distance between top of load and top of trailer) in accordance with CVC
Section 23114.
V. Install wheel washers where vehicles enter and exit unpaved roads onto streets, or wash off trucks and
equipment leaving the site.
W. Sweep streets at the end of each day if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent paved roads. Water
sweepers with reclaimed water should be used where feasible.
X. The contractor or builder shall designate a person or persons to monitor the dust control program and to
order increased watering, as necessary, to prevent transport of dust off site. The name and telephone
number of such persons shall be provided to the APCD prior to land use clearance for map recordation and
land use clearance for finish grading of any structure.
4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES -- Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or
through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a
candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or
Page 3
04113/10 PLN 2009-1341. La Plaza CEQA IS -MND
ITEM NUMBER: 2
DATE: 4-20-10
CITY OF ATASCADERO
INITIAL STUDY
Initial Study 2010-0001 Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant with Significant Impact
PLN 2009-1341 / CUP 2009-0244 Impact Mitigation Impact
6320 — 6490 EI Camino Real Incorporation
regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of
Service?
a historical resource as defined in '15064.5?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of
or other sensitive natural community identified in local or
regional plans, policies, or regulations or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological
Service?
resource or site or unique geologic feature?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred
wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
Z
El
El
(including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal,
etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption,
or other means?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native
resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with
established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or
impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting
biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
1:1
NZ
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan,
or other approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
SOURCES: Project Description;
DISCUSSION:
4.a -f: The site is a previously urbanized area in the middle of Downtown Atascadero. There will be no
biological
impacts resulting from the project.
5. CULTURAL RESOURCES -- Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of
a historical resource as defined in '15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of
an archaeological resource pursuant to '15064.5?
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological
resource or site or unique geologic feature?
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred
El
Z
El
El
outside of formal cemeteries?
SOURCES: Project description;
DISCUSSION:
5.d. The site has been previously developed and therefore the presence of human remains is considered to be
very unlikelv.
04/13110 Page 4
PLN 2009•1341. La Plaza CEQA IS -MND
ITEM NUMBER: 2
DATE: 4-20-10
j CITY OF ATASCADERO
INITIAL STUDY
Initial Study 2010-0001 Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant with Significant Impact
PLN 2009-1341 / CUP 2009-0244 Impact Mitigation Impact
6320 — 6490 EI Camino Real Incorporation
Mitigation 5.d.1: In the event that human remains are discovered on the property, all work on the project shall stop
and the Atascadero Police Department and the County Coroner shall be contacted. The Atascadero Community
Development Department shall be notified. If the human remains are identified as being Native American, the
California Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) shall be contacted at (916) 653-4082 within 24 hours. A
representative from both the Chumash Tribe and the Salinan Tribe shall be notified and present during the excavation
of any remains.
6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS -- Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial
❑
❑
❑
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death
involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated
❑
❑
1:1on
the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault
Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area
or based on other substantial evidence of a known
fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
❑
❑
❑
17
iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
iv) Landslides?
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or
that would become unstable as a result of the project, and
potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral
spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B
of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial
risks to life or property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of
septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems
where sewers are not available for the disposal of
wastewater?
SOURCES: Project Description;
04113/10 Page 5
PUN 20os-1341 La Plaza CEQA IS -MND
ITEM NUMBER: 2
DATE: 4-20-10
�-
CITY OF ATASCADERO
INITIAL STUDY
Initial Study 2010-0001 Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant with Significant Impact
PLN 2009-1341 / CUP 2009-0244 Impact Mitigation Impact
6320 — 6490 EI Camino Real Incorporation
DISCUSSION:
6.a. The project site is in the vicinity of Atascadero Creek and is an area known to experience liquefaction. The
project will be required under the IBC standards to prepare soils reports and structural engineering reports to address
this issue, no additional mitigation is required.
7. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS -- Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or
indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the El 0 El
environment?
b) Conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of
an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the
emissions of greenhouse gases?
SOURCES: Project description; General Plan; Land Use Element EIR;
DISCUSSION:
7.a. The project will not generate greenhouse gas emissions directly or indirectly that will have a significant impact on
the environment. The site is a commercial infill site in the city center. The project is consistent with the SLOCOG
2050 Blueprint that encourages infill development around historic downtown areas.
7.b. The General Plan anticipates a commercial development to be constructed on the subject parcel. The new
commercial development is consistent with City and regional plans, policies, and regulations, regarding reduction of
emissions of greenhouse gases. The project will be located in the Downtown close to transit stops and in an area
designed to encourage pedestrian circulation.
8. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS -- Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal
❑
❑
❑
of hazardous materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-
quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government
Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a
significant hazard to the public or the environment?
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan area
or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two
miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the
04/13/10 Page 6
ai.ry 2009-1341 La Plaza C'LQA IS -MND
ITEM NUMBER: 2
DATE: 4-20-10
CITYOFATASCADERO
INITIAL STUDY
nitial Study 2010-0001 Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant with Significant Impact
ALN 2009-1341 / CUP 2009-0244 Impact Mitigation Impact
1320 — 6490 EI Camino Real Incorporation
)roject result in a safety hazard for people living or working
in the project area?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would
❑
❑
❑
the project result in a safety hazard for people living or
working in the project area?
11
El
11substantially
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an
❑
❑
❑
adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,
❑
❑
❑
injury or death involving wildland fires, including where
wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where
residences are intermixed with wildlands?
❑
❑
1:1or
SOURCES: Project Description,
9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY -- Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge
❑
❑
❑
requirements?
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere
11
El
11substantially
with groundwater recharge such that there
would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the
local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of
previously -existing nearby wells would drop to a level that
would not support existing land uses or planned uses for
which permits have been granted)?
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site
❑
❑
1:1or
area, including through the alteration of the course of a
stream or river, in a manner which would result in
substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site?
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site
❑
❑
1:1or
area, including through the alteration of the course of a
stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount
of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding
on- or off-site?
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the
❑
1:1
®
1:1capacity
of existing or planned storm water drainage
systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted
runoff?
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
❑
®
❑
❑
g) Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as
❑
❑
❑
mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood
Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map?
04113/10 Page 7
aua zaoa13a1.0a Plaza C L:QA IS -MND
ITEM NUMBER
DATE: 4-20-10
N. X 1- " CITY OF ATASCADERO
INITIAL STUDY
Initial Study 2010-0001 Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant with Significant Impact
PLN 2009-1341 / CUP 2009-0244 Impact mitigation Impact
6320 — 6490 EI Camino Real Incorporation
h) Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures that ❑ ❑ ® ❑
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, ❑ ❑ ❑
injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a
result of the failure of a levee or dam?
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? ❑ ❑ ❑
SOURCES: Project Description; City GIS Mapping
DISCUSSION:
9e,f. The project is located near Atascadero Creek and will drain storm water into the creek through the City's
storm drainage system. Since the existing site has been developed and nearly 100% paved for over 50 years, there
will be no increase storm water flows associated with the project. Without mitigation, the project has the potential to
degrade the quality of water discharged into Atascadero Creek.
9.h. The project is approximately 250 feet outside of the Atascadero Creek 100 year flood plain.
Mitigation Measure
9.f.1. The project shall prepare a Storm Water
Management Plan that incorporates Low Impact Development (LID) measures to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer.
9.f.2. The project shall prepare an Erosion and Sedimentation Control plan and shall submit a Storm Water
Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) as part of the project grading plans..
10. LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community?
❑
❑
❑
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or
❑
1:1
®
1:1regulation
of an agency with jurisdiction over the project
(including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan,
local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the
purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or
community conservation plan?
El
El
Elnatural
SOURCES: Project Description; Atascadero General Plan, Atascadero Zoning Ordinance
DISCUSSION:
10.b. The project is requesting a waiver from the height limitations of the zoning ordinance. The Planning
Commission has discretion to grant this request under the zoning ordinance. No mitigation required.
11. MINERAL RESOURCES --Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral ❑ ❑ ❑
resource that would be of value to the region and the
Pa e 8
04113110 9 PLN 2009-1341. La Plaza CL -QA IS -MND
ITEM NUMBER: 2
DATE: 4-20-10
s
CITY OF ATASCADERO
INITIAL STUDY
Initial Study 2010-0001 Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant with Significant Impact
PLN 2009-1341 / CUP 2009-0244 Impact mitigation Impact
6320 — 6490 EI Camino Real Incorporation
residents of the state?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally -important
mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general F] rFll
plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
SOURCES: Project Description;
12. NOISE -- Would the project result in:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in
directly (for example, by proposing new homes and
excess of standards established in the local general plan or
businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of
noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
roads or other infrastructure)?
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive
necessitating the construction of replacement housing
ground -borne vibration or ground -borne noise levels?
elsewhere?
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the
in the project vicinity above levels existing without the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
project?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient
noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or,
where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of
a public airport or public use airport, would the project
expose people residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
0 For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would
the project expose people living or working in the project
area to excessive noise levels?
SOURCES: Project Description;
13. POPULATION AND HOUSING -- Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either
directly (for example, by proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of
roads or other infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
SOURCES: Project Description;
0413„0 Page 9
PLN 2009-1341. La Plaza CEQA IS -MND
ITEM NUMBER: 2
DATE: 4-20-10
s -' CITY OF ATASCADERO
INITIAL STUDY
Initial Study 2010-0001
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant with Significant Impact
PLN 2009-1341 / CUP 2009-0244
Impact Mitigation Impact
6320 — 6490 EI Camino Real
Incorporation
14. PUBLIC SERVICES -- Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with
the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered
governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to
maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public
services:
Fire protection?
facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the
Police protection?
❑
Schools?
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require
❑
Parks?
the construction or expansion of recreational facilities that
❑
Other public facilities?
❑
❑
❑
SOURCES: Project Description;
DISCUSSION:
The project will be required to pay capital facility fees, park fees and school fees at the time of building permit to offset
impact on these services.
15. RECREATION --
a) Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational
facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the
facility would occur or be accelerated?
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require
the construction or expansion of recreational facilities that
might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
SOURCES: Project Description;
16. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC -- Would the project:
a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy
establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance
of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of
transportation including mass transit and non -motorized
04/13/10 Page 10
PLN 2009-1341. Le Plaza CEQA IS -MND
ITEM NUMBER: 2
DATE: 4-20-10
17. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS --Would the project:
}F
applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?
CITY OF ATASCADERO
b) Require or result in the construction of new water or
INITIAL STUDY
wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing
Initial Study 2010-0001
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant with
Significant
Impact
PLN 2009-1341 / CUP 2009-0244
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
6320 — 6490 EI Camino Real
Incorporation
drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the
travel and relevant components of the circulation system,
construction of which could cause significant environmental
including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways
effects?
and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the
transit?
project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new
b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management
or expanded entitlements needed?
program, including, but not limited to level of service
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment
standards and travel demand measures, or other standards
provider that serves or may serve the project that it has
established by the county congestion management agency
adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand
for designated roads or highways?
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either
an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that
results in substantial safety risks?
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature
(e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
e) Result in inadequate emergency access?
❑
f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs
regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or
otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such
facilities?
SOURCES: Project Description; February 18, 2010 La Plaza Traffic Study (ATE)
DISCUSSION:
16.a Associate Transportation Engineers (ATE) prepared a traffic and circulation
study for the project.
The study
determined that the project would not have a significant impact on and of the surrounding streets or intersections. All
intersections would remain at LOS C or better.
17. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS --Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the
applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?
b) Require or result in the construction of new water or
wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water
drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant environmental
effects?
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the
project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new
or expanded entitlements needed?
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment
provider that serves or may serve the project that it has
adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand
Page 11
04)13110 PLN 2009-1341. La Plaza CEQA IS -MND
ITEM NUMBER
DATE: 4-20-10
A,,ix\_
-- CITY OF ATASCADERO
INITIAL STUDY
Initial Study 2010-0001 Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant with Significant Impact
PLN 2009-1341 / CUP 2009-0244 Impact Mitigation Impact
6320 — 6490 EI Camino Real Incorporation
in addition to the provider's existing commitments?
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to
or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop
accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs?
animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and
important examples of the major periods of California history
regulations related to solid waste?
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually
SOURCES: Project Description;
18. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE --
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality
of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish
or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop
below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range
of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate
important examples of the major periods of California history
or prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively
considerable" means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in connection with the
effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects,
and the effects of probable future projects)?
c) Does the project have environmental effects that will
cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly?
d) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term
environmental goals to the disadvantage of long term
environmental goals?
SOURCES: Project Description;
SOURCES:
Atascadero GIS mapping system
General Plan Land Use Element, City of Atascadero. 2002
Zoning Ordinance, part of Municipal Code, City of Atascadero, as amended through 1999.
Land Use Element Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Crawford, Multari, & Clark, adopted 2002
CEQA Handbook, Air Quality Control District, August 1995
General Plan Safety Element, City of Atascadero, 2002
General Plan Circulation Element, 2002
General Plan Noise Element, adopted 2002
Acoustical Design Manual, Brown-Buntin Associates, 1991
Noise Ordinance, City of Atascadero, 1992
Flood Insurance Rate Maps
Trip Generation, Institute of Traffic Engineers
February 18, 2010 La Plaza Traffic and Circulation Study, ATE
Project Description / file information
04/13/10 Page 12
PLN zooa1341.La Plaza C'EQA IS -MND
ITEM NUMBER: 2
DATE: 4-20-10
ATTACHMENT 7: Draft Resolution PC 2010-0011
PLN 2009-1341
DRAFT
RESOLUTION PC 2010-0011
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF ATASCADERO APPROVING
PLN 2009-1341 / CUP 2009-02449
TO ALLOW A 399680± SQUARE FOOT BUILDING
CONTAINING A 10 SCREEN MOVIE THEATRE, RETAIL SPACE
AND SIT DOWN RESTAURANT
WITH A HEIGHT WAIVER EXCEPTION REQUEST AND
A TREE REMOVAL PERMIT
(HOFF / WYSONG)
WHEREAS, an application was received from Larry M. Wysong, 7025 Morro Road,
Atascadero, CA, 93422, (Applicant), and Ben Hoff LLC, PO Box 928, Atascadero, CA, 93422
(Property Owner) for a Conditional Use Permit to allow to allow a 39,680± square foot building
containing a 10 Screen Movie Theatre (33,000± sf), retail space (2350± sf), and sit down
restaurant (4330± sf) on a 1.5± acre site, with a height waiver exception request, and a tree
removal permit for one 6 -inch White Oak; and,
WHEREAS, the proposed project has a General Plan Designation of Downtown (D) and
is in conformance with the Land Use Element of the General Plan and all other applicable
General Plan policies; and,
WHEREAS, the site is located in the Downtown Commercial (DC) Zone, which allows
for the proposed use; and,
WHEREAS, a Conditional Use Permit is required to allow an movie theater in the DC
zone; and,
WHEREAS, a proposed mitigated negative declaration was prepared and circulated for
the project; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing to consider the
proposed Conditional Use Permit application on April 20, 2010, at 7:00 p.m. and considered
testimony and reports from staff, the applicants, and the public.
NOW THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Atascadero takes the
following actions:
ITEM NUMBER: 2
DATE: 4-20-10
SECTION 1. Findings for Certification of the Proposed Mitigated Negative
Declaration. The Planning Commission finds as follows:
1. The project does not have the potential to degrade the environment when mitigation
measures are incorporated into the project's mitigation monitoring program as
conditions of approval; and,
2. The project will not achieve short-term to the disadvantage of long term
environmental goals; and,
3. The project does not have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable; and,
4. The project will not cause substantial adverse effects on human beings either directly
or indirectly.
SECTION 2. Findings for approval of Conditional Use Permit. The Planning
Commission finds as follows:
1. The proposed project or use is consistent with the General Plan and the City's
Appearance Review Manual; and,
2. The proposed project or use satisfies all applicable provisions of the Title (Zoning
Ordinance); and,
3. Due to the size and configuration of the lot, the establishment, and subsequent use of
the additional accessory structures will not, because of the circumstances and
conditions applied in the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, or
welfare of the general public or persons residing or working in the neighborhood of
the use, or be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity of
the use; and,
4. That the proposed additional accessory structures will not be inconsistent with the
character or the immediate neighborhood or contrary to its orderly development; and,
5. That the proposed accessory structures will not generate a volume of traffic beyond
the safe capacity of all roads providing access to the project, either existing or to be
improved in conjunction with the project, or beyond the normal traffic volume of the
surrounding neighborhood that would result from full development in accordance
with the Land Use Element.
SECTION 3. Findings for approval of Exception of Height Limitations consistent
with Section 9-4.113. The Planning Commission finds as follows:
1. The project will not result in substantial detrimental effects on the enjoyment and use
of adjoining properties; and,
ITEM NUMBER: 2
DATE: 4-20-10
2. The modified height will not exceed the lifesaving equipment capabilities of the Fire
Department.
SECTION 4. Findings for Approval of Tree Removal Permit. The Planning
Commission finds as follows:
1. The tree is obstructing proposed improvements that cannot be reasonably designed to
avoid the need for tree removal, as certified by a report from the site planner and
determined by the Community Development Department based on the following
factors:
a. Early consultation with the City,
b. Consideration of practical design alternatives,
SECTION 5. Recommendation of Approval. The Planning Commission of the City of
Atascadero, in a regular session assembled on April 20, 2010, resolved to recommend that the
City Council approve Conditional Use Permit 2009-0244 with a height waiver and tree removal
permit, subject to the following:
EXHIBIT A:
Conditions of Approval
EXHIBIT B:
Site Plan, Landscape Plan, and Floor Plan
EXHIBIT C-1:
Elevations
EXHIBIT C-2:
Architectural Rendering
ITEM NUMBER: 2
DATE: 4-20-10
On motion by Commissioner , and seconded by Commissioner
, the foregoing resolution is hereby adopted in its entirety by the
following roll call vote:
AYES: ( )
NOES: ( )
ABSENT: ( )
ABSTAINED: ( )
ADOPTED: April 20, 2010
CITY OF ATASCADERO, CA
Heather Moreno
Planning Commission Chairperson
ATTEST:
Warren Frace
Planning Commission Secretary
ITEM NUMBER
DATE: 4-20-10
EXHIBIT A: Conditions of Approval
PLN 2009-1341 / CUP 2009-0244 La Plaza Theater
Exhibit A
Timing
Responsibility
Mitigation
Conditions of Approval / Mitigation Monitoring Program
/Monitoring
Measure
GP: Grading Permit
PS: Planning Services
PLN 2009-1341 / CUP 2009-0244 La Plaza Theater
BP: Building Permit
TO: TemporaryOccupancy
BS: Building Services
FD: Fire Department
FI: Final inspection
PD: Police Department
F0: Final Occupancy
CE: City Engineer
WW: Wastewater
CA: City Attorney
Planning Conditions
1. The approval of this application shall become final, subject to the
PS
completion of the conditions of approval, fourteen (14) days
following the Planning Commission approval unless prior to the
time, an appeal to the decision is filed as set forth in Section 9-
1.111(b) of the Zoning Ordinance.
2. This Conditional Use Permit shall be for:
BP
PS
a 39,680± square foot building containing a 10 Screen
Movie Theatre (33,000± sf), retail space (2350± sf), and sit
down restaurant (4330± sf) regardless of owner.
3. The Community Development Department shall have the
BP
PS
authority to approve the following minor changes to the project
that (1) modify the site plan project by less than 10%, and/or (2)
result in a superior site design or appearance.
4. Approval of this Conditional Use Permit shall be valid for twenty-
BP
PS
four (24) months after its effective date. At the end of the period,
the approval shall expire and become null and void unless the
project has received a building permit or a time extension has
been granted.
5. The applicant and/or subsequent owners shall defend, indemnify,
On going
PS
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
proposed development.
6. A lot line adjustment shall be recorded prior to the issuance of
BP
PS
any permits for the conversion of Building 2 to a residential
studio to correct a historic lot boundary conflict.
7. The project shall provide in perpetuity, 46 off street parking
BP
PS
spaces within 500 feet of the project site. Six (6) of the spaces
shall be code compliant handicapped accessible parking
spaces. Parking spaces may be provided off site with long term
lease or easement agreements.
8. A passenger loading zone shall be provided along the EI
BP
PS
Camino Real frontage of the theater.
9. An exception to the height limitations of the Downtown
BP
PS
Commercial zoning district shall be allowed to permit structure
heights as shown on Exhibit C-1.
ITEM NUMBER
DATE: 4-20-10
Exhibit A
Timing
Responsibility
Mitigation
Conditions of Approval / Mitigation Monitoring Program
/Monitoring
Measure
GP: Grading Permit
PS: Planning Services
PLN 2009-1341 / CUP 2009-0244 La Plaza Theater
BP: Building Permit
TO: TemporaryOccupancy
BS: Building Services
FD: Fire Department
FI: Final inspection
PD: Police Department
F0: Final Occupancy
CE: City Engineer
WW: Wastewater
CA: City Attorney
10. Final approval of architectural elevations, colors, materials, and
BP
PS
signs shall be made by the Planning Commission consistent
with the character of the elevations shown on Exhibit C-1 and
C-2.
11. Northwest elevation shall include additional architectural
BP
PS
treatment consistent with the Downtown Design Guidelines
12. The rear elevation of the building that is visible from US 101
BP
PS
shall include substantive architectural treatments and materials
(Mitigation Measure 1.c
13. Final approval of site landscaping, plant material, streetscape,
BP
PS
hardscape and site furniture shall be approved by the Planning
Commission concurrently with architectural review and
consistent with Exhibit B.
14. Complete grading, drainage, utility, storm water management
BP
PS
plans with low impact development features and handicapped
accessibility plans shall be submitted at time of building permit.
15. A decorative and transparent, tubular metal type fence shall be
BP
PS
provided between the restaurant and freeway property line to
discourage loitering behind the building. The fence may be
required to include an emergency exiting gate with panic
hardware.
16. Prior to building permit issuance, a tree mitigation fee of $200
BP
PS
shall be paid for the removal of one 6 -inch white oak tree.
City Engineer Project Conditions
17. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall obtain a
FM
CE
road abandonment for the portion of Atascadero Avenue
overlying 030-193-003. The applicant shall grant back to the City
a public access easement covering the portion of the lot that will
be used for public ingress and egress.
18. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall extinguish
FM
CE
1) an easement (88 -OR -114) for road purposes recorded May 22,
1930, shown on Parcel Map CO -68-61 and 2) a landscape
easement granted to the City of Atascadero. The applicant shall
grant back to the City a public access easement covering the
portion of the road easement that will be used for public ingress
and egress.
19. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall file for
FM
CE
and obtain a lot merger for all parcels affected by the project.
20. Per municipal code section 9-4.160, the developer shall submit
GP, BP
CE
plans for streetscape improvements across the EI Camino Real
property frontage to a width of 1/2 the roadway plus 10'. All
frontage improvements shall be designed in accordance with the
City Council approved streetscape elements and to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer.
ITEM NUMBER
DATE: 4-20-10
Exhibit A
Timing
Responsibility
Mitigation
Conditions of Approval / Mitigation Monitoring Program
/Monitoring
Measure
GP: Grading Permit
PS: Planning Services
PLN 2009-1341 / CUP 2009-0244 La Plaza Theater
BP: Building Permit
TO: TemporaryOccupancy
BS: Building Services
FD: Fire Department
FI: Final inspection
PD: Police Department
F0: Final Occupancy
CE: City Engineer
WW: Wastewater
CA: City Attorney
21. The applicant shall design and construct a pedestrian
GP, BP
CE
pathway/sidewalk from the US101 pedestrian tunnel, north along
the Caltrans' right-of-way and along the project frontage on
Atascadero Avenue to the City Engineer's satisfaction.
22. The applicant shall relocate all public and private utilities that
GP, BP
CE
conflict with the proposed project. The applicant shall provide
easements for the relocated utilities if required by the owners.
23. The applicant shall incorporate storm water low Impact
GP, BP
CE
development design elements, as part of the project, to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer.
City Engineer Standard Conditions
24. In the event that the applicant bonds for the public improvements
GP, BP
CE
required in these conditions of approval, the applicant shall enter
into an improvement Agreement with the City.
25. An engineer's estimate of probable cost shall be submitted for
GP, BP
CE
review and approval by the City Engineer to determine the
amount of the bond.
26. The Improvement Agreement shall record prior to the issuance of
GP, BP
CE
building permits.
27. The applicant shall acquire title interest in any off-site land that
GP, BP
CE
may be required to allow for the construction of the onsite or
offsite improvements. The applicant shall bear all costs
associated with the necessary acquisitions. The applicant shall
also gain concurrence from all adjacent property owners whose
ingress and egress is affected by these improvements.
28. Drainage easements shall be obtained by the applicant as
GP, BP
CE
needed to accommodate both public and private drainage
facilities.
29. Prior to building permit issuance, the applicant shall bond all
FM
CE
public improvements required by these conditions of approval.
30. Prior to recording the lot merger parcel map, the applicant shall
FM
CE
submit a copy of a valid tax bond. This may be waived by the City
Engineer if a tax bond is not required by the County of San Luis
Obispo for recording purposes.
31. All existing and proposed utility, pipeline, open space, or other
FM
CE
easements are to be shown on the lot merger map. If there are
building or other restrictions related to the easements, they shall
be noted on the parcel map. The applicant shall show all access
ITEM NUMBER
DATE: 4-20-10
Exhibit A
Timing
Responsibility
Mitigation
Conditions of Approval / Mitigation Monitoring Program
/Monitoring
Measure
GP: Grading Permit
PS: Planning Services
PLN 2009-1341 / CUP 2009-0244 La Plaza Theater
BP: Building Permit
TO: TemporaryOccupancy
BS: Building Services
FD: Fire Department
FI: Final inspection
PD: Police Department
F0: Final Occupancy
CE: City Engineer
WW: Wastewater
CA: City Attorney
restrictions on the parcel map.
32. Prior to recording the lot merger parcel map, the applicant shall
FM
CE
have the map reviewed by all applicable public and private utility
companies (cable, telephone, gas, electric, Atascadero Mutual
Water Company). The applicant shall obtain a letter from each
utility company indicating their review of the map. The letter shall
identify any new easements that may be required by the utility
company. A copy of the letter shall be submitted to the City. New
easements shall be shown on the lot merger parcel map.
33. Prior to the issuance of building permits the applicant shall submit
GP, BP
CE
plans and supporting calculations/reports including street
improvements, underground utilities, composite utilities, and
grading/drainage plans prepared by a registered civil engineer for
review and approval by the City Engineer.
34. Prior to the issuance of building permits the applicant shall submit
GP, BP
CE
calculations to support the design of any structures or pipes.
Closed conduits shall be designed to convey the 10 -year flow with
gravity flow, the 25 -year flow with head, and provide safe
conveyance for the 100 -year overflow.
35. Prior to the issuance of building permits the applicant shall show
GP, BP
CE
method of conduct to approved off-site drainage facilities.
36. Concentrated drainage from off-site areas shall be conveyed
GP, BP
CE
across the project site in drainage easements to the satisfaction
of the City Engineer. Acquire drainage easements where needed.
Drainage shall cross lot lines only where a drainage easement
has been provided. If drainage easement cannot be obtained the
storm water release must follow the exact historic path, rate and
velocity as prior to the subdivision.
37. Applicant shall submit erosion control plans and a Storm Water
GP, BP
CE
Pollution Prevention Plan (if the area of disturbance is greater
than an acre.)
38. All public improvements shall be constructed in conformance with
GP, BP
CE
the City of Atascadero Engineering Department Standard
Specifications and Drawings, City Council approved streetscape
design elements or as directed by the City Engineer
39. Alignment of frontage improvements shall be approved by the
GP, BP
CE
City Engineer.
40. A mechanism to provide for the funding of maintenance for
GP, BP
CE
lighting, street improvements, special paving surfaces, sewer,
storm drain, common area landscape, open space, and
ITEM NUMBER
DATE: 4-20-10
Exhibit A
Timing
Responsibility
Mitigation
Conditions of Approval / Mitigation Monitoring Program
/Monitoring
Measure
GP: Grading Permit
PS: Planning Services
PLN 2009-1341 / CUP 2009-0244 La Plaza Theater
BP: Building Permit
TO: TemporaryOccupancy
BS: Building Services
FD: Fire Department
FI: Final inspection
PD: Police Department
F0: Final Occupancy
CE: City Engineer
WW: Wastewater
CA: City Attorney
hardscape shall be provided.
41. All utilities shall be undergrounded on project frontage
GP, BP
CE
42. Applicant shall pay sewer extension (Annexation), Connection
BP
CE
and Reimbursement fees (if applicable) upon issuance of building
permit.
Mitigation Measures
BP
PS
1.0
Mitigation Measure 1.c.
The rear elevation of the building that is visible from US 101 shall
include substantive architectural treatments and materials.
Mitigation Measure 3.b.1:
BP
PS
3.b.1.
The project shall be conditioned to comply with all applicable District
regulations pertaining to the control of fugitive dust (PM -10) as
contained in sections 6.3, 6.4 and 6.5 of the April 2003 Air Quality
Handbook.
Section 6.3: Construction Equipment
• Maintain all construction equipment in proper tune
according to manufacturer's specifications.
• Fuel all off-road and portable diesel powered
equipment, including but not limited to bulldozers,
graders, cranes, loaders, scrapers, backhoes,
generator sets, compressors, auxiliary power units,
with ARB certified motor vehicle diesel fuel (Non -taxed
version suitable for use off-road).
• Maximize to the extent feasible, the use of diesel
construction equipment meeting the ARB's 1996 or
newer certification standard for off-road heavy-duty
diesel engines.
Section 6.4: Activity Management Techniques
• Develop a comprehensive construction activity
management plan designed to minimize the amount of
large construction equipment operating during any
given time period.
• Schedule of construction truck trips during non -peak
hours to reduce peak hour emissions.
• Limit the length of the construction workday period, if
necessary.
• Phase construction activities, if appropriate.
Section 6.5: Fugitive PM10
All of the following measures shall be included on grading,
demolition and building plan notes:
A. Reduce the amount of the disturbed area where possible.
ITEM NUMBER
DATE: 4-20-10
Exhibit A
Conditions of Approval / Mitigation Monitoring Program
PLN 2009-1341 / CUP 2009-0244 La Plaza Theater
Timing
GP: Grading Permit
BP: Building Permit
T0: Temporary Occupancy
FI: Final inspection
F0: Final Occupancy
Responsibility
/Monitoring
PS: Planning Services
BS: Building Services
FD: Fire Department
PD: Police Department
CE: City Engineer
WW: Wastewater
CA: City Attorney
Mitigation
Measure
B. Use of water trucks or sprinkler systems in sufficient
quantities to prevent airborne dust from leaving the site.
Increased watering frequency would be required whenever
wind speeds exceed 15 mph. Reclaimed (non -potable)
water should be used whenever possible.
C. All dirt stockpile areas should be sprayed daily as needed.
D. Permanent dust control measures identified in the
approved project re -vegetation and landscape plans should
be implemented as soon as possible following completion
of any soil disturbing activities.
E. Exposed ground areas that are planned to be reworked at
dates greater than one month after initial grading should be
sown with a fast -germinating native grass seed and
watered until vegetation is established.
F. All disturbed soil areas not subject to re -vegetation should
be stabilized using approved chemical soil binder, jute
netting, or other methods approved in advance by the
APCD.
G. All roadways, driveways, sidewalks, etc, to be paved
should be complete as soon as possible. In addition,
building pads should be laid as soon as possible after
grading unless seeding or soil binders are used.
H. Vehicle speed for all construction vehicles shall not exceed
15 mph on any unpaved surface at the construction site.
I. All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials
are to be covered or should maintain at least two feet of
freeboard (minimum vertical distance between top of load
and top of trailer) in accordance with CVC Section 23114.
J. Install wheel washers where vehicles enter and exit
unpaved roads onto streets, or wash off trucks and
equipment leaving the site.
K. Sweep streets at the end of each day if visible soil material
is carried onto adjacent paved roads. Water sweepers with
reclaimed water should be used where feasible.
L. The contractor or builder shall designate a person or
persons to monitor the dust control program and to order
increased watering, as necessary, to prevent transport of
dust off site. The name and telephone number of such
persons shall be provided to the APCD prior to land use
clearance for map recordation and land use clearance for
finish grading of any structure.
Mitigation 5.d.1: In the event that human remains are discovered on
BP
PS
5.d.1.
the property, all work on the project shall stop and the Atascadero
Police Department and the County Coroner shall be contacted. The
Atascadero Community Development Department shall be notified.
If the human remains are identified as being Native American, the
California Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) shall be
contacted at (916) 653-4082 within 24 hours. A representative from
both the Chumash Tribe and the Salinan Tribe shall be notified and
present during the excavation of any remains.
ITEM NUMBER
DATE: 4-20-10
Exhibit A
Timing
Responsibility
Mitigation
Conditions of Approval / Mitigation Monitoring Program
/Monitoring
Measure
GP: Grading Permit
PS: Planning Services
PLN 2009-1341 / CUP 2009-0244 La Plaza Theater
BP: Building Permit
TO: Temporary Occupancy
BS: Building Services
FD: Fire Department
FI: Final inspection
PD: Police Department
F0: Final Occupancy
CE: City Engineer
WW: Wastewater
CA: City Attorney
9.f.1. The project shall prepare a Storm Water Management Plan
BP
PS
9J.1.
that incorporates Low Impact Development (LID) measures to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer.
9.f.2. The project shall prepare an Erosion and Sedimentation
BP
PS
9J.2.
Control plan and shall submit a Storm Water Pollution Prevention
Plan (SWPPP) as part of the project grading plans.
ITEM NUMBER: 2
DATE: 4-20-10
EXHIBIT B: Site Plan, Landscape Plan and Floor Plan - 6490 EI Camino Real
EL CANWO REAL
HOFF PROPERTY
AUD 7 AUD 8 AUG 9 A..D
"TAIL I RETAIL
1-1
"RVE
m m m u
EWAI�
This is a conceptual
landscape plan.
Final approval of site
landscaping, plant
material, streetscape,
hardscape and site
furniture shall be
approved by the
Planning Commission
concurrently with
architectural review.
moi✓
o Io 40
L
Prior to the issuance of building
permits, all existing property lines
that conflict with proposed buildings
shall be merged or adjusted to
eliminate the conflict.
LANDSCAPE
TO BE ABANDONED
CINEMA
32,750S.F.
1,400 SEATS
' AREA OF ROAD
ABANDONMENT
RESTA5AT
4,330
KQ
UO
Decorative
/ transparent
fence
------ — ------ ----- ---NB WOMWAV,O, ---
GROUND FLOOR / SITE PLAN
La Plaza Cinemas / Retail Project
Atascadero, California
March, 20I0
BEN HOFF, LLC, property owner
JOHN ROUSH, CENTRAL COAST CINEMAS,
theme ownerer/op—w
LARRY WYSONG CONSTRUCTION, developer
MICHAEL SHERER/ PEABODY COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE,
broker /red property eq.i. ion & leasing
This is a conceptual
site plan.
Complete grading,
drainage, utility, storm
water management plans
with low impact
development features
and handicapped
accessibility plans shall
be submitted at time of
building permit.
UESUGI & ASSOCIATES
architects interiors planning sustainability
87. MARKET STREET, SUITE 505
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 9410:
ITEM NUMBER
DATE: 4-20-10
EXHIBIT C-1: Conceptual Building Elevations
ITEM NUMBER
DATE: 4-20-10
EXHIBIT C-2: Architectural Rendering
ITEM NUMBER: 2
DATE: 4-20-10
ATTACHMENT 7: Draft Resolution PC 2010-0012
PLN 2009-1341
DRAFT
RESOLUTION PC 2010-0012
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ATASCADERO RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE
ROAD ABANDONMENT 2010-0019 TO SUMMARILY VACATE
PORTIONS OF: EL CAMINO REAL, AND ATASCADERO MALL
AVENUE PURSUANT TO SECTION 8331 OF THE CALIFORNIA
STREETS AND HIGHWAYS CODE
(Robbie E Hoff)
WHEREAS, Robbie E Hoff (Applicant) applied to abandon an approximate 0.11 acre
portion of El Camino Real and a 0.24 acre portion of Atascadero Avenue (also referred to as
"Atascadero Mall"), being portions of Lots 18 and 19, Block H -B, Atascadero Colony
Subdivision, City of Atascadero, County of San Luis Obispo, State of California and filed for
record on October 21, 1914 in Book 3 AC at Page 32 of Maps; and
WHEREAS, the current General Plan Designation and Zoning Designation is right-of-
way; and,
WHEREAS, the abandoned portion of the road will become a part of the adjacent
property currently zoned Downtown Commercial; and,
WHEREAS, the project is in conformance with the Circulation Element of the General
Plan and all other applicable General Plan policies; and,
WHEREAS, the proposed right-of-way abandonment is exempt from CEQA review per
section 15305: Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing to consider the
proposed Road Abandonment on April 20, 2010 at 7:00 p.m. and considered testimony, reports
from staff, the applicants, and the public; and,
NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Atascadero takes the
following actions:
ITEM NUMBER: 2
DATE: 4-20-10
SECTION 1. Findings of Approval for the Road Abandonment. The Planning
Commission finds as follows:
1. The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan.
2. The portions of El Camino Real and Atascadero Mall Avenue right-of-ways proposed to
be abandoned have been determined to be excess right-of-way.
3. The portion of El Camino Real right-of-way proposed to be abandoned has been
impassable for vehicular travel for a period of five consecutive years and no public
money has been expended for maintenance on the street during such period.
SECTION 2. Recommendation of Approval. The Planning Commission of the City of
Atascadero, in a regular session assembled on April 20, 2010 resolved to recommend that the
City Council approve Road Abandonment 2010-0019 subject to the following:
EXHIBIT A:
Zoning and Location Map
EXHIBIT B:
Road Abandonment Diagram
EXHIBIT C:
Conditions of Approval
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a copy of this Resolution be delivered forthwith
by the Planning Commission Secretary to the City Council of the City of Atascadero.
ITEM NUMBER: 2
DATE: 4-20-10
On motion by Commissioner , and seconded by Commissioner
, the foregoing resolution is hereby adopted in its entirety by the
following roll call vote:
AYES: ( )
NOES: ( )
ABSENT: ( )
ABSTAINED: ( )
ADOPTED: March 2, 2010
CITY OF ATASCADERO, CA
Heather Moreno
Planning Commission Chairperson
ATTEST:
Warren Frace
Planning Commission Secretary
ITEM NUMBER: 2
DATE: 4-20-10
Exhibit A: Location map
RAB 2010-0019
40
77
DY
41
Project
OW 7 Site
Iv Ail. i T
01 y
to
amino Real
oma.
'Ian: D
it
ITEM NUMBER: 2
DATE: 4-20-10
Exhibit B: Road Abandonment diagram
RAB 2010-0019
. �II,LE•925
g5 roe (nLF•g2S
Ir
(
a M
i
I
ti
14
A
0 ti
fit:'
+Q
�
oa as
- - - - - -
v' Gia �, r�•oF'.v
�
�
o h
�
v
v!
j
/- 9'908 /71, 00-
�6vOF:v
V
a0
n
O
o h QO
Z
Q1
`V
� �P
e 6E•ioz foo /FN
^,OOOS:
o
O SLq dD-yfA/�w,20.O/ O
,.
ITEM NUMBER
DATE: 4-20-10
Exhibit C: Conditions of Approval
RAB 2010-0019
Conditions of Approval:
Timing
Responsibility
/Monitoring
PLN 2009-1349 / RAB 2010-0019
FM; FinalMap
BL: Business License
PS: Planning Services
GP: Grading Permit
BS: Building Services
BP: Building Permit
FD: Fire Department
FI: Final Inspection
PD: Police Department
TO: Temporary Occupancy
CE: City Engineer
FO: Final Occupancy
WW: Wastewater
CA: City Attorney
City Engineer Conditions
1. Prior to City Council approval of the road abandonment, the
Prior to
CE
applicant shall prepare and record an easement document
Council
granting the City of Atascadero a public vehicular and pedestrian
Approval
access, storm drain and sanitary sewer easements. The
document shall except out the area under the footprint of the
proposed building. The easement document shall be
accompanied by a legal description and graphical exhibit. The
easement document shall be found acceptable to the City
Engineer prior to recordation.
2. Prior to City Council approval of the road abandonment, the
Prior to
CE
applicant shall have the application reviewed by all applicable
Council
public and private utility companies (cable, telephone, gas,
Approval
electric, Atascadero Mutual Water Company, wireless telephone.)
The applicant shall obtain a letter from each utility company which
indicates their review of the application and any required changes.
The letter shall identify any new easements and or abandonments
which maybe required by the utility company. A copy of the
letters shall be submitted to the City. If public or private utilities,
sewer, water or storm drain utilities are found to conflict with any
proposed building footprint or building appurtenance, the applicant
shall relocate the utility at his or her own cost, prior to City Council
approval of the road abandonment. New easements shall be
recorded prior to City Council approval of the road abandonment.
The easement document shall be found acceptable to the City
Engineer prior to recordation.
3. The applicant shall pay all costs for plan check and right-of-way
Prior to
CE
abandonment.
Recordation
4. The applicant shall submit a Final Parcel Map, per the
Prior to
CE
requirements of the subdivision Map Act and California Streets
Recordation
and Highway Code, merging the abandoned portion of the Right -
of -Way and the existing parcels, and granting any public
easements for access, utilities, drainage, water or sewer. The
Final Parcel Map shall be submitted after City Council approval of
the Right -of -Way abandonment. The Final Map shall be found
acceptable to the City Engineer prior to City Council acceptance
and approval. The Final Parcel Map shall be in substantial
ITEM NUMBER
DATE: 4-20-10
Conditions of Approval:
Timing
Responsibility
/Monitoring
PLN 2009-1349 / RAB 2010-0019
FM; F;re,Map
BL: Business License
PS: Planning Services
GP: Grading Permit
BS: Building Services
BP: Building Permit
FD: Fire Department
FI: Final Inspection
PD: Police Department
TO: Temporary Occupancy
CE: City Engineer
F0: Final Occupancy
WW: Wastewater
CA: City Attorney
conformance with the City Council's action and shall be approved
by the City Council prior to recordation.
5. The applicant shall submit a tax bond to the City of Atascadero
Prior to
CE
prior to the City Council's approval of the Final Map.
Recordation