HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Resolution 2017-0030EXHIBIT A: ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT NUMBER 2017-0018,
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MITIGATION MEASURES
MITIGATION SUMMARY TABLE
La Plaza Downtown Development
PLN 2017-1649
Per Public Resources Code § 21081.6, the following measures also constitute the mitigation
monitoring and/or reporting program that will reduce potentially significant impacts to less than
significant levels. The measures will become Conditions of Approval (COAs) should the project
be approved. The City of Atascadero, as the Lead Agency, or other responsible agencies, as
specified, are responsible to verify compliance with these COAs.
MITIGATION MEASURE TIMING
Aesthetics
AES-1 At the time of building permit submittal of the proposed project,
applicant must submit a photometric plan showing locations of
proposed on-sight lighting. Prior to final occupancy, City Staff and
the applicant shall meet on-site and review lights at dusk condition
to ensure off-site light spillage and glare are limited.
Prior to Building
Permit Issuance
AES-2 Any luminaire pole height shall not exceed 14-feet in height to
minimize off-site light spillage for consistency with the Atascadero
Municipal Code.
Prior to Building
Permit Issuance
AES-3 Limit intensity to up to 3.0 foot candles at ingress/egress, and
otherwise 0.6 foot candle minimum to 1.0 maximum in parking
areas and/or for street lighting, bollards, etc. to be reviewed at the
time of building permit final.
Prior to Building
Permit Final
Air Quality
AQ-1 Demolition activities can have potential negative air quality impacts,
including issues surrounding proper handling, abatement, and
disposal of asbestos containing material (ACM). Asbestos
containing materials could be encountered during the demolition or
remodeling of existing structures or the disturbance, demolition, or
relocation of above or below ground utility pipes/pipelines (e.g.,
transit pipes or insulation on pipes). If this project will include any of
these activities, then it may be subject to various regulatory
jurisdictions, including the requirements stipulated in the National
Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants These
requirements include, but are not limited to: 1) written notification,
within at least 10 business days of activities commencing, to the
APCD, 2) asbestos survey conducted by a Certified Asbestos
Consultant, and, 3) applicable removal and disposal requirements
of identified ACM. Please contact the APCD Engineering &
Compliance Division at (805) 781-5912 for further information or go
to slocleanair.org/rules-regulations/asbestos.php for further
Prior to Building
Permit Issuance
MITIGATION MEASURE TIMING
information. To obtain a Notification of Demolition and Renovation
form go to the “Other Form s” section of
slocleanair.org/library/download-forms.php.
AQ-2 Based on the information provided, San Luis Obispo APCD is
unsure of the types of equipment that may be present during the
project’s construction phase. Portable equipment, 50 horsepower
(hp) or greater, used during construction activities may require
California statewide portable equipment registration (issued by the
California Air Resources Board) or an APCD permit.
The following list is provided as a guide to equipment and
operations that may have permitting requirements, but should not
be viewed as exclusive. For a more detailed listing, refer to the
Technical Appendices, page 4-4, in the APCD's 2012 CEQA
Handbook.
Power screens, conveyors, diesel engines, and/or crushers;
Portable generators and equipment with engines that are
50 hip or greater;
Electrical generation plants or the use of standby generator;
Internal combustion engines;
Rock and pavement crushing;
Unconfined abrasive blasting operations;
Tub grinders;
Trammel screens; and,
Portable plants (e.g. aggregate plant, asphalt batch plant,
concrete batch plant, etc.).
To minimize potential delays, prior to the start of the project, please
contact the APCD Engineering & Compliance Division at (805) 781 -
5912 for specific information regarding permitting requirements.
During Construction
AQ-3 Effective February 25, 2000, the APCD prohibited developmental
burning of vegetative material within San Luis Obispo County. If
you have any questions regarding these requirements, contact the
APCD Engineering & Compliance Division at (805) 781-5912.
During Construction
AQ-4 Construction activities can generate fugitive dust, which could be a
nuisance to local residents and businesses in close proximity to the
proposed construction site. Projects with grading areas that are
greater than 4-acres or are within 1,000 feet of any sensitive
receptor shall implement the following mitigation measures to
manage fugitive dust emissions such that they do not exceed the
APCD’s 20% opacity limit (APCD Rule 401) or prompt nuisance
violations (APCD Rule 402):
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 and
from exceeding the APCD’s limit of 20% opacity for greater
than 3 minutes in any 60 minute period. Increased watering
frequency would be required whenever wind speeds
exceed 15 mph. Reclaimed (non-potable) water should be
used whenever possible. Please note that since water
use is a concern due to drought conditions, the
During Construction
MITIGATION MEASURE TIMING
contractor or builder shall consider the use of an
APCD-approved dust suppressant where feasible to
reduce the amount of water used for dust control. For a
list of suppressants, see Section 4.3 of the CEQA Air
Quality Handbook.
c. All dirt stock pile areas should be sprayed daily and
covered with tarps or other dust barriers as needed;
d. Permanent dust control measures identified in the approved
project revegetation 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, non-invasive, grass seed and
watered until vegetation is established;
f. All disturbed soil areas not subject to revegetation should
be stabilized using approved chemical soil binders, jute
netting, or other methods approved in advance by the
APCD;
g. All roadways, driveways, sidewalks, etc. to be paved should
be completed 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. Track-Out” is defined as sand or soil that adheres to and/or
agglomerates on the exterior surfaces of motor vehicles
and/or equipment (including tires) that may then fall onto
any highway or street as described in California Vehicle
Code Section 23113 and California Water Code 13304. To
prevent ‘track out’, designate access points and require all
employees, subcontractors, and others to use them. Install
and operate a ‘track-out prevention device’ where vehicles
enter and exit unpaved roads onto paved streets. The
‘track-out prevention device’ can be any device or
combination of devices that are effective at preventing track
out, located at the point of intersection of an unpaved area
and a paved road. Rumble strips or steel plate devices
need periodic cleaning to be effective. If paved roadways
accumulate tracked out soils, the track-out prevention
device may need to be modified;
k. Sweep streets at the end of each day if visible soil material
is carried onto adjacent paved roads. Water sweepers shall
be used with reclaimed water should be used where
feasible. Roads shall be pre-wetted prior to sweeping when
feasible;
l. All PM10 mitigation measures required should be shown on
grading and building plans; and,
m. The contractor or builder shall designate a person or
persons to monitor the fugitive dust emissions and enhance
MITIGATION MEASURE TIMING
the implementation of the measures as necessary to
minimize dust complaints, reduce visible emissions below
the APCD’s limit of 20% opacity for greater than 3 minutes
in any 60 minute period. Their duties shall include holidays
and weekend periods when work may not be in progress.
The name and telephone number of such persons shall be
provided to the APCD Engineering & Compliance Division
prior to the start of any grading, earthwork or demolition.
AQ-5 This project is in close proximity to nearby sensitive receptors.
Projects that will have diesel powered construction activity in close
proximity to any sensitive receptor shall implement the following
mitigation measures to ensure that public health benefits are
realized by reducing toxic risk from diesel emissions:
To help reduce sensitive receptor emissions impact of
diesel vehicles and equipment used to construct the
project, the applicant shall implement the following idling
control techniques:
1. California Diesel Idling Regulations
a. On-road diesel vehicles shall comply with Section
2485 of Title 13 of the California Code of Regulations.
This regulation limits idling from diesel-fueled
commercial motor vehicles with gross vehicular weight
ratings of more than 10,000 pounds and licensed for
operation on highways. It applies to California and non -
California based vehicles. In general, the regulation
specifies that drivers of said vehicles:
1. Shall not idle the vehicle’s primary diesel engine for
greater than 5 minutes at any location, except as
noted in Subsection (d) of the regulation; and,
2. Shall not operate a diesel-fueled auxiliary power
system (APS) to power a heater, air conditioner, or
any ancillary equipment on that vehicle during
sleeping or resting in a sleeper berth for greater
than 5.0 minutes at any location when within 1,000
feet of a restricted area, except as noted in
Subsection (d) of the regulation.
b. Off-road diesel equipment shall comply with the 5-
minute idling restriction identified in Section 2449(d) (2)
of the California Air Resources Board’s In-Use Off-
Road Diesel regulation.
c. Signs must be posted in the designated queuing areas
and job sites to remind drivers and operators of the
state’s 5-minute idling limit.
d. The specific requirements and exceptions in the
regulations can be reviewed at the following web sites:
www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/truck-idling/2485.pdf and
www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2007/ordiesl07/frooal.pdf.
AND/OR
2. Diesel Idling Restrictions Near Sensitive Receptors
During Construction
MITIGATION MEASURE TIMING
In addition to the state required diesel idling requirements,
the project applicant shall comply with these more
restrictive requirements to minimize impacts to nearby
sensitive receptors:
a. Staging and queuing areas shall not be located within
1,000 feet of sensitive receptors;
b. Diesel idling within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors shall
not be permitted;
c. Use of alternative fueled equipment is recommended;
and
d. Signs that specify the no idling areas must be posted
and enforced at the site.
AQ-6 Exterior architectural coasting shall be limited to Volatile Organic
Compound (VOC) of 50 grams per liter maximum to the extent
feasible.
During Construction
AQ-7 Interior architectural coasting shall be limited to Volatile Organic
Compound (VOC) of 0 grams per liter maximum to the extent
feasible within residential and non-residential spaces.
During Construction
Green House Gas Emissions
GHG-1 The proposed project shall include a minimum of four (4) electric
vehicle (EV) chargers within the proposed parking lot. Vehicle
chargers shall be counted as parking spaces for the purposes of
parking calculations.
Prior to Building
Permit Final
Cultural Resources
CR-1 Recordation and documentation shall be produced according to the
California Register of Historic Resources prior to issuance of
demolition permits for both 6452 and 6490 El Camino Real.
Documentation shall include the following:
Completion of State of California Form DPR 523B;
Large scale color photographs of exterior and interior with
scale and caption;
Large scale site plan and floor plan of existing building(s)
with legend and callouts of location photographs taken;
Copies of selected historic photographs;
Written description of construction and use of the
structures;
Digital copies of all materials submitted in PDF format.
Prior to Demo
Permit Issuance
CR-2 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
immediately. The Atascadero Community Development Director
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 during the excavation of any remains.
During Construction
Noise
MITIGATION MEASURE TIMING
NO-1 Soffit vents, eave vents, dormer vents and other wall and roof
penetrations shall be on the walls and roofs facing away from the
noise source wherever possible.
Prior to Building
Permit Issuance
NO-2 The walls of habitable spaces and office space on second and third
stories nearest the noise source shall have wall construction with an
S.T.C. (Sound Transmission Class) rating of 30 or greater. For
instance, stucco exterior or equivalent on 2” x 4” stud walls with
minimum R-13 batt insulation and two layers of ½” gypsum board
on the interior will provide an S.T.C. rating of 30 or greater along
these walls.
Prior to Building
Permit Issuance
NO-3 Common acoustic leaks, such as electrical outlets, pipes, vents,
ducts, flues, and other breaks in the integrity of the wall, ceiling or
roof construction on the side of the dwellings nearest transportation
noise sources shall receive special attention during construction. All
construction openings and joints on the walls on the noise facing
side of the site shall be insulated, sealed and caulked with a
resilient, non-hardening, acoustical caulking material. All such
openings and joints shall be airtight to maintain sound isolation.
Prior to Building
Permit Issuance
NO-4 To meet the interior LDN 45 dBA requirements, windows for
habitable spaces on the second and third floors of affected units
facing the noise source shall be of double-glazed construction with
one light of laminated glass, and installed in accordance with the
recommendations of the manufacturer. The windows shall have full
gaskets, with an S.T.C. rating of 30 or better, as determined in
testing by an accredited acoustical laboratory.
Prior to Building
Permit Issuance
Transportation & Traffic
TP-1 The applicant or developer must relocate the existing pedestrian
crossing at the midblock crossing at the intersection of East Mall
and El Camino Real to a location to the north subject to the
approval of the Public Works Director. The preferred location would
be at a signalized intersection. The applicant shall re-stripe and
provide conduit for a new pedestrian crossing signal adjacent to the
project site. The proposed improvement may be eligible for TIF
credits based on the adopted Capital Improvement Plans at the time
of building permit issuance.
Prior to release final
sign off of off-site
improvements.
TP-2 The applicant shall work with City Staff and the Regional Transit
Authority to relocate the adjacent southbound RTA stop that
currently exists near the intersection of Entrada and El Camino
Real. This includes relocation or re-construction of a bus shelter, as
deemed appropriate by the City Engineer.
Prior to release final
sign off of off-site
improvements.
Utilities Services
UT-1 The proposed project must pay all applicable sewer connection fees
at the time of building permit issuance. A fee credit may be
applicable for all existing fixtures and connections listed in
demolition permits for buildings removed.
Prior to Building
Permit Issuance
UT-2 The applicant shall be responsible for providing fair share impact
fees for wastewater in effect at the time of building permit issuance.
Prior to Building
Permit Issuance
UT-3 The developer must include trash and recycle receptacles near
public entries and a minimum of (3) trash and recycle receptacles
within the proposed plaza to be dispersed throughout the length of
the plaza. Receptacles design shall be approved by Staff and
included on landscaping plans at the time of building permit
submittal.
Prior to release final
sign off of on-site
improvements.
DOCUMENT AVAILABLE ONLINE: http://www.atascadero.org/environmentaldocs
STATE CLEARING HOUSE REVIEW: ☐ Yes NO ☒
REVIEW PERIOD BEGINS: 10/18/2017 REVIEW PERIOD ENDS: 11/07/2017
PUBLIC HEARING REQUIRED: ☐No ☒ Yes
November 7, 2017 at 6PM, City Council
Chambers, 6500 Palma Avenue, Atascadero,
CA 93422
PUBLIC NOTICE: The City of Atascadero is releasing a draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative declaration at
the above project address for review and comment to all effected agencies, organizations,
and interested parties. Reviewers should focus on the content and accuracy of the report and
the potential impacts upon the environment. The notice for this project is in compliance with
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Persons responding to this notice are
urged to submit their comments in writing. Written comments should be deliver ed the City
(lead agency) no later than 5pm on the date listed as “review period ends”. Submittal of
written comments via email is also accepted and should be directed to the Staff contact at
the above email address. This document may be viewed by visiting the Community
Development Department, listed under the lead agency address, or accessed via the City’s
website.
PLN 2017-1649
La Plaza Downtown Redevelopment | Z3 LLC
Environmental Review | City of Atascadero | www.atascadero.org | fb.me/planningatascadero Page 3
PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
The City of Atascadero’s environmental review process incorporates all of the requirements for
completing the Initial Study as required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the
CEQA Guidelines. The Initial Study includes Staff’s on-site inspection of the project site and surrounding
and a detailed review of the information on file for the proposed project. In addition, available background
information is reviewed for each project. Relevant information regarding soil types and characteristics,
geological information, significant vegetation and/or wildlife resources, water availability, wastewater
disposal service, existing land uses and surrounding land use categories and other information relevant to
the environmental review process are evaluated for each project. Exhibit A includes the references use d,
as well as the agencies or groups that were contacted as a part of this initial study. The City of
Atascadero uses the checklist to summarize the results of the research accomplished during the initial
environmental review of the project.
Persons, agencies, or organizations interested in obtaining more information regarding the environmental
review process for a project should contact the Community Development Department, 6500 Palma
Avenue, Atascadero, CA 93422 or call (805) 461-5000.
A. PROPOSED PROJECT
Description:
Proposed mixed-use redevelopment project on previously developed
properties within Downtown Atascadero. Proposed project include:
18,000 square feet (ft) of commercial type uses on the first
floor;
9,700 sf of office space on 2nd and 3rd floors of a separate
building;
40 units on 2nd and 3rd floors;
11,761 square foot (sf) pedestrian plaza located on
Atascadero Mall.
The proposed project includes 84 off -street parking spaces, and
proposed road abandonment of a portion of El Camino Real, and
partial vehicular closure of Atascadero Avenue (Atascadero Mall) to
allow for construction of a plaza connecting Atascadero Avenue
(west of Highway 101) to Downtown Atascadero through an active
pedestrian link Proposed height of all occupied structures is 45 -feet,
with an additional 20-feet for un-occupied architectural features. Total
height of structures within the proposed development is 65-feet. An
on-site freestanding pylon sign proposed to be a total height of 70 -
feet is proposed at the rear of the site between the building and
Highway 101.
The proposed project is not located within a 100 year fl ood zone.
There are no known wetlands or designated waters of the US on the
proposed parcels for development, nor are there known mapped pre -
historical or archeological resources known on-site. The site has
been previously disturbed with development dating back to early
1900’s, including the Atascadero Hotel, and other various forms of
commercial development. The proposed project will include
demolition of structures of existing structures including a former gas
station, a former fast food restaurant and other small buildings that
PLN 2017-1649
La Plaza Downtown Redevelopment | Z3 LLC
are currently utilized for commercial uses. An existing cell tower
facility will remain on the site.
Assessor parcel number(s): 030-193-001, 003, 016, 017,030, 031, 033
Latitude: 33.113597
Longitude: -117.270879
Other public agencies
whose approval is
required:
Atascadero Mutual Water Company (AMWC), Regional Water Quality
Control board (RWQCB), SLO Air Pollution Control (APCD).
B. EXISTING SETTING
Land use designation: Downtown (D)
Zoning district: Downtown Commercial (DC)
Parcel size: 1.83 acres
Topography: Relatively Flat Average Slope: >5% average
Vegetation: Urban Infill, previously developed
Existing use:
Retail, Food and Beverage, and vacant / underutilized buildings.
Surrounding Land Use:
North: South: East: West:
Financial Services /
Downtown
Commercial (DC)
Right-of-Way / Non-
Conforming Uses /
Downtown
Commercial (DC)
Right-of-Way / Park /
Downtown
Commercial (DC)
Highway 101 / Right-
of-Way
PLN 2017-1649
La Plaza Downtown Redevelopment | Z3 LLC
This Page Has Been Left Blank
PLN 2017-1649
La Plaza Downtown Redevelopment | Z3 LLC
C. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
During the initial study process, at least one issue was identified as having a potentially
significant environmental effect (see following Initial Study). The potentially significant items
associated with the proposed project can be minimized to less than significant levels.
CITY OF ATASCADERO
INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
1. AESTHETICS – Will the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Requires
Mitigation
Insignificant
Impact
Not
Applicable
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on
an adopted scenic vista? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b) Substantially damage scenic
resources, including, but not limited to,
trees, rock outcroppings, and historic
buildings 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 which would adversely affect day
or nighttime views in the area?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
EXISTING SETTING: The proposed project is located between Highway 101 and the City’s
primary arterial corridor: El Camino Real. The site includes a vacant building (former jack-in-the-
box), and small commercial structures, which have been determined to be more than 50 years
of age. There is also an existing wireless telecommunications tower. The proposed project is not
located within an adopted scenic vista and there are no natural scenic resources on site or
within the vicinity. Surrounding uses include non-residential uses, Atascadero City Hall, and the
Sunken Gardens Park. All existing structures on-site are one-story in height, and contain
standard commercial lighting.
PROPOSED PROJECT: The proposed project includes high quality architecture that
compliments existing historical development and includes design elements such as pop-outs,
roofline variations, and other architectural features. The proposed project utilizes color and
materials consistent with Historic City Hall, the Printery building, and the Carlton Hotel.
The three-story buildings would exceed the City’s height limit requirements per Atascadero
Municipal Code (AMC) Section 9-3.347 and the applicant requests a height exception to allow
buildings with a maximum height of 45-feet for occupied portions and 65 feet for unoccupied
architectural features (tower elements).. The applicant is also proposing a freestanding pylon
sign adjacent to Highway 101 with a maximum height of 70-feet. The AMC allows a total height
PLN 2017-1649
La Plaza Downtown Redevelopment | Z3 LLC
of 18-feet within the project site. This height requirement was set to protect the view-shed
between Highway 101 and the Historic City Hall. Vegetation along the Highway, maintained by
Caltrans, has grown and obstructs the view-shed to City Hall. Because of the proposed plaza to
the south of the project, some visibility of the Historic City Hall will be maintained from Highway
101. The proposed architecture and its elements allow for views of the surrounding hillside from
the development, as well as serving as an additional marker for motorists utilizing Highway 101.
Additional new light sources may be generated that may affect existing nighttime views in the
area. All existing lighting and signage on site is proposed for removal. The Atascadero
Municipal Code requires that all proposed lighting be minimized in intensity and shielded to
reduce light spillage onto other structures. The applicant has not provided a proposed lighting
plan to show the type of overhead lighting, nor has the applicant included any proposed street
lights to be installed along with frontage improvements. To reduce potential environmental
effects, mitigation will be needed to ensure pole heights do not contribute to excess light
pollution.
The AMC contains language under section 9-4.137, exterior lighting, stating that “no light glare
shall be transmitted or reflected in such concentration or intensity as to be detrimental or
harmful to persons or to interfere with the use of surrounding properties or streets.” All lighting
shall be designed to eliminate any off-site glare, consistent with the City’s existing municipal
code. Additionally, the code requires that all exterior lighting shall utilize full cut-off, “hooded”
lighting fixtures to prevent offsite light spillage and glare. To ensure consistency with the code,
mitigation measures will be required.
MITIGATION / CONCLUSION: To reduce potential impacts from the creation of new nighttime
light and glare sources, the following mitigation measures shall be incorporated. With these
measures, the potential new sources of substantial light and glare are considered less than
significant.
AES – 1: At the time of building permit submittal of the proposed project, applicant must submit
a photometric plan showing locations of proposed on-sight lighting. Prior to final occupancy, City
Staff and the applicant shall meet on-site and review lights at dusk condition to ensure off-site
light spillage and glare are limited.
AES – 2: Any luminaire pole height shall not exceed 14-feet in height to minimize off-site light
spillage for consistency with the Atascadero Municipal Code.
AES – 3: Limit intensity to up to 3.0 foot candles at ingress/egress, and otherwise 0.6 foot
candle minimum to 1.0 maximum in parking areas and/or for street lighting, bollards, etc. to be
reviewed at the time of building final.
PLN 2017-1649
La Plaza Downtown Redevelopment | Z3 LLC
2. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES – Will the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Requires
Mitigation
Insignificant
Impact
Not
Applicable
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique
Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide
Importance (Farmland) to nonagricultural
use?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b) Conflict with existing zoning for
agricultural use, or a Williamson Act
contract?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or
cause rezoning of, forest land, timberland
or timberland zoned Timberland
Production?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
d) Result in the loss of forest land or
conversion of forest land to non-forest
use?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
e) Involve other changes in the existing
environment which, due to their location
or nature, could result in conversion of
Farmland to non-agricultural use or
conversion of forest land to non-forest
use?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
EXISTING SETTING: The current general plan land use designation is downtown (D) and is
currently contains existing non-residential development and a wireless communications facility
which will remain. There are no agriculture activities occurring on-site.
MITIGATION / CONCLUSION: Agriculture resources are not located on-site, therefore no
impact.
3. AIR QUALITY – Will the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Requires
Mitigation
Insignificant
Impact
Not
Applicable
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation
of the applicable air quality plan? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Violate any air quality standard or
contribute substantially to an existing or
projected air quality violation?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable
net increase of any criteria pollutant for
which the project region is non-attainment
under an applicable federal or state
ambient air quality standard (including
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
PLN 2017-1649
La Plaza Downtown Redevelopment | Z3 LLC
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Requires
Mitigation
Insignificant
Impact
Not
Applicable
releasing emissions which exceed
quantitative thresholds for ozone
precursors)?
d) Expose sensitive receptors to
substantial pollutant concentrations? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a
substantial number of people? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
EXISTING SETTING: The project site is currently contains two retail uses, a drive-up coffee
shop and a beauty supply store. Additionally, the site contains a vacant building, and a cellular
communications facility that will remain. The remainder of the site is considered underutilized.
The site is previously disturbed, as each parcel has been developed. There are two (2) schools
and one (1) public park that fall within 1,000-feet of the project site, and are therefore are
considered locations with sensitive receptors (children and park users). Within the 1,000-foot
buffer from the project site are Atascadero Middle School, North County Christian School (K-
12), and the Sunken Gardens Park, all of which are in use during typical construction hours.
PROPOSED PROJECT: City Staff, in concert with the San Luis Obispo Air Pollution Control
District (SLOAPCD) screened the project for its potential air pollution impacts for both
operational emissions (when the buildings are completed and occupied) and construction phase
emissions. The screening criteria assumed the following:
3,749 sf quality restaurant;
40 low rise apartments;
9,070 sf of general office;
11,761 sf of City Park (Plaza);
24,563 sf of parking lot;
14,251 sf of strip mall retail.
According to the San Luis Obispo Air Pollution Control District (SLOAPCD), Operational
screening Criteria for Project Air Quality Analysis (Table 1-1, SLOAPCD, 2012), the proposed
project operational phase precursor would result in 15.286 pounds of Reactive Organic Gas
(ROG) and Nitrogen Oxide (NOx) per day of operational emissions. This is under SLOAPCD’s
threshold of 25 pounds per day of operational emission, therefore the proposed project is
considered less than significant. Typically, when a project is under the operational threshold for
air emissions, it is assumed that the construction portion of the project is also under the district’s
established emissions thresholds. Based on the screening criteria established by SLOAPCD,
the proposed project required additional analysis for GHG (See section 4). During this analysis,
City Staff utilized the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEmod). Based on this analysis,
mitigation to reduce architectural coating emissions of ROG and NOx was required to ensure
the proposed project was below construction emission standards. Those mitigation measures
are included in this section.
PLN 2017-1649
La Plaza Downtown Redevelopment | Z3 LLC
Additionally, the SLOAPCD requires mitigation measures be implemented for any development
that may potentially emit diesel PM, to use precaution when within 1,000-feet of a sensitive
receptor. SLOAPCD defines a sensitive receptor as “locations that include schools, parks and
playgrounds, day care centers, nursing homes, hospitals, and residential dwelling units.”
Mitigation measures included will help reduce the potential impacts on these sensitive
receptors. Because the proposed project is located within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors,
there are applicable mitigation measures to reduce potential nuisance air quality impacts to less
than significant level.
MITIGATION / CONCLUSION: To mitigate potential air quality impacts, the proposed project
will require implementing the following mitigation measure. With this proposed mitigation
measure, the project’s potential impacts will be considered less than significant.
AQ – 1: Demolition activities can have potential negative air quality impacts, including issues
surrounding proper handling, abatement, and disposal of asbestos containing material (ACM).
Asbestos containing materials could be encountered during the demolition or remodeling of
existing structures or the disturbance, demolition, or relocation of above or below ground utility
pipes/pipelines (e.g., transit pipes or insulation on pipes). If this project will include any of these
activities, then it may be subject to various regulatory jurisdictions, including the requirements
stipulated in the National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants These requirements
include, but are not limited to: 1) written notification, within at least 10 business days of activities
commencing, to the APCD, 2) asbestos survey conducted by a Certified Asbestos Consultant,
and, 3) applicable removal and disposal requirements of identified ACM. Please contact the
APCD Engineering & Compliance Division at (805) 781-5912 for further information or go to
slocleanair.org/rules-regulations/asbestos.php for further information. To obtain a Notification of
Demolition and Renovation form go to the “Other Forms” section of
slocleanair.org/library/download-forms.php.
AQ – 2: Based on the information provided, San Luis Obispo APCD is unsure of the types of
equipment that may be present during the project’s construction phase. Portable equipment, 50
horsepower (hp) or greater, used during construction activities may require California statewide
portable equipment registration (issued by the California Air Resources Board) or an APCD
permit.
The following list is provided as a guide to equipment and operations that may have permitting
requirements, but should not be viewed as exclusive. For a more detailed listing, refer to the
Technical Appendices, page 4-4, in the APCD's 2012 CEQA Handbook.
Power screens, conveyors, diesel engines, and/or crushers;
Portable generators and equipment with engines that are 50 hp or greater;
Electrical generation plants or the use of standby generator;
Internal combustion engines;
Rock and pavement crushing;
Unconfined abrasive blasting operations;
Tub grinders;
Trommel screens; and,
Portable plants (e.g. aggregate plant, asphalt batch plant, concrete batch plant, etc).
To minimize potential delays, prior to the start of the project, please contact the APCD
Engineering & Compliance Division at (805) 781-5912 for specific information regarding
permitting requirements.
PLN 2017-1649
La Plaza Downtown Redevelopment | Z3 LLC
AQ – 3: Effective February 25, 2000, the APCD prohibited developmental burning of vegetative
material within San Luis Obispo County. If you have any questions regarding these
requirements, contact the APCD Engineering & Compliance Division at (805) 781-5912.
AQ – 4. Construction activities can generate fugitive dust, which could be a nuisance to local
residents and businesses in close proximity to the proposed construction site. Projects with
grading areas that are greater than 4-acres or are within 1,000 feet of any sensitive receptor
shall implement the following mitigation measures to manage fugitive dust emissions such that
they do not exceed the APCD’s 20% opacity limit (APCD Rule 401) or prompt nuisance
violations (APCD Rule 402):
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 and from exceeding the APCD’s limit of 20% opacity for greater
than 3 minutes in any 60 minute period. Increased watering frequency would be
required whenever wind speeds exceed 15 mph. Reclaimed (non-potable) water should
be used whenever possible. Please note that since water use is a concern due to
drought conditions, the contractor or builder shall consider the use of an APCD-
approved dust suppressant where feasible to reduce the amount of water used for
dust control. For a list of suppressants, see Section 4.3 of the CEQA Air Quality
Handbook
c. All dirt stock pile areas should be sprayed daily and covered with tarps or other dust
barriers as needed;
d. Permanent dust control measures identified in the approved project revegetation 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, non-invasive, grass seed and
watered until vegetation is established;
f. All disturbed soil areas not subject to revegetation should be stabilized using approved
chemical soil binders, jute netting, or other methods approved in advance by the APCD;
g. All roadways, driveways, sidewalks, etc. to be paved should be completed 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. Track-Out” is defined as sand or soil that adheres to and/or agglomerates on the exterior
surfaces of motor vehicles and/or equipment (including tires) that may then fall onto any
highway or street as described in California Vehicle Code Section 23113 and California
Water Code 13304. To prevent ‘track out’, designate access points and require all
employees, subcontractors, and others to use them. Install and operate a ‘track-out
prevention device’ where vehicles enter and exit unpaved roads onto paved streets. The
‘track-out prevention device’ can be any device or combination of devices that are
effective at preventing track out, located at the point of intersection of an unpaved area
and a paved road. Rumble strips or steel plate devices need periodic cleaning to be
effective. If paved roadways accumulate tracked out soils, the track-out prevention
device may need to be modified;
k. Sweep streets at the end of each day if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent
paved roads. Water sweepers shall be used with reclaimed water should be used where
PLN 2017-1649
La Plaza Downtown Redevelopment | Z3 LLC
feasible. Roads shall be pre-wetted prior to sweeping when feasible;
l. All PM10 mitigation measures required should be shown on grading and building plans;
and,
m. The contractor or builder shall designate a person or persons to monitor the fugitive dust
emissions and enhance the implementation of the measures as necessary to minimize
dust complaints, reduce visible emissions below the APCD’s limit of 20% opacity for
greater than 3 minutes in any 60 minute period. Their duties shall include holidays and
weekend periods when work may not be in progress. The name and telephone number
of such persons shall be provided to the APCD Engineering & Compliance Division prior
to the start of any grading, earthwork or demolition.
AQ – 5. This project is in close proximity to nearby sensitive receptors. Projects that will have
diesel powered construction activity in close proximity to any sensitive receptor shall implement
the following mitigation measures to ensure that public health benefits are realized by reducing
toxic risk from diesel emissions:
To help reduce sensitive receptor emissions impact of diesel vehicles and equipment used to
construct the project, the applicant shall implement the following idling control techniques :
1. California Diesel Idling Regulations
a. On-road diesel vehicles shall comply with Section 2485 of Title 13 of the California
Code of Regulations. This regulation limits idling from diesel-fueled commercial
motor vehicles with gross vehicular weight ratings of more than 10,000 pounds and
licensed for operation on highways. It applies to California and non-California based
vehicles. In general, the regulation specifies that drivers of said vehicles:
1. Shall not idle the vehicle’s primary diesel engine for greater than 5 minutes at
any location, except as noted in Subsection (d) of the regulation; and,
2. Shall not operate a diesel-fueled auxiliary power system (APS) to power a
heater, air conditioner, or any ancillary equipment on that vehicle during sleeping
or resting in a sleeper berth for greater than 5.0 minutes at any location when
within 1,000 feet of a restricted area, except as noted in Subsection (d) of the
regulation.
b. Off-road diesel equipment shall comply with the 5-minute idling restriction identified
in Section 2449(d) (2) of the California Air Resources Board’s In-Use Off-Road
Diesel regulation.
c. Signs must be posted in the designated queuing areas and job sites to remind
drivers and operators of the state’s 5-minute idling limit.
d. The specific requirements and exceptions in the regulations can be reviewed at the
following web sites: www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/truck-idling/2485.pdf and
www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2007/ordiesl07/frooal.pdf.
AND/OR
2. Diesel Idling Restrictions Near Sensitive Receptors
In addition to the state required diesel idling requirements, the project applicant shall
comply with these more restrictive requirements to minimize impacts to nearby sensitive
receptors:
a. Staging and queuing areas shall not be located within 1,000 feet of sensitive
receptors;
b. Diesel idling within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors shall not be permitted;
c. Use of alternative fueled equipment is recommended; and
d. Signs that specify the no idling areas must be posted and enforced at the site.
PLN 2017-1649
La Plaza Downtown Redevelopment | Z3 LLC
AQ – 6. Exterior architectural coating shall be limited to Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) of 50
grams per liter maximum to the extent feasible.
AQ – 7. Interior architectural coasting shall be limited to Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) of 0
grams per liter maximum to the extent feasible within residential and non-residential spaces.
4. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS – Will the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Requires
Mitigation
Insignificant
Impact
Not
Applicable
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions,
either directly or indirectly, that may have
a significant impact on the environment?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy
or regulation adopted for the purpose of
reducing the emissions of greenhouse
gases? b) Conflict with an applicable plan,
policy or regulation adopted for the
purpose of reducing the emissions of
greenhouse gases?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
EXISTING SETTING: The project site consists of two small retail operations (coffee shop,
beauty shop), a wireless telecommunications facility, and a vacant building. The site has been
previously developed with a gas station, a hotel, and retail spaces. The gas station has been
converted into a drive-up coffee shop. The hotel and many of the previous retail spaces were
destroyed in fires, with the hotel destroyed in 1965, and many of the retail spaces in 2009. None
of the existing uses generate greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) that have a significant impact
on the environment, as most of the emissions are created from non-point source entities (i.e.
vehicles).
PROPOSED PROJECT: The proposed project includes a true “mixed-use” project with 40
residential units, 18,000 sf of non-residential uses, and 9,700 sf of office uses. The proposed
project is located on an existing transit line with a bus stop less than 500 feet away. With a mix
of office, retail, restaurant type uses, and residential uses, the project more than likely will lead
to a reduction of vehicle miles traveled within the City. The proposed project includes high
quality landscaping along the street frontage, in the parking lot, and within a proposed plaza.
This landscaping reduces Carbon Dioxide and increases oxygen in the environment, as well as,
improves visual site quality. Landscaping within the parking portion of the project also reduces
the “heat island” effect caused by new additional paving of the site for parking purposes.
Because the proposed project is a vertical mixed-use project, City Staff reached out to the San
Luis Obispo Air Pollution Control District (APCD) for screening analysis for GHG emissions
based on the district’s GHG brightline Metric Tons (MT/yr) per year threshold. The proposed
project is estimated to produce 1,098.83 metric tons of GHG per year. APCD’s threshold for
GHG annual operation is 1,035 MT/yr and the district recommended that a more detailed
modeling be completed. City Staff utilized CalEEMod for its analysis and assumed the following:
3,749 sf quality restaurant;
40 low rise apartments;
9,070 sf of general office;
11,761 sf of City Park (Plaza);
PLN 2017-1649
La Plaza Downtown Redevelopment | Z3 LLC
24,563 sf of parking lot;
14,251 sf of strip mall retail.
The initial screening criterion only takes into account the uses of the proposed project. The
CalEEMod model takes into account other factors, specifically GHG operations and land use
patterns such as distance to transit, improvement to pedestrian facilities, the number of trees
replanted, reduction in parking etc. City Staff utilized a number of land use site enhancements
that are proposed by the project as “self-mitigating” features. Those include the following:
Increase in density based on the model’s assumption (22 du/acre);
Increase in diversity of the development (land use mix);
Improve walkability design (design of wide pedestrian sidewalks, private plazas, and
proposed reduction of Atascadero Mall);
Distance to downtown / destination accessibility;
Increase in transit accessibility;
Improvement of the pedestrian network, particularly connecting Downtown Atascadero to
Atascadero High School and other uses to the west, including higher density multi-
family, through a public plaza;
Traffic calming measures including the use of bulb-outs;
Limit parking supply through the use of the City’s Downtown parking standards for non -
residential uses;
Implementation of a neighborhood electric vehicle network (NEV).
All of these with the exception of the NEV are already included by design of the project. In order
to obtain credit for the NEV network implementation, approximately 5% of designated parking
spaces will need to provide an Electric Vehicle charger. This equates to a total of 4 parking
spaces that would be dedicated to either electric hybrid or all electrical vehicles. With the land
use and site enhancements, Annual operational GHG emissions from the proposed project is
596.1848 of CO2e, which is 57% below APCD’s brightline threshold. To ensure that mitigated
GHG emissions is consistent with the model performed by Staff, a mitigation measure has been
added for all land use and site enhancements not proposed in site plans, or architectural details.
The City of Atascadero has adopted a Climate Action Plan (CAP) that addresses GHG. T he
CAP is a long-range policy geared towards reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and
maintaining safe air quality as development within the City increases. The plan also outlines
several community goals such as lowering energy costs, reducing air pollution, supporting local
economic development, and improving public health and quality of life.
The CAP estimates that upon General Plan buildout by the year 2020, the City will have
increased GHG emissions by 22% (Table ES-1 of the ACAP). The proposed project site is
designated Downtown Commercial (DC) and is accounted for in the GHG emissions forecast
generated by the City. The proposed project does not pass the threshold of GHG emissions as
identified in the SLOAPCD, therefore is in compliance with the Climate Action Plan’s goal of a
15% emission decrease by the year 2020. Transportation is the largest emission source,
accounting for 39% of the overall GHG emissions forecast. The projects central location and mix
of uses more than likely reduce single occupancy vehicle dependency because of the close
availability of transit and active transportation network that is in place. Therefore the project is
consistent with the Atascadero Climate Action Plan.
MITIGATION / CONCLUSION: The proposed project is consistent with the City’s adopted
Climate Action Plan and will reduce the amount of VMT throughout the community with
additional office and retail commercial uses. VMT is the primary contributor to GHG emissions
within the City. Additionally, the proposed project is under the operational thresholds established
PLN 2017-1649
La Plaza Downtown Redevelopment | Z3 LLC
by the SLOAPCD for GHG when the proposed project’s mitigated factors are included. The
proposed project includes a mix of uses, parking reduction, pedestrian linkage enhancements,
etc. The following are mitigation measures utilized to ensure the proposed is under the brightline
threshold established by SLOAPCD. Implementation of this measure will render the potential
impact to less than significant levels.
GHG – 1. The proposed project shall include a minimum of four (4) electric vehicle (EV)
charging stations within the proposed parking lot. Vehicle charging stations shall be counted as
parking spaces for the purposes of parking calculations.
5. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES – Will the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Requires
Mitigation
Insignificant
Impact
Not
Applicable
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 regional plans, policies,
or regulations, or by the California
Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW)
or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS)?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on
any riparian habitat or other sensitive
natural community identified in local or
regional plans, policies, regulations or
CDFW and USFWS?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on
federally protected wetlands as defined by
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
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 policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as
the tree native tree ordinance?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
f) Conflict with the provisions of an
adopted Habitat Conservation Plan,
Natural Community Conservation Plan, or
other approved local, regional, or state
habitat conservation plan?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
PLN 2017-1649
La Plaza Downtown Redevelopment | Z3 LLC
EXISTING SETTING: The project site consists of previously developed parcels that are
presently underdeveloped, either vacant or in use as non-residential uses in the downtown. All
areas of the site have been previously disturbed and are not home to any known native or
threatened species. The site has been previously graded and has an average slope below 5%.
The site is adjacent to El Camino Real, Highway 101, and is in the Downtown. Because of the
highly urbanized surroundings, as well as the previously disturbed site, there are no significant
biological factors on the site (wetlands, creeks, etc.). Atascadero Creek is approximately 300-
feet south of the project site, however fully developed and active downtown commercial sites lie
between the project site and the creek. Based on a site visit and the final proposed site plan,
there are no native trees on site to be removed.
PROPOSED PROJECT: The project is a redevelopment of existing and previously developed
sites, and does not have any significant biological factors that will be affected by the project.
MITIGATION / CONCLUSION: No biological resources are on-site, nor directly adjacent to the
project site, nor are any trees proposed to be removed. The site has been previously developed
and is located between an arterial road and Highway 101, therefore no biological impacts are
anticipated.
6. CULTURAL RESOURCES – Will the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Requires
Mitigation
Insignificant
Impact
Not
Applicable
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in
the significance of a historical resource? ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in
the significance of an archaeological
resource?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
d) Disturb any human remains, including
those interred outside of formal
cemeteries?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
EXISTING SETTING: The project site contains two (2) structures built prior to 1966. Both
buildings contain commercial-retail businesses. The structures are not on a national, state, or
local historic registry. Additional structures on the property include a vacant building (former
jack-in-the-box) and a telecommunication facilities tower.
There are no known human remains or cultural resources on the site; however, in accordance
with AB 52, tribal consultations with local tribes were conducted to assess potential conflict with
ancestral tribal sites. Responses received acknowledged this.
PLN 2017-1649
La Plaza Downtown Redevelopment | Z3 LLC
PROPOSED PROJECT: The proposed project will remove all structures on site, with the
exception of the telecommunications facility. The applicant submitted a cultural resource
assessment of the site that specifically focused on the building located at 6490 El Camino Real
(Malibu Brew) and 6452 El Camino Real (Beauty Supply Store). The project site had two
significant developments prior to existing conditions: Golden Way Auto Camp, and the
Atascadero Hotel. This area was commonly referred to the Golden Way Block. The majority of
the Golden Way Camp has been demolished or destroyed over time. The last remaining
building is 6452 El Camino Rea, which was once used as a hotel. The Golden Way Auto
Service center has morphed into a gasoline station since its construction in 1948, to a food
service establishment today.
State guidelines for determining historical significance (36 CFR Part 60 and Calif. Pub. Res.
Code, 5024.1, Title 14 CCR, Sect. 4852) indicate that a structure must be at least 50 years old
and meet one of the following criteria in order to be considered a historic resource:
A. It is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad
patterns of our history;
B. It is associated with the lives of persons important in our past;
C. It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of
construction, or represents the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values; or
D. It has yielded or may be likely to yield information important in history.
The existing buildings are not listed as a National Historic Landmark, or on the National Register
of Historic Places. They are not been listed in the California Register of Historical Resources as
a Registered Historic Landmark or as a Point of Historical interest. They are not included in any
listing of historic resources within the City of Atascadero. The existing buildings do not appear to
meet any of the criteria for eligibility on a national or state level. The historic analysis prepared
for the property did not find the existing site or buildings to meet criteria for historic listing. The
historical analysis is included as an attachment to this document.
. Mitigation measures have been included to ensure that the existing buildings are appropriately
documented prior to demolition.
Because the site has been previously disturbed, partially developed, and is not located near any
known or mapped areas of potential cultural significance, a Phase 1 survey is not warranted.
The site has been fully graded due to previous buildout of the location. However, to ensure
human remains are not located on-site, a mitigation measure will need to be added.
MITIGATION / CONCLUSION: Implementation of the following mitigation measures will lower
the threshold of impacts to less than significant.
CR – 1: Recordation and documentation shall be produced according to the California Register
of Historic Resources prior to issuance of demolition permits for both 6452 and 6490 El Camino
Real. Documentation shall include the following:
;
Large scale color photographs of exterior and interior with scale and caption;
Large scale site plan and floor plan of existing building(s) with legend and callouts of
location photographs taken;
Copies of selected historic photographs;
Written description of construction and use of the structures;
Digital copies of all materials submitted in PDF format.
PLN 2017-1649
La Plaza Downtown Redevelopment | Z3 LLC
CR – 2: 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
immediately. The Atascadero Community Development Director 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 during the excavation of
any remains.
7. GEOLOGY AND SOILS – Will the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Requires
Mitigation
Insignificant
Impact
Not
Applicable
a) Result in the exposure to or production
of unstable earth conditions including the
following:
Landslides;
Earthquakes;
Liquefaction;
Land subsidence or other similar
hazards?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Be within a California Geological
Survey “Alquist-Priolo” Earthquake Fault
Zone, or other known fault zone?
(consultant Division of Mines and Geology
Special Publication #42)
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
c) Result in soil erosion, topographic
changes, loss of topsoil or unstable soil
conditions from proposed improvements
such as grading, vegetation removal,
excavation or use of fill soil?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
d) Include any structures located on
known expansive soils? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
e) Be inconsistent with the goals and
policies of the City’s Safety element
relating to geologic and seismic hazards?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
f) Have soils incapable of adequately
supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative waste water disposal systems
where sewers are not available for the
disposal of waste water?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
EXISTING SETTING: Based on the City’s Geographical Information Systems (GIS), the project
site is in a location with a high risk of liquefaction and low risk of landslide or subsidence. The
site is located relatively close to a known fault line but is not located within a California
Geological Survey “Alquist-Priolo” Earthquake Fault Zone. A GIS expansion determination
indicates that the bearing soils lie in the “Moderate” expansion potential ranges.
PLN 2017-1649
La Plaza Downtown Redevelopment | Z3 LLC
PROPOSED PROJECT: Although there are no known faults within the project area, there are
faults located near the City that have been known to create seismic events. Due to high
liquefaction risk on site, mitigation to reduce liquefaction risk in the case of a seismic event will
be required. The City adopts the California Building Code (CBC) as its building code and
updates this code during each required adoption cycle. This code is continually updated with
requirements to make buildings safer during a seismic event. Additionally, the CBC requires
new development over 500-square feet to conduct soil reports to determine potential impacts of
development, and to establish mitigation options to reduce that potential impact. Incorporation of
the 2016 CBC requirements upon building permit submittal will reduce the exposure of people
and structures to strong ground shaking to a less than significant level.
The proposed project will remove existing topsoil, pavement, and sidewalk areas to construct
new foundations and for parking lots and driveways. A total of 74,232-sf of net impervious
surfaces are proposed upon site completion. Consistent with both the Municipal Code and the
City’s adopted Stormwater Management Plan, sedimentation and erosion control shall include,
but are not limited to: slope surface stabilization through temporary mulching or seeding, or
natural or paved interceptors and diversions installed at the top of cut or fill slopes.
Erosion or sedimentation control devices can be used in order to prevent polluting
sedimentation discharges. Control devices may include, but are not limited to: energy absorbing
structures or devices to reduce the velocity of runoff water, sediment debris basin and traps,
dispersal of water runoff over undisturbed areas, and implementing multiple discharge points to
reduce volume of runoff over localized areas. A requirement of the Municipal Code and the
City’s adopted Stormwater Management Plan requires inclusion of an erosion and sediment
control plan, to be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer or their designee.
Implementation of existing City codes and adopted policies renders this potential impact to less
than significant.
MITIGATION / CONCLUSION: Implementation of the City’s Municipal Code, the CBC and the
Stormwater Management Plan renders potential impacts to less than significant levels.
PLN 2017-1649
La Plaza Downtown Redevelopment | Z3 LLC
8. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS – Will the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Requires
Mitigation
Insignificant
Impact
Not
Applicable
a) Create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment through the
routine transport, use, or disposal of
hazardous materials?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b) Create a 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 or, where such a plan has
not been adopted, within two miles of a
public airport or public use airport, would
the project result in a safety hazard for
people residing 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 residing or
working in the project area?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
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?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
PLN 2017-1649
La Plaza Downtown Redevelopment | Z3 LLC
EXISTING SETTING: The project site does not have any documented hazardous materials on
or around the site. The development is also in a medium- risk fire hazard zone, therefore not
posing a significant threat of wildfire damage to people and structures.
PROPOSED PROJECT: The proposed project does not generate or involve the use of
significant amounts of hazardous materials. There are no known hazardous materials on the
site or nearby, therefore, there is no impact. The project will not impair implementation of an
adopted emergency response plan within the City.
The proposed project is within the urban core and not located near wildlands. Geographical
Information Systems (GIS) shows the project site to be in a medium fire hazard zone, which
may potentially pose risks to residents and structures that are constructed on-site. The City of
Atascadero adopts the California Building Code; in addition to the 2015 Wildlife Urban Interface
Code that specifically regulates construction methodology in high fire risk areas. During building
permit review, the fire department will inspect all structures for consistency with this code.
Because the code and its implementation reduces fire risk, potential impacts are considered
less than significant.
MITIGATION / CONCLUSION: Implementation of the City’s adopted building code renders
potential impacts less than significant.
9. WATER QUALITY / HYDROLOGY – Will the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Requires
Mitigation
Insignificant
Impact
Not
Applicable
a) Violate any water quality standards or
waste discharge requirements? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Substantially deplete groundwater
supplies or interfere substantially 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
preexisting nearby wells would drop to a
level which 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 or 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?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☒
PLN 2017-1649
La Plaza Downtown Redevelopment | Z3 LLC
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Requires
Mitigation
Insignificant
Impact
Not
Applicable
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or 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 which would result in flooding on-
or off-site?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
e) Create or contribute runoff water which
would exceed the capacity of existing or
planned stormwater 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?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard
area structures which would impede or
redirect flood flows?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
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?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
EXISTING SETTING: There are four (4) existing structures on-site, one (1) vacant, two (2)
commercial businesses and a wireless telecommunications facility. The site has been previously
developed. The site does not lie within a 100-year flood plain; however the City’s GIS data
shows the site to be within the 500- year floodplain, meaning there is a 0.2% chance of flooding,
standards established by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Atascadero
Creek runs approximately 300- feet to the south of the site, however several commercial
establishments lie on the lots between the site boundary and the creek, obstructing impacts the
proposed development could potentially have on the Creek. The Stormwater Control Plan
identifies no existing natural drainage features and no areas of high permeability.
The site is a redevelopment site with previous development including the Atascadero Hotel,
Golden Way auto camp, and other various uses. These uses combined have paved the majority
PLN 2017-1649
La Plaza Downtown Redevelopment | Z3 LLC
of the site. In 2009, a fire destroyed a good portion of the previous development and buildings
that were not destroyed by the fire have since been demolished.
PROPOSED PROJECT: The proposed project consists of paving the majority of the site that
currently exists as a partial dirt lot due to the burning down of previous commercial structures.
The existing drainage pattern of the site has been previously altered to accommodate previous
development such as the Atascadero Hotel, and the Golden Way Block. Upon completion, the
project will have 74,232 sf of net impervious surf ace. The project utilizes bio-swales, permeable
pavers, and landscaping to help slow and capture water runoff and drainage on-site, channeling
all possible impervious area runoff to vegetated areas before runoff enters any stormwater
conveyance systems. Site vegetation and pervious pavers was maximized to be approximately
15,125 sf.
Post-stormwater construction standards require drainage patterns to mimic up to 50% of pre-
development status for redevelopment projects, as required by the Regional Water Quality
Control Board. The project proposes a series of underground retention and infiltration systems
that meets this standard, as well as bio-swales to catch storm water runoff. The site was
identified as not having any natural drainage features, and site drainage improvements will
improve site permeability and capture of storm water runoff, and therefore have no impact.
The City, consistent with the Municipal Code and its Stormwater Management Plan, requires a
Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)/ Erosions Control Plan to be submitted and
approved by the City Engineer, or their designee prior to the issuance of the building permit.
The plan must include storm water measures for the operation and maintenance of the project
for their review and identify Best Management Practices (BMPs) appropriate to the uses
conducted on site that effectively prohibit the entry of pollutants into stormwater runoff.
MITIGATION / CONCLUSION: With implementation of the City’s Municipal Code, as well as the
policies outlines in the adopted Stormwater management Plan, the potential impacts are
rendered to a less than significant level.
10. LAND USE & PLANNING – Will the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Requires
Mitigation
Insignificant
Impact
Not
Applicable
a) Physically divide an established
community? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b) Conflict with any applicable land use
plan, policy, or regulation of an agency
with jurisdiction over the project adopted
for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating
an environmental effect?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☒
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat
conservation plan or natural community
conservation plan?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
EXISTING SETTING: The site’s general plan designation is Downtown (D). The site’s zoning
district is Downtown Commercial (DC) with an allowed density of 20 maximum residential units
PLN 2017-1649
La Plaza Downtown Redevelopment | Z3 LLC
per acre. Surrounding properties are also zoned DC as well as Public Right-of-Way for both
Highway 101 to the west of the site and El Camino Real to the east.
PROPOSED PROJECT: The Atascadero Zoning Ordinance indicated that residential units are
allowed in the Downtown Commercial zone at the maximum of 20 units per acre. The applicant
is requesting a density bonus in exchange for “high quality architectural design.” This bonus
allows for additional project density based on the overall design of the project. The Density
Bonus may be approved by the Planning Commission, if the commission makes the required
findings consistent with the City’s adopted General Plan. The applicant is proposing a total of 40
residential units located on the 2nd and 3rd floors of the development. The overall project density
is 22 dwelling units per acre. The proposed density bonus amounts to less than the maximum
density bonus that can be awarded, which is 15%.
The proposed project will be developed in accordance with the City of Atascadero General Plan
and will infill an underutilized lot in the downtown core, and will not physically divide an
established community. The proposed project is in compliance with the General Plan Policy 2.1
ensuring that new development is compatible with existing and surrounding development.
MITIGATION / CONCLUSION: The proposed project will not have any adverse effects on land
use and planning.
11. MINERAL RESOURCES – Will the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Requires
Mitigation
Insignificant
Impact
Not
Applicable
a) Result in the loss of availability of a
known mineral resource that would be of
value to the region and the residents of
the state?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b) Result in the loss of availability of a
locally important mineral resource
recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan or other land
use plan?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
EXISTING SETTING: There are no known mineral resources on the site.
MITIGATION / CONCLUSION: Mineral resources are not located on-site, therefore no impact.
12. NOISE – Will the project result in:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Requires
Mitigation
Insignificant
Impact
Not
Applicable
a) Exposure of persons to or generation
of noise levels in excess of standards
established in the local general plan or
noise ordinance, or applicable standards
of other agencies?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
b) Exposure of persons to or generation
of excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
PLN 2017-1649
La Plaza Downtown Redevelopment | Z3 LLC
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Requires
Mitigation
Insignificant
Impact
Not
Applicable
c) A substantial permanent increase in
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity
above levels existing without the 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?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
f) For a project within the vicinity of a
private airstrip, would the project expose
people residing or working in the project
area to excessive noise levels?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
EXISTING SETTING: The City’s General plan identified the site to be within noise contours
generated by both El Camino Real and Highway 101. The City’s Noise Contour Map has
identified the site as sitting in the 65 decibel contour due to its proximity to El Camino Real and
the Highway 101. The airport is not located within an airport land use plan or private airstrip.
PROPOSED PROJECT: The proposed project does not anticipate noise generation levels
exceeding existing City standards. Construction of the project is expected to generate a
significant amount of noise on and around the site.
Upon completion, the proposed project will not result in a significant increase in generation of
noise levels or ground borne vibration. However, construction is expected to involve some
heavy machinery and use of tools that will temporarily increase the ambient noise levels in the
project vicinity. The AMC outlines noise generation regulations such as established hours of
operations to keep off-site noise pollution at a minimum during the day. The AMC limits
construction activity from 7am to 9pm. Implementation of the City’s noise ordinance ensures
construction activities do not take place early in the morning and into the late evening hours.
With the City’s ordinance, the potential impact is considered less than significant.
The proposed project is located within noise contours of 65 decibels, identified by the City’s
General Plan. Because of this, a noise study shall be conducted to ensure noise impacts are
reduced to thresholds allowable (45 decibels for residential projects) by the implementation
measures and policies set forth by the City’s General Plan.
To achieve the required performance of less than 45 dBA, consistent with the City’s General
Plan, interior noise level along the critical sides of dwelling units nearest the noise source (only
for second and third story construction on facades or surfaces directly facing the noise source),
the noise study shall recommend construction specifications to be incorporated into the building
PLN 2017-1649
La Plaza Downtown Redevelopment | Z3 LLC
plans. These measures are considered mitigation to meet the City’s general plan goals and
policies.
MITIGATION / CONCLUSION: Implementation of the following noise mitigation measures will
reduce potential noise impacts to less than significant thresholds.
NOI – 1: Vents and roof penetrations. Soffit vents, eave vents, dormer vents and other wall and
roof penetrations shall be on the walls and roofs facing away from the noise source wherever
possible.
NOI – 2: The walls of habitable spaces and office space on second and third stories nearest the
noise source shall have wall construction with an S.T.C. (Sound Transmission Class) rating of
30 or greater. For instance, stucco exterior or equivalent on 2” x 4” stud walls with minimum R-
13 batt insulation and two layers of ½” gypsum board on the interior will provide an S.T.C. rating
of 30 or greater along these walls.
NOI – 3: Common acoustic leaks, such as electrical outlets, pipes, vents, ducts, flues, and other
breaks in the integrity of the wall, ceiling or roof construction on the side of the dwellings nearest
transportation noise sources shall receive special attention during construction. All construction
openings and joints on the walls on the noise facing side of the site shall be insulated, sealed
and caulked with a resilient, non-hardening, acoustical caulking material. All such openings and
joints shall be airtight to maintain sound isolation.
NOI – 4: To meet the interior LDN 45 dBA requirements, windows for habitable spaces on the
second and third floors of affected units facing the noise source shall be of double -glazed
construction with one light of laminated glass, and installed in accordance with the
recommendations of the manufacturer. The windows shall have full gaskets, with an S.T.C.
rating of 30 or better, as determined in testing by an accredited acoustical laboratory.
13. POPULATION & HOUSING – Will the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Requires
Mitigation
Insignificant
Impact
Not
Applicable
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?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
EXISTING SETTING: There are no existing residential units on the project site, and therefore
no displacing of residents will be required upon development.
PLN 2017-1649
La Plaza Downtown Redevelopment | Z3 LLC
PROPOSED PROJECT: The population increase resulting from the proposed project is in
accordance with the City of Atascadero General Plan. The development will not displace any
current residences.
The project proposes 40 residential units. New development is expected to increase housing
opportunities and population in the area in accordance with the City’s General Plan. The project
will also help the City meet Regional Housing Needs goals. Based on the 2010 US Census, the
City’s average household size is 2.51 persons per unit. The total projected population of the
project at build out is approximately 100 persons. This represents less than 1% of the City’s
population of 30,900 based on the State of California Department of Finance population housing
estimates for 2017. The proposed project also meets the General Plan’s goal of providing more
housing in the downtown core to facilitate more activity in the downtown.
MITIGATION / CONCLUSION: The proposed project will not have any significant negative
impact on population and housing.
14. PUBLIC SERVICE:
Will the proposed project have an effect
upon, or result in the need for new or
altered public services in any of the
following areas:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Requires
Mitigation
Insignificant
Impact
Not
Applicable
a) Emergency Services (Atascadero
Fire)? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☒
b) Police Services (Atascadero Police)? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
c) Public Schools? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
d) Parks? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
e) Other public facilities? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
EXISTING SETTING: Currently there are two operating commercial businesses and a vacant
building on-site. All existing structures are set to be demolished as part of the proposed project.
PROPOSED PROJECT: The proposed project is within the Atascadero Urban Services Line
and will not result in the need for new or altered public services outside of the population
increase potentially to occur upon project completion due to new residential dwelling units.
Development Impact Fees will be required of any new project for which a building permit is
issued. The concept of the impact fee program is to fund and sustain improvements which are
needed as a result of new development as stated in the General Plan and other policy
documents within the fee program. These fees include park fees and fire services. The
collection of these fees helps to offset additional new residences serviced. Collection of impact
fees, the impact is considered less than significant.
At buildout, the City’s population will overburden the existing school system unless additional
classroom space is added. The Atascadero Unified School District charges impact fees to fund
additional schools as needed. State law restricts mitigation of school impact fees to fund
additional schools as needed. State law restricts mitigation of school impacts to the levying of
PLN 2017-1649
La Plaza Downtown Redevelopment | Z3 LLC
these fees and other measures adopted by the school district. Provision of adequate facilities for
the population is the responsibility of the school district. Payment of these fees is required to be
completed prior to the issuance of building permits on residential units, per City policy. With the
collections of these fees, the impact is considered less than significant.
The proposed project will increase demand on existing City parks in the Downtown.
Additionally, plazas and small outdoor gathering spaces will add passive recreational space for
site visitors and residences. The project does not propose subdivision of any land, and therefore
does not require any parkland dedication as part of its mitigation measures. However, the
applicant is proposing to construct a new public plaza directly adjacent to the project site in the
Right-of-Way of Atascadero Avenue. This would require partial closure of vehicular traffic on
Atascadero Avenue. The applicant may be eligible for parkland credit for creation of new public
spaces dedicated to the public. Any fee credit would be given at the time of building permit
issuance.
MITIGATION / CONCLUSION: With collection of development impact fees for fire, police, and
parks, the impacts are considered less than significant.
15. RECREATION:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Requires
Mitigation
Insignificant
Impact
Not
Applicable
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 which
might have an adverse physical effect on
the environment?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
EXISTING SETTING: There are no existing recreational facilities currently on-site. Additionally,
there are currently no residents on-site. An existing park facility is across the street from the
proposed project, Sunken Gardens, which is utilized by the residents for various activities
including sporting activities for children, festivals, and other large events.
PROPOSED PROJECT: The proposed project will not increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks, as the proposed population increase is less than 1% of the
overall existing population of the City, as estimated by the California Department of Finance.
Therefore, the proposed project will have a less than significant impact on existing
neighborhood and regional recreational facilities.
The proposed project does in a passive recreational space, a public plaza. The plaza is
proposed to be constructed on City right-of-way (Atascadero Avenue), which will cause a partial
closure of Atascadero Avenue. This closure will not have an adverse physical effect on the
environment, as the existing right-of-way, including on-street parking, will be transformed into a
public plaza, aiding in the walkability from multi-family units and Atascadero High School to the
west, to the Downtown corridor destination point. The proposed plaza is considered a less than
significant impact.
PLN 2017-1649
La Plaza Downtown Redevelopment | Z3 LLC
MITIGATION / CONCLUSION: The proposed project will not have any significant impacts on
recreational uses.
16. TRANSPORTATION / TRAFFIC – Will the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Requires
Mitigation
Insignificant
Impact
Not
Applicable
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 travel and relevant
components of the circulation system,
including but not limited to intersections,
streets, highways and freeways,
pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass
transit?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Conflict with an applicable congestion
management program, including, but not
limited to level of service standards and
travel demand measures, or other
standards established by the county
congestion management agency 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?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
EXISTING SETTING: There are two existing businesses on-site, one (1) vacant building, and a
telecommunications facility. The telecommunications facility is currently unmanned, therefore
does not generate traffic. Based on an ITE trip modeling, the existing site generates 458 daily
trips, with 58 AM peak hour trips, and 26 PM peak hour trips. The site is directly adjacent to two
(2) public right-of-ways: El Camino Real and Atascadero Avenue, which is signed and known as
“Atascadero Mall”. El Camino Real is the main frontage of the existing site. El Camino Real is
the City’s main arterial, and has a 100-foot right-of-way and contains four (4) lanes of travel,
PLN 2017-1649
La Plaza Downtown Redevelopment | Z3 LLC
sidewalks, parallel on-street parking, and center turn lane. Its current level of Service (LOS) is
B, as determined by the City Engineer. Project frontage along El Camino Real includes two
intersecting street segments: Entrada Avenue on the northern edge of the project site, and West
Mall. Nearby intersections include Highway 41/Morro Road, East Mall, and Traffic Way. The
West Mall / El Camino Real intersection experiences a period of peak traffic during school drop
off times as Atascadero Middle School and the Atascadero Fine Arts Academy are located east
of the existing site. Additional peak periods include the afternoon between 2:50 and 3:30, as
school lets out. This also coincides with heavy pedestrian use of crossings between El Camino
Real, East Mall, West Mall, and Traffic Way.
Atascadero Avenue is directly adjacent to the site and has a right -of-way of 100 feet, however a
portion is owned “in fee” by the project applicant but access easements still exist. Atascadero
Avenue includes 11-foot diagonal parking on both sides, 30-foot center median, 10-foot
sidewalks and 14-foot travel lanes. Atascadero Avenue terminates at Highway 101, however
there is a pedestrian tunnel that goes under Highway 101 and connects with Atascadero
Avenue west of Highway 101. This pedestrian tunnel is a main access route for high school
students and residents connecting the neighborhoods on the westside of Atascadero to
Downtown Atascadero. Since Atascadero Avenue (Atascadero Mall) terminates at Highway
101, the street acts as a “driveway” for existing business. It operates at a LOS A.
The existing site is serviced by transit. There is a southbound Regional Transit Authority (RTA)
stop for route 9, that serves San Miguel, Paso Robles, Atascadero, and San Luis Obispo is
located at the intersection of Entrada and El Camino Real. A northbound stop is located 550
feet to the south of the site at the intersection of Traffic Way and El Camino Real. The City
transit station is located 2,000 feet from project site to the east.
Access from Highway 101 is available through two freeway entrances: Traffic Way and Highway
41 / Morro.
PROPOSED PROJECT: The proposed project includes a mix of residential and non-residential
uses. City Staff completed an ITE trip generation model for the proposed project. The following
ITE codes were utilized:
40 Low Rise Apartment Units (ITE 221)
0.30 acres City Park (ITE 411);
9,700 sf of General Office (ITE 710);
14,300 sf of Specialty Retail Center (ITE 826);
3,850 sf of Quality Restaurant (ITE 931).
ITE trip generation model rounds up square footage / acreage to nearest tenth. Based on this
information, the proposed project would add 1,340 daily trips, or an increase of 65% of the total
daily trips from existing development. AM Peak Hour trips are 135 trips generated and PM peak
hour trips are 105 trips total. The ITE trips model is based on a suburban land use model and
assumes singular uses for each separate and does not take into account a mix of uses within a
one building. Caltrans published studies in regards to urban infill and traffic generate. In 2009,
Caltrans concluded that in many cases, urban infill development such as La Plaza trip generate
rates are generally lower when compared to the ITE model (Caltrans: Trip Generation Rates for
Urban Infill Land Uses in California).
Based on the amount of trips the proposed project will generate, the City Engineer has
determined that the proposed project will not contribute to the derogation of LOS on El Camino
PLN 2017-1649
La Plaza Downtown Redevelopment | Z3 LLC
Real to a LOS C or below, the threshold established by the City’s General Plan. This includes
both the PM and AM peak hour trips. This impact is considered less than significant.
The proposed project also includes a partial closure of Atascadero Avenue to accommodate a
pedestrian plaza that connects the pedestrian tunnel to the Downtown. This closure would
reduce Atascadero Avenue to 20-feet wide, placing vehicles on the southern end of Atascadero
Avenue eliminating the sidewalk adjacent to the existing gas station and service station. These
proposed improvements would be located on City right-of-way, which is owned by the City. The
remainder of the right-of-way (80-feet) would be turned into a pedestrian plaza. Atascadero
Avenue is, although a dedicated right-of-way, is currently used more as a driveway than a
roadway, as vehicles use it to “cut-through” for access to the existing gas station, and cars are
parked that are associated with the automotive repair shop, also adjacent to Atascadero
Avenue. The proposed reduction in width of Atascadero Avenue will not cut-off access to any of
the existing businesses, nor will this degrade the LOS of Atascadero Avenue. This impact is
considered less than significant.
With elimination of the sidewalk on the southern portion of Atascadero Avenue, the existing
pedestrian crossing at East Mall and El Camino Real will be affected creating a potential conflict
with an existing pedestrian facility. The East Mall / El Camino Real pedestrian crossing includes
warning lights. These warning lights were recently removed due to issues with the lights
malfunctioning. Additionally, this intersection has experienced six (6) pedestrian or bicycle
collisions with vehicles from 2011-2016 according to the California Highway Patrol. The
applicant proposes to relocate the pedestrian walkway to the signalized intersection of West
Mall and El Camino Real. City Staff is in favor of this proposed relocation as the crossing would
eliminate a “mid-block” crossing, in favor of a crossing that is controlled by a traffic signal. In
order to reduce the loss of a pedestrian crossing to a less than significant impact, a mitigation
measure is included to ensure the crossing is replaced. Inclusion of this new crossing would
render this impact to less than significant.
The proposed project includes elimination of an existing driveway adjacent to the project site to
reduce driveway conflicts and place a new driveway at the location of the existing bus stop. The
placement of this driveway will affect the existing transit stop. A mitigation measure has been
included to ensure that the City and the applicant work with the Regional Transit Authority to site
a new transit stop, with bus shelter at an appropriate location, either on the project site, or off
the project site.
The City’s Emergency Services Department (Fire) reviewed the proposed project, including
reduction of right-of-way of Atascadero Avenue, emergency access for the proposed project,
and elimination of existing driveways. The fire department has approved the site design and re-
location of pavement on Atascadero Avenue, and has determined that the proposed project has
sufficient emergency access. The impact is considered less than significant.
The proposed project will be contributing additional traffic on roadways and freeway
intersections, particularly traffic way and Morro Road / Highway 41. The City has established a
Traffic Impact Fee (TIF) that goes towards improvements identified in the City’s Capital
Improvement Program (CIP). This fee is to be paid on all new residential development on a per
dwelling unit basis, and per square foot (sf) on non-residential development. Based on the
proposed project statistics, the applicant would owe the following, less any fee credits available
based on the adopted CIP. Credits are capped at 66.6% of the total cost of improvements.
$467,760 TIF – 40 residential units;
$170,208 – 18,000 sf retail;
PLN 2017-1649
La Plaza Downtown Redevelopment | Z3 LLC
$91, 723.20 – 9,700 sf of Office.
TIF is based on the City’s adopted Development Impact Fee schedules as of October 18, 2017.
The applicant or developer will be required to pay TIF based on the date a building permit is
submitted, consistent with California Subdivision Map Act since the applicant has submitted a
tentative parcel map. Payment of these fees will render increased traffic to a less than
significant threshold.
MITIGATION / CONCLUSION: The following are mitigation measure necessary in response to
transportation / traffic impacts. Implementation of these mitigation measures will reduce the
potential project impacts to a less than significant threshold.
TP – 1: The applicant or developer must relocate the existing pedestrian crossing at the
midblock crossing at the intersection of East Mall and El Camino Real to a location to the north
subject to the approval of the Public Works Director. The preferred location would be at a
signalized intersection. The applicant shall re-stripe and provide conduit for a new pedestrian
crossing signal adjacent to the project site. The proposed improvement may be eligible for TIF
credits based on the adopted Capital Improvement Plans at the time of building permit issuance.
TP – 2: The applicant shall work with City Staff and the Regional Transit Authority to relocate
the adjacent southbound RTA stop that currently exists near the intersection of Entrada and El
Camino Real. This includes relocation or re-construction of a bus shelter, as deemed
appropriate by the City Engineer.
17. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS – Will the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Requires
Mitigation
Insignificant
Impact
Not
Applicable
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?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
PLN 2017-1649
La Plaza Downtown Redevelopment | Z3 LLC
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Requires
Mitigation
Insignificant
Impact
Not
Applicable
e) Result in a determination by the
wastewater treatment provider which
serves or may serve the project that it has
adequate capacity to serve the project’s
projected demand in addition to the
provider’s existing commitments?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient
permitted capacity to accommodate the
project’s solid waste disposal needs?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
g) Comply with federal, state, and local
statutes and regulations related to solid
waste?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
EXISTING SETTING: There are two existing businesses on-site, a vacant building, and an
unmanned wireless telecommunications facility. It is unknown how many fixture units are
currently within the existing buildings. All buildings on-site have sewer service from the City and
water services from Atascadero Mutual Water Company (AMWC). Existing drainage facilities
on-site includes run-off from private drainage systems to the City’s storm drain system, as the
existing parcels were previously developed. The site is currently serviced by Atascadero Waste
Alternatives, which transports solid waste to the Chicago Grade landfill.
PROPOSED PROJECT: The proposed project is required to connect all residential units,
landscaping irrigation, and new non-residential spaces to water services. The Atascadero
Mutual Water Company (AMWC) has indicated that it can provide water to the proposed project.
All property within the City limits is entitled to water from the AMWC. The project is not expected
to require a significant quantity of water for the proposed use. Water is pumped from several
portions of the underground, the Atascadero Sub-Basin, using a series of shallow and deep
wells. The water company anticipates that it will be able to meet the city’s needs through build
out and beyond. The following is the projected water use factors for the proposed project
provided by the AMWC:
0.20 acre feet per year (AFY), per unit for the multi-family residential portion;
0.30 per 1,000 square feet of non-residential uses;
0.34 per 1,000 sf for restaurant uses,
2.20 per acre for landscaped areas.
Based on these calculations, the following is an estimated projected annual water demand for
the entire project:
Table 17-1: Projected Annual Water Usage
Land Use Units / Sf (1,000) / Acre Factor Acre Feet per
Year (AFY
Residential Apartments 40 units 0.20 AFY per unit 8.00
Non-Residential 23,321 sf 0.30 AFY per 1,000 sf 7.00
Restaurant Use 3,749 sf 0.34 AFY per 1,000 sf 1.27
Landscape Areas 0.726 acres 2.20 AFY per acre 0.33
Project Total 16.6 AFY
Source: Atascadero Mutual Water Company, Eagle Ranch Specific Plan Draft EIR
PLN 2017-1649
La Plaza Downtown Redevelopment | Z3 LLC
The total project water demand for the proposed project is 16.6 AFY, per year. The AWMC
projects a supply of 8,700 AFY for the year 2020 with a demand in a single dry year at 6,788 afy
for its entire system for both existing and future demand. Based on these statistics, the
proposed project’s impact on water supply is considered less than significant, as this project,
along with other projects including the proposed Eagle Ranch Specific Plan, Hartberg Planned
Development, and other either under construction or included in the CEQA baseline will be met
based on the supply and demand for water.
The proposed project will require additional sewer taps into the City’s sewer system. Based on
the findings from the Final March 2016 “City of Atascadero Water Reclamation Facility Master
Plan Update”, the current average daily flow is 1.38 millions of gallons per day (mgd), which is
99 percent of the original 1.40 mgd design capacity, leaving the facility with 0.02 mgd available.
Based on this study, the City is currently conducting a re-rating study to determine the final
remaining capacity that is left within the water reclamation facility. The following is the projected
wastewater flows for the proposed project:
Table 17-2: Projected Wastewater Flow
Land Use Number of
Units /
square foot
Residents
Per Unit
Flow
Factor
(GPDU)
Average Daily
Flow (GDP)
Peak Hour
Flow (GDP)
3.8 PHF
Residential
Apartments
40 units 2.62 70 7,336 27,877
Non-
Residential
23,321 sf 0.1 2,332 8,862
Restaurant
Use
3,749 sf 0.1 375 1,425
Project Total 10,043 gdp 38,164 gdp
Project Total Million Gallons per Day (mgd) 0.008 mgd 0.03 mgd
Source: Atascadero Collection Reclamation Facility Master Plan Update, March 2016
. Capacity at the plan fluctuates, depending on plan conditions, weather, etc. The General Plan
envisioned mixed-use development within the Downtown and the General Plan Final EIR
analyzed some residential development in this area, coupled with non-residential development.
In the event that capacity is maximized at the City’s treatment facility, there are a number of
improvements that may be made at the existing plan to add capacity, including, but not limited
to the following:
Aeration;
Partial dredging from the polishing pond; or
Modification of the existing recirculation pumping stations.
Implementation of the listed mitigation measures would reduce the potential impacts to the
wastewater treatment facility to a level of less than significant.
Solid waste will be collected by the City of Atascadero, through provide contracts, and
processed to the Chicago Grade landfill. The current capacity of the Chicago Grade Landfill is
6.12 million cubic yards. The proposed project will produce both construction waste and
operational waste. The following is the estimated Construction Waste to be generated by the
proposed project:
PLN 2017-1649
La Plaza Downtown Redevelopment | Z3 LLC
Table 17-3: Estimated Construction Waste Generation
Land Use Waste Generation Rate Units / Square
Feet
Annual Waste Generation
Tons Cubic Yards
Residential 4.38 pounds per unit 40 units 0.09 0.12
Non-Residential 3.89 pounds per sf 27,070 sf 13.54 18.95
Total 13.63 19.07
Source: United States EPA, Eagle Ranch Specific Plan Draft EIR
The construction waste generated by the project (62.23 cubic yards) would represent less than
0.01 percent of the remaining. Construction waste generation is considered less than significant.
Operational solid waste generation is calculated for both non-residential and residential uses by
Cal Recycle using a statewide per person waste generation (4.7 pounds / capital/day).
Table 17-4: Estimated Operational Waste Generation
Land Use Waste Generation Rate Count Annual Waste Generation
Tons Cubic Yards
Residential 1,716 pounds per
person
100 persons 85.80 0.10
Non-Residential 4.8 pounds per sf 27,070 sf 64.97 90.95
Total 13.63 91.05
Source: Cal Recycle, Eagle Ranch Specific Plan Draft EIR
The operational waste generated by the project (91.05 cubic yards) would represent less than
0.01 percent of the remaining landfill. To ensure that the proposed project complies with State
waste diversion, a mitigation measure is included to install recycling receptacles throughout the
project.
MITIGATION / CONCLUSION: The following mitigation measures must be implemented to
ensure potential impacts are less than significant.
UT – 1. The proposed project must pay all applicable sewer connection fees at the time of
building permit issuance. A fee credit may be applicable for all existing fixtures and connections
listed in demolition permits for buildings removed.
UT – 2. The applicant shall be responsible for providing fair share impact fees for wastewater in
effect at the time of building permit issuance.
UT – 3. The developer must include trash and recycle receptacles near public entries and a
minimum of (3) trash and recycle receptacles within the proposed plaza to be dispersed
throughout the length of the plaza. Receptacles design shall be approved by Staff and included
on landscaping plans at the time of building permit submittal.
PLN 2017-1649
La Plaza Downtown Redevelopment | Z3 LLC
18. TRIBAL & CULTURAL RESOURCES – Will the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Requires
Mitigation
Insignificant
Impact
Not
Applicable
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in
the significance of a tribal cultural
resource, defined in Public Resources
Code section 21074 as either a site,
feature, place, cultural landscape, sacred
place, or object with cultural value to a
California Native American tribe?:
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b) Impact a listed or eligible for listing in
the California Register of Historical
Resources, or in a local register of
historical resources as define in Public
Resources Code Section 5020.1(k)?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
c) Impact a resource determined by the
lead agency, in its discretion and
supported by substantial evidence, to be
significant pursuant to criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code
Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set
forth in subdivision (c) of Public
Resources Code Section 5024.1. the leas
agency shall consider the significance of
the resource to a California native
American Tribe?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
EXISTING SETTING: There are two existing businesses on-site, a vacant building, and an
unmanned wireless telecommunications facility. The site is not listed as a significant tribal
cultural resource, nor is it located near one. The site is not listed, but buildings may be eligible
for listing through local register of places significant to Atascadero’s history.
PROPOSED PROJECT: The existing buildings are not listed as a National Historic Landmark,
or on the National Register of Historic Places. They are not been listed in the California Register
of Historical Resources as a Registered Historic Landmark or as a Point of Historical interest.
They are not included in any listing of historic resources within the City of Atascadero, which
tends to focus on resources of the Atascadero Colony Period. The existing building does not
appear to meet any of the criteria f or eligibility on a national or state level. The existing buildings
have the potential to be considered a local historic resource due to its association with the post-
war auto-centric commercial development of Atascadero along El Camino Real.
Therefore, building at 6490 and 6452 El Camino Real may be demolished following recordation
and documentation as mitigation. Recordation and documentation should be produced
according to the California Register of Historic Resources. A mitigation measures has been
included to mitigate this potentially significant impact listed as CR – 1. Implementation of these
measures renders the impact to less than significant.
MITIGATION / CONCLUSION: Implementation of mitigation measures CR – 1 renders this
impact less than significant.
PLN 2017-1649
La Plaza Downtown Redevelopment | Z3 LLC
19. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Requires
Mitigation
Insignificant
Impact
Not
Applicable
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 which will cause substantial
adverse effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
EXISTING SETTING: There are two existing businesses on-site, a vacant building, and an
unmanned wireless telecommunications facility. The site has been previously developed dating
back to the early 1920’s and had been graded and disturbed. There are no known wetlands,
significant tree vegetation or know habitat for rare or endangered species. The site has no
known pre-historic resources or examples of California history.
PROPOSED PROJECT: The proposed project is a mixed-use project that includes 40
residential units and 27,070 sf of non-residential uses, including offices and retail / personal
services, etc. The project is consistent with the underlying zoning district, Downtown
Commercial (DC), and meets the goals, policies, and implementation of both the General Plan,
and the Downtown Revitalization Plan. The proposed project and the cumulative effects will not
have an impact on existing and future projects, nor does the proposed project have any
environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on residents, either directly or
indirectly.
MITIGATION / CONCLUSION: The proposed project will not have a significant cumulative
impact.
For further information on California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) or the City’s
environmental review process, please visit the City’s website at www.atascadero.org under the
Community Development Department or the California Environmental Resources Evaluation
System at: http://resources.ca.gov/ceqa/ for additional information on CEQA.
PLN 2017-1649
La Plaza Downtown Redevelopment | Z3 LLC
Exhibit A – Initial Study References & Outside Agency Contacts
The Community Development Department of the City of Atascadero has contacted various
agencies for their comments on the proposed project. With respect to the proposed project, the
following outside agencies have been contacted (marked with an ☒) with a notice of intent to
adopt a proposed negative / mitigated negative declaration.
☒ Atascadero Mutual Water Com pany ☒ Native American Heritage Commission
☒ Atascadero Unified School District ☒ San Luis Obispo Council of Governments
☒ Atascadero Waste Alternatives ☒ San Luis Obispo Air Pollution Control District
☒ AB 52 – Salinan Tribe ☐ San Luis Obispo Integrated Waste
Management Board
☒ AB 52 – Northern Chumash Tribe ☒ Regional Water Quality Control Board District 3
☒ AB 52 – Xolon Salinan Tribe ☒ HEAL SLO – Healthy Communities Workgroup
☐ AB 52 – Other ☒ US Postal Service
☐ California Highway Patrol ☒ Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E)
☐ California Department of Fish and Wildlife
(Region 4) ☒ Southern California Gas Co. (SoCal Gas)
☒ California Department of Transportation
(District 5) ☒ San Luis Obispo County Assessor
☒ Pacific Gas & Electric ☐ LAFCO
☐ San Luis Obispo County Planning &
Building ☐ Office of Historic Preservation
☐ San Luis Obispo County Environmental
Health Department ☐ Charter Communications
☐ Upper Salians – Las Tablas RCD ☐ CA Housing & Community Development
☒ Central Coast Information Center (CA.
Historical Resources Information System) ☐ CA Department of Toxic Substances Control
☐ CA Department of Food & Agriculture ☐ US Army Corp of Engineers
☐ CA Department of Conservation ☐ Other:
☐ CA Air Resources Board ☐ Other:
☐ Address Management Service ☐ Other:
PLN 2017-1649
La Plaza Downtown Redevelopment | Z3 LLC
The following checked (“☒”) reference materials have been used in the environmental review
for the proposed project and are hereby incorporated by reference into the Initial Study. The
following information is available at the Community Development Department and requested
copies of information may be viewed by requesting an appointment with the project planner at
(805) 461-5000.
☒ Project File / Application / Exhibits /
Studies ☒ Adopted Atascadero Capital Facilities Fee
Ordinance
☒ Atascadero General Plan 2025 / Final EIR ☐ Atascadero Inclusionary Housing Policy
☒ Atascadero Municipal Code ☒ SLO APCD Handbook
☒ Atascadero Appearance Review Manual ☒ Regional Transportation Plan
☒ Atascadero Urban Stormwater
Management Plan ☒ Flood Hazard Maps
☐ Atascadero Hillside Grading Guidelines ☒ CDFW / USFW Mapping
☒ Atascadero Native Tree Ordinance &
Guidelines ☐ CA Natural Species Diversity Data Base
☒ Atascadero Climate Action Plan (CAP) ☒ Archeological Resources Map
☒ Atascadero Downtown Revitalization Plan ☒ Atascadero Mutual Water Company Urban
Water Management Plan
☒ Atascadero Bicycle Transportation Plan ☒ CalEnvironScreen
☒ Atascadero GIS mapping layers ☐ Other _______________
☐ Other _______________ ☐ Other _______________
Environmental Review | City of Atascadero | www.atascadero.org | fb.me/planningatascadero Page 40
EXHIBIT B – MITIGATION SUMMARY TABLE
La Plaza Downtown Redevelopment
PLN 2017-1649
Per Public Resources Code § 21081.6, the following measures also constitutes the mitigation
monitoring and/or reporting program that will reduce potentially significant impacts to less than
significant levels. The measures will become conditions of approval (COAs) should the project
be approved. The City of Atascadero, as the Lead Agency, or other responsible agencies, as
specified, are responsible to verify compliance with these COAs.
MITIGATION MEASURE TIMING
Aesthetics
AES-1 At the time of building permit submittal of the proposed
project, applicant must submit a photometric plan showing
locations of proposed on-sight lighting. Prior to final
occupancy, City Staff and the applicant shall meet on-site and
review lights at dusk condition to ensure off-site light spillage
and glare are limited.
Prior to Building
Permit Issuance
AES-2 Any luminaire pole height shall not exceed 14-feet in height to
minimize off-site light spillage for consistency with the
Atascadero Municipal Code.
Prior to Building
Permit Issuance
AES-3 Limit intensity to up to 3.0 foot candles at ingress/egress, and
otherwise 0.6 foot candle minimum to 1.0 maximum in
parking areas and/or for street lighting, bollards, etc to be
reviewed at the time of building final.
Prior to Building
Permit Final
Air Quality
AQ-1 Demolition activities can have potential negative air quality
impacts, including issues surrounding proper handling,
abatement, and disposal of asbestos containing material
(ACM). Asbestos containing materials could be encountered
during the demolition or remodeling of existing structures or
the disturbance, demolition, or relocation of above or below
ground utility pipes/pipelines (e.g., transit pipes or insulation
on pipes). If this project will include any of these activities,
then it may be subject to various regulatory jurisdictions,
including the requirements stipulated in the National Emission
Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants These requirements
include, but are not limited to: 1) written notification, within at
least 10 business days of activities commencing, to the
APCD, 2) asbestos survey conducted by a Certified Asbestos
Consultant, and, 3) applicable removal and disposal
requirements of identified ACM. Please contact the APCD
Engineering & Compliance Division at (805) 781-5912 for
further information or go to slocleanair.org/rules-
regulations/asbestos.php for further information. To obtain a
Notification of Demolition and Renovation form go to the
“Other Forms” section of slocleanair.org/library/download-
forms.php.
Prior to Building
Permit Issuance
PLN 2017-1649
La Plaza Downtown Redevelopment | Z3 LLC
MITIGATION MEASURE TIMING
AQ-2 Based on the information provided, San Luis Obispo APCD is
unsure of the types of equipment that may be present during
the project’s construction phase. Portable equipment, 50
horsepower (hp) or greater, used during construction
activities may require California statewide portable equipment
registration (issued by the California Air Resources Board) or
an APCD permit.
The following list is provided as a guide to equipment and
operations that may have permitting requirements, but should
not be viewed as exclusive. For a more detailed listing, refer
to the Technical Appendices, page 4-4, in the APCD's 2012
CEQA Handbook.
Power screens, conveyors, diesel engines, and/or
crushers;
Portable generators and equipment with engines that
are 50 hp or greater;
Electrical generation plants or the use of standby
generator;
Internal combustion engines;
Rock and pavement crushing;
Unconfined abrasive blasting operations;
Tub grinders;
Trommel screens; and,
Portable plants (e.g. aggregate plant, asphalt batch
plant, concrete batch plant, etc).
To minimize potential delays, prior to the start of the project,
please contact the APCD Engineering & Compliance Division
at (805) 781-5912 for specific information regarding
permitting requirements.
During
Construction
AQ-3 Effective February 25, 2000, the APCD prohibited
developmental burning of vegetative material within San Luis
Obispo County. If you have any questions regarding these
requirements, contact the APCD Engineering & Compliance
Division at (805) 781-5912
During
Construction
AQ-4 Construction activities can generate fugitive dust, which could
be a nuisance to local residents and businesses in close
proximity to the proposed construction site. Projects with
grading areas that are greater than 4-acres or are within
1,000 feet of any sensitive receptor shall implement the
following mitigation measures to manage fugitive dust
emissions such that they do not exceed the APCD’s 20%
opacity limit (APCD Rule 401) or prompt nuisance violations
(APCD Rule 402):
During
Construction
PLN 2017-1649
La Plaza Downtown Redevelopment | Z3 LLC
MITIGATION MEASURE TIMING
n. Reduce the amount of the disturbed area where
possible;
o. Use of water trucks or sprinkler systems in sufficient
quantities to prevent airborne dust from leaving the
site and from exceeding the APCD’s limit of 20%
opacity for greater than 3 minutes in any 60 minute
period. Increased watering frequency would be
required whenever wind speeds exceed 15 mph.
Reclaimed (non-potable) water should be used
whenever possible. Please note that since water
use is a concern due to drought conditions, the
contractor or builder shall consider the use of an
APCD-approved dust suppressant where feasible
to reduce the amount of water used for dust
control. For a list of suppressants, see Section 4.3 of
the CEQA Air Quality Handbook
p. All dirt stock pile areas should be sprayed daily and
covered with tarps or other dust barriers as needed;
q. Permanent dust control measures identified in the
approved project revegetation and landscape plans
should be implemented as soon as possible, following
completion of any soil disturbing activities;
r. 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, non-
invasive, grass seed and watered until vegetation is
established;
s. All disturbed soil areas not subject to revegetation
should be stabilized using approved chemical soil
binders, jute netting, or other methods approved in
advance by the APCD;
t. All roadways, driveways, sidewalks, etc. to be paved
should be completed as soon as possible. In addition,
building pads should be laid as soon as possible after
grading unless seeding or soil binders are used;
u. Vehicle speed for all construction vehicles shall not
exceed 15 mph on any unpaved surface at the
construction site;
v. 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;
w. Track-Out” is defined as sand or soil that adheres to
and/or agglomerates on the exterior surfaces of motor
vehicles and/or equipment (including tires) that may
then fall onto any highway or street as described in
California Vehicle Code Section 23113 and California
Water Code 13304. To prevent ‘track out’, designate
access points and require all employees,
subcontractors, and others to use them. Install and
PLN 2017-1649
La Plaza Downtown Redevelopment | Z3 LLC
MITIGATION MEASURE TIMING
operate a ‘track-out prevention device’ where vehicles
enter and exit unpaved roads onto paved streets. The
‘track-out prevention device’ can be any device or
combination of devices that are effective at preventing
track out, located at the point of intersection of an
unpaved area and a paved road. Rumble strips or
steel plate devices need periodic cleaning to be
effective. If paved roadways accumulate tracked out
soils, the track-out prevention device may need to be
modified;
x. Sweep streets at the end of each day if visible soil
material is carried onto adjacent paved roads. Water
sweepers shall be used with reclaimed water should
be used where feasible. Roads shall be pre-wetted
prior to sweeping when feasible;
y. All PM10 mitigation measures required should be
shown on grading and building plans; and,
z. The contractor or builder shall designate a person or
persons to monitor the fugitive dust emissions and
enhance the implementation of the measures as
necessary to minimize dust complaints, reduce visible
emissions below the APCD’s limit of 20% opacity for
greater than 3 minutes in any 60 minute period. Their
duties shall include holidays and weekend periods
when work may not be in progress. The name and
telephone number of such persons shall be provided
to the APCD Engineering & Compliance Division prior
to the start of any grading, earthwork or demolition.
AQ-5 This project is in close proximity to nearby sensitive
receptors. Projects that will have diesel powered construction
activity in close proximity to any sensitive receptor shall
implement the following mitigation measures to ensure that
public health benefits are realized by reducing toxic risk from
diesel emissions:
To help reduce sensitive receptor emissions impact of diesel
vehicles and equipment used to construct the project, the
applicant shall implement the following idling control
techniques:
3. California Diesel Idling Regulations
e. On-road diesel vehicles shall comply with
Section 2485 of Title 13 of the California Code of
Regulations. This regulation limits idling from
diesel-fueled commercial motor vehicles with
gross vehicular weight ratings of more than 10,000
pounds and licensed for operation on highways. It
applies to California and non-California based
vehicles. In general, the regulation specifies that
During
Construction
PLN 2017-1649
La Plaza Downtown Redevelopment | Z3 LLC
MITIGATION MEASURE TIMING
drivers of said vehicles:
3. Shall not idle the vehicle’s primary diesel
engine for greater than 5 minutes at any
location, except as noted in Subsection (d) of
the regulation; and,
4. Shall not operate a diesel-fueled auxiliary
power system (APS) to power a heater, air
conditioner, or any ancillary equipment on that
vehicle during sleeping or resting in a sleeper
berth for greater than 5.0 minutes at any
location when within 1,000 feet of a restricted
area, except as noted in Subsection (d) of the
regulation.
f. Off-road diesel equipment shall comply with the
5-minute idling restriction identified in Section
2449(d) (2) of the California Air Resources Board’s
In-Use Off-Road Diesel regulation.
g. Signs must be posted in the designated queuing
areas and job sites to remind drivers and
operators of the state’s 5-minute idling limit.
h. The specific requirements and exceptions in the
regulations can be reviewed at the following web
sites: www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/truck-
idling/2485.pdf and
www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2007/ordiesl07/frooal.pdf.
AND/OR
4. Diesel Idling Restrictions Near Sensitive Receptors
In addition to the state required diesel idling
requirements, the project applicant shall comply with
these more restrictive requirements to minimize
impacts to nearby sensitive receptors:
e. Staging and queuing areas shall not be located
within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors;
f. Diesel idling within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors
shall not be permitted;
g. Use of alternative fueled equipment is
recommended; and
h. Signs that specify the no idling areas must be
posted and enforced at the site.
AQ-6 Exterior architectural coasting shall be limited to Volatile
Organic Compound (VOC) of 50 grams per liter maximum to
the extent feasible.
During
Construction
AQ-7 Interior architectural coasting shall be limited to Volatile
Organic Compound (VOC) of 0 grams per liter maximum to
the extent feasible within residential and non-residential
spaces.
During
Construction
PLN 2017-1649
La Plaza Downtown Redevelopment | Z3 LLC
MITIGATION MEASURE TIMING
Green House Gas Emissions
GHG-1 The proposed project shall include a minimum of four (4)
electric vehicle (EV) chargers within the proposed parking lot.
Vehicle chargers shall be counted as parking spaces for the
purposes of parking calculations.
Prior to Building
Permit Final
Cultural Resources
CR-1 Recordation and documentation shall be produced according
to the California Register of Historic Resources prior to
issuance of demolition permits for both 6452 and 6490 El
Camino Real. Documentation shall include the following:
Completion of State of California Form DPR 523B;
Large scale color photographs of exterior and interior
with scale and caption;
Large scale site plan and floor plan of existing
building(s) with legend and callouts of location
photographs taken;
Copies of selected historic photographs;
Written description of construction and use of the
structures;
Digital copies of all materials submitted in PDF format.
Prior to Demo
Permit Issuance
CR-2 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 immediately. The Atascadero Community
Development Director 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
during the excavation of any remains.
During
Construction
Noise
NO-1 Soffit vents, eave vents, dormer vents and other wall and roof
penetrations shall be on the walls and roofs facing away from
the noise source wherever possible.
Prior to Building
Permit Issuance
NO-2 The walls of habitable spaces and office space on second
and third stories nearest the noise source shall have wall
construction with an S.T.C. (Sound Transmission Class)
rating of 30 or greater. For instance, stucco exterior or
equivalent on 2” x 4” stud walls with minimum R-13 batt
insulation and two layers of ½” gypsum board on the interior
will provide an S.T.C. rating of 30 or greater along these
walls.
Prior to Building
Permit Issuance
NO-3 Common acoustic leaks, such as electrical outlets, pipes,
vents, ducts, flues, and other breaks in the integrity of the
wall, ceiling or roof construction on the side of the dwellings
nearest transportation noise sources shall receive special
attention during construction. All construction openings and
Prior to Building
Permit Issuance
PLN 2017-1649
La Plaza Downtown Redevelopment | Z3 LLC
MITIGATION MEASURE TIMING
joints on the walls on the noise facing side of the site shall be
insulated, sealed and caulked with a resilient, non-hardening,
acoustical caulking material. All such openings and joints
shall be airtight to maintain sound isolation.
NO-4 To meet the interior LDN 45 dBA requirements, windows for
habitable spaces on the second and third floors of affected
units facing the noise source shall be of double-glazed
construction with one light of laminated glass, and installed in
accordance with the recommendations of the manufacturer.
The windows shall have full gaskets, with an S.T.C. rating of
30 or better, as determined in testing by an accredited
acoustical laboratory.
Prior to Building
Permit Issuance
Transportation & Traffic
TP-1 The applicant or developer must relocate the existing
pedestrian crossing at the midblock crossing at the
intersection of East Mall and El Camino Real to a location to
the north subject to the approval of the Public Works Director.
The preferred location would be at a signalized intersection.
The applicant shall re-stripe and provide conduit for a new
pedestrian crossing signal adjacent to the project site. The
proposed improvement may be eligible for TIF credits based
on the adopted Capital Improvement Plans at the time of
building permit issuance.
Prior to release
final sign off of
off-site
improvements.
TP-2 The applicant shall work with City Staff and the Regional
Transit Authority to relocate the adjacent southbound RTA
stop that currently exists near the intersection of Entrada and
El Camino Real. This includes relocation or re-construction of
a bus shelter, as deemed appropriate by the City Engineer.
Prior to release
final sign off of
off-site
improvements.
Utilities Services
UT-1 The proposed project must pay all applicable sewer
connection fees at the time of building permit issuance. A fee
credit may be applicable for all existing fixtures and
connections listed in demolition permits for buildings
removed.
Prior to Building
Permit Issuance
UT-2 The applicant shall be responsible for providing fair share
impact fees for wastewater in effect at the time of building
permit issuance.
Prior to Building
Permit Issuance
UT-3 The developer must include trash and recycle receptacles
near public entries and a minimum of (3) trash and recycle
receptacles within the proposed plaza to be dispersed
throughout the length of the plaza. Receptacles design shall
be approved by Staff and included on landscaping plans at
the time of building permit submittal.
Prior to release
final sign off of
on-site
improvements.
PLN 2017-1649
La Plaza Downtown Redevelopment | Z3 LLC
The applicant agrees to incorporate the above measures into the project. These measures
become a part of the project description and therefore become a part of the record of action
upon which the environmental determination is based. All development activity must occur in
strict compliance with the above mitigation measures. The measures shall be perpetual and run
with the land. These measures are binding on all successors in interest of the subject property.
The applicant understands that any changes made to the project description subsequent to this
environmental determination must be reviewed by the Community Development Director or their
designee and may require a new environmental analysis for the project. By signing this
agreement, the owner(s) agrees to and accepts the incorporation of the above mitigation
measures into the proposed project description.
Signature of Owner(s) Name (Print) Date
Signature of Owner(s) Name (Print) Date
PLN 2017-1649
La Plaza Downtown Redevelopment | Z3 LLC
This Page Has Been Left Blank
PLN 2017-1649
La Plaza Downtown Redevelopment | Z3 LLC
Environmental Review | City of Atascadero | www.atascadero.org | fb.me/planningatascadero Page 49
EXHIBIT C – PROJECT FIGURES & SUPPLEMENTS
Figure 1 – Location Map / General Plan & Zoning
Downtown (D) / Downtown
Commercial (DC)
PLN 2017-1649
La Plaza Downtown Redevelopment | Z3 LLC
Figure 2 – Aerial Mapping
PLN 2017-1649
La Plaza Downtown Redevelopment | Z3 LLC
Figure 3 – Site Plan Atascadero Mall
PLN 2017-1649
La Plaza Downtown Redevelopment | Z3 LLC
Figure 4 – Elevations
PLN 2017-1649
La Plaza Downtown Redevelopment | Z3 LLC
PLN 2017-1649
La Plaza Downtown Redevelopment | Z3 LLC
Figure 4 – Elevations
PLN 2017-1649
La Plaza Downtown Redevelopment | Z3 LLC
Figure 5 – Site Photos
View of the vacant lot and the former Jack-in-the-Box
site.
View of Karen’s Beauty supply. This is the last building
of the former Golden Way Block.
PLN 2017-1649
La Plaza Downtown Redevelopment | Z3 LLC
View of pedestrian tunnel along Atascadero Avenue
(Atascadero Mall)
Unmanned Wireless telecommunication facility.
PLN 2017-1649
La Plaza Downtown Redevelopment | Z3 LLC
Proposed beauty supply store to be demolished. Proposed coffee shop to be demolished.
PLN 2017-1649
La Plaza Downtown Redevelopment | Z3 LLC
View of Atascadero Avenue at the intersection of El
Camino Real View of City all from proposed public plaza. Existing
buildings have been demolished.
PLN 2017-1649
La Plaza Downtown Redevelopment | Z3 LLC
This Page Has Been Left Blank
PLN 2017-1649
La Plaza Downtown Redevelopment | Z3 LLC
Environmental Review | City of Atascadero | www.atascadero.org | fb.me/planningatascadero Page 60
See Following
Figure 6 – Historical Report
CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT
Malibu Brew Building
6490 El Camino Real, Atascadero
September 2017
Location:6490 El Camino Real
City of Atascadero, San Luis Obispo County, CA
APN:030-191-017
USGS Quad:Atascadero, Calif.
UTM Zone 10, 39299471 N, 711485 E
Prepared for:Mike Zappas
8189 San Dimas Lane
Atascadero, CA 93422
Prepared by:Rebecca Loveland Anastasio
Cultural Resource Services
7800 Santa Cruz Road
Atascadero, CA 93422
Results:Positive for historic structure
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.INTRODUCTION 1
2.PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIP TION 1
3.BACKGROUND
3.1.HISPANIC PERIOD 1
3.2.EARLY AMERICAN PERIOD 2
3.3.LATE AMERICAN PERIOD 3
3.4.PARCEL AND BUILDING HISTORY 4
4.FIELD ASSESSMENT 8
5.SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 9
6.MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS 11
7.REFERENCES CITED AND CONSULTED 12
FIGURE 1: PROJECT PARCEL (APN MAP)
APPENDIX: CHAIN OF TITLE
1.0 INTRODUCTION
In August 2017, Mr. Mike Zappas authorized a historic property assessment of an existing
structure with a street address 6490 El Camino Real in the city of Atascadero, San Luis Obispo County,
California. This cultural resources evaluation was requested in order to fulfill the various mandates of
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and planning directives of the City of Atascadero which
are required for the proposed redevelopment of the project parcel. The assessment was carried out in
accordance with the Recommendations for Archaeological Impact Evaluations: Procedures and
Guidelines for Archaeological Consultant Qualifications (Edwards 1979) and the County of San Luis
Obispo guidelines for survey reports (n.d.). As such, this report consists of the results of a review of
pertinent literature, maps, and images; a chain of title search; and a field assessment of the existing
building.
2.0 PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
The project property is identified as a Portion of Lot 18, Block HB in the City of Atascadero (APN
030-191-017), San Luis Obispo County, California [Fig. 1] with an address of 6490 El Camino Real. The
property is situated in the historic downtown of Atascadero, across El Camino Real from Sunken Gardens
and the Atascadero City Hall, which is on the US Register of Historic Places. The project parcel is located
at the northwest corner of El Camino Real and Atascadero Mall, which at one time (prior to the
construction of Highway 101) connected Sunken Gardens and the City civic center with Atascadero High
School. The project parcel is bounded to the north by 6452 El Camino Real, a commercial parcel which is
the site of an old small motel re-purposed as a beauty supply store. Th project parcel is bordered to the
west by Highway 101, to the east by El Camino Real, and to the south by Atascadero Mall – formerly the
site of a small building used by the Atascadero Chamber of Commerce (but now demolished).
Atascadero Mall is no longer a through street and is currently used primarily for parking.
The project parcel is part of a larger property which is slated for redevelopment as “La Plaza,” a
mixed-use commercial development. At present, the project property is occupied by a small former
service station that is being used as a coffee shop known as Malibu Brew. Current plans propose the
total demolition of the existing structure, along with other structures on adjacent parcels. One of the
adjacent properties which will be redeveloped as part of the proposed La Plaza project was the site of a
historic commercial development known as “The Golden Way Block,” which unfortunately burned down
in 2009. Because the existing building was more than 50 years old, and had the potential to be
associated with the early commercial development of Atascadero, under the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA), the existing building needed to be assessed for both architectural and historic
significance.
3.0 BACKGROUND
3.1 HISPANIC PERIOD
The first Europeans to explore the Central Coast were seafarers. Although Juan Rodriguez
Cabrillo sailed the California coast in 1542, there is no indication that any of his ships made landfall in
San Luis Obispo County. In contrast, Pedro de Unamuno visited Morro Bay in 1587, and Sebastian
Cermeno entered San Luis Obispo Bay in 1595 (Greenwood 1978:520). The Central Coast then remained
unexplored by the Spanish until the overland expeditions in the late 1760s and 1770s. The first party,
that of Gaspar de Portola and Father Juan Crespi, followed what became the traditional coastal route
1
between San Diego and Monterey. They hugged the coast north of Point Concepcion, but turned inland
near Point Sal to avoid the sand dunes of Nipomo and Pismo Beach. They camped near San Luis Obispo,
and then turned toward the coast again along Morro Bay. Other explorers who followed this route
included Juan Bautista de Anza, Friar Garces, and Friar Juan Diaz in 1774, Anza and Pedro Font in 1776,
and Friar Garces with three Indian guides in 1776 (Beck and Haase 1974:16).
The favorable reports of Portola and Crespi led to the founding of Mission San Luis Obispo de
Tolosa in 1772. This mission, the 5th of the 21 missions founded in California, was established on
September 1, 1772 (Beck and Haase 1974:19). As one of five missions located within Chumash territory,
Mission San Luis Obispo would have been the mission with the greatest impact on the aboriginal
population living in the study area (Grant 1978:506). In fact, the tribelet designation Obispeno reflects
their association with the Mission (Greenwood 1978:520).
Through the 1820s and 1830s, Mission San Luis Obispo was the only real settlement in San Luis
Obispo County (Angel 1883:217). Other settlements in the area were delayed due to frequent raids on
the Mission by runaway neophytes and "wild" Yokut Indians. These raids were part of a trend toward
physical resistance to the mission system, as well as a means of securing horses and cattle. By 1828,
horsemeat and beef had replaced the acorn as a staple of the Indian diet; horses also resulted in
increased mobility for the Indians and enabled them to be extremely effective raiders. At Mission San
Luis Obispo, over a thousand head of stock were taken in a single raid (Beck and Haase 1974:22-23).
The transition from Spanish to Mexican rule in the 1820s led to several changes in the study
area. The hide and tallow trade expanded rapidly after Mexican independence, with some fifty to eighty
thousand hides being shipped annually. San Luis Obispo soon became a major hide and tallow port, and
was visited by ships of many nations (particularly American and English) bearing trade items such as
cloth, shoes, saddles, and hardware. Soon, foreign traders established local offices which evolved into
full-time trading posts, and many foreign merchants became permanent residents of California (Beck and
Haase 1974:41).
The process by which Mexicans replaced Spanish authority in California not only encouraged the
opening of international trade but also transformed ideas of landholding. The Spaniards had kept most
lands in the name of the crown, but Mexican officials distributed property more widely to individual
owners by deeding 813 land grants, or ranchos, to private claimants throughout California between 1821
and 1846 (Beck and Haase 1974:24). During the Mexican period, the study area was situated within
Rancho Atascadero [Beck and Haase 1974:35] [Fig. 1]. Rancho Atascadero, consisting of 4,348 acres, was
granted to Trifon Garcia on May 6, 1842 [Abeloe 1966:387; Beck and Haase 1974:35]. Reportedly, Garcia
lived and raised sheep on the Rancho for two years before repeated Indians raids caused him to abandon
the land, selling it later to W. Breck for 500 pesos [Nicholson and Loughran 1981:48]. The location of his
dwelling is unknown.
3.2 EARLY AMERICAN PERIOD
Throughout the Hispanic Period, land was abundant and settlers were few in number. Thus, land
had minimal value so that boundaries between ranchos were vague and frequently overlapped. Not
until the United States occupation in 1846 was land coveted. In the early years of California statehood,
land claims became a question of some importance. Euro-American immigrants often became squatters
on the ranchos, defending their claims by force and law. The political and economic savvy of the
Americans soon put the Californios at a disadvantage; exorbitant property taxes were voted in by
2
Americans, and grant claims were disputed in court and before the California Land Claims Commission.
Many rancho owners were forced to sell portions of their ranchos in order to pay the taxes and/or defray
staggering legal expenses. Other complicating factors leading to division of the ranchos included
inheritance disputes, intermarriage between Mexicans and Euro-Americans, and the demands of
gambling debts (Bean 1978:182-189).
On March 6, 1855, Henry Haight filed claim to Rancho Atascadero before the U.S. Land
Commission [Jespersen 1939:50], apparently having acquired it from W. Breck [Nicholson and Loughran
1981:48]. An appeal against the claim was denied in 1857 [Jespersen 1939:50]. In the tax records of
1860s, Atascadero Rancho is shown belonging to Joaquin Estrada, Mexican grantee of Rancho Santa
Margarita (the former Asistencia) [Angel 1883:173]; however, on June 18 of that year, both Rancho
Atascadero and Rancho Santa Margarita were patented to the wealthy land baron Martin Murphy
[Jespersen 1939:50].
Through the 1860s, 70s and 80s, Martin's son, Patrick Murphy, ran and then owned the great
Ranchos of Atascadero, Asuncion, and Santa Margarita. The headquarters of this 70,000 acre ranch
was the Rancho Santa Margarita -- the buildings still stand and are in use north of town near the ruins of
the Asistencia [Abeloe 1966:387; Angel 1883:32-33; USGS 1965]. This vast ranch was used almost solely
for raising cattle, providing grazing land for thousands of head of stock [Abeloe 1966:387]. However,
beginning in the 1870s, Murphy was forced to sell portions of his ranch in order to pay various debts and
mortgages [Jespersen 1939:129; Harris 1874]. As a result, in the 1880s, Rancho Atascadero was owned
by Patrick Murphy's brother, James [Morrison and Haydon 1917:76]. In the 1890s Rancho Atascadero
and the eastern portion of Rancho Asuncion came into the hands of J.H. Henry [Jespersen 1939:131;
Krieger 1988:83; Nicholson and Loughran 1981:49]. Much of the remainder of Rancho Asuncion became
the Eagle Ranch of Johann Henrik, Baron von Schroeder [Krieger 1988:82].
3.3 LATE AMERICAN PERIOD
In 1912, Edward Gardner Lewis, a successful magazine publisher, bought Rancho Atascadero
from J.H. Henry. Lewis founded the utopian, planned community of Atascadero in 1913. He had
previously created such a community, at University City, Missouri. Lewis put together a group of
investors, paid J.H. Henry $37.50 per acre, and celebrated acquisition of the ranch on July 4, 1913. As
investors came to homestead the land that they had bought with their down payments, the area was
transformed into a "tent city" with tents situated on land now occupied by Colony Square and Bank of
America. Lewis employed the services of experts in agriculture, engineering and city planning to develop
his dream colony for the anticipated 30,000 residents. In 1914 the land was surveyed, roads were laid
out, and the former Rancho Atascadero subdivided into large family tracts, large enough for a house site
and a small orchard or farm [Jespersen 1939:131; Krieger 1988:83]. The first homes 57 homes were built
in 1915; by 1917 there were a total of 300 constructed [Lewis 1974]. The homes built on the Atascadero
parcels ranged from modest single-story bungalows to multiple story “mansions” as people came to
Lewis’ new community to begin a new life. Thousands of acres of orchards were planted, a water system
was installed, and construction began on an 18 mi road (now Highway 41 west) through the Santa Lucia
Mountains to the ocean (Morro Bay), where Lewis built cottages and a beachfront hotel called the
Cloisters [Lweis 1974; Travis 1960].
The history of development in Atascadero was rather convoluted and troubled. Over the years,
the organization that owned and promoted this development changed, although the same principals
were involved. Originally set up as the Lewis Foundation Corporation, the holdings were transmitted to
3
The Colony Holding Company in order to issue bonds [Travis 1960]. At the petition of Lewis, who felt the
name “Colony” had developed religious or socialist connotations, the court ordered the name changed
to Atascadero Estates Inc. in August 1921, although promotional documents as far back as 1916 used the
name Atascadero Estates [Allan 2016; Unknown 1916]. Interestingly, all three names (Lewis Foundation
Corporation, Colony Holding Company, and Atascadero Estates) appear apparently interchangeably in
various title documents through the 1930s. [Chain of Title].
During World War I, Lewis entered a period of financial difficulty. He had already sold thousands
of parcels and had contracted for infrastructure improvements at fixed prices. The advent of the war
caused the cost of labor and materials to more than double. According to his autobiography,
“Construction and development matters were now at a standstill, but interest, upkeep, taxes, and
carrying charges kept right on and began to mount by the hundreds of thousands of dollars until I was
heavily in debt.” [Lewis 1969]. A $1,750,000 deed of trust, covering the entire real and personal
property then owned by the Colony Holding Corporation which secured the bond issue, was filed May
19, 1916 with the Anglo-California Trust Company as the trustee. The bond issue called for a 6% first
mortgage with 15-year convertible gold bonds of the Colony Holding Corporation. A large number of the
bonds were initially purchased, enabling the Holding Corporation to go on with their task of building a
new community [Travis 1960]. However, Lewis was also in a great deal of personal debt. To defray this
debt, Lewis invested in a chemical plant in Oakland and oil fields in California, Montana, Wyoming, using
investor money [Lewis 1969].
After the war, Lewis and his investors were caught in the sudden drop of crop prices as war-time
government subsidies ended. In addition, his oil investments did not pan out as he had hoped [Lewis
1969]. By 1924 Lewis was bankrupt and the entire community in debt. Lewis was forced into
involuntary bankruptcy when he was sued for $20 million by investors in 1925 [Megowan 2013]. The
Colony Holding Company was dissolved, and the property placed under Seattle attorney Oscar L. Willett
as trustee of the newly constituted Atascadero Development Syndicate. These events, plus the ensuing
great Depression, slowed the growth of Atascadero until after World War II [Linn 2009; Jespersen
1939:132; Krieger 1988:73].
3.4 PARCEL HISTORY
The history of the project parcel, its ownership, and uses is somewhat convoluted, with much
conflicting information available. According to the Chain of Title by First American Title, the first owner
of the property, William E. Kullgren, purchased the property from Oscar L. Willett and the Atascadero
Development Syndicate on July 18, 1926. However, other records show that he had constructed the
Golden Way Auto Camp on the parcel and adjacent properties to the north by 1925 [Allan 2013:27]. This
suggests that Kullgren had originally acquired the parcel from Lewis, but the legal ownership of the
parcel was clouded by the Lewis bankruptcy.
William E. Kullgren was an early booster of Atascadero, and wrote many articles and pamphlets
praising the qualities and potential of Atascadero despite all the problems engendered by the Lewis
bankruptcy. Kullgren is also considered to be one of the early pioneers of the poultry industry in
Atascadero, as well as one of the first commercial developers. Prior to his development of the Golden
Way Block, all of the commerce in Atascadero was conducted in the Mercantile Building at the corner of
Traffic Way and Olmeda [Allan 2008:85].
4
Kullgren was born on May 30, 1885 in Plymouth, Devon, England, and immigrated to the U.S. in
1918, first settling in New York, where he met and married Lois C. Eldridge in 1923. Lois was 6 years his
senior, and the part-owner and treasurer of “New York Metal Store” while William Kullgren was a dry
good clerk [US Census 1920; US Draft Registration 1942]. Soon after their marriage, the couple must
have moved to Atascadero, as William Kullgren makes many appearances in the Atascadero News by
1925. The US Census of 1930 lists the Kullgrens as living on Olemda Avenue; William is listed as a builder
and self-employed business person; Lois is listed as an upaid business manager [US Census 1930].
Kullgren also gained notoriety as one of 28 people indicted for sedition during World War 2.
After the collapse of his business enterprises during the Great Depression, Kullgren became an
astrologer and publisher of a monthly newsletter called “The Beacon Light.” He was very much against
the US involvement in the war, held rather anti-Semitic views, and had an absolute distrust of Franklin D.
Roosevelt. According to some sources, Kullgren was a member of the Silver Shirts or Sliver Legion of
America, a paramilitary organization modeled after Hitler’s Brownshirts. The publication that got
Kullgren charged with sedition was the Beacon Light edition of January 1942 – 74 pages (including
advertisements) of appeals to get out of the war, astrological predictions of the ascendancy of Hitler, the
inevitability of a German empire, the positive changes such an empire would bring to the world, and the
evil plans FDR had to become an American dictator, along with various conspiracy theories involving
Jews and the corrupt pre-war governments of most European nations [Middlecamp 2012; Astro
Databank 2010; Kullgren 1942; San Luis Obispo Telegram-Tribune 1942]. In July 1942, he was formally
indicted on sedition charges and jailed in Los Angeles with $25,000 bail set. After a number of
prominent Atascaderans appeared at his trial in October 1942 and testified on his behalf, he was
determined not to be a threat and was released [Middlecamp 2012; Wilkins personal communication
2017-08-28].
Kullgren's first development of the project area was the Golden Way Auto Camp, which in 1926
consisted of a cluster of buildings on Lots 18 and 19 (the project parcel was undeveloped). The Golden
Way Auto Camp contained a building with two offices,” gas and oils” with gas pumps, a barber shop, a
cleaners, and storage (this became the Golden Way Service Station). A small fruit stand stood at the
edge of the state highway, although Allan identified it as an ice cream stand [Allan 2008:85]. Further
back on the parcel were a kitchen building, and an auto repair shop with battery storage and a bath
house, and in back of those were two buildings providing rooms and “auto shelters” [Sanborn 1926]
(Figure 2). By 1927, the Golden Way Block included the Golden Way Tavern, constructed north of the
service station, and in 1928 Kullgren announced a large expansion of the Golden Way Block [Allan
2013:27; Atascadero News 1928:1]. In 1929 and 1930, several transactions took place regarding ajcent
roads, with Kullgren deeding an eastern strip of his parcels to the State of California for the State
Hghway, Willett deeding the southeast corner of Lot 18 (including the project parcel) to Kullgren, and
Kullgren deeding a portion of Lot 18 (probably Atascadero Mall) to San Luis Obispo County [First
American Title].
Photographs of the project parcel in the early 1930s (available at the Atascadero Historical
Society) indicate that it was used as a miniature golf course during this time. It is first visible on an aerial
photo dated 1930, and it also appears on the Sanborn Fire Insurance Map of 1931 (Figure 3). Known as
“El Camino Links” and possibly owned by Harold Wilkins [Wilkins, personal communication 2017-08-28],
the miniature golf course covered most of the project parcel. By 1931, Kullgren had expanded the
Golden Way to include a large garage, which overlapped the project parcel. The Golden Way Garage
could store 50 cars, and eventually became a Ford dealership, and later a Chevrolet dealership [Sanborn
5
1931; Allan 2008: 85]. The Golden Way Service Station, which had become an Associated Gasoline
station, was still situated just to the north of the garage, along with the bath house and auto repair
facility behind it; the auto camp had been consolidated and converted to an auto court with 8 rooms and
12 garage spaces. The former kitchen had been converted to hotel rooms, and a new building, the
Golden Way Tavern, was built at the northern end of the Golden Way Block. The Golden Way Tavern was
two stories, with hotel rooms on the second floor, and a lobby, restaurant, pool hall, and pharmacy on
the first [Sanborn 1931; Allan 2013:27-28].
In 1933, Kullgren took out a $29,525 deed of trust from the National Bank and Trust Co. of Santa
Barbara, probably to complete his vision for the Golden Way Block [First American Title]. The expanded
block, which extended for an additional 144 feet north of the Golden Way Tavern, does not appear on
the 1931 Sanborn, despite Kullgren having declared his intentions of that expansion in 1928. The
additional structure, which became known as the Atascadero Hotel, had space for six commercial
enterprises on the first floor, and 40 hotel rooms upstairs [Allan 2013:28], and appears in many photos
dated to the mid-1930s and 1940s.
The El Camino Links miniature golf course was advertised in the 1932 Polk City/County Directory,
but had no listings or ads after that year, although it still can be seen in photos that may date to the mid-
1930s. By 1940, the El Camino Links had clearly been abandoned, and one of the buildings associated
with the golf course may have been re-purposed as The Log Cabin Cafe since it appears in aerial photos
from the late 1930s and 1940. The restaurant first appears in clearly recognizable form in a 1940
postcard showing El Camino Real from the Atascadero Creek Bridge. It next appears in a 1942
City/County Directory as owned and operated by Richard Kay [Polk 1942], although in 1940 Kay worked
as a cook at Pittenger Rest Home in Atascadero [Polk 1040]. In December 1942, Kay closed the
restaurant to go into defense work for World War 2 [Allan 2008:108]. The Log Cabin Cafe next appears in
a 1943 article in the San Luis Obispo Telegram-Tribune, as one establishment of many robbed in late
September. At that time, the restaurant may have been run by Karl and Theresa Pierce, who sold their
San Luis Obispo restaurant in the same year [San Luis Obispo Telegram-Tribune 1943 p. 9]; another
article in the same year advises people wishing to join the San Luis Obispo Sportsmen's Association to
sign up with Karl Pierce “at his Atascadero restaurant” [San Luis Obispo Telegram-Tribune 1943:10]. A
1945 article mentions “Karl and Theresa Pierce of Atascadero [San Luis Obispo Telegram-Tribune 1945 p.
1], and an advertisement in January 1946 is for the “Log Cabin Cafe, Atascadero, Karl and Theresa Pierce”
[Atascadero News 1946 p. 6].
On August 6, 1946, Gordon and Dorothy Fox, who had been employed at the Atascadero Hotel
since 1940 [Polk 1940], purchased Lots 16-20 and Lot 22 (the entire Golden Way Block) from San Barbara
Mutual Building and Loan [First American Title], including the buildings of the “Atascadero Hotel, The Log
Cabin, and some other smaller buildings” [Allan 2008:9]. This purchased may have caused the relocation
of the Log Cabin Cafe across the street to 6455 El Camino Real. Although the advertisement in the
Atascadero News in January 1946 associates the Log Cabin Cafe of Atascadero with Karl and Theresa
Pierce” [Atascadero News 1946 p. 6], historian Lon Allan has the Log Cabin Cafe relocated across the
State Highway (El Camino Real) and purchased by Florence and Earl Johnson in the same year [Allan
2013:40]. Interestingly, a mid-1940s photo of El Camino Real from the Atascadero Creek Bridge clearly
shows two cafes in existence across the street from each other, suggesting that both cafes may have
been in business at the same time, at least for a short period. In October 1948, an ad appeared in the
San Luis Obispo Telegram-Tribune stating the “Log Cabin Cafe, Atascadero, now open for business,” [San
6
Luis Obispo Telegram-Tribune 1948:14], which suggests that the Johnson's may have actually purchased
the Log Cabin Cafe at 6455 El Camino Real in 1947 or 1948, rather than 1946.
The existing building on the project parcel was in place in 1949, based on an aerial photo of
Atascadero dated to 1949 {EDR 2017]. Assessment records at the San Luis Obispo County Assessor's
office, which have a first appraisal date of 1965, use a 1948 valuation table for the main building, canopy,
islands, two auto repair wells, light tower, 3000 gallon tank, and fence, suggesting that all these were in
place on or about 1948. In 1948, the Atascadero service station listing in the Polk City/County directory
includes a listing for Petersen's Service Station, South State Highway, corner the Mall [Polk 1948]. This
could have been the Richfield Station at 6700 El Camino Real; however the 1950 listing includes both the
Richfield Service Station, South State Highway corner The Mall AND Petersen's Service Station South
State Highway corner The Mall [Polk 1950:460], suggesting that the Petersen station was the subject
building on the project parcel.
Samuel Petersen, known more often as Sam, was born in Hayward California in 1895 [World War
2 Draft Registration Card]. He married his wife Esther in 1922, and lived in Alameda County until 1930
[US Census 1930]. By 1931, Sam and Esther had relocated to Atascadero, where Sam was was first
employed at Wards Garage (5860 El Camino Real in 1931 [San Luis Obispo Telegram-Tribune 1931:5]. By
1937, he was managing the “new Richfield Garage” which was probably the service station at 6700 El
Camino Real [San Luis Obispo Telegram-Tribune 1937:4]; the last mention of Sam Petersen in conjunction
to the Richfield Station was in 1941 [San Luis Obispo Telegram-Tribune:4]. His employment is not further
noted until 1954, when he was employed by Walter Leverenz's Ford dealership until his death in 1955
[Polk 1954; California Death Records 1955].
The first directory listing of the subject building with a property address of 6490 El Camino Real
was in 1954, when “Simpson’s Associated Service 6490 El Camino Real Atascadero” appears under
service station listings and “Simpson’s Associated Service (Lorenzo P. Simpson) gas sta 6490 El Camino
Real” appears in the personal listings. However, an ad in the 1953 Atascadero High School Year book
shows a picture of the subject building with a caption “Simpson's Associated, the busiest corner in
town.” The 1953 Polk directory does also list “Lorrie P Simpson, serv sta S state hway” in both the
service station and personal listings. Lorenzo P. Simpson was born in Illinois in 1905 [Ancestry Public
Family Tree]. By 1930, he had married Phyllis Deborah DeCou and they were living in San Bernadino and
was working as a salesman [1930 Census]. By 1935, they had relocated to Atascadero; various records
indicated that he was working as an independent salesman [U.S. Census 1940] or as a “coin opr” [Polk
1946-47]. Simpson operated the subject service station from at least 1953 until 1960 [Polk 1955, 1957,
1958; Pacific Telephone 1960], although it became listed as a “Flying A” Service Station in 1957. In 1961,
Simpson turned the Flying A station over to John H. Taylor [Pacific Telephone 1961], who continued to
operate the facility as a Flying A until 1965, and then as a Phillips 66 until 1969, when it became Dan's
Phillips 66 [Pacific Telephone 1963; 1965-1969].
The history of Associated Oil is informative. In 1900, the five largest companies in the Kern River
Oil Field of California entered into an agreement to form the Associated Oil Company, which was
incorporated in 1901 and began actively producing and marketing crude oil in 1902. In 1926, the
Associated Oil Company was sold to a new holding company, the Tide Water Associated Oil Company. In
1938, the Tide Water and Associated companies were dissolved to form the Tidewater Associated Oil
Company. Across the western U.S., service stations became "Associated Flying A" while stations in the
East became "Tydol Flying A". During the 1950s, the Associated and Tydol brands gradually fell into
disuse, and were dropped entirely in 1956. That same year, "Associated" was removed from the
7
corporate name. In 1966, Phillips Petroleum Company purchased Tidewater's western refining,
distribution and retailing network. Phillips immediately rebranded all Flying A stations in the region to
Phillips 66 [Wikipedia]. This history is reflected in both the history of the parcel and the service station,
not only in the name changes from Associated Service Station to Associated Flying A to Flying A to
Phillips 66, but also in other records. In 1965, after the Atascadero Hotel burned down [Allan 2012],
Gordon and Dorothy Fox sold the project parcel to Tidewater Oil Company, which appears in both the
Grant Deeds [First American Title], and the County Assessor records in 1965 since it was the lot split and
sale which probably triggered the assessment. The following year, Tidewater sold the station and parcel
to Phillips Petroleum, when it became John's 66 service [First American Title; Pacific Telephone 1967].
At some point between 1969 and 1980, the project parcel was acquired by Desert Petroleum
[Chain of Title], and there are no directory listings for the address or ads for the service station, which
suggests a period of disuse. This is corroborated by the 1971 assessment of the parcel, which indicates
that the gasoline tanks had been removed. In 1980, Desert Petroleum sold the property to Ben Hoff, and
by 1986, the building was being operated as Ed's Garage [First American Title; Pacific Bell 1986]. The
building spent one year as “Pipe Dream” in 1994 [Pacific Bell 1994] which was probably associated with
the conversion of an auto repair garage to a retail establishment, including the removal of the repair
wells, lights and signage, and the infill of the garage doors. In 1998, the building was used as a retail
flower shop, including the removal of a 60' freestanding tower sign [Assessment 1998]. Today the
building is in use as a Coffee Shop known as Malibu Brew. In 2009, most of last remaining portions of
the remaining historic Golden Way Block burned to the ground, leaving only the facade of the small 1925
service station, which was torn down in 1912 [Allan 1912].
4.0 FIELD ASSESSMENT
An intensive architectural field assessment was conducted on August 23, 2017 by the author.
This assessment takes into account both the structural and architectural integrity of the building.
●Massing and Structure
The construction materials used for this service station indicate that it was built either before
World War 2 or after it. Box-type services stations were in common use since the 1930s, and most
commonly used light steel construction. However, due to steel shortages during the war, most gas
stations during that time were built of concrete block or more rarely poured concrete. The history of the
parcel and the operational history of the gas station strongly suggests that it was built post-war, in 1948.
The building is of a classic Streamline Moderne style with its rounded corners and flat roof. It
consists of a 611 square foot rectangular structure; the dimensions are roughly 21'-8” by 28'-3”, with the
long axis parallel to El Camino Real. The northeast corner features a pop-out, original to the building,
extending roughly 18 inches beyond the primary building walls. This pop-out and the space behind it
once contained the service station office, which now serves as the coffee shop kitchen. The former auto
repair garage makes up most of the existing interior space, and currently contains the dining area and
the service counter. A 144 square foot canopy (roughly 9'-6” wide by 15 feet long), which once covered
the gasoline pumps, now serves as a drive-through for the coffee shop. The back of the building has a
smaller 4' by 10'post-service station era addition that holds water heater and furnace. The back of the
building also features a flat shed roof of indeterminate origin that covers both the cafe back door and
the addition.
8
The building as it exists today has a concrete slab floor, with concrete perimeter footings.
Interestingly, the concrete footings have a beveled top that extends about three inches past the walls.
The walls are light steel frame, with the exception of the rear addition which is wood-framed. The flat
roof is framed with a mixture of steel and wood, and the roof structure is exposed on the interior. Stout
truss girders extend from the back wall, over the front wall as a cantilever to create the canopy, with
smaller box beams (possibly steel or wood) over the former repair garage. The roof sheathing appears to
be 12x boards or tongue and groove.
●Fenstration
In addition to minor modifications of size and massing, there were major changes made to
fenestration. The original large roll-up garage door, which extended all the way to the corner of the pop-
out, has been mostly filled in, probably by wood framing, with an 8 foot by 8 foot wood double patio
door in the center. The original grouping of three windows in the southern wall of the repair garage also
appears to have been replaced by a tripartite bay window consisting of two fixed windows flanking aan
operable window. The opening appears to be the same size as the original, but the window frame
extends about foot from the wall. In contrast, the front windows that comprised the service station
office appear to be intact but are partially painted opaque for signage. The north side office windows
have been replaced by two smaller windows flanking a man-door. Also in the north wall of the building,
one of the original exterior restroom doors has been replaced, and the single-sex restroom converted to
a unisex restroom. The other restroom door has been filled in and replaced by a window; that restroom
is currently used for storage.
There are no photos of the back of the building during its service station days, but a steel door
near the northwest corner appears original. According to the owner of Malibu Brew, that door was
originally for a utility closet, possibly electrical service. Another door, a wood single French door, is
located in the middle of the wall next to the modern wood-frame addition. The door is certainly not
original, but the opening may have held a man-door to the repair garage.
●Finishes and Details
The existing roof is flat, and was not accessible during the field assessment. During the time
when the building was used as a service station, the roof featured a large tower sign with the Flying A
logo, which was probably removed when Phillips 66 bought out Tidewater and converted all the Flying A
stations to Phillips 66. The 1965 assessment notes that the roof was “metal.” The majority of the
exterior walls are sheathed in thin steel panels which have been painted, which included the canopy
sides and ceiling. The current building is white with black trim, while original Associated/Flying A color
scheme was white with red and green trim. The non-original wall, in the garage door infill, is sheathed in
painted shingles, while the rear addition is sheathed in painted T-111 siding.
The 1965 assessment lists a concrete floor. The existing floor is black and white vinyl tile.
Interior walls in the former garage area are sheathed with a mixture of wooden beadboard and
corrugated galvanized steel panels. The former office, now the kitchen, shows the exposed steel
structure and exterior steel panels. Obviously, all of the former service station equipment has been
removed.
5.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
The project parcel has played a significant role in the early commercial development of
Atascadero, being associated with Kullgren's Golden Way Block, which was the first major commercial
9
development along the state highway (El Camino Real) and the site of the El Camino Links minature gold
course. The historical significance of the existing building, however, is much more subtle. The exact
construction date of the building is not currently known despite extensive research, but was certainly in
place by 1949 or possibly as early as 1948. It is highly unlikely that the building is any older than that.
During the first years of the building's existence, the parcel was still apparently owned by
Gordon and Barbara Fox, while the building itself may have been either owned or leased by Associated
Oil or Samuel L. Petersen. By 1953, Lorenzo P. Simpson had taken over the service station, and was
running it as an Associated station. In 1965, both the parcel and the building were sold to Tidewater Oil
Company, and in the following year sold to Phillips 66. The service station was operated by Lorenzo P.
Simpson until 1961, when it was taken over by John H. Taylor who ran it until 1969.
Although 1948 does not seem very old for an historic building, it is technically old enough to be
reviewed for historical significance. State guidelines for determining historical significance (36 CFR Part
60 and Calif. Pub. Res. Code, 5024.1, Title 14 CCR, Sect. 4852) indicate that a structure must be at least
50 years old and meet one of the following criteria in order to be considered a historic resource:
A.It is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad
patterns of our history;
B.It is associated with the lives of persons important in our past;
C.It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of
construction, or represents the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values; or
D.It has yielded or may be likely to yield information important in history.
Although the parcel may be associated with historic persons, the building is not. It is also not
likely to yield new information important to history. The existing building therefore needs to be assessed
only with respect to its architectural significance and its contributions to broad patterns of history.
The existing building is of marginal architectural significance. It is neither unique, of high quality
craftsmanship, nor an outstanding example of its type. It does however, embody some of the distinctive
characteristics of its type and period and has retained a fair amount of architectural integrity. Integrity is
assessed based on seven critera:
1.Location (is the building in its original location?)
2.Design (does the building have its original form and style?)
3.Setting (has the building retained important relationships with the landscape and other
structures around it?)
4.Materials (does the building retain key original materials?)
5.Workmanship (methods of construction, finishes, and detailing)
6.Feeling (does the building still evoke a sense of the past)
7.Association (does the building retain a direct link to an important person or event)
It is clear that the building has retained integrity of location, setting, and feeling. It has retained
moderate integrity of design, materials and workmanship, although this has been compromised by
major alterations to fenestration and by the removal of the Flying A roof tower and all the service station
equipment. Nevertheless, it still is recognizable as a post-war Streamline Moderne service station. It
also directly associated with the post-war auto-centric commercial development of Atascadero along El
Camino Real, and is the only remaining service station structures from the 1940s in Atascadero that has
retained its classic Streamline Moderne style. All of the other remaining former service station
structures are either of a more recent vintage, or have been altered to no longer resemble their original
form.
10
6.0 MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS
The existing building has not been listed as a National Historic Landmark, or on the National
Register of Historic Places. It has not been listed in the California Register of Historical Resources as a
Registered Historic Landmark or as a Point of Historical interest. It is not included in any listing of historic
resources within the City of Atascadero, which tends to focus on resources of the Atascadero Colony
Period. The existing building does not appear to meet any of the criteria for eligibility on a national or
state level.
The existing building has the potential to be considered a local historic resource due to its
association with the post-war auto-centric commercial development of Atascadero along El Camino Real,
and the unique retention of a classic Streamline Moderne style which embodies the distinctive
characteristics of its type and period. The conversion of the building from an active service station to a
retail building has taken a toll on some important aspects of the design, particularly with the removal of
the Flying A tower, and the infill of the repair garage doors, but it is still more intact than any other
service station form the period in Atascadero.
In general, when dealing with historic structures, there are six possible management
recommendations:
1.Preservation in place, with structure left in its current condition.
2.Preservation in place, with appropriate restoration.
3.Preservation in place with adaptive re-use. Adaptive re-use could involve anything from
minor modernization to extensive architectural modification, or even incorporation into
another structure.
4.Removal of the building to another location, followed by preservation, restoration, or
adaptive re-use.
5.Demolition following documentation to California Register of Historic Resources
standards.
6.Demolition with no further mitigation.
Because the existing building has the possibility to be locally significant, the final possible
alternative, demolition with no further mitigation is NOT recommended. The first alternative,
preservation in place in current condition, is also NOT recommended since the building has already had
enough alteration to impact its integrity. Options 2 and 3, restoration or adaptive re-use in place, also do
not appear to be viable when considering the best and highest use of the land for the City of Atascadero.
As a result, two alternatives remain: relocation of the building, or demolition following
documentation. From an idealistic point of view, relocation would appear to be the perfect solution,
with a possible site at the nearby Atascadero Historical Society property. Realistically, the effort and
expense in moving and restoring the building may not be warranted for level of significance of this
building. Therefore, it is my considered opinion that the Malibu Brew building at 6490 El Camino Real
may be demolished following recordation and documentation as mitigation. Recordation and
documentation should be produced according to the California Register of Historic Resources. Required
recordation and documentation shall include:
●Completed State of California Form DPR 523B
●Black and white large-scale photographs of exterior and interior, with scale and caption.
●Copies of selected historic photographs
●Written description and history of construction and use of the structure (this report will suffice).
11
7.0 REFERENCES CITED AND CONSULTED
Abeloe, W.N.
1966 Historic Spots in California. Stanford University Press, Stanford.
Accessor Dept., County of San Luis Obispo
1965 Service Station Record, Station 542, Parcel 30-191-017.
1971 Service Station Record, Station 542, Parcel 30-191-017.
1998 Service Station Record, Station 542, Parcel 30-191-017, 1971 ammended.
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
1986 Guidelines for Making "Adverse Effect" and "No Adverse Effect"
Determinations for Archeological Resources in Accordance with 36 CFR Part
800. Memo, Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, Washington, D.C.
Allan, Lon
2008 Atascadero: The Vision of One – The Work of Many. Mike Lucas, Miracle Book Company.
2012 Atascadero thirft store building is history.” San Luis Obispo Tribune, December 10, 2012.
2013 Atascadero's Historic Business District. Atascadero Historic Society, Atascadero.
2016 “Why Atascadero's founder wanted to drop 'Colony' from name.” San Luis
Obispo Tribune, April 18, 2016.
Angel, M.
1883 History of San Luis Obispo County, California with Illustrations and
Biographical Sketches of Its Prominent Men and Pioneers. Thompson and
West, Oakland. Reprinted 1986, EZ Nature Books, San Luis Obispo.
Atascadero High School Year Book
1953-1956. Available Atascadero Historical Society.
Atascadero News
1928 “Kullgren announces expansion of Golden Way Block.” April 13, 1928, p. 1
1946 Advertisement for Log Cabin Cafe, Atascadero. January 4, 1946, p. 6
Beck, W.A. and Y.D. Haase
1974 Historical Atlas of California. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman (Third
Printing, 1977).
California, State of
1976 California Inventory of Historic Resources. Resources Agency, Department of
Parks and Recreation, Sacramento.
12
1982 California Historical Landmarks.Resources Agency, Department of Parks and
Recreation, Sacramento [1979, revised].
Davis, Marguerite A.
1960 “The Birth of Atascadero.” Davis. Atascadero Historical Society.
First American Title Company
2017 Chain of Title
Harris, R.R.
1874 Map of the County of San Luis Obispo, California. Published by R.R. Harris,
County Surveyor. Britton, Rey, and Co., San Francisco. Reproduction
on file, San Luis Obispo County Historical Society Museum, San Luis Obispo.
Henderson, C.W.
1890 Map of the County of San Luis Obispo, California. N.P. Reproduction on file,
San Luis Obispo Historical Society Museum, San Luis Obispo.
Jespersen, C.N., editor
1939 History of San Luis Obispo County. Harold, McLean, Meier, Publishers. San
Luis Obispo.
Krieger, D.E.
1988 San Luis Obispo:Looking Backward into the Middle Kingdom. Windsor
Publications, Inc., Northridge.
Lewis, E.G.
1969 E.G Lewis, An Autobiobraphy. Atascadero Historical Society, Atascadero.
Original Printing by Wilkins Creative Printing, December 31, 1969.
Lewis, T.
1969 Information of E.G.; Lewis and more details on the founding of Atascadero.
Atascadero Historical Society.
Lewis, W.H.
1974 Atascadero Colony Days. Atascadero Historical Society, Atascadero. Original
Printing by Wilkins Creative Printing, May 18, 1974.
Megowan, Maureen
2013 “Original Palos Verdes Developer a Crook?” Palos Verdes Patch, June 11, 2013
13
Morrison, A.L. and J.H. Haydon
1917 History of San Luis Obispo County and Environs. Historic Record Co., Los Angeles.
NETRonline
2017 Historic Aerials Online. Wilson, D
Nicholson, L. and B. Loughran
1981 San Luis Obispo County Pathways. New Paradigm Press, San Luis Obispo.
Pacific Bell Telephone Directory, 1986-1995
Pacific Telephone Co. Directory, 1957-5
Polk & Company
1932-1959 San Luis Obispo City/County Directory, San Francisco.
Randl, Chad
2008 The Preservation and Reuse of Historic Gas Stations. Technical Preservation Services,
Preservation Brief #46. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service,
Seltzer, D.J.
2017 Roadside Architecture.com. California Flying A Gas Stations.
Sanborn Fire Insurance Company
1926 Atascadero, CA. On file, US Library of Congress.
1931 Atascadero, CA. On file, US Library of Congress.
San Luis Obispo Daily Telegram
1937 Atascadero. August 10, 1937, p. 4
1938 Atascadero. August 10, 1937, p. 4
San Luis Obispo Telegram-Tribune
1943 “Log Cabin Cafe, Atascadero, robbed.” September 30, 1943, p. 10
United States Geological Survey
1948 Atascadero, Calif. [Quadrangle]. Topographic map, 7.5 minute series. United
States Geological Survey, Menlo Park.
2015 Atascadero, Calif. [Quadrangle]. Topographic map, 7.5 minute series. United
States Geological Survey, Menlo Park.
Wilson, D
2011 Historic101.com: The New Home of Don Wilson’s Highway 101 Project.
14
PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS
Lon Allen Past Historian
Atascadero Historical Society
6600 Lewis Avenue
Atascadero, CA 93422
(805) 466-8341
Marie Allen Title Officer
First American Title Company
899 Pacific Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
(805) 786-2025
Bob Wilkins PO Box 1064
Atascadero, CA 93423
(805) 466-0730
15