Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet 03/28/1989 GEORGIA RAMIREZ DEPUTY CITY CLERK A G E N D A ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING ATASCADERO ADMINISTRATION BUILDING 6500 PALMA FOURTH FLOOR, ROTUNDA ROOM MARCH 28, 1989 7 :00 P.M. RULES OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: * Members of the audience may speak on any item on the agenda. * A person may speak for five (5) minutes . * No one may speak for a second time until everyone wishing to speak has had an opportunity to do so. No one may speak more than twice on any item. * Council Members may question any speaker; the speaker may respond, but, after the allotted time has expired, may not initiate further discussion. The floor will then be closed to public participation and open for Council discussion. Call to Order Pledge of Allegiance Roll Call City Council Comment COMMITTEE REPORTS: (The following represents ad hoc or standing committees . Infor- mative status reports will be given, as felt necessary. ) 1 . City/School Committee 7 . Finance Committee 2 . North Coastal Transit (Police Fac. , Lake 3 . S .L.O. Area Coordinating Acquis . & Pavilion) Council 8. Business Improvement 4 . Traffic Committee Association 5 . Solid/Hazardous Waste Mgmt. 9 . Downtown Steering Committee Committee 6 . Economic Opportunity Commission COMMUNITY FORAM: The City Council values and encourages exchange of ideas and comments from you, the citizen. The Public Comment Period is provided to receive comments from the public on matters other than scheduled agenda items. To increase the effectiveness of Community Forum, the following rules will be enforced: * A maximum of 30 minutes will be allowed for Community Forum, unless Council authorizes an extension. * All remarks shall be addressed to Council, as a whole, and not to any individual member thereof. * No person shall be permitted to make slanderous, profane or personal remarks against any Council Member or staff. * Any person desiring to submit written statements to the Council may do so by forwarding nine (9) copies to the City Clerk by 5:00 p.m. on the Wednesday preceding the Council Meeting. A. CONSENT CALENDAR: All matters listed under Item A, Consent Calendar, are considered to be routine, and will be enacted by one motion in the form listed below. There will be no separate discussion on these items . A member of the Council or public may, by request, have any item removed from the Consent Calendar, which shall then be reviewed and acted upon separately after the adoption of the Consent Calendar. 1. MARCH 14, 1989 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 2. RESOLUTION NO. 1-89 ADOPTING BOARD OF APPEALS RULES OF PROCEDURE 3. REQUEST FOR SEWER ANNEXATION (KESTERMAN - DULZURA AVENUE) 4. CLAIM OF VERNON GRAY (RECOMMEND DENIAL) 5. REQUEST FOR SPONSORSHIP - ATASCADERO COMMUNITY BAND B. HEARINGS/APPEARANCES: 1 . HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN - Presentation by County Staff 2. CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL BY DON MESSER OF PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 12-88 (Kentucky Fried Chicken, 6900 El Camino Real) 2 3. HERITAGE TREE REMOVAL REQUEST (Lot 18, Block 43, Atascadero Colony - Rayar, Millhollin/Tartaglia) *** BREAK *** 4. ORDINANCE NO. 192 - ADOPTING POLICY FOR THE FINANCIAL RECOVERY OF COSTS OF EMERGENCY RESPONSES PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 53150, ET SEQ (FIRST READING: Recommend (1 ) Motion to waive reading of ordinance in full and approve by title only - Voice vote; (2) motion to approve Ord. No. 192 on first reading - Roll call) C. REGULAR BUSINESS: 1. DOWNTOWN STEERING COMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDATION RE: CONSULTANT FOR DOWNTOWN MASTER PLAN CONTRACT 2. CONSIDERATION OF i REQUEST TO INITIATE ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT RE: NON-CONFORMING LOT DEVELOPMENT (ZC 3-89, Williams) 3. APPEAL OF DISCIPLINARY ACTION (officer Eric Schlerf- Verbal) 4. ARBOR DAY TREE PLANTING (Verbal) 5. DISCUSSION RE: SKATEBOARDING D. INDIVIDUAL DETERMINATION/AND OR ACTION: 1 . City Council : a. Tree ordinance revisions - Set public hearing date 2 . City Attorney 3 . City Clerk 4 . City Treasurer 5 . City Manager 3 MEEfIN� a ✓ AGENDA DA �.%�.Y dTEM 1 ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES March 14, 1989 The regular meeting of the Atascadero City Council was called to order by Mayor Borgeson at 7 : 00 p.m. , followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL Full Council Present: Councilmembers Dexter, Lilley, Mackey, Shiers and Mayor Borgeson Staff Present: Paul Sensibaugh, Pub. Wks. Dir. ; Henry Engen, Dir. of Commun. Dev; Mark Joseph, Dir. of Admin. Svcs. , Jeff Jorgensen, City Atty. ; Bud McHale, Police Chief; Andy Takata, Dir. of Parks & Rec . ; Boyd Sharitz, City Clerk; Cindy Wilkins, Admin. Secy. Mayor Borgeson issued (3 ) proclamations: "Camp Fire Birthday Week" , March 12-19, 1989 "National Nutrition Month" , March 1989 - "Arbor Day" , March 29, 1989 Mayor Borgeson read a Certificate of Appreciation for Jim Patter- son of Bay Laurel Nursery (not present) , who recently donated an �J oak tree to the City for planting on Arbor Day. COMMITTEE REPORTS North Coastal Transit - Councilman Shiers reported on the March 1st meeting, where possible extension of Route 9 to Paso Robles was discussed. Suggestion to subsidize Greyhound to accomplish this extension was discussed, but consensus was to instead ex- tend the North Coastal Transit system (since Greyhound no longer stops in Atas . ) . Three round-trips per day from Paso Robles to S.L.O. are being considered to facilitate north-south County con- nections at various times daily. Also, an Atas. Dial-A-Ride loop through Templeton to Twin Cities Hosp. is being considered; if Paso Robles does the same, the County may reimburse the City' s DAR costs for this service. The draft report will be presented to the City Council sometime in April . Solid/Hazardous Waste Mgmt. Committee - Councilwoman Mackey noted the County' s final EIR on hazardous waste is expected to be pre- sented at the next meeting of this commission; in the meantime, she will make her copy available for Council review. 1 Downtown Steering Committee - Councilwoman Mackey reported, at last week' s meeting, the committee discussed the Downtown Master Plan consultants' proposals received and have tentatively selec- ted BWE of San Francisco. Mr. Engen added that this firm is in the process of clarifying some of its cost proposals, and a for- mal request for action will come before Council in the near future. This committee meets again on March 29th. COMMUNITY FORUM Don Kline, Central Coast Water Systems, suggested that Council address the subject of sidewalk skateboarding, which he feels is becoming a problem in the downtown area. Expressing concern re- garding the deep pocket liability of this activity, he suggested that an ordinance prohibiting sidewalk skateboarding be consi- dered. Mayor Borgeson directed that Chief McHale report back on the APD' s involvement with this issue. COMSENT CALENDAR 1. February 28, 1989 City Council Minutes 2. City Treasurer' s Report - February 1989 3. Finance Director's Report - February 1989 4 . Res. No. 17-89 - In Appreciation to Joel Moses 5 . Proposed Tree Trimmers Jamboree - Atas. Lake Park, June 17, 1989 6. Atas. Lake Pavilion - Request for architectural proposals 7 . Co. Dept., of Animal Regulation - Request donation to support Annual Poster/Essay Contest 8. Action for Animal Rights (AFAR) - Request for insurance waiver 9. Res. No. 19-89 - Authorizing additional funding for AFAR program Councilman Shiers noted the need for correction to the Minutes of 2/28/89, p. 9 : Following the end of the City Attorney' s comments at the top of the page and prior to Councilman Shiers' s, it should be inserted that Councilwoman Mackey indicated she would have to change her vote to a 'yes' . Mayor Borgeson pulled Item A-5 for discussion. Motion: By Councilman Dexter to approve Items A1-9, minus #5 , seconded by Councilwoman Mackey; passed unan- imously by roll-call . re: Item A-5: Mayor Borgeson, expressing her support for the event, asked Chuck Scovell, of Scovell Tree Surgery, to comment on some of the activities planned for the Tree Trimmers Jamboree. Summarizing the planned competition, Mr. Scovell noted that the 2 jamboree stresses safety and that various trees will be used throughout the park, throughout the day, in a careful manner so as not to damage them. Motion: By Councilman Dexter to approve Item A-5, seconded by Councilman Lilley; passed unanimously. B. HEARINGS/APPEARANCES 1. Appeal by Myron Nalepa, et al, of Planning Commission ap- proval of C.U.P. 15-88 (Montessori School, 3025 Monterey Rd. ) Mr. Engen gave staff report, and Mr. sensibaugh commented on the issue of traffic impacts . He noted a late memo was given to Council and the City Clerk regarding a discrepancy between the ADT (average daily traffic) suggested by the appellant and that of the Planning Commission in its response to the appellant; the memo infers that perhaps there was confusion of terms regarding ADT and design hourly volume. Public Comment Myron Nalepa, appellant, indicated the appeal was filed primarily due to what he feels would be a substantial traffic increase from this school, and he requests that Council focus on and address traffic impacts to Monterey Rd. Though septic suitability is also an issue in the appeal, he indicated he believes this will be monitered by the Water Quality Control Board and that there are engineering solutions to any problems which may arise. Fred McGaughey, 2685 Ardilla, expressed opposition to the pro- posed school due to overall impacts to the neighborhood, which is primarily residential, and the additional traffic volume. Steve Dudley, applicant, explained that the subject site was chosen because it has a minimal neighborhood impact (which he noted was a paramount concern when looking for a site) , good ar- terial flow, favorable septic conditions, offers an opportunity for a diverse learning environment and is located next to an existing school . He noted that carpooling of students is encour- aged and that 40% of families with children attending Montessori currently carpool . Lee Perkins, 5545 Nogales, spoke in support of this proposal, ex- pressing concern at opposition due to the need for additional classrooms in Atascadero. Larry Sherwin, 2655 Monterey Rd. , expressed concern over the im- pact of additional traffic from the school due to the Monterey Rd. School students walking along Monterey Rd. He suggested a 3 - i ! traffic counter be placed in the area to collect accurate traf- fic figures . Michael Donovan, whose son has attended Montessori for four years, feels the traffic impacts and other issues have been ad- dressed in staff' s analysis and requested Council' s support for this proposal . Carl Straley, a second-grade, 3-year student at Montessori, read a prepared statement in support of this proposal . Audrey Elliott, who has two children attending Montessori, at- tested to the excellence of the school and urged Council ' s support for this proposal. Murray Powell, 2655 Ardilla, expressed opposition to the proposed location due to the SFR zoning of subject property, saying he' s not opposed to the Montessori School nor does he question its value to the community. He feels Council should consider whether there are better locations for the school. Gale Day, whose children attended Montessori, expressed her sup- port for this proposal and disappointment in the "Not in my neighborhood" attitude heard whenever a new school is proposed. Annette Gillespie-Carlin, 5529 Tunitas, feels the Planning Com- mission clearly represented a careful study of the appeal issues, and she expressed her support for this proposal . Chris Anderson, 8445 Del Rio, whose son is in his 3rd year at Montessori, expressed support for this proposal. Noting that her family currently lives in the Monterey Rd. School district, as do approx. 200 of the families who have children in Montessori, she expressed that their commuting to and from the proposed site won' t be an addition to traffic volume in the area because they currently use the roads there. Korey Dudley, co-applicant, addressed some of the appellants' concerns expressed tonight. Noting the efforts made to locate a site which would not be obtrusive to any neighbors, she noted that, if this proposal isn' t approved, it' s questionable whether another site is available for the relocation of the school . Tom Komar, 5545 Nogales, expressed support for the Montessori School and encouraged Council to grant the requested permit. He noted the declining availability of ' ideal ' school sites . Kathy Cannon, who has a child enrolled at Montessori, expressed support for this proposal and noted traffic volume will be an issue on Monterey Rd. , whether or not this school goes in, due to future increases in student population. 4 Mary Ann Nolan, 4275 Lewis Ave. , expressed support for this proposal, noting that, when she moved to Atascadero last June, Montessori was the only available kindergarten option due to the overcrowded schools situation. Joanne Herman, Balboa Rd. resident, whose children attend Montes- sori, expressed support for this proposal . Neil Sudsen, 1829 E1 Camino Real, expressed support for this proposal, feeling a school of this nature would enhance the neighborhood by its visual impact alone. He noted the Dudleys , concerns over meeting everyone' s emotional feelings on this pro- posal . John Lee, 4785 Hidalgo, expressed support for this project, not- ing the great amount of time and effort on the Dudleys ' part in researching this project. Betsy Allen, 3950 Monterey Rd. , expressed concern over traffic impacts to the area around the proposed location and concern for pedestrian safety. Melanie Watt, expressed support for this proposal . Noting the i family-type unity among those whose children attend the school, she relayed that part of the Montessori philosophy is to blend with nature and the environment, saying they desire to be an asset to the neighborhood. Larry Sherwin asked if there is a general plan for Atascadero. Mr. Engen responded that the General Plan includes public schools and that the Zoning Ordinance allows for private schools in resi- dential areas with minimum standards as conditional use permits . Discussion came back to Council and staff. Motion: By Mayor Borgeson to deny the appeal of CUP 15-88 and to add a Condition #14 , as outlined by the City Attorney: "Developer shall submit, for City approval, a plan for carpooling and staggered hours of operation in order to minimize traffic impacts and conflicts with Monterey Road School , prior to the establishment of the use on the site. " Motion seconded by Councilman Lilley. Motion: By Mayor Borgeson to amend the previous motion to include the addition of a Condition #15 : "Any future expansion shall be subject to conditional use permit review. " Motion seconded by Councilman Lilley; amended motion passed unanimously by roll- call vote. *COUNCIL RECESSED FOR A BREAK FROM 9 : 10 - 9 : 25 P.M. 5 _ • i 2. Appeal by Gary Swauger of Planning Commission denial of C.U.P. 17-88 (Self-serve car wash, 4805 SCR) Mr. Engen gave staff report, noting the findings for denial were reduced to no. ' s 1, 3 and 4 of Exh. I. Public Comment Gary Swauger, representing applicant Ron Hurlburt, addressed the Planning Commission' s findings for denial and spoke in support of this proposal. He expressed that staff provided no direction to the applicant in its preliminary review of the project regarding compliance with nor deficiencies to the General Plan. He indi- cated that the subject car wash needs to be located on E1 Camino Real in order to be economically feasible. Russ Allen, resident, feels north ECR is ripe for a car wash, although he' s opposed to the proposed location. He expressed concern regarding the lack of information in the report relative to the provision of a water filtration system to gather solvents, petroleum products, etc. , resulting from engines and rental equipment commonly cleaned at this type of facility. • Discussion came back to Council and staff, with Mr. Engen noting the General Plan problem had been noted to the applicant early in the process . Motion: By Mayor Borgeson to uphold the Planning Commis- sion' s decision and deny the subject appeal, based on the findings for denial (# ' s 1, 3 and 4) , sec- onded by Councilman Shiers; passed unanimously by roll-call. The applicant was encouraged to study alternate sites on north ECR for the project. 3. Request for release from sewer reimbursement agreement (Day) Mr. Sensibaugh gave staff report, reviewing the history of this issue. Staff noted that the LeJeal ' s were contacted twice and informed that Council would be reconsidering the reimbursement issue tonight. Public Comment Gale Day, appellant, spoke in support of this request, reviewing the history and chronology of events leading up to the present, indicating that, when considering the possibility of granting the requested easement, they were not informed that the LeJeals had the right to request reimbursement. 6 Sarah Gronstrand asked what, if anything, the City gave the Days in exchange for the sewer easement. Mr. Sensibaugh responded that the City required the LeJeal' s to obtain an easement but required nothing of the Days. Discussion came back to Council. Mr. Sensibaugh noted that a small easement was obtained on one other parcel in order to run the sewer lateral up to the LeJeal property. Motion: By Mayor Borgeson to release the Days from the re- imbursement agreement, as requested (noting the absence of counter-arguments from the LeJeals) , seconded by Councilman Shiers; passed by 4 : 1 roll- call, with Councilman Lilley dissenting. Mr. Jorgensen noted that the City' s order for the Days to hook up to the sewer, along with the normal required fees, is still in effect. 4. Tree removal request - 10560 San Marcos Rd. (High/Wells/ Cuesta Engineering) Mr. Engen gave staff report. Public Comment Architect Joe Elkins spoke on behalf of the applicant in support of this request. He indicated that the owners intend to replace the removed tree, whether or not it' s required of them. Jackie Wells, applicant, expressed they do not wish to damage their property and that subject location is the best overall area where the least number of trees would need to be removed for a home site. Council discussion ensued, with Councilwoman Mackey noting that there was a dead tree that had been a replacement tree on a prior approval that needed to be taken care of. Motion: By Councilwoman Mackey for approval to remove the heritage oak tree and the three other oaks as re- quested, conditioned on the planting of six 15 gallon replacement oak trees as shown on the plans, seconded by Councilman Lilley; passed by 3 : 2 roll-call, with Councilman Shiers and Mayor Borgeson dissenting. 5. Resolution No. 18-89 - Vacating a portion of San Andres Ave. R-O-W at 7005 Atascadero Ave. (Better Homes & Gardens) (Cont'd from 2/28/89) Mr. Engen gave staff report. 7 i • Public Comment Eric Michielssen, applicant, spoke in support of this proposal, clarifying he is not the owner of subject property but is in a joint venture with the owner. Motion: By Councilwoman Mackey to continue the meeting past 11 p.m. , seconded by Councilman Dexter; passed unanimously. Motion: By Councilman Dexter to adopt Res. No. 18-89, including amending Condition #3 to read, "The applicant shall provide the City with adequate evidence of title that the alternate right-of-way where San Andres Ave. now exists is dedicated to public use" . Motion seconded by Councilwoman Mac- key; passed unanimously by roll-call . C. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. Ordinance No. 191 - Repealing Ord. No. 's 111, 118 & 119 (Development fee ordinances) Motion: By Councilman Lilley to adopt Ord. 191, seconded by Councilman Dexter; passed unanimously by roll- call . D. NEW BUSINESS 1. Set joint Council/Planning Commission/Parks & Recreation Commission Meeting date re: General Plan Mr. Takata indicated staff recommends said meeting be scheduled for Thursday, April 13 , 1989 , at 7 p.m. ; Council consensus was to schedule the meeting as per staff recommendation. E. INDIVIDUAL DETERMINATION AND/OR ACTION City Council: a. Mayors/Managers Meeting, re: 1/2 cent sales tax Mayor Borgeson reported on discussion of this topic at last week' s Mayors/Managers Meeting, where consensus was to gath- er additional information, including conducting a Needs Survey through the Area Coordinating Council, before pro- needing with any action. 8 • b. Arbor Day tree planting Councilwoman Mackey reported the need, as a Tree City USA, to plant a tree in celebration of Arbor Day. Mr. Takata reported that Mr. Windsor has requested staff to compile a list of City facilities in need of trees to be designated as receiving sites for future donated trees . He suggested that the community be solicited to submit possible private prop- erty locations for such plantings. Sunken Gardens and Lake Park were suggested as possible sites for this Arbor Day' s tree planting. Council will determine a site at their meeting of March 28th. Councilman Shiers relayed receipt of a complaint that many local businesses don' t have visible street addresses and suggested that this be reviewed. Brief discussion ensued and an ordinance re- quiring address posting was suggested. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 11 : 20 P.M. MINUTES RECORDED BY: BOYD C. SHARITZ, City Clerk PREPARED BY: CINDY WILKINS, Admin. Secy. is 9 M E M O R A N D U M TO: City Council March 28 , 1989 VIA: Ray Windsor , City Manager FROM : Henry Engen , Community Development Director Hi�, SUBJECT: Proposed Rules of Procedure for, the Atascadero Building Regulations Board of Appeals BACKGROUND: At their March 13 , 1989 Annual Meeting , the City ' s Board of Appeals acted to modify their Rules of Procedure . lender Title 8 , such actions by the Board of Appeals are subject to the approval of the City Council . ANALYSIS: The attached Resolution No. 1 -89 provides rules for, the conduct of business of the Board of Appeals . The Resolution acted on by the Board reflects a comprehensive update of their original Rules of Procedure . Changes include the following : ( 1 ) Puts the rules in resolution format , ( 2) Changes male designations to male/female , ( 3 ) Modifies the appeals scheduling time to parallel that in the Municipal Code , (4) Provides that any unexcused absence of two meetings during a member ' s term shall be cause for, reporting same to the City Council for consideration for, removal from office , ( 5) Expands the order of business to include approval of minutes and public comment , and ( 6) Adds a Conflict of Interest section ( Section 15) , which duplicates recent amendments to the Planning Commission By-Laws . RECOMMENDATION: Approval of Board of Appeals ' Resolution No. 1 -89 for the conduct of their, business . HE :ph Enel : Resolution No. 1 -89 , Board of Appeals RESOLUTION 1-89 RULES OF PROCEDURE FOR THE CITY OF ATASCADERO BUILDING REGULATIONS BOARD OF APPEALS Section 1. GENERAL. The following rules of procedure, in addition to the requirements set forth in Atascadero Municipal Code Section 8-1 .104, shall govern all meetings of the Building Regulations Board of Appeals (hereinafter referred to as "Board") . Section 2. MEETINGS. (a) Meetings : The Secretary of the Board shall set the time and place for a meeting within thirty (30) days of receiving an appeal. Notice of the hearing shall be given at least ten (10) days prior to the meeting. (b) Annual Meeting: The Board shall meet in March of each year to elect a C airperson and Vice Chairperson. Section 3. ATTENDANCE. No Board member shall miss more than two (2) meetings during his/her term unless excused for good cause. Any such failure in attendance shall be referred to the City Council by the Secretary for consideration of termination of office. Section 4. RECORD OF HEARING. Any person may request a record of the hearing in the same manner as is set forth in the Rules of Procedure of the Planning Commission. Section 5. ORDER OF BUSINESS. All meetings of the Board shall be open to the public. The business of the Board shall be taken up for consideration and disposition by the Board in substan- tially the following order, except as may be otherwise ordered by the Chairperson: 1 . Call to Order 2 . Roll Call 3. Approval of Minutes 4. Hearings on Appeals 5. Public Comment 6. AdJournment No action may be taken on any item not properly noticed pursuant to the Brown Act. • Section 6 . TERMS AND DUTIES OF PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair- person and Vice-Chairperson shall be elected at t e annual meeting of each year which shall be held in March, and shall serve for a period of one year or until a successor is elected. The Chairperson, or in his/her absence, the Vice-Chairperson shall be the presiding officer and shall assume his/her place and duties as such immediately following his/her election. He/She shall vote on all questions. Section 7 . CALL TO ORDER. The Chairperson, or in his/her absence, the Vice-Chairperson, shall take the chair at the hour appointed for the meeting, and shall call the Board to order. In the absence of the Chairperson and the Vice-Chairperson, the Secretary or his/her assistant shall call the Board to order, whereupon a temporary Chairperson shall be elected by the Board members present. Upon the arrival of the Chairperson or the Vice-Chairperson, the temporary Chairperson shall relinquish the chair at the conclusion of the business then before the Board. Section 8. ROLL CALL. Before proceeding with the business of the Board, the Secretary shall call the roll of the Board members • and the names of those present shall be recorded. Section 9. QUORUM. A majority of the Board shall constitute a quorum, and a majority of such quorum may transact business . Less than a quorum may adjourn from time to time. When there is no quorum for a meeting, the Chairperson, Vice-Chairperson, or any member shall adjourn such meeting, or if no member is present the Secretary shall adjourn the meeting. Meetings shall be adjourned to a fixed time and place or shall be re-scheduled with proper notice. Section 10. PREPARATION OF FINDINGS. The findings of the Board shall be kept by the Secretary and shall be neatly typewritten in a book kept for that purpose, with a record of each appeal clearly identifying the subject, date, place of hearing and a summary of the disposition including findings; provided that the Secretary shall be required to make a record only of such busi- iness as was actually passed upon by a vote of the Board, and shall not be required to record any remarks of Board members, except as required to assure a complete record of testimony offered and considered by the Board of Appeals . A record shall be made of the names and addresses of persons addressing the Board, the title of the subject matter to which their remarks . related, and a summary of remarks pertaining to the hearing. All written materials offered as evidence shall be made a part of the official hearing record. • Section 11. APPROVAL OF FINDINGS. The Secretary shall prepare a written record of the Fin ings o the Board. If written Findings are not approved at the hearing by the Board, the Secretary shall prepare such written Findings within ten (10) working days of the meeting. Each Board member shall review the Findings and shall notify the Secretary within ten (10) days of any objections to the Findings . If there are no objections or no response within the ten (10) days, the Secretary shall then prepare the approved Findings which are to be signed by the Presiding Officer. If there are objections to the Findings by any Board member, the Secretary shall convene a meeting to resolve the matter. The Secretary shall cause a copy of the Findings thereof to be forwarded to each Board member and the City Manager. Section 12. RULES OF DEBATE. (a) Presiding Officer May Debate and Vote. The presiding officer may move, second, ina debate from the Chair, subject only to such limitations of debate as are by these rules imposed on all Board members and shall not be deprived of any of the rights and privileges of a Board member by reason of his/her acting as presiding officer. (b) Getting the Floor--Improper References to be Avoided. Each Board member desiring to speak sh-a ad ress the Chair, and upon recognition by the presiding officer, shall confine himself/herself to the question under debate, avoiding all personalities and indecorous language. (c) Interruptions . A Board member once recognized shall not be interrupte when speaking unless it be to call him/her to order, or as herein otherwise provided. If a Board member, while speaking, be called to order, he/she shall cease speaking until the question of order be determined, and if in order, he/she shall be permitted to proceed. Section 13. PRESENTATION OF TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE. (a) Each person addressing the Board shall give his/her name and address in an audible tone of voice for the record. All remarks shall be addressed to the Board as a body and not to any member thereof. No person, other than the Board members and the person having the floor, shall be permitted to enter into any discussion without the permission of the presiding officer. (b) Persons addressing the Board shall limit their presentation to the appeal being heard and may present, in addition to oral testimony, written materials and related information. Any such material shall be made available to i the Secretary for inclusion in the official record. (c) Persons addressing the Board may indicate their professional and technical qualifications for inclusion in the official record. (d) Letters, petitions or similar correspondence supporting or opposed to any item being heard shall not be accepted as evidence by the Board unless the person or persons presenting such evidence appear before the Board to allow questions and answers on the particular viewpoint being presented. This limitation shall not apply to employees of Code authorities or other government agencies . Section 14. SILENCE CONSTITUTES AFFIRMATIVE VOTE. Unless a Board member states that he/she is not voting, is/her silence shall be recorded as an affirmative vote. Section 15. CONFLICT OF INTEREST. When a Board member determines that it is reasonably foreseeable that a particular decision will have a material effect on his or her economic interest, the member has a conflict of interest. The member must not vote on, make, participate in any way in, or attempt to influence the decision. This is called disqualification. When a member disqualifies himself or herself from a Board decision because of a conflict of interest, the reason for the disqualifi- cation must be announced. After announcing the disqualification, the member should step down, but does not need to leave the meeting. if the member remains at the meeting, the member should not participate or comment upon the item for which he or she is disqualified in any way. For the guidance of the Board, the Community Development Director will make available to the Board a guide to the Political Reform Act of 1974 as promulgated by the California Fair Political Practices Commission. Section 16. DECORUM. (a) By Board Members . While the Board is in a meeting, the Board members must preserve order and decorum, and no Board member shall, by conversation or otherwise, delay or interrupt the proceedings or the peace of the Board or disturb any Board member while speaking or refuse to obey the orders of the Board or the presiding officer, except as otherwise herein provided. (b) By Other Persons. Any person making personal, impertinent, or slap Brous remarks, or who shall become boisterous while addressing the Board, shall be forthwith, by the presiding officer, barred from further audience at said meeting before the Board, unless permission to continue be granted by a majority vote of the Board. • Section 17. MEMBERS MAY ENTER MINORITY OPINION IN FINDINGS. Board members shall Have the right to have the reasons for his/her dissent from or protest against any action of the Board or expression of a minority opinion entered in the Findings . Section 18. ROLL CALL VOTE. A roll call vote shall be taken and recorded on any appeal, rules of procedure change, and any other matter requested by a member to be subject to a roll call vote. The Secretary shall call the names of the Board members in random sequence. Section 19. EFFECTIVE DATE. This resolution shall replace any prior rules of procedure of the Board and shall become effective in full force and effect immediately upon adoption. ADOPTED: Building Regulations Board of Appeals City of Atascadero ATTEST: HENRY ENGEN, Secretary • . MEET AGENDA OAT MEMORANDUM TO: City Council THROUGH: Ray Windsor . City Manager FROM: Paul M. Sensibaugh , Director of Public Works SUBJECT: Request for Sewer Annexation Kesterman/Dulzura Avenue DATE: March 20 . 1989 Recommendation : Staff recommends that Council approve the attached Resolution annexing Lot S , Block FA into Maintenance District No . 1 . (Resolution No. 20-89) Backc_rr ound: Mr . Kesterman has requested annexation to the sewer system due to continuous -roblems with his septic system. Mr . Kesterman' s property is just outside the current boundary of the maintenance district . Due to the topography in this area it is not possible for the applicant to obtain a gravity connection to the main . To accommodate the connection staff has approved the installation of a -private force line to connect to the existing gravity main . Mr . Kesterman has agreed to abandon this connection if an area-wide assessment district is constructed which provides gravity connection along his frontage and will then connect in the conventional manner . Fiscal Im-act : There is no cost to the City related to this annexation . The owner is required to pay all annexation and connection fees in effect at the time of connection . RESOLUTION NO. 20-89 A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO APPROVING EXTENDING PUBLIC SEWER SERVICE TO LOT 5 BLOCK FA AND INCORPORATING THE AREA CONCERNED INTO THE BOUNDARIES OF SANITARY SEWER MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1 WHEREAS , the City of Atascadero is empowered by Section 5820 et , seg, of the Streets and Hicthways Code to annex territory within the City of Atascadero to the Maintenance Districts of that City ; and WHEREAS . Mr . Robert Kesterman owns the property described in Exhibit A attached to this resolution ; and WHEREAS , said, property , located on Dulzura Avenue , is continuous with Maintenance District #1 ; and WHEREAS , the applicant has agreed to abandon the connection allowed hereto and to participate in the formation of an area-wide maintenance district when such formation is proposed; and WHEREAS , the propose annexation has received a Negative Declaration pursuant to the provisions of the Environmental Quality Act ; NOW. THEREFORE. BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Atascadero as follows ; Section 1 . Council finds that the territory described in this resolution will be benefitted by such sewer service . Section 2 . Council approves the connection of public sewer service to the following parcel , subject to the payment of appropriate fees in effect at the time of connection . Section 3 . Council approval is subject to this connection beinn temporary until a Gravity mainline sewer becomes available to the described parcel , at which time two years will be allowed for connection , except if the temporary system fails within the two year period such connection will occur at that time . This property will be subject to future assessment district costs but connections and annexation fees will be considered to be paid. Lot 5 Black FA APN 29-051-02 Section 4 . The area included in APN 29-051-02 , Lot 5 . Block FA is hereby incorporated into the boundaries of Maintenance District NO. 1. . • Resolution No. 20-89 Page two On motion by Councilman and seconded by Councilman ,the foregoing resolution is adopted in its entirety by the following roll call vote . AYES : NOES : ABSENT : DATE: ATTEST : CITY OF ATASCADERO BOYD C . SHARITZ BONITA BORGESON, Mayor City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM APPROVED AS TO CONTENT --- - — - JEFFREY G. JORGENSEN PAUL M. SENSIBAUGH- City Attorney Dir . of Public Works • MEETING AGENDA OAT 55E--�.�c ITEM i • M E M O R A N D U M TO: City Council FROM: Ray Windsor, City Manager SUBJECT: Claim of Vernon Gray (Subrogation from National Auto) DATE: March 28, 1988 BACKGROUND Subrogation claim states that City truck damaged claimant vehicle. • RECOMMENDATION The City' s insurance adjustor has reviewed this claim and recom- mends denial at this time. :cw • MEETII�tG�, � AGENDA DRTE ,,.,,�•F` ITE M j M E M O R A N D U M TO: City Council FROM: Ray Windsor, City Manageri� f SUBJECT: Request for Sponsorship - `tascadero Community Band DATE: March 28, 1989 As the attached correspondence reflects, the Atascadero Community Band is seeking formal recognition by the City Council of its status as the Community Band. Inasmuch as such recognition is tied into the budget process, I would like to suggest that this be referred by Council to staff for consideration along with all other community group budgetary items for review in late spring. • RW:cw Attachment 0 • February 21 , 1989 Atascadero City Council 6500 Palma Avenue Atascadero, CA 93422 Dear Members of the City Council: The Atascadero Community Band, which has been in existence for approximately four years, requests that it be formally recognized by the city. A community band is not a new idea to Atascadero as E. G. Lewis had one during his leadership of the colony. The band helped make events more exciting. It served as a useful public relations tool. This is still true today, as our new community band has performed for every event the city has requested, from a new park dedication, concerts in the park, new library dedication, Colony Days concerts and Christmas Tree Lighting ceremonies. The band performed at the grand opening of the Colony Inn for the Chamber of Commerce. It also performs a joint concert with the Atascadero Junior High Band once a year. The Atascadero Community Band has also informally represented Atascadero at performances outside the city. Paso Robles (which has no band) has invited our band to perform at the Pioneer Days and Christmas Parades and also the "Old Time Christmas on Vine Street" event. The band has been a hit every year at the Templeton Park following the Fourth of July Parade. Every year Maynard Potter of the Mid-State Fair raves about the band' s performance there. The current financial structure of the band is unstable. The main source of funds is through charging each adult member of the band $5 .00 per month. There is a fair amount of turnover of members because some object to having to pay to play. At concerts a "kitty" has been put up front for donations to help out, but it gives the band an undesirable image. The main expense is the Band Director ' s salary, which is negotiated. No one has been willing to direct the band on a volunteer basis. A paid Director has the benefit of stability and dedication. Music scores have been donated in the past by various other musical organizations, and last year the City Council awarded $500.00 to purchase several new scores. The other thing on the band' s "wish list" is some kind of a uniform that would make the band look "sharp. " Although music is an expression of inner feelings, the outward appearance enters into it in the form of "espirit de corps, " (something on which high school bands are judged) . • • Atascadero Community Band February 21 , 1989 Page Two r sent to the cit last In the letter y Year the Atascadero Community Band requested to be formally recognized. Although a donation was made (greatly appreciated ! ) , no formal recognition was made at that time. Therefore, the Atascadero Community Band is requesting that the city make an official declaration of sponsorship of it. We members believe this would give us the status to prosper and gain more membership. Community people of all ages participate in it, and it is hoped that it will continue to grow in numbers. The band ' s goal is to continue to provide music which is enjoyable to all listeners. Please help us toward that goal. Sincerely, Irene T. Bishop Vice President Atascadero Community Band c/o 7151 Serena Atascadero, CA 93422 RECEIVED FEB 2 71989 CITY MGR. February COMMUNITY BAND February 23, 1989 ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL Atascadero, CA Dear Councilmembers, For the past month the Atascadero Community Band has has the pleasure of reading through new arrangements to add to our repertoire. This is due in large part to your very generous contribution ,to our music fund. We gratefully appreciate your funding. It has taken us time to obtain the catalogs and select the new arrangements. The publishing company has allowed us to play through the pieces before we make the final decision on the purchases. This has proven to be a very valuable service since some of the selections have great descriptions in the catalog and are very disappointing when played. . Many of the pieces have been backordered and have been filtering in during the past few weeks. We have decided to purchase these arrangements; Cole Porter on Broadway The Seventies The Pink Panther Big Band Spectacular another Big Band Spectacular It's Broadway Tribute to Irving Berlin 0 Birth of the Blues Birdland The Wonderful World of Disney Oklahoma Tin Pan Alley We may be adding a few more selections to this list. We have not received the final invoice which will determine hew many more pieces we will be able to purchase. We are happy with the variety that these selections provide. It provides a sampling of popular music throughout the 20th century. Show tunes (from Broadway, movies and television) have proven to be very popular with our audiences. Charles Buck, the music teacher at Atascadero Junior High School , has been very helpful in loaning us music from the school library in the past. This has allowed us to get a firm basis for our band. It is essential that we now purchase our own music since our function is different than that of the schools. While we do enjoy the joint traditional indoor concerts the the Junior High Band, the main goal of our band is to provide fun outdoor entertainment for the people of the North County. Thank you very much for your contribution. We look forward to being able to play our new selections for you and the people of Atascadero. Since ley, Gail Pollard0 Secretary, Atascadero Community Band /1GENQ1l D/tTEL: ITEM I _.......lr.. • MEMORANDUM TO: City Council THROUGH: Rav Windsor . City Manager FROM: Paul Sensibaugh . Director of Public Works SUBJECT : iC tyApproval of the County Hazardous Waste Management Plan DATE: March 21 . 1989 County staff will give a verbal report . COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO OFFICE MEMORANDUM To: SA-v- �.. �Ctt�.Q k S.. ��nn8/.+ Date: Z,/2,J From: ?Lt 1 �K.M--► '-44-o m Subject: t(l L f 8 5 to-44� &�A 1 , .•�! G�'�t1 M P f• � st •..ems-Y-1 d' clC.+�.-� �a-.�t +.. -S �{.4 ,�.�+rva-L. I,,`Vt r.u.+� cJ.a.-.►.�.s c.�-r. 4�a r .c..n� �c.�.c � C.a.�, atit (J S 40- January 12, 1989 Chris Christiansen, City Manager City of Arroyo Grande P.O. Box 550 Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 Re: City Approval of the County Hazardous Waste Management Plan Dear Mr. Christiansen: County staff has distributed the final County Hazardous Waste Management Plan (CHWMP) to all the cities for review and approval. State law requires that process to take place within a 90-day review and approval period that would begin on the date the final plan is received by the cities. The plans were distributed on November 17th, therefore the review and approval period would ordinarily end on February 17, 1989. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Section 15096, requires that cities consider an environmental document at the time they approve the plan. If they choose to do so, the cities can use the county's environmental impact report (EIR). However, the Final EIR is not scheduled to be completed and available until the first week in February. Receiving the Final EIR from the consultant at that time will not allow an adequate amount of time within which the cities can review the EIR and schedule approval of the CHWMP prior to the end of the 90-day period. Consequently, we have extended the review and approval period to March 10, 1989. As a reminder, if a city fails to act upon the plan by March 10, 190819, thAe plana will be d:cmcd approved as submitted. Complicating the issue slightly, State Department of Health Services staff have opined that the enabling legislation does not give local jurisdictions the authority to administratively extend the 90 day review and approval period. Their opinion is not a legal one, and is only included to inform the cities of all the factors potentially affecting this process. One way that cities might choose to address this complication would be to schedule the plan for consideration prior to February 17, and either tentatively approve or deny the plan pending the availability of the Final EIR. Hopefully, cities will still be able to recommend approval of the plan to their councils prior to the March 10 deadline. i Hazardous Waste Management Plan January 12, 1989 Page 2 The Hazardous Waste Management Commission has approved a staff recommendation to make several minor revisions to the plan, based upon the recommendations contained in the Draft EIR. The revisions are listed on the attached sheet titled "Environmentally Preferred Alternative". It is our hope that cities will incorporate these changes and schedule City Council consideration of the plan sometime between February 14 and March 10. Enclosed is a model resolution that you may find useful in developing your own resolution approving the plan. If you would like county staff to be present at your council meeting, either to make a presentation or to answer questions, please contact Jeff Hamm of my staff as soon as possible. I've asked Jeff to give you a call within the next two weeks to answer any questions you might have regarding either the Final EIR or the Final CHWMP. Thanks very much for your assistance in this effort. Sincerely, ROBERT E. HENDRIX County Administrator c - Ellen Rognas, Environmental Coordinator Dr. G.B. Rowland, Health Agency Director all ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE • The major elements of this alternative include the following: - Elimination of Study Areas 2 and 3 from the proposed general areas due to geologic, hydrologic, and topographic constraints (Study Area 2), access limitations due to existing traffic and/or road conditions (Study Area 2), distance from the urbanized areas of the county where hazardous wastes are generated (Study Areas 2 and 3) and proximity to urbanized area (Santa Maria) which could be affected by toxic air emissions (Study Area 3); - Reduction in size of Study Area 1 to include only the central-western portion (approximately 450 acres) where the topography is more level (see Figure XV.1) and where lands are located outside the 100-year flood plain, and restriction to repositories or treatment facilities (e.g. incinerators) only, due to its distance from urbanized areas. The CHWMP could later be amended to allow storage/transfer facilities if future development in the area results in a need for such a facility. Restriction of Study Area 4 to storage/transfer facilities only. Reduction of the size of Study Area 5 (to approximately 1,090 acres) to include eastern portion (see Figure XV.4) and restriction to storage/transfer facilities only. - Restriction of Study Areas 7 and 8 to storage/transfer facilities only, due to their current use as a landfill, isolation from other industrial areas, and easy accessibility from urbanized portions of San Luis Obispo County (via Highways 101, 46 and 227). jeff JH:tb\mm / in 0• •+•• •r=) MYM�a mum=m Mm mwaww PIM (OR" is cra of the =at ivwtw& problem ftcirq the StUtS andIcoul JurJod4edowr1 tim; and I• •• • • h of •! • 1 •• I• and m• •1 • •• .1 am riot available toeffeadvely mango the bazardow wants •! •• _ P*d.ic bealth and the be tftudxned by in=emmed dimposial, and the um of • •..•• _• dimpoeial practices continin; and facilitim; and to sham the burden of hwwftn mats 1 g I and that all Iccal •i(seritifyiTg - r. • sitmforr and dispoisal •. •• •f thecmI• _.♦ • cn this I or mewbeld by MEMS, the Ommcil bas considered, Witten andaral tasUmmV, andhm reviandand =sidemd the 1 ••... contained in the • mmPact Nq= (WO as prepared and certified by the "946 -Boartt-Of • ij•1•Pa•+' BE = RE90UM that the City Owncil has rw4mmd and conaidered the •I • contained mi the Fizva EM before taking actim cn the 1• and 0 WAS IWAG NT COI-I11113SION RHAT (2-9-89) 1. Hazardous household waste proposal: a.It is hoped that four times a year a special collection can be conducted for hhw. b.The collection and disposal (probably hauling of this material to Xettleman disposal site will cost an estimated3260,000. c.The question is how to fund such an operation( 35-5.90 per customer). 2. Mandatory. Collection: dtascadero seems to be the only City in the county who does not have mandatory collection. I feel perhaps it should be mandatory in the Urban Services area. . . .? The county is forcing (?) mandatory collection on urban unincorporated areas—they hope to, anyway, beginning with the los Osos area. 3. Recycling: The Waste Commission hopes to increase the participation in recycling to 25% of the waste stream within two years. It is now approximately 6%. There are many ideas circulating and being discussed along with seminars etc. I asked for today's meeting to discuss recycling and the increase in fees to pay for the haz. household waste fee increase. After the meeting was set the mandatory issue arose. . . . . Marj. Mackey 466-1811 A EN � "Mr TEM M E M O R A N D U M TO: City Council March 28, 1989 VIA: Ray Windsor, City Manager FROM: Henry Engen, Community Development Director i�s SUBJECT: APPEAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 12-88: Kentucky Fried Chicken (6900 El Camino Real) (Don Messer/O.C. Crothers/ Cuesta Engineering) BACKGROUND: On November 15 , 1988 and February 21 , 1989, the Atascadero Planning Commission conducted public hearings on Conditional Use Permit 12-88 involving a request for signage in excess of Zoning Ordinance standards for a drive-through restaurant (Kentucky Fried Chicken) . On a 4 : 3 vote, the Commission denied the use permit based on the findings for denial contained in the attached staff report. There was considerable discussion and public testimony as reflected in the attached minutes excerpts . ISSUES : As indicated in the discussion before the Planning Commission, there were three (3 ) primary issues leading to denial of the use permit: 1 . Whether a drive-in use is consistent with the General Plan in the downtown area. 2 . Whether the signage, including the roof-mounted tower on the Kentucky Fried Chicken building, is appropriate and consistent with City standards . 3 . Whether the site plan, as proposed, is consistent with the Atascadero Creekway Plan. At their meeting of February 21 , 1989 , there was a motion before the Planning Commission to approve the project as a drive-in use, which failed. Thereafter a motion to deny the project as proposed pursuant to the findings of Exhibit "M" was approved. Redevelopment of the property in question with a restaurant and related commercial/office uses would be consistent with community goals and objectives as outlined in the General Plan. Redesign of the project by deleting the drive-through window, and reversing the site plan to place the restaurant on the creek and provide opportunities for outdoor eating areas, would achieve the intent of the Creekway Plan. Further, redesign to exclude the tower-type signage on the building would be consistent with Appearance Review Guidelines . RECOMMENDATION: Approval of Conditional Use Permit 12-88 subject to a revised site plan to eliminate the drive-through window, remove the tower, and place the restaurant in proximity to the Creekway by approving attached proposed Findings and Conditions of Approval, dated March 28, 1989 . HE:ps Attachments : Letter of Appeal Proposed Findings & Conditions of Approval (March 28, 1989) Staff Report dated February 21 , 1989 Minutes Excerpt - November 15 , 1988 Minutes Excerpt- February 21 , 1989 cc: Don Messer O.C. Crothers Cuesta Engineering TESTA ENGINEERING i 7401-B EI Camino Real/ P.O. Box 2066 Ataseadero, California 93423 (805)466-6827 REcEIVE'O Mnn ge Iri�C S »rD.7 March 6 , 1989 Henry Engen Director of Community Development City of Atascadero 6500 Palma Avenue atascade o, -.".. 93422 Subject: Conditional Use Permit 12-88 6900 E1 Camino Real Dear Henry: Mr. Don Messer and Mr. O.C. Crothers wish to appeal the February 21 decision of the Planning Commission which denied their proposed project for 6900 El Camino Real . The owners would like to be heard by the City Council on March 28 , 1989 . • Attached please find a check for $100 . 00 in application for this request . Please let me know if additional information or plan sets are needed to complete the packets for the Council . Sincerely, Deborah Hollowell 87-166 cc: Messer Crothers �,� 3/m/ 9 • CITY COUNCIL MEETING March 28, 1989 FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL Conditional Use Permit 12-88 6900 E1 Camino Real March 28, 1989 FINDINGS: 1. The proposed project, as redesigned, is consistent with the General Plan policies on appropriate land uses in the Central Business District. 2 . The proposed project satisfies all applicable provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. 3 . The establishment, and subsequent operation or conduct of the use will not, because of the circumstances and condi- tions applied in the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, or welfare of the general public or persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the use, or be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity of the use. 4 . The proposed project will not be inconsistent with the character of the immediate neighborhood or contrary to orderly development in the Central Business District. 5 . The proposed project will not generate a volume of traffic beyond the safe capacity of all roads providing access to the project, either existing or to be improved in conjunc- tion with the project, or beyond the normal traffic volume of the surrounding neighborhood that would result from full development in accordance with the Land Use Element. 6 . The proposed project, as redesigned, is in compliance with the City' s Appearance Review Guidelines on signage and building design. CITY COUNCIL MEETING March 28, 1989 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Conditional Use Permit 12-88 6900 E1 Camino Real O.C. Crothers/Cuesta Engineering CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1 . The project shall be redesigned to eliminate the drive- through window and lane and switching placement of the proposed uses by locating the restaurant on the Creek side of the site to comply with the Creekway Plan by providing greater setbacks and open space along the bank of the Atascadero Creek. 2 . All construction shall be in conformance with Exhibit B (Site Plan) , Exhibits F, G, and H (Elevations, except for the deletion of the roof mounted tower) , Exhibit K-P (Signs) , and shall comply with all City Codes and Ordinances . Any modification to this approval requires approval by the Community Development Department prior to implementing any changes . 3 . All conditions approved herein shall be complied with prior to the occupancy of the building. 4 . All overhead utilities shall be undergrounded as a part of the development of the property. All relocation and/or alteration of existing utilities shall be the responsibility of the developer. 5. Grading and drainage plans, prepared by a registered Civil Engineer, shall be submitted to the Community Development Department for review and approval by the Community Develop- ment and Public Works Departments prior to the issuance of any building permits . 6 . The developer shall obtain an encroachment permit from Caltrans, prior to the issuance of a building permits, and construct improvements as directed by the encroachment permits prior to the final building inspection. The site shall not be occupied prior to the completion of the improvements . 7 . The developer shall install all street signs , traffic delineation devices, warning and regulatory signs, • guardrails, barricades, and other similar devices where required by the Public Works Director. Signs shall be in conformance with the Public Works Department standards and the current State of California manual of uniform traffic control devices sign chart. Installation of traffic devices shall be subject to review and modifications within one year after construction. . • 8. Improvement plans prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer shall be submitted to the Community Development Department for review and approval by the Community Development and Public works Departments, prior to the construction of the improvements and prior to the issuance of any building permit. Plans shall include, but not be limited to: The removal of excess curb cuts on E1 Camino Real and replacement with full face curb and gutter. The existing curb and gutter may require reconstruction in certain places, if deemed necessary by the City Engineer. Ten ( 10) foot sidewalk is required, which shall tie in with the existing sidewalk at each end of the project frontage. Construction of the public improvements shall be completed prior to the final inspection of a building or occupancy of the building. 9 . The project shall be connected to the public sewer, with an on-site grease trap installed to prevent grease and other unsuitable materials from reaching the public sewer facilities . 10 . Public improvement plans prepared for the site shall be reviewed and approved by the Fire Department. The plans shall include one City standard fire hydrant at the driveway entrance and provisions for a kitchen hood extinguishing system. Design and location of said hydrant shall be approved by the Fire Department prior to the issuance of building permits . 11 . The Sign Master Plan is approved as follows: a. Elimination of the roof mounted tower sign as shown in Exhibits F, K, and M. b. One 28 sq. ft. monument sign, six feet in height, as shown in Exhibit N. C. One 38 sq. ft. wall ( fascia) mounted sign per Exhibit L. d. "Exit Only" and directional signs, without logos , per Exhibit M. e. one freeway sign for the restaurant, 84 sq. ft. and not to exceed 50 feet in height. The exact height shall be the minimum necessary to clear the existing vegetation and will be determined by staff during building permit review. s f. A maximum signage of 27 sq. ft. for the east elevation of the retail building per Exhibit P. g. One 10 sq. ft. wall sign for each of the tenants in the retail building. 12 . All outdoor mechanical equipment shall be located within a roof well or on the ground properly screened. 13 . The developer shall provide trip generation projections, including counts for both the retail and restaurant uses, prior to issuance of building permits . 14 . This Conditional Use Permit shall expire one year from the date of final approval. A one year time extension may be granted pursuant to a written request filed prior to the expiration date per Section 9-2 . 118 of the Zoning Ordinance. Any further one year time extensions may be approved by the Planning Commission. �. *ITEM B. 1 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Doug Davidson, Associate Planner DATE: February 21, 1989 SUBJECT: Conditional Use Permit 12-88 (O.C. Crothers/Kentucky Fried Chicken) This application was first heard at the Planning Commission meeting of November 15, 1988. The item has been continued since then to allow sufficient time for preparation and review of revised plans. This report will compare the revised plans with the original request and offer the recommendations of staff. SIGNS: The revised sign request is summarized in Exhibit J with the details in Exhibits K-P. Some of the concerns expressed by staff and the Commission at the November hearing have been favorably addressed in the following manner: 1. The current request is for only one monument sign (6 feet high) , and has eliminated the reader board. 2. The "Enter" sign has been eliminated, while the other directional signing ("Exit only and "Drive Thru") has been revised to conform with the Zoning Ordinance limitation of 5 square feet. 3. The suspended signs for the retail building have been eliminated. 4. The freeway sign has been reduced from 112 sq. ft. to 84 sq. ft. , with a maximum height of 50 feet. The following concerns remain: 1 . A wall mounted sign (27 sq. ft. ) is proposed for the retail building on a building face without a public entrance. Staff still recommends the elimination of this sign, with El Camino Real identification for the retail building provided by sharing the monument sign with Kentucky Fried Chicken. 2. The request for 15 sq. ft. wall signs for the retail building is in excess of the Zoning Ordinance limit of 10 square feet. i 3. Staff continues to believe that the proposed tower sign (20 sq. ft. ) does not meet the Appearance Review Guidelines for signage and building design. Project compliance with these Guidelines was analyzed in the prior staff report. Finally, the revised sign package contains a wall mounted sign on the fascia for Kentucky Fried Chicken. Staff has no problem with this sign placement or size if the roof mounted tower sign is eliminated. For future reference, however, the square footage needs to be clarified. The sign as proposed is actually 38 sq. ft. (2' X 191 ) , not 28. 5 sq. ft (see Exhibit L) . This is because the Zoning Ordinance states that, "the sign area is that of the smallest rectangle within which all letters and words can be enclosed. " BUILDING DESIGN: It has already been mentioned that the roof mounted tower does not comply with the Appearance Review Guidelines. Staff feels that the tower reads like a "hat" and is not an integral part of the building design. This applies to the reduced height of • the tower as well (see Exhibit K) . The original staff report noted that the submitted elevations for the retail building were lacking in architectural detail. As Exhibit G shows, the revised elevations provide architectural treatment on all sides of the building and it is compatible in design with the restaurant. DRIVE-THROUGH FACILITY STANDARDS: As stated previously, it is the drive-through element of the proposed use that presents special concerns. Although there has been site design changes, the issues from the previous staff report still remain. The revised site plan shows the merging of the two drive-through lanes into a single exit lane onto El Camino Real (Exhibit B) . Staff noted earlier that while this was a desired approach, it would require a greater front setback for the restaurant, which in turn, would push the stacked cars further back into the parking area. In this case, the front setback has been decreased from 22 feet to 18 feet to accomodate a larger building. Due to a change in corporate policy, the proposed restaurant is now approximately 500 feet larger. Although the turning conflict has been eliminated at the exit, congestion may occur as cars try to merge within such a short distance. In the earlier review, staff concluded that the parcel was not of suitable size to accomodate this development. This concern has been amplified by the increase in the square footage • proposed for the restaurant. The provision of a single exit lane does not solve the site circulation problems, particulary when the principal use is increased by 496 square feet. -2- 7 • GENERAL PLAN LANGUAGE/BRA REPORT: Staff continues to believe that the General Plan does not encourage a drive-through restaurant in the downtown area or adjacent to Atascadero Creek. The goal of a pedestrian- oriented downtown becomes even more important when the site abuts the Creek and an auto-oriented use is not consistent with this aim. Placement of the retail building on the top of the Creek bank does not invite pedestrian access to and along this natural amenity. The specific General Plan policies are cited on page 7 of the prior staff report. Although the Economic Base Analysis and Downtown Revitalization Study (ERA Report) is not an adopted City document, many of its suggestions should be adhered to. It was commissioned to examine the existing and potential economic base of the City and offer policy recommendations for inclusion in the General Plan update. A particular emphasis of the report is how to revitalize the central business district while recognizing the City' s historic corridor-strip commercial pattern. As staff noted in the last report, the ERA report also recommends that the downtown planning area should coincide with the boundaries of the Business Improvement Association district. The ERA report contains several recommendations which speak against encouraging auto-oriented uses in the downtown area: 1. "A mixture of retail, office, institutional, and residential uses should be permitted downtown (IV-5) . " 2. "The smaller parcels downtown lend themselves more to small- scale office buildings than to large scale retail development (IV-5) . " 3. "Infill development should comply with design standards and have a pedestrian orientation in terms of scale and site planning (IV-7) . " The report does recognize the benefits of restaurants in the downtown, however, it encourages speciality dinner restaurants, as opposed to drive-through uses. The underlying theme here, as it is in the General Plan, is to sustain and encourage pedestrian orientation in downtown development plans. AGENCY RESPONSES: The Air Pollution Control District (A.P.C.D. ) is taking an increased interest in projects throughout the County that may contribute to air pollution. Problems of air quality are not limited to just the major urban centers. Violations of the State is -3- air quality standard for ozone are recorded several times a year in the County and are increasing in frequency. As Exhibit Q states, vehicle emissions associated with idling are usually an order of magnitude greater than driving at normal speeds. This has caused many cities in California, including San Luis Obispo, to prohibit drive-through restaurants. Thus, the A.P.C.D. is suggesting that the City deny the drive-through portion of the restaurant as an air quality mitigation measure (see Exhibit Q) . These concerns are in addition to the noise and odors created by idling cars that can discourage pedestrian use. SUMMARY: The Creekway Plan and the pedestrian theme of the General Plan are not followed by the proposed project. Additionally, staff has included suggestions from the Air Pollution Control District and the ERA report, which also do not encourage this type of project. For these reasons, staff must continue to recommend denial. The applicant has addressed some of the concerns raised earlier. Staff has included conditions for approval, should the Commission find the proposed use to be appropriate in the downtown area. RECOMMENDATION: Staff continues to recommend denial of Conditional Use Permit 12- 88 based on the findings contained in original staff report (Exhibit R) . If the Commission should decide to approve the project, recommended Conditions of Approval (Exhibit S) are attached. ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A - Supplemental Development Statement Exhibit B - Revised Site Plan Exhibit C - Project Proposal Exhibit D - Projected Sales and Customer Counts Exhibit E - Elevation (Perspective) Exhibit F - Elevations (Kentucky Fried Chicken) Exhibit G - Elevations (Retail Building) Exhibit H - Building Materials (Restaurant) Exhibit I - Standard Plan (Kentucky Fried Chicken) Exhibit J - Revised Sign Proposal Exhibit K - Signs (Kentucky Fried Chicken) Exhibit L - Fascia Sign (Kentucky Fried Chicken) Exhibit M - Tower Sign/Directional Signing Exhibit N - Monument Sign Exhibit O - Freeway Sign Exhibit P - Signs (Retail Building) Exhibit Q - A.P.C.D. Response Exhibit R - Prior Staff Report (11/15/88) Exhibit S - Conditions of Approval -4- EXHIBIT A DEVELOPMENT STATEMENT CUP 12-88 January 11 , 1989 (February 6, 1989 additions) SUPPLEMENTAL DEVELOPMENT STATEMENT REVISED APPLICATION C.U.P. 12-88 KENTUCKY FRIED CHICKEN / RETAIL SHOPS 6900 EL CAMINO REAL, ATASCADERO The attached submittal is a revision of the application for Precise Plan approval . of the development plan for a Kentucky Fried Chicken restaurant and three small retail shops. The application also requests a Conditional Use Permit (C.U.P. ) for a freeway sign along U.S. Highway 101 . The proposed development will rep lace all existing buildings at 6900 El Camino Real . The proposed project includes a 2686 square-foot KFC restaurant and 3048 square feet of retail space in three units. - Parking (36 spaces) is provided with a central shared parking lot. The site plan has been designed, in part, to allow for phased construction so that existing businesses can remain open and move directly into the new building without moving to temporary addresses during construction. The new construction will replace all the existing curb, gutter and sidewalk, including 4 existing driveways, with new concrete work along El Camino Real . The site design includes open landscaping along the creek, rather than a fenced property line. Preliminary approval has been received from Caltrans for land- scaping in the US 101 right-of-way. The landscaping in the right-of-way and in 0 the Atascadero Creek Reservation will be designed to clean up and enhance the riparian vegetation. The revised development plan differs from the original August 30, 1988 submittal in the following items: 1 . The KFC building is a new model 38 series, a slightly larger standard building developed by the KFC Corporation since our original design development. The floor plan is the same basic configuration, showing side and front entry doors, and the same service counters and seating, but with more "elbow room" all around. The parking count calculations reflect the increase in kitchen square footage, though the same 6-8 employees will operate each shift, as in the previous, tighter model . The new model has caused slight changes in the site plan. The front setback is now 18 feet to both the restaurant and the retail buildings. One parking space has moved from the rear (employee) area to the main parking lot next to the restaurant. 2. The drive thru lane remains with the pass-by lane, but with a transition to a single-lane exit at El Camino Real to eliminate the turning conflicts that were present with the previous two-lane exit. The pass-by lane is essential to the site design, not only because it is the standard preferred by the KFC national office, but because it offers an exit alternative should the parking lot be full. This pass-by or escape lane will eliminate awkward turn-arounds in a dead end parking lot, and alleviate any troublesome stacking at the drive-thru. • • January 11 , 1989 .(February 6, 1989 additions) REVISED APPLICATION / KFC 3. The retail buildings have changed, adding an additional stagger between building units, to break up the straight-line facade. The new proposal includes rear doors from Units 6 and C onto a private patio along the creek. 4. The sign request has changed both as a result of comments from staff and the Planning Commission and because of changes in the KFC standards. The freeway sign request has been changed to a smaller 84 square-foot sign face. The size of the directional signs has been reduced to meet City standards. The "enter" sign has been eliminated. One new sign has been included for the restaurant, a wall-mounted sign on the fascia over the side entry. The standard KFC request for the same sign over the drive-thru window has been eliminated from the proposal . The sign request for the retail shops no longer includes a monument sign, however the building sign on a non-entry side is essential for visibility along El Camino Real . A single wall mounted sign is proposed for each retail unit, as suggested by staff to eliminate both hanging and wall mounted signs in the previous proposal . 5. The revised proposal includes an option for the restaurant facade. Alternate "A" is a tile roof building with a lower profile cupola, or tower, as requested by the Planning Commission at the first hearing for this project. The standard 38 series elevations are included for comparison. (February 6, 1989 additions) • The standard 38 elevations show the facade and building profile preferred by KFC National Office. Planning Commission approval should include an indication of preference for either the standard 38 series facade, or the"Alternate All facade. 6. The KFC National Office has requested that the lettering "KFC" on the side of the tower be included as a part of the sign request. This sign would add 3.75 SF of lettering on the red illuminated side panel . • • EXHIBIT B SITE PLAN CITY CUP 12-88 OF RTAS CADER& , ►sc:1►n �guy —7 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT V !. HWY /O/ wGRnlr/RN ` ' \ NOse�iiN6 IN GR/JRINf JfMHf•M•KbIY V \-. \ MIfK /7GtNAa/MA'O�6tt rRRNa V i tRee_rwr rote NIN r. .0... - _ F t; /, �• _ � 6R.OAK IitR[' fl C 0 Ie "All W M . L I -1 \ 1-09 _ ,�` \ •.- `Y•�; ..._1_ �ji{NR,(�i/IAM/N t'.tt:46�xtr�rmv ,fvRe otneat_�� _ IT .t wrrK Ftslvtaf/MI d urY 4a6 f/ l—Wi!�NwNrfe f/ / �• i I f �e i ��� MR/l•MtWC .i/,• RRrog.� _ , \. I I• •f s rorlt IV I.RlrQ�4. '7__�r. I'rf" IW •iii_ � �r� ___ i;ii I --fl—��_� I • MP.IYMW_ f L4N �-4Rt�!NO__fpr�R l� /gyp �! li i'.f' tog, ta...viv re..fa.eK°srwr 52fE A R4 Dft/,CI OP/-/LNT./ L4N EL G Q M/NO RE L 6100 6L GewfMR+dUL - ,IrASC/LCRO,Glu/acvu • • EXHIBIT C PROJECT PROPOSAL CUP 12-BB REVISED SIGN PROPOSAL - KENTUCKY FRIED CHICKEN / RETAIL SHOPS KENTUCKY FRIED CHICKEN ORIGINAL REQUEST REVISED REQUEST Monument sign 28 S-F. 28 S.F. 10' high 6' high Wall-mounted sign not requested 28.5 S.F. Tower sign 20 S.F. 20 S.F. not requested 3.75 S.F. (2/6/89) "Enter" sign 7 S.F. not requested "Exit only" sign 7 S.F. 4 S.F. "Drive Thru" sign 7 S.F. 4 S.F. TOTAL SIGNS 69 S.F. -�.-&S-.F-. 88.25 S.F. (2/6/89) Freeway sign 112 S.F. 84 S.F. 50 FT: OVERALL HEIGHT RETAIL SHOPS Monument sign 28 S.F. not requested Bldg. Wall-mounted sign 20 S.F. 27 S.F. Hanging sign 12 S.F. (4 S.F./ unit) not requested Unit wall sign 12 S.F. (4 S.F./ unit) 45 S.F. (15 S.F./ unit) TOTAL SIGNS 72 S.F. 72 S.F. 1 of 7 • • EXHIBIT D CITY PRO,lECTED SALES ,� •• , 4�. 1 OF ATAS CADERO COUNTS -7 C&DCOMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CUP 12-88 DEPARTMENT TiedAicka�ntucky ---� { 252 West Lemon Avenue Arcadia, CA 91006 • t Oren C. Crothers Phone: (818) 445.2473 DATE: November 11, 1988 TO: 0. C. FROM: Greg Rabdau, Supervisor RE: Projected Drive-Thru Sales and Customer Counts for the Proposed new Atascadero Kentucky Fried Chicken Restaurant Based on actual sales and customer counts experienced in 1988 at the Paso Robles Kentucky Fried Chicken restaurant, the following ranges applied to Paso Robles: 1. Sales range $ 1000.00 to $2500. 00 per day. Sales range 50.00 to 500.00 per hour. 2. Average sale per Customer $ 7.50. 3. Customer transactions per hour (range) 6 to 66 customers. 4. Drive-Thru sales account for aproximately 35 to 45% of sales. Using the actual numbers experienced in Paso Robles, the following Drive-Thru activity is projected for the new Atascadero Kentucky Fried Chicken restaurant: 1. Sales range (Drive-Thru) 5 400.00 to 5 1000. 00 per day. Sales range (Drive-Thru) 20.00 to 200.00 per hour. 2. Customers (Drive-Thru) 53 to 133 customers per day. Customers (Drive-Thru) 3 to 26 customers per hour. These projections should be attainable within the first five years of business, with the maximums shown being rarely, if ever, exceeded. I Figuring a maximum of 26 cars to be served per hour, at the average rate of one and one-half minutes per car, the stacking will rarely, if ever, surpass three to five cars, with an average peak stacking of three to four cars. Greg Rabda V� Supervisor KFC Hanford, Paso Robles, Laguna Lake • EXHIBIT E PERSPECTIVE CITY OF ATASCADERO CUP I2-88 ` cia COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT i 9:�z�i �cl ME I s'� • • EXHIBIT F �'/� T� ELEVATIONS CITY OF A .ASCADERO (KENTUCKY FRIED "'.-7 CHICKEN) CAD COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CUP 12-88 Villrd -•NRS XOi�alaiaaa'1p�.y1m EkYQT10i FOOKC-LEYATIGH A +a-wwasa--- XL wz. _ ^ fir-• -r-. .��...._..�- --.fir 3�— iU•l _ Y • � �iaj...'�r ^-a�. 1 �..a,.;y-L.y- l ■.mss--: n 0 t�IY��TNRU EL&YdT'IOh{ �eab.9 - ate• ` U� Q wS O u 'L2oi9£DaN , ' Mast:ar tlKi•, d LJ txawb ariR• or O ` Iu>rorenMri ero CL ' USA ty, •.+•.even.arE • azs..mv..nv..ne. __ vaewi c-N TF-Y C-LEVATIC)H '- • EXHIBIT G ELEVATIONS CITY OF ATASCADERO CRETAIL BUILDING) COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CUP 12-88 DEPARTMENT fl71.7 V \rye,.-.�+ �� .Y •K�vI I t,� �'1„ �—vY��i O —D4 QO Gil tgl 1_ � s'•vim--� •.• � Lln.. .�..3:r':� .,':��""-.s.,.-. Q sg� Q Ilh„ 4 • EXHIBIT H BUILDING MATERIALS CITY OF ATASCADERO CUP 12-88 0-7 CAD COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT J. v le-• F. G. R•S. Mtss�au 7ic.� 14co�►N6 I� 'rCWZA 00T1 A, I , 0 -rizlA 2 N►6�-r►�awk ® . . . sRN sOMEoN • EXHIBIT I STANDARD PLAN (KFC) CITY OF ATASCADERO rs• CUP 12-88 Arasc;&ne�� COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT —wrmkw MAMA wmm Ae—e FYI Iq'lIIK ! !1 1711 pftr � Lbd�M/Y COU! - - n w.. C NegNl , 1.l. ,i bt IN(i _ ►� bCKb Vti OAVOV N'YN IK 7lO1tCA bVM TQIIMA i�11\ fCl1�111G/ - - 1 1 wa lip m c J O. D fill..I OL i xR-ft W a.w 8•-0" 68'-0" 38 SERIES PROTOTYPE 2S00 SQ.FT. JULY 13,1988 "38" SERIES STANDARD BUILDING PLAN . • EXHIBIT I (CONT.) :... :... 4; CITY OF ATASCADERO CUP 12-88 iiv ivy -7 MSC& COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT i EXTERIOR isnSH SCHEDULE r• rprr« ♦ • �.ryplr rIr rr\W ® \rra rr!rflllrr rIr �lr11•tra11•M•H r-1r p,n -{,y.-_ r r«r.1•w awpga 1�ar1 sal „ �•r(�•�•1�• ppr•nal lrir(fir.«a 1/�j�_ ��r••"•wW (it l.0 r•ne•.w.11..w 4_la'•n•M r rrpl� }g!9 1•nr r Rl ra wau+.ua.wru r r•nnr K1-tY0R7'� �E•{'m O ier�ir.r i� rrn•y \,I II IIii.II1 I,II,II I, � I';'lt\ 1'1 1 1 =1 wri.:»e m ♦� r t la1 1 1 II� Ili• Ir ` ' irr t a I 3a\rk?rG� til�i li\' S�tlr�t�i�lili��i,1 I't'c�ct1 1t1I� Ij1t1tl rl 11I I1rTl1r111I r111111' t 1 1 1 1 1 1 l 1 1 1, 1 l l t �a j 1 t 1 i 1 1 1 1 t 1 1 1 Ir r1a rr sr rwy ^ •a n=a•-ri 1�1�1�ti1�1�1�1�1�1�1"�i 1SIS�II , Slllaa'ti 11�I�f X111111 11I1f1111' •w •, 1 1 1 1 f 1r 1�1+.1 11� (�r���Mi�a•r f 1 1 1 f 1 I 1 1 O P••M1.r.rr.rr,.twl.al Illi w•Il•a«rr• + y-� 1�.��. I N••�r Mra r;y Ir•lirr�ri'r r!ye� _ � _ irni•r r w• • rWM Neal® .(/�r�r� O;�,� �r. sIr l.n4l..a•r«rrr - �� _- � `�•J = z t�..r...lwr�ylal p•H triwr.11 Y`.r—r'.wq prw•r 1•� I � a •....1 Rr•�rTr�a rlNrl � 1 I t �irr39 V I•war rwl a•t�11• •rr•ryl ra lr `•°'•rwr ►ROHt ELEVATION I QID I I • ©♦ t� � �R M'�'rr +n.r+.ryy rr•rrwtl .O .��'1r Y;iaVR�"� Il.rr r�•lr w•w yr 1 - ( 1 ! 1 f 1 I •• ='- ., - __.. '1 >•�"wrr•••rrr M IrQ + y,11r r•.r ru .-......... ..... .--.-w. ww- .. .._ ` ,�;�;;;�;� ---=•; �•\'l.�fJ:ZL}'� "'1,."_•�••/�a��G��: �=�LTI��;f;��'1 •(MYM Ir4.Y;\� T�• 1 1 1 1 •� „ •1 r i 1Ir:... raa � t�„• �� •s rwr • i "�t�rrm a.1 ^3.1 --� 'pI r up� � !wr•a 1 pntvE•1HRU SIDE ELEVATION — - ""•r"""'r""l'••m..I EXHIBIT I C1 C CONT. 145Ek TY OF ATASCADERO CUP 12-88 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT EXTEHWR FIMSH SCIIEDIAE ♦01 m=bm• Yt ad �,.N Nll.l.wY 1...,tn N«K,..Y■. �� . �1Y,1.1 4IY7Tif q1 stAt111a P. Is .erWm nle� TFw.s rnw.a N.r.wlf •^••iii°iiYinii«a wlYnWx°iwwQ �� , e `L� [1 �r`ri s...wwYaa,>. •.rrra.. , ila:�iwL w• .w I,,..wl M Iv NY m \ r�N l w Il.ar r � �iIr LIf� w�• """° EHONi EEEVa70N ,� i-^+•'^•�•w.«..Lw.Ip 1 .M °\ "�.T� •1�.�,•p.�jb Y•.tY N.Y.Y 0 ��i■iY.N1 . ° i _...........___ +,.,aIr.O•...yy�L.rwY w LauY.b.M!W ,,111 / Ilrl..Y•I �'�lla'Jf'II Y'"t: ?b51ai{lllt 1:� :�{' / wnll.warU +YiLn s L �w.\H.«J r.n,w.l...tLQ1r �•, — \° � 1'wl wy.l. 1► ;ns Y«Q .ISI YY tl 11..`Y� / IY YIIN ENTRY SIDE EEEVa7WN nYllYc.rr.wYvt .,,,,,,I iH�l m li, EXHIBIT J SIGN PROPOSAL CUP 12-88 REVISED SIGN PROPOSAL - KENTUCKY FRIED CHICKEN / RETAIL SHOPS KENTUCKY FRIED CHICKEN ORIGINAL REQUEST REVISED REQUEST Monument sign 28 S.F. 28 S.F. 10' high 6' high Wall-mounted sign not requested 28.5 S.F. Tower sign 20 S.F. 20 S.F. not requested 3.75 S.F. (2/6/89) "Enter" sign 7 S.F. not requested "Exit only" sign 7 S.F. 4 S.F. "Drive Thru" sign 7 S.F. 4 S.F. TOTAL SIGNS 69 S.F. -84 .5•.*-. 88.25 S.F. (2/6/89) Freeway sign 112 S.F. 84 S.F. 50 FT. OVERALL HEIGHT RETAIL SHOPS Monument sign 28 S.F. not requested Bldg. Wall-mounted sign 20 S.F. 27 S.F. Hanging sign 12 S.F. (4 S.F./ unit) not requested Unit wall sign 12 S.F. (4 S.F./ unit) 45 S.F. (15 S.F./ unit) TOTAL SIGNS 72 S.F. 72 S.F. 0 1 of 7 EXHIBIT K TY CI OF ATASCADERO SIGNS (KFC) t ; CUP 12-88 . `'wsc..D COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT r TOMER SIGN — 20 S.F. i s i 9 � OEM atur.m mxcw %P&�ZHSP �i�OHT�LEYaTI�{ FROM EL CAMINO REAL I TOWER SIGN - 3.75 S.F. (2/6/89) WALL—MOUNTED SIGN — 28.5 S.F. ILLUMINATED ON FASCIA OVER SIDE ENTRY DOORS f r i SIDE ELEVATION EXHIBIT L CI FASCIA TY OF AT-AS GN CUP 12-88 SIGN rlts.a'aIP 3.r �ria� ` CAD COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT BY CUMMINGS Sect,, BUILDING Substo0" slcNs Neon Building Letters BY CU MINGS FEATURES Glowing in the night for COLUMBUS SIGN DIVISION ISSUE � MARCH 1,1995 instant budding recognition DATE I WALL—MOUNTED 5IGN — - .F ILLUMINATED LETTERS ON BUILDING FASCIA /8 SEE SIDE ELEVATION FOR PLACEMENT OVER SIDE ENTRY DOORS I—I—tt--I 4K- 41 T o O ,ir 1 5- 19 Individual letters are premounted on raceway and internally illuminated by neon tubing.Letter cabinrts are formed from sheet metal and have white plex,flat faces. For electrical specifications—see Technical information Sheet 16108007 Set of 19'neon letters mounted on raceway(Shpg.wt.685 lbs.) ALSO AVAILABLE: 16107994 Porcelain,non-illuminated loners,mounted on channel(Shpg.wt.400 lbs.) Contact Cummings Incorporated for instructions on signs other than those listed above: P.O.Box 11416 - Columbus,Ohio 43211 Phone(614)294-3521 KFC National Purchasing Cooperative,Inc. P.O.Box 32033 Louisville,KY 40232 Call:502-459.2700 or NO-626-5667 EXHIBIT M TOWER/DIRECTIONAL OF ATASCADERO CITY SIGNS �1 .... :.. . ;art S� .' ���•-7 CUP 12-88 . COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Illuminated Towe. BY CUMMINGS " BUILDING s.osawn SIGNS FEATURES INCORPORATED Internally lit for instant identification COLUMBUS SIGN DIVISION ISSUE �DATE MARCH 1,1985 i TOWER SIGN (LETTERED SIGN FAC C ON Y _ ILLUMINATED FACE SEE FRONT BUILDING ELEVATION FOR TOWER ARCHITECTURE TOTAL SIGN FACE - 20 S.F. This to ly illumine( tower is constructed OI aluminum angles and ciao with • aluminum sheeting;all polycarbonate _ – faces and illuminated with(2)H 400 OX 33-1 mercury lamps.120 volt-60 •, cycle-8.0 amps—balast no.(1) Mie jai 259.2822. A, �I For electrical speciricabons see Technical I Information Sheet 701Y Driveway Directionais BY CUMMINGS S` BUILDING –suoxciwn SIGNS INCORPORATED FEATURES Include ground poles COLUMBUS SIGN DIVISION ISSUE DATE 110- MARCH 1,1985 � . i "EXIT ONLY" SIGN - 4.S.F. e&1ter ` "DRIVE THRU" SIGN - 4 S.F. ILLUMINATED SIGN FACE g j This sign is double faced,manufactured with polycarbonate faces and extruded aluminum Construction to meet 30 PSF.High output illumination meets standards of electrical code and Underwriters Laboratories,Inc.Signs bear UL label. iEXHIBIT N � ��. MONUMENT SIGN 41, :.. . �� CITY OF ATASCADERO CUP 12-88 ` Arascw 1 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT . DEPARTMENT 71 - i ivriled r _ - -- A I V j MONUMENT SIGN - 28 S.F.ILLUMINATED SIGN FACE 6' OVERALL HEIGHT • EXHIBIT P SIGNS C1 (RETAIL BUILDING) CITY 1 i OF ATASCADERO CUP 12-88 EkOMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT VOLV,, DEPARTMENT , .-. r-.--+� .: ...-+'—{--�-.-rte. : �•.r•i � ( ^s. Ataseaiere F1 r1st, 0900 �\�w�' `} :: ' �'.-7� UNIT WALL-MOL <\�•;�w j"1�< t tai . i .v. — r )v „ SIGN 15 S.F. EA. UNIT ! ' iSOUTH ELEVATION as seen from parking lot ne3(f Df RO �uk5, BLDG. WALL-MOUNTED SIGN - 27 S.F. TOTAL .' asks k rom E Camino Real RETAIL SHOPS - SIGN PROPOSAL • EXHIBIT 0 TY CI OF ATASCADERO FREEWAY SIGNCUP 12-88 . - `S�`' CAper: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT leykentac� La.. iced Oficken. r ILLUMINATED FACE 84 S.F. SIGN FACE i 1 t FINISH GRADE r M III IjI I • I I � I FREEWAY POLE SIGN III I • I AIR POLLUTIOPCONTROL DISTRICT , = COUNTY OF SAN Luis OBISPO 2156 SIERRA WAY,SUITE B-SAN LUIS OBISPO,CALIFORNIA 93401 -(805) 549-5912 February 6, 1989 EXHIBIT g _ A.P.C.D. RESPONSE 7 11-0189 CUP 12-88 Doug Davidson Community Development Department �;'�� Jr' , � 't City of Atascadero �JPJf P.O. Box 747 Atascadero, California 93423 SUB=: Conditional Use Permit for the Proposed Century Plaza Bowling Center #18-88, and Kentucky Fried Chicken Restaurant #12-88 Projects Dear Mr. Davidson: We have reviewed the proposals for the above named projects. These projects will create between 17,000 and 22,000 square feet of commercial space to be used for retail shops, a 2,800 square foot drive-thru restaurant, and a 26 lane bawling center. These two projects are proposed to be built across the street from each other; thus, we have evaluated the cumulative air quality impacts of both projects. The APCD has performed emission calculations to determine the potential air quality impacts from vehicle traffic associated with this project. The following table provides a comparison of estimated project emissions to the District's emission significance thresholds: PRQ= IIMISSIONS AND SIGNIFICANCE THRESHOLDS - ISS/I)AY Pollutant Protect Sia. Thresh Reactive Organic Gases (ROG) 108.7 120 Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx) 81.3 120 Carbon Monoxide (CO) 1057.5 550 With the exception of CO, emissions which exceed the thresholds listed above are considered significant and should be mitigated. For CO, emission levels equal to or exceeding 550 lbs/day should be modeled to determine their significance. As shown in the table, CO emissions are nearly double the District's threshold and will therefore require a hot-spot analysis. CALIlIE4 or an equivalent methodology should be used to perform the analysis. The District's Interim Guidelines for the Assessment of Air Quality Impacts From Urban Development provides further details regarding the use of CALINE4. Although project emissions of MG and NOX do not exceed the District's significance thresholds, they are still substantial and will contribute incrementally to the existing air quality problems in the County. Violations of the State air quality standard for ozone are recorded several times each year at various monitoring locations in the County, including the North County. The California Clean Air Act, adapted in September 1988, requires that the APCD develop a plan to reduce emissions of nonattairment pollutants in the county in the amount necessary to demonstrate attainment of the state standards. Vehicle emissions of MG and NOx play a major role in ozone formation. Thus, this legislation identifies transportation control measures as an important element of the attainment plan. Motor vehicle emissions from the project will contribute to the regional pollutant burden responsible for the formation of ozone, and thus exacerbate an existing problem. Hence, it is important that effective transportation control measures be developed and incorporated into the design of the project to the maxims extent feasible. Failure to implement these measures now will hamper the efforts of the District to attain the ozone standard, and may require the adoption of more restrictive control measures in the future. We have suggested some possible air quality mitigations below. Since most of the pollution from the project is caused by vehicles, our suggestions focus on reducing those emissions. Although none of these proposals will eliminate vehicle emissions completely, they are worthy of consideration because they will make an incremental improvement. SCxGr'ED MITIGATION MEASURES - Deny the drive-thru portion of the Fried Chicken restaurant. The emissions associated with vehicle idling are usually an order of magnitude greater than driving at normal operating speeds. Many urban areas in California now prohibit new drive- 1 thru businesses because o p f the high emissions that result from. vehicle idling. - Build a bus turnout or shelter as needed. This should be a safe place with seating that-is accessible to the elderly and the handicapped. This would not have to be on El Camino, but could be right in front of one of the stores. - Provide bike lockers for use by project employees and other commuters in the district. Cine locker for each 40 employees is a commonly applied formula. - The District's policy is to encourage early planning and fund accumulation to develop alternatives to the single occupant vehicle. We therefore recommend that the City require a development fee to be used for future transit needs. While current transit is adequate, the projected growth of Atascadero's papulation will generate demand for more transit services. We consider it equitable to based the fee on VMI' generation, since that is the determinant of emission production. It is hoped that these recndations will be beneficial in your evaluation of these projects. Please contact me or larry Allen at 549-5912 should you have any questions or concerns regarding these ccmments. Respectfully, -*"\ DAVID D. NST Air Quality Specialist DEWLPA/kj cc: Ellen Rognas, county Envirormiental coordinator Raymond Menebroker, California Air Resources Board II • • EXHIBIT R PRIOR STAFF REPORT (11/15/88) CUP 12-88 CITY OF ATASCADERO Item: B-2 STAFF REPORT FOR: Planning Commission Meeting Date: November 15, 1988 BY: p.D.Doug Davidson, Associate Planner File No: CUP 12-88 SUBJECT: Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit for signage in excess of Zoning Ordinance standards. The request includes two monument signs, one wall mounted sign on a building face without a public entrance, one pole mounted freeway sign for the drive-through restaurant (Kentucky Fried Chicken) , one logo/tower sign, and directional/informational signing. The proposed on-site circulation, building design, and land use is also reviewed for compliance with City codes and policies. CONCLUSIONS: 1. The proposed project is not in compliance with the City' s General Plan regarding appropriate land uses in the Central Business District and the Atascadero Creekway area. 2. The proposed project is not in compliance with the City' s Zoning Ordinance regarding development standards for drive- through restaurants and sign design standards. 3. The proposed project is not in compliance with the City' s Appearance Review Guidelines regarding signage and building design. A. SITUATION AND FACTS: 1. Applicant. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .O.C. Crothers 2. Representative. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Cuesta Engineering 3. Project Address. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6900 E1 Camino Real 4. Legal Description. . . . . . . . . . . .Ptn. Lot 6, Blk. AB 5. Site Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0. 72 acres 6. Zoning. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .CR (Commercial Retail) 7. General Plan Designation. . . . .Retail Commercial 8. Existing Use. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Commercial 9. Environmental Status. . . . . . . . .Negative Declaration posted November 1, 1988. B. SIGN DATA: Requests for signage in excess of 100 sq. ft. per site require approval from the Planning Commission through a Conditional Use Permit procedure. This project exceeds the standards of the Zoning Ordinance in the following respects: 1. Wall Mounted Signs: Allowed - One wall sign for each business or tenant, with an area equivalent to 15% of the building face, for each building face having a public entrance, up to a maximum of 80 square feet. Proposed - One 20 sq. ft. wall sign located on a building face without a public entrance (retail building) . - One 20 sq. ft. logo/tower sign located on the roof of the building. Three 4 sq. ft. signs for each tenant in the retail building. 2. Freeway Identification Signs: Allowed - One pole mounted sign, a maximum of 125 sq. ft. , 50 feet in height, where the use provides gas, food, or lodging. This may be authorized only through a Conditional Use Permit. Proposed - One 125 sq. ft. pole mounted sign, 58+ feet in height. 3. Monument or Free-standing Signs: Allowed - One monument sign for each 300 feet of site frontage or portion thereof, with a maximum area of 40 sq. ft. and a maximum height of 10 feet. Proposed - Two 28 sq. ft. free-standing signs, with a height of 10 feet each, with the addition of a 15 sq. ft. reader board sign to the restaurant sign. One 20 sq. ft. menu board sign is also proposed. The site has 180 feet of frontage. -2- i 4. Suspended Signs: Allowed - One 10 sq. ft. suspended sign for each tenant. Proposed - One 4 sq. ft. suspended sign for each tenant. 5. Directional/Informational Signs: Allowed - Five sq. ft. signs, limited to guidance of pedestrian estrian or vehicular traffic, with a prohibition on logos or advertising. Proposed - Three 7 sq. ft. directional signs with company logos displayed. 6. Total Site Signage: Allowed - 100 sq. ft. of signage per site. Proposed - 273 sq. ft. of signage, including the . freeway sign. C. ANALYSIS: Under the Zoning Ordinance, restaurants are defined as eating and drinking places. Drive-through restaurants are included within this definition and are not given a separate land use description. The proposed land uses (eating and drinking place and general retail stores) are allowed uses in the CR (Commercial Retail) zone. Thus, the trigger for this Conditional Use Permit is the request for a freeway sign and other signage in excess of Zoning Ordinance standards. Without the sign request, the proposed project would require a Precise Plan which would be done at the staff level. However, the same mandatory findings are required for both precise plans and use permits. This request is being consolidated into a single application using the highest entitlement required for any of the components, or in other words, the entire project is reviewed under the Conditional Use Permit caused by the sign request. Our review focuses on the six required findings contained in Section 9- 2. 109. (c) (4) , starting with signage, and proceeding through building design, drive-through standards, and General Plan conformity. -3- Signs The sign standards of the Zoning Ordinance are specifically written to encourage public input and require Planning Commission approval for signage of commercial centers. The 100 square feet limit of signage per site ensures that a master signage plan is reviewed and approved for multiple-tenant commercial uses. The City' s Zoning Ordinance, General Plan, and Appearance Review Guidelines all demand that signing be of a minimum size to identify the business, while at the same time, being an integral architectural element of the building. Staff has determined that the proposed sign plan does not meet the specifics of the Zoning Ordinance or the intent of the General Plan and Appearance Review Guidelines. - Wall Mounted Signs The Zoning Ordinance allows one 80 sq. ft. sign per tenant, not to exceed 15% of the building face, on a building face with a public entrance. In this case, one 20 sq. ft. sign is proposed for the retail building on a building face without a public entrance. Staff believes that this sign is unnecessary because it duplicates the purpose of the monument sign (the proposed monument signs are discussed below) . The sign, as proposed, is not part of the building design, but a second method of gaining E1 Camino Real exposure. Staff has also determined that the proposed tower logo sign (see Exhibits H and I) is not in compliance with the Appearance Review Guidelines and the Zoning Ordinance prohibition on roof mounted signs. The Appearance Review Guidelines state that "signs shall complement the architectural style of the building and be designed as an integral element of the project and site to which it principally relates. " As Exhibit H shows, the illuminated tower is a separate element and is added onto the building with relative ease. Furthermore, by being placed on the roof and extending above the roofline, the tower sign is not allowed under the Zoning Ordinance. Wall mounted and freestanding signs are the only sign types permitted. One 4 sq. ft. suspended sign and one 4 sq. ft. wall sign are proposed for each of the individual uses in the retail building. In this case, it seems that a slightly larger (10 sq. ft. ) wall sign, with the elimination of the suspended signs, is a better design solution. Freeway Identification Signs As stated in the Zoning Ordinance, the maximum height for freeway signs is 50 feet with a maximum square footage of 125 sq. ft. The proposed sign height of 58 feet is over the maximum, because sign height is measured to the top of the sign, not to the bottom -4- of the sign (see Exhibit F) . Underthe Zoning Ordinance, the " Planning Commission must find that the sign area and height are the minimum needed to achieve adequate visibility along the freeway due to ramp locations and grade differences. ' Staff believes that this sign attempts to maximize freeway visibility and should be reduced in size and height. Free-standing or Monument Signs As stated above, the Zoning Ordinance allows one monument or free-standing sign for each 300 feet of frontage or portion thereof. The proposal is two 28 sq. ft. signs, including a reader board on the restaurant sign, on a site with frontage of 180 feet. Two monument signs on a site of this size is excessive. The following policies from the General Plan and the Appearance Review Guidelines speak to combining free-standing signs under these circumstances. The Appearance Review Guidelines (pg. 28) state that "each sign should be compatible with signs on adjoining premises and not compete for attention. " Page 61 of the General Plan (General Retail Policies) contains the most applicable language, in that "commercial clusters shall be developed in a coordinated architectural design. The signing and identification of each cluster shall be combined, thus reducing the confusing clutter. " Lastly, the Community Appearance Element of the General Plan states that "provisions of the signing ordinance shall be vigorously enforced. " Reader boards are exempt from Zoning Ordinance standards, religious provided such signs are for community, charitable, or reli g organizations and do not exceed 20 sq. ft. in size. Based on this language, a reader board is not appropriate for a drive- through restaurant. In addition, this function (community information) is provided by the reader board at Davis Auto Shop. Directional/Informational Signs Directional signing (enter, exit, and drive-through) is required for drive-through restaurants. This type of signing is exempt from Zoning Ordinance standards, if it is five sq. ft. in size or less. It is specifically prohibited to display company logos or other forms of advertising on these signs. As proposed, the signs provide additional business identification and exceed the established size (see Exhibit G) . Building Design The roof tower as an "added-on" sign was discussed above. The same concerns apply to the tower itself without the sign. The Appearance Review Guidelines (pg. 19) contain several policies on roof design: 0 -5- "Roof design is a vital element to any design project and shall complement and enhance the building design rather than dominate. " "The scale of the roof element shall not detract from the architectural style of the building and shall complement that style. " "Roof designs should not read like a "hat" on a building, but shall be an integral part of the building design and have an integrity about it. The "top heavy" appearance that a "hat" style roof element can sometimes create is discouraged. " These policies all speak against allowing the roof mounted tower as detailed in Exhibit H and shown on the elevation in Exhibit I, for it detracts from the roofline of the building and is not an integral design element. Without this roof element, staff can support the design of the building as being an improvement on the appearance of other "quick food service" uses in the City. The elevations submitted for the retail building are lacking architectural detail (see Exhibit J) . This building must complement the site, while being compatible with the restaurant and other buildings in the vicinity. It appears that the north (front) elevation and the west elevation provide architectural relief (doors, windows, and wall features) , but the colors and materials will have to be reviewed. The south (rear) elevation needs to provide architectural treatment to break up the blank wall surfaces. Drive-through Facility Standards It is the drive-through nature of this project that poses special concerns in site design, particulary when other retail uses for stopover customers are ,proposed. Standards for drive-through facilities are contained in Zoning Ordinance Section 9-4. 122. On-site circulation must be designed to separate drive-through traffic from that of stopover customers. Likewise, a stacking area of five cars (including the car receiving service) must be provided to separate drive-through service from other traffic circulation on the site. Design of this stacking area must preclude excessive overflow into the parking area. With these thoughts in mind, the proposed site plan does not meet the development standards. The proposed site plan cannot provide a separate traffic lane from the point of site access to the stacking area without interfering with the parking of stopover customers (see Exhibit B) . Furthermore, a stacking area of five cars starting at the menu board will extend into the parking area and block access to the rear of the site. -6- Although the Ordinance calls for physical separation between the drive-through and other traffic leaving the site, staff is concerned about these two side-by-side exit driveways. Turning conflicts are created by these exits and the main project driveway. A fundamental retail policy of the General Plan (pg. 61) is to "relieve traffic congestion by limiting the number of places for automobiles to turn on and off the roadway. " This is even more important in the downtown business district, where particular emphasis is placed on pedestrian use. The restaurant should be set back enough to allow the merging of these driveways before exiting the site. However, this pushes the stacking area further back on the site, thus exacerbating the problem of stacked cars extending into the parking lot. Site design problems of this magnitude indicate that a parcel of this size is not suitable for this intensity of development. After reviewing signage, building design, and on-site circulation, it becomes increasingly apparent that this project needs to be redesigned or is better suited as proposed in other locations of the City. The following section on General Plan conformity will help illustrate this. General Plan Conformity The General Plan (pg. 61) contains policies that recognize the Central Business District as a distinct commercial area. Its pedestrian nature, combined with a shortage of parking and traffic congestion, creates special development considerations. The following policies from the General Plan indicate that a drive-through restaurant is not a compatible land use in the Central Business District: "Businesses in the Central Business Disrtict of Atascadero are mostly specialized retail services supplying domestic needs such as retail shops, offices, and financial institutions. Shops offering convenience goods such as foods, drugs, and personal services are located along the edges of the central area nearest residential districts. " "The specialized character of the Central Business District, combined with its high density, should encourage pedestrian comparison shopping, with ample parking within easy walking distance. " "Highway-related commercial uses typified by gas stations, automobile sales and services, and commercial recreation uses are better located outside the downtown area. " -7- Although drive-through restaurants are not specifically mentioned as a highway-related use, this is not meant to be an all- inclusive list. Staff would counter that the parcel has freeway frontage and the applicant has requested a freeway sign in an attempt to increase business with freeway visibility. We also recognize that there are two drive-through uses (Mid-State Bank and Jack-in-the- Box) in the Central Business District. These uses contribute to traffic congestion and should not continue to be encouraged in the downtown. The site is also located within the Atascadero Creekway Plan area (see Exhibit L) . It is shown as an area of passive recreation and open space with possible pedestrian and bicycle path linkages. The Creekway Plan has not been implemented, but placing the blank back wall of a building up against the Creek, does not foster what the plan envisions. One option that could be considered is to "flip-flop" the restaurant and retail placement. A drive-through use however, further impacts the pedestrian and open space nature of the Creek. Staff feels that a two-sided building, either a sit-down restaurant or retail building, which takes advantage of the Creek setting, is the best alternative. The objectives of maintaining pedestrian orientation, relieving traffic congestion, locating convenience and highway-related uses outside the downtown area, and implementing the Creekway Plan are not encouraged by this project. Summary In order to recommend approval of conditional use permits (and for staff to approve precise plans) , the Commission must make the six findings contained in the Zoning Ordinance. The above analysis has shown that the proposed signage and building design are not in compliance with the applicable City standards. While these items can be revised at this time, the drive-through nature of the use creates problems that cannot be mitigated on this site. Most importantly, the General Plan does not encourage auto-oriented uses in the Central Business District. Drive-through uses are most appropriately located in areas with freeway access outside the downtown area. Two locations that come to mind and have been discussed with the applicant are the presently vacant Del Taco site and the two approved drive-through pads at the Food 4 Less/Long' s center. On the subject site, staff can support a strictly sit-down restaurant which takes advantage of the Atascadreo Creek, or a smaller mixed use development without a drive-through. The Appearance Review Guidelines, Zoning Ordinance, and General Plan do not support this proposed project. Furthermore, staff cannot recommend the required findings that the project will not be contrary to orderly development or that the project will not contribute to traffic congestion. -8- • D. RECOMMEMATI ON: Staff recommends denial of Conditional Use Permit 12-88 based on the Findings for Denial in Exhibit M. ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A - Locution and Zoning Map Exhibit B Site Plan Exhibit C - Developer' s Statement Exhibit D - Proposed Signage Exhibit E - Free-standing Sign (Restaurant) Exhibit F - Pole Mounted Sign - Freeway Exhibit G - Directional Signage Exhibit- H Tower Sign Exhibit I - Elevation (Restaurant) Exhibit J - Elevation (Retail Building) Exhibit K - Central Business District Exhibit L - Creekway Plan Exhibit M - Findings for Denial -9- (FH) ��-=__--- -� N �fi P LS :Cpm �. �i►l""E v - ..,e`QAEN PI��� SOMOp� �� , • 116 6 L L(FH) R g So <� RMF- eR wl qjj I /e TF- vE L S F fq •Y i I � � L(FH)\ X/ l� r� s •NDQES s'N�— A �y\ir ; � �'• � \ <.- EXHIBIT A RSL -S-F Z �'. qe►� ' (FH)- LOCATION & ZONING .1 �ODiQl6 � f / � ��► \ ?° R S 0 D Z1It tz 15 •t ;� v. S Y 1,. t � ::__� ( -- !moi` . < - __ :c.•z"� _ �!� �h771 Vo ri ul th I� ` \ � /? * � �•-�/1..1 h 'y�_ 4 moi% '��� �? 1 )) th I I•C - 2 oo n 3oor nw ! R I ti 2 D Vf Qr 11Z, �a o n r0•c M i �A M m 7d t Z c� z EXHIBIT B SITE PLAN .A. z ti S A ENGINEERING 7401-B EI Camino Real/P.O. Box 2066 Atascadero, California 93423 (805)466-6827 August 24, 1988 SUPPLEMENTAL DEVELOPMENT STATEMENT COMMERCIAL REDEVELOPMENT 6900 EL CAMINO REAL The attached submittal is an application for Precise Plan approval of the development plan for a Kentucky Fried Chicken restaurant and three small retail shops. The application also requests a Conditional Use Permit (C.U.P.) for a freeway pole sign along U.S. Highway 101. The proposed development will replace all existing buildings at 6900 El Camino Real. New construction will include construction of new curb, gutters and sidewalk along E1 Camino Real, replacing 4 driveway cuts with two new ones. The site design includes open landscaping along the creek, rather than a fenced property line. Landscaping will be designed to clean- up and enhance the riparian vegetation. The buildings are set back 16 to 22 feet from the back of the public side- walk, similar to the Denny's next door. The parking requirements have been calculated as follows: Kentucky Fried Chicken 12 tables @ 1/table 12 spaces 5 stools @ 1/2 stools 2.5 spaces Employees @ 1/6 tables 2 spaces 500 SF Kitchen @ 1/100 SF 5 spaces 22 spaces Retail Shops 3008 SF @ 1/300 10 spaces 32 spaces required Total spaces available 36 spaces The Kentucky Fried Chicken restaurant has been calculated by restaurant stan- dards based on information from current restaurant managers stating that 6-8 employees are on shift at any one time. Seven spaces are required for employee and kitchen under restaurant requirements. The site design provides four more spaces in addition to those required. EXHIBIT C 87-166 DEVELOPMENT STATEMENT � n ti n JUN a N N N O Q� LV -O OCp �1 J J O Q 11 11 � � � � � 1 � �► •� '� 1 1 1 N ?a � 1' to tJ Q D ?o A rn y N E)IHIBIT D PI' POS ED SIGNAGE .0 t oil I RIPM 1 k C117 e nattl i a. iea ( ' abicken. (,01.01`•1 I VA, m� C bT t G \ (• 1� . �/ . t �/ EXHIBIT E MONUMENT SIGN c f! neky M1. 00 Mcken. r j i zl � I i FINISH 6PADE i t I , t It ► SII EXHIBIT F FREEWAY POLE SIGN wa Direction BUILDING $ODSeCto° SIGNS Driveway S FEATURES BY CUMMINGS INCORPORATED Include ground poles COLUMBUS SIGN DIVISION "UE GATE )0- MARCH 1,1985 rM,M I - t mErd6r Mi N11 :1:1! •IEWIN9 fv This sign is double faced, manufactured with polycarbonate faces and extruded aluminum construction to meet 30 PSF. High output illumination meets standards of electrical code and Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. Signs bear UL label. For electrical specifications—see Technical Information Sheet Colors to match: PMS 476 Brown/PMS 485 Red DRIVEWAY DIRECTIONAL SIGNS—SIZES AVAILABLE: 16104590 Welcome/Enter 2'-0"x3'•6"(7 sq. ft.)double face, center pole(S`ipg.wt. 155 lbs.) 16104600 Thank You/Exit 2'-0"x3'-6"(7 sq.ft.)double face, center pile(S'ipg.wt. 155 lbs.) 16104610 Drive Thru/Enter 2'-0"x3'-6"(7 sq. ft.)double face,center hole Shpg. wt. 155 lbs.) OTHER SIZES AVAILABLE: 16105562 Drive Thru/Enter 18"x31"(4 sq. ft.)double face, center pole (Shpg.wt. 100 lbs.) 16105566 Thank You/Exit 18"x31"(4 sq.ft.)double face, center pole(Shpg.wt. 100 lbs.) 16105564 Welcome/Enter 18"x31"(4 sq.ft.)double face, center pole(Shpg. wt. 100 lbs.) 16105590 Welcome/Enter 11"x25"(2 sq. ft.)double face,center pole(Shpg. wt. 65 lbs.) 16105591 Thank You/Exit 11"x25"(2 sq. ft.)double face,center pole(Shpg.wt. 65 lbs.) 16105592 Drive Thru/Enter 11"x25"(2 sq.ft.)double face,center pole (Shpg.wt. 65 lbs.) _ For special directional signs contact Cummings Incorporated. P.O. Box 11416 • Columbus, Ohio 43211 • Phone(614) 294-3521 KFC National Purchasing Cooperative, Inc. P.O. Box 32033 Louisville, KY 40232 Call:502-459 2700 or 800-626 5687 EXHIBIT G -- DIRECTIONAL SIGNAGE BY CUMMIN�GS ton BUILDING Subsection SIGNS Illuminated Towei FEATURES Internally lit for instant identifcatic-1 INCORPORATED ISSUE 10. COLUMBUS SIGN DIVISION DATE MARCH 1,1985 _ v This fully illuminated tower is constructed Ei i of aluminum angles and clad with =�T aluminum sheeting; all polycarbonate faces and illuminated with(2) H 400 DX �, 33-t mercury lamps. 120 volt-60 , cycle-8.0 amps—balast no. (1) ;� t 259-2822. # ;r For electrical specifications see Technical Information Sheet �—7014.. Cummings Incorporated, in response to increasing demands, has develoaed and had approved a new image illuminated tower. Once you decide to convert or construct your new image building, please notify us so that we can supply your tower weeks before your restaurant'opens. Our tower can be installec`, very simply, before your roof and mansard sections are completed, providing you with important advance putlicity. CHECK THE SIMPLE IDENTIFICATION STEPS Q✓ Remove pagoda roof and facia signs. p✓ Check for lea';proof roof. Fv Simple base mus, be constructed per our installation drawing. Provisions may vary according to height of parapet wall above roof line, coordinate with building plans. r7 Lift tower in place -and fasten. �✓ Make electricai h^o►.up utilizing former facia sign power sour-es through access panel in rear of tower. THIS TOWER IS AVAILABLE IN THESE SIZES: 16104790 Complete tower with 4'-1"x5'-1"illuminated KFC parei,illuminated sides of simulated stucco and illuminated striped roof(Shpg.wt. 740 lbs.) 16107700 4'-1"x5'-0"(20 sq. ft.)single face tower ID sign(Shpg. wt. 150 lbs.) Contact Cummings Incorporated for instructions on signs other than those listed above. P.O. Box 11416 - Columbus, Ohio 43211 Phone(614)294-3521 KFC National Purchasing Cooperative, Inc. ORDER ' P.O. Box 32033 FROW Louisville, KY 402:x.': EXHIBIT H Call:502-45f-2700 or 800-626-5687 TOWER SIGN Al fib;; 44} �:fi S�- r•i ice'� * �e��4 �,�'�� ";v.4* ��3 44 1 ty ! rIrp^F+X 1 Air, t 1 � 1 • . ! � i • h U � � Z O 7 L 1 Z Fr Vv z i E.LEVnTIONS EXHIBIT J i Ir F rELEVATIONS - RETAIL BUILDING CfINTN�C�fIR� nnN MESSFR COM.,_-MUCT10N 01 "ft L ,�.. � . ,�•:.,... 1. , j1 ,.. �.:� `:��►. on ^q t 1141 + ♦'s 1 ,, <•. ♦t♦_ : tie � .1 PAl 3 > 77r 3 LC In 2 >. ...r a C ♦ a` C t 4 O .•---'� .• '- :� � ., .. ............. ♦1 -♦.'. ... �/ �'l jP:a,�.>.R �� :::ifi<^;..; �it�fa a-♦rfi 2ij 4; , .jta i`it •>K��- � {j f� :•>t� ..` > s'�•.i at�.K<tf `�+��f�i �>''.� ;1 `♦ �y,� y� � �1 ma r .. 1 IFZ wo ♦ v.w.y'f Iii Z .��> j } • 1 ♦ # > af`wc a,... ►.. -'lij yt =`� • �, • b '•a l x ... + > til. t ♦>.,, t EXHIBIT K CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT \���` •J ;�� a`=�� rte:;/.rNCKIRy "• Or Ww ht M."I P L 1 L D l'1:, t jai• ♦ / '�'.-' �(_ � :ii.;yy '..►�;: / PMKII•t�:': I 7p O rc io@���`� �,t�= � �'�l..l•/'� -�, e�Sr��_ •fes Ae WWSIA AF emTL \� •�.• \.�� -:• ♦*• ter.::..., .s a tea' \ cis\ r,+,.. ;.• �'� � �.a. •r, 7t. �%' `tel�9\/��\-� � �� ��:,•��" � note L � - ___ "!�ti+• SLI .� �.�'�... 2�\�• `�'��r �r' .. is !'. \ / '\ •�... ' QCT f,. . , cam ,.= •.,' to EXHIBIT L CREEKWAY PLAN 9 0 Exhibit M - Findings for Denial Conditional Use Permit 12-88 6900 E1 Camino Real November 15, 1988 FINDINGS: 1. The proposed project is not consistent with the General Plan policies on appropriate land uses in the Central Business District. 2. The proposed project does not satisfy all applicable provisions of the Zoning Ordinance, specifically the development standards for signing and drive-through restaurants. 3. The establishment, and subsequent operation or conduct of the use may, because of the circumstances and conditions applied in the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, or welfare of the general public or persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the use, or may be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity of the use. 4. The proposed project is inconsistent with the planned character of the neighborhood and contrary to orderly development in the Central Business District. 5. The proposed project may generate a volume of traffic beyond the safe capacity of all roads providing access to the project, either existing or to be improved in conjunction with the project, or beyond the normal traffic volume of the surrounding neighborhood that would result from full development in accordance with the Land Use Element. 6. The proposed project is not in compliance with the City's Appearance Review Guidelines on signage and building design. EXHIBIT S - CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Conditional Use Permit 12-88 6900 E1 Camino Real O.C. Crothers/Cuesta Engineering CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. All construction shall be in conformance with Exhibit B (Site Plan) , Exhibits F, G, and H (Elevations, including the deletion of the roof mounted tower) , Exhibit K-P (Signs) , Exhibit S (Conditions of Approval) , and shall comply with all City Codes and Ordinances. Any modification to this approval requires approval by the Community Development Department prior to implementing any changes. 2. Project shall be redesigned to comply with the Creekway Plan by providing greater setbacks and open space along the bank of the Atascadero Creek. Consideration shall be given to switching placement of the proposed uses by locating the restaurant on the Creek side of the site. 3. All conditions approved herein shall be complied with prior to the occupancy of the building. 4. All overhead utilities shall be undergrounded as a part of the development of the property. All relocation and/or alteration of existing utilities shall be the responsibility of the developer. 5. Grading and drainage plans, prepared by a registered Civil Engineer, shall be submitted to the Community Development Department for review and approval by the Community Development and Public Works Departments prior to the issuance of any building permits. 6. Developer shall obtain an encroachment permit from Caltrans, prior to the issuance of a building permit, and construct improvements as directed by the encroachment permits prior to the final building inspection. The site shall not be occupied prior to the completion of the improvements. 7. The developer shall install all street signs, traffic delineation devices, warning and regulatory signs, guardrails, barricades, and other similar devices where required by the Director of Public Works. Signs shall be in conformance with the Department of Public Works standards and the current State of California manual of uniform traffic control devices sign chart. Installation of traffic devices shall be subject to review and modifications within one year after construction. 1 • • 8. Improvement plans prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer shall be submitted to the Community Development Department for review and approval by the Community Development and Public Works Departments, prior to the construction of the improvements and prior to the issuance of any building permit. Plans shall include, but not be limited to: The removal of excess curb cuts on E1 Camino Real and replacement with full face curb and gutter. The existing curb and gutter may require reconstruction in certain places, if deemed necessary by the City Engineer. Ten (10) foot sidewalk is required, which shall tie in with the existing sidewalk at each end of the project frontage. Construction of the public improvements shall be completed prior to the final inspection of a building or occupancy of the building. 9. The project shall be connected to the public sewer, with an on-site grease trap installed to prevent grease and other unsuitable materials from reaching the public sewer facilities. 10. Public Improvement plans prepared for the site shall be reviewed and approved by the Fire Department. The plans shall include one City standard fire hydrant at the driveway entrance and provisions for a kitchen hood extinguishing system. Design and location of said hydrant shall be approved by the Fire Department prior to the issuance of building permits. 11. The Sign Master Plan is approved as follows: a. Elimination of the roof mounted tower sign as shown in Exhibits F, K, and M. b. One 28 sq. ft. monument sign, six feet in height, as shown in Exhibit N. C. One 38 sq. ft. wall (fascia) mounted sign per Exhibit L. d. "Exit Only" and "Drive Thru" directional signs per Exhibit M. e. One freeway sign for the restaurant, 84 sq. ft. and not to exceed 50 feet in height. The exact height shall be the minimum necessary to clear the existing vegetation and will be determined by staff during building permit review. f. A maximum signage of 27 sq. ft. for the east elevation of the retail building per Exhibit P. 2 • • g. One 10 sq. ft. wall sign for each of the tenants in the retail building. 12. All outdoor mechanical equipment shall be located within a roof well or on the ground properly screened. 13. The developer shall provide a traffic generation study, including counts for both the retail and restaurant uses, prior to issuance of building permits. 14. This Conditional Use Permit shall expire one year from the date of final approval. A one year time extension may be granted pursuant to a written request filed prior to the expiration date as per Section (9-2. 118) of the Zoning Ordinance. Any further one year time extensions may be approved by the Planning Commission. 3 MINUTES EXCERPT .PLANNING COMMISSION - 11/S88 -4- 2. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 12-88 : Request initiated by Don Messer and O.C. Crothers (Cuesta Engineering) to allow for signage in excess of 100 square feet, including a freeway sign for a restau- rant. Subject site is located at 6900 E1 Camino Real .. Mr. Davidson presented the staff report which focused on issues which address on-site circulation, building design, proposed signing, general plan conformity, and land use policies . Staff is recommending denial of the request due to the variety of conflicts with City standards and policies as indicated in the staff report. In response to question from Commissioners Waage and Lopez Balbontin, Mr. Davidson responded that the applicant was aware of the recommendation some time before the report was prepared. Deborah Hollowell, site designer on the project, stated she was speaking on behalf of the applicants (O.C. Crothers and Don Messer) . She proceeded to address issues which staff and the applicant do not agree with which included: 1) the number of stacking spaces available for the drive-thru service; 2) square footage and types of signs requested; and 3 ) appropriateness of the drive-thru use for this site in the Central Business District. With regard to the site plan showing the stacking spaces for the drive-thru restaurant, Ms . Hollowell stated this plan meets the ordinance requirements but noted an alternative site plan for the Commission' s consideration. She pointed out a drafting error with the freeway sign and clarified that the total height of the requested sign was 50 feet. The applicant is requesting modification to the signage package to retain the KFC monument sign without the reader board and to eliminate the second monument sign, but would like to retain the wall signs on the front of the retail buildings. She stated that the site is included within the fringes of the Central Business District (CBD) and felt the project is compatible with two uses on the same block (Denny' s and Mid- State Bank) . In summary, Ms . Hollowell felt that staff' s concerns regard- ing the site plan, signing, architectural alternatives (KFC building) etc. can be modified and asked for the Commission' s direction in addressing these issues, and re- quested a continuance. She then responded to questions from the Commission. Don Messer, co-owner of the property, presented a petition from businesses in the central business district in support of the proposed project. It is their desire to provide a development that will enhance the entire downtown area and MINUTES EXCERO- PLANNING COMMISSION - 10 5/88 -5- improve this piece of property. He stated that the proposed drive-thru restaurant (Kentucky Fried Chicken) would not generate large volumes of traffic and would enhance the potential for freeway traffic to stop in Atascadero. Mr. Messer added that this project is compatible with both the zoning ordinance and general plan requirements, and is com- patible with adjacent buildings in this area. The CBD needs support and needs a viable project in this area. He then addressed issues raised in the staff report and responded to questions from the Commission. O.C. Crothers, representative from Kentucky Fried Chicken, spoke in support of the project. He explained the intent of the site plan and how it would work with the drive-thru restaurant and spoke about the KFC' s standards for service. He talked about the proposed architecture of the building and how it integrates with the corporation' s image. Mr. Crothers emphasized that the drive-thru is crucial to business and how the restaurant would attract freeway traffic. He addressed the sign package explaining the intent for the signage. In conclusion, Mr. Crothers stated his willingness to comply with requirements to make the business acceptable to the community. In response to question from Chairperson Lochridge, Mr. Crothers stated that the drive-thru is a tremendous asset especially with regard to this site' s proximity to the freeway. By not allowing the drive-thru, business would be decreased by at least 25% and asked that favorable consider- ation be given to allowing a drive-thru. Chairman Brasher inquired how the other commercial businesses would be affected by a drive-thru. Commissioner Tobey felt that allowing a drive-thru would alleviate some traffic problems, and spoke on the assets of drive-thru restaurants. He concurred with the idea of the reader board. Commissioner Lopez-Balbontin inquired about the proposed freestanding signs and Commissioner Luna asked if Mr. Crothers had considered any other locations . Tom McNamara, local businessman, stated that national recognition in restaurants is important and that this location is desirable as it would attract freeway business and would bring revenue into local economy. This area is not conducive to pedestrian walking and elimination of the drive-thru is not going to encourage pedestrian traffic . Maggie Rice, representing the Chamber of Commerce, concurred with some of Mr. McNamara' s statements . She stated that in spite of fast food restaurants' redundant nature, they have less of a failure rate than a lot of retail businesses . She MINUTES EXCERPT -WANNING COMMISSION - 11/108 -6- added that Mr. Crothers has worked very hard to find an appropriate location and that his franchises are beautifully maintained, are an asset to any community, and bring in millions of dollars . Mrs . Rice referenced the ERA report (under policy recommendations ) with regard to encouragement of a "restaurant row" . She then read a prepared statement by John Cotsenmoyer, president of the chamber, in support of the project. Rick Grisanti stated his family has been in local business since 1947 and expressed concern with the number of projects that are being turned down. A property owner should have the right to develop his property. Kentucky Fried Chicken has a good track record and concessions should be made architecturally to allow for uniqueness of the building but that is architecturally pleasing. He noted his concurrence with the drive-thru. Joe Grisanti urged that there not be negativity with regard to new businesses, and that there is too much prejudice against developers who want to do something to benefit the community. Dorothy McNeil, 8675 Sierra Vista, asked that thought be given to the possibility of a nice sit-down restaurant as opposed to a drive-thru which may help in pedestrian traffic with future development of the creekway, etc. and felt that freeway signs are dangerous and unnecessary; reader boards are definitely a traffic hazard. she did not feel that fast food restaurants are going to provide adequate tax base. Doug Marter, local resident, spoke in favor of the project. Stan Cherry, 15 year resident, felt this site is a good one and the proposed project is better than what currently exists . It is important to consider what is going to look good and be beneficial to the site. John Kunz, area resident for 15 years, asked- if any other alternatives or solutions have been presented that would generate pedestrian traffic for this area. Paul Foote, stated that in his experience as a traveling salesman, his attention to restaurants, etc. was drawn from specific signing identification. If Atascadero is to pros- per, it is important to build its businesses and have the community shop in Atascadero. Shirley Moore, 40 year resident and former planning commis- sioner, emphasized that it had been pointed out to her that the role of the Planning Commission was to be the mediator between client and staff. She expressed concern that the Commission was taking on the role of architects, redesign- ers, etc. She stated that the Commission' s role is to MINUTES EXCERPO- PLANNING COMMISSION - 1105/88 -7- decide whether a project is suitable, whether it meets the general plan and zoning ordinance, and whether it is applicable for the land use. Ms. Hollowell addressed the intent of the proposed monument signing and suggested that a "return to freeway" sign for a right turn (onto the Morro Road on-ramp) would be helpful in alleviating some traffic problems. She hoped the Commission sees enough merit in the project to continue for further revisions . MOTION: Made by Commissioner Tobey to approve Conditional Use Permit 12-88 . Commissioner Highland stated that this site is not in the Central Business District and in referencing the General Plan, explained the history ( i.e. , the Advisory Committee) and reasoning behind why nothing west of E1 Camino Real is located in the CBD. Commissioner Highland seconded the motion. Mr. Engen noted that if the Commission desires approval of the use permit, it needs to be directed back to staff to prepare findings and conditions for approval. Commissioner Highland withdrew his second to the motion. MOTION: Commissioner Tobey moved to continue the hearing on Conditional Use Permit 12-88 . Commissioner Lopez-Balbontin felt that this project can be a viable one but certain modifications are needed pertaining to signage, etc. Discussion followed concerning possible changes to the requested signage, site plan, etc. Chairperson Lochridge stated that the project has some serious design problems and would like to see issues raised in the staff report adequately addressed with the applicant working a little closer with staff. He pointed out that there are still many questions that need to be answered concerning traffic circulation that would better be addressed by the Public works Department. Commissioner Luna commented on some of the public testimony and stated that one of the problems which exists is that the General Plan has been ignored and as a consequence, there are problems especially in the downtown area. He stated there seems to be a clear difference in opinion with regard to the staff report as opposed to comments made by the 0 public, and concluded that he would vote against the project. MINUTES EXCERPT OLANNING COMMISSION - 11/18 -8- In response to comment by the Commission, Ms . Hollowell clarified their desire to have this hearing continued in order to work out the design problems earlier addressed. She emphasized that the primary issue is whether the use (drive-thru) is compatible with the site. Chairperson Lochridge explained that he would like to see the areas that were addressed through the staff report worked on by the applicant. Ms . Hollowell asked for the Commission' s consensus as to whether this site is compatible for a drive-thru restaurant. Commissioners in favor: Highland, Lopez-Balbontin, Waage, and Tobey Commissioners against: Lochridge, Brasher, and Luna At this point, Commissioner Tobey restated his motion. MOTION: Made by Commissioner Tobey to approve Conditional Use Permit 12-88 with the signage modifications (to remove logo from the entrance sign) . The motion died for lack of a second. MOTION: Made by Commissioner Tobey, seconded by Commis- sioner Highland and carried 7 : 0 to continue the hearing on Conditional Use Permit 12-88 to December 6 , 1988. Chairperson Lochridge requested that a representative from Public Works be in attendance at the December 6th meeting. 1-1 \Chairperson Lochridge called a recess at 10 : 23 p.m. ; eeting -reconvened at 10:30 p.m. 3. ZONE .,CHANGE 14-88: Request initiated by City L At cadero to amend the Zoning Ordnance text relatio the minimum lot sizes allowed in the RSF-X (Resential Single Family) and LSF-X (Limited-.Single ,>,family) residential zones . Subject zone change�the s�ity-wide. Mr. Engen presentedtaff report summarizing the background involved with this ma _r. There was discussion relative to gross vs. net density which has been preferred to the Commission to beiaddressed as part of the General Plan update. T re was no public comment. ITEM: A-2 MEETING DATE : 3/21/89 MINUTES- ATASCADERO PLANNING COMMISSION Regular Meeting Tuesday, February 21, 1989 .m. asca ero Administration Bul7ding The regular meeting of the Atascadero Planning Commiss ' n was called to order at 7 :30 p.m. by Chairperson Lochridg , followed by t Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CAL Present: Co issioners Waage, Brasher, Tobe Luna, Highland, Lope -Balbontin (7 :42 p.m. ) , and hairperson Lochridge Absent: None Staff Present: Henry ngen, Commun y Development Director; Paul Sensiba h, Public orks Director; Steven Decamp, Senior P1 ner; Doug Davidson, Associate Planner; Pat Sheppha d, dministrative Secretary PUBLIC COMMENT There was no public co ent given. A. CONSENT CALENDAR 1 . Approval of minutes of the regular anning Commission me ing of February 7, 1989 2 . Notice of Withdrawal - Conditional Use Pe it 11-88 (Don Messer, et al/Cuesta Engineering) MOTION: Made by Commissioner Brasher, seconded by ommis- sioner Luna and carried 6 :0 to approve the nsent Calendar as presented. B. HEARINGS, APPEARANCES, AND REPORTS 1. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 12-88 : Request initiated by Don Messer and O.C. Crothers (Cuesta Engineering) to allow for signage in excess of 100 square feet, including a freeway sign for a restaurant. Subject site is located at 6900 E1 Camino Real. (CONTINUED FROM PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF NOVEMBER 15, 1988) . Doug Davidson presented the staff report on this continued hearing item which covered the comparison between the revised proposal and the original request. staff recommen- • • MINUTES EXCERPT - FEBRUARY 21, 1989 - PLANNING COMMISSION -2- dation is for denial based on the findings given in the staff report. (8 :42 p.m. - Commissioner Lopez-Balbontin arrives . ) Deborah Hollowell with Cuesta Engineering, representing the applicant, presented architectural renderings of the proposed buildings and explained modifications which have been made to the building design, signing, site plan, etc. It is felt that these revisions come closer with regard to conformance with the zoning ordinance standards. Ms. Hollowell discussed clean-up efforts which will be made to the creek adjacent to this property, and asked for the Commission' s consideration in approving this project. She then responded to questions from the Commission. Jim Harer, representing the Chamber of Commerce, spoke in support of the request stating that this proposal lends itself to a large franchise business which will be economi- cally beneficial to Atascadero. He voiced disagreement with taking away the drive-thru feature of the restaurant, and added that Mr. Messer is willing to help clean up the creek way. • Jerry Bond, 4840 El Verano, remarked that much thought has been given to this project, and noted his support of the drive-thru for the restaurant, as well as the entire project. Eric Hagen, representing the Business Improvement Association, noted that the BIR was asked to review the basic concept and major design elements of the project. In reference to the General Plan and pedestrian nature in the downtown area, this is a special case and lends itself well to this particular use. The BIA urges approval of the project. Don Messer, applicant, believes that the project has been satisfactorily revised to meet the Commission' s concerns from the previous meeting. The revised architectural style of the building conforms to that of the general area (Adobe Plaza, Century Plaza, Century Federal Savings, etc . ) He stated he needs to understand the considerations pertaining to the creek and its clean-up and added there is a lot of room between the proposed building and the actual creek bank. With regard to the ERA study recommendations, Mr. Messer felt this project is compatible with surrounding uses, is highway oriented and pedestrian oriented. In conclusion, Mr. Messer commented on the report by the Air . Pollution Control District, and asked for the Commission' s approval of this project. O.C. Crothers (Kentucky Fried Chicken representative) , commented on the revised site plan. In referencing the APCD MINUTESIWCERPT - FEBRUARY 211 1980 PLANNING COMMISSION -3- report, he disputed its determination that the drive-thru portion of the restaurant should be eliminated. He stated it was the opinion of Keith Higgins, traffic engineer, that Mr. Higgins did not see a problem with the internal, on-site or off-site traffic circulation for the project. Mr. Crothers discussed the proposed signage tower and remarked on the importance of the success in on-site market- ing for the restaurant in terms of the signage. It was noted that it will take at least $700,000 before the first piece of chicken can be sold. In conclusion, Mr. Crothers stated he would like to be the winner of a beautification award for his building if the project is approved. Commissioner Highland noted there are parts of the staff report with which he did not agree and, in referencing the General Plan and ERA Study, these documents are written in such a manner that they leave room for interpretation and proceeded to give some examples (i.e. , boundaries for Central Business District, etc. ) . He added that in general, the revised material is acceptable, but noted his objection to the proposed tower. Commissioner Luna stated he supports staff' s recommendation and added that the APCD report is very specific in its findings concerning elimination of the drive-thru. Chairperson Lochridge added that the air quality is an important issue and needs to be considered. He did not feel that elimination of the drive-thru would hinder KFC' s busi- ness (in referencing the success of the two KFCs located in San Luis Obispo which do not have drive-thrus) . He referenced the General Plan pertaining to the Central Business District in explaining his main contention against this project is that this site is not the appropriate location for a drive-thru. It was noted that there are other approved locations in Atascadero for this type of use. In response to question from Commissioner Tobey, Mr. Crothers answered that neither of the two SLO KFC restau- rants are successful. Commissioner Tobey commented that this is a sound business venture and noted that the tower is a registered trademark and should be honored as such. He asked why an APCD report was not involved with other drive- thru approvals and expressed that he is in favor of the project. Discussion to this regard followed. Terry Graham, 6205 Conejo Road, added some comments on air pollution. MOTION: Made by Commissioner Tobey to approve Conditional • Use Permit 12-88 with the following modifications to the conditions : MINUTES EX*PT FEBRUARY 21, 1989 -OANNING COMMISSION -4- #1 - exclude the wording. . . "including the deletion of the roof mounted tower) . . . " #2 - eliminate #4 - addition of the word "new" after "All" #11 ( a) - eliminate Chairperson Lochridge reminded Commissioner Tobey that find- ings for approval need to be made prior to a motion to approve. At this point, Commissioner Tobey proceeded to modify the findings for denial to reflect findings for approval. Commissioner Tobey restated his motion: MOTION: Made by Commissioner Tobey and seconded by Commissioner Highland to approve Conditional Use Permit 12-88 based on the modified findings for approval and modified conditions of approval (as listed above) . The motion was defeated with the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Tobey, Highland and Lopez- Balbontin NOES: Commissioners Luna, Brasher, Waage, and Chairperson Lochridge Henry Engen advised the Commission that an action should be taken which could include Exhibit S, approval with redesign to eliminate the drive-thru window. MOTION: Made by Commissioner Luna and seconded by Commis- sioner Brasher to deny Conditional Use Permit 12-88 based on the findings for denial contained in the staff report. The motion carried 4:3 with the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Luna, Brasher, Waage, and Chairperson Lochridge NOES: Commissioners Lopez-Balbontin, Highland, and Tobey The applicant was advised that he has a right to appeal this denial to the City Council. Chairperson Lochridge called a recess at 8 :45 p.m. ; meeting reconvened at 9 :04 p.m. MDA M E M O R A N D U M TO: City Council March 28, 1989 VIA: Ray Windsor, City Manager FROM: Henry Engen, Community Development Director , SUBJECT: Tree Removal Request: Precise Plan 37-88 BACKGROUND: The Tree Ordinance requires that heritage trees not be removed unless approved by the City Council following public hearing. PRECISE PLAN APPLICATION: As indicated in the attached grading plan, Glen Millhollin is seeking removal of one 24" live oak tree as part of a precise plan application for siting of a house involving grading of over 20% on the property (see attached materials) . The arborist is recommending removal of a total of five ( 5) trees, including the one heritage tree noted. Replacement trees will be required per the Tree Ordinance (minimum 15 gallon container) . The tree ordinance includes tree removal criteria as stated in the following: " ( iv) Obstructing existing or proposed improvements that cannot be reasonably designed to avoid the need for tree removal . " STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval of removal of the heritage tree with mitigation measures as recommended by the arborist, and replacement trees as directed by the Tree ordinance. DD:ph Enclosures : Location Map Grading Plan Arborist' s Supplement ' LOCATION MAP Cl01 1 `SC"7 D-��O I' TREE REMOVAL dp �� r1.`ll'. P.'.r � - r� NUDOSO RD, i R S 1 I,� it LOAD • a -9040 �.,\�, ice/ % O44 i NUDOSO ROAD tO t `v N Inc F L c H) � R S <<NO q 4.04"'.A orp.0 1! S ITE 4`E9To II SANTA I. / VC/A� TANOZ GRADING PLAN f _ • low .— - `.., CT ! i�..`_ l.._—`.J tO TREE REMOVAL : -,M M 1 NUDOSO RD C4 41J 7-6-1? _ L/ve, OAKS . HERITAGE TREE- /- --_ ---- TO 6E REMOVED �4 ;fin r'• ` �,SEE 1 24 . — i ; � �-1 � }C ��1 •tet { 00.00 -.� 3 _ g 0 - `PA,5 EL-�= Z 24� j 3-I�> wo'/•� � II t 0 0 /9 /30. TOP OF r I R EAO 7 F <9d C4/7 fYP i UT 20.000 - _ — ---• 30 _ — a 198.00— 4 j • i ,:✓ ^`_'� \ \ \ i� _ - - ,__ - _ - �\'f AOS I X452 �APPRDX. L IM/TS- 1 t�°1-=• _ 1 OF GRAD/N ��� l .40 t Ci r"� tpo� 0 18 o GENERAL NOTES � Q All construction work and installations shall conform t M Atascadero Standards and Specifications , and all work s `l to the approval of the City Engineer. Mr. Tartagl is 7760 E1 Camino Real Suite E Atascadero, Ca. 93423 January 27.. 1989 Dear Mr, Tartaglia, As per your request I have reviewed the trees located at your building sites on Lomitas Road. My findings are as follows: These heavily wooded lots #ib, #17, and #18 will require tree removals. Trees needed to be removed are numbered and correspond to the numbers on the grading plans. Replacement trees should be one 15 gallon live oat; tree per 315 feet of grading frontage. Tree protection fences should be installed in compliance with the city' s tree ordinance. Sincerel , Art Tonneson Certified Arborist #199 International Society of Arboriculture �ML��ZY OCyt�O�n�►��1� CO . MEET AGENCM DA tTENI i M E M 0 R A N 0 U M TO: City Manager Ray Windsor and City Council Members From: Chief McHale Subject: Proposed Council Agenda Item: An Ordinance Adopting the Policy for the Financial Recovery of Costs of Emergency Responses, Pursuant to Government Code 53150, et. seq. Date: January 30, 1969 RECOM RIMTION/COUNCIL ACTION REDLESTED: Adopt Ordinance Number 192 which sets the policy for various departments of the City of Atascadero to charge for services provided during emergency responses to incidents involving persons driving under the influence of alcohol and/or persons driving with intentional wrongful conduct. BACKGROUND: In 1985, the California State Legislature adopted Sections 53150 through 53158 of Article 8 of the California Government Code. These sections set forth the authority and procedures for City and County governments to recover the costs incurred by emergency responses to alcohol related motor vehicle incidents. Routinely, departments of the City of Atascadero respond to such incidents. A normal response would include employees of the Police Department and the Fire Department. On occasion the response would also include employees of the Public Works Department. This procedure would allow the City of Atascadero to charge those persons deemed responsible for costs incurred in such incidents. Several jurisdictions within the County of San Luis Obispo have already enacted such ordinances and are currently processing such charges without problem. The California Highway Patrol has begun similar billings as of January 1, 1989. FISCAL IMPACT: Adoption of this Ordinance would allow the City to realize recovery of an undetermined amount of revenue through the billing of the responsible parties. The required procedure will incur little, if any, additional expense. For your consideration. . . . Z Richard H. McHale • RHM:jph ORDINANCE NO. 192 AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO ADDING CHAPTER 13 TO TITLE 3 OF THE ATASCADERO MUNICIPAL CODE APPROVING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF A STATE AUTHORIZED PROGRAM TO RECOVER COSTS OF RESPONSES TO EMERGENCIES CAUSED BY DRUNK OR RECKLESS DRIVERS, AND PROVIDING GUIDELINES AND PROCEDURES THEREFOR, PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 53150, ET SEQ. WHEREAS, the Legislature has adopted Government Code Sections 53150 through 53158, which specifically authorize the City to recover costs of emergency responses to "incidents" caused by drivers under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs, or drivers whose conduct is intentionally wrongful; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to provide guidelines and procedures for City use; NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Atascadero does ordain as follows: Section 1. Chapter 13 is hereby added to Title 3 of the Atascadero Municipal Code to read as follows: Chapter 13 . Response and Enforcement Costs. Sec. 3-13 . 01. Emergency Responses. a. Driving, Boating, or Flying Under the Influence. The following guidelines and procedures are established for implementation and administra- tion of Title 5, Division 2, Part 1, Chapter 1, Article 8 of the California Government Code entitled "Costs of Emergency Response" (Section 53150, et seq. ) as it may be amended from time to time. (1) All City line departments (Police, Fire, Public Works, etc. ) participating in emergency responses to any incident involving a person under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs, or a person whose conduct is intentionally wrongful, while operating a motor vehicle, boat, or civil aircraft shall log all personnel time, equipment time and use, and all incidental costs involved in such emergency response. • • ORDINANCE NO. 192 Page 2 (2) The costs to the City for all such per- sonnel time, equipment time and use, and incidental items shall be reported by each department within ten (10) days thereafter to the City Finance Department, including, without limitation: (a) All direct wage costs for all department personnel so involved, including the department head. (b) All equipment costs, including reasonable depreciation or standard industry hourly rental amount, plus the cost of all incidental materials and supplies, involved in the emergency response. (c) The department head responsible for determining that the person causing the incident was under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs, or that said person's conduct was intentionally wrongful, shall be responsible for coordinating the prepara- tion and furnishing of the departmental reports to the City Finance Department. b. The provisions hereof shall be applied uniformly against all such persons charged with a Penal Code, Vehicle Code, Health and Safety Code, or other state law statutory violation; no City official other than a majority of the City Council shall have authority to reduce or cancel the debt obligation after criminal charges arising from the incident have been approved by the District Attorney. C. The debt obligation herein shall only be excused or cancelled upon an explicit verdict or finding by a court, or by the City Council after a duly noticed public hearing, that said person did not cause the incident, or that said person was not under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs and said person's conduct was not intentionally wrongful at the time of the incident. d. All judicial actions for judgment and collection of the debt obligation herein shall be filed in the San Luis Obispo County Municipal Court, Small Claims Division, Paso Robles, California. • • ORDINANCE NO. 192 Page 3 e. All monies collected shall be placed in the City's General Fund, and shall be included in City budget projections. f. The City shall adopt a policy by resolution for financial recovery of costs of emergency response pursuant to Government Code Section 53150, et seq. Section 2. Publication. The City Clerk shall cause this ordinance to be published once within fifteen (15) days after its passage in the Atascadero News, a newspaper of general circulation, printed, published and circulated in this City in accordance with Government Code Section 36933 ; shall certify the adoption of this ordinance; and shall cause this ordinance and certification to be entered in the Book of Ordinances of this City. Section 3 . Effective Date. This ordinance shall go into effect and be in full force and effect at 12 : 01 a.m. on the thirty-first (31st) day after its passage. On motion by Council member and seconded by Council member the foregoing ordinance is hereby adopted in its entirety by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: DATE ADOPTED: CITY OF ATASCADERO, CALIFORNIA By BONITA BORGESON, Mayor ATTEST: BOYD C. SHARITZ, City Clerk I 0 CITY OF ATASCADERO • POLICY FOR THE FINANCIAL RECOVERY OF COSTS OF "EMERGENCY RESPONSES", PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE, SECTION 53150, et. seq. Protocol for Implementation Police Department Under most circumstances, the Police Department will be the lead agency in implementing the D.U. I . Reimbursement Worksheet. It is the normal job of the Police Department to investigate accidents, with a responsibility to determine if the driver(s) were driving while under the influence of alcohol . The Police Department must determine that a driver of a vehicle , involved in a situation which required an emergency response, was operating that vehicle while under the influence of an intoxicating substance , or was operating his vehicle with willful misconduct. When those criteria have been met, the On- duty Watch Commander will initiate a D .U . I . Reimbursement Worksheet . That form shall then be forwarded to all other departments which were involved in the emergency situation. After all city departments , involved in the emergency situation, have completed their portion of the worksheet, the worksheet shall be forwarded to the Finance Department for billing. The D.U. I . Reimbursement Worksheet shall then become the supporting documentation for subsequent billing of the responsible driver. Fire Department The Fire Department shall prepare its own D . U . I . Re- imbursement Worksheet for all responses to emergencies occurring in Mutual Aid/Automatic Aid areas . When the Fire Department responds to such an emergency in a Mutual Aid/Automatic Aid area, the ranking fire officer shall determine from the investigating Police Agency as to whether the emergency situation was the result of an intoxicated driver, or one which acted in willful misconduct. If that is the case, the ranking Fire Officer shall then initiate a D.U. I . Reimbursement Worksheet. After the Fire Department has completed their portion of the worksheet , the worksheet shall be forwarded to the Finance Department for billing. The D.U.I . Reimbursement Worksheet shall then become the supporting documentation for subsequent billing of the responsible driver. Departmental Approval The D.U. I . Reimbursement Worksheet shall be reviewed by the department head or his designee for accuracy, and signed prior to submittal to the Finance Department . 1 CITY OF ATASCADERO POLICY FOR THE FINANCIAL RECOVERY OF COSTS OF "EMERGENCY RESPONSES", PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE, SECTION 53150, et. seq. • R. H. McHale, Chief of Police By: Sgt. John Hutchins City of Atascade* 0 CITY OF ATASCADERO POLICY FOR THE FINANCIAL RECOVERY OF COSTS OF "EMERGENCY RESPONSES", PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE, SECTION 53150 et seq. TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 . 0 Overview of Policy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2 . 0 Legislative Authority (CaGC 53156) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2 . 1 California Government Code, section 53156 . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2 .2 Costs authorized for recovery. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 3 . 0 Criteria for the Recovery of Expenses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3 . 1 The Incident . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3 . 2 An "Emergency Response" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3 . 3 Alcohol/Drug Influence or willful misconduct. . . . . . . . 3 3 .4 Filing of Charges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 4. 0 Procedure for Recovery. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 4. 1 Initiation of Reimbursement form. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 4 . 1 . 1 Automatic Aid Responses - Fire Department. . . 4 4. 2 Finance Department Billing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4 4.3 Civil Obligation (CaGC 53154) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 5 . 0 Financial Responsibility. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4 5 .1 Liability Limitations (CaGC 53155) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 5 . 2 Insurance Payment of Expenses (CaGC 53154) . . . . . . . . . . 4 6 . 0 Charges for an Emergency Response. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 6.1 Atascadero Police Department. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 6 . 2 Atascadero Fire Department . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 6.3 Atascadero Public Works Department. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 6.4 Atascadero Finance Department. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 6. 5 Civil Court Remedies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Appendix A (Government Code Sections) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Appendix B (Financial Recovery Reimbursement Form) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 City of Atascader CITY OF ATASCADERO POLICY FOR THE FINANCIAL RECOVERY OF COSTS OF "EMERGENCY RESPONSES", PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE, SECTION 53150 et seq. 1.0 OVERVIEW• The purpose of this policy is to establish a procedure whereby the City of Atascadero can recover expenses incurred by the Atascadero Police, Fire or Public Works Departments due to 'Emergency Responses ' . Those 'Emergency Responses ' having been caused by persons driving under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs and negligently operating a motor vehicle, boat or airplane or whose "intentionally wrongful conduct" causes such an 'Emergency Response' as outlined in the California Government Code, sections 53150 through 53158 (Appendix A) . 2.0 LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY FOR EXPENSE RECOVERY: 2.1 California Government Code Section 53156 California Government Code section 53156 states : " 'Expense of an Emergency Response' means reasonable costs incurred by a public agency in reasonably making an • appropriate emergency response to the incident, but shall only include those costs directly arising because of the response to the particular incident . Reasonable costs shall include the costs of providing Police, Firefighting Rescue and Emergency Medical services at the scene of the incident, as well as the salaries of the personnel resp- onding to the incident . " 2.2 Costs Authorized for Recovery The above section describes costs which include, but are not limited to: 2.2.1 Mileage to and from the incident scene. 2 . 2 . 2 The cost of the wages of the officers , firefighters and other emergency personnel at the scene for traffic/crowd control, investigations, fire suppression and medical aid. 2 . 2 . 3 The cost of the materials used at the scene ; flares, medical supplies, blankets, etc. . 2.2.4 The cost of the preparations of the reports and the follow-up investigations . 2 . 2 . 5 The costs , including salaries , incurred by a "Public agency" making a reasonable emergency response to an incident. City of Atascade0 • 3 .0 CRITERIA FOR THE RECOVERY OF EXPENSES: 3.1 The Incident The incident , of whatever nature , must have occurred within the jurisdiction and primary response area of the Atascadero Police Department and/or within the area covered by the Atascadero Fire Department for primary response or that area covered under the Automatic Aid and/or Mutual Aid pact by the Atascadero Fire Department. 3.2 An Emergency Response An ' Emergency Response ' must have been initiated by either the Atascadero Police and/or Fire Department(s) , to which the Department (s ) have the primary police responsibility or the primary/Automatic Aid and/or Mutual Aid fire suppression/medical aid responsibility. 3.3 Alcohol/Drug Influence or Willful Misconduct It must be determined that the incident was caused by a person who was under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs at the time of the incident, or had been engaged in "intentionally wrongful (or reckless) conduct" . 3.4 Filing of Charges The person responsible for the incident must be charged with a violation of the California Vehicle Code , the Penal Code or with an applicable section of a Boating or Aviation code , which reflects such an alcohol/drug influence , or a section reflecting " intentionally wrongful conduct" . 4.0 PROCEDURE: 4.1 Initiation of Reimbursement Form The on-duty Police Department Watch Commander or ranking Fire Officer shall initiate the Financial Recovery Reimbursement Form, (Appendix B) when the above criteria is suspected. Once initiated, the Financial Recovery Reimbursement Form shall then be forwarded to the Police Administrative Lieutenant, Fire Captain and/or Public Works Administrator for their completion or review and subsequent routing to the Finance Department. City of Atascadero • 4. 1. 1. Automatic Aid/Mutual Aid Responses - Fire Department Should the "Emergency Response" occur outside of the city limits of the City of Atascadero, but within the area covered under the Automatic Aid pact, and/or Mutual Aid, for the Atascadero Fire Department , then the Financial Recovery Reimbursement Form shall be initiated by the ranking Fire Officer. The form shall be then forwarded to the Finance Department for their billing, as covered in section 4. 2 below. 4.2 Finance Department Billing The original copy of the form shall be forwarded to the Finance Department of the City of Atascadero for appropriate billing of the responsible party. The participating Departments shall retain a copy of the completed form for their records . 4.3 Civil Obligation The billing procedure described constitutes a civil obligation and shall not be affected by the disposition of any resultant criminal proceedings . (53154 CaGC) 5 .0 FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY: 5.1 Liability Limitations "In no event shall a person ' s liability under this article for the expense of an emergency response exceed one thousand dollars ( $1 , 000 . 00 ) for a particular incident. " (53155 CaGC) 5.2 Insurance Payment of Expenses "The expense of an emergency response shall be a charge against the person liable for expenses under this article. The charge constitutes a debt of that person and is collectible by the public agency incurring those costs in the same manner as in the case of an obligation under contract , expressed or implied , except that liability for the expenses provided for in this article shall not be insurable and no insurance policy shall provide or pay for the expenses . " (53154 CaGC) i City of Atascadee 6.0 CHARGES FOR "EMERGENCY RESPONSES" : 6.1 Atascadero Police Department It shall be the policy of the Atascadero Police Department to submit a bill for its 'Emergency Responses ' at the rate of thirty dollars ( $30 . 00 ) per hour, per police employee responding to the emergency. This charge shall be for the total time of each such employee, while that employee is engaged in any necessary function relating to the emergency. This hourly charge shall cover all associated costs including equipment, supplies, mileage and wages . The total expenses charged shall be itemized by employee and comprise the total time of all such employees . 6.2 Atascadero Fire Department It shall be the policy of the Atascadero Fire Department to submit a bill for its 'Emergency Responses ' at the rate of sixty dollars ( $60 . 00 ) per hour , per fire suppression/rescue/medical aid unit responding to the emergency. This charge shall be for the total time of each such unit , while that unit is engaged in any necessary function relating to the emergency. This hourly charge shall cover all associated costs including equipment , supplies , mileage and wages . The total expenses charged shall be itemized by fire suppression unit and will comprise the total time of all such units . 6.3 Atascadero Public Works Department It shall be the policy of the Public Works Department to submit a bill for its 'Emergency Responses ' at the rate of twenty-five dollars ($25 . 00) per hour for each piece of equipment responding to the emergency. In addition a charge will be billed for employees salaries, which will be based upon their regular hourly rate plus overtime (as required) as stipulated in the current MOU for their classification. This charge shall be for the total time of each such employee or piece of equipment while that employee or piece of equipment is engaged in any neces- sary function relating to the emergency. This hourly charge shall cover all associated costs including ordi- nary supplies , mileage and wages . The total costs charged shall be itemized by employee and piece of equip- ment . It shall comprise the total time of all such employees and pieces of equipment . Additionally it shall be the policy of the Public Works Department to submit, for inclusion in the billing process, the replacement costs for any and all damaged roadway materials ( ie : Guardrails, stopsigns, streetsigns, etc. ) . City of Atascaderoo • 6.4 Atascadero Finance Department • It shall be the policy of the Finance Department to include in the bill to the defendant, a charge of fifty dollars ($50 . 00) to cover the administering, accounting, billing and tracking costs incurred in the preparation and collecting of this debt. 6.d Civil Court Remedies It shall be the policy of the City of Atascadero, that should any debt incurred under the provisions of this policy become uncollectable, a civil remedy shall be sought. In such a case, the City of Atascadero shall request reimbursement for court costs and reimbursement for the wages of the City employee(s) required in court to prove the City' s case as a part of such civil action. CITY OF ATASCADERO D.U. I . RE-IMBURSEMENT WORKSHEET DATE OF INCIDENT: POLICE CASE #: OTHER AGENCY CASE #: BILLING DATE: POLICE DEPARTMENT RESPONDING EMPLOYEES BILLING 1. HRS TOTAL UNIT HOURS: 2 . HRS HOURS @ $25 . 00 : $ 3 . HRS APPROVAL: FIRE DEPARTMENT RESPONDING EQUIPMENT BILLING ENGINE #: HRS TOTAL UNIT HOURS: ENGINE #: HRS HOURS @ $60 . 00: $ RESCUE #: HRS APPROVAL: PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT RESPONDING EMPLOYEES BILLING 1 . HRS EMPLOYEE HRS @ $ $ 2 . HRS EMPLOYEE HRS @ $ $ RESPONDING EQUIPMENT EQUIPMENT HRS @ $25 . 00 $ 1. HRS REPLACEMENT MATERIALS $ (as itemized) 2 . HRS APPROVAL: FINANCE DEPARTMENT ACCOUNTING/BILLING FEE $50 . 00 APPROVAL: BILLING RECAP - ALL DEPARTMENTS POLICE DEPARTMENT $ FIRE DEPARTMENT PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT FINANCE DEPARTMENT TOTAL BILLING $ O ETIN 28 B�P n M E M O R A N D U M TO: City Council March 28, 1989 VIA: Ray Windsor, City Manager FROM: Henry Engen, Community Development Director vt/ SUBJECT: Proposed Contract: Downtown Master Plan Services BACKGROUND: In response to City Council ' s direction, Requests for Proposals to prepare a Downtown Master Plan (refer to attached draft letter) were sent to seven (7) firms. Some three proposals were received, RRM Design Group, Inc. , Urban Design Studio, and Wurster, Bernardi and Emmons , Inc . , together with one nonsolici- ted response from local resident Doug Lewis . At their meeting of March 10, 1989, the Downtown Steering Committee reviewed the responses and are recommending selection of Wurster, Bernardi and Emmons , Inc. , of San Francisco, to prepare the draft plan. This firm was selected over the others due to its extensive experience in preparing exactly the type of document that is being sought by the City, i.e. , a new Downtown Master Plan to be adopted as an element of the City' s General Plan. CONTRACT CONTENT: As indicated in the attached Scope of Work, WBE will perform the work over a period of six months for a total fee of $28, 800 . 00 . They will meet with the Steering Committee in a series of meetings leading to an overall public meeting three months into the program, and concluding with the presentation of the final draft report to a joint meeting of the City Council and Planning Commission in approximately six months . FISCAL IMPACT: A budget of up to $30, 000 to cover this project' s costs was approved in the mid-year budget adjustment (Resolution No. 11- 89) . RECOMMENDATION Authorize the Mayor and City Manager to execute the attached Contract. HE:ph Encl: Consultant Services Agreement: Downtown Master Plan January 26, 1989 - Request For Proposal cc: Rex Hendrix, Steering Committee Chairman Planning Commission WBE, Inc. CONSULTANT SERVICES AGREEMENT DOWNTOWN MASTER PLAN CITY OF ATASCADERO THIS AGREEMENT, made this day of 1989 by and between the CITY OF ATASCADERO, hereinafter referred to as "City" , and Wurster, Bernardi and Emmons, Inc. , hereinafter referred to as "Consultant" . Witnesseth For and in consideration of the mutual covenants herein con- tained, the parties hereto agree as follows : Article 1 . Responsibilities of Consultant. A. Scope. Consultant will provide the following planning services as described herein and under Exhibit "A" for the City project hereinafter described: To prepare a downtown master plan as a draft element of the City' s General Plan. Exhibit "A" is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as though here fully set forth. B. Coordination. in the performance of Consultant' s service under this Agreement, Consultant agrees that he will maintain such coordination with City officials as may be requested and desirable, including primary coordination with the Project Coordinator, herein designated as the Community Development Director, and also with the City Manager. C. Consultant' s Services . Insofar as they may be applicable to the project contemplated by this Agreement, Consultant shall render the services and furnish the work tasks as described in Exhibit "A" , commencing with receipt of a written Notice to Proceed signed by the Project Coordinator and by the City Manager. Article 2 . Responsibilities of City. • City shall cooperate with Consultant on all phases of the work covered by this Agreement and will make available to him, as his needs indicate, base map, land use data, air photos, pertinent reports and surveys, and other similar data in possession of the City as outlined in Exhibit "A" . Article 3. Fee and Provision for Payment. City will pay Consultant a fee equal to $28, 800 for work contracted in this Agreement and billed for based on the payment schedule in Exhibit "A" . Any additional applicable hourly rate billings as authorized in Article 4 shall be based on the Fee Schedule contained in Exhibit "A" . Article 4 . Payment for Extra Work or Changes . Any claim for payment for extra work or changes in the work will be paid by City only upon certification by the City Manager that the claimed extra work or change was authorized in advance by the Project Coordinator and the City Manager, and that the work has been satisfactorily completed. Claims for such extra work must be submitted by Consultant within thirty (30) days of completion of such work and must be accompanied by a statement of itemized costs covering said work. Article 5 . Termination of Agreement. Either party hereto shall have the right to terminate this Agree- ment upon giving ten ( 10) days written notice of such termination to the other party. In the event of the termination of this project in its entirety, notwithstanding any other fee provisions of this Agreement, based upon work accomplished by Consultant prior to notice of such termination, City shall determine the amount of fee to be paid to Consultant for his services based upon the provisions in Exhibit "A" , and such findings of City shall be final and conclusive as to the amount of such fee. In the event of termination of any portion of this project, Consultant shall be entitled to the reasonable value of his services involved in the termination, as determined by the City, upon a finding which shall be final and conclusive as to the amount of fee due and owing. Article 6 . Time of Completion. Consultant agrees to diligently pursue his work under this Agreement and to complete the work as described in Exhibit "A" in a satisfactory manner within six (6) months of receipt of the Notice to Proceed. Consultant shall not be responsible for any delay which is caused by City review, action or inaction of City, or acts of God, but shall be responsible for his own fault or negligence or that of any of his subcontractors . Article 7 . Conflicts of Interest. No member, officer, or employee of City, during his or her tenure, or for one ( 1) year thereafter, shall have any interest, direct or indirect, in this Agreement or the proceeds thereof. -2- Article 8 . Ownership of Data. The ownership of all data collected for use by Consultant under this Agreement, together with working papers, drawings, and other materials necessary for a complete understanding of the plans and necessary for the practical use of the plans shall be vested in City. Ownership of original drawings and documents shall be vested in City. Consultant may retain a copy of all work for his own use. Article 9 . Covenant Against Contingent Fees . Consultant warrants that he has not employed or retained any company or person, other than a bonafide employee working solely for him, to solicit or secure this Agreement, and that he has not paid or agreed to pay any company or person, other than a bona- fide employee working solely for him, any fee, commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gift, or any other consideration contingent on or resulting from the award or making of this Agreement. For breach or violation of this warranty, City shall have the right to annul this Agreement without liability or, in its discretion, to deduct from the contract price or consider- ration or otherwise recover, the full amount of such fee, commission, percentage fee, gift, or contingency. Article 10 . Contract Personnel . The work to be done pursuant to this Agreement shall be done by Mr. Larry Cannon, Executive Vice-President, as project manager, and Trina Goodwin, and such other personnel in the employ or under the supervision of Consultant who shall be approved by City. The City official who shall be vested with the right of approval of such additional personnel or outside contracting parties shall be the Community Development Director. City reserves the right to reject any of Consultant' s personnel or proposed outside consultants, and City reserves the right to request that acceptable replacement personnel be assigned to the project. Article 11 . Indemnity Clause. Consultant shall defend, indemnify, and save harmless the City of Atascadero, its officers, agents, and employees from any and all claims, demands, damages, costs, expenses, and liabilities arising out of this Agreement or occasioned by the negligent performance or attempted negligent performance of the provisions hereof, including, but not limited to, any negligent act or omission to act on the part of Consultant or his agents or employees or independent contractors directly responsible to him, except that the above shall not apply to the sole negligence of willful misconduct of city or City' s agents, servants , or independent contractors who are directly responsible to City. -3- This indemnification provision shall apply even if there is concurrent or joint negligence of indemnitor and indemnitee, and even if there is active or passive negligence by either or both parties . Article 12 . Insurance. A. Automobile and Public Liability Insurance. Consultant shall also maintain in full force and effect £or the duration of this Agreement, automobile insurance and public liability insurance with an insurance carrier satisfactory to City, which insurance shall include protection against claims arising from personal injury, including death resulting therefrom, and damage to property resulting from any actual occurrence arising out of the performance of this Agreement. The amounts of insurance shall not be less than the following: Single limit coverage applying to bodily and personal injury, including death resulting therefrom, and property damage or a combination thereof in an amount not less than $1 , 000, 000. The following endorsements must be attached to the policy or policies : 1 . If the insurance policy covers on an "accident" basis, it must be changed to "occurrence. " 2 . The policy must cover personal injury as well as bodily injury. 3 . Broad form property damage liability must be afforded. 4 . The City of Atascadero, its officers, employees, and agents, shall be named as insureds under the policy, and the policy shall stipulate that the insurance will operate as primary insurance and that no other insurance effected by City will be called upon to contribute to a loss hereunder. 5 . The policy shall contain contractual liability, either on a blanket basis or by identifying this Agreement within a contractual liability endorsement. 6 . The policy shall contain "cross-liability" such that each insured is covered as if separate policies had been issued to each insured. 7 . City shall be given thirty (30 ) days notice prior to cancellation or reduction in coverage of the insurance. -4- B. Workers Compensation Insurance. in accordance with the provisions of Section 3700 of-the Labor Code, Consultant shall be insured against liability for workers compensation or undertake self-insurance. Consultant agrees to comply with such provisions before commencing performance of any work under this Agreement. C. Copies of Insurance to City Before Commencement of Work. Consultant shall provide certificates of insurance to City prior to commencement of the work of this Agreement. Certificates of insurance are necessary before a Notice to Proceed will be issued, and shall state that the policy shall not be cancelled or reduced in coverage without thirty (30) days written notice to City. Approval of insurance by City shall not relieve or decrease the extent to which Consultant may be held responsible for payment of damages resulting from services or operations performed pursuant to this Agreement. Consultant shall not perform any work under this Agreement until he has obtained the required insurance and until the required insurance certificates have been submitted to City. If Consultant fails or refuses to procure or maintain the insurance required by these provisions, or fails or refuses to furnish City required proof that insurance has been procured and is in force and paid for, City shall have the right, at its discretion, to forthwith terminate this Agreement. Article 13 . Status . Consultant shall, during the entire term of this Agreement, be construed to be an independent contractor, and in no event shall any of his personnel or subcontractors be construed to be employees of City. Article 14 . Non-Discrimination. Consultant shall comply with the provisions of Presidential Executive Order No. 11246 of September 24 , 1965, and all other orders, regulations, and laws governing nondiscrimination in employment, including in particular, Section 122 (a) of the State and Local Fiscal Assistance Act of 1972 . Article 15 . Modification of Agreement. This Agreement may be modified only by a written amendment signed by both parties hereto. Article 16 . Law Governing. This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of California. -5- Article 17 . Communications . Communications between the parties to this Agreement may be sent to the following addresses: City: CITY OF ATASCADERO 6500 Palma Avenue Atascadero, CA 93422 Attn: Community Development Director Consultant: WURSTER, BERNARDI & EMMONS, INC. 40 Gold Street San Francisco, CA 94133 ACCEPTED AND AGREED this day of 1989 . CITY: CONSULTANT: CITY OF ATASCADERO, a municipal corporation By By BONITA BORGESON Mayor LARRY L. CANNON Executive Vice-President Wurster, Bernardi & Emmons, Inc APPROVED AS TO FORM: JEFFREY G. JORGENSEN City Attorney APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: RAY WINDSOR City Manager PREPARED BY: ���� HENRY ENGEN CommunitylDevelopm nt Director Project Coordinator -6- "A" EXHIBIT 1 WORK SCOPE The budget available for this downtown master plan is substantially below that required for a complete analysis and planning process with significant public participation. However, a great deal of substance and direction can be established and this proposed work scope is geared to put into place the fundamental components of the plan. The general flow of work is suggested as follows: 1. Initial Information Review j Consultant will review base maps, air photos and all other documents provided by J the city. 2. Initial Survey Trip Larry Cannon and Trina Goodwin will spend two days in Atascadero to meet with city staff, review and record site information and meet with the Steering Committee to discuss issues, ideas and the planning approach. A limited number of other selected interviews will be conducted based upon recommendations of the city staff. 3. Initial Concepts Preparation Based upon consultant's site analysis, information provided by the city and meetings held during the initial survey trip, initial concepts for the downtown master plan will be prepared. These will include, but aren't necessarily limited to, circulation, parking, land use, urban design improvements, development controls, General Plan and Zoning Ordinance changes, policies and implementation strategies. Where appropriate, alternatives or options will be developed. Concepts and background information will be assembled into an informal briefing booklet and twenty copies will be provided at the Steering Committee meeting during trip 2. One unbound copy will be provided for reproduction by the city if additional copies are needed. / 4 TjR 2 Larry Cannon will spend two days in Atascadero to review the initial concepts with city staff, the Steering Committee and others as appropriate. While all elements of the plan cannot be determined at this time, the goal if this trip will be to establish a sufficiently clear direction for the plan to allow the preparation of a preliminary plan for review and discussion. A review meeting with the city's finance director and any other individuals with input to funding sources and methods would also be held during this trip. City staff will be asked to follow up with specific cost estimating information. • s 5. Preliminary Plan An outline of all the major components of the downtown master plan will be prepared and organized into a document for review and discussion. A list of questions whose answers are critical to the preparation of the draft master plan will be included. This document (20 copies) will be forwarded to the city for staff and Steering Committee review. 6. Trip. 3 Larry Cannon will spend two days in Atascadero to review the preliminary plan materials. Following an initial city staff session, consultant will meet with the Steering Committee to present and discuss the preliminary planning material. During this trip, a public presentation meeting is suggested to insure that all those who have a community or financial interest in the plan have a chance to gain more knowledge about it and express their thoughts and concerns to the Steering Committee and the consultant. Following this trip, the city staff will be asked to meet again with the Steering Committee, if necessary, and respond to the consultant with answers to the important questions and any other relevant directives necessary to the preparation of the draft master plan. 7. Draft Master Plan Consultant will prepare a draft of the final Downtown Master Plan. The format will be worked out between consultant and city staff_to meet the needs of city adoption, future modifications and public information. For purposes of current planning and budgeting, it is assumed that the text and diagram contents will be generally similar to the consultants' plan for Downtown Danville which has been provided as a separate exhibit to this proposal. Because of the budget limitations of this work, the funding portion of the plan will necessarily need to be limited in scope. Costs will be identified to the degree provided by the city with consultant assistance. Potential funding sources will be identified and their potential applicability to various costs indicated. Graphics will be preliminary and freehand. Thirty (30) copies will be provided. 8. Final Master Plan Following written response and direction by the city, the final Downtown Master Plan document with final graphics will be prepared. One hundred (100) copies will be provided to the city. Due to the tight budget, it is assumed that the report will be printed in black and white only. Should additional funding become available prior to this point, a two color or more report could be considered. 9. Final Presentation • A presentation of the final Downtown Master Plan will be made to the City Council, Planning Commission and general public in one scheduled meeting. Should adjustments to the plan's text or graphics be necessary following this presentation, the consultant will on written instruction from the city make one set of corrections and provide one camera-ready copy of the final document. If desired, the consultant will as an extra service arrange for the printing of this final document. SCHEDULE Scheduling can be somewhat flexible but, due to the budget limitations, it should be kept to as short a time frame as possible. The attached preliminary schedule is suggested. Z o Q s � J W ¢ 7_ Z W a W LO 0 Q 3 � c/') � o Z W �.. L Z V d s - Co of .E V OG C a a� CL a� a; Eo� a, E c„ W {/� o < co a � 'E w 'a � NVQ N a� v � o OA - c a� a: Ev .o-2 o N V wi T C i c > c i BUDGET As discussed previously, the budget for this work is very tight. However, consultant feels that with city staff assistance (see next page), very intense and well scheduled meeting sessions in Atascadero and a focus upon the primary plan components, the planning effort can be carried out for a fixed sum of $30,000 (thirty thousand dollars) including direct costs. Billings would be as follows: 1. Completion of initial survey trip $ 5,000 2. Completion of trip 2 (concepts) 5,000 1 3. Completion of trip 3 (preliminary plan) -'9;068 7,&0 4. Submittal of draft plan 6,000 5. Submittal of final plan 4,000 6. Submittal of final camera-ready copy 1.000 $3(),9%. S-28,860 ■ Should only $25,000 be available as suggested in the RFP, the above budget could be reduced by the following steps: a. Elimination of the Initial Concepts preparation step and trip 2. b. All printing by the city from camera ready copies supplied by consultant. Additional trips to Atascadero or special tasks not called out in this scope of work would be carried out only with specific city authorization and would be billed on an hourly basis according to the rate schedule attached. Additional direct costs, including additional printing would be billed at cost plus 15%. 9 CITY'S RESPONSIBILITIES 1. Traffic improvements recommendations 1 2. Construction cost estimating 3. Meeting scheduling and arrangements 4. Usable base map i 5. Air photos I 6. Copies of all relevant reports and documents 7. Relevant assessor's parcel maps 8. Written statement of downtown's historical background and its natural and man- made characteristics 9. Summary of available or likely to be available implementation financing 10. Copies of the City's General Plan, Zoning Ordinance and other relevant ordinances and documents WURSTER, BERNARDI AND EMMOOINC. ARCHITECTS AND PLANNERS GAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA y HOURLY RATE SCHEDULE Principals $110 Associates 85 Architect/Planner I 70 Architect/Planner II 60 Architect/Planner III 55 Computer Drafting Technician 65 Computer Publishing Technician 60 General Office Personnel 45 Direct costs billed at cost plus 15%. II ADMINISTRATION BUILDING P 9DE PALMA AVENUE Atljlvxwm�ascadet! POLICE DEPARTMENT ATASCADHRO.CALIFORNIA 97422PHONE: (805) 466-8000 GORPORAT8500 PALMA AVENUE ATASCAOERO.CALIFORNIA 93422CITY COUNCILPHONE: (0051 488-8800 CITY CLERK CITY TREASURER -� CITY MANAGER ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DEPARTMENT FIRE DEPARTMENT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 8005 LEWIS AVENUE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT PHONE: CALIFORNIA 93422 PHONE: 19051 4641-2141 PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT January 26, 1989 Wurster, Bernardi and Emmons Inc. 40 Gold Street San Francisco, CA 94133 Attn: Larry Cannon, Executive Vice President SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL - DOWNTOWN MASTER PLAN - CITY OF ATASCADERO Dear Mr. Cannon: You are invited to submit a proposal to the City of Atascadero to prepare a Downtown Master Plan. The City of Atascadero is a community of 23,000 which was master planned between 1913 and 1917 by a design team put together by E.G. Lewis. The historic downtown area and civic center were done in Beaux-Arts style, with the overall City developed according to the Garden City concept. The Atascadero "residen- tial district plan" - comprising the central area of this 24 square mile city -qualifies for inclusion in the National Registry of Historic Places. The City' s planned downtown area was undermined by lack of subse- quent quent planning and by the 1954 location of Highway 101 paralleling' the City's main street, 31 Camino Real. This alignment led to strip development and a decline in the fortunes of the downtown, which was most recently evidenced by the departure of a number of businesses which had anchored the area including Beno' s, western office Products, Montgomery wards Catalogue Store, and the recent move of the U.S. Post office to a larger site outside of the downtown. The City - which incorporated in 1980 - is committeed to revital- izing the downtown area. A Business Improvement Association has been established representing the downtown study area (see attached map) . Undergrounding of overhead utilities is well under way and should be completed by this spring. In addition, a $20,000 Street Tree Program (paid for jointly by the City and the BIA) has been completed. In March 1988, the firm of Economics Research Associates completed a two volume study entitled Economic Base Analysis and Downtown Revitalization: volume I, and Volume II Fin in s and Policy Recommendations. Included in the studyls Fe-c-ommendations was a proposal to proceed to the next • 0 logical step of preparing a plan for the downtown area to provide for specific guidance and coordination of public and private development. In addition, as part of the City' s General Plan, a plan for the Atascadero Creek Way has been adopted which seeks to capitalize on this natural feature of the downtown while allowing for connections between the Century Plaza shopping center to the southeast and the historic downtown to the northwest. The City is in the process of designing a vehicular bridge connecting Lewis Avenue and Santa Ysabel Avenue and a pedestrian bridge across Atascadero Creek, which aligns with Palma Avenue. It is envisioned that the Master Plan document would be adopted by resolution as an element of the City' s General Plan. At this point a budget of $25,000 has been earmarked. Should your proposal exceed this amount, it would be useful to indicate what changes could be made in the scope of work to come at this amount. Your proposal should be submitted to the Community Development Department no later than 5 :00 p.m. on February 27, 1989. If you have any questions about the RFP, please call Henry Engen, Community Development Director at (805) 466-8000, extension 129. Sincerely, Henry Engen Community Development Director City of Atascadero HE:ph Enclosure: Scope of Work BIA Boundary Map SCOPE OF WORK DOWNTOWN MASTER PLAN City of Atascadero PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to provide a draft element for the City of Atascadero' s General Plan which will guide both private and public development in a manner which achieves specific down- town goals and objectives. The plan would be prepared to include the Atascadero Creekway Plan, which is a vital element of the study area, and implement the recommendations of the Economic Research Associates' Findings and Policy Recommendations (March 1988) . STUDY OUTIO NE: I A. Introduction. The Introduction would provide a statement of the historical background of the downtown area and its natural and man-made characteristics and issues being addressed including: circulation, parking, land use, image, function, urban design, school sites, and civic center. B. Downtown Master Plan. General goals and policies to enhance the City' s downtown would be stated, followed by specific goals and policies for each of the following component categories: 1. Circulation - graphically- portraying and describing proposed ci rculation. system improvements with emphasis on both pedestrian and vehicular linkages - ta connect the Century Plaza with the historic downtown area, and to the proposed pathway system along Atascadero Creek. Z. Parking - utilization of the City's 1983 parking study toanalyzegeneral parking needs and provide recommendations for an off-street parking st=ategY, off-street parking district, and an in-lieu parking program through zoning. 3. Land Use - recommend land use and development standards for subareas included within the downtown planning area, e.g. , civic center, Atascadero Creekway, school lands, historic downtown, shopping centers, highway commercial, residential, etc. 4. Urban Design - evaluate and make recommendations on the urban design elements of the study area, including: Administration Building, Sunken Gardens, historic downtown, sections of E1 Camino Real and the Atascadero Creekway. Important urban design issues include: theme A entranceways, identification, beautification, appearance review standards, historic buildings, building height to street width ratios, publicway treatments, landscaping, trees, street furniture, public art, landscaped medians, lighting, and signs. C. Implementation. . Phased program of implementation of both public and private activities to implement the plan to be developed, including: downtown image strategy, development review process, capital improvement program, parking and land use regulations, and general fiscal sources for financing will be identified to implement public/private funding requirments. �. D. Meetings. City Staff will coordinate appropriate meetings with the downtown steering committee and, subsequently, the Planning Commission and City Council. It is expected that there would be a minimum of four (4) steering committee meetings and one (1) meeting to present the final report to the City Council and Planning Commission. E. Reports Thirty (30) copies of the administrative draft report and one hundred (100) copies of the final report will be required. The final report will be based on the consultants professional evaluation of input received in review of the administrative draft. F. Principal in Charge/Experience: = - Indicate - the principal representative from the consulting firm, together with others assigned to the work. The consultants experience performing similar work in similar communities would be an important consideration. G. Fees. The proposal should indicate a "lump sum" fee or upset price for the work cited, together with costs which would be charged for unforeseen study activities (e.g. , additional meetings, report copies, etc. ) . F. Time Schedule. Indicate the timeline for completion of the work. Proposed Boundaries of the Atascadero Business improvement Association ....:,c•�,�..... , .,.... ms's., .., .,. .: ,... ::: ,. •y;�, ''i :,�• :f.. . ::.•.;-�" is ..-: ir.-•y-, .•.,, ..,K.•••. .{ Y i 3..::..::• .a.: .,.i••..,� •x �' air's=t?o.•:...•` ''-•��.i;:. • :'i3Sc :+y;. . . .:�'•.'cot��' 'i:: :n'' �ti�-.iR•w•,�t'�""' ••iya�••s �y�.� +n+:�•:,:.:. : .., ,.,; :fi .,� ..X..�...q:"• :::..:•n,' .,M}p•iir �,:•..`'•'•.v ?'•,,.v'.fiirj� � •. : �r :!• :.:at5.�. ". .. e ;,:�'` .-0�t::.::w. - ir-,'`�A'..+�f'�... „L;Y�eiw..... ..�•�.."?_� f�.•`h� .wswy . ';::i; .. ..yy.,:......:-•i�••ua'�..• •:!���K•�.�^- ••n. 4'Ci�Z„1" '•::oQyln,.v *��'��.c.,;s3:ho y q:,,•ij}. 1 '..� iW F .Y+ww MdF:yy,"' _.iY =�sy' yam' " .' -., �• , :'�,:`: ..`°" •-: ,.: ;.'',i,A•:4i+ :�'f..``: .. V Cwt'• a; .:.;�;.''v.?:;,'c?!4t. :i>r.. .,«,.,••: ,OA Avi i i �.�': :.�a'��'`''.a�wi•+ : :x?' : .•fir , .. .� :. • .�'`': � ::�,�o, �� •+... „�„ .. "'? ^o- � hs' �`:. ae4Mr,�* . � � •yv t � � ,y �ln'�rw�'*"�: J.i .';9�y% �. rl. Y..'„',: •� '.' ri' ....yam;.Y.: ` � •y _ �� s ., id:dio-wa,:»�A:i�.iMo?•R:...' i`'-'R•• V '�••' Z - ,•. c :.. .... ...... .:.�. - ., .iy.,,�aaooNsp' ♦ ,a�Nyi ^^.•,yc•_ �i%b°�P.S�dKx-�r - - of, io-•.' X4 .wc C - $� ..- ?•�,�...�..� .:?. :. ,7yVlK� ..:':. :f,.. ., j::..,•'•t`'w'' iO4 +�''•�'�' .•'4'-.:•�� •h�,• IM CA MIMO. CL KA ri�0!k: :::•::!'• •.v. :ry:.. ti:.A' '�. .Nv., �' `K ..-04'iF�(':�,O:d•7avt'' :. ,a�'�,-.f..•,`'- • ;:#ErT.Y::•:••ice• :,v :.t:4; : �• � .:::.:.: . . . MEE'1'1 AGENDA DAT�I;TEM r _ M E M O R A N D U M TO: City Council March 28, 1989 VIA: Ray Windsor, City Manager FROM: Henry Engen, Community Development Director �Af, SUBJECT: REQUEST TO INITIATE ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT - NONCONFORMING USES/STRUCTURES BACKGROUND: Mr. L. Kent Williams has submitted a request to provide enough flexibility in the Zoning ordinance to permit him to build a barn on his existing lot at 12501 Santa Lucia Road. There are two homes on this five acre parcel which creates a nonconforming land use situation. The Zoning Ordinance does not permit the expansion of nonconforming uses nor the issuance of a permit in such cases. REQUEST: The applicant is requesting a revision to the Zoning Ordinance to allow lots occupied by a nonconforming use to be further developed by the addition of conforming uses or structures . The request to amend the zoning text applies to all properties in the City and, therefore, the ordinance wisely requires that there be either Planning Commission or Council authorization before pro- ceeding to analysis and public hearing which could lead to a potential change. It would appear reasonable to evaluate establishing by use permit the possibility of of allowing lots occupied by nonconforming uses to be further developed by the addition of conforming uses and structures provided they do not increase the degree of nonconformity. RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council initiate for review and consideration a zoning text amendment to allow limited development for nonconforming uses or structures subject to selected findings . HE:ps cc : L. Kent Williams 0 MA ,� AGENDA DAT ;l ITEM! _. . M E M O R A N D U M TO: City Manager Ray Windsor and City Council Members FROM: Chief of Police SUBJECT: Skateboarders DATE: March 23, 1989 As the issue of skateboarders was raised during our last Council Meeting of 3-14-89, our P.D. supervisors and I discussed this matter in an effort to surface a few alternative approaches which might be practical. Attached for your information and consideration is a memo which Sgt. Jeff Fredericks submitted relating to skateboarding. Note that during the past eleven weeks, 63 calls for service have been received regarding skateboarding problems. Sgt. Fredericks listed seven alternatives which staff and City Council Members may wish to consider. One additional area of concern we should address is the issue of potential liability, both for our City and for private property owners, merchants and others. This information is intended to provide a platform for additional discussion within the staff and Council forums. RICHARD H. McHALE RHM:sb Attach: 0 March 20, 1989 To: Chief McHale via the Chain of Command From: Sgt . Fredericks Re: Options to the skateboard problem Over the past few months the city has been plagued with an increase in the number of complaints from citizens and businesses, over skateboarders . The problems reported range from simple trespasses to vandalisms and interference with businesses . When asked to suggest options for consideration, I reviewed our calls received since the first of the year regarding this problem. Here are my findings; In January APD received 18 calls regarding skateboarders causing disturbances . In February we received 22 calls, and between March 1st and 18th we received 23 calls . This does not include the numerous letters and phone calls from business owners requesting extra patrol and advise . Nor does it include the officer initiated contacts with skateboarders stemming from these requests . It is clear that as the weather warms, the number of complaints will rise . I have discussed this with officers and supervisors . From these discussions the following options were derived. 1 . Prohibit use on public sidewalks. 2 . Prohibit use on public sidewalks in business districts, as defined by the CVC . 3. Prohibit use on public sidewalks in specified areas of the city. 4. Prohibit skateboarders from using public sidewalks and streets; in business districts; in specified areas . 5 . Prohibit skateboarders from using posted private property. 6 . Provide an education program by the SRO regarding the proper etiquette of using skateboards on public thoroughfares . 7 . Prohibit use on school property, and specified public properties . Page - 1 A review of this list shows several options . While the options are similar, each has its own advantages and disadvantages . Option 1, is all sweeping, in that it prohibits skateboarding in more areas than are having problems. It will also have a tendency to push the kids into the streets which could cause an increase in the accident rate . Option 2, would generally have the same problems as option 1 . Option 3, would allow area targeting, but again would push kids into the street . Option 4, would generally follow suit with options 1 - 3, with the advantage of keeping the skateboarders out of the street . Option 5, would require property owners to post their property. This would require that a posting standard be established. Option 6, has been tried during the bicycle safety presentations made to all the schools. It seems to be effective for one or two weeks, then the problems return. Option 7, would require the cooperation of city and school officials to establish posting and enforcement requirements. From my sampling of the disturbance calls, it seems that the majority of the calls are concentrated in the downtown area . The second problem areas are the schools . Short of banning skateboards within the city limits, I would recommend that a blending of the listed options be adopted. • I feel we could curtail the largest number of complaints by prohibiting the use of skateboards on public sidewalks and streets along E1 Camino Real , Entrada, Lewis Ave . , Palma, East Mall , and West Mall between Rosario and Curbaril . In addition skateboard use should be prohibited on posted private property, schools, and specified public properties, ie . City Hall and AFD Station #1 . This solution, while not a panacea appears to be the most livable . It allows businesses to keep their areas open to their customers . It keeps the skateboarders from the busiest area of the city, while at the same time allowing the kids to enjoy their sport . Page - 2 (Please Place in your AgendaP;�t) CITY COUNC : ING: 3/28/89 ITEUM NMBOW C - 4 M E M O R A N D U M DATE: March 24 . 1969 T0: City Council via City Manager FROM: Andrew Takata Department of Paris, Recreation and ?oo SUBJECT : ARBOR DAY EROFQSED TREE PLANTING To celebrate Arbor Day on March 29, 1969, the planting of an oak tree is proposed at one of the (City ' s parks. The fnllowino sites are suggested for your conssideration: 51gken Gardens Park : Planting the Arbor Day Tree in this area would provide a visible focal point in the downtown area. atascader o kake Park . T; ee plantiog in this area would provide younger trees that "i l l someda, replace the mangy- evisting mature trees in the park . Paloma Creek Park : Free Pla"tdog in this area would help to increase the n"rrrber of trees to the City ' s newest pari: . AT . k . ## PLEASE NOTE THIS MAT IS . MEETI AGENDA / NOT FOR PUBLIC DISCU BION AT DAT A" ITEM# THIS TIME, PENDING COUNCIL SETTING A FORMAL PUBLIC HEAR- ING FOR SUCH. MEMORANDUM i City of Atascadero March 6, 1989 TO: Henry Engen, Community Development Director FROM: Jeffrey G. Jorgensen, City Attorney SUBJECT: Tree Ordinance Revision This memorandum is to follow up on the March 3 , 1989 meeting of the Tree Subcommittee concerning the revisions to the tree ordinance. Attached for your information and use is a final draft of the proposed tree ordinance revision reflecting the comments of the committee. I would appreciate it if you would coordinate further action on this matter. It is my understanding that we will target the March 28, 1989 Council meeting for a presentation of the draft. This will be done by Councilman Shiers and Councilman Dexter as an information item to hopefully get final conceptual approval and/or further direction from the Council as a whole to bring back an ordinance for first reading. Tasks that remain to be done appear to be: 1. The Council needs to give formal direction concerning who the City Arborist/Urban Forester will be, what department he will operate in, and funding mechanisms for consultation. 2 . If the Council accepts the recommendation concerning performance security, then a resolution establishing tree value will need to be presented. 3 . The amount equal to the cost of purchasing and planting replacement trees also needs to be established by resolution. 4. The question of whether to include an optional provision for restitution in the event of violation needs to be addressed by the Council. 5. The question of whether appeals should be placed on the Council 's consent agenda, and in what capacity, needs to be resolved. MEMO: Henry Engen SUBJ: Tree Ordinance Revision March 6, 1989 - Page 2 If you have further questions or comments, or if I may be of further assistance in any way in this matter, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. Sincerely, X/y J RGENSEN Citt>arney JGJ: fr A:MMATA100 Attachment cc: City Manager Councilman Shiers Councilman Dexter DRAFT THIRD DRAFT March 28, 1989 PROPOSED REVISION OF TREE ORDINANCE NO. 168 "TREE ORDINANCE" 9-4. 155. Tree Protection. Preservation of natural flora and fauna is a basic community goal of the Atascadero General Plan. (a) Purpose. The trees of Atascadero are valued community assets. The purpose of this section is to establish regulations for the installation, maintenance, preservation, and selected removal of oak trees, heritage trees, and other mature trees within the City. In establishing these procedures and standards, it is the City's intent to encourage the preservation of trees and other natural amenities with sensitive design and development practices. City review of proposed projects shall take into consideration trees existing on the property with applicants encouraged to design projects to utilize existing trees in the landscaping pattern. The provisions of this section shall apply to all property within the City of Atascadero, public or private, and to any person, firm, corporation, and public or private utility. (b) Definitions: (1) Dripline: A line on the ground established by drawing an imaginary line extending downward from the ends of the outermost branches of a tree. (2) Hazardous: Presenting an immediate danger to people or real property. (3) Heritage Tree: Any tree designated by resolution of the City Council on the basis of age, size, location, visibility, historic origin, or special value to the property owner, which the Council finds is deserving special consideration and protection. (4) Oak Sapling: Any species of the genus QUERCUS, having a trunk three (3) inches or more in circumference at ground level. (5) Oak Tree: Any species of the genus QUERCUS, having a trunk twelve (12) inches or more in circumference measured four and one-half (4-1/2) feet above grade, including 1 but not limited to, Blue Oak (QUERCUS DOUGLASII) , Live Oak (QUERCUS AGRIFOLIA) , and Valley Oak (QUERCUS LOBATA) . (6) Other Mature Tree: Any species other than the genus QUERCUS, having a trunk twenty-five (25) inches or more in circumference measured four and one-half (4-1/2) feet above grade. (7) Removal: Destruction or displacement of a tree by chemical means, or cutting, bulldozing, or other mechanical means which results in physical transportation of the tree from its site and/or death of the tree. (8) Topping/Pollarding: Removal of terminal limbs or apex from the living tree. (c) Free Removal Permit. A tree removal permit is required for the removal of any oak tree, heritage tree, or other mature tree. (1) Exemptions. A tree removal permit is not required for the following: (i) Trees that are identified and approved for removal in an approved plot plan, precise plan, or conditional use permit, provided that such removal complies with the removal criteria of Section (c) (3) (i) , (ii) . (ii) Trees in a hazardous condition. (iii) Trees that are to be removed as part of management practices in orchards, christmas tree farms, nurseries, or trees specifically planted as a woodlot and intended to be harvested as a forest product. (iv) Trees planted by the current property owner, other than oak trees, heritage trees, or trees planted to meet conditions of approval of a development project or tree removal permit. I (2) Posting Procedures. All trees proposed for removal, requiring a removal permit, shall be identified by the applicant for field inspection, utilizing a city-provided identification sign. The City shall post a notice of tree removal on the first day of a fourteen (14) day appeal period. The notice shall be posted on the property so as to be readable from the street and shall remain until tree removal has occurred. Notice shall also be posted in City Hall. 2 (3) Oak Tree Removal Criteria. An application for oak tree removal shall be reviewed and approved, modified, or denied by the City Arborist/Urban Forester. (i) The City Arborist/Urban Forester's decision shall take into consideration: a. The topography of the land, and the potential effect of the requested tree removal on soil retention, and diversion or increased flow of surface waters. He shall consider the effects of grading and drainage. Hilltops, ravines, streambeds, and other natural water courses that provide a habitat for trees and wildlife should not be disturbed. b. The number, species, size, and location of existing trees in the area. c. The special need to protect existing blue and valley oaks and existing regeneration of blue and valley oak saplings. (ii) At least one of the following conditions shall be satisfied before a removal permit can be approved: a. The tree is dead, diseased beyond reclamation, or hazardous. b. The tree is crowded, with good horticultural practice dictating thinning. c. The tree is interfering with existing utilities, structures, or right-of-way improvements. Right-of-way improvements--especially sidewalks--shall accom- modate existing trees whenever possible. d. The tree is obstructing existing or proposed improvements that cannot be reasonably designed to avoid the need for tree removal. e. The tree is inhibiting sunlight needed for either active or passive solar heating or cooling, and the building of solar collectors cannot be oriented to collect sufficient sunlight without the total removal of the tree. (4) Heritage Tree Removal. A heritage tree shall not be removed except upon approval by the City Council after a public hearing pursuant to the removal criteria of Section (c) (3) (ii) (a) -(e) . 3 • • (5) Other Mature Tree Removal. The City Arborist/ Urban Forester shall base his decision to approve, modify, or deny the removal request of other mature trees on the removal criteria of Section (c) (3) (ii) (a) -(e) . (6) Topping/Pollarding. Topping/pollarding shall not be allowed for oak and heritage trees. (7) Application Content. Tree removal applications shall include all information specified by Section 9-2.107 (b) (Plot Plan Content) and: (i) The size, species, and condition of each tree proposed for removal. (ii) The purpose for removal. (iii) The size and species of trees proposed to replace those intended for removal. (d) Tree Protection Plan. A tree protection plan shall be required as part of a plot plan, precise plan, or conditional use permit. The plan shall be reviewed by the City Arborist/Urban Forester, who shall approve, deny, or require modification of said plan to assure conformity with tree removal criteria and compliance with the City's goals of preserving existing trees from indiscriminate or unnecessary removal. (1) Plan Content. Plans shall include all informa- tion specified by Section 9-2.107 (b) (Plot Plan Content) and: (i) Size, species, aesthetics, state of health, and dripline of each tree that reaches to within twenty (20) feet of any development areas, including any areas where trenching is proposed. (ii) Mitigation measures proposed to ensure the survival of remaining trees through the construction process and thereafter. (iii) Size, species, and location of trees proposed to replace those proposed for removal. (2) Tree Protection Standards. Approval of tree protection plans shall require compliance with the following standards: (i) Dripline Protection. The applicant is responsible through final building inspection for the 4 • 0 preservation of all trees which are to remain on the project site. a. Each tree or group of trees to be preserved shall be protected by enclosure of the entire dripline area with a five (5) foot fence prior to grading, movement of heavy equipment, or other construction activity. Exceptions may be approved by the City Arborist/Urban Forester. b. The existing ground surface within the dripline of any oak or heritage tree should not be cut, filled, compacted, or paved unless there is no other reasonable design alternative. Excavation within the dripline of any said tree shall not be permitted where, in the judgment of the City Arborist/Urban Forester, material damage to the root system will result. c. All cuts or trenching within the dripline of a protected tree and all root cuttings are to be made by hand. No backhoes or graders shall be used. Appropriate measures shall be taken to prevent soil and exposed roots from drying out. (ii) Landscape Plans. Landscape plans, where required, must show the proposed landscaping within the dripline of trees. Drought tolerant landscaping or mulching may be required as an alternative to irrigated landscaping where appropriate. (iii) Nonconformance. In case of noncon- formance with the tree protection requirements, the City Arborist/Urban Forester shall immediately issue a Stop Work Order until all requirements have been met. (iv) Tree Damage or Destruction. Should unauthorized work or nonconformance lead to tree damage or destruction, the City Arborist/Urban Forester shall issue a Stop Work Order and require mitigation of the damage. (v) Performance Security. Performance security, whether by surety bond, cash deposit, or other security acceptable to the City, may be required prior to issuance of an entitlement whenever the City Arborist/Urban Forester determines that there is a significant risk of damage or destruction to trees on the site, and performance security is necessary to assure protection of trees on the site. The amount of any said performance security shall be $1,500 per tree or the value of the affected tree(s) , whichever is greater. Tree value shall be determined utilizing criteria established and adopted by resolution of the City Council. 5 • • The performance security shall be forfeited if, prior to final inspection, the City Arborist/Urban Forester finds that the tree has suffered permanent damage. If no permanent damage has occurred, the performance security shall be returned upon final inspection. Funds collected through the forfeiture of performance security shall be placed in the Oak Tree Preservation/Replacement Fund. Single family uses on existing single family lots shall be exempt from the performance security requirements of this paragraph. (e) Replacement Trees. All trees removed pursuant to a tree removal permit shall be replaced as specified herein. Replacement trees shall be planted within twelve (12) months of the tree removal or before final building inspection, whichever occurs first. (1) Other Mature Trees. Every tree removed shall be replaced. The minimum size of a replacement tree- shall be in a five (5) gallon container. (2) Oak Trees. Every oak tree removed shall be replaced with an oak tree. The planting of blue and valley oaks shall be especially encouraged. Every oak removed shall be replaced with two (2) trees, each in a fifteen (15) gallon container (one (1) inch minimum trunk caliper measured twelve (12) inches above soil level) . • At the option of the applicant, ' fifty (50) percent of the required replacement trees may be substituted by protecting existing blue and valley oak saplings between three (3) and six (6) inches in circumference. Three (3) saplings shall count as one (1) replacement tree. The saplings must be on the same property and located within seventy-five (75) yards of the removed tree. Protection shall include, but not be limited to, a five (5) foot high fence totally surrounding the sapling during construction. Long- term protection after construction shall be as approved by the City Arborist/Urban Forester. (3) Oak Tree Preservation/Replacement Fund. If the City Arborist/Urban Forester determines that the site cannot accommodate replacement trees, then an amount established by resolution of the City Council as the amount equal to the cost of purchasing and planting replacement trees shall be required and placed in the oak Tree Preservation/Replacement Fund. This fund is to be utilized for the preservation, replacement, and planting of oaks within the City. 6 (f) Violation. Penalties. Any person in violation of this ordinance shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction may be punished as set forth in Chapter 3 of Title 1 of this Code. 9-4 . 156. Street Trees (Reserved) . 9-4. 157. Tree Management Plan (Reserved) . JGJ:fr/3/6/89 C:ORATA169 7