HomeMy WebLinkAboutUpdated Barrel Creek commentsKEVIN T. CARMICHAEL
CHRISTINA M. CARO
THOMAS A. ENSLOW
KELILAH D. FEDERMAN
RICHARD M. FRANCO
ANDREW J. GRAF
TANYA A. GULESSERIAN
RACHAELE.KOSS
AIDAN P. MARSHALL
TARA C. RENGIFO
Of Counsel
MARC D. JOSEPH
DANIEL L. CARDOZO
ADAMS BROADWELL JOSEPH & CARDOZO
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
601 GATEWAY BOULEVARD, SUITE 1000
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080-7037
TEL: (650) 589-1660
FAX: (650) 589-5062
rfranco@adamsbroadwell.com
Via Email and Overnight Mail
Chair Jeff van den Eikhof
February 7, 2023
Members of the Planning Commission
City of Atascadero
6500 Palma Avenue
Atascadero, CA 93422
Email: pc-comments@atascadero.org;
ivandeneikhof@atascadero.org;
tkeen@atascadero.org;
ianderson@atascadero.org;
vcarranza atascadero.org;
rhughes(a atascadero.org;
gheath@atascadero.org;
dschmidt@,atascadero.org
SACRAMENTO OFFICE
520 CAPITOL MALL, SUITE 350
SACRAMENTO, CA 95814-4721
TEL: (9 16) 444-6201
FAX: (916) 444-6209
Phil Dunsmore, Community
Development Director
City of Atascadero
Kelly Gleason, Senior Planner
6500 Palma Avenue
Atascadero, CA 93422
Email: pdunsmore@atascadero.org;
kgleason@atascadero.org
Re: Ayenda Item #3 -Barrel Creek Planned Development Project (PNLN
No. DEV21-0066; Environmental Document No. 2022-0005; SCH No.
2022120699)
Dear Chair van den Eikhof, Honorable Planning Commission members, Mr.
Dunsmore and Ms. Gleason:
We are writing on behalf of Californians Allied for a Responsible Economy
("CARE CA") with respect to February 7, 2023 Agenda Item #3, the Barrel Creek
Planned Development Project (PNLN No. DEV21-0066; Environmental Document
No. 2022-0005; SCH No. 2022120699) ("Project"), proposed by Legacy Realty and
Development, LLC.
The Project proposes to develop a mixed-use development at the intersection
of Del Rio Road and San Ramon Road in the City of Atascadero ("City"), San Luis
Obispo County, California. The Project includes a proposal for 48,000 square feet
(sf) of commercial/light industrial space, a 120 -room hotel, 40 multi -family
apartment units, 5,000 sf of restaurant or brewery space, 16 short-term stay
6457-005acp
0printed on recycled paper
February 7, 2023
Page 2
cottages, and a 20 -lot single family subdivision. The Project address is 6010, 6020,
6030 Del Rio Rd. and 1505, 1855 San Ramon Rd., Atascadero, CA 93422 on Assessor
Parcel Numbers: 049-131-043, 044, 052, 058, and 066.
CARE CA hereby requests that the Planning Commission defer its
consideration of the Project and continue the public hearing until after the close of
the public review and comment period on the Project's Initial Study/Mitigated
Negative Declaration ("MND")1 and until the City has fully complied with the
California Environmental Quality Acte ("CEQA!').
As discussed below, the City recently released a revised Initial
Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration ("MND") with a new public comment period
running at least through February 22, 2023. The proposed Planning Commission
recommendations to adopt the MND and approve the Project are therefore
premature because the City has not received or reviewed the public comments
which have yet to be submitted during the public review process, a necessary step
before approving the Project.3 Following review of comments and evidence
submitted by the public, the City may be also required to make revisions to the
Project, add additional mitigation,. consider Project alternatives, or prepare an
environmental impact report ("EIR") in order to comply with CEQA and the
municipal code. It is premature to recommend approval based on an unstable
project description and incomplete CEQA document.
CARE CA is in the process of reviewing the revised MND with its experts and
expects to submit comments and expert comments prior to the close of the public
comment period. Based on our initial review of the MND and available supporting
documents, we conclude that the MND fails to comply with the requirements of
CEQA. The MND lacks a clear and consistent project description, fails to disclose
and analyze the Project's potentially significant environmental impacts and is
devoid of data or evidence supporting many of its findings on environmental
impacts. The Planning Commission therefore lacks substantial evidence upon
which to make the required findings to support the recommendations for Project
approvals, and the City is required to prepare a legally adequate EIR for the Project
to comply with CEQA.
1 As used herein, "MND" refers to the revised Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration released
by the City on or about February 3, 2023.
2 Pub. Resources Code, §§ 21000 et seq.; 14 Cal. Code Regs. ("C.C.R") §§ 15000 et seq. ("CEQA
Guidelines").
3 14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15074(b).
6457-005acp
0printed on recycled paper
February 7, 2023
Page 3
We urge the Planning Commission to continue this hearing until the Project's
environmental review process is complete.
I. STATEMENT OF INTEREST
CARE CA is an unincorporated association of individuals and labor
organizations that may be adversely affected by the potential public and worker
health and safety hazards, and the environmental impacts of the Project. The
coalition includes Atascadero residents Lucas Falkenstern and Matt Macias and
Paso Robles resident Frank Ortega, and other individuals who live and work in
Atascadero and the surrounding area.
CARE CA advocates for protecting the environment and the health of their
communities' workforces. CARE CA seeks to ensure a sustainable construction
industry over the long-term by supporting projects that offer genuine economic and
employment benefits, and which minimize adverse environmental and other
impacts on local communities. CARE CA members live, work, recreate, and raise
their families in the City of Atascadero and surrounding communities. Accordingly,
they would be directly affected by the Project's environmental and health and safety
impacts. Individual members may also work on the Project itself. They will be first
in line to be exposed to any health and safety hazards that exist onsite.
In addition, CARE CA has an interest in enforcing environmental laws that
encourage sustainable development and ensure a safe working environment for its
members. Environmentally detrimental projects can jeopardize future jobs by
making it more difficult and more expensive for business and industry to expand in
the region, and by making the area less desirable for new businesses and new
residents. Indeed, continued environmental degradation can, and has, caused
construction moratoriums and other restrictions on growth that, in turn, reduce
future employment opportunities.
II. THE MND IS INADEQUATE AS A CEQA DOCUMENT AND AN EIR IS
REQUIRED
CEQA requires that lead agencies analyze any project with potentially
significant environmental impacts in an EIR.4 "Its purpose is to inform the public
and its responsible officials of the environmental consequences of their decisions
before they are made. Thus, the EIR protects not only the environment, but also
4 See Pub. Resources Code § 21000; CEQA Guidelines § 15002.
6457-005acp
0 printed on recycled paper
February 7, 2023
Page 4
informed self-government."5 The EIR has been described as "an environmental
`alarm bell' whose purpose it is to alert the public and its responsible officials to
environmental changes before they have reached ecological points of no return."6
CEQA's purpose and goals must be met through the preparation of an EIR,
except in certain limited circumstances.7 CEQA contains a strong presumption in
favor of requiring a lead agency to prepare an EIR. This presumption is reflected in
the "fair argument" standard. Under that standard, a lead agency "shall" prepare
an EIR whenever substantial evidence in the whole record before the agency
supports a fair argument that a project may have a significant effect on the
environment. 8
In contrast, a mitigated negative declaration may be prepared only when,
after preparing an initial study, a lead agency determines that a project may have a
significant effect on the environment, but:
(1) revisions in the project plans or proposals made by, or
agreed to by, the applicant before the proposed negative
declaration and initial study are released for public review
would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where
clearly no significant effect on the environment would occur,
and (2) there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole
record before the public agency that the project, as revised,
may have a significant effect on the environment.9
Courts have held that if "no EIR has been prepared for a nonexempt project,
but substantial evidence in the record supports a fair argument that the project
may result in significant adverse impacts, the proper remedy is to order preparation
of an EIR."10 The fair argument standard creates a "low threshold" favoring
environmental review through an EIR, rather than through issuance of a negative
5 Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Bd. of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 564 (internal citations omitted).
6 County of Inyo v. Yorty (1973) 32 Cal.App.3d 795, 810.
7 See Pub. Resources Code § 21100.
8 Pub. Resources Code §§ 21080(d), 21082.2(d); CEQA Guidelines §§ 15002(k)(3), 15064(0(1), (h)(1);
Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal. (1993) 6 CalAth 1112, 1123; No Oil,
Inc- v- City of Los Angeles (1974) 13 Cal.3d 68, 75, 82; Stanislaus Audubon Society, Inc. v. County of
Stanislaus (1995) 33 Cal.AppAth 144, 150-151; Quail Botanical Gardens Found., Inc. V. City of
Encinitas (1994) 29 Cal.AppAth 1597, 1601-1602.
9 Pub. Resources Code § 21064.5 (emphasis added).
10 See, e.g., Communities for a Better Environment. v. South Coast Air Quality Management Dist.
(2010) 48 CalAth 310, 319-320.
6457-005acp
«printed on recycled paper
February 7, 2023
Page 5
declaration." An agency's decision not to require an EIR can be upheld only when
there is no credible evidence to the contrary. 12
"Substantial evidence" required to support a fair argument is defined as
"enough relevant information and reasonable inferences from this information that
a fair argument can be made to support a conclusion, even though other conclusions
might also be reached." 13 According to the CEQA Guidelines, when determining
whether an EIR is required, the lead agency is required to apply the principles set
forth in Section 15064, subdivision (f):
[I]n marginal cases where it is not clear whether there is substantial
evidence that a project may have a significant effect on the
environment, the lead agency shall be guided by the following
principle: If there is disagreement among expert opinion supported
by facts over the significance of an effect on the environment, the
Lead Agency shall treat the effect as significant and shall prepare an
EIR.
With respect to this Project, the MND fails to satisfy the basic purposes of
CEQA. The City failed to adequately investigate, analyze, disclose and mitigate the
Project's potentially significant impacts. Therefore, the City's conclusions that the
Project will have less than significant impacts are unsupported and an EIR is
required.
III. THE PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING IS PREMATURE AS THE
CITY RECENTLY RELEASED A REVISED MND
On February 3, 2023, the City released a revised MND, triggering a new 20 -
day public review and comment period. Any action on the Project by the Planning
Commission at its February 7 hearing would be premature because the State and
public review and comment periods will still be open. While these comments are
being offered based upon a preliminary review of the revised MND, CARE CA and
its experts intend to submit further substantive comments on the MND's
deficiencies under CEQA, and it is possible that other public commenters and State
agencies will comment as well. The Planning Commission is being asked to make
'1 Citizens Action to Serve All Students v. Thornley (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 748, 754.
12 Sierra Club v. County of Sonoma (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th, 1307, 1318; see also Friends of B Street v. City
of Hayward (1980) 106 Cal.App.3d 988, 1002 ("If there was substantial evidence that the proposed
project might have a significant environmental impact, evidence to the contrary is not sufficient to
support a decision to dispense with preparation of an EIR and adopt a negative declaration, because it
could be `fairly argued' that the project might have a significant environmental impact").
13 CEQA Guidelines § 15384(a).
6457-005acp
0 printed on recycled paper
February 7, 2023
Page 6
recommendations to the City Council regarding the MND's compliance with CEQA
without consideration of the full record, i.e., State agency and public comments.
Moreover, each of the proposed resolutions recommending approval of the Project's
various entitlements refers to and relies on the Commission's assessment of the
adequacy of the revised MND. This assessment, and the resulting
recommendations to the City Council, will be of little value without consideration of
the entire record, which includes State and public comments on the MND. 14
IV. THE MND FAILS TO INCLUDE A COMPLETE, STABLE AND
ACCURATE PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The MND does not meet CEQA's requirements because it fails to include a
complete, stable project description, rendering the entire analysis inadequate.
Without a complete and accurate project description, the environmental analysis
under CEQA can be impermissibly narrow, thus minimizing the Project's impacts
and undercutting public review. 15
CEQA places the burden of environmental investigation on the lead agency
rather than the public. Accordingly, a lead agency may not hide behind its failure to
provide a complete and accurate project description. 16 Under CEQA, the "project" is
defined as "the whole of an action" and the lead agency therefore must describe the
entirety of the project's activities to ensure that all potential impacts of the project
will be examined prior to approval. 17 An initial study that fails to describe the
entire project is fatally deficient: "[A] correct determination of the nature and scope
of the project is a critical step in complying with the mandates of CEQA." 18 Where
an agency fails to provide an accurate project description, or fails to gather
information and undertake an adequate environmental analysis in its initial study,
a negative declaration is inappropriate. 19 An accurate and complete project
description is necessary to fully and intelligently evaluate the project's potential
environmental effects.20 Without a complete project description, the environmental
analysis under CEQA will be impermissibly narrow, thus minimizing the project's
impacts and undercutting public review. 21
14 See e.g., 14 CCR § 15074
15 See, e.g., Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal. (1988) 47 Ca1.3d 376.
16 Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 296, 311.
17 CEQA Guidelines § 15378.
18 Nelson v. County of Kern (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 252, 267; see also, Tuolumne County Citizens for
Responsible Growth, Inc. v. City of Sonora (2007) 155 Cal.App.41h 1214.
19 El Dorado County Taxpayers for Quality Growth v. County of El Dorado (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th
1591, 1597.
20 City of Redlands v. County of San Bernardino (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 398, 406.
21 Laurel Heights Improvement Association, supra, 47 Cal. 3d 376.
6457-005acp
:^sprinted on recycled paper
February 7, 2023
Page 7
Here, the MND and its supporting technical appendices contain conflicting
descriptions of the Project's construction schedule. These varying descriptions
include the following:
The MND's air quality impact analysis states that the Project will be
constructed in 2 phases: the commercial portion followed by the
residential portion. "While the project will take 5-8 years for buildout,
parameters were set for the commercial portion to be operational by
2026 and the residential operational by 2027 to provide a conservative
analysis."22
The MND's air quality impact analysis also states that the Project will
include "intensive construction over a short period of time (estimated
at 5-years).1123
The MND's greenhouse gas ("GHG") impact analysis states that the
Project will include "intensive construction over a short period of time
(estimated at 4-years)."24
The MND's report on the CalEEMod modeling for the Project, upon
which both the air quality and GHG impacts analyses are based, is not
consistent with any of the foregoing estimates. Per that report, Phase
1 construction is estimated to run from November 1, 2023 to February
25, 2025, for a total of approximately 15 months.25 Phase 2 is
estimated to run from July 10, 2025 to July 31, 2026, for a total of
approximately 13 months.26
Given the shifting descriptions cited above, it is impossible to know the
actual proposed duration of Project construction. What is clear is that the pollutant
and GHG emissions estimates in the MND are not based on a realistic construction
timeline, and the modeling results therefore do not give an accurate picture of the
Project's actual air quality and GHG impacts. A realistic, accurate and stable
project description with respect to the duration of construction is critical to the air
quality and GHG impact analyses and modeling.
The City must prepare and circulate an EIR with a complete, stable and
accurate project description, and analyze all of the Project's potential impacts using
the same project description.
22 MND, pg. 9.
23 MND, pg. 11.
24 MND, pg. 20.
25 MND, Figure 6, CalEEMod detailed report, pg. 68/89
26 MND, Figure 6, CalEEMod detailed report, pg. 56/76.
6457-005acp
"printed on recycled paper
February 7, 2023
Page 8
V. THE MND FAILS TO ANALYZE POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT
IMPACTS OR TO PROVIDE SUPPORT FOR ITS CONCLUSIONS
A lead agency's significance determination must be supported by accurate
scientific and factual data.27 An agency cannot conclude that an impact is less than
significant unless it produces rigorous analysis and concrete substantial evidence
justifying the finding.28 Here, the City used the initial study checklist authorized
by the CEQA Guidelines in preparing its findings for the MND.29 Impact findings
pursuant to this checklist must be explained to show that there is some evidence
supporting the findings. 30 A key purpose of the initial study is to provide
documentation of the factual basis for the MND's finding that the Project will not
have a significant impact on the environment. 31 Indeed, it is an abuse of discretion
under CEQA where an agency's decision is not supported by the findings, or the
findings are not supported by the evidence.32 CEQA requires that the initial study
disclose data or evidence upon which the study relies. "Mere conclusions simply
provide no vehicle for judicial review." 33
The City's findings regarding several impact areas, including air quality,
energy, noise and transportation are mere conclusions without any explanation,
discussion or evidentiary support which violate basic CEQA requirements. An EIR
is required to fully disclose, analyze and mitigate all of the Project's potentially
significant impacts and to support the City's conclusions with substantial evidence.
A. Air Quality
The MND's narrative discussion regarding air quality focuses on emissions of
PMIo and ozone (and its precursors ROG and NO,,), pollutants for which the Project
region is nonattainment. It also purports to find that the Project will not expose
nearby sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations with mitigation
incorporated. However, the MND fails to identify the nearest sensitive receptors, a
crucial omission given that the Project site is currently zoned for residential use and
the site is surrounded on three sides by single family residences. The MND
contains no discussion, let alone a specific finding, as to the Project's impacts on
neighboring sensitive receptors. There is no disclosure or analysis of toxic air
contaminants ("TACs") that will be emitted during Project construction or the
27 14 C.C.R. § 15064(b).
28 Kings County Farm Bureau, 221 Cal.App.3d at 732.
29 14 C.C.R. § 15063(d) and (f), and Appendix G.
30 14 C.C.R. § 15063(d)(3).
31 Citizens Assn for Sensible Development v. County of Inyo (1985) 172 Cal.App.3d 151, 171.
32 Id.; Code of Civil Procedure § 1094.5(b).
33 Citizens Assn, supra, 172 Cal.App.3d at 171.
6457-005acp
`j printed on recycled paper
February 7, 2023
Page 9
impact on nearby sensitive receptors. The MND fails to indicate whether the
proposed construction air quality mitigation measures (most of which are aimed at
dust control) are purported to reduce sensitive receptors' exposure to substantial
pollutant concentrations. Whatever significance determinations the City is making
with respect to exposure of sensitive receptors to pollutants from the Project, they
are unexplained and unsupported by scientific and factual data. As noted above,
such conclusions must be supported by rigorous analysis and concrete substantial
evidence justifying the finding. The MND contains no such analysis or substantial
evidence.
These standards apply to an agency's analysis of public health impacts of a
project under CEQA. In Sierra Club v. County of Fresno, the California Supreme
Court affirmed CEQA's mandate to protect public health and safety by holding that
an EIR fails as an informational document when it fails to disclose the public health
impacts from air pollutants that would be generated by a development project. 34 In
Sierra Club, the Supreme Court held that the EIR for the Friant Ranch Project—a
942 -acre master -planned, mixed-use development with 2,500 senior residential
units, 250,000 square feet of commercial space, and open space on former
agricultural land in north central Fresno County—was deficient as a matter of law
in its informational discussion of air quality impacts as they relate to adverse
human health effects.35 As the Court explained, "a sufficient discussion of
significant impacts requires not merely a determination of whether an impact is
significant, but some effort to explain the nature and magnitude of the impact." 36
The Court concluded that the County's EIR was inadequate for failing to disclose
the nature and extent of public health impacts caused by the project's air pollution.
As the Court explained, the EIR failed to comply with CEQA because after reading
the EIR, "the public would have no idea of the health consequences that result when
more pollutants are added to a nonattainment basin."37 CEQA mandates discussion,
supported by substantial evidence, of the nature and magnitude of impacts of air
pollution on public health.38
34 Sierra Club, 6 Cal.5th at 518-522.
35 Id. at 507-508, 518-522.
36 Id. at 519, citing Cleveland National Forest Foundation v. San Diego Assn. of Governments (2017)
3 Cal.5th 497, 514-515.
37 Id. at 518. CEQA's statutory scheme and legislative intent also include an express mandate that
agencies analyze human health impacts and determine whether the "environmental effects of a
project will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or
indirectly." (Public Resources Code § 21083(b)(3) (emphasis added).) Moreover, CEQA directs
agencies to "take immediate steps to identify any critical thresholds for the health and safety of
the people of the state and take all coordinated actions necessary to prevent such thresholds being
reached." (Public Resources Code § 21000(d) (emphasis added).)
38 Sierra Club, 6 Cal.5th at 518-522.
6457-005acp
Oprinted on recycled paper
February 7, 2023
Page 10
Furthermore, in Berkeley Jets, the Court of Appeal held that a CEQA
document must analyze the impacts from human exposure to toxic substances.39 In
that case, the Port of Oakland approved a development plan for the Oakland
International Airport.40 The EIR admitted that the Project would result in an
increase in the release of toxic air contaminants ("TACs") and adopted mitigation
measures to reduce TAC emissions, but failed to quantify the severity of the
Project's impacts on human health.41 The Court held that mitigation alone was
insufficient, and that the Port had a duty to analyze the health risks associated
with exposure to TACs.42 As the CEQA Guidelines explain, "[t]he EIR serves not
only to protect the environment but also to demonstrate to the public that it is being
protected." 43
The San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District ("APCD")
recognizes that diesel particulate matter from construction equipment is a TAC.44
"Depending on the construction site location and proximity to sensitive receptors, a
project that generates high levels of construction emissions, including diesel PM,
may be required to perform a health risk assessment to evaluate short-term
exposures to high pollutant concentrations and, if necessary, to implement
mitigations measures."45 The APCD further recognizes that proximity of sensitive
receptors, including residential dwelling units, to a construction site constitutes a
special condition and may require a more comprehensive evaluation of diesel
particulate matter (`DPM") impacts.46 "Sensitive receptor locations for a project
need to be identified during the CEQA review process and mitigation to minimize
toxic diesel PM impacts need to be defined. The types of construction projects that
typically require a more comprehensive evaluation include large-scale, long-term
projects that occur within 1,000 feet of a sensitive receptor location (s)."47 This
Project will involve construction over 5-8 years, and there are numerous single
family residences well within 1000 feet of the Project boundaries. Despite the fact
that it cites and incorporates the APCD Handbook by reference, the City ignores the
39 Berkeley Jets, 91 Cal.AppAth at 1369-1371.
40 Id. at 1349-1350.
41 Id. at 1364-1371.
42 Id.
43 14 C.C.R. § 15003(b).
44 San Luis Obispo Air Pollution Control District CEQA Air Quality Handbook, pg. 2-1, available at
httns://stora�e.�oos�lean is,com/glooleanair-
org/images/cros/upload/files/CEQA Handbook 2012 v2%o2O%281Jndated%24MemoTablel-
1 Ju1v2021%29 LinkedwithMemo.ndf, last accessed on February 7, 2023.
45 Id.
46 Id., pg. 2-3.
47 Id.
6457-005acp
`J printed on recycled paper
February 7, 2023
Page 11
requirement to identify sensitive receptors, to perform a "more comprehensive"
health risk analysis, or to define mitigation to minimize toxic DPM impacts.
The City must prepare an EIR that properly discloses and analyzes the
Project's potentially significant air quality impacts, identifies the nearest sensitive
receptors, includes a health risk analysis, and fully analyzes potentially significant
impacts of the Project's construction and operations on these receptors.
B. Energy
The MND concludes that the Project will have a less than significant impact
as to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources during
project construction or operation. The entire analysis on this point is as follows:
"The proposed project is located on a mostly vacant opportunity site within the
urban services line and adjacent to Highway 101 which will provide key services,
jobs, lodging, and entertainment opportunities for existing residents and work to
correct the City's jobs/housing/commercial imbalance. None of the proposed uses are
expected to result in wasteful energy use and all buildings and operations will be
required to meet current California energy code requirements, thus, no mitigation is
required."48 The MND's energy analysis makes no mention whatsoever of the
Project's energy use over the 5-8 years of construction, and its conclusion with
respect to operational energy use is a bare conclusion, without any analysis or
evidentiary support.
CEQA Appendix F explains that the potentially significant energy
implications of a project should be considered in an EIR and should consider (a) The
project's energy requirements and its energy use efficiencies by amount and fuel
type for each stage of the project including construction, operation, maintenance
and/or removal. If appropriate, the energy intensiveness of materials may be
discussed; (b) The effects of the project on local and regional energy supplies and on
requirements for additional capacity; (c) The effects of the project on peak and base
period demands for electricity and other forms of energy; (d) The degree to which
the project complies with existing energy standards; (e) The effects of the project on
energy resources; and (f) The project's projected transportation energy use
requirements and its overall use of efficient transportation alternatives.49 A CEQA
document is "fatally defective" when it fails to include the energy analysis required
by CEQA, including a detailed statement setting forth the mitigation measures
proposed to reduce wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary consumption of energy. 50
48 MND, pg. 16.
49 CEQA Guidelines, Appendix F (Energy Conservation), Section II.
50 People v. County of Kern (1976) 62 Cal.App.3d 761, 774.
6457-005acp
�iA, printed on recycled paper
February 7, 2023
Page 12
The MND lacks the energy impact analysis required by CEQA and its
findings are not supported by substantial evidence. An EIR must be prepared to
disclose, analyze and mitigate the Project's energy impacts.
C. Noise
The Project site is currently undeveloped and is surrounded by private
residences. In addition to new residential development, the Project is expected to
include a new hotel, retail, restaurant, brewery, artisan manufacturing, offices and
entertainment uses.51 The commercial areas are designed to encourage restaurants
and similar outdoor uses, and will include a raised patio with outdoor spaces for
restaurant and other eating and drinking establishments. 52 The Project design
includes a small outdoor amphitheater. The amphitheater and other outdoor use
areas were originally proposed to allow amplified outdoor sound, with a condition of
approval prohibiting amplified outdoor sound after lopm.53 The staff report for the
February 7 Planning Commission hearing states that, based on community
feedback, "the applicants have decided to withdraw the request for outdoor
amplified sound."54
The MND concludes that the Project's noise impacts will be less significant
with mitigation, but this conclusion is devoid of any analysis or evidentiary support.
The MND asserts that due to the design of the project, "the project design self -
mitigates potential noise impacts to surrounding neighborhoods [emphasis
added]." 15 As to construction noise, the MND states that "[w]hile construction of
the site will result in an increase in temporary ambient noise levels, the long-
term occupancy of the sites are not expected to increase ambient levels above
those specified in the General Plan [emphasis added]."56 The MND includes a
single construction noise mitigation measure limiting Saturday construction to 9am
to 7pm and prohibiting Sunday construction. 57
There is no substantial evidence—indeed, no evidence at all—supporting the
City's conclusion that Project noise impacts will be less than significant.
51 MND, pg. 28.
52 City of Atascadero Staff Report for January 17, 2023 Planning Commission hearing, pg. 11.
53 Id.
54 City of Atascadero Staff Report for February 7, 2023 Planning Commission hearing, pg. 56;
however, the proposed Ordinance which would establish a Planned Development Zone for the Project
and amend the City's Zoning Map still allows outdoor amplified sound between the hours of 11:00
a.m. and 10:00 p.m.
55 MND, pg. 28.
56 Id.
57 Id.
6457-005acp
(i printed on recycled paper
February 7, 2023
Page 13
First, the MND includes no baseline noise measurements to establish the
existing ambient noise levels at the Project site. Without characterizing existing
ambient noise levels in the Project area, it is impossible to determine the
significance of the Project's noise impacts.
Second, there is no effort to quantify expected noise levels from construction
or operations, or to identify sensitive receptors (i.e., existing neighbors) who might
be impacted by noise from the Project.
Third, the MND provides no support for the remarkable assertion that the
Project's design will "self -mitigate" noise impacts to surrounding neighbors.
Moreover, it fails to specify the relevant ambient noise levels from the City's
General Plan and simply concludes that Project operations "are not expected to
increase ambient noise levels" above the unspecified General Plan standards. There
is no explanation of how the MND's single construction mitigation measure will
reduce construction noise to less than significant levels.
Finally,. the MND lacks any mention of potential impacts of the Project's
restaurant, brewery and outdoor entertainment uses on the new residents in the
Project's residential developments.
In short, there is absolutely no basis or evidentiary support for the MND's
conclusion that the Project's noise impacts will be less than significant with
mitigation. Speculation and unsubstantiated opinion or narrative do not constitute
substantial evidence. 58 The Project's noise impacts must be fully analyzed in an
EIR that identifies enforceable mitigation measures to reduce impacts to a less than
significant level.
D. Transportation
The MND concludes that the Project will have a less than significant impact
on vehicle miles traveled ("VMT"). The MND's impact analysis is based on a Traffic
Impact Study ("TIS"), which contains a brief VMT analysis. The TIS does not
provide substantial evidence in support of the City's VMT conclusions for at least
two reasons.
First, the TIS states, "[t]he project is expected to increase overall regional
VMT slightly and reduce residential, office, and retail VMT."59 The TIS also asserts
that the Project's residential and employee -based VMT will be more than 15 percent
58 14 CCR §15384(a).
59 September 2022 Barrel Creek Transportation Impact Study, pg. 28.
6457-005acp
() printed on recycled paper
February 7, 2023
Page 14
below the regional average VMT. There is no explanation for the apparently
contradictory statements that the Project is expected to increase the overall regional
VMT while at the same time reducing residential, office and retail VMT.
Second, the VMT analysis is based on a travel demand model for which none
of the supporting documentation has been provided. The TIS sets forth estimated
Project VMT figures purporting to demonstrate a less than significant VMT impact,
but since these figures were derived from the undisclosed travel demand modeling,
there is no way to evaluate the accuracy of the analysis without disclosure of the
assumptions and calculations associated with the modeling.
The MND itself contains no analysis or evidence supporting its conclusion
regarding VMT impacts, and the TIS contains bare conclusions purportedly based
on a modeling that is undisclosed and unexplained. The City therefore lacks
substantial evidence supporting its conclusions with respect to VMT and must
prepare an EIR that analyzes these impacts and supports its conclusions with
substantial evidence.
VI. THE MND LACKS A PROPER CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ANALYSIS
The City is required by CEQA to perform an analysis of the Project's
cumulative impacts.60 The MND includes a finding that the Project's cumulative
impacts will be less than significant61 but fails to conduct any analysis or support
the finding with evidence.
In its LOS discussion in the Transportation Impact analysis, the MND
identifies "multiple other approved development projects" near the Project site that
were considered in traffic modeling for the Project. These projects include a Taco
Bell, a gas station, retail pad, sit-down restaurant, Tiny Hotel (22 units), Emerald
Ridge (208 dwelling units), Del Rio Ridge (42 dwelling units), the Edge (unidentified
15,000 sq. ft. project) and Del Rio Marketplace (203,700 sq. ft.).62 The MND
recognizes that "[m]ajor commercial development is planned for the ease [sic] side of
the 101 freeway at del Rio Road and this project will provided added residential and
tourist serving uses in addition to providing light industrial spaces for local
artisans."63 The MND completely fails to assess the potentially significant
cumulative impacts of this "major commercial development"—or any of the multiple
other approved development projects cited above—with respect to impact areas
60 Pub. Res. Code § 21083(b)(2); 14 C.C.R. §§ 15130 and 15064(h).
61 MND, pg. 41.
62 MND, pg. 33.
63 MND, pg. 42.
6457-005acp
0 printed on recycled paper
February 7, 2023
Page 15
including air quality, public services, population and housing and utilities. There is
no explanation whatsoever for the conclusion that the Project's cumulative impacts
will be less than significant.
To the extent the City may be asserting that the Project's cumulative impacts
are less than significant if the Project -specific impacts are less than significant, this
approach has been rejected by the Courts and fails to comply with CEQA's
requirement that a project mitigate impacts that are "cumulatively considerable." 64
The leading case on this issue is Kings County Farm Bureau V. City of
Hanford.65 In Kings County, the city prepared an EIR for a 26.4 -megawatt coal-fired
cogeneration plant. Notwithstanding the fact that the EIR found that the project
region was out of attainment for PM10 and ozone, the City failed to
incorporate mitigations for the project's cumulative air quality impacts from project
emissions because it concluded that the Project would contribute "less than one
percent of area emissions for all criteria pollutants."66 The city reasoned that,
because the project's air emissions were small in ratio to existing air quality
problems, that this necessarily rendered the project's "incremental
contribution" minimal under CEQA. The court rejected this approach, finding it
"contrary to the intent of CEQA." The court stated:
We find the analysis used in the EIR and urged by GWF avoids
analyzing the severity of the problem and allows the approval of
projects which, when taken in isolation, appear insignificant, but
when viewed together, appear startling. Under GWF's "ratio"
theory, the greater the over-all problem, the less significance a
project has in a cumulative impacts analysis. We conclude the
standard for a cumulative impacts analysis is defined by the use of
the term "collectively significant" in Guidelines section 15355 and
the analysis must assess the collective or combined effect of energy
development. The EIR improperly focused upon the individual
project's relative effects and omitted facts relevant to an analysis of
the collective effect this and other sources will have upon
air quality. 67
The City has made the same error here. While the MND admits that the
Project region is out of attainment for ozone and PMIo, the City fails to analyze or
64 PRC § 21083(b)(2); 14 CCR § 15130.
65 Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford (1990) 221 Cal. App. 3d 692 ("Kings County").
66 Id. at 719.
67 Id. at 721.
6457-005acp
cop punted on recycled paper
February 7, 2023
Page 16
mitigate the Project's emissions' cumulative air quality impacts while falsely
claiming that the Project -specific impacts will be mitigated to a less than significant
level. The MND is woefully inadequate in its analysis of any of the Project's
potentially significant cumulative impacts, and the City must prepare an EIR that
properly evaluates and mitigates such impacts.
VII. THE CITY MAY NOT APPROVE THE PROJECT'S ENTITLEMENTS
The Project requires that the City approve several entitlements, including a
General Plan amendment, a Zoning Map Amendment, a Conditional Use Permit
("CUP"), and a Vesting Tentative Tract Map ("VTTM"). The Planning Commission
is being asked to recommend that the City Council approve each of these
entitlements. The Commission should not.make these recommendations because
each of the entitlements requires findings that are not supported by the record.
As an initial matter, each of proposed resolutions recommending approval of
the Project entitlements includes a statement regarding the CEQA determination
for this Project, and assumes a Planning Commission recommendation that the City
Council "certify the environmental determination for the Barrel Creek project."68
As discussed above, however, the CEQA process is not complete. The City just
released the revised MND on February 3, and the public comment period will
remain open at least through February 22. The Commission is simply not in a
position to recommend certification of the Project's environmental determination
before the CEQA process is complete.
In addition, the Project's proposed General Plan Amendment requires a
finding that the Project is in conformance with General Plan goals, policies and
programs, and each of the other entitlements likewise requires a finding that the
Project is consistent with the General Plan. As discussed below, the Commission
lacks substantial evidence to make those findings.
A. General Plan Amendment
In order to recommend approval of the General Plan Amendment, the
Commission must make each of the following findings: that the proposed
amendment (1) is in the public interest; (2) is in conformance with the adopted
General Plan Goals, Policies and Programs and the overall intent of the General
Plan; (3) is compatible with existing development, neighborhoods and the
environment; and (4) will not create any new significant and unavoidable impacts to
68 See, e.g., City of Atascadero Staff Report for February 7, 2023 Planning Commission hearing, pg.
68.
6457-005acp
"printed on recycled paper
February 7, 2023
Page 17
traffic, infrastructure or public services.69 Given the City's failure to supply
evidence supporting the MND's analyses of the Project's potential impacts on noise,
transportation and public health from construction emissions, the Planning
Commission lacks substantial evidence to find that the Project is in the public
interest, that it is compatible with existing development, neighborhoods and
environment and that it will not create any new significant and unavoidable
impacts to traffic, infrastructure or public services.
Moreover, the Commission may not find that the Project is in conformance
with the General Plan's goals, policies and programs. For example, General Plan
Policy 10.3 is to "support regional efforts to maintain clean air."70 While CARE
CA's technical review of the MND's air quality analysis is ongoing, the MND
completely ignores the APCD's requirements to identify sensitive receptors, to
perform a health risk analysis, or to define mitigation to minimize toxic DPM
impacts. And the MND lacks any discussion of the potentially significant
cumulative impacts of multiple other developments in the Project vicinity.
Similarly, the General Plan's Safety and Noise Element includes Goal SFN 6
("Protect citizens from harmful and annoying effects of exposure to excessive noise")
and SFN 8 ("Preserve tranquility of residential areas by preventing the
encroachment of noise producing uses.")71 As discussed above, the MND contains
no technical analysis of either the ambient noise at any of the residences
neighboring the Project site, nor any assessment of predicted noise from Project
construction or operations. The MND's conclusory and unsupported statements
that the Project's design will "self -mitigate" noise impacts to neighbors and that
Project operations "are not expected to increase ambient noise levels" above
unspecified General Plan standards simply provide no basis for the Commission to
make the required findings.
For the foregoing reasons, the Commission may not make the findings
required to recommend approval of the General Plan Amendment.
B. Zoning Map Amendment
Approval of the Zoning Map Amendment requires findings that the
amendment is consistent with the General Plan, and will not result in significant
environmental impacts. The Commission cannot make the finding of consistency
with the General Plan for the reasons set forth above. A finding with respect to
69 City of Atascadero General Plan, pg. I1-51.
70 Id., pg. 11-37.
71 Id., pg. IV -30.
6457-005acp
'printed on recycled paper
February 7, 2023
Page 18
significant environmental impacts would be premature, as the CEQA review and
comment period remains open. Even so, it is clear from the above discussion of the
MND's deficiencies with respect to air quality, noise, transportation and cumulative
impacts that the Commission may not make the required finding that the Project
will not result in significant environmental impacts.
C. Conditional Use Permit and Vesting Tentative Tract Map
Approval of a CUP for the Project requires a finding of consistency with the
General Plan, as well as a finding that the project will not be detrimental to the
health, safety or welfare of the general public or persons residing or working in the
neighborhood of the Project. 72 Approval of the Project's proposed VTTM also
requires a finding of consistency with the General Plan, as well as a finding that the
development will not cause serious health problems.
The Commission cannot make the required findings of consistency with the
General Plan for the reasons set forth above. A finding of no detriment to public
health, safety or welfare or that the Project will not cause serious health problems
would be premature and unsupported for all of the same reasons described in these
preliminary comments. The Commission therefore also cannot make the required
findings to approve the Project's CUP or VTTM.
VIII. CONCLUSION
CEQA requires that an EIR be prepared if there is substantial evidence
demonstrating that any aspect of a project, either individually or cumulatively, may
cause a significant effect on the environment.73 As discussed herein, there is
substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that the Project would result in
significant adverse impacts that were not identified in the MND, and that are not
adequately analyzed or mitigated. The MND also fails to contain the basic
information and analysis required by CEQA, deficiencies which "cannot be
dismissed as harmless or insignificant defects." 74
The Commission's proposed findings regarding Project impacts either do not
comply with the law or are not supported by substantial evidence. The City cannot
72 See, e.g., City of Atascadero Staff Report for February 7, 2023 Planning Commission hearing, pgs.
84-85.
73 Pub. Res. Code § 21151; 14 CCR §15063(b)(1).
74 Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. Bakersfield (`Bakersfield') (2004) 124 Cal. App. 4th 1184,
1220.
6457-005acp
imp printed on recycled paper
February 7, 2023
Page 19
approve the Project, nor should the Planning Commission recommend its approval,
until it prepares an EIR that resolves these issues and complies with CEQA.
RMF: acp
6457-005acp
Sincerely,
Richard M. Franco
"printed on recycled paper
To: the Atascadero Planning Commission Members
Re: Barrel Creek Project
My father moved to Atascadero in the 1930's and I am an Atascadero native. As a member of
Atascadero First Assembly Church (renamed Legacy Church) for over 15 years, I speak in support of the
project.
1) The well-designed project offers neighborhood dining, experiences, and artisan spaces that are
much needed in Atascadero.
2) The nicely designed residential portion compliments the existing residential neighborhoods on
Del Rio and San Ramon Roads.
3) The sale of the property plus hotel, neighborhood retail, and short-term stay portions provides
the much-needed tax dollars for our city.
After design and planning for over 3 years now, numerous modifications have been made which were
completed from direction by the staff of the City of Atascadero. We are excited to present this beautiful
project to you.
Sincerely,
Jan Bewley
ITs I
JAN 1 7 2023
00(0V - ��
coy' LAITYOEVEL ENTI
CALIFORNIA STATE TRANSPORTATION AGENCY
California Department of Transportation
CALTRANS DISTRICT 5
50 HIGUERA STREET I SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401-5415
(805) 549-3101 1 FAX (805) 549-3329 TTY 711
www.dot.co._qov
January 27, 2023
JAN 2 7 2023
Kelly Gleason, Senior Planner
City of Atascadero
6500 Palma Ave.
Atascadero, CA 93422
C1
GAVIN NEWSOM, GOVERNOR
SC H # 2022120699
SLO US101 PM48.33
COMMENTS TO THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (MND) FOR THE BARREL CREEK
PROJECT
Dear Kelly Gleason:
The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) appreciates the opportunity to
review the MND for the Barrel Creek Project. The project includes a proposal for 35,000
square feet of commercial/ light industrial space, a 120 -room hotel, 40 multi -family
apartment units, 5,000 square feet of restaurant or brewery space, 16 short-term stay
cottages, and a 20 -lot single family subdivision. At this time, we offer the following
comments in response to the MND:
Caltrans supports development that is consistent with State and Federal planning
priorities intended to promote equity, strengthen the economy, protect the
environment, and promote public health and safety. We accomplish this by working
with local agencies to achieve a shared vision of how the transportation system can
and should accommodate interregional and local travel and development. Caltrans
believes that continued coordination with your agency is imperative to achieve overall
network connectivity.
Project Management:
The Cooperative Agreement between the City and Caltrans for the Del Rio Road
Interchange Improvements Project (05-1 F330) has been terminated as of January 2023
and the project is no longer on the Caltrans Approved Project Listing (APL). With that
being said, any capital improvements on the State Highway System (SHS) as a result of
this proposed development would need to be delivered either through the
encroachment permit office process or the quality management assessment process
(QMAP), depending on the project detail.
"Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment"
Kelly Gleason
January 27, 2023
Page 2
Traffic Operations:
Significant changes are being proposed at or near a state highway intersection (MM -
TRANS -04 to MM -TRANS -06). An Intersection Control Evaluation (ICE) will need to be
prepared to the satisfaction of Caltrans prior to issuance of an encroachment permit
for the work indicated in MM -TRANS -05 within the Caltrans right-of-way. We recommend
the City include a mitigation measure requiring an ICE step 1 be prepared prior to
occupancy. We are also in support of the project being conditioned to pay their fair
share towards improvements listed in MM -TRANS -04 to MM -TRANS -06.
Hydraulics:
The proposed development is in close proximity to US101 and associated drainage
facilities; the development should not negatively impact downstream flows. Prior to the
issuance of a permit, Caltrans will need to review pre- and post-drainage calculations.
Permits:
Any work within the State's right-of-way will require an encroachment permit from
Caltrans and must be done to our engineering and environmental standards, and at no
cost to the State. The conditions of approval and the requirements for the
encroachment permit are issued at the sole discretion of the Permits Office, and nothing
in this letter shall be implied as limiting those future conditioned and requirements. For
more information regarding the encroachment permit process, please visit our
Encroachment Permit Website at: https://dot.ca.gov/programs/traffic-
operations/ep/applications
We look forward to continued coordination with the City on this project. If you have
any questions, or need further clarification on items discussed above, please contact
me at (805) 835-6432 or Jenna.Schudson@dot.ca.Gov
Sincerely,
,7eina schwkoh
Jenna Schudson
Development Review Coordinator
Caltrans District 5, LD-IGR South Branch
cc: Governor's Office of Planning and Research
State Clearinghouse
"Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment"
From: Anne Gallagher
Sent: Monday, January 16, 2023 10:18 AM
To: Planning Commission Public Comments
Subject: Planning Commission Meeting 1/17 - Barrel Creek Agenda Item #2
Hello,
Regarding the proposed Barrel Creek project, as a resident, I am OPPOSED to the project and its zoning exceptions,
because I believe it would create too much traffic/congestion in the general area, disrupt the peaceful residential area
with noise & pollution, and negatively affect environmental factors. There is plenty of un -used retail property already
existing that needs to be filled (e.g. the old Kmart plaza at EI Camino & San Anselmo).
Thank you,
Annie Gallagher
Atascadero resident
ATTENTION:
This email originated from outside the City's network. Use caution when opening links and attachments.
JAN 17 2023
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
From: Personal Gmail
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2023 11:12 AM
To: Planning Commission Public Comments
Subject: Barrel Creek Project
The proposed Barrel Creek project would be a tremendous addition to Atascadero. The housing, retail, as well as the
intentional design and aesthetic compliments our city's heritage and needs. This would be the new go -to place in our
county. Atascadero needs this. It's not another strip -mall, it's not another drive-thru fast food or discount grocery store;
Barrel Creek is beautiful, intentional, and would bless our city, if not make it the envy of other towns.
Please vote in favor of this project.
—Garrett Kruse
ATTENTION:
This email originated from outside the City's network. Use caution when op ping links and attachments.
[RE17 2023b0� ]0EVELOPMST
From: Chad Langford
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2023 11:20 AM
To: Planning Commission Public Comments
Subject: Re: Barrel Creek
I would like to offer my support the Barrel Creek project. I believe this project is in the best interest of Atascadero as it
provides housing and a destination that will attract business to our community rather than pass us by on the way to our
neighboring towns. This project has painstakingly been through remediation after remediation to get to the point to
where it can move forward today with a project that blends the existing landscape and the possibility of what
Atascadero could be. I appreciate the positions both for and against this change to our community. With that stated, I
ask that the Barrel Creek project be approved as recommended.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Chad Langford
On Tue, Jan 17, 2023, 11:13 AM Chad Langford <
I would like to offer my support the Barrel Creek project. I believe this project is in the best interest of Atascadero as it
provides housing and a destination that will attract business to our community rather than pass us by on the way to our
neighboring towns. This project has painstakingly been through remediation after remediation to get to the point to
where it can move forward today with a project that blends the existing landscape and the possibility of what
Atascadero could be. I appreciate the positions both for and against this change to our community. With that stated, I
ask that the Barrel Creek project be approved as recommended.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Chad Langford
ATTENTION:
This email originated from outside the City's network. Use caution when opening links and attachments.
I` M
JAN 17 2023
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
From: Kelly Gleason
Sent: Monday, January 16, 2023 8:34 PM
To: Annette Manier
Subject: FW: Opposition, Barrel Creek Planned Development
Please distribute and place in the file. Thank you.
Kelly Gleason
Senior Planner
(805)470-3446
-------- Original message ---
From: Katherine Morrison
Date: 1/16/23 8:04 PM (GMT -08:00)
To: Kelly Gleason <kgleason@atascadero.org>
Subject: Opposition, Barrel Creek Planned Development
Dear Ms. Gleason,
IVC
JAN 1 7.2023
C "119_" RENT
I am part owner of San Gregorio Rd. I am concerned that our neighbors most affected by the proposed Barrel
Creek development who reside on Garcia Rd and lower San Gregorio Rd will have their rural quality of life affected by
this development, due to light pollution, reduction of wildlife habitat, and noise. Please urge the planners to provide at
least a 3 -month window for property owners to review the EIR which is over 300 pages in length.
Thank you for your consideration
Katherine Morrison
ATTENTION:
This email originated from outside the City's network. Use caution when opening links and attachments.
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Kelly Gleason
Senior Planner
(805) 470-3446
Kelly Gleason
Tuesday, February 7, 2023 7:41 AM
Annette Manier
FW: Barrell Creek Planned Development
-------- Original message --------
From: "Candace Nalepa, Myron Nalepa'
Date: 2/6/23 10:56 PM (GMT -08:00)
To: Kelly Gleason <kgleason@atascadero.org>
Subject: Barrell Creek Planned Development
RECEIVEM
Er' , nn"
(dVv L - 00 (P(�
Ms. Gleason,
We are opposed to the above -listed development for the following reasons:
1. This type of development results in impacts which can realistically be mitigated by location at at commercial nodes
along the EI Camino Real corridor. This planning commitment to commercial development has been documented by past
planning directors and city councils.
2. Cal Trans has stated in letter to the city dated 1-27-23 that the Del Rio Road Interchange Improvement Project was
terminated 1-23. The additional average daily trips generated by this project cannot be realistically mitigated without a four
lane overpass and expansion of Del Rio Road.
3. This project is not compatible with the surrounding residential neighborhood. The project is a prime example of spot
zoning that should have been previously addressed in a general plan update..
We have resided at 2400 Monterey Road for 48 years and request that the City of Atascadero staff and leaders deny this
development as proposed.
Myron and Candace Nalepa
s ATTENTION:
This email originated from outside the City's network. Use caution when opening links and attachments.
1
R
From: Madeline Rothman
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2023 10:40 AM
To: Planning Commission Public Comments
Subject: Planning Commission Public Hearing on 1/17/23, Agenda Item No. 2, Barrel Creek
Planned Development
My name is Madeline Rothman, and I have lived on San Ramon Road in Atascadero with my husband for the past 50
years. We chose to live in this most northern part of Atascadero because of its rural character, low density, privacy, and the
beautiful natural environment, which includes the sensitive environment of Graves Creek that runs behind our San Ramon
Road property and all of the properties on the west side of the original section of San Ramon Road. When we moved to San
Ramon Road in 1972, there were steelhead trout in Graves Creek and beavers that thrived at the creek. Little by little we have
seen the steady erosion of that precious natural environment due to increased development. Sadly, those days of seeing
trout and beavers in the creek, along with other native species of plants and animals, are gone forever. The health of the
creek and the animals and plants that live there are in constant jeopardy!
I am deeply concerned about the negative environmental impacts a project of this size would inflict on the area and
surrounding areas. The serious and deleterious environmental impacts would include noise pollution, light pollution, air and
water pollution caused by increased traffic on San Ramon Road and Del Rio Road, with toxic -laden run-off impairing the water
quality of Graves Creek.
In addition, the environment of the original section of San Ramon Road has been a neighborhood with a long history of
families raising their children here, and some of their children raising their children on this street. San Ramon Road is its own
community of families, made up of many long-time residents who have joined with newcomers on the street, all who value
the rural ambience and low density of this original section of San Ramon Road.
Many of our neighbors on San Ramon Road are strongly opposed to a General Plan Amendment, Zone Map Amendment,
creation of a Planned development Overlay Zone, etc., that would change the zoning of an area that is currently zoned for a
maximum of 6 single-family dwellings to zoning that would allow a project plan for 35,000 sq. ft. of commercial/light industrial
space, a 120 -room hotel, 40 multi -family apartment units, 5,000 sq. ft. of restaurant or brewery space, 16 short-term stay
cottages, and a 20 -lot single family subdivision!
If this project were to go ahead, it would cause a major change to a neighborhood, and most probably the loss of a long-time
neighborhood community, loss of the rural character of the area, greater erosion of the precious natural environment of
Graves Creek and the surrounding area, and loss of the valued quality of life that brought families to this street.
It greatly saddens us to see a proposal, such as this one, that would erode another part of the beautiful rural character that
was once plentiful in Atascadero! Once you take away a beautiful, special piece of rural Atascadero found on San Ramon
Road, bordered by Graves Creek on the west side, and change it to high-density living units, commercial/light industrial,
multiple buildings, a hotel, 20 -lot single family homes,16 short-term cottages, and probably more, the environment is forever
changed! So Much is Lost Forever!
There is Priceless Value and Importance to -
- preserving and protecting the environment from noise and light pollution, air and water pollution that would negatively
impact the very special and sensitive natural environment of Graves Creek;
— preserving the beautiful rural environment that drew families to this area; and
— preserving the quality of life that is enjoyed by a neighborhood of San Ramon Road families'! I
Madeline Rothman
JAN 17 2023
1 Dfv 21- 6oLo6
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
From: Kelly Gleason
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2023 8:29 PM
To: Annette Manier
Subject: FW: Barrel Creek Planned Development
Kelly Gleason
Senior Planner I City of Atascadero
6500 Palma Ave I Atascadero, CA 93422
805.470.3446 1 kgleason(@atascadero.or�
2
JAN 17 20231�
Dv El—CSUbu
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
City Hall is offering in-person meetings by appointment only. Community Development staff is available by
phone and email. We will respond as soon as possible to your request. Thank you for your patience! Please call
(805) 461-5000 if you need an appointment.
From: JuLee Rocha
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2023 8:16 PM
To: Kelly Gleason <kgleason@atascadero.org>
Subject: Barrel Creek Planned Development
Dear Ms. Gleason,
I strongly OPPOSE your Barrel Creek Planned Development, PLN NO. DEV21-0066, Environmental
Document No. 2022-0005. 1 have been a resident of San Ramon Rd, Atascadero, for 57 years. This
"planned" development will RUIN the small town, close neighborhood of San Ramon Rd. between Del Rio
and Santa Cruz Roads. I have known my neighbors for this length of time, and we all agree that this tragic
development will ruin what we have all grown and loved about our little road.
Not only am I concerned about the "dwellings" proposed, but the noise and lights that will ruin this quite
road, but the impact of this outrageous idea of yours! I have grown up raising all types of animals. From
my early years, raising, sheep, chickens, ducks, and rabbits, I feel that I will no longer be able to enjoy the
comfort of having my "farm" animals on my property. I was raised a 4-H-er, and have kept those goals
and traditions onto my adult life. I have 2 grown children, and a 13 year-old daughter, who also enjoys
her 4-H project animals. I am VERY concerned, that her raising of animals may in fact, be destroyed by
this development.
also object to this project, as when the City of Atascadero was incorporated, in 1979, that is was stated
that there was to be NO COMMERCIAL building west of Highway 101. Again, the City of Atascadero had
lied to their citizens!!!! This area should REMAIN RESIDENTIAL! The quality of life so many residents
have moved from other areas, to enjoy the "simple life", is being compromised by this project you are
considering...
1
I have concerns about the redundancy of this project and the proposed "Rancho Del Rio", or similar
name, to be built across from Mission Oaks (formerly the Factory Outlets) on EI Camino Real and Del Rio
Road.
I have very deep and heartfelt concerns that a zone change should be enacted for the Barrel Creek Project,
I believe that the property in question is zoned for large lot single family homes. I sincerely believe that
the zoning NOT be changed or amended, as to save our rural way of life.
Given the timing of this notification, there is no way for me to peruse the entire 300+ page document in
due time, and to decipher the goals of the developer... perhaps tabling any action on this project for 60-90
days?
Specifically, in regards to my property, the newest map alludes to four "apartments" (C-1, C-2, C -3,C-4)
that will abut my property line, without much of a buffer zone at all. I can not tell, from the map supplied,
if the apartments are single -story or multi -story. Initially, there were to be four "rent -by -the -hour -day -
week -month" dwellings to be used by travelers, not for continuous occupancy. These four buildings
appear to have been slightly relocated, which would directly affect me and my privacy.
The new lighting and noise will disrupt our way of life as well... we go to bed early... I suppose legally, the
"noise law" takes effect at ten p. m., so, hypothetically, I ask, what are we to do for up to 90 minutes each
and every night, be kept awake until 10 p.m. and call the cops at 10:01, each and every night? I'm asking
you and the powers that be to have compassion for an OLD and ESTABLISHED neighborhood and long-
time residents' ways of life. Isn't there a way to deflect the lights and noise closer to Del Rio, where no one
currently resides, as opposed to the 3 properties (1555, 1705 and 1775) to be adversely affected...
forever? I have serious concerns about the traffic, noise, dark sky and other impacts that would be caused
by this development.
Another point; Why were we, those impacted by this proposal, given notice just prior to the
holidays? We cannot possibly review the entire 300+ page EIR in the few days that have been allotted. At
a minimum, the EIR review period should be extended to three months.
hope you sincerely take all or our neighbors concerns to heart, and realize that many, many residents oppose this
idea / plan.
Sincerely,
JuLee Rocha
'ATTENTIONS
Tfiis_email originated from.outside the City network Use c.:0� n ng�l ks ansl attacl men_ts
From: Kelly Gleason
Sent: Sunday, January 15, 2023 9:56 PM
To: Annette Manier
Subject: FW: Opposition, Barrel Creek Planned Development
Please forward to the Planning Commission and file.
Kelly Gleason
Senior Planner
(805) 470-3446
-------- Original message --------
From: Janet Rucci
Date: 1/15/23 1:00 PM (GMT -08:00)
To: Kelly Gleason <kgleason@atascadero.org>
Cc: Janet
Subject: Opposition, Barrel Creek Planned Development
I
JAN 17 2023
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
RE: Barrel Creek Planned Development, Plan No. DEV21-0066, Environmental Document No. 2022-0005
Dear Ms. Gleason,
My name is Janet Rucci and I own the property at Garcia Road. Even though my property is within a few hundred
feet of the proposed Barrel Creek development, I received no notice from the City and only learned about this project
from another concerned neighbor. I have serious concerns about the traffic, noise, dark sky and other impacts that
would be caused by this development, but I can't possibly review the entire 300+ page EIR in the few days that have
been allotted. At a minimum, the EIR review period should be extended to three months.
Sincerely,
Janet Rucci
ATTENTION:
This email originated from outside the City's network. Use caution when opening links and attachments.
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Kelly Gleason
Senior Planner
(805) 470-3446
-------- Original message_
From`. Dave Watson
Kelly Gleason
Tuesday, January 17, 2023 4:58 PM
Annette Manier
FW: Barrel Creek Planned Development
Date: 1/17/23 4:35 PM (GMT -08:00)
To: Kelly Gleason <kgleason@atascadero.org>
Subject: Barrel Creek Planned Development
Ms. Gleason, et al,
W
In regards to Barrel Creek Planned Development, PLN NO. DEV21-0066, Environmental Document No. 2022-0005, 1
haved lived on San Ramon Road for 62 years, and I very much oppose much of this proposed development, as it will
certainly affect and negatively impact my way of life.
I have very serious concerns and dread about new traffic behind me, the new abundance of traffic on San Ramon Road
(a normally fairly sleepy road), the noise level, the effect on wildlife that use my property daily and or nightly... on any
given night, I have between ten and fourteen deer that bed down, visiting raccoons, possums, skunks and random other
"critters", that my wife and I have interacted with for over 35 years, not to mention the established buzzard roost in the
neighborhood trees, that have resided here for almost ten years. I fear that these simple life's pleasures will disappear,
never to return, if this project comes to fruition in its current proposal. Also, if a zone change is allowed, what of my
large animals (sheep) I raise periodically? Do they, and I "get tossed out with the bath water"? Some neighbors have or
have had horses and 4-H / FFA animals. Are we just "collateral damage?" for a developer?R... 62 years, I've lived here...
on San Ramon Road. Please consider the ramifications.
I have concerns about the redundancy of this project and the proposed "Rancho Del Rio", or similar name, to be built
across from Mission Oaks (formerly the Factory Outlets) on EI Camino Real and Del Rio Road.
I have very deep and heartfelt concerns that a zone change should be enacted for the Barrel Creek Project, I believe that
the property in question is zoned for large lot single family homes. I sincerely believe that the zoning NOT be changed or
amended, as to save our rural way of life.
Given the timing of this notification, there is no way for me to peruse the entire 300+ page document in due time, and
to decipher the goals of the developer... perhaps tabling any action on this project for 60-90 days?
Specifically, in regards to my property, the newest map alludes to four "apartments" (C-1, C-2, C -3,C-4) that will abut my
property line, without much of a buffer zone at all. I can not tell, from the map supplied, if the apartments are single -
story or multi -story. Initially, there were to be four "rent -by -the -hour -day -week -month" dwellings to be used by
travellers, not for continuous occupancy. These four buildings appear to have been slightly relocated, which would
directly affect me and my privacy.
The new lighting and noise will disrupt our way of life as well... we go to bed early... I suppose legally, the "noise law"
takes effect at ten p. m., so, hypothetically, I ask, what are we to do for up to 90 minutes each and every night, be kept
awake until 10 p.m. and call the cops at 10:01, each and every night? I'm asking you and the powers that be to have
compassion for an OLD and ESTABLISHED neighborhood and long-time residents' ways of life. Isn't there a way to deflect
the lights and noise closer to Del Rio, where no one currently resides, as opposed to the 3 properties (1555, 1705 and
1775) to be adversely affected... forever?
Please put yourselves in my shoes /predicament.
Sincerely,
Dave Watson
ATTENTION -
This email originated from outside the City's network. Use caution when opening links and attachments.
-----Original Message --
From: Darryl Whisnand
Sent: Friday, January 6, 2023 11:06 AM
To: Kelly Gleason <kgleason@atascadero.org>
Subject: Barrel Creek Planned Development. Public Input
To: Kelly Gleason,
RECi M --D
JAN 6 2023
DEV2l-oo10(?
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
I am a 14 year resident in Apple Valley and have some input and concerns about the Barrel Creek Development.
First, It is troubling that Residential Zoned Properties within a residential area is being rezoned and developed t
manner that they are. Residents have expectations of the future property usage when they buy property in an area
this. It feels like our voices are not being given any value. This development does not fit into this bedroom area at all.
Please at least mitigate the following huge issues.
1. Del Rio Road frontage: The Barrel Creek Development should provide the property along Del Rio Road to have nice
landscape and a nice side walk. The design should be a similar design as the south side of Del Rio ( that Midland
provided when Apple Valley was built).
2. Parks: What is the plan for a park in the Barrel Creek development? Months ago I was told that it will not have a
park and that the Apple Valley Park will be the park they use. Ok then.... Apple Valley has a district to pay for about 1/2
the maintenance of the park. Do the Apartment and Houses in the Barrel Creek pay into the district or has a funding
mechanism through the city been developed to offset their part of Apple Valley Park maintenance? This is huge to us in
Apple Valley!!!!
do feel that the developers are putting together a nice development, but It is too much for this residential area the
way it is currently designed. 13 pounds of sugar in a 10 pound bag so to speak.
Thank you so much for receiving and hopefully acting on my concerns. I love our city and am thankful for all you city
staff do for us!
Darryl Whisnand
Sent from my iPad
ATTENTION:
This email originated from outside the City's network. Use caution when opening links and attachments.
From:
Sent:
To: '
Kelly Gleason
Sunday, January 15, 2023 10:11 PM
Annette Manier
Subject: FW: Barrel Creek Planned Development, Plan No. DEV21-0066, Environmental
Document No. 2022-0005
Please forward to the Planning Commission and place a copy in the file.
Kelly Gleason
Senior Planner
(805) 470-3446
-------- Original message
From: Kevin Zimmer
JAN 17 2023
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Date: 1/15/23 7:41 PM (GMT -08:00)
To: Kelly Gleason <kgleason@atascadero.org>
Cc: Kevin Zimmer
Subject: Barrel Creek Planned Development, Plan No. DEV21-0066, Environmental Document No. 2022-0005
Dear Ms. Gleason,
We own the property at Garcia Road, on the other side of Graves Creek from the planned "Barrel Creek"
development cited above. We built our house on this lot in 1988, and have lived here ever since. Our impetus for
building on this site, was the semi -rural nature of the entire "neighborhood" combined with the natural beauty of living
at the ecotone of oak woodland and a riparian corridor, with all of the native vegetation and wildlife that
entails. Inevitably, the unoccupied properties to the north and south of us have been bought up and houses have
sprung up where once there were only empty fields. However, this development to this point, has been consistent with
the theme of well -spaced, single-family dwellings, each occupying lots of 1 acre or more, allowing the area to retain its
serni-rural, quiet charm, with wildlife literally at our doorsteps, and relatively little vehicular traffic or noise.
Conversely, the plan to re -zone the area directly across the creek, from rural to commercial or semi -industrial,
represents a radical departure from what residents of this area signed up for when we made the decision to settle and
build our homes here. I know we are not alone in having serious concerns about the changes in traffic patterns, noise,
and overall environmental degradation that will surely result from the construction of high-density housing and a variety
of commercial enterprises being jammed between the creek and Hwy 101. Changing the zoning on this area is akin to
staging an athletic competition and then changing the agreed-upon rules in the final quarter. To make matters worse, it
appears this is being furtherjammed through by giving the community short notice to a restrictive period allotted for
public review and comment on the environmental impact assessment. We would hope, at the very least, that the city
would tap the brakes a little, and be more transparent with the current residents of the area, and look for ways to
mitigate the negative impacts of any re -zoning and subsequent development on those of us who have invested so much
of our lives in settling here, and who stand to have our quality of life significantly altered for the worse.
Sincerely,
Kevin and Susan Zimmer
3450 Broad Street, Suite 101 RECEIVEZED
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
805-316-5892
FEB 7 2023
J bb 1/a�- 00%;Planning Commission
City of Atascadero Pe ('J a r-de00 (tiu,
6500 Palma Avenue
Atascadero, CA PC-commentsP-atascadero.oM
Re: Feb 7, 2023 Agenda Item 2 — 10850 EI Camino Real Tentative Tract Map
Dear Commissioners:
I represent the owner of property at 920 La Costa in Atascadero, Paula Ramsum.
This property includes a custom rental house rented out by Ms. Ramsum for several
years. The property has an 18" culvert which is designed to accept some run-off from the
property at 10850 EI Camino Real. Prior to construction next door by 10850 LLC, there is
no record of any flooding at my client's property.
Although the 18" pipe on 920 La Costa connects directly to a City storm drain on
La Costa, the City denies owning the 18" pipe. This issue is a subject of dispute and is
under litigation.
On January 27, 2021, stormwater from 10850 EI Camino overwhelmed the 18"
culvert at 920 La Costa, causing extensive flooding of the house at 920 La Costa as well
as a neighboring house. The construction site at 10850 was a mess, with grading going
on that very day. Erosion control measures were unsuccessful and in fact clogged up the
18" culvert on Ms. Ramsum's property. Despite promises to help from both the City and
the Developer, no help was forthcoming (aside from the much appreciated disaster
response of the fire department). There is now a lawsuit filed against the City and the
developer for damages to Ms. Ramsum from this incident. After two years, my client has
not yet been able to bring her tenants back into the property, suffering mounting losses.
Atascadero Planning Commission
January 7, 2023
Against this backdrop the City is now contemplating a tentative map to allow the
developer to proceed with further development of the property at 10850 EI Camino. We
appreciate that there is already an approved development. However, there are a few
issues which the Planning Commission can and should take a close look at. I will list
them here.
1. The project does not conform to the drainage documents approved by the City.
A. The project was approved previously with reference to a "Grading plan" which was
reported to be under review by Public Works. See 2017 project staff report, at
page 8. There is no known record of this "grading plan". The 2017 approval is
found at nttps://www.atascadero.org/files/CD/RECENT PROJECTS/Hartberg PC
Staff Report.pdf
B. After project approval in 2017, the City accepted a Drainage Report and
Stormwater Control Plan, which was updated March 3, 2021.
https://netorg8050650.sharepoint.com/:b:/s/BeisherLaw/ETnFaXurPQhEinmSYlz
3391BweigsWJDYo2gfKKtYUdc A?e=hQhzdo Attached is an excerpt from this
report showing the area of concern. This report includes a mapping of the site into
various drainage areas. The area next to Ms. Ramsum's site is designated DMA8.
The water from this area is described as flowing through an unidentified "swale"
back to the private street on the 10850 property. However, there is no such swale
and it is actually uphill. Instead there is a drainage inlet placed in the 18" pipe
belonging to 10850, which appears to be intended to siphon this water from DMA
8 directly into the 18" pipe of 10850. The result is that there is a large area of this
site which is unaccounted for as to stormwater drainage and appears to add to the
volume of water metered out to the 18" culvert on the property at 920 La Costa.
C. The Improvement Plans approved by the City in 2021 include new provisions for
connecting the two 18" pipes. See the attached excerpt, page C-15 from the
updated Improvement Plans. This may be a good solution. However, it has not
2
Atascadero Planning Commission
January 7, 2023
been discussed by anyone at the City or 10850, LLC with Ms. Ramsum or her
representatives. In addition, the City has added numerous new conditions
addressing the need for private easements. So far the developer has ignored all
these needs and conditions, trespassing on Ms. Ramsum's property on numerous
occasions, including today when a crew came onto Ms. Ramsum's property to
"maintain" the culvert on her property. Previously the developer actually
demolished and removed Ms. Ramsum's fence, both along her property line and
for several feet into her property. Ms. Ramsum had to re -build portions of this
fencing following the January 2021 flood event, at her cost. The developer
provided a replacement property line fence in the form of a concrete block
unfinished wall with fencing on top of it, as shown in photos submitted by Ms.
Ramsum.
D Recent stormwater management by 10850, LLC has dumped water from the front
of its property into the culvert on Ms. Ramsum's property. In her letter submitted
to you today there are photos of 10850's new improvised drainage course running
alongside EI Camino and then behind the houses at 900 and 910 La Costa,
dumping into the 18" drain collection area on Ms. Ramsum's property. This is not
on any plan we know of. On one occasion during a storm event in December 10,
2022, the Fire Department breached this impromptu ditch and diverted water to EI
Camino, where it ended up back on La Costa but not at the entrance to the 18"
pipe on Ms. Ramsum's property. This action saved certain flooding at 920 La
Costa, where the drainage pipe was at full capacity. See photo with Ms. Ramsum's
letter of today's date.
E. Condition 28 of the proposed project approval requires the developer identify and
secure easements for overflow routes. This does not appear to have a plan. Ms.
Ramsum has not been approached. Given that flooding her house was the
previous "overflow" route she would truly love to have this clarified. Deferring to
some unspecified engineering at this point seems inadequate and irresponsible.
3
Atascadero Planning Commission
January 7, 2023
2. The parking for the proposed project appears to be short of City requirements. In
the 2017 approval there was a reduction of parking based on the proposed senior use.
The senior use has been removed. Although density dropped somewhat in the current
plan, there does not appear to be an explanation of the significant parking reduction
afforded in 2017 and apparently carried through to 2023 as applied to the present new
approval.
3. The environmental document should be reviewed. The present staff report refers
to an environmental approval but the environmental document is nowhere to be found,
even after inquiry to the City Community Development department. Instead the agenda
report refers us to a one-page Negative Declaration from 2017, which is supposed to be
the result of an environmental review. That document says it is releasing "a draft initial
study and Mitigated Negative declaration". It then says "This document may be viewed
by visiting the Community Development Department listed under the lead agency
address, or accessed via the City's website." When we requested the document from
the Community Development Department yesterday no one could find it. A search of
the City's web site also came up empty. It is not included with the 2017 staff report for
this project. Many City actions are represented with extensive environmental documents
which are found on-line. Not so for this project. There is no trail of evidence to support
the Negative Declaration. Normally this would include a checklist and supporting studies.
There is a planning "checklist" in the 2017 staff report but it has only a few items relating
to environmental issues. Normally this checklist is extensive and discloses many
different issues of consideration. Referenced in the 2017 approval and its limited
checklist are visual studies by staff, a grading plan with public works and other studies
or evidence to back up the conclusions leading to mitigation and the Negative
Declaration. These evidentiary bases for the Negative Declaration are not part of any
public record online that could be located. The CEQA process should be reviewed in
light of the concerns over stormwater management, visual concerns and parking, as well
as other environmental issues the Commissioners may feel are relevant. At the very
least, the City staff should produce the actual environmental document upon which the
2017 Negative Declaration was based. If the Commission determines the project has
changed in any significant way (altered stormwater management) or new environmental
4
Atascadero Planning Commission
January 7, 2023
impacts are recognized (stormwater management), a new environmental document
should be required.
It is hoped the Commission will recognize that serious issues have arisen as a
result of the construction of the current project. It is procedurally and ethically correct to
re -assess the impacts of the project in light of these issues at this time. We hope the
Planning Commission will get some solid answers to the concerns raised by this
neighboring property owner.
Cc: Paula Ramsum
lR. MOR -m -M1 M
5
A
and
STORMWATER CONTROL PLAN
•
VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP #3099
Prepared for:
Hartberg Properties, LLC
Prepared by:
Wallace Group
WALLACE GROUP
January 31, 2018
Revised March 3, 2021
discharge into an 18 -inch storm drain and discharge downstream within its historic
pathway and ultimately into the Salinas River.
DMA 1 and DMA 2 consist of the northerniy rooftop area of the apartment building and
the northerly parking lot areas and will discharge flows into an underground detention
chamber, C1. Stormwater runoff from the southern rooftop and southern parking lot
(DMA 3 and DMA 4) will discharge into C2. For large storms, flow from C1 and C2 will
be conveyed to detention Chamber C3. DMA 5 and DMA 6 consist of the roadway
(Keffury Lane) and the front portion of the proposed townhomes. Runoff from these two
DMAs will be directed to Keffury Lane and conveyed to a curb inlet connected to
Chamber C3. DMA 7 and DMA 8 consist of the rear portions of the townhomes. This
runoff will be conveyed through a rear yard drainage swale ,lops in two Keffcry Lane
Runoff from DMAs 5 through 8 will discharge into detention chamber 3 and w I
ultimately be discharged offsite.
I
I
I
I
s
AM`
I
rrwwwwr.MYrr� -
Figure 4 — Drainage Management Area Delineation
flows back to pre -development rates. The City of Atascadero Stormwater Control Plan
Permit Documentation is included in Appendix B.
The individual drainage basin peak flow rates are provided in Table 3 below:
TABLE 3
DMA PEAK FLOW RATES
ExIstinq
Storni Event
Peak Flow
3.72
•
0.06
1.63
3.88
7.19
00
8.42
DMA1
0.245
0.12
0.23
0.41
0.66
0.75
DMiA2
0.458
0.29
0.55
0.90
1.37
1.54
DMiA3
0.246
0.12
0.24
0.41
0.66
0.75
DMiA4
0.453
0.32
0.58
0.93
1.40
1.57
DMiA5
0.622
0.31
0.62
1.07
1.69
1.93
DMlA6
1.119
0.66
1.25
2.09
3.23
3.65
DMlA7
0.273
0.10
0.22
0.41
0.68
0.78
DMA8
0.305
0.12
0.26
1 0.47
0.78
0.89
The routing schematic of storm flows through the bloretention basins and
retention/detention chambers is shown in Figure 5 and outlined in Table 4 below.
I
Figure 5 - Flow Routing Diagram
p i I
rl �' w cW7 I
y3 $�
OZ -96 siol d w
Ntlld A y
JNIOtl2lJ
660£ 1OV2l1'S311LI3dONd E)N391NVH
p i I
rl �' w cW7 I
y3 $�
W3
Wo
ff
e w
9pp$,g
Np$p,
W.
919
10
�33�<A
FS
Wo
W €s}G}
3
$�
.3g5g
$�
��
W4$
#
W tl�87l!
s
w� F
}
r�r
Brar
gN
Srar383'
'o
R
a
fror
W�
n
H,
bS�S
kk
$
pp q�q
ng �.J
b
6
�8i
:8m
a$
2 i
�E
�
E
3
ei
�
a
b
I
LU
LL®
-
R
R
R
R
R
A R
R R
W
a:
p i I
rl �' w cW7 I
U)
d w
133HS 31111 z =
S1N3W3AONdWl 311S -NO 161
c1 3 U e
z
31V(3 unun 660£ lOVNl :S3112d3dONd EM313DJVH a °
' �fit�1 t4i
U)
Q
z
O
q 1
LU O
Z
Of Q
v
y
w
w
°aa
C
�
z
a
gs w
�
a�a ti
O
fnAN
U)
Q
z
O
q 1
LU O
�-
Of Q
W U
°aa
0Mof
I
IJ
�
ci
Ci I
1
iy i:.lLi
S kCl
tlf
°0
1
()
W
c
J
ry Q
W
= O
i-
U)
Q
z
Z
LU O
�-
Of Q
W U
°aa
0Mof
a3
W
N
U 0
LU
LL
()
W
c
J
ry Q
W
= O
i-
L�L--
f-
U
U
D
1 S 5
33a
i
a
6
V
i
a3
# Hill.
o ��gs�
s
€i M
--
�m
1 S 5
33a
i
a
6
V
i
1O'dINOO NOISON3 d
J
S1N3W3AONdWI 31IS-NO 3
ggg 0
� 660E1OV211 S311213dOadJiJ391L1VH
a � a
\ t\
�QQQg�
C
$
g p as
$
�If J�
g �
gp€ iR� �
fill 1i
11
1
# t �
4 1
'§ ` 4
®A1 it
4 ! y
I
�
NMI
(IJ
iiiiiiiiiiiia irvj !
��Ilf
i
prte,
S1N3W3AO'ddW1311S-NO
i w
4
j% C S - 6 `Yrs.
y
Y its 67
SIN130
3 U
aJj IJJu.co
WETS
660E 1OV 1L :S3MJ3dOad DN3SV3S
e o m
# t �
4 1
'§ ` 4
®A1 it
4 ! y
I
�
NMI
(IJ
iiiiiiiiiiiia irvj !
��Ilf
i
prte,
9
N
I
• 4
y�
I
4
j% C S - 6 `Yrs.
y
Y its 67
I
• 4
y�
I
�,
I
► • Y
� Of➢7] PGD
6iiJf11 QGC
BfllJf�7�CL�
I�
aJj IJJu.co
WETS
I
Planning Commission
City of Atascadero
6500 Palma Ave.
RE: 10850 LLC Tentative Track Map
Feb. 7, 2023
Dear Commissioners
DECEIVED
FEB 7 2023
5 DVd- -0 0Y5 .
f2e r ' ` a4 -'k cl2 acl i vuL,
My name is Paula Ramsum, and l own a custom home at [La Costa Court,'which is adjacent to the
Project at 10850 El Camino Real, 11 -have' invested in several homes in Atascadero over the years, starting
in 2010,1 have found Atascadero to be a nine area to invest in and my tenants have liked living here.
,cors
This ail changed the night of January 27, 2021, when my nightmare began I got a call from my tenants
late at night informing rite the house they are living Iii"is flooded with mtadtid water and the Fire
Department had to unclog the small drain that runs across my property. 11 t6 find`out the construction.
site had been instructed to divert all water runoff froiii-this large 3.79 acres of newly graded unstable'
construction site to the small 18 inch drain at the back corner of my lot during construction. At this
point, construction has taken years to build, still is not complete and now they want to build more. I was
never informed of this plan to divert more water than this small drain can handle. I was never informed
that my home would be in danger. There was a well -advertised and predicted rain event scheduled for
January 27, 2021. Days before this rain event the construction crews removed my fence at the back of
my property that backs up to the 10850 site, without any notice or permission. This fence would have
protected my house holding back the mud and water and giving the Fite department more time to
protect our properties. There were other properties flooded that night as viell. I've been informed the
contractor was out there in the rain grading the lot during the day, which only made the soil even more
unstable. Then in the middle of the heavy rain event, they went home at -ad soon afterwards my home
flooded.
This was a preventable event, with proper drainage plans that actually 4 ::. 'k- My house was severally
damaged, which include all the flooring, walls, cabinets and more. My tenants were displaced, I had to
put them up in a hotel, and they eventually found new housing. At first the Owner of the site accepted
blame and assured me they would pay for all the damage and lost rents. After many delays they turned
the claim over to their insurance company. Several months later the insurance company was ready to
settle with me. Then Amanda, the main contact for the property owner and construction company,
instructed the insurance adjuster not to issue the settlement. Amanda told the insurance adjuster that it
was the City of Atascadero's fault the flood happened because the City instructed fabric to be placed
over the drain pipe which caused the pipe to clog. Now I am stuck with no insurance settlement to
repair my home, not knowing who caused this flood to happen. i filled a claim against the City of
Atascadero, which was denied. I have had to borrow money to make the repairs and have lost rents for
over 2 years now.
You have some plans that may or may not work when the project is completed, which is a big issue.
However there appears to be no real plan for during construction, which has been taking years, and now
. ;
they want to build more. Since the original flood event, January 27, 2021,1 have lived in fear that it
would happen again, and sure enough it did on 12-10-22. However this time I was out there monitoring
the drain in the pouring rain, as well as my neighbors. I have included a picture of the drain pipe at
maximum, just before the Eire Department arrived and saved our houses from damage.
I have been living this nightmare for two years and something needs to be done to solve these major
flaws in the project. These flaws need to be addressed and solved beforo'allowing this contractor to
continue.
My neighbors and 1 have had to deal with the continuous noise, dust for we!fover 2 years. Now we have
intrusive block walls, and massive buildings that tower over our yards.:-
The original construction site property used to be below the grade of my pr€�perty, now it's 8 feet above
my property, and I have to look at this massive block wall that was not sealed properly and is now a
stained eyesore (see photos). On top of the block wall are massive two story attached buildings with
high pitched roofs. The photos attached show the massive stained block wall, the open space above the
wall will be blocked out with the massive second story that is to be built there. I also have a picture of
my yard before construction, 5 foot fence looking out to open sky. Now we look at intrusive block wall
and massive buildings.
Another picture shows the drain that was installed by 10850 LLC looking through it from my side, with
an inlet at the top of the developer's 18" outlet pipe discharging to my property. It shows an inlet on the
top, but nowhere in the drainage plans show this. Where is this water coming from? It is not on the plan
and not in the drainage calculations. Other pictures show a drainage canal that was built at the time the
block wail was installed, which drains water from 10850 El Camino behind 900 and 910 La Costa Court
into the 18 inch pipe at the corner of my back yard. The construction site has dug a large trench along EI
Camino Real, which feeds water behind my neighbor's back yards to my property. This diverts water
from the front of the flooded construction site to my property. After the flood on 12-10-22, water has
overflowed onto EI Camino turned the corner at La Costa and funneled into another City drain at the
front of my home at 920 La Costa Court. When i brought this up to Lori Azeen, she told me this was
blocked off and not being used, but as of today it is still there.
Please either deny approval or table it until all the problems with this project can be solved to protect
the neighboring properties. in the meantime we hope the City will control this out of control run-off
situation as we stili have months of potential storm action.
Paula Ramsum
v
s nt r.
M
r:..
1
ti
`
+ .. e s i�s7%;�i. t` +%..r .'� :.'I''• �r:•,.'F,1 *,y'!+`r"�,f :T :'- y'T.r. rr, r
afA �. +• 7n �{ 'J r rjr� .- Sir ' Jl`�r� !4'. r'+i.e lk i t fa '• A f !R r' ra r a f" � I ✓, r..
' . ras't r • n tlt ✓ 3'i �iy er�1'ays+r�� ,�;r 4 K r ,. �;r
u � e +r. { ,, ti t7� +f'• 7i • �r ��y�+ri. j, "h r / ,t r / %fi. -
;'r I i�'•j 7{ � ,� � •n �.,�'i �'" "� t- t� r A.'rr r � ' r �{� 'f� /( i r rtd h'
''* � e` � �'1 r•d�lr re, _ r'�° d?.�.• .. •5''"%r I A7 �, Nr, f � a '� � r �, ''f/{.rr '' + a.{ �� � % r .. �'`�''l,i :,.r••f
i. { t: 74 _a+1, r'r `- � ✓'^r'� .. r ,• I ,8 � r� -� tr. 6t rnJ• �: ' r ,+tr. ';j ��' l' Jr�:
.. y ca A ." .,� f F . i F.� �TiX `,pi/ / : � , ' ,. ! � � � ? °' .r;®, •'!s�, e` f �' ' f..'%! 'rN
, � r�.v+%r,o� �.� s �� Irr'if � L, �p`�`�yr+1r��7y r{ ,u+"+rl fr ��yA��t,,,riri yf _S: J r,r/�rt�i.t! JJ�r� i�A A✓'�� '�A
.,• ,o/'dy"" - )r. / .� r.I r �e£ +Ti' "�s : !i 1/ '' {` r�/Ire% i� %�,! ..`- y ref' f > •. ,�
Al"
-. ,' !, �.s r, r ,.r �l. .,r a° r:. ": .r l 7-'•��,,,g5y pli fr .=,/,r '41 g �Or F rrl, +� �!1 l•j,r j"r f
r , y: ?K" , / . �,��•• l: ri.� I .. ' .,=r';tl�^.7 ' y.y, - f . s ' � lr , � r+,� ra: : 4 +/�j,
` A. � � / �� a. i r� �� rfr i,r, � r AJr r r �,Tr � r i s'• .
+ r
Kms..,
.:IF
f
-OWN
RY HOMES AT
T-- I'
7:39 sell - ®1'
December 10, 2022 Edit ...
3:12 PM
12/10/2022
z
WATER AT TOP OF DRAL'��
BEFORE FIRE DEPT
<, II �
CO iu
W%
TRENCH ALONG EL CAMINO REAL
,w
1�
BEHIND,
Ile