HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC_2023_10_10_Public Comment by EmailFrom:Bill Miller <>
Sent:Wednesday, October 4, 2023 2:46 PM
To:City Clerk
Cc:Audrey From SLO Beaver Brigade
Subject:RV Storage Lot in the Salinas River
Greetings:
I respectfully urge your council to reject the proposal to install a recreational vehicle storage facility in the
Salinas River riverbed. Such an installation appears to be in conflict with the stated environmental and
recreational goals of the City of Atascadero, and with California environmental law. The riverbed is home to
many species of native animal and plant life, and it is treasured by local people who enjoy the beauty and
tranquility of the area.
I know from personal experience, as a former environmental crimes investigator, that motor vehicle storage
operations have a predictable deleterious effect on sensitive riparian habitat. The damage is a given, and it
leaves property owners liable for damages and cleanup responsibilities when the various motor vehicle
fluids are deposited. Those harmful fluids include used motor oil, diesel fuel, antifreeze, brake fluid,
gasoline, battery acid, lead, and other harmful substances covered under the provisions of California
Proposition 65. These spills are injurious to plants, animals, and people, and are very expensive to clean
up. Violations can lead to civil and criminal liability under California law, including fines and imprisonment.
Additional factors arguing against the installation include these potential impacts:
● Petroleum leakage and other toxic solvents, into the Salinas River,
● Fire hazard : propane leaks: rodent damage to electrical system: battery fires,
● Inconsistent with General Plan LOC 1.3, LOC 6 and LOC 8
● No Environmental Review: CEQA Categorical Exemption inappropriately granted,
● Disturbance of CA Listed Endangered Species Bald eagle nests within 500 ft of project site
● Re-routes De Anza trail to a corridor along Sycamore Road reducing access for equestrian
users, in spite of Equestrian Facility Designation on General Plan Map II-9
● Public nuisance attractor: theft, vandalism, no on-site staff
Thank you for considering my comments, and thank you for the work you do.
James W. "Bill" Miller
From:larry kaplan <>
Sent:Wednesday, October 4, 2023 5:08 PM
To:City Clerk
Subject:RV storage lot
Greetings.
We are Donna and Larry Kaplan, 26-year residents of Atascadero. We are vehemently opposed to the proposed RV storage lot
on the Salinas River. Please do NOT approve it.
Thank you.
Donna and Larry Kaplan
From:Russell Hodin <>
Sent:Wednesday, October 4, 2023 5:25 PM
To:City Clerk
Subject:Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of 6805 Sycamore Road RV Storage
10/4/2023
San Luis Obispo
re: Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of 6805 Sycamore Road RV Storage
Honorable Mayor and Atascadero City Councilmembers,
In fall of 2021 I had the opportunity to help in the cleanup of about 5 to 7 abandoned homeless encampments within the
floodplain of the Salinas River, actions organized by Atascadero resident Kate Montgomery, which included bagging trash and
later taking trips in my pickup to haul out the bags. For a portion of the work, we walked across the site of the proposed RV
storage project, so I am familiar with the location and the course of the river here.
I feel that in general the zoning of this site and similar sites bordering the Salinas is not in alignment with the city’s stated
commitment to protect the Salinas floodplain environment and its water quality, as well as to provide recreational opportunities
associated with the De Anza Trail. There are many extant industrial sites along the Salinas, whose potential harm to the river
remains unquantified. It is not wise to add another site with potential risks.
Specifically, the project conditions concerning drainage are in opposition to these positive goals and reasonably do little if
anything to protect against groundwater contamination. In fact they seem to guarantee it.
The potential for spills of human waste, chemicals, or motor oil from RVs or servicing vehicles is inadequately accounted for. In
fact, such spills, when they happen – and they will happen – will percolate through the gravel and eventually into the
groundwater. They will be all but impossible to contain given the project conditions, which prioritized groundwater recharge
through gravel over a fully paved area with surface drainage to the river. Neither of these two options are desirable.
In closing, I urge the Council to uphold the appeal of the Planning Commission’s project approval, and to instruct staff to develop
an updated zoning map which minimizes industrial activities adjacent to the river, ideally including the project site, whose
highest and best use may be as a staging area for De Anza Trail use.
Sincerely,
Russell Hodin
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
From:susan ifsusan.com <>
Sent:Wednesday, October 4, 2023 10:30 PM
To:City Clerk
Subject:Appeal of Proposed RV storage lot, hearing 10-10-23
Dear City Council Members,
We request that you uphold the appeal and deny the placement of RV parking storage in close proximity to the
Salians River. We request that you endorse the language and the spirit of the City General Plan Open Space Policies.
The Open Space Policies are a tribute to your recogni on and apprecia on of the natural beauty and value to the
residents of Atascadero of the City’s unique se ng.
Atascadero is situated adjacent to a uniquely beau ful and beneficial waterway. Some highlights from you Open
Space polices: “The waterways in the City shall be maintained in a natural state.” Further the “ …Salinas River shall
be preserved for open space and recrea onal use... le in their natural state for public enjoyment and habitat
purposes.”; Ensure that projects/development along the Salinas River riparian areas “…does not adversely impact
riparian ecosystems and water quality.” The Salians River “shall be preserved for open space and recrea onal
use…le in their natural state for public enjoyment and habitat purposes.” Emphasis added. These are just a
sampling of the language in the Open Space Policies that support the City’s vision for its riparian and open space
areas.
Open Space Policy 4 specifically addresses the conflict of open space preserva on and zoning. By relying on the word
“shall” the policy appears to give an edge to choosing preserva on over zoning in conflicts of the type before
you. Policy 4: “creeks, riparian corridors, wetlands... habitat value shall be protected from destruc on, overuse, and
misuse by the use of zoning,” Emphasis added.
Please consider the irreplaceable value of the natural environment and the weight of your Open Space Policy, and
uphold the appeal, and deny the RV storage project.
Thank you for your considera on of our comments.
Susan Harvey, President
North County Watch
From:Cindy Barr <>
Sent:Thursday, October 5, 2023 11:17 AM
To:City Clerk
Subject:Protect the Salinas River
PLEASE protect the Salinas river and all the animals and plant life it supports! We seem to need our ecological balance more
than ever. Please don't build the proposed RV facility (or anything else) within polluting distance of the river.
Thank you for your consideration,
Cynthia Barr
From:Nancy Johnson <>
Sent:Thursday, October 5, 2023 5:10 PM
To:City Clerk
Cc:
Subject:Public Comment for City Council Hearing October 10th - Item B.2 - Appeal of PC approval of
RV Storage facility
Attachments:City council public comment for October 10, 2023 - Agenda item B2.pdf
City Clerk,
Please confirm receipt. Thank you.
October 5, 2023
TO: Atascadero City Council and Honorable Mayor,
FROM: Nancy Johnson
Agenda Item B.2. Appeal of PC approval of RV storage facility
I am in support of the appeal of this project. I believe in land use and zoning codes, but believe this
project needs more thorough review prior to approval. I respectfully ask that the City Council either
uphold the appeal or remand this project back to Planning Commission for further review. The
following are the items I believe need further consideration:
1. This view of the Salinas River (the area proposed for the RV storage facility) is highly visible
along one of the primary gateways into the city. A RV storage area should not be the first image
visitors or residents see when entering the city. The rest of the industrial or commercial uses are in
the distance, but this will be front-and-center and everyone entering the city will see this inappropriate
use along our watershed on the south side of Highway 41.
2. The facility, if built, is required to have full-site lighting at night - clearly necessary
because this facility will be of interest to all the homeless and bad elements in and about the river, but
that will not meet dark sky compliance and will be a nighttime beacon to all who are driving into town
at night.
3. The AMWC December 2020 staff report states that a portion of the De Anza trail may be
inaccessible due to this project, and I believe that is one of the sections of the trail that is part of original
De Anza trail. This should be further investigated to ensure that the trail created through a SLOCOG
jurisdictional effort and funded with grant funding is not compromised. The commitments made to
obtain the trail funding should also be researched to see if any trail easements or dedications of land
are affected by this project.
4. The AMWC can’t get adequate City police service to cover the current enforcement
responsibilities related to their land along the river (and they have an annual contract where they pay
for additional police service), who will pay for all the police calls to the RV facility?
5. There are existing trails all along that area, which are prescriptive rights that should
be considered.
6. To better inform the public, it seems like signs should be posted along that area to notify
the current users that this is the subject of a pending city decision. I worked the river clean up last
Saturday in that area and saw no signs of any public hearings or notices of
potential development. They might be on the outside of the fence and I’m sure that the city is meeting
the strict criteria of the public noticing requirements, but I think the city or the AMWC might want to go
the extra mile to be sure that their citizens and shareholders are aware of the potential action they are
considering.
7. The city staff report states that this project is exempt from CEQA (Section 15304), and
yet, there are many who disagree. This is a watershed, sensitive habitat area, a regulatory floodway
and view corridor, that criterion invalidates the CEQA Exemption and requires further study.
Finally, the AMWC will not approve the lease until the city approves the project. However, the AMWC
should be more diligent in their process prior to approval of this lease. In December 2020, the AMWC
board authorized staff to negotiate a lease with VS Marine for the proposed RV storage facility. I have
been told that the AMWC board has authority to make decisions related to leasing land without a vote
of the shareholders, however, I did not see anything that supported that in the by-laws. Due to the
timing of the initial board discussion (mid-pandemic), I think they would be wise to have another board
meeting, following notice of this specific item to their shareholders. In the meantime,
shareholders (anyone who owns property that is served by AMWC) should send letters to the board if
they object to the lease or if they object to the fact that the process was not open and public.
From:David Broadwater <>
Sent:Thursday, October 5, 2023 8:41 PM
To:City Clerk
Cc:Heather Moreno; Susan Funk; Charles Bourbeau; Mark Dariz; Heather Newsom
Subject:RV Storage - Condition of Approval Omitted
to:
Atascadero City Council
re: RV Storage CUP on Sycamore Road - Condition of Approval Deleted
date: 10-5-23
The record below demonstrates that the Planning Commission added a Condition of Approval for this CUP on 7-18-23, yet it has been
omitted from the 27 Conditions of Approval included in the Staff Report for the Oct. 10 City Council hearing on appeals of this CUP
approval. The Condition added by the Commission was a requirement that a "nesting bird and special status species survey" be
conducted by "a qualified biologist" and "permits from the Dept of Fish and Wildlife" must be obtained.
There is no such requirement included in the Conditions of Approval listed in Attachment 6A, EXHIBIT A: Conditions of Approval
on page 178 of the Oct. 10 Staff Report.
This is unacceptable and must be rectified by including this requirement in the Conditions of Approval, or this CUP must be denied.
Additionally, as you will note, there is a difference of language in terms of the time frame for conducting and completing this survey
between the 7-18-23 and 10-10-23 Staff Reports. One states it must be conducted "within 3 month [sic] of construction
commencement", while the other states it must be completed "prior to development of storage yard".
Obviously, in order to obtain any baseline analysis of conditions relative to wildlife in proximity to the proposed project, such a survey
must be conducted and completed before any disturbance to the area due to preparation and construction on the site occurs. Any
such survey done during or after that disturbance would be invalid and illegitimate. Thus, this Condition of Approval must adopt the
latter language requiring the survey to be completed and permitted prior to any activity related to site preparation.
If there are any justifications for the deletion of this Condition, they and it must be subject to City Council deliberation, which has not
yet occurred. Conditions of Approval cannot be summarily omitted or dismissed without that deliberation. It may go without saying
that Conditions of Approval are legally binding on the applicant(s), whereas claims in Staff Reports aren't. Plus, the ambiguity
introduced by the differing language of the two Staff Reports cited demonstrates that serious difficulty exists in terms of enforcement
of this Condition.
The City Council must either amend the Conditions of Approval to include this survey as herein asserted (i.e. prior to any RV storage
preparatory activities) or deny this CUP. And it must conduct its deliberations on this matter during the Oct. 10 hearing before the
public assembled to participate in this decision.
Finally, the Condition mentioned in the 7-18-23 Staff Report states that the "applicant shall hire a qualified biologist" to conduct this
survey. Leaving this selection up to the applicant may entail actual or perceived conflicts of interest. While the applicant should
certainly pay for this service, it would be preferable for the City to proffer proposals from a wide selection of professionals in this field
and make the selection independently of the applicants.
David Broadwater
Atascadero
http://records.atascadero.org/WebLink/ElectronicFile.aspx?docid=120669&dbid=0
CITY OF ATASCADERO PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING Tuesday, September 5, 2023
…
DRAFT MINUTES Regular Meeting – Tuesday, July 18, 2023
…
3. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR 6805 SYCAMORE ROAD (CONTINUED FROM 6-20-23)
...
DISCLOSURE OF EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS: [pages 3]
…
Planner Gleason stated that the City received public comment stating that there was a Bald Eagle’s nest close to the proposed site.
After consulting with the City Attorney (who is available during this meeting) the City is adding a condition as follows:
• The applicant shall hire a qualified biologist to provide a nesting bird survey and survey for special status species within 3 month of
construction commencement. This survey shall include a survey for Eagle nests within 1 mile of the project site. The applicant shall
follow all recommendations of the qualified biologist and shall obtain all permits from the Dept of Fish and Wildlife as necessary.
http://records.atascadero.org/WebLink/ElectronicFile.aspx?docid=121001&dbid=0
CITY OF ATASCADERO
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
Tuesday, October 10, 2023
...
B. PUBLIC HEARINGS
...
2. Appeal of Conditional Use Permit for RV Storage Facility
...
Atascadero City Council
Staff Report - Community Development Department [page 85]
Appeal of Conditional Use Permit for RV Storage Facility
6805 Sycamore Road
...
REPORT-IN-BRIEF: [page 85-86]
...
On July 18, 2023, the Commission reheard the project. Following substantial public comment, the commission voted 4-3 to approve
the use permit, adding a condition to provide a nesting bird and special status species survey prior to development of storage yard.
...
...
ATTACHMENT: 6 [page 174]
DRAFT RESOLUTION A
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO, CALIFORNIA, AFFIRMING THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S APPROVAL
OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ESTABLISH AN RV STORAGE FACILITY LOCATED AT 6805 SYCAMORE ROAD
SYCAMORE RV STORAGE
(USE 21-0107)
...
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Atascadero:
...
SECTION 2. Public Hearing. The City Council of the City of Atascadero, in a regular hearing assembled on October 10, 2023, resolved to
affirm the Planning Commission’s action to approve a conditional use permit for an outdoor RV storage yard subject to conditions of
approval and mitigation monitoring as show in Exhibits A through D, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.
...
Attachment 6A [page 178]
EXHIBIT A: Conditions of Approval
USE21-0107
From:Nancy Reinstein <>
Sent:Thursday, October 5, 2023 9:34 PM
To:City Clerk
Subject:RV Parking Lot Plan: 6 acres/262 RVs in the Floodway Zone of the Salinas River at 6805
Sycamore Rd
I object to the plan at 6805 Sycamore Rd. There are potential impacts:
Petroleum leakage and other toxic solvents, into the Salinas River.
Fire hazard: propane leaks: rodent damage to electrical system; battery fires.
Inconsistent with General Plan LOC 1.3, LOC 6 and LOC 8.
No Environmental Review: CEQA Categorical Exception inappropriately granted.
Disturbance of CA Listed Endangered Species Bald Eagle nests within 500 ft of project site
Re-routes De Anza trail to a corridor along Sycamore Road reducing access for equestrian users, in spite of Equestrian Facility
Designation on General Plan Map 11-9.
Public nuisance attractor: theft, vandalism, no on-site staff.
Thank you very much.
Sincerely,
Nancy Reinstein PhD, RD
Atascadero
I have lived in Atascadero for the past 17 years
From:Eric Greening
Sent:Friday, October 6, 2023 11:08 AM
To:City Clerk
Subject:Eric Greening comments on Item B-2 for the October 10th council meeting
Hello!
I am in support of both appeals and in opposition to the proposed RV storage project. The suitability of the site for projects of
this type, and the broader suitability of the general vicinity for its current zoning, will soon be open for rethinking during the
update of our General Plan, with a public event scheduled as soon as the 14th, and it makes no sense to presuppose the
outcome of that process when issues relative to flood hazard and other constraints related to proximity to the Salinas River
should be getting a fresh look during the entire process.
In any event, the required health and safety findings for the RV storage project cannot be made without a more thorough
analysis of pollution factors (runoff and/or percolation) from the proposed use. Some of the recent literature on such pollution
includes:
From Elsevier, Environmental Challenges: "Car Park Pollutant Yields from First Flush Stormwater Runoff."
From Elsevier, Journal of Environmental Management: "First Flush Stormwater Pollution in Urban Catchments: a Review of its
Characterization and Quantification toward Optimization of Control Measures."
From MDPI Water: "Rainfall Intensity and Duration in First Flush from Parking Lots."
RV's, if they contain toilets, harbor far more pollutants than do most parked vehicles, although the contents of those toilets do
not enter normal storm flows. They could, however, be mobilized in the sort of flood event that would follow a break of Salinas
Dam.
Before considering this project or any project on this site, we need evidence that it is NOT in danger from such a dam
break. Existing analyses performed in connection with the decades-old EIR on a proposed project to raise the lake level 19 feet,
underestimated the area subject to inundation both at the dam's present height and at the height proposed in a project that is
getting a new wave of interest as the Paso Robles Groundwater Basin goes through the process mandated by the Sustainable
Groundwater Management Act. Two factors in that underestimation:
1. A maximum lake capacity of 101% at spillage was used for the worst case scenario. In recent years, including this year, the
lake reached 109% of capacity and credible circumstances might bring it higher yet.
2. The downstream dam that has largely escaped public scrutiny could, if it was blown out by a flood from a rupture upstream of
it, could add 5000 acre/feet not accounted for in the drawing of previous inundation maps.
Given these uncertainties, it is unknown whether a rupture at the present dam height would inundate the site of this project
proposal, and it is absolutely certain that a rupture at the raised height would do so. There is also the problem that, even were
the site itself to escape inundation, if those whose RV's were stored there were to seek to recover their property during the hour
between a rupture and the arrival of the floodwaters, they could dangerously congest the roads needed by people evacuating
from the lethal inundation of homes and businesses.
Until these issues are properly sorted out, it is impossible to find the proposed project consistent with public health and safety,
and it must be denied and the appeals upheld.
Many thanks, Eric Greening
From:Patrice Wichmann
Sent:Friday, October 6, 2023 11:23 AM
To:City Clerk
Subject:Salinas River RV Plan
Atascadero City Council,
As an Atascadero and SLO Co resident, I am writing in strong opposition to a plan to house/allow 262 RVs to park on 6 acres of
the Salinas River Floodplain. Please help us reverse the Planning Commissions's approval of this idea! There are so many
reasons why this location is wrong, affecting nature's ecosystem and long-standing non-threatening recreational activities Like
walking and horseback riding. Are there not other, better places for RV parking than our natural riverbed??!! I do not
understand.
Sincerely,
Patrice Wiichmann
From:Ann Colby
Sent:Friday, October 6, 2023 4:15 PM
To:City Clerk
Subject:Item #B-2, October 10, 2023, Appeal of Conditional Use Permit for RV Storage Facility
Attachments:AtascRVappeal.docx
Ann Colby
To: City Clerk, @ Atascadero.org
From: Ann Colby
Re: Item # B-2, October 10, 2023, Appeal of Condi onal Use Permit for RV Storage
Facility
1)I am wri ng to register my objec on to this project, and support the two appeals filed
opposing it. I find it ironic that the staff report in favor of approval states in their “Conclusions,
pg. 89” that “this site is suited for this land use due to its isolated loca on, level topography,
adequate separa on from the habitat area associated with the river….the graded, leveled and
filled site is void of natural features, trees or habitat areas.” All of that is true, as a direct
result of the distressingly flawed underlying zoning which followed old, ill-informed policies of
pushing the least desirable uses to the edges of the community, which in our case, also
happened to be the edges of the river - which s ll has the poten al to be our greatest scenic
asset. Now we know be er, and we all have a duty to open our eyes and try to mi gate the
damage done by old policies when city plannners and council members “didn’t know what they
didn’t know.”
Instead, the Staff Report argues for perpetua ng the mistakes of the past by permi ng this
proposed industrial usage, when there is already a General Plan Update in the works which
seems to clearly recognize that Industrial Zoning along a river is inappropriate and non-
sustainable. Even the current General Plan says “creeks, riparian corridors, wetlands…habitat
value shall be protected from destruc on, overuse and misuse by the use of zoning.” Please
re-think the urge to just do the easiest thing. Please think crea vely about how you can
par cipate in helping abate, mi gate and repair the damage that old-school thinking has
done to our community. First, do no further harm!
2)The planned loca on along Sycamore for a pedestrian/equestrian trail is far less safe than
the exis ng trail for families with young and impulsive kids and cau ous bike riders, but
par cularly for equestrians. On the old trail, broad space (INSIDE the fencing) allows a rider
perched aboard a 1,000 lb. prey animal plenty of room to escape sideways from the maw of an
approaching train if they happen to be in the vicinity when a train rumbles by, o en blaring
their horn in “fun” while the engineer waves! (Yes, currently there seem to be only 2 daily
trains, recently there was also a regular freight train seemingly miles long. The schedules are
not reliable, the trains are o en an hour or two “late”, and they some mes reverse north and
southbound order! So, NO, you can’t just plan your ride around the train schedule.) I
(regre ably) predict that there will be accidents along the new “corridor” trail which allows no
escape; a panicked horse can be pinned against dense landscaping and a 6 foot tall chain link
fence on their preferred outside turn to get away from perceived danger, meaning they would
instead have to reverse toward the pavement and oncoming traffic, or trample anyone on the
trail behind them…or bolt ahead at top speed and possibly fall when their shoes slip on the
pavement, which isn’t safe for anyone.
On the current trail, I have room to help my horse through what, for a horse, can be a truly
frightening encounter. I can also wait in a safe se ng for a friend who lives along Sycamore, to
come meet up with me for a ride, pause to look for the bald eagles, or chat with other trail
users. Very different from moving quickly along in a straight line to get from Point A to Point B.
There is a big difference between including a trail in a developer’s plan and truly
“suppor ng…trail systems throughout the community…” Straight line trail corridors along busy
truck-trafficked roads do not cons tute “improved linkages”…or…”expanded trails.” This is a
step backwards, with increased liability for the city and risk for the users.
3)I brought up the following at the most recent recent Planning Commission mee ng, and
received verbal reassurance from both staff and Planning Commission members that there
definitely would be easy access for equestrians and pedestrians to get from the northern
project boundary, around the “filtra on basin” to be built, and up onto the exis ng path at
the top of the berm running along the river side of the proposed RV parking site, all while
remaining outside of the new chain link fencing, in order to con nue along the. top of the berm
(marked on the plans as “Poten al loca on of the con nua on of DeAnza trail. Refer to Figure
(illegible) in the General Plan”) We have con nuously ridden/hiked up there for decades and it
is a vital connec on for ingress/egress to the river, as un-navigable “fill” prevents access along
the riverbed along much of this project and the rest of AMWC property. It is also some mes
the only available “emergency exit” for a long distance to get up and out of the riverbed when
faced with a sudden deluge of (completely unpoliced) groups of off road vehicles roaring down
the riverbed, which can terrorize the horses!
I have since been informed that public comments at these mee ngs are not part of the Public
Record, and thus, for prac cal purposes, the above discusssion “didn’t happen.” So, once
again, and FOR THE RECORD, if you vote to approve this project, please be sure it includes
clear language that ensures that the public can and will have safe and clearly visible access to
the trail atop the length of the berm, to permit and encourage safe, connec ve recrea onal
use. The plans don’t make this clear, and there are no stakes on the property to inform
anyone where the project fencing would begin in rela on to where the berm disappears into
rip-rap. Please inves gate and get clarifying language added to the record before you vote.
Thank you for your a en on!
From:David Broadwater
Sent:Friday, October 6, 2023 5:25 PM
To:City Clerk
Cc:Heather Moreno; Susan Funk; Charles Bourbeau; Mark Dariz; Heather Newsom
Subject:RV Storage / Findings for Denial Omitted
to:
Atascadero City Council
re: RV Storage / Findings for Denial Omitted
date: 10-6-23
In the Staff Report (Agenda Packet) for Agenda Item B-2 on your Oct. 10 agenda, you are presented with seven findings for approval of
the RV Storage CUP, and only one finding for its denial, as documented below. Draft Resolution A lists all seven findings that must be
declared as true for its approval. Draft Resolution B lists one for its denial. This, despite the fact that the Council has seven options
among the required findings to either approve or deny the CUP. Yet, the Staff Report offers you only one for its denial.
Four of those findings for approval are challenged in the supplement to my appeal filed on 9-8-23 beginning on page 5 rendering them
invalid and unfounded, i.e., that it’s “consistent with the General Plan”, it won’t be “detrimental to the general public”, isn’t
“inconsistent with the character” of the area, and because the property is zoned "Industrial Park” other factors in the Land Use, Open
Space and Conservation Element of the General Plan can be overridden, e.g., requiring that certain areas be protected from " misuse
by the use of zoning“.
Regardless of the fact that you're presented with only one option among the seven required findings for denial of this CUP, you have
seven from which to choose to make your decision. I encourage you to examine, at least, the four findings which are the focus of the
supplement to my appeal. The findings omitted from the Staff Report are worthy of your consideration.
This is not to downgrade the significance of the finding listed in Resolution B for the denial of the CUP. It has validity equivalent to the
other three cited in my supplement.
Thank you,
David Broadwater
Atascadero
http://records.atascadero.org/WebLink/ElectronicFile.aspx?docid=121001&dbid=0
CITY OF ATASCADERO
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
Tuesday, October 10, 2023
...
B. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
...
2. Appeal of Conditional Use Permit for RV Storage Facility
...
Atascadero City Council [page 85]
Staff Report - Community Development Department
Appeal of Conditional Use Permit for RV Storage Facility
6805 Sycamore Road
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Council:
1. Adopt Draft Resolution A, affirming the Planning Commission’s approval of a conditional use permit to establish an RV storage
facility at 6805 Sycamore Road, subject to findings and conditions of approval.
OR
2. Adopt Draft Resolution B, reversing the Planning Commission’s action and denying a conditional use permit to establish an RV
storage facility at 6805 Sycamore Road, subject to findings.
...
ATTACHMENT 6 [page 174]
DRAFT RESOLUTION A
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO, CALIFORNIA, AFFIRMING THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S APPROVAL
OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ESTABLISH AN RV STORAGE FACILITY LOCATED AT 6805 SYCAMORE ROAD
SYCAMORE RV STORAGE (USE 21-0107)
...
SECTION 3. Facts and Findings. [page 175]
...
ATTACHMENT 7 [page 185]
DRAFT RESOLUTION B
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO, CALIFORNIA, REVERSING THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S ACTION
AND DENYING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ESTABLISH AN RV STORAGE FACILITY LOCATED AT 6805 SYCAMORE ROAD SYCAMORE
RV STORAGE (USE 21-0107)
...
[page 186]
SECTION 3. Facts and Findings. The City Council makes the following findings, determinations, and approvals with respect to the
Conditional Use Permit:
1. Finding for Reversing the Planning Commission’s Action and Denying a Conditional Use Permit for RV Storage at 6805 Sycamore
Road:
A. FINDING: The proposed project or use is inconsistent with the character of the immediate neighborhood or contrary to its orderly
development.
FACT: The proposed project is on a property that is adjacent to the Salinas River open space and adjacent to an industrial park that
hosts a variety of businesses, commerce, and activities. Storage of Recreational Vehicles is contrary to the orderly development of an
Industrial Zoned property, while potentially contributing to aesthetic impacts.
From:Cindy Findley
Sent:Sunday, October 8, 2023 8:00 PM
To:City Clerk
Subject:RV Storage at 6805 Sycamore Road
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
As a home owner and resident of Atascadero, I am vehemently against the proposed RV Storage project at 6805
Sycamore Road. This type of business is not conducive to what we want the City of Atascadero to become. There is
NOTHING positive about this project for this reasons:
1. RVs drip toxic waste.
2. RV storage facilities accumulate a lot of trash.
3. RV storage facilities attract bad actors who steal and vandalize.
4. RV storage facilities are used for washing and repairing of RVs.
5. RV storage facilities become "for sale" lots.
6. RV storage facilities eventually accept boats and other vehicles for storage.
7. Eventually, people live in the RVs.
8. Good security would require nighttime lights.
9. This project creates zero jobs.
10. This project produces minimal sales tax revenue.
11. This project is not attractive or conducive to the area.
12. This project disrupts natural habitats.
13. This project creates additional flood concerns.
I also live in Arizona, where RVs are very popular, so my comments are not out of left field. I have personally
experienced what happens when an RV storage lot goes in. It's only a matter of time before the place looks trashy
and people start to live in the RVs. As a matter of fact, most RV storage lots are being torn down. The owners
discover that the passive income opportunity is really one fraught with hassles and the money made is insignificant
compared to the trash, burglaries, and vandalism that occurs.
An RV storage lot is not what Atascadero needs. There is absolutely no value to the city, community, or
environment. The nominal amount of tax revenue will not offset the community outcry, environmanental risks, or
disruption to the natural habitat.
Thanks, Cindy Findley
Atascadero, CA 93422
From:Teresa Robinson
Sent:Sunday, October 8, 2023 10:11 PM
To:City Clerk
Subject:Agenda Ítem Number B-2: RV storage at 6805 Sycamore Road
Dear City Council Members,
We are writing to express our disappointment in your lack of effort to protect our Salinas Riverbed.
There are a great number of Atascadero residents who enjoy the outdoors and support our local
wildlife. However, we feel our voices in the community are not being heard.
So we would like to pose a question: Is the City going to continue to party in the Sunken Gardens,
whilst the wlldlife that calls the riverbed home become nonexistent.?!
Following are a few related suggestions that we hope that City will take under careful
consideration. Each point demonstrates actions the City could take to protect our Salinas Riverbed
and the habitat it provides for 81 identified species of animal life.
1. The City Council should STOP the proposed RV parking at 6805 Sycamore Road.
RVs parked on a floodplain, leaching oil and antifreeze, gray water and black water (sewage) into
our drinking water, is an abhorrent idea. Additionally, the RV parking lot would negatively impact
the wildlife corridor along the Salinas River, inhibiting the movement of animal life and encroaching
upon their habitat. Please take the recommendations of the SLO Beaver Brigade under
consideration. Their recommendations for the riverbed area are based on scientific research and
are clearly demonstrated on their website slobeaverbrigade.com
2. The City Council should ENFORCE Vehicle Code 38319 as posted at the entrance to the riverbed
in several locations.
The v.c. 38319 states “No person shall operate, nor shall an owner permit, the operation of an off–
highway motor vehicle, in a manner likely to cause malicious or unnecessary damage to the land,
wildlife, wildlife habitat or vegetative resources.”
However, every weekend off-road vehicles continue to drive through the Beaver Ponds located in
the Salinas Riverbed. (The closest coordinate would be directly at the end of Tampico.) This is in
direct violation of the vehicle code. The City/Police Department owns its own off-road vehicle… a
bright, shiny yellow one, purchased with taxpayer money. Yet the City has chosen to use it for
parades. We have only seen it being used for enforcement in the riverbed on one single occasion.
We would like to see the City/Police Department use our off-road vehicle to protect the riverbed
from destruction by citing the individuals violating v.c. 38319.
3. The City Council should REMOVE homeless encampments from our Salinas Riverbed.
Encampments destroy habitat, polluting it with human feces, drugs/needles, and trash. Riverbed
encampments also present a clear fire danger, as the occupants use propane tanks and other fire
sources to “cook” drugs and their meals. A single stray spark could wreak irreparable damage to
the riverbed. And, also endanger the communities that live nearby, as in the recent Garbada Fire.
The encampments also present a threat to the safety of persons utilizing the Juan Bautista De Anza
National Historic Trail. For example, the current encampment on the City’s property, not far from
the treatment plant, has posted shooting targets of a human silhouette, to secure their boundaries!
Unsafe… Unacceptable! Move them out!
It is time for the city to turn its attention to protecting our Salinas Riverbed and the wildlife that call it
home. This amazing natural resource deserves our safekeeping. The City Council, along with the
City Planning Commission, are our first line of defense. It’s time to make better decisions and
enforce codes that will safeguard the Salinas Riverbed for generations to come.
Sincerely,
Teresa Robinson MA Ed
John Robinson, RN
From:Olivia Montiano
Sent:Tuesday, October 10, 2023 11:05 AM
To:City Clerk
Subject:Grand Oaks Paseo Survey Findings
Attachments:Survey Findings_Community Building vs. Dog Park.JPG; Survey Findings_Community Needs.jpg;
Survey Findings_Additional Responses pt. 1.JPG; Survey Findings_Additional Responses pt. 2.JPG
Hello City of Atascadero team,
Here are some data for tonight's City Council meeting for Agenda Item B-1 (Appeal of Grand Oaks Paseo Common Area
Amendment).
Attached are survey findings the HOA board collected last month to assess community needs of the Grand Oaks Paseo residents.
Thank you for your attention.
Best regards,
Olivia Montiano, Grand Oaks Paseo HOA Board Member
From:
Sent:Tuesday, October 10, 2023 11:31 AM
To:City Clerk
Subject:Comments - RV Storage Facility Conditional Use Permit for 6805 Sycamore Road
I request that the Mayor and Council Members reverse the Planning Commission’s action and deny a conditional
use permit to establish an RV storage facility at 6805 Sycamore Road.
This project, without doubt, will negatively impact the sensitive environment of the Salinas River and should not
have received approval. CEQA review should be required.
The Salinas River has been an overlooked treasure and resource for this community along with all the other
communities along it's route to the Pacific Ocean. The day has finally arrived, fortunately education about this
important resource has created an awareness that has rarely been recognized before. It's not too late to do the
right thing and work towards protecting this valuable resource and environment for the benefit of all.
Respectively,
Tamara Kleemann
From:Carol De Lisle
Sent:Tuesday, October 10, 2023 11:43 AM
To:City Clerk
Subject:Agenda Item B2
Re: Agenda Item B2: Appeal of Conditional Use Permit for RV Storage Facility
To: Atascadero City Council Members
I have owned a home in Atascadero for 26 years and am respectfully requesting that the
Atascadero City Council reverse the Planning Commission’s approval of the proposed RV Storage
Facility at 6805 Sycamore, along the Salinas River.
It is a terrible location for many reasons including the potential for serious environmental damage
from toxic chemicals, the negative impact to an endangered species (bald eagle), its potential as
a fire hazard in a sensitive location, and it would cause the re-routing of part of the De Anza trail,
making it less accessible to equestrians.
In addition, it is not consistant with the General Plan. And, even more importantly, there was no
environmental impact report performed because it was given an exemption, which I feel it should
not have been.
I also feel that for the facility itself, there may be great difficulty in getting and/or maintaining
necessary insurance because of its nearness to the Salinas River and the possible (more likely
probable) danger of flooding.
I believe that carefully review of this project will demonstrate that this location is simply unsuitable
and that the City Council should reverse the Planning Commission’s approval.
Thank you,
Carol R. De Lisle
Atascadero
Sent from my iPhone
From:Derek Cohen
Sent:Tuesday, October 10, 2023 12:08 PM
To:City Clerk
Subject:RV Storage Lot on Sycamore
To Whom It May Concern,
Agenda Item number B-2
Date: 10/10/23
Pg 85
‘Appeal of Conditional Use Permit for RV Storage Facility 6809 Sycamore Rd’
I have been reading this proposed plan to build an RV storage lot in the beautiful green space along the floodway zone on the
banks of the Salinas off of Sycamore.
I have spent a lot of time running and biking along the Anza trail. Have loved watching the swallows, bald eagles, blue herons,
and even families of beavers make their homes and grow up right there. This drew me to volunteer with various organized
groups to spend hours of hard labor lugging literal tons of trash out of the Salinas River and Atascadero Creek. Work that feels
futile if an out of place storage lot full of vehicles is there and another flood occurs, washing away chemicals, parts, and trash
from such a facility into the river and then the ocean. And it will flood again, its a when not an if.
These are fragile wetlands, a rarity in dry central California. By not developing on this land and leaving it as an ecologically in-tact
natural habitat, it not only preserves precious biodiversity for the entire area, but this type of riverside environment has the
unique ability to resist the devastating effects of droughts, floods, and even fires.
I should mention I am not a natural scientist. All one needs to do is visit and see this kind of habitat with a biologist for a few
minutes to understand this and get the full picture. I think the planning commission and city council would be more aware of this
if there was simply an environmental impact study done, which has yet to occur. I believe by some magic an exemption made for
this which is incredibly ironic and inappropriate considering its in an undeveloped natural area touching a source of water.
I dont know how this was approved, it clearly violates the city's "General Plan" in numerous ways. Perhaps there is a tight knit
relationship between the for-profit Mutual Water company, the construction company, and the planning commission, board of
supervisors, and local governement. It definitely smells of a money-driven backroom deal. I have no proof of that but as a public
official the strong appearance and perception of corruption should worry you and that is what every resident perceives when
they hear about this project. We need to have trust in our local government.
I also might add its an ugly detrimental eye-sore and magnet for petty crime like theft and trespassing (no plans for having any
on site staffing). It's also a terrible location with no route to get there that is friendly to huge vehicles. They can't even fit under
the RR bridge on Capistrano right nearby so they'd have to use Cubaril and go through a quiet neighborhood where children bike
and play, miles from any highway. It's no good for the families on those roads or the storage lot customers.
This needs to be reconsidered. It only stands to hurt our community with no benefits economically or otherwise for local
residents. It's a threat to our local environment, it's a threat to the quality of life of the thousands of people who live nearby and
treasure this irreplaceable unique space.
I do not know how there could be a worse location for the unwanted and unneeded project, if there truly was a need for this
parking lot storage there are loads of other options much better for residents and customers.
In summary: You are tasked in this position to work for the common good of our city and community. This proposition is quite
the opposite. Do the right thing. I will be there at tonight's meeting.
Thank you very much for your time.
Derek Cohen
Atascadero Resident
From:Laura Afana
Sent:Tuesday, October 10, 2023 1:50 PM
To:City Clerk
Subject:Agenda Item B-2 Appeal of Conditional Use Permit for RV Storage Facility 5805 Sycamore Rd
Dear City Council members,
As an individual and as a member of Atascadero Horsemen's Club, I want to let my opinion be known that I am opposed to the
RV Storage Facility that is being planned at 6805 Sycamore Road, Atascadero.
I agree with the Agenda Item B, "Appeal of Conditional Use Permit for RV Storage Facility6805 Sycamore Road.
I do not feel this location is in the best interest for the community. The equestrian community would be impacted negatively with
blocking the De Anza Trail, which is a historic trail, making trail riding along the river more dangerous. This would as well, allow
pollutants to steep into the groundwater and river. I believe this plan is not consistent with the current General Plan and the goals
of its updated version due in early 2024. This would also impact hikers that use the Anza Trail. I don't want to see further
degrades of the health of the Salinas River Ecosystem.
Please hear voices against this Permit in this location along the river and act in our favor.
Thank you very much,
Laura Afana, homeowner in Atascadero and Atascadero Horsemen's Club President
From:Jennifer Foss
Sent:Tuesday, October 10, 2023 2:39 PM
To:City Clerk
Subject:Opposition of the RV Storage king in Salinas river watershed
Hello Men and woman of Atascadero City Council,
My Name is Jennifer Foss I am the owner and operator of Behind the Barn Consignment -Tack & Supply- here in Atascadero on
Traffic Way.
I want to first state that I am supportive of small businesses, new businesses and business growth when appropriate. I want to
share my experience living and owning a business next to a un-occupied storage yard. I opened up my store November of 2021.
3 months later I was broken in in the back part of my store. I did all the things, cameras, police reports, keeping my area clean
and most of all safe. Weekly the only RV storage yard was getting broken into, homeless breaking in and sleeping in RV’s, theft
of items and supplies and damage. In short for a long time we not only had a homeless problem here in this residential/
commercial area but a break in problem, I was not the only business. Since the RV storage on traffic way now houses a
construction company and a tow company all those issues have seemly went away.
As for the location, I feel its in a horrible location and is a high risk area for vandals and homeless. I also want to voice my
concern that it is on a floodplain and it being located on/ near a main trail for bike riders, dog walkers, and the horse
community. I worry about pollutions as the river is located right behind it. Over the years the River bed has become unsafe at
times due to the homeless population and many dangers that comes with it. Please for not only the safety of our community but
our lands please reconsider this location.
Jenn Foss -Owner
Atascadero, CA 93422
Sent from Mail for Windows
From:Paul Rose
Sent:Tuesday, October 10, 2023 4:58 PM
To:City Clerk
Subject:Trailer storage
Friends:
I would like to express my extreme dissatisfaction with the consideration of placing a RV storage area at one of the main
entrances to our beautiful town. During the expansion of what is the current highway 41 there was significant emphasis placed
upon the aesthetics of the portion of the highway between the river and town. Now it seems like that work is being
compromised by the concept of placing a storage yard in the river basin itself. Use of areas along major waterways is something
that we as a nation have left to larger cities that could not get rid of them. There are many environmental and planning reasons
to close any consideration of this proposal, but it still remains. Highway 41 has been considered a candidate for becoming a
scenic byway for years. Atascadero has been considered a tree city, a city of parks, and has constantly tried to encourage
development that would create tourism. This proposal would do just the opposite, it would create a scourge on the eastern
entrance, and allow,or even encourage tourists to leave their worst for us to look at and maintain. If you want to encourage
tourism, create a park or camping area. The only campers that will be making use of this proposal would be the ones that are
already using the river as their home. In my opinion this would be the absolute worst legacy that any council member could put
on their record.
I am sorry that I will not be able to be at the meeting due to a recent surgery, but ask that you consider thinking twice or three
times before allowing this proposal to proceed.
Thankyou
--
Paul Rose