HomeMy WebLinkAboutAUP_02_18_2026_Public Comment Received by Email1
Crystal Horn
From:hankminardo@yahoo.com
Sent:Tuesday, February 17, 2026 5:50 PM
To:AUP Public Comments
Subject:Opposition/Comments to AUP Public Hearing
Zoning Administrator:
I am the owner of commercial property 8850 Santa Rosa Road, immediately adjacent to the Holiday
Inn Express & Suites located at 9010 West Front Road. I submit this letter as my objection to the
proposed authorization permitting hotel stays exceeding 30 days.
The City’s reliance on a Class 1 Categorical Exemption pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15301 is
legally questionable under the circumstances presented. CEQA applies not only to physical
construction, but also to operational changes that alter the intensity, duration, or character of use. The
proposed authorization represents a material operational shift from transient lodging toward extended
or quasi-residential occupancy.
Allowing stays exceeding 30 days foreseeably alters occupancy patterns and increases the likelihood
of:
• Long-term vehicle storage and increased parking demand
• Overflow parking onto adjacent commercial parcels
• Increased solid waste generation and trash accumulation
• Noise impacts associated with longer-term occupancy
• Transient loitering or lingering activity inconsistent with short-term hotel use
• Land use compatibility conflicts with surrounding commercial properties
I am not speaking hypothetically, these concerns are grounded in existing conditions. Holiday Inn's
guests have repeatedly parked oversized trucks, cars and commercial vehicles on my property
without authorization, interfering with business operations. Documented operational conflicts between
the hotel and my commercial property constitute “unusual circumstances” under CEQA Guidelines
§15300.2(c). Under that provision, a categorical exemption may not be used where unusual
circumstances exist and there is a reasonable possibility of significant environmental effect.
The legal threshold is not certainty of impact, but reasonable possibility. Given the operational
realities already occurring, that standard is satisfied.
Further, California Civil Code §3479 defines a nuisance as anything injurious to health, offensive to
the senses, or an obstruction to the free use of property so as to interfere with its comfortable
enjoyment. Increased trash accumulation, noise disturbances, vehicle storage, and recurring
encroachment onto neighboring parcels raise legitimate nuisance and compatibility concerns when
tied to a discretionary land use authorization.
The City has an obligation under its municipal code and general police powers to prevent land uses
from creating adverse secondary effects on surrounding properties. Authorizing extended stays
without enforceable operational safeguards risks shifting foreseeable burdens onto adjacent owners
2
and creating conditions inconsistent with zoning intent and commercial land use compatibility
standards.
I believe the City has studied/researched this particular situation to the degree that it would be able to
answer the following questions:
On CEQA:
1. How does staff determine that allowing 30+ day occupancy does not change the intensity of use
under CEQA Guidelines §15301?
2. Was parking demand analyzed specifically for extended-stay occupancy patterns?
3. Has staff evaluated whether “unusual circumstances” exist due to documented parking conflicts
with adjacent properties?
On Parking & Enforcement:
4. What is the hotel’s approved parking ratio, and does it account for oversized or commercial
vehicles?
5. Will guests staying over 30 days be permitted to store commercial trucks or trailers on-site?
6. What enforcement mechanism will the City implement if parking overflows onto neighboring
parcels?
On Operational Change:
7. Does extended-stay authorization move this use closer to residential occupancy under zoning
definitions?
8. If parking or nuisance impacts increase, what process exists for review or revocation?
I understand that the City is probably not going to reevaluate the applicability of the Class 1
Categorical Exemption nor conduct an environmental review addressing parking, noise, waste
generation, and compatibility impacts as I would suggest. Therefore, I would ask that the City at a
minimum impose strict, enforceable conditions including on-site parking containment, prohibition of
oversized vehicle storage, active property management requirements, waste control measures, and a
clear review or revocation mechanism upon verified impacts as well as requiring the Holiday Inn to
install signage clearly stating "Private Property, No Holiday Inn Parking - Towed at Owners Expense
per CVC 22658" etc. on their property in their planter area that faces my property and another sign on
their property that faces El Camino Building Supply's property.
My hope is that the City's decision does not negatively affect the adjacent property owners.
I would like the record to reflect that I do not oppose business growth and stability in Atascadero but, I
would like the City's help to ensure that operational changes do not shift burdens onto neighboring
property owners.
Respectfully submitted,
Hank Minardo
ATTENTION:
This email originated from outside the City's network. Use caution when opening links and attachments.