HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda 062612 CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA
Tuesday, June 26, 2012
6:00 P.M.
City Hall
Council Chambers
6907 El Camino Real, Atascadero, California
REGULAR SESSION — CALL TO ORDER: 6:00 P.M.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Council Member Fonzi
ROLL CALL: Mayor Kelley
Mayor Pro Tem O'Malley
Council Member Clay
Council Member Fonzi
Council Member Sturtevant
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Roll Call
A. CONSENT CALENDAR: None.
UPDATES FROM THE CIT`( MANAGER: (The City Manager will give an oral report on
any current issues of concern to the City Council.)
COMMUNITY FORUM: {This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons wanting to
address the Council on any matter not on this agenda and over which the Council has
jurisdiction. Speakers are limited to three minutes. Please state your name for the
record before making your presentation. Comments made during Community Forum
will not be a subject of discussion. A maximum of 30 minutes will be allowed for
Community Forum, unless changed by the Council. Any members of the public who
have questions or need information, may contact the City Clerk's Office, between the
hours of 8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. a#470-3400, or mtorgersonSa7atascadero.orq.)
B. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
1. Del Rio Road Commercial Area Specific Plan - PLN 2007-1245 (Walmart)
& PLN 2007-1246 (The Annex) - applicants:EDA Inc. / Omni Design
Group owners: Walmart Inc. / The Rottman Group I Montecito Bank &
Trust
Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) Amendment 2012 Update of the Five-
Year CIP - PLN 2007-1183
■ Ex Parte Communications:
■ Fiscal impact: The fiscal impact analysis determined the project at build
out (Walmart and Annex) will have a net positive annual revenue of
$529,637 to the City of Atascadero. The City's proportional share of the
interchange mitigation costs is $2,111,901.00, which will be funded out of
the City's Traffic Impact Fee (TIF) account.
1. Adopt Resolution "A", certifying Proposed Final Environmental Impact
Report SCH No. 2010051034 for the Del Rio Road Commercial Area
Specific Plan, including Findings of Fact, Statement of Overriding
Considerations and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program,
and;
2. Adopt Resolution "B", approving General Plan Land Use Diagram
Amendment (GPA 2007-0020 and GPA 2007-0021) based on findings;
and,
3. Introduce Ordinance "A", for first reading by title only, amending the
zoning code text to add Specific Plan Zone 2 (ZCH 2007-0141 and
ZCH 2007-0142) based on findings; and,
4. Introduce Ordinance °B", for first reading by title only, approving zoning
map amendment (ZCH 2007-0141 and ZCH 2007-0142), including a
zoning overlay of the project site to "SP-2" (Specific Pian Zone 2)
based on findings; and,
5. Introduce Ordinance "C", for first reading by title only, adopting the Del
Rio Road Commercial Area Specific Plan and Appendix documents
[Specific Plan Zone 2 (SP 2009-0003)] as a table in the municipal
code, based on findings; and,
6. Adopt Resolution "C", adopting Specific Plan Master Plan of
Development (SP 2009-0003) for the Del Rio Commercial Area, based
on findings and subject to Conditions of Approval; and,
7. Adopt Resolution "D", approving the Walmart Tree Removal Permit
TRP 2009-0128, based on findings and subject to Conditions of
Approval; and,
8. Adopt Resolution "E", approving the Annex Tree Removal Permit TRP
2009-0127, based on findings and subject to Conditions of Approval;
and,
9. Adopt Resolution "F", approving the Walmart Vesting Tentative Parcel
Map AT 09-0073 (TPM 2009-0095; Walmart) based on findings,
subject to Conditions of Approval; and,
This resolution includes a staff recommendation to include an
amended condition of approval regarding the Mission Oak traffic
circulation improvements; and,
10.Adopt Resolution "G", approving the Annex Vesting Tentative Parcel
Map AT 07-0059 {TPM 2011-0098; The Annex) based on findings and
subject to Conditions of Approval; and,
11.Adopt Resolution "H", amending the Five-Year Capital Improvement
Plan consistent with the General Plan, based on findings; and,
12.City Council allocate funds and direct staff to begin the permitting and
design process for the expansion of the Del Rio Road / US 101
interchange; and direct staff to draft a formal agreement between
City and the tenants at the Mission Oaks shopping center to meet
regularly through any form of communication necessary to
discuss timing and phasing of road construction issues to ensure
adequate access is provided to the Mission Oaks shopping center
during construction of improvements at the Del Rio Road and EI
Camino Real intersection and US 101 interchange.
C. MANAGEMENT REPORTS: None.
COUNCIL ANNOUNCEMENTS AND REPORTS: (On their own initiative, Council
Members may make a brief announcement or a brief report on their own activities.
Council Members may ask a question for clarification, make a referral to staff or take
action to have staff place a matter of business on a future agenda. The Council may
take action on items listed on the Agenda.)
D. COMMITTEE REPORTS: (The following represent standing committees.
Informative status reports will be given, as felt necessary):
Mayor Kelley
1. Atascadero State Hospital Advisory Committee
2. City of Atascadero Design Review Committee
3. City of Atascadero Finance Committee
4. County Mayors Round Table
5. Economic Vitality Corporation, Board of Directors (EVC)
6. Homeless Services Oversight Council
7. Oversight Board for the Successor Agency to the Community Redevelopment
Agency of Atascadero
Mayor Pro Tem O'Malley
1. City / Schools Committee
2. Integrated Waste Management Authority (IWMA)
3. League of California Cities — CITIPAC Board Member
4. SLO Council of Governments (SLOCOG)
5. SLO Regional Transit Authority (SLORTA)
Council Member Fonzi
1 . Air Pollution Control District
2. City of Atascadero Design Review Committee
3. City of Atascadero Finance Committee
4. SLO Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) - alternate
Council Member Sturtevant
1. City / Schools Committee
2. Community Action Partnership of SLO County
3. League of California Cities — Council Liaison
E. INDIVIDUAL DETERMINATION AND/ OR ACTION:
1. City Council
2. City Clerk
3. City Treasurer
4. City Attorney
5. City Manager
F. ADJOURNMENT
Please note: Should anyone challenge any proposed development entitlement listed on this Agenda in court, that
person may be limited to raising those issues addressed at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written
correspondence delivered to the City Council at or prior to this public hearing. Correspondence submitted at this
public hearing will be distributed to the Council and available for review in the City Clerk's office.
I, Victoria Randall, Deputy City Clerk of the City of Atascadero, declare under the penalty of perjury that
the foregoing agenda for the June 26, 2012 Regular Session of the Atascadero City Council was posted
on June 19, 2012, at the Atascadero City Nall, 6907 El Camino Real, Atascadero, CA 93422 and was
available for public review in the Customer Service Center at that location.
Signed this 19th day of June, 2012, at Atascadero, California.
Victoria Randall, Deputy City Clerk
City of Atascadero
I
City of Atascadero
WELCOME TO THE ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
The City Council meets in regular session on the second and fourth Tuesday of each month at 6:00 p.m. unless there is a
Community Redevelopment Agency meeting commencing at 6:00 p.m. in which event the Council meeting will commence
immediately following the conclusion of the Community Redevelopment Agency meeting. Council meetings will be held at
the City Hall Council Chambers, 6907 EI Camino Real, Atascadero. Matters are considered by the Council in the order of
the printed Agenda. Regular Council meetings are televised live, audio recorded and videotaped for future playback.
Charter Communication customers may view the meetings on Charter Cable Channel 20 or via the City's website at
www.atascadero.org. Meetings are also broadcast on radio station KPRL AM 1230. Contact the City Clerk for more
information (470-3400).
Copies of the staff reports or other documentation relating to each item of business referred to on the Agenda are on file
in the office of the City Clerk and are available for public inspection during City Hall business hours at the Front Counter of
City Hall, 6907 EI Camino Real, Atascadero, and on our website, www.atascadero.org. An agenda packet is also
available for public review at the Atascadero Library, 6850 Morro Road. Contracts, Resolutions and Ordinances will be
allocated a number once they are approved by the City Council. The minutes of this meeting will reflect these numbers.
All documents submitted by the public during Council meetings that are either read into the record or referred to in their
statement will be noted in the minutes and available for review in the City Clerk's office.
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in a City meeting
or other services offered by this City, please contact the City Manager's Office or the City Clerk's Office, both at (805)
470-3400. Notification at least 48 hours prior to the meeting or time when services are needed will assist the City staff in
assuring that reasonable arrangements can be made to provide accessibility to the meeting or service.
TO SPEAK ON SUBJECTS NOT LISTED ON THE AGENDA
Under Agenda item, "COMMUNITY FORUM", the Mayor will call for anyone from the audience having business with the
Council to approach the lectern and be recognized.
1. ; Give your name for the record (not required)
2. ''State the nature of your business.
3. All comments are limited to 3 minutes.
4. All comments should be made to the Mayor and Council.
5. No person shall be permitted to make slanderous, profane or negative personal remarks concerning any other
individual, absent or present
This is the time items not on the Agenda may be brought to the Council's attention. A maximum of 30 minutes will be
allowed for Community Forum (unless changed by the Council). If you wish to use a computer presentation to support
your comments, you must notify the City Clerk's office at least 24 hours prior to the meeting. Digital presentations must
be brought to the meeting on a USB drive or CD. You are required to submit to the City Clerk a printed copy of your
presentation for the record. Please check in with the City Clerk before the meeting begins to announce your presence
and turn in the printed copy.
TO SPEAK ON AGENDA ITEMS (from Title 2, Chapter 1 of the Atascadero Municipal Code)
Members of the audience may speak on any item on the agenda. The Mayor will identify the subject, staff will give their
report, and the Council will ask questions of staff. The Mayor will announce when the public comment period is open and
will request anyone interested to address the Council regarding the matter being considered to step up to the lectern. If
you wish to speak for, against or comment in any way:
1. You must approach the lectern and be recognized by the Mayor
2. Give your name(not required)
3. Make your statement
4. All comments should be made to the Mayor and Council
5. No person shall be permitted to make slanderous, profane or negative personal remarks concerning any other
individual, absent or present
6. All comments limited to 3 minutes
The Mayor will announce when the public comment period is closed, and thereafter, no further public comments will be
heard by the Council.
Cl* ty o AtascadY'
Office ®f the City Clerk
TO: City Council COPIES (via email):
Wade McKinney, Joe Modica, Brian
Pierik, Department Heads, City Hall
Reception, Atascadero Library
FROM: Marcia McClure Torgerson, C.M.C.
City Clerk/Assistant to the City Manager
SUBJECT: Additional Information Provided to City Council after Agenda
Packet Distribution
DATE: June 26, 2012
Attached is additional information (revised attachment to staff report) that was
provided after the City Council Agenda Packets were distributed. This information
pertains to:
Agenda Item Number: B-1 (Del Rio Road Commercial Area Specific Plan)
Description: Attachment 23 — Comments submitted to City Council
1. 6125/12 — Ms. Frame email
2. 6/26112 — Doris Hurd email
3. 6/26/12 — Penny Hoffman email
4. 6/26/12 — John Farhar email
5. 6126/12 — M.J. Basti letter
6. 6/26/12 — Chuck Hoffman email
City Council Meeting Date: June 26, 2011
Marcia Torgerson
From: Marcia Torgerson
Sent: Monday, June 25, 2092 3:29 PM
To: City Council
Cc: Wade Mckinney
Subject: FW: Comments from resident re Wal Mart to forward to council
FYI
Marcia McClure Torgerson,C.M.C. I Assistant to the City Manager/City Clerk
6907 El Camino Real, Atascadero, CA 93422 1805-470-3400 ( FAX-805470-3455
www.atascadero.or
From: Lisa Cava _ .._..m. ....,� a,�..�__ ,,...�v_..._........_.�..._._...�.w..�...
Sent: Monday,June 25, 2012 1:46 PM
To: Marcia Torgerson
Subject: Comments from resident re Wal Mart to forward to council
Ms. Frame who lives near the police station in Atascadero, and wants her comments to be
made known to the council - she is elderly, doesn't get around very well anymore therefore
she can't attend the meeting, and doesn't have access to email:
She is "so against bringing Wal Mart to town, if we do we're making a big mistake,
Atascadero will suffer and we will put people out of jobs. Wal Mart has a horrible
reputation and bad record regarding how they treat their employees. Also - they don't do
what they promise, they're just in it for themselves.
The possibility of Atascadero approving a WalMart is scaring other small business owners
away for locating here. Atascadero can't support a Wal. Mart and the little guys too. We'll
put our small business who have always been the heart and soul of Atascadero out of
business. We don't need 2 Wal Mart's so close together, people can drive to Paso.
Keep Atascadero small."
.Plot&wa—adm&tf ftaUue C63Lstant—Depw#eit# 'C&eA-ei(V Atatwgvi'a Offke—e##o f Q.taocadew—6907
U ewniw Jq"d-CataUscadv a-ea-93422 -50-47U-340V
1
Marcia Torgerson
From: Doris Hurd <dorishurd@charter.net>
Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2012 12:24 PM
To: Marcia Torgerson
Subject: Walmart/Annex Project
Dear City Council Members,
Please approve this important Walmart/Annex Project. I along with the other 70% of Atascadero`s
voters are looking forward the opening of Walmart.
Sincerely,
Doris Hurd
Atascadero Resident
1
Marcia Torgerson
4i
From: Goose.penny <goose.pen ny@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2012 1:31 PM
To: Marcia Torgerson
Subject: Walmart Atascadero
Why, is there a consistent push, by the so called " Powers that Be " to totally annihilate the centers of
small towns by swamping local businesses with large unnecessary corporations. In this case,
Walmart, which we have ABSOLUTELY NO need for and that will cost the council and residents of
Atascadero huge amounts of money!!!!!!!
PLEASE, please vote against this proposal.
Yours most sincerely, Penny Hoffman.
Sent from my iPad
i
Marcia Tod ec�rson
From: John Farhar<johnfarhar@yahoo.com>
Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2012 1:45 PM
To: Bob Kelley; Tom O'Malley; Jerry Clay; Roberta Fonzi; Brian Sturtevant
Cc: Marcia Torgerson
Subject: Walmart/Annex Project
Dear Councilmembers;
I am very concerned about the proposed Walmart/Annex project. Just to be clear, because"new businesses" don't create
new markets—they must take business away from existing markets, pure and simple. Which of your friends currently in
focal business would you choose to not only lose their business but probably their homes and those of their family
members and employees? Do you really think they'll be happy to trade their businesses for a minimum wage job at
Walmart? Would you? The irony is that the proposal would probably require taking a percentage of business from the
existing Walmart a few miles up Hwy 101. What if an even bigger corporation came to town (let's call them X-Mart) and
wanted all the same considerations and more, would you be glad to out even more deals to maybe put Walmart out of
business? What if X-Mart promised even more jobs and revenue but it would require closing all businesses in town to
support them? Still sound like a good idea? I personally prefer a small town feel with locally owned businesses versus an
impersonal corporation coming in to mine the wealth from our community. There's a point where the trying to get sales tax
dollars aren't worth it and this is it.
A proper assessment of the project would include a more objective Market Absorption Analysis detailing how much actual
business is available and how much would have to be taken from other businesses in Atascadero and surrounding
communities. Responsible decision making would mandate full disclosure of these impacts and limit the project to a size
suitable for the location and limited market available. The studies should be revised to include such an analysis. Failure
to disclose the true impacts of the proposed project is a violation of the California Environmental Quality Act and provides
a great disservice to the community. The dismissive responses to comments in the Final EIR do not stand up to careful
scrutiny and also do not satisfy CEQA.
The proposal to force fit this project into an area already planned for a more suitable scale of development is inconsistent
with the policies of the General Plan intended to maintain the character of the community. The disregard for the existing
plan is offensive to those who worked long and hard to develop it as well as the surrounding property owners who
invested with an understanding of what was planned (and not planned).
The proposed improvement waiver (Capital Improvement Plan Amendment) to saddle Atascadero taxpayers with millions
of dollars in infrastructure improvements is a corruption of the development review process. This action to subsidize the
project is irresponsible and illogical leaving the City a financial deficit that will require further deferral of much needed road
maintenance and sewer plant upgrade to say nothing of the millions needed to complete other recent commitments.
Please take this opportunity to show your desire to protect the community we have from the many ill-effects of this type of
regressive economic development and vote against the Del Rio Road Commercial Area Specific Plan as well as the
Capital Improvement Plan Amendment. Alternatively, the project should be conditioned to limit the square footage to a
much smaller size that would not negatively impact existing businesses. Thank you.
1
26 June 2012
Dear Atascadero City Council,
As a resident of SLO County for 38 years and a resident of the City of
Atascadero for the last 20 years, I strongly urge you NOT to invest the
cities reserves on another capital project. Specifically I am urging you NOT
to support subsidizing the Wal-Mart component or the Annex component or
the Capital Improvement Plan Amendment to redirect city monies to
reprioritize the Del Ilio Road/US 101 and San Anselmo Rd/US 101
interchanges,
grew up in Stockton, California, then a city of 50,000 and a thriving
agricultural and industrial community. Today the city is facing bankruptcy
primarily related to the city council continuing investments in capital
projects intended to spur the failing economy. In fact, the rice and
asparagus fields, cherry and peach orchards are now paved over with
Costco, Wal-Mart's, Lowes, Kohl's, and one of every nationwide franchise.
Even with good intentions to help local businesses the city is no longer able
to pay its creditors. Yes, the pensions and recurring salaries of city staff,
fire and police are a factor in Stockton as well.
Neither is the City of Atascadero so wealthy that it can rebuild a historical
city hall building (apparently a priority), fund road repairs, local schools,
provide fire and police protection and maintain utilities while continuing to
invest in a card Blanche fashion city monies in new retail and residential
construction. The Carlton and Galaxy Theaters are examples of city
investments in businesses that have not proved to be a good return on
investment in this economy. The number of vacant retail and housing real
estate is staggering.
If Wal-Mart or any other corporate conglomerate want to build in
Atascadero, then let them pay the city the proper building fees, pay for the
necessary road improvements, and pay for the extra police protection
necessary to support their business. That is the cost of doing business.
say pay for extra police protection because Wal-Mart is known for allowing
people to camp overnight at its stores. No other park or business in the City
of Atascadero is allowed this option and yet forcing residents to pay for
Wal-Mart translates to forcing residents to be subject to more problems
inherent in un-supervised overnight camping by locals or visitors. Check
with the Paso police department on the number of calls per day to Wal-Mart
in Paso.
And nothing has changed about how this corporate (Wal-Mart) does
business. According to recent news in Mexico, Wal-Mart falsified records
and paid bribes to local authorities to build their new stores. Wal-Mart then
offered appliances to local residents on credit with monthly payments and
fine print indicating interest in excess of 35% if purchases were not paid in
a given time frame. Wal-Mart then foreclosed on several properties for
failure to pay for appliances. The end result more homeless and
impoverished community members. The communities in Mexico did not
benefit as anticipated. The people of Mexico did not benefit, the economy
in Mexico did not benefit. Only Wal-Mart Corporation benefitted.
If a corporate bank or retail organization wants to gamble their investment
in this economy, let them, but please DO NOT gamble with our hard earn
money.
Thank you for thinking twice about endorsing this ill-fated recommendation
from our city planning commission.
Sincerely,
MJ Basti
11020 Santa Ana Rd.
Atascadero, California 93422
Marcia Torgerson
�NIwiANNNNIry11101NA1111rIMA NNI11111111f11fi11YY•hl
From: Chuck<Chuck@HnSAg.com>
Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2012 3:10 PM
To: Marcia Torgerson
Subject: NO WALMART
Importance: High
Vote No on current plan for a new WALMART.
The reasons to approve the current WALMART plan are much too weak to warrant taking such a big Economic risk going
forward. I would feel more comfortable in Las Vegas planning roulette.
1> The taxpayers of Atascadero cannot be expected subsidize a private development. Even if it was decided that it
should be subsidized, the full costs are still not locked done.
2> There is not really enough upside benefit to the community to warrant the downside potential costs. Risk is much
greater than the probable benefits.
3> Will the city really increase annual sales tax revenues by $2 to $300,000. Will this be new revenues or simply
subtracted from some other local businesses.
4> The city council cannot be so desperate for increased revenues that, they will put so much at risk. The taxpayer
cannot allow such recklessness.
We don't need a WALMART in any case. WALMART will take customers' from other local businesses, take there profits
out of town and the end result WILL BE a poorer community with much more traffic and congestion.
PLEASE DO NOT SUPPORT THE WALMART PLAN
I see too many potential flaws
Chuck Hoffman
7570 Balboa
Atascadero, CA 93422
Tel: 805-466-2356
Cell: 559-684-2766
E-mail: chuck@HnSAg.com
•
City o Atascad
Office ®f the City Clerk
TO: City Council COPIES (via email):
Wade McKinney, Joe Modica, Brian
Pierik, Department Heads, City Hall
Reception, Atascadero Library
FROM: Marcia McClure Torgerson, C.M.C. �,jjq`7
City Clerk/Assistant to the City Manager
SUBJECT: Additional Information Provided to City Council after Agenda
Packet Distribution
DATE: June 25, 2012
Attached is additional information (revised attachment to staff report) that was
provided after the City Council Agenda Packets were distributed. This information
pertains to:
Agenda Item Number: B-1 (Del Rio Road Commercial Area Specific Plan)
Description: Attachment 22 — Comments submitted to City Council
1. 6/11/12 - Julie Clark letter
2. 6/19/12 — Regina Crippen email
3. 6120/12 — David Broadwater letter
4. 6/22/12 — Mark Wolfe Letter
5. 6123/12 — Len Colamarino email
6. 6/23/12 — John Daly email
7. 6/24/12 — John Goers email
8. 6/25/12 — Hardy Nielsen letter
City Council Meeting Date: June 26, 2011
Attachment 22: Comment letters submitted for the 6/26112 City Council meeting 3
The following letters were submitted to the City of Atascadero prior to the City Council hearing on June
26, 2012. Although the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA) does not require written responses
for comments received after the close of the E1R's public comment period, the City has taken an
additional measure to provide the following written responses to the comments as time permitted:
Comment Author Response Provided:
1. 6/11/12 - Julie Clark letter Attached
I
2. 6/19/12—Regina Crippen email Attached
3. 6/20/12 -David Broadwater letter Attached
4. 6/22/12—Mark Wolfe letter Attached
5. 6/23/12 —Len Col.amarino email Attached
6. 6/23/12—John Daly email Comments noted —no response
7. 6/24/12—John Goers email , Attached
t
8. 6/25/12—Hardy Nelsen letter Attached
Julie Clark
8795 San Gabriel Rd
Atascadero,CA 93422 ,EC ��Eb
805/466-7749
JUN 15 z02
June 11,2012 PLN 9000-L444
RE: Del Rio Road Commercial Area Specific Plan COMM11N1'1'Y DEVELOPMENT PM
Atascadero City Council
6907 El Camino Real
Atascadero, CA 93422
Members of the Atascadero City Council:
I attended the Atascadero Planning Commission Meeting of June 5,2012,and read the following
statement to the Commission during the Public Hearing of the Del Rio Road Commercial Area
Specific Plan:
"I object to the revision of the Capitol Improvement Plan to benefit this project. The
Santa Barbara Road interchange is dangerous and has been the site of many accidents. It
is an immediate safety concern and should be immediately improved. The Santa Rosa
Road interchange is insufficient to support existing usage by existing businesses and
school traffic.
Do not revise the Capitol Improvement Plan and allocate resources to this project to the
detriment of needed improvement to die dangerous Santa Barbara Road interchange and
the excessively used Santa Rosa Road interchanges.
The Environmental Impact Report does not adequately address the impact to the
community due to delaying improvements to Santa Barbara Road.and Santa Rosa Road
interchanges. I urge the Commission to reject staff'recommendations I and 12."
Council Members, the improvements to the Santa Barbara Road and the Santa Rosa Road
interchanges are needed now. The improvements to the Del Rio and San Anselmo interchanges
are wanted now. It is imperative that the City address its"needed"list before its"wanted"list.
This would be true in any budget year, but is especially true when.funds are limited.
1111,+:: 1" ctildvc:fous mid Inti 171011 HIC ti!!C oi -;;;;i1% .
I am not sure the City can legally,borrow money from our wastewater treatment development
fund to complete the improvements to the Del Rio Road and San Anselmo Road interchanges.
But,if it can borrow the money for the improvements to the Del Rio Road and San Anselmo
Road interchanges,then the borrowed money would better serve the people of Atascadero by
improving the dangerous Santa Barbara Road and the over-capacity use of the Santa Rosa Road
uiterchauges. Do not allow the existing dangerous.conditions at Santa Barbara Road to remain
unimproved in order to benefit new development at Del-Rio Road.
Respectfully submitted,
ulie Clark
CC: Atascadero Planning Commission
Jklichacl i3im Ycin;an A,,,go6;ji:cs
0o
I•ri�n<,
Date: June 25, 2012 i5l 497.[131G
Irvin.-
To:
rvin:;To: Warren Frace,Community Development Director,City of Atascadero -14. oAA1(10
From: Jason Brandman and Grant Gruber,Michael Brandman Associates -�,_,8A47
Subject: Del Rio Road Commercial Area Specific Plan - Clark Comments
".in Bcrnnrdu.,r
Michael Brandman Associates(MBA)prepared this memo to address comments x,!;. •;."�:>
submitted by Julie Clark to the City of Atascadero on June 15,2022 concerning the Dei
Rio Road Commercial Area Specific Plan.
Summary of Comments:Ms.Clark reiterated her oral testimony from the June 5
Planning Commission meeting in which she objected to revising the Capital
Improvement Program to prioritize improvements at the US 101/Del Rio Road
interchange. She stated that the US 101/Santa Barbara Road interchange is
dangerous and the site of many accidents. Ms.Clark also stated that the US 101/
Santa Rosa Road interchange is insufficient to support existing business and school
traffic. She stated that the Del Rio Road Commercial Area Specific Pian Environmental
Impact Report(EIR)does not adequately address the impact at these two locations
that would result from delaying the improvement.
Response:The California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA) requires that environmental
documents evaluate the physical impact on the environment that would result from
implementation of a project. The proposed project requires improvements to the US
101/Del Rio Road interchange and,thus,the EIR evaluates the environmental
impacts of those changes. The proposed project does not contemplate any changes to
the US 101/Santa Barbara Road or US 101/Santa Rosa Road interchanges and,
thus,there is no basis for the EIR to evaluate changes at those locations. Moreover,
because both interchanges are located 5 miles to the south of the project site,the
proposed project would not have any significant effects on operations or safety at
either location. Thus, both interchanges are outside of the scope of the EIR's analysis.
Regarding Ms.Clark's claims that the EIR should have evaluated the impact of
delaying improvements at those locations,CEQA Guidelines Section 15125 establishes
that the"baseline"for evaluating environmental impacts are the physical conditions
that exist at the time of Notice of Preparation (NOP) issuance. Thus,the baseline for
evaluating changes to the environment is what actually exists on the ground;not a
hypothetical condition of what might occur in the future without the project.
Additionally,attempting to predict what improvements might be installed in the
absence of the proposed project is inherently speculative and,thus,not appropriate
pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15145.
Finally,as noted on page 3.11-26 of the Partially Recirculated Draft EIR,the US 101/
Santa Barbara Road interchange improvements rank third on the list of priorities,while
. V11ROVltri:N'TAi.5N,I2\'rGE r1lANNI f_NG■''PIA IA 1.Rl::souftci?tiMANAGHeil!',W
www brtncknan.com
Warren Frace
June 25,2012
Page 2
the US 101/Santa Rosa Road interchange improvements rank seventh (last). For
comparison purposes,the US 101/Del Rio Road interchange improvements rank
fourth,just behind Santa Barbara and ahead of Santa Rosa. Thus, reprioritizing the
Del Rio Road interchange improvements to rank first would only affect the Santa
Barbara Road interchange;it would not alter the Santa Rosa Road Interchange
ranking. Regardless,the reprioritizing reflects the nexus between the proposed project
and the need for the US 101/Del Rio Road interchange improvements. Likewise,by
not reprioritizing improvements,significant traffic impacts at the US 101/Del Rio
Road interchange may go unmitigated,which is contrary to CEQA principles.
Marcia Torgerson
From: Marcia Torgerson
Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2012 4:49 PM
To: 'regina crippen'; heather@atascaderonews.com
Subject: RE: Walmart and the EIR
Ms. Crippen,
The EIR for the project included the entire project as proposed by the applicant, which includes the
housing. The traffic impact of the housing has been analyzed. The project actually reduces the
amount of land zoned for residential. Overall, the project results in a reduction in the total number of
allowable housing units in Atascadero.
Please let me know if you have any additional questions.
Marcia McClure Torgerson, C.M.C. I Assistant to the City Manager/City Clerk
6907 El Camino Real, Atascadero, CA 93422 1 805-470-3400 [ FAX-805-470-3455
www.atascadero.or
From: regina crippen jmailto:rc1954(&1ive.com1
Sent: Tuesday, .lune 19, 2012 2:30 PM
To: Marcia Torgerson; heather(o)atascaderonews.com
Subject: Walmart and the EIR
I'm for having a Walmart in Atascadero, but I'm not sure I like the idea of building more housing in the area, Has
anybody performed a separate EIR on the impact this extra
housing will cause Atascadero? There's many homes in the area that have not been sold. I don't think the Walmart
decision and the over development of Atascadero should be place in the same basket. These should be separate,
distinctive issues. Why is the planning commission tying these two entities together?
Regina Crippen, Atascadero, CA
1
Marcia Torgersort
From: David Broadwater<csi@thegrid.net>
Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2012 11:30 PM
To: Tom O'Malley; Bob Kelley; Jerry Clay; Roberta Fonzi; Brian Sturtevant
Cc: City Council; Marcia Torgerson
Subject: Atas CC 6-26-12 -Wal-Mart/Annex Comments for Record
Attachments: W-M-Annex CC Cmmts FEIR 6-26-12.pdf
Atascadero City Council;
Please find attached to this email my comments on 6-26-12 City Council Agenda Item B-1 (Wal-
Mart/Annex).
Please avail yourselves of this information prior to your 6-26-12 public hearing and deliberations
on this matter, and consider the burdens potentially placed on our town's
businesses, homeowners, ratepayers and residents.
Because this is a 14-page document, I include the outline below to its contents to ease information
absorption.
Focus — Transportation - DR/101 Interchange
WRONG (WAL-MART-ONLY) REQUIREMENTS APPLIED to PROJECT (WAL-
MART/ANNEX)
Cost Estimate of Del-Rio Road /US 101 Interchange Improvements Obsolete, Unrealistic and
Unreliable (page 3)
Cost Overrun Provisions Inadequate, Unjustified & Unproportional (page 4)
Restricted Funds used to Compensate for Revenue Shortfall (page S)
Annex Blocked Until Reconstruction of DR/101 Interchange (page 6)
Increased Citywide Fees to Compensate for Revenue Loss (page 6)
Increased Fees on Other Projects in the Vicinity (page 7)
Shutdown of DR/101. Interchange After Wal-Mart Opening (page 7)
Lowering the Priority of Other Road Improvements (page 8)
Mitigation Cost Burden Shift(page 8)
Mitigation Construction Burden Shift (page 11)
Mitigation Completion Timing Shift (page 12)
References: (page 13)
David Broadwater
i
to: Atascadero City Council
(via email - acknowledgement of receipt requested)
re: Wal-Mart/ Annex Project DEIR, PRDEIR & FEIR (Del Rio Road
Commercial Area Specific Plan)
• Focus — Transportation - DR/101 Interchange
date. 6-26-12
City Council;
These comments are based on an extensive examination of transportation-
related DEIR, PRDEIR and FEIR documents and Staff Reports, participation in a 5-9-
12 meeting with the Community Development and Public Works Directors, City/Cal-
Trans communications, and publicly available reports.
These comments focus on the mechanics and ramifications of the shifts in Del
Rio Road / US 101 (DR/101) interchange improvement cost and responsibility
burdens from the applicants to the City's businesses, homeowners and ratepayers.
They also contain recommendations for accomplishing Specific Plan objectives
without subjecting the City's resources and residents to unnecessary, unknown and
possibly huge risks.
These comments are submitted to be included in the record of the 6-26-12 City
Council meeting.
Del-Rio Road / US 101 (DR/101) Interchange Improvements
WRONG (WAL-MART-ONLY) REQUIREMENTS
APPLIED to PROJECT (WAL-MART/ANNEX)
City Staff is strongly recommending approval of the Wal-Mart/Annex project, and
emphatically against approval of the Wal-Mart-Only alternative. Therefore, Wal-
Mart/Annex project mitigations, conditions and considerations should be applied to
an approval of the Wal-Mart/Annex project.
Yet, the Council is advised not to do so, and to apply Wal-Mart-Only
requirements to the proposed Wal-Mart/Annex project. This is tantamount to trying
to shove a square peg into a round hole.
The potential financial and infrastructural risks and consequences of trying to
shove Wal-Mart-Only requirements into a Wal-Mart/Annex project are widespread
and significant. They deserve the Council's serious consideration.
The primary descriptions and distinctions are outlined below.
Wai-Mart/Annex Project DEIR)
EIR analyzing the Wal-Mart/Annex project (DEIR) requires the applicants to:
• Fund 100% of the cost of improving the interchange up front (subject to
reimbursement for costs in excess of their fair share),
1of14
• Construct the necessary improvements and obtain permits from Cal-Trans
to do so,
• Complete them prior to opening for business,
• Complete them simultaneously with the Del Rio Road / El Camino Real
intersection improvements.
Wal-Mart-Only alternative (PRDEIR)
EIR analyzing the Wal-Mart-Only alternative (PRDEIR) requires:
• Wal-Mart to pay $1.3 million maximum for DR/101 costs,
• The Annex to pay $1.1 million maximum for DR/101 costs,
The City to:
• Pay 53% of DR/101 improvement total costs,
• Construct the necessary improvements and obtain Cal-Trans permits,
• Allow Wal-Mart to open prior to DR/101 reconstruction completion.
• Block any Annex store opening until after DR/101 reconstruction,
• Abandon simultaneous reconstruction of DR/101 interchange and DR/ECR
intersection.
Insufficient rationale exists to justify applying Wal-Mart-Only alternative
mitigations, conditions and considerations to the recommended Wal-Mart/Annex
project. Sufficient evidence supports applying Wal-Mart/Annex requirements to
that recommended project, and that, failing to do so could expose the City to
significant and long-term risks.
Please see expanded analyses under the heading `Mitigation Cost, Construction
and Timing Shifts" below.
Recommendations
The City Council should approve applying Wal-Mart/Annex requirements to the
recommended Wal-Mart/Annex project, as specified below.
1. All project property owners / applicants (Wal-Mart, Rottman Group and
Montecito Bank & Trust) will fund 100% of Del Rio Road / US 101 interchange
improvements up front, subject to reimbursement for costs above their
proportional share as funds become available.
2. Applicants will fund 100% of DR/101 reconstruction cost overruns, subject to
reimbursement as described.
3. Applicants will be responsible to construct DR/101 improvements, and obtain
Cal-Trans permits.
4. Completion of DR/101 improvements will occur prior to opening of any Wal-
Mart/Annex business.
5. Completion of DR/101 interchange and DR/ECR intersection improvements
will occur simultaneously.
2of14
WEAK FOUNDATION / CITY-WIDE RISKS & CONSEQUENCES
WEAK FOUNDATION
The recommendation to approve the Wal-Mart/Annex project with Wal-Mart-Only
mitigations, conditions and considerations is based on a faulty foundation.
• Cost Estimate of Del-Rio Road / US 101 Interchange Improvements
Obsolete, Unrealistic and Unreliable
The DEIR, PRDEIR and the City have repeatedly asserted that the Del Rio Road /
US 101 interchange improvements will cost an estimated $4.5 million. This is not
supported by facts.
This cost estimate is derived from a five-year old (2007) study by W-Trans in
which roundabouts were estimated at $4.5 million and bridge widening was
estimated at $8 to $11 million (see Master Response To Comments, page 2-17).
These estimates are obsolete.
The City asserts that Cal-Trans supports roundabouts at the Del Rio Road / US
101 interchange citing two comment letters submitted by Cal-Trans on 3-18-11 and
4-30-12 (see Response to Written Comments, page 3-307). Examination of those
comments demonstrates this assertion to be false. In fact, Cal-Trans wrote the City
as long ago as 2-15-11 that "although the roundabouts are on the table, there is no
guarantee yet, implied or otherwise, that this is THE solution... Caltrans has yet to
really look at the details..." (see Response to Written Comments, page 3-297). The
City's assertion that Cal-Trans supports roundabouts is unrealistic and unfounded.
The DEIR, PRDEIR and the City have consistently neglected to analyze
mitigations for the Del Rio Road / US 101 interchange other than roundabouts. The
City attempts to justify its refusal to analyze alternative mitigations (e.g., bridge
widening) by stating that mitigations are not "project characteristics... nor project
objectives", i.e., that mitigation alternative analysis is not required by, and is
inconsistent with, CEQA (see Master Response To Comments, page 2-18). Applying
this "logic" consistently would eliminate any analysis of roundabouts as a mitigation
measure, which, obviously, has not occurred. This renders estimations of the
potential costs of improving the Del Rio Road / US 101 interchange completely
unreliable.
Additional uncertainty as to costs of this mitigation has been introduced by the
City's refusal to initiate discussions/negotiations with Cal-Trans regarding what
design of the Del Rio Road / US 101 interchange Cal-Trans may ultimately approve.
Since 3-2-11, the City has refused to submit a Project Initiation Form to Cal-Trans,
as requested (see Response to Written Comments, page 3-297). The City's
justification for its refusal to do so is irrelevant compared to the physical
consequences and financial obligations which may ensue for residents, the business
community and taxpayers: an unspecified deposit and commitment to build the
improvements (which the City is already proposing to assume) (see Response to
Written Comments, page 3-307).
The analysis by the DEIR and PRDEIR and actions of the City have resulted in
ignorance among decision-makers and the public as to the financial consequences
3of14
of mitigating the Del Rio Road / US 101 interchange and the funding arrangements
being proposed.
To date, the DEIR, PRDEIR and City have failed to ensure that decision-makers
and the public possess all the necessary information required to make informed
decisions as to the costs and consequences of implementing mitigations to the Del
Rio Road / US 101 interchange.
Recommendations
The City Council should take the following actions:
1. Obtain a current and accurate estimation of the cost of improving the Del Rio
Road / US 101 interchange.
2. Initiate an analysis of the feasibility and expense of all alternative mitigations
to the Del Rio Road / US 101 interchange.
3. Submit a Project Initiation Form to Cal-Trans beginning discussions regarding
potential mitigations for the Del Rio Road / US 101 interchange.
4. Refer the project back to Staff to acquire a current and credible cost
estimation of all Del Rio Road / US 101 interchange mitigation alternatives.
• Cost Overrun Provisions Inadequate, Unjustified & Unproportional
The PRDEIR and City propose limiting the Wal-Mart contribution for Del Rio Road
/ US 101 interchange mitigation to $1.3 million (28.7% of $4.5 million). Given the
fact that the $4.5 million estimate is obsolete, unrealistic and unreliable, and may
be as much as, or more than, $11 million, the $1.3 million contribution is
unsubstantiated and inadequate.
City Staff's proposed provision that the Wal-Mart obligation to pay for any cost
overruns on Del Rio Road / US 101 interchange improvements be limited to
$200,000 is inadequate and unjustified. City Staff reports that "Walmart has
agreed to contribute an addition [sic] $200,000 to cover potential cost overruns...
[to] cover Walmart's share of a $696,864 cost overrun." (see Planning Commission
Staff Report, page 66), and is recommending adopting this as a Condition of
Approval (see Planning Commission Staff Report, page 212, 20. b).
Given the fact that the ultimate cost of Del Rio Road / US 101 interchange
improvements may equal or exceed $11 million (2.4 times and $9.7 million more
than $4.5 million), a less than $700,000 contribution is not commensurate with
Wal-Mart's potential financial impact.
This proposed provision and the equation presented in footnote #8 on page 66
of the Planning Commission Staff Report represent a backwards computation from
Wal-Mart's reported agreement, not a computation based on potential and real cost
overruns. The correct computation would apply Wal-Mart's proportional share
(28.7%) to the actual and eventual total cost of the Del Rio Road / US 101
interchange improvements.
Recommendations
The City Council should:
1. Reject application of dollar amount limits on Wal-Mart's, and any applicant's,
4of14
obligations for mitigations based on reported cost estimates for Del Rio Road /
US 101 interchange improvements.
2. Apply all applicants' proportional share percentages (not dollar amounts) to
actual and eventual cost of the Del Rio Road / US 101 interchange
improvements.
3. Modify Project Conditions to implement the above project mitigations and
conditions of approval for the Del Rio Road / US 101 interchange, or refer the
project back to Staff to acquire more information regarding the above
mitigations and conditions of approval.
CI'T'Y-WIDE RISKS & CONSEQUENCES
• Restricted Funds used to Compensate for Revenue Shortfall
The City first notified the public of its intent to use restricted funds for financing
the Del Rio Road / US 101 interchange improvements (due to the lack of Wal-Mart
funding) by informing the Chamber of Commerce on 4-17-12 that, "One option
would be to borrow internally from another restricted City account that has a
surplus," (see Chamber of Commerce Business Reporter, May 2012, page 2, and 4-
17-12 City letter to Chamber, page 8 [available from author of this letter]).
The plan to use restricted sewer funds is further described in the Planning
Commission Staff Report (see page 65, emphasis added):
5. City Funding Obligation
... Del Rio Road / US 101 interchange...
If the City encountered a funding shortfall due to the project phasing,
the City could borrow from another City fund.
The Wastewater Fund (Fund)... may be available for loans. ... cash that can
be loaned... City's Circulation Impact Fee Fund could internally borrow
from the Wastewater Fund cash account....
This indicates that the City is prepared to raid &/or encumber City accounts
dedicated to crucial infrastructure necessities to compensate for revenue shortfalls
for the Del Rio Road / US 101 interchange improvements. This increases the
vulnerability of all City funds, whether the General Fund or restricted accounts, to
unnecessary financial stress due to attempts to compensate for project mitigations
and conditions of approval relieving applicants of the responsibility to fund Del Rio
Road / US 101 interchange improvements.
Furthermore, given current economic conditions with resulting slow downs in
water supply and sewage connections and in commercial and residential building
permits and traffic impact fees, the ability of the City to finance such internal loans
is significantly restricted. Such arrangements could leave the City exposed to
unwarranted risks.
Finally, the money in the restricted sewer fund is rate-payer money, contributed
by those connecting to the sewer system, and is exclusively dedicated to capital
investment in that system for anticipated and unanticipated costs. The money in
5of14
other restricted funds is also publicly sourced and dedicated.
Recommendations
The City Council should:
1. Reject using the sewer, and any other, restricted fund to finance the Del Rio
Road / UA 101 interchange improvements.
2. Require Wal-Mart/Annex project applicants to fully fund those improvements
up front, subject to subsequent reimbursement.
3. Require that rate-payers of any restricted fund potentially used for this
purpose be notified directly in writing of any such proposal prior to any
decision to use such funds, providing the opportunity to comment, should the
City elect to use any restricted fund for this purpose.
• Annex Blocked Until Reconstruction of DR/101 Interchange
Transportation mitigation measures MMTrans-1d and 1e specify that the
northbound and southbound ramps of the Del Rio Road / US 101 interchange will be
converted into roundabouts which "shall be in place no later than the issuance of
the first certificate of occupancy for the Annex commercial uses." (see, e.g.,
Statement of Overriding Considerations, page A-27).
This condition/mitigation means that no business at the Annex can open until
after the Del Rio Road / US 101 interchange improvements are built. While this
condition applied to the entire Wal-Mart/Annex project in the DEIR pertaining to
that project, it only applies to the Annex in the proposed Staff recommendation.
This would significantly hinder business development in the area defined as the Del
Rio Road Commercial Area Specific Plan.
Due to the extended time period required to obtain Cal-Trans approval for, and
to construct, the Del Rio Road / US 101 interchange improvements, this prohibition
would likely greatly delay the sales and property tax revenue benefits expected
from the Wal-Mart/Annex project.
Furthermore, it appears to place and unfair burden on the Annex exclusive of the
Wal-Mart and other projects in the vicinity which are relieved of any such burden.
Recommendations
The City Council should:
1. Apply Wal-Mart/Annex mitigations and conditions equally on all project
applicants and property owners.
2. Require Wal-Mart/Annex project applicants to fully fund the Del Rio Road /
US 101 interchange improvements up front, subject to subsequent
reimbursement, and complete construction prior to opening for business.
• Increased Citywide Fees to Compensate for Revenue Loss
The City asserts that the lack of funding from Wal-Mart for the Del Rio Road ( US
101 interchange improvements can be recouped by amending the citywide traffic
impact fee program, stating that "the TIF program can be amended to account for
increases in costs." (see Master Response to Comments, page 2-17).
6of14
This would displace the burden of financing the Del Rio Road / US 101
interchange improvements from Wal-Mart/Annex property owners onto all
businesses and homeowners in Atascadero. This would hinder the development of
commercial and residential properties in the city, unnecessarily hindering the City
Council's strategic objective of economic development.
Recommendations
The City Council should:
1. Reject the possibility of increasing city-wide TIF program fees to finance Del
Rio Road / US 101 interchange improvements.
2. Require Wal-Mart/Annex project applicants to fully fund the Del Rio Road /
US 101 interchange improvements up front, subject to subsequent
reimbursement, and complete construction prior to opening for business.
• Increased Fees on Other Projects in the Vicinity
The City asserts that the lack of funding from Wal-Mart for Del Rio Road / US
101 interchange improvements could be placed on "other planned and approved
projects in the project vicinity... requires this as mitigation" (see Master Response to
Comments, page 2-11).
This would displace the financial burden of financing the Del Rio Road / US 101
interchange improvements onto commercial and residential projects in an undefined
geographical area ("vicinity") vaguely related to the Wal-Mart/Annex project.
Recommendations
The City Council should:
1. Reject the possibility of increasing vicinity-wide TIF program fees to finance
Del Rio Road / US 101 interchange improvements.
2. Require Wal-Mart/Annex project applicants to fully fund the Del Rio Road /
US 101 interchange improvements up front, subject to subsequent
reimbursement, and complete construction prior to opening for business.
• Shutdown of DR/101 Interchange After Wal-Mart Opening
The estimated 1-year shutdown of the Del Rio Road / US 101 interchange for
reconstruction will cause major impacts on traffic flow, whether completed prior to
the opening of the Wal-Mart Supercenter or afterward. The PRDEIR is rather
explicit as to the severity of the congestion and diversion of traffic to adjacent
freeway interchanges, intersections and roads. It is readily apparent that
reconstructing the Del Rio Road / US 1.01 interchange after the opening of the Wal-
Mart Supercenter will cause much more massive and negative impacts to traffic
flow than would rebuilding it prior to the opening of the Wal-Mart Supercenter.
None of the mitigations to either the San Anselmo / US 101 or San Ramon / US
101 interchanges require the applicants to pay for them, displacing the costs onto
the City.
7of14
Recommendations
The City Council should:
1. Reject shutting down the Del Rio Road / US 101 interchange after Wal-Mart
traffic has been added to the volume.
2, Require Wal-Mart/Annex project applicants to fully fund the Del Rio Road /
US 101 interchange improvements up front, subject to subsequent
reimbursement, and complete construction prior to opening for business.
• Lowering the Priority of Other Road Improvements
City Staff is proposing raising the Del Rio Road / US 101 interchange
reconstruction to the top of the City's list of Capital Improvement Plan projects,
moving others further down. The first indication of this was in the aforementioned
4-17-12 City response to the Chamber of Commerce (available on request,
emphasis added):
"the City Council may consider amending the CIP to move the Del Rio Road /
US 101 interchange up on the priority list. The priority of other projects on the
list would be lowered as a result."
The prioritization of the DR/101 interchange is further explained in the Planning
Commission. The Del Rio Road and San Anselmo interchanges are proposed to be
moved from #4 and #5 on the list to #1 and #2. The Traffic Way, Curbaril, Santa
Barbara Road and Santa Rosa Road improvements are moved to a lower priority
(see Planning Commission, page 63, 3, Capital Improvement Project Planning, and
page 67, E. Update of the Five-Year Capital Improvement Plan, 2. Prioritization of
the Del Rio Road / US 101 Interchange Project).
This reduces the ability of the City to improve levels of service on four major US
101 interchanges used by local residents. The delay of these improvements, due to
the failure to require Wal-Mart/Annex applicants to pay for Del Rio Road / US 101
interchange improvements, unnecessarily burdens local residents with congestion
and delay.
Recommendations
The City Council should:
1. Reject delaying crucial road infrastructure improvements to finance the Del
Rio Road / US 101 interchange improvements.
2. Require Wal-Mart/Annex project applicants to fully fund the Del Rio Road /
US 101 interchange improvements up front, subject to subsequent
reimbursement, and complete construction prior to opening for business.
MITIGATION COST, CONSTRUCTION AND TIMING SHIFTS
The following comments are transcribed from the comments on the PRDEIR I
submitted on 4-30-12, the recommendations are amended to incorporate
information referenced above and included in FEIR-related documents.
• Mitigation Cost Burden Shift
8of14
History:
For years, Atascadero City officials and the general public have been assured
that project applicants would fund the construction of two roundabouts at the Del
Rio Road / US 101 interchange,
In 2005, City Manager Wade McKinney informed council member George Luna
that, "Walmart is expecting to deal with the Del Rio interchange and pay impact
fees." in response to Luna's question, "What will be the impact fees charged
Walmart to upgrade the Del Rio interchange?" McKinney also wrote, "we are far
short of the funds for an interchange" and that another SLO County city was likely
to forego a road project, "freeing up another $17 million in COG money. We are
going to be ready to vie for some of that." (1)
In 2007, Wal-Mart attorney Ellen Berkowitz informed the council and public that
project applicants would pay for the roundabouts in a power-point display stating,
"Mitigation measures... will be funded by Applicant... traffic upgrades." (2)
At the 6-14-11 City Council meeting, however, Wal-Mart switched its position.
Wal-Mart attorney Berkowitz stated they would only pay a "fair share" of the costs
($1.7 million of an estimated $4.5 million) because corporate "finances are
extremely tight". (3)
DEIR -- PRDEIR Changes:
The 2-2-11 DEIR assigns full responsibility to the project applicant to fund the
Del Rio Road / US 101 roundabouts, and gives the City full discretion as to the
applicant's financial obligation for this mitigation (emphasis added) (4):
Del Rio Road/US 101 Northbound Ramps... Del Rio Road/US 101 Southbound
Ramps
..1 the project applicant shall be responsible for funding these
improvements. The City shall have the final determination of financial
obligation in considering the traffic impact fees to be generated by the project
and the cast of the improvements.
The 3-15-12 PRDEIR describes the scope and intensity of the project's effects on
local traffic as "significant and unavoidable", cites applicant fees as a source of
funding mitigations, uncertainties about implementing mitigation measures some of
which are unavailable, and places the burden on the City to mitigate temporary
congestion and delays (emphasis added) (s):
Executive Summary ...
Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts ...
• Existing Plus Project Traffic... Baseline Plus Project Traffic... Future Plus
Project Traffic: The proposedrp oject would generate vehicle trips that
would contribute to unacceptable intersection, roadway, and freeway
operations, and queuing deficiencies... Mitigation is proposed that would
require the applicant to contribute fees to fund necessary improvements;
however, there is uncertainty regarding actual implementation of the
improvements. As such, the residual significance of this impact is
significant and unavoidable.
9of14
• Short-Term Construction Traffic and Road Closures; The proposedrp oject
would generate short-term construction traffic and result in temporary_
road closures that would cause congestion and delays on surface streets in
the project vicinity. Mitigation is proposed that would require the City to
implement temporary measures to alleviate congestion and delays;
however, feasible improvements are not available for all affected locations.
As such, the residual significance of this impact is significant and
unavoidable.
The PRDEIR, in contrast with the DEIR which placed full financial responsibility
on the applicant, reduces that obligation to a so-called `proportional share" of about
$1.3 million of the estimated $4.5 million cost of the roundabouts. This shifts at
least a $3.2 million burden onto Atascadero business people and taxpayers, as
costs escalate over time. The following PRDEIR excerpts exclude mention of the
Annex due to the fact that the property is in foreclosure and up for auction, and the
Rottman Group is being sued by one of its creditors for $6.2 million, as cited above,
making it extremely unlikely the Annex will be built (emphasis added) (6).
"The Del Rio Road/ US 101 interchange roundabout improvement project is
estimated to cost approximately $4,500,000..."
The RCS analysis determined that the Walmart project's proportional share
of the cost to construct the contemplated roundabout improvements is 28.7
percent or estimated at $1292,798. ...
The City is committed to obtaining the remaining funds for the interchange
roundabout improvements as soon as reasonably possible through the
continued imposition of the City's CIP and TIF program previously described.
The PRDEIR makes clear the lack of City funding for the roundabouts, the burden
that will be placed on future businesses, and the uncertainty of future funding
(emphasis added) (7).
Del Rio Road/US 101 Northbound Ramps... Del Rio Road/US 101
Southbound Ramps
This interchange is part of the City's TIF program, but it is not currently
funded....
Furthermore, the City cannot guarantee with certainty when the remainder
of the traffic impact fee funding paid by future developers will be available. ...
there is a reasonable expectation that these impacts will be mitigated through
the TIF program in the future.
Recommendations:
In light of the facts that:
• The City has discretion over the amount the Wal-Mart/Annex project will be
required to pay for the DR/101 improvements; and
• For seven years, the applicants have told the City that the Wal-Mart/Annex
project would fund the DR/101 improvements; and
10 of 14
• The City lacks the funds for the potential cost to construct the DR/101
improvements, and certainty about when and if it will acquire them; and
• The City has acquired no information from Cal-Trans as to what construction
alternative Cal-Trans will approve or what the ultimate cost will be;
The City Council should;
1. Reject the, at least $3.2 million and potentially $8.6 million shift of financial
burden from the applicants to onto the City's business community
homeowners or taxpayers.
2. Require Wal-Mart/Annex project applicants to fully fund the Del Rio Road /
US 101 interchange improvements up front, subject to subsequent
reimbursement, and complete construction prior to opening for business.
• Mitigation Construction Burden Shift
For years, Atascadero City officials and the general public have been assured
that Wal-Mart and other project applicants would be responsible for constructing
the two roundabouts at the Del Rio Road / US 101 interchange. The PRDEIR shifts
that responsibility from Wal-Mart to the City.
The DEIR placed complete and exclusive responsibility on the applicant to
construct these roundabouts (emphasis added) (4).
Del Rio Road/US 101 Northbound Ramps... Del Rio Road/US 101
Southbound Ramps
To mitigate this impact, the applicant shall convert the intersection to a
single-lane modern roundabout. ...
To mitigate this impact, the applicant shall construct a five-legged, single-
lane modern roundabout that incorporates Ramona Road as the fifth
approach.
The PRDEIR, however, shifts the full burden for constructing the roundabouts
onto the City (emphasis added) (6 & 7).
the City will agree to construct the Del Rio/US 101 interchange roundabout
improvements... (page 3.11-29)
the City shall convert the intersection to a single-lane modern roundabout.
The City will construct this regional improvement ... (page 3.11-54)
the City shall construct a five-legged, single-lane modern roundabout that
incorporates Ramona Road as the fifth approach. ... The City will construct this
regional improvement... (page 3.11-55)
Additionally, the PRDEIR shifts the responsibility for obtaining approval from
Cal-Trans for the roundabouts from the applicant to the City. The DER placed
this burden strictly on the applicant (emphasis added) (4).
Del Rio Road/US 101 Northbound Ramps... Del Rio Road/US 101
Southbound Ramps
Because the improvements are within Caltrans's right-of- way, the project
applicant will need to coordinate with Caltrans to gain its approvals for final
design and implementation of the roundabouts.
11 of 14
The PRDEIR, however, places this burden on the City (emphasis added) (8).
The City of Atascadero understands that it is responsible for the design,
permitting and construction of the Del Rio Road/US 101 interchange project...
is committed to moving expeditiously to obtain permits and a construction
schedule from Caltrans.
Recommendations:
The City Council should:
1. Reject the shifts in construction and permitting burdens of the DR/101
improvements from the applicants to onto the City's business community
homeowners or taxpayers.
2. Require Wal-Mart/Annex project applicants to fully fund the Del Rio Road /
US 101 interchange improvements up front, subject to subsequent
reimbursement, and complete construction prior to opening for business.
• Mitigation Completion Timing Shift
The DEIR established that these roundabouts would be completed before Wal-
Mart would be allowed to open its store for business, and that doing so would
reduce impacts to less than significant. (emphasis added) (4).
Del Rio Road/US 101 Northbound Ramps... Del Rio Road/US 101
Southbound Ramps
As noted previously, the interchange improvements should be completed
before opening of the Walmart store and/or any substantial piece of the
project... The improvements should be in place before opening of any part of
the project to allow for acceptable operating conditions and minimizing
impacts to the San Anselmo Road interchange to the south.
Del Rio Road/US 101 Northbound Ramps... Del Rio Road/US 101
Southbound Ramps
These improvements... would result in acceptable LOS A or B operation
during all peak hours analyzed, reducing the.-.impact to a level of less than
significant.
The PRDEIR, however, shifts the timing of roundabout completion to an
undetermined time in the future, abandons finishing them prior to Wal-mart
opening for business. Failing to construct the roundabouts results in significant and
unavoidable impacts (emphasis added) (5 & 7).
Further, based on the need for the roundabout improvements identified in
the EIR, the City Council will consider ranking the interchange roundabout
improvement project to first priority in the CIP in order to advance the timing
of the construction of the improvements. This ranking will help ensure that
TIF funds become available so that the contemplated interchange roundabout
improvements will be constructed as soon as is reasonably feasible.
Del Rio Road/US 101 Northbound Ramps... Dei Rio Road/US 101
Southbound Ramps
the City cannot assure with certainty that improvements will be in place
prior to the opening of the Walmart store.
12 of 14
Del Rio Road/US 101 Northbound Ramps... Del Rio Road/US 101
Southbound Ramps
the City cannot guarantee... funding... will be available... the City cannot
assure... improvements will be in place prior to the opening of the Walmart
store. ... In view of this uncertainty, this analysis considers these impacts to
be significant and unavoidable.
Recommendations:
The City Council should:
1. Reject this shift in timing of completion of DR/101 improvement construction.
2. Require Wal-Mart/Annex project applicants to fully fund the Del Rio Road / US
101 interchange improvements up front, subject to subsequent
reimbursement, and complete construction prior to opening for business.
References:
1. Councilmember/City Manager 2005 Emails (emphasis added)
------Original Message-----
From: George Luna [mailto:luna@XXXX]
Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2005 9: 19 PM
To: Wade McKinney
Subject: $$ for interchanges
How much developer money have we collected through impact fees for the
upgrade of the interchanges (For example, the Dove Creek project and the Santa
Barbara interchange). Are we ready to go with funding for PSRs on any of the
interchanges other than 41/101? What will be the impact fees charged Walmart
to upgrade the Del Rio interchange?
George
From: "Wade McKinney" <wmckinney@atascadero.org>
Date: September 7, 2005 7:52:50 AM PDT
To: "George Luna" <luna@XXXX>
Subject: RE: $$ for interchanges
Hi George,
I met with Greg Albright of Cal Trans trying to work out a better, cheaper,
faster way to do the PSR's and we are working on it. I don't know how much
has been collected in the impact fees, although I know we are far short of the
funds for an interchange. Walmart is expecting to deal with the Del Rio
interchange and pay impact fees. I suspect we will get some meaningful
improvements in that area. At last weeks City Manager's meeting Pismo City
Manager, Kevin Rice mentioned that he thought the Pismo Council was likely to
turn down the Price Street project freeing up another $17 million in COG money.
We are going to be ready to vie for some of that.
Wade
13 of 14
2. City Council minutes 10-23-07 (emphasis added)
http://www.atascadero.org/media/council/ca74dbeA-latt-
CCD raftM i nutes 102307.pdf
ITEM NUMBER: A-1
DATE: 12/11/07
CITY OF ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL DRAFT MINUTES Tuesday, October 23,
2007 -- 7:00 P.M.
City Council Meeting
10-23-07
B. MANAGEMENT REPORTS: 1. Staff Authorization to Process General Plan
Amendment Applications for: Wal-Mart Supercenter PLN 2007-1245 / GPA 2007-
0020 (Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.) and The Annex Shopping Center PLN 2007-1246 /
GPA 2007-0021 (Rottman Group / EDA)
Transcript by DEB from AGP Video (slo-span) - traffic mitigation funding
Ellen Berkowitz - [1:22:22 to 1:24:22] PPT frame titled "EIR Benefits":
• Mitigation measures will be identified and will be funded by Applicant.
- Public improvements and traffic upgrades.
3. 6-14-11 Atascadero City Council meeting video (http://www.sio-
span.org/atas/atas-meetingl.html).
4. DEIR, Section 3-11 Transportation, pages 3.11-63 & 64
(http://www,atascadero.org/files/CD/WalMart-Annex/De]Rio_EIR_PDFs/3622000
1%20SecO3-11%2OTransportation.pdf).
5. PRDEIR Executive Summary, pages ES-2 & 3
(http://www.atascadero.org/files/CD/Walmart_PDEIR/36220003%20Sec00-
ES%20Executive%2OSummary.pdf).
6. PRDEIR, Section 3.11 - Transportation, page 3.11-29
(http://www.atascadero.org/files/CD/Walmart_PDEIR/36220003%20Sec03-
11%20Transportation.pdf).
7. PRDEIR, Section 3.11 - Transportation, pages 3.11-54, 55 & 56
(http://www.atascadero.org/files/CD/Walmart_PDEIR/36220003%20Sec03-
1 1%20Tra nspo rtation.pdf).
8. PRDEIR, Appendix 0: Revised Transportation Impact Analysis, page 16
(http://www.atascadero.org/files/CD/Walmart_PDEIR/App%200%20-
%20Revised%2OTransportation%2OImpact%2OAnalysis.pdf)
14 of 14
MenloNUcbx6D�oJox ~m�u ocw�s
��
Date: June 25, 2012 �"^*c«`w
I r,.�
To: �r� ��.C�mun�D��pm�D|��O�����m n�m��w
From: Jason 8nandmun and Grant Gruber,Michael Bnandmun A�a»uimtea p�"�ngs
Subject: Del Rio Road Commercial Area Specific Plan - Broadwater Comments Sacramento
v/6.4n.11w
San a"rr=cb",
Michael BnandmanAssociates(NBA)prepared this memo toaddress comments 90*��:2255
submitted by David Broadwater to the City of Atascadero on June 21,2012 concerning
San Raman
the De( Rio Road Commercial Area Specific Plan. 1)2s.8,»z751
Is.Comment"Wrong(Walmart Only)Requirements Applied to Project(Walmart
Annex)." Mr.Broadwater reiterated aprior comment h*made inhis comments onthe
Partially Recirculated Draft EIR(PRDEIR)regarding the City requiring the"Walmart
Only"traffic mitigation measures for the combined Walmart/Annex projects,but not all
ofthe traffic mitigation measures.
1b'Response:As indicated in the Final 8Ron page 3-3O8'the PRDE|R ultimately
identifies the same traffioimprovements for both the^VVo|martOnly"and"Proposed
Project"(VVa|martand Annex).which are reflected in Mitigation Measures TRANS-1a
through TRANS-e. /Uthou8hthe US101/Del Rio Road interchange impnzvamentaare
not necessary for the Walmart component in the near-term,they do become warranted
over time and,therefore,both Walmart and Annex-are required to contribute
proportionate share fees to fund these improvements. Thus, Mr,Boradwater's claims
>nthis regard are factually incorrect.
2m'Comment"Cost Estimate of Del Rio Road/US 101 Interchange Improvements
Obsolete, UnnemUat(o'and Unreliable." Mc Broadwater reiterated a prior comment he
made in his comments unthe PRDE|R regarding the reliability ofcost estimates nfthe
interchange improvemenM as well as a desire to study alternatives to roadabouts,
2b. Response: As indicated in the Final BR on pages 2-15 through 2-17,the
interchange improvement costs(approximately$4.5 million)were calculated in
accordance with Caltrans guidance and include o 30 percent contingency factor. The
final cost ofthe interchange improvements will bedetermined once Caltrans has
reviewed and approved the final design and the project has been put out to bid,e
process that ioexpected totake several years tocomplete. |nsum,the cost estimates
for the roundabouts are based upon the best available information at the time of this
writing and will be refined further oothe planning and design process progresses,
provided that the project iaapproved. Aasuch,there ionobasis torequire more
detailed study of the improvement cost prior to City Council consideration of the
project.
ENVIRONMENTAL SeorICTEm9PLANNING"N.mMm/.RoonuxcsgNI/INAuswE]Nr
vwn".bmu6muu.com
Warren Frace
June 25,2012
Page 2
Regarding alternatives to roundabouts,this comment was previously addressed in the
Final EIR on pages 2-17 and 2-18. To summarize, bridge widening at the US 101/Del
Rio Road interchange was previously studied and found to be more costly than
roundabouts. Thus,the City Council determined roundabouts to be the preferred
interchange improvement,which is reflected in the PRDEIR's analysis.
3a.Comment:"Cost Overrun Provisions Inadequate,Unjustified,&Unproportional
[sic]." Mr.Broadwater disputed various statements from the June 5 Planning
Commission meeting Staff Report about contingencies in the event of cost overruns for
the interchange improvements. He disagreed with the amount Walmart would
contribute for cost overruns and asserted that Waimart's share of cost overrun should
be the same as the proportionate cost of the improvement.
3b.Response: The Staff Report's discussion of cost overruns was intended to outline
a potential approach for how this issue could be addressed if it were to occur. At the
time of this writing,the planning process for interchange improvements is in the
preliminary stages. No cost overruns have occurred at the time of this writing and the
potential for overruns to occur will not be known until the planning and design process
is further along. Additionally,as noted previously,the cost estimates include a 30
percent contingency factor. Thus,it would be premature and speculative to assert that
cost overruns are likely.
4a.Comment:"Restricted Funds Used to Compensate for Revenue Shortfall." Mr.
Broadwater objected to borrowing funds from another City account(e.g.,sewer)to fund
traffic improvements on the grounds that it could expose the City to unwarranted risks.
4b.Response: In the interests of informed decision-making,the June 5 Planning
Commission meeting Staff Report identified borrowing funds from another restricted
City account as one option for funding the balance of the US 101/Del Rio Road
interchange improvements. It is anticipated that City staff will engage in more detailed
investigation of potential funding sources for the balance of interchange
improvements,with these options being presented to the City Council for consideration
as part of a public hearing process. In sum,no decisions have been made regarding
funding for the balance of the interchange improvements and,thus,it is premature to
make any statements in this regard. Additionally,identification of the account from
which the City may borrow funds is not an environmental impact but a matter of City
policy. The comment will be forwarded to the decision-makers for their consideration.
5a.Comment:"Annex Blocked Until Reconstruction of[Del Rio]/101 Interchange." Mr.
Broadwater noted that the revised text of Mitigation Measures TRANS-1d and TRANS-
1e require the US 101/Del Rio Road interchange improvements to be in place prior to
issuance of the first certificate of occupancy for the Annex commercial uses and
objected on the grounds that it would delay the accrual of tax revenues to the City of
Atascadero.
5b.Response: In its comments on the PRDEIR,Caltrans requested that the
interchange improvements be completed prior to opening of the Annex commercial
uses. In response,the City revised Mitigation Measures TRANS-1d and TRANS-1e to
fulfill this request;refer to Final EIR pages 2-9 and 240. The Draft EIR disclosed that
Warren Frace
June 25,2012
Page 3
the Walmart commercial uses would likely be developed first,with the Annex
commercial uses being developed later. However,in the interests of providing a
conservative"worst case"analysis,the document evaluated the concurrent
development of both components;refer to page 2-70. Thus,the possibility of the
Annex commercial uses being developed after the opening of the Walmart commercial
uses has been disclosed from the outset.
6a.Comment:"Increased Citywide Fees to Compensate for Revenue Loss." Mr.
Broadwater cited a statement from the Final EIR about the ability of the City's
Transportation Impact Fee(TIF)program to be amended to account for increases in
cost and asserted that this would shift the burden of funding the interchange
improvements from the project applicants to Atascadero businesses and homeowners.
6b.Response: The Final EIR statement cited by Mr.Broadwater does state or imply
that the burden of funding the interchange improvements would be shifted from the
project applicants to Atascadero businesses and homeowners. To the contrary,the
Final EIR statement in question sought to address concerns raised by Mr.Broadwater
and others regarding the potential for estimated improvement costs to change and
noted that such costs changes can be accounted for by the TIF program.
More importantly,as discussed on pages 2-16 and 2-17 of the Final EIR,the TIF
program collects fees from new development projects for the specific purpose of
implementing traffic improvements. TIF funds are not a tax imposed on the general
public and are held in a separate account from the City's General Fund. Thus,neither
the general public nor homeowners would bear the costs of any increases in
interchange improvement costs.
7a.Comment:"Increased Fees on Other Projects in the Vicinity." Similar to his prior
comment, Mr.Broadwater claimed that the interchange improvements costs would be
shifted to other commercial and residential projects"in an undefined geographic area"
that are"vaguely related"to the proposed project.
7b.Response: As disclosed in the Final EIR on pages 2-8 and 2-9, Mitigation
Measures TRANS-1d and TRANS-1e require the payment of a special TIF for the
specific purpose of improving the US 101/Del Rio Road interchange in addition to the
standard TIF(i.e.,two TIF fees would be imposed on the Walmart and Annex projects)..
In other words,this special TIF would apply only to the Walmart and the Annex
properties and would be in addition to the standard TIF that applies to all development
projects in Atascadero. As such,no other commercial and residential projects would
be obligated to pay the special TIF;they would simply pay the standard TIF. Although
TIF collected from other projects may be applied to the US 101/Del Rio Road
interchange improvements,this is permissible and consistent with the purpose and
intent of the program, particularly for regional traffic improvements that will be used by
the general public.
8a.Comment:"Shutdown of[Del Rio]/101 Interchange After Walmart Opening." Mr.
Broadwater stated that the estimated"1-year"shutdown of the US 101/ Del Rio Road
interchange would have significant traffic congestion impacts on roadways in the
vicinity of the project site. He also asserted that the applicant is not obligated to pay
Warren Frace
June 25,2012
Page 4
for any of the required improvements at the US 101/San Anselmo Road or US 101/
San Ramon Road interchanges,resulting in the costs of these improvements being
shifted to the City.
8b.Response: The PRDEIR stated on page 3.12-125 that the US 101/Del Rio Road
interchange improvements would require a 6-to 12-month construction period. This is
considered a"worst case"estimate and was the basis for evaluating traffic impacts
during the interim closure of the interchange. Details about the duration of
interchange closure will be further defined as the planning and design process
progresses. Furthermore,to minimize disruptions to nearby businesses and residents,
the City intends to explore the possibility of limiting interchange closure to off-peak
times. Thus,a 12-month uninterrupted closure of the US 101/Del Rio Road
interchange would be unlikely.
Regarding Mr.Broadwater's statements about the proposed project not contributing
towards needed improvements at the US 101/San Anselmo Road or US 101/San
Ramon Road interchanges,this is incorrect. As stated on PRDEIR page 3.11-112,the
proposed project would contribute to unacceptable operations at the US 101/San
Anselmo Road and,therefore,is required to contribute proportionate share fees for
traffic signal improvements. As for the US 101/San Ramon Road interchange,the
project is not expected to contribute a significant percentage of trips to this facility
because of the proximity of the US 101/Dei Rio Road interchange. Therefore,no
significant impacts would occur at this location and no mitigation is necessary.
9a.Comment:"Lowering the Priority of Other Road Improvements." Mr.Broadwater
objected to reprioritizing the US 101/Del Rio Road improvements to rank ahead of
Traffic Way,Curbaril Avenue,Santa Barbara Road,and Santa Rosa Road interchange
improvements,asserting that this would unnecessarily burden local residents and
businesses with congestion and delay.
9b.Response: Reprioritizing the US 101/Del Rio Road improvements to rank ahead
of the Traffic Way,Curbaril Avenue,and Santa Barbara Road interchange
improvements reflects the nexus between the proposed project and the need for the
interchange improvements at this location. Likewise,by not reprioritizing
improvements,significant traffic impacts at the US 101/Del Rio Road interchange
may go unmitigated,which is contrary to CEQA principles.
Note that the Del Rio Road interchange improvements currently rank ahead of the
Santa Rosa Road interchange improvements,a condition that would remain
unchanged by the reprioritization.
10a.Comment:"Mitigation Cost Burden Shift." Mr.Broadwater reiterated a prior
comment he made in his comments on the PRDEIR objecting to the project applicants'
obligation to provide their proportionate share for the US 101/Del Rio Road
interchange improvements. Mr. Broadwater restated his prior position that the project
applicants should be required to pay the full cost of the improvements.
10b.Response: As stated in the Final EIR on pages 2-6 through 2-15,requiring the
project applicants to provide their proportionate shares of the interchange
Warren Frace
June 25,2012
Page 5
improvements reflects CEQA requirements that concern"rough proportionality"
between the severity of impacts and the cost of mitigation. Moreover,the City cannot
legally require the project applicants to provide the full cost of the improvements,as
the cost is disproportionate to the severity of the impact caused by the proposed
project.
11a.Comment:"Mitigation Construction Burden Shift." Mr. Broadwater reiterated a
prior comment he made in his comments on the PRDEIR regarding the City of
Atascadero being responsible for implementing the interchange improvements. Mr.
Broadwater restated his prior position that the project applicants should be required to
install the improvements.
11b.Response: As stated in the Final EIR on page 2-15,the City of Atascadero is the
most appropriate entity to install the US 101/ Del Rio Road interchange
improvements,as the project applicants would only be contributing proportionate
shares for the cost of the improvements. Furthermore,given the extensive planning
and coordination that will be required to undertake the improvements(e.g.,securing of
funds,coordination with Caltrans,coordination with surrounding property owners,etc.),
the City of Atascadero is the most appropriate party to facilitate this process.
12a.Comment:"Mitigation Completion Timing Shift." Mr. Broadwater reiterated a prior
comment he made in his comments on the PRDEIR regarding the timing of all three Del
Rio Road roundabouts. Mr.Broadwater restated his prior position that all three
roundabouts should be installed prior to opening of Walmart.
12b. Response: As stated in the Final EIR on page 2-18,the Del Rio Road/EI Camino
Real roundabout is a required opening day improvement for the Walmart store and,
and therefore,will be place prior to store opening. The US 101/Del Rio Road
interchange roundabouts are not necessary to achieve acceptable levels of service on
opening day and,thus,are not required to be installed at that time. During the interim
period between Walmart store opening and completion of the US 101/Del Rio Road
interchange improvements, Del Rio Road between the interchange and EI Camino Real
is anticipated to operate at acceptable levels of service. Thus,there is no basis to
require that all three roundabouts be installed prior to occupancy of the Walmart store.
r wolfe
associates,p.c.
attorneys-al-law
June 22, 2012
Via Fax and E-mail
Acknowledgement of Receipt Requested
Mayor Bob Kelly and Members of the City Council
City of.Atascadero
c/o City Clerk,Marcia McClure Torgerson
6907 El Camino Real
Atascadero, CA 93422
Email: mtorgerson@atascadero.org
Fax: (805)470-3419
Re: Del Rio Road Commercial Area Specific Plan
PLN 2007-1245/PLN 2007-1.246/PLN 2007-1183
Dear Mayor Kelly and Councilmembers:
This letter is submitted on behalf of client Save Atascadero, an unincorporated
association of Atascadero citizens,property owners, and electors. Save Atascadero
previously submitted comments on.the Revised Draft EIR("RDEIR") for the above-
referenced Wal-Mart Supercenter/Annex Shopping Center project("Project"),as well as
additional written comments to the Planning Commission via letter dated June 4, 2012.
We incorporate the contents of those submittals by reference here. For the reasons that
follow,we urge the City Council to take no action to certify the Final EIR("FEIR")
and/or approve the Project until such time as the analytic deficiencies we have identified
in the FEIR, as previously described and as summarized below,are corrected. As will be
explained,the responses to our and others' comments in the FEIR do not provide the
requisite degree of information and analysis to constitute meaningful disclosure of the
Project's potentially significant environmental impacts under CEQA.
A. The City May Not Approve A General Plan Amendment With Significant
Unavoidable Impacts
As you likely know,the Atascadero General Plan 2025 requires that the City find
that any proposed General Plan amendment"will not create any new significant and
unavoidable impacts to traffic, infrastructure, or public services." General Plan,p. II-53.
The Project here includes a General Plan amendment. The FEIR acknowledges that the
Project will result in significant and unavoidable impacts to traffic at Del Rio Road
between EI Camino Real and Ramona Road.(deficient segment level of service). FEIR,
pp. 2-11 to 2-12,Table 2-3. The proposed CEQA Findings contained in the staff report
acknowledge significant and unavoidable traffic impacts under baseline conditions,future
1 Suttor&reet I Suita 300-1 San Frandsoo CA 9004 ;Tel 415M9.S400 I FU-415.369.9406 9.9405 (www,mvv meass€aciatetcom W
June 22, 2012
Page 2
conditions,and cumulative conditions. Findings, pp.A-128, 129, 140, 141, 142. These
include significant and unavoidable impacts to the San Anselmo Road/US 101
Northbound Ramps,the San Anselmo Road/US 101 Southbound Ramps, and the Del Rio
Road segment between El Camino Real.and Ramona.
The EIR and Findings both acknowledge several reasons for finding these impacts
unavoidably significant. These include lack of jurisdiction to implement improvements,
lack of available right of way, and the City's inability to ensure that funding will be
available for necessary improvements. Id.; RDEIR,pp. 3.11-90, 3.11-1.14. Although the
EIR and Findings imply that the sole reason for finding impacts unavoidably significant
is the uncertain timeliness of the necessary improvements,the fact that the City lacks
either the necessary jurisdiction or right of way creates a real possibility that these
impacts will never be mitigated.
Despite the General Plan's express,mandatory requirement that the City find no
new significant and unavoidable impacts in approving a General Plan amendment,the
DEIR's General Plan consistency analysis claims that the Project is consistent,arguing
that impacts would be mitigated after the improvements were constructed. RDEIR,p.
3.8-28. The RDEIR states that the conclusion that impacts would be unavoidable was
made from an"abundance of caution," "which reflects the legal principles that underpin
CEQA and not necessarily the traffic conditions that will occur in the future." Id.
The proposed General Plan Amendment resolution takes another tack, dismissing
these acknowledged significant and unavoidable impacts "for the purpose of general plan
consistency analysis"because"these are not considered new impacts." City Council
Staff Report,pp. 138-139. The proposed resolution claims the General Plan EIR found
that the Project's impacts would occur under 2025 conditions but that interchange
improvements were available to fully mitigate these impacts.
We do not believe this claim is founded. Accordingly, we consulted Tom
Brohard, P.E.,a traffic engineer with decades of experience acting as the traffic engineer
for several California cities,to review the 2025 General Plan, its associated EIR, and the
Findings made for that ETR. Mr. Brohard's review, which accompanies this letter, makes
clear that the 2025 General Plan did not identify significant and unavoidable impacts to
the Del Rio Road segment between El Camino Real and Ramona Road. The General
Plan EIR does project some deficient levels of service for roadway segments at US 101
interchanges by 2025, but these projections are for different interchanges(e.g., Traffic
Way,Curbaril Avenue). However,both the General Plan and the General Plan EIR
specifically found that the Del Rio roadway segment would experience acceptable service
levels(LOS A or B) in 2025 —without any mitigation at all. It is simply not true that the
I One reason that right of way may not be under the City's control is that the City
has chosen to substitute roundabouts for the previously planned roadway and bridge
widening projects, which do not require as much space.
June 22,2012
Page 3
General Plan EIR identified an unavoidably significant impact at the Del Rio Road
segment at issue here.
Mr. Brohard also explains that the General Plan EIR and Findings conclude that
feasible, adopted mitigation would reduce intersection level of service impacts due to
projected traffic at San Anselmo Road and the US 101 Northbound and Southbound
ramps to less-than-significant levels. Again,this finding is inconsistent with the claim
that the impacts at issue here had been previously identified as unavoidably significant.
There accordingly is insufficient basis for the City to make a key finding
necessary to approve a General.Plan amendment, namely that the Project will not create
any new unavoidably significant impacts.
B. The EIR Fails To Disclose The Uncertainty Of Traffic Mitigation And
Improperly Assumes Delaying the Annex Resolves Any Uncertainty
The RDEIR acknowledges that impacts to the Del Rio/US 10I intersections
would remain unavoidably significant for four reasons:
1. Lack of jurisdiction over these Caltrans intersections
2. Uncertainty regarding right-of-way acquisition from third parties
3. Fact that the necessary improvements are not programmed into an actual plan
for mitigation
4. Fact that payment of fair share fees will not guarantee timely construction of
the roundabouts. RDEIR,pp. 3.1158, 90, 114,
The FEIR adds a condition to Mitigation Measures TRANS-Id and TRANSD-le that the
Annex portion of the Project cannot be occupied until the roundabouts are built. Based
on that condition alone,the FEIR alters the RDEIR's conclusions, and finds that impacts
will be less than significant. FEIR,pp. 2-12, 5-8 to 5-17. In effect, the FEIR piecemeals
the Project into two separate projects, Walmart and.the Annex, and then imposes a
mitigation condition on the Annex portion,completion of the roundabouts,that the
RDEIR found infeasible. On that basis it concludes that impacts are less than significant.
In sum,the RDEIR identifies four problems that require a finding that the Del
Rio/US 101 impacts must be found unavoidably significant. The FEIR does not solve
those problems. Instead, it simply assumes that some solution will be found before the
Annex portion of the Project is constructed.
CEQA does not permit an approach to mitigation that simply conditions a project
on finding some solution to an admittedly significant impact in the future. In.Stanislaus
Natural Heritage Project v. County of Stanislaus(1996)48 Cal.App.4t' 182, 195 the lead
agency identified as mitigation for a specific plan a requirement that construction beyond
an initial increment could not proceed until a water supply had been provided. The court
R
June 22, 2012
Page 4
rejected this piecemeal approach and held that"[i]t is not mitigation of a significant
environmental impact to say that if the impact is not addressed then the project will not
be built." Id. at 205. Yet this is precisely what the EIR proposes here.
C. The ETR Does Not Provide An Analysis Of Cumulative Toxic Air
Contaminants,And It Failed To Provide Adequate Responses To Requests
For Information Related To This Issue
The RDEIR's sole analysis of the potential human health impacts of toxic air
contaminants ("TACs") is the so-called "Type A" analysis, which purports to assess the
effect of Project-related TACs on nearby residents. The RDEIR references, but does not
provide, a"Type B"analysis,which is supposed to assess TAC impacts of bringing new
receptors into contact with.existing TAC sources. The referenced Type B analysis was
reportedly prepared by the San Luis Obispo Air Pollution Control District to assess the
effects of US 101,a gas station, and the Project-related TACs on the residential
component of the Project. FEIR., comment APCD 1.-24. Regardless,the RDEIR does not
contain an analysis of the cumulative impacts of toxic air contaminants.
In our comments on the RDEIR,we requested that the City make the Air
District's Type B analysis available for public review. FEIR, comment Wolfe-11. We
also objected that the EIR did not evaluate the cumulative effect of TACs on sensitive
receptors in the Project vicinity. FEIR, comment Wolfe-12. In response,the FEIR
reported that the missing Type B analysis itself constitutes the cumulative analysis,but
then refused to provide it. We repeated our objection that the information had been
withheld in our June 4,2012 comments to the Planning Commission.Now,just a few
days before the City Council hearing,the staff report finally includes a Type B analysis,
although not the analysis cited by the Air District and the RDEIR.
Because the information related to cumulative TACs was withheld, we asked air
quality specialist Greg Gilbert to review the EIR's analysis of TACs. Mr. Gilbert is an
air quality expert with over 20 years of experience with California air districts and air
quality consulting. In the course of Mr. Gilbert's review,the City Council staff report
belatedly provided a Type B analysis. Mr. Gilbert's enclosed comments explain that this
Type B analysis is fundamentally flawed and, in any event,cannot substitute for an
adequate analysis of cumulative impacts under CEQA. As he explains,the fundamental
problems with calling the Type B analysis a cumulative impact analysis is that it ignores
off-site receptors and off-site generation of TACs by project traffic. It also fails to
include foreseeable future development other than the Project,which will generate
additional TACs.
In addition to the defects identified by Mr. Gilbert,we note that the EIR does not
identify or justify a geographic scope of analysis for a cumulative analysis of TACs.
There can be no justification for limiting the scope of analysis to impacts to on-site
Project residents or to limiting the sources of impacts to existing traffic on US 101 and
on-site TAC emissions.
June 22,2012
Page 5
Furthermore,even if the belated Type B analysis did serve as an analysis of the
Project's cumulative TAC impacts—it does not—it was not included in the DEIR,the
RDEIR,or the FEIR, despite repeated requests. The public was denied any meaningful
opportunity to comment, and the FEIR failed to provide reasoned, good faith responses to
our comments.
Mr. Gilbert explains that the cumulative TAC exposure levels experienced by
residents located between the Project and US 101 exceed any reasonable threshold for
significant cumulative impacts. His analysis is based on the data in the belated Type B
analysis itself,which shows that receptors closer to roadways will experience elevated
TACs compared to the receptors on the project site,who are located almost 1000 feet
from US 101. His analysis also points out that that the DEIR acknowledges that existing
TAC emissions in Atascadero already exceed the threshold the Air District uses for its
Type B analysis. Finally, Mr. Gilbert observes that since the Project contributes a major
portion of the traffic on these roadways, and since it also contributes emissions from on-
site vehicle use, it will make a considerable contribution to cumulatively significant TAC
impacts.
Mr. Gilbert also explains that TA.Cs from the operation of traffic roundabouts on
Del Rio Road required by Mitigation Measures TRAr1S-ld and TRANTS-le would
contribute to significant cumulative impacts. Since a major portion of the traffic on these
roundabouts is Project-related, it is clear that the Project,through these roundabouts,will
make a considerable contribution to the cumulatively significant TAC impact.
hl addition,the E1R's Type A analysis simply ignored the effects of off-site
Project traffic. Since Project traffic will be concentrated at the roundabouts and other
off-site roadways,this omission renders the Type A analysis inadequate as well. There
can be no confidence that the Type A analysis identified the maximally exposed receptor
since it did not look at off-site emissions.
In sum, the analysis of TACs must be revised to address these errors and the EIR
must be recirculated for public review and comment.
D. Construction Noise Increases Will Be Significant
As Save Atascadero objected in a letter to the Planning Commission,the RDEIR
identifies but does not apply two independent thresholds of significance for construction
noise impacts. The RDEIR states that construction noise would be significant if either:
(1) it exceeds an absolute threshold of 70 dBA Leq, or(2) it constitutes a substantial
temporary increase in noise. The RDEIR concludes that there will be no significant
impact because the noise is less than 70 dBA Leq,but simply does not consider whether
the increase,which will exceed 24 dBA for some residents, is a significant increase.
Because our concerns were not addressed by the Planning Commission,we asked
a credentialed noise expert, Derek Watry,to review this issue. Mr. Watry explains that a
June 22, 2012
Page 6
noise increase of this magnitude is a substantial increase by any measure. The City
Council staff report response is entirely disingenuous on this point. Essentially,the staff
report says the increase is not significant because it does not exceed 70 dBA Leq and will
not occur at night. This ignores the fact that an increase may be substantial even if it
does not result in a threshold being exceeded and that the EIR announces that it will
apply the substantial increase test as an independent criteria of significance.
E. The FOR Misleadingly Responded To Comments Requesting Noise.Data,
And The Requested Data Demonstrate That The Project Causes Noise To
Exceed The Stated 60 dBA Ldn/CNEL Threshold of Significance
The RDEIR states that noise impacts are significant if the Project causes noise to
increase above 60 dBA Ldn/CNEL at outdoor activity areas. This significance criterion
was based on General Plan standards. The RDEIR presents noise levels after mitigation
in tabular form that identifies the noise level only for a single point for each residence.
The RDEIR implies that this noise levels were determined at the fagades of the houses
rather than at the outdoor activity areas.
Because we were concerned that the RDEIR's analysis failed to evaluate noise at
outdoor activity areas and that noise levels at these areas were significant even after
mitigation,we asked in comments on the RDEIR that the City provide graphic noise
contour data for post-mitigation noise levels. We noted that graphic noise contour data
was provided through the SoundPlan software that was used to model noise for other
scenarios. The FEIR's response to our request was to deny that the City was obliged to
provide the requested data, citing the CEQA Guidelines. FEIR, p. 3-474,response to
Wolfe-31. We reiterated our request for this data in our June 4, 2012 comments to the
Planning Commission.
Finally, the City Council staff report acknowledged in a memo prepared by the
EIR preparer that the data we had requested was actually contained in the RDEIR as
Exhibits 3.9-7 and 3.9-8. Staff Report,p. LC-16. Thus,the FEIR response was
disingenuous and misleading. It would have been a simple matter to explain that the
information.we sought was available in the RDEIR, instead of misleading us by denying
that the City was obliged to provide it. And,as Nor. Watry explains,the information in
Exhibits 3.9-7 and 3.9-8 does demonstrate that, after mitigation, the Project will cause
noise levels above the threshold of significance for the outdoor activity area of at least
one affected residence. The FEIR's misleading response obscured this fact.
Both the FEIR response and the staff report claim that SoundPlan's graphic noise
contour lines are less accurate than the tabular data generated from point receivers in the
SoundPlan software. This claim was used by the FEIR to justify its refusal to provide
(or simply to identify)the noise contour data we requested. The claim was again used in
the EIR preparer's memo in the staff report to justify the EIR's exclusive reliance on
point sources at residential facades to determine significance. The claim is not true.
June 22, 2012
Page 7
As Mr. Watry shows, there is no meaningful difference in the accuracy of the
lines generated by SoundPlan to depict graphic noise contour data and the points
generated by SoundPlan to determine noise levels at a particular receiver location. His
demonstration is based on his discussion with the SoundPlan company's U.S.
representative, an acoustician,trainer, and license administrator for the company. Mr.
Watry also points out that the EIR preparer's memo in the staff report purports to quote
the CEQA Guidelines for the proposition that noise contour data is inherently unreliable.
Not only is the quote not from the CEQA Guidelines, but it is so dated (at least from
1998, and probably from the mid-1980s)that it does not represent the"present state of
the art"that it claims to represent. Furthermore, any defects in the modeling of noise
contour lines would also be shared by the modeling of noise receptor. points.
In sum,the FEIR misleads the public as to the availability and reliability of
information that demonstrates that the Project will cause significant noise impacts. The
last-minute staff report admits that the information we requested was available all along,
but continues to mislead the public as to its reliability.
F. The EIR Fails To Recognize That The Project Causes Noise To Exceed The
Stated 60 dBA Ldn/CNEL Threshold Of Significance
Finally,Mr.Watry demonstrates that the tabular data based on point receivers in
the RDEIR also demonstrates that the Project will cause a residence to exceed the 60
dBA Ldn/CNEL threshold. As Mr. Watry explains, Table 3.9-45 shows that, for
receiver# 14, noise without the Project would be less than the threshold and noise with
the Project would be greater than the threshold. RDEIR,p. 3.9-45. The EIR and the
proposed Findings fail to identify this impact as significant.
For all these reasons, we respectfully request the City Council to decline to certify
the FEIR at this time, and to defer consideration of the Project's entitlements until such.
time as the foregoing deficiencies are addressed in a revised and recirculated DEIR.
Thank you for your consideration of these concerns.
M.R. WOLFE&ASSOCIATES,P.C.
Mark R. Wolfe
John H.Farrow
On behalf of Save Atascadero
JHF:am
enclosures
June 19 2012 10M Brohard
Mr. John H. Farrow, Attorney at Law
M. R. Wolfe &Associates, P.C.
1 Sutter Street, Suite 300
San Francisco, California 94104
SUBJECT: Del Rio Road Commercial Area Specific Plan in the City of
Atascadero— Review of Findings
Dear Mr, Farrow:
At your request, I have reviewed the Findings for the proposed General Plan
Amendment recommended by the Planning Commission for the Del Rio Road
Commercial Area Specific Plan in the City of Atascadero: Specifically, I reviewed
those Findings related to traffic impacts to address your question as to whether
the impacts now identified as significant and unavoidable were previously
identified as significant and unavoidable in the City of Atascadero's 2025 General
Plan and General Plan Environmental impact Report. As explained below, they
were not.
Education and Experience
Since receiving a Bachelor of 'Science in Engineering from Duke University in
Durham, North Carolina in 1969, 1 have gained over 40 years of professional
engineering experience. I am licensed as a Professional Civil Engineer both in
California and Hawaii, and as a Professional Traffic Engineer in California. I
formed Tom Brohard and Associates in 2000 and now serve as the City Traffic
Engineer for the City of Indio and as Consulting Transportation Engineer for the
Cities of Big Bear Lake and San Fernando. I have extensive experience in traffic
engineering and transportation planning. During my career in both the public and
private sectors, 1 have reviewed numerous environmental documents and traffic
studies for various projects. Several recent assignments are highlighted in my
resume which is enclosed.
Discussion
Pages 118-920 and 129-134 of the Del Rio Road Commercial Area Specific Plan
CEQA Findings recommended by the Planning Commission acknowledge that
the project will create significant and unavoidable impacts, including:
r Deficient roadway segment level of service on Del Rio Road between El
Camino Real and Ramona Road under future conditions.
Deficient intersection level of service at San Anselmo Road and 101
Northbound Ramps under baseline and future conditions.
S 1905 M0111rtaix �ien,Z.erne,.T a Ouirrla, Cali Ow el.92_>S3.7G 17
Pivne(760)3.98-8985 Fax(760)398-8897
Email fibrrrharrl(c wrlhlivk,rzol
Mr. John H. Farrow
Del Rio Road Commercial.Area Specific dart—Review of Findings
June 19, 2012
Deficient intersection level of service at San Anselmo Road and 101
Southbound Ramps under baseline and future condition.
Pages 136-137 of the General Plan Amendment Findings recommended by the
Planning Commission for the Specific Plan state that the proposed amendment
of the General Plan to accommodate the Del Rio Road Commercial Area will not
create any new significant and unavoidable impacts to traffic. The stated basis of
this finding is that "these are not considered new impacts." Page 137 of the
General Plan Amendment Findings states:.
"These impacts were previously identified and considered by the City in adopting
the 2025. General Plan. In particular, both the 2025 General Plan and 2025
General Plan EIR analyzed these specific interchanges and stated roadway
segments and concluded that they would be significantly impacted under 2425
General Plan buildout conditions, but that interchange improvements were
available which would fully mitigate these impacts,"
The General Plan.Amendment Findings then point out that the Specific Plan. EIR
proposes construction of roundabouts to mitigate impacts and that the impact is
characterized as unavoidable because of uncertainty as to the timing of this
mitigation..
However, the General Plan, its EIRE and its CEQA Findings do not identify these
impacts as significant and unavoidable. To the contrary, the General Plan EIR
and its Findings conclude that impacts at these locations will be mitigated to a
less-than"significant level, or do not require any mitigation as follows:.
1) General Plan EIR Specifically Found the Del Rio Road Segment Would Meet
Level of Servide Standards In 2025, and Would Do So Without Mitigation —
Page 5 of the General Plan EIR CEQA 'Findings state that unspecified
"impacts associated with roadway and interchange operations are considered
significant, due to projected deficient levels of service." These Findings
conclude that these unspecified impacts will remain significant and
unavoidable.
Table 12 on Page 74 of the General Plan EIR projects 2025. traffic volumes
and roadway level of service based on planned new dwelling units and new
retail, service, offices and industrial development. Table 12 specifies the
particular roadway segments that would experience unacceptable level of
service (below LOS C) in 2025 without additional improvements. These
include segments of US 101; a segment of SR 41 from Curbaril Avenue to'US
101; two segments of Traffic Way from Ardila Avenue to US 101 and from US
101 to El Camino Real; and a segment of SR 41 from Santa Rosa Road to
Curbaril Avenue. These are the only roadways segments that are identified as
experiencing deficient level of service in 2025. Note that the affected
2
Mr. John H. Farrow
Ciel Rio Road Commercial area Specific flan -- Review of Findings
June 19, 2012
segments of Traffic Way, SR41, and Curbaril Avenue are related to the US
101 interchanges, and that Page 71 of the General Plan EIR states that the
Curbaril Avenue and Traffic Way interchanges would have the highest priority
for future.improvements.
The General Plan EIR CEQA Findings cannot have been meant to apply to
the Del Rio Road segment at issue in the Specific Plan EIR because the
General Plan EIR specifically found that this segment would meet service
standards in 2025, and would do so without any mitigation. The segment of
Del Rio Road from El Camino Real to Ramona Road analyzed in the Specific
Plan EIR is part of the larger segment of Del Rio Road from EI Camino Real
to San Ramon Road that was evaluated in the General Plan EIR. In
particular, Table 12 of the General Plan EIR projected that the Del Rio Road
segment would operate at LOS B from El Camino Real to US 101 and at LOS
A from US 101 to San Ramon Road, without mitigation. This table, "2025
Roadway Levels of Service without Additional Improvements," was reprinted
as Table 111-10 in the General Plan itself on Page 111-15, in short, the same
table that specifies the segments with deficient service levels makes it clear
that the Del Rio Road segment will not have a deficient level of service or
require mitigation.
Thus, contrary to the Planning Commission's recommended General Plan
Amendment Findings for the Specific Plan, neither the General Plan nor the
General Plan EIR identified deficient roadway segment level of service on Del
Rio Road between El Camino Real and Ramona Roach as a significant
impact. In. fact, these documents bath specifically found that this. road
segment would have acceptable level of service without mitigation. it is not
accurate to state that the General Plan and its EIR found that the Del Rio
Road.segment at issue would have unavoidably significant impacts.
2) General Plan Specifically Found Impacts.,to the San-Anselmo/US 101 Ram
Intersections from Proiected Traffic Would Be Less Than Significant after
Adopted Feasible Mitigation - On Page 19, the General Pian EIR CEQA
Findings state "projected traffic will exacerbate existing deficient levels of
service at area intersections," Two of those intersections are identified in
Table 8 of the General Plan EIR as the San Anselmo Road/US 101 SB ramps
and the San Anselmo Road/US 101 NB ramps. The Findings identify a policy
requiring the incorporation of recommendations of the traffic engineers as
mitigation. Those recommendations are.set out in Table 9 of the General Plan
EIR. The General Plan EIR CEQA Findings conclude that "the above
mitigation measures are feasible, are adopted, and reduce the potential
impacts of the project associated with projected traffic levels at intersections
to a less-than-significant level."
3
Mr. John H. Farrow
Del Rio Road Commercial area Specific Plan — Review of Findings
June 19, 2012
The General Plan EIR and its CEQA Findings specifically state that significant
impacts from projected traffic will be rendered less-than-significant by virtue of
identified feasible and adopted mitigation measures. Thus, contrary to the
Planning Commission's recommended General Plan Amendment Findings for
the Del Rio Commercial Area Specific Pian, it is not accurate to state that the
General Plan EIR found unavoidably significant impacts at the San
Anselmo/US 101 ramps intersections.
If you should have any questions regarding my review of these findings, please
contact me at your convenience.
Respectfully submitted,
Torn Brohard and associates Essr�,
ESSJp���
OR
024577
Tom Brohard, PE TR724
Principal s� civk
9rF,OF 6t
Enclosure ' 0r CAt�Fa�
4
Torr Brohard, PE
Licenses: 1975 I Professional Engineer I California — Civil, No. 24577
19771 Professional Engineer/ California—Traffic, No. 724
20061 Professional Engineer/ Hawaii — Civil, No. 12321
Education: 1969 / BSE / Civil Engineering / Duke University
Experience: 40+ Years
Memberships: 1977 / Institute of Transportation Engineers — Fellow, Life
19781 Orange County Traffic Engineers Council - Chair 1982-1983
1981 /American Public Works Association — Life Member
Tom is a recognized expert in the field of traffic engineering and transportation planning.
His background also includes responsibility for leading and managing the delivery of
various contract services to numerous cities in Southern California.
Tom has extensive experience in providing transportation planning and traffic engineering
services to public agencies. Since May 2005, he has served as Consulting City Traffic
Engineer for the City of Indio. He also currently provides "on call" Traffic and Transportation
Engineer services to the Cities of Big Bear Lake, Mission Viejo, and San Fernando. In
addition to conducting traffic engineering investigations for Los Angeles County from 1972
to 1978, he has previously served as City Traffic Engineer in the following communities:
o Bellflower..................................................... 1997 - 1998
o Bell Gardens................................................ 1982 - 1995
o Huntington Beach........................................ 1998 - 2004
o Lawndale..................................................... 1973 - 1978
o Los Alamitos................................................ 1981 - 1982
o Oceanside ................................................... 1981 - 1982
o Paramount................................................... 1982 - 1988
o Rancho Palos Verdes.................................. 1973 - 1978
o Rolling Hills.................................................. 1973 - 1978, 1985 - 1993
o Rolling Hills Estates..................................... 1973 - 1978, 1984 - 1991
c San Marcos ........................ ........................ 1981
o Santa Ana.................................................... 1978 - 1981
o Westlake Village.......................................... 1983 - 1994
During these assignments, Tom has supervised City staff and directed other consultants
including traffic engineers and transportation planners, traffic signal and street lighting
personnel, and signing, striping, and marking crews. He has secured over $5 million in
grant funding for various improvements, He has managed and directed many traffic and
transportation studies and projects. While serving these communities, he has personally
conducted investigations of hundreds of citizen requests for various traffic control devices.
Tom has also successfully presented numerous engineering reports at City Council,
Planning Commission, and Traffic Commission meetings in these and other municipalities.
Tom Brohard and Associates
Tom Brohard, PE, Page 2
In his service to the City of Indio since May 2005, Tom has accomplished the following:
• Oversaw preparation and adoption of the Circulation Element Update of the General
Plan including development of Year 2035 buildout traffic volumes, revised and
simplified arterial roadway cross sections, and reduction in acceptable Level of
Service criteria under certain constraints. Reviewed Riverside County's updated
traffic model for consistency with the adopted City of Indio Circulation Plan.
°:• Oversaw preparation of fact sheets/design exceptions to reduce shoulder widths on
Jackson Street over 1-10 as well as justifications for protected-permissive left turn
phasing at 1-10 on-ramps, the first such installation in Caltrans District 8 in Riverside
County; reviewed plans and provided assistance during construction of a $1.5 million
project to install traffic signals and widen three of four ramps at the 1-10/Jackson
Street Interchange under a Caltrans encroachment permit.
Oversaw preparation of fact sheets/design exceptions to reduce shoulder widths on
Monroe Street over 1-10 as well as striping plans to install left turn lanes on Monroe
Street at the 1-10 Interchange under a Caltrans encroachment permit; reviewed
plans to install traffic signals and widen three of four ramps at the 1-10/Monroe Street
Interchange.
• Reviewed traffic impact analyses for Project Study Reports evaluating different
alternatives for buildout improvement of the 1-10 Interchanges at Jefferson Street,
Monroe Street, Jackson Street and Golf Center Parkway.
Oversaw preparation of plans, specifications, and contract documents and provided
construction assistance for over 40 traffic signal installations and modifications.
Reviewed and approved over 600 work area traffic control plans as well as signing
and striping plans for all City and developer funded roadway improvement projects.
❖ Oversaw preparation of a City wide traffic safety study of conditions at all schools.
Prepared over 500 work orders directing City forces to install, modify, and/or remove
traffic signs, pavement and curb markings, and roadway striping.
Oversaw preparation of engineering and traffic surveys to establish enforceable
speed limits on over 200 street segments.
Reviewed and approved traffic impact studies for more than 25 major developments.
•:• Developed the Golf Cart Transportation Program and administrative procedures;
implemented routes forming the initial baseline system.
Since forming Tom Brohard and Associates in 2000, Tom has reviewed many traffic impact
reports and environmental documents for various development projects. He has provided
expert witness services and also prepared traffic studies for public agencies and private
sector clients.
Tom Brohard and Associates
``- Autumn Wind Associates, Inc.
Air Quality CEQA Analysis and Consulting Services
P.O.Box 1030 Newcastle,CA 95658
916.663.2222 Cell 916.719.5472 • ww-v.autuninwind.us
22 June 2012
Mr. John Farrow
M.R. Wolfe&Associates
49 Geary Street,Suite 200
San Francisco CA 94108
RE: Del Rio Road Commercial Area Specific Plan EIR
Dear Mr. Farrow:
At your request Autumn Wind Associates, Inc.has reviewed the air quality impacts
related to the proposed Del Rio Road Commercial Area Specific Plan. We reviewed the air
quality analysis in the Draft,Revised Draft,and Final EIR for the project,focusing on the analysis
of toxic air contaminants. We also revieweddocuments referenced by the EIR as relevant to the
analysis of toxic air contaminants, including the December 2009 San Luis Obispo Air Pollution
Control District(SLOAPCD)CEQA Air Quality Handbook' and the July 2009 California Air
Pollution Control Officers Association(CAPCOA)Health Risk Assessments For Proposed Land
Use Projects.2 Finally,we reviewed analysis of toxic air contaminants provided in the Staff
Report to the Atascadero City Council,containing responses to comments you made to the
Planning Commission.
Our review discloses that the EIR fails to provide an adequate analysis of cumulative
impacts from toxic air contaminants generated by the project and other existing and future sources
of these emissions. Had the EIR provided this analysis, it is likely that it would have shown that
cumulative impacts to sensitive residential receptors will be significant,and that the Project itself
will make a considerable contribution to that cumulative impact.
i Available at
]=:/I,wi w.slocleaiiai.r.or�Ybusiriess/ndf,2010iC:EQ/k.ICEOA ffandbook Final_2009_0 .1df:
2 Available at lift)://wwA,.cai)coa.orc,/wp-content/uploads/2012103/CATICOA HRA EQ Guidelines 8-6-
09.odf
Page 1 of 11
L Background
We understand that the proposed project would include 260,460 square feet of commercial
retail uses and 50 dwelling units. The uses would result in 9,216 additional weekday vehicle trips
and the commercial use would generate 40 diesel delivery truck trips daily. PRDEIR, pp.3.2-101,
3.11-37. This traffic would approach the project site using US 101,El Camino Real, and Del Rio
Road. Most of the project site is located approximately 500 feet from US 101 to the west,
although the northern portion of the project is directly adjacent to US 101. DEIR,Exhibit 2-2.
The project is surrounded by residential.uses to the north,east, and south. DEIR, p.2-2. To the
west are commercial uses,residences, commercial property,and US 101.
Diesel emissions are emitted by large heavy-duty diesel truck engines and trailer
refrigeration units(TRU)that would daily serve or visit the project,along with the project's
customers' diesel vehicles. These emissions contain toxic air contaminants and would add to
already high ambient concentrations of inhalable carcinogens in.the area of the project(discussed
below). Diesel particulate matter contains a wide array of carcinogenic substances and was
declared a toxic air contaminant(TAC)by the California Air Resources Board(CARE)in 1998.
Diesel emissions represent—78%of the total inhalable cancer risk in outdoor air from all
hazardous air pollutants combined, based on U.S.Environmental Protection Agency(EPA)data.'
Diesel particulate matter(DPM)has been calculatedto represent more than 70%of all ambient
air-related cancer risk in California." The California Air Resources Board(CARB)identified
diesel exhaust particulate matter(PM)as a toxic air contaminant based on its potential to cause
cancer, premature death,and other health problems.
Air toxic control measures developed by CARB have been and continue to be difficult and
expensive to implement,costing tens of millions of dollars to protect public health. EPA estimates
that a$100 million voluntary diesel retrofit program would create$2 billion in health benefits
from reduced premature deaths,hospital visits,and other costs associated with diesel emissions
exposure.5 For Californians,attaining the standards for.PM in California would annually prevent
about 6,500 premature deaths,or 3 percent of all deaths. These premature deaths shorten lives by
an average of 14 years,roughly equivalent to the same number of deaths(4,200—7,400) linked to
second-hand smoke in the year 2000.6
3 Environmental Defense Fund;"Diesel Cancer Ris]c Dwarfs All Other Air Toxics Combined";July
2001; htt 3�.-.i!xvw,,3,.edf.ora news„diesel-cancer,ri k-dwtirfs-all-otliea•-air-toxics-combined.
A MATES-11 Stud SCAQMD• h'_3,;ilwtu�a md. otis�'ne��ys1i20�5rh_1.,�7'FSJl1=}�'�ictSheet.htn�l,
Study, m_ __.
s West Coast Collaborative website:FAQs littn:i%www.westco�istcollaborarive.orsr/tlrq.htni.
6 "Recent Research Findings:Health Effects of Particulate Matter and Ozone Air Pollution,”Air
Resources Board and American Lung Association,January 2004,
littp://www.arb.cai..P-o-v/research/licalt-h.,'fs/PM-03f,s.Rd
Page 2 of 11
IL The EIR's Analyses of Toxic Air Contaminants
Under the Air District's CEQA guidance a project that generates new toxic air
contaminants(TACs)that would affect sensitive receptors is called a"Type A Project,"whereas a
project that sites new sensitive receptors(e.g.,residential uses)proximate to TAC emissions is a
"Type B Project."' Because this project generates TACs that affect off-site sensitive receptors and
also locates new sensitive receptors(its residential uses)proximate to TACs, it is both a Type A
and Type B project.
The DEIR provided a Health Risk Analysis (HRA)that considered the effects on.off-site
receptors of the TACs emitted on-site by diesel delivery trucks. DEIR,Appendix C2. This"Type
A"analysis concluded that on-site emissions from diesel delivery vehicles,by itself,would result
in a less than significant impact because the incremental cancer risk,at 2.5 excess cancers per one
million persons,would be below the Air Districts threshold of significance of 10 excess cancers.
DEIR,p. 3.2-84;PRDEIR,p.3.2-103.
As the Air District objected,that analysis was deficient because 1)it omitted emissions
from diesel vehicles other than delivery trucks and 2)it improperly assumed that all.2-axle
delivery trucks would be Light Heavy-Duty trucks under 10,000 pounds. FEIR,comment
APCD.1-23. Accordingly,the PRDEIR provided the results of a supplemental HRA that included
on-site TAC emissions from non-delivery diesel vehicles and the larger 2-axle delivery trucks.
PRDEIR, p.3.2-103 to 104. This analysis also concluded that on-site TAC emissions would be
less than significant because excess cancers, at 4.1 excess cancers per one million,would still be
below the Air District's significance threshold. As your April 27,2012 comments on the PRDEIR
objected,the PRDEIR did not include the supplemental health risk assessment. FEIR,comment
Wolfe-10. In response,the FEIR provided the modeling data for the supplemental health risk
assessment in Appendix Q.
The DEIR did not provide any quantitative assessment of the TAC exposure to the new
on-site sensitive receptors in its residential units. In comments on the DEIR,the Air District noted
this omission and stated that it had,on its own initiative, performed such an analysis. FEIR,
comment APCD.1-24. The Air District reported that its own"Type B"analysis of TAC impacts
to on-site receptors indicated that TACs from three sources within 1,000 feet of the project(US
101,a gas station,and project diesel traffic)would result in 49 excess cancers per one million, less
than the Air District's significance threshold of 89 in one million for a Type B HRA. FEIR,
comment APCD.1-24.
' SLOAPCD,CEQA Air Quality Handbook,December 2009,p.3-4.
Page 3 of I I'
The PRDEIR reported the results of the Air District's Type B HRA,but did not include
the analysis. PRDEIR,p. 3.2-105. Although your April 27, 201.2 comments on the PRDEIR
requested the Type B analysis,the FEIR did not provide it. FEIR,comment and response Wolfe-
11.
Neither the DEIR.nor the PRDEIR mentioned TACs in their discussions of cumulative
impacts. DEIR,pp.4-3 to 4-4; PRDEIR,pp.4-4. Your April 27,2012 comments on the PRDEIR
asked that the ETR provide an analysis of cumulative TAC impacts to sensitive receptors in the
project vicinity. FEIR, comment Wolfe-12. The FEIR responded by asserting that the Type B
analysis constitutes an adequate cumulative analysis, as follows:
"The Type B analysis addresses the impacts of existing sources of emissions and the
project on sensitive receptors. There are no other planned or future projects in the area that would
contribute additional cumulative impacts;therefore, the analysis adequately discloses the impacts
of all potential sources." FEIR,p. 3-448.
In your June 4, 2012 comments to the Planning Commission,you repeated your request
for the Type B analysis. In response to this repeated request,the Staff Report to the City Council
acknowledged that the Air District had not preserved its Type B analysis results. Staff Report, p.
LC-14. The Staff Report stated that the EIR consultants asked the Air District to re-run the Type
B analysis model and provide the results,and those results were included in in the Staff Report.
Staff Report,p.LC-18. We note that the Type B analysis included in the Staff Report indicates
that project residents would be exposed to 53.5 excess cancers, whereas the Air District and
PRDEIR both reported that the Type B analysis showed 49 excess cancers. Id.;FEIR, comment
APCD.1-24;PRDEIR,p. 3.2-105. No explanation was provided for the differing results.
As explained below,even if the Type B analysis eventually provided in the City Council
staff report had been included in the EIR,this form of analysis does not meet CEQA's
requirements for a cumulative impact analysis. It fails to evaluate the off-site receptors who
would experience the maximum cumulative impact. It fails to include the IACs that project
vehicles would generate off-site. It fails to include additional IACs that would be generated by
foreseeable future traffic not generated by the project. Finally, it fails to consider TACs from
traffic on El.Camino Real and Del Rio Road,which would affect the same receptors. An
adequate cumulative impact analysis of TACs would have disclosed a cumulatively significant
impact because some off-site sensitive receptors will be exposed to TACs in excess of any
reasonable threshold for cumulative impacts. Furthermore,an adequate cumulative analysis
would have disclosed that the project's contribution to that impact is considerable.
Page 4 of I I
III. Cumulative Toxic Air Contaminant Impacts
CEQA calls for a cumulative impact assessment where there is a potential.that impacts
that are not individually significant may nonetheless constitute a considerable contribution to a
significant cumulative impact. CEQA recognizes that individually minor project-specific impacts
may represent considerable contributions to significant cumulative impacts,and thus warrant
mitigation.
An adequate cumulative impact analysis requires a determination whether there is a
cumulatively significant impact fiom a project's emissions combined with emissions from existing
and reasonably foreseeable future sources. If there is,the analysis must separately consider
whether the project's contribution is considerable.
Here,the FEIR's reliance on the Type B analysis conducted by the Air District as a
cumulative impact analysis presents a number of problems.
I. The Air District's Type B analysis was not included in the DEIR,RDEIR,.or
FEIR,despite requests for this information.
2. The Type B analysis considers impacts only to those sensitive receptors located
on the project site,ignoring those off-site receptors that would be affected by emissions from the
project and other existing and future sources. Here,the cumulative impacts would be greatest to
off-site receptors,particularly those situated between the project and major roadways(US 101,EI
Camino Real,and Del Rio Road west of the project site), but these receptors were not considered
in the Type B analysis.
3. The only off-site traffic included in the Type B analysis was existing traffic on US
101. Thus,the Type B analysis did not include the off-site generation of cumulatively-relevant
TAC emissions on US 101,El Camino Real,and Del Rio Road west of the project site by project-
related traffic. Nor did the Type B analysis consider TAC emissions on US 101,El Camino Real,
And Del Rio Road generated by other future development that will occur by 2013.
These points are discussed below.
OMISSION OF TYPE B ANALYSIS: Obviously,review of the adequacy of the Type B
analysis offered in lieu of a cumulative impact analysis was hampered by the EI.R's failure to
present the Type B analysis itself. The analysis should have been provided in the DEIR or
PRDEIR.
OFF-SITE SENSITIVE RECEPTORS ARE NOT CONSIDERED IN TYPE B
ANALYSIS: A health risk analysis for TACs is supposed to focus on the Maximally Exposed
Individual(MEI). See,e.g., DEIR,App. C2,p. 22,Table 22 identifying MEI for analysis of.on-
site emission sources as at a residence at the intersection of Del Rio Road and Obispo Road. The
Page 5 of 11
Type B analysis does not identify the relevant MEI for a cumulative impact analysis since that
receptor is off--site and the Type B analysis considers only on-site receptors.8
The on-site receptors that the Type B analysis considers are the project's own proposed
residential uses,which are to be located at the northeastern and southeastern corners of the project,
no closer than 989 feet from US 101,and relatively distant from El Camino Real and Del Rio
Road compared to other receptors. DEIR,Exhibit 2-5a;DEIR,App. C2,Exhibit 5(sensitive
receptor locations); City Council Staff Report,p.LC-18. 'These roadways are major sources of
cumulative TACs. Their TACs,combined with.the project's TACs, would most substantially
affect those off-site receptors located between the project and the noted roadways. By considering
only the on-site receptors relatively distant from the roadways,the Type B analysis failed to
identify and assess cumulative impacts to the Maximally Exposed Individual,who is likely located
at one of the three existing,occupied residential uses located between the project and El Camino
Real to the east and US 101 to the west. DEIR,App.C.2,Health.Risk Assessment, Exhibit 5. As
discussed below,these three receptors would experience cancer risks from DPM well in excess of
any reasonable threshold for cumulatively significant impacts.
TACs FROM OFF-SITE PROJECT TRAFFIC AND OTHER FUTURE TRAFFIC ARE
OMITTED IN TYPE B ANALYSIS: An adequate cumulative analysis should have considered
existing andreasonably foreseeable future TAC emissions that would affect sensitive receptors
potentially subject to project impacts,whether those emissions were generated within the project
site or off-site. In particular,the cumulative analysis should have included TAC emissions from
future traffic on US 101 and city streets in the immediate vicinity of the project. Most of the
increase in future traffic will be project-related since it will add over 9,000 daily vehicle trips,
including trips by diesel delivery and non-delivery diesel vehicles. All of the offsite TAC sources
(existing and future,project-related or not)that affect receptors who will also be affected by
project-specific TACs should have beene included in the first step of a cumulative analysis in
order to determine whether there is a cumulatively significant impact.
Offsite TAC Emissions From Project Traffic: The Type B analysis relied on the EIR's
Type A analysis to quantify the effect of project TACs,concluding that the project traffic would
generate 4.1 excess cancers in one million. The Type A Health Risk Analysis contained in the
EIR did not,however,evaluate the offsite TAC emissions generated by project-related traffic,i.e,
the TAC emissions that traffic would generate while traveling on adjacent roadways to or from the
project. Exhibit 4 of the Type A HRA,"Location of Emission Sources,"graphically illustrates the
fact that this analysis considered only the TAC emissions generated by project traffic while that
traffic is within the project's property boundaries. DEIR,App. C2,p. 15. No emissions were
identified in the Type A analysis from project-related traffic on El Camino Real,Del Rio Road
8 The Air District's CEQA guidance makes it clear that,whereas the purpose of Type A analysis is to
assess impacts to off-site receptors,the purpose of Type B analysis is to consider impacts to on-site
receptors. SLOAPCD,CEQA Air Quality Handbook,December 2009,p.3-4.
Page 6 of 11
west of the project,or US 101,even though those emissions would affect sensitive receptors,
particularly those receptors located between the project and these roadways.9
Future TAC Emissions:The only off-site traffic-related TAC's included in the Type B
analysis were based on 6,000 peak hour vehicle trips on US 101. This number does not represent
US 101 traffic in 2013 in combination with the project's new traffic, it mistakenly represents only
existing traffic on US 101.L0 The EIR projects peak hour vehicle trips on US 101 and other major
roadways in the project vicinity under 2013 conditions with the project as follows:
• 101 north of Del Rio Road Interchange—7,200 peak hour trips
• 101 south of Del Rio Road Interchange—7,500 peak hour trips.
Thus,it is clear that the Type B analysis omits the project's own traffic on US 101. It also
ignores the growth in traffic urn-elated to the project that the EIR.projects will occur before the
2013 baseline conditions.12 At 7,500 peak hour trips,traffic on US 1.01 south of Del Rio will be
fully 25%higher than the 6,000 peak hour trips identified in the Type B analysis;this is a very
significant increase.
Additionally,the Type B analysis does not consider TACs from El Camino Real and Del
Rio Road west of the project site. The EIR projects these volumes under 2013 baseline plus
project conditions as follows:
9 The omission of project-related off site TAG emissions from the Type A HRA may very well have
resulted in a failure to identify the Maximally Exposed Individual for that analysis and a failure to determine
the actual risk correctly. As discussed below,receptors located between the project and US 101 would be
exposed to TAC emissions as project traffic travels to and from the project site. These receptors would also
be exposed to TAC emissions from project traffic while that traffic is on-site. The Type A HRA should be
revised to include off-site emissions from project-related traffic in the project vicinity.
10 As its source for its estimate of 6,000 peak hour vehicle counts on US 101 at Del Rio Road,the
Type B analysis references what may be a CalTrans web site at ..
H:\PLAN\CEQA\FIRA\Screen_Tools\CaltransData\Caltrans_SLO_H.wy101_TrafficCounts.xls. We are
unable to access this site. However,Caltrans data available at http://traffic-
counts.dot.ca.gov/2010all/Routel 01.html indicates that peak hour traffic between the US 101 Del Rio
interchange and the San Ramon interchange as of 2010 was 6,000 vehicle trips.
I 1 101 north of Del Rio is based on 1,699 northbound plus 1,895 southbound times two for two lanes
each direction. 101 south of Del Rio is based on 1,771 northbound plus 1,975 southbound times two for
two lanes each direction. See PRDEIR,App.O,p.72,Table 45.
12 The FEIR's characterization of the Type B analysis indicates that it omitted other foreseeable
future sources of TACs from traffic on adjacent roadways,i.e.,that from growth in traffic on US 101,El
Camino Real,and Del Rio Road from non-project development:
"The Type B analysis addresses the impacts of existing sources of emissions and the project on
sensitive receptors. There are no other planned or future projects in the area that would contribute
additional cumulative impacts;therefore,the analysis adequately discloses the impacts of all
potential sources." FEIR,p.3-448,response to Wo€fe-12.
Page 7 of 1 I
• Del Rio west of El Camino Real— 1,065 peak hour trips
• El Camino Real north of Del Rio—712 peak hour trips
• El Camino Real south of Del Rio—978 peak hour trips."
In sum,the Air D'istrict's Type B analysis omitted future TAC sources from project and
non-project traffic on roadways adjacent to the project, including US 101,El Camino Real,and
Del Rio Road east of the project. Such omissions are particularly troubling since the majority of
the increase in future traffic is project-related.
As discussed below,the TAC emissions from roadways adjacent to the project would
result in excess cancers above any reasonable threshold of significance for a cumulatively
significant impact. Since TACs from the project are a major source,the project's contribution to
this significant impact should have been identified as considerable.
NO THRESHOLD IDENTIFIED FOR CUMULATIVE IMPACTS; The EIR does not
identify a threshold of significance for cumulative impact.analysis. The thresholds that it does
identify are A)the 10 per million excess cancer threshold for Type A analysis; and B)the 89 per
million excess cancer threshold for Type B analysis.14 We note that the 10 excess cancer
threshold applies to impacts to sensitive receptors affected by newly permitted sources, i.e.,to
existing receptors that that do not voluntarily choose to be exposed to TACs from newly permitted
development. Because the cumulative analysis should assess impacts to existing off-site receptors
involuntarily exposed, it may be appropriate to use the 10 excess cancer threshold.The 89 excess
cancer threshold applies,alternatively,to impacts on receptors who voluntarily move into an area
already affected by TAC emissions. There appears to be no principled reason to apply this higher
threshold to existing sensitive receptors involuntarily affected by a decision to site the project
adjacent to them.
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS WOULD BE SIGNFICANT FOR SOME RECEPTORS.
Regardless of whether the threshold for cumulatively significant impacts is 10 or 89 excess
cancers per million, data in the Type B analysis and in the EIR itself indicate that that existing
13 Peak hour volumes are from PRDEIR,Appendix O,Appendix C,pdf pages 459,461,and 462.
14 Neither the ETR nor the Air District CEQA guidance provides any discussion of,or justification
for,a threshold other than 10 excess cancers as a measure of acceptable risk to offsite receptors. The
DEIR's HRA reports that its significance threshold is based on the Air District's adoption of the California
Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment(OEHHA)threshold of 1.0 excess cancers at the nearest
sensitive receptor,but the EIR does not discuss a cumulative risk threshold for TACs. DEIR.App.2c,p. 1.0.
The Air District Guidance states that"a cumulative impact analysis should be performed to evaluate the
combined air quality impacts of this project and impacts from existing and proposed future development in
the area,"but this document does not identify a separate risk threshold for cumulative analysis. SLOAPCD,
CEQA Air Quality Handbook,December 2009,p. 1.-6.
Page 8 of 11
TAC emissions in the project vicinity would constitute,and in fact already constitute, a significant
cumulative impact,to which the project's own contribution would be considerable.
The Type B analysis itself demonstrates that existing receptors to be affected by the
project are already located closer to major roadways than identified locations for the project's
(onsite)residences,and those existing receptors experience much higher excess cancer risk rates.
For example,one sensitive receptor is located just west of the southern end of the project area and
between it and US 101 (at about 2500 El Camino Real). That residence is located less than 50
feet from US 101,and about 300 feet from El Camino Real where it abuts the proposed project's
southwestern property corner.
Risk to this residence can.be estimated from the table and graph relating receptor distance
from US 101 to excess cancer risks, which is contained.in the Type B analysis. Staff Report,p.
LC-18. This table is based on the existing US 101 vehicle counts(approximately 6,000 peak hour
trips),and omits the project's traffic and other foreseeable traffic growth before 2013. However,
even with this omission, it shows that a receptor at 50 feet would experience an excess cancer rate
of 252 in one million,well over the thresholds used in the EIR. Adjusting this risk to reflect the
new trips to and from the project,along with other growth on US 101 by 2013,would increase the
risk by 25%to 315 in one million.15 Adjusting this to reflect the risk from traffic on El Camino
Real further increases it. At a distance of 250' from El Camino Real,and extrapolating from the
SMAQMD data employed in the Type B analysis,the 978peak hour trips at El Camino Real
would contribute an additional 16 cancers per million.
Another sensitive receptor not evaluated in.the Type B analysis is located 335' east of US
101,40' west of El Camino Real,and slightly less than 400' north of Del Rio Road, DEIR,App.
C2,Exhibit 5. Using information employed in the Type B analysis and adjusting for the increased
hourly peak(see previous discussion),we estimate this receptor would experience an increased
cancer risk of 98 per million from US 101 traffic alone. Yet more cancer risk will be contributed
by the 1.,075 peak hour trips on Del Rio Road and the 71.2 peak hour trips on El Camino Real
adjacent to the receptor.
The DEIR itself also contains evidence that sensitive receptors will be exposed to
cumulative risks over the 10 or 89 excess cancer thresholds. Although the EIR's air quality
section does not discuss background TACs,the Health Risk Assessment contained in DE.IR
Appendix C2 indicates that existing TAC levels in the area already cause from 100 to 250 excess
cancers:
t5 The 25%adjustment would follow the method used in the Type B analysis,which uses a linear
interpolation of the risks from 4,000 and 8,000 peals hour trips to determine the risk from 6,000 peak hour
trips. Since the actual trips on US 101 south of Del Rio as of 201.3 with project traffic and other growth will
be 7,500,the risk would be 25%higher than for 6,000 trips based on existing traffic levels.
Page 9 of 11.
"According to ARB [the California Air Resources Board],the estimated environmental
cancer risk due to the emissions of TACs in the Atascadero area is in the range of 100 to
250 cancer risks in a population of one million people(or 1 to 2.5 cases in a population of
10,000).(ARB 2010)." EIR,App.C2,p.9.
We note that this information is inconsistent with the Type B analysis showing a cancer risk of
only 53.5 (or 49)excess cancers from TACs from existing sources combined with the project.
In view of the evidence contained in both the Type B analysis and the DEIR appendix C2
that sensitive receptors will be exposed to substantially elevated cumulative TAC levels, and the
evidence that the project's traffic itself is a major source of this exposure,the project's incremental
TAC emissions must be recognized as a considerable contribution to a significant cumulative
impact.
ROUNDABOUTS: The sensitive receptor located north of Del Rio Road,west of El
Camino Real, and east of US 101 will be exposed to even more substantial yet unquantified TAC
emission risk as a result of the traffic roundabout that is required by Mitigation Measure TRANS-
Id. See PRDEIR,Exhibit 3.11-16. This new traffic facility will locate roadway TACs closer to
the existing residence. Similarly,receptors located on Ramona Road west of US 101 will be
affected by relocating traffic-based TAC's closer to residences through the traffic roundabout that
is required by Mitigation Measure TRANS-le. The re-routing of existing traffic closer to these
residences, coupled with the substantial increases in traffic volumes due to the project are likely to
result in or aggravate cumulative TAC levels that are already over reasonable thresholds.
Additionally,to the extent that traffic roundabouts"calm"higher-speed traffic,they increase the
duration that heavier-duty, diesel TAC-emitting vehicles will operate in proximity to nearby
sensitive receptors. The effects of these roundabouts on TACs should have been evaluated in the
project-specific Type A analysis, and in an adequate cumulative emissions impact analysis.
If you have any questions regarding these comments,please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
Greg Gilbert
Page 10 of 11
Professional History
Greg,Gilbert has consulted on air quality land use planning and mobile source issues and
projects to private and public clients since forming Autumn Wind Associates in 2001.
Previously,he was marketing director for a specialty emissions catalyst manufacturer.
Between 1990 and 2000 Mr.Gilbert worked in two California air agencies,most recently
as project manager in the Mobile Source Division of the Sacramento Metropolitan Air
Quality Man agement D istrict. While at the SMAQMD,M r. G ilbert was responsible for
implementing the District's heavy-duty vehicle low-emission incentive program that would later
serve as a model for creation of the statewide Moyer Program. Air agency
experience included evaluating land use-related air quality emission impacts and control
strategies,developing CEQA mitigations and updating CEQA guidance,and creation of
the first in-lieu air quality CEQA mitigation fee program.
Since leaving the SMAQMD he has provided consulting expertise to air agencies,
provided input for revisions to the URBEMIS model,conducted research on construction
practices and equipment emissions,and assisted with development of air district CEQA
land use guidance documents and mitigation strategies. Mr.Gilbert reviews CEQA
project-specific environmental documentation and provides written comments for a wide
range of public-, private-,and environmental-sector clients.
Page 1.1 of 11
WILSON IHRIG & ASSOCIATES 6001 SHELLMOUND STREET
ACOUSTICAL AND VIBRATION CONSULTANTS SUITE 400
EMERYVILLE,CA 94608
CALIFORNIA NEW YORK WASHINGTON Te I:510-658-6719
Fax:510-652-4441
— www.wi�i.com
21 Jure 2012.
Mr. John H. Farrow
M. R. Wolfe&Associates,P.C.
I Sutter Street, Suite 300
San Francisco, California 94104
Subject: Review of Atascadero Del Rio Road Commercial Area
Specific Plan EIR Noise Section
Dear Mr. Farrow:
As requested, we have reviewed the PRDEIR and the FEIR for the Del Rio Road Commercial
Area Specific Plan. The plan has two major components--the Walmart Component and the
Annex Component. This letter discusses elements of the analysis and FEIR that we find
deficient in some way.
Wilson,Ihrig&Associates, Acoustical Consultants,has practiced exclusively in the field of
acoustics since 1966. During our 46 years of operation,we have prepared hundreds of noise
studies for Environmental Impact Reports and Statements. We have one of the largest technical
laboratories in the acoustical consulting industry. We also utilize industry-standard acoustical
programs such as Environmental Noise Model (ENM),Traffic Noise Model (TNM),
SoundPLAN, and CADNA. In short, we are well qualified to prepare environmental noise
studies and review studies prepared by others.
The documents we have reviewed are:
I. Partially Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report, Del Rio Road Commercial Area
Specific Plan, City of Astascadero, San Luis Obispo County, California, SCH No.
2010051034, March 15, 2012. ("PRDEIR")
2. Final Environmental Impact Report, Del Rio Road Commercial Area Specific Plan,City of
Astascadero, San Luis Obispo County, California, SCH No. 2010051034, March 25, 2012.
("FEIR")
3. Michael Brandman Associates, memo to Warren Frace, Community Development Director,
City of Atascadero,re Del Rio Commercial Area Specific Plan—Wolfe Comments
(6.04.2012),June 1.3, 2012.
WILSON, IHRIG & ASSOCIATES, INC. 2 Astascadero Del Rio Road EIR
Noise Section Review
Issue#1: Construction Noise Analysis Fails to Identify Large Increase in Noise Levels as
a Significant Environmental impact
The PRDEIR correctly states the six CEQA Guidelines criteria for determining whether or not
implementation of a proposed project would create significant noise impacts [PRDEIR at p. 3.9-
42]. Two of these are:
Would the project cause
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards
established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of
other agencies?
d) A substantial.temporary or periodic increase in ambient levels in the project
vicinity above levels existing without the project?
Our understanding is that these two criteria are included to address two distinct possibilities:
1. To prevent noise levels from increasing however slowly to the point where they far
exceed an absolute threshold of acceptability, and
2. To prevent quiet areas from suffering large relative increases in noise levels even when
the level may remain under an absolute threshold.
The PRDEIR adopts the upper limit of the "Conditionally Acceptable"range for residences from
the General Plan., 70 dBA Ldn, to evaluate Criterion (a) for construction noise. However,
nowhere in the EIR documents is the relative increase in noise levels from construction
evaluated, thereby failing to identify significant impacts under Criterion (d).
Table 3.9-24 in the PRDEIR indicates the existing daytime noise levels around the project site
and the modeled construction noise levels including the benefits of mitigation„measures. At the
fifteen (15)locations listed, the increase over existing is greater than 10 dBA at eleven (11)
residences, greater than 15 dBA at six (6)residences, and over 20 dBA at one(1)residence. As
statedin the PRDEIR, "[a]n increase of 10 dB represents a 10-fold increase in acoustic energy,
while 20 dB is 100 time more intense . . ." and "[e]ach 10-dB increase in sound level is perceived
as approximately a doubling of loudness." [PRDEIR at p. 3.9-1]. Given the mathematics of
decibel (logarithmic scale)calculations, at 15-dB increase corresponds to a 32-fold increase in
acoustic energy and an approximately tripling of loudness. A 20-dB increase corresponds to a
quadrupling of loudness.
Any noise increase over 15 dB that occurs for more than a few days should be identified under
Criterion(d) as a substantial increase. Arguably, noise increases over 10 dB could also be
considered substantial depending on the duration of the impact. If the grading operation were to
WILSON, IHRIG & ASSOCIATES, INC. 3 Astascadero Del Rio Road EIR
Noise Section Review
take more than one month, for example, 10 dB should also be considered a substantial increase.
Here, the project description indicates that 330,000 cubic yards of earth will be moved. [DEIR at
p. 2-41.1 The Air Quality analysis states that construction activities using heavy-duty diesel
equipment such as bulldozers,excavators, loaders, graders and diesel-fueled haul trucks would
occur intermittently over the course of one year. [RDEIR,p. 3.2-100.]
In any case, the information provided in Table 3.9-24 of the PRDEIR indicates that at least six
(6)local residents will have their existing rural and tranquil noise environments transformed by a
32- to 100-fold exposure to acoustic energy corresponding to a tripling to quadrupling of
loudness over the duration of heavy grading. This is clearly a "substantial temporary increase in
ambient levels in the project vicinity above levels existing" and, as such, should be identified as
a significant noise impact.
Construction noise was also addressed in a memo to the City of Amscadero dated June 13, 2012,
by the EIR noise analysis preparer, Michael Brandman Associates ("MBA"),responding to the
criticism that the EIR construction noise analysis was inadequate because it did not assess
whether there would be a substantial increase in noise level, only whether it would exceed an
absolute level. The response in the memo did not take the opportunity to address the magnitude
of the increase, but rather,reasserted that assessment against the absolute standard was adequate
in conjunction with the following considerations:
(1) construction noise would not occur during late night or early morning hours,
(2) construction noise is temporary in nature,
(3) construction staging and equipment maintenance must be performed a minimum
distance of 300 feet from the nearest residence, and
(4) construction equipment is required to use noise reduction features like mufflers and
engine shrouds.
As developed above at length, the increase.in noise levels during construction will be substantial,
and none of these considerations address this fact. Furthermore, these four considerations are not
relevant to this discussion for the following reasons:
construction noise would not occur during There is nothing that limits the
late night or early morning hours consideration of noise impacts to
nighttime or early morning hours. In the E
i words of one resident, "We all
purchased our properties because of the
rural atmosphere, quiet days and
nights..." (Pieters 1-1). Furthermore,
through comments received on the
WILSON, IHRIG&ASSOCIATES, INC. 4 Astascadero Del Rio Road EIR
Noise Section Review
PRDEIR,it is known that at least one
nearby resident works some nights and
sleeps some days: "My duties on the
PM shift and mandated overtime on
NOC shift mean that I need to be able to
sleep somewhat atypical hours."
(Weeks 1-3).
construction noise is temporary in nature. The CEQA.Guidelines expressly
address "substantial temporary or
periodic increase in ambient levels in
the project vicinity above levels existing
without the project." The fact that
construction noise is temporary is
irrelevant. Furthermore, although
I temporary,the duration will be on the
order of months,
construction staging and equipment This was presumably accounted for in
maintenance must be performed a the construction noise modeling that is
minimum distance of 300 feet from the indicating a substantial increase in noise
nearest residence
levels even after mitigation,
construction equipment is required to use This was presumably accounted for in
noise reduction features like mufflers and the construction noise modeling that is
engine shrouds
indicating a substantial increase in noise
levels even after. mitigation.
Issue#2: EIR Failed to Identify Significant Operational Noise Impact at Property#11
The PRDEIR unambiguously states that one of the primary criteria to determine whether a
neighboring property is significantly impacted by combined transportation and stationary noise is
that "the proposed project would need to increase the noise levels above 60 Ld,,/CNEL for
outdoor activity areas . . ." [PRDEIR, p. 3.9-74.1 Two key components of this criterion are:
"increase above"w-this implies that it would be below 60 Ldn/CNEL without the project
"outdoor activity areas"—the purpose of this criterion is clearly to enable the enjoyment of
one's property for outdoor activities. There is, in fact, a separate criterion for indoor noise
exposure,reinforcing that the criterion cited above emphasizes outdoor use.
WILSON, IHRIG & ASSOCIATES, INC. 5 Astascadero Del Rio Road EIR
Noise Section Review
Exhibits 3.9-7 and 3.9-8 show Year 2013 noise contour maps with the project for weekdays and
Saturday,respectively, including, apparently, the effects of proposed mitigation.' Both of these
exhibits clearly show large patches of dark orange on the property associated with "point
receiver" number 11. The legend indicates that dark orange signifies an Ld, level greater than 60
and less than or equal to 65. The corresponding areas on Exhibits 3.9-5 and 3.9-6 showing Year
2013 noise levels without the project clearly indicate that the entire property has a noise
exposure less than 60 Ld, Therefore, it seems irrefutably clear that project noise at this property
triggered the outdoor noise significance criterion and this situation should have been identified as
a significant impact of the project.
That said,in the FEIR and other responses to comments, the EIR preparers have already given
some indication that they would dispute that the property of residence#11 would be impacted
significantly, so we will address possible refutations in the following paragraphs.
Where does noise standard apply? The PRDEIR cites the City of Atascadero General Plan as the
source for the outdoor noise criteria presented in Table 3.9-11 [PRDEIR at p. 3.9-22].
Footnote 1 to this table states "Where the location of outdoor activity is unknown, the exterior
noise level standard shall be applied to the property line of the receiving land use." The
calculation locations used in the PRDEIR were at the facade of the residence, not at either the
property line or at the obvious outdoor activity area of the green lawn in front of the home(this
being clearly distinguishable in the aerial photos from the brown dirt undeveloped areas).
In a memo to the City of Atascadero dated June 13, 2012, the EIR preparer,Michael Brandman
Associates ("MBA"), defended the use of the fagade location with the following statement:
The receivers in the SoundPlan model were placed at the nearest facades of each
analyzed sensitive receptor structure. This location was chosen, since the receiver noise
levels were used to calculate both the exterior and interior noise levels that the nearby
sensitive receptors are anticipated to be exposed to. Other locations, such as placement
of the receiver on the property line would result in distorted results since there are several
existing walls on the nearby property lines and placing a receiver immediately in front of
or behind one of these walls would provide noise level results that are not experienced on
the majority of the analyzed property. Also,several of the nearby residences are located
on large lots with minimal outdoor improvements so identification of specific outdoor
' According to a memo to the City of Atascadero dated June 13,2012,the EIR preparer,Michael
Brandman Associates,states "PRDEIR Exhibits 3.9-7 and 3.9-8 show the noise environment with
implementation of the proposed mitigation." This was not obvious from the PRDEIR itself,nor was this
revealed in the FEIR response to comment WOLFE-31 that specifically asked for"post-mitigation" noise
contours(based on the incorrect assumption that Exhibits 3.9-7 and 3.9-8 showed "pre-mitigation"
contours). The FEIR response obscured the exact nature of the exhibits by stating that "CEQA Guidelines
do not require the use of exhibits,figures,or other images to support conclusions;therefore,there is no
need to revise the EIR to include the requested noise contours." In fact, we learn through the June 13,
2012 memo that the noise contours shown in the PRDEIR were exactly the ones requested,and,
importantly,the ones needed to allow someone to ascertain if a significant impact remains even after
mitigation. For this latter reason,we believe the true nature of the noise contours in Exhibits 3.9-7 and
3.9-8 should have been revealed in the FEIR response.
WILSON, INRIG & ASSOCIATES, INC. 6 Astascadero Del Rio Road EIR
Noise Section Review
activity areas was not possible. Furthermore,analyzing the noise levels at the locations
of the nearest residential structures is an accepted industry practice in determining noise
impacts.
We believe this multi-faceted rationalization does not, in fact,justify the failure to assess the
outdoor noise impact at an appropriate location for the following reasons:
The receivers in the SoundPlan model We acknowledge the benefit of having a ;
were placed at the nearest facades of receiver location at the fagade to
each analyzed sensitive receptor facilitate indoor noise calculations.
structure. This location was chosen,
since the receiver noise levels were used However, that does not preclude the use
to calculate both the exterior and interior of additional receiver locations in the
noise levels that the nearby sensitive SoundPlan software at appropriate
receptors are anticipated to be exposed locations to adequately assess outdoor
to.
noise exposure.
Other locations,such as placement of the While it may not be.appropriate to place
receiver on the property line would result a receiver location immediately behind a
in distorted results since there are several wall,that does not mean it is appropriate
existing walls on the nearby property lines
and placing a receiver immediately in to use only one at the fagade of the
front of or behind one of these walls residence to assess outdoor noise
would provide noise level results that are exposure. A second, appropriately
not experienced on the majority of the placed receiver in a location suggested
analyzed property. by the noise contours in Exhibits 3.9-7
or 3.9-8 could have been used to
confirm the apparent significant impact
revealed by those exhibits.
Also, several of the nearby residences are The City of Atascadero General Plan
located on large lots with minimal outdoor specifically states, "Where the location
improvements so identification of specific of outdoor activity is unknown,the
outdoor activity areas was not possible.
exterior noise level standard shall be
applied to the property line of the
receiving land use." Furthermore, for
property#11,there is a clear and
obvious outdoor improvement of the
dark green front lawn, an area that is
completely covered by the dark orange
contours (>60 Ldr,)in the two 2013
"with project" noise level exhibits.
Furthermore, analyzing the noise levels at We do not believe that the methodology
the locations of the nearest residential used in the PRDEIR is "an accepted
structures is an accepted industry practice
in determining noise impacts. industry practice" that supersedes an
explicit directive in the local General
WILSON, IHRIG &ASSOCIATES, INC. 7 Astascadero Del Rio Road EIR
Noise Section Review
Plan. Nor do we believe that
conformance with Caltrans guidelines
for receiver placement(cited elsewhere
E in the June 13, 2012 MBA memo)
preempts or supersedes the local
ordinance requirements.
Can one rely on SoundPlan graphic output? In response to requests for additional noise contour
information, the EIR preparers twice assertedthat the tabular output of their noise calculation
program, SoundPlan, is adequate for determining significant impacts but either implied or stated
that the graphical output of SoundPlan was not precise and could not be relied upon. In response
to comment WOLFE-29,the FEIR stated "The noise contour exhibits are based on noise level
averaged over 5-square meter areas, while the tables provide the noise levels at exact locations.
Thus, the tables should be referenced when seeking information about noise levels at specific
receptors." In response to comment WOLFE-31 for additional noise contours, the FEIR stated
"Post-mitigated noise levels were provided in Table 3.9-45 and supporting modeling data was
provided in Appendix N." In the June 13, 2412 memo to Atascadero, MBA provided a much
longer response:
[T)he PRDEIR provides the data in the most precise format available(i.e., tabular format).
The SoundPlan model that was used to create the noise contour exhibits does so by
calculating each pixel by averaging the noise level over a 5 square meter(270 square
foot)area,which is not as precise as placing a receiver at the nearest edge of a
structure,which was the procedure that was used in the analysis provided in the tables.
Furthermore,the following excerpt from the CEQA Guidelines provide confirmation that
noise contours provided in the requested graphical format are not necessarily precise
and should not be interpreted as being precise.
"Although considerable effort may go into developing noise contours
which, in some instances,utilize rather sophisticated digital programming
techniques,the present state of the art is such that their accuracy is
usually no better than +/3 dB. In fact,the accuracy of the noise exposure
prediction decreases with increasing distance from the noise source. In
the near vicinity of the source, prediction accuracy may be within the
range of+/1 dB,while at greater distances this may deteriorate to+/5
dB or greater.At greater distances, meteorological and topographic
effects, typically not totally accounted for in most models, may have
significant influence.Thus, while dealing with the concept of noise
contours, it is best not to think of them as absolute lines of demarcation
on a map(such as topographical contours), but rather as bands of
similar noise exposure."
To ensure that our understanding of how SoundPlan calculates noise levels is correct, we
discussed both SoundPlan and Exhibit 3.9-7 with the SoundPlan representative for the United
WILSON, IHRIG&ASSOCIATES, INC. 8 Astascadero Del Rio Road EIR
Noise Section Review
States and Canada, Mr. Hans Forschner.2 In addition to administering SoundPlan licenses, Mr.
Forschner is a working acoustician who uses the software regularly, and he also gives regular
training seminars on the use of SoundPlan.
Mr. Forschner confirmed for us that SoundPlan uses only one calculation algorithm to determine
noise levels throughout the area being modeled at specific grid points. If the noise level at a
particular receiver location is desired,the program simply interpolates the noise level at that
location from the nearest grid points. Similarly,the noise contours are drawn by interpolating
and spline fitting the calculated noise levels at the grid points.3
While it may be true that the contour-fitting process does not determine the position of the line
quite as precisely as it determines the noise level at a given point, Mr. Forschner stated that the
accuracy of the line was a fraction of a decibel,far better than implied by the quote above,
No date is given for the quote regarding the inaccuracy of noise contours,purportedly taken from.
the "CEQA Guidelines." In fact, the quoted language is not from CEQA Guidelines adopted by
the California Resources Agency contained at 14 CCR 15000 et seq. The quote appears in an
appendix to the 1998 California Office of Planning and Research, California General Plan
GuideIines.4 Appendix A, Guidelines For The Preparation And Content Of The Noise Element
Of The General Plan,was prepared by the California Department of Health Services in
coordination with The Governor's Office of Planning and Research.s Based on the 1984 date of
the most recent publication cited in the bibliography for Appendix A, this source apparently
dates from the mid-1980s. As such,the quoted language no longer represents "the present state
of the art." Furthermore, even if it were applicable today,it would be applicable to the noise grid
calculations done by SoundPlan, not just the contour calculations, so it would apply to both the
accuracy of contour locations and the tabulated results equally.
Finally, after examining Exhibit 3.9-7 (Year 2013 with project noise levels), Mr.Forschner
stated unequivocally that the graphical output establishes that the noise level on parts of property
#11 exceeds 60 Ld,,. In other words, enough of the property is colored dark orange that the
graphic may be relied upon to determine that the noise levels on parts of the property are,in fact,
greater than 60 Ld,,.
z Personal communication with Hans Forschner,June 20,2012.
3 Interpolating and spline fitting are mathematical techniques used to connect discrete data points
with smooth curves,in this case noise contour curves.
4 Available at I.Zttp://teres.ca.gov1plannnig/m�en.piai�/gp�.pdf.
5 Available atht�3/Jceres.ca.g_ov/pla�� Ing/aeciplaniapl3rnd'sz: a.htnit.
WILSON, IHRIG &ASSOCIATES, INC. 9 Astaseadero Del Rio Road ETR
Noise Section Review
Issue#3: EIR Failed to Identify Significant Operational Noise Impact at Property#14
The PRDEIR unambiguously states that one of the primary criteria to determine whether a
property is significantly impacted by combined transportation and stationary noise is that "the
proposed project would need to increase the noise levels above 60 Ld„/CNEL for outdoor activity
areas . . ." Table 3.9-45 presents the Mitigated Combined Transportation and Stationary Exterior
Noise Levels at Nearby Sensitive Receptors, tabulated results from the SoundPlan model. Under
the heading "Weekday Year 2013 (dBA Ld,)," the "No Project" noise level is 59.3 Id, and the
"With Project" noise level is 60.1 L&. By crossing the absolute threshold criteria established in
the PRDEIR, this noise level increase should have been identified as a significant impact.
Please call us if you have any questions regarding this review.
Very truly yours,
WILSON, IHRIG &ASSO IATES, INC.
.^ Z
De ek L.Watry
Principal
i
WILSON I H R I G & ASSOCIATES 6001 SHELLMOUND STREET
ACOUSTICAL AND VIBRATION CONSULTANTS SUITE 400
EMERYVILLE,CA 94608
CALIFORNIA NEW YORK Tel:510-658-6719
Fax:
www.wiai.com
DEREK L. WATRY, M.S.
Experience
Wilson,1hrig&Associates. Inc. (1992 to Present)
Principal
Mr. Watry is experienced in all aspects of environmental acoustics, including noise
measurement and prediction,regulatory analysis, environmental impact assessment, and noise
control design. He is well versed in the requirements of CEQA, and has both prepared and
critiqued many environmental noise studies. Over the past 18 years, he has conducted
numerous construction, traffic, HVAC, and industrial equipment noise projects, and has
extensive experience with construction noise and vibration monitoring.
Universitv of California Berkele (1988y - 1992
Graduate Student, Research and Teaching Assistant
Teaching Assistant for "Fundamentals of Acoustics" course
Education
M.S. (1991) in Mechanical Engineering, University of California at Berkeley
B.S. (1988)in Mechanical Engineering, University of California at San Diego
M.B.A. (2000), Saint Mary's College of California,Moraga
Professional Associations
Member, Acoustical Society of America
Member, National Council of Acoustical Consultants
Academic Distinctions
Summa Cum Laude, Saint Mary's College of California (2000)
National Science Foundation Fellowship Recipient (1988 - 1991)
Summa Cum Laude, University of California, San Diego (1988)
Representative Projects
Patterson Ranch EIR,Fremont
Noise section of EIR for 428 acre project that included residential, educational, religious,
community recreation, and commercial land uses.
WILSON, IHRIG & ASSOCIATES, INC. 2 Derek L, Watry
Mare Island Dredged Material Disposal Facility EIR, Vallejo
EIR noise study for proposed disposal facility to be built next to residential neighborhood.
Silva Ranch Annexation EIR, King City
EIR noise study for development of new, large, primarily residential, district on the outskirts of
King City.
525 Golden Gate Avenue Demolition, San Francisco
Noise and vibration monitoring and consultation, during the demolition of multi-story office
building next to Federal, State, and Municipal Court buildings in San.Francisco.
Tyco Electronics Annual Noise Compliance Study, Menlo Park
Conducted annual noise compliance monitoring for Tyco Electronics in 2009 and 2010.
Provided letter critiquing the regulatory requirements and recommending improvements.
Safeway Redevelopment, Sunnyvale
Noise study of store redevelopment including loading dock, trash compactor, parking lot., and
rooftop HVAC equipment.
Safeway Redevelopment, Los Altos
Noise study of store redevelopment including loading dock, trash compactor, rooftop parking lot,
rooftop HVAC equipment, and Foothill Expressway traffic noise.
Central Park Apartments Noise Study, Mountain View
Noise study for new residential building development. Major noise sources included Central
Expressway and. Caltrain.
465 N. Whisman Road, Mountain View
Noise control among suites inn a low-rise office complex.
Caltrain Centralized Equipment Maintenance and Operations Facility, San Jose
Noise study of impacts for new maintenance and operations facility built next to existing
residential neighborhood. Included analysis of Ib ft sound barrier wall.
Conoco-Phillips Refinery Noise Control, Rodeo
Environmental noise study and assessment of refinery noise at residential neighborhood.
Groth Winery HVAC Sound Barrier,Oakville
Design of sound barriers to control noise from rooftop HVAC equipment.
Dahl Booster Pump Station, Palo Alto
Design of sound barrier and specification of mufflers for pump station equipment.
of
14
Michael BzuuJoyu�znw�xu�
__
Date; June 25'2D12 559
Inirw
To: Warren Fnaoe,Community Development Director,City nfAtonoadeno
Rahn Sprij,Q
From: Jason Brandmanand Grant Gruber, Michael 8randmmnAssociates mo221»»*r
sacr.*enn.
Subject: Del Rio Road Cmmm*ue»o1ml Area Specific PUwm -Wm}yeComments(8.22.2O12) 9 6,44"'.1100
Sw,o..r,ard.;=
Michael Brandman Associates(MBA) prepared this memo to address a second set of
comments submitted by Mark Wolfe,an attorney representing Save Atascadero,to the
y11)Ramon
City ofAUasnaderoonJune 22, 2D12inresponse tothe Del Rio Road Commercial Area 925,930-2-753
Specific Plan Final E|R.
1.Claim: Mr.Wolfe states that"[t]he City may not approve a General Plan Amendment
with significant unavoidable impmctn.^ Specifically, Mr.Wolfe asserted that the
proposed General Plan Amendment is in conflict with the City of Atascadero General
Plan's requirements that state that such amendments"will not create any new
significant and unavoidable impacts to traffic, infrastructure,or public services"
because of the significant unavoidable impacts at Del Rio Road between El Camino
Real and Ramona Road. Hoclaimed that impacts onthis roadway segment were not
disclosed in the General Plan Final EIR and,thus, represent a "new"impact. Mr.Wolfe
claimed there was a discrepancy between the Draft EIR's conclusion about impacts in
this regard and the General Plan Amendment Resolution,which stated that the
General Plan EIR found that the project's impacts would occur under 2025 conditions
and that the interchange improvements would fully Mitigate impacts inthisvegand. He
stated that he retained Tom Brohard,a traffic engineer,to review the General Plan
EIR's findings and stated that he found that the General Plan EIR concluded that the
US101/ Del Rio Road interchange would operate atacceptable levels,with no
mitigation being necessary.
1.Response:The General Plan Circulation Element Policy 1.3 establishes Level of
Service(LOB)Couthe minimum acceptable standard for traffic operations onCity-
controlled fmui|itiwomndm||mwyLOSDinnasoawhananoarbyreaidanueawou|dbo
impacted by improvements. Circulation Element Table 111-10,which focuses on
roadway segments,forecasts that Del Rio Road between US 101 and El Camino Real
would operate at acceptable LOS B and Del Rio Road between San Ramon Road and El
Camino Real would operate otLOS Aunder Year 2O25conditions without any
additional Improvements. However,Table||1-3ofthe Circulation Element concludes
that improvements at the San Anselmo Road and Del Rio Road US 101 interchanges
would be needed to bring the Year 2025 levels of service"into compliance with the
City's adopted standard ofLOS Curbetter.^ Specifically,the Technical Appendix tothe
Circulation Element Update states that these improvements"have been identified as
necessary to correct existing and projected circulation deficiencies and achieve the
City's General Plan goals and poUc>es.^
BwrmowmTnvTacSnn7cp»°PLANNING."N^II)raLD�szunura��n�o�xQm�r
Warren Frace
June 25,2012
Page 2
The proposed project—which involves a General Plan Amendment—would result in
unacceptable roadway segment operations on Del Rio Road between El Camino Real
and Ramona Road under"Existing Plus Project," "Baseline Plus Project," "Future Plus
Walmart," and "Future Plus Project"scenarios. Installation of the US 101/ Del Rio
Road interchange improvements would result in acceptable "mitigated"operations on
Del Rio under all scenarios. This conclusion was noted in Table 3.8-3 of the Draft EIR.
11.Claim: "The EIR fails to disclose the uncertainty of traffic mitigation and improperly
assumes delaying the Annex resolves any uncertainty." Mr. Wolfe alleged that the
revisions to Mitigation Measure TRANS-1d and TRANS-1e contained in the Final EIR
effectively"piecemeals"the project into two separate projects and conflicts with CEQA
principles by requiring that a solution be found to an admittedly significant impact in
the future.
11.Response: As discussed in the Final EIR on pages 2-9 through 2-11,the revisions to
Mitigation Measure TRANS-1d and TRANS-1e—which involved adding a statement to
both measures requiring the that US 101/Del Rio Road interchange improvements be
in place prior to Issuance of the first certificate of occupancy for the Annex commercial
uses—were made at the request of Caltrans. The changes did not alter the
improvements required by either mitigation measure;they simply added a statement
identifying the milestone by which they must be in place. In this sense,the"solution"
(i.e.,interchange improvements)has always been identified by the mitigation
measures and,furthermore,the revisions provided reinforcement regarding when they
must be completed.
As for the claim of"piecemealing," both the Draft EIR and Partially Recirculated Draft
EIR(PRDEIR)acknowledge that the Walmart component would likely be developed
first,followed by the Annex component; refer to Draft EIR page 2-70. Thus, it is entirely
appropriate for the mitigation measures set forth in the EIR to reflect this possibility.
Furthermore,this does not constitute"piecemealing" because the "whole of action"
(i.e.,the Del Rio Road Commercial Area Specific Plan)was the project evaluated in
both the Draft EIR and PRDEIR,including Walmart and Annex components.
Ilia Claim: "The EIR does not provide an analysis of cumulative toxic air contaminants,
and it failed to provide adequate responses to requests for information related to this
issue." Due to the length of this comment and appended technical information cited
by Mr.Wolfe,the comments are addressed individually((Ila through [Ilk).
Ilia Response:To preface this response, Michael Brandman Associates(MBA)followed
the guidance set forth in the San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District
(APCD)Califomia Environmental Quality Act(CEQA)Air Quality Handbook. On several
occasions between September 2010 and June 2012, MBA staff contacted APCD staff
to clarify or obtain additional information concerning the guidance set forth in the
CEQA Air Quality Handbook. Additionally,the APCD submitted written comments to the
City of Atascadero concerning both the Draft EIR and PRDEIR. In sum,the APCD was
consulted about the proposed project's air quality analysis and closely reviewed the
environmental documents prepared for the project.
Warren Frace
June 25,2012
Page 3
More importantly,the APCD provided written communications to the City of Atascadero
on three occasions that are relevant to Toxic Air Contaminants(IACs):
• March 18,2011: The APCD requested revisions to the Type A Health Risk
Assessment contained in the Draft EIR,which were ultimately provided in the
PRDEIR. The APCD also noted that it prepared a Type B screening Health Risk
Assessment for the proposed project,which accounted for TACs emitted from US
101,the Shell gas station,and project-related diesel truck trips,and indicated that
the risk would not be significant.
• April 30,2012: The APCD reviewed the supplemental Type A Health Risk
Assessment contained in the PRDEIR and stated "...we agree with the conclusions
of acceptable risk."
June 13.2012: In response to Mr.Wolfe's June 4,2012 comment letter, MBA
contacted the APCD to inquire about the availability of the Type B screening Health
Risk Assessment that the APCD had conducted in connection with the Draft EIR. APCD
staff indicated that they did not save their original work, but in the interests of
addressing Mr.Wolfe's comments, re-ran the Type B screening Health Risk
Assessment,which was attached to the June 13,2012 response. The APCD's
conclusion did not change.
As is evident from the above written communications,the APCD is in agreement with
the PRDEIR's conclusions regarding TACs and sought to provide Mr.Wolfe(via MBA
and the City of Atascadero)with his requested information in a timely manner.
IIIb Claim: Mr.Wolfe claimed that the PREIR does not provide an analysis of cumulative
TACs,and it failed to provide adequate responses to requests for information related to
this issue. Mr.Wolfe indicates that the Type B analysis was provided in the City
Council Staff Report and not included with the PREIR and response to comments. He
further states that the Type B analysis is not a cumulative analysis of TAC impacts
because it does not assess the impact to off-site receptors.
IIIb Response: The PREIR on page 3.2-105 indicated that the APCD had prepared a
Type B analysis for the project and found that the project did not exceed the APCD
threshold of 89 in 1 million. The APCD used a screening tool to estimate the impacts
of existing sources of TACs on the residential receptor location closest to US 101. The
APCD provided the results of the analysis in their comment letter on the PREIR(49 in 1-
million). The APCD did not provide a copy of the spreadsheet screening tool used to
obtain the results at that time. After Mr.Wolfe requested a copy of the spreadsheet
used by the APCD, MBA made a similar request of the APCD.
In response,the APCD prepared a second screening analysis with slightly different
analysis assumptions reflecting changes made to the HRA in response to comments.
The spreadsheet indicates that the Type B analysis was revised from a risk of 2.5 in 1
million for larger diesel delivery truck only as in Table 7 on Page 22 of the Draft EIR
HRA, Page 463 of the Draft EIR to 4.1 in 1 million from response to Draft EIR Comment
APCD-23-3 which includes risks from delivery trucks as well as the remaining diesel
vehicles that would access the fully built out site. This includes passenger vehicles,
worker vehicles,and small delivery trucks and vans and variable distances shown in
the updated risk model. The revisions resulted in a small increase in estimated Type 8
risk from 49 to 53.5 in 1 million. The APCD provided the revised screening
Warren Frace
June 25,2012
Page 4
I���YIM(m® II iYpMYwp�
spreadsheet to MBA after the Planning Commission staff report was released. The
screening analysis spreadsheet was then provided to the public in the City Council
Staff Report.
Screening tools use conservative assumptions of impacts to allow Lead Agencies to
identify projects that do not require a detailed analysis to demonstrate that the impact
is less than significant. In this case,the Type B impact estimated using the screening
tool was 53.5 in 1 million. The Type B analysis was conducted in accordance with the
guidelines contained in the APCD CEQA Air Quality Handbook and in fact was prepared
by the agency. The Lead Agency relied upon the expert commenting agency and their
adopted guidance to determine that the impact of cumulative sources on the sensitive
receptors within the project were not significant.
The PREIR used the list of projects approach for cumulative analysis. The APCD CEQA
Handbook requests that the cumulative analysis should encompass all planned
construction activities within one mile of the project. The PREIR included a fist of
projects(Table 4-1)known at the time the NOP was released for use in preparing the
cumulative impact analysis in the PREIR. The cumulative air quality analysis included
on page 4-4 of the PREiR states that all projects included in the list of cumulative
projects in Table 4.1 are more than 1 mile from the project site. Therefore,there are
no other existing or future projects that should have been included in the cumulative
analysis. Under that analysis approach,the project was found to have less than
significant cumulative air quality impacts.
Another approach utilized by some air districts to determine cumulative TAC impacts is
to add the impactsfrom existing sources of emissions and planned projects near the
project site,and the impacts of the proposed project for comparison to a cumulative
threshold. The Type B analysis recommended by the SLOAPCD is a cumulative
analysis. The Type B analysis includes the impacts of existing sources,planned
sources,and the proposed project on the receptor location predicted to have the
highest impact on the project site. Projects with receptors that are exposed to risk
exceeding the threshold would be required to implement mitigation measures to
reduce the impact to future residents of the project. This approach works well in
determining the cumulative impact of sources on a project,and can also provide the
data needed to determine the cumulative impact of the project on existing and
planned sensitive receptors.
Although the APCD CEQA Handbook does not include a screening radius for Type B
analyses,the APCD used an analysis radius of 1,000 feet. The Bay Area Air Quality
Management District(BAAQMD)CEQA Guidelines identify 1,000 feet as an appropriate
geographic scope for performing a cumulative TAC analysis. The BAAQMD chose this
geographic scope for TAC analysis because emission concentrations drop rapidly with
distance from the source and cannot be distinguished from background emissions at
1,000 feet. The BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines have been set aside due to a March 2012
Alameda County Superior Court judgment finding that the Air District failed to comply
with CEQA when it adopted its thresholds. Although the thresholds contained with the
BAAQMD Guidelines have been set aside by court action,the information used to
support the CEQA thresholds contained in the Guidelines is broadly applicable to other
areas.
Warren Frace
June 25,2012
Page 5
IIIc Claim:Mr.Wolfe claims that the cumulative analysis should have been based on
the impact to residences that are within 1,000 feet of the project and are closest to US
101 which already exceed the 89 in a million threshold.
IlIc Response: Using the suggested methodology would result in an invalid approach to
cumulative assessment. There is an existing residence approximately 70 feet from US
101 that is also within 1,000 feet of the project. 'The existing conditions for that
residence would result in a risk of over 200 in 1 million based on the screening
spreadsheet provided by the APCD. Under Mr. Wolfe's methodology,any project
proposed within 1,000 feet of a residence within about 400 feet of US 101 and
contributes a single molecule of TACs would result in a significant cumulative impact.
When a project would contribute to the impact of an area that already exceeds
thresholds or standards, CEQA allows for the threshold to be based on a project's
cumulative contribution to an existing exceedance. Otherwise,all projects would be
significant prior to considering their contribution.
Although the APCD CEQA Handbook does not discuss circumstances where an area
already exceeds their threshold without the project,according to the BAAQMD CEQA
Thresholds of Significance document,thresholds for an individual new source are
designed to ensure that the source does not contribute a cumulatively significant
impact. The San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District(SJVAPCD)draft Guide for
Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts Update also makes the case that 10 in 1
million should be used to determine if an impact is cumulatively considerable as
discussed in the following section of their guidance:
Impacts from hazardous air pollutants are largely localized impacts.As presented
above in section 8.3(Thresholds of Significance-Toxic Air Contaminant Emissions),
the District has established thresholds of significance for toxic air contaminants
(TAC)that are extremely conservative; protective of health impacts on sensitive
receptors. Consequently,the District's application of thresholds of significance for
TACs is relevant to the determination of whether individual project emissions of TAC
would have a cumulatively significant health impact. Because the established TAC
significance thresholds are highly conservative, if project specific TAG emissions
would have a less than significant health Impact,the project would not be expected
to result in a cumulatively considerable net increase in TAC.Thus,the project and
would be determined to have a less than cumulatively significant impact on air
quality.
The individual new source threshold for the APCD is 10 in 1 million. The project
contributes a risk of 4.1 in a million at the most impacted sensitive receptor location.
All other receptors including those near US 101 are less impacted than the most
impacted receptor located near the corner of Obispo Road and Del Rio Road.
Therefore,the project would not result in a significant contribution to a cumulative
impact for receptors that are already impacted.
Illd Claim:Mr.Wolfe asserts that the roundabouts required to mitigate traffic impacts
would make a significant contribution to the cumulative TAC impact.
llld Response: This claim is based on the notion that the roundabouts would be
located closer to the residence near the Annex West parcel than the existing signalized
Warren Frace
June 25,2012
Page 6
intersection at the US 101/ Del Rio Road Northbound Ramps. As shown in PRDEIR
Exhibit 3.11-6,the proposed roundabouts largely occupy the footprint of the existing
intersection at this location. Furthermore,one of the principle reasons roundabouts
were identified as preferred improvements for the interchange was that they avoided
the need to widen the existing bridge structure. Thus,the roundabouts must inherently
be in proportion to the existing width of the overcrossing and,therefore,vehicular
traffic lanes would be significant closer to the residence near the Annex West parcel
than under existing conditions.
file Claim:Mr.Wolfe staffed that the Type A analysis does not account for off--site
roadway emissions. He stated that the Type A analysis should have considered the
impact of project traffic generated on off-site roadways. As we understand this
comment, it apparently is based on the premise that traffic will be concentrated at the
roundabout and on the other off-site roadways and would create additional impacts
that were not addressed in the analysis.
Ille Response: The Type A threshold is based on impacts that would occur at the
project site. It is based on emissions generated from all mobile and stationary sources
inside the property line. This is because the primary concern with TACs is concentrated
sources of emissions such as large stationary sources and the areas where trucks idle
for extended periods of time. Including emissions on the roadways serving the site are
not required by the APCD CEQA Handbook and was confirmed by their comment letter.
The APCD comment letter requested that emissions from worker vehicles, passenger
vehicles,and small trucks and vans accessing the parking lot should be added to the
analysis. No request to model roadway emissions from these vehicles was made by
the APCD. This is consistent with the approach used by the SJVAPCD and the South
Coast Air Quality Management District for conducting project analysis. Expanding the
emissions analyzed to include off-site travel would add sources not intended by the
APCD and would be inconsistent with the use of their adopted threshold.
The BAAQMD provides additional guidance on when to add new traffic volumes
generated by a project to a screening analysis:
If the development is anticipated to have more than 10,000 additional vehicles
per day on the roads,the District recommends evaluating the sum of the existing
traffic with the additional new traffic volume for comparison to the screening
tables. If the user conducts a refined modeling analysis,the roadway impacts
based on the combined traffic volumes(existing and new traffic)should be
compared to applicable thresholds of significance.
The project generates less than 10,000 additional vehicle trips per day,so based on
this criteria,the additional vehicle miles traveled from vehicles traveling on public
roads near the project should not be added to the screening analysis. The PREIR Table
3.11-12 indicates that the project at buildout will produce 9,164 trips per day of which
only a small portion is diesel traffic. Roadways with this trip volume would contribute
an insignificant amount of additional risk such that their inclusion in the screening
analysis is not warranted.
The maximally exposed individual was identified in the analysis using accepted
modeling protocols. However, if one were to add roadway emissions generated by the
Warren Frace
June 25,2012
Page 7
project to the analysis,the results would still be insignificant. Because of idling and
slow travel speeds to the loading dock and across the parking lot for non-delivery
vehicles on-site,the time that emissions are generated is much greater than a vehicle
traveling on the public road. Therefore,emissions and related risk from the roadways
on receptors would be less than that from the project site. The risk was estimated at
4.1 In a million from the project. If the risk were doubled by adding the roadways as a
conservative estimate,the total risk would be 8.1 in a million which is well below the
10 in a million threshold. There is no need to perform additional analysis to show that
the project would remain less than significant.
Illf Claim:Greg Gilbert,the air quality consultant for Mr.Wolfe,provided additional
detail on the analysis. He contends that no explanation was provided for the differing
results from the screening analyses referred to in the PREIR and the later version
provided in the Planning Commission staff report.
Illf Response: The screening spreadsheet included notes describing the differences.
The increase from 49 in a million to 53.5 was the result of adding risk related to
customer diesel vehicles and other non-delivery trucks that would access the site and
that were included in the revised HRA.
Illg Claim:Mr.Gilbert summarized his interpretation of what should be included in a
cumulative TAC analysis and compares that with the Type B analysis prepared for the
project.
Ilig Response: The APCD Handbook does not include a separate threshold for
analyzing the cumulative impacts of the project on off-site receptors. However,the
Type B analysis provides data that can be used for this purpose and support a finding
of less than significant in this case. The APCD has established a CEQA health risk
threshold of 89 in 1 million for sources which are not otherwise directly regulated. This
value represents the population weighted average health risk caused by ambient
background concentrations of toxic air contaminants in San Luis Obispo County. Under
the APCD approach,the combined emissions of the project and other existing and
planned TAC sources that exceed the risk threshold at receptor subject to the
maximum impact from the project would be considered significant. The Type B
analysis showed that most of the existing impact would be caused by existing truck
traffic on US 101. The maximally impacted receptor is located farther from US 101
than the residences that are part of the project. Therefore,the impact on the
maximally impacted off-site receptor(located at Del Rio Road and Obispo Road)would
be less than the amount predicted for the onsite receptor(53.5 in 1 million).
lllh Claim: Mr.Gilbert states that off-site receptors are not included in the Type B
analysis and would be required for a cumulative analysis,and that the receptors
closest to Highway 101 should have been used in the analysis.
1€1h Response: Mr.Gilbert is incorrect in his assertion that the analysis should have
used off-site receptors nearest to US 101. It is more appropriate to compare the
project's cumulative contribution to the sensitive receptor that is most impacted by the
project. This approach is consistent with the BAAQMD's guidance:
Warren Frace
June 25,2012
Page 8
For new sources,the project sponsor should first identify the location of the
maximum exposed receptor from the single source screening analysis. in the
cumulative analysis,the user evaluates the risks and hazards from all sources
within 1,000 foot radius of the new source to the maximally exposed receptor that
was identified through the single source analysis.The risks, hazards,and PM2.5
concentrations at the maximally exposed receptor locations are then compared
against applicable thresholds of significance.
Illi Claim: Mr.Gilbert states that future TAC emissions should be used in the screening
analysis.
Illi Response: TAC emissions are declining at a rapid rate due to the California Air
Resources Board Diesel Risk Reduction Program and its adopted regulations. Using
current emissions constitutes a worst case analysis because it assumes that
emissions will remain constant over the next 70 years. The use of a screening analysis
provides an even more conservative analysis. Therefore,once a project passes the
screening test, no additional analysis is required. In any event,the risk at 7,500 as
requested by the commenter would still not add sufficient risk to exceed the 89 in 1
million threshold. The screening threshold includes the impact of 6,000 peak hourly
trips and for 8,000 peak hourly trips. The difference in risk at 8,000 trips is an
additional 18 in 1 million at 50 feet. The nearest receptor is 989 feet from the
centerline of the closest lane of US 101 and would experience a cumulative increase
of less than 89 in 1 million.
Ilij Claim: Mr.Gilbert states that no threshold was identified for cumulative TAC
impacts.
Illj Response: The APCD has not adopted a threshold for cumulative impacts to off-site
receptors;however,a population weighted average for the County was used to
determine the cumulative impact threshold for onsite receptors exposed to cumulative
toxic emissions. This threshold.provides a valid approach in areas where the existing
Impact without the project does not already exceed the threshold. This is the case for
this project as described previously. The commenter opines that the 10 in a million
project threshold should be used as the cumulative threshold since APCD has not
adopted a cumulative threshold. As stated previously, if the maximally exposed
receptor already exceeds the threshold,the project threshold can be used to define a
cumulative contribution to an existing exceedance. This is not required forthis project
because the maximally exposed receptor would not exceed the 89 in 1 million
threshold. However, if a receptor close to US 101 were the maximally exposed
receptor,the 4.1 in 1 million contribution by the project would not result in a significant
cumulative contribution to an existing exceedance.
[Ilk Claim: Mr.Gilbert indicates that the DEIR in Appendix C2 indicates that TAC risk in
the area is between 100 to 250 in a million which is inconsistent with the Type B
analysis results.
Illk Response: The APCD The information cited was obtained from the California Air
Resources Board Diesel Risk Reduction Plan website, Since it was utilized in writing
Warren Frace
June 25,2012
Page 9
the HRA existing air quality section,the California Air Resources Board has pulled the
information from the website. Contact with Board staff by MBA indicates that the
information was removed because it its out of date and may overestimate current
impacts. The California Air Resources Board estimates were generalized estimates
covering a large area. The APCD's estimate provided in the Type B screening
spreadsheet provides project specific information and more accurately portrays
impacts at the project site.
IV Claim: "Construction noise increases will be significant." Mr.Wolfe reiterated his
prior comments from his June 4,2012 comment letter regarding the significance of
construction noise impacts and stated that he had asked Derek Watry of Wilson, Ihrig
&Associates to review the construction noise analysis. Mr. Watry indicated that the
Partially Recirculated Draft EIR should have used a threshold of 5 dB increase for short
durations and a 10 dB increase for longer than a month as the basis for determining
the significance of temporary increases in ambient noise levels.
IV Response: Mr.Wolfe's prior comments on construction noise were addressed in the
June 13,2012 response. As indicated in that response,the PRDEIR used the City of
Atascadero's 70-dB conditionally acceptable residential exterior noise standard as the
basis for determining the significance of short-term increases in ambient noise levels.
It should be emphasized that the CEQA Guidelines are silent regarding whether the
type of threshold that can be used(e.g.,an "upper limit"as used in the PRDEIR or a
"numerical increase"as proposed by Mr.Watry)in the context of determining the
significance of temporary increases in ambient noise levels. Thus,in the absence of
specific thresholds,the City elected to use the "upper limit" approach,as this was
supported by the City of Atascadero General Plan adopted noise standards. In
contrast,there are no statements in the City of Atascadero General Plan that provide
support for using Mr.Watry's proposed 15-dB and 10-dB increase thresholds.
Underscoring this point,a fundamental flaw with Mr.Watry's noise increase thresholds
is that they are so arbitrarily low,virtually any outdoor construction or maintenance
activity would likely exceed them. As shown in Table 3.9-2 of the PRDEIR,many pieces
of commonly used construction equipment such as backhoes,concrete mix trucks,
graders, pavers,and tractors emit noise levels of 80 dB or higher. Given that ambient
noise levels in the project vicinity were measured at 47.6 dBA Ldn to 59.1 dBA Ldn over
a 24-hour period, use of any of the afore-listed pieces of equipment for a period of
several days would easily exceed Mr.Watry's 15-db increase for short durations even
though the activities in question may not be disruptive to surrounding receptors.
Furthermore as shown in PRDEIR Table 3.9-1,a 15-db increase can yield a variety of
human responses based on the resulting noise level. For example,47.6 dB plus 15 db
yields noise levels of 62.6 dB,which is roughly equivalentto normal conversation. In
contrast, 59.1 dB plus 15 dB yields noise levels of 74.1 dB,which is equivalent to
noise levels louder than a vacuum cleaner but lower than a freight train at 50 feet.
Thus,under this approach,significant impacts could be identified in cases where noise
levels are within "normally acceptable" levels for residential uses and,likewise,could
be identified as less than significant in cases where noise levels are in excess of
"conditionally acceptable"levels for residential uses.
Warren Frace
June 25,2012
Page 10
Because of a significant difference in the resulting noise levels and associated human
response, it is more informative to use an "upper limit"as the basis for assessing the
significance of temporary increases in ambient noise levels.
V Claim: "The Final EIR misleadingly responded to comments requesting noise data,
and the requested data demonstrate that the project causes noise to exceed the
stated 60 dBA L.d„/CNEL threshold of significance." Mr.Wolfe stated he had originally
requested "post-mitigated" noise contour maps in his comments on the PRDEIR and
was advised that these were not available and then subsequent informed in the June
13,2012 response that these contours were provided in Exhibits 3.9-7 and 3.9-8. Mr.
Wolfe also disputed a statement from the June 13, 2012 response regarding the
accuracy of noise contours and stated that Mr. Watry's own consultation with the
Sound Pian company's representative indicates otherwise. Mr.Wolfe also alleged that
a reference to the CEQA Guidelines regarding the accuracy of noise contours was
incorrect and most likely out of date.
V Response: The response provided in the Final EIR to Mr.Wolfe's comment
(Response to WOLFE-31)reflected the ambiguous nature of his original request. His
original comment was predicated on the mistaken assumption that the PRDEIR
provided "pre-mitigation"and "post-mitigation" noise contours,which was not the
case. Thus,in the interests of correcting the misstatement,the Final EIR noted that
"post-mitigated" noise levels were provided in tabular format in Table 3.9-45. As noted
in Response to WOLFE-29,the tabular values are more precise that noise contours
exhibits and,therefore,the Partially Recirculated Draft EIR provided the most precise
level of analysis in this regard.
After release of the Final EIR, it was clarified that Exhibits 3.9-7 and 3.9-8 depicted
"post-mitigated" noise contours. This was noted in the June 13, 2022 response to Mr.
Wolfe's June 4,2012 comment letter. As such, Mr.Wolfe's original desire to review
"pre-mitigation"and "post-mitigation" noise values was provided in the PRDEIR in the
most precise format available. Thus, he has never been deprived of the ability to
obtain information in this regard.
Regarding Mr.Wolfe's claims about the statement in the June 13,2012 response
concerning noise contours being out of date,the quote in question came from the
Governor's Office of Planning and Research website:
httpV/ceres.ca.gov/planning/genplan/appendix_a.html. Although this was incorrectly
identified as being from the CEQA Guidelines in the June 13, 2012 response,the
statement is still current and was provided by an authoritative source on the matter.
Regardless of how accurate noise models become in the future,this quote will remain
accurate,since noise levels are constantly fluctuating at any particular location.
Changes to noise levels can occur from variations in humidity,temperature,cloud
cover,wind,as well as from changes in traffic volumes,speeds and the number of
trucks on the nearby roads. Because there are so many variables that can alter noise
levels,noise level contour maps should not be treated as more precise than specific
readings at particular locations.
V€Claim: "The EIR fails to recognize that the project causes noise to exceed the stated
Warren Frace
June 25,2012
Page 11
60 dBA Lan/CNEL threshold of significance."
VI Response: Mr.Wolfe's comment confuses the difference between a "standard"and
a "threshold." The City of Atascadero General Plan exterior residential "normally
acceptable"value of 60 dBA Ldn cited in the Partially Recirculated Draft EIR referenced
a "standard;" not a "threshold." Instead,the"threshold" used in the analysis was cited
on Partially Recirculated Draft EIR page 3.9-43 and reproduced below:
• Increase noise by 3 dB or more where the without project noise level is 60 to
65dB;
• Increase noise levels by 1.5 dB or more where the without project noise level is
greater than 65 dB.
First, it should be noted that the receiver cited by Mr.Wolfe(No. 14)would experience
unmitigated Year 2013 "without project" noise levels of 59.3 dB dBA Ldn and
unmitigated Year 2013 "with project" noise levels of 59.9 dBA Ldn; refer to Table 3.9-
44. Thus,this would not be considered a significant impact under the thresholds of
significance cited above.
However, Mr.Wolfe has appeared to base his claims on the "mitigated"values shown
in Table 3.9-45. Receiver No. 14 would experience mitigated Year 2013 "without
project"noise levels of 59.3 dB dBA Ldn and mitigated Year 2013 "with project" noise
levels of 60.1 dBA Ldn; refer to Table 3.9-45. The likely explanation for the larger
increase for"mitigated"values at Receiver No. 14 compared to"unmitigated"values is
that the SoundPlan model is only accurate to the integer for point receivers. If
represented in integer format, Receiver No. 14 would experience mitigated Year 2013
"without project" noise levels of 59 dB dBA Ldn and mitigated Year 2013"with project"
noise levels of 60 dBA Ldn. This reaffirms the prior conclusion that Receiver No. 14
would not experience a noise increase of 3 dB or more. It should be noted that the 3
dB threshold reflects the noise increase rewired to be perceptible to the human ear.
Walmart/Annex Project Does Not Pay
I alone voted against the Walmart/Annex project at the Atascadero Planning
Commission meeting on June 5. That Walmart was one of the Project applicants had
nothing to do with it. The Project entails costs and risks for Atascadero that greatly
exceed the hoped-for benefits and rewards.
The Walmart/Annex Project commits the City to advancing approximately $2.5
million to improve the Del Rio freeway interchange. Recovering that money depends
on the Annex component of the Project being built. That is a doubtful matter, at
best.
Five of the Annex's six parcels were acquired through foreclosure last month by the
Montecito Bank and Trust Company, from its borrower, The Rottman Group. Rottman
was Walmart's co-applicant on the Project going back to 2006. Since then, it faltered
financially, fell out with Walmart and iost all but one of the Annex parcels. So now
five Annex parcels are held by a bank, and the other is controlled by a disgruntled,
insolvent developer. With the economy still stalled, and no white knights or angels
around, assuming the Annex will be developed as Rottman planned is unrealistic.
Nonetheless, the City proposes to bet $2.5 million of taxpayer money on the premise
that the Annex will be built as Rottman planned.
Not only that, with the City suffering its own financial distress, it must take the $2.5
million From the Atascadero Wastewater Fund, as a loan. When I questioned this at
the Planning Commission meeting, the City Attorney summarily declared it legal,
without elaborating on the grounds for his opinion. As to whether insurance would
cover the risk of the Wastewater Fund coming up short, due to an earthquake or
other unplanned event (like a state mandate requiring additional wastewater
spending), no answers were forthcoming. Given the sums involved, the irregularity
of this inter-agency borrowing, and the various risks, a thorough, written analysis of
the issues, at a minimum, should be given to City officials expected to approve such
a "funny money" transaction.
Predictably, the Environmental Impact Report is also being challenged. Attorneys for
Project opponents submitted a letter arguing, most notably, that the EIR's "fair
share" analysis, under which Walmart bears only about half of the Project's traffic
mitigation costs, is legally flawed. The City Attorney and the EIR consultants
dismissed those arguments at the Planning Commission meeting, but did not provide
detailed written refutation. That led me to inquire whether insurance might cover the
City's costs in defending against litigation arising from certification of the ETR.
Nobody had an answer to that question.
To justify a municipality proceeding in the face of costs and risks of this magnitude,
there should be near-certainty that the community will make big money from the
Project. Here, however, the prospects are nothing like that. Annual sales tax
revenues of about $320,000 are projected from Walmart, along with another
$200,000 from the Annex if and when it is developed as originally proposed. Beyond
that, there are only unquantifiable hopes that multiplier benefits will trickle through
Atascadero from money spent at Walmart, even though Walmart's products are
sourced elsewhere and its profits go back to Arkansas.
The Walmart/Annex Project's limited upside cannot support spending $2.5 million
that we don't have, raiding the Wastewater Fund, and exposing the City to risks of
major financial loss and protracted litigation. Putting aside the culture-war
distractions that come with Walmart's involvement and assessing this Project purely
on its merits, it is plain that approval of it in its current form does not withstand
analysis. The public's money is not for gambling, especially in such large amounts
and on such an unsafe bet.
.&n Colamarino
Atascadero, California
June 23, 2012
NOTE: The preceding piece was published as a Viewpoint column in the June 22,
2012 edition of The Tribune newspaper of San Luis Obispo, California.
2
INNER
Michael Brandman Associates
Frusn�+
Date: June 25,2012 559.497.N1(,'
1ni.ru
To: Warren Frace, Community Development Director, City of Atascadero 7
t4.:ai��.alt)it
From: Jason Brandman and Grant Gruber, Michael Brandman Associates 760.122;�;Y
Subject: Dei Rio Road Commercial Area Specific Pian --Colamarino Comments ;3,•a •�100
San B,M-Iardine,
Michael Brandman Associates(MBA)prepared this memo to address comments 1KO.$84.225
submitted by Atascadero Planning Commissioner Len Colamarino to the City of
:rc lt.1-non
Atascadero on June 23, 2012 concerning the Del Rio Road Commercial Area Specific 1125.83a.z-,1.33
Plan.
Summary of Comments: Mr.Colamarino reiterated many of his same comments from
the June 5,2012 Planning Commission meeting, including the potential risks of the
City spending$2.5 million in "taxpayer"dollars on the US 101/ Del Rio Road
interchange improvements. He cited the recent foreclosure proceedings involving six
of the seven Annex parcels as evidence that this portion of the project is in doubt,thus,
making it unlikely that it will contribute proportionate share fees to the interchange
improvements. Mr.Colamarino also questioned the legality of borrowing$2.5 million
from the City's Wastewater Fund to fund the interchange improvements. Additionally,
he referenced the June 4,2012 late submittal provided by Mark Wolfe on behalf of
Save Atascadero and stated that the City's consultants "dismissed"the items
contained in the submittal without providing a "detailed written refutation." Finally, Mr.
Colamarino disputed the sales tax estimates for the proposed project,citing the
unpredictable nature of the Annex portion of the project,and also asserted that the
"multiplier effect" of the project is in doubt because"Walmart's products are sourced
elsewhere and its profits go back to Arkansas."
Response:This response will address Mr.Colamarino's key points by topic:
■ Timing and Funding.for US 101/Del Rio Road Interchange Improvements
This issue was addressed at length in the Final EIR on pages 2-1 through 2-17. To
recap,the US 101/ Del Rio Road interchange is projected to operate at acceptable
levels in the near-term after opening of the Walmart store. The need for the
interchange improvements occurs at some point after opening of the Walmart store
and,thus, Mitigation Measure TRANS-1d and TRANS-1e require that the improvements
be in place prior to issuance of the first certificate of occupancy for the Annex
commercial uses. This trigger point reflects the proximity of the Annex to the
interchange and the likelihood that the Annex will be the only other major commercial
development that could occur in the interchange vicinity.
Should the Annex prove not to be economically viable and site remains undeveloped
for the foreseeable future,this would obviate the need for the US 101/ Del Rio Road
F1v�'r.}�e,�;n��t?.-s';�,1Stt>.�r:c;r ■Pr,,»r :r,■ ?V17Znt:ll,lt���c.�iu�::i-�.��i.:��:�.c,i:�.�cr:.��r
www.brandniflit.com
Warren Frace
June 25,2012
Page 2
interchange improvements until a much later date (i.e., 20 years or more). Under this
scenario,the City would have the option of postponing the planning and
implementation of the interchange improvements.
However, Montecito Bank&Trust has indicated to the City of Atascadero that its
intention is to obtain approval of the Annex entitlements for the six parcel it owns and
then sell the entitled parcels to a developer. Thus,the City is proceeding as if the
Annex will be developed as contemplated by the Del Rio Road Commercial Area
Specific Plan.
■ Use of"Taxpayer" Dollars/ Borrowing From Wastewater Fund
As discussed on pages 2-16 and 2-17 of the Final EIR,the City of Atascadero's
Transportation Impact Fee(TIF)program collects fees from new development projects
for the specific purpose of implementing traffic improvements. TIF funds are not a tax
imposed on the general public and are held in a separate account from the City's
General Fund. The City has approximately$800,000 in the TIF account and a portion
of these funds would be expected to be applied to the interchange improvements.
Thus,taxpayers would not bear the costs of the interchange improvement costs.
Regarding the Wastewater Fund, in the interests of informed decision-making,the June
5 Planning Commission meeting Staff Report identified borrowing funds from another
restricted City account as one option for funding the balance of the Interchange
improvements. It is anticipated that City staff will engage in more detailed
investigation of potential funding sources for the balance of interchange improvements
(including legal review of the various approaches),with these options being presented
to the City Council for consideration as part of a public hearing process. In sum, no
decisions have been made regarding funding for the balance of the interchange
improvements and,thus, it is premature to make any statements in this regard about
the economic risk or legality about any potential approaches. Additionally,
identification of the account from which the City may borrow funds is not an
environmental impact but a matter of City policy.
■ June 4, 2012 Late Submittal by Mark Wolfe
At the June 5, 2012 Planning Commission meeting,Atascadero City staff and the City's
consultants provided oral responses addressing the various comments contained in
the 9-page letter submitted by Mark Wolfe on behalf of Save Atascadero the previous
day(June 4,2012). Due to the length and timing of the letter,preparing detailed
written responses in advance of the June 5 meeting was not possible. However,after
the meeting, Michael Brandman Associates prepared a written response dated June
13,2012 to address the late comments,which was included the City Council staff
report packet. Note that this written response mentioned many of same items that
were discussed in the oral responses provided by City staff and consultants at the June
5 meeting. In any event,a detailed written response was provided to the late letter.
■ Economic Benefits of the Proposed Project
Regarding Mr.Colamarino's statements expressing skepticism about the sales tax
Warren Frace
June 25,2012
Page 3
estimates and "multiplier effect" of the proposed project, it should be emphasized that
these issues are outside of the scope of the environmental review process because
they do not have physical impacts in the environment. Nonetheless,in the interests of
addressing relevant concerns about the project,they will be addressed below.
The sales tax estimate was provided by Bay Area Economics in the"Final Draft Fiscal
Impact Analysis"dated December 2010. The intent of the Fiscal Impact Analysis was
evaluate the entire Del Rio Road Commercial Area Specific Plan (including Walmart
and Annex)in order to provide a complete assessment of fiscal impacts. Although Mr.
Colamarino is skeptical that the Annex is economically viable and,thus,would be
unlikely to generate the revenues cited in the Fiscal Impact Analysis,it would also not
increase fiscal demands on the City of Atascadero under this scenario as well.
As for the"multiplier effect," it should be noted that the Fiscal Impact Analysis did not
attempt to quantify this phenomenon in its estimates. Rather,the Fiscal Impact
Analysis relied upon "hybrid average"and "marginal cost/revenue"approaches
towards estimating impacts,which are regarded as conservative methodologies for
this type of analysis.
Marcia Tor erson
Subject: FW: Support for Wal-Mar- and commen s regarding Commissioner Colamarinc
From: John Daly [mailto:neoindianCa�hotmail.com1
Sent: Saturday,June 23, 2012 11:43 PM
To: bsturtevantCaatascadero.org
Subject: Support for Walmart
Mr. Sturtevant, I am very disappointed in your appointee, Len Colamarino, commissioner on the planning
commission. Not only does he out of hand reject eight years of planning commission professional staff work
and recommendations; but he presumes to second guess Mr. Pierik's sound and qualified legal advice. Then he
publishes a poorly reasoned rant in the local press declaring that of seven planning commissioners only be is
worthy of understanding the issues. I do understand that Mr. Colamarino has run unsuccessfully for the city
council, and speculatively wants to do so again. So he wants to get his name out there. But the position of
planning commissioner should be one of service to the community,not just an opportunity for bald self
aggrandizement and promotion. Certainly, many local folks are urging the council to approve this long pending
development. Lots of us want it for the goods, services, opportunities and competitive prices afforded to
Atascaderans. I'm saddened to see that Mr. Colamarino exploits his postion in such a personally selfish
fashion. Thank you for your consideration. John Paul Daly, Colorado Road, Atascadero.
i
Marcia Torgerson
From: John W F Goers <jgoers@calpoly.edu>
Sent: Sunday, June 24, 2012 10:55 PM
To: Marcia Torgerson
Subject: Walmart/Annex project
June 24, 2012
Dear Ms.Torgerson:
Please forward the letter below to all City Council Members. Thank you.
Dear City Council; Mayor Kelly, members Clay, Fonzi, O'Malley, and Sturtevant:
I am writing to ask you to not approve the Walmart Supercenter and Del Rio interchange
modification as currently planned. I feel the Walmart-only alternative is flawed for several reasons: it
is unlikely to produce the expected increase in tax revenue, it forces the city to take a large gamble
with city funds, and it very likely will compromise existing small businesses resulting in erosion of a
vital city center.
Tax revenue from Walmart is based on unproven economic forecasts, and yet it inevitably will
result in lower tax revenue from existing shops. Walmart will very likely out-compete a number of
small businesses in town, even those in the existing Outlet mall. Will the current collection of Outlet
shops, which cater to budget-minded shoppers as does Walmart, be able to compete? Don't you
believe in your hearts that there will be significant transfer of tax revenue from these shops over to
Walmart? The result will be a net tax revenue less than anticipated, at the expense of small
business. Not a good way to promote a vital city center which needs a critical mass of retail stores
along with entertainment and eating establishments.
I also feel that the City is ignoring the needs of its citizens in prioritizing the Del Rio/El Camino
interchange over other, perhaps more mundane traffic needs. Many streets in the city need repair or
re-surfacing. Yet Walmart's traffic impact fees, which are meant to support other circulation needs in
the city, are being counted as approximately half of Walmart's $2.2 million "fair share" interchange
costs. This is improper favoritism: neglecting citizen's needs over a corporation. Further, gambling
city funds to cover the full $4.5 million cost is imprudent. If Walmart wants to come to Atascadero, let
it be a good citizen corporation and loan the money to the city, not vice-verse.
Finally, the Walmart project will forever change the tone of the Del Rio/EI Camino interchange
area. Please demand it be built with sensitivity, foresight, and solid fiscal policy to Atascadero's
citizens. The future of Atascadero's image rests with decisions that are responsible to the city's
populace first, not a huge corporation that apparently is attempting to bend the rules of the city. Do
you believe this project, as presently presented, will promote Atascadero as a dynamic destination
city or as a strip-mall city? Please consider my concerns, it's in your hands.
Thank you for your efforts on this incredibly complicated decision,
John Goers, Atascadero resident for 32 years,
i
John Goers
igoersgca[po(y.edu
805-466-1125
2
r is'-
M
7lMemo lichsael1111%
arz<lnian Asscc;a.Cts
Fresno
Date: June 25,2012 559Ar,.0310
To: Warren Frace,Community Development Director,City of Atascadero ?r.a.;�1h.a.ttrir
Palau Spring;
From: Jason Brandman and Grant Gruber,Michael Brandman Associates 760.322.8847
Subject: Del Rio Road Commercial Area Specific Pian -Goers Comments Sacramr,ito
p 916.44 11 W
Sian Bmlardino
Michael Brandman Associates(MBA)prepared this memo to address comments 90!>-rs•d:_"55
submitted by John Goers to the City of Atascadero on June 24,2012 concerning the San 16 1d n
Del Rio Road Commercial Area Specific Plan. 925.830.2-,33
Summary of Comments:Mr.Goers expressed opposition to the proposed project and
Walmart Only Alterantive,stating either option was unlikely to produce the expected
increase in tax revenue,involves undue financial risks,and will likely result in adverse
economic impacts on small businesses and the Downtown area. He also stated that
prioritizing the improvements at.the US 101/Del Rio Road interchange will come at
the expense of other traffic improvements and objected to the use of City funds to
cover the balance of the cost of the interchange improvements.
Response:The Bay Area Economics Final Draft Fiscal Impact Analysis identifies the
methodology used in estimated tax revenues generated by the proposed project. Mr.
Goers did not provide any specific comments on the report.
The Draft EIR evaluated impacts on competing business in Atascadero,including small
businesses and those located in the Downtown area. As a practical matter,Walmart
would fill a market segment(regional-serving retail)that is generally absent from the
local retail market. Thus,it is expected to primarily capture many local retail
expenditures leaking to other markets and have limited potential to divert sales from
local businesses. Refer to Section 3.12,Urban Decay of the Draft EIR for further
discussion.
As noted on page 3.11-26 of the Partially Recirculated Draft EIR,the US 101/Del Rio
Road interchange improvements rank fourth on the City's Adopted Interchange Priority
Ranking list. The proposed reprioritization reflects the nexus between the proposed
project and the need for the US 101/Del Rio Road interchange improvements.
Likewise, by not reprioritizing improvements,significant traffic impacts at the US 101/
Del Rio Road interchange may go unmitigated,which is contrary to CEQA principles.
ENVIRON1.1EN'mLSFRVICEs■PLAN NLNG nNr1'ruRt1LRES0URCES N ANAC:;ENli;`TI'
,www.brandr an.com
RECEIVED
Jure 22, 2012 JUN 2 5 2012
Bob Kelly, Mayor L� 160 IZ45
LO
City of Atascadero
6907 El Camino Real
tascadere, Ca 9342
Subject: Dei Rio Road Specific Plan
Dear Mayor Kelly,
As you review the Atascadero Planning Commission
recommendation related to the Amendment of the Dei Rio
Road Specific Plan, consider attaching a condition that all
street and road improvements is must be installed prior to the
opening of any business or building, and those improvements
include the three roundabouts, the improvements on the east
side of El Camino Rea( in front of both the Walmart site and the
Annex site both sides of Del Rise Road from Rio Rita Road t
Ramona Road, and the four foot wide pedestrian friendly
shoulder on Def Rio Road from the Project to Potrero Road.
In support of this condition i offer:
The roundabout at El Camino Road and Dei Rio Road must not
be designed alone; its design must be coordinated with the two
roundabouts at the 101 interchange. Once the design is
completed, the City will have a better understanding costs
and can then structure an agreement that will best serve the
City of Atascadero and its residents.
Much inconvenience will occur when the street improvements
are being installed. If the roundabouts are constructed in two
phases, the second phase will be worse than the first phase and
will impact users of El Camino Real from the San Ramon
Interchange all the way to the San Anselmo interchange. Why
impact the City twice when it can be avoided?
If only the El Camino/Del Rio Roundabout is constructed, it may
be a long time (maybe never) before the Annex portion is
developed thus delaying much of the income and jobs referred
to in the EIR.
If all of the road improvements are in place, the Annex property
will be more marketable and its development will occur much
sooner. The Annex owner having committed to the
improvements will have an incentive to find developers or-
t nants.
rtenants. It is not until the Annex is fully developed that the City
rill realize the benefits of income and jobs as suggested.
Section 65451 of the Government Code discusses the
requirements of Specific Plans. It requires that the Plan specify
the proposed distribution, location, and extent and intensity of
the major components of private and public transportation.,
sewage, water, drainage, solid waste disposal, energy and other
essential facilities and it also requires a program of
implementation measures and financial measures. I believe
that the intent is to have all the issues in contract form and
nothing remaining for future disagreement or argument.
tt is in the best interest of the City of Atascadero to take a next
step of designing the three roundabouts to determine the
extent of those improvements i.e., land acquisition, bridge
modification, pedestrian aCcommodations. Once a design has
been established and a cost is known, the City can move
forward with a proper agreement. A delay should not be
substantial because the joint design work is necessary.
Respectfully submitted,
Hardy I Nielsen
4950 Del Rio Road
Atascadero, Ca 93422
Cc:
Councilperson Tom O'Malley
Councilperson Jerry Clay, Sr.
Councilperson Roberta Fonzi
Councilperson Brian Sturtevant
City Manager Wade McKinney
Community Development Director Warren Trace
Public Works Director Russ Thompson
NONA
Nfichael Bnmdnian Associates
f^'resn<,
Date: June 25, 2012 559.497.031a
J rvirac
To: Warren Frace,Community Development Director,City of Atascadero 71 4.508M 00
Pl dnl Sprilig,
From: Jason Brandman and Grant Gruber, Michael Brandman Associates 76o.3'-1:)99,P
sau nment.5
Subject: Del Rio Road Commercial Area Specific Plan - Nielsen Comments N6.44 .1100
tiara Bcrna.r6no
Michael Brandman Associates(MBA) prepared this memo to address comments 909.894.2255
submitted by Hardy Nielsen to the City of Atascadero on June 25,2012 concerning the S:,li Rni,on
Del Rio Road Commercial Area Specific Plan. 925.810.27.3.3
Summary of Comments: Mr. Nielsen stated that the installation of the El Camino Real/
Del Rio Road roundabout should not occur separately from the roundabouts at US 101
/ Dei Rio Road because of the potential for traffic congestion on the El Camino Real
corridor. He stated that requiring installationof all three roundabouts at the outset
obviates the need to potential delay the Annex until completion of the US 101/ Del Rio
Road roundabouts. Mr. Nielsen referenced Government Code requirements for
Specific Plans and stated that the City of Atascadero should take the next steps in
designing and implementing the roundabouts before approving the project in order
have a proper agreement that would allow all three roundabouts to be installed
concurrently.
Response:As stated in the Final EIR on page 2-18,the Del Rio Road/El Camino Real
roundabout is a required opening day improvement for the Walmart store,and
therefore,will be in place prior to store opening. The US 101/ Dei Rio Road
interchange roundabouts are not necessary to achieve acceptable levels of service on
opening day and,thus,are not required to be installed at that time. During the interim
period between Walmart store opening and completion of the US 101/Del Rio Road
interchange improvements, Del Rio Road and EI Camino Real are anticipated to
operate at acceptable levels of service. Thus,there is no basis to require that all three
roundabouts be installed prior to occupancy of the Walmart store.
Regarding,Mr. Nielsen's suggestion that consideration of the project be delayed until
the City completes the next steps in the design process and has an agreement in place
to allow all three roundabouts to be constructed concurrently,as described in the Final
EIR on pages 2-1 through 2-18,the circumstances of the project do not warrant this
approach. The City has a preliminary design for the three roundabouts and Caltrans
has indicated that the next steps in the process require the City to file a Project
Initiation Form and submit a deposit in order to proceed. Thus,this action requires a
commitment from the City to implement the improvement,which in turn, is predicated
on the likelihood of the proposed project being developed. Also,the Walmart and
Montecito Bank&Trust)applicants have indicated that they are agreeable to the
proposed mitigation approach and,thus,they would be unlikely to request a delay to
revise the EIR further to adopt Mr. Nielsen's preferred approach.
ENV]RONiNl:iN'I':`LSl--:RVI(XIS■1"]ANi NiNCiaNr1']URALRESOURCl."S1rSANAGFNI"ENIT
w ww.bra rldnian xona