Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC_2020-04-28_MinutesEXHIBIT A PUBLIC COMMENT PROVIDED BY EMAIL B. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Barrel Creek Project) SUBMISSION FROM: Darryl Whisnand From: Darryl Whisnand <dwhisnand@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, April 27, 2020 9:09 AM To: City Clerk <cityclerk@atascadero.org> Subject: Del Rio Rd Commercial General Plan I live in Apple Valley off Del Rio Rd. I believe we as homeowners in this area deserve to maintain the area development in a way that fits with the area we expected as it was zoned when we bought our houses. I am concerned with the High Density Residential development being proposed for the area Northwest of the 101-Del Rio Rd intersection. I am totally opposed to the RV Hotel right on Del Rio Rd. The potential for the degrading of a facility like that are huge!!!. Our area is mostly rural and low density housing and this facility does not fit with our area at all, especially not in that location. I also am concerned with the Barrel Creek General Plan. Is the residential low density or apartments? Apartments don’t fit with the area. What Kind of commercial development Is planned? Does it fit with The existing residential properties around it? The round about is now going to be built right behind the fences of the homes in the Apple Valley subdivision. I understand development on that property. I just want development that fits with the rural and lower density housing of our area. Thank you, Darryl Whisnand SUBMISSION FROM: Madeline Rothman From: Madeline Rothman <madeline.rothman@att.net> Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2020 3:19 PM To: City Clerk <cityclerk@atascadero.org> Subject: City Council Meeting 4/28/20 Agenda Item B. 1. My name is Madeline Rothman, and my husband and I have lived at 1660 San Ramon Road in Atascadero for the past 48 years. We chose to live in this northern part of town because of its rural character, low density, privacy, and the beautiful natural environment, which includes the sensitive environment of Graves Creek that runs behind our San Ramon Road property. When we moved to San Ramon Road in 1972, there were steelhead trout in Graves Creek and beavers that thrived at the creek. Little by little we have seen the steady erosion of that precious environment due to increased development. Sadly, those days of seeing trout and beavers in the creek, along with other native species of plants and animals, are gone forever. San Ramon Road has always been a neighborhood of families who care about each other. Our neighborhood has a long history of families raising their children here, and some of their children raising their children on this street. San Ramon Road is its own community of families, made up of many long-time residents who have joined with newcomers on the street, all who value the rural ambience and low density of this original section of San Ramon Road. Together with our neighbors on San Ramon Road, we are strongly opposed to a General Plan Amendment to change the zoning of an area that is currently zoned for a maximum of 6 single-family dwellings to zoning that would allow a project plan with 52 townhomes, 80 apartments, retail/light industrial space with multiple buildings, and a 120-room hotel with 16 detached short-term rental units! If this project were to go ahead, it would cause a major change to a neighborhood, and most probably the loss of a long-time neighborhood community, loss of the rural character of the area, greater erosion of the precious natural environment of Graves Creek and the surrounding area, and loss of the valued quality of life that brought families to this street. It greatly saddens me to see a proposal, such as this one, that would erode another part of the beautiful rural character that was once plentiful in Atascadero! Once you take away a beautiful, special piece of rural Atascadero found on San Ramon Road and change it to high-density living units, retail/light industrial, multiple buildings, a hotel and more, the environment is forever changed! So much is lost Forever! I ask that the City Council give serious consideration before making any changes to the General Plan that would affect our much-loved San Ramon neighborhood! There is a Priceless Value to — ~ preserving the beautiful rural environment that drew us here; ~ preserving and protecting the very special and sensitive area surrounding Graves Creek; and ~ preserving the quality of life that is enjoyed by a neighborhood of San Ramon Road families! SUBMISSION FROM: Lee Perkins From: Lee Perkins <futures03@hotmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2020 2:34 PM To: City Clerk <cityclerk@atascadero.org> Subject: Potential development between San Ramon and US101 Hello City Council Members, I understand you will be considering the issues of a potential major development between San Ramon and US101tonight. Please consider the following in your deliberations: Include walking and bike paths include recreational areas for small children and at least elementary--a small park like setting. We could always use another soccer field. Plenty of parking! the 120 bed hotel seems large for this project, I would be more in favor of less rooms such as a boutique hotel style. Keep chains out and give space to entrepreneurs. Since the Walmart land has not been sold as promised, a large development there needs to be considered in relation to what is proposed at San Ramon and US101--among many other things, traffic. Provide low income/affordable housing in the development--a must. Young families ought to be able to buy housing in Atascadero. Lee Perkins D. DISCUSSION ITEM (COVID-19) SUBMISSION FROM: Eric Greening CONDENSED SUBMISSION From: Eric Greening <dancingsilverowl@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, April 24, 2020 12:14 PM To: City Clerk <cityclerk@atascadero.org> Cc: City Council <CityCouncil@atascadero.org>; Heather Moreno <hmoreno@atascadero.org>; Penny E. Borenstein <pborenstein@co.slo.ca.us> Subject: Re: Eric Greening comment for April 28th Hello again! I am thinking that a way to briefly convey the essence of the message is to say "Mr. Greening thanks Mayor Moreno for signing the letter to the Governor from all the County's mayors, two Supervisors, and Assemblymember Cunningham, and notes that the signers represent a range of political philosophies united in seeking the State's support for our County to cautiously and prudently begin to reopen our county's economic and social life. He initially supported 'shelter at home' on the assumption that its intent was to protect our hospitals from surges, and that it was to be lifted upon accomplishing that purpose, which has, in this county, been accomplished. Now it seems the Governor has moved the goal posts and inserted other goals that can require more time to attain, while 'shelter-at-home' cumulatively poses ever-increasing health and safety threats of its own, as will its ever more grave economic fallout. Covid-19 is so new even the experts are on a learning curve, but he references a new study from data gathered in China when the pandemic was at its peak there that demonstrates that OUTDOOR transmission is extremely rare. On that basis, he suggests that the first stages of reopening might focus on jobs and businesses that can function outside, and that even if masks need to be required indoors, they should not be required outdoors due to the health-giving effects of deep- breathing outdoor exercise. He is reluctant to reopen indoor crowd-attractors such as theaters too soon, and suggests that long-deferred socializing be allowed in homes and outdoor areas open to the public, but only among people who know each other rather than crowds of strangers, to allow precise contact tracing in the event of an asymptomatic person unknowingly learning of having exposed people. Some people are afraid and feel vulnerable, and should be supported in remaining home and rejecting visitors, but this regime should not be imposed on everyone as long as our hospitals have the capacity to handle Covid-19 in addition to their other business." Does that work? The full text including the study reference would be available to whoever was interested. Thank you so much for making the process as accessible to the public as possible under present constraints! STAY WELL!! Eric ORIGINAL SUBMISSION (Not read into Public Comment during the meeting) Below, is Mr. Greening’s original email that he asked be included as part of the record, but realizing it was much longer than a 3 minute reading would allow for, he provided a second email with the summary above for reading during public comment. From: Eric Greening <dancingsilverowl@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2020 4:16 PM To: City Clerk <cityclerk@atascadero.org>; City Council <CityCouncil@atascadero.org>; Heather Moreno <hmoreno@atascadero.org>; Penny E. Borenstein <pborenstein@co.slo.ca.us> Subject: Eric Greening comment for April 28th Hello!! This comment is intended for Discussion Item D, the Covid-19 update. It will exceed three minutes, but I know all of you are reading it, and it can become part of the written record, and I would appreciate if it could be summarized and perhaps selectively quoted when Item D comes up. I would like to thank the Clerk for reading my non-agenda comment into the record at your last meeting, and I would also like to thank Mayor Moreno for joining this county's other mayors, two county supervisors, and Assemblymember Cunningham in signing the letter to Governor Newsom asking that our county be allowed to begin prudently and cautiously emerging from "shelter-at-home" in the near future without having to be held back by counties that are not ready. Even though our county's cases appear to have spiked in the last couple of days after two weeks of relative quiescence, this probably reflects the increased availability of testing, and Covid-19's demand on our county's hospitals remains very low. The extra capacity created at Cal Poly has yet to be needed. The original rationale for the statewide "shelter-at-home" order, which I supported, in spite of its serious consequences for our economy, social lives, and personal liberties, on the basis that it was to be TEMPORARY, was to "flatten the curve," the understanding being that many people would become ill, but that slowing the transmission to prevent everyone from becoming ill at the same time was necessary to avoid overloading our hospitals and to allow them to save lives rather than heartbreakingly triage a surge of incoming cases. Our county is in very good shape in that regard, but the Governor has moved the goal posts by creating a list of six "considerations" that have to be somehow met prior to any loosening of statewide "shelter-at- home," some of them hard to imagine meeting in any foreseeable future, such as the development and availability of a "therapeutic" for this novel disease. Although the media portray the disagreements between supporters of "lockdown" and those eager to begin to reopen our economic and social lives as being between political left and political right, or between health and money, that is a great oversimplification of the issues at stake. I would note that the letter to the Governor was signed by people from across the political spectrum, and that the consequences of unduly protracted "shelter-at-home" affect not only issues prioritized by people on the right such as personal liberties, but issues prioritized by people on the left, such as economic and social equity. The consequences of protracted "shelter-at-home" are far more harmful to those with fewer financial resources, who are more likely to be in crowded, tiny living spaces, and more likely to suffer immediate privation from lost livelihoods if they lack the financial resources to have put aside savings. The consequences of unduly protracted "shelter-at-home" include HEALTH and SAFETY consequences that have to be weighed against the health and safety goals of containing the virus. Domestic violence is exacerbated when people are under stress and unable to escape each other; stress itself is a health threat, as is elder isolation; elders denied visitors are more likely to die sooner than those with active social contacts. That said, I am grateful to be sheltering at home in Atascadero, and grateful that our precious open spaces, including Stadium Park which is near my home, remain open, and that the people using them are doing so with great consideration. In my comments at the previous meeting, I referenced a scientific brief from the World Health Organization that showed that airborne transmission of viable viruses was not a risk. Now there is an emerging study, not yet peer- reviewed but soon to be, that reinforces this lack of risk in outdoor settings. Found in "Med Rx iv" it is based on data from China gathered when the pandemic was peaking there, and is entitled: "Indoor Transmission of SARS-CoV-2" by Hua Qian, Te Miao, Li Liu, Xiaohong Zheng, Danting Luo, and Yuguo Li. They studied 318 outbreaks involving 7324 cases of the new virus, and only two cases among those multiple thousands could be traced to outdoor transmission. Our outdoor spaces, in other words, can be used without fear. When we do begin to emerge from "shelter-at-home," this sort of information can help guide us. Clearly, keeping people indoors maximizes risk, and now that our days are becoming warm and sunny and full of virus-killing ultraviolet light, we should be ENCOURAGING people to be outside. Perhaps, for example, even if the wearing of masks may need to be required or encouraged in indoor spaces open to the public, that would not be necessary outdoors (unless one is coughing or sneezing, in which case they should stay away from other people anyway), and people can move freely and briskly taking unencumbered deep breaths. Perhaps "non- essential" projects, construction or otherwise, that happen outdoors can be restarted, and businesses that do, or can, serve their customers outdoors can be reopened; plant nurseries, for example, can, if allowed to open, expect a surge of business leading up to Mothers Day, and anything that gets money safely flowing in previously closed channels will help lift us out of our economic hole. Restaurants with outdoor tables may be able to open that part of their seating to supplement their takeout business. At this time, I would not support the reopening of theaters and other places of mass indoor assembly, and could, in the early stages of our emergence, support a numerical limit on how many people could gather in public or private spaces The number itself might be arbitrary, but its intention would be to limit socializing, at first, to people who KNOW each other, to help with contact tracing in the event that someone comes down with the illness. Such tracing would be impossible with people who had sat among strangers in a crowded theater. People who do socialize would be tacitly consenting to a spell of personal "shelter-at-home" if found to have been exposed. I do NOT support a China-style surveillance state, as surveillance tools could be used for too many extraneous purposes unbeknownst to those surveilled. In any event, I do hope everyone on your council will join in encouraging the Governor to allow local areas that do not face the prospect of excessive demands on hospital resources to begin prudently and cautiously re-emerging from a regime that has cost too many people their livelihoods and that is responsible for increasing health and safety consequences of its own. We should not have to freeze our economic and social lives until all risk of illness is eliminated, but people who are moved by concern of contagion should be supported in remaining at home and rejecting visitors if that is their choice. The collective interest of preserving hospital capacity justified the beginning of "shelter-at-home," and when that capacity is not threatened, the situation justifies prudently, cautiously ending it as we take the first steps into shaping a future about whose emerging form we all should feel empowered as co-authors. Many thanks, and STAY WELL!! Eric Greening