The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPC_2026-05-05_Public Comment 805.963.7000 main 1020 State Street Santa Barbara, California 93101 Beth A. Collins Attorney At Law 805.882.1419 direct bcollins@bhfs.com www.bhfs.com Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP May 4, 2026 VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL Tori Keen, Chairperson (tkeen@atascadero.org) Jason Anderson, Vice Chairperson (janderson@atascadero.org) Joey Ferrell, Commissioner (jferrell@atascadero.org) Greg Heath, Commissioner (gheath@atascadero.org) Tom Jones, Commissioner (tjones@atascadero.org) Maggie O'Malley, Commissioner (momalley@atascadero.org) Eric Pennachio, Commissioner (epennachio@atascadero.org) Planning Commission City of Atascadero 6500 Palma Avenue Atascadero, CA 93422 RE: May 5, 2026 Hearing re Appeal of Planning Department Decision Dated February 2, 2026 Terminating the Legal Non-conforming Outdoor Storage Use at 4990 Traffic Way Dear Planning Commissioners: On behalf of 4990 Traffic Way LLC (“Appellant”), we submit this letter in support of our appeal of the Planning Department’s February 2, 2026 email determination stating that the Appellant “lost” the right to continue its legal nonconforming outdoor storage use of the property at 4990 Traffic Way (“Property”). Appellant bought this Property in 2020 with a vested and long-established use of Outdoor Vehicle and Equipment Storage which was permitted in 2012. The City changed its Code in 2021 to require a CUP for an Outdoor Vehicle and Equipment Storage use of over 10,000 square feet. After years of leasing the Property, the City staff told the Appellant that it needed a CUP to continue that use. Appellant accommodated the City and sought a CUP in 2024 for outdoor storage. But unfortunately, staff would not issue a CUP without demanding over $700,000 in site improvements – far more than the value of the Property justifies and more than the Constitution allows when the Appellant was merely seeking a CUP to continue the same use it was already permitted to do on the site. Adding insult to injury, staff also told Appellant it could not recommend approval of a CUP under any circumstances because the use was “marginal” and therefore not supported by staff. Appellant was therefore forced to ask the City to confirm its vested legal nonconforming right to continue the permitted Outdoor Vehicle and Equipment Storage use. Staff refused, leading to this appeal. We ask this Commission to overturn staff’s determination and affirm the Appellant’s right to continue the legal non-conforming, vested use of the site, as it was permitted in 2012, for a few reasons. Public Comment Received by Email 5/5/26 Planning Commission Item G1 Atascadero Planning Commission May 4, 2026 Page 2 1) The ordinance language cited by City staff—allowing termination of certain nonconforming uses if they are discontinued for six months—is facially inapplicable to this situation. 2) In order to establish a “discontinuance” of the use, the City must establish, with substantial evidence, that the Appellant has intentionally abandoned its legal vested property right, and the evidence cited in the staff report cannot meet that high standard. 3) Even if the City’s ordinance applies, the staff report fails to demonstrate that the Appellant has discontinued its vested legal nonconforming outdoor storage use for any six month period. 4) If this Commission upholds staff’s determination, the result would not only be an exceedingly unfair outcome for the Appellant, but also an unconstitutional taking of private property rights for which the City will be liable for damages and other relief. I. FACTUAL AND LEGAL BACKGROUND On December 17, 2012, the City issued Building Permit BLD‑2012‑10403 for “ATASCADERO RV STORAGE: SITE IMPROVEMENTS ONLY,” authorizing an outdoor vehicle and equipment storage use on the Property (“Permit”). (See Exhibit 1.) The Permit describes a 37,175‑square‑foot storage lot1 and requires fencing, access gates, striping, and related yard improvements. The Permit includes a note from “Planning” which says: “Existing Storage shall not include non-operable vehicles. Use of non- operable vehicles constitutes a wrecking yard and will require a CUP.” (Id. at p. 1.) As the staff report affirms, the Outdoor Vehicle and Equipment Storage was an “Allowed” use under the City Code at that time. The Permit plans shows striping, layout, and other improvements similar to what is on site today. The Permit remains the operative entitlement for the Property, and the built improvements still show that the site is an outdoor storage yard and parking area. Appellant purchased the Property in September 2020, which at the time was leased to Atascadero RV Storage. Shortly thereafter, the City updated its Zoning Code. The 2021 Code update continued to allow outdoor storage on Industrial-zoned lots, but it added a CUP requirement for Outdoor Vehicle and Equipment Storage on areas more than 10,000 square feet. As the staff report for this hearing acknowledges, the Property’s storage use was long established and vested at the time of the new ordinance, making it legal non-conforming. Atascadero RV Storage continued its lease until June 2022. After that, the Appellant, who conducts outdoor storage businesses in other locations on the Central Coast, started leasing out the Property for outdoor vehicle storage until approximately March 2023. When that lease terminated, the Appellant leased a portion of the Property to Barber Towing & Service and a portion of the Property for outdoor storage to Southern 1 The stamped-approved plans indicate a (n) 37,175 SF storage lot for the northern section of the property, with approximately 67-foot long by 57 foot wide area north of the existing “shop” shown as (e) storage. Plans provided by 4990 Traffic Way LLC indicate an outdoor storage area of 45,410 SF. The difference in square footage is likely due to the area(s) considered for storage use vs. other. Despite the square footage differences, the general layout and use areas are or can be made to match with an updated project description. Atascadero Planning Commission May 4, 2026 Page 3 California Gas Company until around the end of 2023. Around that time, Planning staff told the Appellant that it could not conduct outdoor vehicle storage on the Property without getting a CUP. This statement was factually and legally incorrect. Not only had the Appellant never ceased the use, but a vested legal nonconforming use cannot be terminated by a public agency without notice and an opportunity to be heard by the Appellant, and the agency cannot terminate the use without demonstrating that the Appellant has intended to abandon the vested property right. (See McCaslin v. City of Monterey Park (1958) 163 Cal.App.2d 339, 347 [holding that a property owner who had established a legal nonconforming use could not be compelled to discontinue that use by a zoning ordinance without due process of law]; Bauer v. City of San Diego (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 1281, 1290 [City illegally terminated legal nonconforming vested right to operate liquor store due to alleged discontinuation of use]; see more detailed discussion in our January 15, 2026 letter, attached hereto as Exhibit 2.) Nonetheless, in an effort to accommodate staff and avoid a dispute, in 2024, Appellant submitted a CUP application. As explained further in our January 15, 2026 letter to planning staff, the Appellant tried for years to work with staff, who insisted on requiring exorbitantly expensive public and private improvements estimated to cost $700,000 or more as a condition of approving any CUP. (See id. at Attachment 2 [cost estimates previously emailed to P. Dunsmore, N. DeBar and E. Gomez on August 18, 2025].) Since the Appellant purchased the Property for approximately $950,000 with a vested legal nonconforming right to do exactly the same use proposed under the CUP, the City’s proposed conditions constitute disproportionate and unreasonable exactions. Prospective tenants and purchasers of the Property also were told by staff that a CUP was necessary, and that the CUP process will trigger substantial and costly public‑improvements, further interfering with the Appellants’ investment-backed expectations for use of the Property. When the Appellant pushed back, staff said that these demands were justifiable simply because the City was “utilizing [its] ability [to] condition [a] discretionary project,” despite the fact that the Project does not even propose new construction (other than development proposed to appease City requests during the application process). Nonetheless, throughout this process the Appellant maintained the permitted yard configuration and continued to press the City for confirmation of the Appellant’s right to continue that use. Ultimately, when it became clear that staff would continue to oppose the Appellant’s proposed use unless all exactions were included, Appellant asked the City to recognize its vested right to continue the use under the 2012 Permit, explaining that the City cannot unilaterally take a vested property right without notice, a hearing, and evidence to support a finding that Appellant intended to abandon the right. Staff responded with a February 2, 2025 email stating that “the previous use of the property has ceased for a period greater than 6 months, and has therefore lost any nonconforming status,” and adding that “the proposed use will require a conditional use permit to proceed.” That email cited only “Municipal Code § 9-7 (Nonconforming Uses)” in general and did not identify a specific provision of that code section, the dates during which the Appellant supposedly abandoned the use, or the notice, hearing, and findings required by the Constitution in order to extinguish Appellant’s vested property rights. Appellant timely appealed. Atascadero Planning Commission May 4, 2026 Page 4 II. ARGUMENT This appeal presents four principal issues. First, staff applied the wrong subsection of the Atascadero Municipal Code (“AMC”). Here, the City argues the 2012 Permit is no longer sufficient and that Appellant now needs a CUP to continue the nonconforming use. AMC section 9-7.105 governs an entitlement- only nonconformity, where a use is nonconforming only because an entitlement is absent. That section expressly permits continuation of a nonconforming use and contains no six-month “discontinuance” rule for such a situation. Second, due process was required before any termination could occur. The City was required to provide notice, a hearing, and findings to satisfy constitutional due process, along with evidence of an intent by the Appellant to abandon the pre-existing use. The February 2 email from staff satisfies none of those criteria. Third, even if a six-month rule applied, the City identified no qualifying six-month period. To the contrary, the record shows continued site configuration and operations consistent with the use through December 2023, followed by continued pursuit of the same use through discussions of a CUP for the use with staff. Fourth, the City’s reliance on the nonexistent “abandonment” of the Permit to illegally a) take Appellant’s vested property right in the Permit and b) require a CUP mandating the Appellant to make exorbitant public improvements raises serious concerns of exactions and taking, both of which violate the United States and California Constitutions. 1. The City applied the wrong AMC subsection; section 9-7.105 controls and authorizes continuation of the use without a six‑month forfeiture. The first issue concerns whether the City could terminate the Property’s legal nonconforming outdoor storage use by invoking a six‑month “discontinuance” rule. The answer is no. Under the AMC, where the only alleged nonconformity is the absence of a now‑required entitlement, section 9‑7.105 governs and allows the use to continue, limiting only enlargement until an entitlement is secured. Section 9‑7.105 contains no six‑month discontinuance clock. The Code’s structure is dispositive. Section 9‑7.103 protects the continuation of a lawful nonconforming use—including through changes in ownership, tenancy, or management—so long as the land use or activity remains substantially unchanged. Section 9‑7.105 then addresses the specific case in which a use is “nonconforming only because of the absence of an entitlement,” and it permits the use to continue, limits expansion, and deems the use conforming upon approval of the required entitlement. Neither section 9‑7.103 nor section 9‑7.105 includes a six‑month termination rule. By contrast, the six‑month discontinuance provisions appear only in the subsections that govern different situations: section 9‑7.106(b) for a “nonconforming use of land” located where the use is not identified as allowable in the Zoning Code, and section 9‑7.107(b) for a nonconforming use within a conforming building. Those are the only places the Code uses six‑month discontinuance to terminate a use, and neither applies here. The Property’s outdoor storage use (Vehicle and Equipment Storage (Outdoor)) is an identified, allowable land use in the City’s Industrial districts, administered through discretionary permitting. (See AMC § 9-3-500.) The nonresidential use table also lists “Vehicle and Equipment Storage (Outdoor)” as a recognized use, which is currently subject to a CUP requirement in the Industrial categories, Atascadero Planning Commission May 4, 2026 Page 5 confirming that the use is allowable in location and regulated by entitlement rather than categorically prohibited at the site. The Code also imposes a square‑footage threshold that routes larger outdoor commercial and industrial storage developments into the CUP process even when the underlying use is otherwise allowed, further confirming the entitlement‑administration framework. That context places this case squarely under section 9‑7.105’s “nonconformity due to lack of entitlement” rule and not under the six‑month discontinuance provisions for other categories. The City’s February 2 email did not identify the correct subsection. It cited “Municipal Code § 9‑7” generally and asserted that the “previous use” had ceased for more than six months and “therefore lost any nonconforming status,” while directing the Appellant to pursue a CUP. That was an error. The six‑month termination rule appears only in sections 9‑7.106(b) and 9‑7.107(b), which (as noted above) govern uses not allowable in location and uses in conforming buildings, respectively. It does not appear in section 9‑7.105, which governs entitlement‑only nonconformities and allows continuation of the existing use pending entitlement. Because the Property’s outdoor storage use is allowable in the Industrial zone upon CUP, any present nonconformity is due solely to the absence of that entitlement and is governed by section 9‑7.105, not by the six‑month provisions the email and staff report invoke. The Commission should therefore hold that staff applied the wrong subsection, rescind the February 2 determination, and recognize that the use may continue under AMC section 9‑7.105, subject only to the Code’s limits on enlargement. That conclusion aligns the decision with the Code’s text, its category‑specific termination rules, and the City’s own zoning tables and special‑use standards that expressly recognize outdoor storage as an allowable, regulable use in Industrial districts. 2. Even if the City had authority to terminate the vested outdoor storage use, the February 2 email was still invalid and violated due process protections without evidence that the Appellant intended to abandon the use. Terminating a lawful nonconforming use is an adjudicative deprivation of a vested property right, so due process requires notice, an opportunity to be heard, an evidentiary hearing, and reasoned findings before the government may extinguish that use. California courts have made this clear. Bauer v. City of San Diego (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 1281, 1290 (“Bauer”) holds a city may not “automatically” terminate a legal nonconforming use without first providing an administrative hearing with findings on continuity and change. People v. Gates (1974) 41 Cal.App.3d 590, 602 (“Gates”) confirms due process is satisfied only when the agency affords a noticed hearing with testimony and a fair chance to present evidence before acting to terminate a nonconforming use. These authorities set the legal framework for what must occur before a nonconforming-use termination can lawfully be made. The City’s own code mirrors those safeguards. (See AMC § 9-8.104, Enforcement hearings.) It codifies hearing procedures, sworn testimony, the right to present evidence and cross-examine, and written findings “to assure due process of law” when the City revokes approvals or abates a use—protections that apply a fortiori when the City seeks to terminate a vested property right. Furthermore, “‘[m]ere cessation of use does not of itself amount to abandonment although the duration of nonuse may be a factor in determining whether the nonconforming use has been Atascadero Planning Commission May 4, 2026 Page 6 abandoned.’” (Hansen Brothers Enters., Inc. v. Bd. of Supervisors (1996) 12 Cal.4th 533, 569 [“Hansen Brothers”] [citations omitted].) Rather, a nonconforming use must be abandoned, which “ordinarily depends upon a concurrence of two factors: (1) an intention to abandon; and (2) an overt act or failure to act, which carries the implication the owner does not claim or retain any interest in the right to the nonconforming use.” (Id.) The February 2 email provided none of these procedural safeguards. It offered a single conclusory sentence that the “previous use” had ceased for “greater than 6 months,” cited Chapter 9‑7 only in general, identified no governing subsection, specified no dates or defined six‑month window, noticed no hearing, provided no opportunity to present evidence or cross‑examine, and adopted no findings applying the Code’s standard to an evidentiary record. That approach violates the due process framework Bauer and Gates require and disregards the City’s own codified hearing safeguards. On process alone, the determination is invalid. Moreover, the February 2 email cited no evidence that the Appellant ever intended to abandon the use. To the contrary, the record shows the Appellant never ceased in its efforts to maintain the outdoor storage use, even discussing a CUP with the City for that purpose, which Appellant was not required to do. These acts are completely inconsistent with an intent to cease outdoor storage use of the Property. Because the City terminated a claimed vested right without notice, an evidentiary hearing, or reasoned findings tied to the correct standard and supported by substantial evidence, the Commission should rescind the February 2 determination and recognize that the Property’s legal nonconforming outdoor storage use was not lawfully terminated. These defects are independent grounds for reversal, even apart from the threshold AMC section 9‑7.105 error. 3. There has never been a 6-month discontinuance. Even if a six‑month discontinuance standard applied—which it does not—the record does not establish it occurred. Under AMC section 9‑7.103, a lawful nonconforming use may continue and be maintained, including through changes in ownership, tenancy, or management, so long as the land use or activity is substantially unchanged. The six‑month discontinuance clocks appear in AMC sections 9‑7.106(b) (nonconforming uses of land) and 9‑7.107(b) (nonconforming use of a conforming building). As the proponent of forfeiture, the City must identify a precise six‑month period and present competent, time‑specific proof that no qualifying outdoor vehicle‑and‑equipment storage use or related business activity occurred during that entire span. It did not - and cannot - do so. Instead, the staff report relies entirely on various arial photos and emails, none of which provide sufficient evidence that the legal nonconforming uses on the site were discontinued. In fact, staff clearly misunderstands one email it cites for evidence, not realizing that the Appellant did in fact start its own storage business after Atascadero RV Storage closed around June 2022. But more importantly, binding court precedent makes clear that staff’s attempts to point to a six month cessation in leasing simply do not support terminating the Appellant’s vested legal nonconforming right. Atascadero Planning Commission May 4, 2026 Page 7 Critically, Hansen Brothers, supra, 12 Cal.4th 533 provides important guidance on how to apply a six‑month “discontinuance” clause to a vested right. There, the county argued hillside quarrying had stopped for more than 180 days, so the nonconforming use was discontinued. The Supreme Court rejected that narrow view. It recognized that “discontinued” in this context is understood as synonymous with “abandoned,” and reaffirmed that mere cessation of a particular activity is not abandonment or discontinuance of the protected use. The Court held the inquiry runs at the level of the overall business, not isolated on‑site tasks or operations. Because the protected use was the aggregate production‑and‑sale business—and facilities were maintained, and the operator stood ready to resume—any pause in the hillside component was “irrelevant.” (Id. at 571.) The 180‑day rule “applies to the nonconforming use itself, not to the various components of the business.” (Id. at 570.) The same analysis governs here. The protected use is the business of operating and leasing an outdoor vehicle and equipment storage yard, established by the City’s 2012 Permit—not the day‑to‑day presence of any single customer on the property. Three lines of proof show there was no discontinuance: (i.) Physical configuration. The permitted yard improvements remained in place and maintained the Property as a functioning outdoor storage use. The fence, gates, surfacing, screening, and access controls still define and support the same use. Their continued presence is objective evidence that the protected use persisted and was and is ready to operate. (ii.) Actual operations. The site hosted outdoor storage yard activities within the relevant period, including RV and equipment storage and later a utility laydown/storage yard. Those operations fall squarely within the defined outdoor vehicle‑and‑equipment storage use and defeat any claimed six‑month abandonment before late 2023. (iii.) Business intent and continuity. Appellant continuously held the Property out for the same outdoor storage use, marketed it for lease for that use, and pursued that very use through a 2024 Planning application at staff’s direction. Throughout 2024–2025, and to this present day, the Appellant engaged with Planning on the terms under which the same outdoor storage business could proceed. Any periods when the site was “vacant at times” during City‑directed processing reflect a yard kept configured and ready for both physical storage and rental for storage while the parties worked through the City’s conditions and negotiated the City’s demand for a CUP. Read through Hansen Brothers’ lens, the facts here are analogous and compel the same result. In Hansen Brothers, supra, 12 Cal.4th at 570-71, the Supreme Court held a “discontinuance” looks at a vested use from the perspective of the overall business activities, and not any individual task or function; because the overall business continued to plan on using the aggregate mine in the future, the fact that the mine owner temporarily paused the mining activity was “irrelevant” and was insufficient to establish a discontinuance or an abandonment. The same is true here. The protected use is the outdoor storage business, a business that persists still today: the storage area remains configured with its permitted improvements; the site can accommodate an outdoor storage tenant at any time; and Appellant has continuously been working to clear up permitting issues to facilitate continued operations. Under Hansen Brothers, these facts do not add up to a six-month discontinuance of the nonconforming use. Atascadero Planning Commission May 4, 2026 Page 8 Similarly, the court in Bauer, supra, 75 Cal.App.4th at 1291–92 held that the property owner’s efforts to accommodate the City by applying for a CUP was not evidence that she had abandoned her legal nonconforming use. To the contrary, the court said that it “cannot fault Bauer for proceeding instead under the administrative process, albeit limited and flawed, provided by the City,” even though “Bauer may have been better served by filing in the first instance a petition for writ of traditional mandamus challenging the City’s determination by ipse dixit fiat that Bauer’s grandfathered rights terminated automatically . . . .” (Id. at 1292, fn. 8.) The same result follows here, where the Appellant did not forfeit any rights by seeking to work with staff on their legally erroneous position that a CUP was required to continue the outdoor storage use. In sum, even under a six‑month discontinuance rubric, the City has not defined—and cannot define – a precise six‑month window of complete nonuse. The City’s own record shows continuity through maintained improvements, documented operations, ongoing marketing and offering for storage, active engagement with the City to continue the same use, and readiness to operate. No evidence of intentional abandonment appears in the record. Thus, the appeal must be granted and the staff determination rescinded. 4. If the City refuses to recognize the vested outdoor storage use, it risks liability for an unconstitutional taking. The Fifth Amendment bars cities from leveraging permits to exact public improvements that lack an essential nexus to a legitimate interest and rough proportionality to a project’s impacts. That is the Nollan/Dolan/Koontz standard, which applies to both demanded improvements and monetary exactions, even when a permit is denied because the Appellant will not accede to the city’s demands. (See Nollan v. California Coastal Comm’n (1987) 483 U.S. 825, 837 [exactions were an “out‑and‑out plan of extortion”]; Dolan v. City of Tigard (1994) 512 U.S. 374, 391; Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Mgmt. Dist. (2013) 570 U.S. 595, 606–07, 619.) Separately, extinguishing or disabling a vested use can trigger a regulatory taking requiring just compensation—per se under Lucas if all viable use is denied, or under Penn Central’s ad hoc test if government action unduly burdens reasonable, investment‑backed expectations. (See Lucas v. S.C. Coastal Council (1992) 505 U.S. 1003, 1015–19; Penn Central Transp. Co. v. New York City (1978) 438 U.S. 104, 124–28; Hansen Brothers, supra, 12 Cal.4th 533, 563–64 [collecting and applying Lucas/Penn Central].) Here, the City used the asserted “loss” of nonconforming status to force a CUP and to demand nearly a million dollars of frontage and utility‑undergrounding work as the price of continuing a long‑established use. There is no new project. There are no new impacts. Those demands lack nexus to mere continuation and are not roughly proportional to anything the continuation would cause. Using an email to terminate a use, and to then use that termination in order to justify extracting unrelated public improvements, is exactly what the unconstitutional‑conditions doctrine forbids. Separately, and central to this hearing where the question before this Planning Commission is whether to take Appellant’s vested rights under its legal 2012 Permit, extinguishing or disabling a vested use can be a regulatory taking. If all viable use is denied – as it would be here for the 2012 Permit, it is a per se taking under Lucas, supra, 505 U.S. 1003, 1015–19. If government action unduly burdens reasonable, Atascadero Planning Commission May 4, 2026 Page 9 investment‑backed expectations, it is a taking under Penn Central Transp. Co., supra, 438 U.S. 104, 124– 28. The 2012 Permit and built improvements created settled expectations for continued outdoor storage. Declaring the Permit “lost,” or conditioning it out of existence with disproportionate off‑site work, threatens liability under all of these frameworks. III. CONCLUSION The threshold error is decisive. Staff applied the wrong section of the Municipal Code. Under AMC section 9‑7.105, this entitlement‑only nonconformity may continue and there is no six‑month forfeiture rule. Even if the City had authority to terminate, due process barred what happened here. The February 2 email declared rights “lost” without notice, an evidentiary hearing, findings, or evidence of intent to abandon. And even if a six‑month standard applied, the record does not show one. The site remains configured for outdoor storage, operations continued into late 2023, and the Appellant continues to hold out and pursue the same use. This conduct is an unconstitutional taking of Appellant’s Permit. Furthermore, the “lost‑status” email followed efforts to force a CUP loaded with frontage and undergrounding demands. Those actions contravene the nexus and proportionality limits on exactions and threatens takings liability. We respectfully ask the Commission to grant the appeal, rescind the February 2 determination, and recognize Appellant’s vested right to continue the existing outdoor storage use. Thank you for your service to the City and your attention to this important matter. Sincerely, Beth A. Collins Exhibit 1: 2012 Permit Exhibit 2: Correspondence dated January 15, 2026 EXHIBIT 1 EXHIBIT 2 36605578.3 805.963.7000 main 1020 State Street Santa Barbara, California 93101 Beth A. Collins Attorney At Law 805.882.1419 direct bcollins@bhfs.com www.bhfs.com Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP January 15, 2026 VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL Erick Gomez, Planner Phil Dunsmore, Planning Director Nick DeBar, Public Works City of Atascadero Planning Department 6500 Palma Avenue Atascadero, CA 93422 RE: Vested Right to Continue Legal Nonconforming Use at 4990 Traffic Way APN 028-102-002 Dear Mr. Gomez, Mr. Dunsmore, and Mr. DeBar: We represent 4990 Traffic Way LLC (“Owner”) on land use matters for the property at 4990 Traffic Way (“Property”) in the City of Atascadero (“City”). We understand the City has taken the position that the longstanding legal nonconforming use on the Property has been deemed terminated and that a Conditional Use Permit (“CUP”) is required to continue operations. For the reasons set forth below, this position is inconsistent with California law and violates constitutional protections, exposing the City to significant risk in litigation. With the additional information provided in this letter, we ask the City to reconsider its position and confirm by January 23, 2026 that the Property has a vested right to continue its legal nonconforming operations. I. Factual Background The Property is an Industrial-zoned property in the City that has been used for various automobile- related and storage uses for decades, as described further below. The Property is a narrow, rectangular parcel approximately 610 feet wide and 100 feet deep, occupying the land between the public right of way of Traffic Way and the Union Pacific Railroad. The East property line is within a vacated right of way of Mercedes Avenue. The West property line abuts Buena Avenue, which has not, to our knowledge, been vacated by Atascadero, and upon which we understand pedestrians travel on a path through a culvert under the railroad between Traffic Way and a neighborhood north of the railroad. Erick Gomez, Planner Kelly Gleason, Planning Manager January 15, 2026 Page 2 36605578.3 The existing building on site was erected in 19511 and modified by various tenants, including Tom’s Tile2 and Mike Dean Mobile Auto Repair.3 As observed in aerial photos (Attachment 1), storage of various items has occurred on the site since at least 1994. Storage of Recreational Vehicles (“RV”) commenced in 2012, as acknowledged in a Building Permit for Tenant Improvements sought by Atascadero RV Storage.4 The Owner purchased the Property in September of 2020.5 At the time, the Property was encumbered by a lease with Dirk Dole, owner of Atascadero RV Storage, who had operated on the Property for at least eight years. That lease ended June 30, 2022, after which the Owner continued the business of rental RV storage on the Property through the end of November 2022. The Owner then leased the Property to Southern California Gas Company for outdoor storage from March through the end of November 2023. After the Southern California Gas lease ended, the City told the Owner that it needed apply for a CUP to continue the preexisting outdoor storage use on the Property. The Owner was surprised to hear that a CUP would be required to continue a pre-existing use. Nevertheless, in good-faith reliance on the City’s representation and in an effort to accommodate the City’s request, the Owner applied for a CUP. Unfortunately, in that process the City took the position that very costly public and private improvements, including extensive frontage improvements, were required. These requirements constitute unconstitutional exactions that have no nexus or rough proportionality to any impacts associated with issuance of a CUP on this Property for a pre-existing use. Furthermore, over the past two years, (1) the Owner lost income from at least three potential tenants of the Property because of the uncertainty over the Property’s status and (2) the Owner expended significant funds pursuing a CUP that is not required as a matter of law. II. The Owner Has a Vested Right to Continue the Property’s Nonconforming Use Under well-established California precedent, a legal nonconforming use6—in this case outdoor storage over 10,000 SF—is a vested property right. (McCaslin v. City of Monterey Park (1958) 163 Cal.App.2d 339, 347 [holding that a property owner who had established a legal nonconforming use could not be compelled to discontinue that use by a zoning ordinance without due process of law].) The California Supreme Court in County of San Diego v. McClurken (1951) 37 Cal.2d 683, 686 recognized that zoning 1 Per San Luis Obispo (“SLO”) County Assessor Records. 2 See Atascadero Building Permit BLD-2012-10499, 2013-10921. 3 See Atascadero Building Permit 2018-701. 4 Atascadero Building Permit BLD-2012-10403. 5 The Property was acquired September 10, 2020 via Grant Deed as document 2020049224 and subsequently transferred to the Owner LLC in February 2021 via Grant Deed, recorded as document 2021010300 of official records of SLO County. 6 “A legal nonconforming use is one that existed lawfully before a zoning restriction became effective and that is not in conformity with the ordinance when it continues thereafter.” (Hansen Brothers Enterprises, Inc. v. Board of Supervisors (1996) 12 Cal.4th 533, 540, fn. 1.) Erick Gomez, Planner Kelly Gleason, Planning Manager January 15, 2026 Page 3 36605578.3 ordinances typically exempt existing nonconforming uses because immediate termination would raise constitutional concerns. In Bauer v. City of San Diego (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 1281, the City of San Diego attempted to terminate a long-standing legal nonconforming use, a retail liquor store, after adopting an ordinance requiring a conditional use permit for such businesses. Bauer’s store had operated lawfully for decades under prior zoning regulations. The City argued that the nonconforming status was lost due to alleged non-use and that Bauer now needed a CUP. (Id. at 1290.) The Court of Appeal rejected that argument, holding that Bauer’s right to continue her established business was a vested property right that could not be extinguished without due process—specifically notice and a public hearing. It further held that disputes over alleged abandonment or non-use require procedural safeguards and cannot be resolved by unilateral administrative action. The same reasoning squarely applies here. The City asserts that the Owner’s nonconforming use of outdoor storage was terminated due to alleged non-use, but that determination cannot lawfully occur without constitutionally adequate notice and a public hearing. Like Bauer, the Owner’s use predates the current zoning restrictions and has operated lawfully for years. The City’s attempt to take our client’s vested legal nonconforming right to conduct an outdoor storage use on its Property and unilaterally impose a CUP requirement based on an alleged lapse in the nonconforming use mirrors the City of San Diego’s unconstitutional conduct in Bauer and is equally unlawful. As described earlier in this letter, the Owner’s use has existed lawfully since before it purchased the property in 2020, thus predating the current zoning restrictions.7 Termination or alteration of that existing vested property right without notice and a hearing with presentation of evidence to justify the City’s revocation of the vested property right violates the Owner’s right to due process. Thus, the City’s assertion that the Owner must obtain a CUP to continue this use is unlawful because it effectively extinguishes a vested right without the constitutionally required due process.8 III. The Owner Did Not Waive Its Right to Continue the Nonconforming Use The Owner did not waive its constitutional rights by attempting to work with the City and submitting a CUP application to comply with the City’s request. This was not a voluntary waiver of vested rights 7 As of 2016, via Ordinance 602, Vehicle and Equipment Storage of 10,000 SF or more was still an Allowed Use with a Zoning Clearance in the Industrial Zone in the City of Atascadero. In 2021, the City adopted Ordinance 646 which imposed a CUP requirement for Outdoor Vehicle and Equipment Storage. The Property’s legal nonconforming use was established well before 2021. 8 Note that the noticed hearings that the City held in 2021 when adopting the Ordinance do not serve as the particularized notice and hearing that are constitutionally required before the City can revoke the Owner’s vested legal nonconforming right to conduct outdoor storage on this Property. The 2021 hearings simply adopted a new CUP requirement applicable to properties seeking to establish a new outdoor storage use—they did not and could not terminate any existing legal nonconforming outdoor storage uses. Erick Gomez, Planner Kelly Gleason, Planning Manager January 15, 2026 Page 4 36605578.3 because California law does not permit forfeiture of constitutional property rights absent clear and intentional relinquishment, which did not occur here. (Roesch v. De Mota (1944) 24 Cal.2d 563 [defining “waiver” as “the intentional relinquishment of a known right after knowledge of the facts”].) In Bauer, the court rejected the City’s argument that the owner waived her vested rights by not challenging the termination of her grandfathered nonconforming use pursuant to the City’s administrative process. (Bauer, supra, 75 Cal.App.4th at 1291–1292.) Similarly, here the Owner attempted to work with the City by applying for a CUP but never intentionally relinquished its longstanding nonconforming use rights. IV. The City’s Conduct During the CUP Application Process Also Violated the Owner’s Rights Unfortunately, despite the Owner’s repeated good-faith attempts to work with the City in the CUP process, the City has repeatedly asserted that it will require exorbitantly expensive public and private improvements to issue a CUP, just to allow the Owner to continue the preexisting outdoor storage use. Specifically, as a condition of recommending approval of the CUP to decisionmakers, City staff has stated repeatedly that it will require the Owner to make public improvements including a curb, gutter, and sidewalk along the entire frontage of Traffic Way and Buena, along with full road improvements on Buena Avenue, landscaping, and other infrastructure improvements. Altogether, these improvements are estimated to cost $700,000 or more.9 Considering that our client purchased the Property for approximately $950,000 with a vested legal nonconforming right to do exactly the same use proposed under the CUP, this raises serious constitutional concerns under the Nollan/Dolan framework. These requirements are a classic example of unconstitutional “exactions” because the City is attempting to require the Owner to either dedicate property interests or fund public improvements as a condition of permit approval, which are manifestly unreasonable in scope, have no nexus to any supposed impacts of the approval, and are grossly disproportionate. (Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Mgmt. Dist. (2013) 570 U.S. 595, 619.) Put simply, the City has repeatedly suggested that because the issuance of a CUP is a discretionary approval, it may impose any conditions or exactions on this project that it pleases. It is well-settled that such an attitude is contrary to the United States and California Constitutions. Outdoor storage has existed on the Property for over a decade before the Owner applied to the City for a CUP to permit the exact same use. There is no “new” impact associated with outdoor storage on the Property. Because the CUP would not authorize a new use but merely recognize an existing vested right, there are no incremental impacts to justify the conditions imposed. The proposed CUP does not grant new entitlements or intensify land use; it simply formalizes what has long been permitted as a matter of right. Under these circumstances, the City cannot reasonably claim that the continuation of this use imposes additional burdens on public infrastructure or community resources. Without any incremental impact, the constitutional foundation for imposing exactions is nonexistent. 9 See Attachment 2: cost estimates previously emailed to P. Dunsmore, N. DeBar and E. Gomez on August 18, 2025. Erick Gomez, Planner Kelly Gleason, Planning Manager January 15, 2026 Page 5 36605578.3 --- By January 23, 2026, we respectfully request that the City immediately acknowledge in writing the Owner’s vested right to continue the legal nonconforming use of outdoor storage and withdraw its assertion that a CUP is required for continuing that use or my client will be forced to pursue other avenues to protect its constitutional rights. We appreciate your attention to this matter and look forward to your response. Sincerely, Beth A. Collins ATTACHMENT 1 1994 2004 2007 2009 2013 2017 2018 2020 2021 2023 ATTACHMENT 2 1 Andersen, Ginger C. From:Andersen, Ginger C. Sent:Monday, August 18, 2025 5:41 PM To:Phil Dunsmore; Erin Labuda Cc:Collins, Beth A.; Nick DeBar; Erick Gomez Subject:RE: Atascadero Attachments:22031_4990 Traffic Way_Cost Est Comparison.pdf; Buena Ave Improvements.pdf; 22031 - 4990 Traffic Way_Alternate Layout Site Plan_20250721 (MARKUP).pdf; Traffic Way Thanks Phil, We do need you to stay involved. Hi Nick, I’m the agent for the property owner at 4990 Traffic Way and we were hoping to discuss the aƩached email and exhibits with you. To date, there are some items being requested that are not commensurate to the project, and we would like to get everyone on the same page. From our call with Phil last week, it sounded like there was a Ɵme available tomorrow aŌernoon for Planning and Public Works to connect. Is that sƟll the case? I am free any Ɵme tomorrow (Tuesday) except 2-3pm, and am also available before 2 on both Wednesday and Thursday. Thank you, Ginger C. Andersen Senior Land Use Project Manager Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP 1021 Anacapa Street, 2nd Floor Santa Barbara, CA 93101 805.882.1460 tel 805.260.8392 cell gandersen@bhfs.com Brownstein - we're all in. From: Phil Dunsmore <pdunsmore@atascadero.org> Sent: Monday, August 18, 2025 4:48 PM To: Andersen, Ginger C. <gandersen@bhfs.com>; Erin Labuda <elabuda@flowersassoc.com> Cc: Collins, Beth A. <bcollins@bhfs.com>; Nick DeBar <ndebar@atascadero.org>; Erick Gomez <egomez@atascadero.org> Subject: RE: Atascadero Hi Ginger, We really need to have the project planner, Erick Gomez, and our Public Works Director, Nick DeBar, on this one. I don’t have purview on altering required public improvements. However, I am happy to be involved. Phil Dunsmore, Community Development Director CITY OF ATASCADERO Community Development Dept. 6500 Palma Ave., Atascadero CA 93422 2 Direct (805) 674-5380 | OƯice (805) 461-5035 Direct Fax: (805) 470-3489 | OƯice Fax (805) 461-7612 www.atascadero.org Dedicated to Atascadero’s character and safety by helping people plan and build quality projects City Hall is once again fully open to the Public. All services are currently active and we are processing permits and performing inspections. -----Original Appointment----- From: Andersen, Ginger C. <gandersen@bhfs.com> Sent: Monday, August 18, 2025 4:36 PM To: Phil Dunsmore; Erin Labuda Cc: Collins, Beth A. Subject: Atascadero When: Wednesday, August 20, 2025 9:00 AM-10:00 AM (UTC-08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada). Where: https://bhfs.zoom.us/j/92515238637?pwd=S7V9ItPmpywNJrWssjtvbh2MOSalaU.1 Ginger Andersen is inviƟng you to a scheduled Zoom meeƟng. Join Zoom MeeƟng hƩps://bhfs.zoom.us/j/92515238637?pwd=S7V9ItPmpywNJrWssjtvbh2MOSalaU.1 MeeƟng ID: 925 1523 8637 Passcode: 731692 --- One tap mobile +13017158592,,92515238637#,,,,*731692# US (Washington DC) 8335480276,,92515238637#,,,,*731692# US Toll-free --- Join by SIP • 92515238637@zoomcrc.com Join instrucƟons hƩps://bhfs.zoom.us/meeƟngs/92515238637/invitaƟons?signature=yyyy5xE4nxZ- nMaTGbvTQiDSUDsMUDPN46NIbrnFiv8 STATEMENT OF CONFIDENTIALITY & DISCLAIMER: The information contained in this email message is attorney privileged and confidential, intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copy of this email is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please notify us immediately by calling (303) 223-1300 and delete the message. Thank you. ATTENTION: This email originated from outside the City's network. Use caution when opening links and attachments. STATEMENT OF CONFIDENTIALITY & DISCLAIMER: The information contained in this email message is 3 attorney privileged and confidential, intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copy of this email is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please notify us immediately by calling (303) 223-1300 and delete the message. Thank you. R/WR/W P/A C/L OF R/W P/A R/W R/W P/ L TRAFFIC WAY C/LC/L R/ W RAILROAD R/W 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 15 16 17 1 23 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1 9 20 2 1 2 2 2425262728293 03132333435363738 6' 31 . 0 ' 12.0'31 . 0 ' 31.0 ' 12.0' 3 1 . 0 ' 3 1 . 0 ' 36.0'24.0' 24 . 5 ' 9. 0 ' TY P . 24.0' 18.0' TYP. 9.0' TYP. 12.0 '12.0 ' 8' 29 22 2727 2 1 1 1 1 3 34 611 . 0 ' TR A V E L LA N E 11 . 0 ' TR A V E L LA N E 8. 0 ' PA R K I N G LA N E 8. 0 ' PA R K I N G LA N E 32 28 8 28 28 28 34 20 . 0 ' 35 BU E N A A V E . 35.0' 20.0' 1 1 1 32 3. 0 ' 6. 0 ' R/W R/W 16.6' 15.3 CLR. 830.29 FL 830.79 TC C/L OF R/W C/L OF R/W 3.0' CONSTRUCTION NOTES: (NUMBERED ITEM BELOW CORRESPONDS TO NUMBER WITHIN HEXAGON ON DRAWING) PROTECTIONS / REMOVALS: 1 PROTECT EXISTING FENCE. 2 PROTECT EXISTING BUILDING. 3 PROTECT EXISTING UTILITY POLE. 4 PROTECT EXISTING CONCRETE DRIVEWAY APPROACH. 5 PROTECT EXISTING UTILITY BOX. 6 PROTECT EXISTING MAILBOX. 7 REMOVE EXISTING AC PAVEMENT. 8 EXISTING 20' GATE TO REMAIN AND BE PROTECTED IN PLACE. 9 EXISTING AC PAVEMENT TO REMAIN. 10 EXISTING ASPHALT BERM TO REMAIN AND BE PROTECTED IN PLACE. 11 REMOVE EXISTING ROLLING GATE. 12 REMOVE EXISTING PAVERS/PARKING STALLS. 13-20 NOT USED. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS: 21 SAWCUT EXISTING AC PAVEMENT. 22 PROPOSED AC PAVEMENT. 23 PROPOSED CONCRETE DRIVEWAY. 24 PROPOSED 6" CONCRETE CURB. 25 PROPOSED 6" CONCRETE CURB AND 18" WIDE CONCRETE GUTTER. 26 PROPOSED 3'-0" WIDE CONCRETE RIBBON GUTTER. 27 PROPOSED AC DIKE. 28 PROPOSED LANDSCAPE AREA PER LANDSCAPE PLAN. 29 PROPOSED NEW OR REALIGNED FENCE (H=6'). 30 PROPOSED 20' GATE. 31 PROPOSED VAN ACCESSIBLE ADA PARKING STALL. 32 PROPOSED 6'-0" WIDE GRAVEL PATH. 33 PROPOSED PARKWAY DRAIN. 34 PROPOSED 4" WIDE PARKING STRIPING. 35 PROPOSED 20' ACCESS WAY. 36 PROPOSED ADA PATH OF TRAVEL. 37 PROPOSED FENCE (H=6'). 38 PROPOSED 20'-WIDE GATE. PROJECT PARCEL - SITE COVERAGE CALCS: EXISTING: PERVIOUS AREA 52,850 SF IMPERVIOUS AREA 10,650 SF TOTAL SITE 63,500 SF PROPOSED: PERVIOUS AREA 49,350 SF IMPERVIOUS AREA 14,150 SF TOTAL SITE 63,500 SF NEW IMPERVIOUS AREA 4,375 SF REPLACED IMPERVIOUS AREA 3,919 SF NET IMPERVIOUS AREA 8,294 SF P/AP/A C/L 9 11 13 10 12 14 15 16 17 37 23 23 24 25 25 3 5 6 11 . 0 ' TR A V E L LA N E 32 33 31 24 28 28 26 FS 826.32 FS 826.35 FS (826.01) FS (825.57) 825.86 FS 826.36 TC 826.55 FL 827.05 TC TC/FL 826.11 827.31 FL 827.81 TC TC/FL 827.16 TC/FL 829.97 828.71 FL 829.21 TC TC/FL 828.36 FS 826.43 FS 829.55 FS 826.18 FS 827.23 FS 828.52 FS 830.14 FS 825.76 FS (830.29) 1. 5 % 6. 7 % 4. 9 % 1. 5 % FS 829.69 FS 827.83 826.09 FS 826.59 TC FS (830.47) TC/FL (832.61) 3 D D C C B B 22 34 FL 825.50 FS 825.97 FS 826.10 FS 826.66 22 94. 5 ' 1 10 36 0.5%5.1% 0. 5 % 26 0.5% 15.3 CLR. 11 12 830.29 FL 830.79 TC 21 38 824 . 9 2 F L 825 . 4 2 T C / T B 2 4 8SHT. OF 4 AP P R O V E D DE S C R I P T I O N RE V I S I O N S NO . DA T E THESE PLANS HAVE BEEN PREPARED SOLELY FOR USE FOR THE PROJECT SCOPE AND SITE SPECIFICALLY IDENTIFIED HEREON AT THE TIME THESE PLANS ARE SIGNED. THE ENGINEER PREPARING THESE PLANS WILL NOT BE RESPONSIBLE FOR, OR LIABLE FOR, USE OF ANY PART OF THESE PLANS, INCLUDING ANY NOTE OR DETAIL, FOR ANY UNAPPROVED OR REVISED PROJECT SCOPE, OR FOR ANY OTHER PROJECT AT THIS OR ANY OTHER SITE. 22031 - 4990 TRAFFIC WAY PRELIM GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN.DWGPLOTTED: Thursday, February 27, 2025 2:05:38 PM BY : DA T E : PR E L I M I N A R Y NO T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N F/2 : ( 5 6 A66 2 & I A 7 ( 6 I1& 11 5 W . C a n o n P e r d i d o S t r e e t Sa n t a B a r b a r a , C A 9 3 1 0 1 Te l e p h o n e ( 8 0 5 ) 9 6 6 - 2 2 2 4 CALL TOLL FREE 1-800-422-4133 FACING. TO STARTING ANY EXCAVATION OR RESUR- SERVICE ALERT TWO WORKING DAYS PRIOR CONTRACTOR IS TO NOTIFY UNDERGROUND ALL UTILITY LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE IMPORTANT NOTICE W.O. 22031 0 SCALE: 1"=30' 30 60 90 GRAPHIC SCALE PR E L I M I N A R Y G R A D I N G & D R A I N A G E P L A N CI T Y O F A T A S C A D E R O , C A L I F O R N I A TW I N N H O L D I N G S , L L C 49 9 0 T R A F F I C W A Y AP N 0 2 8 - 1 0 2 - 0 0 2 FEBRUARY 27, 2025 (E) BLDG. FF = 226.09 No . 8 2 0 3 6 AI N R O F I LAC FOECIV I L TATS REGISTER E D P ROFESSIONAL E N G IN EER ERI LAB U D A N K . A A SEE DETAIL "A", BELOW DETAIL "A" 1" = 20' C LIST OF SYMBOLS: AC ASPHALTIC CONCRETE ACP ASBESTOS CEMENT PIPE AB AGGREGATE BASE BC BEGIN CURVE BCR BEGIN CURB RETURN BD BASEMENT DRAIN BFV BUTTERFLY VALVE BM BENCHMARK BV BALL VALVE BVC BEGIN VERTICAL CURVE BW BACK OF WALK CIP CAST IRON PIPE CJ CRACK CONTROL JOINT CL CLASS L OR C/L CENTERLINE CMP CORRUGATED METAL PIPE CLR CLEAR CMU CONCRETE MASONRY UNIT CO CLEANOUT CTV CABLE TELEVISION DIP DUCTILE IRON PIPE D DRAIN E ELECTRICAL DI DROP INLET EC END CURVE ECR END CURB RETURN EG EXISTING GRADE EJ EXPANSION JOINT EL ELEVATION EP EDGE OF PAVEMENT EVC END VERTICAL CURVE EW EACH WAY EX EXISTING FD FLOOR DRAIN FF FINISH FLOOR FG FINISH GRADE FH FIRE HYDRANT L OR FL FLOWLINE FLG FLANGE FS FINISH SURFACE G GAS GB GRADE BREAK GM GAS METER GSP GALVANIZED STEEL PIPE GSV GAS VALVE GV GATE VALVE HB HOSE BIB HP HIGH POINT INV INVERT L CURVE LENGTH F 10 100.00 100.0 0 W W WM 10 LEGEND: DESCRIPTION EXISTING PROPOSED CENTERLINE EDGE OF A.C. PAVEMENT ELEVATION CONCRETE PAVEMENT A.C.PAVEMENT PROPERTY LINE RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE EASEMENT LINE CONTOURS (MAJOR) CONTOURS (MINOR) BENCH MARK TREE CANOPY APPROX. SAW CUT LINE LIMIT OF GRADING LINE GRADE BREAK LINE FLOW LINE SLOPE LINE FENCE RETAINING WALL WATER SEWER STORM DRAIN POWER GAS TELEPHONE CABLE TV MANHOLE CLEANOUT WATER METER & LATERAL FIRE HYDRANT THRUST BLOCK FITTING STREET LIGHT 12 12 (100.00 ) OR W S S SD SD E E G G T T CTV CTV W WM GB MH CO MH CO EASEMENT #55597 AND #59131 FOR PUBLIC UTILITIES AND PEDESTRIAN / BIKEWAY EASEMENT #14-48401 FOR OPERATION OF WASTEWATER LIFT STATION #6 LF LINEAL FEET MH MANHOLE MJ MECHANICAL JOINT NIC NOT INCLUDED IN CONTRACT OC ON CENTER OCEW ON CENTER EACH WAY PCC POINT OF COMPOUND CURVATURE PI POINT OF INTERSECTION (OF CURVE TANGENTS) L OR P/L PROPERTY LINE PRC POINT OF REVERSE CURVATURE PVC POLY-VINYL CHLORIDE PV PLUG VALVE R RADIUS RCP REINFORCED CONCRETE PIPE RD ROOF DRAIN RG RETAINING GLAND RSJ ROUGH SURFACE JOINT R/W RIGHT-OF-WAY S SEWER SD STORM DRAIN SL STREET LIGHT ST STL STAINLESS STEEL STA STATION STD DTL STANDARD DETAIL T TELEPHONE T BLK THRUST BLOCK TB TOP OF BERM TC TOP OF CURB TCN TOP OF CONCRETE TD TOP OF DIKE TF TOP OF FOOTING TG TOP OF GRATE TI TRAFFIC INDEX TL TRAFFIC LIGHT TP TOP OF PAVEMENT TYP TYPICAL TW TOP OF WALL VCP VITRIFIED CLAY PIPE VPI VERTICAL POINT OF INTERSECTION (OF VERTICAL CURVE TANGENTS) W WATER W/WITH WD WALL DRAIN WM WATER METER WV WATER VALVE DELTA (CURVE CENTRAL ANGLE) ±APPROXIMATELY %PERCENT <LESS THAN >GREATER THAN P COST ESTIMATE COMPARISION SUMMARY Cost PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS 1 - Public Improvements per 7/21/25 site plan 235,200$ 2 - Public Improvements per City request 479,500$ PRIVATE IMPROVEMENTS 3 - Private Improvements per 7/21/25 site plan 220,000$ 4 - Private Improvements per 7/21/25 site plan excluding parking lot improvments 169,100$ TWINN HOLDINGS, LLC 4990 Traffic Way, Atascadero, CA Engineer's Opinion of Estimated Construction Costs W.O. 22031 7/21/2025 Item No. Quantity Unit Unit Price Item Cost General 1 Mobilization and Demobilization 1 LS $10,000.00 $10,000 2 Traffic Control 1 LS $8,500.00 $8,500 3 Erosion and Dust Control 1 LS $1,000.00 $1,000 Road Improvements 4 Sawcutting 610 LF $2.50 $1,525 5 Remove A.C. Paving and Base 2,350 SF $10.00 $23,500 6 Pavement and Base (See assumption 3) 1,500 SF $35.00 $52,500 7 6" Concrete Curb & 18" Gutter 209 LF $100.00 $20,900 8 AC Dike 370 SF $25.00 $9,250 9 Parkway Drain 1 EA $5,000.00 $5,000 10 Concrete Driveway Entrance (See assumption 4) 11 CY $500.00 $5,500 11 Gravel Path 1,880 SF $10.00 $18,800 12 4" Concrete Sidewalk 850 SF $40.00 $34,000 13 6" Concrete Curb 60 LF $50.00 $3,000 14 Signage and Striping 1 LS $2,500.00 $2,500 Subtotal $195,975 $39,195 Total $235,200 (1)Cost estimate does not include landscape or irrigation. (2)Agency fees have not been included in cost estimate (3) (4) (5)Cost estimate does not include installation of spare conduit to facilitate future undergrounding of utilities Driveway assummed to be 6" concrete over 6" base This opinion of estimated cost is based on project drawings and cost factors derived from previous projects. Flowers & Associates, Inc. and the Engineer make no warranty, expressed or implied, as to the actual cost of Project improvements resulting from Contractor's bids based on approved Project Plans and specifications. ASSUMPTIONS: Existing pavement section for Traffic Way is unknown. Pavement section is assummed to be 4" AC over 6" Class II Aggregate Base for cost estimating purposes. 1 - Public Improvements per 7/21/25 Site Plan TWINN HOLDINGS, LLC 4990 Traffic Way, Astascadero, CA Description Contingency 20% NOTE: Engineer's Opinion of Estimated Construction Costs W.O. 22031 7/21/2025 Item No. Quantity Unit Unit Price Item Cost General 1 Mobilization and Demobilization 1 LS $10,000.00 $10,000 2 Traffic Control 1 LS $8,500.00 $8,500 3 Erosion and Dust Control 1 LS $1,000.00 $1,000 Road Improvements 4 Sawcutting 660 LF $2.50 $1,650 5 Remove A.C. Paving and Base 2,460 SF $10.00 $24,600 6 Pavement and Base (See assumption 3) 3,480 SF $35.00 $121,800 7 6" Concrete Curb & 18" Gutter 710 LF $100.00 $71,000 8 Parkway Drain 1 EA $5,000.00 $5,000 9 Concrete Driveway Entrance (See assumption 4) 15 CY $500.00 $7,500 10 4" Concrete Sidewalk 3,450 SF $40.00 $138,000 11 6" Concrete Curb 60 LF $50.00 $3,000 12 Signage and Striping 1 LS $7,500.00 $7,500 Subtotal $399,550 $79,910 Total $479,500 (1)Cost estimate does not include landscape or irrigation. (2)Agency fees have not been included in cost estimate (3) (4) (5)Cost estimate does not include installation of spare conduit to facilitate future undergrounding of utilities. This opinion of estimated cost is based on project drawings and cost factors derived from previous projects. Flowers & Associates, Inc. and the Engineer make no warranty, expressed or implied, as to the actual cost of Project improvements resulting from Contractor's bids based on approved Project Plans and specifications. ASSUMPTIONS: Existing pavement section for Traffic Way is unknown. Pavement section is assummed to be 4" AC over 6" Class II Aggregate Base for cost estimating purposes. Driveway assummed to be 6" concrete over 6" base. 2- Public Improvements as requested by City TWINN HOLDINGS, LLC 4990 Traffic Way, Atascadero, CA Description Contingency 20% NOTE: W.O. 22031 7/21/2025 Engineer's Opinion of Estimated Construction Costs Item No. Quantity Unit Unit Price Item Cost General 1 Mobilization and Demobilization 1 LS $10,000.00 $10,000 2 Erosion and Dust Control 1 LS $1,000.00 $1,000 Improvements 4 Sawcutting 21 LF $2.50 $53 5 Remove A.C. Paving and Base 4,360 SF $10.00 $43,600 6 Remove Pavers 1,355 SF $15.00 $20,325 7 Remove Chain Link Fence 150 LF $10.00 $1,500 5 A.C. Pavement and Base 8,840 SF $5.00 $44,200 6 6" Concrete Paving 340 SF $40.00 $13,600 7 3' Concrete Ribbon Gutter 150 LF $50.00 $7,500 8 Chain Link Fence 270 LF $40.00 $10,800 9 20' Gate 1 EA $5,000.00 $5,000 10 Signage & Striping 1 LS $2,500.00 $2,500 11 6" Concrete Curb 65 LF $50.00 $3,250 12 Placeholder - Stormwater Compliance (See assumption 4)1 EA $20,000.00 $20,000 Subtotal $183,328 $36,666 Total $220,000 (1)Cost estimate does not include landscape or irrigation. (2)Agency fees have not been included in cost estimate (3) (4)Net impervious area exceeds 5,000 SF. Stormwater compliance will be required. Design is pending. Estimate is a placeholder until design has been confirmed. Compliance will include implenentation of wtare quality BMPs This opinion of estimated cost is based on project drawings and cost factors derived from previous projects. Flowers & Associates, Inc. and the Engineer make no warranty, expressed or implied, as to the actual cost of Project improvements resulting from Contractor's bids based on approved Project Plans and specifications. ASSUMPTIONS: Building Improvements are not included in cost estimate. 3 - Private Improvements as shown on 7/21/25 Site Plan TWINN HOLDINGS, LLC 4990 Traffic Way, Astascadero, CA Description Contingency 20% NOTE: W.O. 22031 7/21/2025 Engineer's Opinion of Estimated Construction Costs Item No. Quantity Unit Unit Price Item Cost General 1 Mobilization and Demobilization 1 LS $10,000.00 $10,000 2 Erosion and Dust Control 1 LS $1,000.00 $1,000 Improvements 4 Sawcutting 21 LF $2.50 $53 5 Remove A.C. Paving and Base 4,360 SF $10.00 $43,600 6 Remove Pavers 1,355 SF $15.00 $20,325 7 Remove Chain Link Fence 150 LF $10.00 $1,500 5 A.C. Pavement and Base 4,660 SF $5.00 $23,300 6 6" Concrete Paving 340 SF $40.00 $13,600 7 3' Concrete Ribbon Gutter 150 LF $50.00 $7,500 8 Chain Link Fence 270 LF $40.00 $10,800 9 20' Gate 1 EA $5,000.00 $5,000 10 Signage & Striping 1 LS $1,000.00 $1,000 11 6" Concrete Curb 65 LF $50.00 $3,250 12 Stormwater Compliance (See assumption 4)1 EA $2,000.00 $2,000 Subtotal $140,928 $28,186 Total $169,100 (1)Cost estimate does not include landscape or irrigation. (2)Agency fees have not been included in cost estimate (3) (4)Net impervious will not exceed 5,000 SF. Project assumed to be exempt from implementing water quality BMPs. Assume roof runoff can be directed to vegetated area for compliance. This opinion of estimated cost is based on project drawings and cost factors derived from previous projects. Flowers & ASSUMPTIONS: Building Improvements are not included in cost estimate. 4 - Private Improvements per 7/21/25 Site Plan w/o parking lot improvements TWINN HOLDINGS, LLC 4990 Traffic Way, Atascadero, CA Description Contingency 20% NOTE: W.O. 22031 7/21/2025 Engineer's Opinion of Estimated Construction Costs 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 15 16 17 1 23 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 1 1 2 13 14 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 19 2 0 21 2 2 2 4 25262 728293 0 31323 3 343 5 3 63 7 3 8 EXISTING 20' ROLLING GATE W/ BARBED WIRE REMOVED AND EXISTING GATE COATED WITH GREEN VINYL EXISTING 15' WIDE ROLL-UP DOOR EXISTING CONCRETE DRIVEWAY APPROACH TO REMAIN EASEMENT #14-48401 FOR OPERATION OF WASTEWATER LIFT STATION #6 PROPOSED AC DIKE EASEMENT #55597 AND #59131 FOR PUBLIC UTILITIES AND PEDESTRIAN / BIKEWAY R/WR/W P/ L EXISTING 6' CHAIN LINK FENCE TO REMAIN. EXISTING BARBED WIRE SHALL BE REMOVED AND EXISTING FENCING COATED WITH GREEN VINYL TRAFFIC WAY R/ W RAILROAD R/W BU E N A A V E . (E) BLDG. R/W R/W C/LC/L PROPOSED ASPHALT PARKING LOT P/A PROPOSED PARKWAY DRAIN EXISTING 6' CHAIN LINK FENCE TO REMAIN. EXISTING BARBED WIRE TO BE REMOVED. (REAR FENCE ONLY) (E ) G R A V E L AR E A (E ) G R A V E L AR E A NEW OR REALIGNED GREEN VINYL CHAIN LINK FENCE (H=6.0') AS REQUIRED TO ACHIEVE A 3' MIN. LANDSCAPING STRIP ALONG THE BACK OF THE PROPOSED GRAVEL PATH PROPOSED CONCRETE DRIVEWAY APRON8. 0 ' PA R K I N G L A N E 11 . 0 ' TR A V E L LA N E 6. 0 ' GR A V E L PA T H 8. 0 ' PA R K I N G L A N E 11 . 0 ' TR A V E L LA N E 6. 0 ' GR A V E L PA T H 3. 0 ' M I N . P/ A 3. 0 ' M I N . P/ A 20 ' AC C E S S WA Y 31.0 ' 1 2 . 0 ' 31.0 ' 31.0 ' 1 2 . 0 ' 3 1 . 0 ' 3 1 . 0 ' 36.0' 9. 0 ' TY P . 24.0' 18.0' TYP. 9. 0 ' TY P . 12.0 '12.0 ' 3. 0 ' M I N . P/ A 50 . 0 ' 25 . 0 25 . 0 8. 3 TY P . 3. 0 ' P/ A R/W R/W 8' EXISTING 10' WIDE ROLL-UP DOOR 16.6 15.3 CLR. EXISTING GATE TO BE REMOVED EXISTING DOORS STAGING AREA 321 SF MIN. C/L OF R/W C/L OF R/W EXISTING 6' CHAIN LINK FENCE W/ BARBED WIRE REMOVED (REAR FENCE ONLY) EXISTING 6' CHAIN LINK FENCE TO REMAIN. EXISTING BARBED WIRE SHALL BE REMOVED AND EXISTING FENCE COATED WITH GREEN VINYL EXISTING 6' CHAIN LINK FENCE TO REMAIN. EXISTING BARBED WIRE SHALL BE REMOVED AND EXISTING FENCE COATED WITH GREEN VINYL PROPOSED 20' GATE W/ GREEN VINYL CHAIN LINK 20 . 4 ' PROPOSED CONCRETE DRIVEWAY APRON 16.0' 6. 0 ' S I D E W A L K CONCRETE CURB 5. 0 ' 5. 0 ' REMOVE EXISTING CHAIN LINK FENCE NEW DOOR (ADA ACCESS) (E) GRAVEL/ AC SURFACING TO REMAIN 3 8SHT. OF 3 AP P R O V E D DE S C R I P T I O N RE V I S I O N S NO . DA T E PR O P O S E D S I T E P L A N & F L O O R P L A N CI T Y O F A T A S C A D E R O , C A L I F O R N I A TW I N N H O L D I N G S , L L C 49 9 0 T R A F F I C W A Y AP N 0 2 8 - 1 0 2 - 0 0 2 THESE PLANS HAVE BEEN PREPARED SOLELY FOR USE FOR THE PROJECT SCOPE AND SITE SPECIFICALLY IDENTIFIED HEREON AT THE TIME THESE PLANS ARE SIGNED. THE ENGINEER PREPARING THESE PLANS WILL NOT BE RESPONSIBLE FOR, OR LIABLE FOR, USE OF ANY PART OF THESE PLANS, INCLUDING ANY NOTE OR DETAIL, FOR ANY UNAPPROVED OR REVISED PROJECT SCOPE, OR FOR ANY OTHER PROJECT AT THIS OR ANY OTHER SITE. 22031 - FA DESIGN_4990 TRAFFIC WAY_ALTERNATE LAYOUT OPTIONS_20250601.DWGPLOTTED: Sunday, July 20, 2025 1:13:27 PM W.O. 22031 JUL 21, 2025 0 SCALE: 1"=30' 30 60 90 GRAPHIC SCALE PROPERTY LINE CENTER LINE EXISTING FENCE PROPOSED FENCE PROPOSED FLOWLINE EXISTING EASEMENT PROPOSED GRAVEL PATH PROPOSED LANDSCAPE PROPOSED AC PAVEMENT PROPOSED CONCRETE PLANTER AREA LEGEND P/A PROPOSED SITE PLAN SCALE: 1"=30'