Atascadero council reviews draft 2045 General Plan EIR as members press to narrow paleontology rules

City staff on Thursday presented the draft program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for Atascadero’s 2045 General Plan and invited public and written comment through Thursday, June 4. The EIR, staff said, is roughly 900 pages with appendices and outlines potential Class 1 (significant and unavoidable), Class 2 (mitigable) and Class 3 (less‑than‑significant) impacts under the California Environmental Quality Act.

The draft EIR review session centered on mitigation for paleontological resources, air‑quality and vehicle‑miles‑traveled (VMT) impacts, and utility capacity. “Public comment ends June 4,” staff member Dunsmoor told the council, urging written responses and noting the document is available at City Hall and the library and online. Kelly, a member of the consultant team, described soil types and mapped areas where paleontological resources might exist and said targeted studies would be required for projects that involve substantial excavation in those zones: “So this is a map of those soils areas within the city,” Kelly said, explaining that some sites would trigger a study while previously graded or altered sites likely would not.

Why it matters: council members said broadly scoped paleontological measures risk imposing costly studies on property owners and developers, potentially discouraging housing and commercial projects the city seeks to encourage. Council member Funk summarized the concern bluntly: “This just drives me nuts” when well‑intentioned protections become widely applied requirements that add expense and delay. Several members urged staff to work with consultants to craft implementation thresholds—by excavation depth or project size—to limit studies to projects that truly risk encountering significant paleontological resources.

Consultant responses and staff next steps: Kelly and Dunsmoor said implementation language can be refined during adoption of zoning and implementation ordinances so that triggers apply primarily to deeper or larger excavations and to areas that have not been previously disturbed. Kelly noted that many single‑family foundations and shallow excavations would likely fall below the threshold that triggers paleontological study. On air quality and greenhouse‑gas impacts, Kelly said much of the EIR’s modeling relies on county‑level datasets and that the plan, by regionwide standards, shows a Class 1 GHG/VMT impact despite recommended mitigation measures such as updating the city’s Climate Action Plan and participating in regional transportation planning.

Council questions also asked whether references to “planned public transit routes” in the plan are meaningful for a city with limited existing service; staff said those standards are long‑range and intended to accommodate potential future transit corridors. On wastewater, the consultant said the city’s treatment plant and collection network will need phased upgrades as capacity needs grow and that project‑level checks will remain necessary before approvals.

Public participation and timeline: staff emphasized the 45‑day public review period and encouraged written comments; the draft fiscal analysis will be returned to the council in June and staff expect plan adoption later this year after responses to EIR comments. Council members asked staff to explore narrower, implementable triggers for paleontological mitigation and said they would raise the concern with state legislators if needed.

The council closed public comment on the EIR after a short exchange about reclaimed water and proceeded to other business. The EIR remains under public review through June 4; the city will post responses to comments and next procedural steps after that deadline.