Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/01/2000, 1 Prado Road Alignment - Public Commenti January 27, 2000 Glenn Matteson Associate Planner 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, Calif. 93401 Dear Mr. Matteson, RE: Initipl Environmental Study: ...Prado Road Extension, ER 190-99, January 2000 (Includes Policy 8.17) After reading your project description, we do not find that the project description is accurate enough or detailed enough to adequately assess or discuss the impacts of this major project. Quoting from page 1-131, paragraph 4, "For the purpose of understanding the scope of alignment impacts, the following assumptions were made". "Assumptions" are not sufficient for a 4 lane highway (HWY 227), that will be dividing neighborhoods, and has grade separation impacts. The project description does not accurately discuss the Right of Way ( Policy 8.17)., so how can those impacts be assessed? The project description does not address the tunnel that is shown on pg 16, Figure 5. In fact there is very little mentioned about this tunnel except one sentence on pg 17. The tunnel impacts cannot be analyzed especially if the project description is inadequate. What was Cal Trans findings on the tunnel? We could not find Cal Trans information in your study. We think without an input from Cal Trans, no accurate assessment of impacts can be made. It has been stated that Prado Road will be designated Hwy 227 and designed to Cal Trans specifications. We read your alternatives and did not find any alternatives discussed for the Orcutt Area Specific Plan (as this relates to Policy 8.17 on the proposed General Plan Prado Road Alignment proposal). Stopping Prado Road at Broad Street and having the Orcutt Area Specific Plan show Bullock Lane completed through to Tank Farm Road and Orcutt Road would be an alternative with the least amount of impact to the environment, to the people, and to the cost factors. It would also be consistent with the General Plan. Another concern we have is a safety issue. This road is proposed to go through a large industrial area. With expected industrial and commercial growth in the area, this will pose a threat to the residential distinction of the proposed and existing neighborhoods in the Orcutt Area. These issues are not disussed or described. The impacts should be addressed. With the summary on pg 1-133 and other references to the Orcutt/Johnson area throughout your Andy, one would assume that the project is to be viewed as a whole and that includes the Orcutt Area through to Johnson Avenue. Policy 8.17 is part of the project and should be disucssed as part of the whole project with all segments of the roadway impacts analyzed. Did we miss discussion on the city's Capital Improvement Program? We couldn't find it. Repectively submitted, r Cecil 71 RECEIVED cc: city council .'4N 7 8 2000 SLO CITY COUNCIL January 27, 2000 Glenn Mattison Associate Planner 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, Calif. 93401 Dear Mr. Mattison. We are questioning the Initial Environmental Study regarding the Prado Road Extension, dated tJuary 2000 (ER 190-99). First, you state that there was a public workshop held on January 5, 2000. What is the definition or guidelines of a public workshop? We do not believe this one qualifies. There was only I meeting held at the Public Library, nothing else was ever held for the public. This is a major project. At the meeting; city staff presented why the city needed this road (this beltway). When questions were finally acknowledged, many of the questions went unanswered or were answered with subjective reasoning not objective, qualitative and/or quantitative studies/mformation. This was not a workshop. Also with the "computer glich" many people were denied the right to attend. How can you expect this study ( Negative Declaration) to substitute for an EIR? This is a big citywide project. You state the even the intial study had to be revised, expanded and reformatted. We oppose to the city being able to identify the criteria for deciding if there could be significant impacts with this project. It is unacceptable to have the city devise and identify the criteria for deciding if there could be significant impacts with this major project. No other applicant or citizen is allowed to prepare their own Negative Declaration for a project submitted regardless of size. We take issue with your reasoning to "highlight mitigation to be decided or discussed now" when you have not identified what projects the mitigation will be related too. It appears you have not clearly identified the project to which you are addressing the select mitigation measures. Which measures relate to part of what road alignment? This initial study is not acceptable beyond the first page. This study is ambiguous (defined by Webster as "having two or more possible meaning; not clear, vague). Prado Road is a major citywide proposal. Major impacts to this project include: the road creates the possibility of dividing our town, as stated by staff, the road will divide the Orcutt area, the road will encounter grade separation with the underpass, there is a huge PGE tower that needs to be addressed, the road will travel through a truck route, a large industrial area and a residential area. cost issue have not adequately address, can you tell us who is going to pay? NO, we do not agree that a Negative Declaration is sufficient for this large project. The cost of the EIR is less than significant when compared to a "beltway" that for all practical purposes cannot ever be undone. Sincerely,/ F-,-aCITY ECEIVED cc. city council N 7 8 2000 COUNCIL t January 27, 2000 Glenn Matteson Associate Planner 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, California 93401 Dear Mr. Matteson, This is written in regards and wanting to question the Initial Environmental Study that has been proposed along with the amendment change to the General Plan. The amendment proposal is to have Prado Road take a northern alignment and cross Broad Street and intersect with Johnson Avenue. My question is: on page 25, under the Summary, it states: "With traffic levels projected at build -out of the General Plan, noise levels on Johnson Avenue between Orcutt Road and Laurel Lane would be perceptibly higher with the proposed alignment (or with the Industrial Way extension) than with the adopted alignment, but adequate mitigation measures are available". I cannot understand how this is so when the "proposed" alignment, and the Industrial Way alignment extension, will cross Broad Street. The "adopted" alignment does not cross Broad Street. It appears the comparison discussed is for two different roads. If so, then the conclusion is inaccurate. Thank you, AA U'valo January 23, 2000 Amold Jonas, Community Development Director Glenn Matteson, planner 990 Palm Street City of San Luis Obispo San Luis Obispo, Cal 93401 Dear Mr. Jonas and Mr. Matteson, Re: realignment for the easterly extension of Prado Road (southeastern part of the city) I am commenting and taking issue with the Initial Environmental study (ER 190-99 January, 2000) for this proposed project. My first issue with the study is that there is no reference as to the cost for this project - the part from Broad Street to Johnson Ave in particular. At a meeting on January 5, 2000, city staff said that the developers of the Orcutt Area would pay for the road and the underpass. Now that it has come to light that this road is proposed to benefit the entire city, will the city pay for it? If so, does the city have the money to complete the project? Will the developers of the Orcutt Area now oppose paying for the road and the expensive underpass? The overpass on Orcutt Rd has not been completed in 20 years due to lack of funds. Why would city staff recommend that City Council put another road on the general plan and encumber peoples property and Johnson Ave? I also take concern with the statement on Page 23: "Residents along Johnson Avenue, particularly between Laurel Lane and Orcutt Road, are expected to perceive an undesirable traffic increase". Why "particularly between Laurel Lane and Orcutt Road "? Why not all of Johnson Ave? Have studies been made to determine the increase or even the need to create "undesirable traffic increases"? Sincerely, cc: City Council �_. cc: City Council January 23, 2000 Arnold Jonas Glenn Matteson Community Development Department City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street City of San Luis Obispo, Ca. 93401-3249 Dear Mr. Jonas and Mr. Matteson, Re Initial Environmental Study: Prado Road Extension Circulation Element amendment (ER 190-99), dated January, 2000. Prado Road extension through to Johnson Ave. I have concern with the.following. 1. How do residents safely back out of their driveways on Johnson Ave. if 6 foot sound walls exist blocking their view? 2. How can a person backing out of his driveway see a bicyclist /pedestrian if 6 foot walls exist? Sincerely, Cc: City Council E!� 1 January 27, 2000 Glenn Matteson, Associate Planner 990 Palm Street City of San Luis Obispo San Luis Obispo, Cal 93401 Dear Mr. Matteson, Your Initial Environmental Study is difficult to read. I do want to respond and I do question pg 44 & 45, under the Utilities and Service Systems. You failed to discuss the right-of-way that would be required for PGE to acquire if they "shifted" their tower 45 feet. Have you gone out and measured PGE's existing right-of-way for that tower? Have you put the cost of this potential tower to be moved into the budget for the road? Have you contacted PGE and even found out if they will even move their tower? Also the "less than significant" rating you gave item 3 is incorrect. Anytime one loses a yard, buildings, or home, it is "very significant. Thank you, cc: City Council January 24, 2000 Arnold Jonas, Community Development Director Glenn Matteson, Associate Planner 990 Palm Street City of San Luis Obispo San Luis Obispo, Cal 93401 Dear Mr. Jonas and Mr. Matteson, In response to the realignment for the Prado Road through to Johnson Ave and the Initial Environmental Study dated ER 190-99, January, 2000, I question the study's reasoning on page 45. Under the title: "Population and Housing, Induce substantial growth .......", the discussion paragraph says that the roadway is expected to occur concurrent with the adjacent development. It then talks of muiltiple developments, it does admit that it could induce growth sooner and it never tells why the impact is classified "less than significant". Why go through all this, put a road on the general plan, create hardship for the citizens, and then never build it. How would you build a road over the Orcutt area if it did not get annexed for 10 yrs just as a city staff member mentioned at the meeting? Thank you, cc: City Council January 24, 2000 Arnold Jonas, Community Development Director Glenn Matteson, planner 990 Palm Street City of San Luis Obispo San Luis Obispo, Cal 93401 Dear Mr. Jonas and Mr. Matteson, Re: realignment for the easterly extension of Prado Road (southeastern part of the city) I am within the local review period for written comments (20 days from publication date of January 8, 2000). I am commenting and taldng issue with the Initial Environmental study (ER 190-99 January, 2000). I take issue with page 24, Noise. Item 2 reads: "The proposed alignment would expose an area to measurably higher noise levels than the adopted alignment'. City staff responds: "...with recommended mitigation, the impact would be less than significant'. I take issue with that response because the adopted alignment ends at Broad Street. The proposed alignment crosses Broad Street, goes under the railroad and connects to Johnson Ave. Two different roads here are being discussed. The answer or response to the question is not accurate. Which road does the response address - proposed to Johnson Ave or adopted to Broad St that does not cross Broad SO With the proposed alignment the traffic on Johnson Ave will double as stated by staff. Staff refers to this proposed road as a "beltway", how can "beltway" noise be "less than significant'? We need an EIR to determine if the proposed mitigated measures can even begin to reduce this increased noise level. I also take issue with the table used for "Criteria for significance and conclusion:" on page 24. The next line reads: "Noise resulting from the proposed alignment would not comply with the following:" - a chart from the City of San Luis Obispo General Plan Noise Element Table 1 (policies 1.2.6 & 1.2.7) written in 1994. Under the chart it says: "Conclusion: With recommended mitigation, the impact would be less than significant". These are conflicting and confusing statements. How does this chart not relate to the proposed alignment and if that is a fact, then why is the chart being used? How does the chart relate to mitigation and "less than significant" findings for increased noise levels on Johnson Ave? How can a chart from the General Plan Noise Element, written in 1994, provide (1) mitigation measures, (2) data to support and identify increased noise levels along the entire proposed northern alignment? Sincerely, cc: City Council January 24, 2000 Arnold Jonas Glen Matteson Community Development Department City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, Ca. 93401-3249 Dear Mr. Jonas and Mr. Matteson, RE Initial Environment Study: Prado Road Extension Circulation Element amendment (ER 190-99), dated January, 2000. Prado Road Extension through to Johnson Ave. I have concern and take issue with the following.- Regarding ollowing:Regarding the discussion of the Land Use and Planning, page 19: 1. It is stated that the Circulation Element states," streets should be extended only when there is a demonstrated need. This study does not provide any reason why Prado Road should be extended past Broad Street. 2. The proposed alignment does entail substantially more extensive or severed imparts to environmental resources than the adopted alignment. The adopted alignment ends at Broad. The proposed alignment extends across Broad Street through the Orcutt Area, through Johnson Ave. to San Luis Drive, and then continues up to Cal Poly. Sincerely, cc: City Council January 26, 2000 Glenn Matteson Arnold Jonas 990 Palm Street City of San Luis Obispo San Luis Obispo, Ca. 93401 Dear Mr. Matteson and Mr. Jonas, RE: Council Agenda Report dated February 1, 2000. Prado Road extension through to Johnson Ave. 1. Regarding CAO Recommendation #2: Would you fully explain what is meant by "direct staff to pursue any actions necessary to acquire/preserve right-of-way for extending Prado Road between Broad Street and the Union Pacific Railroad in accordance with the Policy 8.17"? Who wrote policy 8.17? Can policies just be written and submitted for adoption without adequate study or proof of need? There is not information in the staff report regarding the right-of-way, no study, no environmental impact, no discussion, not alternative, no input from the public, and apparently no direction from Council? 2. Referring to page 2, the statement:: "Johnson Avenue residents are concerned that the road's extension east of the railroad which may lead to traffic increases along Johnson Avenue and a reduction in their quality of life. Other City residents, from neighborhoods positively affected, have expressed support for staff's prior recommendation." What was staffs prior recommendation? 3. Also on page 2, the second paragraph reads: "pursuant to Council direction, staff evaluated a number of options for the alignment and extension of Prado Road and had recommended to the Planning Commission that Prado Road be realigned along the northerly route and extended to Johnson Ave." Did Council give the direction for this extension to Johnson Ave.? Sincerely, ��' r cc: City CouncilGx� January 25, 2000 Arnold Jonas Glenn Matteson Community Development Department City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, Ca. 93401-3249 Dear Mr. Jonas and Mr. Matteson, RE: Initial Environment Study: Prado Road Extension Circulation Element Amendment (ER 190-99), dated January, 2000. Prado Road extension through to Johnson Ave. I have concern and take issue with the following. Segments of the Prado Road Extension are the Margarita area, the Highway 101 overpass, and the existing Prado Road. These other segments all effect the entire Prado Road Extension from the Market Place to Broad. To this date, there has not been a full EIR completed on this section. How can a decision be made that decides the alignment or even more the extension of Prado across Broad without a full EIR? All this new alignment to Broad and beyond simply compounds the non existing EIR that should be done. This proposed alignment/extension will have a significant effect on the entire environment from one side of town to the other. Since not one of these segments of the Prado Road extension has had a full EIR, how can the lead agency even consider a Mitigated Negative Declaration for this new alignment/extension to Broad that incorporates a "Beltway" through Johnson Ave. to Cal Poly (per hand outs at the Dec 1, 1999 Planning Commission). cc: City Council W January 23, 2000 Arnold Jonas Glenn Matteson Community Development Department City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street City of San Luis Obispo, Ca. 93401-3249 Dear Mr. Jonas and Mr. Matteson, RE Initial Environment Study: Prado Road Extension Circulation Element amendment (ER 190-99), dated January, 2000. Prado Road Extension through to Johnson Ave. I am within the review period. I have concern and take issue with the following- 1. ollowing1. Johnson Ave. is "Residential Arterial" adopted on the General Plan. It is not intended to be a "Beltway", a thorough fare. This initial study does not justify any General Plan Change. 2. The residents of the Orcutt Area, Johnson Ave. and San Luis Drive adamitly are opposed to changing the General Plan Amendment and or the General Circulation Plan Element without a justified reason. 3. This proposed northern extension would have a severe environmental impact on the neighborhoods in the Orcutt Area, Johnson Ave. and San Luis Drive. Without a full environmental impact report; this initial study can only subjective not objective. 4. Increase traffic of 163% is substantial. Noise levels above 60dB is substantial. The safety factor of our children crossing a road that is now congested and then over doubling that amount of increase of traffic has a severe impact. 5. Page 24 of the initial study states: Noise resulting from the proposed alignment would not comply with the San Luis Obispo General Plan Noise Element for the following- Residences, ollowingResidences, Hotels, Motels, Hospitals, Nursing Homes, Churches, Meeting Halls, Offices, Neighborhood parks, Playgrounds. 6• Constructing an underpass under the railroad tracks will have an extreme environmental impact The character of our R-1 residential neighborhood will be destroyed. The current quality of life as we know it currently, would also be destroyed. Overall, there is plethora of reasons not to extend Prado Road to Johnson Ave. Sincerely, cc: City Council January 22, 2000 Arnold Jonas Glenn Matteson Community Development Department City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street City of San Luis Obispo, Ca. 93401-3249 Dear Mr. Jonas and Mr. Matteson, RE Initial Environment Study: Prado Road Extension Circulation Element amendment (ER 190-99), dated January, 2000. Prado Road extension through to Johnson Ave. I am within the local review period. I have concern and take issue with the following- 1. ollowing 1. This initial environmental study is confusing, misleading and inaccurate. 2 Referring to the chart on page 16 of the initial study called the Comparison of Average Daily Traffic Volumes Among Alternatives;. What is this traffic comparison chart in the Negative Declaration based on? Is it the same chart handed out at the December 1, 1999 Planning Commission Meeting and also the Public Workshop January 5, 2000? At the Planning Commission Meering, we were informed that this chart was based on the 1993 study of the French Hospital Campus Plan. At the Public Workshop we were now told that the study was combined with the use of a computer program. It was then modified, using only a 24 hour period to arrive at the numbers shown in comparison on the traffic chart in the Negative Declaration (page 16). This study was done before Arbors was built and traffic has increased significantly since 1993. Has there been no full traffic study on Johnson Ave. since 1993. How can a chart based on 1993 findings be accurate? Have the current congestion problems we experience daily on Johnson Ave. also been programmed into the results of this computer program study? 3. The percentage of traffic increase on the chart in the column for the Proposed Northern Alignment are not in agreement with the discussion on page 39. The discussion on page 39 states that several churches with day care programs exist along Johnson Avenue where traffic volumes with the proposed alignment are projected to be at most about 16 percent more than with the adopted alignment This statement does not agree with the chart on page 16. Geographically speaking, the two churches with day care programs the Nazarene Church and the Unity Church, exist north of Orcutt Road and south of Laurel Lane. The traffic volume north of Orcutt with the proposed Northern Alignment is shown on the chart to increase +159%. The traffic volume south of Laurel Lane with the proposed Northern Alignment is shown on the chart on page 16 to increase +144%. Neither of the 2 increases per the chart on page 16 are close to +16%. 4. Traffic increase at +159% and or 144% would have a significant environmental impact on the two churches with the day care programs. Sincerely, d 4ISGr",LO�-- cc: city council January 22, 2000 Arnold Jonas Glenn Matteson Community Development Department City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street City of San Luis Obispo, Ca. 93401-3249 Dear Mr. Jonas and Mr. Mattson, RE Initial Environment Study: Prado Road Extension Circulation Element amendment (ER 190-99), dated January, 2000. Prado Road extension through to Johnson Ave. I have concern and take issue with the following. 1. Regarding the chart that relates to Public Services. How can an increase of 163% in traffic not have a significant impact on a school? How do Sinsheimer children cross Johnson Ave. safely to go to school with a `Beltway" through middle of the neighborhood? There is extreme traffic congestion currently on Johnson Ave. especially during the peak hours or SAM and from 3PM on through the evening. This is a current and growing concern now. Why compound the problems? Over a year ago crossing guards and concerned parents contacted City Staff with phone calls and letters requesting a traffic study to address this issue. As of now, nothing has been done. 2. Where were the following public services mentioned: 1.The San Luis High School. The same peak traffic effect the High School as well as the Sinsheimer School. 2. The 3 preschools on Johnson Ave. and the Churches? There are left hand turns made off Johnson to enter or to leave these public services. Sincerely, cc: City Council �JC�cjjQ,to� January 24, 2000 Arnold Jonas Glenn Matteson Community Development Department City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street City of San Luis Obispo, Ca. 93401-3249 Dear Mr. Jonas and Mr. Matteson, RE Initial Environment Study: Prado Road Extension Circulation Element. amendment (ER 190-99), dated January, 2000. Prado Road Extension through to Johnson Ave. I have concern with the following- 1. ollowing 1. Has the railroad been contacted regarding the construction of an underpass under the tracks? 2. Construction of a railroad underpass is a major project. An underpass is extremely expensive. The initial study does not even mention of how the huge underpass is to be paid for. Why not? 3. The initial study does not mention grade separation under the railroad tracks. This is of deep concern. Why is this not in the initial study? Sincerely, cc: City Council January 23, 2000 Arnold Jonas, Community Development Director Glenn Matteson, planner 990 Palm Street City of San Luis Obispo San Luis Obispo, Cal 93401 Dear Mr. Jonas and Mr. Matteson, 1 am writing to you about the realignment for the Prado Road through to Johnson Ave. I have a lot of questions about your Initial Environment study for this project. 1 will address one or two in this letter. Page 19 discussion makes me question the General Pian Land Use Element (policies 2.1.3 and 2.1.4). Putting a road with no driveways and a railroad underpass and only one way for the new Orcutt neighborhood people to access, certainly will "detract from the quality of the neighborhoods" as the traffic volume will be greater coming from Hwy 101 (city staff has admitted that traffic will double on Johnson Ave). Also the speed is bound to be increased as there are no driveways proposed for the new sections. The study even admits that "...it will require careful design to avoid becoming a dividing line" - - all the design in the world will not change it -- the road will be a dividing line, not only for the southeastern part of town but also for the future Orcutt neighborhoods. Have you even addressed the division of the future Orcutt neighborhood and how dose Prado Road would come to both parts of Orcwtt Road? 1 also have concern for the last sentence: "Similar conclusions can be drawn for the alignment alternatives terminating at Broad Street... " (page 19). How does any of the above apply if Prado Road terminates at Broad Street? It is statements like this that raises concern for the entire project. Stop Prado Road at Broad Street. �. Sincerely, copies to City Council 1 January 23, 2000 Arnold Jonas, Community Development Director Glenn Matteson, planner 990 Palm Street City of San Luis Obispo San Luis Obispo, Cal 93401 Dear Mr. Jonas and Mr. Matteson, Re: realignment for the easterly extension of Prado Road (southeastern part of the city) question alot of the Initial Environmental study (ER 190.99 January, 2000) for this proposed project. If you are proposing this Initial Environmental study to be sufficient in its scope and that a Negative Declaration can be all that is required from City staff for this large project of a major road, how come you require so much more from your citizens when they submit a project? This ER 190.99 January, 2000, admits on page 33, "However, the entire route affected by the proposed amendment has not been surveyed by an archaeologist." Why not? The city staff wants to have a road adopted, do their own erMronmenteal report and proceed into the unknown without regard for It's citizens property or loss of property or change to the environment or change to the character of Its neighborhoods and in this case, a possible change to it's city character. How many other issues have not been studied or surveyed by the true experts? The discussion under the topic "Cultural Resources" primarily discusses the west side of Broad Street. The other side up to Johnson Ave should also be discussed. Sincerely, rrr ca City Council January 20,2000 Arnold Jonas Glenn Matteson Community Development Department City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 Dear Sirs, RE: Initial Environmental Study: Prado Road Extension Circulation Element Amendment (ER 190-99), dated January 2000. Prado Road extension through to Johnson Avenue. I question the conclusion reached in the EIR regarding the following item: UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS (Page 44) Criteria # 3: "The proposed alignment would require re-routing or reconstruction of utility or service systems. Conclusion: The impact would be less than significant." The following Discussion section only addresses the impact to P.G.& E. and the necessity of shifting the road alignment to avoid a high voltage transmission tower, or moving the tower. There was no discussion of the impact of re-routing, or reconstruction of utilities or service systems at the location of the proposed underpass/grade separation that would be required at the railroad tracks. There is a 10" water main located in the right of way of Bullock Lane that would have to be reconstructed and relocated in order to construct the underpass. Also not discussed is the major impact of the necessity of reconstruction or relocation of 3 major fiber optic trunk lines located within the railroad right of way. I question whether the shoofly necessary to construct the underpass, as well as the underpass itself can be constructed without a major impact to these utilities. I feel that your conclusion that "The impact would be less than significant" is in error and should be re-examined. Sincerely, � Jon Anderson 3580 Bullock Lane San Luis Obispo CA 93401 January 25, 2000 Arnold Jonas Glenn Matteson Community Development Department City of San Luis Obispo, Ca. 93402-3249 Dear Mr. Jonas and Mr. Matteson, RE: Initial Environment Study: Prado Road Extension Circulation Element amendment (ER 190-99), dated January, 2000. Prado Road extension through to Johnson Ave. I have concern and take issue with the following: 1. Who authorized City Staff to extend Prado Road beyond Broad Street? Specifically who's instructions were they following? I would hike names and titles. 2. What date was City Staff authorized to pursue extending Prado Road past Broad Street connecting with Johnson Ave.? 3. For what reason did City Staff initiate the northern alignment extension through to and connecting at Johnson Ave. and continuing through to Cal Poly? 4. Are all of the property owners in the Proposed Orcutt Specific willing to sell and develop their property according to the current Orcutt Specific Plan? Why or Why not? 5. Were all of the property owners in the Orcutt Specific Plan notified by the City Staff of the City Staff's proposal to development this property? When? How were they notified? Calls? Letters? Third Party? 6. Were the residents of Johnson Ave. and San Luis Drive notified by the City of San Luis Obispo regarding informing them that the City Staff was proposing to the Planning Commission to change the General Plan of the City? 7. Were the property owners between.Broad Street and west to the railroad tracks notified about a General Plan change that directly involved consumption of their property? Why or Why not? S. Who has paid for the initial study by City Staff? 9. How many hours, days, weeks, months, years has City Staff been working on the initial study? Estimate? 10. What is the cost comparisons between the adopted Prado alignment and the proposed alignment/ extensions? Sincerely, cc :City Council �`Ce� GC2J January 24, 2000 Arnold Jonas Glen Matteson Community Development Department City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, Ca. 93401-3249 Dear Mr. Jonas and Mr. Matteson, RE: Initial Environment Study: Prado Extension Circulation Element amendment (ER 190- 99), dated January, 2000. Prado Road Extension through to Johnson Ave. I have concern and take issue with the following- 1. ollowing1. The Orcutt area consists currently of mainly untouched natural creeks, wetlands and grasslands as well as three homes. How can a study substantiate the statement "Impacts to habitant area of weeks, wetlands, and grasslands and homes are about the same as or less than the adopted alignment, and will not be significant? Again the adopted alignment ends at Broad. The terms adopted and proposed are not used correctly thus making this entire discussion very misleading and amf zstng. 2. Three homes, not dwellings will be destroyed. Is this not a significant impact on the species called "humans"? When peoples homes are accidentally destroyed by fire, it is a tragedy. We have compassion, and sympathy. Yet, when the city wants to put a thorough fare through three Peoples houses, destroying their homes and lives, that is considered a "insignificant impact"? 3. The Margarita Area is part of the adopted and does not destroy peoples lives and homes. Once you cross Broad Street, this road causes hardship. Sincerely, cc City Council GQ l January 22, 2000 San Luis Obispo City Council members: Allen Settle Dave Romero John Ewan Ken Schwartz Jan Howell Marx City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 Dear Sirs, RE: Initial Environmental Study: Prado Road Extension Circulation Element Amendment (ER 190-99), dated January 2000. Prado Road extension through to Johnson Avenue. Some observations and questions regarding the proposed Prado Road northern alignment: On page 18, under the topic "Site Access", paragraph two: "The adopted alignment (and the Industrial Way extension) would require the proposed sports fields at the southeast comer of the Margarita Area to take access from a new driveway on Broad Street, which is strongly discouraged by City policy and Caltrans standards, or from a driveway on the Prado Road extension close to the Broad Street intersection, which would further congest the intersection and might be subject to a prohibition on left turns. The proposed alignment would allow sports fields access from a local street at a signalized intersection, which is the preferred means of access." From the table on page 16 labeled Comparison of Average Daily Traffic Volumes Among Alternatives: Broad Street south of Orcutt Road: Adopted Alignment: 35,000 ADT Industrial Way Extension: 26,400 ADT My Conclusion: City staff believes that with traffic of 26,400 ADT to 35,000 ADT that entry into the sports complex from Broad Street would be both unsafe and result in congestion. Please note that this facility would probably be used mostly on weekends and evenings. From page 46 (EIR): "Discussion: None of the alignments would affect park demand or existing recreational opportunities. The proposed alignment would provide better access and more flexibility to provide parking for the proposed Damon -Garcia sports fields. (The Margarita Area Specific Plan proposes a grade -separated bike and pedestrian crossing between the sports fields southwest of the proposed alignment and the Neighborhood Park and elementary school site, which also would have sports fields, northwest of the proposed alignment.) My Conclusion: The Damon -Garcia sports complex, neighborhood park, and new school will all be adjacent to the proposed northern alignment of Prado Road. From page 14, under Traffic Impacts, the forth paragraph contains the following statement: "The Industrial Way extension would accommodate about 5% less east -west traffic. However, when viewed relative to the magnitude of traffic traveling east -west between Broad Street and Highway 101 (about 70.000 trips Per day) this difference is not significant." My Observation: It is expected that about 70,000 trips per day will pass along the proposed northern alignment of Prado road. My Conclusion: 70,000 vehicles, many of which will be large commercial trucks will pass, each day, adjacent to a neighborhood park and elementary school filled with small children.. 70,000 vehicles a day will compete with parents and buses, filled with small children, attempting to access and exit from a neighborhood park and elementary school site. 70,000 vehicles a day will pass by any children attempting to walk, or ride their bikes, to school from the nearby residential neighborhoods. Question? If it is undesirable and unsafe to access the sports complex from Broad Street, with a traffic count of only 35,000 vehicles per day; or from the adopted alignment (ADT for the adopted alignment between Broad Street and Highway 101 was not given but must be similar in magnitude to the proposed northern alignment) Then how can it be safe and desirable to access a neighborhood park and an elementary school site from a major arterial road carrying 70,000 vehicles per day. It just doesn't make sense. Conclusion: Prado Road should be connected through to Tank Farm Road. This alignment bypasses the elementary school site as well as the neighborhood park and the sports complex. Access to the sports complex and elementary school could be easily and safely accomplished by building a smaller feeder type road to Broad Street at the currently proposed location of the northern route of Prado Road. This intersection could be signalized to allow cars and buses to safely and easily access these public facilities. Traffic passing the park and school sites would be much lower, providing a quieter and safer environment for learning and recreation. Sincerely, a7r,-,. Jon Anderson 3580 Bullock Lane San Luis Obispo CA 93401 January 21,2000 Allen Settle Dave Romero John Ewan Ken Schwartz Jan Howell Marx San Luis Obispo City Council City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 Dear Sirs, RE: Initial Environmental Study: Prado Road Extension Circulation Element Amendment (ER 190-99), dated January 2000. Prado Road extension through to Johnson Avenue. Dear Sirs: After reading the EIR report on the proposed Prado Road extension, I find a great many things to take exception with. The proposed under pass will impact my land more then a slight adverse, short-term impact. The under pass will land lock two pieces of property. On my property I will have the underpass in my front yard, with a 20 -foot hole. Then I will have Prado Road down the side of my house. The noise that the cars will make in the under pass has not been addressed. This plan calls for the underpass to be built in the lowest part of the surrounding land. I have lived on my property for almost 50 years and have seen serious amounts of water come down from the property around me. There have been times when the water has been knee deep and telephone poles have floated off and gone down to the creek. There are fiber optic cables, a 10 -inch water main that would have to be relocated. Many times in the wintertime we are the last place to have the fog lift. This is asking for trouble. This whole plan needs to be addressed. I also question the need for this road. In the years to come, as this area is built up, the traffic will increase on it's own. Stop Prado Road at Broad Street. Use the time and money to finish the Orcutt Road railroad over pass. This is a City project that the City wants. The City should pay for this project and not expect a few people in this Orcutt area to donate, give their land. As a property owner I have rights. I intend to use every one of them to keep my property as it is. I don't want to develop so I won't be paying assessments on houses, so who is. going to pay for this very expensive project. I will not sell or grant right of ways to the City for the purpose of Prado Road. t.-�e, 4 Sincerely, Jeanne Anderson 3580 Bullock Lane San Luis Obispo CA. 93401 January 22, 2000 Arnold Jonas Glean Matteson Community Development Department City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, Ca. 93401-3249 Dear Mr. Jonas and Mr. Matteson, RE Initial Environment Study: Prado Road Extension Circulation Element Amendment (ER 190-99), dated January, 2000. Prado Road extension through to Johnson Ave. I have concern and take issue with the following: 1. The declaration in its entity is extremely confusing to read. It is very segmented. It is very misleading. Let me explain- The xplainThe charts from the study shows there are 5 different Prado Road alignments/extensions: 1 Adopted Alignment 2. Industrial Way Extension 3. Proposed Northern Alignment 4. Northern Terminating Alignment 5. Southern (Tank Farm Road) Alignment The discussion throughout the entire initial study uses the words adopted and proposed. To compare the one "adopted•, alignment with the other four "proposed alignments/extensions, the term "proposed„ is used in context as a grouped term to refer to all four of the proposals. Each proposed alignment must be compared with the adopted in order to show justification for either a new road alignment to Broad Street and/or the proposed extension across Broad Street to Johnson Ave. Any of the proposed alignments/extension will require changing the General Plan. To change the General Plan is a major change. This itself is justification for a full EER. 2. Other segments of the Prado Road Extension are the Margarita area, the Highway 101 overpass, and the existing Prado Road. These other segments all effect the entire Prado Road Extension from the Market Place to Broad. To this date, there has not been a -full EIR completed on this section. How can a decision be made that decides the alignment or even more the extension of Prado across Broad without a full EIR? All this new alignment to Broad and beyond simply compounds the non existing EIR that should be done. This proposed alignment/extension will have a significant effect on the entire environment from one side of town to the other. Since not one of these segments of the Prado Road extension has had a full EIR, how can the lead agency even consider a Mitigated Negative Declaration for this new alignment/extension to Broad that incorporates a "Beltway" through Johnson Ave. to Cal Poly (per hand outs at the Dec 1, 1999 Planning Commission) . Does this not extend and exacerbate an already problem? 3. This initial study is grounded on subjective, not objective information. 4. The Reference Sources of the lead agency use only one source for all of their information - themselves± All information compiled in this initial study is from the City of San Luis Obispo. How can the lead agency look at themselves objectively? Sincerely, % Cu/ (&b cc: City Council c January 24, 2000 Arnold Jonas, Community Development Director Glenn Matteson, Associate Planner 990 Palm Street City of San Luis Obispo San Luis Obispo, Cal 93401 Dear Mr. Jonas and Mr. Matteson, With concern and in response to the realignment for the Prado Road through to Johnson Ave and the Initial Environmental Study dated ER 190-99, January, 2000, 1 find the study to be confusing. My concern with this study is that there is no data to support the conclusion that a road is needed. All I read is reference to existing laws or plans or ordinances or policies. How does that reference material produce data for support of such a major project? I am questioning city staff's entire Initial Environmental study (ER 190-99) , dated January, 2000, based on insufficient evidence. Sincerely, r� cc: City Council .EYING AGENDA DATE a 16 EM 9 January 28, 2000 MEMORANDUM TO: Council Members, Planning Commission, John Dunn, Ken Hampian, Jeff Jorgensen, Lee Price, Tribune, Mike McCluskey, Arnold Jonas, Tim Bochum, John Mandeville, Glen Matteson FROM: Mary Kopecky, Assistant City Clerk f "" SUBJECT: Correspondence Regarding Prado Road Alignment for Council Meeting of 2/1/00 — Item 1 The attached correspondence was received by the City Clerk's office on January 28, 2000. In order to expedite these red file letters please note that there are several letters attached from the following groups/individuals: Alex T. Henson (Environmental Defense Center) Jon Anderson (3 different letters) James Anderson Jeanne Anderson (2 different letters) Ann Hall & Patti Taylor Nick Muick (2 different letters) Ann Hall, Nick Muick, Jamie Urancy, Patti Taylor Phyllis Imel, Graney Hall (3 different letters) Jeffrey Brewer (2 memos) Matt Quaglino JAN -28-00 FRI 06:04 PM San Luis Obispo City Counc City Hall San Luis Obispo, Calif. t. Re: Prado Road Extension General Plan Ametdment Honorable Members of the City Council-,, 'ING AGENDA i 2-1-212 IeUA#ir RECEIVED JAN 2 R 2000 SLO CITY CLERK I am writing on behalf of the Environmental Defense Center to oppose the Prado Road Extension General Plan Amendmeii't at this time. The basis for our opposition to this project at this time focuses primarilyuporiihe failure of the City to have a legally adequate General Plan as a foundation for making reasoned land use decisions in a manner consistent with state law. We are' also concerned the environmental documentation is inadequate as fails to look at'the comprehensive aspects of making Prado Road a through road. As to the issue of the legality of t6 City's General Plan, it is obvious that a General Plan Amendment of the Circulation Element should be consistent with a legally adequate Circulation Element. Governrn6t Code Section 65300 requires each City to have a General Plan, ovemment Code Section 65300.5 requires that each City have a General Plan that is "an integrated, internally Consistent and compatible statement of policies for the adopting agency." Government Code Section 65402 requires that no public works project may proceed unless it is consistent with the adopted General Plan_ Most importantly, Government Code Section 65302 specifies what is required to be present in a legally adequate General Plan. Section 65302(b) requires the Circulation Element to designate the general location and extent of existing and proposed thoroughfares, "all correlated with the land use element of the plan-" In determining "correlation" we do not write on a blank slate. The Court of Appeals in the case of Camp v, County of Mendocino (1981) 123 C.A.3d 334, wrote that the County's circulation element was inadequate as it did not expressly show any relationship between the land use and circulation elements, and because the land use element was itself utterly deficient. Id, 12� C.A.3d at 363, The Court noted the State Planning Act, Section 65302(a), required the land use element to include "a statement of the standards of population density and building intensity recommended for the various districts and other territory covered by the plan:" Id, 123 C.A.3d at 349. However, the 906 GARDEN ST, SANTA BARBARA, CA 93101 - (805) 963-1622 FAX: (80S) 962-3152 E-MAIL: edc@rain.org 31 N. OAK STNENTURA, CA 93001 - (805) 643-6147 FAX: (805) 643-6148 E-MAIL: edcvent@west.net P.01 JAN -28-00 FRI 06:04 PM P.02 County's land use element only had stat ids Gf population density for two types of areas. Id. Thus, the land use element fail �oe'et the requirements of state law. This holding was reinforced in the oas(of Twain Harte Homeowners v County o Tuolumne (1982) 138 C.A.3d 664, The4(n thO'Court of Appeal held the County's General Plan wanting as it failed to pro,&, ,sta�idards of building intensity for areas designated "commercial", "open space",°`lin�du3tnal", or "publichnstitutional/school". Id. 138 C.A.3d at 699. Again, in the absence tlf ail'4dequate land use element the required "correlation" could not be found. Id, 13$;C,A. 'd at 701-702. Review of the City of San Luis Obispo Land Use Element indicates it shares this same deficiency. There are no statements' of po.pulation density and building intensity for any category of land uses described in the plativ other than residential uses. The General Plan impermissibly defers to the Zoning: Ordi+ce to determine issues of lot coverage and density, compare Land Use Element, pp. 3,I, 38, 54. The City cannot have the Zoning Ordinance control the General Plan requir melts. Government Code Section 65860 requires just the opposite. Under the City's reli4nce upon Zoning Ordinance standards to set population density and building intensity, when the City amends its Zoning Ordinance, it is in effect amending its General,.Nn without following the procedures required for a General Plan amendment. The Open Space designation indicates �rcels smaller than 10 acres may have lot coverage of up to 5%, and for parcels of more;than 10 acres, coverage may occur up to 3%, but there is no distinction between cd'veraj% from paving or coverage from building. Land Use Element, P. 59. In the absence of clear standards for population density and building intensity for each of the categories of land uses in the city's General Plan, the plan is legally deficient. Turning specifically to the Circulation Element, the Court of Appeal in on 1.rued izens of Calaveras Coun v. Calaver Count (1985)166 C.A.3d 90 stated "The statutory correlation requirement is evidently designed in part to prohibit a general plan from calling for unlimited growth in its land use element without providing, in its circulation element, `proposals' for how the transportation needs of the increased population will be met" Id 166 C.A.3d at 100. The Court went on to void the County's circulation element because it did not "contain any `objective,' `standard,' or `proposal' by which unlimited growth would be restricted in the event state highways were inadequate to handle future traffic." Id. Review of the City's Circulation element fails to uncover any standard, objective or proposal as to what is to be done if or when traffic from growth threatens to overwhelm the city's roadways. While there is a thorough explanation of level of service (LOS) Id. pp, 4344 and a statement as to:desired maximum LOS and average daily traffic (ADT), Id, pp17-18, there are no clear bright line standards to provide the required correlation. Instead one finds vague generalizations indicating the City will "undertake measures to control traffic in residential areas where traffic speeds or volumes exceed standards set by policy 5.2" Id. p,22. To Similar effect, "When traffic reaches LOS `E,' the City will consider the selective widening of Arterial Streets, Regional Routes and Highways when improvements to public safety crud traffic j7ow outweigh the fiscal card er:vironmetrlal costs.., " Id. p.23. This latter statement acknowledges IAS E may occur, yet the Circulation element also states that LOS. °D' is the "recommended standard". Id. p. 17. It is thus crystal clear there is no prohibit?�on on approvals of land use �l 11. JAN -28-00 FRI 06:05 PM . a intensification even though affected roadv�aj+s ire at LOS E or even F. While state law does not require the adoption of any particular*kandard the local community must select, it does mandate that it select a standard below which it will not allow traffic LOS to fall. Given the foregoing delaciencies•with t :e City's General Plan, the City Council is urged to abjure the adoption of the propdSed amendment or indeed any General Plan amendment until it corrects these deficieticles. It is noted the legal adequacy of the City's General Plan cannot be challenged in Court du to the statute of limitations, Government Code Section 65009, unless it amends tho general plan. Garat v. City of Riverside (199 1) 2 C.A.0 259, 289. There is also the additional issue of the Appropriateness of the proposed negative declaration of environmental impact as t¢ the p'oposed general plan amendment. In this regard the Initial Study is defective as it 8ontin6ally compares the proposed amendment to the existing General Plan, as opposed {o who's is existing on the ground. The proposal should compare the impacts of the propoied alignment to what presently exists to ascertain the environmental impacts. EtiviionMonte] Planninand Information Council -of Western El Dorado Countyv County iEl Dorado (1982) 131 CA -3d 350. Similarly, there is no analysis ofthe co>►pletion of Prado Road as a thoroughfare. Only the proposed segments east of the freewa'Y are being examined as if there did not exist any proposal to complete Prado Road over the freeway. Such segmented analysis of the project and its impacts is not permissible. . For each of the foregoing reasons;we request the City Council to defer approval of the proposed general plan amendment. ,;. Sincerely, ;. "-\, Alexander T. Henson P. 03 January 28, 2000 Arnold Jonas Glenn Matteson Community Development Department City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 Dear Sirs, MEETING AGENDA I DATE a ITEM 9 VUNCIL U61) DIR AO ❑ FIN DIR p FIRE CHIEF rCAC�O ORNEY 9" DIR LERKIORIG p POLICE CHF ❑ IJGGT1 MJ p REC DIR ❑ UTIL DIR p PERS DIR G; Ma+4esa^ J , titandev;ll� RE: Initial Environmental Study: Prado Road Extension Circulation Element Amendment (ER 190-99), dated January 2000. It bothers me that the Tank Farm road alternative of the Prado Road extension has never been seriously considered. This alternative is given brief consideration in the Initial Environmental Study. Most of the rest of the information in the study is, I feel, an attempt to justify a northern alignment for Prado road. Any and all deficiencies of the northern alignment tend to get minimized in relation to perceived problems with using the (current adopted) southern alignment. Great effort is used to compare costs and feasibility between the (current adopted) southern alignment and the proposed northern alignment. It is clear that the city staff favors the northern alignment because it is desired that the Damon -Garcia sports complex be allowed to take over the Industrial Way intersection and use it for the access to the sports fields. Many problems and costs for the northern route are not addressed or are simply ignored. An effort is made to compare cost differences between the northern and southern (current) routes. I find it interesting that to find these comparisons it is necessary to look at the Council Agenda Report (page 15 Table5), prepared by staff, for the council meeting on February 1, 2000. This is the first time any of this information shows up in regard to this project. Table 5 (page 15) compares costs between the Northerly and Southerly alignments but totally ignores any other alternatives. I believe that if the Tank Farm road (TFR) alternative was included, and cost comparison prepared, that it would clearly show that the Tank Farm alternative would be much cheaper than either of the other two.. Improvements -Segment: Eligaera to Broad 1-TFR would have a shorter length resulting in a lower cost. 2- TFR would not require the extensive earthwork needed to cross the old quarry site or to make a road cut into serpentine rock resulting in a lower cost. 3 —TFR would not require new disruption of Acacia and Orcutt creeks but would require that the existing bridges be replaced or widened; the cost would be similar to the other alignments. 4-TFR would not require any retaining walls or create large fill areas unlike the other alignments. 5-TFR already has a traffic signal. Improvements would need to be made -but would probable be cheaper than a new signal and intersection construction project for the northern alignme A E I' signal already exists at Industrial Way. JAN '2 8 2000 SLO CITY CLERK Improvements -Segment: Broad to Sacramento ri TFR would not have the large ght-of-way costs of the northern alignment ($850,000). TFR would not have the road construction cost, (Broad to Sacramento -- $336,000). Improvements -Segment: OASP collector. I -TFR would not have right -of way costs. 2-TFR would not require reconstruction of Industrial Way east of Broad Street. 3-TFR would not require the cost of an Underpass beneath the railroad tracks. An Underpass already exists and Tank Farm Road east of Broad Street is under utilized. 4-TFR would have no cost for the approaches to the underpass. 5-TFR would have no costs for mitigations for sound and access. (Industrial Way) Improvements -Segment: OASP collector to Johnson 1-TFR would have no construction costs for a connector to Johnson Ave. (The Road A — as shown in the OASP draft would provide an additional connection to Orcutt Road, terminating near Johnson Ave. This would provide an alternative route for residents traveling to the TFR-Prado Road connection. The adoption of the Tank Farm Road (TFR) alternative would save the City of San Luis Obispo millions of dollars in construction costs as well as sparing the disruption and destruction of the environment and properties along the route of both the northern and southern alignments. The Tank Farm Road alignment would still allow the sports fields to use the Industrial way intersection and traffic signal for access to the sports complex. I think more study and consideration should be given to the option of connecting the Prado Road extension into Tank Farm Road. Sincerely, a4A,-- Jon Anderson 3580 Bullock Lane San Luis Obispo CA 93401 CC: M. McCluskey Council Members (Settle, Ewan, Romero, Marx, Schwartz) Council Agenda Report — Circulation Element Amendment — Prado Road Extension Page 15 Thus, it was reasonable to conclude that this was a fiscally and environmentally superior alternative. These arguments were made to the City Council in 1997 as part of the MASP EIR scooping session and the Council concurred by adopting the northern alignment as the "Project alignmenVand the southern alignment as an alternative alignment. Both alignments would be studied via the AASP/MASP infrastructure and environmental impact report process. Table 5 - Cost corn arisons: Northerly aligLament vs. Sout riv ali nment Improvements — Segment: Hi era to Broad Northerly Southerly I . Roadway construction cost by length of road. Both alignments are same length: therefore no cost difference. _ 2. Earthwork: Southerly alignment calls for removal of two mountains (one + $1,220,000 large & one small); Southerly alignment will need fill to achieve elevation differential over Acacia Creek in order to receive environmental permits and achieve at grade intersection with Broad St; Northerly alignment will need fill across valley. Costs for the fill sections are the same. 3. Bridge structure over Acacia Creek. Both locations will require the same structure: therefore no cost difference 4. Retaining walls. Southerly alignment will require retaining structures +$103,400 along south right-of-way line to preclude fill material in wildlife and wetland area may also be required further east (but not inc. in this estimate). 5. Signalization. Northerly alignment requires new signal at Broad St. Southerly alignment assumes new signal at Capitolio; therefore no cost difference. movements — Se ent: Broad. to Sacramento 1. Right-o&way acquisition. Northern alignment requires substantial ROW, +$850,000 southern requires ROW 1) near Sacramento for tum lane and 2) possibly at UPRR. 2. Road construction cost. Re uired by Northerly alignment only +$336,800 3. Road demolition removal and utility relocation. Southem Only. $75,000 Improvements — SeMent: Sacramento to GASP N/S collector 1. Right-of-way ac uisition. Re uired by Northerly alignment only +$265,000 2. Road construction cost. New road on Northerly alignment. Remove and +$55,000 rebuild mad extra excavation on Southerly alignment. 3. Underoass Construction. Same for both alignments 4. Approaches to Underpass. Northerly alignment includes landscaping; + $120,400 small retaining walls. Southerly alignment. includes major retaining walls and no landsca in . 5. Environmental Mitigation. Southerly alignment requires new soundwalls, +$274,000 double glazing residences, and reconstruction of Graduate facility for deliveries. Im movements — Segment: OASP N/S collector to Johnson 1. Road construction. Southerl alignment longer than Northerly alignment +$278.000 Subtotals ofCostDifferentials: $1,451.800 T $2,000,800 January 28, 2000 Arnold Jonas Glenn Matteson Community Development Department City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 Dear Sirs, RE: Initial Environmental Study: Prado Road Extension Circulation Element Amendment (ER 190-99), dated January 2000. There is reference to a "grade separated" connection between the sports fields and the Future Park and school sites. This would be necessary because of the high traffic volumes on the proposed Prado Road northern alignment. No details were given for the type of connection i.e. bridge or tunnel. In the Council agenda report I just received, prepared by staff, for the city council meeting of 02-01-2000, it is stated that this connection would be a tunnel. On page 17 it is stated, "It is envisioned that one or more pedestrian underpasses will allow easy and safe access for pedestrian and bike movements". It is also stated that at that point Prado Road would be "10-15 feet above grade". This would require that the underpasses would need to be over 100 feet in length. No mention was made of the expense of building these underpasses in the cost comparison between the northern and southern alignment. In addition, I feel that building pedestrian underpasses is a bad idea A 100 -foot underpass will be a nightmare for the city. How will the city guarantee the safety of people using the underpass at night when there are few people around? Underpasses are an ideal hang out for the homeless and gangs. In addition, has the cost of graffiti removal been considered? Concrete walls 100 feet long, 9-10 feet high will be irresistible to any kid with a can of paint. I don't believe that any of these additional costs were considered when the cost comparisons between the different proposed routes were prepared. Adoption of the northern alignment will result in many hidden costs that will eventually make it much more expensive than we are being led to believe. I think more thought and work needs to be done before any decision can be made as to the future alignment of Prado Road. Sincerely, 1 Jon Anderson 3580 Bullock Lane San Luis Obispo CA 93401 CC: M. McCluskey Council Members (Settle, Ewan, Romero, Marx, Schwartz) January 28, 2000 Arnold Jonas Glenn Matteson Community Development Department City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 Dear Sirs, RE: Initial Environmental Study: Prado Road Extension Circulation Element Amendment (ER 190-99), dated January 2000. On Page 13, under the topic "Southern (Tank Farm) alignment" it is stated under the section re. "Disadvantages" ---"Passes through an area of substantial surface and subsurface contamination (disruption by road construction should be avoided due to costs of clean-up, but there may be alignment variations or other methods to minimize the impact). However on page 42, in the Discussion section it is stated, "The southern (Tank Farm Road) alignment is more likely to encounter contamination, but a precise alignment could largely avoid areas of known concentrations." Has this issue been seriously studied? It appears to me that it would be possible to build the Tank Farm Road connection without any significant cost due to contaminated soils. I think more study of this route needs to be done before any alignment option is decided on. No decision should be made about a General Plan amendment until a more serious and thorough study of the Tank Farm road connection has been completed. Sincerely, ( ' a, _' Jon Anderson 3580 Bullock Lane San Luis Obispo CA 93401 CC: M. McCluskey Council Members (Settle, Ewan, Romero, Marx, Schwartz) January 23 2000 Glen Matteson Community Development Department City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, Ca. 93401-3249 Dear Mr.Matteson, RE:Initial Environmental Study: Prado Road Extension Amendment (ER 190-99) dated January, 2000. Prado Road extension through to Johnson Ave. Pursuant to Section 21080.3, 21091, and AB 1888, I am within the local review period for a Negative Declaration comment. I have concern and take issue with the following: Page 45 Population and Housing; Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing. Don't single family homes count for somthing? The proposed northern alignment will either take out several single family homes or will put YOUR road in such close proximity as to make these homes uninhabitable. No where in YOUR ff*jK did the writers of this piece of fiction ever consider the families that will be displaced, nor the damage to farmland that has been in some of these families for several generations. What if I wanted to put a freeway through YOUR front room? The Impact Would Be Less Than Sig i t. Jame rson January 20,2000 Arnold Jonas Glenn Matteson Community Development Department City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 Dear Sirs, RE: Initial Environmental Study: Prado Road Extension Circulation Element Amendment (ER 190-99), dated January 2000. Prado Road extension through to Johnson Avenue. After reading the Council Agenda Report for February 1, 2000 I find many things that are left unanswered. These underpasses that you want to build for the bikes and pedestrians is one of them. (page 17) These underpasses sound like a good place for the creeps that love to hang around schools. We also have a great many "Homeless" people on this side of town. They live in all the creeks in this neighborhood. A nice park will be an attraction for them. Will these tunnels be turned into a second or third "Gum Alley"? What a place to display the children's "Folk Art." Will these tunnels tum into giant storm drains when it rains? Water does flow from the high side to the low side. Who will care for the cleaning and repairing of these tunnels, the city parks or from the school fiords? This idea sounds like more Band Aids on a poorly thought up idea. Prado Road should not be allowed to be in a place that is being built for the sole purpose of children. The City will find out this bad plan is going to cost plenty in the long run. How much will it cost for a damaged kid? Cars full of kids trying to get in or out of the school road and onto Prado Road, or a big bus that gets hit? This sounds like a nightmare waiting to happen. Don't do this. Reroute Prado road over to Tank Farm Road and keep the ballpark and school safe. Sincerely, v� Jeanne Anderson 3580 Bullock Lane San Luis Obispo CA. 93401 CC: M. McCluskey Council Members (Settle, Ewan, Romero, Marx, Schwartz) January 28,2000 Allen Settle Dave Romero John Ewan Ken Schwartz Jan Howell Marx San Luis Obispo City Council City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 RE: Initial Environmental Study: Prado Road Extension Circulation Element Amendment (ER 190-99), dated January 2000, and The Council Agenda Report for the meeting on 02-01-00 Dear Sirs: Having read the Council Agenda Report for the meeting of 02/01/00, I take exception to the statements on pages 18 and 19. The City has been lacking in notifying the public of meetings. Notice sign were put up on stakes, after the meetings on one occasion. The stakes were also placed at the end of Bullock Lane and nowhere near where the property involved was located. Notices in the newspaper were very vague. Maps too small, and descriptions that could be for anywhere. There have been very few items in The Tribune paper. Most people haven't the faintest idea what is going on over here. At the Thursday, January 5th Public Workshop, (with your confusing dates) the city staffs report says 150, 130, 120, people showed up. Which is it? This was at dinnertime and on a working day. Good timing. City Staff claims they sent out 6000 notices about the meeting. Many of the people received 3 notices each. Notices were sent to people who lived in the Laguna Lake area Why didn't they just send them to Morro Bay, that's even farther away? Two men at the workshop had a great deal to say about the traffic figures; they said they didn't believe them. There was no mention of this in the report. Mr. Garay said that people would lose their houses and I would have the underpass in my front yard- Again no mention. The City has tried to keep this project under wraps, sidestepped the issues, misdirected and slanted information. Could there be something so wrong with this project that it can't stand the light of day? I would really like to know] Not so Sincerely, Jeanne Anderson 3580 Bullock Lane San Luis Obispo CA. 93401 1 January 27, 2000 Dear Mr. Schwartz, Thank you for talking with us (Anne Hall, Leo Evans and myself) last week. We appreciated your time and patience as we expressed our thoughts about the Prado Road Extension proposal. Knowing your background in planning, hopefully, you will review our enclosed findings as a teacher reviews his students work. We strove to be factual in our approach and in presentation. We are currently reading the staff report for the Feb 1 st City Council meeting and having difficulties separating one alignment from the other. We did have better success with some of the diagrams (i.e. the tunnel on pg 1-16, figure 5). Thank you again for your time. route of Prado Road. This intersection could be signalized to allow cars and buses to safely and easily access these public facilities. Traffic passing the park and school sites would be much lower, providing a quieter and safer environment for learning and recreation. Sincerely,6-7,� // Jon Anderson 3580 Bullock Lane San Luis Obispo CA 93401 C