The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About06/02/1998, COMM - RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL REFUSE RATE STRUCTURES DATE MEETING AGENDA 3 ITEM # WILLIAM R McLENNAN ATMRNEYATLAW 1022 MILL STREET,SUITE E SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401 (SOS)544a9MMM sa4M mAu•maaoa®Aoi.mb Honorable Mayor and City Council May 22, 1998 City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CaL 93401 :E03UTIL CDD � C NO MACAO -FNA�T1ORNEY Re: Neighborhood Traffic Management Guidelines Funding GnLERKIORIS CHFCity Council Agenda-June 2, 1998 ❑ IIR Dear Mayor and Council Members: I live in an area affected by the Neighborhood Traffic Management Guidelines and recently read the Public Review Draft provided by the Department of Public Works. I believe that funding traffic calming measures by utilizing special assessment districts that only allow property owners to vote, as stated in the Traffic Management Guidelines, is both reprehensible public policy and a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. Every person who lives on a residential arterial, collector or local street, whether they rent or own their home,bears the burden of dangerous street traffic. 'traffic calming is a safety issue and every citizen of this community must be able to vote either for or against policies and programs, or city council members,that promote safety on our city streets. Funding traffic calming measures by special assessment districts that deny renters the right to vote is simply unconstitutionaL A special assessment district that limits voting rights to property owners is often upheld because there is a correlation between property ownership and the burdens and benefits imposed by the assessment. When the issues are public safety and traffic calming measures,there is an incongruity that defeats the voting limitations of a special assessment.district:the burden of dangerous traffic conditions are born by all street residents and absentee (but voting) landlords bear no burden at all. I invite you to read Phoenix v. Kolodziejski (1970) 399 U.S.204, 90 S.Ct.1990, 26 L.Ed.2d 523;Kramer v Union Free School District (1969) 395 U.S. 621, 89 S.Ct.1886, 23 L.Ed.2d 583; Cipriano v. Houma(1969) 395 U.S. 701, 89 S.Ct. 1897,23 L.Ed.2d 647;Southern Calif. Rapid Transit Dist. v. Bolen(1992) 1 Ca.4th 654. RECEIVED MAY ') 2 1997 SLO CITY COUNCIL I realize this city council is determined to decimate old city neighborhoods to promote business expansion. Clearly, the proposed funding mechanism and the Traffic Management Guidelines in general are meant to discourage traffic calming measures and tangle good neighborhood ideas in a maze of bureaucratic red tape. However, I find it unjustifiable that a small number of absentee landlords, some not even eligible to vote in a city election, could veto a traffic calming proposal that would provide safer streets for our children. Sincerely, V William(. R. McLennan M 'NG AGENDA RICHARD SCHMIDT DATE - '98 ITEM #3_ 112 Broad Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 (805) 544-4247 e-mail: rschmidt@calpoly.edu May 28, 1998 Re: Charging Neighborhoods for Traffic Calming To the City Council: The proposal before you to tax neighborhoods for dealing with the effects of traffic the city has directed through said neighborhoods is one of the worst proposals to come before you in a long time. This proposal is stupid, immoral, obscene, and anti-citizen, and the staff people responsible for bringing it to you should be fired,for their judgment is clearly so bad and they are so out of touch with the needs and aspirations of city residents that they don't deserve the honor of serving as public employees, let alone the privilege of being paid munificent salaries and benefits by said residents. The proposal before you is like saying to a rape victim, 'We're sorry you got raped,but if you want your violator to be prosecuted, you'll have to pay for the prosecution." I'm sure you agree that is simply not an acceptable response to the problem. You should reject the idea of taxing neighborhoods to deal with traffic problems without even discussing It. To do anything else would give the lie to all your election-time words about protecting neighborhoods. This proposal is just the latest effort in a 25-year-old campaign of non-responsiveness, ivory-tower detachedness, lying, distortion, and pro-active pro-traffic agitation by Public Works to prevent effective traffic calming in neighborhoods. (I shall back up this strong statement with a factual history of my neighborhood's treatment below.) The city, by its general plan and its adopted neighborhood protection policies, is duty-bound to deal with existing traffic problems in neighborhoods, and to prevent those problems from worsening. Instead, by its actions and inactions,the city only makes those problems worse. It is the city's responsibility, not neighborhoods',to pay for correcting traffic problems created by the city's pro-growth anti-neighborhood actions. People in neighborhoods are hopping mad about how the city treats neighborhoods-- and we're not just talking traffic here,we're talking planning, building, police, parks,the arborist --the whole gamut. Adopting the proposal before you to tax neighborhoods for traffic problems could well provide the torch to flame a political conflagration your ivory-tower staff advisers don't even know is already smoldering. One Neighborhood's Story. [NDtp,: I have extensive collections of city memos plus my personal notes about city actions, including precise dates going back more than 20 years, and can back up the assertions below with documentary evidence! So, when staff denies this story, as they will attempt to do, I'm ready!] When I moved to North Broad Street in 1972,conditions there were very different from today. Ramona did not connect between Verde and Broad; Serrano (directly opposite my home) was a quiet dead-end street; Palomar did not exist;the Valencia apartments had not been built. Shortly, however, all that changed: Ramona went through and dumped traffic formerly bound to or from Foothill onto Broad, Palomar's construction turned Serrano into a busy by-pass from Ramona, and the traffic from the hundreds of student apartments at Valencia added to the chaos of through traffic dumped into the neighborhood.The subsequent installation of a traffic signal at Broad and Foothill (a signal for which there is absolutely no need --there's no time of day one can't negotiate that intersection faster without a signal than with one)frustrated drivers on Foothill and encouraged many of them to turn into the neighborhood to avoid the perceived traffic-signal-induced bottlenecks on Foothill and Santa Rosa. (Over the years, with every additional signal in the Foothill-Santa Rosa corridor,our neighborhood has suffered an increase in through traffic. In 1972, it was actually faster to travel Foothill-Santa Rosa to downtown than to cut through the neighborhood. Today, the perception --though not necessarily the reality-- is reversed. Good, neighborhood-centered traffic management would mean doing things in the neighborhoods to restore the perceived inequality in convenience between traveling thoroughfares and neighborhood streets to the pre-signal era;to do otherwise simply encourages more traffic to cut Traffic Calming Fees/Schmidt--Page 1 through neighborhoods, a practice which is contrary to every enunciated city policy on the subject.) Broad suffered from another fact--that the idiots who designed Highway 101 in the 1950s placed their low-speed, unsafe interchanges on residential streets. (Both the Planning Commission and the Environmental Quality Task Force general plan recommendations called for the city taking the lead in changing this situation by encouraging CalTrans to build a full interchange at Santa Rosa and to close the outmoded ramps which dump traffic into neighborhoods, but the previous council backed away from this recommendation after a couple of geezers objected.You need to revisit this, revise your plans, and encourage Carrrans to make intelligent plans for the future --20 years or so from now, at the rate CalTrans moves.) For many north-of-Foothill motorheads, Broad is nothing more than a freeway on-ramp, and they drive with the reckless abandon that people practice in such places. After the city's "improvements"to circa-neighborhood traffic flow, it shortly became apparent that the street had very serious problems— largely speed, but also secondarily the fact that every conceivable vehicle that used Highway 101 went trundling up and down the street, often at freeway speeds. If you haven't had gasoline tankers and semis doing 50 mph on a 32-foot wide street that's 20 feet from your front door, you ain't lived! But for us,this was 24- hour a day reality. In the fall of 1973, a delegation of neighbors from North Broad went to the city council and asked for relief from the speeding. Our request was for the installation of 4 stop signs to slow traffic. We described the harrowing conditions under which we lived —the noise, the wrecks and near wrecks at curves and corners,the parked cars struck or sideswiped, the cats crushed under speeding vehicles,the dangers of even getting in and out of our vehicles,that many of us were afraid to use our driveways for fear we'd be hit while turning in or backing out,the fears for our children (One resident said he prayed that his 3-year-old never discovered that another 3-year-oid lived across the street for fear she might try to cross it on her own), and so on. We described freeway speed conditions. One wag remarked that he was so happy President Nixon had just reduced the national speed limit to 55 mph, since that would help-reduce speed on Broad Street. The council thought that quite humorous and wacky. The city engineer responded that in his opinion there was no speed problem on Broad. As for stop signs, he was adamantly opposed. Stop signs, he asserted, shouldn't be used to slow traffic, and to do so was immoral and would change the world as he had known it. The council nonetheless ordered him to do a speed survey. When we returned for a second meeting with the council,the speed survey was in. Also, in the interim,there had been a well-publicized near fatal bike-auto accident to add to our list of horrors. The speed survey report was revealing. At 4 p.m. in the afternoon, the speeds of 100 vehicles had been measured. About 5%were within the 25 mph speed limit (which is an appropriate speed on this narrow street with limited sight lines and cars parked on both sides). The typical speed was between 35 mph and 45 mph.The top 5%of speeds exceeded 50 mph,with the top measured at 70 mph. And this at 4 in the afternoon!After dark,these speeds were known by residents to be on the low side. Nonetheless, the city engineer concluded there was no speed problem on Broad, and that stop signs were unwarranted. The council disagreed, and ordered four sets of stops installed immediately. And thus began traffic calming in San Luis Obispo. The signs were a qualified success. The arrogantly anti-social speeders continued to ignore them, but overall,they helped by at least encouraging vehicles to slow. Since the police did little to enforce the stops, slowing speeds rather than stopping vehicles was the best the signs ever achieved. Public Works, however, understood that this example of traffic calming was quite subversive. Already, within the year, other neighborhoods with problems were requesting stop signs to slow traffic. So, a concerted campaign of disinformation--which in my opinion continues to this day—was begun to undercut neighborhood traffic calming. Us-against-them: A bogus theme created by staff. One of the first evidences of this disinformation campaign was a memo written by an engineering staff member, and circulated widely at city hall and on a now well-known parallel neighboring street, about a year after the stop signs went in. It set up the us-against-them theme that staff has since exploited so skillfully in neutralizing traffic calming in the Broad-Chorro corridor. This memo purported to show, using actual numbers,that the net effect of the stop signs on Broad had been to transfer massive quantities of traffic from Broad onto Chorro.The only problem was this made no sense to those who lived on the street--we perceived an increase in traffic, nota reduction. I looked into the memo's numbers, and found the memo was an outright, deliberate lie. The memo writer had compared apples to bananas to reach his mendacious conclusion: Traffic Calming Fees/Schmidt--Page 2 pre-stop sign numbers from Broad between Meinecke and Foothill (the most heavily traveled section of the street) were compared with post-stop sign numbers from near Center Street (the lowest volume portion of the street).The city had numbers that compared apples to apples--that is, before and after numbers from the same locations-- , and,when I unearthed these, I found what we suspected was true --that traffic had risen considerably on Broad since installation of the stop signs. In fact, in a comparison of line projections of expected traffic volume increases based on historic counts,traffic was rising faster on Broad than historic projections would have indicated was likely. In other words,the traffic calming,while making the street safer, had caused absolutely no effect on traffic volumes, which were being systematically boosted by city actions on the periphery of our neighborhood which directed traffic through, rather than around, our residential area. Having thus been exposed as liars, I conjecture that staff then set out to make sure future traffic count figures couldn't be used to disprove what they wanted to prove. Whatever their rationale,they set in motion a policy that continues to this day—to systematically and to all appearances deliberately undercount traffic on Broad Street by manipulating when and how they take traffic counts. My files show that we've had traffic counts taken when the street was dug up and closed to through traffic (in the same block as the closure, no less!), as well as when the freeway on-ramp was closed for a prolonged period. More typically,counts have been taken when school was out of session, or during holiday periods, both of which are atypical conditions. (Meanwhile, supposedly corresponding counts on Chorro were often taken at peak periods --that is,till Chorro had its own traffic calming, when it too began to have counts taken at atypical periods.) There was also subtle manipulation of traffic count locations. For example, in pre-traffic calming days,traffic on Broad was measured just south of Meinecke. In post-traffic calming days the location in the same block was moved southward,to between the two driveways into Tropicana Village (the student housing predecessor to the Village --a source of many, many hundreds of car trips per day). This had the nifty effect of not counting traffic bound to and from Tropicana Village --cars coming from and going towards Foothill used the northerly drive, those to and from downtown the southerly drive. When asked to alter this distorting practice, Public Works told us to mind our own business. So, the distortion was clearly deliberate. THERE HAS NOT BEEN A SINGLE HONEST TRAFFIC COUNT ON BROAD BETWEEN MISSION AND MEINECKE SINCE 1973. All have been distorted in one fashion or another, apparently deliberately. Yet these count numbers are trotted out every time staff wants to prove that traffic has been transferred from Broad to Chorro, or that there's been little increase in traffic on Broad, or whatever else their theme of the day seems to be. Enter Speed Humps.The traffic situation on Broad muddled along between 1973 and 1984.Then a proposal emerged to place "experimental" speed humps on Chorro, but due to Fire Department opposition,the council decided to try them on Broad between Mission and Meinecke, a stretch where speeding remained a serious problem even with a stop sign at Murray. Not many of us favored this (I expressed my preference for the status quo), since the plan involved removing the stop sign at Murray, but the council went ahead over our objections. These were the first speed humps to be tried on our city's streets. Once again, Broad was the city's guinea pig for traffic calming measures-- a role we have, actually, rather warmed to over the years. My immediate neighbor and I were among the speed hump opponents quickly won over. While traffic speeds in front of our own houses increased with the removal of the nearby Murray stop sign, overall speeding on the street was brought under control for the first time. The humps, as originally designed (not, however,the wimpy humps that replaced them just over a year ago) were self-enforcing. Only the dumbest or most reckless motorheads attempted to speed over them. The police department's lack of traffic enforcement on Broad became a minor issue --the bumps were better than intermittent police presence at actually enforcing a safe speed, and they were"on duty"24 hours per day. The bumps worked very effectively for the 12 years they were there. This was truly a win-win situation --for a few thousand dollars the city solved a long-standing speeding problem in a way that required little additional city attention or presence in the neighborhood. Trucks.The use of Broad by cut-through semis, tankers, and other heavy trucks not legally permitted on residential streets remained a problem. The city was recalcitrant at enforcing the truck route ordinance, despite the prior city attorney's repeated lectures that truck routes could and should be enforced. Finally,the most we were able to get out of the city was reposting of truck route signs, so it would be clear that through trucks using our residential street were doing so contrary to the law. The signs probably helped, but the real solution involved neighbors approaching trucking companies in the mid-to-late 1980s, and quite firmly requesting compliance with the law. After that,trucks became a minor problem until very recently. Since the removal of the effective speed humps,truck traffic is again Traffic Calming Fees/Schmidt--Page 3 emerging as a neighborhood problem, and, again,the city does nothing about it--other than engage in denial— despite the ready identifiability of the numerous repeat daily offenders (largely restaurant food service and beer trucks). Steady Increase In Cut-Through Traffic. Throughout the time I've lived on Broad Street,there has been a steadily rising amount of cut-through traffic--people using our neighborhood streets as a"short-cut"across town because of perceived delays on the arterials which cut around the neighborhood. The city's inability to this day to properly time its traffic signals on Santa Rosa, so that a driver always gets multiple red lights between Foothill and Marsh,is largely responsible for encouraging this cut-through traffic. Beginning in the 1980s, it became apparent that much of the cut-through was being done not by those from adjoining neighborhoods, but by persons who lived farther afield. An origin-destination study documented that a significant amount of this traffic was as far reaching as Los Osos commuters,who were zigging, zagging and speeding through our neighborhood to avoid traffic lights on Santa Rosa(this is not conjecture,they cited this as the reason). For the most part, left uncalmed,this cut-through traffic, like the freeway ramp traffic, is totally indifferent to the harm they wreak in their haste to get someplace else. The Broad-Chorro Plan: In Retrospect, a Staff Conspiracy to Do-In Traffic Calming. Two years ago,the city unadvisedly adopted the so-called Chorro Street traffic calming program, a plan that looked like children picked a bit of this, a bit of that, a bit of something else, and in their zest threw it all together. At the time of approval, one marveled at staff's uncharacteristic enthusiasm. In retrospect,this was clearly a set-up by staff. When it was proposed, staff was all for this ill-conceived hodgepodge that was clearly too much to attempt at one time, but Mr. McCluskey's vicious and all-out public attack on it once the lynch mob of motorheads came screaming like spoiled brats told staff's true motives:this was simply a clever scheme by staff to scuttle traffic calming once and for all. As such it was the latest event in a chain of anti-neighborhood acts by staff stretching back more than 20 years. This was especially apparent in how staff treated the four 12-year-old humps on Broad Street -- humps which everyone acknowledged had solved a problem the city and neighbors had been unable to solve any other way, and which had stabilized speed and safety even as cut-through traffic increased in this much-battered neighborhood. Suddenly,these historic bumps were made part of the "Chorro experiment"and staff proposed removing them under that pretext. The"compromise"of altering them (in fact, it was removal and reconstruction of an untested, unproven bump design by city crews under the watchful harassment of a geezer from Chorro who had helped stir up the entire fuss) has left the neighborhood again subject to freeway speed traffic and the fruit of concerted staff interference, indifference, and insubordinate failure to follow through on promises made by the council. For example,when the council ordered the Broad humps to be made less effective, it promised it would review the results of its decision, and restore the humps if necessary. Nothing of the sort has occurred, despite this public promise and the demonstrated failure of the new humps to control speed (they can be traversed by many vehicles at speeds in excess of 40 mph). We remain once again victimized by unsafe traffic speeds, and by a steady increase in reckless and noisy through traffic. We were also promised that as an interim measure the stop sign at Murray and Broad could quickly be reinstalled, both to compensate for the ineffectiveness of the humps and to equalize the number of stops on Chorro and Broad. That also has not happened, and staff resists the notion by ignoring the evidence of the need. Finally, the council directed staff to place speed and cautionary"slow"signs on streets were the "Chorro experiment"was undone. That was done on Chorro:there are three twin sets of such signs between Foothill and Mission. On Broad, there were none. I have repeatedly asked, begged and tried to persuade Mr. McCluskey to have a similar number of speed and slow signs erected on the comparable blocks of Broad --especially in the residential blocks between Meinecke and Mission --to little avail. First he claimed he'd consider it,then he said he'd seen work orders for the signs cross his desk, and promised they were on the way. When they didn't appear, I approached him again.The result was one measly "25 mph"sign placed just south of Ramona, behind a utility pole, in the midst of the crazy Broad-Ramona-Meinecke intersection where nobody'd see it. Another inconspicuous speed limit sign was put up more recently at a similarly compromised position just north of Mission. So,to date, Chorro --which has minor speeding problems -- has six speed limit signs in this stretch,while Broad --which has major speeding problems -- has two. Chorro also has six cautionary yellow signs, Broad none. Such signs may be ineffective, but some drivers do care, and, once reminded,will obey them. It seems like the least the city can do to erect signs at close intervals in our neighborhood as a reminder to forgetful drivers (How are they even to know the speed limit's 25 if it's not posted?), and I think staff's insubordination in the face of the previous council directive is outrageous. The only thing more outrageous is the council's failure to follow through on its own directive that the signs be installed and the ineffective humps restored to their original effective design. Traffic Calming Fees/Schmidt--Page 4 Present Situation Dangerous and Degrading to the Neighborhood. So,for the residents of North Broad,the speed situation is nearly as bad as it was back in the bad old days prior to the installation of speed humps and frequent stop signs.This is the result not of happenstance, but of a deliberate and intentional campaign on the part of public servants to make our situation worse as they follow outmoded philosophical concepts about what the proper role of public servants and their vast knowledge should be. I invite any of you to come out and observe the situation for yourself. I live opposite a noisy corner which is a complete circus--the Serrano-Broad intersection -- and your ivory tower staff insists there is simply no problem. In fact, they claim Serrano is a quiet dead-end street with little traffic.Their evidence? Beats me, since they've never done a traffic count on Serrano. If they did an honest one,they'd find thousands of cars a day going up and down their"quiet dead-end street."But I don't think they're interested in truth; I've tried to get them to count traffic there for years, --just as I've tried to get them to place speed counters at sensible times and places and to measure speeds mid-way between speed humps rather than at speed humps --and they refuse.They know there's no problem,therefore there's no problem. In a sense,this experience of our neighborhood with the traffic bureaucrats is a microcosm of what's wrong with the city's bloated, ineffective, detached, "professionalized"staff --they really don't care, beyond the company tine of trying to make everything wonderful for the local profitheads. Business counts. Residents don't count. Neighborhoods don't count. Invent a process that lets the city get off the hook of helping its common people, even as its resources are ever more directed into elite, exclusivist operations. Invent a spin like --"Hey,the city is contributing towards making neighborhoods safer" (even though it is in fact the city's total responsibilityto make its neighborhoods safe and livable). Conclusion. This story of how one neighborhood's traffic problems have evolved and been dealt with by the city should be instructive. In no way are the residents of this neighborhood responsible for the problems that city and county growth and poor planning (like the continuing addition of ill-timed traffic signals which slow traffic on adjacent arteries, or the ill-placed freeway ramps) have created for them. Nor are they responsible for the deeds of the city which have intentionally opened up and then directed ever-increasing quantities of fast traffic through their neighborhood. In fact,they have been seriously hurt by the city's negligence in allowing these problems to continue even after such a long record of needed corrections.They have been further hurt by the city's undoing a traffic calming system that worked well for 12 years with regard at least to the speed problem.They have been subjected to a long-standing concerted campaign of indifference and abuse by staff.The proposal to tax neighbors for fixing problems for which they aren't responsible is but the latest staff attack on neighborhoods; it is a continuation of the 25-year history of dirty dealing I have skimmed over in the above paragraphs. And now, your constituents are being told, if they ever want relief from problems not of their own making,they must tax themselves to correct problems they are being victimized by. That is wrong. WRONG!WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! This proposal is vintage Dunnism, a technique which connoisseurs of the art recognize from afar:You invent a manipulative special "process"to bring about the subversive end you desire. In this case, the desired goal is to end traffic calming once and for all by creating conditions which make its resurgence all but impossible. You do this by convening a special purpose "citizens committee" hand-picked to recommend the result you want.Then you dress up the issue in fake clothing --'Yiscal responsibility"or whatever. Then you,the munificently compensated, paid-for- life, golden-parachuted city administrator, sit back and set up the Council to take the heat.The Council must respond In this case by rejecting this proposal.To do anything less will constitute a declaration of war against neighborhoods, and will have severe consequences for all Involved. This proposal should be thrown into the trash, and the staff who brought it to you should be severely reprimanded, or preferably fired. Sincerely, F ❑CDD DIR O FIN DIR ❑F RE CHIEF� i �W DIR!chard Schmidt ❑POLICE CHF❑REC DIR❑UTIL DIR.�. ❑PERS DIR a Traffic Calming Fees/Schmidt--Page 5 E :TING AGENDA DATE a A- ITEM # �0- "= jn�Emo�anburn May 29, 1998 TO: Council Colleagues FROM: Dave Romero SUBJECT: COMMUNICATION ITEM: Sidewalk on Madonna Road Crossing At the City Council meeting of February 17, 1998, 1 presented a communication item (attached) requesting that.staff study the possibility of adding a pedestrian sidewalk on the north side of Madonna Road overcrossing U.S. 101. My recollection of that meeting was that the Council directed staff to conduct the study and prioritize it along with Public Works workload. I have recently received information from Public Works that they were not directed to conduct the study. I asked the City Clerk to review the minutes of February 17 and she has informed me that the minutes are not clear as to Council direction. I am, therefore,requesting that the Council reconsider this item with direction to staff to complete a preliminary study in time for the item to be considered with the upcoming budget. DR:ss Attachment � ouNCIL--�r "nrn - - AD YRIG ❑FC.!C - AM f REC C.:i -�UT L DIR S DIR February 12, 1998 COMMUMCATION TO: Council Colleagues FROM: Dave Romero SUBJECT: Sidewalk on Madonna Road crossing of U.S. 101 During the design stage for the widening of Madonna Road over U.S. 101, staff had considerable discussions regarding providing a sidewalk on each side of the bridge structure. Because of the substantial cost,the final decision was to install sidewalk only on the south side of the structure. I was never quite comfortable with this decision and have observed since that time increasing instances where pedestrians wishing to cross U.S. 101 on this structure walk in the bike lane rather than making two crossings of Madonna Road to reach their destination on the north side. This is quite hazardous and I am sure exposes us to liability. I believe it would be worthwhile for the City Council to direct staff to investigate alternate means of providing a sidewalk along the north side of the structure, investigate funding possibilities and include funding within the next budget submittal. DR:ss Earp: �-►�1�.�-a�+'� « cETING AGENDA y DATE 6-.t-pP ITEM # mEmo�anbum March 27, 1998 TO: Jeff Hook,Mike McCluskey, Arnold Jonas FROM: John SUBJECT: Discussion with Dave Romero Regarding Railroad Square Dave told me his "fundamental problem" was with the "traffic and circulation component". Otherwise, he believes the Plan is well done. He has talked to Jeff Hook about these matters. He believes there is inadequate provision for handling the traffic originating in the outer Broad Street area and going towards the downtown and government center areas. Dave believes the Plan assumes the traffic on Santa Barbara will not increase; he knows it will. It is necessary to show the widening of the street in the future in order for it to be a good plan for this area. Dave realizes the Council majority would probably not approve widening at this time, but believes it should be provided for in the future by establishing a plan line which would require development to be properly set back from the street. The Plan indicates that 10,000 cars per day utilize "downtown Broad" and there are 15,000 cars per day on Santa Barbara—see page 32 (there are more vehicles on Santa Barbara than on South). Traffic is building continually; there is justification for four lanes on Santa Barbara"today." Dave suggests going from 60 to about 84 feet in R-O-W width (four 11 ft. travel lanes, one 11 ft. center left-tum lane, two 6 ft. bike lanes, and two 8 ft. sidewalks total, for a 24 ft. widening). Just wanted you to know.of Dave's concerns and suggestions. OUNCIL CDD DIR ZSAO ❑FIN DIR (ZACAO 0 FIRE CHIEF CTTORNEY C3 PW DIR ERKIORIG D POLICE CHF ❑ G T O REG DIR /l O UTIL DIR O PERS DIR 5AEET AGENDA --------- ---- _24 �. ITEM L `.FOR. -- '�. �- ,. . �� .. . .��'•:;"T;<. ATE,..: g +*'. •ic., i" : 4.! c 0.`.m:: � �:»"tv..^,,r,,?��p•• r� a�2�' ��air,,.,;. .:PFiON,E y ora �dG mr�-a1E. �r� ;rr'4w?•:r.+' ::� - • y#;5' AREAlCOOEr' .lr. ❑ ` +y"_'d'c6'".''. UM•aE-•-�'9r E7CTENSION F.n�ti i' ..s.:•,!N`�9.',�t�a`}'�.;.?"• t +'u:' ' ..J`•.v..r - kfi;. ?+q. ." 'l +: e;5;..G air. �?f,.d' •,9.,w ref'`. 1. '�O MOyBILEP.:a ..fix 1 ka�t. asr. » s_>;.•..: i':;'hz.:,3.TY_2 n•� AREA CODEe ry�+�� ZU�c�S. NUMB MES y-ear� �x 6 YT .^eY7L�`n, C 4 s _ ...' .ea'u+•�7ric' �! p",.5'��. .�i'h.' 3e y`'q _.� `'�+'t�Fr.nk !fir N.E..D, �. :a.. .FORM 3.102P �0OCIOD DIR L!'ADAO O FIN DIR D'ATFORNEY D FIRE CHIEF ❑CLERKIORIG D PW DIR Dma DCHF D REG EC DIR D U17L DIR OPERS gin G-02-1998 3:26PM FROM- MEETING,�g� AGENDA P. 2 DATE 1�ITEM# --.-- BOARD OF SUPERVISORS COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER. Room 370 • SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA 93408-2040 • 805.781.5450 June 2, 1998 FOZ<ERKIORIG ❑ CDD DIR ❑ FIN DIR John Dunn, City Manager ❑ FIRE CHIEF Ea4TTORNEY 13 PW DIR City of San Luis Obispo ❑ POLCE CHFCity Hall, 990 Palm Street ❑ FSC DIR San Luis Obispo, CA 93408 �jTIL DIR ❑ PERS DIR Dear John: The City Council will be meeting tonight, at which among other issues,the consideration to certify the final EIR for the Salinas Reservoir Expansion Project will be reviewed. First, we offer our apologies for not personally presenting this information to the Council tonight but this being an election day, we are.already committed elsewhere. However,the impDrtance.of this.issue to the residents of North County dictates that we are obliged to enter this into the records on their behalf. There are two major areas of concern: 1)the project itself will need to address the mitigation issues of the raising the.spillway and 2)the relationship.agreement between.the.City of San Luis Obispo and the County Flood Control District in terms of the operations, recreation, liability and reparian issues associated with the use of the Lake. It is our hope that you will continue to work with the North County Water Task Force on the downstream issues associated with maintenance of the water collected at the dam. We look forward to the continuation of discussions regarding this forthcoming project. Sin rely, Sincerely, /'"'V; arty upervisor Michael P. Ryan, Supervisor District ne District Five cc; City Council Members RECEIVED � '► G 1997 SLO CITY COUNCIL 06/02/1998 13:20 9623152 EDC PAGE 01 - RECEIVED M. NG AGENDA DATE G�"98 ITEM JUN 0 2 1998 SLo CITY CLERK ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE `CENTER June 2, 1998 [[e3,MGMT CIL p CDD FIN DIR DIR ❑ FIRE CHIEF San Luis Obispo City Council RNEY ❑ PW DIR 955 Morro Street KIORIG ❑ POLICE CHF San Luis Ob' CA 93401 TEAM ❑ REC DIR by fax: 781-7109 C3 PERtTIL DIR F C3 PERS DIR RE: PROPOSED ENLARGEMENT OF SALINAS DAM Honorable Council Members: The Environmental Defense Center is a non-profit environmental law firm working to protect and enhance natural resources in the tri-counties area, and to ensure that environmental regulations are properly interpreted and enforced. We have reviewed the EIR.for the proposed enlargement of Salinas Dant, and submit the following comments for your consideration prior to your vote on this issue tonight. INADEQUACY OF MITIGATION MEASURES According to your agenda report, your Council is being asked to certify the Final EIR for the subject project tonight. The proposed Final EIR, however, is not legally certifiable because the formulation of detailed environmental impact mitigation measures has been deferred and is not included in the EIR. Mitigation measures relied on to mitigate significant environmental effects of a project trust be evaluated in the CEQA document for that project. (Sun&trom v. County of Mendocino(1°Dist. 1988) 202 Cal.App.3d. 296 [248 Cal.Rptr. 352]) A very important mitigation measure has not yet been defined adequately in the EIR. Implementation of the Habitat Mitigation Plan is in question because the necessary landowner agreements and agency approvals have not been secured. Stating, as the staff report does,that construction would not begin until the agreements and permits were obtained is insufficient because the City is still poised to certify an EIR that does not contain assurances that identified significant biological impacts would be mitigated to the maximum extent feasible, as required by CEQA. The County would violate CEQA by certifying this EIR without assurances that the Habitat Mitigation Plan would be implemented successfully to offset the impacts of the project. The landowner agreements and agency approvals are necessary prior to certification of the EIR in order to ensure that the mitigation will be implemented. Without the assurances that the mitigation plan will be implemented sufficiently to mitigate the significant impacts of the proposed project,the-EIR is inadequate and cannot legally be certified. Another mitigation measure in the proposed Final EIR is similarly flawed. The measure identified to mitigate impacts to red-legged frogs and southwestern pond turtles has not been developed or included in the EIR. Instead, the mitigation measure for these impacts is to conduct an intensive survey for the species, and if present, "develop and implement a long-term management program to monitor and protect the species." Such deferral of mitigation measures renders the EIR inadequate pursuant to CEQA,based on the aforementioned case 906 GARDEN ST, SANTA BARBARA,CA 93101 • (805) 963.1622 FAX: (605) 962-3 152 E-MAIL:.edc@rain.org 844 E. MAIN ST, VENTURA, CA 93001 9 (805) 643.6147 FAX : (805) 643.6148 E-MAIL: edcvent@west.net 06/02/1996 13:20 9623152 EDC PAGE 32 San Luis Obispo City Cquncil June 2, 1998 Page 2 law. As a result,the public and responsible agencies have not had the opportunity to review the plan that would be developed if surveys locate the species in areas to be impacted. Since this impact is significant, according to the EIR, and would only be reduced to insignificant upon successful implementation of an adequate program, the EIR and the findings you must make to approve this project rely on that mitigation measure to be successful. However, the measure has not been described in adequate detail (landowner agreements are lacking) and has been deferred until a later time, after EIR certification. Thus the EIR is inadequate and cannot be certified. Other measures are similarly flawed and deferred. Significant impacts to recreation are also proposed to be mitigated by the deferred development and implementation of a Construction Recreation Plan. Since this plan has not yet been developed,but the EIR relies on it to reduce a significant impact,the EIR is inadequate. Your council must make the finding"that the potentially significant environmental impacts of the project will be reduced to a level of less than significant through the incorporation of the recommended mitigation measures contained in the FEIR." That finding, however, cannot be made without clearly defined mitigation measures in the FEUL Contrary to the staff report's conclusion that this EIR"fully meets all the requirements of CEQA," the EDC finds that the EIR is flawed because it defers the formulation and approval of mitigation measures. ANALYSIS OF IMPACTS TO STEELHEAD DOWNSTREAM FROM THE DAM The staff report and EIR for this project indicate that"the steelhead population below the dam is very limited and sporadic." Impacts to steelhead below the dam are classified as less than significant. However, due to the limited extent of the population below the dam, impacts to that population are logically more significant, not less significant. The EIR's analysis of this impact is flawed and inadequate for the purposes of CEQA Steelhead are a threatened species, so any impacts to the population in the river should be considered significant. Finally, no mitigation measures(other than the status quo operation of the dam which is not a mitigation measure) are proposed to mitigate impacts to steelhead, even though decreased flows below the dam will be detrimental to steelhead migration, spawning and rearing. POLICY CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS The proposed FEIR's policy consistency analysis contains discussions regarding the project's consistency with only some of the applicable City and County policies and goals. It is incomplete. The project is inconsistent with Open Space Goals 1 and 2 of the County's General Plan because the project would inundate and eliminate ecosystems, environmentally sensitive resources, and scenic areas. Furthermore, the project would not"manage public open space lands to reflect the highest concern for preserving and sustaining open spaces." Ported on 100%RacyckdPapw 06-/02/1998 13:20 9623152 EDC PAGE 03 - San Luis Obispo City Council June 2, 1998 Page 3 The project also violates Open Space Policy 31 because it would alter and eliminate riparian vegetation, and because, even though it is a water supply project, there are other practical alternatives available, which are in fact being studied by the City. The enlargement prajeCt is inconsistent with the County's Water Resources Management Recommendation because the impacts to fisheries and wildlife have not been shown to be mitigated adequately because the mitigation measures are deferred. Water Resource Management Recommendation 6 requires conservation of fish and wildlife resources as a primary objective of reservoir management. The project is inconsistent with this because the reduced number of natural spill events will adversely affect the native fish downstream from the dam, including steelhead, and these impacts are not mitigated. Continuation of the live strut agreement does not mitigate any project impacts. It is the status quo, and will not minimize the effects of reduced natural spills which are imperative to the steelhead survival and life cycle below the dam. The project would also violate the County's Natural Area Plan and Goals by failing to protect and restore natural resources,'and by allowing a consumptive use that is not compatible with the preservation of the natural resources. The EIR's analysis of policies relevant to this project failed to include a number of relevant policies. As an example, it&Ued to discuss the project's consistency with the City's Conservation Element, specifically with the recommendations on page 5.6 of the 1973 Conservation Element. Additionally, the EIR failed to asses the project's consistency with the City Open Space Element including the goals on page 20 of the 1994 edition of the Element. The Open Space Element has goals and policies which this project must be consistent with if it is to be approved. These goals and policies address creeks,wetlands, and grasslands, as well as other habitats. The EIR fhiled to address these policies of the Open Space Element, and is thus inadequate as a public informational CEQA document. Inconsistency with General Plan Policies is grounds for mandatory project denial. (Government Code Section 63300) In closing, we urge you to reject this inadequate EIR because it defers the formulation of mitigation measures,fails to accurately or comprehensively assess the project's consistency with County-and City Policies and Goals, and underestimates impacts to fish below the dam. Thank you for your attention to our comments. Sincerely, 61e4tla Brian Tmutwein Environmental Defense Center Printed or 100%RecycledPopw l -T' AGENDA J' DATE ' ITEM 9 z SIERRA CLUB SANTA LUCIA CHAPTER P.O. Box 15755 • San Luis Obispo,California 93406 Phone: (805) 544-1777 • Fax: (805) 544-1871 http://www.sierraclub.org/chapters/santalucia [rACAO L O CDD DIR O FIN DIR 13 FIRE CHIEF City of San Luis Obispo EY ❑ PW DIR 990 Palm Street ORIG ❑ POLICE CHF EAM [3TIL DIR DIR San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 ZTc3PERS DIR Re: Final Environmental Impact Report For the Proposed Salinas Reservoir Expansion Project Dear City Council Members: The Santa Lucia Chapter of the Sierra Club opposes certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report(FEIR)for the proposed Salinas Reservoir Expansion Project. We have reviewed the report and still find it lacking in a number of key areas. We cannot support the finding that this is the only feasible alternative at this time and that it is therefore the environmentally superior approach. We have serious reservations concerning the adequacy of the assessment of project impacts and the effectiveness of the proposed mitigation measures, particularly with regard to botanical,wildlife and recreational resources. The FEIR more accurately reflects the number of trees that will be lost than earlier drafts and notes that 73 acres of pine-oak woodland containing 469 gray pines and 2470 oak trees, including 1639 coast live oaks, 633 blue oaks, and 198 valley oaks, will be lost. The report also notes that the majority of these trees are in good health. This is a loss of oak woodland of staggering proportions —much larger than the recent losses of oaks for vineyard production which have raised such a public outcry in counties throughout.the state, including our own. Oak woodlands are a resource which are in serious decline throughout the state and for which there is increasing concern. Destruction on this scale could only be justified by an equally compelling gain, which we find lacking in this project, combined with extensive mitigation. The finding that the impact of this loss is merely"Significant to Insignificant" is preposterous. The notion that the woodland can be replaced in 10 to 15 years has no basis in fact. Oaks are known for their slow growth habits and some seedlings may take 8-10 years just to become fully established and may only grow to be a few feet tall in that time. It can take decades before flower formation and acorn production occur. The replacement woodland is obviously of little value to the many species of wildlife (i.e. birds, mammals, reptiles, amphibians, insects)which depend upon it for food and shelter until it matures. Since there is nowhere for them to go in the interim, many of the smaller animals will die and even the larger species will have to weather the stress of competition for new territory. One way to lessen this impact would be to begin developing alternative habitat well before expansion of the reservoir. Not only is this measure not considered, but the proposed mitigation sites are not even secure! The recommended approach"relies primarily on restoring and/or enhancing native habitats on private lands with willing landowners in the vicinity of the lake". If the City cannot find any "willing landowners", we are supposed to be appeased with as yet completely unspecified alternative mitigation options. This is not acceptable. RECEIVED JUN 0 2 1998 SLO CITY CLERK ...To explore, enjoy, and protect the nation's scenic resources... Our concerns regarding the loss of 51 acres of wetland and riparian woodland are similar to those noted above. Here again,the impacts are seriously understated in our view. The FEIR deems the loss to be"Significant" initially and"Insignificant" after 5 to 10 years when the mitigation results in "103 acres of self-sustaining, functional riparian woodland". If it were so easy to recreate wetlands and riparian habitat,their destruction wouldn't be the source of such heated controversy throughout the nation and the globe. Need we remind you that California has lost 95%of its wetlands? These are not places to be casually destroyed under the assumption you can just pick them up and move them to someplace you'd rather see them. It is well known that the dense network of trees and other plants provide essential shade and protective cover for a wide variety of animals, both large and small. This is well documented in Figure 6-1 (Location of Sensitive Wildlife Species) in Appendix I of the FEIR. Almost all of the sensitive wildlife sightings, including Golden Eagles, Yellow Warblers, Willow Flycatchers, Western Pond Turtles, Cooper's Hawks, and many others, are concentrated upstream from the dam along the riparian corridor. It has also been demonstrated that the abundance of songbirds is positively correlated with the width of the riparian corridor. The riparian zone behind the reservoir is rare in that there are stretches where it is almost a half mile across. It harbors some of the most magnificent stands of red willows—some over 50 feet tall—in the entire state. Some songbird species, such as the Willow Flycatcher, are dependent upon mature riparian woodland for their survival. It is highly presumptuous to assume that these species will not be irreparably harmed by destruction of their current habitat, and extremely irresponsible to rely on development of new habitat on unsecured private lands. The upper drainage behind the dam also provides critical habitat for another species which, although far from threatened, is nonetheless of concern to all of us. The area behind Santa Margarita dam is heavily used for active recreation, such as hiking, cycling and horseback riding by county residents. It is also enjoyed for quieter pursuits such as picnicking, bird watching, photography, and simply relaxing. It is a place that one can go to find the solace of open spaces , whether it be to escape from the stultifying summer heat by the cool banks of the river, or to dodge acorns hurtling through crisp autumn.air, or.to.gaze upon the silhouette of a majestic oak against the gray skies of winter, or to bask in the sunshine amidst the luxuriant, splendor of a carpet of spring wildflowers. Virtually the entire trail, which is currently used for such activities, will be submerged under water if this proposal goes through. And yet the FOR does not even mention the loss of this trail as a recreational impact or propose any form of mitigation! This is a gross oversight in our opinion. In view of the failure to address the issues cited above, the Sierra Club urges you to reject this proposal. We feel that the need for supplemental water supplies to support approved General Plan growth requirements can better be met through increased conservation measures and less destructive water projects with more benefits to be gained. Sincerely ,ter Holly Sletteland Conservation Chair, Santa Lucia Chapter Sierra Club � r _ WARRE\a.SMSHEI�ffRGI ISHEIMER, SCHIEBELHUT&BAGC- ,- STREET ADDRESS ROBERTK.SSMEBFLHUT - A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION K.ROBIN BAGGER' 1010 PEACH STREET MARTIN 1.TANGEMAN ATTORNEYS AT LAW FACSDAILE THOMAS M.DUGGAN POST OFFICE BOX 31 MARTIN P.MORDSKI 805-541-2802 DAVID a 1111MKE SAN LUIS OBISPO,CALIFORNIA 93406-0031 STEVEN I.ADAMSKI A.SUZANNEGREEN FRYER 1,710 UNCIL ❑ CAD DIR sos-sal-2eao a.SVGANNEFRYERTHOMAS 1.MADDEN m O FIN DIR CLIENT: 0293001 SUSAN S.WING CAO ❑ FIRE CHIEF MICHELLE A.ROSSETTI �T i ORNEY ❑ PW DIR STEVEN ht CHANLEY /1 e. ewuAI.HUTKIN 0 CLERKIORIG ❑ POLICE CHF MEETING AGENDA RYAN S ONMLSS ❑,MGMJ TEAM ❑,REC DIR une 1, 1998 DAA ro;2- j8 ITEM #. LuroAsosmissnnrH fef� IfUTIL DIR ❑ PERS DIR RECEIVED Mr. Glen Matteson HAND-DELIVERED Associate Planner JUN O 1 1998 Community Development Department CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO City of San Luis Obispo COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, California 93401 Re: Comments to the Proposed Final EIR for the Proposed Salinas Reservoir Expansion Dear Mr. Matteson: This office represents Atascadero Mutual Water Company ("AMWC"). By letter dated July 24, 1997, this office provided the City with AMWC's written comments to the discussion of potential downstream flow reductions in the Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Proposed Salinas Reservoir Expansion Project dated May 1997 ("Revised Draft EIR"). The City released the initial Draft EIR in November 1993. AMWC, through this office, submitted written comments on the initial Draft EIR in a letter dated January 3, 1994. Additional comments were submitted in a letter dated March 11, 1994. AMWC also provided written comments from hydrologists Tim Cleath, Rick Hoffman and Donald Weaver as well as written comments on the Revised Draft EIR from Mr. Cleath. These written comments are reproduced in Appendix J (Comment Item ID Nos. 22A-22I)to the May 1998 proposed Final EIR. AMWC has also provided oral commentary on both the Draft EIR and Revised Draft EIR, as noted in the proposed Final EIR. The purpose of this letter is to provide additional comments prompted by the proposed Final EIR and to object to certification of the proposed Final EIR in its current form. AMWC reaffirms and incorporates herein the comments contained in these exhibits. Nothing contained in this letter is or should be interpreted as a waiver by AMWC of any of the contentions set forth in its prior written or oral comments. Further,AMWC reserves the right to supplement, withdraw or limit any of the comments set forth in this letter. As with the Revised Draft EIR, the discussion contained in the proposed Final EIR of potential downstream flow reductions relating to the proposed project is seriously deficient. Among other deficiencies,the proposed Final EIR fails to: (1)accurately and fairly define the subject Project and its purpose; (2) adequately and objectively discuss reasonable Project alternatives; (3) adequately and objectively identify and analyze potential downstream impacts; (4) adequately and objectively identify and discuss possible mitigation measures. Mr. Glen Matteson June 1, 1998 Page 2 As with the prior draft EIRs, it appears that the analysis of the alternatives, impacts and mitigation measures contained in the proposed Final EIR was intentionally slanted to provide the desired result, e.g., no feasible alternative, no significant impacts and no feasible mitigation measures. As such,information and analysis critical to understanding the full impact of this project is not included in the proposed Final EIR. The City has repeatedly stated its desire to work with North County residents to address their concerns and to develop water resources cooperatively. Certification of the proposed Final EIR in its current form would directly contradict this stated desire. a. Inadequate Project Description. As with the Revised Draft EIR,the project description contained in the proposed Final EIR is inadequate. The proposed project is described as meeting three objectives: (1) reduction of the City's projected water supply deficit by approximately 1650 acre feet per year; (2) increasing the total storage capacity of the Salinas Reservoir and (3) allowing the City to "enjoy" the benefits of its Water Rights Permit. As with the project descriptions contained in the prior drafts, this description is inadequate because the only proper description of the project is the securing of additional water to meet the City's projected needs over time. However, by narrowly (and incorrectly)defining the purpose of the project as immediately providing the City with 1650 AFY (and no less) from only one source (the Salinas Reservoir Expansion), the City avoids the responsibility of fully and fairly identifying and analyzing alternative sources of water. As noted in AMWC's comments to the Revised Draft EIR, how the project and its purpose are defined is even more critical because of the City's recent downward revision of its projected water needs. At the time of the initial Draft EIR, the City projected it needed an additional 6265 AFY by the year 2015. Since then,the City has concluded that it needs only 3861 AFY more by the year 2022. Despite this substantial reduction in anticipated future need,both the Revised Draft EIR and the proposed Final EIR define as infeasible any project that--by itself or with others--fails to provide immediately at least an additional 1650 AFY. However,the substantial reduction in projected need makes it highly likely that some combination of sources other than the dam expansion (or with a modified expansion) could be readily utilized to satisfy the City's needs fully. Selection of a source or set of sources other than the described project would obviously have dramatically different environmental impacts. It is quite likely that the City could develop a set of sources at less expense and with far fewer detrimental impacts. However, because the proposed Final EIR incorrectly defines the project,no adequate information or analysis is provided with which the City and the public can rely on to make a proper decision. Mr. Glen Matteson June 1, 1998 Page 3 AMWC requests that the proposed Final EIR be rejected for failing to adequately describe the subject project. b. Failure to Adequately Consider Alternatives. The earlier draft EIRs, as noted in our comments, failed to adequately address feasible alternatives to the Project. The same type of error exists in the proposed Final EIR. Many alternative sources for water are identified in the proposed Final EIR including: (1) State Water; (2) only partially raising the spillway; (3) the Nacimiento Water Supply Project; (4) seawater desalination; (5) Whale Rock transfers; (6) cloud seeding; (7) groundwater wells; (8) the City's Water Reuse Project and(9) mandatory water conservation. The proposed Final EIR deems each of these potential water sources infeasible,withdrawn from consideration or otherwise.not"CEQA- complaint alternatives." However, these conclusions are reached by applying faulty and inherently inconsistent criteria. A proper analysis focused on the City's legitimate short and long term needs for water would establish that there are several reasonable alternatives available to the City that are preferable to proceeding presently with the full expansion of the Salinas Reservoir. In particular, there are several reasonable alternatives that would meet the City's immediate need for water pending final resolution of the ongoing Nacimiento Water Project analysis. The proposed Final EIR concedes that the Nacimiento Water Project could provide all of the City's need for an additional 3861 AFY by the year 2022. However, the proposed Final EIR concludes that the Nacimiento Water Project is not a feasible alternative at this time because,among other things,the Nacimiento Project Final EIR is not expected until April 1999. No consideration is given in the proposed Final EIR to postpone consideration of the Salinas Dam Expansion until the review of the Nacimiento Water Project is completed. No explanation is given for this omission. Further,there is no indication that delaying this project or certification of the EIR until April 1999 will have any detrimental impact on the City. Plainly, it must be assumed that review of the Nacimiento will or should be completed long before the City's need for an additional 1650 AFY occurs. The failure to discuss postponement of the project can only be based on an assumption that some additional amount of water is needed by the City now. However, assuming that some additional water is needed now, there is no explanation why this need must be met first by a full expansion of the Salinas Dam rather than one or more of the other sources reasonably available to the City. By assuming the Salinas Dam must be fully expanded now and, assuming that the project must yield 1650 AFY a year now,the proposed Final EIR can deem as infeasible or not"CEQA- Mr. Glen Matteson June 1, 1998 Page 4 complaint alternatives" sources such as State Water, groundwater and the City's Water Reuse Project. Also dismissed for the same reasons is the possibility of only partially raising the spillway. AMWC requests that the proposed Final EIR be revised to consider the timing of these various sources to best meet the needs of the City and allow for full analysis of all reasonably probable alternatives, while at the same time minimizing the impacts on the environment and on those who currently rely on the Salinas River for their primary source of water. As to specific alternatives,the proposed Final EIR removes from any consideration the State Water Project. State Water is removed despite the fact that, as indicated in the proposed Final EIR, approximately 773 AFY may be available immediately from the allotment committed to Oceano and Pismo Beach. AMWC also understands that additional State Water may be available from the County.The proposed Final EIR also assumes in a conclusory fashion that no additional State Water could be provided because the Coastal Branch pipeline"has been constructed and its capacity fully committed." No consideration, for example,is given to whether the City could contract to use the Coastal Branch pipeline during "off-peak" periods to increase the overall amount of State Water available. No consideration is given to seeking State Water on a temporary basis from Oceano, Nipomo or another community. Failure to even consider this substantial source of water calls into question virtually all other conclusions contained in the proposed Final EIR. For example, raising the spillway height by only 9-10 feet is rejected because it would only provide 750 AFY water and would not meet the"project's goals of increasing the City's water supply by 1650.AFY." However, assuming that 773 AFY or more of State Water is available,these projects combined could provide 1523 AFY or more,leaving the City with only an additional 137 AFY to make up, if necessary, through other sources. In light of this minimal project shortfall,consideration should be given to whether it could be met by cloud seeding, conservation, groundwater, water reuse or other alternatives. AMWC requests that the proposed Final EIR be revised to adequately, completely and accurately discuss the feasible alternatives to the Salinas Dam Expansion and discuss the timing for developing the various sources of water available to the City. c. Failure to identify and discuss reasonable mitigation measures. For purposes of CEQA,the proposed project is defined as the expansion of the Salinas Dam. The purpose of the expansion is to increase the City's supply of water. As AMWC has repeatedly argued, it is not proper under CEQA to narrowly define the project as the expansion of the dam and acquisition of 1650 AFY and then reject out-of-hand any mitigation that might limit the City's ability to fully reach this goal every year. Mr. Glen Matteson June 1, 1998 Page 5 In our prior correspondence, we noted how both draft EIRs concluded that "downstream flow-related effects are not considered to be feasibly mitigable since releasing more water downstream would not allow the project's goals to be met." This reasoning,which rejected out-of- hand anything less than full build out and operation in accordance with the project definition, falls far short of the analysis required by CEQA. Moreover, it assumes, without analysis, that any conceivable mitigating measure would: (1)require a release of water and(2)would prevent the City from obtaining an additional 1650 AFY every year. The response to this comment admits that requiring any additional releases would not allow the project's goal to be met. However, it argues that no consideration or identification of mitigating measures be made because all downstream effects of the project are deemed insignificant. As set forth in our prior correspondence and in the following section,the proposed Final EIR fails to adequately identify and analyze the downstream impacts. The proposed Final EIR does not establish that downstream impacts are insignificant. As such,AMWC requests that the proposed Final EIR be rejected until it fully analyzes and discusses all potential mitigation measures. Possible mitigation measures include: (a) allowance of periodic"flood stage" runoff cycles; (b) controlled releases timed to offset adverse impacts; (c) construction of an emergency flow water pipeline; (d) storage of only a portion of the maximum stream flows in any one year; (e) conjunctive use of the dam and the Nacimiento Project waters; (f) conjunctive use of dam and other sources (including those identified herein); and (g) strengthening the enforcement mechanism contained in the Live Stream Agreement. d. Failure to Adequately Identify and Assess Downstream Impacts. 1. Downstream Flows. The proposed Final EIR attempts to set forth the impact of the project on downstream flows. The proposed Final EIR repeats several of the errors contained in the Revised Draft EIR. These errors include but are not limited to the following: a) 10,000 AFY Assumption. The proposed Final EIR uses a"worst case" yield value of 10,000 AFY for both its existing and raised dam scenarios. The reservoir's current safe annual yield is estimated at 4,800 acre-feet. The spreadsheet calculations relied on by the City assume it would knowingly overdraft the reservoir atarg_eater rate under existing conditions than under the raised dam conditions. This effectively changes the operational management of the dam between the two scenarios. b) Methodology Used to Calculate Flow. In his comments to the Revised Draft EIR, Mr. Cleath concluded that the estimates resulting from the Morro Group's analysis are questionable. He believes more accurate estimates of flow can be made by relying on Mr. Glen Matteson June 1, 1998 Page 6 information not available or not used by the Morro Group, including reservoir inflow data and gauged records for Santa Margarita Creek, Trout Creek and Yerba Buena Creek. AMWC continues to believe that use of this information would result in a more accurate estimate of flow. The response to this comment provides no meaningful or substantive reason why this data is not considered. c) Methodology Used to Calculate Decrease in Flow. The spreadsheet contained in the Revised Draft EIR concluded that the proposed project would result in an average decrease in downstream flow ("Average Project Impact") at the base of the dam of 6.45%, 3.52% at Atascadero and 1.24%at Paso Robles. For any one year,the Project Impact(%)was calculated by dividing the Project Impact(AF)by the Historic Flow Below Dam (AF). However, to obtain these Average Project Impacts,the Revised Draft EIR averages the column of annual impacts rather than divide the Average Project Impact (AF)by the Average Historic Flow Below Dam (AF). Using a consistent methodology would result in average decrease in downstream flow of 11.2% at the base of the dam, 6.6%at Atascadero and 2.6% at Paso Robles. Contrary to the response to this comment, a doubling of the anticipated downstream flow reduction is and should be significant to this analysis. d) Cam-over Impact. As with well levels, discussed infra,the Revised Draft EIR made no effort to analyze whether a reduced flow in one year will have a"carry-over" effect in any of the following years. . . The responses to this comment state that the Revised Draft EIR impliedly considered this issue by considering the size of the subbasin and the rapidity of recharge. Based on this rapid recharge,one could assume, the comment argues,that carry-over impacts are minimal. However, this assumes a constant series of fairly wet years. History is to the contrary. For example, this assumption does not address what might happen if a moderately wet year is followed by a series of dry years. AMWC believes this scenario is supported by the historical record reviewed by the City in preparing the proposed Final EIR. e) Margin of Error. The Revised Draft EIR failed to state whether any of the calculations relating to flow are subject to a meaningful margin of error. The comment assumes that the calculations are subject to such error but states there is no way to quantify them. No evidence is submitted that any effort was made to establish such margins. Moreover, AMWC argues that in the absence of an ascertainable margin of error, the proposed Final EIR fails to reasonably show that there will be no significant downstream impacts. Mr. Glen Matteson June 1, 1998 Page 7 e. Impact on Well Levels. AMWC raised several objections to the manner in which the Revised Draft EIR attempted to ascertain the impact of the Project on well levels below the dam. The proposed Final EIR contains additional data relating to impacts. However,it suffers from the same fundamental flaws and errors. One of the primary issues raised by AMWC's past comments was failure of the Revised Draft EIR to consider anything other than purported annual averages. Timing of water flows as well as demand and supply patterns are critical to AMWC. Of particular importance to AMWC is monthly and seasonal variations in well levels. Annual averages do not address these issues. At best, annual averages are meaningless. At worst, they can effectively mask a serious monthly or seasonal impact several times the"annual average." An additional loss of a foot a month for twelve months may create an"annual average" of less than six feet. However, a loss of eight feet.a month for four months in early fall will result in cumulative monthly losses,respectively of eight, sixteen, twenty-four and thirty-two feet, but only an annual average loss of approximately six feet. Both cases would create concern. The latter, however, would plainly make a well either inoperable or much more expensive to operate during critical months. The response to these comments states that"worst case" monthly values for each.year are now included in the proposed Final EIR. However, as Exhibit K states, "[d]ue to limitations in the data, specifically limitations in the streamflow data, extending the analysis to look at monthly changes is not possible." Instead, some attempt was made to take the same annual data and show estimated average, minimum and maximum yearly impacts. AMWC continues to question the methodology used to arrive at these figures. As to this point, however, the methodology fails to come to grips with the concern that any annual average impact will mask the monthly or seasonal impact of the project. Similarly,as with streamflows,the proposed Final EIR fails to address the carry-over impacts of proposed expansion on water levels. Still unanswered is how long an adverse impact in one year will carry over into future months, seasons or years. Among other things, this is critical to defining what would be a likely "worst case" scenario. The proposed Final EIR assumes the worst case would be a wet year(such as 1993), following many years of drought. However, if one assumes some carry-over impact,it would appear that the maximum impact on downstream users would more likely be a relatively high flow year(such as 1993)between several low flow years. This scenario is supported by the historical record. In such a scenario, downstream users may not be able to take advantage in subsequent low flow years of the carryover of a high flow year like-1993. There was no meaningful response to this comment. AMWC also noted that in its prior comments that no effort was made to correlate the estimated drop in well levels to actual production by AMWC. No effort was made to calculate Mr. Glen Matteson June 1, 1998 Page 8 impact on production,time of production or cost of production. For example, no consideration was given to the fact that several of AMWC's shallow wells have only 5 to 6 feet of perforated production,and that they are the first to be turned off when water levels are low, forcing AMWC to rely on deeper, more expensive wells,if available. These errors were not corrected in the proposed Final EIR. An attempt was made in the proposed Final EIR to ascertain at what level production was hindered. However, the methodology used was inappropriate and insufficient data was reviewed. As to the AMWC's shallow wells,little or no effort was used to determine how reductions in well levels affect production other than to assign an arbitrary depth of fifty feet to three wells as the depth at which"production is restricted." AMWC has substantial data showing the tinning, amount and cost of its production from these wells. This and similar information was made available to the City. It apparently was not considered in any meaningful way by the City. Again, the decision-maker is left without critical information concerning the real world impact of the Project on AMWC and.others. As with the streamflow estimates, no effort is made to determine a meaningful margin of error for any of the well level calculations contained in the proposed Final EIR. In summary,the proposed Final EIR fails to adequately analyze the significant downstream impacts on the wells, water production and water rights of downstream users such as AMWC. Accordingly, AMWC requests that the proposed Final EIR not be certified. f. Water Rights. AMWC is compelled to once again stress that the City throughout this entire process has failed to accurately,completely and impartially discuss the water rights held by downstream water users. There continues to be no meaningful discussion of riparian rights held by actual and potential downstream water users, including AMWC. There is no meaningful recognition given to the fact that whatever water rights the City may hold are inferior to earlier pre-1914 and appropriative rights, riparian rights and overlying rights. AMWC remains willing to work with the City and its consultants to provide a full analysis of the project's potential impacts,alternatives and mitigation measures. These issues must be fully considered to ensure that the City makes an informed decision and that the public is aware of the facts and analysis upon which they base any decision. As presently drafted,the proposed Final EIR Mr. Glen Matteson June 1, 1998 Page 9 does not provide the City with accurate, objective information. AMWC requests that the City's consultants revise the proposed Final EIR to address the concerns set forth in this letter. Sincerely yours, SINSHEIMER, SCHI B LHUT& BAGGETT STEVEN J. AD KI SJA:jIm - GIGM4ERAL\LTRW M W CQ 6MATMS.601 cc: Ken Weathers,Atascadero Mutual Water Company _ETING AGENDA DATE. 12ly? ITEM # San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce 1039 Chorro Street • San Luis Obispo, California 93401-3278 (805) 781-2777 • FAX (805) 543-1255 e-mail: slochamber@slochamber.org June 1, 1998 David E. Garth, President/CEO Mayor Allen Settle City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street F;AC ❑CDD DIR San Luis Obispo,CA 93401 ❑FIN DIII ❑FIRE CHIEF Re: COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM#5,JUNE 2,1998 RNEY El PW DIR O POLIICE CHFSALINAS RESERVOIR EXPANSION PROJECTOAF EC DIR E7 TIL DIR D PM DIR Dear Mayor Settle: In 1989, the San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce Board agreed that the single most important issue facing local businesses was that of water. Today, the Chamber still believes that securing an adequate supply of water is one of the most important challenges faced by Council. The future of San Luis Obispo's water supply has remained uncertain until now. In its 1995 White Paper entitled "Water:Ensuring the Future", the Chamber's Water Task Force identified and analyzed potential long-term water supply sources for our area. Last year, Council took a momentous step forward in ensuring the City's future water supply by beginning work on a water reuse project. Unfortunately, the water reuse project alone will not meet our City's water needs. As the years have gone by,it looks more and more likely that the Salinas Reservoir Expansion Project will be our primary source for additional water supplies. Other options which at one time seemed viable, are becoming less so. We urge you move ahead with the Salinas Reservoir Expansion Project and make our community's future more certain. Sincerel , 4� Anita Robinson RECEIVED TEN YEARS Chairman of the Board Ir 1`1 A 11997 ACCREDITED SLO CITY COUNCIL CHAMBER OF RCL AC..... Dennis E. Johansen 805-543-0984 06/02/1998 03 : 41 : 14 PM e- Z '-STING AGENDA Lo,;TE o-98 ITEM 0 June 2, 1998 FE3, IL ❑ CDD DIR ❑ FIN DIR To: Honorable Mayor Allen Settle ❑ FIRE CHIEF Members of the City Council NEY ❑ PW DIR City of San Luis Obispo /ORIG ❑ POLICE CHF EAM REC DIR �UTIL DIR Re: Santa Margarita Lake Nater Supply Plans N ❑ PERS DIR From: Dennis Johansen RECEIVJUN 0 2Dear Honorable Mayor and Council Members SLG CiY Since I find it difficult to drag myself away from the television this evening, I hope that the following remarks will be of assistance as you deal with the difficult decision concerning Santa Margarita Lake Water. Although I live"over the hill"I and follow local politics closely, it appears that there are no logical reasons based in fact that can be brought forth by North County officials or citizens which would affect your decision to improve the holding capacity of the Salinas reservoir. I am aware that"water rights" is possibly the most divisive and controversial subject throughout the nearly 200 year history of California. As such, regardless of your decision tonight,the Council will be in a loose-loose public relations situation.....when all is said and done, someone is going to hate you. While I feel that the current Council is probably the most responsive to public sentiment and input of any Council that I have watched for nearly three decades,the decision you will make tonight, after you boil off the emotional arguments,will be straight forward for the following reasons: 1. If I read my history correctly,the City of San Luis Obispo has legally vested rights to all the water contained in the Salinas reservoir. No State, Federal law, or jurisdiction that I am aware of overrides the City's will in increasing the holding capacity of the reservoir. 2. The"live stream concept"-.will remain intact,protecting the ground water supply for those communities in the north county that still wish to overdraft their reserves and ignore all reasonable efforts to promote conservation. . The Salinas reservoir Project will be less vVensive and much more timely than pursuing the city's allotment to Naciemento water. I would suggest using Naciemento water as a bargaining chip with North County, by releasing all claims the City has to that supply. 4. It is a verifiable fact that the cost of electricity(used for pumping)has increased in cost each year for the past three decades much faster than the rate of inflation. It is reasonable to assume that the cost trend will remain. As a gravity fed system, water from the Salinas reservoir will save many thousands of dollars in electricity cost over the next half century when compared to Naciemento water. It should also be kept in mind that a potential pipeline project from Naciemento to the City may cross many ecologically sensitive areas. Those areas, along with the still to be discovered seismic zones may increase the final cost of the pipeline by several fold. 5. While all flora and fauna are important, hundreds or thousands of trees can be replanted by the City in cooperation with the Land Conservancy to mitigate the trees that will be lost due to the project. I am certain that many of the trees that now line parts of the shoreline of the costing lake were planted Dennis E. Johansen 805-543-0984 06/02/1998 03 : 41 : 14 PM P. 3 sometime after that project was completed by the Army. They look great now,just like the replanted ones will look after a few decades. The City is hardly eliminating a fraction of the trees removed in the last decade in north county in order to accommodate grape production. This project will enhance the oaks, and probably increase their numbers significantly. 6. As I view the upstream watershed, it appears that the project will actually create a couple thousand acres of seasonal shallow water wetlands that do not now exist. While the wetlands can be expected to dry up during the summer season, the remaining grasslands will provide significant foraging and cover for birds, deer and other animals well into the summer. 7. The only way, in my view, that all the members of the City Council cannot fully support the Salinas Dam Project, is if they wish to use the rejection of the project as part of a hidden agenda to reject any significant growth in the City of San Luis Obispo. Partially due to this"willing growth restraint"by past Councils, we now have problems to deal with such as the airport annexation and the willingness of the County Supervisors to approve and encourage major projects(Alex Madonna's Froom Ranch)abutting the City's boundaries. I have always favored controlled,thoughtful growth within the City and near its boundaries. By rejecting this most reasonable alternative,the Council will unwittingly aid the County Super-visors in their desires to"plan for the City"regardless of our wishes. I am sorry that this communication is so tardy. Thank you for your consideration and hard work. Sincerely yours, Dennis Johansen LtL6R NclL o DIR MEET IN ' AGENDA Uh� Q R ❑FIN DIR A ❑FIRE CHIEF DATE_ IT; `' # J �nd l o NU p fORll3 ❑POLICE CHF MRDIIFI K O6 nr rC. ly t�� Au � 6�� da�c�lp'- rrp Ur i Qei VO rs. n at iG the, 54 11-14s L/ati �,ePanS�oh.. b�ev1� O rn / o b�rc�foXs �/ S?O(<ld hB �' �G 7c£ v� QS PQrGGlKGa�. W�ti� fl�l�� ,tE.L2 %h Qrt-4� 1 40 Y / � ay,, aivgr� o� Io�� Lp"Q•rs 6?L vd�lmr5 '6V GQJCYii��r�`"�OQrI� o� ��a �r►sSslvL o�®e�r/ne..� G;ilaens Gt� dl"l a� i1�: �W� 1 An1 YG /3��1• / �1 (�J/O /SS�Lt�! Y�l�! may tso� L4, ccv�r� 6y � ��s. �. F2 AGM F IV T-,4 n 6 u ZS Nor M.I 716A VpD� No/yl- FR oW.tL¢ f4- toss o o a wo / indJc ��rahs euG., wG cow lGl �( �l Qd- t�(L- ca Glt.!-�:. G.► to« c GSSas" 9��ssfco cn co �+�,Jh ONG4s4� � o ��h We, drG /&7'qw;�i r►o n� 1>Ft�e l�r�oz �o„ 9°!� � 4-A �, j,", �. FAILURE TO QI rUA Y-ECIO ver /iti,j�G,( an L . �o.-a�14 ;Ile r ?� Y 1's � rnf.�y �� f'l a�'d'- �Jo�u`/ I�li� /le,s rt�rGl2e.( �ifYf ✓ r ��- `. .�--� � �- •�L 41Y4 This )s no� *fA eXcrge-- .� Gy ✓` rycs vY S¢t�`jGo,� arc /►i r r..1�1s 440 0 Qni( -/4"4, p<Gs/tF�C4�n .� %Q �y� WCOUNCIL ❑ CDD DIR - CrCAO ❑ FIN DIR e'ACAO ❑ FIRE CHIL, . 3057 S. Hi,,,era St. , #155, ,V,_/A1 iORNEY ❑ PW DIR San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 . E CLERKIORIG ❑ POLICE CHF ❑ 6 G6IT TEAN4 ❑ REC DIR VC,WSMAER&W 2"UTIL DIR 1 4 Ma 98 Er AQ F ❑ PERS DIR y Council Members, City of San Luis Obispo Honorable Council Members: I have thoroughly reviewed the Final Draft EIR for the Proposed Salinas Reservoir Expansion Project, with particular attention to Appendices J & M and K & L. I was a North County (Atascadero) resident for 37 years and have been a resident of the City of San Luis Obispo fo*he past 18 months. I am very disappointed with the conclusions reached and the methods and justification for said conclusions. My overall impression of the Final EIR is that the City of San Luis Obispo is determined to certify the document, driven by time constraints necessary to pursue application for reissue of the City ' s original water permit. The general tenor of Appendices J & M seems to be "the testimony and comments of other water experts and consultants is wrong and our consultants are right" . I find this highly disturbing and self-serving. Purpose The project is defined in two separate ways, which I believe violate CEQA requirements and the City' s own General Plan. 1 . . .securing additional water supplies to help meet the City' s projected water demand deficit" . 2. " providing the City with 1 , 650 AFY of additional water supplies on a safe annual basis" . The EIR uses the second, much more narrowly defined purpose to totally ignore evaluating alternative projects. ---1 3. The City' s General Plan requires that the City obtain additional water from multiple sources. I believe the ,` m ) City' s General Plan requires evaluation of other sources . Cr. C ' Mitigation ' .:..i 1 . . .downstream flow-related effects are not considered to be feasibly mitigable since releasing more- water �`' downstream would not allow the project ' s goals to be met. " r-, This statement is used to justify ignoring downstream flow- related effects entirely. I believe this is also a violation of CEQA requirements. I also believe this statement is used to justify the City' s use of "best case" downstream flow- related figures, ignoring all other figures and analyses submitted. To me, the statement simply says "if the City were to mitigate downstream flow-related effects, it couldn ' t obtain the 1 , 650 AFY of additional water it needs. Therefore, it will ignore such effects. " That is an arrogant approach, to say the least. I have no doubt the Council will certify the Final EIR at its June 2nd meeting. John Moss and Gary Henderson as mush as said so at the May 7th North County Water Resources Forum meeting. Unfortunately, if the Nacimiento Pipeline Project fails to materialize (AB 2439 could kill it) and the City decides to move ahead with the Salinas Reservoir Expansion Project, I foresee years of expensive, project delaying litigation with North County interests which will result in further exacerbation of the City of San Luis Obispo' s water needs. Sincerely, George Highland