HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-21-2014 PH2 Sullivan 2Goodwin, Heather
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Mejia, Anthony -- -
Tuesday, October 21, 2014 4:23 PM kFCElVED
Goodwin, Heather OCT 21 2014
FW: Council Meeting October 21, PH 2, Final Action LUCE
2014- 10 -21,- Comment- of- M,.Sullivan_on- LUCE.doc SL E C11 "Y f"j_FRII,- !
NCIL MEETING: N
>U 1 Z4 I 1 `4
EM NO.: - -- -
Anthony J. Mejia, MMC I City Clerk
99u Palm Street
Sara I uis Obispo, CA 93401
tel j 8055 78 x.7202
From: Mejia, Anthony
Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2014 3:49 PM
To: Goodwin, Heather
Subject: FW: Council Meeting October 21, PH 2, Final Action LUCE
Agenda Correspondence 10/21/14 PH2
Anthony J. Mejia, MMC I City Clerk
,990 Palm Street
Sara Luis Obispo, CA 03401
tel j 8o ,5.781,7 .az
From: Michael Sullivan [mailto:mcsgday @yahoo.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2014 3:26 PM
To: Eugene H. Jud; Ashbaugh, John; Carpenter, Dan; Christianson, Carlyn; Codron, Michael; Dietrick, Christine; Lichtig,
Katie; Marx, Jan; Smith, Kathy; Mejia, Anthony
Cc: Michael Sullivan; Mila Vujovich- LaBarre; Rosemary Wilvert; Ricci, Pam; Santa Lucia Chapter
Subject: Re: Council Meeting October 21, PH 2, Final Action LUCE
21 Oct 2014
Enclosed as an attachment (MS Word 2003) is the document of Michael C. Sullivan, which includes
comments about the concerns expressed in the e- mailed letter (20 Oct 2014) of Eugene Jud, and
additional comments on other matters related to the Land Use and Conservation Element (LUCE) of the
General Plan.
Please make this information available for consideration by City Council for tonight's meeting (21 Oct
2014) concerning the LUCE of the General Plan.
Michael C. Sullivan
1127 Seaward St.
San Luis Obispo, CA 93405
mcsedav(a,,vahoo.com
Tel 805 - 441 -6981
On Tuesday, October 21, 2014 1:51 PM, Michael Sullivan <mcsgday0D-yahoo.com> wrote:
21 Oct 2014
To: City of San Luis Obispo
From: Michael C. Sullivan
RE: Comments of Eugene Jud regarding LUCE - Council hearing of 21 Oct 2014
Attached is a copy of the letter e- mailed from Eugene Jud to City of San Luis Obispo on 20 Oct
2014 with his comments about deficiencies in particular parts of the Land Use and Conservation
Element (LUCE) of the General Plan. I (Michael Sullivan) have additional comments which I shall
forward today (21 Oct 2014). I am presently in Ventura and unfortunately I will not be able to
attend tonight's Council hearing.
Michael C. Sullivan
1127 Seaward Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93405
Tel 805 441 -6981 (cell)
Email: mcsgday(@vahoo.com
On Monday, October 20, 2014 7:04 PM, Eugene H. Jud <eiud(a-),calpoly.edu> wrote:
Dear Mayor and Council members,
In addition to the three attached plans please receive our comments as follows:
1. Re point 1 of Planning Commission
We suggest you should not overrule, as Mr. Bert Forbes wrote in his letter of October 20. I
was a consultant to Zurich International Airport (Switzerland) for 20 years, and I know what
buildings too close to the airport mean: less safety, complaints, less planning flexibility (Plan
1).
2. Re point 2
Re point 2a). Based on the very helpful "Compendium of Changes" we look forward to the
special study for Caltrans along Hwy 101 from and including LOVR and Madonna
Interchanges and wider surrounding area including Prado Road East, as well as Tank Farm and
Buckley Road (Plan 2). We need a multidisciplinary analysis (open space, hydrology, safety
esp. for children etc.),and smart urban building proposal, which may well last some years.
It is beyond our understanding how we can take a "final action" for LUCE (esp. road concept),
when the most important element ( Prado Road /Hwy 101 area) is undefined and highly
questioned by Caltrans and others. This is not easy to comprehend for the average citizen and
may even be illegal. I brought this up earlier in an email to Mayor Marx, but never got an
answer. It is like certifying an EIR before the project is finished: Such actions reduce the
dignity of Government.
Re point 2b). LUCE (especially CE road building) has no "internal consistency" at all with
the Open Space Element, as anybody can see, who can read a map. This part of 2b cannot be
approved on October 21, 2014.
3. Conclusion
In order to have a real circulation element, we must invest more time to work on
- Senate Bill 743 (in effect since January 2014)
- the Long Range Transit Plan, which is needed to plan attractive connections to intense land
uses (bus rapid transit). I seems, that these elementary connections were
not made when the land use plan was discussed, therefore we may produce more an more car
oriented people.
Let us lean back and
finish it right!
We thank all council and commission members as well as staff for their hard work and late night
hours.
Sincerely for SLO 2035/2050:
Eugene Jud, Fellow Institute of Transportation Engineers ITE assisted by
Blayne Morgan, M.S Civil and Environmental Engineering
Eugene Jud, Fellow Institute of Transportation Engineers ITE
Faculty Civil and Environmental Engineering
California Polytechnic State University
San Luis Obispo, CA 93407 -0353
Phone: (805) 756 -1729; E -mail: ejud@calpoly.edu
http: / /ceenve3. calpoly,ed u /jud
Blayne Morgan
(805) 540 -0313; gracewetmore(c_gmail.com
2014- 10- 21_Comment_of M_SuIIivan_on_LUCE
21 Oct 2014
From:
Michael C. Sullivan
1127 Seaward Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93405
Tel. 805- 441 -6981 (cell)
Email: mcsgday @yahoo.com
To:
City of San Luis Obispo
Page 1 of 4
Regarding: Council hearing of 21 Oct. 2014 - Land Use and Conservation Element (LUCE) of General
Plan
Enclosed:
(a) Comments of Michael C. Sullivan on letter of Eugene Jud (email sent by Mr. E. Jud on 20 Oct 2014
to Council and others)
(b) Additional comments of Michael C. Sullivan on LUCE
» » » » » » » » »»
(a) Comments on letter of Eugene Jud (email sent 20 Oct 2014 to
Council and others)
Eugene H. Jud
Council Meeting October 21, PH 2, Final Action LUCE
To
jashbaug @slocity.org dcarpent @slocity.org cchristi @slocity.org mcodron @slocity.org
cdietrick @slocity.org and 4 more...
Oct 20 at 7:04 PM
Dear Mayor and Council members,
In addition to the three attached plans please receive our comments as follows:
1. Re point 1 of Planning Commission
We suggest you should not overrule, as Mr. Bert Forbes wrote in his letter of October 20. I was a
consultant to Zurich International Airport (Switzerland) for 20 years, and I know what buildings too close
to the airport mean: less safety, complaints, less planning flexibility (Plan 1).
COMMENT of Michael C. Sullivan (21 Oct 2014):
The Airport Area specific plan, and the entire General Plan, must reflect the current and projected
air traffic situation at San Luis Obispo airport at present and in the near and intermediate future,
at least. Before proceeding with any LUCE final action, the City must be sure that the most recent
air traffic information is known and is available to the Airport Land Use Commission. In addition
the City must be informed of the projected increases in all types of aircraft traffic including but not
limited to propeller aircraft, jet aircraft, commercial flights, passenger flights, military and
2014- 10- 21_Comment_of M_SuIlivan_on_LUCE Page 2 of 4
governmental flights (police, fire, etc.), helicopters, and drones (private ones, and ones controlled by
governmental agencies).
Some of the concerns which must be addressed include:
- Safety (of aircraft operation, and safety of nearby land uses)
- Noise (impacting nearby residential, school, recreational, and commercial land uses)
- Operational requirements of the airport which may require larger buffers around the airport to
accommodate safety concerns and the needs of larger aircraft in the future.
- Growth - inducing impacts and cumulative impacts and traffic impacts due to growth in air traffic
(must be addressed in EIR)
2. Re point 2
Re point 2a). Based on the very helpful "Compendium of Changes" we look forward to the special study
for Caltrans along Hwy 101 from and including LOVR and Madonna Interchanges and wider surrounding
area including Prado Road East, as well as Tank Farm and Buckley Road (Plan 2). We need a
multidisciplinary analysis (open space, hydrology, safety esp. for children etc.), and smart urban building
proposal, which may well last some years.
It is beyond our understanding how we can take a "final action" for LUCE (esp. road concept), when the
most important element ( Prado Road /Hwy 101 area) is undefined and highly questioned by Caltrans and
others. This is not easy to comprehend for the average citizen and may even be illegal. I brought this up
earlier in an email to Mayor Marx, but never got an answer. It is like certifying an EIR before the project
is finished: Such actions reduce the dignity of Government.
COMMENT of Michael C. Sullivan (21 Oct 2014):
- The final design of Prado Road / US 101 interchange will have a major impact in design of Prado
Road. For example, if Prado Road / US 101 interchange is to be only an overpass and not a full 4-
way, 4 -lane interchange, then it is not logical to designate Prado Road as a major truck route. It
would also not be necessary to build Prado Road to 4 lanes.
- I agree with the comments of Mr. Jud that the City should not yet take final action on the LUCE
when important questions remain to be answered by CalTrans including any special studies or
interchange studies affecting the 101 corridor.
- The earlier planning documents for "Eagle Hardware" (later known as the Home Depot EIR),
circa 2000 or so, noted that especially south of Los Osos Valley Road, traffic impacts would become
significant in the next 10 years and that it would be likely that an additional lane would be needed
in southbound 101 from LOUR to the Pismo Beach northern city boundary. Already, there are
frequent instances when traffic (especially southbound) on 101 south of LOVR is highly congested
and slow- moving, with a greatly reduced Level of Service (LOS). But the City has not followed the
analysis in the Home Depot EIR to rectify this problem with additional lanes in US 101 south of
LOVR. Such an analysis should and must be finished before final approval of the LUCE.
- The City has not given diligent concern to bicyclist safety. For example, at the westbound lane of
the existing LOVR / US 101 interchange, the bicycle lane becomes quite narrow at one point, only
about 20 inches or so. California has recently passed a new law which requires motorists to stay at
least 3 feet away from bicyclists. This could be difficult or impossible to do safely in places like the
existing LOVR interchange, since the driver would need to move more to the left, probably crossing
2014 -10 -21 Comment of M Sullivan on LUCE
Page 3 of 4
the center of the roadway in an unsafe manner, to meet this new 3 -feet distance requirement
between cars and cyclists.
City of SLO has not provided adequate safety to bicyclists because it has usually used class 2 or 3
bikeways rather than class 1. Whenever new roadways are planned, such as Prado Road, the City
should, whenever feasible, provide class 1 bikeways. If this has not yet been considered for Prado
Road, then it should be.
Re point 2b). LUCE (especially CE road building) has no "internal consistency" at all with the Open
Space Element, as anybody can see, who can read a map. This part of 2b cannot be approved on October
2l, 2014.
COMMENT of Michael C. Sullivan (21 Oct 2014):
I agree with the comments of Mr. Jud. The Open Space element had designated the South Hills as
open space use. The current plans for Prado Road are not compatible with the Open Space
element, since the road is planned to pass through sensitive open space area which contains
seasonal streams, archaeological sites, endangered plants, wetlands, hiking trails, and sports fields
(Damon Garcia).
If Prado is not designated as a major truck route, then it is not necessary to run Prado Road
through the Damon Garcia sports field area. Prado Road can have adequate circulation by using
one of the previously studied alternate routes, such as the one which connects Prado Road to Tank
Farm Road via the junction of Tank Farm Road and Santa Fe Road. If a larger two -lane
roundabout is being considered for that junction, it could adequately handle the traffic without the
need for a signal.
3. Conclusion
In order to have a real circulation element, we must invest more time to work on
- Senate Bill 743 (in effect since January 2014)
- the Long Range Transit Plan, which is needed to plan attractive connections to intense land uses (bus
rapid transit). I seems, that these elementary connections were not made when the land use plan was
discussed, therefore we may produce more and more car - oriented people.
Let us lean back and finish it right!
We thank all council and commission members as well as staff for their hard work and late night hours.
Sincerely for SLO 2035/2050:
Eugene Jud, Fellow Institute of Transportation Engineers ITE assisted by
Blayne Morgan, M.S. Civil and Environmental Engineering
Eugene Jud, Fellow Institute of Transportation Engineers ITE
Faculty Civil and Environmental Engineering
2014 -10 -21 Comment of M Sullivan on LUCE
California Polytechnic State University
San Luis Obispo, CA 93407 -0353
Phone: (805) 756 -1729 (805) 756 -1729
E -mail: ejud @calpoly.edu
http://ceenve3.calpoly.edu/jud
Blayne Morgan
(805) 540 -0313 (805) 540 -0313
gracewetmore@gmaiI.com
1 Attachment
CC Oct. 21, 2014 3 pictures
.docx
(b) Additional comments of Michael C. Sullivan on LUCE
Land -use planning in "Dalidio Ranch" area
Page 4 of 4
- "Measure J" was a badly conceived plan approved by a vote of the people of the County of San Luis
Obispo. This set an especially bad precedent because it was an attempt to take away the authority of the
City of San Luis Obispo to adequately plan for a project area which was already essentially surrounded by
City lands. Measure J also was legally deficient because its special language gave the land developer the
freedom to evade the normal County land use policies and the normal environmental review by creating a
new land -use designation unique to itself. In addition, Measure J put the City on the hook for a large
proportion of the infrastructure and road and bridge costs. The city must reject this sort of "cowboy
planning" and retain its own policies for this land.
- Groundwater must have adequate protection of its quantity and its quality. California is now in the
initial stages of devising new state regulations for protection and wise use of ground water. At a
minimum, the City must protect the watershed of Prefumo Creek which drains from Laguna Lake to San
Luis Creek. That watercourse is important in replenishment of the ground water at the Dalidio Ranch
area. Therefore, the City must plan for wider buffers along Prefumo Creek so that the land does not
become a "sea of asphalt "( parking areas in the proposed commercial areas) that divert water to storm
drains before the water can replenish the local ground water. The large parking areas also release
significant volumes of contaminants into the surrounding low areas, for example, liquids that leak from
vehicles including oil, brake fluid, transmission fluid, windshield wiper fluid, etc. Since part of the
Dalidio area is now designated for continued agricultural use, the importance of the local ground water in
the Dalidio area is higher than ever. The LUCE must address this issue more adequately.
Need for a policy statement in LUCE to support future SOAR initiative or council- enacted
law
- I live part of the year in Ventura. Ventura County has had a good experience with a voter
initiative called Save Open Space and Agricultural Resources (SOAR), and next year the
Ventura County SOAR initiatives must be renewed by another vote of the people. The Ventura
SOAR experience has been successful and our agricultural lands have not been paved over as in
Orange County and elsewhere. The City of SLO should include in the LUCE a policy statement
in support of either a county -wide SOAR initiative, or at minimum a SOAR type of initiative for
the City of SLO.
- END-