HomeMy WebLinkAbout1/15/2019 Item 9, Lopes (Foothill Blvd Civic Defense
January 13, 2019
City Council
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
w9ʹ /ƚǒƩƷ /ğƭĻ /źƷğƷźƚƓƭ ƚƓ tǒĬƌźĭ LƓƦǒƷ Ώ АВЉ CƚƚƷŷźƌƌͳ CźƌĻ bǒƒĬĻƩ
{9ΏЊЊБАΏЋЉЊА
Dear Mayor Harmon and Members of the City Council:
At the Planning Commission hearing on this project, held on July 25, 2018, the Planning Commission did
not attempt to answer any of the concerns raised by the public, including the letter sent by the lawyer
hired by Foothill Blvd Civic Defense, and the Staff interfered constantly with the process.
Beside the 37 letters sent by various residents to the Planning Commission, 26 residents spoke against
790 Foothill at the meeting. Many comments deplored the disappearance of the views of Bishop Peak
while others spoke in great details about the dangers of the intersection, dangers they had personally
experienced. Their arguments were neither acknowledged nor answered. The P.C. basically said: "We
don't like this project, but the Staff tells us that our hands are tied."
Our concern is that staff and city commissions placed too high a bar for responding to public input for
this project. Your Council can and should become familiar with recent court cases which applied
refreshing support for the credence of public testimony. To assist, we are presenting brief summaries of
two California cases which held that significant input has the legal effect of placing an obligation by the
City to determine the validity and scope of concerns. It is incumbent on city staff and decision makers to
respond to testimony concerned with CEQA topics, with studies and documentation for this purpose.
Staff can provide more information about the following cases:
On December 17, 2018, in DĻƚƩŭĻƷƚǞƓ tƩĻƭĻƩǝğƷźƚƓ {ƚĭźĻƷǤ ǝ͵ /ƚǒƓƷǤ ƚŅ 9ƌ 5ƚƩğķƚ, the court held ƌğǤ
ƦǒĬƌźĭ ĭƚƒƒĻƓƷğƩǤ ƚƓ ƓƚƓƷĻĭŷƓźĭğƌ źƭƭǒĻƭ ĭƚƓĭĻƩƓźƓŭ ƷŷĻ ƦƩƚƆĻĭƷγƭ ƭźǩĻ ğƓķ ŭĻƓĻƩğƌ ğƦƦĻğƩğƓĭĻ
ĭƚƓƭƷźƷǒƷĻķ ƭǒĬƭƷğƓƷźğƌ ĻǝźķĻƓĭĻ ƭǒƦƦƚƩƷźƓŭ ğ ŅğźƩ ğƩŭǒƒĻƓƷ ƷŷğƷ ƷŷĻ ƦƩƚƆĻĭƷ ƒğǤ ŷğǝĻ ƭźŭƓźŅźĭğƓƷ
ğĻƭƷŷĻƷźĭ źƒƦğĭƷƭͲ ğƓķ Ʒŷǒƭ ƩĻƨǒźƩĻķ ğƓ 9Lw ķĻƭƦźƷĻ ƷŷĻ ĭƚǒƓƷǤγƭ ŅźƓķźƓŭƭ ƷŷğƷ ƷŷĻ ƦƩƚƆĻĭƷ ĭƚƒƦƌźĻķ ǞźƷŷ
źƷƭ ŷźƭƷƚƩźĭ ķĻƭźŭƓ ŭǒźķĻ͵ They also stated that ƷŷĻ /ƚǒƓƷǤ ƓĻǝĻƩ ƒğķĻ ğƓǤ ĻǣƦƌźĭźƷ ŅźƓķźƓŭƭ ƚŅ ğƓǤ ƉźƓķ źƓ
ƷŷĻ ğķƒźƓźƭƷƩğƷźǝĻ ƩĻĭƚƩķ ƚƓ ƷŷĻ ĭƚƒƒĻƓƷĻƩƭγ ĭƩĻķźĬźƌźƷǤͲ ƚƩ ƩĻŭğƩķźƓŭ ğƓǤ ƌğĭƉ ƚŅ ŅƚǒƓķğƷźƚƓ ŅƚƩ ƷŷĻźƩ
ĭƚƒƒĻƓƷƭ͵
This recalls an earlier case (tƩƚƷĻĭƷ bźƌĻƭ ǝ͵ /źƷǤ ƚŅ CƩĻƒƚƓƷ) focusing on traffic rather than aesthetics.
In this case, again the judge sided with the residents and declared that ƩĻƭźķĻƓƷƭγ ƦĻƩƭƚƓğƌ ƚĬƭĻƩǝğƷźƚƓƭ
ƚŅ ƷƩğŅŅźĭ ĭƚƓķźƷźƚƓƭ ǞŷĻƩĻ ƷŷĻǤ ƌźǝĻ ğƓķ ĭƚƒƒǒƷĻ ƒğǤ ĭƚƓƭƷźƷǒƷĻ ƭǒĬƭƷğƓƷźğƌ ĻǝźķĻƓĭĻ ĻǝĻƓ źŅ ƷŷĻǤ
ĭƚƓƷƩğķźĭƷ ƷŷĻ ĭƚƓĭƌǒƭźƚƓƭ ƚŅ ğ ƦƩƚŅĻƭƭźƚƓğƌ ƭƷǒķǤ͵
Please, do not dismiss the observations of the public without giving them full consideration and
answers. Instead, listen to their concerns when they speak of loss of views and compromised safety due
to the difficult traffic conditions and lack of parking in the vicinity.
1
Sincerely,
James Lopes
Odile Ayral
Appellants
2