HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/12/2004, AGENDA REVISED
council agenda
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
CITY HALL, 990 PALM STREET
Tuesday, October 12, 2004
Action Update
7:00 P.M. SPECIAL MEETING Council Chamber
990 Palm Street
Present: Council Members John Ewan, Christine Mulholland,
Allen K. Settle, Vice Mayor Ken Schwartz,
Mayor Dave Romero
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING
1. ADOPTION OF THE MARGARITA AREA SPECIFIC_ PLAN AND FINAL
PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT,AND RELATED GENERAL
PLAN.AND ZONING CHANGES. (CONTINUED FROM SEPTEMBER 28, 2004)
(MANDEVILLEIDRAZE—4 HOURS)
RECOMMENDATION: 1) Review information regarding Santa Fe Road right-of-way
and the remaining chapters of the Margarita Area Specific Plan (MASP), and receive
added public testimony as appropriate. 2) Consider options for reservation of additional
Santa.Fe Road right-of-way to allow for possible roadway width expansion at some time
in the future, after initial construction. 3) Provide any final amendments to the MASP
and Final Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR). 4) As recommended by the
Planning Commission, adopt the resolution and introduce the ordinance certifying the
EIR, approving the Margarita Area Specific Plan, approving changes to the Land Use
Element map to reflect the specific plan, and approving changes to the official City
Zoning map to reflect the uses approved in the specific plan.
ACTION: Recommendations 1)—3) were approved, with the majority of the
Council supporting Option 4a for the design of Santa Fe Road and directing staff
to pursue an agreement with property owners for the acquisition of right-of-way
for Prado Road. 4) Resolution No. 9615 (2004 Series) adopted, amending page 2.
Section 1, item 5, to reflect that there are three (instead of two) unavoidable
impacts, the third one having to do with growth inducement. Ordinance No. 1463
(2004 Series) introduced, with the incorporation of language that will provide, to
the maximum extent feasible, for the privacy and view to the South Hills of
existing residential uses adjacent to the planning area (4:1, Mulholland opposed).
A. ADJOURN.
REVISED
_A
council agenda
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
CITY HALL, 9 .90 PALM STREET
Tuesday, October 12, 2004
Action Update
7:00 P.M. SPECIAL MEETING Council Chamber
990 Palm Street
Present: Council Members John Ewan, Christine Mulholland,
Allen K. Settle, Vice Mayor Ken Schwartz,
Mayor Dave Romero
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING
1. ADOPTION OF THE MARGARITA AREA SPECIFIC PLAN.AND FINAL
PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, AND RELATED.GENERAL
PLAN AND ZONING CHANGES. (COAMNUED FROM SEPTEMBER 28, 2004)
(MANDEVILLE/DRAZE—4 HOURS)
RECOMMENDATION: 1) Review information regarding Santa Fe Road right-of-way
and the remaining chapters of the Margarita Area Specific Plan (MASP), and receive
added public testimony as appropriate. 2) Consider options for reservation of additional
Santa Fe Road right-of-way to allow for possible roadway width expansion at some time
in the future, after initial construction. 3) Provide any final amendments to the MASP
and Final Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR). 4) As recommended by the
Planning Commission, adopt the resolution and introduce the ordinance certifying the
EIR, approving the Margarita Area Specific Plan, approving changes to the Land Use
Element map to reflect the specific plan, and approving changes to the official City
Zoning map to reflect the uses approved in the specific plan.
ACTION: Recommendations 1) —3) were approved, with the majority of the
Council supporting Option 4a for the design of Santa Fe Road and directing staff
to pursue an agreement with property owners for-the acquisition of right-of-way
for Prado Road. 4) Resolution No. 9615 (2004 Series) adopted, amending page 2,
Section 1, item 5, to reflect that there are three (instead of two) unavoidable
impacts, the third one having to do with growth inducement. Ordinance No. 1463
(2004 Series) introduced, with the Incorporation of language that will provide, to
the maximum extent feasible, for the privacy and view to the South Hills of
existing residential uses adjacent to the planning area (4:1, Mulholland opposed).
A. ADJOURN.
iliaPage 1 of 1
SLO Citycouncil - MASP vote 10/12/04
From: "Elizabeth Kyle Righetti" <ekrig@fix.net>
To: <slocitymundl@slocity.org>
Date: 10/14/2004 3:26 PM
Subject: MASP vote 10/12/04
A big thank you for your consideration of the Chumash Village Mobile Home
Park residents' concerns of the MASP development over our eastern fence.
Special appreciation is owed to both Christine Mulholland and Allen Settle
who researched and understood our need for one story single family low
density adjacency neighbors and the maintenance of our privacy and view. We
will continue to ask that our needs be met and may again ask your help in
our quest as we approach the Architectural Review Board. Thank you all again
for your courtesies.
Elizabeth Kyle Righetti- (805) 543-6036
P. 0. Box 13922
San Luis Obispo, CA 93406
file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\slouser\Local%20Settings\Temp\GW}00001.HTM 10/15/2004
440
CHUMASH VILLAGE
HAS 237 MOBILE HOMES
SENIOR CITIZENS IO
MANY OF THESE UNITS
HAVE MORE THAN ONE RESIDENT
SURVEYED 61 RESIDENTS
59 - OR 97% OF RESIDENTS SURVEYED PEOPLE SIGNED THIS
PETITION
2 - OR 3% OF RESIDENTS SURVEYED - PEOPLE REFUSED TO
SIGN
(ONE STATED WE DIDN'T NEED A STOP LIGHT-HE WORKS LATE
AT NIGHT)
(THE OTHER FELT THAT PEOPLE ARE OBLIGATED TO SIGN
PETITIONS)
i
PETITION FOR TRAFFIC SIGNAL TO BE INSTALLED AT 3057 SOUTH HIGUERA STREET
The undersigned residents, owners and/or tenants, hereby request consideration by the Planning Commission
and City Council for the installation of a traffic signal at 3057 South Higuera Street, San Luis Obispo,to insure
the safety of residents due to the required residential additions to the area and the added traffic build-up.
Print Name Signature Space Number
1 -Jea�1'r+
2 _ �e111 �P n ,'Ay<, /
Q l
3 k /e�M- I'���r�Z�lMr44c2A"'?4+✓ ���
4 A&Ir w C Q S 6 1J ,r# 16
7 S
5 W ell&It C aOCDNES .oc.
6 L. dA / �y S .Ile� R7_!
7 LQ G,aI�j1:;t
8 70q
9
ZA
*xa,4Pf_-
12 L-Lp
13 ! l 3
14yi Vr t w t�R'Y s�07 � tltr.c s / Q
15 IPessoc StnAdT /. � ��
16 fid! ����wOrNE�ARiI T �-1 t
rr ��
17 G��tctEK d. Iledt r<TPE ld
18 Wit8ctZ1/' r�ey�s/p/7TE' 2/y
19 1�.G/rlxc�r �A�/f�¢tT Imo'j / /(J G- dZ4 y
20 2,16
21
/G
22
23J ..
0
Chumash Village 3116104 Page 1
PETITION FOR TRAFFIC SIGNAL TO BE INSTALLED AT 3057 SOUTH HIGUERA STREET
The undersigned residents, owners and/or tenants, hereby request consideration by the Planning Commission
and City Council for the installation of a traffic signal at 3057 South Higuera Street, San Luis Obispo,to insure
the safety of residents due to the required residential additions to the area and the added traffic build-up.
Print Name Signature Space Number
25 U lir # t 5
26 C
27
A.)
28 TH 7
29
Lao-MiYt PtUftdtlt 4
30 `l ak NAbE_ SGL a 1
31
32 lsw�n �.. QSSo�ZCR11M �!{
33 _IA& 1Y)C
G
34 �wlL�i
35
36 �7i
37
38
39
40
42
43
44 �nANK OL rV�i �2* �-
45 j E T/9
46
Chumash Village 3/16/04 Page 2
PETITION FOR TRAFFIC SIGNAL TO BE INSTALLED AT 3057 SOUTH HIGUERA STREET
The undersigned residents, owners and/or tenants, hereby request consideration by the Planning Commission
and City Council for the installation of a traffic signal at 3057 South Higuera Street, San Luis Obispo,to insure
the safety of r dents due to the required residenti dd' ns to the area and the added traffic build-up.
tName. Si a ure Space Number
47 �S !7_ _ � Y>� 33
48 V� L
49
so 06 doff
51
52 / c•
LIPP-
s4 Gd,llt +-ted Soya _ _
z `l/
55oil 7
56
57 Q N a 1 l�
58 G ! �]� �0 W
59 �N N I
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
Chumash Village 3/16/04 Page 3
October 12, 2004.
Mayor Romero and Members of
the City Council
990 Palm St
San Luis Obispo, Cal 93401
Dear Mayor Romero and City Council. Members,
This letter is in regards to the Final Program Environmental
Impact Report for the Airport Area and Margarita Area Specific
plan that is before you tonight for consideration, I am not clear
about what was really evaluated or analyzed by the EIR. I have
the following questions:
1. Revised Figure ES 2-3 Land Use and Circulation:
Proposed Project
This is the proposed project and this map shows Tank Farm Rd as
being 4 lanes two thirds of the way across the Margarita area.
The remaining third of the road narrows to only 2 lanes
terminating at Broad St . Is that the city plan, to have Tank
Farm Rd only be two lanes from Santa Fe Rd to Broad St?
If it is not the plan, then there should be concern that the EIR
did not address the traffic circulation correctly. Did the
traffic model/computer analyze the project with a portion of Tank
Farm Rd being 2 lanes? If so, the traffic model would
erroneously move all the traffic over to Prado Rd.
2. Revised Figure ES 2-4 Land Use and Circulation:
Alternative 1
This map is important because it is the first alternative that
should have been seriously considered by council members as an
alternative choice (which is an important guideline of CEQA) .
Yet, this alternative has Tank Farm Rd terminating just beyond
Santa Fe Rd and Making no connection through to Broad St-
Compounding
-Compounding the problem this alternative shows Prado Rd
terminating at Industrial Way. Prado Rd terminating at Industrial
Way has not been possible since the City purchased the sports
field property and changed the General Plan alignment of Prado Rd
in year 2000.
r � -
pq 2
How can the EIR evaluate impacts for either of these roads?
They are not viable alternatives. If the traffic mode. or
computer was fed this information, iL is highly probable that the
traffic was again falsely put onto Prado Rd.
Terminating Tank Farm Rd near Santa Fe and terminating Prado Rd
at Industrial Way have not been discussed publicly and it was
surprising to have them show up in this environmental analysis.
Outside of this map, the EIR did not provide a text discussion
relating to what impacts would happen to all the neighborhood
traffic from the Edna Islay area if Tank Farm Rd was terminated
at Santa Fe. The EIR also did not discuss what impacts
terminating Tank Fare Rd at Santa Fe would have upon the
intersection all ready established at Tank Farm Rd and Broad St.
I question the alternatives offered in this EIR.
3. Revised Figure ES 2-5 Land Use and Circulation:
Alternative 2
Alternative 2 has completely eliminated a connection of Santa Fe
Rd to Prado Rd. It also has no connection of Tank Farm Rd to
Broad St. There appears to be no discussion about the traffic
impacts of the. Edna Islay neighborhoods, the Orcutt
neighborhoods, the Southwood neighborhoods and the Country
Club/Rolling Hills neighborhoods who would be shocked to learn
that Tank Farm Rd was closed. This alternative also has Prado Rd
terminating at Industrial Way. It is not logical to study these
roads as depicted in this alternative.
4. Revised Figure ES 2-6 Land Use and Circulation:
Alternative 3
ctsc 1
This alternative has LpsWalley road is shown as the major east-
west connection through the area. This alternative has
possiblilites and should be examined more thorough in conne
junction with Buckley road as another alternative route.
I am requesting writtexplanations to the issues in this
letter. Thank. You. �� � �JP�i J 8�/I�
la ovic - a arre
650 Skylin Dr Su Luis Obispo, California 93405
�DU tt t.y Page 1 of 1
Allen Settle- Margarita plan &Chumash Village `
�Q(1
From: Ginny Monteen <mtnwoman@charter.net>
<asett
Da 10/12/ 004 3:i10 PM Date: 10/12/2004 3:10 PM
Subject: Margarita plan &Chumash Village
Greetings,
I write to urge you to take into account the special needs of the
senior citizens who live in Chumash Village when you consider the RECEIVED
Margarita Area Plan tonight. �—
G,J� ! 0 2Q04
Please come to inspect our area so you can make an informed decision. S1.0 CIN CLERK
The mobile home park is very quiet with seniors living here, many of
whom are quite elderly and would be especially sensitive to increased
noise, traffic and tighter densities.
In regard to density, most homes here are occupied by one person,
with some people frequently away traveling. That puts the 'actual'
density of number of people quite lower than most residential areas.
It is not consistent to have medium-high density adjacent to Chumash
Village.
I am very concerned about drainage and flooding. There has been
flooding along our eastern boundary in the past, and there are
springs in the area. If more development is placed there, the
problem could become much worse. Please have your city staff inspect
this problem. We have explained our concern to the developer, but he
'didn't remember it when asked about it recently.
Help! We're relying on you to help us be good neighbors to this development.
Thank you,
Ginny Monteen
mtnwoman@charter.net
541-2325
Stop Cancer Where It Starts!
file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\slouser\Local%20Settings\Temp\GW 100001.HTM 10/13/2004
FROM FAX NO. 110 Oct. 12 2964 03:31PM P1
off- ILla
10112/04
The San Luis Obispo County Chumash Council
Chief Mark Vigil Sr.
1030 Ritchie Rd.,Gmver Beach,Ca. 93433
Ph#805.481-2461 Fax#805-474-4729
Email: chiefmviail(a iix net
To Whom It May Concern,
It has come to aur attention that some serious decisions are about to be made
regarding the Garcia properly,which as we know is a culturally sensitive area.Chief
Mark Vigil Sr. was part of a group who did some study of this land and discovered
that it contains bedrock mortars as well as other cultural material. We have now
disco-srered that there have been other studies condnoted that claim that there n.9 a 5,000
year old site on-this property which,ism danger of being destroyed. We object to such
action by the City or anyone else who may recommend this. We have questions about
this area and from what we have been told we do not believe that this situation has
been adequately addressed.We also believe from what we have heard that this site is
most likely eligible for the National Registry of Mstoric preservation.
Our Council is volunteer with little time to devote to going to meetings or writing
bwk.on the many,many letters we receive regarding projects going on in this county.
With many personal problems that have come up we have even less time, but we do
act when we receive information such as this.The City of San.Luis Obispo has shown
little regard for our Sacred Sites in the past and this needs to stop. With information
.such as a report which states that this property contains a 5,000 year old site,we
believe that the City should.show,more respect without having written or oral .
Objections to such destruction.We are requesting that this matter be held over for a
more adequate evaluation..
As we said Chief Mark Vigil Sr.did work on this property in a very limited area,
but did note the presence of the bedrock mortars which at that time they wanted to
blast out.of the way.We have been told that the only report on this property is one .
done by Clay Singer(archaeologist),but Mark worked with an archaeologist by the
name of Mary Mold. We wonder what has happened to Ms.Mali's report and any
others that may have been conducted?Once again,we are strongly requesting that this,
be looked at with more respect and consideration,that we feel our cultural deserves.It
is not only the City of San Luis Obispo, but also many Cities in our County that lacks
the respect that we ask for on our Sacred Sites.It is time that this disrespect stops and.
we can start with this project.
Faithfully,
chiefmark YIV Sr.�an�d.R�hon�da�vrigU(SL�OCCC)
V 1 - ,-0nn
e
council m e m o Ra n b u m
DATE: October 12,2004 RECEIVED
TO: City Council 004
/�� OCT f 2 2
VIA: Ken Hampian, CAO b SLO CITY CLERK
FROM: John Mandeville, Community Development Directo?//(
BY: Michael Draze, Deputy Director of Community Development
SUBJECT: Red File E-mail from Terry Simons
City staff received the attached e-mail from Terry Simons on September 29`h relating to the
Damon and Garcia families' interests in the eventual improvements of Prado Road. In a
discussion with Mr. Simons, we explained how the acquisition and improvements would occur
within the framework of the proposed specific plan. Mr. Simons agreed that the plan will meet
the needs of the families and asked that the Council take a clear position directing staff to pursue
an early agreement with all the property owners that will assure timely acceptance of right-of-
way for the road. This is important to the Damon and Garcia.families and to the overall plan,
and staff would recommend that Council endorse staff follow-up on right-of-way acquisition as a
part of tonight's actions.
Staff will be prepared to discuss possible follow-up action at the hearing.
Attachments: E-mail dated 9/29/04 from Terry Simons
-CDD DI
I% AC iR-FIN DIR
RED FILE L%%'ACAO FIRE CHIEF
POEETlNG AGENDA I-ErATTORN`Y Jd'PW DIR
CLERKiORIG $POLICE CHF
®:°ATE lD ITEM — ❑1LRr.HEAD REc D!R
tn� I
riJTl!. D!R
I
H:WEMOTed File Simon.DOC
�Kpn Hampian Documents for dedication -`Prado ROW Page 1
J
From: Terry Simons <terryatwork @earth[in k.net>
To: Michael McCluskey<MMCCLUSK@slocity.org>
Date: 9/29/04 12:01 PM
Subject: Documents for dedication of Prado ROW
Mike,
GREAT PRESENTATION!!!
Based on the majority Council response to the staff presentations last
night, it would appear that the MASP may be approved as early as October
12, 2004. 1 think that this is much advanced from all our best
scenarios.
As staff prepares the requested resolutions per the Settle/Ewing/
(Manderville) motion of last night, it would be a big step in the Prado
Road ROW direction if there could be language in the motion (or a
supplemental recommended motion) authorizing staff to enter into an
agreement with the property owners.This agreement would provide for the
immediate dedication Phase 1 ROW to meet the criteria of the MASP. This
would allow for attachment of conditions of approval on the submitted
tentative maps by the WSPO's to design, engineer and construct the Phase
1 improvements. At our meeting Monday, it appeared that Phase 1
improvements would be:
PHASE 1 IMPROVEMENTS
-Completion of all northerly improvements along the existing Prado Road.
(French-Cohan and DeBlaw and Martinelli)
-Northerly improvements across the Damon/Garcia Ranch to City ROW at
north end of Sports Fields (Damon/Garcia)
-Completion of northerly improvements, pedestrian underpass, Acacia
Creek Bridge and Broad Street intersection. (City SLO)
I recognize that Dave Watson (King Ventures) has repeatedly suggested
that the D/G Ranch should make an "unconditional"dedication..It would
not be our expectation that dedication of the ROW would be a vehicle for
unreasonable benefit but there are some issues(conditions)that we
would want to see in the ROW agreement:
ROW AGREEMENT
-All parties ( French-Cohan, DeBlaw, Martinelli, Damon and Garcia, and
the City of SLO)sign/dedicate under a single Dedication Agreement. As a
signatory,the City will reaffirm its commitment to the "northern
alignment".
-The Dedication Agreement should contain language that confirms that the
dedication is a property owners contribution to the furthering of the
MASP and no owner is to receive any special compensation or benefit
other than development rights bestowed by virtue of the.MASP.
-By participating in the early dedication,the property owners shall
vest the value of the ROW, as improved, against the road contribution
requirements and the public improvement fees as they exist at the time
of dedication.This lock-in value would not apply to any future ROW's,
utilities, parks or other required impact fees
-The Dedications Agreement would provide for interim easements:
-slope easements to allow for minimum 3/1 slopes with reversion
of easements to ROW line at completion of construction of Phase 1
-construction easements along the southerly side of the ROW
Ken Hampian- Documents for dedicatior ^f Prado
Centerline to a maximum of 25 feet south of the centerline
-The Dedications Agreement would provide for property owner approval of
the Phase 1 construction documents subject to consistency with the
improvements as defined in the Developers Agreement as below, such
agreement would be timely and not unreasonably withheld
-The Dedication Agreement would have a reversion clause that would limit
the time for completion of the Phase 1 improvements to the time agreed
to in the Developers Agreement plus an additional period, not to exceed
an amount equal to the time called for in the developers agreement, to
allow for City implementation of construction if the improvement bonds
or completion bonds provided by the Developers are called and the
project is otherwise constructed
DEVELOPERS AGREEMENT
-The Dedication Agreement should be subject to approval of a Developers
Agreement by and between the City and WSPO's (French-Cohan, De Blaw and
King Ventures) or their assigns, defining and confirming a commitment to
design, engineer and construct the Phase 1 improvements from existing
Prado Road to Broad Street.
-That the WSPO Developers Agreement be time specific as to the
completion of the roadway to Broad Street.
-Phase 1 improvements should be defined as clearly as possible subject
to construction documents:
-2 Northerly traffic lanes
-bike lane(s)
-Northerly CG&SW with additional bike lane or trail
-Fencing along the Northerly ROW to preserve D/G Ranch security
-2 entry drives and gates for interim access to D/G Ranch-one at
location of Easterly Roundabout, one at old Hopkins lane.
-1 pedestrian underpass
-Complete development of the Acacia Bridge
-Broad Street intersection (to signal or not,that is the question?)
-Construction within the ROW shall be preceded with sufficient fencing
as necessary to secure the adjacent properties .
-Construction shall be bonded by the Developers to the benefit of the
City at 1.5 times the Engineers estimated cost of construction
What would NOT be part of the ROW Dedication and Phase 1 improvements:
-Land and improvements South of the ROW Centerline except for easements
as above for construction
-Roundabout area(s)
-Other Collectors; unnamed roads and Santa Fe Road
-Use of D/G Ranch quarry material or stockpiled overburden needed for
quarry restoration without compensation to D/G Ranch
A continuing issue of concern has been the D/G Ranch use of the Sports
Field for access to Broad Street.This is An unfortunate vestige of the
Sports Field PurchaseL agreement. I think that this agreement could be
modified to include language that allowed for an abandonment of this
access when a defined level of access has been developed on the West
side of the D/G Ranch. I think that such a proposal could be included in
the Dedication Agreement.
A preliminary look at the proposal for the Acacia Creek Bridge has me
thinking that there may be a need for additional staging area in the
Ken HarTipian - Documents for dedication -f Prado--ROW - --
Page 3,:
immediate area of the bridge.We would consider an agreement to provide
additional staging area for construction of the Bridge on both sides of
the creek in consideration for grading and based areas that would remain
after construction.These areas would be used for parking (see D/G Ranch
Plan)for the"Special Usen Historic Ranch House. If this is of any
interest let me know.
Thanks again for the great presentation and you work to get this project
done!
is
CC: Mike Draze<MDraze@slocity.org>,Tim Bochum <TBochum@slocity.org>, David Bjerre
<dbjerre @ charter.net>
council agenda
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
CITY HALL, 990 PALM STREET
Tuesday, October 12, 2004
7:00 P.M. SPECIAL MEETING Council Chamber
990 Palm Street
CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Dave Romero
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL: Council Members John Ewan, Christine Mulholland,
Allen K. Settle, Vice Mayor Ken Schwartz,
Mayor Dave Romero
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON AGENDA ITEMS: You may address the Council on any item described in this agenda by
completing a speaker slip and giving it to the City Clerk prior to the meeting. The Mayor will open the floor to and invite
public comments before the Council takes action on each item. (Gov. Code Sec. 54954.3(a)). Your speaking time is
limited to three(3)minutes. (CCBP Sec.1.3.7).
inCity Council regular meetings are televised live on Charter Channel 20. The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to
include the disabled in all of its services, programs, and activities. Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (805) 781.7410.
Please speak to the City Clerk prior to the meeting if you require a hearing amplification device. For more agenda information,call
781-7103.
Council Agenda Tuesday, October 12, 2004
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON AGENDA ITEMS: You.may address the Council on any item described in this agenda by
completing a speaker slip and giving it to the City Clerk prior to the meeting. The Mayor will open the floor to and invite
public comments before the Council takes action on each item. (Gov. Code Sec. 54954.3(a)). Your speaking time is
limited to three(3)minutes.(CC&P Sec.1.3.7).
CITY COUNCIL PROCEDURES FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS: The Mayor will announce each item and thereafter, the
hearing will be conducted as follows:
1. City staff will present the staff report and recommendation on the proposal being heard and respond to questions
from Council.
2. The Mayor will open the public hearing by first asking the project applicanUappellant(or his/her representative)to
present any points necessary for the Council,as well as the public,to fully understand the proposal.
3. The Mayor will then ask other interested persons to come to the podium to present testimony either in support of
or in opposition to the proposal.
4. Finally, the Mayor will invite the applicant/appellant (or his/her representative) back to the podium to respond to
the public testimony, if appropriate. The Mayor will then close the public hearing and limit further discussion to
the Council and staff prior to the Council taking a vote.
RULES FOR PRESENTING TESTIMONY AT A PUBLIC HEARING: City Council meetings often involve highly emotional
issues. It is important that all participants conduct themselves with courtesy, dignity and respect. All persons who wish to
present testimony are asked to observe the following rules:
1. Speakers are asked to submit speaker slips to the City Clerk.
2. If you have filled out a Speaker Slip,the Mayor will call you to the podium.
3. Speakers shall address the Council from the podium after giving his/her name and city of residence. Speakers
shall direct their comments to the Council, not the audience.
4. Speakers shall limit comments to three minutes. The Mayor, after all others have spoken, may allow additional
brief comments from speakers who have already commented on the same agenda.item.
5. If testifying as paid representatives, as defined in the Municipal Code speakers shall register as a Municipal
Advocate and shall preface their comments by identifying themselves as Municipal Advocates (§2.64.020 &
§2.64.050&§2.64.070).
6. Applicants,appellants or applicant representatives desiring to speak shall:
a. Submit speaker slips to the City Clerk (available on a plastic rack at the entrance to the Council
Chamber).
b. Shall be permitted to speak first during the public comment portion of the public hearing for not more
than ten minutes.
c. Address the Council from the podium after giving their name and address, and/or the name and
address of the applicant/appellant they are representing. If the applicant/appellant's representative is a
paid Municipal Advocate,they shall comply with Number 5 above.
7. If you challenge an issue in court,you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at
this public hearing as described above, or in written correspondence delivered to the City before or during the
public hearing.
CORRESPONDENCE TO COUNCIL- Written comments on agenda items are encouraged and are most effective if
presented at least one day prior to the meeting. Note: Correspondence to Council received after 5:00 p.m. on the day of
the Council meeting regarding agenda items may not be distributed until the following day.
2
Council Agenda Tuesday,October 12, 2004
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING
1. ADOPTION OF THE MARGARITA AREA SPECIFIC.PLAN AND FINAL
PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, AND RELATED GENERAL
PLAN AND ZONING CHANGES. (CONTINUED FROM SEPTEMBER 28, 2004)
(MANDEVILLE/DRAZE —4 HOURS)
RECOMMENDATION: 1) Review information regarding Santa.Fe Road right-of-way
and the remaining chapters of the Margarita Area Specific Plan (MASP), and receive
added public testimony as appropriate. 2) Consider options for reservation of additional
Santa Fe Road right-of-way to allow for possible roadway width expansion at some time
in the future, after initial construction. 3) Provide any final amendments to the MASP
and Final Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR). 4) As recommended by the
Planning Commission, adopt the resolution and introduce the ordinance certifying the
EIR, approving the Margarita Area Specific Plan, approving changes to the Land Use
Element map to reflect the specific plan, and approving changes to the official City
Zoning map to reflect the uses approved in the specific plan.
A. ADJOURN.
3
ti RED FILE Iii 0.,_
P,fiE ING AGENDA RECEIVED �� cour�CIL CDD DIR
�t)jll _ CAO 'FIN DIR
D.ATE�ITEM # 11 QC' 2 1(1 4 I 'ACAO Z FIRE CHIEF
ATTORNEY ., PW DIR
SLO CITY CLERK 110CLERK/0RIG jLPOLICE CHF
October 12, 2004 Ju/mc 1 0 DEPT HEADS Z REC DIR
1l [ 7 UTIL DiR
To: City Council of San Luis Obispo (� _ _ _/l- c,in
Re: Special Council Meeting October12, 2004, Margarita Area Specific Plan and FPEIR
Dear Members of the Council:
Further to the letter of September 6 and handout to the Council of September 28 by Eugene Jud,
Citizens For Planning Responsibly (CPR) would like to comment about the Margarita Area
Specific Plan and the EIR as follows:
1. Margarita Area Specific Plan
This is a good example of a transit-oriented development (TOD)and we can.be proud of it. CPR,
however, has the vision of developing the whole southern part of town as one big TOD from
Orcutt Road in the east to Madonna/Los Osos Valley Road in the west as can be seen, for
example, in Davis, Arcata, and many other towns in the United States.
2. FPEIR
2.1 Piecemealing of a Big Project
Public discussion about the whole new east/west road (including land use) from Broad Street to
Madonna Road, partially induced by the Market Place, never took place. Such a discussion is
standard in all California projects of big new roads.
Suppressing this discussion by referencing the (Program) EIR of the citywide Land Use and
Circulation Element 1994 is against the very character of a Master Plan. With this argument, the
Council or the Planning Commission could kill practically.any discussion of a project covering a
major part of the town. See also the newest writ of attorney Jana Zimmer in connection with the
Dalidio EIR, especially her statements about piecemealing. CPR continues to stress that Prado
Road East is part of the whole Market Place/new freeway interchange problematic and cannot be
treated separately from the bigger picture.
2.2 The"Historic Argument"for Today's Prado Road Concept
The Mayor repeatedly said the current Prado Road concept with an overpass over the freeway
was already in the 1962 General Plan of the City. This statement can even be found on an
election website 2004 of the Mayor.The argument was often repeated by the CAO of the City too.
In reality, the 1962 General Plan shows Prado Road as being less important than Tank Farm and
Buckley Road and not crossing over the freeway. There is no interchange and Prado Road is
only east of the freeway. It would be helpful to eliminate such misconceptions in the public as
soon as possible.
2.3 Ignoring Over the Years Considerable Input by the Public
This is unfortunate and can be proven by multiple memos of citizens to the administration. For
example, a discussion about the validity of the current traffic impacts never took place. The
treatment of the influence of Prado Road on the sports fields and the archeological site is
extremely superficial and does not include all aspects of traffic safety, noise and air pollution, and
cultural impacts. For the latter, see the multiple remarks by history professor Dan Krieger to staff
and the Council.
We consider it still unfortunate that the public was denied a walk along the axis of the road, at
least in the area of the sports fields. The video simulation of September 28, as nice as it was,
1
7
can never replace walking the site and would have been a wonderful opportunity to discuss the
impacts in the field with members of the City Council, staff, and the public.
The complaints of residents of mobile home parks in the western part of Prado Road should be
taken more seriously, especially the ones repeated now by the residents of the Chumash Mobile
Home Park with a hundred signatures.
2.4 Is the EIR Comprehensive?
When the alignment was moved from Industrial Way to the north of the sports fields, only a
negative declaration was issued. In our opinion, this is insufficient given the tremendous
difference of environmental impacts between the two alignments.
2.5 The Contract with Landowner Garcia of 1999
The contract stipulated that this landowner gets a direct access to Broad Street north of the
sports fields. This, as we recall, was at the same time when discussions about the different
alignment alternatives were still going on. This contract should never be the main element of a
decision.and it could be easily reversed. Access to Broad Street from the Garcia property via
Santa FefTank Farm Road is possible and does not mean unbearable detours for cars as many
similar access concepts prove.
2.6 Technical Omissions or Unclear Statements in Plans of the EIR
Figure ES-2 (LUE +Circ)"Proposed Project":
The number of traffic lanes on Tank Farm Road between Santa Fe Road and Broad Street is not
clear. Is it a two-lane local road, or more, or less? The new alignment of Santa Fe Road from
Prado Road to Buckley Road should be shown (expansion of the airport runway).
Figures ES-7/8:
The abovementioned stretch of Tank Farm Road appears to be a pedestrian zone in these plans.
Was this the intention?
Under"Initial Study' at the end of the report, Chapter 2,there is"Project Description", Figure 22:
In this figure there is again some confusion about the abovementioned stretch of Tank Farm
Road. In addition, Prado Road continues east of Broad Street, a solution that was long ago
discarded by the City Council, at least officially. This extension of Prado Road east of Broad
Street should be either eliminated from the plan or explained.
As this EIR and planning was a moving target over several years, some data is pretty old, for
example, the census 1990. It would have helped to have newer figures also concerning traffic
volumes.
2.7 Recommendation
The work of the administration in this complex issue is appreciated. However, we would suggest
to you to consider giving more time to this huge annexation and/or to refer it back to the Planning
Commission.
Thank you for your hard work. EdhW
Citizens Planning Responsibly, President
Eugene Jud, Fellow ITE
P.O. Box 1445
San Luis Obispo
CA 93401
Phone: 545-5919, Jud4ann aol.com
CC: Jan Manx, Vice President, SLO
Jana Zimmer, Santa Barbara
2
RED FILE
October 12, 2004 MEETING AGENDA
Dr'TE& ITEM #yJ!
Mayor Romero and City Council Members
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, Calif. 93401
Regarding: The Margarita Specific Plan and EIR
Dear Mayor Romero and City Council Members,
am submitting this letter because the EIR for the Margarita-Specific Plan has not
adequately addressed or analyzed the Cultural Resource impacts of the proposed
project.
In particular is the impact to CA-SLO 1427 that will result from the construction of Prado
Rd. Even with mitigated measures, there will be a 15 to 20 percent damage to the
site. The impact should be zero! This is a prehistoric site worth exploring other
alternatives rather than destruction.
The City of San Luis Obispo has failed to make State Historic status recommendations.
The Army Corps of Engineers and Caltrans have both determined the site as being
significant. Many local citizens have made numerous recommendations to include the
archaeological site into the design of the sports field complex. There could be nice
cultural center build to honor our past Native Americans.
Sincerely,
Bill Wilson
1690 Southwood Dr
San Luis Obispo, Calif. 93401
ill COUNCIL CDD DIR
I L CAO ❑ FIN DIR
RECEIVED ACAO C FIRE CHIEF
I ATTORNEY
,� 2004 CLERK/ORIG 11 PW DIR
�L I ti .1 POLICE CHF
DEET IEC DIR
SLO CITY CLERK , ; - � UTIL D
�!�� y HR DIR IR
Margarita Extension Page 1 of 1
RECEIVED
SLO Citycouncil - Margarita Extension
From: Bruno Giberti <bgiberti@calpoly.edu> SLO CITY CLERK
To: <letters@thetribunenews.com>
Date: 9/30/2004 2:38 PM
Subject: Margarita Extension
CC: <slocitycouncil@slocity.org>
As presented to the SLO City Council on Tuesday night, the specific plan for the Margarita Extension may have its
merits, but it is certainly not a transit-oriented development.. The term is meant to connote a high-density, rnixed-
used neighborhood, focused on a regional transit stop and defined by a five-minute, quarter-mile radius of pedestrian
access--not the 20-minute standard espoused by the city's traffic engineers.
Providing bike and pedestrian ways and hoping for local bus route does not make a neighborhood a transit-oriented
development. Such things, which already exist in this town, are neither traditional nor revolutionary. Furthermore,
the goal of bike- and pedestrian-friendly development is belied by the proposed design of Prado Road, based as it is
on the continuous flow of automobile traffic. This is to be abetted by roundabouts, which are by definition impassable
to bikes and pedestrians. The street as proposed will be such a barrier to crossings that it will require the separation
of traffic through pedestrian and bike underpasses—again, not a revolutionary but a regressive idea.
As far as the movement of bikes on Prado Road is concerned, the engineers need to think outside of their professional
box. Its defined categories of'bikeways don't seem to account for the fact that a person may want to get somewhere.
quickly and not want to share the street with deadly machines. The engineers need to allow for the possibliity of an
efficient, straight-line bikeway that is separated by a curb, grade change, and/or landscaping from the car lanes.
Bruno Giberti
3981 Hollyhock Way
fft 11011'
San Luis Obispo CA 93401 nft �
805 541 3374 U" Me@"
ZJ,`Y�l`M
L
file:HC:\Documents%20and%2OSettings\slouser\Local%2OSettings\Temp\GW}000O1.HTM 9/30/2004