Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 082493 Approved as Amended Meeting Date: 10/12/93 ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL AUGUST 24, 1993 MINUTES The meeting was called to order in the National Guard Armory at 7:05 p.m. Mayor Kudlac led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL: Present: Councilmembers Bewley, Borgeson, Nimmo, Luna and Mayor Kudlac Absent: None Also Present: Muriel "Micki" Korba, City Treasurer and Lee Raboin, City Clerk City Staff Present: Henry Engen, Community Development Director; Art Montandon, City Attorney; Mark Joseph, Administrative Services Director; and Bud McHale, Police Chief COG Staff: Steve Devencenzi, Senior Planner Caltrans Staff Present: Jerry Laumer, Deputy District Director; Greg Albright, Senior Landscape Architect; Gary Ruggerone, Branch Chief Environmental Planning; Jim Alessi, Project Manager and Nevin Sams, Traffic Engineer COUNCIL COMMENTS: Councilman Nimmo commended Brian Sword and the City Streets crew for out- standing efforts in repairing damage to City streets after heavy rains in the Spring. In addition, he expressed appreciation to Mr. John Boyles for the loan and set up of electronic equipment for the meeting. CC 08/24/93 Page 1 Councilman Nimmo also shared frustration with the occurrence of numerous signs posted throughout the community, particularly on utility poles, for out-of-city condominium sales and gun shows. He indicated that he believed the City of Atascadero should send a message to out-of-town realtors and businesses that the City will adhere to and enforce its' sign ordinance. Councilman Luna inquired about the legality of a recent decision to change the date for the upcoming Planning Commission interviews. The City Attorney explained that the Mayor had asked that the special meeting previously called for Monday, August 23rd be changed to Thursday, August the 26th at the request of Councilwoman Borgeson (due to accident recovery). Councilwoman Borgeson asked for an account of the procedures for calling a special meeting. Mr. Montandon advised that provisions in the Brown Act allow the Mayor to call a special meeting and noted that appropriate notice had been given in writing to the City Council members, press and public. Council Reorganization - Anpointment of Mayor and Mayor ProTem Mayor Kudlac announced that he would be stepping down as Mayor effective immediately due to travel commitments relating to his family's plans for re-locating. He noted that he would continue to serve on the City Council until August 31 st. Councilwoman Borgeson objected to Council reorganization at this time. Councilman Luna suggested that the Council postpone electing a new mayor until after Council- man Kudlac officially vacates his seat on the 31 st and stated it would be appropriate for the Mayor ProTem to take over in the interim. Mayor ProTem Bewley indicated that because he was presently working out-of-town he preferred to go ahead with electing a new mayor at this time to serve out the balance of the year. Councilman Nimmo voiced support. MOTION: By Councilman Luna to nominate Councilwoman Borgeson as Mayor. Motion failed for lack of second. MOTION: By Councilman Bewley, seconded by Councilman Kudlac to nominate Councilman Nimmo as Mayor. Discussion on the motion: Councilman Luna commented that he would not vote favorably because it is customary to rotate among the councilmembers the position of Mayor. He noted that Councilman Nimmo had already served one year as Mayor and added that Councilwoman Borgeson had not yet served as Mayor during her present term. CC 08/24/93 Page 2 Vote on the motion: Motion to elect Councilman Nimmo as Mayor passed 4:1 (Luna). By mutual consent, it was agreed that Councilman Bewley would continue serving as Mayor ProTem. COMMUNITY FORUM: There were no comments from the public at this time. A. COMMITTEE REPORTS (The following represent ad hoc or standing commit- tees. Informative status reports were given, as follows.): 1. Economic Round Table - Mayor Nimmo reported that the Round Table had met on August 18 and received a presentation by Rex Hendrix regarding the proposed Dove Creek development. The Mayor reported that a subcommittee was formed to study the proposal and emphasized that the Round Table had not given any expression of approval. He also reported that Lee Rush had provided an update of conceptual plans for a minor league facility in Atascadero. He noted that the Round Table was initially in favor of the project but was anxious to see more information. B. CONSENT CALENDAR: 1. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - JULY 13, 1993 2. CITY TREASURER'S REPORT - JULY, 1993 3. RESOLUTION NO. 104-93 - Authorizing agreement with Ford Motor Credit Co. to lease-purchase six police patrol vehicles 4. RESOLUTION NO. 103-93 -Authorizing agreement with the County of San Luis Obispo to provide Animal Control Services 5. ENGINEERING DESIGN SERVICES FOR REPLACEMENT OF WASTEWATER PUMPING STATION #1 - Award contract to Engineering Development Associates 6. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 18-90, 7970 SINALOA AVE. - Acceptance of final map to establish a Planned Development Overlay zone (PD7) dividing one existing parcel of approx. one-quarter ac. into three parcels of 31426, 3,435 CC 08/24/93 Page 3 and 4,066 sq. ft. for single-family residential use (Best) 7. APPROVAL OF APPLICATIONS FOR FUNDING UNDER THE TRANSPORTATION ENHANCEMENT ACTIVITIES (TEA) GRANT PROGRAM A. Resolution No. 101-93 - Approving application for funds for the TEA program under the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 for the acquisition of Stadium Park B. Resolution No. 102-93 - Approving application for funds for the TEA program under the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 for Highway 101 Landscaping The Mayor noted that Item #13-2, Treasurer's Report, had not been made available for review. Micki Korba, City Treasurer, provided a verbal report and charged that she was not being given current or accurate information by the Finance Department. She stated that the department had lost needed employees and asserted that the City was at very high risk with an inadequate Finance Department. Ms. Korba shared additional concern relating to the competency of current financial record-keeping processes and exclaimed that without immediate intervention she would not be able to provide an accurate and complete Treasurer's Report. Mark Joseph, Administrative Services Director, remarked that the process of closing out the books for the past fiscal year was typically time-consuming and often resulted in late reports during this period. He indicated that it was unfortunate and added that the Finance Department was short two staff members. Councilwoman Borgeson asked staff to provide the Council with a full report in Closed Session. Mayor Nimmo agreed and requested that the Treasurers charges be presented in writing. MOTION: By Councilman Luna, seconded by Councilman Kudlac to approve Consent Calendar Items #13-1, 3, 4, 5, 6, & 7. Discussion on the motion: Councilwoman Borgeson remarked that she would abstain from approving the Minutes of the July 13, 1993 meeting because she had been absent. Vote on the motion: Motion to approve the Consent Calendar (except Item #13-2) passed 5:0. CC 08/24/93 Page 4 C. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. HIGHWAY 41 REALIGNMENT & BRIDGE REPLACEMENT A. Resolution No. 100-93 - Endorsing Alternate A-Modified realignment of State Highway 41 and bridge replacement across the Salinas River Henry Engen introduced the item and provided background. Steve Devencenzi, COG (Council of Governments) provided clarification of proposed project funding. Greg Albright, Caltrans, outlined the primary and secondary project purposes and provided an overview of the two alternative routes studied. Additionally, he explained mitigation measures identified by the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) approved by the California Transportation Commission (CTC) in December of 1992 and reported that the realignment was now in the design phase. In conclusion, Mr. Albright announced that construction would begin in early 1997 and noted that community advisory committees would be formed to seek input on bridges and tree removal. Lengthy Council questions and comments followed. Councilman Luna argued that pFejee approvals prior to 1988 were given for the Alternative A Route and not the project the " Medi fled Ret . He shared concern relating to impacts on the Routes 411101 interchange and asked why it had not been included in the project EIR. Councilman Luna asserted there had not been a public hearing on the A/A-Modified Route on July 14, 1992 despite the fact that the City Council had approved it the project three votes to two. To Caltrans staff, Councilman Luna inquired about final project funding approval. Gary Ruggerone reported that the CTC would not actually vote to fund the project until after the final design, but emphasized that the project has been approved in concept and money is available. Councilman Luna continued his commentary and summarized his reasons for opposing the A/A-Modified Route. (Councilman Luna's notes with attachments included as part of the record - see Exhibit A). Councilman Bewley spoke in favor of the A/A-Modified Route and asked Steve Devencenzi what would happen to the funds if the project did not go through. Mr. Devencenzi read pertinent CTC policy and noted that it may reconsider projects on a case-by-case basis. He added that no new projects will be added to the State Transportation Improvement Plan (STIP) and commented that there are no guarantees that funding set aside for the realignment project, should it not proceed, will be spent within San Luis Obispo County. Minutes Amended - language stricken denoted by— language added denoted in bold. CC 08/24/93 Page 5 Jerry Laumer provided additional clarification relating to funding. He reported that there is no money available for interchanges at this time and speculated that any funding freed up by not undertaking the A/A-Modified project would probably be spent elsewhere because San Luis Obispo County is already over target for funded projects. Councilwoman Borgeson asserted that sixteen million dollars was too expensive for the community and exclaimed that Alternative B Route would meet Caltrans' primary purpose by providing for the bridge replacement. The Mayor called a recess at 8:57 p.m. At 9:20 p.m., the meeting reconvened and the floor was opened for public commentary. Public Comments: Approximately four and one-half hours of orderly public testimony followed. Speakers were asked to form two lines and alternate comments "for" and "against". Ninety- one speakers addressed the City Council; of those thirty-one (31) favored the A/A- Modified Route and sixty (60) opposed the route and supported Alternative B. The speakers were as follows: FOR: George Highland Micki Ready (representing 400+ Atascadero Chamber of Commerce Members) Jay DeCou Carol Ball Jerry Clay Debbie Horton Bill Horton Doug Filliponi Mike Jackson Richard Moen Eric Michielssen William Murphy John Bunjay Andrew Monier John Himes Sharon Harrison Representative from the Local Laborer's Construction Union Neb Thompson Whitey Thorpe Rex Hendrix CC 08/24/93 Page 6 FOR: Richard Shannon Gerry Lizelle Maggie Vandergon Frank Henderson Al Gustason Robert Lilley F.J. Raye Leora Water Howard Gaylord Margaret Gaylord Doug Scheffer AGAINST: Patrick Mackie* Robert Schecter Joseph Curtis* Wanda Frank* Lindsay Hampton* Jim Horton* Jean Young Behan* Livia Kellerman* Eric Greening* Anne Marie Kilpatrick* Marty Kellerman* Violet Vita William Ramsier John Warren* Nancy Koren* Fred Frank* David Brown Judith Pett* Nancy Rice* John Trumble Joan O'Keefe* Rose Flaherty* Daphne Fahsing* James Patterson* CC 08/24/93 Page 7 AGAINST: Barbara Rose* Jean Paul Tiscareno* Becky Williams* Mandy Williams* Barbara Derks* Donald Stegman* Geraldine Brasher* Gary Hoskin Peter Boonisar* Linda Stewart* Peter Stewart* Irene Bishop* Craig Dobbs* Victor Jimenez* Carol DeHart* Karen Coniglio* Stephen LaSalle* Craig Monn* Steve Holm* Karen Riggs* Nancy Hyman* Marty U'Ren* Pat Frank Gidi Pullen* O Pamala Holm* Rebecca Kole Harriet Boonisar* John McNeil* Bob Powers* Dorothy McNeil* Robin Dilworth* Ursula Luna, on behalf of Atascadero Homeowners Assn.* Kenneth Rice* Raymond Jansen* Tonga McGill* 011ie Bishop (* - indicates written statement submitted - on file with the City Clerk) (o - indicates petition submitted with 1,658 signatures - on file with the City Clerk) CC 08/24/93 Page 8 The following one hundred (100) individuals submitted, but did not read, statements in opposition to the A/A-Modified Route (in random order): Douglas Lewis Duronda Smith Kate Leonard William Fox Ethel Pett Edward & Dianna Lakjer John Horton Sheree Ricketts Scott Alexander Carolyn Pressley G. Michael Westwick Alden Shiers Mike & Laurie Joy P. Molloy Oda Ferguson Rebecca Cunningham Roger Zachary M.S. "Stubble" Fasig Donald Wilson Thomas Rice, Jr. Norm Rogers Michael Osten Judy Wilson Florence Hawes Katharine Barthels Eileen Cunningham Ernest, Janice & Kaleen Perlich Dorothy Smith Edward Allred Lesa Jones Brian La Salle E. Craig Cunningham Bunny Stanfield James Johnston Catharine Young Joan Saueressig Charles Hawes Anna Johnston Barbara Alward Virgina Powers Celia & Roy Moss Alisha Layugan Dawn Rice Ana Hartig-Ferrer Brian & Letha Musgrave Nancy Charters Frank Garcia Russell Goodrich Barbara Schoenike Joseph Hampton James & Ellen Hyde Ursula Luna Patrice Powers Beverly Orton Donald Hartig Tony Rector-Cavagnaro Diana Boswell Robert Behan Riley McGinnis Elnora Garcia William Lewis Marie Roberts Lyndell Henderson Irene Wade John & Shiela Beccia Roy King Melanie Cohen Paula Motlo Katherine & James Baker Matthew Lynch Robert Huot Daniel Smith Judith McKrell Llunos Rees Jansen Helen Ricci & Eleanora Cadman Richard & Catherine Ramsey Robert West Christine & James Sedley /Diane Gouff CC 08/24/93 Page 9 D. REGULAR BUSINESS: 1. ORDINANCE NO. 271 - Amending the Zoning Ordinance text to modify the parking requirements of the Pedestrian Commercial Zone (Zone Change 93-002; City of Atascadero) (Recommend (1) motion to adopt on second reading by title on/y) MOTION: By Councilman Bewley, seconded by Councilman Luna to adopt Ordinance No. 271 on second reading; motion carried 5:0 by roll call vote. By mutual consent, the balance of the agenda was continued until Thursday, August 26, 1993. (All continued items to follow the Planning Commission interviews.) 2. DISCUSS FILLING COUNCIL VACANCY (Cont'd from 8/10/93) 3. SELECT VOTING DELEGATE FOR LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES ANNUAL CONFERENCE, OCTOBER 16-19, 1993 E. INDIVIDUAL DETERMINATION AND/OR ACTION: 1, City Council 2. City Attorney 3. City Clerk 4. City Treasurer 5. City Manager NOTICE: The City Council will adjourn to a Closed Session for purposes of discussion regarding pending litigation, entitled Whitaker v. City of Atascadero, pursuant to Govt. Code Sec. 54956.9. THE MEETING WAS ADJOURNED AT 2:04 A.M. THE CITY COUNCIL WILL MEET IN A COMBINED SPECIAL AND CONTINUED MEETING ON THURSDAY, AUGUST 26, 1993 AT 7:15 P.M. IN THE CLUB ROOM, CITY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING. MIN TES RF. DED AND PREPARED BY: t LEE RABO Cfty Clerk Attachment: Exhibit A (Luna) CC 08/24/93 Page 10 George Luna, Ph.D. Q V I 10600 San Marcos Road •�.•a Atascadero, CA. 93422 (805) 466 2946 2 August 24, 1993IT YY a NICE The {purpose of the project: PRIMARY: replace the bridge across the Salinas River. SECONDARY: increase safety and reduce anticipated future traffic congestion by correcting other operational and structural deficiencies of the existing State Highway Route 41 in and near the City of Atascadero. The cholpes of Rroject Alternat A-modified, Alternate,8: Alternatives; Cost$ tree houses length of length of total length of sound cuts removal taken bridge project barrier (>41n dbh) A-modified 16.7 265 8.10 1115 ft 2.3 miles 8ft high/2060 long cuts along Mercedes million 4 oaks 10ft high/1000 long (South side)up to 15 feet designated high.On the east side as scenic 1600 feet long and up to resources 30 feet in depth. B 2.3 20 1 215 ft around 0 0 million 1 large oak. 215 feet not scenic resource I agree with Caltrans statements in the FEIR: We agree that route 41 beyond the Salinas River is winding roadway and not a good choice for eastbound trafiRic. We believe the roadway will always remain that way. Also, the EIR states: This indicates that most traffic on Route 41, east of Route 101, is a combination of local and subregionai, not regional. These statements are consistent with Atascadero"s updated circulation element (1992) which shows that the traffic across the bridge is local traffic and not much different from traffic on other rural streets. CC8/24/93 EXH.„A„ Pg.l $ Note chat the traffic r,.. across the existing bridge is not mucb more r ,� M than the traffic on some v Mit rural city streets. 700 >nAft It A � 6400* t;P$ From the Atascadero Circulation Element(1991 Daily Traffic) In addition the 2010 projections show that that will still be the case in the future. p l6.7 f7 "Mm of SM so AWWW hto.W.Ox f MW ptftkm R N i ....n �..�"\ .nil AK. • Al—dam CION-Was MemeaftiaW 2010 D,tly Tnffia sim Roma 41,em1gmd) Why spend 16.7 million dollars to fix a local problem when there are more serious traffic needs? For example, consider the 41/101 interchange) In 1989 the Atascadero City Council unanimously passed Resolution 66-89 (enclosure 2) requesting that the Highway interchanges be fixed by Caltrans. However, Caltrans refused to include the impacts that the A modified project would have on the 141/41 interchange in the EIR. To compound the frustration Caltrans refused to participate in the PSR (see enclosure 8) to study this intersection until after the impacts of A- modified were known. SLOCOG and the City have spent 50,000 dollars to discover that it will take 4.5 million dollars to fix this interchange that is the Gateway to a successful retail tax base. What follows are comments to the "History of Project Approval Actions" included in the SLOCOO staff report of September 8, 1993 1 agree that there was from 1957 to 1987 continuous approval of the alignment of Highway 41 along Mercedes Avenue that came to be known as the Alternate A alignment. However, CC8/24/93 EXH."A° Pg.2 until 1988 there was no project hence no disagreement on the alignment. Before 1988 no one knew the economic and environmental costs of this boondoggle. 1988 CALTRANS CONDUCTS PUBLIC HEARING ON NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT;ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL REAFFIRMS SUPPORT FOR ALIGNMENT ALTERNATE A.SUBJECT TO EIR. There were two public hearings; one in the rotunda on November 29th that was continued to a meeting in the armory on December 14 because the room was overcrowded. At the meeting in the rotunda Austin Carlton representing Caltrans told Ms. Kirkpatrick that she could delay turning in her 1250 signature petition opposing Alternate A until the December 14 meeting in the Armory. At the December 14 meeting Mr. Hanto of Caltrans said that only documentation up to December 1st would be considered (enclosures 3A, 3B, 3C). This history is reflected in the section added by Ms. DGraza of Caltrans in the revised history (enclosure 4) that was not included in the staff report to the Atascadero City Council. Note that when the people saw the proposal that was to implement the Alternate A alignment they overwhelmingly opposed the Alternate A project. The Council opposed the Alternate A project but saved the Alternate_A alignment by asking that the impacts be identified in an EIR and mitigated, Staff(Atascadero and Caltrans) perpetuates this historical omission by not including the updated report and further distorts the record by not including page 110 (enclosure 1) of the General Plan (pages 109 and 111 were included) which says how the impacts were to be mitigated. The Circulation Element of Atascadero"s General Plan (p. 110) states: Design of Highway 41 along the Mercedes alignment should attempt to minimize the visual impacts on Pine Mountain and should, with regard to the roadway width and residential driveway access, be similar to that of surrounding City streets to minimize any appearance of bisecting the community. Caltrans states (p. 2 of its own EIR): The existing Highway 41 within the City of Atascadero is typically a two lame city street little more than 20 feet wide in many places. 1991 IN MAY,THE FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION(FHWA)ACCEPTS THE FONSI FOR THE PROJECT AND FINAL APPROVAL IS OBTAINED. This is curious; the CTC in certifying the EIR made four findings of overriding considerations, yet, the Feds think there are no significant impacts. Somebody is asleep. 1992 IN JANUARY,CALTRANS COMPLETES AND RELEASES SUPPLEMENTAL PROJECT REPORT AND DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT(EIR)FOR PUBLIC CIRCULATION, Caltrans held a public hearing on April 23, 1992. After that hearing I and many others expected that the project was dead. In fact, a month later the council met to discuss staff responses to the EIR; I quote from the minutes of the May 12, 1992 Atascadero City Council meeting (enclosure C): Councilman Dexter mentioned that he had circulated to Council a draft tetter to Caltrans indicating his support for Alternate "B". Councilwoman Borgeson and Mayor Shiers revealed that they could not support Alternative A or A-Modified. Councilman CC8/24/93 EXH."A° Pg.3 Nmmo asserted that the agenda did not call for comments on the proposed project and emphasized that the matter before the Council was simply the responses to the EIR. The City Attorney remarked that Councilman Nimmo's observation was correct and reminded the Council and public that the drag responses to the EIR were the only matters on the agenda. I have included the letter from Councilman Dexter (enclosure 5) and the minutes from the May 12, 1993 meeting (enclosure 6). On July 14, 1992, the Atascadero City Council met to consider a letter from DKS, the consultant doing the circulation element update. (The Agenda item was: Circulation Element Completon:'Letter from Consultant Re: Highway 41) The council vote was done before the final EIR; The motion was to accept the DKS report and concur with the conclusions and recommendations of that report. The recommendations are unless otherwise directed by staff or Council, it seems prudent to assume this route alternative while developing the draft Circulation Plan. (see enclosure 7.) If it was inappropriate for the Council to choose Alternate B on May 12, 1992 because the item was not properly noticed then it is also inappropriate for Caltrans to take this direction to its consultant on July 14, 1992 as a vote by the City of Atascadero in favor of Alternate A-modified. 1993 IN JUNE,ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL GIVES FINAL APPROVAL.TO UPDATED CIRCULATION ELEMENT, INCLUDING THE ROUTE 41 BRIDGE REPLACEMENT AND ROADWAY REALIGNMENT. Today's Circulation element contains the following policy; Policy 6(c) Support the realignment of State Route 41 as a two lane highway along Mercedes, along with replacement of its existing bridge across the Salinas River, while minimizing its impacts on the community. Program 6,2 (support of A-modified) is inconsistent with this Policy because: (a) The 16.7 Million dollars cost to fix a local problem at a time when the cry is "Cut spending now!„ is outrageous. The primary purpose for the project can be done for 2.3 million by choosing Alternate B. (b) There are 3060 feet of sound barriers to bisect the community. (d) There is a 45 mph design speed when the Federal Minimum is 40 mph. (e) Caltrans is not interested in the gridlock this project will cause at 101/41. (0 There is a 40 foot paved width when the surrounding streets are 20 to 23 feet. (,g) The project will impose an 1100 foot bridge as a visual impact on the Salinas River and Pine Mountain. (h) The project will dead-end the intersections at Country Club Drive, Magdalena, and Magnolia Avenues thus bisecting the community. There are differences between programs, policies and goals: Programs implement policies and goals, and are constrained by them. For example, installation of a median is a program; recall that the Atascadero City Council has voted to remove portions of a newly installed controversial median on the basis that it was not consistent with the goal of safe, efficient circulation. Similarly this project A modified CC8/24/93 EXH."A" Pg.4 is not consistent with the goal to "Preserve residential neighborhoods and respect the winding tree-lined nature of the street and road system", nor is it consistent with the policy "Design of Highway 41 along the Mercedes alignment should attempt to minimize the visual impacts on Pine Mountain and should, with regard to the roadway width and residential driveway access, be similar to that of surrounding City streets to minimize any appearance of bisecting the community." In summary, let me say that the 16.7 million dollars cost is obscene in these depressed times. Most of the benefit will accrue to those who want to develop the flat agricultural land on the east side of the Salinas with suburbs or Industrial Parks. The money would be better spent correcting the horrible 101 interchanges that are the gateway to our commercial district. But, maybe I am the only one who feels that way. If so, I will not stand in the way of this boondoggle. Let us hear from the public. CC8/24/93 EXH."A" Pg.5 DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED BY COUNCILMAN GEORGE LUNA AUGUST 24, 1993 CITY COUNCIL HEARING HIGHWAY 41 1. Pages 110 and 111 of the 1980 Atascadero General Plan Road System, Freeways and Highways (page 110 omitted in the staff report) 2. Resolution No. 66 - 89 A Resolution petitioning the League of California Cities for the introduction of state legislation to require the California Department of Transportation to provide certain minimum participation for the costs of state highway interchanges. 3. A. Letter by Anne Marie Kirkpatrick to Kathy Di Grazia, Cal- trans, dated February 3, 1993, pointing out distortions in the summarization of history on the Highway 41 project B. Excerpts of the November 29, 1988 joint City Council/Planning Commission meeting on Highway 41 C. Minutes of the December 14, 1988 joint City Council/Planning Commission meeting on Highway 41, pages 1 & 2 4. Letter from Cal-trans to Joan O'Keefe, dated March 23, 1993, showing that the internal reports were amended 5. Memorandum from Atascadero City Councilman Rollin Dexter to Cal- trans, dated May 12, 1992, subject: Re-routing of Highway 41 through Atascadero (withdrawing his support of Alternate A Modified) 6. Minutes of the May 12, 1992 City Council meeting, item: Highway 41 Realignment EIR - Staff comments on findings 7. Memorandum from Atascadero City Councilman George Luna to Ron De Carli, Executive Director SLOCOG, dated September 12, 1992, subject: August 29, 1992 handout on the Route 41 Realignment and Bridge Replacement. 8. Letter from SLOCOG to Atascadero City Manager Ray Windsor, dated' October 28, 1992, subject: Route 41/Route 101/Traffic Way Interchange Improvement Project Study Report CC8/24/93 EXH."A° Pg.6 Road System Freeways and Highways The major highways are Freeway 101 (7.0 miles) and Highway 41 . Freeway 101 bisects the Colony from San Ramon Road to south of Santa Barbara Road. There are eight freeway exits, four of which are poorly designed and contribute to traffic congestion (Traffic Way southbound on-ramp, Morro Road northbound off-ram and Santa Rosa Road, both north and soutbound off-ramps). The appearance of the community along U.S. 101 from Santa Barbara Road to San Ramon Road and along the Morro Road section of Highway 41 needs to be improved. This can be accomplished by: I . Effective landscaping, using native shrubs, to screen land uses from the highway. 2. Banning off-premises outdoor advertising signs along these corridors. The completion of Freeway 101 eliminated a vital traffic route which served the Central Business District when access to Atascadero Avenue was interrupted by the Freeway. Caltrans should initiate a project to raise the hre.eway at the present Mall pedestrian tunnel to permit vehicular traffic on Atascadero Mall from El Camino Real to Atascadero Avenue. Highway 41 bisects the community at right angles to Freeway 101 . The eastern half runs through part of the CBD , directly between two schools and through a densely populated residential area. Proposed pians to realign and improve Highway 41 along the Mercedes route would: 1 . Eliminate the truck traffic hazard on West Mall in the area of the Atascadero Junior High and Lewis Avenue Elementary School campuses. 2. Eliminate truck traffic at the very narrow bridge and dogleg over Atascadero Creek. 3. Prevent trucks reaching the Southern Pacific underpass on Capistrano Avenue with its impaired vertical clearance of 131-6". Design of Highway 41 along the Mercedes alignment should attempt to minimise the visual impacts on Pine Mountain and should, with regard to the roadway width and residential 110 , CC8/24/93 EXH.°A" Pg.7 driveway access , be similar to that of surrounding -City streets to minimize any appearance of bisecting the comma— nity • When rerouting of Highway 41 does take place , adequate pedestrian and bicycle pathways shall be provided. Divided Arterials The two arterials are 81 Camino Real and Morro Road. They serve as major highways linking Atascadero with other communities, and they channel traffic to different parts of town. Divided arterials shall be developed in two lengths: on 21 Camino Real from Rosario to San Diego Road and on Morro Road from E1 Camino Real to San Qabriel Road. The divided arterials shall also have a -.paring width that will accommodate four 'traffic lanes, arallel parking . strips, bicycle lanes and curbs and sidewduke. Undivided Arterials These roads serve as major access routes between residential areas, shopping centers, employment centers and primary recreation areas. Roads "In thisp4olassification must have t shoulders vide enough to accommodate multi-use paths and emerggacy parking. There are fourteen segments of undivided arterials: I . Atascadero Avenue from Morro Road to' Freeway 101 provided major access to Santa Rosa Road E1emen- tary School . rt is noted for heavy traffic and lack of shoulders. 2. Traffic Way from $l Camino Real to Potrero Road and a future extension of Traffic Way beyond Potrero Road to 21 Camino Real as a truck route. The portion of Traffic Wavy between 21 Camino Real and ©lzeda Avenue is also designated to have 40 feet of paving to allow for .two eight-foot parking strips on both sides of the arterial. 3• Curbaril Avenue from Morro Road to the Salinas River crossing is a major local traffic route and is also characterised by lack. of adequate shoulders for non-automobile traffic. 4. Portola Road from 'Morro Road to Ardilla Road to San Anselm Road to Freeway 101 .. � 111 000069 J. CC8/24/93 EXH."All Pg.8 r { RESOLUTION No 66 89 A RESOLUTION PETITIONING THE LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES FQR THE INTRODUCTION OF STATE LEGISLATION TO REQUIRE THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TO PROVIDE CERTAIN MINIMUM PARTICIPATION FOR THE COSTS OF STATE HIGHWAY INTERCHANGES WHEREAS, the design_ life of the majority of State Highways, State Highway interchanges, and State Highway overpass and underpass structures has been exceeded; and, WHEREAS*, the holding capacity of State Highways is decreasing as the average daily traffic increases; and, WHEREAS, the increase in vehicles per day on State Highways is impacting interchanges which connect with local roads or other State Highways; and, WHEREAS, Caltrans has announced that local entities are expected to pay 100% of the costs of State Highway interchange improvements; and, WHEREAS. Caltrans has written to local jurisdictions threatening to I-ecommend against future funding to those bodies which do not usurp avelopment fees from developments which contribute to the increase in average daily traffic near State Highway interchanges; and, WHEREAS, there is no equity in development fees from one jurisdiction to another to alleviate an unfair advantage of one local entity over another with respect to. attracting viable commercial projects; and, WHEREAS, the cost of interchange improvements are Prohibitive to local jurisdictions: and, WHEREAS, the citizens presently PaY taxes that go directly to support the State Highway System; and, WHEREAS. Caltrans should assume the cost for such improvements to the State Highway system, since it has sole jurisdiction. NOW- THEREFORE, LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT; Caltrans be assigned the task of upgrading all State Highway interchanges that have outlived their design life, with a funding ratio of: 100% of the cost of future improvements to State Highway interchanges and appurtenances within the State right-of-way, CC8/2.4/93 EXH."A" Pg.9 On motion by Councilman L"ley seconded by Councilman Borgeson ,the foregoing Resolution is hereby adopted in its entirety on the following roll call vote: AYES: Cauncilmembers Lilley, Shiers, Borgeson, Mackey and Mayor Dext NOES: None ABSENT: None ADOPTED: 9-12-89 ATTEST: - BOYD C. SHARITZ, City C rk RfitLIN. DEXTER, Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: _ APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: +CGLCi/ tt % ✓ GL EN PAUL M. SENSIBAUGR 7 At Director of Public Works/ • _ ✓ City Engineer CC8/24/93 EXH.°A11 Pg.10 r ANNE MARIE KIRKPATRICK Insurance SAN LUIS OBISPO. CALIFORNIA 93401 PHONE (805) 541.1770 FEBRUARY 3, 1993 MS . KATHY DI GRAZIA ASSISTANT TRANSPORTATION ENGINEER DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Box 8114 SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA. 93403-8114 RE : EXTENSION OF HIGHWAY 41 ATASCADERO. CA. DEAR MS. DI GRAZIA : I HAVE RECENTLY RECEIVED A COPY OF A CAL TRANS DOCUMENT TITLED NPUBLIC HEARING SUMMARIES". REGARDING THE ABOVE REFERENCED PROJECT. I FIND SEVERAL OMMISSIONS AND ERRORS IN THIS SUMMARY. MOST PARTICULARLY REGARDING THE NOVEMBER 291 1988 ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL MEETING WHICH IS NOT REFERRED TO AT ALL IN YOUR SUMMARY AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WHICH WAS HELD ON DECEMBER 14, 1988 IN THE ATASCADERO ARMORY. THE FACTS ARE (AND THE TAPES OF THESE MEETINGS WILL SUPPORT MY CONTENTIONS ) , THAT THERE WERE SO MANY PEOPLE WHO ATTEMPTED TO COME INTO THE MEETING HELD IN THE ROTUNDA AT CITY HALL ON NOVEMBER 29, 1988, THAT THE FIRE CHIEF DECLARED THAT THE ROOM HAD REACHED ITS MAXIMUM CAPACITY AND REFUSED ADMITTANCE TO A NUMBER OF PEOPLE. BECAUSE OF THIS, MAYOR BORGESON CONTINUED THE MATTER TO A PUBLIC HEARING ON DECEMBER 14 AT THE ARMORY . SHE DID THIS ON THE ASSURANCE FROM MR . AUSTIN CARLTON OF CAL TRANS, THAT THE DATE FOR IMPUT ON THE MATTER WOULD BE EXTENDED BEYOND THE STATED DATE OF DECEMBER 1 IN ORDER TO RECEIVE AS MUCH COMMUNITY IMPUT AS POSSIBLE. I HAD A SUBSTANTIAL NUMBER OF SIGNATURES ON PETITIONS READY TO TURN IN AT THIS POINT, IN OPPOSITION TO ALTERNATE `A' . HOWEVER. UPON HEARING THAT THERE WOULD BE AN EXTENSION, I STOOD UP AND SAID THAT WE WOULD HOLD OFF SUBMITTING OUR SIGNATURES UNTIL THE DECEMBER 14 MEETING IF MR. U2110— WOULD AGAIN AS5UR9 US IHAT THE PE61)LINE -WOULD HEARING DATE. I RECEIVED THIS ASSURANCE. HOWEVER, CAL TRANS DID RENIG ON THE DATE (NOTE PARAGRAPH TWO OF YOUR SUMMARY RE : ' THE CLOSE OF THE RECORD WAS ON DECEMBER 1, 1988' . AT THE DECEMBER 14 MEETING, I SPOKE IN OPPOSITION TO ALTERNATE 'A' AND AT THAT TIME SUBMITTED 1250 SIGNATURES ALSO OPPOSING ALTERNATE 'A' . YOUR SUMMARY' S CLOSING TALLY WAS THAT SEVENTY-THREE SUPPORTED ALTERNATE ' A' ( INCLUDING FORTY-EIGHT FROM A PETITION), AND 384 OPPOSED IT ( INCLUDING 352 FROM A PETITION) . THE TAPED RECORD OF THAT NOVEMBER 29 MEETING HAS ME CLEARING STATING, "I REPRESENT AN AD HOC COMMITTEE REPRESENTING 1200 PETITION CIRCULATORS AND SIGNERS. I 'M SUBMITTING TONIGHT COPIES OF THE PETITIONS WE SUBMITTED TO CAL TRANS WITH 1.250 SIGNATURES. I MIGHT ADD THAT CAL TRANS HAS SHOWN US HOW MUCH WE CAN RELY UPON THEIR WORD BY RENIGING ON THEIR PUBLIC DECLARATION OF NOVEMBER 29. CC8/24/93 EXH.„A„ Pg.1 CAL TRANS FEBRUARY 3, 1993 PAGE 2 IN CLOSING, I CAN ONLY SAY THAT CAL TRANS HANDLING OF THIS MATTER HAS REMAINED CONSISTENTLY ARROGANT AND UNDER-HANDED THROUGHOUT THIS ENTIRE FOUR-YEAR PERIOD . THE SUPPORTERS OF ALTERNATE 'A/ HAD EVERY BIT AS MUCH OPPORTUNITY AS THOSE OPPOSED TO IT TO COLLECT SIGNATURES AND FORM A UNITED GROUP TO VOICE THEIR SUPPORT. THAT THEY FAILED TO DO S0, WOULD INDICATE THAT MANY MORE PEOPLE OPPOSED THIS PROJECT STRONGLY ENOUGH TO IDENTIFY THEMSELVES, THAN SUPPORTED IT. ACTUALLY 1250 PEOPLE WOULD REPRESENT 10% OF ATASCADERO` S POPULATION IN 1988. THAT IS A PRETTY SIGNIFICANT NUMBER . I WOULD WAGER THAT MOST PEOPLE THINK THE PROJECT IS DEAD AND ARE UNAWARE THAT CAL TRANS IS MOVING FORWARD ON AN ENTIRELY DAMAGING PROJECT, COSTING THE TAX-PAYERS LITERALLY MILLIONS OF DOLLARS AT A TIME WHEN WE THERE IS NONE TO SPARE. TO MY KNOWLEDGE NO PUBLIC HEARING HAS BEEN HELD ON THE MATTER AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE E . I .R . SO OUR ENTIRE EFFORT WAS FUTILE . THERE IS A EAL WARNING HERE FOR ALL OF US THAT, AT LEAST AT CAL TRANS. GOVERNMENT ONSIDERS ITSELF OUR MASTERS RATHER THAN OUR SERV"TS . SINCERELY. zdva Ao/ ANNE MARIE KIRKPATRICK 6291 MONTEREY COURT ATASCADERO, CA. 93422 CC8/24/93 EXH."A° Pg.12 JCINT MEETING CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 29, 1988 EXCERPTS MAYOR BORGESON: We do have a deadlineto written testimony from the public in to CalTrans and I believe that that date is December 1st. And I' ll confirm that. We have a representative here from CalTrans . . .could you possibly address that? AUSTIN CARLTON: My name is Austin Carlton. I am a Systems Planner from CalTrans, and I believe that the date is December 10th for taking testimony on the environmental document. I understand correctly, however, and this is not my field of endeavor exactly, that we can take written documents such beyond that date to be included in the final document. u IT Austin Carlton: I don' t see any problem with what we are coming up with here. It seems to me that CalTrans can extend the time limit on this environmental document. We are getting caught in a situation here that obviously a lot of people want to discuss this a lot more fully than has been up to now. You need another public hearing obviously, and I see no reason why CalTrans can' t accommodate that at all. We can extend the time of the document. Mayor Borgeson: OK. Tank you, would you CalTrans get back to the city confirming that Austin Carlton; if you could arrive at a date then give me the date and then I can carry it from there. Mayor Borgeson: OK. Austin Carlton: Anel we' ll macue-the extension. Mayor Borgeson: Thankyou, Thank you . . . CC8/24/93 EXH."A" Pg.13 Mayor Borgeson: . . .The council comments on a meeting date for the next public hearing, I am going to throw out the date of Dec. 14 which is on a Wednesday at 7pm. . .For now, tentatively set up for Dec. 14th 7pm, . . . I will ask those of the people that came in with petitions to state their name and present their petitions to the City Clerk either at this time or if you wish you can keep these petitions and bring them to the meeting at the 14th. Whatever you wish, Anne Marie Kirkpatrick: Mayor Borgeson, my name is Anne Marie Kirkpatrick. I 'live at 6291 Monterey Court in Atascadero. We have decided in light of the information we received tonight about the public hearing to continue gathering signatures and we will submit the petitions to the City Council at the public hearing, and on the assurance of CalTrans that they are extending the time to receive input from us we are also holding on to the petitions for CalTrans but we would like to have a date certain from them so that we don't run into problems . Mayor Borgeson: will you speak to that to clarify that ,once again? Austin Carlton: Well, as 1 previously said that that—we would extend the time limit to include the public hearing, so, that will not be a problem. Mayor Borgeson: Ok, so at least until after the 14th, at this time of the tentative date. Thank you Is there anyone else that has a petition? CC8/24/93 EXH."A" Pg.14 OATS :.:=i ITEM s Jt:tNr C; ri CQUNCEL:NL ANNiNG CGMMtSStGN MESTtNG . MtmurEg - Wednesdav ,, OeCember l4, 1998 TI-e sce:ial meeting of "tile Atascadero City CounCil and Planning Commisnian wai cslled to order at 7 p.m. at the Prather SuildL09 b-,e .Mlval Bargeson. it was immedlately adjourned to ruse Natior'ral. Guied Avmary where the meeting reconvened at 7: 15 p.m. followed by :ne Pledge of Allegiance. ALL ,CALL: . Pe-esent: Couiic i l members D+ex tet , Shiers, Li 1 l ey, Mackvy and Mayor. go.-goson .: Commissioners Luna, HignIand, Lopez Balbantin, Waage, Brasher, Tobey and Chatrperscn Lochcidge Staff Prdsent: Henry Engen, Community Development Director; Paul Sens;baugh, Public works 0i-0Ct01-; Mike Hicks, Fina Chief; Ray Windsor; City Manager; Mark Joseph, Administrative Sore? e" Director and Boyd r. Shafitx% City Clerk. i . PUELM HEARING ON THE PROPOSED EXTENSION OF "H;G-AWAY 4l . Council and Commissioners introduced themselves. Ray Windsor, City Manager, introduced staff and the Cal Trar%s Representatives, Jerry H4nto, Deputy District Direactor, Project Development and Construction. Mayor Borq*scn discussed the rules of partiCipation for the eveninq's discussion. Speakers will be Limited to threes minutes unless they are spokesperson for a $roup in which Case it wLL1 be 5 minutes. Henry Engen, Community Development Dir*Ctcr, gave the staff report. Mr. Kanto, Cal Trans Representative, reviewed Cal Trans' written response to a letter from the City Manager, Ray Windsor, to. Cal -trans. Council and commission comments followed. Commissioner Brasher stated that clarification was needed from yr. Hanto regardinq input• from the public. At this Novemaer 29th meet inq, Austin Carlton from Cal Traits spoke to She issue. he indicated that any input that the public CC8/24/93 000051 EXH."A" Pg.15 dsa•:alate.' up t: and inCludinq this Publicnearing tanight •.Oculh be ,a Ojrt .' f the d-3C.umenCatloIi. Ye: e•:ide•ltly such i3 not the Ca33. Sno wantea to know exactly what is MoAnt whaq he sceaks zf consiaeratton. Mr . kanto responded that he was not present at that hearing sc he could not sa'y p+'eCtselY what was S-alo. It is his ,inearstand ing that it was understood by at least sons- . ,aetmbsrs of the audience that Cal Trans would keep the record• open until some future date that was unspecified. Lf the record was kept open it would be Lnctuded Ln the document ;as part of the document itself. MaN.O.- Bergeson read a transcript of the h"C".19 of �ta•:emnsr 39th and Mr. Austin Carlton and he did act say ne supposed that the public comment would be kept open. Her 'Definitely stated that we can cake wrttlwon documents bRYond that date to be Inc luded in the f lna l document- He stated that it seemed to him that Ca i• Trans can ex lana tr•e time limit: o4+ t;+is sn4ironmental dcc4ment. Another Public Hearing was needed and saw no mason why Cal Trans can' t accommodate tna t. tie further stated "wee can ex tend the time of the document" . Mayor Bergeson asked if Cal Trans position had chanced an this. , ., . Poi Nan to stated that C41 Trans wile` consider- all of then daCumento ion but or+l;r include in their report that r**'QI c t; + pecemt er lst. urthsr discussilln by Commission and Council members followed. At this time Mayor Bergeson opened the meeting for public comment, Terry Graham, 6205 Conejo Road, commented that a special election should dei held to decide this platter. Bob Ellison, attorney from Fresno, representing Ed Allred, spoke against Alternate A and in favor of Alternate S. , He asked Council to request that Cal Trans prepare an EIR and that councl i defer ally decision until the entire environmental process has been tomo leteed. Eric Micneilssen, 5300 Aguila, spoke in, favor of Alternate A. Barbara ecneerneke, 7505 Marchant, stated that there is not enough information for the City Council and the residents of Atascadero to make a proper choice. An EIR should be Completed b6 ores a decision i3 made by the Council - gill ouncil .3i11 Garcia. 10:53 Atascadero Ave.', spoke in favor of Alternate a. � "XA.ZJ'O� g.1.6 STATE OF C_AUFORMA--SUSINESS.TAANSP-MT:ATION ANS HOSl51NO-ASrEN01L- -- - - -- - - - --- - --RST€�V{k88N,Gtovin� DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION P.O. BOX Sit 4 SAN LUIS 081SPO.CA 93403.8114 TELEPHONE:(805)540-3111 T00 18061549-3259 .A March 23, 1993 05-SLO-41-15.8/19.7 Replace Bridge and Realign Highway 05-252-309000 05-252-345200 Ms. Joan O'Keefe 9985 Old Morro Road East Atascadero, GA 93422 Dear Ms. O'Keefe: Per my previous letter of February 9th and our phone conversation of March 15th, I have amended ourinternal reports to include information regarding the additional 1988 petitions opposing Alternate A. As you requested, I am enclosing a revised copy of the summary of the public hearing process indicating that the additional petitions were received. I have marked the paragraph in the summary That was- included in the amendment :u uuc reportzi. If you have any further questions, please feel free to call me at 549-3459. Sincerely, fie'/ ,,.. 4c�,. Rath M. DiGrazia Project Engineer Project Development Attachment CCC8/24/93 EXH."All t71ll Pg.17 PUBLIC HEARING SUMMARIES Since the project was reinitiated in 1983, two Public Hearings (1988 and 1992) and one Informational Meeting (1991) have been held. Additionally, the City of Atascadero held a Joint City Council/Planning Commission Meeting in 1988 which included a Public Hearing on this project. 1988 Public Hearing A Public Hearing was held on October 26, 1988 in the Rotunda of the City of Atascadero Administration Building. The hearing was opened at 7:03 p.m: and presided over by Muriel Evans with 128 people in attendance. It concluded at 10:50 p:m. The close of the record was on December 1, 1988. Twenty-two of the people who attended the public hearing signed statements for the record. Eleven supported Alternate A, five opposed Alternate A, and six had other comments and concerns. Of those who spoke for the record at the public hearing, four supported Alternate A, and ten were opposed to it. Included in the Record are written responses from the City of Atascadero, the County of San Luis Obispo, and the San Luis Obispo Area Coordinating Council stating their support for Alternate A. Of the letters received from community organizations and businesses, six letters expressed preferences. Three were in favor rpt Alternate A, two were in favor of----- ----- Alternate B, and one felt the funds could be better used on nearby Highway 46. Thirty-one letters were received from individuals. Of those, ten were in favor of Alternate A, seventeen were opposed to Alternate A, and an additional four wrote to state other concerns to be addressed if Alternate A is approved. Of those opposed to Alternate A, six expressed a preference for Alternate B. A petition opposing Alternate A and supporting Alternate B was signed by 219 people. Another 133 people signed a petition opposing Alternate A. A petition supporting Alternate A was signed by forty-eight people. In total of all preferential responses by local residents during the public comment period, seventy-three supported Alternate A (including forty-eight from a petition) , and 384 opposed it (including 352 from a petition) . 1988 City Council Public Hearing The City Council of Atascadero held a Public Hearing on December 14, 1988 at the National Guard Armory in Atascadero. At this meeting, Mayor Borgeson affirmed the City's approval of Alternate A but requested that an Environmental Impact Report be submitted. CC8/24/93 EXH."A° Pg.18 Although no official record has been kept as to the number of people attending this meeting, it is estimated there were between 200 and 400 people present. Eighty-one people spoke at this hearing. Forty-two spoke in favor of Alternate A, twenty spoke against Alternate A and in favor of Alternate B, and nineteen expressed other concerns. Those speaking in favor of Alternate A included representatives from the Atascadero Unified School District, Atascadero Board of Realtors, North County Contractor's Association, Atascadero Chamber of Commerce, Bank of America, Atascadero 2000, the PTA, and the Downtown Business Improvement Association. A Sierra Club representative spoke in favor of Alternate B. of those either in favor of Alternate B or with other concerns, twenty-three people asked for completion of an EIR before a decision was made. Although the official close of the 1988 Public Hearing Record was December 1, 1988, additional petitions were presented at this City Council Public Hearing. There were an additional 839 signatures on petitions opposing Alternate A and supporting Alternate B, and an additional 59 signatures on petitions opposing Alternate A. This would bring the total of all petitions resulting from the 1988 hearings to 48 supporting Alternate A and 1250 opposed to Alternate A. The Atascadero City Council voted unanimously to reaffirm the City's position in support of Alternate A subject to an EIR. 1991 Informational Meeting An Informational Meeting/Map Showing was held in an open house format on March 28, 1991 in the Rotunda of the City of Atascadero Administration Building. There were a total of 120 citizens in attendance spread out over the five hour meeting. Approximately 100 comment sheets were turned in. of these, sixty-six expressed a preference for either Alternate A or A-modified, eleven expressed a preference for Alternate B, twenty preferred that Highway 41 be redesignated to proceed north on Highway 101 to Highway 45, and eleven preferred other alternates that had been considered but rejected. 1992 Publig Hearing A Public Hearing was held on April 23, 1992 in the pavilion at Atascadero Lake Park. A four hour Informational Meeting/Map Showing was held immediately prior to the hearing. The hearing was opened at 7:00 p.m. and presided over by Judge Robert Neher. There were approximately 130 people in attendance. It concluded at 10: 30 p.m. The close of the public record was on May 22, 1992. Forty-four of the people who attended the public hearing signed statements for the record. Twenty-one supported Alternate A or A-modified, twelve supported Alternate B, four were totally opposed to the project, and seven had other related comments and concerns. CC8/24/93 EXH."A" Pg.19 Forty-two people spoke for the record at the public hearing or had their statement read into the record. Of these, eight supported Alternate A or A-modified, sixteen supported Alternate B, nine were totally opposed to the project, and nine had other related comments and concerns. Letters received during the public comment period (April 23rd to May 22nd) are included in the Public Record. There were ninety- one citizens who mailed in written comments during this time. Of those, fifty-eight wrote in favor of Alternate A or A-modified, seventeen wrote in favor of Alternate B, twelve were totally opposed to the project, and four had other related comments and concerns. Additionally, a petition was received containing 1777 signatures in favor of Alternate A or A-modified. In total of all preferential responses by local residents due to this most recent Public Hearing, 1864 supported Alternate A or A-modified (including 1777 from a petition) and 70 either supported Alternate B or opposed the project entirely. On July 14, 1992, the City Council of Atascadero voted 3:2 affirming the City's support of Alternate A-modified. Summary of Major Congerns Some of the major comments received included concerns about the traffic impacts to the El Camino Real/Highway 101/Highway 41 intersections, deRign speeds, the impacts to Pine Mountain, the loss of trees and the mitigation replacement ratio, spending roughly $10 million during this time of budget crises, and concerns about the fill in the ravine at the entrance to Stadium Park. Additionally, comments were received that suggested designating Curbaxil as Highway 41 or designating Highway 101 and Highway 46 as Highway 41 and relinquishing the existing Highway 41 between Atascadero and Choiame. CC8/24/93 EXH."A" Pg.20 MEMORANDUM TO: CAL—TRANS FROMs ROLLIN W. DEXTER, CITY COUNCILMAN, ATASCADERO SUBJECT: RE—ROUTING OF HIS 41 THROUGH ATASCADERO. DATE s MAY 129 1992 YOU HAVE ASKED FOR INPUT FROM THE ITIZENS OF ATASCADERO. I DO NOT PRESUME TO SPEAK FOR THE COUNCIL, BUT I DO SPEAK AS A MEMBER OF THE COUNCIL AND AS A CITIZEN. AFTER THE LENGTHY DISCUSSIONS, HEARINGS, AND INFORMATION GATHERING I FIND THAT I CAN NO LONGER SUPPORT EITHER ALT. A OR ALT A MODIFIED. AT A TIME OF ECONOMIC DIFFICULTIES AT EVERY LEVEL OF GOVERMENT I CANNOT JUSTIFY A PROJECT WHICH IS MUCH TEVCOSTLY AND OUT OF TOUCH WITH CURRENT NEEDS OF THE TRAVELLING PUBLIC. I HAVE BEEN TOLD THAT THE BUDGETS ARE "FIXED" AND THAT FUNDS CANNOT BE DIVERTED FROM THOSE ALREADY CONTEMPLATED. I FIND THAT BUDGETS ARE AN EDUCATED GUESS AND PROVIDE GUIDELINES FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF A PROGRAM. UNTIL THOSE FUNDS ARE EXPENDED THEY MAY FIND THEMSELVES UP FOR ADJUSTMENTS AND REASSIGNMENTS. ASIDE FROM THE QUESTION I RAISE ABOUT FINANCE, THE MORE DEMANDING QUESTION IS RAISED, "IS THIS THE BEST OR WISEST ROUTE ?" I THINK NOT. PLEASE CONSIDER THE FOLLOWINGa STATE 41 IS A MEANDERING HIGHWAY THAT IS OUT OF DATE IN IT' S ENTIRETY. AT WORST, ' THE SECTION BETWEEN ATASCADERO SHANDON IS UNSAFE. IT SHOULD REMAIN A LIMITED LOCAL ROAD HEST TRAVELLED WHEN THE WILD FLOWERS ARE IN BLOOM COMING FROM MORRO ROAD IT SHOULD JOIN HWY 101 AT ATASCADERO, TRAVEL NORTH TO JOIN HWY 46 HEADING EAST TO ONCE AGAIN JOIN THE EXISTING 41 TO FRESNO AND POINTS EAST. USE THE FUNDS SAVED TO CORRECT THE PROBLEMS WHICH EXIST BETWEEN C:HOLAME AND FRESNO. MEANWHILE, CORRECT THE IMPERFECTIONS TO THE NORTHBOUND HWY 41 OFFRAMPS ON HWY 101 ---AT CONSIDERABLE SAVINGS AND THE SAFETY OF THE TRAVELING PUBLIC. REPLACE THE BRIDGE ACROSS THE SAL.INAS AT ITS PRESENT LOCATION. I RECOGNIZE THAT THE CITY OF ATASCADERO MAY FIND SOME BUDGET IMPACTION ON STREET IMPROVEMENTS --BUT WE WILL SURVIVE. I ASK YOUR CONSIDERATION FOR THE BENEFIT OF BOTH THE STATE AND THE CITY. CC8/24/93 EXH."A" Pg.21 could not support the amendment. Councilman Nimmo asked the City Planner if study of an expanded area for possible inclusion within the USL and commercial development would be consistent with the General Plan. Mr. Decamp reported that the General -Plan calls for a "node" of commercial zoning at the Del Rio Road intersection but clarified that the General Plan does not specify the size of the term "node". Councilman Nimmo spoke in support of extending the study area and asserted that it is . time to do long-range planning rather than "piece-meal, one lot at a time" development. Councilwoman Borgeson pointed out that if sewer becomes available, parcel sizes can be reduced to one-half acre. Steve DeCamp confirmed that zoning density is tied to sewer availability and suggested that because the item did not have a time requirement on it, it might be helpful to Council for staff to come back at the next. t meeting with revised maps showing the proposed additional area for inclusion in the study. By consensus, Council approved the initiation of GPA 92-1 and GPA 92-2. GPA 92-3 was continued and staff directed to bring back expanded area for study. A fourth amendment was added; GPA 92-4, a request by Tammy Hail to change 4900 Del Rio Road from Public (P) to Suburban Residential (RS) . 2. HIGHWAY 41 REALIGMMENT EIR - STAFF COMWTS ON FINDINGS The City Manager introduced the matter pointing out that Council was being asked to approve staff responses to the Draft Environ- mental Impact Report on the proposed Highway 41 realignmentand emphasized that all comments were due no later than May 22, 1992. Councilman Nimmo voiced objection to #31 Long Range Design of gighM 1011141 Intersection because it is a separate project from the realignment. Councilwoman Borgeson mentioned that she was a delegate to the San Luis Obispo Area Coordinating Council (SLOACC) and reported that the intersection had not been funded by Caltrans or been prioritized by the SLOACC. Councilman Dexter mentioned that he had circulated to Council a draft letter to Caltrans indicating his support for Alternate "B". Councilwoman Borgeson and Mayor Shiers revealed that they could not support Alternative A or A-Modified. Councilman Nimmo asserted that the agenda did not call for comments on the proposed project and emphasized that the matter before the Council was simply the responses to the EIR. CC05/12/92 Pages ? CC8/24/93 EXH."A" Pg.22 - . k ti — • p � _ I1 : - • � • p II � 1 III • " • It • . . r v �y r S,•�rY \�- fz✓ a5 a S y \ t}'' 3 �° 3,y r {N x '6r— K5_ adof �.�� � vz �~? rJ z 'z, � al " - e '7 ..✓ F,rn, C.f �� { ,� a. � a �.. '�f l � Y { �s. t x'ti �, sn•;�� v > � � s ry.. �Eo-u`s ��.x '4 ? T �^., '✓ h �� �G �{� � � '} ) 0. 75' i"'S, .�xs -0� R�? 3 f}int} '�r t/G t 5��6 I b Fy 4� o 1 '` �` s � ° F { ^� ✓«�'W �- � "s <J•,✓ f C,� ,a< i � $t r!c �S r }� t,3�>; 5 >,-u I{ ..rS6�',+ � < h ��A 2 3y'r4<:.<� '✓ XG 57 t�'"�� �r z '�� z� `'� 9a -^> �' F z ! � ? _"` a } $ t J '�.�^.^. �' x L ���k..Y.� ♦.v/tt.. ..�� ^,h>, 7�..f:� s� m,S.t�r $ 1 {h '�*1�? --------------- ----------------------- -------------- ------------------- Peter Bonnisar spoke again and addressed the Draft SIR and claimed Caltrans had not thoroughly evaluated traffic impacts from Alternate "A" or "A-Modified" on the intersection of Capistrano and Highway 41. He indicated that he had completed his own wait-time study and that his figures differed substantially from those prepared by Caltrans. He urged Council to study the Capistrano intersection further. ---End of Public Testimony--- Additional Council discussion ensued regarding Item #3. Councilman Nimmo reiterated that he did not feel the comment should be included because it has no relation to the Highway 41 realignment. Councilwoman Borgeson disagreed asserting that the City must address this item and get some kind of commitment from Caltrans for improving the Highway 101/41 intersection. Councilman Dexter suggested that the City Is response to the SIR should include the fact that there are other concerns in addition to the four selected issues. He noted that he would be sending to Caltrans his own personal comments. Councilwoman Borgeson reported that she would do the same. MOTION: By Mayor Shiers to approve Items #1 through 4. Motion died for lack of a second. MOTION: By Councilman Nimmo, seconded by Councilman Lilley to approve Items #1, 2 and 4; motion carried unanimously by voice vote. MOTION: By Borgeson, seconded by Shiers to approve Item #3 and to add Item #5 concern for traffic problems at the intersection of Capistrano and 41. Discussion: Greg Luke pointed out that technically Capistrano is the existing 41 and asked for clarification of the exact area. There was consensus that the word "intersection" would clarify the matter. vote on the moti2nn: Motion carried 3:2 (Lilley and M mmo in opposition) . CC05/12/92 Page 9 CC8/24/93 EXH."A" pg..24 Memorandum To: Ron De Carli, Executive Director SLOCOG From: Councilman George Luna, Atascadero Date: September 12, 1992 Subject: The August 29, 1992 handout on the Route 41 Realignment and Bridge Replacement The handout you issued dated August 29, 1992 is in error. You state that "At the request of Caltrans, the City of Atascadero has now officially determined its preference for construction of Alternate A-modified." In fact the item on the agenda was a request from the consultants (DKS & Associates) doing the update of the City's circulation element for direction on which Highway 41 Alternate to base the study. The minutes of the July 14, 1992 meeting read: Motion: By Mayor Nimmo, seconded by Councilman Kudlac that the Council accept the DKS &Associates Supplemental Report dated July 7, 1992 and concur with the conclusions and recommendations of that report. The motion passed on a 3-2 vote. It is unfortunate that some would use this vote as a formai City Councd declaration tolit ans. We have yet to see the FIial EIR on the project and the impacts on Atascadero's circulation have yet-to be presented. I continue to hope that both Caltrans and DKS are exploring all alternatives. CCs Ray Windsor CC8/24/93 EXH."A" Pg.25 San Luis Obispo Area Coordinating Council Arroyo A aGran scade Grover C Morro B and Regional Transportation Planning Agency Paso Rob Pismo Bea Son Luis Obis Son Luis Obispo Cour October 28, 1992 R E C E I V E D <12 Mr. Ray Windsor, City Manager Ci f t M(-%R. CITY OF ATASCADERO 6500 Palm Avenue Atascadero, CA 93422 Subject: Route 41/Route 101/Traffic Way interchange Improvement Project Study Report Dear Mr. Windsor, As stated In previous discussions and correspondence, the San Luis Obispo Council of Governments (SLOCOG) has identified the Route 41/Route 101/Traffic Way Interchange Improvement Project to be a regionally significant project possible for programming In the 1994 State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). In order for projects to be programmed in the 1994 STIP, preparation and approval of a Project Study Report(PSR) is required by July 1, 1993. SLOCOG staff has discussed the preparation of this PSR with Caltrans, District 5 staff and was informed that District 5 is already overcommitted and cannot prepare any more PSRs within the time frame required for 1994 STIP programming. In addition, Caltrans feels that any studies conducted for the Route 41/Route 101lrrafic Way Interchange should be conducted after the Route 41 Realignment Project is completed In order to determine the Impacts of the Route 41 realignment to the existing interchange. SLOCOG recognizes that the Route 41/Route 101 Interchange Is a current issue for the City of Atascadero. Due to limited regionwide funding,we do not believe we could recommend funding for an ultimate improvement. SLOCOG suggests that perhaps a"phased"improvement could be provided. A first "phase" improvement could kckjde modifications to the existing ramp configuration (i.e., hook on and off ramps to the frontage roads). For future funding, a second "phase" improvement could include the ultimate widening of the Route 41/Route 101 bridge structure. It Is the understanding of SLOCOG staff that the City of Atascadero has received an estimate to prepare the subject PSR for$50,000. As this project Is one of the Highest priority PSR candidate projects in the region, SLOCOG staff Is wring to recommend to our Council that we share in the cost of the PSR preparation. Funding fa'you share of the cost could come from a number of sources including the Surface Transportation.Program (STP). The City of Atascadero Is apportioned $102,090 annually of STP funds with a six year total of$557,913. The six year total is less$54,628 which was previously overprogrammed In the Combined Road Program (CRP). L r-1 —_-4. #-%--,L_ n-- 7 --�' - t-%l - -% a __ .__ r---N CC8/24/93 EXH."A" Pg.26 Mr. Ray Windsor October 28, 1992 Page 2 Without a completed PSR, this project could not be recommended for state funding through the STIP. in these dire economic tines, d would be our Intent to assist the City of Atascadero in funding the PSR. Based on this discussion,please inform SLOCOG staff of the City of ero's Intent as soon as possible. SLOCOG staff would Ice to make recommendation to the SLOCOG Board at the December 9, 1992, meeting. 9 you have any questions, please give me a call at 781-5714. Sincerely, Ronald L De Carii Executive Director San Luis Obispo Council of Governments cc: Greg Luke, Public Works Director, City of Atascadero Robert Nimmo, SLOCOG Delegate RTE41PSR UW CC8/24/93 EXH."All Pg.27 nt�n�c