Loading...
CC 2019-03-26_10a Supplemental No. 1 MEMORANDUM TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: TERESA McCLISH, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR SUBJECT: SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION AGENDA ITEM 10.a. – MARCH 26, 2019 CITY COUNCIL MEETING CONSIDERATION OF A PROJECT STATUS UPDATE AND RECOMMENDATION OF A PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE FOR THE BRISCO-HALCYON ROAD INTERCHANGE PROJECT DATE: MARCH 25, 2019 Attached is correspondence received regarding the above referenced item. cc: City Manager City Attorney City Clerk Public Review Binder From: Linda Busek Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2019 7:10 PM To: brisco <brisco@arroyogrande.org> Subject: Brisco Interchange   I prefer Option #1. (Not the roundabout)   But I would like to see an effort to mitigate the impact on the Shell station at Grand. The family is a longtime contributor to successful commerce in AG. The owners deserve our thoughtful consideration in how it will affect their ability to continue profitable operation.   Thank You. Linda Busek 1 From: Rob O'Sullivan    Sent: Friday, March 22, 2019 5:11 PM  To: Russomcrayrussom@arroyogrande.org; Kristen Barneich <kbarneich@arroyogrande.org>; Jimmy Paulding  <jpaulding@arroyogrande.org>; Keith Storton <kstorton@arroyogrande.org>; Jim Bergman  <jbergman@arroyogrande.org>; Teresa McClish <tmcclish@arroyogrande.org>; Robert o sullivan   Cc: Sue O'Sullivan  Robert o sullivan   Subject: Concerned Resident: Brisco Rd Interchange Alt 4c opposed  Mayor and the City Council of Arroyo Grande, We are writing to you to make a formal position against Brisco Project alt 4c. We are reiterating the solid consensus from the residents of Royal Oak area that will be negatively impacted by this alternative. Not only does it not make sense to have a freeway off ramp that routes traffic by St. Pat's school, but it would also have a significant impact on traffic and speeding on Rodeo & Grace Lane. Having a freeway offramp at Rodeo Drive and realigning Rodeo to push traffic up Rodeo Drive on to Grace Lane will: (1) certainly impact our quality of life, (2) endanger the lives of children at St. Pats and all of the families who participate in sports at the fields next to St. Pats, (3) significantly decrease our property values, and (4) cost significantly more than Alternative 1 makes no sense at all. We believe that Alternative 1 is the best compromise for Arroyo Grande's businesses and it's residents in regard to business growth well-being and safe and reasonable traffic flow. Please make a fiscally responsible and logical decision for all of the business owners and residents of Arroyo Grande and approve Alternative 1. Sincerely, Rob and Sue O’Sullivan Grace Ln Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 1 From: John Sinner    Sent: Sunday, March 24, 2019 8:40 PM  To: Teresa McClish <tmcclish@arroyogrande.org>; Kari Sinner   Subject: Brisco Interchange Project  Kari and I live at Grace Lane in AG. We built our house 6 years ago, we have 3 kids at Ocean View Elementary. We use the Brisco road interchange more than 10 times per day. We see the problems at this intersection daily. During the time that the off and on ramps where closed, the flow of traffic thru the intersection was very good. It was a night and day difference. We are strongly in support of Alternative 1, it fixes the traffic flow problem and costs half as much as the other option. We strongly oppose Alternative 4C, the cost alone is a reason to reject it, but more so what it would do to our neighborhood with increased traffic and speeding. There is already a big speeding problem on Grace Lane, it is one of the narrowest streets in the neighborhood and to purposely add more traffic, does not make sense. 4C costs to much and won't fix the problem. Thank You John Sinner Regional Sales Manager M www.sunrun.com SUBJECT: BRISCO INTERCHANGE PROJECT This is to provide comments for entry into public record regarding proceeding with the subject project. 1. Alternative 4C significantly exceeds the estimated cost of Alternative 1. The City recently had to reduce hours city staff is available to the public (i.e., closing to the public on Fridays) due to staffing reductions resulting from a lack of funding. Additionally, the City indicated at the February 26, 2019, City Council meeting that the City is now looking at eliminating the recreation department in order to save money. Plus the increasing pension costs and the possibility that more funding will be needed for the Five Cities Fire Authority would further strain the City’s ability to “make ends meet”. Where is the additional money that would be need for Alternative 4C (as opposed to Alternative 1) going to be found if the City is already struggling to fund existing needs? 2. Alternative 4C, which would: (a) close the Brisco on/off ramps, (b) move the northbound 101 exit ramp to West Branch and Rodeo, (c) install a traffic circle routing traffic by St. Patrick's school and sports field, and (d) realign Rodeo to route traffic up Grace Lane (a residential street), does not seem to be the best solution to the congestion at the Brisco/El Camino/West Branch Street interchange. The impact on Grace Lane would certainly diminish the quality of life for Grace Lane residents and would further exacerbate the current speeding problem on Grace Lane increasing the likelihood that someone (or an animal) is going to get hit/killed by a speeding car. 3. Many Grace Lane residents were unaware of the Brisco Interchange project when they bought their houses since it was not included in the disclosures as required by law. If you didn't live here at the time the interchange project was being developed, you would not have known about the interchange project and that traffic would be routed up Grace Lane. That certainly would have deterred people from buying a house on Grace Lane. 4. When the Brisco offramp was closed during the test period, it is my understanding that it had little impact on the businesses on West Branch and Rancho Parkway. Furthermore, if business was lost, it wasn't the result of lack of access, since it was much easier for residents to get from the west side of 101 to the businesses on West Branch and Rancho Parkway then. Additionally, it was much easier for people commuting to and from work and emergency vehicles to get through the intersections. 5. The ideal alternative would be to just close the Brisco ramps and alter the Grand Ave and Camino Mercado ramps to accommodate the additional traffic. That would certainly be a win for local businesses since it would provide easier access to the shopping areas. 6. If number 5 above is not doable, then it would make more sense to: (a) close the Brisco ramps, (b) create an offramp at Rodeo with signage directing traffic to Rancho Parkway where there are no schools, sports fields and residential driveways and is the access point to businesses, (c) drop the roundabout (which would save a considerable amount of money), and (d) install speed bumps on Rodeo (between West Branch and Grace Lane) as well as on Grace Lane to deter traffic from using Grace Lane (as was done on Rodeo before Grace Lane was constructed) as a speedway. It seems that would be a win-win-win for St. Patrick’s students and kids engaged in sports at the sports fields, Grace Lane residents, and businesses on West Branch. I wouldn’t think that CalTrans would have jurisdiction/”say” over city streets as long as they don’t impact highway traffic. I strongly oppose Alternative 4C and would strongly suggest implementing Alternative 1 with the modifications noted in item #6 above. John & Kit Sinner 537 Sombrillo Arroyo Grande From: Ashley B Sent: Monday, March 25, 2019 9:50 AM To: brisco <brisco@arroyogrande.org>; Joshua Beene Subject: Public Comment from Brisco Road Residents   Good morning! Josh, my husband, and I have followed the freeway closure and options closely. We have lived on Brisco Road for ten years. We bought our home knowing we were on a major traffic thorough-way and liked being close to freeway access. As building occurs in city limits and out on the mesa, we know that traffic will increase and we are okay with that; it was foreseeable. We have neighbors who purchased their home almost two years ago are unhappy with increased traffic. To that, I wonder what would they expecting from Brisco Road. To those who live on Rodeo, they also bought knowing they were on a route to get to and from the highway. Contrary to our situation, they do not have the greatly increased traffic flow over the past years. The homes along Rodeo are newer than the homes behind them, north of James Way. Their desire to close Brisco and refuse to accommodate Rodeo ramps is selfish. The negative impacts of losing ramps in the area would negatively impact thousands the south and a handful on the north side, while reducing traffic flow in their neighborhood would help only those who live on Rodeo. Other nearby residents were negatively impacted by the Brisco closure. My son has a classmate who lives on El Camino Real at Hillcrest. Their condo faces the street. During the closure they had more traffic noise, including passing ambulance sirens – something they did not experience before. They had an expectation of increased traffic as the city grew, but not the instant increase produced when the Brisco ramps closed. Farther away, there were no traffic studies to measure neighborhoods farther away, such as Oak Park and Courtland at Grand. Traffic had to go somewhere; the Brisco closure was far-reaching. Potential closing of El Campo would put added stress on all Arroyo Grande ramps and streets. It is prudent to maintain our current level of freeway access within city limits. My mother-in-law lives off El Campo on the mesa. She could go Highway 101 North at that point, but comes all the way over to Brisco for safety reasons. There is a very large area that relies on Brisco’s ramps. I had attended every traffic commission meeting regarding the Brisco ramps, learning about many statistics which further confirm to us that we would like to keep freeway ramps at Brisco or Rodeo. It was surprising to see so many concerned residents at the most recent meeting regarding the interchange. At best, there were four of us who attended the traffic commission meetings regarding Brisco. At these meetings, we learned about the intersections’ ratings before and during the Brisco ramps closure. In our experience (and we were not the only ones in line), we would regularly wait through more than one light to get on the highway at Mercado and Oak Park. While Brisco’s rating improved slightly, the intersections at Oak Park, Mercado and Grand dropped drastically. A drop at those intersections does not rationalize the nominal improvement at Brisco. Those who only see the better traffic flow at Brisco have tunnel vision. There were safety issues caused too. First, there was a backup of traffic onto the number two lane of the highway in the morning as commuters waited to exit northbound Grand Ave. When Brisco is open, there is no issue with traffic stopping on the highway at either off-ramp. While at the previous meeting, I noticed that the Grand Ave changes did not include extending the northbound off-ramp. Secondly, my husband who is a first responder noted that the closure would slow down his response time. Instead of hopping on the nearby Brisco on-ramp, ambulances would have to take the frontage road (El Camino Real) then get through more lanes at Oak Park. Josh has more experience heading to potentially dangerous 911 calls and closing Brisco would mean that they too would have to drive Code 3 – lights and sirens, at a high rate of speed – on more side streets and through more stop lights. Closing the Brisco ramps increases first responders’ response time and force speeding emergency vehicles onto city streets. Regarding the Rodeo option, Josh believes the option is better than having no ramps in the area. Once a decision is made regarding a no-build or one of the alternatives, the impact during construction should be considered. We would like to see Brisco stay open as long as possible so that construction does not coincide with increased traffic flow from a Brisco ramp closure. The Rodeo option appears to provide the opportunity to impact traffic the least during construction. I understand there are drivers who dislike roundabouts. We believe there is a learning curve and roundabouts help bring our community closer to Vision Zero. SLO is adding roundabouts at new housing developments – the first on Prado Road at Serra Meadows and now another at the Arroyos at Righetti on Tank Farm. Morro Bay has theirs in a primary traffic artery. We do not think the sound walls are necessary, even before learning about the cost. Our home has direct line-of-sight to the highway and the noise that it produces. The noise from the highway is nominal and we have become accustomed to it. Most of our street noise comes from cars accelerating up Brisco and ambulance sirens (which the kids love!). Trucks do not use noisy Jake brakes/engine braking on our nearby stretch of the highway and we are grateful for that. The constant hum of passing traffic does not have the type of momentarily heightened noise that does not grasp our attention. Our children go to Ocean View and we are glad that they can walk home in a neighborhood that we feel is safe for them. For their classmates that drive home under the freeway, I have a suggestion that may help them. Brisco at El Camino Real can be improved by making the two northbound lanes straight-turn combo lanes. While the number two right turn lane is generally empty, the number one left turn-straight lane gets backed up. Dividing the straight traffic to the on-ramp and West Branch over two lanes will help alleviate traffic for drivers attempting to get through the light. Heading on Brisco towards the freeway there are two lanes at the El Camino Real light; the left lane goes under the freeway; the right lane is a right turn-only lane. Typically, the left lane is backed up while a handful of drivers turn right onto El Camino Real. Sometimes it is the freeway lane that backs up, preventing drivers from passing through the Brisco/El Camino Real light. Other times, the West Branch access. We have had plenty of time at that light to attempt to determine why the back-up varies between the two lanes, but to no avail. Instead, we searched for a solution. We feel that if both lanes provided the option to go straight under the bridge that traffic flow would improve. The left lane would allow drivers to go north on El Camino Real or under the freeway to access the northbound ramps. The right lane would allow for drivers to go through to West Branch or south on El Camino Real. Thank you for your consideration. Kindly, Ashley & Josh Beene To: Jim Bergman <jbergman@arroyogrande.org> Cc: Mankins Blair <briscohardware@yahoo.com> Subject: BRISCO HARDWARE: Brisco Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project. City of Arroyo Grande City Manager: Mr. James Bergman 300 E. Branch St. Arroyo Grande, CA Dear James, Thank you for your attention to the Brisco - Halcyon Road interchange Modifications Project. Attached is our current letter to the City of Arroyo Grande relating to this Project. We ask for your support of ALT 4C Sincerely, Mark &n Blair Mankins B. Mankins Brisco's True Value Hardware 1005 El Camino Real Arroyo Grande, CA 93420-2518 P. 805.489.5536 F. 805.489.6477 E.briscoHardware@yahoo.com From: Mankins Blair <briscohardware@yahoo.com>  Sent: Monday, March 25, 2019 1:51 PM From:Dennis & Claudine Lingo To:Caren Ray Russom; Kristen Barneich; Jimmy Paulding; Keith Storton; Lan George; Kelly Wetmore Subject:COMMENTS FOR CONSIDERATION BEFORE SELECTING BRISCO ALTERNATIVE Date:Monday, March 25, 2019 12:12:18 PM Attachments:Comments about Brisco for March 26 2019 meeting.docx Please see the attached comments regarding Teresa McClish's letter which will be on the City Council agenda tomorrow. Thank you, Claudine Lingo COMMENTS ON 3/26/19 MEMO FROM TERESA MCCLISH TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR THE 3/26/19 COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA ITEM 10A Page 3, paragraph 3 states the purpose provide traffic congestion relief, alleviate queuing and improve traffic operations … “To achieve this stated purpose to an adequate degree this project should … “Provide direct access from US 101 to and from the commercial, governmental and recreational facilities along West Branch Street.” Comment: Alternative 1 would do that without the degree of negative impact to Grace Lane residents and St. Patrick students’ safety that Alternative 4C would. Speeding on Grace Lane is currently an issue and would be exacerbated by directing traffic to and from the freeway via Grace Lane. Page 3, paragraph 4 states “The purpose of the project is to maximize the efficiency of the existing State and local roadway systems to better serve the needs of commuter traffic within the City.” Comment: It appears the purpose of the project focused on commuter traffic and no regard for serving the needs/wishes of most residents (based on the comments reflected in the public input document), the quality of life Grace Lane residents, or safety issues around St. Patrick’s school and sports fields. Grace Lane residents and St. Patrick’s school will endure the most negatively impact of Alternative 4C. Page 6, 4th bullet (regarding Alternative 1) addresses the impact to the gas stations on E. Grand stating “Loss of gas pumps, reduced circulation … could significantly impact the business of one of the City’s highest sales tax generators.” Comment: Does the impact on a business carry more weight than the impact on the quality of life of existing residents on Grace Lane? Are the owners of the two gas stations Arroyo Grande residents? Page 2 Page 9, 3rd bullet (regarding Alternative 4C) addresses reconstruction of the existing Grace Lane/Rodeo Drive intersection to “allow Grace Lane to better receive through traffic and act as a collector street as it was designed.” Comment: We bought the second house built on Grace Lane (those on the 1/2 acre lots) while it was in construction. We were not informed verbally or in writing (by neither the developer, the developer’s realtor, the escrow company nor the City) that Grace Lane would be a collector road and that the Brisco project was in the works. Had we been informed in the escrow process (as required by law), we probably would not have bought a house on Grace Lane. There is already a problem with drivers speeding up and down Grace Lane, a residential street. The radar sign displaying a car’s speed does little to deter drivers from driving 40-60 MPH (yes, we have seen several cars traveling 57 MPH on Grace Lane!). The radar signs enable residents to see how fast cars are traveling; we are not “estimating” or making up the speed at which drivers are traveling! There is only one radar sign; there needs to be one tracking uphill traffic and one tracking downhill traffic. Plus the radar signs are solar, so once the sun goes behind the hill, there is no speed readout. We have requested that the City install speed bumps to discourage the high rates of speed (as was done on Rodeo Drive) and requested more police enforcement. Chief Pryor did have a motorcycle officer assigned to Grace Lane for a couple of hours one day, which we much appreciated! However, we were informed that the police department does not have sufficient officers to conduct daily monitoring of speeding on our street. Page 3 Page 9, 4th bullet (regarding Alternative 4C) indicates that directional signs will be placed “at the Rodeo Drive/James Way intersection”. Comment: Is the intention here to direct drivers to Grace Lane (a residential street!) from James Way? Why wouldn’t the signage direct traffic to Rancho Parkway which has no residential driveways and leads to the businesses? That certainly wouldn’t have a negative impact on business! Page 10 and 11, “Traffic and Neighborhood Modeling” indicates a Traffic Forecasting and Operational Analysis was completed in September 2012 for Alternatives 1 and 4C. Comment: In September 2012, Grace Lane wasn’t recognized on Mapquest, Google, etc. Many people didn’t even know Grace Lane existed. If you Googled/Mapquested our address, you were directed to the Huasna area! This calls into question whether the Traffic and Neighborhood Modeling is relevant in 2019. Page 11 further indicates “In February 2011 … Wood Rodgers evaluated vehicular travel time … involving Rodeo Drive/Grace Lane residential neighborhood. The routes included travel times from four origin points (Grace Lane/Rodeo drive intersection, James Way/Grace Lane intersection …)”. Comment: First, James Way does not intersect with Grace Lane and I don’t believe it did in February 2011. Second, according to the County Assessor website, the 4 houses across Grace Lane from Grace Bible Church (which were the first houses built on Grace Lane) were not built until May 2011. The first house on the 1/2 acre lots was not built and occupied until later in 2011. The second house was not built and occupied until mid- December 2011. Page 4 Page 11 also indicates that (based on the February 2011 study conducted at a time when no houses had been built on Grace Lane and Grace lane was not on Mapquest, Google, etc. yet!) “The route travel times’ comparative evaluation indicated that northbound travel from James Way corridor to US 101 via Rodeo Drive will not become more attractive under Alternative 4C than it is under current conditions. Therefore, no significant volumes of cut-through (from James Way corridor through Grace Lane) and/or traffic re-routing was projected to occur with the proposed Alternative 4 improvements.” Comment: I believe speed bumps were installed on Rodeo Drive before the February 2011 study, so that deterred cut-through traffic from taking Rodeo Drive. As a result, Rodeo Drive is used mostly by Rodeo Drive residents, and Grace Lane has become the Grace Lane speedway for drivers coming off James Way and West Branch. The projection that “no significant volumes of cut-through (from James Way corridor through Grace Lane) and/or traffic re-routing was projected to occur with the proposed Alternative 4 improvements” is totally out of line, not based on reality or knowledge of the traffic pattern in 2011 and certainly not on the traffic pattern in 2019. There has been a significant increase in traffic since we moved to Grace Lane in December 2011. Word of mouth must have spread the news that you could speed up and down Grace Lane without repercussions! Additionally, it is my understanding that residents on Mesquite Lane have experienced an increase in cut-through traffic going to and coming from James Way heading to Grace Lane at excessive speeds. Page 5 Page 12 “Alternative Considerations” the second to the last paragraph talks about the preservation of the number of on/offramps. Comment: Is preservation of the number of on/off ramps the most important consideration here? It is hard to imagine that the safety of the students at St. Patrick’s school and persons going to and from sports activities would not be compromised by having a freeway on and off ramp in such close proximity and directing traffic up/down such a narrow street. Having driven past the school during sporting events and seeing cars parked bumper-to-bumper on both sides of Rodeo Drive from West Branch up to Grace Lane, I believe there is a significant safety issue that hasn’t been given proper consideration. Page 13 the first paragraph talks about the “potential adverse impacts to adjacent commercial businesses and City economy.” Comment: I’ve heard quite a few residents express skepticism that significant business was lost due to the test closure of the Brisco on/off ramps. Since there are no signs visible from the Brisco on/off ramps indicating what businesses are in the vicinity, is it likely that much business from out-of-town travelers was lost? Area residents had easier access to the businesses on West Branch Street during the Brisco closure, not to mention that the Camino Mercado exit is situated between the two shopping centers providing easy access from the freeway. It would be interesting to know just how much business was actually lost as a result of the test closure. Could the loss of business have been more attributable to a poor business model/bad customer service/lack of interest in the business’s product rather than the closure of the on/off ramps? Page 6 As to the cost of right of way acquisition from the Shell Station, shouldn’t the cost of the impact on Grace Lane residents’ quality of life and property values and the safety of St. Patrick’s students be given equal consideration? IN CLOSING, the impact to the Grace Lane residents’ quality of life and property values and the impact on St. Patrick School students/families safety could exceed the cost associated with the Shell gas station on East Grande and the theoretical potential loss of business on West Branch Street. There is a need to balance the needs of businesses with the neighborhood residents and St. Patrick student safety since they would be most significantly affected by Alternative 4C. Food for thought … If the City does not have sufficient funding to: meet the City’s policing needs, provide public access to City staff on Fridays and restore the advisory body recently eliminated due to lack of funding, how can the City afford the additional cost of Alternative 4C? If the City is concerned about having sufficient funding to meet its increasing CalPERS obligations, how can the City afford the additional cost of Alternative 4C? If the City is concerned about the cost of the 5 Cities Fire Authority or reinstituting the City Fire Department, how can the City afford the additional cost of Alternative 4C. If the City still feels compelled to go with Alternative 4C, the City should commit to: installing speed bumps on Grace Lane (and including that cost in Alternative 4C) starting by Grace Bible Church to St. Patrick’s School; and to not install signage directing traffic from James Way and West Branch to Grace Lane. This is a way to mitigate at least a portion of the impact to the quality of life and loss of property values on Grace Lane and the degradation of St. Patrick’s student safety with impact on businesses.