HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC 2025-01-28_10b Supplemental 1
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council
FROM: Jessica Matson, Director of Legislative & Information Services/
City Clerk
SUBJECT: Supplemental Information
Agenda Item 10.b. – January 28, 2025 City Council Meeting
Approval of the Active Transportation Plan and Finding this Action
Exempt from CEQA
DATE: January 28, 2025
Attached is public comment received prior to 2 p.m. for the above referenced item.
cc: City Manager
Assistant City Manager/Public Works Director
Director of Community Development
City Attorney
City Clerk
City Website and Public Review Binder
Enc
From: Olivia Potash <
Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2025 6:03 PM
To: Brian Pedrotti <bpedrotti@arroyogrande.org>
Subject: Draft Active Transportation Plan Comments
IRONSCALES couldn't recognize this email as this is the first time you received an
email from this sender olivia.potash @ gmail.com
Dear Brian Pedrotti,
My name is Olivia Potash, I'm a resident of Arroyo Grande and a transportation
engineer/planner at Caltrans with a passion for active transportation. I met with City
Council Member Aileen Loe recently and she recommended I take a look at the draft
Active Transportation Plan. I've reviewed the ATP and Aileen asked if I could send my
comments to you.
Overall, I think Arroyo Grande's ATP is a fantastic planning resource for the City. The plan
is intuitively organized, well-explained, and aesthetically pleasing with clear graphics.
Below are my observations and questions:
Recommendations / Proposed Projects
· For all three priority projects, their prioritization is logical and the
proposed changes are thoughtful and appropriate.
· The bicycle network provides good connectivity throughout the City.
· In Figure 2-6, several locations are missing curb ramps which could potentially
expose the City to litigation. However, I'm glad to see that the plan includes a
citywide recommendation to install curb ramps and truncated domes (page
144).
Connectivity to the Outlying Neighborhoods
· Class IV facilities are proposed along Branch Mill Rd and Valley Rd. While it’s
unclear from the plan what is envisioned beyond Arroyo Grande’s city
borders, these facilities would provide strong connectivity to outlying
neighborhoods.
General Comments
· Figure 2-10, Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress (LTS)
o Due to vehicle speeds, commercial driveways, and parked cars the entire
length of E Grand Ave could be considered LTS 4 (rather than LTS 3),
despite the existing Class II bike lanes.
· Figure 5-1 Proposed Bicycle Network
o It's great to see the Class I path proposed along the creek. The project
would significantly benefit both locals and tourists. My understanding is
the current phase II (levee repair) has a long timeline, with completion
anticipated before 2046.
· Bicycle Parking
o It would be beneficial to include bicycle parking requirements in the
bicycle recommendations sections
Questions
· How will pedestrian enhancement recommendations listed in Table 5-3 be
prioritized? On page 140, a prioritization analysis for the bicycle network is
described. Would a similar analysis be conducted for the pedestrian network?
· Are “Arroyo Grande Creek Trail” and “Scenic Creekside Walkway” and “Scenic
Creekside Shared Use Path” referring to the same facility (Table 1-2 and Table
1-3)?
I look forward to learning about the City Council's adoption of the ATP later this month.
I'm very excited to see this plan moving forward!
Best regards,
Olivia Potash, PE
From: Jim Dececco <
Sent: Monday, January 27, 2025 4:31 AM
To: Andrew Perez <aperez@arroyogrande.org>
Cc: Curt Eichperger <
Subject: ATP
Arroyo Grande City Council Members,
The ATP as presented is a very good plan. While some specifics could be altered (such
as protected intersections along Grand Ave. at Halcyon, Elm Street, and Oak Park, plus
there is an over reliance on Class 3 bike ways which are not safe bike infrastructure), the
overall plan is a vast improvement from what we have now in the city. This ATP will be
good for the students and families of the Lucia Mar Unified School District. For the most
part, it will give families safe access to schools by walking and biking. We understand
that not all families can drive their children to school, and families need safe alternatives
such as walking or biking. This plan achieves that objective.
Lucia Mar Unified School District endorses the ATP, and we look forward to working with
the city as this plan is implemented.
Thank you,
Jim DeCecco
Safe Routes Coordinator
Lucia Mar Unified School District
This is a staff email account managed by Lucia Mar Unified School District. This email and any files
transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they
are addressed. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender.
From: lilian <
Sent: Monday, January 27, 2025 3:01 PM
To: Andrew Perez <aperez@arroyogrande.org>
Subject: St Patrick elementary school not being considered
IRONSCALES couldn't recognize this email as this is the first time you received an email
from this sender lilianpc84 @ hotmail.com
Hi,
Thank you for considering the sidewalk improvements along Branch and Elm St. Please
add St Patrick Elementary School into the school zone and provide safe route to school.
There should be continuous and accessible sidewalk all along Rodeo, to Branch and to
Brisco. St Patrick school has over 200 students and it deserves the same consideration
as other public schools listed in the ATP.
Poh Bennetzen, P.E.
From:Steven Dunbar
To:City Council; public comment
Cc:Rick Ellison
Subject:Comment Regarding Item 10b, Active Transportation Plan
Date:Monday, January 27, 2025 10:19:47 AM
Attachments:image.png
Public Comment for Circulation Element Planning Commission Item 9a Meeting 4_20_2021.eml.msg
IRONSCALES couldn't recognize this email as this is the first time you received an email from
this sender steven.james.dunbar @ gmail.com
Dear Mayor and City Council,
It was a pleasure meeting some of you last week. Sorry for this "late hit" as it were.
As you know, I grew up in Arroyo Grande biking to school because my mother does not drive.
I was a collision dot on the prior version of this plan - hit near Paulding middle once - and
nearly killed by a tractor trailer also near Paulding. I had plenty of near misses near AGHS.
My brother still walks to work in the village, and I typically take my bike from the train
station when I come down to visit. So, I still maintain interest in AG's bike plan.
As a board member for Bike East Bay, I have years of experience reviewing these plans and
have seen many of them come and go. I want to see you succeed, and while I have many
technical comments, I want to focus on what will help you evaluate this plan as succinctly as
possible.
Overall, it's good to see an update from the very out of date plan, but I was hoping to see a
more actionable plan. I appreciate this plan finally being updated, and know there was plenty
of work put into it. But having read many of these plans over the years, I want to caution you:
You've had plans for years. They haven't been executed.
I have 3 points:
1) Your bikeway recommendations do not prove that they will accomplish the plan
vision, because you have not created a "Goal Traffic Stress Map." Create one.
Your bike network is defined by the weakest link. You can dramatically improve certain
sections of your bike network and see *zero* additional ridership because it doesn't connect to
anything else that people are comfortable riding along.
Compare Figure 2-7, Figure 2-10, and Figure 5-1 side by side. Will the projects in Figure 5-1
create a network of streets that have traffic stress level 1 or 2? I.E. will they create a network
of "Green" when figure 2-10 gets updated again? Maybe, maybe not. I can guess, but I
shouldn't have to. Certainly, some areas will still be very high stress even under this plan.
For the record, I made this exact same recommendation during your General Plan update
(email attached) and I am quite disappointed that it was not followed.
My recommendation: Your consultant should create a low stress near term goal network and
should find the lowest cost barriers to create such a network.
2) Your project prioritization is based on needs only, not on costs. That isn't
prioritization, that's a wish list. Prioritization in this way will fail to move the needle,
because it starts with some of the most intractable and difficult routes instead of
improving incrementally.
Your ability to accomplish this plan is based on day to day, not on grants. You need to
implement this into your day to day in order to bring this plan to fruition. The way to do this
effectively is to make sure you take full advantage of repavings by having designs ready in
advance. I can tell you that you haven't implemented it into your day to day because your
plans for the Traffic Way Bridge Replacement don't reflect best practice for a low stress
bicycle network.
The designs for Fair Oaks and Elm are decent to good overall where they are shown, and with
your traffic numbers on those routes, I think they will probably work out fine, but those
designs often bury the sticking points. Note how everything east of Valley on Fair Oaks is
"future study" - because the answers are very difficult.
I don't expect anything to come to fruition from Grand Avenue - look at the designs and
consider just how many "widenings required", "intersection reconfiguration required", and
"consider" language is used just to get a bike lane that still has weak links in it. I think the
proposed concept looks great, but I also recognize just how massive a project that is.
My recommendation: Create a prioritization quadrant system to find the opportunity projects.
3) Execution is about repeatability and design guidelines
I noted multiple areas in online comments where development has occurred since 2007 and
even the 2007 bicycle plan designated facility was not constructed. Your plan references
multiple design guidelines, many of which are excellent, but the execution on your staff side
requires CAD designs to be on hand and ready to go, not created from scratch with each
repaving and development.
My recommendation: Make sure that your staff's next action after approval of this document is
to create publicly-reviewable CAD and PDF standard details to ensure that best practices are
being followed in your own organization and by engineering consultants when necessary.
Thank you for your time and attention. I wish you all the very best.
Sincerely,
Steven Dunbar
In my personal capacity only
AGHS '12
P.S. - The school area map analyses are very weak in their bike tools. They completely fail to
analyze LTS and do not account for routes that only have a bike lane in one direction. They
really fail to consider anything that isn't super close, the Paulding route HAWK beacon
placement is awkward, and there are many other small things that should have been caught.
P.P.S. - Personal pet peeve, don't BS people. On page 98, "all minor arterials within the five-
minute walk zone [for AGHS] have Class I or Class II bicycle facilities, indicating a strong
bicycle network." This is factually wrong as there are missing facilities in certain directions
and near intersections, it's subjectively wrong as your LTS map Figure 2-10 shows most of
these facilities are the highest traffic stress level, and it misses the point because the 15 minute
bike zone is what you should be looking at for bike access, not the 5 minute walk zone.
From:Steven Dunbar
To:public comment
Cc:Bill Robeson; Jill McPeek
Bcc:Mom; Rick Ellison
Subject:Public Comment for Circulation Element, Planning Commission Item 9a, Meeting 4/20/2021
Hello Arroyo Grande Planning Commissioners and Staff,
Please accept my thanks for the work completed thus far in the Circulation Element update
and responding to many of the comments I have made via the feedback tools.
As someone who rode his bicycle to Paulding and AGHS because only 1 parent drives, as an
environmentalist, and as someone who sees my mom getting back on her trike in AG after
many years, I know that a high quality circulation element is absolutely critical to city
planning. Furthermore, as the city climate action plan notes, 44% of AG's emissions are from
transportation. Transportation policy is climate policy.
I am pleased to hear that an Active Transportation Plan (ATP) update is recommended,
because an update is sorely needed. The city isn't competitive for grants with such an out of
date plan, and even beyond city-initiated projects, infrastructure provided by private
development could be of higher perceived comfort and quality with modern design standards
and guidelines enforced - see the rather narrow "door zone"-ish bike lanes on East Cherry.
I am also happy to see that the ATP process has specific goals, such as identifying a low stress
network, and integrating safety improvements within maintenance projects as a standard
operating procedure.
I offer you the following suggestions on the current draft plan:
1) Draft a strong vision statement. Staff suggested they were open to a vision recommendation
in response to someone else's comment.
As such, here is my recommendation that you are free to use or modify:
The core value of this Circulation Element is to provide safe, sustainable, comfortable,
convenient, and predictable travel within and through the City for all roadway users. The
circulation element reinforces and enhances the Land Use Element by equitably linking
housing, employment, community, and recreation together.
(added sustainable and comfortable, removed "easy" in favor of "convenient" and
"predictable", changed "peds/bikes/motor vehicles" to "all roadway users", modified last
sentence to match better)
2) Staff mentioned many of my comments were overly specific. That feedback is correct, and
made me reconsider my approach. Ironically, I have come to use the same point against the
current draft: I believe we're actually mapping the "wrong thing" when we map proposed
pedestrian improvements, proposed bike lane classifications, and even proposed number of
travel lanes in a circulation element. Those maps are overly specific. A good example is that I
don't believe a Bike Boulevard is really the most feasible option to reduce LTS on Branch
Street through downtown.
I actually think these maps should be removed and replaced by other displays (although I
know roadway classifications are important for other reasons). These are: Goal roadway level
of service, Goal or expected roadway ADT volume, Goal pedestrian level of service, and
Goal bicycle level of traffic stress. This will help guide staff through the ATP process in the
future while requiring less rewriting of the circulation element as the ATP is completed. These
could be generalized to particular corridors if alternative routes are available, as well.
Pedestrian Level of Service was not mentioned in the document, but it could be generally
summarized and then analyzed as part of the ATP.
3) I would specifically ask that public transit stop design guidance be updated with the ATP
update, including amenities, level boarding, and other features as appropriate. Alternatively,
SLORTA could be tasked with updating standards, but detailed integration of standards needs
to be facilitated between SLORTA and the design documents that city staff uses on a daily
basis.
4) Finally, a parting "specific" feedback: I understand well that CalTrans will push for their
interchange to be brought up to modern standards. However, that will likely cost tens to
hundreds of millions of dollars. I've seen CalTrans push to spend hundreds of millions of
dollars to raise an interchange, only to back down when pressed on how many trucks actually
needed that extra few inches (which is already above the legal height). That is to say, CalTrans
doesn't do a good job of value engineering relative to all of the local needs. There is only so
much money to go around, and therefore my request is: Please carefully consider the cost /
benefit of a new interchange near Traffic Way. If CalTrans wants to pay for literally all of it,
that is their business, but I believe AG has much better ways to make a "Strong Town."
As you'll notice, I am familiar with the commitment you have to making AG a better place - it
truly is a public service. Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Steven Dunbar
In my personal capacity only
For reference:
Vice Chair, Planning Commission, City of Livermore
Board Secretary, Bike East Bay
AGHS '12
From:
To:Jessica Matson
Subject:Comment for AG City Council Meeting: Jan 28
Date:Tuesday, January 28, 2025 12:58:39 PM
IRONSCALES couldn't recognize this email as this is the first time you received an email from
this sender leabrandy @ mac.com
Hello Mrs. Matson –
Per the instructions, I’m emailing you my comment for the meeting I will be attending via zoom
this evening.
I appreciate the council's commitment to fostering safe and accessible transportation options in
our community. As you consider policies regarding electric dirt bikes, I would like to raise a
concern about the safety implications of allowing unlicensed riders to operate these vehicles
on city streets.
Electric dirt bikes often have significant speed and power capabilities, which can match or
exceed those of traditional motorcycles. Without proper licensing requirements, riders may
lack the necessary training or understanding of traffic laws to safely navigate our streets. This
poses a risk not only to the riders themselves but also to other road users, including
pedestrians, cyclists, and motorists.
Additionally, the absence of licensing could hinder enforcement efforts, making it difficult to
ensure compliance with safety regulations and insurance requirements. This could result in
increased accidents or liabilities for the city.
I urge the council to consider implementing a plan to prioritize public safety, such as requiring
riders of electric dirt bikes to obtain proper licensing, undergo basic traffic safety training, and
adhere to clear regulations that align with other motorized vehicles operating on public roads.
Thank you for your attention to this matter and for working to create a safe and harmonious
environment for all members of our community.
A concerned mom and AG native,
Lea Brandy