The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCC 2026-03-24_09g_Supplemental 1 MEMORANDUM TO: City Council FROM: Jessica Matson, Director of Legislative & Information Services/ City Clerk SUBJECT: Supplemental Information Agenda Item 9.g - March 24, 2026 City Council Meeting General Plan Update Progress Report – March 2026 DATE: March 24, 2026 Attached is correspondence received prior to 2 p.m. for the above referenced item. Cc: City Manager Assistant City Manager/Director of Public Works Planning Manager City Attorney City Clerk City Website and Public Review Binder Enc From:Peter Williamson To:public comment Subject:Public Comment for 3.24 Item 9g Date:Sunday, March 22, 2026 9:52:31 PM Attachments:3.24 9g Consent Public Comment.pdf IRONSCALES couldn't recognize this email as this is the first time you received an email from this sender pmwilliamson @ icloud.com Hi Jessica, I am submitting the attached PDF as a public comment regarding item 9g. Please ship this to all council members at your earliest so they have time to review before Tuesday's meeting. Thanks, Peter Williamson Arroyo Grande Resident 9g - GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY, COST, AND CIRCULATION ALIGNMENT I’m concerned the General Plan is written for people, but the Circulation Element is engineered for cars, and the two do not currently align. That misalignment has consequences for housing feasibility, affordability, safety, and long-term fiscal cost. I urge the Council to pull this item off consent and allow time for a focused technical discussion. 1. The math of growth does not work without a mode split goal The General Plan anticipates 34,000–38,000 residents. At today’s 2.1 vehicles per household, that population produces 30,000–32,000 private vehicles. Storing and moving that many cars requires: • ~200 acres of parking — the equivalent of paving over five Villages • 130+ miles of cars bumper-to-bumper — the distance from the Village to the Ventura Pier • additional right-of-way that contradicts compact infill and walkability A mode split goal is the only policy tool that prevents the City from engineering itself into a future it cannot afford to maintain. Traditional LOS only measures driver delay. It pushes engineering toward wider lanes, larger intersections, and higher speeds. These designs are expensive to build, expensive to maintain, and directly conflict with the City’s Healthy Communities goals. Replacing LOS with Multimodal LOS (MMLOS): • aligns engineering with the Land Use Element • reduces long-term maintenance liabilities • positions the City for state and federal grants • avoids costly intersection widening that makes infill housing infeasible MMLOS is now standard practice in cities that want to control long-term costs and support infill. 2. The Land Use Element requires walkability — the Circulation Element must support it The draft Land Use Element includes clear, prescriptive policies: • LU-4.1: pedestrian- and bicyclist-oriented design • LU-4.2: safe, convenient neighborhood connections • LU-3.3: buildings oriented toward pedestrian pathways • LU-4.3: parking behind buildings to support walkability Meanwhile, the Circulation Element preserves LOS, omits a mode split goal, and assumes a future vehicle load that only works in a sprawling city. These two visions cannot coexist without reconciliation. 4. Safety and cost realities Locally, we’ve had 29 severe injuries in five years, most involving people walking or biking. Each severe injury carries an estimated cost of ~$2 million. Compact, slower street design reduces fatal crashes by 47%. A 1% rise in transit mode share reduces traffic deaths by 3%, regardless of city size. 5. The EIR on consent requires internal consistency — and the current draft does not meet that standard The consent agenda notes that the City is entering the EIR scoping phase. The EIR must analyze transportation impacts, GHG emissions, safety, and internal consistency across all General Plan elements If the Circulation Element preserves LOS and assumes 30,000+ cars while the Land Use and Healthy Communities Elements call for compact infill, walkability, and reduced vehicle dependence, the EIR will inevitably show higher VMT, GHG emissions, collision exposure, and infrastructure costs. This creates avoidable legal and fiscal risk for the City and makes infill housing more expensive and harder to approve. A short, focused workshop now is more efficient than trying to correct inconsistencies during the EIR, when changes become more difficult and costly. 6. Practical near-term actions 1. Hold a standalone technical workshop on Circulation + Healthy Communities. 2. Add a directional mode split goal to align engineering with land use and housing feasibility. 3. Replace LOS with MMLOS, or require MMLOS testing on key corridors before adoption. 4. Name core safety design principles so staff can cite them in grants and Caltrans coordination.