Loading...
CC 2019-03-26_10a Supplemental No. 2 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 26, 2019 Attached is correspondence received regarding the above referenced item. cc: City Manager City Attorney City Clerk Public Review Binder March 25, 2019 City of Arroyo Grande 300 E. Branch St. Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 Aqua Systems, Inc. is a distribution company located at 1107 El Camino Real. We have been in business at this address for over 30 years. We are very interested in voicing our opinion pertaining to the current decision to be made pertaining to the Brisco Road Interchange Project. Alt 4C: We do support this as it provides safe and adequate access to this area. We understand that the service level increases substantially which is part of the basis of our opinion. We feel the productivity of our company will be increases with this alternative. Alt 1: During the closure of the northbound on/off ramp we found our vehicles having to exit on the northbound Grand Avenue exit. This exit is at the end of a downhill run where vehicles tend to increase speed. The offramp is also very short, and these two realities made this exit from the freeway much more difficult and inconvenient, on top of being less safe than the northbound Brisco road offramp. The inconvenience for our employees was tough and I can’t imagine how much the retail businesses in our area suffered during this closure. We do not support this alternative. We have always enjoyed Arroyo Grande as our business home and we thank you for all that you have done to keep the city growing efficiently. Warm regards, Dana A. Nafziger CEO From: James Guthrie [mailto ] Sent: Monday, March 25, 2019 4:09 PM To: Jimmy Paulding <jpaulding@arroyogrande.org>; Caren Ray <caren.russom@gmail.com>; Kristen Barneich <kbarneich@arroyogrande.org>; Lan George <lgeorge@arroyogrande.org>; Keith Storton <kstorton@arroyogrande.org> Cc: Jim Bergman <jbergman@arroyogrande.org> Subject: Brisco-Halcyon Below is a post next-door last week followed by some comments after reading the Staff report. I think the best way to address this decision is by looking at the cost-benefit of each of the alternatives. First, the $6 million from SLOCOG goes away if we don't pick one of these two alternatives. So the actual costs to AG residents are 6 million for improvements (ALT1A) and $17 million for the roundabout (ALT4C). The difference is 11 million. What would we get for $11 million? For $11 million we keep a 3rd northbound freeway access and for west side residents (65% of AG's population) we get a right-hand turn northbound access onto the freeway (that we don't have now) vs just 2 left-hand turns with short queuing space in ALT1. On the downside (besides the 11 million ) east-side residents on Rodeo Rd and Grace ln will experience some amount of increased traffic. In addition, Village, Hausna and Lopez residents will not benefit from the improved Hwy 101 on and off access at Grand. A key finding is that both alternatives will meet the 20-year traffic demand for forecast development. Your trust in the accuracy of this finding is going to influence your position on the two alternatives. If you think it is 90% accurate, then ALT 1 is an easy choice. If it's 50% then the roundabout looks a lot better (especially if you are a westside resident). Once the Brisco freeway access is gone it will be very expensive and maybe impossible to build additional access. I am in the 80%-90% range. I am not a big fan of traffic studies, but over 20 years of making decisions at least partially based on them, they have turned out fairly accurate in the macro and far closer to reality than the traffic apocalypse of most neighborhood analysis. I also think that we can deal with some error through improvements at the other intersections and the long run redistribution of traffic in both times of day and choice of route. Finally, I believe there are alternative uses for $11 million that would provide a greater improvement for the overall quality of life in AG. Additional comments based on the staff report. We should definitely phase both the west side ramp improvements and the sound wall. In 20 years as a planning commissioner and city councilman, I have never heard the need for a sound wall. There might be changes to the west side improvements that would provide additional benefits. Staff states that the closure of the off ramps in 2016 had an impact on the sales tax generated from the businesses in the area. The analysis is not included in the staff report but they do concede that business was down at the K Mart shopping center as well an area that if anything would have benefited from the closure and if my memory is right Albertsons was closed and Food for less just opening. While I am sure the analysis made some adjustment for this, it adds another level of complexity and error to the assertation that the ramps are essential to the success of the 5 cities shopping center. Staff also notes, rightfully, that there may be an additional expense associated with acquiring the right of way from the Shell station. Less obvious is the likelihood that the far larger and more complex construction of the roundabouts will result in a greater expense than forecast. How many city projects have come within budget in the last 10 years just a 10% error in the estimate for the roundabouts would be 2.2 million. Staff also suggests that there are "opportunities" in the vicinity of the new ramps that are not included in the traffic analysis and not in the general plan. What are they and how much traffic would they generate? For example, what is planned for the vacant parcel next to the women's center that would generate significantly more traffic than the already included Basketball facility? Beyond that how much-underutilized land is there. Significant portions of the area need to remain open space for drainage and we have already rezoned most of the remaining parcels to residential as part of past deals with the county. Unless we are going to tear down the regional center and library whats actually left. Consider how much retail or hotel it would take to justify 11 million (15 with bonding). Consider this scenario, we complete the project by 2020, 5 years later (optimistic given the negotiations, financing, market demand, and construction that has to take place), we have another Hampton Inn and Chilies restaurant that generates $400,000 a year in revenue to the city (at no additional expense?). In the remaining 15 years, we would "make" 6 million leaving us just 9 million short of our investment. Think this is, pessimistic remember your planning a large commercial development adjacent to the Rodeo and Grace ln neighborhoods. Again if you don't believe the traffic study tell us why. The bottom line for me is that if ALT1 meets the 20-year demand, the additional benefit from the roundabouts is not worth the cost. The risk that we will miss out on some key development or come up way short of the forecast level of service is less than the risk that we will be unable to make some future improvement that provides a greater benefit. 15 years from now if for any reason the less expensive option does not work everyone will be saying "what were they thinking" and if does work no one will say "thanks for saving the 11 million. It is difficult to make what seems like an irreversible decision but I hope you will be fiscally prudent and recognize that there is no guarantee that future development will make this investment a good one. PS- Random thoughts With ALT 1 and phasing the cost to AG would be around 3.5 million we could pay cash, how cool would that be? If you choose ALT 1 we will have the "new police station" site available for sale since it will no longer be used up by the project. The likely closing of the Lateita and El Campo crossing will add significantly to the Northbound off-ramp at Grande and the improvements there are not included in Alt 4c and the roundabout off-ramps will do little to relieve it. 75 Prado Road San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 T 805.543.0180 F 805.543.8537 www.jbdewar.com March 25, 2019 Re: Brisco Rd. Interchange project To the City of Arroyo Grande Mayor and City Council As a land and business owner with property on El Camino Real, address 1155 El Camino Real, we feel that the Option 4 C phased in over time is the best long-term solution to the issues with the Brisco Rd. exit and on ramps at Highway 101. While we understand as business people the costs of this project and the need to secure funding, we still support this option over any other options presented. If Option 4 C is not a viable project then our support goes to not doing anything at this time with the Brisco Rd. exit, on ramp and undercrossing of Highway 101. The other Option, number 1, will have a negative effect on our business and the sales made from our location resulting in less sales and sales tax revenue generated for the City of Arroyo Grande from our location on El Camino Real. If you have any questions or would like additional information from me as to why our choice of Option 4 C I can be reached at our office phone number , by e-mail or on my mobile phone . Thank you in advance for allowing us the opportunity to express our preference for this project. Ken Dewar President SAN LUIS OBISPO BICYCLING ADVOCATES March 25, 2019 Re: Arroyo Grande City Council Agenda March 26, 2019, Item 10: Consideration of a Project Status Update and Recommendation of a Preferred Alternative for the Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project Dear Mayor Ray Russom and Council Members Barneich, Paulding, Storton and George: I am submitting written comments on behalf of the San Luis Obispo Bicycling Advocates in case I cannot make the City Council meeting. We are a recently formed, all-volunteer group based in San Luis Obispo that advocates for policy, projects and infrastructure that will increase trips by bike for people of all ages and abilities, with a focus on safety, health and connectivity. The stated purpose of this project is to provide congestion relief, alleviate queuing and improve the traffic operations of the regional and local street system in the vicinity of US 101. It’s disconcerting that in the year 2019, this project is focused on motor vehicle traffic flow rather than achieving a balanced multimodal transportation network in the project area. Not everyone owns, has access to or interest in owning a motor vehicle and not all children have parents who can drive them to school and other destinations. A city whose transportation system is based on moving vehicles as quickly as possible rather than focusing on moving people, including children who deserve safe routes to school, is not addressing public health, disadvantaged communities, greenhouse gas emissions and climate change. Arroyo Grande is a challenging city in which to ride a bike because it lacks connectivity. Highway 101 is a huge barrier to pedestrians and people on bikes, and many of your busy streets lack bike lanes or consistent bike lanes. I applaud Arroyo Grande for undertaking the Halcyon Road Complete Street Plan and appreciate the opportunity to serve on the Stakeholder Advisory Group. I also appreciate that your City has fiscal constraints. During your consideration of the project alternatives, please keep in mind the need to provide connected bicycle and pedestrian facilities that are perceived as safe by people of all abilities. Your transportation network should provide choice and not be designed soley for motorists. Ask yourselves: HOW WILL THIS PROJECT PROVIDE TRANSPORTATION CHOICE AND ENCOURAGE PEOPLE TO RIDE BIKES, WALK AND TAKE TRANSIT? The staff report states that bicycle lanes will be provided “where practical” on portions of city streets modified by this project. What does “where practical” mean? That’s not a sincere commitment to a balanced transportation system. We are pleased to see that Alternative 1 would widen the East Grand Avenue Overcrossing to provide 8-foot shoulders and 6-foot sidewilks, especially since there currently are no bicycle facilities on this overcrossing. We are concerned that the roundabout would not be designed to accommodate pedestrians and people on bicycles. In closing, we encourage that the Non-Motorized/Public Transportation Plan that would be prepared prior to the initiation of construction activities in consultation with the City Public Works Department and the County Bicycle Advisory Committee include the following: -Designs for providing bicycle, pedestrian and car interaction along the project area that would minimize conflicts through the use of striping, signage, lighting, bollards, etc. -Examples of the signage, striping, lighting, designs, etc., for safe bicycle, pedestrian and car interaction. -Methods for ensuring the project would not interfere in any way with existing or proposed future bike and pedestrian lanes and paths, whether formal or informal, particularly those associated with St. Patrick’s School, the Arroyo Grande Library and adjacent public buildings and facilities. -Methods for ensuring bike and pedestrian circulation to service schools and public facilities are made a priority consistent with policies of the Circulation Element. You can contact me at . Sincerely, Lea Brooks SLOBA Steering Committee Member San Luis Obispo