Loading...
2021-06-01 Supplemental MemoMEMORANDUM TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: ANDREW PEREZ, ASSOCIATE PLANNER SUBJECT: SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION FOR AGENDA ITEMS 8.b.& 9.a – JUNE 1, 2021 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: DATE: JUNE 1, 2021 Attached are comments received after agenda preparation regarding the proposed project. cc: City Manager Community Development Director Public Works Director Public Review Binder From:Alice Reinheimer To:pc publiccomment Subject:Circulation Element Update comment Date:Friday, May 21, 2021 1:15:02 PM Attachments:PastedGraphic-1.png Hello, My name is Alice Reinheimer and I have lived in Arroyo Grande since 1999, on Gularte Road near Corbett Canyon Road. I am pleased to see that the circulation element update includes improvements to Corbett Canyon Road between Hwy 227 and the city limits. As figure 3.3 shows, this is a busy arterial with an average traffic count of 3,610 vehicles, approximately equal to that of James Way or West Branch. As you know, Corbett Canyon Road is an alternative to hwy 227 (Carpenter Canyon Road) to SLO and is used by many commuters. Unlike James Way or West Branch, at commute times the traffic volume spikes, while at other times traffic is fairly quiet. It is a popular bicycle route to SLO due to the gentle grade and its mostly Class III bike lane status outside the AG city limits. At present the pavement width between Gularte Road the 227 intersection is limited to a single car width in each direction. On the southbound side, unless the willows have been recently trimmed back there is often no space along the gravel shoulder for pedestrians or bicyclists. On the northbound side there is a small rutted path on the unpaved shoulder which brave pedestrians may use. Bicyclists are forced into the traffic lanes. Although the speed limit between the AG city limits and the intersection of Corbett Canyon Road is 45 mph, the speed limit outside the city limits is 55 mph. Of course not everyone follows the speed limit so there can be some high speed traffic between the city limits and the 227 intersection. Gularte Road is a collector for the Stagecoach neighborhood. It is the quickest way for neighborhood residents to get to SLO or to eastside grocery stores in Arroyo Grande. Consequently there is a fair bit of traffic through the Gularte/Corbett Canyon intersection. Although Gularte Road is only a mile from the village, few pedestrians brave the trek along Corbett Canyon Road and across the little bridge on hwy 227 to reach the sidewalk on Tally Ho. There are two major safety issues with Corbett Canyon Road between Gularte Road and hwy 227 that I ask you to address. The first is the lack of a safe pedestrian path and any kind of bicycle path adjacent to the travel lanes. I very much welcome the plan to upgrade this to a Class III bike route. I encourage the commission to consider putting in a Class II bike lane on the northbound side (or both sides) so that pedestrians may use it as well. Second, there is limited sight distance between Gularte Road and the crest of a small hill to the north of the intersection. Due to the speed of traffic flying over that hill it is a matter of time before there is a bad accident there. I suggest that the Element also includes a series of “bumps” (are they called dagmars?) on the southbound lane pavement inside the city limits to alert drivers to the lower speed limit and to wake them up to the fact that they are entering a residential district. Current signage is not enough. I’ve circled the map location of Corbett Canyon Road between the city limits and hwy 227 and have pasted it below. Thank you very much for your time and attention to this. Alice Reinheimer Gularte Road Arroyo Grande From:public comment To:Andrew Perez; Patrick Holub Subject:FW: 6-1-2021 Planning Commission Comments Item 8b and 9a Date:Tuesday, June 1, 2021 3:58:46 PM Attachments:emaillogo 190eb98f-3dbf-4ac8-a0d6-5f778ed0ba4d1111111111111111111111111111111111111.png public comment Public Comment Public Comment Tel: 805-473-5400 | www.arroyogrande.org 300 E Branch St | Arroyo Grande | CA | 93420 City Hall Business Hours: M-Th 8:00 am - 5:00 pm; Closed Fridays The information contained in this email pertains to City business and is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not an intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient and you have received this message in error, please advise the sender by reply email or phone and delete the message. Please note that email correspondence with the City of Arroyo Grande, along with attachments, may be subject to the California Public Records Act, and therefore may be subject to disclosure unless otherwise exempt by law. From: Steven Dunbar [mailto ] Sent: Tuesday, June 1, 2021 12:17 PM To: public comment <publiccomment@arroyogrande.org> Subject: 6-1-2021 Planning Commission Comments Item 8b and 9a Arroyo Grande Planning Commissioners and Staff, Thank you for considering my comments from the previous meeting on the Circulation Element. For the record, I did submit my comment about 3 days in advance (April 17th). I apologize that this may be a bit strong. Normally I would try to be more concise and less forceful, and to consider more policy pieces, but I'm simply out of time on this one. These tough questions and ideas are not in anger, but instead designed to share a perspective. First, I understand this is "late" and staff has finite resources, and that the VMT changes need to be implemented soon for a variety of reasons. However, now is the time to get it right. Second, seeing that the Vision Statement on the plan has not changed in response to my prior email, I will reiterate my call for more consideration of that statement. I was hit and nearly hit quite a few times riding my bike to Paulding and AGHS. That was 14 years ago and the situation isn't much better. I have seen how having an unclear vision in my own town results in questionable decision making down the line. Making it better starts with a clear vision. There are more roadway users than just pedestrians, bicycles, and motor vehicles. There are public transit users, wheelchairs, scooters, and more that also deserve safe travel. "Easy" mobility by motor vehicle is often in conflict with easy and safe mobility for other modes, especially in the context of the city's financial responsibilities as mentioned in the vision itself. "Maximiz[ing] alternatives to new street and highway construction" could even be in conflict with "easy" mobility. I strongly encourage a discussion to create a clearer vision statement grounded in community values - my ideas from the prior email (attached) are to help you think about what those might be. Third, I appreciate everything that was discussed in April. I wanted to offer my agreement with Commissioner Guthrie's comments about street width. Staff and the consultant are surely aware of these principles but I will frame them in my own way here. I support Commissioner Guthrie's call for a design speed as well. Planning for future traffic with a large right of way can be dangerous if it results in a perceived large street width. This idea is well covered within guidelines such as NACTO ( https://link.edgepilot.com/s/47ae1bec/I_okcpFnukaL7umAo8qF0A? u=https://nacto.org/publication/urban-street-design-guide/street-design-elements/ ). Such mitigations could be covered in greater detail in your Active Transportation Plan update, but could be mentioned at a high level in the Circulation Element if they are not already. In addition, such large street width means there is a lot of asphalt to maintain, which goes directly against your desire to maintain the streets down the line. I will point to the very nice back alley in the development on East Cherry as a great design with low maintenance requirements. Finally, on the separate item regarding the Capital Improvement Plan certification: 1) Ask yourselves: Are you in fact "maximiz[ing] alternatives to new street and highway construction"? Does this budget actually do that, or are you pre-planning multiple new freeway crossings based on theoretical traffic volumes because you've admitted defeat on multi-modal planning? 2) A budget is a statement of values. Where is the budget for the Active Transportation Plan update that staff believes is needed (regardless of whether it's funded by grants or not)? I didn't see it in the document. Thanks again for the Commission and Staff's work on these important plans and policies. Sincerely, Steven Dunbar On Sat, Apr 17, 2021 at 1:04 PM Steven Dunbar <> wrote: 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 Links contained in this email have been replaced. If you click on a link in the email above, the link will be analyzed for known threats. If a known threat is found, you will not be able to proceed to the destination. If suspicious content is detected, you will see a warning.