The URL can be used to link to this page

CC 2019-03-26_08g Supplemental No. 1 MEMORANDUM TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: TERESA McCLISH, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR SUBJECT: SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION AGENDA ITEM 8.g. – MARCH 26, 2019 CITY COUNCIL MEETING CONSIDERATION OF COMMENT LETTER TO THE SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS REGARDING THE EL CAMPO ROAD/SOUTH COUNTY HIGHWAY ACCESS MODIFICATIONS – TRAFFIC DIVERSIONS ASSESSMENT DATE: MARCH 26, 2019 Attached is a response letter from Five Cities Fire (FCFA) Chief, Steve Lieberman and correspondence received regarding the above referenced item. cc: City Manager City Attorney City Clerk FCFA Chief Public Review Binder From:James Grant To:Keith Storton; Jim Bergman; Jessica Matson Cc:nipomoflutes; Suzie; Janice Reid; Jimmy Paulding; Jimmy Paulding Subject:Draft AG Comment Letter Errors Date:Monday, March 25, 2019 10:29:00 AM Attachments:Comparison Analysis - Fire Authority Attachment - AG Draft Comment Letter to Draft Step 2 Traffic Analysis.docx Keith, I am Jordan Grant's father. I support the changes to El Campo as currently proposed by the Traffic Assessment. I also support an overpass and/or other changes that improve traffic flow and increase overall net public safety. However, I do have issues with how the draft AG comment letter is written. I would suggest at a minimum a cover letter similar to your email be put with any comment letter that ultimately gets approved, as the current AG comment letter can be interpreted as opposing the current recommendations for left turn restrictions - which brings strong opposition from everyone in our group that have been working to see these safety changes made. Also, at the core of our issue with the draft is that it is filled with errors and inaccuracies, and does not properly reflect a considered response to what the Assessment actually says. This causes the comment letter to be misleading - but as you know misleading information can lead to unnecessary delays and confusion. I have attached my analysis of just one part of the comment letter, the Fire Authority attachment, to provide concrete examples of how the draft is improperly written. I encourage the draft to be rewritten in the tone of your email below with balanced and factual considerations of the concrete funding and service gaps introduced by the left turn restrictions, putting each in context of the actual load (frequency, resources consumed) on the various systems of the type of matter being discussed. I believe if you do so (and remove the errors) AG will be more successful in getting SLOCOG and Caltrans consideration of your request. Finally, Becky and I are comfortable committing a gift of up to $50,000 to AG for incremental funding gaps introduced by the left hand turn restrictions. We would just need to be shown the incremental expenses resulting from the restrictions and can fund after review, accordingly. Acknowledged, this will not get an overpass. However, I have started to form a working group of landowners and interested parties that will begin a plan for private contributions to making a public/private partnership to build an overpass in the mid-term feasible. I have committed to this group to fund $100,000 for this effort as long as they join me in such a cooperative effort with similar contributions committed by them (and of course stop interfering with immediate public safety matters at El Campo). Please consider correcting the bias and errors in the current draft, and provide a fair and balanced comment letter (in the tone of your email) that still asks for shared funding of costs for those parties and still asks for an overpass. I also think the comment letter should describe how an overpass would allow self regulating traffic (the large number of people that refuse to use El Campo due to danger) and other traffic to shift to the overpass as a more natural route and would thereby further increase net public safety at the impacted areas in AG and elsewhere. Best regards, Jordan's dad James Comparison of draft AG Letter to draft consultants Traffic Diversion Assessment FIVE CITIES FIRE AUTHORITY Attachment Dated March 18, 2019 v 1.0 prepared by Jordan Grant's dad Comparison Analysis Traffic Diversion Assessment AG Comment Letter & Attachments Q. When were the portions of the AG letter(s) written and were they written before the draft Traffic Diversion Assessment was available? Fire Authority letter dated March 18. However, draft Step 2 was only posted on website on March 18 according to GHD consulting engineers.... When did the Fire Authority obtain and read the report? Was the Attachment written before that was done? If so, how can the Attachment be a meaningful and accurate comment letter as it would be based on AG assumptions, many of which will not be true. The AG attachment statement is directly contradictory to the Assessments conclusion. The Assessments conclusion is based on data and approximately 900 pages of supporting analysis. The AG attachment has zero support and zero analysis supporting its contradictory statement. It states: Based on the spatial distribution of emergency first responders in the study area, the only incident locations that will experience an increase in response times are those on US 101 itself. For each scenario evaluated, the nearest response station effectively maintains a 10 minute or less emergency response time (Platinum 10 Minute Emergency Response). It states: The closures of these surface level ramps will increase emergency vehicle response times to the areas such as Falcon Crest, Coast View Drive, Brady Lane, El Campo Road, Los Berros Road, and the surrounding neighborhoods within the El Campo area. The AG statement is unsupported and false. South bound turns off of 101 will remain unchanged therefore there is no change for response times from locations in the five cities to the north down to the El Campo area. These types of egregious errors indicate this letter was written BEFORE the Step II report was released and evaluated. It states: The California Highway Patrol (CHP) has indicated that a “soft” at-grade access will be maintained on US 101 within the study area at a location yet to be determined. The “soft” access will allow law enforcement, fire/medical emergency responders, and Caltrans maintenance vehicles to cross and access US 101 from either direction of travel. The access will not likely be located at any of the current at-grade access points. With provision of a “soft” access, no compromise in emergency response times is anticipated resulting from the closure scenarios evaluated. It states: Emergency vehicles responding from Arroyo Grande and north along Highway 101; such as Pismo Beach, Shell Beach, Avila Beach, San Luis City and northern San Luis Ambulance stations, will experience an increase of response times because these emergency vehicles will have to travel through the City of Arroyo Grande to reach the El Campo area. Traveling through the City of Arroyo Grande will also have an impact to the safety to citizens within the City of Arroyo Grande and increase wear of the roadways within the City. Q. Does the AG Fire Authority attachment consider the reduction in workload and calls from severe broad side collisions from left hand turns at El Campo and other such crossings - going to zero? A net decrease in risk means a net decrease in fire and medical responses required!!!! At Jordan Grant's accident there were multiple Five Cities fire trucks at the scene for many hours. Suzie Smiths accident at El Campo seven weeks before was probably similar in emergency time commitments. The elimination of these severe accident emergency trips and commitments should reduce TOTAL response times and increase availability for more timely response to other emergencies in AG! It states: As such, it can be concluded that the rerouted traffic will result in a net decrease in risk to the motoring public. There is no analysis of trip and cost savings from the safety improvements of the at grade crossings. Such an egregious oversight shows the letter is prepared with bias and intentional error, and seeks to find excuses for justifying a request for an overpass at El Campo from Caltrans ("to provide a properly designed, safe use, on and off ramps, for the area of El Campo"). Since the letter is prepared with bias, the question is who is directing the cities departments in how to prepare these arguments and what conclusions to support? What were the instructions given to the Battalion Chief from the City Manager and elected officials prior to writing this attachment? The Fire Authority attachment is intentionally misleading with regards to Emergency Response times. The letter selects fire responses from Nipomo which has not been and is not expected to be the source of response. Jordan's accident was serviced from AG and not Nipomo. The entire critique of response times appears to be false and/or misleading, and appears to be made due to the original bias/instructions from the City Manager/Mayor to reach a predetermined conclusion to argue that an overpass is needed. It states: Fire and Emergency services along southbound US 101 south of Arroyo Grande are dispatched from the City, as they are faster than the Nipomo locations. Currently, the response time for an incident on US 101 southbound south of Hemi Road is estimated to be 5.5 min for emergency medical and 5 minutes for a fire incident. With partial closure (median closure) of the at-grade intersections on US 101, the emergency response times are not anticipated to be affected, as emergency services for incidents along southbound US 101 will be dispatched from Arroyo Grande. No acknowledgment of this in the AG attachment whatsoever. AG attachment fails to identify this issue is limited to "if dispatched from Nipomo" and that, generally, currently dispatches are from AG as "they are faster" Again the Assessment states: "the emergency response times are not anticipated to be affected," It states: If the need for emergency services to be dispatched from Nipomo occurs, the median closure would have negative implications on the response times, adding 9.7 minutes for a fire incident, and 9.6 minutes for a medical emergency incident. It states: The added estimated increase of response time of 9. 7 minutes to a structure fire, will allow the structure fire to double in size compounding every four (4) minutes. The San Luis Obispo County fire stations only has two people on duty every day, and with the OSHA laws, if there is no known rescue, the fire crews cannot make fire attack until a second unit arrives at the scene to provide what is known as 2 in / 2 out. Meaning as two firefighters go interior to fight the fire, two firefighters shall remain outside and be ready to rescue the two that went interior. Therefore, the 9.7 minutes' increase in response time to a structure fire within El Campo area will have a significant impact to the citizens who live within those areas. The AG attachment fails to recognize that this is only in context of if dispatch from Nipomo. It does not acknowledge that most dispatch is from AG since IT IS CLOSER. The attachment creates a straw case of a Nipomo dispatch with an AG second engine. It is impossible to match this to the Assessment or weight this hypothetical in context of what typically happens (i.e. AG dispatch as it is closer). It states: If the need for emergency services to be dispatched from Nipomo occurs, the median closure would have negative implications on the response times, adding 9.7 minutes for a fire incident, and 9.6 minutes for a medical emergency incident. It states: Also the report states there will be an estimated increase of response time of 9.6 minutes to medical emergencies....The increase...of 9.6 minutes will significantly reduce the ability of a heart attack victim survival. The Assessment from its very objective, seeks to maintain right-in and right-out access - so this agrees with the Fire Authorities minimum recommendation (meaning if no overpass). With regard to restricted left turns the Assessment provides for emergency (Fire, Emergency, CHP) left turn access. So again it agrees with the minimum recommendation of the Fire Authority. So the entire letter is a bunch of smoke to cloud the SLOCOG decision on April...but no fire or substance to the arguments - as many are just false or at best misleading. It states: ...(SLOCOG) Governing Board is considering a request to Caltrans to implement turn movement restrictions (right-in and right-out only access implemented via concrete median barriers along the inside shoulders of US 101). and Based on the spatial distribution of emergency first responders in the study area, the only incident locations that will experience an increase in response times are those on US 101 itself. For each scenario evaluated, the nearest response station effectively maintains a 10 minute or less emergency response time (Platinum 10 Minute Emergency Response). It states: ...recommendation...Or at a minimum maintain and allow emergency vehicles to continue to utilize the surface exits as they currently exist... Victor Lund, Arroyo Grande Resident The study commissioned by SLOCOG is unsatisfactory and biased. A review of the study indicates that the data presented in the study was crafted to support the Cal Trans goal of closing the three crossings rather than nominating the most effective mitigation to promote safety, efficient traffic operations, and increase capacity. An unbiased review of the study indicates the following. Figure 3.1 - the shortest and fastest alternative route for northbound 101 traffic goes by the Highschool - an area already over the LOS thresholds. This is not pointed out in the study because they did not look at any intersections that have stop signs. This shortest route adds 8.4 miles of travel! At the IRS Rate of $.545, that equates to $4.63 per trip. The July 2018 National Household Travel Survey estimates the daily trips per household to be 5.11 - so impacted households would be paying $23.67 dollars more per day or $8,640.31 more per year! At the IRS vehicle mileage reimbursement rate, the increase in costs to the impacted vehicles exceeds $4 Million per year! The proposed closure produces an increase of 250% more emissions. The proposed closure produces a travel time increase of 250%. This the study concludes that this adds between 8,975,050 and 8,976,390 additional miles traveled per year – all on local roads which the study concludes are already over the LOS threshold. The study states tries to conceal the emissions impact by highlighting that the emissions along the 101 will be lowered, but fails to state that the emissions impact in the town and village of Arroyo Grande – especially near our high school will be increased. They say in the report that U-Turn Intersections and Merge lanes was considered - but rejected - Why were they rejected? That is not in the report. There is plenty of room to allow northbound vehicles from El campo to turn right on 101 - (hopefully with an acceleration lane) - travel down the road a bit and make a u-turn to get to 101 north. This would eliminate all impact on Village Roads. The report states that all of these impacts would we offset if a new overpass to US 101 is implemented, but that somehow did not become the recommendation from the report. 1500 local area residents signed a peititon in favor of an overpass to replace the El Campo road crossing! This overpass has been in the long range plan since 1999 and is already approved! The study was a spot study and only looked at the traffic signals. They did not look at any of the stop signs. The traffic in Arroyo Grande along the alternative routes is already impacted. The study finds that Fair Oaks/101, Fair Oaks Traffic Way, Fair Oaks and West Branch and East Grand Ave currently exceed LOS thresholds. No mitigation is scheduled currently. It is in the long range plan that they estimate to be completed in 25 years. As a note - the overpass at El Campo has been planed for 20 years already (since 1999) and there is still no funding. Collision Data used in the report only looked at signaled intersections - the village has massive problems with collisions and spill back stacking by the Highschool at stop signs. Not studied by the report. Study was performed in September and December when the vacation and dunes traffic along Grand Ave is at its lowest. The study was a spot check - weekdays between 7 and 9 am and only for 15 minutes. If they looked at Halcyon at 7:30 am, they would see something very different than if they looked at 8 am. - Highschool traffic is gone. In the afternoon, they looked at traffic between 4 pm and 6 PM - completely missing the Highschool peek traffic time. The report notes that they collected the data when school is in session, not during the commute times. The benchmark data used to forecast the 2035 traffic was based upon data taken in 2014, published in 2015 - which significantly underestimated the traffic along the 101 corridor today. We are already at the 2035 forecast rates. The study only looked at the traffic rates at El Campo road during the peek hours- 7 am to 9 am, and 4 pm to 6 pm. Locals do not use this crossing at those peek times because there they know that the traffic on the 101 is too heavy. Locals use that intersection at off peek times. The study did not look at the flow for a full day and basis the estimates on the impact to the local system of roads upon redirecting the lowest number of vehicles. Los Berros Road at El Campo and Falcon Ridge is a blind access point with high speed traffic - the report does show that these access points to Los Berros Road are already dangerous and the recommendation does not suggest any mitigation. As a result, the safety is simply being moved from one pinch point to another. The methodology in the report indicates that they only studied these intersections for 15 minutes, but they extrapolate the data out to hours and days. During the afternoon peak hour, 5% of southbound 101 traffic exits at El Campo road. That is the volume that should be considered at a minimum. The difference between counting 4 trips and 143 trips in the estimated impact to our system of roads is enormous. The study does not propose an acceleration lane onto highway 101 south for a safe merger - which is required by CalTrans for any new construction. The study does not indicate that the current configuration of the overpasses at Grand Ave and Halcyon roads that would become the primary northbound entrance points do not meet current Cal Trans design requirements and would not be approved by todays Cal Trans standards. There was no study of the safety impact of adding street lighting or other safety enhancements to highway 101 at the el campo interchange There was no study of the safety impact of reducing the speed on highway 101. There was no study of adding a traffic signal to highway 101. Reference for daily traffic trips per household: https://nhts.ornl.gov/assets/2017_nhts_summary_travel_trends.pdf On Mar 24, 2019, at 10:47 PM, Cheryl Storton <> wrote: I have been getting calls from concerned citizens about the proposed El Campo Road Closure. Everyone is in favor of closing the left turn lane. I was surprised to see that the A.G. City Manager has signed a letter opposing this and that it is on the agenda for the Tuesday meeting. This should be a simple no brainer! No one has suggested closing the entire exit. I read the letter to the San Luis Council of Governments and the attached letter from the fire department. I find some conclusions confusing: · Why would anyone heading north on 101 take the Traffic Way exit only to make “abrupt U-turn at the northbound Traffic Way off-ramp where there is a high likelihood of rear- end collisions” and use the Mobile station “as a route to reenter the southbound Traffic Way on-ramp?” · If the southbound exit lane is still open, why would emergency response times be lengthened. In fact, times might likely be shortened if the left turn lane is closed because there would be less traffic and congestion at El Campo. · I believe that most people who live in Arroyo Grande, avoid El Campo because they know it is a dangerous left turn. I doubt very much if the closure of the left turn lane would increase traffic significantly. Only a small group of residents who live in the El Campo area may be inconvenienced. · The cost of closing the left turn lane is basically nothing. If it can save even one life, we can surely put up with a little more traffic and inconvenience. · The letter seems to be projecting problems that will likely not materialize. Let’s try closing the LEFT TURN LANE and see what happens. · The letter is concerned about “Deteriorated conditions at City intersections” Really? Really? Why isn’t the City manager, Teresa McClish, and the Five Cities Fire Authority, concerned about the horrible traffic problems that will be created by the projects at Halcyon and Fairoaks? Or the project on the Loomis property in the Village? Or the impact of a new hotel in the Village? Or the Cherry Lane project?? All these will surely result more deterioration of our City intersections and roads than closing the left hand turn lane at El Campo. And with more congestion from these projects, emergency response times will certainly increase. Please do not sign and send this letter to SLOCOG. Sincerely, Cheryl Storton