CC 2019-03-26_10a Supplemental No. 3
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
Staff was alerted yesterday by Ms. Lara that her comments of May 10, 2018 were not
included in Attachment 6. Attachment 6 includes “Draft Response to Comments on the
initial Study with Proposed Negative Declaration and Environmental Assessment”. It is
important to note that the Council is not being asked to certify the Mitigated Document
this evening and that process will take place once the Preferred Alternative is selected
and incorporated as such in the environmental documents. Staff had included Draft
responses in order to provide additional information for the selection of the Preferred
Alternative.
However, in addition to Ms. Alicia Lara’s comment, that was submitted during the
comment period for the Environmental Documents, the project consultant has identified
a handful of comments that were also inadvertently not included in this DRAFT response
package matrix. Please see the attached missing comments. It should be noted that
upon review by the project consultant, many of the comments are duplicative in nature,
and some are outside the purview of the environmental process as they refer to comments
on social media, etc. Nonetheless, these comments will be responded to in writing and
presented with all comments received during the environmental comment period as part
of the normal environmental review process.
cc: City Manager
City Attorney
City Clerk
Public Review Binder
From: Jon Claxton [mailto:jclaxton@swca.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2019 11:21 AM
To: Wilkinson, Jason J@DOT <jason.wilkinson@dot.ca.gov>; Emily Creel <ECreel@swca.com>; Teresa
McClish <tmcclish@arroyogrande.org>
Cc: Robin Dickerson <rdickerson@arroyogrande.org>; Valadao, Paul@DOT
<paul.valadao@dot.ca.gov>; Marsalek, Lucas@DOT <Lucas.Marsalek@dot.ca.gov>
Subject: RE: EXTERNAL:FW: Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project Comments
Hi all
The emails from yesterday and this morning regarding a missing comment has caused us to take a
deeper dive on our side. In addition to Ms. Alicia Lara’s comment, we identified a handful of
comments that were not included in this DRAFT response package matrix. I’ve included the missing
comments here as a separate file – compiled.pdf. Emily has cursorily reviewed them this morning.
Many of the comments are duplicative in nature, and some are outside the EIR process itself as they
refer to comments on social media, etc. As Jason mentioned below, these are DRAFT and we will
plan to respond to them as part of the normal environmental review process.
Jon Claxton
Natural Resources Team Lead
SWCA Environmental Consultants
1422 Monterey Street, Suite C-200
San Luis Obispo, CA, 93401
P 805.543.7095 x6813. | F 805.543.2367 | M. 805.268.6898
Visit Our New Website!
The contents of this email and any associated emails, information, and attachments are CONFIDENTIAL. Use or
disclosure without sender’s authorization is prohibited. If you are not an authorized recipient, please notify the
sender and then immediately delete the email and any attachments.
From: Wilkinson, Jason J@DOT <jason.wilkinson@dot.ca.gov>
Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2019 10:47 AM
To: Emily Creel <ECreel@swca.com>; tmcclish@arroyogrande.org
Cc: rdickerson@arroyogrande.org; Jon Claxton <jclaxton@swca.com>; Valadao, Paul@DOT
<paul.valadao@dot.ca.gov>; Marsalek, Lucas@DOT <Lucas.Marsalek@dot.ca.gov>
Subject: RE: EXTERNAL:FW: Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project Comments
Here’s a list of comments we’ve received so far. I don’t see Alicia’s comment included. I received her
email on 5/10 and I forwarded it to Allison and Paul on 5/11. It may have gotten lost in
transmission…..
Since we haven’t approved the CEQA/NEPA document I don’t see why we can’t include her
comment letter with a response now. Also, it might be good to note, “Draft Response to Comments
on the initial Study with Proposed Negative Declaration and Environmental Assessment” on the pdf
that is available online since we probably need to note in the responses what the PDT chose as the
Preferred Alternative.
Please note, the Environmental Coordinator role for this project has been transferred from Allison
Donatello to Lucas Marsalek.
Jason Wilkinson
Senior Environmental Planner
Caltrans District 5, SLO
(805) 542-4663
From: Emily Creel <ECreel@swca.com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2019 8:52 AM
To: tmcclish@arroyogrande.org; Wilkinson, Jason J@DOT <jason.wilkinson@dot.ca.gov>
Cc: rdickerson@arroyogrande.org; Jon Claxton <jclaxton@swca.com>
Subject: RE: EXTERNAL:FW: Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project Comments
Thanks, Teresa. I’m checking on my end as well...
Emily Creel
Planning Team Lead
SWCA Environmental Consultants
P 805.543.7095 ex. 6814 | F 805.543.2367
From: Teresa McClish <tmcclish@arroyogrande.org>
Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2019 8:44 AM
To: 'jason.wilkinson@dot.ca.gov' <jason.wilkinson@dot.ca.gov>
Cc: rdickerson@arroyogrande.org; Emily Creel <ECreel@swca.com>; Jon Claxton
<jclaxton@swca.com>
Subject: EXTERNAL:FW: Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project Comments
Hi Jason,
FYI. Checking to see if we missed this or any others? For purposes of tonight’s meeting we will
reiterate, what you’ve said, that responses will come with final environmental documents.
Thank you,
Teresa
Teresa McClish, AICP
Community Development Director
Community Development, City of Arroyo Grande
Tel: 805-473-5422 | 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: Keith Storton
Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2019 6:41 AM
To: Alicia Lara <>
Cc: Teresa McClish <tmcclish@arroyogrande.org>; Jessica Matson <jmatson@arroyogrande.org>
Subject: Re: Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project Comments
Good Morning Alicia,
Your comments are attached to pages 758-759 (attachment 6 of the Response to Comments of
the IS/MND) of the AG Council staff report for 3/26. It was an email dated February 7, 2019
in regard to the Brisco informational meeting.
The IS/MND was published in February and I am uncertain as to the cut off for the acceptance
of comments that would have generated a response by staff. However, several responses were
added to this section (with no response). I assume these were received after to publishing of
the Comments to IS/MND document.
I know at our February 12 Council meeting and the Brisco informational meeting on the 13th
Director McClish indicated responses from citizens would be included as part of the public
record, but I don’t believe there was a suggestion that there would be a staff response for
each.
Since you’ve added additional information I will forward this for inclusion to the public
record.
Keith Storton
Arroyo Grande City Council Member
300 E. Branch Street
Arroyo Grande, CA 93420
www.arroyogrande.org
kstorton@arroyogrande.org
On Mar 25, 2019, at 5:18 PM, Alicia Lara <> wrote:
Respectfully, you didn't answer my question. Why then were some public
comments selectively excluded? Ms. McClish stated at the February 12th Council
Meeting, that the Public Comments/Responses would be included with the staff
report for March 26th; she did not say only some would be included, while others
would not be responded to until the Final MND/EA.
What criteria was used to determine which Public Comments would be included
(with responses) in this presentation to Council, and which would not? And why is
there no reference in this presentation to "other public comments" that will be
responded to in the Final MND/EA, so the Council and the public is aware other
folks/entities responded to the MND/EA prior to the May 12, 2018 deadline,
without the opportunity to see those questions/comments nor a response, for
tonight's meeting?
While I don't understand your selection process for responses to comments
during the Public Comments period to be included at this time; I already clearly
understood the purpose of tomorrow's meeting.
Thank you.
Alicia Lara
From: Wilkinson, Jason J@DOT <jason.wilkinson@dot.ca.gov>
Sent: Monday, March 25, 2019 4:18 PM
To: Alicia Lara
Cc: Valadao, Paul@DOT; Teresa McClish; Caren Ray Russom; Kristen Barneich; Jimmy
Paulding; Keith Storton; lgeorge@arroyogrande.org
Subject: FW: Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project Comments
Hello Alicia,
The comment you provided along with all other comments relating to the Draft
MND/EA will have a response in the Final MND/EA that is scheduled to be released in
late Spring. The purpose of the City Council public meeting scheduled for tomorrow
night is to receive public input of those in attendance, discuss the items on the staff
report, and for the City Council to vote on a recommended Preferred Alternative. The
outcome of this vote will be a recommendation to the Project Development Team so
they can respond to comments approve the project. The Project Development Team is
made up of Caltrans staff and City of AG staff. Once the determination is made on the
Preferred Alternative, Caltrans along with the City of Arroyo Grande will begin
responding to the comments submitted by the public and other agencies.
If you have any other further questions please feel free to contact me or City of AG
staff.
Regards,
Jason Wilkinson
Senior Environmental Planner
Caltrans District 5, SLO
(805) 542-4663
From: Alicia Lara <>
Sent: Monday, March 25, 2019 3:37 PM
To: Wilkinson, Jason J@DOT <jason.wilkinson@dot.ca.gov>; Teresa McClish
<tmcclish@arroyogrande.org>; Caren Ray Russom <crayrussom@arroyogrande.org>;
Kristen Barneich <kbarneich@arroyogrande.org>; Jimmy Paulding
<jpaulding@arroyogrande.org>; Keith Storton <kstorton@arroyogrande.org>;
lgeorge@arroyogrande.org
Cc: Chuck Cass <>
Subject: Re: Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project Comments
Please explain why my Public Comments (see below) were not included or
responded to as part of the agenda item presented to Council for March 26th?
Alicia Lara
From: Wilkinson, Jason J@DOT <jason.wilkinson@dot.ca.gov>
Sent: Friday, May 11, 2018 7:48 AM
To: Alicia Lara
Cc: Chuck Cass
Subject: RE: Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project Comments
Hello Alicia,
Thank you for your comments and your support for Alternative 1. We will include
your comments as part of the public record with a response in the Final
Environmental Document.
If you have any further comments please feel free to contact me.
Regards,
Jason Wilkinson
Senior Environmental Planner
Caltrans District 5, SLO
(805) 542-4663
From: Alicia Lara [mailto:]
Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2018 5:47 PM
To: Wilkinson, Jason J@DOT <jason.wilkinson@dot.ca.gov>; jhill@arroyogrande.org;
cray@arroyogrande.org; tbrown@arroyogrande.org; kbarneich@arroyogrande.org;
bharmon@arroyogrande.org
Cc: Chuck Kass <>
Subject: Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project Comments
Arroyo Grande City Council and Mr. Wilkinson:
First and foremost to any decision the City Council has to make, is their current
and long term fiduciary responsibility to the residents of the city. The General
Fund 10-Year Fiscal Forecast cast a very big long-term shadow on this entire
project - because there are already existing services, such as CalPERS, health
insurance, Workers' Compensation insurance, animal services, liability
insurance, and the closure of Diablo power plant - the costs of which the City has
no control over, that may very well bring the City's reserve to zero in 5 years. If
the economy turns, or we have continued drought conditions, it will get real
serious in what will seem to be a heartbeat. And the current talk of layoffs, means
reduced services to the entire community. Given that - City Manger stated "We
are getting to the point where every $1,000 matters."
Thus it is with trepidation that I support Alternative 1 - provided the Council
deems it is within the City's ability to address and maintain a healthy general
fund financial state for the City overall. The Brisco underpass has been identified
as a city issue for a long time; and there are offsetting funds available to the City
now. Although I'm not as familiar as the Council is with the City's Budget, it
seems that the excessive cost of Alt 4C will not be sustainable along with other
City priorities, given the limited areas it addresses when compared to Alternative
1 at double the cost.
Alternative 4C does not address the varied improvements Alternative 1 does such
as Camino Mercado improvements, identified in Table 11 of the Draft Project
Report, as having the highest Collision Rates for US 101 Ramps within the scope
of the report. Nor does alt 4C address widening Grand Avenue with pedestrian
sidewalks, and bicycle lanes, or improvements to the NB onramps to 101 at
Grand. In addition, Alt 4C shortens the weaving distance (cross traffic) on SB 101
at Brisco from 1,580 feet, to 940 feet; and although that has been approved by
Caltrans, my experience has been it can be precarious trying to exit at Brisco as
cars merge from Grand. As to Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities, Alt 4C only noted
improves associated with a new Park and Ride - which does not appear to address
pedestrian/bicycle access across Rodeo at W. Branch.
Having only a short time to review both lengthy reports, I did not note if the
101 SB onramp at Grand, which requires acquisition of farm land, addresses
major traffic/pedestrian/bicycle issues. So other than aligning it with 101 SB
offramp at Grand, I'm wondering if it is necessary - given the stretched budget
dollars.
As to sound walls, again, not sure if those are necessary - it appears the proposed
walls would only provide minimal relief; in addition they would impact existing
landscape and be a magnet for graffiti - and who will pay to address that timely?
I don't envy the heavy decisions you must make to fulfill your
fiduciary responsibility to this community; thus if you deem that No Build is the
option that you must go with, I can support that - however, know that Grand
Avenue and Camino Mercado will still be impacted, as folks avoid Brisco to
commute from point A to B. Thank you for your consideration.
Alicia Lara