Loading...
CC 2022-05-10_08j Supplemental 1 MEMORANDUM TO: City Council FROM: Jessica Matson, Legislative & Information Services Director/City Clerk SUBJECT: Supplemental Information Agenda Item 8.j. – Consideration of a Resolution Supporting the Application for Funding from the Department of Transportation’s Multimodal Project Discretionary Grant Opportunity for the US 101/Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modification Project DATE: May 10 , 2022 Attached is correspondence received before 4 p.m. for the above referenced item. cc: City Manager Assistant City Manager/Public Works Director Community Development Director City Attorney City Clerk City Website (or public review binder) From:Dill, Patrick To:Caren Ray Russom; Jimmy Paulding; Keith Storton; Lan George; Kristen Barneich; Jessica Matson Subject:Regarding: Comments for May 10 2022 Council Meeting re Grant Request (002).docx Date:Tuesday, May 10, 2022 3:39:56 PM Attachments:Comments for May 10 2022 Council Meeting re Grant Request (002).docx Greetings City Representatives, See attached for comments for Agenda Item 9j Thanks, Patrick. MAY 10, 2022 CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA ITEM 9j – CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION SUPPORTING THE APPLICATION FOR FUNDING FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION’S MULTIMODAL PROJECT DISCRETIONARY GRANT OPPORTUNITY FOR THE US 101/BRISCO- HALCYON ROAD INTERCHANGE MODIFICATION PROJECT We oppose pursuing the Multimodal Discretionary Grant (MPDG) to fund Alternative 4C for the Brisco Interchange Project. There has been very little public/resident support for Alternative 4C because of the impact it will have local residents. And the ever-increasing cost makes it prohibited. If the grant is approved for Alternative 4C, that still doesn’t alleviate the impact it will have on local residents, particularly Grace Lane and Mesquite Lane residents. Furthermore, the grant funding won’t mitigate the danger of a roundabout resulting increased traffic in such close proximity to a school. The online survey conducted in late 2018 or early 2019 indicated overwhelmingly that Alternative 4C had very little support of local residents. There was, however, a degree of support for Alternative 1. From:Bob and Mardell Perez To:public comment Subject:Brisco Interchange Project Date:Tuesday, May 10, 2022 3:08:01 PM Thoughts on the Brisco Interchange project (again) There is little public/resident support for Alternative 4C. The cost versus benefit gets worse each year. Why is the Council so set on spending money for this project? Doesn’t the City have more pressing issues that money could be used on? Why is the Board showing such a lack of fiscal responsibility? There are rumblings of putting a tax increase on the ballot. How will the public support any tax increase when this project continues to be pushed upon us? When will the board begin to govern based upon constituent input instead of personal decisions? Do the right thing: Quit chasing this project. The costs are only going to increase. Inflation, cost of fuel, cost of materials, cost of manpower, etc., are going to continue while the grant will be a fixed amount. Who do you believe will be left with all cost increases? Sometimes, you just have to recognize when it is the right time to cut your losses. Bob Perez Arroyo Grande From:Claudine Lingo To:Caren Ray Russom; Jimmy Paulding; Kristen Barneich; Keith Storton; Lan George; Jessica Matson Subject:COMMENTS RELATIVE TO ITEM 8J ON THE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA TONIGHT Date:Tuesday, May 10, 2022 11:45:20 AM Attachments:Comments for May 10 2022 Council Meeting re Grant Request.pdf Please see the attached comments. Thanks, Claudine Lingo Page 1 of 5 MAY 10, 2022 CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA ITEM 9j – CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION SUPPORTING THE APPLICATION FOR FUNDING FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION’S MULTIMODAL PROJECT DISCRETIONARY GRANT OPPORTUNITY FOR THE US 101/BRISCO-HALCYON ROAD INTERCHANGE MODIFICATION PROJECT I strongly oppose pursuing the Multimodel Discretionary Grant (MPDG) to fund Alternative 4C for the Brisco Interchange Project. If the City wants to pursue a grant to proceed with Alternative 1, I doubt there would be as much opposition as there is to Alternative 4C. As the City knows, there has been very little public/resident support for Alternative 4C because of the impact it will have local residents not just the ever-increasing cost. If the grant is approved for Alternative 4C, that still doesn’t alleviate the impact it will have on local residents, particularly Grace Lane and Mesquite Lane residents. (Mesquite Lane is used as a cut- through from James Way to Grace Lane resulting in speeding on that very narrow street.) Furthermore the grant funding won’t mitigate the danger of a roundabout resulting increased traffic in such close proximity to a school. The online survey conducted in late 2018 or early 2019 (by either the City, CalTrans or the consultant?) indicated overwhelmingly that Alternative 4C had very little support of local residents. There was, however, a degree of support for Alternative 1. It is my understanding that SLO COG is pushing the pursuit of the grant to fund Alternative 4C. Perhaps the City can provide SLO COG with all of the comments provided to the City by local residents throughout the Brisco project process including comments from the survey that was conducted online. Maybe SLO COG could push for the grant to provide funding for Alternative 1 rather than negatively impacting the lives of local residents and impacting the safety of Saint Patrick’s students unnecessarily. I realize the City is aware of all the concerns/issues that have been raised often throughout the process of selecting an alternative for the Brisco Interchange Project. Regardless of what Brisco Interchange alternative ultimately gets funded or not, the City must install speed bumps on Grace Lane between the Grace Bible Church to the intersection of Grace Lane and Rodeo Drive to mitigate at least some of speeding on Grace Lane. Page 2 of 5 At minimum, the following comments should be provided to SLO COG so they understand that there is very little public support for Alternative 4C and why. In the memo from Teresa McClish to the City Council for the 3/26/19 City Council meeting regarding the Brisco Interchange Project, there were a few questionable conclusions. The City has all of the issues I’ve identified in previously regarding the Brisco Interchange Project; however, I am providing some of them below: 1. It was stated in Teresa McClish’s memo that the purpose of the Brisco Interchange Project is to provide traffic congestion relief, alleviate queuing and improve traffic operations … “To achieve this stated purpose to an adequate degree this project should … Provide direct access from US 101 to and from the commercial, governmental and recreational facilities along West Branch Street.” Comment: Many local residents I’ve spoken with have only encounter congestion and queuing during the hours when parents are dropping off/picking up St. Patrick School students. The congestion relief and queing can be relieved by Alternative 1 without the significant impact on residents in the immediate neighborhoods and provide easy access to the Trader Joe’s and WalMart shopping centers, the library, Chamber of Commerce, etc. As noted often by local residents, when the Brisco offramp was closed, there was no traffic queing! 2. The 3/26/19 memo also indicates that reconstruction of the existing Grace Lane/Rodeo Drive intersection is to “allow Grace Lane to better receive through traffic and act as a collector street as it was designed.” Comment: I would like to re-emphasize that it was not disclosed (as required by law) to most (if not all) buyers of houses on Grace Lane that the Brisco Interchange Project was in the works and it would impact Grace Lane, nor was it disclosed that Grace Lane was going to be a collector road. Page 3 of 5 It would make more sense for Rancho Parkway (one street north of Grace Lane!) to be used as the collector road, not Grace Lane. Rancho Parkway does not have driveways and provides easy access to the Trader Joe’s and WalMart center. In spite of the driveway design on Grace Lane, it can be dangerous getting out of our driveways since there is a hill and several curves which limits the line of sight; this is especially dangerous when cars are driving 40-60 miles per hour on a residential street. This will be exacerbated if the roundabout is built, traffic is directed up and down Grace Lane as a collector road and the left turn onto Grace Lane is eliminated to “allow Grace Lane to better receive through traffic”. We requested that the City install speed bumps to discourage the high rates of speed (as was done on Rodeo Drive) and requested more police enforcement. The police chief at the time (Chief Pryor) did have a motorcycle officer assigned to Grace Lane for a couple of hours on a couple of days, which we much appreciated! However, we were informed that the police department does not have sufficient officers to conduct daily monitoring of speeding on our street. (The City needs to ensure that the developer of the Rodeo Court development and the realtors involved disclose to the potential home buyers that the development is located on a “collector street” and there is a possibility that the freeway offramp will be relocated to Branch and Rodeo with a roundabout at Rodeo & Branch directing cut-through traffic up and down Grace Lane. (It was unconscionable that it wasn’t disclosed to Grace Lane home buyers; don’t let that happen on Rodeo Court!) 3. The 3/26/19 memo indicated that a Traffic Forecasting and Operational Analysis was completed in September 2012 for the Brisco project. Comment: In September 2012, Grace Lane wasn’t recognized on Mapquest, Google, etc. Many people didn’t even know Grace Lane existed. If you Googled/Mapquested our address, you were directed to the Huasna area! This calls into question whether the Traffic and Neighborhood Modeling was even relevant in 2012 let alone in 2022. Page 4 of 5 4. The memo stated “In February 2011 … Wood Rodgers evaluated vehicular travel time … involving Rodeo Drive/Grace Lane residential neighborhood. The routes included travel times from four origin points (Grace Lane/Rodeo drive intersection, James Way/Grace Lane intersection …)”. It also stated “The route travel times’ comparative evaluation indicated that northbound travel from James Way corridor to US 101 via Rodeo Drive will not become more attractive under Alternative 4C than it is under current conditions. Therefore, no significant volumes of cut-through (from James Way corridor through Grace Lane) and/or traffic re-routing was projected to occur with the proposed Alternative 4 improvements.” Comment: Obviously there were a few flaws in the Wood Rodgers study. James Way does not and never has intersected with Grace Lane. To my knowledge, no one thought that Rodeo Drive would become a more attractive route between James Way and the 101 as a result of Alternative 4C since Rodeo Drive had speed bumps before 2011 when Grace Lane was built. The concern is the cut-through traffic and speeding that Grace Lane will experience because Grace Lane does not have speed bumps. The first 4 houses built on Grace Lane (4 houses across Grace Lane from Grace Bible Church) were not built until May 2011. The first house on the 1/2 acre lots was not built and occupied until late 2011. The second house was not built and occupied until mid-December 2011. I question how valid the Wood Rodger’s study of vehicular traffic and travel time could have been in 2011 (before any houses were built and most people didn’t even know that Grace Lane existed), let alone now. Grace Lane has become the Grace Lane speedway for drivers coming off James Way and West Branch; the roundabout and redesign of the Grace Lane/Rodeo Drive intersection (at the bottom of Grace Lane) will certainly impact the level of traffic and speed at which cars travel on Grace Lane since no left turn will be required to get onto Grace Lane. Regardless of what Brisco Interchange Page 5 of 5 alternative ultimately gets funded or not, the City must install speed bumps on Grace Lane between the Grace Bible Church to the intersection of Grace Lane and Rodeo Drive. In conclusion, I hope this information will remind you how much opposition there was and still is to Alternative 4C and remind you how your decision to support Alternative 4C will significantly impact our lives!