HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/05/1996, 6 - COUNCIL DIRECTION ON THE ROUTE 101 CUESTA GRADE PROJECT AND THE ADEQUACY OF THE PROJECT'S EIR/EIR. • w
�tlIII�I�I��N����l�j►�I�� CIt/ of SAn LUIS OBI SPO MSI M:
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT ITEM NUMBER:
FROM: Michael McCluskey, Public Works Direcl°r
PREPARED BY: Terry Sanville, Principal Transportation Planner'
SUBJECT: Council direction on the Route 101 Cuesta Grade Project
and the adequacy of the project's EIR/EIR.
CAO RECOMMENDATION: The City Council should:
(1) Invite public comment on the proposed Cuesta
Grade project.
(2) As appropriate:
A. Provide direction to the City's delegate to the
SLOCOG Board (Councilman Roalman)
concerning the Cuesta Grade Project.
B. Provide comments on the Cuesta Grade
Project's EIR/EIS to Caltrans.
BACKGROUND
At its February 6, 1996 meeting, the City Council received a briefing from SLOCOG and
Caltrans staff on the draft Environmental Impact Report/Statement for the Route 101 Cuesta
Grade Project. The draft EIR/EIR evaluates three alternative designs for widening Route 101
over Cuesta Grade along with the option of retaining the current roadway design.. Since the
SLOCOG Board is scheduled to review the project on March 6th now is the time to provide any
direction to the City's COG delegate concerning the Council's preferences. It is also Caltrans
and SLOCOG's expectation that an opportunity will be provided at the March 5th meeting for
public comment.
The closing date for comments on the draft EIR/EIS is March 8. 1996 Attached are comments
submitted to Caltrans by the City's planning and transportation staff that critique the draft
EIR/EIS. A copy of the full draft EIR is in the Council Office for reference; a summary was
distributed to the Council for its February 6th meeting. The Council may take this opportunity
to provide additional comments on the accuracy, adequacy and completeness of the EIR.
DISCUSSION
The staff has not made a recommendation for which alternative (if any) that the City Council
should support. However, based on our critical evaluation of the EIR/EIS, there are a number
of concerns that the Council may consider. Each is summarized below with a reference made
to the attached listing of staffs EIR comments.
������ ►�IIIIIII��I��u�I�D�U MY Of San tL.-� OBI SPO '
l COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
(TDA). If the regional system is expanded and uses more TDA to support operations,
what might be the impacts on local systems such as SLO transit? (Comment #14.)
The EIR/EIS in several locations references "employer-based trip reduction programs."
Since recent state law precludes the establishment of these programs, what other
mitigations can take their place? (Comment #14.) Staff also notes that the EIRMIS
does not include an evaluation of home-based telecommuting as one of TDM/fSM
measures. Given the rapid changes in communications technologies, telecommuting
could become a significant measure in reducing home-to-work trips over Cuesta Grade,
especially for office employees.
The EIR/EIS suggests that the project include the construction of sound walls to protect
sensitive land uses along the roadway from excessive noise exposure. However, the
secondary visual effects of this strategy compared with other mitigation measures has not
been presented. (Comment 926.)
5. Regional Bicycle Access. The EIR/EIS indicates that modifications will be made to the
truck parking area at the top of Cuesta Grade to provide for a bicycle path through this
area. While the E1RMIS identifies parallel routes (eg. Stage Coach Road) that can
connect to the truck parking area, improvements to these routes and their use as a Class
I Bikeway is not part of the Cuesta Grade widening project. Given the speed of traffic on
Cuesta Grade and approaches to it, the potential speed increases resulting from the
widening project and traffic volumes forecasted by Caltrans, a separated bicycle path is
very important to ensure safe cycling between communities. The City should support
and SLOCOG and Caltrans should aggressively pursue the creation of a separated Class
I Bikeway between the communities of San Luis Obispo and Santa Margarita
6. Public Support for the Pwiect The EIR/EIS indicates that 45 percent of those making
specific comments as part of a license plate survey wanted to see alleviation of traffic
congestion on the grade by either widening the road or restricting truck traffic. Does that
mean that the majority of respondents (55%) did not support widening? (Comment# 11.)
In sum, staff finds that the EIR/EIS does a credible job in evaluating the physical impacts of
three alternatives for widening Route 101 over Cuesta Grade. However, the need for additional
capacity to satisfy congestion management standards, the benefits of widening the highway on
traffic safety and travel delay, the traffic inducing impacts of a widening strategy, and the
potential for-non-widening options in meeting CMP standards have not been fully explored. We
believe they should prior to making a decision.
ATTACEMEENTS
❑ City Staff comments on the adequacy of the draft EIR/EIS for the Cuesta Grade Project.
❑ Additional summary information provided by Caltrans on the Cuesta Grade widening
project. (Available in Council Office.)
SLOCOG Agenda Report (Available in the Council Office)
V/3
�u II�IIIII��pi�0���► city of san CoA S osi spo
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
1. Need for Project The project designers used a high level of service standard (LOS C)
to define the need for the project while the adopted Congestion Management Plan
suggests a less stringent standard (LOS E). (Comment # 9.) The selection of a LOS
standard effects the definition of project "need" and therefore effects the evaluation of
project alternatives.
From reading the EHL/EIS, it appears that the selection of the higher LOS standard (LOS
C) relates most to the need for securing project funding (Comment 418) and that the
ability of strategies other than road widening to satisfy the standards set forth by the
Congestion Management Plan has not been tested (Comment #18).
2. Project Benefits. The EIR/EIS cites the elimination of delay (Comment#6) as part of the
rationale for widening Route 101 over Cuesta Grade. Yet the EIR/EIS does not present
the relative impact on travel times for inter- and intraregional trips. The EIR does not
provide information that allows decision makers to answer the question: how much delay
will the project prevent (in minutes) and is it worth the fiscal and environmental costs?
Also, the EIR/EIS does not identify who the decision makers are (Comment 44).
The EIR/EIS cites improved traffic safety as a rationale for the project (Comment #10).
Accident rates on the grade are lower than comparable roadways and the EIR/EIS does
not suggest a threshold for considering safety benefits. Also, the EIR/EIS does not
evaluate the safety effects of widening the roadway and fostering increased downhill
vehicle speeds. The basic question is: will widening the highway make it safer?
3. Project Altematives. The historic objective of this project has been to provide a
northbound truck climbing lane on Cuesta Grade to reduce weaving traffic moving at
significantly different speeds. The current listing of alternatives seems to emphasize a
desire to accommodate forecasted traffic volumes within the County through increases to
Route 101's capacity in both directions.
Staff has identified what might be an alternative that accomplishes the historic circulation
objective, costs less, and has reduced impacts. This alternative (a modification of
Alternative #3) would provide a northbound truck climbing lane and eight-foot shoulders
on both sides of the highway but not expand the median. Staff believes that the EIR/EIS
should evaluate this option (Comment #13).
Also; the EIR/EIS does not evaluate the effect of reserving additional travel lanes as high-
occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes. This strategy is suggested by the City's Circulation
Element. (Comment 928.)
4. Impacts of Mitigation Measures. The project description in the EER/EIS assumes certain
types of mitigation measures that will reduce travel demand. If the regional transit
system is expanded to include six additional buses (both during and after the project) as
suggested, how might this mitigation measure effect the operation of other bus systems?
Both local and regional transit systems depend on the same funding sources
6-�2
���i►a�h��������►i►��►i►!VIII IIh���������� lII
city of sAn tuis oaspo
955 Morro Street • San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
February 12, 1996
Gary Ruggerone, Chief
Environmental Planning Branch - Caltrans District 5
P.O. Box 8114
San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8114
Subject: Comments on Draft EIS/EIR for Cuesta Grade Improvement Project
Dear Mr. Ruggerone:
Thank you for making the draft EIR available for our review. Our comments are attached.
They were prepared by members of the City's Community Development Department and Public
Works Department. These comments were reviewed by the San Luis Obispo City Council at
their March 5, 1996 meeting.
While our list of comments are extensive, we found the draft EIR to be well written and
organized. Please contact Terry Sanville (781-7178) if you have questions on the items covered
in this letter.
Sincerely,
Michael McCluskey
Public Works Director
Copies: John Dunn, City of S.L.O. CAO
Arnold Jonus, City of S.L.O. Community Development Director
/O The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities.
l� Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(805) 781-7410.
Item Page 1 .
1. 2-1 Section headings and several text statements indicate that there are four "alternatives to the
proposed action," but nowhere is the proposed action itself described. It appears that the
proposed action is to choose one of the alternatives numbered 2, 3, or 4.
2. S-9 Concerning the statement that "The proposed project is consistent with ... the transportation
element... of the San Luis Obispo area plan":
❑ The adopted S.L.O. County area plan contains no reference to the project.
❑ The Public Review Draft of the area plan update says, apparently as commentary
rather than policy, "construction of north- and south-bound truck climbing lanes is
programmed to proceed."
❑ The draft area plan also says "Once Route 101 is expanded, one lane should be
designated for high-occupancy vehicles during peak commuter hours" (page 4-7).
❑ The draft area plan's Goal #1 for circulation is "Protect sensitive resources and
mitigate adverse impacts to the environment while providing roadway
improvements." The draft EIR summary of impacts table (page S-4) says there will
be two locations for which noise mitigation will not be effective for any build
alternative, and it identifies reductions in vegetated area of 18 to 41 acres, depending
on alternatives.
Therefore, the conclusion concerning plan consistency does not appear to be supported.
3. 5-10 Concerning visual resources, the EIR discusses impact categories, numerical rating systems,
replanting, and design mitigation. None of these items changes the fact that a four lane
highway would become a 5- or six-lane highway. This change would have a substantial
impact on the character of the corridor and the San Luis Obispo area.
4. The EIR does not identify who will make the decision on the proposed project,
approximately when that decision is expect to be made, or how the public can influence that
decision. It should.
5. 1-1 It would be helpful under section 1.1 to describe the current programming status of the
project and its position relative to the current STIP.
6. 1-1 Since travel delays during peak hours are cited as a problem that this project mitigates (re
Section 1.3.2), it would be helpful for section 1.2 Purpose to include a statement on how
the project would effect travel times between destinations within the county (eg. between
SLO and Atascadero) and for interregional traffic. Effects on travel times should be
presented for both peak and off-peak conditions, for existing and forecasted traffic
cohditions, for each of the project alternatives.
7. 1-6 Fourth Paragraph: the EIR indicates that traffic speeds range from 30 to 50 mph, depending
on location and steepness. Are these speeds in both directions? Are they during peak
traffic periods (am or pm or both?)? It is difficult to believe that southbound speeds do not
exceed 50 mph, even during peak conditions. This section of the EIR should be clarified.
8. 1.7 The LOS standards are based the 1985 version of the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM).
Does the 1995 edition of the HCM suggest anything different? Assuming that HCM
methodologies were used to calculate LOS for base year conditions, were field observations
done to calibrate calculated LOS to observed LOS? Was the "planning" or "operations"
method used to define base year conditions? Our 'experience in the past is that HCM
methodologies or other shorthand methods can overstate LOS concerns.
6S
Item Page 2
9. 1.7 Last Paragraph: Since CMP standards for LOS represent a local political consensus, it
would be helpful if the analysis of LOS identifies which roadway segments will exceed CMP
standards under current and future conditions. This presentation would help illustrate
consistency of the project with local adopted plans — such as the CMP. This information
would also help local agencies critique the need for the project and provide a basis for
responding to the decision making agency concerning the project's implementation. (Note:
it appears from Table 4-13, page 4-44 that Alternative 2 or 3 would meet CMP standards
except for one southbound segment that would degrade to LOS F by the year 2020.)
10. 1.9 On page 1.1, the EIR indicates that the project will serve the related need of improving
traffic safety. Yet on page 1.9 (section 1.3.5) the report indicates that the current accident
rate "...of 1.25 is lower than the expected rate of 1.47 for similar highway conditions." The
discussion that follows seems to indicate that the "safety issue" is defined anecdotally by area
residents. Is there an accepted accident rate threshold incorporated in state, federal, or local
plans and policies that could provide a benchmark for determining the significance of safety
concerns?
Also, do most of the accidents occur during peak periods and how do peak period rates
compare with other similar highways? What is the likely effect (if any) on accident rates
if lanes are added that enables higher traveling speeds, given the grade of the roadway?
11. 1-11 First Paragraph: The report indicates that 45 percent of those who make specific comments
as part of a license place survey wanted to see alleviation of traffic congestion on the grade
by either widening the road or restricting truck traffic. What is the statistical significance
(if any) of this response? Is the inverse statement also true -- eg. the majority of those
submitting specific responses (55%) did not feel that traffic conditions warranted widening
of the roadway or restrictions on truck traffic? .
12. 1-11 Last Paragraph: Did the analysis of TDM/TSM measure determine the potential effect of
the "No project" alternative on demand for alternate transportation? Given the congestion
(and delays?) forecasted for the corridor, .would this option foster greater demand for
carpool/vanpool, transit, rail alternates, or home-base telecommuting?
13. 2-2 Alternatives: What about a hybrid of Alternative #3 by retaining the current median width
(as with Alternative#1)? This could allow for a shoulders on both sides of the roadway that
are large enough to accommodate motor vehicles and comfortably accommodate bicyclists.
Grading impacts should be similar to Alternative#2 by reducing hillside cuts for northbound
facilities or limiting grading for southbound facilities to establish a uniform shoulder. (Note:
the current narrow median has an effect of moderating downhill speeds. Widening the
median could increase these speeds and have adverse safety impacts. The same concern
exists with Alternative #4.)
Since the cost of Alternative #3 is more than twice that of the cost of Alternative#2 ($35.2
million vs. $15.9 million) and since TDM/TSM measures are common to both alternatives,
it appears that the cost of ensuring a full eight foot shoulders for Alternative#3 is significant
($15,000,000+?). Would a hybrid alternative mentioned above reduce these fiscal impacts.
14. 2-3 Fifth Paragraph: The EIR indicates that the six transit vehicles will be become a permanent
addition to the SLORTA transit fleet and full responsibility for marketing will transfer from
Caltrans to SLOCOG and SLORTA. What will the impact of operating these buses be on
the operation of other transit systems in the County that currently depend on the same
funding source (TDA) as the SLORTA system? Or did the EIR assume new funding for
expanded SLORTA operations? Can enhanced transit operations be counted on as a
TDM/Mitigation strategy if the fiscal feasibility of this measure is unknown?
66
Item Page 3
This paragraph also indicates that there would be added State funding for ridesharing and
employer base trip reduction programs. Since recent State legislation eliminates the option
for area agencies to establish employer based trip reduction programs (effective January 1,
1996), what replacement elements can become part of the TSM/TDM package? Will state
funding perpetually support ridesharing and can this be counted on as a perpetual mitigation
measure?
Also, has the EIR evaluated the composition of peak period traffic to determine the
percentage of home-based work trips? If so, has any analysis been done to test the
feasibility and travel demand impacts of establishing home-based tellecommute programs that
could effect work trips? (Note: if the TDM/TSM package is described in "Technical
Memorandum #2, than a summary of findings should be included in the Appendix or the
body of the EIR to allow the reader to know what things were looked at and what was not.)
15. 2-4 First Paragraph, last sentence: What will be the operational effect on northbound truck
traffic of relocating the truck inspection area to the west under Alternative #3? Where to
the west?
16. 2-4 Forth Paragraph: What is the significance (if any) of not designating Route 101 as a bike
route? What additional improvements would be needed to achieve this designation since
the timing or feasibility of implementing a parallel bike route is unknown at this time? Also
the EIR should reflect that the County has adopted the County Bicycle Plan (September
1994).
17. 2-5 Third Paragraph: What has Caltrans experience been with using "steepened side slopes"
and "eliminating benched slopes" in areas of similar geology? What are the potential safety
and maintenance implications and their impacts (if any) on traffic operations?
18. 2-14 First Paragraph: The EIR states that TDM strategies would need to reduce traffic levels by
about half to achieve LOS C and by one third to achieve LOS D. What is the appropriate
standard for LOS that is driving the need for this project? Since the State's mandated
congestion management program sets in place a traffic mitigation strategy throughout
California, shouldn't the CMP standards be used? The EIR states on page 4-34 that
"FHWA and Caltrans seek to attain AASHTO guidelines [LOS C] in order to justify the
expenditure of public funds." Does this mean that a higher standard is being used just to
secure funding for the project?
How much traffic reduction would be needed to achieve LOS E consistent with the adopted
Congestion Management Plan? Is this level of reduction within the range of TDM/TSM
strategies described by the EIR (eg. achieving a 12% traffic reduction, reference second
paragraph on page 2-14). If home-based telecommute programs are added to the
TDM/TSM package, could the package become more competitive?
19. 2-14 First paragraph: Did the EIR evaluate improvements to bicycle access in conjunction with
enhanced transit service and park-and-ride strategies? Would increasing bus/bike trips and
bike-ridesharing trips have a significant impact on travel demand and how might this be
accomplished?
20. 2-15 Truck Restrictions: A point of clarification: are the delays caused by trucks and the
negative impact on LOS felt during peak periods only or throughout the ten highest hours
of traffic operations?
21. 2-16 Pricing Concepts: What is the cost effectiveness of overcoming legal limitations to applying
pricing concepts to Route 101? Why were these limitations considered insurmountable?
The EIR should provide a comparison of the political/social costs of this strategy over the
01-7
Item Page 4
direct fiscal costs of widening Route 101 and increased long-term maintenance of the
roadway. How might a pricing strategy support or conflict with the transportation demand
management objectives of the CMP, Regional Transportation Plan, local Circulation
Elements? Could a pricing strategy allow Route 101 to operate at LOS consistent with the
adopted CMP (LOS E) without any widening project?
22. General Comment: It would have been helpful to combine Section 3 and 4 so that the reader
could review the environmental setting then immediately review the project's impacts on
each of the setting's components.
23. 4-2 Topography: Did the visual analysis evaluate the relative difference in aesthetic impact
between installing retaining walls and cutting the hillside? Can native planting thrive on
proposed cut banks using the "steepened side slope" strategy identified elsewhere in the
report and given the underlying geology and soil types? Are we talking about native grasses
only? What will be the visual contrast of the vegetated cut slopes to adjoining oak woodland
areas?
24. 4-3 Section 4.1.2: Will the "steepened side slope" strategy with the avoidance of slope benches
effect the potential for landslides? Has this strategy been applied elsewhere with similar
geology and what has been the results?
25. 4-7 Air Quality: Has the air quality analysis looked at the potential "traffic inducing" effects
of increasing the capacity or Route 101 -- especially for trips within the county? Is this
reflected in forecasted traffic volumes and resultant emissions? It is difficult to believe that
providing enhanced transit service using alternative fuels, park and ride lots, and bicycle
access (which constitutes the recommended TSM/TDM strategy) will lead to a 2% reduction
in total daily miles traveled over a 20+ year period (reference first paragraph on page 4.7).
Also, employer-based and school based trip reductions (reference page 4.15, second
paragraph 3) involve more than fostering the use of alternative transportation. They involve
a more aggressive strategy of establishing specific trip reduction goals, monitoring
performance, and taking corrective action when goals are not achieved. Since recent state
law precludes local agencies from implementing these mitigation strategies, will the proposed
measures described in the EIR achieve the same results? And can we count on the emission
reductions being achieved? Is the EIR suggesting that Caltrans pursue employer-based trip
reduction programs at variance with State law?
26. 4-18 Noise Walls/Barriers: What is the visual effects of constructing the recommended noise
barriers? Are there other strategies (providing outdoor use areas the
buildings or better
sound insulation of buildings) that can provide noise mitigation? Or are the barriers needed
to meet both outdoor and indoor noise levels?
27. 4-26 Wildlife: Are there areas where wildlife can traverse the corridor that may be impacted by
the widening? Are traverse points provided? Even though the existing roadway might
constitute a barrier to wildlife movement and result in road kill incidents, significant changes
to the roadway warrant some evaluation of how these impacts can be mitigated.
28. 4.34 The EIR does not evaluate the project in relationship to San Luis Obispo's Circulation
Element, presumably because the project area is beyond the City's jurisdictional boundaries.
As a matter of information, the City's Circulation Element includes the following pertinent
policy:
7.9 The City will cooperate with State and Regional agencies in evaluating the
effectiveness of high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes on state highways. If
State Routes 101 or 227 are widened to add travel lanes, the additional
Item Page 5
capacity should be reserved for HOV/transit use.
Has this concept been evaluated as part of the EIR?
29. Appendix D This appendix explains the different approaches to "significance" under CEQA and
NEPA. However, the body of the report offers no conclusions on significance.
What is the significance of post-mitigation impacts noted in the summary table,
including noise, vegetation, wetlands, species of concern?
CUESTEM.COM
6-9
.. v SI
�3
SGENI'DA ,
" u.dE Wx=w ITEM #
February28;1996:
TO: .,: Council C fieag_ues
FROM: Bill'-Roalma ;
The San Luis Obispo Property Owners AssociaUon's,recent news lettermclud"ed the
attached map. As you can_see, numerous development "proposals and Inquiries"have•
Nen made within ou;urban feserye line 11 -resently,'tl a county�s updating`their Land Use
Element for the unmcoporated areas surrounding an Luis Obispo.. "
I would like•,to agendize a discussion'oftheseg"proposals^and in`gurnes"'so we understand
their potential for inclusion in the county's Land'Use'Eldnient Tsuggesf we invite.
Country Planning _. entrstaff fo join us ii thus discussion:
De P_artm
A meeting in late 1Vl966 or::eaily April woul'd.be mostappropriate since,tlie'County
Planning Commission heanng-.6 the Land Use.Element;beginrshottlythereafter:
- UNCIL CDD D1R
_ O FIN DIR
0 FIRE CHIEF
L
EY O PW DiR
CCERIGORIt3 El POLICE CHF
O MGMF TEAM O REC DIR
El,C D FILE O UTIL DIR
MOS __ 0 PERS DIR
I _
page 3
_r
20'
14
r kt 3
13 10 5
Q12 S 7
POTENE-
TIAL URBAN SITE ® POTENTIAL
SHOWIN C TDITY PLAN PMENT•SITE
_ SHOWN IN CITY PLAN
CI Or' FRINGE AREA DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS
OWN�I�Illl�t�f�lai� i....... �
tl' San juts oagspo NUMBERS REFER TO DESCRIPTIONS IN TEXT
0111.x90 a4n err,..{rrro.r otr..Oa.SIM.a..w4 CSI.M GA 93.13-ala
Pee ' e_d eetnntlal�..wn®t. .
I I. Polia/Caltrarts site.west of the Buckley Road-Vaehe]Lane bend: 10 acres
The fa0owing she have been the subject of proposals and inquiries over the last three yeas. from Agriculture to Commercial Service(ansa 129 in County's S.L.O.Area
Numbers key to the following map. Thu report provide brief descriptions,but does not Plan.update FIR). .
attempt to evaluate the proposals. Me owned land use designadens rte generally those used .
in the County's Land Use Element,since most of the items are proposals to the County. 12. Filipon(Ranch,west Call
Of Highway 101 and south of e Joaquin:91�aaes of
Despite having'rural'in its tide,the Residential Rural designation allows development Rural Lands and 100 acris of Agriculture to Residential Rural(area 131 in
which is not consistent with the City's intent for the grmnbelt.) County's S.L.O.Ates Plan update EIR).
1. Burnet property eovaing the northrmt wren of Bishop Peak:200 stns from
Agriculture to Residential Rural(cititen request site 739 in County's S.L.O. 13. Madonna/Froom Property,west of Los 0503 Valley Road and Calle Joaquin:
Area Plan update SJR). - about W vice acres from Agriculture(Open Space)to Commercial Ser (arra
433 in County's S.L.O.Area Plan update EIR)—this is in addition to area
2. Bridge Crede Road(Righerti Road)area,eau of Way Hill: 170 acres from - shown for development in City land Use Element. .
Apiculture to Residential Rural(included in County's S.LO.Arm PW
update). 14. Plefumo Canyon Homes,a pending application to the City for 38 single-family.
3. Mine Hi01Ri[heal Ranch,along Occult Road north of Tank Fenn Rand:
lots on 18 acres and about 366 acres of open spam(app lieation#26-95)..
inquiry of City staff and'potential future residential expansion arca'in 1S. Emerald Hills-Though the County has approved a 32-lot residential project.
County's S.L.O.Aro Plan update(page 5-20). the owners have asked the City to identify its polities which are relevant to ea
4. la Lomita Ranch,south of Islay Hill:690 aces of from Agriculture to annexation of a 44-lot subdivision on about 27 acres with about 25 acre of
Recreation(area 734 in County's S.L.O.Area Plan update EIR)and separate open space.
eidern propetal to City.
S.- .Eau between Highway 227 and IA Lamita Ranch:85 arca from l6. Emerald Hills lso thds,west of Los us C Valley Road and Borth of the city
airport srq limits;this is also the site of a previous County application(area 1132 in the
Agriculture to Commercial Service,and 52 acro from Agriculture to County's S.L.O.Ara Plan update EIR).
Residential Suburban(aro 919 in Countyro's S.L.O.APlan update EIR).
6. Bryn,Fored&Martinelli property,between the airport and the Ice Ranchos 17. O'Comor Way area,which the ausion area
(page
5-2 Plan.upda0e identifies v
aro:67 sae from Agriculture m Residential Suburban(am'726 in County's a potential future rnidattial expan (%g
S.L.O.Asa Plan update EIR). Ia. Sboyka property,between O'Connor Way and the northern flarth of Bishop
7 as+adekna property,south of the airport:81 pan from Agriculture to Peak: 132 serer from Agriculture to Residential Rural(area 136 in the
Industrial(sea 128 in County's S.LO.Aso Plan update EIR). County's S.L.O.Am Plan update EIR). .
S. Ice Rattehm Asmdstri property,southwest of its Ranchos development:214 19. MadonnaToothill amLui
,between Foothill Boulevard and San s Mountain:
aures of Agriculture and 80 acres of Rural Lands to Residential Rural(ares 30 acres from Agriculture to Residential Multiple Family(area 137 in the. `
727 in County's S.LO.Aro Plan update EBq. County's S.L.O.An Plan update EQ().
9. Asea south of Evans Road:Over 100 acres from Agrieullure to Residential 20. Maine antiquated subdivision,west of the Marsh Stmt-Highway 101
Rural(County's S.LO.Am Plan update).
interchange,an the f(eitks of San Luis Mountain:inquiries concerning
i 10. Avila Burtch.south of-M annexation'and airport scar 60 acres from - development requiring General Plan amendments for an area subdivided prior
Agtimlme to Industrial(am 130 in County's S.LO.Area Plan update EIR). to plarm tg laws and subdivision standards.
J
"SETING AGENDA
_.,rE b ITEM # �"'� • l
February 28, 1996
TO: Council Colleagues
FROM: Bill Roalman
The San Luis Obispo Property Owners Association's recent newsletter included the
attached map. As you can see, numerous development "proposals and inquiries" have
been made within our urban reserve line. Presently, the county is updating their Land Use
Element for the unincoporated areas surrounding San Luis Obispo.
I would like to agendize a discussion of these "proposals and inquiries" so we understand
their potential for inclusion in the county's Land Use Element. I suggest we invite
County Planning Department staff to join us in this discussion.
A meeting in late March or early April would be most appropriate, since the County
Planning Commission hearings on the Land Use Element begin shortly thereafter.
9 UNCtL CDD DIR
�/ ❑ FIN DIR
O O FIRE CHIEF
RNEY ❑ PAY DIR
CLERWORIG ❑ POUCE CHF
❑ MGMTTEAFA ❑ REC DIR
❑ cILE ❑ UTIL DIR
LEI ❑ PERS DIR
page 3
Ac
a
20
a.
14 1
a `hL
� e
P
13
n -
N MOMMMEW 9
(a S 12 S 7
POTENTIAL URBAN DEVELOPMENT-SITE
' ® POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENT SITE ® NOT SHOWN IN CITY PLAN
SHOWN IN CITYITY PL PLAN
.I° FRINGE AREA DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS
-1s San
O�
aes tins osIspo NUMBERS REFER TO DESCRIPTIONS IN TEXT
avo r,urw Sowone•a omx.m.rues.am mow.rrm.oe.a 13.03-6100
YiLdbRand mte••tir OMOIN11
I l laolia/Calfivts site,west of Ihb Hockley Rend-Vachel Lane bend: 10 nacres
The following sloes have bow the Nbjea of proposals and inquiries over the les three years. from Agneulture to Commercial Savirne(arm#29 in County's S.L.O.Area
Numbs key to the following map. This report provides brief descriptions,but does not Plan update FIR).
attempt to evaluate the proposzls. Rhe named land use designations are genern0y Use used .
in the Cowry's Land Use Element,since most Of the items ire proposals to the County. 12. Filipoai Raneb,west of Woway 101 and south of Calle Joaquin-91-ecru Of
Despite having'rural'in is fide•the Residential Rural designation allows development Rural]ands and 100 acres of Agriculture to Residential Rural(area Til in
Which is oce Consistent with the City's intent for One greraWL) Cowry's S.L.O.Area Plan update FIR).
1. Bunnel Propany Covering the northeast sacdw of Bishop Peak:200 sena from
Agriculture to Residential Rural(citizen request site 139 in County's S.L.O. 13. Madoena/Froom properry,wen of Los Osos Valley Road and Calle Joaquin:
Ara Plan update ER). #33
g0 acres from Agriculture(Open Space)to Commercial Service(area
T33 in Country'a S.L.O.Area ea
Plan update EIR)—this is in addition to ar
2. Bridge Crede Road(Righetti Road)area,east of Islay Hill: 170 aces from shown for development in City Lased Use Element.
Agriculture to Residential Rural(included In County's S.L.O.Mea Plan
update). 14. Prefumo Canyon Homes,a pending application to the City for 38 single-family,
3. Mine Hill/Righet4 Ranch.along Orcuu Red north of Tank Farm Road:
los on 18 acres and about 366 acres of open space(application#26.95).
inquiry of City staff and-potential future residential expansion erre'in 15. Emerald Hills-Though the County has approved a 32-lot residential project,
County's S.1_0!Am PW update(page 5.20). the owners have asked the City to identify its policies which am relevant to an
4. La Ismlta Ranch,south of Islay M t:690 sera of from Agriculture to annexation of a 44-lot subdivision on about 27 acres with about 25 acre of
Romeatien(era 734 in County's S.L.O.Am Plan update EIR)and separate open space.
crtrrvr Proposal to Ciry. 16. Emerald Hills flatlands,west of Los Osos Valley Road and north of the city
5. .PAs airport area,between Highway 227 and La Lomita Ranch:85 acs from limits;this is also the site of a previous County application(cera 472 in the
Agriculture to Comoa oill Service,and 52 arra from Agriculture to County's S.L.O.Am Plies update FIR).;
Residential Suburbun(arm 119 in County's S.L.O.Area Plan update EIR).
6. gam,Forest&asmrie.n;property.between the airport and the Los Ranchos 17. O'Connor Way area,which the County's S.L.O.Area Plan.update identifies as
arra:63 saes from Agriculture m Residential Suburban(arm'426 in County's a potential[atom residential expansion area(page S-.2()) .
t S.L.O.Arm Plan update EIR). .
Ig. Stoyls property,bGa'tefn O'Connor Way and the northern flanks of Bishop
'7. Maddelena pnepety,south of the airport:91 Prom from Agrieultum to Peak: 132 acres from Agriculture to Residential Rural(cera#36 in the
.Industrial(arm 0 26 in County's S.L.O.Area Plan update EIR). County's S.L.O.Area Plan update 17R). .
S. Ina Rwdana Asrodatn'property,scuthv g of Ina Rancho development:214 19. MadonnafFoothill sees,between Foothill Boulevard and San Luis Mountain: -
arses of Agdcuams and 3D saes of Rural Lands to Residential Runt(area 30 acre from Agriculture to Residential Multiple Family(area#37 in the
#27 in Cowry's S.LO.Ana Plan update ER). County's S.L.O.Aso Islet update EIR).
9. Arm south of Eva,Road:Over 100 acres from Agriculture to Residential 20. Maino antiquated subdivision,west of the Marsh Stat-Highway 101
Rural(County's S.L.O.Ana plan update). interchange.on the ffahb of San Luis Mountain:inquiries concerning
r 10. Avila Ranch.south of_M Ianexadoa'and airport arm:60 acres from development requiring Geral Plan amendments for an area subdivided prior
Agriculture to Industrial(arm f30 in County's S.L.O.Ata Plan update ER). to planning laws and subdivision standards.
f � 7
E
3 {
f
A t
T,r
N � 6
Al
B ,. WIVIIW a
€
,gni, ,
t,
14,
\ 84
t
t
t
m
r `�+
5 r
��rb(
23
� 4
{ ' fir.
A t
k
n ♦ � �' ak
l }}
�a
K
g
bG
� h
5£
i
M � t
z �
n,
s Y
OKI
�S Y Ery
5 {
3 �1� t artt TAXr
w' �
14
Was
4, R� v v
or
Al
64,
MCI
L i
RAWgin �z
Its
f+ y
jiUP �1 ' i 1 o in, N1
r: iA�frFW34 IEy,k�
Ah
rrr r9 I, tit
Vfl
�£ t k
°� j Y ✓ E {k t o
Vey3 Int t4iv
jv
�,Penoy,r i
Fmphi
¢¢ a b g 1
no
OW
AS
x �i
�yA All
� t a
9 } JPy `4 r
I
'41 mal it Al
a
r
wi
Nr
gg
3 k
4
9�4 P e,�y' �a ,
Kul
dkA NA
i EY 1
d ;�r44r± Sy dP�z'akin� ,
` A#
if i Or
4�t r
1.
t
3
,v7� m)rL d t 4 k a ir,
'IEETING AGENDA
ATE 3_S`76ITEM #
RICHARD SCHMIDT
112 Broad Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 (805) 544-4247
e-mail:rrschmld@oboe.alx.calpoly.edu
March 5, 1996
Re:Widening Cuesta Grade/Highway 101
To the City Council:
I urge the Council to take a strong stand against this pointless, destructive, money-wasting project which
will prove a failure from the day it is completed.
The brain of CALTRANS apparently lives in some prehistoric age,for widening Highway 101 is
yesterday's failed solution to today's congestion problem. It will destroy our landscape, uglify our
mountains, bury our streams, consume funds badly needed for an effective commuter solution, increase
air pollution, increase congestion, decrease motorist safety, create longer commute times, and bring us
just that much closer to having six lanes of freeway (at a cost of$100 billion) from Santa Maria to San
Miguel.
All this just in time for the next oil crunch,which will create a crying public need for a real commuter
solution lest our local economy totally collapse due to the inability of working/shopping men and women to
afford the wherewithal to drive their cars.
Apparently CALTRANS doesn't read the oil industry literature,for that industry's periodicals are full of
discussion about the coming oil crunch --one which will make 1973 look like nothing at all.The only
debate is about when this will arrive --whether in 18 months, as the pessimistic industry analysts believe,
or in five or six years, as the optimists project. In any event, a radical and economically-wrenching change
in how Americans locomote is near. Widening Cuesta Grade-- even if it were a decent solution from other
points of view,which it isn't--would thus not solve our real problem: how to move people in a sustainable
manner to and from the North and South County.
Better that the funds CALTRANS (the Department of Transportation, not Highways!) put its funds into a
good commuter system. In the short term,that would be buses; in the longer term, light rail. The City
should demand that CALTRANS do this rather than lead us down the primrose path to a non-solution like
it proposes. I have heard estimates that building the right of way for a light rail system from SLO to Paso
would cost in the neighborhood of $40 million. What a waste to spend several times that widening a
highway that will either fall off the mountain or be buried in mud every time we have a big storm from now
to eternity.
I urge the Council to take a leadership role on this:demand that CALTRANS get highway
widenings out of Its brain,and look Instead towards a sustainable transportation system.That
way we can be ahead of the game, rather than behind It,when the energy carnival we now enjoy
ends.Without such forethought, our economy will collapse when the Inevitable day of energy
reckoning arrives.
Sincerely,
UNCIL ❑ CDD DIR
2!ax S�uC -�.L, .` VC ❑ FIN DI
Richard Schmidt ❑ F CHIEF
FOLER11KfORIG
ONEY W DIR
RECEI 'ED ❑ POLICE CHF
V ❑ MGMT TEAM ❑ REC DIR
MAR 5 )`/50 ❑ C D FILE 0 UTIL DIR
!, ❑ PERS DIR
CITY COUNCIL
SAN nPISPO.CA
L
SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS
STAFF REPORTU/
..:::..:::.:.:+.:::.,.:i:.n?.,,.t..xn..,.+.,. .............r:;::«..........n.......<..,........+.. +..:::::.::::.:.i:.}}}';:>.;:>;i':z ...<.......�..,c... +,r.r
..............,...,..+,.. ,....i's v. .. ,..:: .:.:,.: .::, .:::::::.v:.,..:fn.:.,.n•?..f.;x9ik.';:>;,a;:.s;o;:;+. .::;sJ.....:.St::$::n:Si:'t^:o:::i:'<.i;r2f' +>,:v`'-v:.i}::;::<•:w:n:�:::::
..i.}....i;.n.n::::.w:•\:.p:..}::...v.. ::f:..:v:::::.v:::::m: +.}.: x'w'Yi v}':i"iiwv is}'<.:.tS:tSSiiJ:iti
:.J:i'i.Sii;Ji::...... ,••••:::•:•• :.:nw.:.yn.::.w::n.:?ty.?nx.iri4;it
..:y.f.:...n..:xn:.:..v.v......,.x.w:::Ji}':n+.::„+.\n......,....+nn ,...1 ':::...............:::.........::....n.:v:n.•:?f v..:4.t:.:::v}:CitSit:;iif:i(isi%.;.tv+i.Sfn'i;:.:;:ij':v:.iSSVJ.':.:y'[}n'f.3}:;,i} :i:4Y:
...........t..\....n .......::::.t::.:n.:.......t..n....i................. ` :::i•J1?•}%..:n:.J:.::::::::... ..........y>'v:..:t}'.v:..:Ji.:i$fJh.rii'J is ..}�:i}}i'i
...t .KM.:C•.}S".ri::j'.'Fn::v::.v. ?n'k}' ..%' ::U:.��...Jy..tnFnC�i:?%�CffC:;:;:Ci v
R:<'f`t :tE..:.+}.+.. ..t.. ...a.nr..}:?f;siv.:n.}x..».»:++•t3<:$;,.;af•:nf•.:,;;.y:i'rt'i4:r.::sii.O:kt.d}:vn+ra.;�:r;.:w.,.u..... :.'4Y'k::inv.n:...:a:;t»it,xws...o-:;ys..:t: wn:,a�G�;f::v.:5::%:+.:�
SUJ +�T; $B�l ...................
t};>R�fICrs; AIAD >lMP�t�OVEAffENT :°pR4lET D,F �`<{:
EN
>�IN
SUMMARY
Caltrans has requested the Council of Governments provide a. preliminary recommendation
regarding a preferred alternative SLOCOG may desire for the Route 101 / Cuesta Grade
Improvement Project The Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Reportwas circulated for review
and comment on December 8, 1995. The close of comments for this document is March 8, 1996.
Staff will be submitting the comments attached at the back of this staff report (see pages A-2-14
through A-2-17) along with the recommendations and comments from the Cities of Atascadero,
Paso Robles, San Luis Obispo and the SLOCOG Board.
Caltrans held two Open House Public Hearings regarding this document. The first public hearing
was held on January 17, 1996 in the City of San Luis Obispo, and the second was held on
January 20, 1996 in the City of Atascadero. Presentations before the Atascadero, Paso Robles
and San Luis Obispo City Councils, as well as SLOCOG, have also been held to receive
comments on the proposed project.
The purpose of this staff report is to discuss speck aspects of the Draft Cuesta Grade
Improvement Project EIS/EIR to provide the Council with additional information to allow the
Council the opportunity to form a preliminary recommendation regarding the proposed project.
The evaluation of the El in the discussion section of this staff report is focused on how well each
of the options (1, 2, 3, &4) address future traffic safety, level-of-service, environmental sensitivity,
alternative travel modes, and cost effectiveness.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff: 1. Adopt Alternative 4/Variation 1 or a hybrid alternative combining grading to
accommodate Alternative 4/Variation 1 but only pave the northbound truck lane as
proposed under Alternative 3/Variation 1.
2. Include a bike undercrossing at Stagecoach Road in the proposed project.
3. Provide adequate funding ($100,000/yr) to support Ridesharing and Transportation
Management Association services identified in the document.
TTAC: Encourage agencies to critically evaluate the EIR and to submit their comments to
Caltrans and SLOCOG.
CTAC: 1. Wait for the release of the Final EIR/EIS, it is inappropriate at this time to make a
recommendation.
2. If the project is to be constructed include a box culvert type undercrossing for
bicyclists at Stage Coach Rd.
3. If a project is constructed the slide area should be repaired.
City of Atascadero: Adopt Alternative 4/Variation 1
City of Paso Robles: Action scheduled for March 5, 1996. Verbal report
City of San Luis Obispo: Action scheduled for March 5, 1996. Verbal report '
CGRADEIRMAR A-2-1
BACKGROUND
The mountain pass known as the Cuesta Grade has been the primary route connecting the upper
Salinas Valley with the coastal portion of the county since recorded history notes the travels of
the early missionaries. The development of a road making it easier for wagons and stages to
negotiate the pass was aided by the efforts of the County to improve the gradient and make
passage more accommodating when bonds for $20,000 were issued by the County in 1876.
Since that time improvements to the road have been made periodically, gradually expanding the
width and straightening the curves as financing; technology, and politics allow.
A four lane facility was constructed in the late 1930's and a series of improvements to the
alignment followed during the 1950's. In the 1960's Caltrans began studying the need to upgrade
Route 101 over the Cuesta Grade, and determined that the preferred alternative was to reduce
the grade and construct a new six-lane freeway with a 70-foot median on a new alignment west
of the existing facility. This proposal was rejected by the public and was not further pursued by
Caltrans. Subsequently, only minor safety, maintenance, and operational improvements were
made, including the addition of the concrete median barrier. Drainage and earth slippage
problems have continued to be a major concern.
In 1988, the Council of Governments completed the Route 101 Corridor Study examining the
entire route through San Luis Obispo County. The study concluded that the Cuesta Grade
segment was rapidly reaching capacity due to congestion problems associated with slower
moving vehicles, and given the ten year lead time to program and construct, should be given a
high priority for improvement A project was subsequently approved for programming in the State
Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) by the California Transportation Commission(CTC)
in 1990, and Caltrans began the necessary studies.
A wide range of alternatives were initially investigated, including some that were withdrawn from
further study due to their failure to meet project needs, high capital and/or operating cost,
engineering feasibility, and/or significance of their environmental impacts. The withdrawn
alternatives are described in Section 2.3 of the document and include:
• Commuter rail and Light rail;
* Prohibiting trucks during peak hours;
* Stand alone options that encompassed bikeway, transit, Transportation System
Management (TSM) and Transportation Demand Management (TDM);
* New roadways on new alignments including tunnels, a full freeway facility with grade
separations including reduction of gradient from 7.8%to 5%over the crest, a new
northbound roadway, a new southbound roadway, a new roadway for slow
moving vehicles, and a six lane roadway with uniform four-foot shoulders.
* Toll charges and pricing concepts.
The remaining alternatives were then submitted by Caltrans for public review and comment.
These alternatives are included in the document under Section 2.2 and are described as follows:
* Alternative 1 - The No-Build Alternative
*Alternative 2- Northbound Truck Lane with four foot shoulders on the east side only and
maintaining the existing median , and TDM programs during
construction.
* Alternative 3 - Northbound Truck Lane with eight foot shoulders on both east and west
sides, improved horizontal alignment including twelve foot wide
median, at-grade intersection improvements, limited bikeway
improvements, TSM and TDM programs during construction. A
second variation of this alternative also incorporates hillside
stabilization efforts to address vertical movement of a section of
roadway that has been a continuing maintenance problem.
CGRADEIRMAR A-2-2
J
*Alternative 4 - Northbound and Southbound Truck Lanes with eight foot shoulders on
both east and west sides,,improved horizontal alignment including
twelve foot wide median, at-grade intersection improvements,
limited bikeway improvements,TSM and TDM during construction.
A second variation of this alternative also incorporates hillside
stabilization efforts to address vertical movement of a section of
roadway that has been a continuing maintenance problem.
Twenty one separate background reports were prepared regarding the proposed project (See
listing on page 4-1 of the Draft EIR/EIS).
SLOCOG reviewed the preliminary project scoping information for these alternatives and Caltrans
was requested to address the following major issues in the subsequent project design and EIR
process:
1. Ingress, Egress, &Safety- Caltrans was asked to evaluate ingress and egress, safety and
related issues associated with properties in the entire corridor between Monterey Street and
the Route 58 interchange.
Caltrans response: Addressed in alternatives 3&4 with improved intersection channelization
within the project limits, but only extending from the base of the grade south of Old Stage
Coach Road to the south end of the existing railroad overhead bridge.
2. Grading-Concern was noted regarding the extent to which grading would be required with
all of the build alternatives. It was recommended that optional design standards and design
exceptions be further evaluated, including retaining walls, 4'vs 8' shoulders, 11'travel lanes,
and other innovative engineering solutions and construction techniques. This was proposed
in order to minimize earthwork cuts and fills, specifically in areas that are environmentally or
geologically sensitive or where adherence to full design standards would result in significant
grading.
Caltrans response: Addressed in alternatives with use of 5' inside and 8' outside shoulders
in alternatives 3 and 4, retaining walls, off-set center line, and application of existing slope cut
standards. In addition, to further limit extensive grading, Caltrans has requested several
design exceptions from Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) standards, including:
reduction of the design speed from 65 to 55 mph, maintenance of the grade at 7.8% rather
than 5% to avoid cuts of up to 25' at the crest, and use of 5' vs 12' inside and 8' vs 10'
outside shoulders.
3. Interim & Short Range Modifications - Caltrans was asked to evaluate issues related to
project phasing between a five-lane and six-lane facility, including interim improvements that
could provide grading for a full-width; six-lane facility. it was noted that this would only
involve construction of a five-lane pavement section at this time, including the added
northbound lane with the added southbound lane to be constructed at a later date. This
approach avoids the need to reconstruct and reopen cuts or fills when the southbound lane
is brought into service.
Caltrans response: Not included as an option.
4. Peak Hour Truck Restrictions - It was recommended that consideration be given to lane
use restrictions on northbound trucks. This restriction would require northbound trucks to
remain in the right lane without the option to pass in the left lane, and would be implemented
during peak hour times only.
CGRADEIR.MAR A-2-3
Caftrans resoonse: Determined to be inappropriate due to increased likelihood of accidents
between trucks and other vehicles.
5. TSM/TDM Programs - It was recommended that the full range of such programs be
evaluated for all four alternatives, including determination of the number and location of new
Park-and-Ride lots in each of the urban areas of the north county and the expansion of
existing lots. Further, an evaluation of the number of new buses to and from each
community that would be required to improve the level-of-service, together with the
establishment of van pools and employer based trip reduction. Caltrans was also asked to
estimate the costs associated with establishment and/or expansion of these facilities and
services.
Caltrans response: Addressed in alternatives 2, 3 & 4 with an extensive program including
additional funding for Ridesharing, an additional six buses plus operational costs for regional
transit, and expansion of Park-and-Ride lots by 100 spaces.
6. Staged Construction - Caltrans was asked to include an evaluation of measures to be
Implemented during construction of the selected project that would minimize delay and other
disruptions to normal travel within and through the region.
Caltrans response:Addressed in alternatives 3&4 with a movable median barrier to maintain
two lanes open during peak hours.
7. Bicycle Access- It was recommended that Caltrans evaluate options for enhanced bicycle
travel over the Cuesta Grade, including provision of 8' shoulders, and/or improvement of
alternative routes and connectivity between existing roads on the north and south sides.
Caltrans response: Addressed in alternatives 3 &4 with 8' shoulders and a separate bicycle
route improvement between Old Stage Coach Road/TV Tower Road and Cuesta Springs
Road. Northbound cyclists using Old Stage Coach Road would be required to cross all
highway lanes (5 or 6 lanes, depending on alternative).
8. Toll Road Facility- Caltrans was asked to evaluate implementation of a Toll Road facility at
the northerly side of the Cuesta Grade. This was supported by SLOCOG and APCD staff
as a possible means of providing an additional demand management tool.
Caltrans response: Rejected as inappropriate and prohibited on an existing facility per State
and Federal law.
Public Workshops=In October, 1993 public workshops were held in the cities of Atascadero and
San Luis Obispo to take testimony on the project alternatives being considered for further
evaluation. In addition, separate meetings were held with property owners, bicycle advocacy
groups,and a group composed of transit&transportation demand management agency staff and
advocacy groups to determine their opinions on the project alternatives.
Comments submitted verified that the public did not support a full freeway at full standards, but
did support the idea of a downscoped project that included congestion relief and safety
improvements. Concerns voiced at these meeting focused on the need to minimize environmental
impacts, improve bicycle access, provide improved shoulders and channelization where turning
movements occur, retain the visual quality in the corridor, and address the potential for the project
to stimulate population and traffic growth. Each of these concerns was addressed in the
subsequent EIR process by Caltrans and their consultant.
CGRADEIR.MAR A-2-4
DISCUSSION
Following is an evaluation of how well each of the options addresses future traffic safety,levels-of-
service, environmental sensitivity, alternative travel modes, and cost effectiveness. A number of
comments have been received regarding the potential to shift all or portions of the funding
programmed for this proposed project to the Route 46/41 corridor. This option is not considered
Viable for several reasons. There exists several policies at the California Transportation
Commission (CTC) level that would not allow this proposed action to occur, including:
* The requirement that monies be spent on programmed projects that are within the adopted
State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), (Route 46 East improvements are not in
the STIP) and;
* project savings be returned to the STIP funding pot to help alleviate the current funding
shortfall caused in part by the mandate to place emphasis on seismic retrofit projects.
In addition:
* There is the governor's direction to fund NAFTA related improvements in the southern portion
of the state.
* The recent Legislative shift of street and road funds to the state's General Fund to finance
general government has also contributed significantly to the projected $500 million shortfall
in the STIP.
The SLOCOG staff request to evaluate a 'combined"approach that would integrate features of
Alternatives 3 and 4 (see #3 above) was not presented as a variation within the document.
However, impacts associated with this approach are covered by impacts described under either
Alternative 3 or 4 and staff believes this may still be a viable option if there is not a desire to
construct both northbound and southbound lanes at this time.
Traffic Safety
Alternative 1 - Current road conditions will remain. Increased congestion will likely result in
additional accidents.
Alternative 2, - Improvement in traffic safety will result from the additional northbound lane.
However, since improvement to the shoulder is limited to only four feet in some areas of the
project. disabled vehicles will not be able to clear the traffic lane. No improvement to the
horizontal alignment is included and the route will still maintain less than desirable conditions in
some segments of the roadway. No improvement to the southbound direction will be included
under this option. No improvement to the slide area is included. No improvements to the median
are included under this option.
Alternative 3 - Improvement in traffic safety will result from the additional northbound lane, wider
median and added shoulder widths on both north and southbound directions. Improvement to
the horizontal alignment is included and the route will still maintain less than fully desirable
conditions in some segments of the roadway (50 mph design speed). Improvement to the
southbound direction will be included under this option with the addition of 8 foot shoulders and
increased clearance from the median divider. Improvement to the slide area is included under
Variation 1 thus eliminating a rough spot in the roadway that has been a continuing maintenance
and safety issue. Intersections are improved and widened providing added safety. Bike access
is improved with the 8 foot shoulders and along the truck area at the top of the hill.
Alternative 4 - Improvement in traffic safety will result from the additional northbound lane and
added shoulder widths. Improvement to the horizontal alignment is included and the route will
still maintain less than fully desirable conditions in some segments of the roadway (50 mph '
CGRADEIR.MAR A-2-5
design speed). The southbound direction will have an additional lane included under this option.
Eight foot shoulders and increased clearance from the median divider is included. Improvement
to the slide area is included under Variation 1. Intersections are improved and widened. Bike
access is improved with the 8 foot shoulders and along the truck area at the top of the hill.
The additional southbound lane has been both praised and criticized regarding traffic safety. The
placement of trucks in this lane (under the 35 mph speed control) is generally viewed as a safer
condition allowing the faster moving traffic to occupy two lanes and avoiding_ the need for lane
changes as these vehicles approach the slower vehicles from the rear. However, the new
southbound lane has been criticized as creating problems for traffic seeking to cross the added
lane when turning movements are made.
Levels-of-Service
Traffic Projections -In 1994 Average Annual Daily Traffic(AADT) on the Cuesta Grade was 34,000
(south of the route 58/101 interchange), with 3,700 vehicles during the peak period. The current
level-of-service (based on 1994 traffic) was recently estimated by Caltrans to be LOS E. Cattrans
traffic projections include an estimate that no more than a 15% reduction in commute traffic or a
12% reduction in total traffic can be reasonably expected (in any year) as a result transit and
Ridesharing measures proposed to be implemented in conjunction with all construction
alternatives. If the Transit & TDM measures proposed for the project do not produce the
expected travel reductions,the level-of-service will further decline from the above noted estimates.
Alternative 1 -Without improvement the level-of-service is projected to reach LOS F by the year
2000 for both the southbound AM peak and northbound PM peak periods (Pg 1-9 of the EIR).
By the year 2020, based on Caltrans projections and including reductions in travel expected due
to implementation of transit and TDM measures proposed for all construction alternatives, AADT
will increase from 34,000 to 50,200 AADT. Without improvement, beyond the year 2000 the level-
of-service will continue to decline, resulting in longer AM(southbound) and PM(northbound) peak
periods, slower travel speeds, a higher accident rate, and increasing instances of traffic
stoppages.
Alternative 2 - Proposed roadway improvements in this alternative provide an additional
northbound lane, and four foot wide outside shoulders based on minimal standards, which will
result:in a projected AM peak period level-of�service (LOS) F in the southbound direction by the
year 2000, and LOS C in the northbound direction by the year 2000. At the same time,
congestion in the northbound evening peak hour would be reduced, but congestion during the
southbound morning peak hour would not The use of minimal standards for shoulders
contributes to a lower than desirable level-of-service in the southbound direction.This alternative
does not reduce congestion during the AM peak period or the long term need for increased
capacity in the southbound direction.
Alternative 3 - Proposed roadway improvements in this alternative provide an additional
northbound lane, eight foot outside shoulders, five foot inside shoulders, improved intersections,
and straightened curves, which will result in a projected LOS F in the southbound direction by
2000 and LOS C in the northbound direction by the year 2000. The use of higher standards for
shoulder widths and other improvements helps improve the southbound level-of-service. This
alternative does not adequately reduce congestion during the AM peak period or the long term
need for increased capacity in the southbound direction.
Alternative 4 - Proposed roadway improvements in this alternative provide an additional
northbound and southbound lane, eight foot outside shoulders, five foot inside shoulders,
improved intersections, and straightened curves, which will result in a projected level-of-service '
CGRADEIRMAR A-2-6
in the year 2020 of LOS C in the northbound direction and LOS C in the southbound direction.
This alternative fully addresses the need to provide necessary capacity and reduce congestion
in the northbound and southbound directions during the AM and PM peak periods.
Environmental Sensitivity
Included in Attachment'A' is the matrix titled Summary ofImpacts and Proposed Mitigations and
several pages of text from the document Summary. These pages highlight specific issues
regarding the impacts expected as a result of each alternative. The following discussion is
intended to highlight certain of these issues. The "41 Fire"of 1994 severely impacted vegetation
and wildlife within the project area. These impacts are not judged to significantly modify the
expected impacts from the proposed project alternatives other than to reduce impacts to some
plant species and wildlife populations.
Alternative 1
Physical Environment
Under this alternative there would be no change to the current status of the physical environment.
Natural Environment
No disturbance to existing vegetative patterns beyond normal maintenance.
Socioeconomic Environment
Added congestion that will result if no improvements are made will have impacts to the economic
environment through lost productivity and opportunity. No increase in fuel efficiency is estimated
for the No Build Alternative.
Alternative 2
Physical Environment
Grading/Landslide Potential & Slope Stability/Erosion & Water Quality/Air Quality/Noise. - This
Alternative will result in the least amount of grading at this time. Fifteen cuts between 10'and 135'
are proposed. Nine locations require fill from 5' to 15' along the east side of the route. This
alternative does not address the recurring movement of fill material on the west side of the
highway approximately 2,300' north of Ryan's Gate.
An Erosion Control Plan and Drainage Plan will be prepared and implemented. Sediment
detention, outlet extensions, and energy dissipation is included in the mitigation plan. It should
be noted that due to the steepness of slopes in the area slides have occurred, unrelated to the
highway cuts and fills, that currently result in extensive sediment loading.
Sound walls are proposed at the location of the Real Estate Office and apartments located at the
foot of the grade (at the option of the landowners). The construction of these walls will reduce
the sound impacts below existing levels.
Natural Environment
Impacts 18.48 acres and removes 18 trees. 1.10 acres of riparian habitat and 0.09 acres of
jurisdictional waters are impacted. 0.01 acres of land under Williamson Act contract, and 0.4
acres total are impacted by proposed ROW.
CGRADEIR.MAR A-2-7
Socioeconomic Environment
The direct land use consequences as a result of the project are estimated to be too small to
measure. Emergency response times will be improved. Emergency evacuation capability will be
enhanced.
Visual impacts will be reduced slightly during the one to two years following the project as slopes
are revegetated. The retaining walls, especially those proposed at the truck inspection area at
the crest of the hill and the wall proposed at the base of the hill adjacent to Stagecoach Road will
be permanent visual changes.
A 1.3% increased efficiency (BTUNMT) of fuel use is expected over the no build alternative.
Alternative 3
Physical Environment
Grading/Landslide Potential & Slope Stability/Erosion & Water Quality/Air Quality/Noise. - This
Alternative will result in sixteen cut from 9' to 148' with thirteen of these on the east side under
Variation 1. Variation 2 involves thirteen cuts between 10' and 139' on the east side and two cuts
of 9' and 107' on the west side. Seventeen fill slopes are proposed with Variation 1 and thirteen
with Variation 2 ranging from 8' to 114. This alternative addresses the recurring movement of
fill material on the west side of the highway approximately 2,300' north of Ryan's Gate under
Variation 1.
An Erosion Control Plan and Drainage Plan will be prepared and implemented. Sediment
detention, outlet extensions, and energy dissipation is included in the mitigation plan. It should
be noted that due to the steepness of slopes in the area slides have occurred, unrelated to the
highway cuts and fills, that currently result in extensive sediment loading.
Erosion and water quality impacts from Alternative 3 may be less than Alternative 2 because work
will be conducted on the west side of the highway that will not occur under Alternative 2. A small
amount of additional impervious surface will result from the added median and 8' shoulders
proposed under Alternative 3. Variation 1 will improve conditions by repairing the existing slide
area.
Sound walls are proposed at the location of the Real Estate Office and apartments located at the
foot of the grade (at the option of the landowners). The construction of these walls will reduce
the sound impacts below existing levels.
Natural Environment
Impacts 33.77 acres and 23 trees under Variation 1, and 39.43 acres and 24 trees under Variation
2. Variation 1 impacts 1.74 acres of riparian 0.026 acres of jurisdictional waters and 0.11 acres
of wetlands. Variation 2 impacts 1.67 acres of riparian, 0.27 acres jurisdictional waters and 0.11
acres of wetlands. Variation 1 impacts 1.21 acres of agricultural land. Variation 2 impacts 1.11
acres of agricultural land.
Socioeconomic Environment
The direct land use consequences as a result of the project are estimated to be too small to
measure. Emergency response times will be improved. Emergency evacuation capability will be
enhanced.
Visual impacts will be reduced slightly during the one to two years following the project as slopes
are revegetated. The retaining walls, especially those proposed at the truck inspection area at
the crest of the hill and the wall proposed at the base of the hill adjacent to Stagecoach Road will
be permanent visual changes. Removal of existing vegetation at the Lyman House will be
CGRADEIRMAR A-2-8
replaced with new plantings that will take approximately 7 to 10 years to provide effective
screening and 20 to 30 years to reach their current size and mass.
Improvements to turning lanes are proposed at Old Stagecoach Road, Ryan's Gate, Cuesta
Springs Road, and TV Tower Road.
A 1.3% increased efficiency (BTUNMT) of fuel use is expected over the no build.alternative for
either Variation.
Alternative 4
Physical Environment
Grading/Landslide Potential & Slope Stability/Erosion & Water Quality/Air Quality/Noise. - This
alternative has the largest site disturbance of the proposed build alternatives. However it will likely
result in the least site disturbance when taking a long term view of this corridor segment
Assuming a 'build" alternative is chosen - and given the assumption that traffic demand will
ultimately require an additional southbound lane- the disturbance of the site under one project
(as opposed to two or more projects spread out over several decades) will result in a lesser
potential for erosion, habitat and wildlife disturbance, impacts to wetlands, and construction
related air quality impacts.
This Alternative will result in nineteen cut from 9' to 148' with thirteen of these on the east and
west sides under Variation 1. Variation 2 involves twenty cuts between 10' and 139' on the east
and west sides. Fifteen fill slopes are proposed under Variation 1 and thirteen with Variation 2
ranging from 5' to 183'. This alternative addresses the recurring movement of fill material on the
west side of the highway approximately 2,300' north of Ryan's Gate under Variation 1.
An Erosion Control Plan and Drainage Plan will be prepared and implemented. Sediment
detention, outlet extensions, and energy dissipation is included in the mitigation plan. It should
be noted that due to the steepness of slopes in the area slides have occurred, unrelated to the
highway cuts and fills, that currently result in extensive sediment loading.
Erosion and water quality impacts from Alternative 4 may be less than Alternative 2 because
drainage control work will be conducted on the west side of the highway that will not occur under
Alternative 2. Additional impervious surface will result from the added lane, median, and 8'
shoulders proposed under Alternative 3. Variation 1 will improve conditions by repairing the
existing slide area.
Sound walls are proposed at the location of the Real Estate Office and apartments located at the
foot of the grade (at the option of the landowner). The construction of these walls will reduce the
sound impacts below existing levels.
Natural Environment
Variation 1 impacts 35.66 acres and 23 trees. Variation 2 impacts 40.95 acres and 24 trees.
Variation 1 impacts 1.78 acres of riparian, 0.26 acres of jurisdictional waters and 0.11 acres of
wetlands. Variation 2 impacts 1.77 acres of riparian, 0.28 acres of jurisdictional waters and 0.11
acres of wetlands. Variation 1 impacts 1.65 acres of agricultural land. Variation 2 impacts 1.35
acres of agricultural land.
Socioeconomic Environment
The direct land use consequences as a result of the project are estimated to be too small to
measure. Emergency response times will be improved. Emergency evacuation capability will be
enhanced. `
CGIIADEIR.MAR A-2-9
Visual impacts will be reduced slightly during the one to two years following the project as slopes
are revegetated. The retaining walls, especially those proposed at the truck inspection area at
the crest of the hill and the wall proposed at the base of the hill adjacent to Stagecoach Road will
be permanent visual changes. Removal of existing vegetation at the Lyman House will be
replaced with new plantings that will take approximately 7 to 10 years to provide effective
screening and 20 to 30 years to reach their current size and mass.
Improvements to turning lanes are proposed at Old Stagecoach Road, Ryan's Gate, Cuesta
Springs Road, and TV Tower Road.
A 1.8% increased efficiency (BTU/VMT) of fuel use is expected over the no build alternative for
either Variation.
Altemative Travel Modes
Bicycle Access
The provision of bicycle access to and over the Cuesta Grade as part of the proposed project
continues to be a complex issue. Key issues which have surfaced are the need for: northern and
southern connectors to Stage Coach and Cuesta Springs Roads; connections with the City of
San Luis Obispo and Hwy 58 which do not encourage contra-flow travel on Route 101; paving
of Stage Coach Road; adequate shoulders on Route 101, the movement of mountain bikers
across the highway at the top of the grade; and the need for a study relating to bicycle access
along the corridor.
The EIS/R is predicated on the idea that a separate Class I bike path will be developed between
San Luis Obispo City and Stage Coach Road. With this assumption, Highway 101 is not
considered as a designated bike route through the corridor. Upon additional consideration and
recent site evaluations, SLOCOG staff holds the belief that such a link (between SLO City and
Stage Coach Road) is not a realistic option for future development in light of the sizable
environmental impacts and costs required to develop a Class I facility in this terrain. Furthermore,
such a path would be an indirect connector that requires riders to traverse many changes in
grade, and would likely result in continued use of the highway shoulders by most cyclists. With
this understanding, SLOCOG has requested that a bicycle under-crossing be considered at the
southern connector of Stage Coach Road (see attachment'B' letter to Jose Ponce dated January
17, 1996).
SLOCOG staff perceives the northern bikeway link to be a path connecting Cuesta Springs Road
with the northbound highway shoulder under the Route 101 Railway Overhead. This northerly
connector is beyond the project limits and it is not addressed as part of this project. SLOCOG
staff will continue to pursue development of this path apart from this project.
SLOCOG staff supports the development of a separated bikeway facility adjacent to the truck pull-
off area at the top of the grade and the provision of 8' shoulders on Highway 101 within the
project limits. Cyclists traveling in the southbound direction will reach high speeds on the grade
and may travel in the traffic way to avoid accumulated shoulder debris. The transition from the
travel lanes to the shoulder should be smooth, and if drainage grates are required they should
be carefully selected and placed so that cyclists can smoothly and safely pass over them.
TransitITSM/TDM
The same Transit/TSM/TDM component is to be included as part of all three build alternatives.
This package is comprised of several separate strategies designed to alleviate single occupant
vehicles (SOV) commuting over the grade. These strategies include a public awareness
campaign, employer based rideshare programs, rideshare program support, bus and van
CGRADEIRMAR A-2-10
purchases, bus service expansion, transit subsidies, new park and ride facilities and expanded
bicycle accessibility.
The attached Table 1,from the Route 101/Cuesta Grade Improvements Project, Transit/TSM/TDM
Alternatives Development Technical Memorandum more specifically describes each of the above
strategies. Addressing alternative transportation strategies as part of this project.is a relatively
unique strategy although specific funding commitments to these efforts remains unclear.
SLOCOG staff would like to see further information from Caltrans on specific funding
commitments, particularly in regards to rideshare program support
Cost Effectiveness
Alternative 1 - No construction costs incurred. Costs are reflected in future air quality mitigation
costs, lost productivity and economic opportunity resulting from congestion. Lost opportunity to
correct substandard highway conditions.
Alternative 2 - Least cost of the build alternatives. Does not take advantage of the opportunity
to improve safety with wider median and shoulder distances. Ongoing maintenance costs for
slide area. Improvements to provide additional southbound lane in future years would require
major reconstruction.
Alternative 3-Additional costs over Alternative 2 improves safety with wider median and shoulder
distances,improved intersections and ongoing maintenance costs for slide area are removed with
construction of Variation 1. Improvements to provide additional southbound lane in future years
would require major reconstruction.
Alternative 4 - Highest cost option currently being considered (although this option is
approximately half of the cost of the full standard freeway construction alternative). Avoids the
need to reconstruct all or portions of the project to accommodate a southbound truck lane at a
later date.
Staff has concluded that the draft EIR may only need to address some minor concerns to meet
the requirements to adequately cover the full range of issues associated with the project
alternatives. Caltrans is currently continuing to accept comments from agencies and the general
public on this proposed project. Staff will be submitting comments on these issues to Caltrans.
CGWEIRMAR A-2-11
Conclusion
Alternative 1 will cause increased congestion and deteriorating levels of service to continue and
will do nothing to improve public safety. Accruing costs associated with these deteriorating
conditions are not desirable. TDM and TSM improvements will not occur as they are not
allowable costs unless they are associated with a construction alternative.
Alternative 2 would not adequately address safety issues that should be accomplished in
coordination with the proposed project. In addition, the maintenance of the existing barrier in
place will not allow sufficient flow of peak northbound PM traffic during construction periods
without increasing the scale of cut slopes and thereby increasing environmental impacts and
costs. The existing slide area would remain as a safety and maintenance concern.
Staff therefore recommends that Alternatives 1 and 2 be rejected as inadequate to meet the
community and statewide needs, and that discussion focus on the ability of Alternatives 3
and 4, (or some combination thereof)to be considered for recommendation to Caltrans and
the California Transportation Commission.
Alternative 3 / Variation 1 - This option widens the roadway primarily to the west side and
provides for the northbound traffic needs, allows peak hour lane capacity to be maintained with
the moveable barrier, provides for wider median and shoulder distances, and the slide area is to
be repaired under this variation.
Alternative 3 / Variation 2 - This option widens the roadway primarily to the east side and
provides for the northbound traffic needs, allows peak hour lane capacity to be maintained with
the moveable barrier, provides for wider median and shoulder distances, and does notrepair the
slide area.
Alternative 4 /Variation 1 - This option provides for the future needs of both northbound and
southbound traffic with the addition of lanes in both directions, allows peak hour lane capacity
to be maintained with the moveable barrier, provides for wider median and shoulder distances,
and the slide area is to be repaired under this variation.
Alternative 4 / Variation 2 - This option provides for the future needs of both northbound and
southbound traffic with the addition of lanes in both directions, allows peak hour lane capacity
to be maintained with the moveable barrier, provides for wider median and shoulder distances.
However, the slide area is not repaired under this variation.
Staff believes that repair of the slide area as part of this project should be included to
address the safety and maintenance problems associated with this part of the project area.
Therefore the Variation 2 of both Alternatives 3 and 4 should be eliminated from
consideration.
r
CGRADEIR.MAR A-2-12
The foregoing 'process of elimination"leaves two options for consideration.
Alternative 3/Variation 1 which does not address the need for southbound improvements which
are shown to be approaching unacceptable levels of service, and are perceived to be needed for
safety due to speed differentials between autos and truck traffic; and,
Alternative 4 /Variation 1 which does address southbound improvements but is questioned by
some as being too aggressive, potentially precedent setting, difficult for cross traffic due to the
added southbound lane, and costly compared to the alternatives considered within the draft
EIR/S, however is only about 1/2 of the cost of full freeway style development.
Staff would recommend the selection of Alternative 4Nariation 1 or that consideration be
given to adoption of a hybrid of these two options that provides the grading for Alternative
4/Variation 1 but only constructs the lanes as proposed under Alternative 3.
As mentioned earlier in this report staff had recommended consideration of an option that would
include the grading and drainage work to accommodate both added northbound and
southbound lanes but only to construct the northbound lane at this time. This approach would
allow the pavement to be added for the southbound lane when the level of service deteriorates
and it is determined to be needed. Full structural sections should be provided under the shoulder
along the west side to allow for the efficient addition of the southbound lane. This allows for the
future increase in capacity but would not require major reconstruction, disturbance of cut and fill
slopes or disturbance of habitat and vegetation.
Retaining wall structures be carefully designed with architectural features that go beyond bare crib
wall or soldier pile design. Noise Barriers (if constructed) should be similarly treated. The project
should also include a subsurface bicycle crossing at the Stagecoach Road intersection.
The early formation of the proposed Aesthetic Design Advisory Committee should be encouraged
to bring the basic principles of 'art in public places"to the design concept level of the proposed
structures(retaining and/or sound walls, signage, median etc.) as well as the proposed drainage
systems, landform modification (cut and fill contouring etc.), and revegetation.
CGRADEIRMAR A-2-13
TABLE 1
TRANSIT/TSM/TDM COMPONENTS OF ALL BUILD ALTERNATIVES
• Public Awareness Campaign-Mailings, speakers bureau, Public Service Announcements -
radio,TV,newspapers,signs announcing project along roadway-billboards,Caltrans signs,
and changeable message signs, telephone info line/hot line/0800' number.
• Employer Ridesharing Program - Support SLO ridesharing program in responding to
employer requests to develop and implement employer-based ridesharing incentives such
as preferential parking for car and vanpools, flex-time, transit pass program, employer-
based ride matching and ridesharing coordination, etc. by providing funding for marketing
materials, telephone information lines, office facilities, staff, and miscellaneous expenses.
• Carpool and Vanpool Arrangements-Expand ridesharing coordination through the existing
SLO ridesharing program by funding coordination of employer-based ridesharing incentives,
coordination with Interested organizations, and staff to administer program and perform
work.
• Bus Service - Expand commute period service using new buses; potential also exists for
Improving midday service.
• Purchase New Buses- Purchase of six new buses to be placed in service on routes over
Cuesta Grade prior to construction. Operations and maintenance costs of the buses are
proposed to be paid by the project through the construction period.
• Bus Routes-Tailoring of bus routing to provide more convenient stops for potential patrons
closer to their origins and destinations and to serve park-n-ride lots.
• Transit Subsidies - Transit subsidies to attract new ridership prior to and during the
construction phase of$26,000 per month for a period of 12 to 36 months, depending upon
the alternative.
• New/Expanded Park-n-Ride Facilities - Add approximately 100 new park-n-ride spaces
along the corridor through new construction and new lease spaces, to the 200 additional
spaces currently programmed. These would comprise a mix of approximately 30 new
park-n-ride lot spaces and contracting for approximately 70 new lease spaces. Tentative
locations for the new constructed spaces are (1) SW or NE corner of the southern junction
of Route 101 and Route 46 in Paso Robles and (2) NW comer of Vineyard Drive and Route
101 In Templeton. Tentative locations for the new leased spaces are (1) SE corner of 4th
and Spring Streets in Paso Robles, (2) Woodland Plaza 1 at Niblick Road and South River
Road in Paso Robles, and (3) Four Square Church near Del Rio Road and Route 101 in
Atascadero.
• Van Purchase-Support SLO Transportation Management Agency (TMA) employer-based
vanpools for Route 101/Cuesta Grade commuters with a grant of$100,000.
• Bicycle Facilities - Provide improved bicycle facilities and access.
Route 101/Cuesta Grade Improvements Project November 28, 1994
Transit/TSM/TDM Alternatives Development Page 1-8
rr
TYPICAL CROSS SECTIONS
Legend Is. a a Yar 221-24• s•-IDS• Var 22'-24, Vor Alternative 1
Shia 2 Lanae Median 2 Lanae Shid _
Esta+kq NOmdW6y CfoSSnB$�Ctlp�1
No.
—Sx 2% 22
Southbound Northbound
Vor War
31 0-1r Vor 22'-24' S•-13.5• Var 221-241 R• 4. 3• Alternative 2
SM2 Lame uealan 2 Lanes Truck h
Lane ROOdWay Crow Section .
� zx zz _
Southbound Northbound
ra, i.• p e ]
Shia 2 Lame Alternative 3
rena o eanane6 0 ru t
Lo
S nd
ne HeadwayGross
zx---• x
Southbound Northbound
31 B• t 24• 24• ], Alternative 4
LQs on Lane Roadway hose Section
hid
Southbound Northbound
Soldier Beam
Pile Well AIt.4 ONLY
Yar, Alternative 3 & 4
e r zz 01-61 Q 24' M 24' 12' 8 Truck tirako Inspection Arsa
Bike- Truck Brake Truck i Lonea a Lr a an tinea a ruG hid
.ay Inspection area Lane Lane and Bikeway
9 S
Chin Link
Fence I /
2% ^r/ 2% 5%
%Mw� L
Southbound
Project Need: Congested conditions exist due to slow moving vehicles mixed with
heavy commute traffic and steep grades.
Project Purpose: The primary purpose of the project is to reduce congestion over the
Cuesta Grade.
ALTERNATIVES BEING EVALUATED
Alternative 1 (No Build) $p
• No change to existing highway.
Alternative 2 $17.7 million
• Add a northbound truck lane and a 4' wide outside shoulder along the northbound side.
• Improve Transit
- increased express bus service
- expanded Ridesharing program
- additional Park and Ride lots
Alternative 3 $38.6 to $39.1 million
• Add a northbound truck lane.
• Increase all outside shoulders to 8' wide and all inside shoulders to 5' wide.
S
• Improve intersections.
• Straighten curves
• Improve Transit
- increased express bus service
- expanded Ridesharing program
- additional Park and Ride lots
- improve bike path at summit
Alternative 4 $46.6 to 46.7 million
• Add northbound and southbound truck lanes
• Increase all outside shoulders to 8' wide and all inside shoulders to 5' wide.
• Improve intersections.
• Straighten curves
• Improve Transit
- increased express bus service
- expanded Ridesharing program
- additional Park and Ride lots
- improve bike path at summit
A. .�-� G
SLOCOG COMMENTS REGARDING MAJOR ISSUES/CONCERNS
ON THE CUESTA GRADE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DRAFT EIR/EIS
Please incorporate the following comments and/or changes regarding the Cuesta Grade
Improvement Project Draft EIR/EIS into the final document.
Section 1 Purpose and Need for the Project
Sec 1.3.1 - Pg. 1-4, System Linkage- Please expand this section to identify the percentage of
traffic that is inter-regional in nature (both recreational and commercial).
Sec 1.3.2 - Pg. 1-4, Current Deficiencies
Level of service- Please update this section to refer to the available 1994 Level-of-Service (LOS)
figures.
Local Access - Please expand this section to discuss access and turning movements related to
bicyclists and the residences located in the vicinity of the Lyman House.
Sec 1.3.3 - Pg. 1-5, Present Traffic and Operational Conditions - This section should be
updated to provide the latest(1994) available traffic volumes and Level-of-Service (LOS) analysis.
Caltrans staff recently conducted analysis of the LOS and found that during the morning and
evening peak periods traffic operates at LOS E.
Sec 1.3.4 - Pg. 1-8, Future Traffic and Operational Conditions - This section should be
expanded to clarify that Caltrans has estimated that LOS F (in both the north and southbound
directions depending on commute period) will be reached as early as the year 2000. As currently
presented in the text, it appears to some readers that LOS F will not be reached until 2020. The
supporting traffic study concludes that the level of service on the Cuesta Grade, in both the north
and south directions, will deteriorate from a minimum LOS F condition to increasingly serious
levels of congestion between 2000 and 2020. The text should be expanded to identify how the
traffic level of service will be affected as congestion worsens. It is essential to fully and clearly
explain how the morning and evening peak commute periods will expand and what impact this
will have on travel time and safety.
Sec 1.3.5 - Pg. 1-9, Safety - This section should be expanded to include a more complete
discussion of the accident statistics in both north and southbound directions and the causal
relationship between existing and projected traffic, composition, volume and speed. Further,the
text should include a comparison of the accident data for Cuesta Grade and at least one of the
major examples of similar routes (such as Hwy 17) that were used to determine the Expected
Accident Rate (EAR). It is our belief that such a comparison will, when taking into account the
unique operational characteristics of the Cuesta Grade, verify that its accident rate is much more
consistent with a truly comparative EAR. The discussion should also identify expectations
regarding accident rates where the LOS is rated F.
Sec. 1.3.6 - Pg. 1-11, Community Concerns - This section should be expanded to include
issues identified at the Public Hearings and City Council meetings conducted in January, February
and March of this year. The discussion regarding a stand alone transit/TSM/TDM should: identify
that these options have limited applicability from the project funding source; describe the unique
nature of the proposed transit/TSM/TDM efforts and the specific level-of-service improvements:
and, discuss the funding implications of this approach and how this would likely impact local
agency's discretionary TDA funding.
CGRADEIRMAR A-2-14
Section 2 Alternatives Considered
Sec. 2.2- Pg. 2-1, Alternatives to the Proposed Action-The discussion of alternatives should
be expanded to include analysis of a hybrid design alternative that includes primary engineering
features of Alternative 4Nariation 1 and a pavement profile that is similar to Alternative 3.
Inclusion of this alternative is necessary to address concerns about the justification for an
additional southbound lane. It is possible that a decision might be made by the SLOCOG board
to support construction of only a northbound truck climbing lane. Staff feel strongly that it is
necessary to have an alternative included in the EIS that provides for a roadway expansion profile
that will allow for future paving of a southbound lane if Alternative 3 were chosen.
Pg. 2-2, Description of Build Alternatives-This section should be expanded to include a more
complete listing of TDM measures that will be implemented during the construction period. In
particular, the text should note that: six buses are to be leased by Caltrans for use by the
Regional Transit Agency(SLORTA) during the construction period,with the cost depreciated over
three years, and the buses given to SLORTA at the end of construction; and that a total of
$100,000 is to be provided annually to Ride-On for Transportation Management Association
(VanpooQ services during the construction period. We further propose, in recognition of the
importance of expanding Rideshare activities during construction, that $100,000 per year be
provided to SLOCOG to carry out applicable program enhancements.
Pg. 2-11, Six-lane Roadway with Uniform Four-Foot Shoulders - The text regarding a
SLOCOG staff proposal that four foot outside shoulders be provided to minimize grading should
be revised to provide that the staff proposal was for four foot shoulders to be provided 'only
where necessary to avoid significant unavoidable adverse environmental impacts". In addition,
the median width should be varied where possible to minimize grading. We recognize that it is
necessary and appropriate to provide eight foot outside shoulders where reasonably possible.
Pg. 2-15, Bikeway Alternatives-This section should be expanded to clarify the importance of
bicycle access over the Cuesta Grade for off-road (mountain) cyclists and the need to address
safe access across the highway at the key interface point, the intersection at Stage Coach Road.
Implementation of any build alternative will result in an increased safety hazard for cyclists at this
location; this situation justifies provision of a bike under crossing in the project. We will be
officially requesting this feature be included in all build alternatives.
Section 3 Affected Environment
Table 3-1, Pg. 3-697,&8 - Expand this Table to show amounts for 1993, '94, & '95 (if available).
Modify appropriate text references in Sec. 3.1.6 .
Section 4 Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures
Introduction, Pg.4-1 - More clearly delineate the 'Caltrans" approach to identifying significant
impacts and defining mitigations in this section. A paragraph should be added to address the
Aesthetic Design Advisory Committee specified on pg. 3-4. The proposed structure,makeup,and
responsibilities of this group should be clearly defined.
CGRADEIFIMAR A-2-15
Sec. 4.1.1, Pg 4-2 Topography Mitigation - Note the disturbance to cut slopes will be primarily
limited to previously disturbed areas and fill slopes will be contoured to conform to the general
area landforms.
Sec. 4.1.2, Pg. 4-3, Soils, Geology, and Seismicity
Landslide Potential Mitigation- Identify how revegetation efforts will address portions of this issue
and Aesthetic Design Committee Review of the proposed treatments.
Erosion Mitigation - Identify measures to be employed for controlling directed drainage beyond
fill areas. Identity increase in runoff expected due to increased paved areas for various
alternatives. Include the Aesthetic Design Advisory Committee in the review of drainage system
structures and landscape treatments associated with erosion control efforts.
Sec. 4.1.3, Pg 4-6, Hydrology and Water Quality Mitigation - Please more clearly identify
downslope and downstream measures to prevent and or capture pollutants and/or sediment.
Sec. 4.1.6, Pg. 4-18, Noise Mitigation - This section should be revised to include an option of
retro-fitting the structures adjacent to the highway with soundproof material, including double or
triple-glazed windows, insulation and/or related materials or other structural modifications. We
feel that this would be much more cost-effective, and visually appropriate means of dealing with
noise in the vicinity than construction of the proposed sound walls. The text on Pages 4-36 and
5-2 in regard to Visual Resources should also be modified to reflect the possibility of
implementing this type of alternative. Identify Aesthetic Design Advisory Committee role regarding
soundwall design If these structures are to be installed. Identify Receptor 6 on page 419.
Sec. 4.2.19 Pg. 4-24, Vegetation Mitigation - Please describe methods to avoid and eradicate
skeleton weed at and/or adjacent to the project site.
Sec. 4.2.2, Pg. 4-26, Wildlife Mitigation - Please identify measures to minimize small animal
disturbance and potential roadkill.
Sec. 4.2.3, Pg. 4-28, Wetlands Mitigation- Please identify efforts related to the protection and
establishment of aquatic plants where needed.
Sec 4.3.1, Pg 4-34, Consistency with Local Land Use Planning- Update to include reference
to the 1994 Regional Transportation Plan and 1995 Congestion Management Plan.
Sec. 4.3.5, Pg.4-41, Visual Resources Mitigations - Identify roles of the Aesthetic Design
Advisory Committee regarding these issues.
Sec. 4.3.6, Pg. 4-42, Cultural Resources Mitigations- Evaluate removal of the minimal amount
of vegetation necessary to accomplish the preferred alternative and seek establishment of
replacement planting at the earliest possible date.
Sec 4.3.7, Pg. 4-45, Transportation and Circulation, Access - Please address shoulder
accommodations for turning movements at Hawk Hill Rd. and the real estate office and
apartments and residences located on the northbound side of the project.
Sec. 4.4, Pg. 4-52, Construction Phase Impacts - Expand the discussion of the Transit
Improvements Program to clearly identify the availability of funding necessary for transit subsidies
and subscription bus service and the Rideshare Program to identify the funding commitment
required to accomplish stated goals within the Draft EIR/EIS for Rideshare and Transportation
Management Association activities. We request an annual commitment of$100,000/yr for each.
CGRADEIR.MAR A-2-16
Section 5 CEQA Mandatory Findings of Significance
No comments
Section 6 Growth Inducement and Cumulative Impacts
Sec. 6.1, Pg. 6-1, Growth Inducement- Please modify the fourth paragraph to recognize the
added growth potential in Santa Margarita as a result of the recent update of the Salinas River
Area Plan. The Paso Robles Growth Area portion of Figure 6-1 Growth Inducement seems to defy
common logic where the constrained analysis growth scenario greatly exceeds the unconstrained
analysis - please explain this apparent contradiction.
Section 7 Consultation and Coordination
No comment.
CGRADEIR.MAR A-2-17
� CD oo M oo D a-0 c (aC CLQ (D 0-w N O M.
U) w (n D nnn M.
w ID
CD 0 �
CL m D O C 3 .n+ �_
cn
O 0 <<
O Q ON G 0
n Cl)O0% 0 w (D w w n
� Q° (D �, C 3 Q --I
CD Cf)
n O (n C
cc
CD
CZ
90
Z Z C) Z (n M Z o C D Z Z . Z . Z . Z Z 0 M Z Z
0 0 0 0 0 0 M 0 0 3 m 0 0 o 0 o O 0 0 0 0
CL Q 3 3 0 o 0 CDu�3i o 3 w o � < 0 3 o CD X °
7 C `L .C-. co 0 cn
0 U3i w• w fOn '' O O (o Z CD �•
p y Sn O (D 0 Q SD CD y (D = xO N 0
O O O O Q 3 S =0. 7 3 N 0 N w n O
(� 3 O
.. 3 3 D
CD 0 CL M
O Cn
O CD
0 0 O 03 (D C/)C/) CD 5 (D n CD 1 = j
c° 0 3 wO cc
con n y m
o CD cn w D
3 n cn 0 Q° C)
`< x O
o0 o 3 w o o (n cn o 5 o 3 m m o o m -°o cv �' o Z n Z p��q
W w N _0 tT (a (D O 3 0 "° w •* _ (D 3 1 n. (Q ° -. O 1 1
C) O 3 �' �' ^�' TT !A w Ef) O 0 O 3 _ ° 3co
~ = x O
CD o ¢, w _ 0 W 0 0 — D) cQ m c c 3 w m 0 0
CD 0 0 — 3 w s o 0 0 0 w 3 0 m 3
Q m Z CD o' 3 c 3 CD 3' CD Q 3 0 0 Q cn
C0) 3 � 0 °< 3 ((n g o 7 0 "a < CD CD � 0 D CD N Q D
(D O 00 n O CD .3. w -. 3 < 5 Q O `L O (off Y 0 7 O_
o a 3 0 CD m CD C) 0 CD 0 cD 3 a 3 v 0 0 w r
3 ° °c w — m o .� ° ° w 0 a
0 D 3 0 r" C
o 0 3 0 o m 3 ° m 0 t3�n 0 '� .00 o Cr — Q
w -' 3 0 Q° 5 w CD a(D Cn CD p7m 0 3 0 �,0 3 3 N .
�' m CD y = 0. 0 3 3 .0� -0 m m 3 0
c0 to CD w
m cn ° cn 3 3 0 m w 3 cn m 3
3 Q w O CS 3 °
CD o o 0 ° m =� o ° ° w P- 0 3 n CD
3 < N y 3
O O 3O < C (D c 3 90
S O N O N N y O
O N N O A
CC) _
c (a c o 3 3 w 0 m 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 CD 0 0 Z o. c ° ro(0 w m ° Z �' 3
0 o -0 6 0 0 o 0 0 m ° o °• m 3 3• m 3 0
-- c° r w 0 o cD o 3 m w m Q x
< cwo 0 m (3n CD ai 0 m o o w cQ Q c0 -0 � o 0 � m w c
CD 0 m cn r: R° — 0 3 0 M O L ... O 0 — O O CD 3• O w (OD 3 3 r^
O w w _. o- (D' • 0 3 CD O w 3 3 0 V
M CL Q Zm 3 0 3 3 0 (n N• w o 0 -0 < 3 3 o D 3 � o
_ CD 0 O O 3 -• r' CDD O O O
CD 0 Q -s CA
Q O n y Q �' 1 C .�' CD 0 CD = O 1 N Q CO w
° 3 0 3 0 3 3 ° o o " 10— r. 0 0 3 0 0 a
CD O 3 m CD _. m C 3 O O D r
3 ° CO 0 w 3 w 3 0 _ o o cD
0 CD O (n O O m .. O m O y O N 3 — CA
C1 w 'O (n cn C O w
(D 0 (D N O N Q R° 0) Q O T -p 7 Cl) o Q. j 0 I W
CD ^: M .� O CD
CD
° ° m w o `� iv Q ° ai 3 c m ° 0 w
CD ca Q �' rn En cn � m Cl) 3
o w " o Q ° 1 o ° y
`2 fJ CD CD a- j N CA N O < � -0 3 O N cn CD 0 0 O
O (n V J0 < m N t—
< N 1 y n 3 C CQ °
CD v o 3 ID
O (^' � 3 m y m �, m C) w 0 7o Q -p Z w Q 0 w �; m 0 0 o Z a�
0 1 3 w w o o c 0 3 0 0 0 3 (p m 0 0 Q c Cn 0 3 0 � o 3 3
w 0 -0 3 m z — 3' 0 3 CD m o ' m 0' 3 — 3 w 0 w o Q o x
O co O N w 7 C) = CT to O y n 3' CL Q (O O O D 7 CD .. x CD a 3 .
< A � < w (D (D 0 w O O Ch c0 W O n d :3 w 0 3 w C
CD 1 M N con = Q° a' �' CD = 0 3 -- 0 0 0 o CD 3• 3 0 m 0 3 m
Q- 0 � Z °) m 3 CD o m * 0 00 3 m c 3 3 o j o y m ° r^'si+
n CD o CO 3 o w `n y =). � ° m 0 m O CL 3 .. m 0 m o
CD (D w 0 m ° 3 �' 0 1 c m '" m m 0 cn m Q ca ca Z
3 0 = m 0 — a, cn w
° 3 0 ami 0 3 m o `� 3 °c 3 m m — 0 CD � o o cwi � 0 D _`
ao �, 3 C 3 0 0 =
° o' W cn o 3 r. n CD 0 cn m o ("n 0 v, 3 m .< a' — (n 0 "I
CD Q 3 (D (D N Q ~ tion ? a CD cn �. O = D x _0 0 CD a
3 m m D CD 0 0 0 3 a ° 0 `n 3 0
< cn 3 cfl cQ w cn Ca o CO CD y -00 p• S 0 3 Z
O Q CD CD (D Cp Q U'I fn Q r. _ w x W O Q v
E (D A� 3 O w O r%3 CYIO CD O O 3 O ¢) O
m 0 O v 1 v, m 0 0 (Q °
CD ° 0 co Ch m 3 N w
-1 —
— co
CUESTA GRADE IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT
Need: Congested conditions exist due to slow moving vehicles mixed with heavy commute traffic and steep grades.
Related needs include improving traffic safety and improving local access.
Purpose: The primary purpose of the project is to reduce congestion over the Cuesta Grade. A minimum peak period of
LOS C through design year 2020 is proposed.
Description Pros Cons
Alternative 1 • No ground disturbance (cuts or fills) • Peak period congestion will get worse
• No cost • Accident frequency rates increase with
i No change to existing highway. congestion
No intersection improvements
Substandard lane widths and shoulders
Sight and stopping distance deficiencies
not improved
No supplemental Transit funds
• No bikeway improvements
Emergency evacuation/response time will
worsen during peak periods
Maintenance cost will continue to
increase.
• Air quality worsens
Alternative 2 Reduces congestion during the PM peak Does not reduce congestion during AM
hour peak
• Add a northbound truck lane and a 4' • Provides 4' outside shoulders (still Staging construction activities are difficult
wide outside shoulder alongthe NB substandard) in NB direction for - only 1 lane in the peak direction will be
increased recovery area and bicycles possible at times, which will cause
side. e for a congestion and delays during peak hours
• Improve Transit/TSM/TDM* shift away frts the om SOV nt mode due to g
Does not address Ion term increased
• increased express bus service Transit/TSM/TDM capacity in the SB direction
• expanded Ridesharing • Least ground disturbance of build Inadequate shoulders for disabled
program alternatives (cuts or fills) vehicles
• additional Park and Ride lots • Lowest cost of "Build" alternatives Sight and stopping distance deficiencies
Cost: $18 million not improved
• No intersection improvements
Increased maintenance cost will occur on
the existing lanes
*TSM Transportation System Management
*TDM -Transportation Demand Management Some visual impacts
pacts (retaining walls and
noise barriers
Alternative 3 Reduces congestion during the PM peak • Does not reduce congestion during AM
hour (NB only) peak (southbound)
• Add a northbound truck lane. Addresses long term increased capacity Does not address long term increased
• Increase all outside shoulders to 8' in the NB direction only capacity in the SB direction
wide and all inside shoulders to 5' Increased inside and outside shoulder • Increased visual impacts (retaining walls
widths in the NB & SB direction for and noise barriers)
wide. improved safety and recovery areas Increased ground disturbance (cuts and
• Improve intersections. Will improve sight & stopping distance fills)
• Straighten curves (alignment) 2nd most expensive alternative
• Improve Transit/TSM/TDM* Improves intersections (turn, acceleration,
increased express bus service and deceleration lanes)
i
• P Stage construction allows for 2 lanes to
• expanded Ridesharing be open in peak direction during commute
program hours
• additional Park and Ride lots Improved bicycle access on outside
• improve bikepath at summit for shoulders and at summit
future facility Sets the stage for a permanent mode
Cost: $39 million shift away from SOV due$o
Transit/TSM/TDM
• Retaining walls reduce significant amount
of cuts and fills
Alternative 4 Reduces congestion during the AM and • Increased visual impacts (retaining walls
PM peak hour and noise barriers)
• Add a northbound and southbound • Addresses long term increased capacity . Most ground disturbance (cuts and fills)
truck lane. . in the NB and SB directions
• Ikerease all outside shoulders to 8' • Increased inside and outside shoulder • Most expensive alternate
widths in the NB & SB direction for
wide and all inside shoulders to 5' improved safety and recovery areas
wide, • Will improve sight & stopping distance
• Improve intersections. (alignment) .
• Straighten curves • Improves intersections (tum, acceleration,
• Improve Transit/TSM/TDM* and deceleration lanes)
increased express bus service ' Stage construction allows for 2 lanes to
P be open in peak direction during commute
• expanded Ridesharing hours
-,I p
program • Accommodates maximum capacity for
• additional Park and Ride lots emergency evacuation
• improve bikepath at summit for • Improved bicycle access on outside
future facility shoulders and at summit
Cost: $47 million 0Sets the stage for a permanent mode
shift away from SOV due to
Transit/TSM/TDM
Alt.4 has greater traffic benefits than Alt.
3 while environmental impacts are very
close
• Retaining walls reduce significant amount
of cuts and fills
�<, 0 c o w :1) c- I � n n D D
(C O (D Q C S N p O
m o a o m a o c 5 0 o
0 o lw �' � D o m a oM C _ `�
n � n Q' ccnn SCD iw w n
CD 90 cD � u�i � 3 n• Q � �+
C7 w m m r: w m
o , F n
n
o
CD
a
cn
z z n z y m z p c D z z z z z z A
O O O O O m m O A 7 0 O O O O O 3 0 0 0
s °SD a 3 3 �' v 3 3 w A (D m 3 o m -O (D a
3 0
c ° m a, ° o' a, w a3, °< 3 Z
(CCD cr O N A N .+ O O < A m m 0)
CD 3 p m m
N so
3m =' Q (D 0. CD N A Q
CD
C9) CDD
a NN yO ( -03' r
.
N
00 m 3 c n
3 w m O (Q
S
cnm 0 N 7 y
CD at Z .+
63
O N +
7. n N y Qo 0
•< x' O
0
0 n M -0 Z O
o (n p Z w ZoD w o m v o ° A 3 m m o o m -o N A
a 57 SU
A O M A .5. 5. Q y. O N n A j 7 O A O 3 co "' S X N
y m m CD 0) m w a: cwi °. � c m c 3 3 y = w m o 3
CD (n 3 3 = w ? ` o o N A w o m
CL m z 3 m m 3 C ° m m a j °, m a (n
0 0o v N ° ° N m o -0 < 3 (C S D m w °
A 3 A O O m m .-: w m O CD a A A A ,:. n N C'
C. < O ^ 3 w S y w A C w < ^' O O O m .a m 7 0
0 0 3 o CO m m 0 m co m ° 3 � 3 -a w CD y co r
r
acr CL
w y m a O �. CD CD
A N C. S a = C A (D rn
CD W - - y' 3 n - R° y CD O N 3 n Q 3 3 - N
CD m D m o. N m °• ~ -p m " (D 3 0
< S m 7 w C. w CD y S m O O O .. (D O \ ,
CL 0
CD
S N N m N N Q N p
O
O N m 0 ?
(p 'p
1) w A N 3 S
w w Z N -0 w S 0� N -0 n S O 7 @ '30 (p 0 O Q O co n C O 7 'a w
^' _ - -
w O m P 0 N "' 7 O O _: w N (mn (mA w n 5 = 7 m 0 `r 3 = w m m a O x
<< W y < w w-. .+ 7 < m 0 Q y I w Co a s (C O O m 7 x m a 3.
(o a� m 7 a1 N m N A w .. O O y = C w C A 'O :3 N A S A w C
a = a ami Z w c° a m• ? v o 3 m m ° o 3 = m 3CL 5 3
c0i m g m a) 3 -v 3 � o N � y ID o ° a o m 3 C 3 = D CD �' � � 0
CL CL a O < o y 0 a { a w = C M M �_ A m O
^, m m =, 3 su o m n SD F ° w m ° m CD CD C .^ y a CO w 7
° 3 N <-' 3 O 3 3 D w o o 0 - .: 3 m S A w ° o w n
3 < o (a A m w w W N y _. m = a °c � o 0 ° y co r-
CD ° a C -0 m N m m C `� 3 �' n N a w 7 CA c 0 w TI
CD m w .. ° N . 1p m a x a o m m .. a o w W
m y ^� C al H D mO ' N a S a N C. O v m ca _
O
m w m N C ° w 7 C m - C .C. w
O pl ? m m (D C• w m y N w p
O. N •O Q 0 O
0 Cc
N m m ,00 j 7 ig O_
< � N r vo, v v T m 2 m 3 N "-' r
N m N 0 7 C Co O
.i 3 v
A
C) w =r f 3 S y -n a; m —1 0 w w M o- •0 z w C. O w � m o A
w o m ° z � A 0 3 A A 3 m m o O a _C �' M w s W ° Z w
c m _ S (D N v w C 0 o
O N S .:: w y N N w O C m m 7 3 : w A m (D o O -
< A S (a < w rC► m m m C Q N .A. 0 7 w C C. tC O O (p 7 m w x m oz
-+ 3 m 3 ID N N A .� O O y ._� (G Ql C A ,0.� N A .O+ S A w C
m w N y �+ Q° a C C. .. O N A O (D m fl1 w m 3 3
oCL (D o ccoo w v CD o o y g y w o o r7 '< 3 o CD o D (D a=i m °
N 2 p 0 w � ._: � m O m a 7 ,� 7 :... 3
C m y N m w � 7 CL tu1 'O"` m -+ cD m o N m a ca w
° 3 w SD C' 0 3 m o O n - .C-� 3 C S = n w (n' 7 y I ca
3 < CK y A 3 w 7 w ID y -. m = O c a p 0 ° D r
0. a CD a o m y y °. a '� w m. = N a y w v vyi A w Ul N
m 0 SD
® 7 3 ? w m N D y O 7 N m S 3 a cr 7C' O .0 (D a m (mn 3
5. 3 CD
0 Q CD CD m m a a' Ln N cn Q m ySD - a _� 3 0 ° _
CL m Cl > A N w p y N m m 0 A > a
m %< p 3 N fJ7 O O
o < 2 D N
< N O A N V q1 CD A' = C ^+ N O
CD (03 N
GD
sll!l pue slno to
lunowe lue3!l!u6!s aonpaJ sheen 6u!u!elaa
asolo
AJaA aJe sloedw! leluawuoJ!Aua al!gM g
•lly ueyl sl!laueq oguil Jaleek sey ti •lly
WaLWSIMSueJl
of enP AOS wOJI Aenne u!ys
•
apow luaueuJJad a Jol 96els ay}slaS uo!II!w /t7$ :lso0
l!wwns le pue sJapinoys Am!oel einlnl
ep!slno uo ssaooe aloAoiq panoJdwl Jol l!wwns le yleda�l!q anoJdwl .
uopmeAe Aoua6Jawa slol ap!a pue NJed leuo!l!ppe .
Jol (4pedm wnw!xew Salepoww000y • WRAoid
sJnoy 6u!Jeysap!bI papuedxa .
alnwwoo 6uunp uo!loaJ!p dead u! uado aq ao!AJas snq ssejdxe paseaJoui e
of sauel Z Jol snno!le uo!lonJlsuoo 96elg xWalMlSlJI!sueJl anoJdwl
(sauel uo!leJalaoap pue
'uo!leJalaooe 'uJnl) suolloasJalul sanoJdwl Swum ualy6!eJIS .
(luawu6lle) •suo!loasJalUI anoJdwl •
aouels!p 6u!ddols V 1461s anoJdwl ll!M ' ep!m
Seale AJanooaJ pue A491es panoJdwi g of sJapinoys ep!sui lle pue app
Jol uo!loaJ!P as 19 ON ayl ul sylP!M g of sJapinoys ap!slno lie aseaJoul •
alewalle aA!suedxe lsoW • Japinoys ap!slno pus ep!su! paseaJoul •
suo!loaJ!P aS PUe ON ayl u! auel �{onJl
(sll!l pue slno) aouegJnls!p punoJ6 lsolN • Alioedeo paseaJoul wJal buol sassaJppy . punogylnos pue punoggpou a ppy •
(sJauJeq es!ou pue Jnoy dead
slleM 6WWelel) Sloedwl lenSIA paSeaJOUI • pue Wy ayl 6uunp uo!lsabuoo saonpay b anl;euJajIy
Sig pue sino to
lunowe lueog!u6!s aonpaJ slime 6upplad
W(1/WS111!sueJl
of anp AOS w011 Aenne WLls uo!II!w 6£$ :lsoO
apow lueumied a Jol 96els ayl slag Alwoe; einlnj
l!wwns le pus sJapinoys Jol l!wwns le yledeNiq anoJdwl .
ap!slno uo ssaooe aloAo!q panoJdwl Slol ap!H pue NJed Ieuo!l!ppe .
sJnoy we16oid
elnwwoo 6uunp uogoaJ!p dead ui uado eq 6u!Jeysap!lj papuedxa e
of Sauel Z Jol Snnolle uo!lonJlsuoo 96elS aowas snq ssaJdxa paseaJou!
(Sauel Uo!leJalaoap pue WQLWSisueJl anoJdwl •
uo!leJal000e wnl) suo!loasJalu! sanoJdwl •
aA!leuJalle aA!suadxe lsow puZ (luawu611e) sanano ualg61ejlS .
(Sin eouels!p 6u!ddols V ly6!s anoJdwl ll!M •suo!loasaalul anoJdwl e
pue slno) aouegJnls!p punoJ6 paseaJoul seaJe AJanooaJ pue Alal IS panoJdw! a !nn
(sJauJeq es!ou pue aol uo!loaJ!P OS 19 ON ayl u! sylP!M P
sllenn 6u!U!elaJ) sloedwi lenS!A paseaJou! Japinoys ap!slno pue ap!su! paseaJoul 5 0l sJapinoys ap!su! Ile pue ap!nn
uogoaJlp as ayl u! Al!oedeo Aluo uolloaJlP ON ayl u! ,8 0l sJapinoys ap!slno Ile aseaJoul •
paseaJou! wJal 6uol ssaJppe IOU Sao(] paseaJou! wJal 6uol sassaJppy auel �lonJl punogylaou a ppy •
( A
(punogylnos) Head (Aluo aN) !noy
Wb' 6u!Jnp uo!lsebuoo aonpaJ lou Sao(] dead Wd ayl 6u!Jnp uo!lsa6uoo saonpaH £ anl;euJa;lV
(sJauJeq as!ou
pue sheen bu!umlej) sloedw! lenS!A awoS luawa6euelN puewa( uo!le� JodsueJl- W(l.
sauel 13S 6u!ls!xa ayl luawa6eueW walsAS uoijupodsueJl- WSl.
uo Jn000 p!nn Ism aoueualu!ew paseaJoul •
slueweAoJdwi uo!loasJalul ON uo!ll!W 9[$ :lso0 •
panoJdw! IOU SIOl ap!H pue NJed Ieuoll!ppE .
sapua!o!lap aouels!p 6u!ddols pue ly6lS saA!lewalle „PI!na„ to lsoo lsemo-1 • weJ6oJd
SalolyaA (sll!l Jo Sino) SaA!leuaalle 6u!Jeysap!l_I papuedxa e
palges!p Jol sJapinoys alenbapeul pl!nq to eouegJnls!p punoJ6 lsee-1
uo!loanp as ayl u! A pedeo W(1/Wsl/l!SueJl aowas snq ssejdxa paseaJow .
paseaJou! wJal 6uol ssaJppe lou Sao(] of anp AOS wO4 Aenne 4!4s •Wal/VYSIA!sueJl anoJdwl .
sJnoy dead 6uunp sAelap pue uo!lsa6uoo apow luauewied a Jol a6els ayl slag P
a !s
asneo pine yo!ynn 'saw!l le alq!ssod sejokiq pue eaJe i(JanooaJ paseaJoul
a !nn uo!loei Need a l u! eue A uo - Jo UO!loaJl w JS uelsgns 8N ayl 6uole Japinoys ap!slno ap!nn
gll PSI y I L I d P8N (R P
llno!ll!P am sa!J!Allou uoprulsuoo 6uftjS ll!ls) sJapinoys ap!slno ,tp Sap!AOJd b e pue auel �{orul punogylJou a ppy •
Need Jnoy
Wy 6uunp uo!lsebuoo aonpaJ lou Sao(] • dead Wd ayl 6uunp uo!lsa6uoo saonpajj Z anl;euJa;Id
suesJonn AI!ILnb J!y
•aseaJow
of anu!luoo ll!m lsoo aoueualu!ew •
spouad dead 6uunp uasJonn
II!^^ aw!l esuodsaJ/uo!lenoena Aou96Jew3
sluauJanoJdw! AeMaN!q ON -
spunl l!sueJl leluawalddns ON -
panoJdwi lou
moua!opp eouels!p 6u!ddols pue ly6!S
sJapinoys pue sylp!nn auel pJepuelsgnS -
sluawanoJdw! uo!loasJalul ON
uo!lsa6uo6 Aenny6!y 6u!ls!xa of 96ueyo ON •
yl!M aseaJoul sale) AouanbaJl luap!ooy . lsoo ON •
asJoM lab ll!M uo!lsa6Uoo pouad dead . (sll!l Jo slno) aouegJnls!p punoJ6 ON • 4 anl;euaa;IV
SU03 soJd uol; Hosed
•pasodoJd s! OZOZ JeaA u6!sep y6noJyl 0 SO-1
to po!Jad Need wnw!u!w y •apeJO elsan0 ayl Jano uo!lsa6uoo aonpaJ of si loeloid ayl to asodJnd AJew!Jd ayl :esodind
•ssaooe leooi 6ulnoJdw! pue Alales oi4ujl 6ulnoJdwi epnloui spaau pelela)i
•sepeA deals pue ogpil alnwwoo AAeeq yl!m Pam salo!yaA 6UTAOw enols of anp ls!xa suo!l!puoo polse6uoO :paaN
103rOad S1N3W3A0HdWl 3avuo d1S3f10
o
Cl) cD cD
3 a a1 3 a D 3 Z 0 0
0 (S O CD m 7 C O f0 O O CL CLm �� �. O
< S < m o _ < c < m C O m c s Z
CD .. m cp Y Cl) 0 < m cD
Q- x n —1 ,CD m a x m .m CD m o m m m o 3 fD
a Q o w m -o a-p o 5 w a x o cc CL
o = m CD m n 0 - o r: m cn W 0 0 - W a o p N m y p
< p � m p c o c o m p c p a - m cD m r. N
CD a w C, � m c p < ° a 0 0 � C p o' p m 3 p
g �' o. a ai 0 o: CL m g �' o CD " y � y � m m m -�'� 3 x Z D
CD w � X 0 m cn ICL m � m O m � �pcD CL ° r
m m m o o °: m ccl) m o0 ;v mCL C.
SaN ai c � p p• m c N mai ? C � mp
SD "S. 0 m Q maw a � amu, m cc p, m m ° A) :3
p CD cr CD 'c m
cc
C d r cn y C V) a Co• CCl) @ C O Z m �. D
CD o m o CL m -o m 0 m a w j < 3 p -+
y cc 2 m 3 m m o o m CL "'� 2 3 Q
�. c cn m co m a`� 3 o
3m m � � m wQ � C . c c3
m m m a
m m d °
OL m CL m ° CD
¢1 o
c m
O
V)
CD
m m a
Cl)CD o Z a
o c o. cfDD c
CD
a c CD 0 °
° cc °
CDCDo m N 0) fl)
0 0 ce C o c °
a y �
Lrl
fl o
m a o� o' C 0 <
CD cc�.
p C Cr —I o <
171 co s
ca m V co
m
V v CL CD
m V y
3 °
_. m
CL
CD
`m 1N •m[p m
k
n owiQv �
N mom
u
Ot
" q
Q/1 T
" L C
O < Q ♦♦
N � � � �N � ]N f r C ♦ Nq
s
e e ,
p[
0 N N
K +
N C N
m to �N m I N q q
m dd m
N
sc- r
r
22
to
I�
its
r---- ' O v
E co
� Q
O 0E
�\
N �
— co
p
-� o o
V/ . p
m EL
V E >
U
c O W
O c0 a yr cD E � Q c4 W
b .� c �
:f W W m 7 0) 0 @J ro cn ILL
a) C a r co -0 C Q
CO
im
v) p L 10 0 Lo U � y
J m 0 i C ,ca '� o L
� � �' = 3 " SLn w a cz
V
\ O .. - O E
Q L C y 0
in cC =
a' �+N N .Q a) c
} s O co _ _ m p cC
Q� l0 O c p
CZ
a,. .. OO � O t "
v. '
CLV O C
3 w 3: .2
O Lo y � �
O o � a� cQa
3 Nina m N a)
(D vijy : 0 O C
N=J C N 0 E
dC m ._
cz cca a cn
W
H
> a°'i rn rn rn rn o
V o
W o
N
O
LZd
>
oC
0
L �
V
Oct a °-
E
LL
O a` o
_
w aL v v
N l0 i i
W 7 C� = rte+ w E N
d N LL 0 w w
Z
Selected Alternatives .Considered and Withdrawn
Commuter Rail Unattractive to commuters - slow travel
time due to extreme curvature and steep
grade of track - max. operating speed is
restricted to 25 mph. Travel time from
Paso Robles to SLO would be at least 60
minutes
$26 million for equipment and support
facilities
New revenue source required - fare
revenue would only offset 25% of
operating costs
Light Rail Transit Same as above plus cost of $10 million
per mile
Prohibit trucks on grade during peak hour . Would still require 15-20% reduction in
auto traffic to achieve LOS C by 2020
Would increase cost of local truck freight
service, therefore cost of local goods
Restrict trucks to right lane . Level of service would still be
unacceptable (LOS F) because remaining
vehicles would have only one lane to
operate in
°Stand-Alone' Bikeway . Couldn't divert enough traffic to reduce
congestion to LOS C
'Stand-Alone° Transit/TSM/TDM . . could only reduce commute traffic by a
maximum of 15% - Future LOS would be
unacceptable
Even if enough traffic could be diverted,
26 buses would be needed presently to
reduce current congestion to LOS C,
which would necessitate an additional
lane
Toll Charges . No legal means for instituting on a
conventional highway- not eligible under
ISTEA according to FHWA
No adequate alternate parallel route that
would be a free alternate
Tunnels, New roadways on new alignments . Too cost prohibitive
Greater environmental impacts