The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About10-07-2014 ph3 pschwartKremke, Kate From: Mejia, Anthony ��-� 0 9 P014 Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2014 11:31 PM To: Kremke, Kate CLERK Subject: Fwd: Council Meeting October 7th, PH1, Prado Road and general comrne Agenda Correspondence 10/07/14 PH3. Begin forwarded message: AGENDA CORRESPONDENCE Date 7 -1 ✓item # Pq �3 From: pschwart <pschwart�2qcalpoly.edu> Date: October 8, 2014 at 11:18:57 PM PDT To: "Eugene H. Jud" <eiud(ae calpoly.edu> Cc: "Ashbaugh, John" <iashbaughna,slocity.org >, "Carpenter, Dan" <dcarpentergslocity.org >, "Christianson, Carlyn" <cchristiansonkslocity.org >, "Codron, Michael" <mcodron a,slocity.org >, "Dietrick, Christine" <cdietricknslocit , "Lichtig, Katie" <klichtig_gslocity.org>, "Marx, Jan" <jmarxgslocit r >, "Smith, Kathy" <ksmith a,slocity.org >, "Mejia, Anthony" <ameiiagslocity.org> Subject: Re: Council Meeting October 7th, PHI, Prado Road and general comments. All, Thank you for being part of this process. My family and I strongly support what Eugene is communicating. Pete On Oct 6, 2014, at 6:33 PM, Eugene H. Jud <e�ud(cbcalpoly edu> wrote: Dear Mayor and Council Members, The writer talked to a high -level Caltrans person about the above. Caltrans feels bad about the Interchange /Overpass including the whole road concept SLO South. Blaine and myself believe, it is a gross overkill of asphalt and sends the wrong message to the public, who clearly set other priorities in the big survey at the beginning of LUCE. Our possible solutions go from "soft" to "macho" road building. They are sketched out in attachments 1 -6, which some of you may have seen before. For twenty years CP CE classes have put lots of thoughts into SLO South, including its road intersections and its urban planning design (or lack thereof!), especially in the Marigold Area. Considerable documentation with perspectives exists on our side. Tomorrow it would be helpful to inform the public how the City intends to react to the Caltrans letter of June 16th 2014. In our opinion we should immediately start the study they suggest: "live without an interchange /overpass or propose one or more compromise solutions ", such as the one sketched out in Attachment 2 for 2035. Development in smart phases must be possible, and an expanded version 2050 (Attachment 3) should remain doable. The City has no jurisdiction on the freeway, and an Interchange /Overpass is risky - also for the City (construction/operation). The City must propose an adequate solution in a long process and might later be allowed to manage construction, Caltrans has said multiple times, that they will not contribute financially. We are not the only ones, who feel a little tricked out by the LUCE process. In previous years the slogan was "Pave with Dave... ". Did we learn? Or is it now simply "Pave with Jan, John + ++ including some green wash "? The LUCE task force (we thoroughly respect their work) was more or less a subsidiary of the Chamber of Commerce. No task force member was an engineer or traffic expert. LUCE depended fully on the (sometimes one - sided) "guidance" of the road builders in the Public Works Department. Neighborhood concerns were secondary, as a minority report reveals. The slogan was "do not rock the boat ". Newer ideas, as you get them for example from the local Government Commission, were rarely mentioned. Unfortunately only very few suggestions of our attached 6 -page memo, "REVISION SLO LU ", found their way into the LUCE document. It is called Group SLO 2035/2050 of September 5, 2013 and is based on 40 signatures. However the final LUCE document, contains some good new proposals - mostly for bicycles - and does not preclude later implementation of SLO 2035/2050 ideas. We are thankful for a good spirit in all LUCE and other groups, and we hope that the enthusiasm of the first SLO 2035/2050 members continues to grow in the coming years. The color of hair in the task force was pretty gray - the writer includes himself! Unfortunately we are one or two generations older than the ones for whom we plan! No students around - we know, it is hard to bring them in. Our planning results suffer from it. Please allow the following suggestions for a final LUCE document: 1. If an interchange /overpass is drawn in a map or mentioned it in a text, there should be a highly visible arrow or note - - - -> "Warning: City has no jurisdiction in this area!" < - - - -- The applying Caltrans rules (Caltrans Design Manual etc.) should be mentioned. 2. If this is not done, we deliberately mislead the public in a crucial matter - with considerable financial consequences, which might lead to litigation or even a referendum. 3. This probably constitutes a class 1 impact under CEQA. 4. It is absolutely possible to implement another road concept - SLO has proven this flexibility multiple times since Mission Plaza was freed from cars in the 1960ies. Finally, why all the rush in the next tree weeks? Public Works has not done the homework assigned to them by Caltrans in the letter of June 16, 2014. We are still miles apart in several crucial questions, which we can not simply brush under the table. More openness and a field trip to the critical locations in SLO might bring us closer together.... If we push a half -baked LUCE through like this, we might loose credibility for years. We hope we are wrong in some points - please let us know. We thank all council and commission members as well as staff for their hard work and late night hours. Sincerely for SLO 2035/2050: Eugene Jud, Fellow Institute of Transportation Engineers ITE assisted by Blayne Morgan, M.S Civil and Environmental Engineering Eugene Jud, Fellow Institute of Transportation Engineers ITE Faculty Civil and Environmental Engineering California Polytechnic State University San Luis Obispo, CA 93407 -0353 Phone: (805) 756 -1729; E -mail: eiud calpol. http: / /ceenve3.calpoly edeud Blayne Morgan (805) 540 -0313; gracewetmore(&, mail.com <REVISION SLO LUCE - 2035 or 2050 (Draft 4 Oct 14).pdf><PC Sept. I jpg > <PC Sept 2.jpg > <PC Sept 3.jpg > <PC Sept 4.jpg > <PC Sept 5.jpg > <PC Sept 6.jpg> Pete Schwartz Cal Poly Physics the new science building, 180 -608 Renewable Energy Appropriate Technology 805- 756 -1220 pschwartgcalpoly.edu My webpage: http : / /physics.calpoly.edu/node /94 Our Appropriate Technology Classes: http:// appropriatetechnology .wikispaces.com /About +Us Our Solar Concentrator Research https : / /www.facebook.com /cpscheffler Teaching Energy Classes and Intro Mechanics with open source videos: http:// sharedcurriculum .wikispaces.com/