Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
08/19/2008, CLR 1 - COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS (SLOCOG) MEETING OF AUGUST 6TH
RECEIVED RED FILE IiI�IIIIIIIIIIII II IIUIiIIIIIIII AUG 44 2008 — MEETING AGENDA bAlso 1 12Ep012t 8L0 CITY CLERK DAI�ITEM # r,L�. i- ci oI san Luis osispo d - COUNCIL ® CDD DIR August 12, 2008 g CAO M FIN DIR ® ACAO M FIRE CHIEF• EA ATTORNEY Q PW DIR To: Council Colleagues IR CLERK/ORIG ® POLICE CHF' ❑ DEPIT HEADS0 AEC DIR From: Dave Romero,Mayor IV V—!xJ&�6 ® HRI D RIR Cawtcil Subject: Council of Governments (SLOCOG) Meeting of August 6`e xk CAD k ekcrw During the Public Comment period at the start of the meeting, the Board received a presentation from Klassje Naime, Manager of the SLO Airport. She explained that the breakeven point for a 50-seat aircraft with full passenger loads is approximately$100/barrel of oil, thus the pullout of some of the airlines in San Luis Obispo is a matter of survival. She pointed out that air traffic in San Luis Obispo has increased overtime an average of 4% a year and noted that San Luis Obispo has more private aviation than Monterey or Santa Barbara. She indicated that U.S. Airways might be bringing in a 90-seat plane this fall. Mike Manchek of the EVC also made a presentation indicating that he is heading up a group called "A Voice for the Community"to encourage the airlines to continue to stay in operation in San Luis Obispo or, failing that, to attract new airline service. The Executive Director of SLOCOG reported that with the state budget crisis, Prop 42 funds are still at risk. Potential loss for the County would be $9 million in road funds and $300,000 for transit. This also might adversely affect progress payments on current projects and the scheduling for future projects. The state continues to take spill-over funds that are earmarked for local transit, thus crippling efforts of local agencies to provide improved transit service during this difficult time. The CalTrans Director indicated that at the current time there are projects valued at over$300 million in construction in the district, the most ever. However, there could be a slowdown in making progress payments if the State's cash flow problems persist. Of particular interest to San Luis Obispo are the completion of improvements to Hwy. 1 (Santa Rosa Street), continued work on a climbing lane on US 101 near Shell Beach, improvement to the traffic signal at Santa Rosa and Murray Streets, and a major contract to improve Hwy. 227 from south of the airport to the Madonna Road overcrossing. The Board approved the 2009 Traffic Improvement Program, which includes funding numerous traffic improvements within San Luis Obispo. Of particular interest is the inclusion of the Los Osos Valley Road Interchange project. It is expected to commence construction within the next several years, provided that funding does not get severely curtailed. GACouncil Support&Corresp\City Council Correspondence\Romero\Liaison Reports\Liasion Report SLOCOG-SLORTA.doc The Board adopted the Regional Housing Needs numbers. These are quite modest(about one- quarter) compared to those required by the State during the last cycle. It is believed that the proposed allocation can be accommodated within the current SLO general plan documents with only minor modifications. The Board approved a contract with a consultant for traffic modeling in preparation for an update of its Regional Traffic Plan. This information will be coordinated with SLO's as we update our Circulation Element. The Board accepted a report and recommendations regarding the transit audit,with SLO receiving minor recommendations. SLO staff is following through. SLORTA, The Board welcomed Ed King, the new Manager of the Regional Transit Authority. It is our hope that the regional system will now become stabilized as its new manager deals with a new service contract, the construction of a maintenance facility, and personnel issues. He promises to work closely with SLO City staff. GENERAL At the end of the meeting, the SLOCOG Board met on the steps of the Court House for a media presentation encouraging the state to avoid balancing its budget on the backs of local communities by borrowing or taking funds need for improvements and maintenance of our local transit and road systems. Page 1 of 1 o�.lapo� Q Council,Sloaq From: mmultari@calpoly.edu [mmultari@calpoly.edu] Sent: Wed 8/20/2008 8:45 AM To: Council, SloCity Cc: Hamplan,Ken; Murry, Kim; Davidson, Doug Subjecfi LOVR Foothill Annexation Attachments: Mayor Romero and Councilmembers: I am baffled by the Council's action last night(or was it early this morning) allowing the large annexation at LOVR/Foothill to proceed outside a larger general plan update. I have two process-related problems. First, even as a Planning Commissioner, I learned of the study session just last week; after I inquired as to what was going on, we received an e-mail "invitation" to attend. As far as I know, it was not noticed as a Planning Commission meeting. For most of the evening, a majority of the Commission were in attendance...under the Brown Act, could we have participated? Were we invited to participate? It seemed by inviting us to the meeting, but not noticing it as a PC meeting, we were in a bind...I was unsure how, with a majority of the commissioners there, we could actually participate under the Brown Act. Second, I am puzzled how the Council could unanimously agree that the City's vision, goals and plans should be based on the sentiments of the residents during the first study session, and then encourage.the most significant city expansion proposal in 30 years to go ahead, outside the greater General Plan update process. I know it is "at the risk" of the applicants, but that puts the.City and the applicants in difficult positions. We all know, now, that this annexation will drive the general plan update, as opposed to the update of the city's plan directing future expansion. My disappointment in the process has no relationship to the who the applicants are or whether or not the ultimate plan may have merit. It just doesn't seem to be the way we should be determining our future, given the scale and location of the proposal I hope you will reconsider your decision and give this additional thought, and commission/public input, before encouraging the planning and annexation of this area ahead of the greater contextual planning effort. Thank you. Mike Multari PS to staff: would you please 1) pass this post on to the Planning Commission, and 2) agendize a discussion of this (properly noticed) for the next PC meeting. Thank you. https://mail.slocity.org/exchange/slocitycounciVInbox/LO V R%2OFoothill%2OAnnexation.... 8/20/2008 Hooper, Audrey SS � From: Hooper,Audrey Sent Sunday,August 24,2008 5:41 PM To: Council ALL Cc: Hampian, Ken;Mandeville,John; Murry, Kim;Stanwyck, Shelly, Lowell, Jonathan P Subject: FW:Our letter to the Council Attachments: sloccLUEupdate.doc ®LJ AocsLUBMdate doc (104 KB) Please see the following e-mail that was referenced at the City Council meeting. Audrey -----Original Message---- From: Santa Lucia Chapter of the Sierra Club Imailto:sierraclub8@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2008 8:30 PM To: Hooper, Audrey Subject: Our letter to the Council Hi Audrey - Here's another copy of the letter I mentioned at City Council last night that you said you did not receive (we used the comment form on the website) . If you could get copies to them, I think it would still be timely going forward. Best, Andrew Christie, Chapter Director Santa Lucia Chapter of the Sierra Club P.O. Box 15755 San Luis Obispo, CA 93406 (805) 543-8717 No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG_ Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 270.6.6/1623 - Release Date: 8/20/2008 8:12 AM 1 i I1 u R ��c A� Santa Lucia Chapter CLUB P.O.Box 15755 San Luis Obispo, CA 93406 FOUNDED 1892 (805)543-8717 www.santalucia.sienaclub.org August 18,2008 TO:San Luis Obispo City Council RE:8/19/08 Study Session,Item 2:Proposed 2009-11 General Plan update process The Sierra Club supports a General Plan process which maximizes meaningful early citizen participation,builds on the policies and programs of the existing Land Use Element,and makes proposed changes to existing policies readily transparent to the public as they are being proposed. We believe City Council's commitment to these fundamentals of good government will go a long way in avoiding"the confusion and contention"(Staff Report,pg.2)that plagued the update process used for the 2006 Conservation and Open Space Element. To that end,we offer the following suggestions: 1.The Staff Report poses the question: "Is the vision of how the community wants to grow still fairly accurate or have changes occurred calling for a new or revised vision?" The most economical and accurate way of determining this is to repeat the survey which was mailed to residents the last time the LUE was updated in 1994 and compare the responses received then and now.A few additional questions could be added to address emerging issues.The Sierra Club would be pleased to participate in the process of formulating them. 2.Build on the city's existing natural resource protections.There is no need—nor justification in terms of allocation of scarce resources—to start from scratch.In the last 14 years,there has been no public call to degrade our air quality or diminish natural open spaces. 3.Mindful of staffs concern that"agreement on fundamentals of'the plan'is essential,"and noting that the"Economic Strategy Report"of the Chamber of Commerce will be used in the Administrative Draft Background Report,resulting in a very thorough representation of the views of this segment of the community,we trust the City will solicit from the Sierra Club information on natural resources and their protection—an environmental strategy report,so to speak—to be added to y6ur base of information and ensure that you have a well rounded perspective on community goals. 4.The single most important step to take at the beginning of the process,and the most important mistake to avoid if the City is to escape the delays,confusion and contention that marked the COSE update,would be a decision to use a legislative draft process for the update of the LUE. This would mean that all proposed changes,additions and deletions,for every policy and program,will appear on the same page,all contained in the same document,allowing for immediate comparison and full transparency Thank you for your consideration, Karen Merriam Chapter Chau nii�►►►��i�IIlHlllilllll��� �� IIIII city ®f sAn luis ®B,spo 50 FIRE DEPARTMENT 2160 Santa Barbara Avenue•San Luis Obispo,CA 934015240.805!181-7380 August 12, 2008 "Courtesy & Service" Mr. Daniel L. Caldon 2463 Ladera Court San Luis Obispo, CA. 93401 Re: Fire and Life Safety Issues, 300 Lawrence Street. Dear Mr. Caldon, Thank you for your recent letter regarding fire and life safety issues at the development project located at 300 Lawrence Street. I hope that the following information will satisfy - your inquiry: You are correct in your assessment of the not:=standard eul-&-sac at the - terminus of Lawrence Drive. The fire apparatus would have had difficulty maneuvering to turn round based on the original design that was part of the vesting tentative map. You may be aware that once a map is vested the development may not be subjected to further conditions. I became aware of this situation when I came on board as the Fire Marshal in March of this year. I consulted our city attorney and set up a meeting with the developer. After explaining to the applicant's engineer the practical difficulties of maneuvering fire apparatus on Lawrence Drive, the applicant agreed to submit an alternative design for the turn-around. The template for this tum-around was laid out behind Fire Station 1 and was successfully navigated by Truck One, the City's largest.fire apparatus. This design is being incorporated into the public improvements for this development. The nine new buildings will have fire sprinkler systems installed. As such the buildings shall be no further than 300 feet from the fire access mad. With the new turn-around design, they meet this standard. As for providing fire protection for your home at 2463 Ladera Court, there is no change in Lliellevell ut > l.ec o iului;U LU y w PWIJUiL y we%_ y OF Sail Luis v isu—1uc Department. Access to your home is still off Ladera Court. Behind your home is open space. It will remain open space.However there are improvements including a fire protection plan that spells out the maintenance of the native vegetation in that open space and access to it on Mitchell Drive. Please contact me at(805)781-7386 should you require more information on this matter. Sincerely, Rodger a., Fire Marshal O The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services,programs and activities. Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(805)781-7410. (Q �,"' � cF}�v rr�� ?rr�t�$��� ;,. azfi��,�p.�' a,• eK a�w, `,.; t*�r k e„` ;r'E' !DOV { On t ( s e LA 1�1, E” th ✓k s K v r r #s / 4- 7w- 0! >evti�,C*rQ, �Z r r �c�.r'ra � Ste, �� jw`. 1�14���� •���1 ,:� �� ,�- trlrC� vy� S �� Y»:. ".� a,�"�p.-y tg�y f .jazz- *,e MW f , n Rt SJ,lrJ�4 ,yt/ f rt, C '.l ° r` - :a „rt.. "� t n• ?, 3o- e t x' Ejw r. ROW Or ria -* °' "., a .w,•e. . t San 'S 4 WR � '..: z `tea . t:l i•. e y>x ,t t- t f omg rD jj IA Rn jt[' s `-i(pprrv";� Vic.,, '` j. rS: TJ•` _ "f e.. ` e'y�. h #.m-..n� {i xv,S r t -�#,c,.>urw w x,- J� �r,a, �, \{ z ,mow. N.r w5 "`.,f ��r *.✓ • �:.. ,a�,�'.✓r S'y?'v,,. 'z 5`v jr . `d"A�t�g�`:�w ,�� '�4r % 2 '�h�a';z�, .�:"�"�e p,i� r•;.;� '"�..Y +� ,�. �7.av n s':J.\ t*dT fis � v 1 rV r ' ptt - -t W i z :. asp •ter . v < jf r:r ", ` T rcrr O; ME b affill i 1 ._ `"Wr•.J �w era r F �"s � �I.: r�/w �`wr .N kY lit-di + " N Q k"r 00 a ! ».ate.= t•<'. , / ,'y { i i 1 Dalidlo/San Luis Marketplace Annexation and Development Project EIR Section 4.4 Noise • A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project;or • A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. The threshold of significance for operational noise impacts is based on the Noise Compatibility Criteria adopted by the City from the State Office of Noise Control and the recommendations of the Federal Interagency Committee on Noise(FICON). The FICON recommendations were developed as a result of studies that relate aircraft noise levels to the percentage of people highly annoyed by various noise levels. Although these recommendations were developed specifically for aircraft noise impacts,they are considered applicable to all noise sources that use noise exposure metrics such as the Ldn and Community Noise Equivalent Level(CNEL). The level of significance changes with increasing noise exposure,such that smaller changes in ambient noise levels result in significant impacts at higher existing noise levels,as illustrated in Table 4.4-2. Table 4.4-2 Significance of Changes in Cumulative Noise Exposure Ambient Noise Level Without Significant Impact Pro' (Ldn or CNEU <60d6 +5.0dBormore 60-65dB +3.0dBormore >6S dB +1 S dB or more Project impacts are considered significant when project-related activities result in exposure of sensitive receptors to unacceptable noise levels as defined in the Noise Compatibility Criteria. Where the existing noise levels currently exceed Noise Compatibility Criteria,the recommendations in Table 4.4-2 will be used to determine the significance of project related noise level increases. For the purposes of evaluating noise impacts related to the Prado Road interchange and other improvements within Caltrans right-of-way, the Caltrans/FHWA exterior noise level significance criterion of 67 dB Leq for residential and hotel/motel land uses is used. b. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures Impact N-1 Project construction would temporarily generate high noise levels on- site. Because noise could exceed thresholds in the City General Plan Noise Element,impacts are considered Class H,sign9iimut but mitigable. The nearest sensitive receptors to the project site are the residences located southwest of the Dalidio property. These residences range from about 100 to 500 feet from where construction activities would take place on the Dalidio property,depending on the phase of the project The grading phase of project construction tends to create the highest construction noise levels because of the operation of heavy equipment. Noise levels associated with heavy equipment typically range between 75 to 95 dBA at 50 feet from the source(EPA,1971). Continuous operation of this equipment during a nine-hour workday can cause high noise levels above the ambient levels present at the site. City of San Luis Obispo 4.45 Page 2 ,/��•• � is �'� 3 I an�� ,�; 5• .. ,,. i a. . -1 40 r • j1 �:Y fob kit 14 IA Al, ANA ego► .z'�� � �' ��' a :��" �.� h�� �.�� - � ^ ��t j� .. �-• r r 1C car _ � ;. Z y yV Page 1 of 2 05 f�c -- Hooper, Audrey j From: Hooper, Audrey Sent: Monday,August 11, 2008 3:45 PM To: Hampian, Ken Cc: Stanwyck, Shelly; Walter, Jay; Bochum, Tim Subject: FW: Los Verdes Park and Upcoming City Council Meeting Attachments: LVP HOA Comments.pdf, LOVR Interchange Ken, Regarding the e-mail Carter forwarded to us today, please see the response below I sent to Donna last week, not realizing that she had also sent her e-mail to individual Council addresses. I was going to hold her e-mail until the agenda went out for the 18th and provide it to Council as a red file item under Public Comments. I not only e-mailed her, but she called me about the agenda process, so she is aware this item is not on the agenda itself and what the public comment process is. I will not red file this without further instruction from you since it's clear that Council has already received the information. Audrey From: Hooper, Audrey Sent: Friday,August 08, 2008 10:22 AM To: 'donna@digangi.net Subject: August 19th City Council Meeting Donna, Your e-mail to Council regarding the Los Osos Valley Road Interchange project has been received. We will be providing Council with copies. Members of the Los Verdes Park I and II communities are welcome to speak during the public comment portion of the August 19th City Council meeting as you indicated (up to three minutes per speaker). Please note, however,that in accordance with Council policy and legal requirements, this matter will not added to the August 19th agenda as a separate item. After public comments on August 19th, Council may determine whether they want this matter placed on a future agenda for further discussion. Please don't hesitate to contact me if you have questions regarding this process. Audrey Hooper, City Clerk City of San Luis Obispo (805) 781-7104 From: Hooper, Audrey Sent: Friday, August 08, 2008 10:22 AM To: 'donna@digangi.net Subject: August 14th City Council Meeting Donna, Your e-mail to Council regarding the Los Osos Valley Road Interchange project has been received. We will be providing Council with copies. Members of the Los Verdes Park I and li communities are welcome to speak during the public comment portion of the August 19"' City Council meeting as you indicated (up to three minutes per speaker). Please note, however, that in accordance with Council policy and legal requirements, this matter will not added to the 8/11/2008 Page I of 1 . .? Attachments can contain viruses that may harm your computer.Attachments may not display correctly. Council,SloCity From: Donna [donna@digangi.net] Sent, Thu 8/7/2008 10:15 PM To: Council,SloCity Cc: Brown,Paul; Carter,Andrew; Mulholland, Christine; Settle,Allen; Romero, Dave Subject: Los Verdes Park and Upcoming City Council Meeting Attachments: IJ LVP HOA Commentspdf(1MB) D LOVR Interchange(6 Dear City Council, Members of the Los Verdes Park I and II communities and consultants would like to speak during the public comment portion of the upcoming City Council meeting, on August 19, 2008. We have 13 speakers who would like to make comment(3 minutes each)about the LOVR Interchange project. We wish to make our comments because we would like for the City, as the council and through its staff,to become fully aware of our concerns and involved with Caltrans'certification of the project. Would you please add us to the agenda? Thank you. The comment letter Los Verdes Park I and 11 submitted in response to the initial study and negative declaration. and additional comment specific to Alternative 3 are attached for your review. Donna Di Gangi Di Gangi Consulting Phone (805) 541-3311 Fax (805) 541-3344 https://mail.slocity.org/exchange/slocitycouncil/Inbox/Los%2OV erdes%2OPark%20and%20... 8/8/2008 Los Verdes Park I and 11, Board of Directors c/o Farrell Smyth for Los Verdes Park I 21 Santa Rosa Street,#100 San Luis Obispo,CA 93405 Attn: Mr. Chuck Cesena California Department of Transportation, District 5 50 Higuera Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93410 July 17,2008 Re: Los Osos Valley Road/US 101 Interchange Improvements Project San Luis Obispo County, California, 05-SLO-101-PM 25.5-26.3;05-OH7300 Initial Study with Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration Dear Mr. Cesena: This letter presents comments about the Los Osos Valley Road/US-101 Interchange Improvements Project. Concerns focus on the impact to the Los Verdes Park I and II (LVP) residential communities. The intent of this letter is to bring forth matters of interest within the comment period, so that we do not miss expressing any pertinent factors for consideration in the nearly approaching project decision process. Many of us in both communities reviewed the reports as thoroughly as possible and discussed matters with the representatives at the recent LVP meeting and public hearing. Moreover,the community received consultation from Cal Poly faculty,who specialize in engineering,traffic engineering, and city and regional planning. Comments represent core issues facing the 178 homes and approximately 500 residents in LVP and pertain to concerns for which background or support information is not evident from the initial study and negative declaration: We have found that many items presented in the project need clarification and/or further study. We respectfully request review, evaluation, and response to comments addressing concerns prior to environmental document approval. We also request that the City and Caltrans incorporate applicable changes and mitigation measures into the substance of the study and work with us to make the outcomes successful for the City and for the residents of LVP. Background on the LVP Communities The LVP communities are planned urban developments consisting of tranquil, single- family homes on the north and south sides of Los Osos Valley Road at the corner of Los Osos Valley Road and S. Higuera. (See Figure 1 and Attachment A, which contains LVP I and II tract maps.) Combined these two communities contain 178 homes'. The homes in these developments are predominantly three or four bedroom units, with one to four or more residents LVP I has 91 units. LVP II has 87 units. 1 (71 � LVP,Page 2 of 16 per household. The estimated population of these communities is between 400 and 600 persons. In LVP I,twenty-five homes line Los Osos Valley Road and S. Higuera. In LVP II, seven homes line Los Osos Valley Road. These perimeter homes and those in open space corridors or on hilltops are of most concern for noise and air pollution impacts. 'YYi`5 L 4 W nr Mal Figure 1: Entryway to Los Verdes Park I(left) and Los Verdes Park H (right) Source of Proiect Concerns and Comments The project includes extensive changes to the layout and functioning of the roadway and the interchange, leading to major concerns about the magnitude of environmental and economic effects on the LVP communities. Project evaluations consistently led to less than significant impact declarations for the residential area,though it seems that there will be substantial real and lasting effects on abutting property and quality of life.. The initial study and negative declaration appear constrained to an overview of environmental effects on residents, because of limited details about the LVP area and a study area that does not encompass the entire project for all factors. In contrast,the study and declaration comprehensively and directly evaluate environmental effects on the entire interchange area,per Caltrans' standards, and clearly define design plans for the interchange area. The inclusion of the CEQA checklist for the project indicates that study of the residential area is complete, though specific comments follow that indicate a need for further study specific to this area. 1. Technical Comments Dr. Cornelius Nuworsoo, a professor at Cal Poly and a certified planner with a Ph.D. in traffic engineering,performed an independent evaluation to assist the community. Attachment B contains this evaluation,which includes comments in addition to the ones made in the body of this letter. (Please note that this letter supersedes the July 2,2008,"Formal Comments"letter referenced in Dr. Nuworsoo's evaluation. Though content of this letter is similar to the July 2, 2008 version, Dr. Nuworsoo has not specifically reviewed this letter.) �• 1 LVP,Page 3 of 16 2. Traffic Traffic effects on the community have increased over the years and new traffic would amplify the impacts. In particular,recent changes to the roadway west of US-101 have had perceptible negative effects on residents. Traffic surrounding LVP has recently become loud and constant. The report indicates that traffic impacts are less than significant,though a review of the report's details has led to the discussion below,which outlines concerns for additional study. a. The concern is that traffic study boundaries limit the extent of data and analysis for the residential area. Boundary selection affects volume and level of service analyses at LVP, Which in turn affects inputs for other studies. The basis for concern is that, even though some-analyses are made for LVP intersections,the study does not evaluate current conditions and predict traffic at LVP accounting for the full project area. The study specifically limits boundaries to the area surrounding the interchange based on the scope of interchange modifications(see Figure 2). Boundaries exclude roadway changes to S.. Higuera and Los Osos Valley Road near LVP. p r' ♦ r' \ 'r C�rri ♦; a wrroac+uz ♦ 1 \ ♦ i. ♦ '1 i i \ a ♦ f/ rr � r / FEHR St PEERS STUDY AREA n..enrtam teas„;7 F1GUfiE 1 Figure 2: Traffic Study Area(Final Traffic Operations Report,p. 2) C� C LVP, Page 4 of 16 b. The concern is that the study does not capture the full traffic impact for intersections near LVP because traffic information is extrapolated, data is not quantitative or associated in the same manner used to evaluate the interchange areae for all relevant scenarios, and that certain factors are not considered for the intersections. c. The concern is that evaluation of the intersections near LVP without the Prado Road interchange is not shown in the report. (The City indicated at the recent LVP meeting and at the public hearing that without a Prado Road interchange,traffic levels on Los Osos Valley Road would require six travel lanes.) Traffic levels at these intersections would likely change for scenarios that exclude the interchange, which could mean higher volume and lower levels of service than predicted with its inclusion. This is of special concern since City plans indicate that the Prado Road interchange is unlikely to be built for many years, the Prado Road interchange was a very significant project, and that predictions without thisinterchange represent the most likely and current scenario. d. The concern is that the Prado Road extension between Madonna Road and S. Higuera was included in the model, this extension is not likely to occur, and predictions would change without this road segment. e. The concern is that a capacity increase and overall better roadway would encourage use of the road as a preferential,main thoroughfare,leading to additional traffic volume and related impacts at LVP. The improved roadways and.interchange will accommodate and acquire more traffic from growth. f. Traffic counts predict an increase in traffic into and out of the LVP driveways. However, these developments are constrained from growth.. 3. Noise As stated in the Noise Impact Analysis report, "[T]he primary source of noise in the project area is traffic on Los Osos Valley Road, S. Higuera Street, and US 101."3 Currently noise levels from these sources are quite substantial in the residential area. Regular traffic,large commercial trucks, and vehicles speeding or screeching around the corner from S. Higuera onto Los Osos Valley Road and driving onto the raised median all contribute to current noise levels.. The report indicates that noise impacts are less than significant for sensitive receptor locatione. (See Figure 3 for data from the selected receptors.) A review of the report's details Z For example,qualitative instead of quantitative queue data at intersections near LVP is shown in the report. 3 Noise Impact Analysis,p.20 Noise Impact Analysis(p.26):IJthe peak-hourtrafic noise level at a sensitive receptor location is predicted to approach or exceed the NAC,or if the predicted tra,ffic noise level is 12 dBA or more over its corresponding existing noise level at the sensitive receptor location analyzed, noise abatement measures must be considered. Of the 38 modeled receptors, I receptor would approach or exceed the NAC under activity category B(67)for both Alternatives 3 and 6 conditions. Of the 38 modeled receptors,no receptors would experience a substantial increase over their corresponding adjusted existing peak-hour noise levels. LVP, Page 5 of 16 has led to the discussion below, which outlines concerns for clarification and additional study. Concerns relate to limits of the scope of the study, sensitive receptor analyses,and discrepancies regarding City noise limits. Table ES-A:Projected TraMc Noise Level.dBA L.q - Noise Adjusted Type of Abatement Eslsdng Fun re. Change from Cbange from Bev No. Location Developsorut Ca nNoise Level Na Build Alternative 3 Level Ahe=five 6 E=isd Level. R-1 Los Ows Valley Road Commercial C 72 69 72- 72 3 73 4 R-^ Ins Osos Valley.Road Commnrial. C 72). 69 72 72 3 72 3 R-3 Ins Osos Valley Road Commetrial C(72) 71 73 74 3 73 3 R-i' Los Ons Valles-Road Commercial C(72) 65 68 68 3 69 4 R-5 Los Osos Villev Road Commercial C(72) '64 67 67 3 67 3 R-6' Los Osos Valley Road Conun&riaL C(72) 65. 68 63 3 68 R-7 Los Osos Valley Road Revdeatia] I B(67) 62 1 65 64 2 1 62 0 R-8 Los Osos Valley Road Restdmoal B(67) 62 64 64 2 1 62 0 R-9 Cbsiparrosa Dove Residential B(67) 60 63 63 3 61 1 R-10 chuparrora Drive .Residential B(67) 61 64 64 3 62 1 R-1 t Ch ora Drive Residential B 67) 61 63 -63 -2 61 0 R-12 Chuparrosa Drill' Residenual B 67 60 63 63 3 61 1 R-13 Lm Palos Drive Residential B 67) 51 54 55 4 54 3 R-14 Los Palos Drive Residential H 67) 48 53 53 5 52 4 R-15 Los Palos Drive Residential B 67 57 -59 39 -2 58 1 'R-16 Los Palos Drive Rendenual B 67) 61 64 64 3 64 3 R-17 South aguerat Street School B(67)E(52) 5534 66`42 6642 8 664? 3 R-13 Ewruto Lane Reudenrial B(67) 47 50 51 4 49 R-19 Eurwto Lace Residential B(67) 54 56 56 56 R-20 -EaeaatoIane Residenual B 67) 60 63 633 63 3 R-21 Los Palos Drive Residential B-67 51 56 56 5 56 5 R-22 Los Palos Drive Resxlettial B(67) 53 59 59 6 59. 6 R-23 Los Verdes Drive Residential B(67) 53 62 62 4 61 3 R-24 Los Verdes Drive Residential B(67) 49. 53 53 4 52 R-25 Los Verdes Iriie Residential B(67) 48. 58 52 4 52 4 A 26 Los Verdes Drier Residential 111671 51 55 55 4 54 3 R-27 Lm Verdes Drive Rrsideuuol B f67) 56 60 60 4 60 4 R-2a .Les Verdes Drive Residential B(67) 53 59 59 6 59 6 R-29 Los Verdes Drive Residential B(67) 55 64 64 9 64 9 R-30 Los Verdes Drive Residential B(67) 54 58 53 4 57 3 R-31 Los Verdes Drive Residential B 67) 49 .53 53 4 52 3 R-32 Los Verdes Drive Residenual H(67) 55 59 59 4 59 4 R-33 Los Verdes Drive Rerreatiou B 67) 51 57 57 6 56 5 R-34 Los Verdes Drive Residential- B 67) 48 54 53 5 53 5 R-35 Lbs Verdes Drive Residential B 67 48 55 55 7 54 6 R-36 Los Verdes Drive Residential H 67 46 53 53 7 53 7 R_37 Los Verdes Drivz Rezidenual H(67) 55 64 64 9 63 9 R-33 Calle Toe - Recreation B(6?) t 5: - 56 1 - 56 4 59 7 Sormr:LSA Associates.Ioe,2006. No outdoor active use areas are associated%side the commercial land use. Numbers underlined represent noise levels that approach or exceed the NAC ander acnvity-category B(67)or C(72). Extericr:lmerim•mise lead.A?A-dBA eeterimuo-interior sound attenuation pith nindons and doors closed is assumed for the classrooms. Figure 3: Current and Predicted Noise Levels Scone Limitations The map from the Noise Impact Analysis (see Figure 4)and the body of the noise report indicate that the study area does not cover the complete roadway from the interchange through to S. Higuera and on S. Higuera. (This aligns with the study area from the traffic study previously shown in Figure 2,which shows the rectangular area selected for study). The study area is limited to the interchange area up to the driveways of the LVP communities for Alternative 3 and up to an area between the driveways and the interchange for Alternative 6. Additionally, the report does not indicate that analyses accounted for the change in plans (a significant delay) for construction of the Prado Road interchange. L- I � w r `� • Mw j a >s - a, " m I � ,�� ,•-`•+1 � � ren to rco , y t 40 � I, �. pca U cc fps E row 7 x 5 n x _ r ' = o` •1 a d ami LVP,Page 7 of 16 Sensitive Receptor Analyses The Noise Impact Analysis indicates that existing noise levels were measured"at 9 representative sensitive receptor locations5"at points labeled M-1 through M-9. The measurements captured noise levels,which subsequently-served as input data for the software model that predicted noise levels at the 38 sensitive receptor locations. Measurements taken in the LVP communities were at locations M-4 through M-8, located in the front yard or driveway of homes lining Los Osos Valley Road 6. (See Figure 5 for decibel readings at locations M-4 through M-8.) Although these areas had been considered"representative sensitive receptor locations"when the measurements were taken, none of the 38 sensitive receptor locations selected for evaluation(except possibly Location R-16)7 are located in areas of front-side outdoor activity(barbeque,etc.) for homes lining Los Osos Valley Road. Table F: Short-Term Ambient Noise.Xionitoring Results Monitor# Date _ Start Time Duration ]3-1 111S12006 9:51 amL 20 minims 72.5 20--2 3/151,2006 10,26 a.m. 20 migu,a: 64.0 IM-3 3'15;2006 10 S a.m 20 minutes 649 M-4 115,2006 11:26 am 20 thiumes 66.0 M-5 3,11I1Q.006 1:18 pma. 20 minutes 64.0 2.11-6 '3.115.12006 LJ9 tia 20 n:,iauls 642 M-7 VLr200.6 2:39 P.M 20 tmrures 64.9 l-4-8 3;'15,2006 2:46 p.aL 20minuutes 6 5.6 `_-9 3AR2006 3:22 p.= 20 mdnnes 63.1 So rre:LSA_Asabcims.Inc..20M. Figure 5: Measured Results from Representative Sensitive Receptor Locations The map in Figure 4 shows the location of the 38 studied sensitive receptor locations. In the residential area lining Los Osos Valley Road, it shows that all evaluated locations(except possibly Location R-16)are at points further(approximately double the distance) from the road than M-4 through M-8 (front-side areas) and that they are at the tear of homes or behind other building structures,e.g. garages. Additionally,the report does not indicate noise levels predictions for indoor areas of residences. Discrepancies for City Noise Limits Pages 16 and 17 of the Noise Impact Analysis, state that the City's maximum noise exposure level for residences from transportation sources is 60 dBA LDN(CNEL). However, as indicated in the Noise Impact Analysis(p. 29), evaluations of sensitive receptor locations compare results 5 Noise Impact Analysis,p.21 6 See pages 21 and 22 of the Noise Impact Analysis for exact description of these locations. 7 Noise Impact Analysis,Figure 2,p. 19: An exception may be Location R-16. It is difficult to tell from the map exactly where Location R-16 lies. LVP,Page 8 of 16 to a 65 dBA City noise limit. In addition to the discrepancy within the report, a 65 dBA limit is different from the City's current noise limits for residential use. The City's Noise Element (Adopted 1996, Section 1.4) states, "[N]oise created by new transportation noise sources, including road,railroad, and airport expansion projects, shall be mitigated to not exceed the levels specified in Table 1 for outdoor activity areas and indoor spaces of noise-sensitive land uses which were established before the new transportation noise source." Table 1 of the noise element shows a limit of 60 dBA for exterior and 45 dBA for interior residential use. Specific Concerns Specific concerns related to the limits to the scope of the study, sensitive receptor analyses, and discrepancies with the City's noise limits are that: a. As indicated within traffic report comments, exclusion of roadway areas surrounding LVP from the study area in the noise model could change the outcome of the impact assessment. Aligned with the study area,receptor locations appear concentrated in corridors or locations that seem to capture noise from the interchange(study area), but not noise from the entire planned roadway through to S. Higuera and for S. Higuera. This poses concern regarding additional noise levels at homes lining S. Higuera. It also adds to concerns about noise levels indoors and at the front-side outdoor activity areas along Los Osos Valley Road. b. As indicated for comments about the traffic report, inclusion of the Prado Road interchange and Prado Road extension between Madonna Road and S. Higuera in the noise model could change the outcome of the impact assessment. c. Predicted noise levels at the front-side outdoor activity areas of perimeter homes could be 3 to 6 dBA greater than the analysis indicates, since the modeled sensitive receptor locations are approximately double the distance from the roadway than the front-side of these homes. Noise levels could be 6 dBA higher if the expected standing(queue) traffic approaching S. Higuera meets the definition of a point source. The following statements from the Noise Impact Analysis(p. 1 l)regarding the effects of point-and line sources provide the basis for concern. • For a point source: "The sound level attenuates(or drops off) at a rate of six dBA for each doubling of distance." • For a line source: "The change in sound level from a line source [moving traffic on a highway] is three dBA per doubling of distance." d. Predicted noise levels at the front-side outdoor activity areas of perimeter homes could be substantially higher than the analysis indicates, since the modeled sensitive receptor locations are sheltered by buildings from traffic noise on Los Osos Valley Road. This concern is based on the statement from the Noise Impact Analysis(p. 12), which states, "[N]atural terrain features(e.g.,hills and dense woods) and human- made features (e.g.,buildings and walls) can substantially reduce noise levels." LVP, Page 9 of 16 e. Predicted noise levels at the front-side of perimeter homes could signify the need for mitigation per Caltrans' standards. The basis for this concern is that measurements indicate that the noise levels for sensitive receptors M4 through M-8 are very close to the Caltran's 67 dBA threshold$ for noise abatement(see Figure 4),so adjacent areas would likely also be very close to this threshold when modeled under current conditions and over the limits for projected levels. f. Sensitive receptor locations 29 and 37 both appear on S. Higuera and indicate a noise level increase of 9 dBA. (See Figure 3 for data). This type of increase is perceptible and almost twice as loud as current conditions9. If this type of increase(9 dBA) extrapolates to the homes on Los Osos Valley Road, e.g. representative sensitive receptor locations adjacent to measurement locations M4 through MS (front-side outdoor activity areas),these homes could exceed the 67 dBA Caltrans' abatement threshold and be well above City limits for traffic induced noise. Increases on Los Osos Valley Road would expectedly be higher than predicted for S. Higuera due to the combined effects of queuing at S. Higuera, traffic on Los Osos Valley Road, and traffic at the interchange area. g. The report does not explain why the analysis does not contain data showing the evaluation of the front-side outdoor activity areas of the perimeter homes. It. Interior noises levels could exceed the City's permissible exposure standard of 45 dBA, especially when residents use windows or doors for ventilation. (These homes do not have air conditioning or other ventilation systems and rely on windows for ventilation.) This concern is not limited to the perimeter homes. i. In consideration of current noise levels at the 24-hour monitoring station at LVP near the highway,which averaged 68 dBA10, the LoN has a strong potential to exceed all regulatory thresholds for perimeter housing on Los Osos Valley Road. j. The discrepancy regarding the City noise limit stated early in the report and the one used for comparison in the analysis needs resolution. The concern is that the projected levels are over the threshold. In general,LVP residents are significantly impacted by noise. The community was once at a dead-end street and now it is on an arterial that is gradually expanding and increasing in traffic travel. The elimination of the Prado Road Interchange project and the feeding of more arterial roads into S. Higuera will exasperate noise and other problems. Queuing at S. Higuera, which indicates a poor level of service,adds substantial noise that will continue with the alternatives. Signage on Los Osos Valley Road prohibits trucks from using the road, yet this is not enforced; 8 Or the action level, 1 dBA below the threshold(66 MA) 9 Noise Impact Analysis,p. I 1 states,"...the trained ear can detect changes of 2 dBA in normal environmental noise. It is widely accepted that the average healthy ear,however,can barely perceive noise level changes of 3 dBA.A change of 5 dBA is readily perceptible,and a change of 10 dBA is perceived as being twice or half as loud." 10 Noise Impact Analysis,p.24 LVP,Page 10 of 16 the noise from these vehicles is extensive at times and improvements will likely encourage even more truck travel. Residents have noticed a significant increase in speeding and screeching in front of LVP. Sound walls that appear all down S. Higuera in residential areas help to mitigate noise for the adjacent homes, but the shrubs along the perimeter of the LVP communities no longer provide sufficient sound absorption because noise levels are too high for this attenuator. Overall, traffic patterns have dramatically changed the area. Whatever the level, the incremental addition of noise from this project adds to the little by little increases over the years from other projects, especially the increase from the more recent projects west of US-101. The main overall concerns about this project are that: • The studied sensitive receptors do not encompass significant noise affected locations representative of the community; • Study area boundaries constrain the noise model from capturing the full impacts; • Inclusion of the Prado Road interchange does not represent actual conditions; • Predicted noise levels were compared with a higher limit than the City noise ordinance allows; and • Residents would experience a substantial increase in noise in excess of regulations. The community is very concerned that noise levels will be unbearable,outside the established limits,and without mitigation. To convey the full impacts of traffic noise,it is necessary to have an accurate and complete accounting of noise levels that are evaluated using relevant inputs and at correctly positioned sensitive receptor locations. The main concern is that, because of the factors described previously, the study does not fully capture the effects of the project on residential noise levels at the areas most affected by noise. Finally,noise levels would be unbearable without mitigation prior to construction and substantial construction barriers. Although City ordinances restrict construction to the hours between 7 am and 7 pm,a particular concern is about major construction occurring at night near the highway and if the restriction would apply to the interchange area or if the sound would travel and be significant enough to affect residences. Also, in consideration of residences, further restriction of construction hours would be greatly appreciated. 4. Air Quality The air quality report shows that overall air quality will improve with the alternatives,yet results from air quality modeling are dependent on the traffic study analyses. Because of the dependence on the traffic study,whose underlying assumptions and scope are in question,air quality is of concern. As one example,when traffic levels of service reach D,E, or F because of a project,carbon monoxide would be of significant impact. The concern is that the project will generate elevated"hotspot"concentrations in front of the communities for CO or other pollutants _ 1 LVP,Page I I of 16 and bring air pollution levels above standards and/or significantly degrade air quality. As with noise,assurance that air quality modeling is representative of the community is of concern. Air Ouality During Construction The study states that the homes(sensitive receptors)would not be substantially impacted by carbon monoxide during construction"because the project does not adversely affect existing conditions". The meaning of this statement is not clear in the study or described with a link to data in the"Air Quality Technical Report" and needs clarification. 5. Widening Plans The City has indicated that, aside for some potential need to widen the proposed bike lanes, changes to Los Osos Valley Road at LVP are not likely to change existing curb and sidewalk locations because current plans comprise of very narrow travel, median,and bike lanes that will fit between the existing curbs.. The concern is that design plans are not solid enough to assure the changes will remain within the boundaries of the existing curbs and could ultimately involve movement of the existing curb,bringing the roadway closer to the LVP communities. 6. Vehicular and Pedestrian Safety and Community Accessibility LVP I and H each have only one way into and out of the subdivisions, requiring all traffic to enter and exit on Los Osos Valley Road near S. Higuera. Figure 6 depicts the current, typical traffic situation at LVP at 5:00 pm on a weekday. b - r+.tM. w w y Figure 6: Typical traffic at 5 pm at Los Verdes Park Vehicles queued and blocking LVP Driveways (left). Large truck traffic (right). LVP,Page 12 of 16 Vehicular Safety and Accessibility Under current conditions, exiting the LVP communities is very difficult during peak hours and becoming increasingly difficult at non-peak hours. Level of service at Los Verdes Drive will be at category"F"for all alternatives, which exceeds the level of service"D"category of acceptability for the City. Various factors compound the safety and accessibility problems. Currently, traffic tends to increase its speed to as fast as possible when turning onto Los Osos Valley Road from S. Higuera and often vehicles drive onto the raised medians on Los Osos Valley Road.. (Recently, a vehicle coming from S. Higuera involved in an accident at Los Verdes Drive supposedly was traveling at an estimated speed of 50 mpb at the point of impact.) Many drivers often do not obey the"keep clear"road markings at Los Verdes Drive. Turns onto Los Osos Valley Road from S. Higuera are relatively constant due to the S. Higuera signal configuration, which predominantly offers a green signal to right-hand turners, and from vehicles that do not stop when this light is red. Although these factors compound the problem,the difficulty still exists on its own. The study discusses the access problem briefly and Fehr and Peers have included a summary of possible options designed to mitigate the problem and actions to determine an appropriate solution,but the study does not indicate specific plans to resolve this matter. Further,predictions made in the traffic study affect the scope of the situation and potential solutions. The concern is that the plan.is to use the proposed median lane as the solution to the problem. Aside from sheer traffic volume, crossing extra lanes will be more difficult due to staggering of the traffic flow. The safety of turning left halfway across onto a narrow median lane,especially with opposing driveways at LVP I and II, is of great concern. The City has indicated that one, if not the only,practical solution is to restrict exits from LVP to right-hand turns; however,this solution would pose a major inconvenience to hundreds of residents and each resident wishing to tum left would then need to travel quite a distance before being able to reroute themselves in the proper direction. This low-cost solution, essentially adds vehicle miles causing LVP residents to travel as far as Home Depot or down S. Higuera to turn around. This type of travel will add to the already stressed traffic situation,pollution, and noise and the accessibility problems will remain. Overall, the concern is that inclusion of the median lane does not feasibly address the issue. The traffic report indicates that recommended alternatives to mitigate unacceptable operations'1 at this intersection,including a traffic signal and alternative driveways'Z,need detailed study with engineering calculations encompassing all relevant factors and community input. The problem needs resolution and if not considered as an integral part of the project design,the concern is that otherwise viable alternatives may become severely constrained and result in solutions that are not feasible or beneficial. " Page 38 Z Pages 56 and 57 LVP,Page 13 of 16 Pedestrian Safety The crossing signal at the S. Higuera intersection is extremely short, causing concern for pedestrian safety in crossing Los Osos Valley Road. Special concern lies with school-age children in the area. 7. Visual/Aesthetics The concern is that the project substantially changes the current views of the roadway at the LVP communities,primarily on Los Osos Valley Road and to some extent on S. Higuera. A current view of the median area is shown in Figure 7. The landscaping and raised median help provide the perception that the area is residential.. P wywy. -Y. j � s Figure 7: Median area between LVP I and 11,heading toward S. Higuera The study does not address the aesthetic aspects of this portion of the roadway and states on page 26 that,"[T]he change to the aesthetic quality of the site will likely be considered neutral." However, the study does not specifically discuss changes in the residential area nor does the study include photo simulation for the views near LVP, as provided for the interchange area. Median removal,mature tree removal, additional lanes, and potential changes in street lighting will cause changes in the visual/aesthetic quality of the area. The project could create a new source of substantial light or glare from street lighting and traffic,which would adversely affect visual/aesthetic traits. These views would have a direct impact on the hundreds of residents in LVP and others using the roadway and would likely negatively impact property values. I / \ I LVP,Page 14 of 16 8. Community Character and Property Values The concern is that the project will substantially change the character of the community from a tranquil, residential neighborhood to a loud, heavily traveled area with poor visual/aesthetic characteristics. The concern is that changes to the visual/aesthetic aspects, community character, and traffic and related impacts would result in a degraded quality of life and lowered property values for residents 9. Land Use and Circulation Element The concern is that the improved roadways will lead to and encourage development in the areas served by the roadways. Also,the concern is that changes have been made to the City's circulation element and it does not include widening of Los Osos Valley Road east of US-101 and that review of this aspect of the interchange project is an"add-on"that did not undergo applicable review as part of the circulation element. 10. Cumulative Effects The required review of historical,present, and future(reasonably foreseeable)cumulative effects,per NEPA (40 CFR §1508.7) and CEQA(Section 15355)requirements, helps prevent the adoption of multiple projects that individually demonstrate no significant effect when compared to current conditions,but collectively cause significant impacts on an area when incrementally adopted. Cumulative effects are of concern since they could significantly change the usage of Los Osos Valley Road and affect the LVP communities. Impacts would stem from changes to traffic patterns that subsequently would influence air quality,pedestrian safety, vehicular safety and accessibility, noise levels,visual/aesthetic characteristics, and community character. The traffic study indicated future road development(buildout)plans,but it is not clear from the study how or why they were determined not to be individually limited or cumulatively considerable. As shown on page 8 of the traffic report, certain buildouts in the City were assumed for the design year, 2035, though changes to the City's circulation element for buildouts and buildout timing could affect the outcome. The study(p. 102) concludes that: The project would not result in cumulative impacts that are individually limited or cumulatively considerable. The project effects are mostly temporary and construction related. Cumulative impacts were covered in the appropriate sections above. Since none of these impacts would result in a substantial contribution to a cumulative impact, no further discussion is needed. However, direct study of the residential area and the link between data and conclusions for cumulative effects are not apparent in the report. J LVP, Page 15 of 16 The concern is that incrementally,past projects have had significant impact, especially the development and road changes west of US-101, and that the full range of cumulative impacts are underestimated. Overall, a direct and detailed discussion of the cumulative effects is necessary to provide the link between the data and information and the conclusions. Following are historical, current, and future projects known to the community that potentially or are likely to contribute to impacts on the residential area. a. Historical i. Opening of Los Osos Valley Road from a previously dead-end street to accommodate the overpass/interchange at Los Osos Valley Road ii. Addition of the Food 4 Less development iii. Development of the west side of US-101 b. Present i. Actual roadwork and development west of US-101, since the collection of study data ii. The project itself c. Future (dependent on the City's current plans) i. Overall changes to the City's circulation element ii. Land use and land use changes in the City's (or County)plans iii. Major delay to Prado Road.interchange or no interchange iv. Buckley Road extension to S. Higuera v. Prado Road extension from S. Higuera to Madonna Road and Broad Street vi. Tank Farm Road widening and intersection improvements vii. Four continuous lanes down S. Higuera(widening between Margarita Avenue and Elks Lane) viii. Collector road from Dalidio property to Froom Ranch Way ix. Additional development on the west side of US-101 x. South Street road diet(could encourage Tank Farm Road or Prado Road travel to S. Higuera, which will likely encourage travel to the Los Osos Valley Road interchange instead of the Madonna Road interchange) xi. A park and ride lot near the interchange and intercity transfer service utilizing the interchange 11. Community Involvement and Previously Expressed Concerns The first public meeting about the interchange was an individual working group meeting with LVP I and II board members on March 11, 2003. Additional public meetings were informational workshops held at the Mountainbrook Community Church on March 27,2003 and July 1,2004. At the time of the meetings, the project was in its preliminary stages with all seven alternatives under consideration and no real details about the impacts. However,attendees expressed some of the concerns that are still facing residents of LVP today, such as improving safety at LVP, ensuring traffic does not increase on Los Osos Valley Road, and ensuring access into and out of the communities. The concern is that the initial study and negative declaration are still preliminary in addressing previously expressed concerns. LVP,Page 16 of 16 Summary The concerns of residents in LVP are substantial. Mitigation.of noise pollution and safety/accessibility and the protection of property values and quality of life are paramount for the communities.. We thereby request re-evaluation of various study parameters in light of these comments before a final decision is made, so that we can better understand the true impacts facing our communities. Expansion of the study area to include the effects of roadway changes to Los Osos Valley Road and S. Higuera and direct consideration of the residential areas for all relevant factors,using updated land use and circulation elements,is necessary to supply a complete depiction of the impacts. Overall,the area desperately needs traffic calming and maintenance as a residential environment. The current project involves a solution that could have significant and long-term negative impacts on an established community with hundreds of residents. It seems that.growth now converges at this location, forcing added traffic on arterial roads and leaving the LVP communities to suffer. We would like the City's serious consideration of the project's current and cumulative impacts and whether this is the right solution overall. We request the City's consideration of alternative traffic congestion solutions. Additionally, we would like to comment that inclusion of this project in pre-planning for phased reduction of greenhouse gases could be beneficial to ensuring that this project does not limit the potential for meeting the reductions set by AB32. We seek written response and evaluations, so that we can further review the project and begin to work with the City on appropriate mitigation.measures for the LVP communities, if the project proceeds. We are not currently at ease with the project and appreciate your time and consideration of these comments. Endorsement of these comments, on behalf of the LVP communities by the Los Verdes Park I and II Homeowners' Associations, is provided in Attachment C. Sincerely, Donna Di Gangi, on behalf of the LVP I and Il Communities Resident of LVP I,Treasurer for LVP I Attachments cc: Mr. Tim Bochum,Deputy Director of Public Works (via email to tbbchum@slocity.org) Mr. Dave Romero, Mayor(via email to slocitycouncil@slocity.org) Mr.Paul Brown,Vice Mayor(via email to slocitycouncil@slocity.org) Ms. Christine Mullholland, Councilmember(via email to slocitycouncil@slocity.org) Mr. Andrew Carter, Councilmember(via email to slocitycouncil@slocity.org) Mr. Allen Settle, Councilmember(via email to slocitycouncil@slocity.org) Additional copy to Mr. Chuck Cesena at Chuck.Cesena@dot.ca.gov Attachment A: Tract Maps for LVP I and II N � Q sg o � K O _ < 1 a U c ®R: 1�3y e 0 A• °A'p N OVOH A31)lone y Flo•4 � N A n N � N • � S f P n P.'. �• N N p oL� •y �H - m ,T 7 0 ® •I f 1, 0. O g7 _ V "Y 1^�'�1� Y•.t LJ ••a W 3. ® m i "•• ®Pi .l O m4 (� ` P i i• \.l4 i' COQ = ® �r=rm4 wo � •m ui �: � • ay C+1 n� • sO ,' J � W � �. m : A • a m � y, '� r+. r roa. m � ji• O � WC •x J w y r ¢ 1. a01 � ? • O YY �{CJ m y yyj Q M � Y P n �. • im0a / •• f W ee ov • n �A m , Y F t r i 4 N � N zu i'-g m n w ® w 9 �`•y. m �0 m N 0 � r I 2 :y � S4 •• r,.: �J� `�J i N y pp V Ylp w NO s y • fO r� C20 ° f•• m© 1 y. � w p m •• b p � i c � m,= 4 �,� pNE •,, p .r Y. r N •• ® • Eµ O O S• a P1 4ti O � • i®[ � ��• r�, A w � O ria $ y o rya f = 16 a • R m m #mm a •o • r e y `.� Y O y m m � •s � yn a � r t� '� SP ,.• i A 1 f a ���+ N r m r .•® � �O � `y y � 0 5 m • s N A m pp V m Y M•• PA A® •1eN N , V Q pp e •f�© OMfI A ti•. � h � 1 10 f f w w ✓m � s • p' ''Om o �5 �1 �� r.' 4.in • ye a.v .y 7 r� M`Y Attachment B: Evaluation from Dr. Cornelius Nuworsoo Review of Technical Documents for Impacts on the Los Verdes Park Residential Development Comelius Nuworsoo,Ph.D.,AICP Los Osos Valley Road/US 101 Interchange Improvements Project San Luis Obispo County,California Review of Technical Documents for Impacts on the Los Verdes Park Residential Development By Cornelius Nuworsoo, Ph.D. AICP; Cal Poly State University 7/7/08 Documents Reviewed The following documents were reviewed to determine potential impacts of the proposed interchange and roadway improvement project on the residential development of Los Verdes Park(LVP), located on either side of Los Osos Valley Road (LOVR) in San Luis Obispo: 1. Traffic Analysis—Attachment I of Draft Project Report &Environmental Document, 2008 2. Air Quality Technical Report, May 2008 3. Noise Impact Analysis,June 2008 4. Formal Comments on LOVR Project,July 2,2008 Traffic Findings While the traffic study recognized the need to take specific look at impacts on the LVP residential development, the information provided was only preliminary, offering opinions at best. The following limitations are therefore noted: 1. The section of the report entitled, "Los Verdes Access Alternatives" is only a cursory review that is not backed by data and actual technical analysis. 2. The signal warrant analysis of the intersection of LOVR at Los Verdes Drive (study intersection #6) is not comprehensive as it considered peak hour analysis only. A detailed study would include 12-hour turning movement counts (by vehicle class), 12-hour pedestrian counts, a three-year accident investigation, spot speed studies on the LOVR approaches and peak-hour delay study on the LVP Drive approaches. The following results are noticeable overall from the traffic analysis: Page 1 of 4 Review of Technical Documents for Impacts on the Los Verdes Park Residential Development Cornelius Nuworsoo,Mo.,AICP 1. Under existing and future "No Build" alternatives, queues spill back from adjacent intersections through the Los Verdes Drive intersection (study intersection #6) during morning and evening peak hours. This condition is not desirable as it blocks access to and from the LVP developments and is susceptible to increased air pollution. Details on the westbound queues from the intersection of US 101 Northbound Ramps at LOVR (study intersection #5)are included in the tables listed below. Condition Alternative Peak Hour WB Queue Source: Effect on Los 2008 Draft Verdes Drive? Project Re ortt Existing Existing PM Peak Hour Yes Table 5, p 283 Interim No Build AM/PM Peak Hr Yes Table 11,p299 Interim Build AM/PM Peak Hr No Table 11,p 299 Design Year No Build AM/PM Peak Hr I Yes Table 16,0 314 Design Year Build AM/PM Peak Hr No Table 16,p 314 _ Page numbers refer to consecutive pages of PDF document. 2. The build alternatives eliminate these queues. Details are included in the tables listed Above. 3. No details are provided for eastbound queues from the intersection of S. Higuera St. at LOVR (study intersection #�. However the figures listed below indicate that the queues spill back through Los Verdes Drive during peak hours (without identifying whether AM or PM peak hour) under existing and all future alternatives:. Condition Alternative Peak Hour Queue Source: Effect on Los 2008 Draft Verdes Drive? Project Re ort' Existing Existing Peak Hour Yes AM/PM? Fig 3,p 284 Interim No Build Peak Hour Yes(AM/PM?)_ Fig 6a p 300 Interim Build Peak Hour Yes(AM/FM?) Fig 6b, 6c, 6d P 301-303 Design Year No Build Peak Hour Yes AM/PM? Fig 8a,p 315 Design Year Build Peak Hour Yes(AM/FM?) Fig 8b, 8c, 8d P 316-318 Page numbers refer to consecutive pages of PDF document. Conclusions & Recommendations These findings support the need for more detailed investigation of the "Los Verdes Access Alternatives". First, the build alternatives of the interchange area are desirable to eliminate the Page 2 of 4 Review of Technical Documents for Impacts on the Los Verdes Park Residential Development Cornelius Nuworsoo,Ph.D.,AICP effect of westbound queues on Los Verdes Drive. If the S. Higuera intersection could not be configured further to eliminate the effects of eastbound queues on Los Verdes Drive, then either alternative or additional entrances need to be investigated and analyzed for feasibility and convenience to residents. 12-hour(7 a.m. to 7 p.m.) vehicular and pedestrian count data are necessary to reveal how much movement occurs between LVP I and LVP II tohelp in making the following choices: • If negligible, then the intersection of Los Verdes Drive could be eliminated in favor of alternative entrances on S. Higuera St. • If significant, then the intersection of Los Verdes Drive could be eliminated in favor of an alternative entrance to the west on LOVR approximately half-way between the two adjacent traffic signals. This is to facilitate its signalization, if warrant analyses so indicate. • If significant, also consider signaling and coordinating traffic signals between S. Higuera St. and the US 101 interchange ramp intersections with a possible half-cycle at the LVP entrance onto LOVR. Other Findings Air Quality There is a statement in the air quality report that needs qualification. It states: "As the proposed project adds no capacity to the highway, it is a project with low potential MSAT effects"—par 4, p 3-16. While this may be true of mainline US 101, central to the interchange improvement project is the doubling of through capacity on LOVR from S. Higuera St. to Auto Park Way. For local arterial travel, the improvement will remove a perennial bottleneck and make LOVR a more attractive choice between LOVR communities and San Luis Obispo. This attractiveness should, however, be captured in the travel modeling that provided data for the traffic and other analysis. The study concludes that: "Emissions will likely be lower than present levels in the design year as a result of the EPA's national control programs.that are projected to reduce MSAT emissions Page 3 of 4 Review of Technical Documents for Impacts on the Los Verdes Park Residential Development Cornelius Nuworsoo,Pb.D.,AICP by 57-87%between 2000 and 2020"—par 4,p 3-20. This assertion is verified in the modeled air quality results included in Table 3-8 and 3-9, which generally show reductions from existing levels to future alternatives. Noise The noise report asserts: "the 2035 with project conditions in the project area would be at the City's exterior noise standard of 65 dBA CNEL or below,except for Receptor R-17,which would be exposed to a traffic noise level of 67 dBA CNEL. However, as the project would not contribute to traffic noise level increases at Receptor R-17, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact on noise- sensitive land uses"—par 2,p 29. This assertion is substantiated in Table K(p 27-28). It is worth noting that Receptor R-17 projects traffic noise levels on S. Higuera St., which is adjacent to the LVP development, to exceed the City standard by 2 dBA CNEL under all future alternatives. However all receptors within the development (R-21 to R-29) are projected to experience elevation of exterior noise levels but below the City,standard for all future alternatives. Community Concerns The "Formal Comments" document of 7/2/08 largely expresses concerns from the point of view of LVP residents. These concerns are legitimate and need to be verified under a detailed study of impacts on Los Verdes Park development as outlined under this review of the traffic study. Page 4 of 4 I i Attachment C: Homeowners' Association, Endorsement of Comments I Los Verdes Park I Homeowner's Association Board of Directors C���r o'� -�-owc� , �-ma.�\�� cc�c�rse,�•er� �llo�S Sean Flickinger,President Vicent el Rio,Vice President Claude R ill ice President Lola-Win' e, S retary Donna Di Gangi,Treasurer Page 1 of 1 Donna From: Sean Flickinger[bigbluedakota@yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, July 17,2008 9:21 PM To: Donna Subject: LOVR Project I Sean Flickinger, Board President of Los Verdes Park 1 endorse the letter submitted by the Board to the various agencies and individuals. I was not present for the signing of the letter so this email is in lieu of a signature. This letter specifies many concerns the board has with the project that we feel the city and CalTrans need to address. Sincerely, Sean D. Flickinger LVP1 President 7/17/2008 Los VerdrarkHomeowners' Association Board of Directors i at , Presid nt Darrell M. Goo, SecretaryN.P. 17 Cameron Boy e, Treas er Page 1 of 1 Council,SloCity From: Donna [donna@digangi.net] Sent: Fri 7/25/2008 8:59 AM To: Bochum,Tim;Chuck.Cesena@dot.ca.gov; Council,SloCity Cc: Subject: LOVR Interchange Attachments: Dear Ali, My main focus was on the impacts to the LVP communities, so I did not get a chance to express the following observations prior to the close of the comment period. I hope they will be taken into consideration. 1) It seems that lengthening of the right turn lane for NB 101 would improve thru traffic capacity and greatly diminish the eastbound queue on the overpass. 2) It seems that lengthening of the left tum lane for NB 101 would improve thru traffic capacity and greatly diminish the westbound queue. 3) It seems that lengthening of the left tum lane for SB 101 would improve thru traffic capacity and greatly diminish the westbound queue on the overpass. Alternative 6 incorporates these improvements. However, it seems that Alternative 3 will not offer improvement for these queues and that the problems with these queues, which are main reasons for the project,would remain. These are just my observations from seeing the situation first-hand on a daily basis. Thank you for your consideration. Donna Di Gangi Di Gangi Consulting Phone (805) 541-3311 Fax (805) 541-3344 https://mail.slocity.org/exchange/slocitycouncil/Inbox/Los%20 V erdes%20Park%20and%20... 8/8/2008