The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About12/20/2021 cc- Hoffmann (CCLF) Delgado, Adriana From:Bill Hoffmann <b52hoffmann@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, December To:capitalprojects@lossan.org Cc:Leveille, Brian; Fukushima, Adam; E-mail Council Website; Advisory Bodies Subject:Central Coast Layover Facility (CCLF) in San Luis Obispo (SLO) This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. December 20, 2021 Dear Mr. Campbell, As residents in the immediate vicinity of the proposed project, we submitted a letter in March 2021 during the Notice of Preparation (NOP) process. We are resubmitting many of the same concerns since we feel the Draft EIR did not adequately address them. In particular are the following: 1. Noise Mitigation for Phase 1 is not addressed in the DEIR. The document limited its discussion of noise mitigation to the fully completed project. Include measures that would offset noise impacts resulting from Phase 1. The EIR should also compare noise levels to nearby residents at the current layover facility with noise levels to residents at the future project location. Are they the same, higher, or lower? 2. Many comments you received from the public during the NOP focused on the need for a ped/bike crossings (at grade, or an overcrossing). The CEQA checklist contained in the Draft EIR identified the impact as insignificant. As nearby residents, we strongly disagree. The project will result in a significant impact with respect to dividing communities as it precludes crossing between Sinsheimer Park, SLO Swim Center, and YMCA facilities from the adjacent neighborhoods off Broad Street. As these neighborhoods grow, more opportunities for non-vehicle access should be provided, not less. The project proponents need to work with the City, SLOCOG, Union Pacific, and other funding sources to have this feature fully funded and included in the proposed project and made part of the Final EIR. 3. The alternatives analysis did not include the criteria used to select the proposed project location as the best alternative. A case could be made that the Cal Poly or Islay Hill alternative sites would reduce impacts to local residents to a greater extent than the proposed project. 4. The project did not address or visually demonstrate how the proposed buildings will meet the City’s railroad district design criteria. 5. The dust abatement strategy currently proposed in the Draft EIR is not adequate. The project location is situated in a very windy area that will require dust control measures to be used almost daily. The Draft EIR states the wind speed must be at least 15 mph before dust control measures will be initiated. Anyone who rides along the existing railroad bike path knows the afternoon winds kick up nearly every day, especially during spring. Thank You, 1 Bill and Yvonne Hoffmann Cc: Brian Leveille bleveille@slocity.org Adam Fukushima afukushima@slocity.org City Council emailcouncil@slocity.org Active Transportation Committee & Planning Commission advisorybodies@slocity.org Attachment Excerpts from March 2021 Letter: March 22, 2021 James Campbell, Manager of Programs LOSSAN Rail Corridor Agency 600 South Main Street Orange, CA 92863 capitalprojects@lossan.org Subject: Central Coast Layover Facility (CCLF) in San Luis Obispo (SLO) Dear Mr. Campbell, Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on how the CCLF will impact the local surrounding neighborhoods in San Luis Obispo. We have lived in the vicinity of this project for eight (8) years. We live in a house on the east side of the tracks, and since we sit up higher we overlook the bike path and railroad right-of- way. Therefore, we have a good sense of what goes on in the area. We strongly encourage you, Union Pacific RR, and the City of SLO to work together in order to minimize/eliminate impacts to surrounding neighborhoods. Our comments are as follows: 1. Transportation - This proposed project will literally isolate two (2) neighborhoods, the west side from the east side of the tracks and vice versa. Currently there are hundreds of pedestrians and bicyclists crossing the tracks in this area every day. This makes pedestrian & bike access across the tracks a high priority. Access across the tracks can be accomplished with either an “at grade crossing” or another “Jennifer St. Bridge.” Isolating these two areas of the City will only force residents to get in their cars and drive to the destinations on the other side of the tracks. Based on the priorities the City Council has placed on the SLO Climate Action Plan and the SLO Active Transportation Plan, we don’t th believe this is the type of outcome the City is interested in seeing. During the March 10 Planning Commission meeting, City staff Identified 2 locations for potential crossings (Roundhouse and Francis Streets). I believe the Francis Street location is preferred since it’s located near Sinsheimer Park & School, and approximately half way between the Jennifer Street Bridge and Orcutt Road (the only two 2 current crossings). Installing a crossing at the Francis Street location will clearly meet the goals of SLO’s Climate Action and Active Transportation Plans. In addition, the current plan proposes a ped/bike trail on the west side of the tracks but this seems redundant since there is an existing bike trail on the east side of the tracks that leads to the train station and many other amenities (Sinsheimer Park & School, YMCA, City swimming pool, Blues baseball park, SLO High School, French Hospital, County offices, and many medical offices near the hospital and off of Bishop Street, etc.). A ped/bike bridge or at grade crossing is clearly more important and a bigger need than an additional ped/bike path on the west side of the tracks. Granted this will not be an inexpensive addition to the project. However, the City and LOSSAN need to recognize how this project will isolate City neighborhoods, and start planning and setting aside funding to resolve this current and future community problem. 2. Air Quality – This will be a very important issue that will impact the surrounding residences. One of us has asthma, so having clean air to breathe is very important to us. What type of engines and maintenance equipment will you be using? I’ve noticed over the past year or more, that the Surfliner has been running a new type of engine which appears to be cleaner and quieter. These types of engines are much improved; the old style engine run by Coast Starlight are big air polluters, and are much louder. 3. Noise – As noted above the type of engines and equipment you use can have a big impact. The maintenance buildings and storage areas should be heavily insulated to reduce noise. The hours of operation need to be limited to 7AM-7PM, no maintenance activities during the night. 4. Visual/Aesthetics – As part of the railroad historic district, the buildings need to incorporate historical railroad architecture. Currently the concept plan includes vegetative screening areas to reduce the visual impacts to surrounding residential developments, which is a positive project component. This vegetative screening must be included in any Phase 1 construction activities. In order to avoid blocking scenic views, the species used as part of the vegetative screening cannot be tall, or have the ability to grow tall. 5. Wildfire & Air Quality - Currently there’s a lot of unauthorized vehicular access taking place in this area, which has led to unauthorized camping, dumping of unwanted household items, and at least three (3) fires since we’ve lived here. In addition, many "off-road" vehicles drive through the railroad right-of- way, racing and and spinning "doughnuts", which creates large clouds of fine dust that float across the bike path and into Sinsheimer Park and School areas, the City pool, as well as the residences located along the railroad in this area. The main access points appear to be: The end of Roundhouse, McMillan, and the area where High Street enters the Amtrak/Railroad Parking Lot near Miners Hardware. Francis Street was previously an easy access point for vehicles, however, the installation of a gate a few years ago appears to have stopped that problem. Phase 1 construction of the CCLF project needs to include features that will block vehicular access at these points. Once again, thank you for the opportunity to comment. Sincerely, Bill and Yvonne Hoffmann 2341 Bushnell St. SLO b52hoffmann@gmail.com Cc: Brian Leveille 3 bleveille@slocity.org Adam Fukushima afukushima@slocity.org City Council emailcouncil@slocity.org Active Transportation Committee & Planning Commission advisorybodies@slocity.org 4