HomeMy WebLinkAboutREDwalterb4-3RECEIVE D
council mcmoianchum JUL 20 2°lg
SLO CITY CLER K
RED FIL E
MEETING AGENDA
DATE1)ZO!Ic ITEM #
41Aesj_Qy ~
COUNCI L
CA O
ACAO
ATTORNEY
CLERKJORI G
DEP T
Pi5
Coo DI R
FIN DI R
FIRE CHIE F
PW DI R
f~ POLICE CI F
►, l3TlL D1 R
I• HR DI R7TPEWYE_
N1E4.1 `T 1 5 •r COtt~1C tL-
~~K
There have been several questions and comments raised by Mr . Sullivan in regards to th epreliminary traffic analysis referred to in the staff report . The purpose of this Council Mem ois to address these questions and comments related to traffic .
1."The author admits that this traffic model needs to be upgraded to a bette r
model and that potential neighborhood traffic impacts remain uncertain ."
The traffic model used in the preliminary traffic analysis of the initiative is a City-wid emultimodal travel demand model that has been developed over the last 2 years by LS AAssociates, which included development assumptions for all areas of the City and county .The model has been developed using updated demographics and was used in the recentl yapproved Highway 1 Major Investment Study (MIS).
The staff report states that the model is being upgraded to better model various moda lelements; meaning the transit, pedestrian, and bicycle elements of the model are bein grefined for all areas of the City . The traffic model is substantially complete and has bee nreviewed by other agencies (SLOCOG, Caltrans) as part of the Hwy 1 MIS project in term sof vehicular traffic . These forecasts reflect the most up to date information we hav eregarding traffic volumes and future land use .
As for the information in the agenda report, the percentages reported reflect the roadwa ysystem modification that would result from approval of the Initiative and deletion of th esegment of Prado Road adjacent to the Damon-Garcia property . The model was run wit hand without this road segment, and a comparison of redistributed volumes has bee nreported for consideration .
2."Figure 2 shows no change in traffic volume along the Santa Fe Roa d
extension connecting Prado Road to Tank Farm ."
The table reports on existing segments of roadway that have been previously identified a sareas of concern . Future forecasts for future Santa Fe and Prado were not included .
July 6, 201 0
TO :City Counci l
VIA :Katie Lichtig, City Manage r
FROM :Jay Walter, Public Works Directo rTim Bochum, Deputy Public Works Directo r
SUBJECT : Item B-4 : Margarita Area Specific Plan Initiative
3. "Before one can make sense of the traffic analysis in the Council Agend a
Report, one must know what assumptions were made . Which, if any, of th e
following mitigating factors were or were not incorporated in the traffi c
analysis model used for the Council Agenda Report of 20 July 2010, Item B -
4 :"
"(a)Alternate design of U.S. 101 /Los Osos Valley Road (LOVR) intersection to 4lanes?"
Yes, a four lane overpass at the LOVR1101 interchange pursuant the Council's adopte d
"preferred" project was assumed in both scenarios (2 lanes East Bound and 2 Lanes Wes t
Bound).
"(b) Connection of U.S . 101 / LOVR intersection directly to Buckley Road ?
(Note: In early 20101, Michael Sullivan, received a letter from Tim Bochum o f
City of SLO, in response to my earlier concerns about the plan for the U .S . 101 /
LOVR intersection. i had recommended that the intersection should connect to
Buckley Road directly, a concept that had been proposed earlier."
No . This connection has not been adopted by the City Council as a component of th e
Circulation Element .
"(c)Elimination of planned signal at Broad Street and Prado Road?"
Yes, signalization of this intersection is not assumed in the second model since thi s
section of Prado Road and the intersection itself is deleted at Broad Street .
"(d)Elimination of planned signal at Broad Street and Capitolio?"
No, signalization of this intersection is not assumed in either scenario for modelin g
purposes .
"(e)Improvement of Tank Farm Road to 4 lanes along its entire length?"
Yes, pursuant to the AASP, widening of Tank Farm road to 4 lanes between South
Higuera and Broad Street is assumed in both scenarios .
"(f)Inclusion of planned U .S. 101 / Prado Road full intersection, with connectio n
to Madonna Road and also with connection from Dalidio Drive to LOVR a s
planned in the General Plan?"
Yes, pursuant to the General Plan Circulation Element, the planned 1011Prad o
Interchange with connection to Madonna Road is assumed in both scenarios .
"(g)Potential improvement of Buckley Road to 4 lanes?"
No . This connection has not been adopted by the City Council as a component of th e
Circulation Element
"(h) Also, concerning the several junctions along Prado Road within th e
Margarita Area, and the junction of Tank Farm Road and Santa Fe Road : Would
it make a difference if these junctions were roundabouts rather than signals ?
Why or why not?"
Staff is not able to respond factually to these questions without substantial additiona l
analysis . A mixture of roundabouts and signals are discussed within the Margarita Are a
Specific Plan and Airport Area Specific Plan . See these documents for discussion an d
comparison of these types of traffic control .
t:lcouncil agenda reports\city attorney carYmasp initiative sharing folder item b4 - margarita initative .doc
FRONT COUNTER CONTACTS STATISTICS - July 2010
Times : Monday, July 19
Telephone Counter Telephone
Tuesday, July 2 0
Counter Telephone Wednesday, July 21Counter.Thursday, July 22
Telephone Counter TelephoneFriday, July 2 3Counter
8 :00 AM
9 :00 _M
10 :00 AM
1100AM
12 :00 NOO N
1 :00 PM
2 :00 PM: .3 :00 PM
4:00 PM
Monday, July 26 Tuesday, July 27 Wednesday, July 28 Thursday, July 29 Friday, July 3 0
8 :00 AM
9 :00 AM
10 :00 AM
11 :00 AM
12 :00 NOO N
1 :00 PM
2 :00 PM
3 :00 P M
4 :00 P M
800 A M
9 :00 A M
10 :00 A M
11 :00 AM
12 :00 NOON
1 :00 PM
2 :00 P M
3 :00 PM
4 :00 PM