HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/21/2003, COMM 1-1 - COMMUNICATION ITEM - CLARIFICATION OF COUNCIL ACTION (8/28/03) REGARDING CONNECTION OF LOS OSOS CO. NUED FROM OCT 7 , 2003
council m Em onan b um
city o�san'lu's_ 6WD-b,
RECEIVED
DATE: October 1, 2003 UL I 1 203
TO: City Council SAO CITY CLERK
FROM: David F. Romero
SUBJECT: Communication Item - Clarification of Council Action (8/28/03) Regarding
Connection of Los Osos Valley Road to Buckley Road
Under Council comments at the 8/28/03 meeting, I indicated my desire that we include as an
active option the connection of LOVR to Buckley Road via the Dolezal property and Vachell
Lane. During subsequent Council comments, I thought I heard two other Council members
indicate their agreement that this should be an active option (see transcript minutes, Attachment
1)..
Based on his understanding of the Council action, Mr. Dolezal submitted his letter of 9/12/03
(Attachment 2) requesting a meeting to further discuss the issue.
In preparing a response to Mr. Dolezal's letter, staff indicated that in their interpretation, while
Council was open to the concept of such a connection it did not give staff specific direction for
follow through(Attachment 3). The Council minutes for the 8/28/03 meeting (Attachment 4) are
not clear as to Council intent regarding this option.
It had been my hope and intention that the Council would include the LOVR connection via the
Dolezal property and Vachell Lane in the alternatives to be further studied, with the possibility
that this might prove to be a more feasible connection than Alternative #2. This would enable
staff to investigate possibilities and costs involved with acquisition of property from Mr. Dolezal
and several other properties scheduled for near future development on Vachell Lane.
The purpose of this communication therefore, is to request Council clarification of its intention
regarding this possible road connection,thus enabling staff to proceed accordingly.
i
SCJ CDD DIR-e FiN DIR RED FILE
et-Fw 01pHIEFZ FCUCE CHF DA i� AGENDA
a RcC DiR ITEM #- 1tfU('GJ11�1
?IJTIDDIR
�'HR DIR
GACouncil Support&Corresp\City Council Correspondenoe\Romero\Communication Item.doc
ATTACHMENT 1
REVISED/COMPLETE
Verbatim Transcript from a portion of the August 28, 2003 City Council Meeting re:
STATUS UPDATE AND.DIRECTION ON THE PROJECT STUDY REPORT–
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT SUPPORT FOR THE US 101/LOS OSOS VALLEY ROAD
INTERCHANGE
Mayor Dave Romero: Well, first I'm very pleased that this is before us. I wish it had come
before us a couple of years ago when we first had a chance to get some funds and could
have started earlier. As far as the alternatives are concerned—would you put that whole
group of alternatives back up again? The first one with the smallest number is the
comprehensive alternative, Alternative 2;I know no one likes that. I am concerned that we
are doing very short-range planning with our city. Some day, in the long-time distant future,
SLO will have a great need,I think,for traffic to be able to bypass the downtown. Traffic,
that is beyond the airport,that wants to go to Los Osos, or wants to go to Poly, should not
have to travel through the middle of town. We need a convenient route where they can
bypass the heart of downtown. Alternative 2 will do that; it's a very expensive solution to
do that but it is one way of handling that. I think we need to keep that long-range need so
that 25 years from now some other Council won't have to wrangle through this whole
problem all over again. I am disappointed that this study does not,did not include(and I
wish it did)the alternative that we adopted and was in our Circulation Element for a number
of years,that is the connection from Buckley Road up with a big, wide sweeping turn up
Vachell Lane, with a big wide sweeping turn through the Dolezal property that Mr. Dolezal
mentioned tonight, and would tie to LOUR at Higuera St. I know that would be opposed by
the Los Verdes people but maybe not so much if we were able to mitigate some of the sound
problems and traffic problems they have. That is very doable in the very near future if we
adopted that because that property is developing very soon. Right-of-way acquisitions are
the difficult part,there's two big projects on Vachell Lane that would dedicate the right-of-
way, we could get the curves needed,Mn Dolezal would be receptive. We could do that in
a very few years and we could solve our very long future needs. That would be much less
expensive than Alternative 2. In any event, I think we need to keep in the studies a long-
range solution for SLO. So I would hope we would expand the Alternative 2 concept to
consider the Vachell Lane alternative,that would connect Buckley Road to LOVR.
Alternative 3,the minimum bid,is simply stop-gap. It will give us a little bit,it really
doesn't solve any of the problems we have there,other than a very minor amount. The
biggest flaw with that one is that there would be 2 signals very close together near Calle
Joaquin—that's almost unsolvable trying to move the traffic through there. So if we were
really constrained,couldn't get the money at all that would be what we would have to do. I
hope that's not as far as we go, I hope we have a better answer than that. Alternative 4,the
hybrid,for me, has a fatal flaw in it, well 2 fatal flaws. The second fatal flaw is the one
Christine saw there,losing prime ag land. The 21d fatal flaw that I see not as the loss of
prime ag land, because I think there's lots of prime ag land around. My idea of that is that it
takes up so much of a potential commercial development, land that could perhaps be auto
dealers or something else that takes place in that area. But the fatal flaw from a traffic
standpoint is that in order to service LOVR people,who come down LOVR and want to go
1
�or»rm/-G
southbound on the freeway, they would have to tum left across LOVR and then travel quite
a bit of ways out of direction toward Prado Rd to get on the freeway and then double back
down. It's very, very cumbersome to do it that way. So the left turn really makes it difficult
in the??direction. From my standpoint,I would.just as soon drop out Alternative 4; I can't
see that I would ever favor that alternative. Alternative 5—was that the traffic circle?—oh,
forget it,I can't even imagine that was in here. Alternative 6, actually 6A that the staff has
here,I think has probably more advantages and fewer disadvantages than any of the other
alternatives. I like the 6A and—maybe,Tim,could you get to that one?—I'd like to talk
about that one more: 6A will provide a relatively long-term solution that can be phased; we
can do little pieces of it at a time and solve part of the problem each time we're doing it. So
the thing we could do almost right away, within the next year if we can through all our
permits and whatnot, is we'll have money from Vineyard, and Costco, and Home Depot,
and Madonna, and the motels, we can probably do most of the red line work on here within
a relatively quick period of time. And we could do this in a few years and solve, get rid of
one of the intersections there and,because the off ramp southbound,is relatively easy to
build. It's just pavement underneath the interchange,underneath the bridge structure and
goes off to the right. All that red work could be done fairly soon—we'll have enough
money to do that. I like the slip land northbound that does not go through the intersection as
shown on this one. It saves traffic having to wait for the signal,it saves the intersection
phasing,they merely turn right and go north on the freeway. I believe that we would not
have to,the northbound,for traffic going the other direction on LOVR,the loop,I believe
that the current loop,unless there's some major thing,I know it was explained to us, it
seems to me that that one is serviceable for a long, long time. I believe that raising the
bridge structure is not;should not be, our concern. This is something, a relatively new
interchange,that CalTrans built, 30-35 years ago, if they didn't build it to the standard that
meets their needs now,I think it should be up to them to raise it. So I very strongly favor
6A,I think it would solve our needs for a long, long time and it'll be relatively easy to phase
and carry out. As far as the standard is concerned,I think we should always have at least 4
traffic lanes and 1 or 2 turning lanes at each intersection. We should have bike lanes on
each side and I hope we don't make the mistake again of only putting sidewalks on 1 side of
the structure as we did on Madonna Road, because we're paying dearly for that one. So,I
would very much like to see us move ahead with the primary alternative, being the 6A
project.
Council Member Settle: Dave,I would support that and world make a motion to that effect.
But one of the other factors I would like to urge is that we take a look at a signalized
prospect for the intersection of Los Verdes I and II. I don't see how, when this is all put in,
with the volume of traffic, it's going to directly impact those residents of Los Verdes I and
H. There will be accidents—I think the gentleman's correct on that point and I would think
that that's essential.
CAO Ken Hampian: Mr.Mayor, if I could just comment at this point. You've made a lot
of individual comments; some of them are in agreement with one another, others are not in
agreement with one another. I think it's all good stuff. It's food for thought for CalTrans,
for staff, but what we ultimately need is a motion here and I think what we're looking for is:
Do you agree that 6A is a leading alternative...
Council Member Allen Settle: I so move.
2
t
CAO Ken Hampian: What other alternatives would you want to forward, and which ones
do you just want to stick a nail through. Is $16 million a reasonable planning number,I
mean, that's what we really need at this point in terms of a formal Council motion and
direction---
Council Member Ewan: (seconds motion)6A,kill 2 and 4...
Council Member Settle: 6A, kill 2 and 4.
Mayor Romero: Who made the motion,I'm sorry...alright, who made the motion?
Council Member Settle: I made the motion, 6A, is the recommendedaction...
Council Member Schwartz: Are we talking about 6A both north and south?
Ewan: Phased
Vice-Mayor Mulholland: Phased. It's probably phased, but 6A being the one planned.
CAO Ken Hampian: And I think it's important to remember that we're not nailing down in
concrete any particular configuration at this point, but,you know,it gives us a direction that
CalTrans and City staff can work further on.
Council Member Settle: The point of the motion is that it's phased and that is what is more
feasible. Yes,the$16 million is a question mark, but at least I think that staff has made it
very clear that red line represents something that can have an immediate relief on traffic and
help us out so I would concur with staff recommendation...
Mayor Romero: Your motion does not address 3. You were considering,Allen, you were
talking in favor of 3 a little while ago...
Council Member Settle: I was, and still am...
Mayor Romero: 3 would still be included, then?
Council Member Settle: 3 could still be included, as far as I'm concerned.
CAO Hampian: So 3,6...
Vice-Mayor Mulholland: The motion is for the most favored,is that right?
Council Member Settle` The most favored is 6A...
Mayor Romero: They're killing 2 also...
Vice-Mayor Mulholland: And killing 2...most favored and killing 2.
Mayor Romero: 2 and 4.
3
Council Member Mulholland: May I add a friendly amendment?
Council Member Settle: Sure
Council Member Mulholland: That among the aspects of the most favored, 6A,that we
include looking at a signal between Los Verdes I and U.
Council Member Settle: Yes.
Mayor Dave Romero: I think that confuses the issue.
Council Member Settle: You think so?
Mayor Romero: I think it should be a separate action if we're going to...
Council Member Settle: Alright,let's make a separate action.
Council Member Schwartz: I am not going to support the motion because I don't think we
made the separation between northbound and southbound. If you're telling me that you
agree with 6A as the most-favored northbound configuration,then I violently oppose that.
Council Member Ewan: May I? What I would see is that we are favoring 6A, we're killing
2 and 4. I think we're generally in favor of that. There seems to be, and I agree with you,
Ken, some consideration for the northbound onramp off of number 7 that we may want to
put in there. Is that what you are looking for?
Council Member Schwartz: Well,I...we're making choices here based on diagrams and I
just simply think that 6 or 6A for northbound traffic is certainly less superior than that
shown on the diagram as alternative 7.
Tim Bochum,Public Works: If I could add just some assistance for you. I just checked with
our CalTrans project manager. The process here tonight is not choosing the preferred
alternative. If anything, we're looking here for a little nod from you that"Hey, if we move
on to the next stage, 6A seems to be the one that's the front runner." That's cool with us at
this point, so you don't have to say that 6A is our preferred alternative tonight, you don't
have to say it's the front runner, you don't have to say anything along those lines. It's just
that we're looking for the nod to say"Yeah,it looks like what you're thinking is what we
were thinking." Regarding the deletion of 2, the one thing I had asked for is a little bit of
clarification from you because I heard a common theme of"Hey, let's not preclude the long
term connection down to Buckley Road under any alternative that we develop". And that is
a component of 2. 1 can easily move that thought onto the next stage and say, whatever we
develop we want to make sure we don't preclude that from happening in the long term.
That's one of our design criteria that we need to come up with whatever alternative we have..
Council Member Settle: I see,that's fair.
Mayor Romero: See, that's a problem for me...
4
r'
(Inaudible comments by several).
Council Member Settle: That's a good point, though.
Mayor Dave Romero: That would have been a serious problem for me. Somewhere in
these plans we need to have a look at the long-range solution that we need for out in the
future here:.
Council Member Ewan and Settle: For a Buckley connection..
Vice-Mayor Mulholland: I absolutely agree. I appreciate that and I spoke to that earlier. I
think we need to look at that. When I said"Kill 2"it's that entire comprehensive so there
are portions in 2 in that south connection that I think are vital. So the killing of 4 is definite
in my mind and I like the idea of leaving open for further study looking at the idea of 6A
generally speaking but it's the core but keeping in a discussion of how to meander past Los
Verdes, how to get our to Buckley. And I think during our discussion and comments we
pointed out things that we think are good and bad and I would leave it to staff to work
through that to figure out what are going to be the best things to study from that.
Council Member Settle: And the maker of the motion agrees with that,Christine.
Mike McCluskey: Could I ask for some help? `Cause I'm really hearing"Do this, but
always have this in your background but if you wanrto do it don't do it because it would be
too expensive but kind of think about it anyway."
Vice-Mayor Mulholland: Hey, you got it,that's right.
Council Member Settle: But Tim just said to us we're not focusing on just one option but
keep the flexibility there.
Mike McCluskey: So the ones that are moving forward if I hear this correctly, and that's
why I'm asking, would be 3,6 and 7. And in each of those three we would look for each of
those three to provide some form of ultimate connection to Buckley as an ultimate planning
tool. But in the short term, still making the connection through Los Verdes to Hguera. Am
I on track here?
Vice Mayor Mulholland: Yes, sounds pretty good.
Council Member Settle: Yes,that sounds good. Your read-back is correct. And for 6A
we're looking at the red line as a phasing.
Mike McCluskey: Right.
Mayor Dave Romero: And in actuality the long-term planning tool is, actually,I think,
covering a flaw,in the study here that we didn't look at all the altematives that might have
solved that long-term connection there.
5
r.
Council Member Ewan:. Is staff clear?Did you get that,Lee? Are we clear? Is 6A the core
and we're bringing these other items in?
(several comments) Yes, OK.
Mayor Romero: Alright,is everyone clear on the motion?
Council Member Schwartz: I'm so clear, I'm gonna vote no..
(Laughter)
Mayor Romero: That's alright,that's what we're here for.
CAO Ken Hampian: We did say that 7 is included so Ken's concern about northbound on 7
could be a continued consideration?
(Comments: Oh, sure;Right Yes; Absolutely)
Mayor Dave Romero: It's just a different design standard than 6A. Actually,I would like
to have that ramp take off before it gets to the intersection. 7 has to go out of the
intersection; they've got to go to a signal and tum right. And it has a different approach to
the freeway but those are design details and they can be worked out.
Council Member Settle:. Now,the real challenge is trying to get all this done and that's
another story.
Mayor Romero: Ken,I think your primary problem was with 4.
Council Member Schwartz: No. It's right hand tum off of the freeway exit onto LOUR as
well as the 2°d look.
Mayor Dave Romero: All right,let's see if we have a majority that favors the motion now.
Does everybody have it clear? Or do we need it read back.
(several comment)Yes,No.
(Mayor Romero called for the vote.)
Romero/Mulholland/Settle/Ewan: Aye
Schwartz: No.
Mayor Romero: It's 4-1,Schwartz objecting.
CAO Ken Hampian: And we will continue using$16 million as the planning number. We
have to have a number as we go forward with these projects.
Mayor Romero: Yes. That's.in the middle ground that we're talking about.
6
Vice-Mayor Mulholland: And I agree with those who have said that it's going to be way
more. I just don't...its going to be more.
Council Member Settle: I agree, Christine, it's going to be more. More like$20(million).
That's why I want to keep option 3 in there.
Mayor Romero: But the absolute huge cost will be in reconstruction of that bridge. And
maybe that's not our$16 million,it depends on what finally happens with that.
----end of item----
G:/Aug 28 Notes Ldoc
7
ATTACHMENT 2
THE DOLEZAL FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
4251 South Higuera Street, Suite 900, San Luis Obispo, California 93401
(805) 544-.3990 - Fax (805) 784-0888
12 September 2003
Mayor David Romero
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, California
Dear Mayor Romero,
At the City Council meeting on the Los Osos Valley Road and Highway 101 Interchange on
August 28`1 it was discussed and I stated to the Council that I would like to cooperate with the
city in resolving the major traffic problem and bottleneck at the very busy intersection of Los
Osos Valley Road and South Higuera Street. I believe that it is an important element as the
increase in traffic due to the Interchange Project at this intersection needs to be addressed.
To accomplish this Los Osos Valley Road would need to continue directly through our Los
Verdes Business Park to connect into Vatchell Lane. This would require a relocation of
approximately 16,000 square feet of office space of our 40,000 square foot business park.
I would like to schedule a meeting ASAP with you and the appropriate City staff to discuss the
details that need to be addressed to determine city requirements,timing and costs.
Now is the time to take action as land along Vatchell Lane and Buckley Road that is important to
this roadway is vacant but soon scheduled for building improvements.
Your early response to a meeting would be appreciated.
Sincerely yours,
Warren.F. Dolezal, General P
Cc: City Council Members
REC;EIVff-D7
SEP 11 2003 1
ISLO CITY COUNCIL:
ATTACHMENT 3
council MCMORAnbum
DATE: September 24, 2003
TO: Dave Romero, Mayor
VIA: Ken Hampian, City Administrative Officer
FROM: Wendy George, Assistant City Administrative Officer ov
SUBJECT: Request by Warren Dolezal to Discuss Property Purchase
In following up on the attached letter from Warren Dolezal, you requested that I confirm the direction
given by the Council at the August 28, 2003, meeting relative to pursuing a connection from the Los
Osos Valley Road interchange to Buckley Road via Vachell Lane. To do this, I listened to the audio
tape of the meeting, in addition to reviewing the attached minutes.
While it is correct that you said that it would be possible to make a connection to Buckley Road though
property owned by Warren Dolezal, and that such a connection could be made within the next two
years, the Council's final action does not appear to provide that specific direction. The following
statements, while not verbatim, comprehensive quotations, paraphrase the Council discussion that
occurred at the end of this agenda item:
Tim Bochum: You are saying a long-term connector to Buckley Road should be included in the
options?
Dave Romero: We should be thinking about a long-range solution far out in the future.
Christine Mulholland: We should leave open for future study how to meander past Los Verdes and
connect to Buckley
Mike McCluskey: Each option should provide some ultimate connection to Buckley 'in the future,
but in the short term, it will be Los Verdes to Higuera.
There were comments of general assent to Mike McCluskey's summary statement.
Based on the above, it would appear that the Council as a whole was open to the concept of some
eventual connection between the interchange and Buckley Road, but no specific direction was given to
staff to begin any discussions to purchase property leading to Vachell Lane. Should you wish staff to
pursue this possibility with Mr. Dolezal, it would be necessary for the Council to address this idea in
Closed Session and then so direct staff. However, it must also be said that the purchase of a portion of
an already developed business park would be expensive and we have no funding source presently
identified for such an undertaking.
C: Council,Hampian, McCluskey, Statler,Lowell
Gtstatf/george/memostdolawl memo
9jWN//
- TING AGENDA
[4-COUNCIL 2r CDC) DIR DAA 2410-2 M # e,
Z CAO Z FIN DIR
f ACAO Z FIRE CHIEF MINUTES ATTACHMENT 4
ATTORNEY 2 PW DIR SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
.� CLERKIORIG ZPOUCE CHF CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
0 DEPT HEADS la REO DIR THURSDAY, AUGUST 28, 2003-4:00 P.M.
DJ UTIL DIR COUNCIL CHAMBER, 990 PALM STREET
la' .0'HR DIR
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA
ROLL CALL:
Council Members
Present: Council Members, John Ewan, Ken Schwartz, Allen K. Settle, Vice
Mayor Christine Mulholland, and Mayor Dave Romero
City Staff:
Present: Ken Hampian, City Administrative Officer; Jonathan Lowell, City
Attorney; Lee Price, City Clerk; Wendy George, Assistant City
Administrative Officer; John Mandeville, Community Development
Director; Bill Statler, Finance Director; Jill Sylvain, Personnel
Analyst; Deborah Linden, Police Chief; Wolfgang Knabe, Fire Chief;
John Moss, Utilities Director; Mike McCluskey, Public Works
Director; Paul LeSage, Parks and Recreation Director; Betsy Kiser,
Principal Administrative Analyst; Tim Bochum, Deputy Director of
Public Works; Peggy Mandeville, Transportation Associate; Jake
Hudson,Transportation Assistant; Austin O'Dell,Transit Manager
BUSINESS ITEMS
1. STATUS UPDATE AND DIRECTION-ON THE PROJECT STUDY REPORT—PROJECT
DEVELOPMENT SUPPORT FOR THE US 1011LOS OSOS VALLEY ROAD
INTERCHANGE..
Public Works Director McCluskey and Deputy Director of.Public Works Bochum presented
the staff report. Consultants from Dokken Engineering and Morro Group Environmental
were also present to respond to questions.
Public Comments
Pastor Thom O'Leary and Lori Atwater(representing the Vineyard Church) spoke in support
of Alternative 6A. It was suggested that the City continue to work cooperatively with other
agencies to acquire grant funding to reduce costs.
Jeff Wilson, architect representative for Costco, explained that the company is currently
evaluating feasibility of the project, Including the issue of dollar cost allocation for
Interchange Improvements.
Warren Dolezal, President of Los Verdes Il, (noting that he was not speaking for all the
homeowners) spoke In favor of Alternative #6A and suggested the installation of an eight
foot sound wall along Los Osos Valley Road (LOUR) to mitigate noise. He also urged
Council to consider a stoplight where the residential neighborhoods access LOVR and
proposed that his property adjacent to Vachell Road might provide some additional
opportunities to solve traffic problems.
RED FILE
MEETING AGENDA
DATE a iG o3 ITEM 6 CI
City Council Meeting._ Page 2
Thursday, August 28,2003-4:00 p.m.
ATTACHMENT 4
Mary Beth Schroeder, 2085 Wilding Lane, spoke in opposition to spending money on this
project.
Ray Belknap, 70 Benton, voiced opposition to Alternative 2 because it will have an impact
on the alignment of the "Bob Jones City-to-Sea trail. Regarding the wetlands, he urged
the Council to consider construction alternatives that will enhance or expand the wetlands
so that it may continue to function. If the wetlands are diminished, he added, it will result in
the creation of a commercial site.
John Donovan, Program Manager for Regional Rideshare, advocated for a "park and ride
lot" in the area of the intersection because it would provide large employers with
opportunities for shuttling employees.
Steve Devencenzi, Deputy Director of Council of Governments, commented that there may
be delays in program funding and speculated that this project would not be constructed
until 2013. He stated that he believes staff is being too optimistic by suggesting that it will
be built in 2009 and encouraged the Council to look at phased approach.
—end of public comments—
Council questions to staff followed.
Council Member Settle expressed concern about potential delays due to outside agency
permit processing and commented in support in phasing in the project.
Vice Mayor Mulholland spoke In opposition to Alternatives 2 and 4. She commented in
favor of the suggestion to construct a"park and ride lot",opposed the idea of a sound wall
on LOUR, but indicated she would be interested in looking at options like a response trigger
light to alleviate traffic problems on LOVR at the entrances to the Los Verdes I and U.
Lastly,she noted interest In discussing a phased approach for Alternative 6A.
Council Member Schwartz voiced disappointment that the consultant did not present any
design alternatives that would allow the Council to make a truly refined decision. He
summarized pros and cons of Alternatives 4, 6 and 7. He emphasized that he favors
strongly the design of the northbound ramp in Alternative 7, but shared concern about the
design of that ramp in Alternative 6. He pointed out that the southbound ramp designs
Illustrated in Alternatives 6 and 6A create another Madonna Road exist forcing a left hand
turn In order to proceed on LOVR. In addition, he proposed that the ultimate project design
contemplate a 100-year storm and accommodate the Bob Jones City-to-Sea trail. Lastly,he
expressed support for consideration of a"park and ride lot".
Council Member Ewan voiced disapproval for Alternatives 2 and 4,and agreed that the
northbound access In Alternative 71s the preferable design.
Mayor Romero expressed concern that the design alternatives presented demonstrate short
long-range planning and speculated that traffic will eventually need to bypass the
downtown. He explained that Alternative 2 would do that, but noted that it's too expensive.
He suggested that the connection from Buckley Road to Vachell to the Dolezal property be
Included In further studies. He pointed out disadvantages In Alternatives 3 and 4 and
Indicated strong support for Alternative 6A,with a phased-in approach.
Council Member Settle also voiced support for 6A and urged signalization at the
Intersection at Los Verdes I and 11 and LOVR.
C (–a
C'OHiwr/-lz
City Council Meetins_ Page 3
Thursday, August 28,2003-4:00 p.m.
ATTACHMENT 4
Council discussion ensued regarding the opportunities that may exist with a potential
connection to Buckley Road.
ACTION: Moved by Settle/Ewan to support the advancement of Project
Alternatives 3, 6A and 7, noting Alternative 6A in a phased-in approach as the
favored option (4:1 Schwartz).
By mutual agreement, the Council directed staff to include in all alternatives
future possible extensions of LOVR to connect to Vacheil/Buckley or Buckley
and, further,agreed to continue to use the amount of$16 million as the planning
figure.
2. 2002 ANNUAL TRAFFIC SAFETY REPORT.
Due to time constraints, the Council continued this mtter to September 2,2003.
PUBLIC ARINGS
3. GEN AL PLAN AMENDMENT OF THE CIRCUATION ELEMENT TO RECLASSIFY
SEVEN ESIDENTIAL COLLECTOR STREET SEGMENTS AS RESIDENTIAL LOCAL
STREET. GMENTS AND ENVIRONMENTAL EVIEW GPA/ER 102-03).
DeputV Director of Public Works Bochum and Tr ns ortation Assistant Hudson presented
the staff report.
Mayor Romero opened the blic hearing.
Mary Beth Schroeder, 2085 ding Lan , spoke_ in support of reclassifying Johnson
Avenue and Patricia. Ma or omero clarified that Johnson Avenue is not being
reclassified. Ms. Schroederargued at should be.
Sandra Rowley, representing Residen r Quality Neighborhoods, recommended approval
per the staff recommendation.
Roger Malinowski, 153 Broad treet, exp ined that he had been at the Planning
Commission meeting when th' item was c sidered and believes that the Planning
Commission amended the r commendation t include some additional streets for
reclassification. He asked y they were not inc ded for the Council's consideration.
Staff clarified that the Planng Commission approve he seven streets for reclassification
and asked that additional s eets be studied, but no fo 1 direction to include them in their
action was taken.
Mayor Romero closed t e public hearing.
ACTION: Mo ed by.Mulholland/Ewan to adopt Resolution o. 9473 2003 Series
approving t negative declaration, and amendment to Figur 2 of the Circulation
Element to reclassify seven Residential Collector streets merits as Local
Residentia street segments, and further, directed staff to b alert to other
opportun ies to reclassify other streets,as appropriate; motion card, 5:0.
1 ® � d
m 3
o 'z s
0 3� \ \
Ch
ril
rl-
LAJ
3 \ O
N30NVO \ F2�
OaaOH 00
_ c OaaOHO }tl
o 11 '
1
Soso
---
0 0 - , !Ir
009t OOSLDort
OOYL OOZL LL pppL 006 008 OL 009
S21 VINVS VSOa V1NVS
y