HomeMy WebLinkAbout2/20/2018 Item 11, Cooper
From:Allan Cooper <
To:Grigsby, Daryl; Hudson, Jake; CityClerk; Harmon, Heidi; Pease, Andy; Christianson,
Carlyn; Gomez, Aaron; Rivoire, Dan
Subject:Consent Agenda Item #11
Dear Daryl and Jake -
Would you kindly forward the letter below to the City
Council before their 6:00 P.M. meeting today? Thanks!
- Allan
To: SLO City Council, Daryl Grigsby, Public Works Director and Jake Hudson
Re: Consent Agenda Item #11
From: Allan Cooper, San Luis Obispo
Date: February 20, 2018
I was dismayed to see the number of letters in your correspondence file asking you to
relitigate your motion made last February 6th. Having reviewed the tape of this meeting,
this is what I found to be the direction you gave staff:
Phase 1 “Preferred Alternative”: a parking district, Safe Route to School” at Foothill/Ferrini
crosswalk, 2-way improvements with removal of parking along Ramona (a Class 1 Path),
LDS right-of-way and direction to delay implementation of improvements to the Chorro,
Mission, Broad segment.
Phase 2 “Conceptual interim or hybrid example” does not include any loss of parking, only
traffic calming (i.e., some undetermined means of slowing traffic such as knocking down
speed limits, etc.), shared street along contentious center portion (Chorro, Mission &
Broad) with striping, striping improvements along Chorro between Palm and Lincoln and
improvements to the 101 underpass.
Phase 3 Revisit “Preferred Alternative” if not addressing “ridership goals”…then more
discussion and more outreach to the community.
I then reviewed your staff summary report. Staff has done an exemplary job of
recapitulating what I determined to be the direction you gave staff.
Finally I would like to refute Jenny Horstman’s claim in the letter she wrote you February
19, 2018, where she stated “We came to you with an option that won 63% of votes in a
city-wide survey that polled hundreds of citizens. I am bewildered by what majority must
be won before Council agrees that a consensus is reached.” This is patently untrue!
1
As I’ve stated before, the “Community Survey Results” graphic is misleading as it only
address percentages, not numbers. 295 Anholm residents and Citywide residents voted
for the Lincoln Street Alternative. Add to this the combined total of Anholm residents (76)
and Citywide (32) residents voting for no bike path and you have a total of 403 Anholm
and Citywide residents either voting for the Lincoln Street Alternative or no alternative at
all. Compare this with the 260 Anholm residents and Citywide residents who
recommended the Preferred Alternative. In other words, the survey results show
overwhelmingly that the "Preferred Alternative" lost overwhelmingly with only 260 votes
compared to the 403 votes.
Therefore, I urge you to resist revisiting this contentious issue.
Thank you!
2