HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/07/1993, 7 - CITY POSITION ON ROUTE 41 REALIGNMENT II�II�IV,II�IIIII��I III MEETING SATE:
N � lU CItJ Or San LI.IIS OBISpO 9-7-93
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT ITEM NUMBER:
From: Ken Hampian, Assistant City Administrative Officer
Subject: City position on Route 41 realignment
CAO RECOMMENDATION
Consider a request by Vice Mayor Roalman for a City position concerning the Route 41
realignment project, and provide him with direction as the City's representative to the San
Luis Obispo Council of Governments (SLOCOG).
DISCUSSION
During the Council meeting of August 31, 1993, Vice Mayor Roalman briefed the Council
on his position concerning the Highway 41 realignment project, which will be considered by
the SLOCOG for inclusion in the 1993 Federal Transportation Improvement Plan during
their meeting of September 8. The Council directed that this matter be formally agendized
for consideration on September 7, so that Vice Mayor Roalman could present the City's
official position on this sensitive matter on the 8th. The Council also asked that they be
provided with the COG staff report and related materials prior to the Council meeting of
September 7 (attached).
Attachments: SLOCOG staff report
SLOCOG minutes of August 4, 1993
h/hwy41
T•/
SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS
STAFF REPORT
..........
MEETING DATE September 5,'1993
SUBJECTRoute 41
................................
......... ............
..................
... ...... ..... ..... ... . . ............... ...
..........Realignment/FTIP.......
..............
.................
SUMMARY
The SLOCOG Board,during consideration of the 1993 Federal Transportation Improvement Plan
(FTIP) at their August 4, 1993 meeting, removed the Route 41 project from the 1993 FTIP and
requested the City of Atascadero hold a Public Hearing on the proposed Route 41 Realignment
and Bridge Replacement Project. The Atascadero City Council held a hearing on the subject on
August 24, 1993 and approved the attached Resolution of the City Council of the City o
Atascadero Endorsing Alternative A-Modified Realignment of State Highway 41 and Bridge
Replacement Across the Salinas River.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff: Include the Route 41 Realignment project in the 1993 FrIP, and forward the
document to Caltrans.
DISCUSSION
The primary concern expressed by SLOCOG delegates during the August 4th meeting of the
COG was regarding the perceived lack of public input and clear indication of support from the
Atascadero City Council for the proposed realignment and bridge replacement project. The
motion approved on the FTIP stated '...to approve the federal funding as recommended,with
the Aftemative A projected pulled, to be brought back at the SLOCOG meeting of
September 8, 1993, to allow the City of Atascadero to have the final public hearing, and
forward to Caltrans with all recommendations after the September meeting.0
The Atascadero City Council has conducted the requested Public Hearing.The hearing was well
attended, 91 members of the public spoke regarding the project (31 in favor and 60 opposed),
with the hearing lasting until 2AM August 25th.
Major issues identified during the hearing are summarized below:
SPEAKERS OPPOSED
• project cost and funding priority
• congestion at the Route 41/ El Camino Real intersection
• project not of regional significance
• impacts to the proposed stadium park (noise, visual)
C-2-1
*7'
�94—'o7
I
• impacts to downtown businesses
* growth inducing impacts east of the Salinas River
• better alternatives exist (redesignate Rt.41 to Rt.46 East)
• tree removal
•community character (historic neighborhood character, bisects community, roadwidth,
noise and soundwalls)
• home removals and intrusion on remaining existing homesites
• Pine Mountain grading impacts
SPEAKERS IN SUPPORT
•safety issues(accident history,improved alignment,removal of trafficfrom neighborhood
surface streets)
• Atascadero General and Regional Transportation Plan consistency
• replaces infrastructure deficiencies
• improved access to east of the Salinas River (emergency vehicle, RR grade separation)
• business and job development
• advantageous funding opportunity
• completion of a long awaited and debated public works project
• removal of State Hwy bisecting Jr. High School
• prior planned projects (Bank of America, Century Plaza, Hotel Park)
• traffic reductions (Curbaril, Capistrano, Sycamore Rd.)
• access to Stadium Park
•Transportation Enhancement Activities (TEA) Grant monies to purchase Stadium Park
site
Following the public testimony the Atascadero City Council approved Resolution No. 100-93 in
support of the Alternative A-Modified Realignment. Staff would recommend SLOCOG
concurrence with the Atascadero City Council action and inclusion of the proposed realignment
and bridge replacement project in the 1993 FTIP.
cogatasc.93
C-2-2
�-3
RESOLUTION NO. 100-93
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ATASCADERO ENDORSING ALTERNATE A-MODIFIED
REALIGNMENT OF STATE HIGHWAY 41 AND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT
ACROSS THE SALINAS RIVER
WHEREAS, both County and City General Plans adopted since 1968
have included the Alternate "A" realignment as the preferred
relocation of Highway 41 in the City; and
WHEREAS, numerous private developments have been located and
designed in anticipation of this realignment of Highway 41; and
WHEREAS, an Environmental Impact Report has been prepared by
Caltrans recommending Alternate A-Modified as the preferred
realignment for Highway 41 realignment; and
WHEREAS, the California Transportation Commission has approved
funding for the Alternate A-Modified route; and
WHEREAS, Caltrans has commenced engineering design work pre-
paratory to going to bid and constructing the improvement; and
WHEREAS, the City of Atascadero' s 1993 Circulation Element
designates Highway 41 realignment and bridge relocation as
following the Alternate A-Modified alignment;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council hereby
reaffirms the Alternate A-Modified realignment and bridge for
Highway 41 and urges the San Luis Obispo Council of Governments to
continue its ' support by retaining this project in this years
Federal Transportation Improvement Program.
On Motion by , and seconded by
, the foregoing resolution is hereby adopted inits
entirety on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES: APPROVED
ABSENT:
ADOPTED:
CITY OF ATASCADERO
By:
Mayor
Resolution No. 300-93
Page 2
PRO i 77
-:��-
ATTEST:
LEE TWOIA, pity Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
ARTHER ,MONTANDOH, City Attorney
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT.e
HENRY ENGEN -- - ---
Community Development Director
ROUTE 41. EAST BRIDGE REPLACEMENT AND REALIGNMENT
HISTORY OF PROJECT APPROVAL ACTIONS
AS OF AUGUST 28, 1993
1967 ATASCADERO ADVISORY COMMITTEE ASKS BOARD OF SUPERVISORS TO REQUEST
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS TO MAKE ROUTE STUDY REPORT.
1968 SLO COUNTY REQUESTS DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS TO STUDY ROUTE ADOPTION.
1969 ATASCADERO CHAMBER OF COMMERCE REQUESTS STATE HIGHWAY COMMISSION
TO REALIGN ROUTE 41.
1970 CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY COMMISSION ADOPTS ROUTE LOCATION FOR ALIGNMENT
ALTERNATIVE A.
1971 FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION GRANTS DESIGN APPROVAL FOR
REALIGNMENT.
1971 THRU 1974 CALTRANS PREPARES DETAILED DESIGN PLANS AND ACQUIRES 73% OF
REQUIRED RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR REALIGNMENT.
1974 ADOPTED ALIGNMENT INCLUDED IN THE ORIGINAL SLOCOG REGIONAL
TRANSPORTATION PLAN (RTP).
1979 CITY OF ATASCADERO INCORPORATED; NEW CITY COUNCIL EXPRESSES DESIRE
FOR CONSTRUCTION OF REALIGNMENT ON ADOPTED ROUTE.
1981 CITY OF ATASCADERO REVISES CIRCULATION ELEMENT AND ADOPTS CALTRANS
ALIGNMENT ON ADOPTED ROUTE.
1982 FOLLOWING PROPOSAL BY CTC TO RESCIND ROUTEADOPTION,SLOCOG OPPOSES
RECISION AND REQUESTS CTC TO RECONSIDER AND PROGRAM PROJECT ON
ADOPTED ROUTE AS INCLUDED IN THE RTP AND SUPPORTED BY CITY OF
ATASCADERO IN ADOPTED GENERAL PLAN.
1983 SLOCOG RECOMMENDS THAT CTC FUND ALTERNATIVE AALIGNMENT PER THE RTP;
CTC DIRECTS CALTRANS TO PREPARE PSR FOR ALTERNATIVE A.
1984 FOLLOWING COMPLETION OF PSR WHICH INCLUDES ANALYSIS OF SIX
ALTERNATIVES,SLOCOG REAFFIRMS SUPPORT FOR ALTERNATIVE A IN RTP UPDATE;
CTC DIRECTS CALTRANS TO PROCEED WITH PROJECT DEVELOPMENT FOR
REPLACEMENT OF BRIDGE AND REALIGNMENT OF HIGHWAY ON ALTERNATIVE A
ALIGNMENT.
1984 CITY OF ATASCADERO ENDORSES REALIGNMENT OF HIGHWAY ON ALTERNATIVE
A ALIGNMENT.
1985 CITY OF ATASCADERO PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF
PROPOSED ALIGNMENT ALTERNATIVE A; CITY COUNCIL REAFFIRMS SUPPORT FOR
PROPOSED PROJECT.
C-2-5
1985 SLOCOG AGAIN REAFFIRMS SUPPORT FOR ALTERNATIVE A IN REGIONAL
TRANSPORTATION PLAN (RTP) UPDATE.
1986 SLOCOG REQUESTS CTC TO PROGRAM $7.2 MILLION IN STATE TRANSPORTATION
IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (STIP) TO REPLACE THE BRIDGE AND CONSTRUCT THE
HIGHWAY ON THE ADOPTED, ALTERNATIVE A ALIGNMENT.
1987 CALTRANS PSTIP INCLUDES FULL FUNDING FOR ALTERNATIVE A REALIGNMENT;
ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL APPROVES; SLOCOG RECOMMENDS FULL FUNDING
IN 1987 STIP; CTC ADOPTS ALIGNMENT A ALTERNATIVE, STAGE 1, IN THE 1987 STIP.
1988 SLOCOG REAFFIRMS SUPPORT FOR REPLACEMENT OF BRIDGE AND
CONSTRUCTION OF ALTERNATIVE A ALIGNMENT IN APPROVAL OF RTP UPDATE AND
RECOMMENDS FULL FUNDING IN 1988 STIP; CTC APPROVES FULL FUNDING IN
STATE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (STIP).
1988 CALTRANS CONDUCTS PUBLIC HEARING ON NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND FINDING
OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT; ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL REAFFIRMS SUPPORT
FOR ALIGNMENT ALTERNATIVE A, SUBJECT TO EIR.
1989 CALTRANS BEGINS PREPARATION OF DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT(EIR)
AS REQUESTED BY CITY OF ATASCADERO.
1990 SLOCOG REAFFIRMS SUPPORT FOR REPLACEMENT OF BRIDGE AND
CONSTRUCTION OF ALTERNATIVE A ALIGNMENT IN APPROVAL OF RTP UPDATE.
1990 DURING 1990 AND 1991 CALTRANS STUDIES IMPACTS OF ADDITIONAL
ALTERNATIVES; ALTERNATIVE A MODIFIED IS DEVELOPED IN ORDER TO REDUCE
IMPACTS ALONG THE ADOPTED ROUTE.
1991 IN MAY,THE FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION (FHWA)ACCEPTS THE FONSI FOR
THE PROJECT AND FINAL APPROVAL IS OBTAINED.
1992 IN JANUARY, CALTRANS COMPLETES AND RELEASES SUPPLEMENTAL PROJECT
REPORT AND DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR) FOR PUBLIC
CIRCULATION.
1992 IN AUGUST, SLOCOG REAFFIRMS SUPPORT FOR REPLACEMENT OF BRIDGE AND
CONSTRUCTION OF ALTERNATIVE AALIGNMENT IN APPROVAL OF RTP UPDATE;AND
IN SEPTEMBER THE SLOCOG REAFFIRMS ITS SUPPORT IN ADOPTING THE FEDERAL
TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (FTIP).
1993 IN MARCH, THE CALIFORNIA TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION (CTC) ADOPTED
FINDINGS FOR THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS IDENTIFIED IN THE EIR FOR THE
PROJECT AND APPROVED FUTURE CONSIDERATION OF FUNDING FOR THE BRIDGE
REPLACEMENT AND ROADWAY REALIGNMENT.
1993 IN JUNE, ATASACADERO CITY COUNCIL GIVES FINAL APPROVAL TO UPDATED
CIRCULATION ELEMENT, INCLUDING THE ROUTE 41 BRIDGE REPLACEMENT AND
ROADWAY REALIGNMENT.
1993 AUGUST24TH,ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL HOLDS PUBLIC HEARING SPECIFICALLY
ON PROJECT AND VOTES 3 TO 2 IN FAVOR OF ALTERNATIVE A-MODIFIED ROADWAY
REALIGNMENT AND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT.
C2.6 7r
Li ED
ul
• 'wR = � '
H LLJ H x
Z Z Z
C � •
cc
e It W 0 U.! �
ti 5-<
Q Q W
z a
'Otl �yob OT m
M = W
ZO: 13 7�~3< BScrf�. s
tea:. yrs
i
NY
• -- GC1Mp
PppFIG
S . TNFRN. 'oy
• � X13 W
JAC 7
Q
• OW 7 ( Z
at z
v- W
IN e j
' J 6
( W w
1W L sy1�S Q
J b �
i
c
O 03&'NlR311y't�•• _ u
' � J W �• v1
�y yv► �P '� W r1• VAL
w W6
'3nr
( e�
Q
� ma
W W
®� µf• ; 1VN1l311�
SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS
MINUTES OF
WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 4, 1993
PRESENT: Delegates Blakely, Delany, Iversen, Laurent, Moots, Morrow, Mullen, Nimmo, Ovitt,
Roalman, and President Brackett.
ABSENT: Delegate Munroe A STAFF Ronald De Carli, Executive Director
PRESENT: Dan Herron, Senior Planner F �A
Joyce Latta, Secretary
John Jenkins, County Counsel
The following action minutes are listed as they were acted upon by the San Luis Obispo Council of
Governments and as listed on the agenda for the meeting held August 4, 1993, together with staff reports
and related documents attached thereto and incorporated therein by reference. The meeting is called to
order by President Brackett.
CALL TO ORDER
PUBLIC COMMENT: No public comments.
Presentation by Caltrans for the Tranny Award - Bill Ojeda, of Caltrans presents the Tranny award
to SLOCOG, Ridesharing and the City of San Luis Obispo for the combined efforts to establish a bicycle
safety education program in a multimedia setting.
SLOCOG MINUTES -July 14, 1993. A motion made by Delegate Delany, seconded by Delegate
Morrow, carries in the absence of Delegate Munroe, to approve the minutes of the July 14, 1993
with Delegates Laurent and Ovitt abstaining.
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT - Ron De Carli introduces David Polley, replacement staff for
former employee Les Varga and briefly outlines the following items: Jill McPcek is in Sacramento today
to monitor the amount of funding available for the STIP. There appears to be a shortfall of
approximately three billion dollars for existing program projects. This will affect the programming of
any new highway projects. Staff has also facilitated the meetings with the coastal counties on rail.
A. CONSENT AGENDA: Delegate Laurent requests A-4 be pulled for closed session. A motion
is made by Delegate Iversen,seconded by Delegate Laurent, carries in the absence of Delegate
Munroe to discuss A-4 during closed session. Delegate Mullen wants to discuss item A-5; the
insurance policy proposals)and this item is pulled. Item A-3; the Executive Director Employment
Agreement is continued until the September 8, 1993 meeting. A motion is made by Delegate
Delany, seconded by Delegate Blakely, carries in the absence of Delegate Munroe, to approve
the remainder of the consent agenda.
A-5 Insurance Policy Proposal: Delegate Mullen wants clarity on the Errors and Omissions
portion of this proposal. John Jenkins, of County Counsel, explains legal issues in the faithful
7'
performance bond and liability and errors and omissions. Ron De Carli states that we do not have
general liability property insurance and is requesting approval of this coverage. Concerns are made
regarding the dollar amount for the faithful performance bond and-Ron De Carli explains the
$30,000 figure as a similar amount to that of the Executive Director's signatory authorization. A
motion is made by Delegate Mullen, seconded by Delegate Iversen, carries in the absence of
Delegate Munroe, to adopt items one (1) and two (2) under the Executive Committee and to
approve item number three (3) under the staffs recommendation.
B. PUBLIC HEARING
B-1 Presentation by Caltrans on the draft California Transportation Plan (CTP) - Ron
De Carli briefly explains the origin for this presentation and introduces Chris Ratekin from the
Department of Transportation (Caltrans) in Sacramento. Chris gives a brief overview of CTP and
explains that in 1981, a federal law Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) was
adopted which requires all states to develop a transportation plan with 23 components that have to
be met. As a result of the ISTEA, California passed SB 1435 which authorizes Caltrans to prepare
the plan. The plan must have a policy, strategies and recommendation elements. This plan is due
by December 1 with a cost limit of$1,000,000. She explains the policy element goals and notes
that Caltrans will be seeking high public involvement and input, and states that this plan must build
on the RTP's already in place. She states that this plan is intended to: extend for approximately
20 years that will cover the entire state, is Multi Modal, as a requirement of the ISTEA, and is a
plan with a combination of transportation,air quality and economic issues. Delegate Delany wants
to know about the planning and funding. Chris summarizes the actions to provide stable and
flexible funding for transportation,and explains that the strategies and actions are based upon what
already exists. She also stresses that while Caltrans is the initial preparer of this plan, many other
agencies are,involved, noting that they are giving 17 different workshops throughout the state.
Delegate Laurent would like to see environmental concerns be placed as a high priority rather than
economic development issues. Delegate Iversen is no longer here. Delegate Delany feels that the
document is too vague and echoes Delegate Laurent's comment as a path to reduce single occupant
automobile usage. Ron De Carli explains that he would like to come back at a later meeting to
discuss this further and list priorities at that time with input from the delegates. Chris notes that
these concerns should be addressed by August 20 to either Ron De Carli or Caltrans. Patty Nunes
presents a letter from the Farm Bureau. Pat Mackie of Paso Robles, asks if all future RTP's will
have to be in conformance with the CTP, and if this applies to current projects already on the
board. Ron clarifies that this is a policy not a programming plan. David Morrow, of San Luis
Obispo, is concerned about taking away landscaping, and would like to see congestion pricing for
Cuesta Grade to encourage bus use and carpooling, rather than road-widening. Terry Sanville,
Transportation Planner with the City of San Luis Obispo, is generally pleased with the plan and
states that there is a need to establish growth management policies at the state level; the need to
improve coordination of economic development; and setting of funding priorities that would again
reduce single occupant vehicles. Lastly, he feels that there should be two strategic groupings:. 1)
to maintain existing investment to support economic stabilization, and improve environmental
quality; 2) should address issues of population growth, road improvements, and rail establishment.
Apprehension and concern about the short notice to respond to this issue is echoed by the delegates
and a motion is made by Delegate Blakely, seconded by Delegate Laurent, carries in the
absence of Delegates Munroe and Iversen to request the state to extend the deadline of this
proposal for one additional month for further discussion, and to direct staff to submit a letter
with the SLOCOG's President's signature. Another motion is made by Delegate Ovitt,
2
seconded by Delegate Blakely, that carries in the absence of Delegates Munroe and Iversen,
to direct staff to continue with its process as though the deadline has not changed and allow
the opportunity for draft comments to be seen by the council andadvisory committees and be
brought back at the next SLOCOG meeting. Ron De Carli gets clarification that comments
should include a high priority for environmental issues and the reduction of single occupancy
vehicle use.
B-2 Surface Transportation Plan (STP) - Mike Harmon reviews the STP program funding
and explains that of the 18 projects listed there are five (5) projects not recommended for funding
because of non-regional relevance. Mike briefly reviews the remaining regional projects
recommended for funding. Delegate Delany is upset that the Bicycle Advisory Committee's (BAC)
comments were not included. She wants to know why we are proceeding with projects without
their input. She expresses concerns about the Ontario Road Bikelanes' project not being included
for funding. Ron De Carli notes staff involvement with the BAC and the priority concerns noted
in the report were raised by the BAC. David Morrow of San Luis Obispo, suggests that bikelanes
be included on Spring Street. Mike explains there is a parallel route; he further explains the
regionality of the SLO interchange project. Penny Culbreth of Grover Beach, speaks on the
Grover Beach 4th Street widening and bikelanes. She notes that this project was bom out of a
safety concern and notes that this is an ideal time to implement this. She states that a connecting
pass from Pismo Beach to Arroyo Grande should be provided for bikers. Pete Boonisar, of
Atascadero, explains the importance that cyclists be taught the rules of the road. Pat Mackie states
that SLOCOG has adopted a plan for bikeways because of the danger to cyclists without bikepaths.
A motion is made by Delegate Delany, seconded by Delegate Morrow, carries in the absence
of Delegates Munroe and Iversen, to adopt staff recommendation to approve allocation of
STP/SHA funding for local and regional projects.
B-3 1993 Federal Transportation Improvement Program (FTIP) -Ron De Carli, explains
that the Federal Transportation Improvement Plan (FTIP) is a new requirement as a result of SLO
becoming a urbanized area. Federal Transportation Agency (PTA) Section 16 and 18 and Surface
Transportation Program (STP) projects will be integrated into the plan after SLOCOG approval.
He explains that the FTIP is financially constrained with a significant amount of funding being
programmed. He notes FTIP adoption is a procedural issue, a compilation of projects already
approved. Delegate Blakely, wants to know if we can suggest funding for specific projects be
suspended. Ron explains that we would have to find out the reasons of the detainment and check
with Caltrans as to the implications of funding. That money has already been committed and
projects are ready to move forward. Delegate Blakely asks if we can shift funding resources to
other projects. Ron explains that the Highway Systems Operations Protection Plan (HSOPP) funds
are programmed by Caltrans; the other funds are programmed by SLOCOG. He explains that this
money is allocated for use now and that if we do not expend the money for specific projects, then
the CTC will be likely designated to other projects. If a project is not included in the FTIP, it
would preclude federal funding. Ron notes that a new policy of California Transportation
Commission (CTC) indicates if there is a potential cost savings, the agency would place a high
priority for funding of other alternate projects that meet set parameters within the county. He notes
that two factors are involved. He describes the north/south split, and, the county minimums
requirement of the state that each county receive certain minimal funding. Ron explains that the
money has already been committed. Jerry Laumer, Deputy District Director of Planning for
Caltrans, reiterates Ron's comments on FTIP and states that these are projects already programmed
3
7-11
and approved. Delegate Blakely asks about shifting resources; again this requires CTC action.
Pete Boonisar, of Atascadero, feels that Highway 41 is not a high priority and explains why: asks
if it is determined that funding is not used appropriately, how would that affect future federal
funding for county projects (e.g. Hwy. 41 realignment). Ron explains that it would not be affected
because the Hwy. 41 project has been voted on and certified by the California Transportation
Commission (CTC). Pete is also concerned with the safety of the proposed Hwy. 41 realignment.
He feels that there has been a considerable lack of public hearings and he notes that it is four times
as expensive per vehicle affected, than the widening of Highway 46 East. He states that a traffic
study in May of 1989 was omitted from the draft and final EIR and the negative declaration. He
is also concerned with the deficiencies with alternate A modified. Eric Greening, of Atascadero,
speaks on the county general plan conformance of the FI'IP in regards to Highway 41 East. He
states that half of this project is in the unincorporated area of the county, yet he notes, the Board
of Supervisors have never held a public hearing. He would rather see the money spent on widening
of Highway 46 East. Livia Kellerman of Atascadero, is concerned about the historic value of
Stadium Park; she states that the traffic and construction noise would greatly affect the beauty and
benefit of the park. Gidi Pullen, feels that this project is not fiscally expedient or responsible.
She would like a thorough review of all the proponents comments. Pat Mackie, of Paso Robles,
feels that there would be an increase in traffic, particularly affecting the Hwy 101/41 Interchange.
George Luna, of Atascadero, speaking as a private citizen, notes that the Atascadero City Council
was clearly opposed to Alternate A and A modified in May of 1992. He reads an excerpt of the
minutes from that meeting on the council's responses. He states that Caltrans never asked the
council for approval of the project. He states the following arguments: cost is excessive; the
project is out of scale; is not of regional importance; the need for future studies.; and finally he
would like to see more public input. Ron states that there has been many public hearings on this
project, which has been in the initial city and county general plan and in the RTP since the early
1980's. Robert Nimmo notes the support by the City Council, states that this project has been in
the Atascadero general plan for over 20 years, and that the project has been continually approved
by a small group, and that public hearings have been held. To the issue of Stadium Park, he notes
that Caltrans is doing everything possible to accommodate the concerns in respect to the park. He
states this project is important to Atascadero and requests the project be supported. Delegate
Blakely, states that he will not support this project as it hasn't been properly noticed by the
Atascadero City Council and feels that the money would be better used on Highway 46. He notes
he would like to support the city in their action, but doesn't believe this has formally happened.
A motion is made by Delegate Ovitt, seconded by Delegate Morrow, to adopt the 1993 FTLP
with resolution as included in the separate attachment. No roll call taken at this time and
discussion continues with Delegates Mullen and Roalman stating why they do not support this
project. Delegate Mullen feels this should be a local issue. Delegate Laurent, feels
uncomfortable about the lack of public hearings and feels he cannot support this. Delegate Blakely
wants to know if we can defer this project to give the city further opportunity to receive public
input and then come back to COG. Ron notes the FI'IP must be approved, but approval of this
project could be delayed. He also refers to the impact with the loss of one member of Atascadero
City Council. Delegate Morrow reads the history of project approvals on this project dating back
to 1967 and states the past approvals by the different councils involved. He explains the importance
of getting the needed funding and not losing it. Delegate Ovitt explains the history. He notes that
project Alt. A Modified has always been supported with some changes made to satisfy
environmental concerns. He supports this because of the guaranteed funding. Delegate Roalman
would like to see a supervote on this. Motion dies with Delegates Blakely, Delany, Laurent,
4
Roalman,and Mullen voting no, and Delegates Nimmo, Moots, Morrow, Ovitt, and President
Brackett voting yes. Delegates Munroe and Iversen are not present. Delegate Blakely explains
why he will not support this motion. Larry Allen, of Air Pollution Control District(APCD), states
that he was dismayed at how APCD's staff member originally responded to the EIR. He feels the
EIR inadequately handled air issues. A second motion is made by Delegate Ovitt, seconded by
Delegate Mullen, carries in the absence of Delegates Iversen and Munroe, to approve the
federal funding as recommended, with the Alternate A project pulled, to be brought back in
at the SLOCOG meeting on September 8, 1993, to allow the city of Atascadero to have the
final public hearing, and forward to Caltrans with all recommendations after the September
meeting. Delegate Nimmo votes no.
B4 Prioritization of FTA Section 16 Projects - Dan Herron reviews report. Two
applications were received from non-profit organizations requesting vans for elderly/disabled
transportation. A review committee recommended prioritizing Ride On's application first, and
Atascadero Christian Home, second. No discussion takes place, no public comments and a motion
is made by Delegate Delany, seconded by Delegate Mullen, carries in the absence of Delegates
Blakely, Iversen, Morrow, and Munroe, to adopt staff recommendation approving
prioritization, supporting both applications.
B-5 FTA Section 18 Program of Projects - Dan Herron briefly summarizes his report and
Delegate Mullen wants to know if in the past priority has been given to those cities that spend
1003 of their TDA funds. Dan explains that the priority for Paso Robles was based on need and
local matches, with consideration given to the percent of TDA usage. Delegate Blakely is now
present. Delegate Moots is concerned about Route 14 on whether Santa Barbara will have anything
in their budget in future years. Alan Cantrell, states that it was agreed between the City of Santa
Maria and County of Santa Barbara, that if it continued to a second year, they would be included
in the funding formula. A motion is made by Delegate Mullen, seconded by Delegate Delany,
carries in the absence of Delegates Iversen, Morrow and Munroe, to adopt staffs
recommendation, with Delegate Moots voting no.
B-6 Draft RTP Excerpts - Dan Herron briefly reviews the RTP elements. Pat Mackie,
states that the County General Plan does not have anything about the Highway 41 Realignment
project listed. The draft EIR on the Route 41 project was the first information that the public had.
He states that there has been no public hearing on the EIR on that project. He expresses some of
the effects this will have on the community with concerns to traffic. Pete Boonisar, states that
elected officials have to seize the best possible projects for the money. Delegate Laurent asks
about bikeways on Moonstone Beach Drive. Ron explains that bikelanes on Moonstone Beach will
be corrected, and Dan explains that everything is in the draft phase at this time. Delegate Mullen
wants verification of dates. Dan notes that he hopes to have the final draft available soon, but will
come back to this body by October 6. No action taken.
C. ADMINISTRATIVE ISSUES
C-1 SLOCOG/SLORTA Integration - Ron De Carli explains the meetings between the
various cities and speaks about the increase of cost to SLORTA. He notes that for the past few
months it has been a cooperative effort by SLOCOG/SLORTA to procure high efficiency by joint
purchases, leases, etc... He relates PERS opposition having two separate agencies intermixed. Ron
5
715
addresses concerns raised by several entities that SLORTA may get preferable funding and
SLOCOG could get too big. He explains the advantages for integration, particularly in respect to
cost savings. He explains Executive Committee suggestions of either one single director, or a new
director. It was recommended to have two directors. Delegate Mullen wants to know if this will
happen to Solid Waste. Ron explains that it was recommended that we keep the two separated.
Alan Cantrell explains that the insurance and PERS will be the two major issues. The increased
cost of maintaining two separate agencies will be about$15-30,000. Delegate Roalman asks if this
would require unanimous support from cities, and that the City of San Luis Obispo wants to know
the advantages/disadvantages from an operations standpoint. Ron states that it is staffs
recommendation to support the consolidation of the two agencies and have two directors. Delegate
Ovitt disagrees, feeling that there should be two separate agendas and two separate agencies. A
motion is made by Delegate Laurent, seconded by Delegate Moots, carries in the absence of
Delegates Iversen, Morrow, and Munroe, to deny staff recommendation, with Delegates
Delany and Mullen voting no.
C-2 1992/93 Fiscal Audit Contract - No discussion takes place and a motion is made by
Delegate Blakely, seconded by Delegate Delany, carries in the absence of Delegates Iversen,
Morrow, and Munroe, to continue this item until the September 8, 1993 meeting.
D. AREAWIDE ISSUES
D-1 Governor's Strategic Growth -Ron De Carli explains the concept and stresses the need
to move forward with the process. He is asking for policy direction. He notes the Planning
Director's opposition and gives an update. There is mutual agreement among the delegates to keep
state government out of local government. Delegate Iversen is now present. Going through the
listed recommendations for the topic of COG's, the following are the delegate's responses:
Recommendation 1. keep, 2. keep, 3. a motion is made by Delegate Delany, seconded by
Delegate Moots, carries in the absence of Delegates Munroe and Morrow, to oppose
establishing a single regional planning body at the regional and subregional level. A second
motion is made by Delegate Ovitt, seconded by Delegate Mullen, carries in the absence of
Delegates Munroe and Morrow, to recommend that local determination should be used to
create any needed regional planning bodies. 4. A motion is made by Delegate Delany,
seconded by Delegate Laurent, carries in the absence of Delegates Munroe and Morrow to
oppose state or regional agency involvement. 5. A motion is made by Delegate Ovitt, seconded
by Delegate Roalman, carries in the absence of Delegates Munroe and Morrow, to oppose
COG's authority to create a regional mitigation banking scheme, with President Brackett
voting.no. 6. A motion is made by Delegate Laurent, seconded by Delegate Delany, carries
in the absence of Delegates Munroe and Morrow, to oppose requiring COG to approve new
special districts. 7. keep, 8. A motion is made by Delegate Ovitt, seconded by Delegate
Roalman, carries in the absence of Delegates Munroe and Morrow, to oppose creating
mechanisms to tie jobs growth to housing within a regional or subregions until the state
reorganizes and establishes a clear and concise policy. 9. A motion is made by Delegate Ovitt,
seconded by Delegate Mullen, carries in the absence of Delegates Munroe and Morrow, to
oppose the state mandates to prepare "progress reports". 10. keep, 11. keep, 12. keep. The
next topic is tr+ansportation. Ron briefs the report and following are the delegate's responses. A
motion is made by Delegate Ovitt, seconded by Delegate Iversen, carries in the absence of
Delegates Munroe and Morrow, to accept staffs recommendation on transportation, with the
6
exception of LOS which needs further input. Infrastructure: 1. No motion is made and
direction is given to COG to change language in recommendation two (2) to read consistent with
local growth guidelines; 3. no motion is made and general consensus to support number three with
the addition of language requiring notification of local jurisdictions; 4. A motion is made by
Delegate Mullen, seconded by Delegate Ovitt, carries in the absence of Delegates Morrow and
Munroe, to oppose this. 5. A motion is made by Delegate Roalman, seconded by Delegate
Laurent, carries in the absence of Delegates Munroe and Morrow, to oppose supporting a
program of incentives, with Delegate Ovitt voting no. Delegate Moots is no longer here.
Plannin¢: 1. A motion is made by Delegate Ovitt, seconded by Delegate Roalman, carries in
the absence of Delegates Morrow, Moots and Munroe, that the state must develop a
comprehensive statewide plan which coordinates their individual long-range plans for matters
of statewide interest and do a comprehensive and internally consistent statewide plan. 2. A
motion is made by Delegate Ovitt, seconded by Delegate Laurent, carries in the absence of
Delegates Morrow, Moots and Munroe, to oppose this unless the same action in number one
is taken. 3. No motion is made; oppose by consensus. 4. No motion is made; oppose by
consensus. 5. A motion is made by Delegate Roalman, seconded by Delegate Delany, carries
in the absence of Delegates Moots, Morrow, and Munroe, to oppose all of number five. 6.
A motion is made by Delegate Ovitt, seconded by Delegate Laurent, carries in the absence of
Delegates Munroe, Morrow, and Moots, to oppose number six. [Note: a revised staff report is
available at SLOCOG office, clarifying these positions].
A motion is made by Delegate Laurent, seconded by Delegate Roalman, carries in the absence
of Delegates Morrow, Munroe and Moots, to continue items A-3 and A-4 until the September
S muting which will convene at 88.30 during closed session.
In addition, Delegate Laurent requests that staff refrain from discussions of item A-4 with
jurisdictions to safeguard against lobbying.
There being no further business, the meeting is adjourned.
Respectfully submitted,
Joyce Latta, Secretary
San Luis Obispo Council of Governments
c:\wp51\slocog\minutes\august.93\jai
7
7-/.�
MEETING AGENDA
DATE 9-7-93 ITEM #
bridge. ltr
San Luis Obispo 2 August 1993
Council of Governments
County Government Center
San Luis Obispo, CA 93465
Dear Delegate;
I live in the County, East of the Salinas River, and am opposed
to spending. our money on the Highway 41 realignment and its
unneeded bridge replacement. Such a move would be expensive, and
would serve only real-estate agents, professional developers, and
the few people in Atascadero whose businesses are located along
the realligned route.
This is a time of hard and scarce money for projects we really
want or need. Don't waste what we have on this.
Sincerely,
❑ COUNCIL ❑ CDD DIR
Gerald King V� ❑ CAO ❑ FIN DIR
3536 Homestead Road ❑ ACAO ❑ FIRE CHIEF
Templeton, CA 93465 ❑ ATTORNEY ❑ PWDIn
❑ CLERK/ORIG ❑ POLICE CHF
❑ MGMT TEAM ❑ REC DIR
C READ FILE. ❑ LITIL DIR
1' '10
-- ❑ PERS DIR
.�. �V
SEP 3 1993
CITY coUNCIL
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA
• San Luis .Obispo
Council of Governments MEETING
County Government Center AGENDA
_
San Luis Obispo, CA. 93408 DATE Z-1-12.ITEM #�;7
Dear SLOCOG Delegate :
I 'm writing you in regards to the highway 41
realignment and bridge replacement in Atascadero. I will be
unable to attend your meeting on Sept. 8 , 1993 however I
-wish to submit this letter to you. I strongly oppose
Alternate B for two reasons . One, I live East of the Salinas
River and in order for paramedics, police and fire
protection to get here they have to cross a railroad
crossing on Curbaril Ave.. and if there is a train
coming thru there, there is a five to ten minutes delay in
response time, this could make the difference between life
and death in a medical emergency, the difference between a
small fire on a stove to the entire house burning to the
ground and the difference of apprehending a criminal in the
act of his crime or letting him get away with his crime.
Secondly, The way.. Highway 41 currently goes thru Atascadero
which is Alternate B. Atascadero Jr. High School is
beseeched by Highway 41 , this means that several hundred
children .have to cross this highway every forty five mins.
eight times a day to change classes . It is proposed to
convert the part of the campus that is on the. north side of
the Highway back into Lewis Ave. Elementary School , how-
ever like before several hundred children, from five years
of age to eleven years of age, will have to cross the
highway, competing with semi trucks and all other kinds of
traffic to get to the Jr . High for lunch and other events,
because the elementary school has no cafeteria or no multi
purpose room for special activities . So please when you vote
to decide whether or not to fund the Highway 41 Realignment
and Bridge replacement for Alternate A-Modified, please take
into consideration above anything else the safety of our
homes, our children and our lives . Vote yes an Alternate
A-Modified
,.,/ - .
R LEtV°� W 6A0 ❑. FINQjgSi cerely,
�.Pq _. . P FIf3€ENi�F - - -
TTO
SEP €�'�6€ei ,Rl@ Q p@LIg€rd. . ess .3/70 So. �L Pa4A9
circ cou SPO, A N�+=t�!fi iEA. Ej RE6 Rim r:F4q L�c� 9 3 �65
SAN LUIS 081SP0, CAf- C RE6A E.^LE g ��IE RIR P
1. 00 �� 5R
COU"iCIL ❑ CDD DIR _ G+
San Luis Obispo L
` AO ❑ FIN DIR n� AG NDA
Council of Governments SEA= ❑f e IRE CHIEF p
s� 13ATTORNEY B P%V DIf1 ,R
County Government Center;' 12"CLERK/CRIG G POLiCECHFi:
€j
San Luis Obispo, CA. 934 E MGMT TEF M ❑ REC DIR.
❑ C READ PLE ❑ UTIL DIR
I A ❑ PERS DIR
Dear SLOCOG Delegate :
I 'm writing you in regards to the highway 41 .
realignment and bridge replacement in Atascadero. I will be
unable to attend your meeting on Sept. 8 , 1993 however I
wish to submit this letter to you. I strongly oppose
Alternate B for two reasons. One, I live East of the Salinas
River and in order for paramedics , police and fire
protection to get here they have to cross a railroad
crossing on Curbaril Ave. and if there is a train
coming thru there, there is a five to ten minutes delay in
response time, this could make the difference between life
and death in a medical emergency, the difference between a
small fire on a stove to the entire house burning to the
ground and the difference of apprehending a criminal in the
act of his crime or letting him get away with his crime.
Secondly,_ The_ way Highway 41 currently goes thru Atascadero
which is Alternate B. Atascadero Jr. High School is.
beseeched by Highway 41 , this means that several hundred
children have to cross this highway every forty five mins .
eight times a day to change classes . It is proposed to
convert the part of the campus that is on the north side of
the' Highway back into Lewis Ave. Elementary School , how-
ever like before several hundred children, from five years
of age to eleven years of age, will have to cross the
highway, competing with semi trucks and alb, other kinds of
traffic to get to the Jr. High for lunch - and other events,
because the elementary school has no cafeteria or no multi
purpose room for special activities . So please when you vote
to decide whether or not to fund the Highway 41 Realignment
and Bridge replacement for Alternate A-Modified , please take
into consideration above anything else the safety of our
homes, our children and- our lives : - Vote yes an .Alternate
A-Modified.
Sincerely,
Address Sp- 1993
CITv COUNCIL .
St.N LUIS oslsPo, CA
NIL.CTING N. AGENDA
V 9J DATE EL ITEM #
SEP 1953
C1TY COUNCIL
SAN LUIS 08ISPO, CA
September 1, 1993
4
�OUNCIL 7LD;
IR
CAO
d/�CAO HIEF
Councilman Bill Roalman ■�TTORNEY ;
City of San Luis Obispo In CLERWORIG CHF.P.O. BOX 8100 ❑ MGMTTEA AlIASan Luis Obispo, CA 93403 ❑ C READ FII E ;RJ! Gly F�� IR
Councilman Roalman,
I want to personally thank you for your support in directing the Atascadero City Council to
hold a public hearing on the realignment of Route 41. I realize this is a two page letter; however, I
hope you will take the time to read all of it, as this concerns the future of Atascadero.
I found it very interesting that Mayor Nimmo,who.represents the entire City of Atascadero
as a member of SLOCOG,voted against having a public hearing after claiming.70% support for
Alternate A/A Modified. The tax payers of Atascadero have spoken and the outcome refuted the
above claim.
The August 24, 1993 public hearing was well advertised,reported in both the Atascadero
News and the Telegram Tribune and posted around town, as reported in the attached front page
article in the August 25th edition of the Atascadero News. The hearing was attended by approxi-
mately 250 residents or about 10% of the city's population. This public forum allowed, for the final
time, every concerned citizen and taxpayer of Atascadero to express their preference. According
to the Atascadero City Clerk 60 concerned citizens spoke in opposition to Alternate A/A Modified,
almost all supported Alternate B and 31 in favor of Alternate A Modified. However, the city clerk
indicated that a total of 1835 comments were received in opposition to Alternate A/A Modified
and 53 in favor of Alternate A Modified.
Some people in favor of Alternate A Modified expressed concern about relieving the traffic
on Curbaril; however, this is a city street and an inappropriate justification for spending 16.7 million
dollars of State and Federal tax dollars. They also felt that the project had been around for 26
years and this alone is justification to spend$7,260,870 per mile for the 2.3 miles of realignment.
Many people opposed to Alternate A Modified and in favor of Alternate B stated concern
that the new alignment will divide the city in half, north/south, accelerate the acknowledged
deterioration of the Level Of Service at the intersection of El Camino Real and Route 41 and the
extreme high cost for this project. Alternate B is 1/8 the cost of Alternate A Modified and solves
the primary purpose of the project. Alternate A Modified does not correct the operational
deficiencies cited by Caltrans for the more than 3,000 VPD that will continue to use the current
route. The county maintenance vehicles stationed at the county maintenance yard on Sycamore
_ . .- . . Road will still have to deal with many of the operational deficiencies of the current Route 41(See
attached Map).
Page 2
Peter Boonisar
Many opposed to Alternate A Modified expressed a greater concern and that is to build
Alternate B and then reroute Route 41 north on Highway 101 to Route 46 east. Iri these tough
financial times, this realignment makes sound sense and would allow millions of future improve-
ment dollars to be spent on upgrading two state routes instead of one.
My personal concern is a Caltrans Traffic Study dated, May 1989 that was not included
in the DEIR or the FEIR. In order to help mitigate the increased traffic congestion caused by
Alternate A Modified at the intersections of Highway 101/Route 41/El Camino Real, Caltrans has
proposed to signalize all the on/off ramps. However, the traffic study clearly states that the signal-
ization of these ramps and intersection,with their close proximity to each other,will actually
accelerate the deterioration by 5 to 7 years from what was reported in the FEIR. The.above inter-
section and on/off ramps will experience LOS of F around 2005,which is generally considered as
"Gridlock". . With proposed construction to start in early 1997 and a completion date of 1999, this
16.7 million dollar pork barrel project is a extreme waste of tax payers money. I question why this
critical information was withheld from the Atascadero City Council, the CTC and the Federal
Highway Administration.
At your upcoming meeting, I hope you will reject the funding for Alternate A Modified and
direct Caltmas to proceed with Alternate B. I request that SLOCOG appropriate part of the 14.4
million dollars that will be saved towards improving the interchange of Highway 101 and Route 41
based on the completed PSR. SLOCOG's primary responsibilities are: the safety of all the citizens
of SLO County, obtaining the greatest return on investment of the funds entrusted to them and
making tough regional transportation decisions. Remember you are accountable to all the tax
payers of the county, state and country. Alternate A Modified is a 16.7 million dollar solution
to a 23 million dollar problem.
Thank you for your time and consideration and I have enclosed supporting documentation
for your review. I look forward to a fiscally accountable decision by the San Luis Obispo Council of
Governments.
Sincerely
r
Peter Boonisar
5212 Magdalena Avenue
Atascadero,CA 93422-4340
466-5577 -
Enclosures—---— - -- - - - -- --- - = — - - -- - - - - - -- ------
- .. .. rrrvtvvvruruyv v�y�� v�� r uyv v.v ------- +•�;�`�:'- ,` Y�y'Q.' •y. "r
fix' a'y4r',M.ar'_r yy7' �•i. ,y.
AiA
''....` '°`' =:A:; Also seniing: Templeton ® Santa Margarita® Creston s Cardsa Plains
Vol.77 No.68 Aug.25, 1993 Atascadero,California
City want,
Three sections ' 'confusior
'r. r
CommumtyAl4 Blockbusl
Obituaries Alt
Redlight Roundup Ala Y .
sportsAl8&9 h - By for Allan
uleatherA2
Editor
When Blockbuster Video w
Commentary fill&3 r fused permission by the city cc
f ��•. ,w x; to build in this city about yea
oneofthereaconsheldbythosea
Classifieds CIS i r,#� _- g .. the newstonwasthattheirpro
Public ied C I C14&5 ° fi F:: �' buildin would violate the city
vt' '° back standards for the dowt
ares-
net
rez the proposed site was in
net of the PayLess parking lot,
`��� �:� ''�^s''••-sYr a.n 'hlttta4bc'�•b-agf•II-Qaepaa-Rz
a enia Ysabel Ave
.. .,- .•t ., t„r+' Morin RaadiS
■ ,�w S*Y d*• °?' f', the dty's new downtown r
'U +`"3k+r" fix *' plan
calls'for?A fact setbacl
,,•:
b ..
�ztrt:� � �ai�``•fid n�a rr �' ur7dm� azOn
,a. .Sr Y"1•--"'r�^ rc nv�. r%�''a�".y'C"S!' ..c :. t c¢r' VMrt in l�e .the semaCt is
�.•.:y. e.. ^'� YY"',">,Jr^r�F` ,�a a. .•'�. w n'ti�^. 1, r..� y+ ,r
yOn Canbtn�d r7ght np to thG pn
Council Wants .: . .. ...
to Tbedty'sdowntocvmm�ee
f`:. Meeting notices lined roadway near old 41 bridge d�comer s o amino Rc
put `Stop to d26r Mewing notices of last night's marathon public hearing tined a portion of Sycamore and Curbaril Roads Morro Road,across the strft
hunting in Clty yesterday.At Me intersection of the two roads,about 100 feet from the oldsteetbridgeacross the SarInas, the1 BWckb=YideC
was this large sign and a packet dispensing meeting notices.The notices,printedon 812 by 11 inch bright- ht&The site w�outside the
leg always been against the day eobred paper,were nailadjo posts and fences several hundred feet from the intersection where the larger m"tmx and even though 1
otdmaoot to use 5:earma win the sign was posted.It urged the public to be present at the hearing held last night at the National Guard Amory buster was building about I
cityGmirs. . •. -: w0h1henotice Pleasebethere Iiscruaal.'Thenolicesalsosaid-CoundmanLunaistryingtostopbuikring from 4ptopertyline the start
Asaresultofarof Bre new41-highway and bridge. Actually.Councilman tuna favors building a new bridge in the location have been built right on it..T
adopted by the city muocil,it is now of the present bridge,with no new afgnment of the present highway.His position is known as Alternate S' toot setback did not apply to 1
r..tnw d,.r drnle.nr,I,r�s:rAin Nr, 6r the Caltrans Droied report.Nowa Photo by LW.Alien. - buster's Project:afteralL
ni:G.y:�r �.'i•'"F,:'T•' r " '? � 'r ark �'i 'ems L4\ a ,1. - _-9 .•.'..tea
\\ / RAILROAD
u \\! y UNDERPASS
101 ATASCADERO
EAS kk,
TR'FF\C P"~�e2 �t• CSP\s�a'N G 6f Z II '.a y>
~ �E
PLEDEs P �P Il1
W Est `REEK g lvGf- �'Mp0\f\f0
sz
VA
gra / \\
E� sc •. \
4 ��•" \\\
ING OF PROJECT \\� NA E
MILE 15.8 a PI ALTERNATE p \\� A ,., .......
...�, W �? CBG
z vpRD
/ K
c 2
r O
ti
W W
41
� y I
a
-rb
� QL m Q
101 .<. Poe
< h
N
41
EX65TPNB
RER BR[
ROCKY CAI
ALTERNATE E
ALTERNATE
CURBARIL avr
. ::..,..-:...-..__. .-.:rn ..:-..�oxc.:.•r tea:^<.�a�....:r<', L;v.....�--.nn�.s.:.+_+7�w:::__ - r.`• - ..-n.:Z:;:...i..'�; 4 _ sa.3:�-. ICAC
WIG
J J L J ,., s.-�,-. .- ='.. ?.. �� �j.•l'{r 5,�.."^ _ k ..qt-'m "�5�� x�,.. y_�al •�- �.
•. •K• -:t ••11:. T�yen r+w- -^C" Y..t -e1" w '' c ......
' L•y.Aq J 7 TK�. 4 \ Z J N b [C MT Y TM
' •"rF.i�ah'�_ �\ .y h ..}ayyL .'wE L� r _
R � v5 a.r^.•.,..r.�•.� �. �•' Y ^c"7,;.+L�.,\.,i.),`.n- � �. ,-a._ C `Lnj_^�"�f.^,` i.. �•.,.;; .i.
1 ,
Route 41 Re2lignment (Alternate A)
Trac Study
Caltrans District 5
Planning and Programming Branch
May 1989
U
ROUTE 41 REALIGNMENT (ALTERNATE "A")
TRAFFIC STUDY
In complying. with a request by the City of Atascadero to study the
possible traffic impacts of realigning Route 41, east of Route 101,
the following is submitted.
The realigning of Route 41 directly affects six intersectigns in Atas-
cadero. They include:
Route 41/Route 101 Southbound Ramps
Route 41/Route 101 Northbound On Ramp
Route 41/ El Camino Real/Santa Ysabel*
Santa Ysabel/South Mall Extension
Curbaril Ave./E1 Camino Real*
Route 101 Northbound Off Ramp/El Camino Real
*Intersection is•• signalized.
See Exhibit No. 1 for intersection locations.
Traffic turning move counts were taken at the above intersections on
successive Wednesdays in the month of February. The counts were ten
hours in duration for the unsignalized intersections. The two signal-
ized intersections were counted. during the morning and afternoon peak
traffic hours. A review of the counts taken revealed that the after-
noon peak hour produced the heaviest volumes (as is usual) .
Further on in this traffic study the reader will see the term "Levels
of. Service" (LOS) . Levels of Service is a term used to describe the
quality of operation of a highway facility. It is a qualitative mea-
sure of the effect of factors such as speed and travel time, traffic
interruptions, freedom to maneuver, driving comfort, convenience,
safety, and operating cost. It is based on peak traffic hours in this
remort. on urban street systems; such as this study relates to, the
quality of flow is most frequently controlled by traffic conditions at
signalized intersections. The flow characteristics at the. six defined ;
levels of service, A through F, can be described as follows:
Levels of Service Definitions (Traffic Signal Controlle:!)
LOS A Unobstructed flow; - no. approach phase' is fully utilized by
traffic and no vehicle waits longer than one red indication. :
LOS B Stable operation; an occasional approach phase is fully uti-
lized -and
ti-lized -and a substantial number are approaching full use.
LOS C Stable operation with intermittent loading, relatively
frequently. Occasionally, drivers may have to wait through
more than one signal indication and backups may develop behind
turning vehicles.
• � V
1
,
I
i
/
' I
i .
-1,1131 T
LOS D Delays to approaching vehicles may be substantial during
short periods during the peak period, with periodic clearance
of developing queues. .
LOS E Unstable flow conditions with long queues over extended peri-
ods. Capacity occurs at the limit of .this level. i
LOS F Forced flow conditions, with demand exceeding capacity;
highly variable delay and long backups. 14
For the purpose of this study, all intersections were considered sig-
nalized. This allows' a uniform comparison between intersections even
though four of the intersections are presently unsignalized. Also,
the afternoon peak hour was used as the basis for all traffic calcula-
tions, as it reflected the largest traffic volumes.
CAPSST-85
All intersections studied were analyzed for levels of service (LOS) by
a computer program. CAPSSI is an acronym for "Comprehensive Analysis
for a Signalized Intersection. " . It entitles a very powerful traffic
signal planning, design, and operations tool. CAPSSI-85 refers to the
latest version which incorporates the delay methodology of the 1985
Highway Capacity Manual. CAPSSI-85 simplifies and greatly expands the
usefulness of the concepts concerning signalized intersection planning
and analysis. .
�+ The purpose of this study was to .determine what the present operating
LOS ' s were for the intersections described on page 1. The LOS 's are
shown for both the "No• Build Alternate" (Table No. 1) and the Route 41
realignment, "Alternate All (Table No. 2) . The Levels of Service are
shown in five year increments except from 1989 to 1995 (6 years) and
2005 to 2012 (7 years) . It should be noted that all Levels of Ser-
vice shown were based on the addition of another westbound lane on
Route 41, from E1 Camino Real -to the Southbound Ramps and double
northbound to westbound left turn lanes at the Route 41/E1 Camino Real
intersection. These improvements will be done during a rehabilitation
project scheduled in 1991. An additional westbound through lane on y
Santa Ysabel will also be included. These improvements will help the
flow of traffic at the Route 41/E1 Camino Real intersection, consid-
erably.
As can be seen, (Table No. 1) , the subject intersections currently
operate at an acceptable LOS, • ranging from B+ to B- in the afternoon
peak hour. It should be noted however, that the traffic LOS 's at
these intersections will deteriorate due to primarily local growth in
coming years. As shown in Table No. 1, the intersections of E1 Camino
Real/Route 41 and E1 Camino Peal/Curbaril Avenue will operate at an
unacceptable LOS in future years.
If the Route 41 realignment (Alternate A) were in place today, the �
affected intersections in the vicinity would 'operate with Levels of
f:
f
Service in the range of B+ to C+ in the afternoon peak hour (see Table
No. 2) . This is almost the same as the "No Build" Alternate would
operate at. By .the year 2012 with Alternate A, these intersections
would operate in the afternoon peak hour at Levels of Service ranging
from B- to F.- The operation of the intersection of Curbaril/E1 Camino
Real would improve (with the realignment of State Route 41) from a
Level of Service F for the No Build Alternate to an LOS of D+ for
Alternate A, in the year 2012 .
The Levels of Service of three of the intersections would deteriorate
at an accelerated rate due to the realignment of State Route 41.
The Route 101 Northbound Off Ramp/E1 Camino Real intersection in
the afternoon peak hour would deteriorate from an LOS of B- in the
year -2012 with the No Build Alternate to an LOS of C+ with the Alter-
nate A alignment.
The LOS of the Route 101 Southbound Ramps/State Route 41 intersection
would deteriorate from an LOS of"c- with the No Build Alternate to an
LOS of D- with. proposed Alternate A, in the year 2012.
The Route 41/E1 Camino Real intersection will operate at a Level of
Service of F with Alternate A in place, in the year 2012. Compared to
the No Build Alternate, for this year, there will be an increase in
delay of approximately 115 seconds per vehicle with Alternate A.
The traffic Levels of Service will deteriorate at various rates, at
all of the studied -intersections in the years to come. If Alternate A
is constructed the intersections will operationally deteriorate at an
accelerated rate, except for the intersection of E1 Camino
Real/Curbaril Avenue where the deterioration will be considerably
reduced (LOS F to LOS D+) .
As a further check, regarding Levels of Service, we ran the Alternate '
"A" traffic volumes through the "PASSER II-87" computer program for
the years 1989, 2000, and 2012. This program evaluates a system's
LOS rather than just individual intersection operational performances. ,
This evaluation is considred more realistic Gl e s ra-
o e
`ional erformances of a se o s1 nalized intersections within
close tiror ty tn each other.
ls
The results show that generally speaking, tfrom what of service at
three intersections will drop one increment from what is shown on Table
No. 2 (B to r r tn n; etc. ) . These intersec ons are the_ Northbound
OCamino Real, Route 41/El Camino Re 41 with
the SouthboundRamDS. It s oL o e t
11 oBuild" Alte
naEe would also show a simer
i ar a io:ation rate because of the gen-
eral increas c•
What is concluded from this traffic study is that several improvement
measures will be needed in the future (year 2000+) in order to main-
tain an acceptable flow of traffic. They are listed below: .
Add an eastbound lane to Route 41 from the Southbound Ramps to
E1 Camino Real.
D2 Relocate the Frontage Road's intersection with Route 41 that
is adjacent to the Southbound Ramps at least 300 feet to the
West.
3 . Widen the Southbound Off Ramp to two lanes.
4 signalize the Southbound Ramos/Route 41 intersection�� �1
C5) Signalize the Northbound Ram with El Camino Real.
r_
The eastbound lane addition would constitute either the lengthening of
the Route 101 structures over Route 41 or the complete rebuilding of
them, depending on factors such as clearance, sight distance, etc.
Either improvement to the structures will cost over $1, 000, 000. The
total cost 'of all of the above ..improvements will run from between
$2, 000, 000 to $4 , 000, 000. An exact estimate is unavailable at this
time due to the type of structure work required.
Because of the magnitude of .the future improvements, it is proposed
that Caltrans initiate a project study report on the above. This
project should then become a candidate for funding at about the year
1995 and construction during the year 2000.
TABLE NO. 1 -
NO BUILD ALTERNATE
INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE*
YEAR 1989 1995 2000 2005 2012
INTERSECTION
Santa Ysabel/ B+ B+ B+ B+ B-
South Mall
Route 101
NB. Off Ramp/ B+ B+ B+ B- B-
E1 Camino Real
Route 101
SB .Ramps/ B+ B- B- C+ C+
Route 41
Route 41/
NB On Ramp to NA** NA NA NA NA
Route 101 A
E1 Camino Real/ B- C+ C+ D D-
Route 4.1 Avg Delay= Avg Delay=
19 seconds 36 seconds
E1 Canino Real/ B- C+ C- D- oAvgDelay=
Curbaril Ave.
*Levels of Service shown depict the critical traffic moves of
the intersections listed. Critical moves usually represent the -
conflicting moves within a particular intersectipn, such as a
northbound left turn against a southbound through.move, for
example. Critical moves usually require the most "green time"
of a traffic signal phase. Generally speaking, the critical
move traffic volumes determine the operational characteristic of j
the intersection.
**Because of its proximity, the operation of this intersection
is totally dependent upon the operation of the E1 Camino Real/
Route 41 intersection. As such, it cannot be analyzed effec-
tively. Any traffic mitigation measures that raise the LOS of
the E1 Camino Real/Route 41 intersection will likewise affect'
the subject intersection, accordingly.
4 GNG T E4$1 I J IKA_t 4AVE 14-)F-
TnBLF. NO. 2
ALTERNATE "A" ALIGNMENT
INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE*
YEAR 1989 1995 2000 2005 2012
INTERSECTION 14
Santa Ysabel/ B+ B+ B+ B- B
South Mall
Route 101
NB Off Ramp/ B+ B+ B- B C+
E1 Camino Real
Route 101
SB Ramps/ B+ B B- C- D-
Route 41
Route 41/ ,
!J. NB On Ramp to NA** NA NA NA NA
Route '101
F IF.
E1 Camino Real/ C+ C- D+ E F ;
Route 41 .Avg Delay= Avg Delay= Avg Delay=
izz 39 seconds 56 seconds 152 seconds
E1 Camino Real/ B+ B- B- C+ D+
Curbaril Ave.
*Levels' of Service shown depict the critical traffic moves of the I'
intersections listed. Critical moves usually represent the con-
i 1 •
ict '..�ng moves wit'-in a particula_r _nte_r sect:on,. _sLch as a north-
bound -left turn against a southbound through move, for example.
Critical moves usually require the most "green time" of a traffic
signal phase. Generally speaking, the critical move traffic vol-
umes determine the operational characteristic of the intersec-
tion.
**Because of its proximity, the operation of this intersection is
totally dependent upon the operation of the E1 Camino Real/Route
41 intersection. As such, it cannot be analyzed effectively.
Any traffic mitigation measures that raise the LOS of the El
Camino Real/Route '41 intersection will likewise affect the sub-
ject intersection, accordingly. "
-ET
� AGENDA
DA E i ITEM #
m " ESSAG.
FOR
r A.M.
DATE TIME P.M.
M
OF
PHONE
AREA CODE NUMBER EXTENSION
0 FAX .
O MOBILE
-4 AREA 0006 NUMBER TIME TO CALL
TELERHQN�-_ , :,.PLEAS 'CALL.',
zCAME'TQ�$E•.E;YQLI>.sr- a :�- •;,WILL;CAI�L`AGAIN. .: ;,fir
MESSA E
JAC
L4-SIGNED
TOPS FORM 30028
LITHO IN U.B.A.
Iffff UNCIL ❑ CJDR
❑ FIACRO ❑ FF T IORNEY Q'MCLERWORIG ❑ P❑ MGMTTEAM ❑ R❑ C FILE ❑ Uti�F ❑ P