Item B: River Avenue Improvements

Home Browse Search

"one darned thing." From his past development experiences, he did not believe that ODOT plans would be known in a year, nor that they would not change once known. He averred that the group had consensus that the road needed improvement. He urged the group to do it right and do it at today's costs, Mr. Howard disagreed with Mr. Hill's cost assumptions. Mr. Meeker reiterated that the City Council had instructed staff to meet with the stakeholders and come up with an alternative plan for the River A venue road project. He stated that he had signatures from seven of the property owners in the Local Improvement District (LID) that would be assessed for a portion of the improvements in support ofthe proposal that had originated with Mr. Hill. He said the property owners had done what they were asked to do. He agreed with Mr. Samer that there were more pedestrians and bicyclists than before. He felt the crosswalks and bicycle lanes to the east edge of the Post Office property addressed bicycle and pedestrian needs. Mr. Samer asked the property owners if they would accept a revision to their proposal wherein the bikeway beyond the east edge of the Post Office was planned to be a 12-foot Mixed Use sidewalk. The property owners indicated agreement. Mr. Samer moved to vote on the Property Owners' Proposal as amended, with the 12- foot Mixed Use sidewalk on the south side of the road from the eastern boundary of the Post Office to the east end of River A venue, with votes to follow on amendments for whether or not to suggest to hold the project pending further information from ODOT and designation of a sunset date in that case, whether the City should adjust its Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) to move up the bicycle/pedestrian project to improve connectivity to Santa Clara through the Beltline Highway underpass at the east end of River Avenue, and whether or not street trees should be included along the road through the entire project. Mr. Hyman provided a second. In response to a question from Mr. Meeker, Mr. Sanler stated that the Santa Clara connectivity project was a separate project with a separate funding plan. Ms. Vaughn observed that the discussion had been good, but it was approaching time to adjourn and she did not want to be rushed into a vote. She asked if group members would be amenable to meeting again to complete the task before the group. Mr. Spain responded that he thought the group was close to its conclusion. He asked if SCCO representatives had any specific concerns. Ms. Vaughn related that the main concern had been the impact on property owners, but the SCCO was also supportive of trees and the use of natural swales for drainage. Mr. Spain pointed out that the property owners' proposal had left the drainage issue open for more specific fine-tuning. He felt the property owners were amenable to utilizing natural swales for drainage. MINUTES-----Ri ver A venue Stakeholder Group- Public Works Department October 5,2005 Page 7