Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTransportation Board - Minutes - 02/20/2002REGULAR MEETING MINUTES of the TRANSPORTATION BOARD February 20, 2002 5:45 p.m. City of Fort Collins - Community Room 215 N. Mason Street FOR REFERENCE: CHAIR: Christophe Ricord 472.8769 VICE CHAIR: Dan Gould 482.1074 STAFF LIAISON: Don Bachman 224.6049 ADMIN SUPPORT: Cynthia Scott 224.6058 BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Dan Gould Neil Grigg Bruce Henderson Tim Johnson Tom Kramer Brad Miller Ray Moe Christophe Ricord Heather Trantham CITY STAFF IN ATTENDANCE: Don Bachman Gary Diede Randy Hensley Mark Jackson Cam McNair Ron Phillips Tom Reiff Cynthia Scott Tom Vosburg Ken Waido GUESTS IN ATTENDANCE: Dave Bredahl ABSENT: Brent Thordarson Transportation Board APPROVED Regular Meeting Minutes February 20, 2002 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair Ricord called the meeting to order at 5:55 p.m. 2. PUBLIC COMMENT None. Page 2 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES There was a motion and a second to approve the January 16, 2002 Transportation Board minutes as presented. Thordarson, although absent, had earlier submitted a minor wording change to his comments on the N. College Avenue Improvement Project regarding directional signage on page 3. The amendment was approved by the board and the motion carried by a unanimous vote. 4. COUNCIL LIAISON REPORT None. 5. DISCUSSION ITEMS a) PROPOSED INTERSECTION CAPACITY RESERVATION POLICY - Vosburg Mr. Vosburg stated that this item is basically related to some new internal policies that need to be adopted in order to help staff administer the Development Review Process (DRP), in light of issues that have arisen as a result of existing deficiencies in the Adequate Public Facilities (APF) requirements and the Level of Service (LOS) Standards. Background: Because of some existing deficiencies at key intersections and the APF requirements, we're starting to run out of available intersection capacity at certain key intersections. We expect that development will be competing for that capacity and it could be very contentious in the development review process. Therefore, we need to have some clear policies in place about how to administer and allocate that scarce resource. Mr. Vosburg referred to the information in the board's packets. The first memo provides an overview of the policy that is being proposed and the second one is an earlier memo that provided background on the APF issue in more detail. He stated that he would like to review the high points of the policies, since in order to implement that policy, it will need to go to City Council for action. It will also require some changes to the Land Use Code to implement. Chair Ricord inquired as to what the Council's timeline is in terms of implementation. Vosburg stated that changes to the LUC go to City Council every six months to make periodic adjustments. The next opportunity to do that is June 2002. There is a whole packet of LUC revisions and this policy is slated to be brought forward as part of that. 1#- Transportation Board APPROVED Regular Meeting Minutes February 20, 2002 Page 3 Basically, we need to create a new step in the DRP and those steps are articulated in the LUC. Vosburg stated that the issue is that because of the capacity problems we're going to have at a couple of intersections, we need to have some clear rules about how to allocate it. To summarize our proposal, the first element is to clarify the stages of reservation. There are various stages of the DRP and the first stage is called the Overall Development Plan stage or ODP stage. At this stage it is a conceptual bubble plan of the development. There isn't a lot of hard engineering done, but it is for a large area that would be developing in stages. We're proposing that at that level of review, the purpose of the Transportation Impact Study (TIS) should be to identify and raise potential APF or capacity problems, but not create any kind of right or reservation for the developer at that initial stage. It should be like a heads up. At the next stage, the Project Development Plan (PDP) stage, that's where people are getting really serious and the applicant is required to submit substantially more detailed development plans that cost a lot more money to develop due to detailed engineering. This is where they get very precise about what is actually proposed to be built. It is at this point that the applicant is making a significant commitment and investment in the process of trying to develop their plan. This is when we need to introduce some certainty of the process. They need either a very clear direction that there is a problem and they should stop because it's a deal killer or they should get the issue resolved and be able to move forward with some confidence, at least on the issue of capacity. This is the stage where we would introduce the concept of reservation. With a PDP, the developer does not have a vested right to a project. That doesn't happen until the Final Plan Stage. Therefore, one point staff wanted to make with this policy is that there is a distinction between what we're calling reservation and full-blown legal vesting. We're not proposing to create some kind of a vested right to capacity and we don't envision people being able to reserve capacity the way people reserve water rights for instance. The second piece of the proposed policy is that we believe it would be better for everybody involved if there was a way of getting an early determination on the issue about capacity, before all the engineer and planning costs are expended. We're proposing to create this new step in the DRP where someone could get their PDP level TIS certified and validated in terms of its capacity assumptions before they spend all the money to do the detailed engineering. They would have to do enough planning to know how many units they are talking about, what the access points are and deal with trip generations and distribution assumptions, but they wouldn't have to do all the vertical engineering and detailed landscaping and utility work. The idea is that if they could at least resolve the question as to whether or not there is enough capacity, they could come in and get the TIS certified. Then those questions would be resolved and then they could feel like they could go forth with all the other work with some degree of confidence. This is basically the new step that we have to go to Council to create. 1 Transportation Board APPROVED Regular Meeting Minutes February 20, 2002 Page 4 We also wanted to make sure that people wouldn't invoke that option just to lock up capacity in order to keep their options open. Therefore, it's important that there be lapse provisions so that if they did that, we would have to see a valid application submitted within a finite period of time. This way people wouldn't just be sitting on capacity. Once they turn in plans, we already have some requirements in the code that require developers to make timely efforts on their project. We think we have enough elements in the proposed policy to protect competing developers against someone turning in a bogus application or a flawed one where they really don't have any intentions to pursue solely for the sake of pre-empting competition. The final piece of this proposed policy is that in addition to setting up this new procedure, we recognize we have to set up some new administrative procedures internally and get our own systems lined up, which we will be working on. Mr. Vosburg said that the one point he would like to make clear is that this is a policy Band-Aid to deal with how we administer the situation given the fact that we have this limited capacity. This action that is being taken to Council doesn't fix the problem itself. It doesn't create new capacity out there, it doesn't identify or propose how we're going to get funding to fix those problems. It merely gives us an improved set of rules to operate within. Diede asked Vosburg to give the board an example of a real life scenario, such as Vine/Lemay or Prospect/Timberline. Vosburg said that Vine/Lemay is a good example. In the Master Street Plan, we have identified a project that we are proposing it be realigned. The existing Master Plan calls for a grade -separated overpass. Clearly, this is an extremely expensive capital project being required to fix that problem. Currently the intersection is operating at a LOS C, so it's fine. But, when you start adding in all the traffic from development that has been recently approved and start projecting what future volumes will be, which is the whole point of a TIS, we recognize that with the existing two-lane configuration, we're going to be at capacity. There are standards in the code that say you must maintain an acceptable LOS and we can't approve a project if the TIS indicates that those LOS won't be met. In most situations, in Development Review, we make a comment saying you don't have enough capacity and your project has to pass capacity. Typically, that looks like a left or right -turn lane or some other fix to the intersection geometry. Normally, on a big project, that can get penciled in and development can handle that kind of thing. However, with Vine/Lemay, we can't really get much more capacity than what is already existing until you do this grade -separated overpass which is millions of dollars and is related to an existing deficiency. We acknowledge that there is a major City role there. Therefore we can't very well tell the developers to do the grade - separated overpass themselves. So until we solve the Vine/Lemay improvement problem, there is a finite amount of capacity at that intersection. We anticipate that there will be competition, a race if you will, for final plan approval among developers in the area. We want to prevent things like say a staff member told one of the developers that they ought to look at something or other and that caused another round of review which gave the edge to somebody else, then that Transportation Board APPROVED Regular Meeting Minutes February 20, 2002 Page 5 developer could allege that we were exhibiting favoritism. This is just a scenario to explain that things have the potential to get really nasty. Staff feels that if we put this kind of a procedure in place, then it moves the nastiness to a different stage in the process where people have not spent as much money. There will still be a race, will still be controversy and contention, but hopefully, it will be at a point in the process where the degree of commitment and risk have been minimized. Board Comments/Questions: Grigg: Let's say you have an intersection like Vine/Lemay in which the developments that are out there aren't right there at Vine/Lemay, but some distance away and the capacity at that intersection is going to be affected by those developments. How far out does the traffic engineer look from the intersection? Vosburg: Typically it is one - mile, but the code gives the engineer authority to extend that distance if they have good reason to based on traffic engineering methods and judgement. Gould: When did the idea of actual capacity limit appear? Vosburg: The concept of testing development against LOS standards is something that goes way back. Trantham: Will developers be told they can't build until it's fixed? Vosburg: Yes. Trantham: Does the City of Fort Collins have an obligation to make the fix in a certain amount of time? Vosburg: Yes, we do from a fairness point of view. We can't saddle a single developer for the cost of a grade -separated overpass. There is a separate effort in the City that is looking at how we fund these major projects and it will probably be a mix of things. Henderson: Can the City decide to override the APF code for say a really small development that comes along? Vosburg: Yes, the PER Board can decide that. Henderson: Have you thought about this idea of the reservation system as a trigger, so for example, you get reservations up to 100%, wouldn't that add a sense of urgency in the planning process to go off and figure out the City can go about funding improvements in this intersection? Because presumably, that's going to be a few years of actual development that is going to cause the increased demand, right? Vosburg: That's an excellent idea. The City's current method of funding transportation infrastructure is primarily through the Street Oversizing program, which is in sync - it's driven by development approval. In terms of our major capital projects that have been part of the Building Community Choices (BCC), our existing prioritization methods and capital planning methods have not been as sophisticated as taking into account reservation policy. Maybe that's something we think about. That's an area we really ought to revisit and take a hard look at how we choose to prioritize the capital. Maybe that idea of having a Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) that is revisited more frequently and priorities are adjusted in response to things like the reservation method seems like a good idea. Hensley added that this is one of the topics that will be addressed in the Transportation Master Plan update which Jackson will talk about later on the agenda. Transportation Board APPROVED Regular Meeting Minutes February 20, 2002 Page 6 Johnson: When looking at impacts, the one -mile number is antiquated. Perhaps it makes more sense to use the mean trip distance instead. This should be part of the discussion. Jackson agreed that the one -mile # just doesn't cut it anymore. Jackson briefly talked about new modeling software - critical link analysis. Johnson: Said that he had the opportunity to see the model and said that it would be a good idea to show the model to the Board at some point. Johnson: The main point that I want to make is I take a pretty big exception to saying that we have an obligation. In the case of utilities for example, if our needs exceed our capacity to store water, we do not have an obligation in the City to build a new dam in the canyon. I would be very careful as staff in using that word and to send that forward as a policy. There are a lot of folks that would never accept that statement right off the top. That statement would just draw fire in public meetings. Vosburg: The statement I made is that if we were holding out this vision of a structure plan which was based on a certain build out and there is a policy statement that we're going to accommodate a certain amount of growth in a certain place, there is an inconsistency. I would hope that we can bring our vision and policy stuff all into alignment so that we are not internally inconsistent. If we do not believe as a community that we have an obligation to make these improvements, then we ought to revise our plans or make it clear that they are entirely dependent on winning the lottery. Our comprehensive plan ought to be grounded in sound capital money. We should either step up to the plate or revise the vision. Johnson: That answers part of it, but let me continue. Dissonance is the resonance of� politics. To say straight out that we have an "obligation" puts in the mind of the public and perhaps some developers that we are going to fix the problem. Nowhere=._ is it addressed in the capital problems even though everybody knows that the capital problem is huge. In one sense, if we have a community obligation to fix it, it would drive this solution towards a sales tax only. Developers have a trip distance obligation because they have created trips. The latter creates a strong argument in this capital discussion or an excise tax. That's why I caution very strongly about how you use the term "obligation." Vosburg: I accept your point. You're right, that is an excellent point. I was too loose with that term. I was trying to avoid giving a legal opinion because there is legal case law that says you cannot exact from development an exaction that fixes existing deficiencies. If there are existing deficiencies out there, it is illegal for us to get that. I interpreted it that if we can't make them do it, then it's our obligation, which is not the case. If we can't make them do it, we can just allow things to stay the way they are. That's splitting hairs, but you're right. I misspoke. I appreciate your advice not to frame it that way. Gould: What struck me about this plan is that I really didn't at first think about problem intersections like Lemay/Vine, but I was thinking about existing built -out intersections. What do you do after capacity is reached on those as many are right now? What are you going to do about the infill or redevelopment? There ought to be ongoing generations of improvements. To me, this seems like a stopgap measure. , -N Transportation Board APPROVED Regular Meeting Minutes February 20, 2002 Page 7 This is emergency stuff and is the way we've been building intersections all along. I really hope we can do what we have to do here from a pragmatic sense and figure out a fair way to fund that, but also get into the idea of how to create new capacity at built -out intersections and the concept of paying for the alternatives. Building that in to the next way of dealing with mobility after everything is built out at the intersection. How do we finance that? There really ought to be a way of buying out mobility as the ultimate unit of capacity, not assuming that it's just automobiles. Vosburg: Those are excellent topics for the Master Transportation Plan and City Plan updates. Definitely the kinds of things we need to wrestle with. You're right, this is stopgap or a Band -aid. Chair Ricord asked if staff would be coming back to the board or not. Vosburg said that it probably wouldn't be necessary, as what will be taken to council is straightforward. The issues that the board has been discussing have dealt mostly with funding and the board will be involved in that via the update to the Master Transportation Plan. Gould asked that staff not put boundaries on the solutions like funding. Leave that open for other processes to be able to go toward new areas. The board thanked Vosburg for his time and presentation. Hensley said that he would like to applaud the board for a very interesting discussion. These are topics that staff grapples with day in and day out at numerous meetings and with various combinations of people. We really value your feedback and I'm always amazed at the quickness with which you grasp these issues and the depth of the insights you share with us. It's important and that's why we come to you. I would add that with regard to a lot of those policy questions that you have been touching on tonight, we will be back in front of you time and time again over the next year as we get into the Transportation Master Plan and the City Plan updates. b) MASON STREET TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR UPDATE - Hensley Hensley stated that he doesn't have a whole lot to report at this point on the Mason Street Transportation Corridor. He said that there are two things to share. One is that staff has been successful in hiring a consulting firm to help move forward in our efforts to secure funding for the grant to do the MSTC project. That just happened a few days ago. Staff is in the formative stages of putting together an internal management team to guide this project through the policy questions and the other considerations that we'll need to deal with at a staff level. Our first meeting is scheduled for February 26. He said that he'll have more the report next month. Transportation Board APPROVED Regular Meeting Minutes February 20, 2002 Page 8 c) CITY PLAN/TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN UPDATES - Waido Waido stated that the updates to these two plans will be going on for the next 16-24 months. As background information, City Plan was adopted five years ago. In that document, there is a commitment to review it at least every five years to see if it needs any adjustment. For the past several months, staff has been concentrating on two areas. One area is getting ready to prepare a citizen participation plan which we consider a very critical aspect of both these processes. We've hired a consultant who is an expert in developing citizen participation plans to assist us in the development of that plan. While we don't have the specifics done yet, the process will be very similar to what was followed in the development of City Plan itself. There will be citizen advisory committees, key boards and commissions will be involved, we'll use various techniques of public forums and open houses, newsletters, web sites, mass media, etc. to try to keep everyone informed as to what is happening in these updates. Waido said that the second is the fleshing out and getting together a Request for Proposals (RFP) for consultant services to assist in developing or looking at the update to the City Plan. He noted that he would be talking from the City Plan perspective and Jackson would detail the TMP update. From the City Plan perspective, we're looking at that project being divided into two parts. The first part is a more global look, the future of Fort Collins 20-50 years from now. What does Fort Collins want to be? What type of community does it want to be, etc? Somewhat intricate to that is the size of the city, population and how big will the growth management area be and so on. The second part will in some ways be dependent on some of the decisions that are made in the first part. The first part is expected to take between 6-9 months. The second part is expected to take between 9-12 months. We've spent a lot of time committing to each other and recognizing the need for very, very close coordination between City Plan update and the Master Transportation Plan update. Basically, we think they are inseparable. They have to be done together as they are so intertwined and dependent on each other. Jackson referred to the background memo distributed to the board last month. He said that it gives the flavor for some of the issues or some of the perspective we're going to take with this iteration of updating the TMP. Unless you want to, I don't believe I need to rehash all that or go through the bullets. I thought I'd just talk about process and philosophy tonight. Process wise, we're moving along quickly. It's important to start the RFP process together and go through especially the critical visioning phase together with City Plan because that's what decides what we want this community to look like and then we can talk about what the ramifications and implications are from a transportation standpoint. Public outreach is paramount for both of these efforts. Waido and I have committed to be at every public outreach opportunity, because they are so dependent on each other and can't be separated. 5a Transportation Board APPROVED Regular Meeting Minutes February 20, 2002 Page 9 Philosophy wise, it has been very refreshing to see the excitement and input that people are willing to give to this. I don't mean just within Transportation Planning either. We've had good input from Engineering, Traffic Operations, Transfort, Street Oversizing, Development Review, and Advance Planning staff. Jackson briefly went into historical information regarding the previous TMP, summarizing that it basically read like an encyclopedia and that everyone agreed that it now needs to be more than that. As far as some of the hard questions that you started asking when Vosburg was presenting - this update is the opportunity to dive into those. It's a chance to look at some of the assumptions and some of the visions that we came up with originally in the City Plan process and with the benefit of 5 years down the road, take a look and see how it has worked. Jackson said that one of the tasks that is being built into this process is evolving the Master Street Plan. He stated that he inherited the MSP about three years ago and it has always existed as a map based plan that shows how we get to the City Plan vision. What we envision with this effort is "growing" that and moving beyond a map based plan, adding support text that really talks not only about what the map is, but its use as a planning and a regulatory tool as well. It will also reflect a lot of the things that have happened since its beginning such as the Access Control Plans and the MSTC for example. I anticipate that the next time we talk to you, the RFP will have been out and hopefully the consultant will be selected and we'll be moving forward. Board Comments/Questions: Grigg: If I understand correctly, there will be two different consultants? Jackson: Yes. Grigg: I have a concern that it will be well coordinated. Jackson: We talked a lot about that and it does put more of a burden on Waido and myself to make sure that it is coordinated. There are so many things that are similar between the two. There are a lot of things that aren't very similar though and the advantage of having a separate team will result in a better product to get to those tasks and goals that we want to meet. I have committed to Waido that we will be synced up and it will be a coordinated process. Waido: It just has to be and we know that. Grigg: I wonder if there is some kind of best practice out there? Somewhere there has to be a good model for coordination. Phillips: That's an excellent question. There are three points I would like to make. One is when City Plan and the TMP were done 5 years ago, it was done on a similar basis with two separate consultants and the staff worked very closely together on those efforts. Secondly, we have a Land Use, Transportation, and Air Quality (LUTRAQ) team that was the meshing group for the effort five years ago. As a matter of fact, it preceded the City Plan update and the TMP update at that point because it was involved in the Congestion Management Plan that was done first. That group is still functioning and has renewed its function in the last two years. It will be an integral part of this process. I-N Transportation Board APPROVED Regular Meeting Minutes February 20, 2002 Page 10 Phillips said that the third thing is that there is a possible downside to having one consulting team. We just went through an experience with the Downtown Strategic plan (DSP) that illustrates that. We're doing Parking and Transportation elements of the DSP and we're doing design and marketing and other elements as well, and when you put a consulting team together, what sometimes happens is one area will be real strong and another area will be somewhat weak. We are struggling now with the three top candidates in that area. The top team has a very strong design and marketing aspect, but has a weaker transportation aspect. This is the downside when you get in our process with the City for procurement, when you get into that situation, you can't take this firm and drop that one. We're locked into a process where we have to recognize the integrity of the team as presented and if they are rated the highest, we have to deal with that. We can negotiate some things, but we can't just pick and choose. Jackson and Waido thanked the board for their time and promised to be back. 6. ACTION ITEMS a) ELECTION OF OFFICERS - All Trantham nominated Ricord for Chair. Ricord accepted and stated that one of the things he championed from about the time he first started on the Board, has been the safety issue. He stated that progress has been made in this area, but it is still a work in its infancy. As Chair, he said that he would like to foster that along for the next year. There was a motion and a second to re-elect Ricord as Chair. The motion carried by a unanimous vote. Miller nominated Henderson for Vice Chair. There was a motion and a second to elect Henderson as Vice Chair. The motion carried by a unanimous vote. Chair Ricord said that Henderson may be called upon to run meetings more frequently this year due to his job responsibilities. 7. REPORTS a) BOARD MEMBER REPORTS Gould: Letter re: Snow Removal. Gould drafted a letter regarding snow removal, which was distributed. The intention was to reiterate some of the issues that are involved as to why bicyclists are deflected out of their bicycling pattern. I'm doing this in the spirit of thanking staff. I appreciate that priority bike lanes are being cleared. The benefits are great and are not always visible to those in cars. It was agreed that this will be discussed at the next regular meeting of the Board and Gould will lead a short discussion then. Traffic Safety is Really #1 Issue. One of the headlines in the paper said that growth is the #1 issue that people care about, but the first negative thought that people have when thinking about growth is traffic. To me, that should read that traffic is the #1 issue and if you think about it, that pertains to all our discussions tonight such as intersection failure. Transportation Board APPROVED Regular Meeting Minutes February 20, 2002 Page 11 Moe: Tonight's discussions were interesting and there is a lot of neat stuff going on right now with City Plan and the TMP updates. Miller: Street Situation. On Kennedy Parkway near Best Buy, there is now an exit there. The issue is that people that are coming WB out of the Post Office, making a left -turn onto Kennedy Parkway and people coming EB out of Best Buy making a left-hand turn onto the Parkway nearly miss each other. I live in the general vicinity and especially on Saturdays you can hear the squealing of tires and so on. The problem is that they don't line up right. I'm not sure what would mitigate that problem, perhaps a center median? Diede: It's supposed to be a right -turn only out of the Post Office, but a lot of people go around the pork chop and make a left turn. Miller: The PO has signage that actually condones and encourages left turns out of there. Diede: I'll talk to Eric and see if there is something we can do. Trantham: Taft Hill Road Improvements. Both lanes on Drake are open now and it seems to function a little better than before. Now the race is on the other side of the intersection to merge instead of on the east side. Henderson: RTA/MPO Meetinit Report. I went to a meeting about two weeks ago. It involved Margie Joy and Rick Hufnagel and had to do with the RTA. This board had a presentation by Cliff Davidson back in December. It seems that they are making some progress on the structure of the organization. They talked about a lot of similar things that we already covered. One of the impressions that the folks in the audience got from this was that there wasn't enough public participation. A lot of people were really convinced that there was a strong connection between the improvements of the plan that were projected for the 1-25 corridor and this whole proposal for the RTA. It was an interesting conclusion. The biggest part to the update was the more talking they did at this meeting about team structure. When Cliff talked about it, there was this notion of a stakeholders team and then there was a steering committee that was pretty much citizens that would talk about plans, provide feedback, and that sort of thing. The impression I got was that the steering committee was to work fairly closely with staff and the people guiding this. The role of the steering committee now is what I would describe as more of a cheerleading role. It is to go out and champion the proposal for forming the RTA and funding that is going to be a ballot initiative in a couple years. Their function is to champion that, raise awareness, raise funds and garner support which is quite a different approach than what we heard a couple of months ago. I've been trying to get a hold of Kurt Kastein to talk about that, as he is involved. 10%, Transportation Board APPROVED Regular Meeting Minutes February 20, 2002 Page 12 Johnson: Chamber Leadership Forum. I was invited to talk to the Chamber recently and one of the other fellows on the forum was a developer named Gino. It was clear from his comments that he has no idea where Street Oversizing money goes and how it's spent. The fact that we have a large capital deficit just makes it took like we don't know what we're doing with the money. That indicated to me is that it wouldn't hurt, as we go into this discussion about the need for capital, to have a good outreach program to inform the different organizations how it works. Go back to the fundamentals and explain what Street Oversizing does and exactly where it goes. Kudos to Kathleen Reavis. There was a pretty nasty letter to the editor regarding the South College Access Plan. I have to give Kathleen Reavis a lot of credit for being able to work through issues like this. I know that her job has not been easy. When she presented the plan to us it was well done and she also did a nice job at Council. Letter re: County Building. I saw a letter by Michael Ferguson about the County building and the way they're doing access on Mason Street. They are basically ignoring the function of the MSTC. I thought it was a good letter. It's been no secret that we are planning the MSTC and they obviously ignored it. Did they come to City staff with their access plan? Diede: About 3-4 weeks ago, the county asked us to come over for a meeting and take a took at the plan. They had a scale model and everything. We raised lots of questions about why the building was oriented the way it was. The answers we got from them were that it was too late to change the plan. In a nutshell, there are definitely some issues between the City and the County and we're doing our best to resolve them. It's been a frustrating process. Grigg: S. College Access Plan Presentation. I would like to echo Tim's compliment to Kathleen Reavis and other staff who worked on the plan. They did an especially good job of handling a tough issue, particularly Kathleen. She was extremely professional, she had all the information, and in all the public participation meetings she worked through many issues. This was a great example of planning and follow through. Ricord: S. College Access Plan. I was going to report the same thing as Neil and Tim. I agree, this was one of the tougher issues that I've ever seen staff have to endure. It was a pretty thorough going over. Kathleen did very well. One thing I may have done differently was to have some of the opposing points of view here for our meeting. I'm not saying that it would have changed my mind, but nevertheless, I feel it would have been good to have some of those business people here as we did for Vine/SH 14 alignment issue a few years ago. We convened in the Council chambers due to all the public input. I hope that when these geographic hotspot type issues come up that we could have a little more public input. /'\ Transportation Board APPROVED Regular Meeting Minutes February 20, 2002 Page 13 b) STAFF REPORTS Diede: New Signage. On Shields at both Prospect and Plum we're trying out some new signage. The sign says, "Yield to pedestrians - It's the law." Boulder did this and had pretty good compliance. Dunbar Opening. There was an FYI in your packets explaining the upcoming opening of Dunbar. Bachman: Board Training Session Offer. Reminder that the training session for board members is coming up, March 7 and 8. Everyone should have received a brochure from the City Clerk's office. Special Funding Meeting. Reminder that on Wednesday, February 27, there is a special Transportation Board meeting to discuss funding with Kurt Kastein and Bill Bertschy. Dinner will be provided. The CIC room has been reserved and the meeting should start at 5:30 p.m. City Transportation Services Retreat. Board members Johnson, Gould and Grigg were invited to speak about their perspective on transportation at the recent Transportation Services retreat. Staff really enjoyed having them there. Phillips: Next City Council Meeting. There are two items on the next Council agenda. One is the RTA presentation and the other is the Council Transportation Finance Sub -Committee reporting back to the council on the last six meetings they've had and where they're going and so on. This is something you might want to watch. ITEMS FOR NEXT AGENDA: • Transportation Demand Management Report • Mason Street Transportation Corridor Update • CSU Strategic Plan • Dial -A -Ride Transportation Funding • Safety/Traffic Law Enforcement - talk about what, specifically, do we want to get into (requested by Johnson) • Gould's Letter 8. OTHER BUSINESS None 9. ADJOURN Chair Ricord adjourned the meeting at 8:05 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Cynthia Scott, Executive Administrative Assistant