2010 Council Goals and Strategic Plan | City
Council Members | Calendar
of Events | Elections
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. 18
Direct staff to monitor traffic volumes on Central Boulevard and O’Hara Avenue and to return to Council with a recommendation to construct the Second Street Extension once the level of service at the intersection of existing O’Hara Avenue and Central Boulevard reaches level “E,” or business owners along O’Hara Avenue request relief from the traffic congestion, whichever occurs first.
staff to sell the right of way for the Second Street Extension north
of Central Boulevard.
May 14, 1996, the City Council approved Resolution No. 96-53 approving
a Right of Way Contract to purchase the right of way for the Central
Boulevard and O’Hara Avenue realignment for the purchase price of $636,100.
July 15, 1997, the Planning Commission by a 5-0 vote adopted Resolution
97-33 recommending the northerly extension of Second Street.
July 22, 1997, the City Council denied a General Plan Amendment dealing
with the Second Street extension, but directed staff not to sell the
right of way and hold it for future reconsideration by the Council.
the City grows, traffic concerns, which in the past were only vague
items for discussion, have become real and pressing needs. The Second Street extension falls into that category.
The recent opening of Walnut from Dainty to Central and the Sand
Creek/O’Hara loop has opened up traffic and improved vehicular flow
so that it may be difficult to imagine why the Second Street extension
is so important. It is!
one needs to do is to realize that even though the City is currently
reviewing its General Plan, the build-out population of the City will
undoubtedly reach three and possibly four times its current population. We already experience unacceptable delays in driving across
town. With the previous
annexation of the northwest area and the anticipated annexation of the
central area later this spring, the smooth and continuous flow of traffic
along the future O’Hara/Second Street corridor starts to come into focus.
This corridor will be a major conduit of people, cars, and commerce
into the downtown core. It makes no sense to congest that corridor by
inserting two “T” intersections, as the alignment now exists.
previous Council struggled with this question as a result of lobbying
by the businesses along the then existing 600-foot long O’Hara.
The existing traffic volumes on this road until a few weeks ago
consisted of traffic going to and from these individual businesses.
Traffic volumes were less than 1,500 vehicles per day.
The business owners understandably wanted traffic volumes to
increase as rapidly as possible in front of their businesses.
Staff concurs with this desire and believes that the best possible
approach for all parties would be to allow traffic to increase until
it becomes a problem and then to construct the Second Street Extension
to relieve the congestion. If
the right of way is sold, that congestion relief will not be possible.
volumes for the original stretch of O’Hara incorporating the Second
Street Extension are 9,000 vehicles per day in 2010, with an additional
18,900 vehicles per day on the new Second Street extension. Nine thousand vehicles per day is an acceptable level of traffic
for this road. To give
the Council a feel for this traffic volume, it relates to existing Walnut
Boulevard between Balfour and Oak Street.
It also relates to a traffic volume that will allow movement
into and out of the existing businesses, which the traffic study indicated
as being a problem if Second Street was not extended.
This extension of Second Street has been analyzed by a host of experts from every corner of the professional spectrum. They include the City Engineer, the City’s Economic Development Director, the City Traffic Engineer, Police Chief, Fire Chief, and two separate Traffic Engineering Consultants. All are unanimous in their support for this road extension, but see no reason for it to be built prematurely.
Improved north/south traffic for the City
access to downtown
term increased tax revenue due to improved access to downtown business
already own the right of way
Economic Development Director, City
Traffic Engineer, Police
District Chief, Two
separate Traffic Engineering Consultants
expensive in current up-front cost
up-front development fees due to smaller Equus Group site
desired by the businesses on existing O’Hara
a previous agreement signed by the developer and the City, the City
agreed to build the Second Street extension at its expense within the
right of way purchased. Therefore,
there are no real cost savings in trying to include the road extension
into the Equus Group Project since the City is paying for it whenever
it is built. Staff believes
that the win scenario for all concerned is to allow Equus to proceed
with their project with the major access off O’Hara Avenue, and save
the City roadway money for more pressing current needs.
Only build the extension when absolutely necessary.
City Manager and City Engineer held a breakfast meeting with business
owners along O’Hara north of Central to discuss this staff report and
Options 1 or 2. The business
owners were unanimous in their support for Option 1, to retain the right
of way for future construction.
The owners have seen a significant increase in traffic and were
already noticing difficulty in pulling out of their driveways.
the Council elects to follow Option #1, an environmental analysis will
be necessary prior to beginning final design of the roadway.
14, 1997 – Traffic Study
City of Brentwood City Council
150 City Park Way
Brentwood, CA 94513
Fax (925) 516-5441