HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 011789 - Joint Mtng IT16 A-1
MEETING DATE : 2/7/89
MINUTES
JOINT CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, January 17 , 1989 7 :30 p.m.
Atascadero Administration Building
The meeting of the Atascadero City Council and Planning commis-
sion was called to order at 7 :36 p.m. by Planning Chairperson
Lochridge, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Councilmembers Mackey, Lilley, Shiers, Dexter, and Mayor Borgeson
Planning Commission Members Luna, Highland, Lopez-Balbontin,
Waage, Brasher, Tobey, and Chairperson Lochridge
Staff Present: Ray Windsor, City Manager; Paul Sensibaugh,
Public Works Director; Henry Engen, Community
Development Director; Mark Joseph, Administra-
tive Services Director; Gil Dovalina, Acting -
Parks and Recreation Director; Joel Moses,
Associate Planner; Pat Shepphard, Administrative
Secretary I
PUBLIC COMMENT:
John McNeil, 8765 Sierra Vista, commented on the offer by Wells
Fargo Bank to give a blanket conveyance of their interest in all
their roads to the City. He spoke on three benefits the people
of Atascadero wanted by incorporation which included maintenance
of all the City' s roads, and urged that there is a moral
obligation to the people who voted for incorporation that the
City accept all the City roads and accept Wells Fargo Bank' s
offer.
A. CONSENT CALENDAR (Planning Commission items)
1 . Approval of minutes of the regular Planning Commission
meeting of January 3, 1989
2 . Approval of time extension for Tentative Parcel Map
29-86 at 9990 E1 Camino Real (Mike Hawkins/Twin Cities
Engineering)
Commissioner Lopez-Balbontin referenced the previous meeting
wherein he made a recommendation that Traffic Way should be
widened as soon as possible due to the street' s hazardous
nature:
_2_ 0
MOTION: Made by Commissoner Luna, seconded by Commissioner
Waage and carried 7 : 0 to approve the Consent Cal-
endar as presented.
At this point, Chairperson Lochridge turned the meeting over
to Mayor Borgeson for the General Plan Update.
Mayor Borgeson provided a brief summary on the agenda items
noting there may be some that will not be discussed this
evening in the interest of time.
B. GENERAL PLAN UPDATE - City Council/Planning Commission
Policy Direction Discussion:
1 . Circulation Element
- road classification system, trails, bikeways, routes-
to-school
- implementation. . .paper roads, assessment districts
- 101 corridor deficiencies
In presenting this item, Henry Engen explained the intent of
the study session for the update, and proceeded to address
the existing 19 policies which are highlighted in the
circulation element in Atascadero.
He spoke on efforts by Public Works and Planning for a new
functional classification map that would detail a more
sophisticated breakdown of street classifications ( i .e.
with regard to major arterials, a breakdown between urban
and rural areas which would represent different standards) .
Paul Sensibaugh reported on a road classification study
which is currently under way noting there is confusion
between the General Plan and CalTrans' classification for
some of the same roads . He explained a matrix which is
being designed to determine what rights-of-ways should be
along with appropriate street lengths; there is a need for
some type of pattern. Discussion followed.
Mr. Engen explained that in addition to the proposed map
that shows the detailed breakdown of the functional
classification of streets , there would also be a correspond-
ing text that defined what the purpose of each of the
streets are.
There was discussion by the Council and Commission relative
to changing the name of "Traffic Way" . Upon the consensus,
it was noted that this item will be placed on a future
Council agenda for discussion.
Mr. Engen introduced Ron DiCarli- and Mike Harmon with the
Area Council of Governments which is the transportation
planning agency for all of the cities and county areas
_3_
within San Luis Obispo County.
Mr. Dicarli referenced the Highway 101 corridor study which
has been prepared by this agency along with CalTrans and is
now completed. A series of deficiencies have been
identified which include design deficiencies and projected
levels of traffic impacts along the entire 101 corridor, and
in some cases, improvement options . Mr. DiCarli proceeded
to address various means available to improve some of the
deficiencies, but emphasized that a higher level of
financial responsibility is now falling upon the local
jurisdictions .
Mike Harmon referred to various overheads and described the
various deficiencies pointed out by the study. Recommended
major improvements to highway interchanges currently
necessary include: Route 41 west, Traffic Way, and
Curbaril . Also discussed were possible mitigation measures.
Mr. DiCarli emphasized that funding has become very tight
for state highway projects and explained his agency' s role
as a regional transportation agency in working with the
various jurisdictions within the County. On a local route
to a state highway connection, a great deal of the financial
responsibility now falls to the local jurisdiction in which
the total cost can be anywhere from $5 to $6 million each.
Because of Caltrans present funding situation, a large local
contribution is needed in order to have the opportunity of
securing state highway project funding ( i .e. Highway 41
realignment, Traffic Way improvements, etc . ) It is
important that the circulation element address some kind of
implementation program for raising the 'revenues needed.
In response to question from Commissioner Lopez-Balbontin
concerning financial responsibility for the Highway 41/101
interchange, Mr. Decarli responded that if it is a high
priority, it is funded 100% by the state. In this case,
neither the district nor the state feels this particular
interchange is a high priority.
Discussion followed concerning possible ways of raising the
necessary funds : development fees, assessment districts,
sales tax, etc.
Councilman Shiers referenced the serious deficiency at the
northbound Traffic Way onramp and asked how Caltrans '
percentage of payment is affected to get this , corrected.
Mr. DiCarli explained the interchange funding formula based
upon safety and congestion. The major funding areas are
urban areas .
-4- ` 0
There was discussion concerning funding for the realignment
of Highway 41 and the interchange at 101/41. It was noted
it would take approximately $5 million to improve the 101/41
interchange, and was suggested that a consultant be hired to
specifically identify what the improvement options are, to
work with Caltrans in clarifying those options and then to
secure local government support for a preferred option.
Mr. Sensibaugh felt that there are many roads that Caltrans
are responsible for ( in which roads were designed for a 20
year life span) . He commented on the various design
deficiencies along the 101 Corridor in Atascadero adding
that the City believes that this - is Caltrans '
responsibility.
Discussion followed concerning Caltrans ' priorities and
which areas projects are most heavily concentrated ( i .e.
mass transportation, metropolitan areas) . It was noted that
Caltrans has an adopted policy wherein if a jurisdiction
allows development to occur which impacts the interchanges,
Caltrans identifies recommendationsto improve those, and if
not done so by the local jurisdiction, then they will oppose
funding at the statewide level for the project. Discussion
continued.
Mr. DiCarli reviewed the relevant points raised in this
presentation:
1) Need to recognize in circulation element what the
deficiencies are ( interchange related improvements) .
2) Make certain that SLO-COG' S plan includes those
projects .
3) With regard to funding requests, a project study report
needs to be conducted on each project (State law
requirement) .
_Councilwoman Mackey asked if the rail system was considered
as an alternate means of transportation. Mr. DiCarli
answered there are major legal hurdles with Southern Pacific
Railroad and major funding problems with commute runs .
In conclusion, it is important to look at the need for
implementation in some form of a funding program in order to
get some of these projects funded.
Public Comment -
Doug Lewis, area resident, proposed that there be a frontage
road between Atascadero and Templeton on the west side of
101 as an option for safety considerations .
-5
Ray Windsor emphasized how important it is going to be for
development decisions in the future to be regional in
nature.
Jerry Clay, area resident, asked for clarification with
regard to the Alternate A Highway 41 realignment.
Mr. Windsor added comments concerning constraints in the
city' s ability to raise millions of dollars; the flexibility
is not there. The practical solution is development fees
but you can only go so far with those fees .
Mayor Borgeson stated that as individual taxpayers, everyone
should have input with regard to what Caltrans ' priorities
are. Discussion followed.
Councilman Lilley stated the state has created a "rock" that
local governments cannot lift. It is absurd to think that
Atascadero could come up with large sums of money to help
fund Caltrans ' freeway interchanges .
Comissioner Highland felt this is an extension of a problem
which has been ongoing for years at the state level . He
concurred with Councilman Lilley that Atascadero should
consider the internal circulation of the city. He added
that Caltrans should take the responsibility for poorly
designed interchanges; the state should be aware that local
agencies cannot always assume the financial burden.
Mr. DiCarli recommended that the deficiencies be identified
and improvement options prioritized and that they be
addressed in the Regional Transportation Plan, as well as
making clear how an interchange can be improved. It is also
important that future development does not preclude those
improvement options.
Discussion continued relative to possible fund raising
revenues such as a $ . 20 gas tax (as proposed by Caltrans) ;
alternate means of transportation which could be utilized.
Councilman Lilley suggested that the 'City set forth a policy
to make it clear that Atascadero will not contribute any
money to the improvement of interchanges off of Highway 101
through Atascadero, as well as to set priorities of concern
relative to interchange improvements. Chairperson Lochridge
concurred adding that the deficiencies need to be
prioritized and that a policy statement be added to the
General Plan to this effect. Discussion followed.
Mayor Borgeson clarified language for a policy statement in
the General Plan: The City of Atascadero does not intend to
contribute money for improvement of interchanges and the
City sees these as the responsibility of Caltrans .
In prioritizing the interchange deficiencies, it was the
general consensus that the freeway interchanges at Highways
101 and 41 and Traffic Way should merit the highest
priority. Concern was raised relative to the southbound
offramp at Santa Rosa Road which has a severe design
deficiency.
After discussion, it was the general consensus to delete
policy statement #8 (page 120) .
The Commission and Council also discussed identification of
right-of-ways needed ( i .e. acquiring right-of-way for
frontage road, etc. ) .
After discussion, the following changes/modifications are
proposed to the Circulation Policy Proposals :
- deletion of policy statement #8
- deletion of policy statement #11
- modification to policy statement #14 : change
"periodically investigated" to "vigorously pursued"
- modification to policy statement #15 : add
" . . .environmental change including minimal tree removal',
With regard to #7 , Councilman Lilley suggested there be
additional language relative to coordinating a plan with
the school district that encourages the development of safe
pathways on major school routes, preferably separated by
some type of barrier from traffic lanes. Discussion
continued concerning what responsibility the school district
has for upgrading, maintaining roads for the schools,
particularly the proposed new school in the San Benito/Del
Rio area. Mr. Sensibaugh stated he met with Mike Cannon in
discussions of the Del Rio school site and conveyed to the
school district that they would be treated like any other
development with regard to road improvements, routes-to-
school, etc.
With regard to landscaped center dividers on Morro Road to
San Gabriel, (page 183) , Commissioner Luna asked what type
of priority this situation has as a deficiency. Discussion
followed concerning raised median strips on El Camino Real,
etc. Councilman Dexter expressed concern with possible
future abandonment of the Capistrano railroad underpass with
an alternate abovegrade passing. Mayor Borgeson added this
should be placed on the deficiency list.
Chairperson Lochridge stated that it is important to
identify appropriate locations for businesses that generate
Targe amounts of vehicle traffic.
Upon conclusion of item B-1 (Circulation Element) , Mayor
Borgeson announced that the rest of the agenda items would
not be discussed at this time due to the hour.
_7 0
Mr. Windsor introduced the new Parks and Recreation
Director, Andy Takata, who will be starting work on February
6th.
Chairperson Lochridge felt that the Parks and Recreation
Commission' s input would be valuable in future meetings .
Mayor Borgeson stated she would like to see the Appearance
Standards on a future Council agenda.
Mr. Engen noted that the civic center will be considered as
part of a downtown plan.
Doug Lewis would like to see a clearer definition of the
word "rural" .
John Harris, Parks and Recreation Commissioner, commented on
the routes-to-school plan in that there needs to be a safe
design of roads in order to encourage more pedestrian and
bicycling traffic.
Commissioner Tobey referenced the repaving and slight
widening of San Gabriel after the school opened, and asked
what is the implication of the solid white line on one side
of the road. Mr. Sensibaugh explained this ties in with
work being done on a bikeway circulation and route-to-school
plan.
Discussion continued concerning the need for multi-purpose
shoulders, windy road concepts with blind curves with a
balance needed with the cut/fill topography.
Meeting adjourned at 10 : 02 p.m.
MINUTES RECORDED BY: 2.lzuc"�_
atricia Sheppliard, dministrative Secretary
MINUTES APPROVED BY:
Henry Eng n, Co Tr
nity Development Director
I