Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet 03/02/1987 • A G E N D A ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING ATASCADERO ADMINISTRATION BUILDING Fourth Floor Rotunda Room MARCH 2, 1987 7 :30 P.M. RULES OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION * Members of the audience may speak on any item on the agenda. * A person may speak for three (3) minutes. If a group has a spokesperson, the spokesperson may speak for five (5) minutes. * No one may speak for a second time until everyone wishing to speak has had an opportunity to speak. * No one may speak more than twice on any item. * Council members may question any speaker ; the speakers may respond; but after the alloted time has expired, may not . initiate further discussion. * The floor will then be closed to public participation and open for Council discussion. Call to Order Pledge of Allegiance Roll Call A. 1987 Programmed State Transportation Improvement Projects (STIP) - Draft Preliminary STIP Emphasising Project 0170G, Hig wah y 41 Replacement Bridge over Salinas River and Redesign of Highway 41 between Highway 101 to 0.6 Miles East of the Salinas River (programmed for 1989-90 in Atascadero) (Page AP-11) B. 1987 Unprogrammed STIP 'Projects - Emphasing Project Priority #1 - Additional $2 .million Funding Toward Project 0170G (listed above) (Page AB-8) C. Unmet Public Transit Need #5 - Transit Service Proposal between Templeton and Atascadero or Paso Robles for Senior Citizens (Page C-4 to C-7) D. CONSENT CALENDAR • (The following are additional Agenda Items for the March 5,1987 San Luis Obispo Area Coordinating Council Meeting. . . NO ACTION REQUIRED 1 • 1. New Preliminary Preliminary STIP Projects (Page D-1 to D-19) 2. Unmet Public Transit NeedSNumber 1, 2, 3, and 4 (Page D-20 to D-44) 3. Local Transportation Fund (LTF) and State Transit Assistance (STA) Funding Appropriations for F.Y. 1987-88 - Equalling the Total Transportation Development Act (TDA) Funds for Atascadero (Page D-45 to D-49) 4. Transportation Development Act Fund Audits (Page D-50) 5. Year-To-Date Financial Report (Pages D-51 to D-53) 6. F.Y. 1986-87 Overall Work Program Status Report- (Pages D-54 to D-58) 7. Progress Report on a Tri-County Socioeconomic Monitoring Program - Prepared by the County of Santa Barbara Department of Regional Programs (Pages D-59 to D-60) 8. Minimum Required Farebox Ratios - San Luis Obispo Municipal Transit, South County Area Transit Systems, and North Coastal Transit System (Pages D-61 to D-62) • 2 MEMORANDUM TO: City Council THROUGH: Mike Shelton, City Manager FROM: Paul Sensibaugh, Director of Public Works SUBJECT: San Luis Obispo Area Coordinating Council (SLOACC) DATE: February 26, 1987 Recommendation: Staff recommends support of Area Council' s staff recommendations with (a) high emphasis on the Alternate A Highway 41 alignment (Project 0170G) as top priority to receive $6 mil- lion additional bridge replacement monies, and with (b) high em- phasis on new unprogrammed money of $2 million to go to the above project as top priority under TTAC' s ranking formula and (c) with low emphasis on the local funding as a non-technical criteria on ranking. Staff further recommends that Council support Area Council' s staff recommendation for Unmet Need #5 to involve the Senior Citzen' s Bus and not Atascadero Dial-A-Ride as a reasonable solu- tion to the unmet need. Staff recommends that Council take no action on the Consent Agenda Items. Background: The San Luis Obispo Area Coordinating Committee (SLOACC) meets on March 5 (agenda attached) to consider the ranking of the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) projects, to dis- cuss area Unmet Transit Needs and other miscellaneous actions. Councilperson Borgeson represents the City Council on SLOACC and is requesting both Council' s guidance and the public' s input on the major items expanded upon in this report. The Technical Transportation Advisory Committee (TTAC) met on February 17 to discuss the same agenda. TTAC' s recommenda- tions are included in the SLOACC staff report. Director of Pub- lic Works/City Engineer Paul Sensibaugh and Director of Community Development, Henry Engen represent the City on TTAC. Ron DeCarli, Program Manager for SLOACC will attend the Council meeting to present a historical perspective of the High- way 41 realignment project and to discuss project rankings and SLOACC' s past recommendations. Caltrans may be represented by either Jerry Hanto or Gerry Laumer to discuss the selection of the proposed realignment of Highway 41 (see sketch attached) and to answer design questions. Discussion: (A) 1987 Programmed State Transportation Improvement Projects (STIP) and (B) Unprogrammed Projects. City staff has included in this agenda package a 1984 California Transportation Commission Project Study Report on the Highway 41 Relocation which adequately and thoroughly discussed six (6) alternative alignments for the above project. A thorough reading of this document is suggested. It traces the project history from a 1965 Origin-Destination Study to February, 1984. Also attached on this subject is the 1985 staff report and Planning Commission Report when Council voted unanimously to re- confirm the selection of Alternate A for the Highway 41 realign- ment. This report finds the Alternate A alignment consistant with the General Plan. Also included in the package is a 1984 letter from the Atascadero Chamber of Commerce supporting Alignment A. Also at- tached is a memo from former Director of Public Works/City Engineer Larry McPherson recommending against the Curbaril align- ment (Highway 101 to the Salinas River) that had just gained sup- port in a General Plan Change in 1980. The General Plan has since been redrafted to spell out the Alternative A (Mercedes) alignment. The present Director of Public Works/City Engineer also recommends against the Curbaril alignment due to the negative impact on residential neighborhood, costly right-of-way, the need for a railroad overpass seperate from the river bridge, and the need to reconstruct the portion of Curbaril from Highway 41 to Highway 101. The present Highway 41 alignment through Atascadero from Highway 101 to the east side of the Salinas River is on a jog of E1 Camino Real, then past the Sunken Gardens, past the Lewis Avenue Elementary and Atascadero Junior High Schools, through a right angle bend at a narrow but structurally adequate bridge over Atascadero Creek, through a Capistrano residential area, around a railroad underpass that has a right angle curve and a sag vertical curve, along Sycamore Road to the south through a couple of difficult curves and across a structurally deficient bridge over the Salinas River which has two right angle bends. Alternate A, the historically preferable alignment, satisfies the requirement to eliminate the bad bridges, the railroad under- pass, the school congestion and for the most part, the conflict with residential neighborhoods. 2 Fiscal Analysis: The deficient bridge now has $1.5 million to replace the structure on the existing alignment, which is considered a near sighted approach to a problem of greater magnitude. Another $6 million is being proposed for the project to complete the first phase of Alternate A and to fund a usable segment of such align- ment from 0.6 miles east of the Salinas River to Cemetary Road at Mercedes Avenue. Another $2 million is being suggested to com- plete the project from Cemetary Road to Highway 101 at El Camino Real. The project is 100% Federal and State Funding with no local share. The Pismo Beach 4th Street Project could endanger the ranking of the $2 million addition if SLOACC considers local funding a major criteria over congestion, accidents and per- centage of trucks. 3 SAN LUIS OBISPO AREA COORDINATING COUNCIL STAFF REPORT .MEETING DATE: MARCH 5, 1987 SUBJECT: STATE HIGHWAY REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (RTIP) SUMMARY A delay in major projects and the additional $8.3 million in safety and rehabilitation projects has the region now meeting its "county minimum" level of funding. As a result, the region is severely limited in its options and ability to request and secure additional state highway funding for additional projects. Adopted state policies allow each region that is meeting its "county m n mum to Submit one aalitional pro ec as a candidate for funding. They further es ect each region to request funding for any partially funded proiect as their hiehest- r ori and are formally emphasizing projects that are substantially ­.locally funded. RECOMMENDATIONS Staff: Adopt a Priority List of New State Highway Projects and urge programming of the following in the 1987 STIP. a. An additional $2.0 million to complete the Route 41 Realignment and Saiinas River Bridge FroJ;ct to its_ 'Tntersection with Route 101. b. One third state funding ($100,000 est.) to widen Pismo Creek Bridge on Route One in Pismo Beach. Ratify staff response to the draft Preliminary . State Transportation Improvement Program (Table A). A ., TTAC: Endorse technical project ranking (Table A) and staff response o ; request Area Council to identify priority proec s considering local tunding and Other non-teennical criteria. SII IIS BACKGROUND All proposed projects on the state highway system are annually considered in a capital improvement program prepared by Caltrans with input by the regional agency (SLOACC). Each Caltrans District has discretion in programming projects costing less than $250,000 in the annual "minor project" program. The Area Council adopted the region's minor project candidate list at their January 8, 1987 meeting. C-1-1 All major projects costing over $250,000 undergo a more extensive programming process involving a five-year capital improvement program, the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). In rural counties, Caltrans prepares the program in coordination with the RTPA preparing a "candidate list of projects" for the draft Preliminary STIP. The Preliminary STIP is subject to a formal hearing process and adopted by the California Transportation Commission (CTC). Programming projects in the STIP is guided by state statutes, projected revenues, prior commitments, projected cost increases and policies adopted by the CTC. As a result of a severe limitation of revenues available for programming, the CTC in January adopted 27 policies to guide the development of the 1987 STIP. The following are some of the most important policies that affect our project programming: 1. Rehabilitation and Safety projects proposed by Caltrans are not available for the region to propose as project trades. Such projects also count against "county minimums." (The .,,.,,Preliminary PSTIP includes an additional $8.3 million in rehab and safety, projects.) (Ref. Sec. 7) 2. Every re&,.ou may .submit one project as a candidate.Y The CTC expects region's with partially funded projects to place these s projects as their highest priority. (There is only one partially funded project in the region: a Route a nas iverr gee.) �Rer. sec. 3. All regions are required to arrange candidate projects in priority order. (Ref. Sec. 9.8) 4. Project trades are allowable exclusive of rehabilitation and safety. (Ref Sec. 12) In SIA this allows consideration' of trades' for only the following projects: . Highway 41 Realignment in Atascadero (0120G) -.i . Highway 46/101 Interchange and road widening in Paso Robles (46110C) Oak Park/Highway 101 in the Five-Cities area 060192) . Curve correction on Highway One in Nipomo (460089) No project trades are recommended. 5. Programming emphasis is being placed on projects that: (Ref. Sec. 18) a. are in counties that are below "county minimums" (the draft PSTIP indicates SLO County is now meeting its minimum). C-1-2 X98--3 b. complete usable segments of partially funded projects (only one project meets this criteria in the draft PSTIP: the Route 41, Salina; River bri a pro 'ect which is c. would be of statewide importance and/or support statewide economic developments. d. would be substantially funded with local funds. e. would provider . ,significant operational improvements in congested areas at relatively low cost. DISCUSSION County Minimums A major consideration in programming projects is the "county minimum" status. State statutes require each county to receive a specified ,minimum level of funding, "county minimum," of major state highway -funding (exclusive Bridge replacement funds) in .,two designated five-year -periods. n preparing the 1987 STIP, the county, minimum calculated is .,within this "second" period. The county minimum for our region is $25.5 million for the second five-year period. Prior to preparing a preliminary STIP for new projects, Caltrans updates the costs of projects in the adopted STIP. The updated 1986 STIP (October 1986) programmed only $5.3 million resulting in a deficit of $20 million. This allowed the region to request up to $20 million in new projects. Draft PSTIP In early January, .Caltrans released a "draft" preliminary STIP for staff review. The first attached letter (attachment A) and table were prepared in response and submitted by the January 30 staff comment deadline. The draft PSTIP proposed an additional $8.3 million in safety and rehabilitation projects throughout the region. In accordance with CTC policies, these projects count against county minimums. The region can comment on the proposals but cannot trade these projects for other projects. In response to prior regional comments, this draft PSTIP also programmed an additional $6.0 million to the $1.5 mi ion budgeted in the Highway 1 a inas River Bridge Project in Atascadero which funds about 757. ot the project; as well as an a t ona million for the Highway TMUI project in-?-a—soores (=C)—to complete 777 roiect to Airport C-1-3 Other less significant changes and additions were made. Staff comments ^ on each project as well as a summary of project changes are included in the attached table. Additional Project Programming The ability to request and secure additional funding beyond this draft PSTIP is very limited. As a result of these project additions and the recent schedule delay of the Highway 46/101 project, the region is now programmed for $25.5 million in state highway projects - our county minimum. The aforementioned CTC policies now severely restrict the ability to program additional projects. �In essence, they allow each region to identify their #1 ro ect and emphasize projects that_. substantially un a with local funds,- but they prohibit trades against safety and rehabilitation projects. PROGRAMMING RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Support the draft PSTIP. This includes an additional $4.8 million requirea to comp e e e Highway 46/101 project; and an additional $6.0 million to construct a usable segment of the Highway= realignment project. This funding Fas been a e as the result o extensive loUbyIng by t Teregion and the district. The re io tinp- not figle the ability to propose trading any o t e additional 8.3 million in programmed safety and rehabilitation projects proposed in 'the draft PSTIP. /2. Request an additional $2.0 million to complete the Hi away 41/Salinas Iver Bridge realignment project to Hg way 101 as the region's=l -projeL'L. Mlsposition would conform with CTC expectations that the i'�i"gghest priority projects tor newun ng be par=lv funded '. The project also ranks 91 in our technical project ranking.. 3. Request an additional $100,000 in state funds to widen Pismo Creek Bridge in Pismo Beach. This project ranked third in our technical ranking criteria. Staff strongly believes it would be necessary to secure at least a 2/3 local contribution to fund the project. The district has indicated this is a low priority project, but would likely support the project with 100% local funds. The district is also requesting a wider bridge than the city desires, raising the issue that perhaps state funding should pay the difference. OTHER PROGRAMMING OPTIONS Several other options were con'§idered but not recommended. 1. Trade the Route One Curve Correction Project in Nipomo ' (Callender Road area; $1.46 million, Project 0089). This trade is allowable under CTC policies for other regional priority projects. The District recommends retaining this project and specifically opposes C-1-4 its trade for any interchange improvements. Furthermore, if the project is traded, the liklihood for future funding is poor. TTAC concurs with retaining this project. 2. Fund the Tefft Street/101 Interchange. This project ranked very low on technical grounds. The county is presently working to identify improvement options.- Caltrans District V has indicated their support for the county preferred option and will consider funding modification of the Southbound ramps providing the county relocate the frontage roads. Widening of the bridge structure would be considered as a second phase, perhaps for programming in the 1988 STIP. Staff recommends considering this project in the 1988 Minor Projects Program and the 1988 STIP. 3. Secure state funding for the 4th Street/Route 101 Interchange in Pismo Beach. This project together with modifications of the Five Cities Drive on/off ramps ranked eighth in technical ranking. With a substantial amount of local funding, staff would recommend programming the project. The city of Pismo Beach has recently taken action to consider establishing an assessment district to provide loca.L funding for Fourth Street interchange improvements. As a result of local citizen concerns, initial proposals to also address Five Cities Drive improvements was dropped from the assessment district. Caltrans District V has indicated they could support some state funding, providing a comprehensive improvement program involving Five Cities Drive and Fourth Street was undertaken. The district also opposes any state funding that would be limited to solely improving the Fourth Street interchange since these improvements are the direct result of local development. Other unresolved issues include litigation between the city and. two competing shopping centers on the location and design of proposed ramp modifications. Staff believes there is a possibility of securing some state funding providing the project be expanded to also include improvements to the Five_ Cities Drive on/off ramps, that are agreeable to the District, and - if the city provides a substantial amount of local (city/ developer) funding. If such conditions could be obtained, staff would recommend the AreaTouncil fundthis as their only additional p ojec n lieu or completion or Efie Route 41 project a;d Pismo treeK Bridge, acc ng tLiese two provisions, it appears that the iklihood of securing state funding is negligible and should not be pursued. Staff report prepared by Ron De Carli, Program Manager and James Raisanen, Transportation Planner RD/cl/jgm/6255-1/95 C-1-5 ATTACHMENT A f�B—ly San Luis Obispo Area Coordinating Council Arroyo GAtascrand o. e Grover Ci Morr and Regional Transportation Planning Agency Paso R Pismo Beach San Luis Obispo - San Luis Obispo County January 30, 1987 .Mr. G. R. Laumer, C.E.T.E. Deputy District Director Planning and Public Transportation Department of Transportation, District 5 P. 0. Bog 8114 San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8114 Re: Draft PSTIP Dear Mr. Laumer: Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on this draft Preliminary State Transportation Program (PSTIP). These comments are submitted without the benefit of either our advisory committee or Area Council review. These are largely staff comments or positions taken from prior: adopted positions. Below is our overall comments and recommendations followed by a more detailed table identifying comments on each project. First and foremost, we want to thank you for recommending the additional funding necessary to complete the Highway 46/101 intersection, bridge and road widening project east to Airport Road. As you are aware, this has been a top priority project. We are dismayed, however, that this project has slipped. Especially since it now has major "county minimum" implications. We urge you to direct your Project Development Dection to meet the original schedule. Secondly, we also want to thank you for recommending additional funding for the Highway 41 realignment project. This is a sorely needed project t at has been in process f or a num er of years. Our first priority to any additional un ing will likely be to secure fu=ng to com ete t is pArtially funded project as recommen e y CTC programming policies. We also appreciate the additional $8.3 million in safety and rehabilitation projects that you are proposing in the region. Although we recognize we do not have programming authority, as specified in the new CTC policies, we have submitted comments on these projects in the attachment for your consideration. C-1-6 i County Government Center, San Luis Obispo, CA 93408 (805) 549-5710 s� Mr. G. R. Laumer, C.E.T.E. January 30, 1987 Page 2 As a result of the delay in the 46/101 project (#110c) and the additional safety and rehabilitation projects, this region would meet our "county minimum" for the second quinquennium (88/89 to 89/91). As previously noted, ur first priority for any additional funding would likely be completion of the Highway 41 project. This will likelye an issue o debate, owever, a ore our advisory committee and governingboard as tw other local projects with s gni cantlocal un ing are also being proposed. As you are aware, these pro ects include widening or the Pismo Creek and reconstruction of the Five Cities Drive/4th Street/101 interchanges. Both projects are in the city of Pismo Beach. The city is presently determining the total costs for both projects and the extent of local contribution. If a local contribution of 65% or more is secured, the region may likely request consideration of these projects in the STIP. We mill clarify our position by the first week of Marctf. The attached table specifies concerns and comments in more detail. This data will be presented before our advisory groups. The "unprogrammed projects" is provided for your information. These projects will be ranked by our technical committee at their next meeting using previously adopted ranking criteria. The list will obviously be reduced to conform with the "county minimum" programming policy. We hope these comments are helpful in your development of the PSTIP. Thank you again for your help and cooperation. We also request that you accelerate your efforts on the Highway 46/101 project due to its significant "county minimum" implications. If you have any questions, please give me a call at (805) 549-5714. Thank you. Sincerely, PAUL C. CRAWFORD Executive Director RONALD -L. DE CARLI Program Manager . .� cc: Technical Transportation Advisory Committee RD/jm/6250-1 C-1-7 y o O .i q m a+ c� CIO av w n d L! L Arai L� N O 4;40 •HIr C d N G d P. d d W 41 u w a. 0 o w o r-4 A. o 0 0 C U H N N N -H H N N N W W >,E w Q-4 W O F Go q. C. o, A.w, ° z z � z w 0 mb z z z oc �- a }I '1 N Go cn Go co OH O 40 OD a N N N N rl .-1 H r 1 r 4 id q 'C H rl O O ,O m .Y M T! U .t •7 h 141 e'1 O N O d W O E E d ;a N PD A A PC W Uat iC U H � a H U H N n 40 M1 H A ei po N � a U u U U A A IQ A 0 w v d y 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ,Wa ti �C-4Oo� o n r n PO4 O,C 43 N %0 N N 40 cn O, - •7 N C7 m O U m a C Y -4 O - O N O tPf C 120 n 8 M N M O cn H H O O Gsl W O a i-, 41 A� O W 8 W N .-i 14 8 bC m C A b 41 b O 00 00 . W O 1 W%0 O q W a 07 N rb b 8 L" b 1 Nb to 00 M41 H1 W W = M N -1 m aH W a 12 14 rO a $4 C 7 M to 0 4) O cn Gf U%O q mO p m O Pa H T4, .7m M t d O "•• H 4 H v W •i u 4i to veR . 124 m a 00 >, m p C I a+�. 14 > H 1 a .-1 mba% Wm .ra q m U m m O, Co r4 41 14 N C* i'. r- O E 1 m W b W-H 04 •i O .t 4a It. .I P. W 00 O tri F. W C m m a 44 L -W W O q .0 N w— w 7N PG r-1 u u m W m 0 .A m H � 8— .1 a+ u ar+ m O 7 to a— O N ?b H W to 410 u0 O N O 1-1 1 O b0 M P. N 41 b O m 00 N r-1 IJ W W W O O a+.0 Ln W ru7 a+ O W 0 'O a ca O b 1 0 u N W m M N r4 t/ 11 W O P4.7 rl q 1-1 7 " 0 gg N O M N O U3 A 41.0.7 w O x ac v 7 W a a+ Aj ca I m H u 4) -4 N O OO 3 N b m m�= m H W N u 30% C 0 v a u b.0 4 41 +4 O C O H a q S- a ++ +q m -Mu " t W W ca .4 u m L HH W 0. • W WA O NA. a+ O m b 00 rn V a H V m N m q m m H b N N b 41 00 u 7 O r.4 .- N W '0 r1 1 to O +1 O O W O cd W .i +-I .`'1 vi N 14 W O a F. 3tiH 3 a+Hwra U W 043 :9 3 Qj 04Pa.+— co ,o 0, a q H W av v '� 4co , o co 41 u W N H N c v to ,O r% co W O M •1M N •R M •Ik i i1r M \ N N .i a P4 � u C-1-8 C .4 w u b m 0 a O M IW aW . wa H -o a a d�°�� O b q aHi p 0 aft w o a d d m �� • a m � ++ o6 a. m > m • ob gHMImi tr d uo A o w 41 aid O Y a 4a 60 0 N u�� �W w q i+ q u H u 0 u19 u 0 a .0 O u 0 U O - m 47 CL Ql M 0.4 In 4! -H W a 41 m QJ M QJ rl a O Y W O +1 O Y i1 Y O L 41 rl p Y 4) O M O -H 47 H H O $4 m - H H m u H H H " "4 b H m H m M & m0 0.0 4! 4) a0 u m pro 96O a O U N 0 41 d 0 N a W$4 4! 0 0 " 7 rf AW OW d 0 -1 -j. . cn c1. z zUAad 0. ?. Np mW I► m -zz z fs ao ac� av a� ac�1 ac�i ac�1 •� ►� d N C ►i C ►� d H d ►a C a, ya "ia aiana ya vFia a4 a v3 m a. W a4 fA a w a cn 0 0 0 rl M 6 71 3 te41 + N a \aI U 0U E 4) d 41 eV 93 N 3 qM cd N O N 'O O N O It a a. :01 -4o1a 0 a u go u a uxN . _ w � a4 M 040 04 14 M co a .-I w H H O� c0 v coo coo goo co ado coo - °a' a pOa�G o o m m a a F m 40 40 41 0 0 p f+ Y 93 a 0 00 g 93 ai ter+ a� � +0+ c vao %0 -+ iq �4 cNA d 4 re-I aaw o ri w 41 C`mX L S3 a O O W O U 0% a n7O \ to �NW 0N , ad 1 a v� ' � WqHa O U cd O.-1 M .-1 as • o w o ia+ m0cd 0440 Hm0d ' 0 0 wtlu a+ 4) i+ p Hu 0 ig41 14 IT � y 07�++ I + Ooiqu . H0 41 H OH W H W a m 41u u O H H u1 41 v O i U) 0 4) 1.4 -4 C! > a m Id q 4+ pas d u 84 co _ 14 td 93 .a O � 3i w cd j 0 '� O b eC, . WO 4) aWG .i 04 04 ZN iw w m 7C H3a H N M H M M a 0 L H H H H H H H H 1-4 F F H .r 14 H H 41 L d40 M ti coo a0 1.1 N v1 %0 In C4 U3 a .Z O O +h .e C-1-9 9 m m 14 14 14 N H d O O Y 41 M q y 0 Y O m O 14 O O O p IOU 3 M 0. 4j 41 0 Y H d ro d � d w d 0 W .ai m 0. O aG M O H -4 xad m xln xa xZca d Cc 0 w ao a C.) c: c�i ad Q k24 EO E-4 1-4 O�chN O d ca y ►a mA to rd .Loco ad M N W ca W N W cA 1� v1 N id - iR al aN O 0 ^ 64 41 u 7 ate+ Aj M P% $4 M CA 'mn 06 0 N b O .-I d N b cli 0 .-1 d a)O a 0 0. u w u w w .a.a+ 8 00 1►. 00 N x fn ad N w ca U3 a4 E .r93 .moi 6 0 U2 GoGo Y p• U 0 O T O M (Do�_ oo a°0o aCOo u a ad 0 u a44 q a+ o W „ u -+ en m I w O F yU ull co ccn S Go N P'. cA O L� m a. a. E-. m 4m, M .44 W to v; Z 6 v � _ N N As o w C aai V 54 Z q .-1 .~C a 0 d 4) 4+ 0 ...1 0 u 0 al > > O u w 04 w a m 0 q V a'• O 0. m m 0 4 14 .-0to I 1 � 6 M u 1. M p �0 O 9 ral O p y 9 � co 03 4)00 03 M A. 0 x N H U q Ad O N .-1 bo v O 1. 0 U� apd N4.t Ri N Y qti -a m Oaq 0 alN • O t0/•') Ob ma -7 N 10 14 00 W 1-1 41 41 '�•"+f aW q.i 'O Mq 00u O u 00'C 0 u e0 L+ 10 0 Aj M 9 aiO 0CZ Kial badbOU 00 ad . 0 W NO m fC00 U i � t, a rn co co 1on" O .t° mao C as aOR Z Wa . N dm a m 14 0 W .4M1. M a) O.0 N O 1..a aa(u > 00J0 _ 0ra►�Cw Uza4Uw Z 41 p 41Qw O 6 m rl m Ai to41 14 14 14 w m 6 O O y y F. 'm{ 4 d N U b 00Ln "010. +PHH .\-1 101 1 odd � r-1 0-1 � F E E E W O N 0 ai a Go z o 0 0 o Ern c� ti C-1-10 a a a •'-a : F H F b N al N � N N W U O O O O ~ O W M 14 W O 0 N W d W W 41 CI O w O 8 (1 O O ) qO 0 7 $4 n1 I� 06 tp� 4 10 TM^ V !+1 .11-1 O 4) a41 0 A U 0\ 0 COI 914 a W 014 �4 MC!O la Lpi t� V •LM 1p� pa W to CI W N CI 1-1 M Ncl co 1019 414A 44 G 41 1 44 H u CSD u O U Im a ° po o O 7 �°'�a° TIwW-0u0° w a a O 00� 00 0 > 4) 93cj .4 O m w m W aw 1 ° pb v 0. ti 43 q W U 14 Wb 41 W 41 4 40 N O Ro OUa1 00) $4 OU14 0 UBY cc O ° MO0 = O ° 7 41 1. ° 01 0 Op vazN0. U3 of O oc M H 1-I Vj M H C, MI H C M M d' F H O F H O H F O H F O d NN aN NH1 NN�1 N N rl pfi L7. a N 'J a N p a NJ a N �+ H M 41 a � u a q a' '0 M 41 4) a v 14 y u A y 4) p' r o a+ 4 14 °10 ro .-I 44J0 ro yy {{�, c�dd b.4 N V .a z r4~ D T aZxPUO M CQ E4 U a N 0% co 4� W W a " O c , a; 0° 00 4c0 0Go E-4 P-/ N w H HSL Ol O co N M C/1 N H HN Q �.T vim► 64 W W a W F 41 M iNi► N M 193 0) a Qco to 8 B ?U6 Oh cool 00� .v�i{ > O Cl d . rel O 04 o� `a V ,dam A wpu 14 wY v 41 4am .e3 0 a .00% ua!M -;r O 3 41 4)X u.: u� a.44) o � �n OY.v � ci o m� 41 a ee�0 M 00 41 O (1.0 u a 9 U 41 G N tj O d M W 1/ T1 cn L 'I �p W N1 40 47 O H a UV v x w op Qt p aJ O10 11 6 N N-4 41 w H _ A M W O 4193 ti � M . d,O a z W O P 4 N a N a a W W p a O M H H M 41 w w 14 E-4 co h N [Mi N 4) E-4 N w a+ C 1-4 H H .HY WC (070% o� � E-4 a z o 0 0 C-1-11 w M a b w m N 60 14 w a W i.1 �-1 w w U `. y a mcc E-4 a u o m .i a CL w 1w d tl w O wal °u° °+ fa N o p O a. M a A 7 a F O • w41 b W \. . o sower" o 0 N +1 41 N 'e7 d O w a O - a0i m a a N Q8+®.1 O iA a a+ • q +1 {A r) �0 O O H Iz a vi 41 ++ '7 A O u b d 1.10 00 H 4040 14 m u O Y C4v 10 emp m 41 a H m 6m1 .m-1N wO d 7rW m 41 ami w R!�p > m U al N 9 d •�-i O m ? al al w q m aa1 d 4) w a+ N 00 A.m a r-1 $4 ta.b 00 00 o esN O wW wW H H wCCCOid a1 00 1.G e co O 1+ ii m a O aa a u b"s m A N O w m a we O a+ ua a W4 $414o0w awa. muwa w m a a -1 au aU 0 7 a M pp Co.,, O " a N O dU a0 0 a 0 zz U3 to A CNFH 10 O Q U 0cnca a waxy H m ao 1 rIz U w w Q w a a 04 w at u +d 1-I Hd' H H H H H H H 049 tc F F O F F F H F F O F E-4 0 W �l W 1n S fA N y h a N N a ad Doti y D a y Da D am p 0, U3 w M 10 C) q O O W p a a+ aro 10 41 d F IV m 060 a �n o c In u o .q u m o N +'7 a 1.4 N a3 Ja rl 0 N a L al m w co 6t 02 ad O� O 60 44 m 01 N O% O% co Go a O O\ W \ D o C .gym+ O O OD 0% c � + a a 41 Go qr OD E u O 0.i 04 F w i�A iA N M iNA m 60 V co a1 � 00 d . Ry ,o h ,mC cd O O,C W O'cd 1 CO m� amty yv" N.0 moodu0i 14 Mb 1J O b w u O d n Oda rl �vO aW w N 5440 O co O �Od ) w 441 0aD M a 1 m a+•i al a Y amO .pQ0> 0N Op, wY 41� md N 9 u p ccCUa..�a u a .°a vas a 0 z a10 1�+ •� ouo co 0 a1car mv CD a1 mb a y N O H.4 -%Oa1 m a m O r1 a+ 0 u a+ w40 M coo w qW 1 a 1 O $40 O d r1 w w +r p v r1 Aw V a-4 6WO a04T3 'ia O m a mu U u� b w0 n O N 8 n N N 'a W Ud N m 0 1 m b >q 11 w > a'v N a 0 P4< owa P45 aC1 ri A. a 7 H H H N H M awi awi d L w w rn F F F H F F 0 r4« O O .-1 a v v �4" 0-1 N 14 O� 4\ O+ to a z O O It .Hi O O C-1-12 Q�{ 4 .°i °a,° ° yy° N Oj U U d W N N epi 00 .ai W O ° O M 5 ., ., .. tl M O 1H'1 Y W V O -4 O .T • tp��p H H O r•1 N O� O.q 14 4Hd pN z co ca rq en � 44 40 v ! W q 61�84 4 o vOd b bOC � 14 o HW -1 M Y 41 Nlo +1 4 $ We4 01 m u a 00N W W'ri U.1 b M N N W N W L W 7 M W 00 41 W0 a u 00 O W 00 a b W W Y b a ei b rl.G A W a O a .a f W b N A) OI Y 44 Y b W +0+ N L O W b i O m.A 0 b O tl q 4O WO.a O W 7 0. L u 41 W.0 coW W id UO 00 " NW o m o oa. m m'o u lo a C3:z mn ° 4C ° °Uzzri . "z3zz04AZv ri W o as ca.� 04a.0 as U aawv a ad .4 M HCo MMC H�yy M M M C H H C W 93 tF/J r� y 9314 VJ N f-t!0 F 6-40 a4 a0r H at 93 aaw h ^y00yavai Pih M 93 0 M i1 44 y 7 7 41 iNd F d W H i� ri 000 b N s q N 3 C ri Q y -n C6 N O W `` M U N u N'1y U pq W L T to x 0 4u CWQ 0W6 p4 04 3 CC oo 40 co co co CO o Go aD Go Y O v1 O� H uV -i M N a W H m M °° N N N M 8 w W O 1 co d ° ov 0) vz $.w epi a -ico u O N O Wu co ca 41 W W 7O O Mei 7 0).0Q 41H N 0G N 8 0 -W a+bt0 a W 7 m O W p H W 7 $4 L O41 0 ca O W awl a WHO 14 41 N' m A .441 ° 90 O b N '-WI O b A v v4 14 02 0 p a W 'O M N v 4)vi 96 41 v vrip%° itipw .4v 14.4 z 10° M 0 4 N 1:c N o W a 0 0 W O 00 M O 04.0 a v1 v%n a0 W a+ o tl v N acn "'n w o o oaoo O . -HA O • O D .4 b O • O 0 a+ v 41 L a ei A N b W i.1 W 01 O 4 O W H W 'I, W H W Wei L O W O g C.4 m w cc ° 'r7 Y ei 07 A OG W P� d 4W1 a' d a 06%0 r-4 0 W Hry °� w C4 O W M M q .-i 0 u b N W�O O M 41 4n ;w 00•'I N u u 7 q A N W ei W H W W 8't 04 44 W to v -4 m u W o a+44 z 7C cc a z v%O u 3i w a 10 W W W q 7 W v N W qv W O W 7 q W a y8 > coa vooa ` eda aew cjco.. H H H H H a � H y F [~-� H ei M F F AjW 06 H H O O %° rl vFiaz 14 a 0 o c o C-1-13 q . 0 M i 7 b •rA1 p w 14 41 tl M u w 14•° oou A ri s d B"4 4 W p H �O c0 c0 q Y V \ 6c0co 'HC O 7 rN•I %1 .N•1 M V O m °s 93 .pug p41 a toa ba 41 60 0 d d O t0 M N A A N ? r"�u a B tl tl d 0 i0i T0. y U 41 � O 14 W LH1 H u v u u .4 M H d mm cc cc c co F Ix pd d H0 d Od D W Val PV4 U U A U U m cc q 00 93 v q .01 d 61 F v v L ri ei 61 v .t 0 O C, M v1 tl N V1 s++•7IM6 v H -M -7 M w 0Q 0dN a c'1 00 41 04 ta xm Pi 02 x0H xy xa4 x x .-I x 0 tl q oc b Int: a0 M $4 T M M G0 V 6W u U U � V U a a y 41 ��7' v o0 Go N H 0 -4 F1 a ra o rn N 0 o ro M ch H 0 U n O H 0 U N 0% rl cn > 'O ooa4 0.i F .R yr/H gl W M yNi► M iA Pc W v m °v z to cc co w 0 p 41 t0 10 7 °' b�0 U vMq O 41W wWOo N q 41 � p O1 0 cc to q+l N 9 v O w41 > "AA v ve +' 14 cD 0 FOi M w 0 00 M O M w u d fx yo u °`100 0 ,0 3a 3w Q) w 0 0 -H 4) 41 41 w ro o m 3 H d t0 0 C3 V O Occ w go 1.01 co 601 Mari 61p W M a H 7b L1 C3 •r0.1 v p 41 tl H tl 04 w .0 p y q 41 •G t1 b p 0 0 V O W c0 O W 61 c0 tl d O c0 0 O .0 O v H y ri b y w-4 c0 v 04 O O F 'r9 iH,1 W H H tl 0 M 8 m w P4 m 41 O 67 $4 a1 O c6 w W H 0 0 009 c6 b v .+ a H v 0 Ituu u uu ox � uaigv u aa >% 0Oq a u a M W o c0 0 a 00+i a cd v a W q - ►7 v a+ad v 10 •v > ra r-i o p a m wb 13 to 14 cis 10 a 10 r-4 tlbb M W 0 c6 H c6 0 w 61 b v t6 q 0 c6 0 0 KJ W P+ $ y 04 sQ 3 c0 W y ca> y c0 0 H H M H M M 64 04 0 O CA y EH1 N 101 M +0'i M M roc y F F F F F v v �1 W if4 N P4 rl r•1 r-4 H -1 co ul pj >+ Fad6 N Hao -4 � I r- N ya, z o v3az 0 0 0 0 0 C-1-14 S6 Luis Obispo Count and Cities Arroyo Grande Atascadero Grover City Morro Bay �► Arca Planning and Coordinating Council Paso Robes Pismo Beach San Luis Obispo San Luis Obispo County 1~ ti DATE: MAY 23, 1984 al. TO: SUPERVISOR JERRY DEFENDERFER, DISTRICT 1 " SUPERVISOR JEFF JORGENSEN, DISTRICT 5 COUNCILMAN WILLIAM STOVER, ATASCADERO FROM: PAUL C. CRAWFORD, AICP EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR SUBJECT: STATE HIGHWAY ROUTE 41 RELOCATION IN ATASCADERO We just received a copy of the local Caltrans District's study of the proposed relocation of Route 41 in Atascadero (east of Highway 101) . The conclusion of this study that was directed by the California Transpor- tation Commission (CTC) at the request of the SLO Area Council, are subject to change by the Caltrans Director's office; however, in all probability the report will be presented to the CTC as drafted by Caltrans District 5. The present recommendation is to construct Route 41 on the adopted alignment. While the recommendation is one which the Area Council desired, the project is still not funded. The CTC hopefully will be receiving the report prior to adoption in July of the 1984 State Transportation Improvement Program. Unless there is a major effort by this region, the project will probably remain unchanged in the STIP this year (which shows $1,000,000 for alternate Q . However, given a regional priority, it should probably be in the 1985 STIP as alternative "B" or "A". My staff has been in contact with the CTC staff regarding this issue. The CTC staff has not yet determined how they would like to approach this project, nor, to date, has Caltrans recommended the needed funding. If you have any questions, or want more information, please contact Vic Kamhi at 549-5712. A copy of the report is attached. cc: George Protopapas ms/2326 County Government Center, San Luis Obispo, Ca. 93408, (805) 549-5710 1` State of California Business and Transportation Agency Memorandum S To A. J. Phillips, Chief Date: February 28 , 1984 Office of Project Planning & Design ' File : 5-SLO-41-16.0/19.7 5-202 - 910075 From DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION District 5 Subject: CTC Project Study Report on Route 41 Relocation in Atascadero Attached is the Project Study Report on the proposed relocation of Route 41 in Atascadero. This project is included in the "Special Study and Review" list adopted by the California Transportation Commission at its June 30 , 1983, meeting . It is the District' s recommendation that Alternate A of the Report be adopted. The replacement of the Salinas River Bridge is necessary because of substandard width and structural dete- rioration, plus there are several other locations on the existing routein need of correction. The problems and alternative solutions are highlighted in this Report. A Route Concept Report on Route 41 in San Luis Obispo County from Post Mile 0.0 to 50 .4 was prepared in February of this year. A Corridor Study of both Routes 41 and 46 may be initiated to determine which route should receive major future improvements. The Origin and Destination Study done in 1965 indicated the traffic desires were via Route 41 instead of Route 46. This should be confirmed prior to committing to improvements on Route 41 beyond that proposed in this Report. M. W. Beckstead Deputy District Director Proj ect Development and Construction MW 1 V84 Attachment C "L;3 'r,' 4 • t FEBRUARY 1964 PROJECT .STUDY REPORT - ----- ------ - 46 / 46 MSO ROBIES; 1 s".a.. `- �owo1 46 S A N " n.M 1 .SAN LUIS OOISPO PROJECT 101 Z o B I S P o �- LOCATIONy-... ►isn0 eEAChw ►RROTO 6RaNOE 1 6ROVCR CIT Ou .r��,ir n` ` • •r•ru L,w q '66 $NTA MARIA 33 W.wc.o+G+ o ON ROUTE 41 IN ATASCADERO P. M. 16. 0 TO P. M.- 19. 7 Jesus M. Garcia DISTRICT DIRECTOR /To :, 10. 0 State of California Business, Transportation and Housing Agency emorandum To : Date: File : SLO-41-16 .0/19.7 910075 From DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION - Subject: Project Review SLO-41 FROM ROUTE 101 IN ATASCADERO TO 0.6 MILE EAST OF THE SALINAS RIVER i I INTRODUCTION This brief report was prepared in response to the California Transportation Commission' s request that Caltrans reexamine the proposal for realignment of Route 41 in San Luis Obispo County between Route 101 in Atascadero and 0.6 miles east of the Salinas River, a distance of 2.1 miles. The proposal consists of realignment of the existing highway with replace- ment of the Salinas River Bridge (Bridge No. 49-102) in order to eliminate areas of poor horizontal and vertical alignment, plus save driving time and distance. (The 3. 7 mile existing alignment .requiring a driving time of approxi- mately 7. 5 minutes would be reduced to 2.1 miles with 3 minutes driving time. ) Alternate A has been accepted by Federal, State and Public groups as the alignment best suited for Atascadero ' s and the County's needs, (see Attachment A) with estimated costs as follows: Right of Way $ 550 ,000 Construction $7,100 ,000 Total 7,650,000 This project will solve the problems of inadequate roadway and bridge widths plus remove the existing alignment from the Lewis Elementary - Atascadero Junior High School grounds. Alternate A will meet present and future traffic demands with minimal impact on the community. A need for this project has been voiced by many different groups who feel Alternate A clearly provides the most benefits for the cost. II BACKGROUND 1968 (April 11) San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors passes Resolution No. 68-164 requesting Division of Highways to make a Route Study and Route Adoption of Highway 41. 1969 (Feb. 20) State Highway Commission presented with a request for realignment of Route 41 through Atascadero by the Atascadero Chamber of Commerce. 1970 (Feb. 17) Project Report submitted proposing six alternatives for realignment of Route 41 through Atascadero. 1970 (May 26) Public Hearing in Atascadero. 1970 (Nov. 18) Report on adoption of highway location published by the California Highway Commission adopting the Alternate A routing. j 1971 (Jan. 29) Design approval granted1by FHWA. 1973-1977 76% of required right of way purchased. 1975 (Oct. 30) Letter of Approval and/or Authorization issued by the FHWA allowing preparation of this project. 1982 (May 6) Route Inventory Report addressing status of proposed improvement recommends rescission. 1982 (June 22) San Luis Obispo County Council of Governments goes on record asking the California Transportation Commission to deny the Caltrans proposal for rescission of this route adoption. When Atascadero incorporated in 1980 the new City Council, and subsequent Councils expressed a desire for the highway to be-constructed on the adopted route. Groups associated with the Lewis Elementary School have also made efforts to have Route 41 moved because the Highway bisects the Elementary - Junior High School campus. Local business organizations such as the Atascadero Chamber of Commerce and the Businessmen' s Association favor a realignment of the existing Route 41. The Average Daily Traffic (ADT) along the existing route shows a high volume at the western end of the job limits at E1 Camino Real. The ADT decreases from this high of 10,000 vehicles as you travel easterly to the Salinas River Bridge. At the bridge the present ADT is 2200 vehicles with an estimated future ADT of 5700 vehicles. . These last two figures are considered in this report. _ III PROBLEM DEFINITION Route 41 is a mixture of varying roadway widths, ranging from 80 feet to 23 feet, consisting of segments of E1 Camino Real (Old Route 101) , Atascadero city streets and former county roads. Traveling east on Route 41 from E1 Camino Real the first problem area encountered is the division of the Lewis. Elementary- Atascadero Junior High School grounds by the highway. Presently a crossing guard is employed to help insure the safety of students crossing the highway. After the school comes the first of two deficient bridges. The first Atascadero Creek Bridge (No. 49-100) is narrow (21. 0' ) in width and is on poor alignment, as is the second, the Salinas River Bridge (No. 49-102 , 18. 7' in width) . Both structures are preceeded by right angle turns . The Salinas River Bridge is marginal for legal loads and is posted for lower speeds. This bridge has outlived its design life and is in dire need 4; of replacement. Plans have been submitted by the Office of Structures detailing a new bridge. (General-Plan Attached. ) Also contained in the existing route segment is the Southern Pacific Railroad Underpass (Bridge No. 49-101) . This structure dates back to 1902 and is characterized by a sag vertical curve with only a 13 foot clearance, two 10' lanes with one 5' shoulder and a right angle approach on the east side. The sag is subject to periodic flooding. Between the railroad underpass and the Salinas River Bridge, Route 41 travels adjacent and parallel to the Salinas River. In the past this area has also been subject to flooding. IV ALTERNATIVES TO ALTERNATE A If the adopted route,. Alternate A, is not constructed, the Salinas River Bridge will still require replacement. The bridge is listed in the Strain Report for replacement in the 86/87 fiscal year. An alternate to replacement in the existing location would be to construct the replacement bridge on the adopted alignment, Alternate B. Since this would also span the railroad, it would eliminate the need to replace the existing RR underpass and would remove State Highway traffic from that route. For Alternate B the portion of the adopted route east of Cemetery Road could be constructed and traffic routed over Cemetery Road to connect to the existing -highway at Capistrano Avenue. This would cost approximately $5,000,000 or about 65 percent of the cost of constructing the entire route. This alternate does not address the problems with the highway crossing the Lewis School grounds nor the insufficient roadway widths and Atascadero Creek Bridge wiath. If this were done, it is reasonable to anticipate that, as adjacent land is developed, local contributions may be made to�jhe construction of the remainder of the route. It would be possible to replace the bridge across the Salinas River in the existing location using Alternate C. This would retain right angle turns at each end of the bridge, the restricted underpass and the out-of-direction travel. This is estimated to cost approximately $1 million, including a detour and some improvement to the approaches. Because of the low standard of the existing road and the out-of-direction travel, this alternate is considered much less desirable than replacement on the adopted line. Also, this alternate would not solve any of the previously mentioned problem areas at the school and at the Atascadero Creek Bridge. If the adopted route west of the railroad is not constructed, . the existing highway should be improved by widening the bridge across Atascadero Creek and the existing 20' wide roadway between Atascadero Creek and the railroad to 32 feet as depicted by Alternate D. This would provide an area for bicycle riders and pedestrians away from the traveled way. No additional right of way would be required for this work and the construction cost estimate would be $611,800. Of course this will leave the Salinas River Bridge area unchanged and continue use of the inadequate Railroad undercrossing. Alternate E is another proposal to construct a new Salinas River Bridge but north of the Alternate A bridge location. This alternate would also span the railroad and remove State Highway traffic from the RR underpass route. Route 41 would maintain present use of Capistrano Avenue but instead of crossing the Atascadero Creek Bridge. the route continues on Capistrano Avenue to the South Mall Extension. Leaving South Mall the proposed route would rejoin the existing highway at the southern E1 Camino Real - Route 41 junction. The estimated cost is $9,443,000. Alternate E would remove highway traffic from the Lewis School area and the Atascadero Creek Bridge, but at a higher cost than Alternate A. The final alternate, Alternate F, is to construct a new Salinas River Bridge at a location where it can be linked to the Creston-Eureka Road by a short piece of new highway. The western end of the bridge would tie into the existing Route 41. This alternate does not address any of the problems contained in the existing route, such as elmination of the "T" intersections. Replacement of the Salinas River Bridge at this location will reduce driving time, but minor improvements, as mentioned earlier, would still be necessary along portions of the existing route. Without these improve- ments the estimated cost is $2,207,000. A major consideration in choosing an alternate. is the difficulty in making grade at an intersection with Sycamore Road. Alternates A, B and E would all pass over the rail- road and would not have enough distance to effectively meet grade. Cemetery Road can be used to connect to Sycamore Road for Alternates A and B, while Alternate E can use part of the existing Route 41. Western expansion of Alternate F is precluded by the Southern Pacific Railroad and eventually . by the Pine Mountain area. There is a definite need for some connection to Sycamore Road, and the use of a connecting road will not cost asmuch as would the alternative of wringing Sycamore Road u to the roposed Highway elevation. The small amount of traffic that would still e using ycamore Road would not put the same demand on the existing facilities as would State highway traffic, therefore the Railroad under- pass and the existing highway would be adequate for the reduced traffic. Use of Sycamore Road would still be needed to allow access for travel to the area where Curbaril Avenue meets Sycamore Road. 71 SUMMARY: A. Construct adopted alignment $7 ,650 ,000 B. Construct new Salinas River Bridge on $5 ,000,000* adopted alignment and route traffic over Cemetery Road to join existing alignment to the west C. Construct new Salinas River Bridge on $1,000 ,000* existing alignment D. *Minor improvements on existing route $ 611,800 (Should be done in addition to B, C & F) E. Construct new Salinas River Bridge $9 ,433,000 on a new alignment using part of the adopted alignment and Capistrano Avenue F. Construct new Salinas River Bridge $2 ,207,000* on a new alignment extending west from the Creston-Eureka Road to the existing Route Currently the total cost of acquired right of way is. with a disposal value of This sum covers parcels purchased betweenJuly 24, 1973 and V ISSUES Few potential issues could hinder the implementation of this project. Archaelogical and environmental clearance was granted in the past and littie ficur y is an icipated in renewi.nq t ose approva s. Statements issued by politically based organizations have been in favor of the realignment, _Alternate A in particu ar. T e City o Atasca ero as one on record as supporting the Route 41 realignment. f—Originally it was assumed that the Salinas River Bridge would be relinquished to the County of San Luis Obispo if a new bridge was built on a different alignment. But current plans warrant bridge removal to qualify for federal bridge construction fund- ing. The County now prefers the removal of the bridge, and a direct connection from the new Route 41 to Sycamore Road for access to their maintenance yard. Economic issues center around the acquisition of right of way. No hardship or protection acquisition is contemplated, but inquiries from abutting owners for access to the purchased right of way can be expected to continue. Community growth is presumea to maintain it's present rate, which is the second highest area in the County. Improved highway access to Atascadero's business district from the smaller neighboring communities to the east will benefit the city's financial development. The-remaining major issue concerning an upgrading of Route 41 ' is the fear by some Atascadero residents that an improved Route 41 will draw some of the traffic from 46 to the north. .While improving the entire length of Route 41 from Atascadero to Shandon would certainly affect community traffic, no such circumstance should be anticipated by the realignment of only a short section of the route. District Representative: P. B. Rasmussen ATSS 629-3120 (805) 549-3120 \ \ A S U N C I O N / \:.r sol".0 SICIY: ; . 1.� 1 °'r• �+c• � ! t. vat •:7, � �.J\' ,+ �+•/ + ! J O ! J G + i ..ra• wt , •-• ^jc.l RANCH ot O .e ! o i• :' sR Y'.:.� ♦4r �•f A T A S C A 0 E R 0 9s� r _ 3,1 41 � 0• v \ - ♦ ♦ \ f- ' 0 v � rro. c e• p i:i{1. °'I •cera( � rN. : q !;1' �t yOs \�:`V .v( •r [oyer i:J Z `E2.F.�.Gf PINE MTN n w _ J •r+ SII w � ut •`r abi�l Me.ry .(.� '�� • � � � a�r ATASCADERO u",{ I �oyl. 41 PROSE / T LIM17 \� j` ✓-j 10( I•J` • .. ,••`~ CJiJ y4�D I • • ..< 4G yO `J : •rl4r ., yOby 111 \l\ `fIY 10�� P\O _ ��� JJ • PJ \` I� •Lv( 1 •er.n �� \ r•\ /r ♦ O41 ••(curs/ it —j— SLO-41-16.0/19.7 ALTERNATE A: $7, 650,000 Bypass of existing Route 41 with replacement of Salinas River Bridge to the bypass alignment. ALTERNATE B: $5, 000,000 New alignment east of Cemetery Road with replacement of Salinas River Bridge to the new alignment. ALTERNATE C: $1, 000, 000 Replacement of Salinas River Bridge on the existing alignment. ALTERNATE D: $ 611,800 Widen Atascadero Creek Bridge and widen the existin-- route east of railroad underpass . ALTERNATE E: $9,430, 000 Replacement of Salinas River Bridge on a new alignment extending east of Capistrano Avenue to the existing. ALTERNATE F: $2, 207 ,000 Replacement of- Salinas River Bridge on a new alignment extending west of Creston-Eureka Road to the existing Route. Estimate does not include any funds for improvement of the RR under- pass or any other bridges along the existing route. TOTAL YEARS TO BENEFIT/ MILEAGE TIME ALT. COST BREAK EVEN COST SAVED SAVED A 7,650,000 10 2.00 1 .6 5.3 B 5,000 ,000 9 2.17 1 .3 3.7 C 1 ,000,000 -- -- -- __ D 611 ,800 -- -- E 9,430,000 15 1 .33 1 .4 4.7 F 2,207,000 8 2.50 0.8 2.5 1 ` ! I i I l Lr 4!1 w I r co W a f.2 r- aM I R '7 J QI I I. CL) i U l� 1 ca,1 cl, \ I !ci Lr-- L :u a! Q; J a P o --� � ao� a tI1 fz •� �� v ry t I Q: c3 co v W t3 a Q P ( ry M' ru r Z •-• �� I L i Di Z i ccr c a x M P rv.►- a oc lao P a°ol o a ,o -c1- 0 o ►- I I ? i s 1 +— m un a tr11 M f--'2 d r 9 � ° t� .� to t .. Ln:P r-,c z ! CLf -1© rI c0 U a a a 1 ,- C), _r r,,a r,i y s z 0 I u� Hl (i t + I 1"ito rs o U iP ¢ o e ! cn c� mioD J to i IQ CL \CD \2 \ I - rn w -42'ti vt M'L ., IM it o Ila- o.. z t aa:oP a� ac: ci r. c -I O! Is X; ... M tn' Ly CL a > Uj I la a ,a 0 JQ w� i' cCl t;lj i �.-• 1 X z � M'� A I Co!z2 CID ;-51 cpa CI O Cc z s o •U U o M; M :Jt I o rn l.. M 'o Y io z, W a01 s j a u o ry Cl x ao , ! z ; cc rIw •T' t w u r 'ZZ 2.; P- rn i v f _ 'CS y i •.y U I� cvco LL � U l QI nl I dI rn� �I 1LLJ V IO 3.1 _�C L IO 1+1� • I co n' r c lfl ! i ►- CO %91 O E' Q, t M. M a a 1 w i t`- 11 ' `" 1 f jn' Ni C{- <-}- z < w c a I .-1 ,a zLu iC a N . U i u ry a: rn z 't NY P s r- U 1 I G u 3: rV- rv..... V) G Z: 'O z i0 'z CO 9. Cu - .--rn a 041 %n Ql i 7 7 at ' I 1 i �' M -4D :0 I r rn!c aPn I I i6 d a' •'1i ( `Q rn I r.3 :O fl I O I21 J Z I v): .. co ^^ :.: S O I V•' I V 0 o cn ai .. r-:r- o Cl aix c: \1 � Z .c; ..• rv:ry rn o�M .: ,a rq �� z c til cl 1 :1 ? 1 J -j P U a to :Z i m, :J '-• :`` Z CO.:.j O i i I s i I tc '\ R/W COST ESTIMATE 16. 0/ To: Jerry A. Hanto Dist 5 CoSLORte41 PhIR19. 7 Actn: _ E.A. 085002 Date 2 / 2 / 84 Project Desc: Rte._101 in Atascadero to 0.6 Subject: Right of Way Data -- AkgQ1Nsta Mi. E. of Salinas River 1. ' R/W Cost Estimate: A) Acquisition, including -Excess Land .$771,000 & Damages to Remainder B) Utility Relocation (State share) $ 80,000 'C) Clearance/Demolition $ 45,000 D) RAP $ 30,000 Total R/W Estimate $ 926 , 000 - E) Construction Contract Work $ 97,000 Parcel Data: Type Dual/Appy. Utilities RR Involvements X 38 U4-1 4 C&M Agree 1 A 13* -2 2 Service Contr 1 B 5 -3 Lic/Re 1 C 5 -4 Misc R/W Work: D 1 U5-7 Rap Displ 2 E XXXX xxxx -8 Clear/Demo 4 F -9 7 Total. . 62** Areas:' 'R/W g.•9± AC No. xcess Parcels Excess . 8 AC 1 Ent PMCS BY 1 Ravi sed _ * Includes twelve (12) temporary easement ownerships where fee was acquired previously and temporary_ rights have expired. ** Total parcels now required is 50 plus the above 12 parcels for a total of 62 parcel numbers and documents to accomplish R/W certification. Original parcel count was 52. / 36 1 �Q//I`�v U 0 Q- I Q VA Z �>- z� V Q Q Y (f)- •J v 0 m W • 0 W - GSMFA� Q dJ �Q d CD PACIFIC LLJ TNERN 1 [jJ C) V) �� J o< CE d w �d _J W �6 Q 0- �Cr Z _ �•11� Z w LLJ Q 0 r Z r1 Q 3AV LLJ �,� \ bllia9woS 1� V1NV$ Ilk ,mss-31 f• .'ADMINISTRATION BUILDING - ISL E Cop � CITY ATTORNEY POST OFFICE BOX 747 POST OFFICE BOX 606 ATASCADERO. CALIFORNIA 93423 ATASCADERO,CALIFORNIA 93423 PHONE: (805) 466.8000 PHONE: (805)466.4422 CITY COUNCIL CITY CLERKa s 64 m�w 4a%d e i'e POLICE DEPARTMENT CITY TREASURER POST INCORPORATED JULY 2. 1979 ATASCADERO. CALIFORNIA 93423 FICE BOX 74710 CITY MANAGER PHONE: (805) 466-8600 ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DEPARTMENT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT ^�• PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT E DEPARTMENT PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT FIRE LEWIS AVENUE ATASCADERO, CALIFORNIA 93422 ""r• PHONE: (805) 466-2141 December 13, 1985 State of California Department of Transportation Mr. K. W. Jones P.O. Box 8114 San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8114 Subject: Route 41 Bridge Over Salinas River Dear Mr. Jones: Thank you for your letter of September 30 regarding the Highway 41 relocation and the alternatives for routing across the Salinas River . I have presented this .to the Planning Commission and to City Council through Henry Engen, Director of Community Development. The Planning Commission recommendation to Council is enclosed for your review and in summary reconfirms the Mercedes alignment (Alignment A-B). Council took action on this issue on December 9 and approved the Planning Commission recommendation. We would, therefore, request that your office proceed with plans for Alternate A in a timely manner. Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter . Very truly yours; PAUL M. SENSIBAUGH Director of Public Works/City Engineer PMS/vjh cc: City Council City Manager z 4�3� �' IG AGEINDA iM E M O R A N D U M TO: City Council December 9, 1985 VIA: Michael Shelton, City Manager 0. ,�L� FROM: Henry Engen, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Highway 41 Alignment - alternatives proposed by CalTrans RECOMMENDATION: Reaffirm the City' s commitment to the Mercedes alignment for the ex- tension of Highway 41. BACKGROUND: On November 18, 1985, the Planning Commission considered the above- referenced subject unanimously recommending approval of staff's rec- ommendation as reflected in the attached staff report, with additional language to read: " . . . . . . .and suggesting that truck traffic signage urging use of Highway 46 be retained. " There was brief discussion on this matter as reflected in the attached Planning Commission minutes excerpt. HE:ps ATTACHMENTS: Staff Report - November 18, 1985 Planning Commission Minutes Excerpt - November 18, 1985 3 1B_ 33 City of Atascadero STAFF REPORT ITEM: C-2 FOR: Planning Commission Meeting Date: 11/18/85 BY: Henry Engen, Community Development Director Joel Moses, Associate Planner Project Address: Highway 41 Realignment SUBJECT: Highway 41 realignment - alternatives proposed by CalTrans BACKGROUND: The State of California Department of Transportation (CalTrans) has submitted a letter to the Public Works Department concerning State Route 41 and the future bridge over the Salinas River. They are in the process of reviewing possible alternatives to the now planned ex- tension of the route along the Mercedes street alignment. The City' s General Plan Circulation Element contains a short discussion concern- ing the need to relocate the existing route along West Mall and Capis- trano to eliminate possible traffic hazards (page 122) . The Circula- tion Element also contains specific policies as to the establishment of the Mercedes alignment as the new route for Highway 41 (page 130, 10 Policy No. 3, 4, and 5) . If other road alignments are proposed, a General Plan amendment would be required to approve another alignment. CalTrans has proposed six alternatives for review by the City. All are shown on the attached letter of transmittal and drawing. EVALUATION: The Mercedes alignment of Highway 41 has been the basis of development review approval conditions for a variety of projects (lot splits, con- ditional use permits, building permits, etc. ) since the mid-19701s. Its location had negative impacts on the established single family area west of Mercedes but less than could occur were the route to con- tinue through the middle of the neighborhood. RECOMMENDATION: Reaffirm support for Mercedes alignment for the new Salinas Bridge crossing subject to addressing the design concerns reflected in the City' s General Plan. HE:JM:ps ATTACHMENTS: CalTrans letter dated September 30 , 1985 General Plan excerpts 9PECEIVEO OCT 1 ��� 1985 STATE OF CALIFORNIA-BUSINESS,TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN, Govemor DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OP.O. BOX 8114, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93403-8114 TELEPHONE: (805) 549-3111 September 30, 1985 5-SLO-41-18. 4 Salinas River Bridge 5-309000 Mr. Paul Sensibaugh Public Works Director City of Atascadero P. 0. Box 747 Atascadero, CA 93423 Dear Mr. Sensibaugh: Re: Route 41 Bridge Over Salinas River The existing bridge on Route 41 crossing the Salinas River (easterly edge of Atascadero) will soon need replacement. We are studying various alternatives (enclosed) as possible improvements. We would appreciate comments concerning your needs in the Sycamore Road area as it might help select the best overall design. Sincer1vt R. W. Project Studies/Reports Engr. Enclosures L 3o SLO-41-16. 0/19. 7 ALTERNATE A: $7 , 650, 000 Bypass of existing Route 41 with replacement of Salinas River Bridge to the bypass alignment. ALTERNATE B: $51000, 000 New alignment east of Cemetery Road with replacement of Salinas River Bridge to the new alignment . ALTERNATE C: $1 , 000, 000 Replacement of Salinas River Bridge on the existing alignment. ALTERNATE D: $ 611, 800 Widen Atascadero Creek Bridge and widen the existing route east of railroad underpass . ALTERNATE E: $9, 430, 000 Replacement of Salinas River Bridge on a new alignment extending east of Capistrano Avenue to the existing . ALTERNATE F• $2 , 207 , 000 Replacement of Salinas River Bridge on a new alignment extending west of Creston-Eureka Road to the existing Route. Estimate does not include any funds for improvement of the RR under- pass or any other bridges along the existing route. wm I C:w 0 J OF N wa , � w off- Q o a Z i2 w U-I NO137�W31 J x y K i 1 u Om 1f / / UlbN/'bs a W I N A , pclFIG CO J Q iENNOl LU �• 5�`fM ,b3iO6 W QQ / W Q t JW I i W • ` C: W J J YIIIbB W03 W � U J u l �` 61 73BYSA � Y1NY5 - , a� o'A E!: _. �E`CpM� F ^y f co U • w O 0cc O CL 0 a 0 w z J Z C°(A W O _ Co C. is J C f - r _. trc ' It X :s�rl kf•t Y 3 a yk yt - y Fl 1 4t.L .. J ry'•i S3 ai 5 ..... T i:! St f�a r y �'a � dt� r f ] i�>�-. �� i` S s� '° 1� '2 �'f'i Z`—•+ F�'y¢ �4a.* '�-.: .�.- r a a F T`i 1J S F - � ;°�y + ,�• � �., t r f1.f,,'���T�'��lc. 'J+Y` �, t � �' iia •;S♦•,' yi�*'7h "R +, �t r h -� '•f ,. ♦ �•:. llr •1. a r•. •�'.i• 'a ♦ I 1 ��v L � � ' ,� i .'.v. .'.• •'R•Y:ti.:.�t,l• r.r•.� � ,F. , si+�y },�jfi'ic R.Y ••• .V'. '.1 y :•., •jam r � .• ,t=.. ��»..pie•- .;,• .. •••. :2 �:•. e ,i ii � ��j, .:�.;'k~ Jr �` '"v f��a•�:, � �.1�•: +,` 1 j {�y"aa+SJF• -� a ;�•. s+' , �. ''�% %,• i a a` YrtS t�.�y8 r�Nr� J t` 1. < •�' �'�r'$t r' Ayr .� 'f,r � �;i ' � F f < f •• �• :• 4 'ST�F�t �` � ;�\•� •• t�<l� 5` 5rr.: a'<'+ 'r 1 •1 AFS f i � . a .,�;. r r•r�r y� •• ,,��., a aS a, .•t:.S:J\fir y, a •�` Y zf.•)F�• • •..'n ?•Y4�`:`a" Std. at'• ., `i•.::,:x ••car: . •r• • 38 Road System 1. Freeways and Highways •j The major highways are Freeway 101 (7 . 0 miles) and Highway 41. Freewav 101 bisects the Colony from San Ramon Road to south of Santa Barbara Road. There are eight freeway exits, four of which are poorly designed and contribute to traffic congestion (Traffic Way southbound on-ramp, Morro Road northbound off-ramp and Santa Rosa Road both north and southbound off- ramps) . The appearance of the community along U. S. 101 from Santa Barbara Road to San Ramon Road and along the :Morro Road section of Highway 41 needs to be improved. This can be accomplished by: a. Effective landscaping, using native shrubs, to screen land uses from the highway. b. Banning off-premises outdoor advertising signs along these corridors. The completion of Freeway 101 eliminated a vital traffic route which served the Central Business District when access to Atascadero Avenue was interrupted by the Freeway. CalTrans should initiate a project to raise the Freeway at the present Mall pedestrian tunnel to permit vehicular traffic on Atascadero Mall from El Camino Real to Atascadero Avenue. Highway 41 bisects the community at right angles to Frg2wav 101. The Eastern half runs through part of the- CBD . _ directly between two schools and through--a dlen_sgly populated residential area Proposed plans to realign and improve Highway 41 along the Mercedes route would- a. Eliminate the truck traffic hazard on :West Mall in t o area o t e Atascadero Junior High and Lewis Avenue Elementary School campuses„, b. Eliminate truck traffic at the very narrow bridge an og eg over Atasca ero Creek. C. Prevent trucks reaching the Southern Pacific under- pass on Capistrano Avenue with its impaired vertical, c earance o 3 '-6 . ' Design of Hiahway 41 along the Mercedes alignment snouicl -attempt--to minimize the visual impacts on Pine Mountain and should with re and to the roadwa w1UMT ancl residential driveway access , be similar to 122 . 4e-3� that of surrounding City streets to minimize an . appearance ol EisecEingthe communit When rerouting or highway 41 does take 121ace, adequate pedestrian and bicycle pa ways shaiT be provided. 2. Divided Arterials The two arterials are El Camino Real and Morro Road. They serve as major highways linking Atascadero with other communities, and they channel traffic to different parts of town. Divided arterials shall be developed in two lengths: on E1 Camino Real from Rosario to San Diego Road and on Morro Road from El Camino Real to San Gabriel Road. The divided arterials shall also have a paving width that will accommodate four traffic lanes, parallel parking strips, bicycle lanes and curbs and sidewalks. 3. Undivided Arterials These roads serve as major access routes betwen resi- dential areas, shopping centers, employment centers and primary recreation areas. Roads in this classification must have shoulders wide enough to accommodate multi- use paths and emergency parking. There are fourteen segments of undivided arterials : a. Atascadero Avenue from Morro Road to Freeway 101 provides- major access to Santa Rosa Road Elementary School. It is noted for heavy traffic and lack of shoulders. b. Traffic- Way from E1 Camino Real to-Potrero Road and a future extension of Traffic Way beyond Potrero Road to E1 Camino Real as a truck route. The portion of Traffic Way between El Camino Real and .Olmeda Avenue is also designated to have 40 feet of paving to allow for two 8-foot parking strips on both sides of the arterial. C. Curbaril Avenue from Morro Road to the Salinas River crossing is a major local traffic route and is also characterized by lack of adequate shoulders for non- automobile traffic. 123 . 5. Pedestrians i Pathways shall be incorporated in some bikeways P y and equestrian trails. Busy areas magnify the importance of providing space for the pedestrian. Of special importance is a pedestrian-oriented Central Business District. TABLE VIII-2 RECAPITULATION OF PROPOSED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN THE COLONY UNDER VARIOUS FISCAL JURISDICTIONS 1. Primary arterial (2.1 miles) parallel to E1 Camino Real, with a heavy-duty bridge over Atascadero Creek. 2. A bridge over Graves Creek to connect San Gabriel Road with Graves Creek Road. 3. Multi-purpose bikeways. 4. A new fire house. 5. New schools. 6. Acquisition of Stadium Park. 7. Development of Chalk Mountain Regional Park. 8. Development of SEDES Creekways Plan. 9. New Post Office. 10. Landscaping of Freeway 101 to San Luis Obispo standards. 11. Freeway 101 overcrossing at the Mall. -- -- 12. Reacquisition of that part of the Sunken Gardens now occupied by the Junior High School campus . 13. Acquisition of Graves Creek Reserve. 14 . Acquisition of Wranglerette Arena. 15. Acquisition of Chandler Parkland. Circulation Policy Proposals 1. Freeways and major highways shall be effectively land- scaped to screen urban land uses and improve community is appearance. Refer to Chanter XIII, COMMUNITY APPEARANCE. 129. • • I., - ¢� 2. Outdoor advertising signs shall be eliminated along freeways and major highways. 3. Highwav 41 shall be realigned and improved northerly of Freeway ,iOl along Ehe adoLteET Mercedes NIT . 4. Design of the roadway alon5 the Mercedes alignment should minimize visual to Pine Mountain and im acts -shoull mitigate concerns associated with bisection of the community. 5. In the rerouting of Hiway X41, adequate pedestrian and biicc Zcle paths shall be provided. 6. Construction of a heavy-duty bridge across Atascadero Creek linking Lewis Avenue with Santa Ysabel shall be programmed immediately. 7. Pathways on streets near schools shall be constructed as soon as practical. 8. Elevation of U. S. 101 to permit vehicular traffic on Atascadero Mall from El Camino Real to Atascadero Avenue shall be programmed by CalTrans and the Division of Highways. 9. New street extensions on unimproved rights-of-way shall be developed to reasonable improvement standards. 10. Greyhound Bus Lines shall be encouraged to acquire a new permanent terminal site near the Central Business District, close to freeway access. 11. Plan lines shall be established for all urban arterials and local collectors and appropriate set backs instituted. 12. A more complete and adequate directional signing program shall be initiated. 13. A high priority shall be given to projects which are designed to improve the safety of existing transportation facilities. 14 . The potential for inter- and intra-community public transit shall periodically be investigated. 15. Any transportation improvements system shall be compatible with the environment. There shall be a wise use of avail- able resources, avoidance of despoiling irreplaceable resources, promotion of the aesthetic quality of the area and minimization of environmental change. 16.. The Countv' s curb and gutter ordinance shall be amended to include multiple residential districts and professional Is office districts. 130 . i q � '^ rS a y4�, �t�_S:'-i_• t- �#..���hi ay ■n� tt -.� -""'..• it i i k 3 '!�'"�`� '(„� _ � l g= t 1 �-.� trs li,�ItAt1 �Dror�i 3�d i a's,ear •a 7 is e�st�a rrylx Fxs�z . s ip _ _ �i� � �.. '-..E � t'.t 1w r �,�;` . ^r�� + .car, aT r ¢ f �� *i•.•F i 9 ,�a *< ♦ r\Nsr ','S't. sft',, � S �. � � r i° .. �! {i,:. r /°�R c � S c -*' LH i''�� � ii t� irr S.y �z'h `': .t i1 •5�4�' +r��`� '����y_:}�. r��. '-T� ,•'�� s a _ S� -. �, - .�*"'.'k xx. � �—.3�,cYc�[ r i 53 .r 3' �'�,���t.�az �y N3 _, �. 4� TAX Litt}. ��; y'y '�{�, ty l•.' ! � '.t ^' ,� � ,� � �, ��, � -' „p Vin,•' "i �ip, > � }? • I Yl yY ,s��Y�` 1 �� � ,a•;� �,� Y�Ji��f�.���t ��+ 1'«?�, g�t���/5�. - �: ! �V Yui�. MLJOR ROUTES Atascadero has already been bisected by U. S. 101, a freeway, which was intended to replace traffic movemen's formerly carried on E1 Camino Real. This freeway was not de- signed into the original subdivision and therefore the crea- tion of the right-of-way disturbed many previously established traffic patterns. In most cases, interchanges with community roads were not located and designed to most efficiently serve community traffic. This report recommends certain alterations to major circulation within the community in order to accommo- date past miscalculations. Of particular note are the street adjustments made to meet Santa Rosa and San Anselmo freeway intersections. State Highway 41 is a direct route between Fresno and Morro Bay passina through Atascadero This Plan dv const era a upgrading of State Highway 41 between Cholame 76HZI 21fascauero, which improvement w-ill facilitate consider- My y more traffic. A phased program of improving this im- portant cross State route to a standard com arable to Morro Road is envisioned, here. Realignment of the nresgl cuitous route through Atascadero to one directly connecting the Eureka Urade with Morro Road is strongly suggested here. Eliminating the horseshoe turns on top of therade and]bv- passing the existing Salinas River crossing along an ali n- ment through the Atascadero Golf Course and following along the foot of Pine Mountain seems to be most ra ti al at this ,:... time. Early- commpletion of this o_^o_7ect is important to the economic future of Atascadero. In the distant future.--traffic demands may justify fur- ther study of Route nl and its possible conversion to freeway status between Creston and Cerro Alto. If this becomes ne- cessary, alternate alignments outside of the central area are preferred to a Morro Road freeway proposal. Alignments which have been studied for this purpose generally relate to a Rocly Canyon route bypassin- the central area to the South, or a route using the Chicago Grade and following the Graves Creel, Valley. Until traffic demands make this study necessary how- ever, it can ba assumed a su estee ine Moun ain route wil serve t e traveling public a equately. MAJOR COLLECTOR STREETS Of particular concern in the design of major intra- community streets was the transformation of existing sub-width rights-of-way and the sensible traffic flow pattern serving all major elements of the community. Most of the roads de- signated on the Plan as major collector streets need to be 74 r' APLETON 4dor A,—— v 3� ,d� 1sA�`�v 411100 i 'too, Cyd. l i _ �A ti r� + 'ttt ) s fi�� Mrd T yag��)r SS � ��`'.*` ,•.�� � �� a�ivk� q�tit �i nwY�.`RTM-R y d� c.�-�ry� h - •� v �� Y, .,,, ,,.��,�,� x[i,ta R.a Se.�,�_• � i) i � gt,Mt,y� `; .� .: ���4 j�1 �.. ;A j K t� - g q r' _L.��i;R y:. ��+• g s W, ` y�,��'A a.epi,,.- r4 y.'A;•x l: •bn �C,�t k�i�•.. >:� 4x. AZ GENERAL PLAN 4 ® ,SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY PLANNING DBpARTmBNT • JANUARY SUBURBAN(1-5 Acres) MERCIAL - • SINGLE FAMILY-HIGH DENSITY(1/4-1/2 Acre I y " INDUSTRIAL PARK P1\ 7 DUPLEX G MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL LIGHT INDUSTRY MOBILE HOME PARK INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PUBLIC t .r•R © � T 3a J.ftio'milk,HS-1410h Scheel) J W I,Yy eem*� URBAN RESERVE LINE POSSIBLE RESERVOIR SITE .............. MAJOR RIDING S HIKING TRAIL ZC--.Z MAJOR ROUTE sessessesse 111111111110mi MAJOR COLLECTOR ;. <fh. ii n. ::•:?.::^ii:0i i?l::^Y ilii:::. .'n ii:o>iiiii ..:nom::n.........., .,i.,.:........................:............ \�'v<:;iiia%i:;:;i;ii:v;:•'�.:jai�'�; � ��������::::j:::�.'�fi;<i?Fic',;;:::iiiii�:::;gjiiii;:k%:::::::?::�:%Y2;i i`;'(.i j;:`�":'L�:�•�:x'�:':. , r �1, `v ................. ?•s_�.:i:.::ii':iii::,::;:;. ...,:::is?i;:. - .. :.::::.. ..... ... ..:::..........� :........:::..::: :t 3i T Y sons IL CAM/0 MAL "��'T� r��� • � �?fit: >�$' r � � �f�f� E �.1. i� k �. / pR �ago ; q tow o� SCHBMATIC PLAN OP:<::::<»................... ATASCADBRO CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTYi PLANNING DEPARTMENT 1 Nowi 0 soo Im. N c fascaifeny ��flawfw t f c onlilla cc 6550 EL CAMINO REAL ATASCADERO, CALIFORNIA 93422 TELEPHONE: (805) 466-2044 18 June 1984 Hr. 'like EV: 1nh()e I:xccutivc Di-rector CA1.1 F0PNTA TRANSPORTATION CONHISSION 1120 ' N ' Street , Room 2233 Sacramento , Ca . 95814 KE S'1'/1TE 11IG11WAY ROUTE 41 REILOCATION I N Al.A!;(;AD1-:RU Urnr Nr . Evanioc : 'file Board of Directors Of the Atascadero Chamber of Commerce representing the nearly 400 members of the Chamber is most pleased t() Hear of the current: recommendations regarding State IHOII ay Route 41 in Atascadero . Tlie Atascadero Chaulhc T O! Co1111-pu rce reaffirm:> its support , however , for the eventual (-olliple,jon of is termed Alternate A ill the C'i'C Project St:udv report on Route 41 Relocation ill Atascradero completed I)v Cal Trans . The report clearly Outlines the problems with the current route and recommends appropriate corrective action . If is. tic ('hamber ' :, understanding that the ri)dhCaway bet (.cell 1HgjIway 1O] .111(1 (,viiieLary Roa(1 Which would wake AlLernat:r A pc,:;:;i.blc ha:; been acquired for the most ))art- . Continued progress toward a solution to the problems Outlined in the report is imperative if Atascadero is to avoid future circu- lation problem; . Your consideration of the matter is greatly apllrec i.a te(1 . Sincerely , Ml;/ft;l . 11AGGIL RICE President c/c Ms . Judith Hopkinson Cal.i.for►1i.a Transportatio11 COiNIIiSSlOn Assemblyman Eric Seastrand Dlr. . Vic Kamhi - Area Plan. & Coord . Council County Government Center Supervisor Jerry Diefenderfer Count v Governulent Center III TI 1 1 D J' let L' SAN! -�' ✓ ^ rs A(tE j r� SOMf)Hi A 1 <<. AV E D\ -end T�� 'F��'��• '��.. O q � ` �j p V U` 1 1l) , �\ C q rn- - ., O N-p lOvd p0 �v �� fYO7 �- � �_��Lif� t9 (D \• \ �. N x Fri i C X m Z Z p / M E M O R A-N D U M TO: Murray Warden FROM: Larry McPherson SUBJECT: Routing for Route 41 This memo is in response to findings I have made related to the current status of the planned location of Highway 41 through Atascadero. Mr. Henry Case of Caltrans has been in- volved with the route selection from the start and he is the source for much of the background information I have obtained. Mr. Case indicated that the alignment proposed by the State is the resultf o various studies made by Caltrans and input from the Citizens Advisory Committee from Atascadero. The route along Mercedes was seen to be the least costly and least disruptive to private property, taking into consideration the physical restraints that existed at that time. The primary restraints were a funeral home and a golf course. These facilities were left in place and the proposed route was planned to go around them. Neither of these facilities now exist. The improvement through Atascadero was proposed in re- sponse to local traffic problems and not in consideration of any long term plans to improve the highway east of Atascadero. Considerations were made at the time the route was selected to use the present alignment along Capistrano or to switch it over to Curbaril, however, both of these routes were rejected due tothe large number of residential units that would be disrupted and the excessive right of way costs associated with these proposals. I have display maps showing the parcels along Curbaril that would be affected by the right of way acquisitions necessary to construct the new route. I also have maps showing the status of right-of-way acquisitions along the Mercedes alignment. Almost all right-of-way has been acquired along the Mercedes alignment and has been under State ownership since around 1973. The only parcels the State did not acquire were these owned by the Atascadero Mutual Water Company and two private dwellings where the owners threatened litigation. Since the City Council has taken action to revise the General Plan to designate Curbaril east of El Camino Real as the route for future Highway 41, I feel it is my obligation to point out several concerns I have about that route : 11 VV�' •Y 1 Page 2 1. The State has considerable investment in right-or-way and relocation expenses along the Mercedes alignment. 2. If the Mercedes route is abandoned, surplus property would be disposed of, normally by bid process. 3. Approximately 25 feet of right-of-way would be required of each side of Curbaril to provide proper roadway width for improvement to State Standards. 4. If Curbaril is improved as a State Highway, it is likely that speed limits will be increased upon the completion of road improvements. 5. Residents along the Mercedes frontage have been long aware of the impending highway construction, while the Curbaril residents have not been faced with that possibility until only recently. We are beginning to see only the start of an adverse reaction by the re- sidents along Curbaril to the possible construction of a State Highway. 6. Construction costs for improvement of the Mercedes alignment were projected to be lower than that of the Curbaril alignment. It is estimated that the Mercedes alignment would cost in the neighborhood of $5 million dollars if constructed now. Right-of-way costs would have to be added to construction costs for the Curbaril alignment. A final consideration is that according to Mr. Case, the likelihood of State funds being available for construction of either alignment gnment within the next 10-20 years is extremely slight. Z ��----- LAWRENCE McPHERSON LM:vh 10-7-80 i • Discussion: (C) Unmet Public Transit Needs #5 Background information on this item is included in the SLOACC Staff Report and the Jan- uary 8 SLOACC Minutes. The Unmet Needs is determined to be the lack of transportation of the elderly residents of Templeton that desire to go to Twin Cities Hospital, Atascadero or Paso Robles. TTAC has found that the Atascadero Dial-A-Ride is not a reasonable solution to the Unmet Need and SLOACC Staff supports that recommendation as does City staff. The Citizens Advisory Committee wants Atascadero Dial-A-Ride to pursue options such as a fixed route in Templeton. The City Staff will give considera- tion to this if the Senior Bus recommended by SLOACC staff does not work, but the DAR option may decrease the level of service for Atascadero Residents. Fiscal Impact: The Senior Bus solution is a no cost option and is recommended. • 4 v, SAN LUIS OBISPO AREA COORDINATING COUNCIL STAFF REPORT MEETING DATE : MARCH 5, 1987 SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF REQUESTS FOR IMPROVED PUBLIC TRANSIT SERVICES IN THE REGION (UNMET TRANSPORTATION NEEDS HEARING, 1987, CONTINUED FROM JANUARY 8, 1987) SUMKARY State Law (CAC Sec. 6658) requires the Area Council to hold an annual public hearing to receive public testimony to identify unmet transit needs that may exist within the region. This report summarizes requests found to be unmet needs at the January 8, 1987 public hearing. The Area Council must now determine whether those requests found to be unmet needs are reasonable to meet based upon the adopted definition of "Unmet Needs that .. , are reasonable to meet." If any unmet .needs are found to be reasonable to meet, such needs . must be satisfied prior to the apportionment of transportation funds for streets and roads to those affected areas. RECOMMENDATION Staff: a. Find that .all unmet needs are reasonable to meet with the exception of Unmet Need #4', demand responsive service for the frail elderly from Los Osos to Morro Bay. b. Adopt the attached resolution and modify as necessary to reflect final Area Council action. C. Direct implementation plans be formulated with affected jurisdictions for consideration at the May Area Council meeting. DISCUSSION The Area Council on November 6, 1986, adopted rules and procedures for advertising and conducting the annual Unmet Needs Hearings. These procedures cover public notification, the public hearing process needs analysis and definitions. In conformance with these procedures, the Area Council held the 1987 Unmet Transit Needs Hearing on December 11, 1986, with a subsequent hearing on January 8, 1987, to evaluate the requests made at the prior hearings. In addition, the city of Grover City held an Unmet Needs Hearing on December 1, 1986. At the December hearings, 25 people made oral presentations, 7 persons phoned in comments and 7 letters were received and submitted for record. The oral testimony is included in the official minutes. A total of 14 separate requests were made and are summarized in the official minutes. B-1-1 Y On January 8, 1987, the Area Council reviewed a summary, evaluation and analysis of this testimony, the recommendations of the Technical ' Transportation Advisory Committees and an initial staff determination. Based on the definition of "unmet transit needs," the Area Council determined the following transit requests as appearing to be "unmet transit needs": 1. Transit service between the Five Cities and San Luis Obispo (including Nipomo and Avila Beach). 2. Expansion of the Regional Handicapped System on Thursday evenings and on weekends. 3. Demand responsive service within the Five Cities area for the frail_ 4 elderly. 4. Demand responsive service between Los Osos and Morro Bay for frail elderly. [ 5.) Transit service between Templeton and Atascadero or Paso Robles for senior citizens. The Area Council directed staff to determine the "reasonableness" of these requests using the following criteria: A. Feasibility. The proposed service shall be feasible to fund within the existing and projected limits of TDA funds available to the affected jurisdiction(s) and in accordance with funding priorities established by the Area Council. B. Community Acceptance. The proposed service shall have community acceptance from general public and elected officials. C. Timing. The proposed service shall be in response to an existing rather than a future need. D. Equity. The proposed service shall not exceed the transit level of service standards established in the Regional Transportation Plan. E. Duplication. The proposed service shall not duplicate or compete with other transit services. F. Cost Effectiveness. The proposed service shall have a projected fare to operating cost ratio that meets state requirements and shall have a projected operating cost per passenger as provided by comparable services. Comparable services may be based upon the averages of services provided in similar geographic areas, socioeconomic confines and physically similar systems. B-1-2 The Area Council has also adopted the following policy for implementing requests found "reasonable to meet": All unmet transit needs that appear to satisfy these criteria shall be funded and implemented on a one-year trial service basis. All such pilot programs will be strongly promoted with promotional efforts and performance specified in progress reports submitted at subsequent regular Area Council meetings. If after three months the service does not show due progress towards meeting the specified performance indicators, the service shall be discontinued. If the service achieves these performance measures at the end of the test period, it shall be continued until such time that it no longer satisfies this definition. Regarding Item B, Community Acceptance, the Area Council received notifi- cation from Caltrans stating, "There is a risk that this definition may be misconstrued to mean that transit funds may be diverted to road purposes merely because certain 'elected officials' desire to do so. Of course, if such were to occur, it would clearly constitute a violation of both the meaning. and intent of the 'unmet Needs' law." Report prepared by James Raisanen, Transportation Planner and reviewed by Ronald De Carli, Program Manager JR/cl/4838-1/93 B-1-3 UNMET NEEDS REQUEST #5 . TRANSIT SERVICE BETWEEN TEMPLETON AND ATASCADERO OR PASO ROBLES FOR SENIOR CITIZENS -SUMMARY The Area Council has determined transit service between Templeton and Atascadero to be an Unmet Transit Need. This report considers the reasonableness of meeting this need based on the adopted criteria. ...JLECOMMENDATION -.,,,Staff: a. Find the request reasonable to meet. ., b. Request the Senior Citizens United of Atascadero to provide s`rvices For seniors living in Templeton. NOTE: Staff is working with the City* of Atascadero to evaluate the CTAC recommendation. CTAC: Appears reasonable to meet direct staff to evaluate the :Possibility oT utilizing the DAR as a TTxed route through re-Mo3leton. IT ..,. _ TTAC: Find request unreasonable for Atascadero DAR to meet due to mpact on existing system .e. need for additional vehicle an Wdditional contract hours). SLOACC ACTION: BACKGROUND Requests to provide transit service between Templeton and Atascadero or Paso Robles for Senior Citizens was received at the initial unmet needs hearing held on December 11, 1986. The request consisted of 1 person gresenting public testimony, who represented senior citizens TiviFF in Templeton. On January , , the Area Council found this request to be an Unmet Need. DISCUSSION The following discusses the feasibility of providing the service based on the adopted criteria for determining transit needs that are reasonable to meet. Prior to conducting the reasonableness test, three alternatives for providing the service are discussed. B-1-29 Expansion of Atascadero Dial-A-Ride + The Atascadero DAR operates within the city limits and to Twin Cities Hospital in Templeton, but the service is limited to Atascadero City residents. Elderly and handicapped persons can ride for .50E one-way. The system operates using four vans, three of which are left equipped. In fiscal year 1985/86, Atascadero DAR carried 57,375 passengers, approximately 227 of which were senior citizens. Currently, the DAR travels daily to Twin Cities Hospital in Templeton, but the service is restricted to Atascadero City residents. Between September and June, three round trips daily are made to Twin Cities Hospital and during the summer months four round trips are made daily. According to the City of Atascadero and the operator, these trips are made during peak times of operation and any ex ans on ot these trips to Verve letup a on residents woul greatly effect the systems overall level q1 service. concerns are a so tat sue- an exans on could not e Iimited to servicing only the el eriy due to problem of implementation ami oring such a restriction. If the service was expanded into Templeton, it is anticipated that an additional vehicle and an increase in contract hours would be required. A rough cost estimate for this expansion would be $45,000 'for a vehicle plus , or the increase I in operations. This option is not recommended at this time due to "the high cost nvo ve in the service expansion for the general public orTempleton and the relatively low population to be served. In addition, the unmet need . t.... -.was transportation specifically for seniors. Expansion of Atascadero Senior Citizens Senior Citizens United of Atascadero, subsidized by the County, provides transportation for seniors in the unincorporated areas of Atascadero, Templeton and Santa Margarita. The vehicle used is a 1977 Dodge Aspen Wagon. In fiscal year 1984/85, the Atascadero Vehicle carried approximately 9,900 passengers 10,200 miles. Every Thursday, the Atascadero Senior Club provides service for seniors living in Santa Margaritafor shopping and medical trip needs. The club travels to Templeton daily to deliver meals to home bound seniors.` The Senior Citizens United of Atascadero Club has indicated that a specific day per week could be set aside to provide services for Templeton seniors. ,�It is recommended that this no cost option be pursued in an attempt to consolidate senior van services. Subsidized Templeton Senior Club Templeton Senior Citizens is a new club currently being organized. As of October, 1986, their membership consisted of 22 people. B-1-30 Funding the purchase of a new van for this club would cost the county $13,000 to $17,000 plus approximately $4,500 per year for insurance, maintenance and operations. This option is not recommended at this time due to the relatively low number ot persons to be served and the Area council policy to consolidate rather than expand senior van operations. Reasonable to Meet Evaluation The Area Council has adopted the following criteria to be used in determining whether "unmet transit needs" are "reasonable to meet A. Feasibility - The proposed service shall be feasible to fund within 4 the existing and projected limits of TDA funds available to the affected .Jurisdiction. All options for providing services for Templeton seniors are well within the county rs .TDA fund balance of approximately $1,080,000. B. Community Acceptance The proposed -service shall have community acceptance from the general public and elected officials. -� Minimal community support has been identified through the testimony received. Elected official support is unknown at this time. C. Timing - The proposed service shall be in response to an existing rather than a future need. Although testimony received was minimal, it is apparent that there is a current need. The Atascadero DAR operator has indicated that the receive a substantia num er of requests from Templeton and Santa ar arita. The RegTonal Handicappedstem also received many ca s rom the 771 d1derly living in those areas requesting services within Templeton to Twin Cities Hospital and to the city of Atascadero. D. Equity - The proposed service shall not exceed the transit level of service standards established in the Regional Transportation Plan. Templeton's population is approximately 1,850 with a density of 1 person per acre. The community standards in the RTP state that communities under 5,000 with densities less than 2 per acre 'can support paratransit or specialized transit services. Three other communities in the region with substantially less populations currently support county subsidized senior vans. They include: Heritage Village, San Miguel and Shandon. B-1-31 C-17 E. Duplication - The proposed service shall not duplicate or compete with other transit services. Currently, the community of Templeton has no transit services, thus no duplication or competition is possible. F. Cost Effectiveness - The proposed service shall have a projected fare to operating cost ratio that meets state requirements and shall have a projected operating cost per passenger as provided by comparable services. Expansion of Atascadero Senior Citizens transportation is a no cost option. The County ot San Luis Obispo currently subsidizes the cub using general fund money which is not applicable to state farebox ratios. TTAC COMMENTS: Expansion of the Atascadero Dial-A-Ride into Templeton w-oula fUqTMTF an additional vehicle and an increase in contract hours. oncerns were raised ow to restrict such an expansion to senior citizens. Service to Templeton appears to be a good concept. but exp—a sin of-the s unreasonable at t is time due to cost. CTAC COMMENTS: Appears to be an unmet need for seniors and the general public that is reasonable to meet. Concerns were raised whether the DAR could service Templeton residents on a f ixed-route basis and directed statt to evaluate this option. Report prepared by Karen Bass, Transportation Planner KB/hf/jgm/6259-1/124 B-1-32 Discussion: (D) Consent Agenda The Consent Agenda is similar to the SLOACC Consent Agenda except that the Items D-1, D-2 and D-3 are added as little or no discussion is anticipated by the City Council. Council, of course may pull any item for discussion and may act or not act on the items as a whole. Staff has included the SLOACC staff background information on these items, but recommends that no action be taken on these items unless pulled. Council' s representative would be deciding any remaining items. Flexability. ..on the items that mainly in- volve other areas may allow our represntative to gain some sup- port for our priorities. Fiscal Impact: No significant Fiscal Impact is recognized on the Consent Agenda actions. Item 3 does deal with TDA requirements but the funding formula is based mainly on population ratios. • • 5 San Luis Obispo Area Coordinating Council Arrays Grande Atascadero Grover City Morro Bay rand Regional Transportation Planning Agency Paso Robles Pismo Beach San Luis Obispo ® San Luis Obispo County AGENDA SAN LUIS OBISPO AREA COORDINATING COUNCIL THURSDAY, MARCH 5, 1987 1:30 p.m. San Luis Obispo City Council Chambers 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, California President: Carl Hysen Vice President: Harry Ovitt CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL INTRODUCTION OF NEW DELEGATES AND STAFF APPROVAL OF MINUTES: January 8, 1987 PUBLIC COMMENTS This portion of the agenda is set aside for members of the public to directly address the legislative body on items of interest within the jurisdiction of the Council. Persons are requested to limit their comments to three minutes. A. CONSENT AGENDA: Approved by roll call vote on one motion (as listed at end of agenda). B. PUBLIC HEARING B-1 UNMET PUBLIC TRANSIT NEEDS HEARING. Recommendations: a) Adopt the attached resolution memorializing the following and direct implementation plans be developed for consideration in May: Request 1. Transit service between Five Cities area and San Luis Obispo. County Government Center, San Luis Obispo, CA 93408 (805) 549-5710 -- Find request reasonable to meet. Request 2. Expansion of Regional Handicapped System. -- Direct provision of trial Saturday service using existing banked hours. Request 3. Door-to-door transit service for frail elderly in Five Cities area. -- Find a "restricted" taxi-subsidy program reasonable to meet. Request 4. Door-to door transit service connection between South Bay and Morro Bay for frail elderly. -- Find request not reasonable to meet. Request 5. Transit service for the elderly between Templeton and Atascadero. -- Find request reasonable to meet. Request Senior Citizens United of Atascadero to also serve Templeton. C. TRANSPORTATION C-1 State Highway Regional Transportation Improvement Program. Adopt the 1987 RTIP prioritizing major state highway projects in the region and authorize its transmittal to Caltrans. D. ADMINISTRATION D-1 Local Transportation Fund and State Transit Assistance Fund Apportionment for F.Y. 87/88. Adopt apportionment. E. ANNOUNCEMENTS E-1 Increase in apportioned Federal (UMTA) Section 18 transit funds (from $48,360 to $80,586). Schedule for Programming: May 5, 1987. A. CONSENT AGENDA Unless an item is pulled for separate consideration, the following items are approved without discussion at the beginning of the meeting. -2- A-1 Transportation Development Act Fund Audits. Accept and file the annual reports of each recipients use of TDA funds for 1985/86. A-2 Year-to-Date Financial Report. Review, receive and file. A-3 Overall Work Program Progress Report. Authorize modification of OWP to: delay SCAT performance audit and merge it with a proposed short-range operational study in F.Y. 86/87; and to change schedule of Route 101 study. A-4 Progress report on a tri-county socioeconomic monitoring program .prepared by the Santa Barbara County Department of Regional Programs. Information item. A-5 Minimum Required Farebox Ratios. Recognize new reduced farebox ratios for the North Coastal, South County Area Transit and San Luis Obispo (municipal) transit systems. NEXT MEETING: The next meeting of the Area Council will be May 7, 1987, at 1:30 p.m. at the San Luis Obispo City Hall Council Chambers, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo. RD/cl/5685-1 [109] -3- San Luis Obispo Area Coordinating Council Arroyo ran AtadGrover City Morro and Regional Transportation Planning Agency Paso RW Piro Beach San Luis Obispo - San Luis Obispo County MINUTES SAN LUIS OBISPO AREA COORDINATING COUNCIL JANUARY 8, 1987 San Luis Obispo City Council Chambers 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, California Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the San Luis Obispo Area Coordinating Council held in the San Luis Obispo City Council Chambers, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA. , at 1:30 p.m. PRESENT: Bill Coy, Supervisor, District 2 Jim Johnson, Supervisor, District 4 Bonita Borgeson, Councilwoman, City of Atascadero Dave Ekbom, Mayor, City of Grover City Jeff Odell, Councilman, City of Morro Bay Harry Ovitt, Councilman, City of Paso Robles (Vice President) Nebb Eldwayen, Mayor, City of Pismo Beach GlennaDeane Dovey, Councilwoman, City of San Luis Obispo (alternate) Carl Hysen, Supervisor, District 5 (President) ABSENT: Jerry Diefenderfer, Supervisor, District 1 Evelyn Delany, Supervisor, District 3 Dorace Johnson, Councilwoman, City of Arroyo Grande STAFF Ronald L. De Carli, Program Manager PRESENT Michael Harmon, Associate Transportation Planner Karen Bass, Transportation Planner James Raisanen, Transportation Planner Tom Conroy, Legal Counsel OTHERS George Protopapas, Regional Transit Manager PRESENT: John Wallo, County Engineering Department The following action minutes are listed as they were acted upon by the San Luis Obispo Area Coordinating Council and as listed on the agenda for the meeting held January 8, 1987, together with the staff reports and related documents attached thereto and incorporated therein by reference. County Government Center, San Luis Obispo, CA 93408 (805) 549-5710 r CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL: President Hysen calls the meeting to order. A quorum is declared present. President Hysen introduces Delegate Jim Johnson, the newly elected County Supervisor representing District IV. Ronald De Carli, Program Manager introduces a new staff member, Michael Harmon, Associate Transportation Planner. Chairman Hysen acknowledges and welcomes student observers from Cal Poly. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Motion is made by Delegate Eldwayen, seconded by Delegate Ovitt, carried with Delegates Delany, Diefenderfer and Doris Johnson absent, approving the minutes of the December 11, 1986 meeting. A. CONSENT AGENDA: There being no discussion, motion is made by Delegate Ovitt, seconded by Delegate Eldwayen, carried with Delegates Delany, Diefenderfer and Doris Johnson absent, carried, approving the Consent Agenda of January 8, 1987. B. PUBLIC HEARING B-1 UNMET PUBLIC TRANSIT NEEDS HEARING. Staff reviews -procedure and listing of responses and identifies various requests as shown in the staff report. Delegate Ovitt comments on the need to include Avila on page B-1-2 under the -Discussion section in parenthesis. Thereafter, motion is made by Delegate Ovitt, seconded by Delegate Eldwayen, and carried to include Avila with the transit service between the Five Cities and San Luis Obispo along with Nipomo. Discussion takes place regarding each of the unmet transit needs. Specific concerns were raised that service was needed for seniors in the Templeton area. President Hysen opens the Hearing to the public and the following testimony is provided: MARK SHAFFER, Director of Community Interaction Program - Developmentally Disabled Adults, explains that the vehicles owned by schools can be leased and operated by another agency after hours and asked if it would not be less expensive to look into this rather than a countywide system. He states, that another alternative is to increase the Runabout service, indicating that this service has recently been increased to include Thursday nights with conditions and he would like to see it expanded more. Discussion takes place regarding banked hours of social service agencies and the need to make sure the most cost effective service is being used. GARY DENO, appears as a community representative and a regular user of the service, expressing his appreciation to staff and the Council for present service, particularly in allowing the back-up van. He indicates the Regional Handicapped Service needs 25 additional hours to provide for lower priority trips, which should be bankable to provide flexibility to the contractor. Mr. Deno also requests that the marketing funds -2- allocated in prior years be used to market the Regional Handicapped System for the best possible usage and coordination to raise a good farebox return to a better one, and in general, provide better services throughout the county. George Protopapas, county engineer, notes that the county funds the Senior Citizens United of Atasca ero to provide senior van service to Templeton. M Hagan indicates the senior van could provide such services. Delegate Borgeson indicates she receives numerous requests for the At�asca ero Dial-A-Ride to . pick up riders in Templeton and request this option be considered. There being no further public testimony, motion is made by Delegate Dovey, seconded by Delegate Borgeson, to ratify staff recommendations of unmet transit needs requests no. 1 through 4, and adding no. 5. and direct staff to consider the reasonableness of meeting the requests for action at the meeting on March 5, 1987. Discussion takes place regarding the procedure of voting on all five items at once, or separately. Motion is withdrawn. Motion is made by Delegate Coy, seconded by Delegate Ovitt, carried with Delegates Delany, Diefenderfer and Doris Johnson absent, to ratify staff recommendation of unmet transit need request No. 1, Transit service between the Five Cities and San Luis Obispo. Motion is made by Delegate Coy, seconded by Delegate Ovitt, carried with Delegates Delany, Diefenderfer and Doris Johnson absent, to ratify staff recommendation of unmet transit need request No. 2, Expansion of the Regional Handicapped System on Thursday evenings and on weekends. Motion is made by Delegate Dovey, seconded by Delegate Jim Johnson, carried with Delegate Ekbom voting no and Delegates Delany, Diefenderfer and Doris Johnson absent, to 'ratify staff recommendation of unmet transit need request No. 3, Demand responsive service for frail elderly within the Five Cities area. Motion is made by Delegate Coy, seconded by Delegate Ovitt, carried with Delegates Delany, Diefenderfer and Doris Johnson absent, to ratify staff recommendation of unmet transit need request No. 4, Demand Responsive service between Los Osos and Morro Bay for frail elderly. Motion is made by Delegate Ovitt, seconded by Delegate Coy, carried with e egates Delany, Diefenderfer and Doris Johnson absent, to designate as a unmet transit need request No. 5, Transit service between Templeton and Atascadero or Paso Robles for senior citizens; and direct staff to conduct a reasonableness evaluation. Motion is made by Delegate Johnson, seconded by Delegate Dovey, carried with Delegates Delany, Diefenderfer and Doris Johnson absent, to determine that items Nos. 6 through 14 are classified not be unmet needs. -3- D-7 • Staff requests clarification from this Council on the evaluation of the request of Mr. Deno for 25 additional hours on the Regional Handicapped System, which differs from the original request for a "reservation of hours" for lower priority trips. Discussion takes place regarding the source of the 25 hours. Motion is made by Delegate Eldwayen, seconded by Delegate Coy, carried with Delegates Delany, Diefenderfer and Doris Johnson absent, to direct staff to evaluate the reasonableness of meeting all designated unmet transit needs for determination at March 5, 1987 meeting. ' ' C. TRANSPORTATION C-1 1987 LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM. Staff reviews staff report. Thereafter, motion is made by Delegate Ovitt, seconded by Delegate Eldwayen, carried with Delegates Delany, Diefenderfer and Doris Johnson absent, to adopt program and authorize staff to distribute program and advocate legislative positions where appropriate. C-2 STATE HIGHWAY MINOR PROJECT PRIORITY LIST. Staff reviews' staff report, noting deletion of items 2 and 6 due to completion, clarification of item 14 changing post mile to 22.3. Discussion continues noting that item 9 is budgeted for 87/88, item 10 for 86/87, and item 11 for 87/88--signals only, item 12 meets Caltrans' warrants for signalization on intersections but is very low on priority list and is under consideration for channelization next year. Delegate Ovitt speaks to items dropped from this list--signalization of intersection of First Street and Spring Street being the first. This project will be completed the first of July and no funding is shown here for signalization or participation in signalization. Caltrans previously stated they would assist in engineering design. If signalization is not done at the time of the completion of the bridge, Paso Robles will be subject to not being able to open the bridge because of access onto right-of-way of Caltrans. The second portion is First Street realignment, which was recently brought up last year and was not listed in any environmental or other reports prior to the letting of the contract of the bridge. Also mentioned in that same year's report under short-range was Highway 101 in Paso Robles, construct Niblick Bridge and modify off p _> ramps. If First Street is not closed nor is realigned, Paso Robles will not be able to open up their bridge because the right-of-access would not be granted due to an unsafe intersection. The City of Paso Robles has been in contact with Caltrans on the engineering design of the signalization. However, given time situations for their design and approval by the state, going out to bid, the time clock is far past the opening of the bridge. Negotiations are taking place with the property owner to access the property which was just recently annexed into the city. Delegate Ovitt requests that this be placed somewhere in this minor funding because these are contiguous with Caltrans ingress into -4- Paso Robles, their off ramp, their right-of-access is at the city limits of Paso Robles, which currently is at First Street. Without these projects being done in a timely manner with the bridge, efforts to provide better circulation will be delayed much further. Trying to put this project on this particular budget will put it past June, which is the fiscal year for the state. The City of Paso Robles does have funding mechanisms to provide signalization. Possibly, if this were put on the minor project list now it could be reimbursed to the city at a later date. In 1984 it was estimated to cost $75,000. Staff explains this current list was developed from the 1985 list and updated based upon input in the Regional Transportation Plan. The $75,000 figure is the Caltrans participation amount. Jerry Laumer, Caltrans, indicates that in - checking with the Caltrans Traffic Department on signalization, a cooperative agreement is being prepared at this time. Mr. Laumer recommends the signal funding be added to this list. Thereafter, on motion of Delegate Ovitt, seconded by Delegate Dovey, carried with Delegates Delany, Diefenderfer and Doris Johnson absent, Council approves adding onto the Proposed State Highway Minor Projects Candidate List the . First Street signalization in Paso Robles at the off ramp of Highway 101 and the realignment ,participation on First Street off ramp 101 as items 1 and 2. On motion of Delegate Dovey, seconded by Delegate Eldwagen, carried with Delegates Delany, Diefenderfer and Doris Johnson absent, Council adopts the 1987 minor project (under $250,000) priority list and authorizes its transmittal. to Caltrans, as amended with the two Paso Robles - projects listed as Items 1 and 2. Discussion takes place regarding constitution of warrants for traffic signalization. Caltrans indicates they look at the list every year and reevaluates annually. Delegate Ovitt takes the opportunity to notify Caltrans that the City of Paso Robles would like to have some consideration for an additional on ramp in the 16th Street vicinity. This is listed on the long-range goal and on the 101 corridor study. Delegate Ovitt presents a conceptual drawing from Paso Robles Engineering Department utilizing 17 to 18th Street area to obtain distance. Delegate Ovitt requests minute action to notify Caltrans to put this on the minor project participation in that program. Jerry Laumer, Caltrans, requests the City of Paso Robles send directly to Caltrans a letter with the information and concerns, signed by the City Council. Delegate Ovitt indicates that currently the action has only been done through this Council based on traffic. Mr. Laumer indicates that for this particular item, a direct letter to Caltrans would be best. C-3 DRAFT OVERALL WORK PROGRAM (OWP). Staff reviews report and indicates a requested amendment to include the completion of the Route 101 Study that has been delayed. Discussion takes place regarding the 101 Route Study. Staff explains that the 101 Route Study is included in the detailed plan, noting that Caltrans requests completion of the Route 101 Study first and initiate a Route One Study. Thereafter, on motion of Delegate Ovitt, seconded by Delegate Eldwayen, carried with Delegates Delany, Diefenderfer and Doris Johnson absent, Council approves the draft Overall Work Program (OWP) and directs staff to develop a detailed OWP in conformance with state requirements. -5- 0-9 D. ADMINISTRATION D-1 REQUEST FOR THE AREA COUNCIL TO JOIN THE CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF COUNCILS OF GOVERNMENTS (ANNUAL MEMBERSHIP FEE--$500). Staff reviews the report. Thereafter, on motion of Delegate Eldwayen, seconded by Delegate Ovitt, carried with Delegates Delany, Diefenderfer and Doris Johnson absent, Council approves staff recommendation to postpone a decision to join the California Association of Councils of Governments and send a representative to the annual conference in April and report back to your Council in May. Council agrees to accept President Hysen's offer to represent the Council at this meeting. E. ANNOUNCEMENTS E-1 WORK INITIATED ON THE $1.2 MILLION CONTROL TOWER AT SAN 'LUIS OBISPO COUNTY AIRPORT (12/1/86). Staff reviews this announcement. e F. PUBLIC COMMENTS None. There being no further business, announcement is made of the next Area Coordinating Council meeting to be March 5, 1987, and the meeting is adjourned. Respectfully Submitted, CAROLYN B. LE DUC, SECRETARY SAN LUIS OBISPO AREA COORDINATING COUNCIL cl/6092-1/109 -6- 0 D-'° SAN LUIS OBISPO AREA COORDINATING COUNCIL RESOLUTION RESOLUTION CONCERNING PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION NEEDS, FUNDING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PROGRAM WITHIN FISCAL YEAR 1987/88 The following Resolution is now offered and read: WHEREAS, the San Luis Obispo Area Coordinating Council has been designated as the Regional Transportation Planning Agency; and WHEREAS, said Agency has adopted - a Regional Transportation Plan directed at the achievement of a balanced coordinated transportation system; and WHEREAS, said Agency shall in implementation of its plan allocate monies in the Local Transportation Fund and State Transit Assistant Fund in accordance with the rules and regulations which implement the Transportation Development Act of 1971 as amended; and WHEREAS, the Transportation Development Act and Title 21 Section 6658 of the California Administration Code requires the Area Council to hold a public hearing to determine whether there are any Unmet Public Transporta- tion Needs prior to allocations for streets and roads; and WHEREAS, the Area Council on November 6, 1986, adopted procedures for noticing and conducting the Annual Unmet Needs Hearings; and WHEREAS, said public . hearing was duly noticed and advertised in conformance with these procedures by means of publication of public hearing notices in the major newspapers in the region; public service announcements and press releases to all news media; and written notices to interested organizations and those who testified at the 1986/87 Unmet Needs Hearings; and p -ll WHEREAS, during the Unmet Public Transportation Needs Hearings, specific consideration was given to the following factors in the planning process: 1. Efforts undertaken in developing the Regional Transportation Plan and at the Area Council public hearing to: identify public transportation needs of the transit-dependent, especially the elderly, handicapped, poor and the public transportation needs in coastal zones and other environ- mentally sensitive areas; the identification of the size and location of such groups in the updated Regional Transportation Plan, updated demographic data; and participation through the public hearing process and the Citizen's Transportation Advisory Committee; and 2. Elderly and Handicapped Needs Study in the 1986 Regional Transportation Plan and the findings of the Senior Transportation Program Study on the adequacy of existing public and specialized transportation services; and 3. Potential alternative public transportation services and service improvements necessary to meet all or part of the travel demand as identified in the updated 1986 Regional Transportation Plan and the SLO Regional Transit System Study. WHEREAS, the Area Council, after a review of these factors, considered public testimony and December First and the Fourth of 1986, and directed staff in conjunction with its advisory committees to evaluate and determine whether such requests are unmet needs based upon adopted definitions and criteria; and WHEREAS, the Area Council on January 8, 1987, after reviewing the of staff determination and additional public testimony, as expressed in -2- 7: Exhibit "A", determined that the following five requests appear to be "Unmet Needs": Request #1. Transit service between five cities area and San Luis Obispo. Request #2. Expansion of Regional Handicapped System. Request #3. Door-to-door transit service for frail elderly. Request #4. Door-to-door transit service connection between South Bay and Morro Bay for frail elderly. Request #5. Transit service for the elderly between Templeton and Atascadero. WHEREAS, the Area Council directed staff, its advisory committees and each affected agency to evaluate the "reasonableness" of satisfying each identified Unmet Need based upon the definition of reasonableness as adopted on November 6, 1986; and WHEREAS, the Area Council on Match 5, 1987, considered the submitted recommendations and additional public testimony on each identified unmet need. THEREFORE, be it resolved, that the San Luis Obispo Area coordinating Council finds the following, as further supported and documented in the official staff report and meeting minutes: Unmet Need Request #1: Transit service between Five Cities and San Luis Obispo. Request is reasonable to meet. Implement a one year, pilot program to provide three round trips daily and direct the regional transit manager an staff to work with the affected jurisdictions to develop an -3- o-r3 implementation plan using North Coastal Transit (NCT) as the operator. Further, find that service to Avila Beach and Nipomo to be- premature and unreasonable. Unmet Need Request #2: Expansion of the Regional .Handicapped System. Request is reasonable to meet. Direct the provision of a trial Saturday service using existing banked hours. Unmet Need Request #3: Door-to-door, demand responsive transit service . for the "frail elderly" in the Five Cities area. Request is reasonable to meet. Adopt a subsidized senior taxi program, restricted to use by the frail elderly in the Five Cities area. Further, direct staff to work with the affected jurisdictions to develop an implementation plan and cost-sharing formula for consideration. Unmet Need Request #4: Door-to-door Transit Service connection between South Bay and Morro Bay for the frail elderly. Request is not reasonable to meet as expansion of the South Bay Dial-A-Ride to provide this service could be overly costly for its limited scope of operations or could severely affect the level of service of the demand responsive service. Unmet Need Request #5: Transit service between Templeton and Atascadero or Paso Robles for Senior Citizens. Request is reasonable to meet. Request the Senior Citizens United of Atascadero to provide services for seniors living in Templeton. -4- .�- 14, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED AND ORDERED THAT the foregoing recitals are found to be true and correct; and that the Area Council acting g as the Re ional Transportation Planning Agency finds: 1. There are no additional unmet regional and community public transit needs within the incorporated and unincorporated areas of the county that can reasonably be met at this time. 2. Transportation' Development Act funds shall not be allocated to a claimant for street and road purposes unless such claimant funds their designated share of the Regional Transportation System costs. 3. Transportation Development Act funds shall not be allocated to a claimant for street and road purposes unless such claimant funds their community transit system at a level necessary to maintain the current level of services and such improvements as are herein required. 4. Transportation Development Act funds shall not be allocated to a claimant for street and road purposes unless the claimant is providing the Area Council established subsidy for the senior transportation system serving the area, provides documentation that the service is duplicating a conventional or public transit system, or that the subsidy or service is no longer needed or used. On motion of Delegate , seconded by Delegate and on the following roll call to-wit: -5- AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAINING: the foregoing resolution is hereby adopted this day of , 1987 Carl Hysen, President San Luis Obispo Area Coordinating Council ATTEST: Paul C. Crawford, Executive Director A San Luis Obispo rea Coordinating Council APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGAL EFFECT: By: Deputy County Counsel Dated: I, PAUL C. CRAWFORD, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, of the San Luis Obispo Area Coordinating Council, State of California, do hereby certify the foregoing to be a full, true and correct copy of the order made by the Area Council, as to the same appears spread on their minute book. WITNESS MY HAND this day of , 1987. MH/sb/4847-1 [101] -6- J EXHIBIT A The following provides a summary of the 14 requests received for unmet transit needs, as reviewed by the Area Council on January 8, 1987. Each request was evaluated by the staff to determine if it is an unmet need based on the adopted definitions. The Area Council determined that five of the requests are unmet needs, one is not an unmet need, and the remaining eight are operational improvements. 1. Transit service between the Five Cities and San Luis Obispo - found to be an unmet need by the SLOACC. Review of the RTP shows it to be included in the plan. Public testimony for the service has grown significantly over the years. Application of adopted criteria shows this request to be an unmet need. 2. Expansion of the Regional Handicapped System on Thursday evenings and weekends -- found to be an unmet need by the SLOACC. Review of the RTP shows it to be included as a provision for lower priority trips. Application of the adopted criteria shows this request to be an unmet need. 3. ' Demand responsive service within the Five Cities area -- found to be an unmet need by the SLOACC. A deficiency appears to exist for door-to-door service for the frail elderly. Limited service is provided by the Pismo Beach and Grover City Senior Citizens clubs. Application of the adopted criteria shows this request to be an unmet _ need. 4. Demand responsive service between Los Osos and Morro Bay -- found to be an unmet need by the SLOACC. Although Dial-A-Ride services exist in both communities, no interface between the two exists for the frail elderly. A fixed route service is available for the general public. Application of the adopted criteria shows this to be an unmet need. 5. Transit service between Templeton and Atascadero or Paso Robles for Senior Citizens -- found to be an unmet need by the SLOACC. Senior Citizens United of Atascadero, subsized by the county, provides transportation for seniors in the unincorporated areas of Atascadero, Templeton and Santa Margarita. Templeton seniors are unaware the service is available to them. Atascadero DAR provides service to Twin Cities Hospital in Templeton, but service is limited to Atascadero city residents. 6. Direct transit service from Los Osos to Madonna Plaza via Los Osos Valley Road -- found not to be an unmet need by the SLOACC. The service is not essential for mobility, as other alternatives are provided. Based on application of the adopted criteria, this is not an unmet need. -7- B-t7 The following eight requests appear not to - have regional significance. They are more localized and operational in nature. It was recommended, and approved by the SLOACC, that they be forwarded to the affected agencies for their evaluation and not be further evaluated in the unmet needs process. San Luis Obispo Transit 7. Direct service between City Hall and Foothill area via Chorro Street, traveling in both directions. 8. Service to lower Higuera Street - DMV Office - arriving at 7:45 a.m. , departing at 5:15 p.m. , with a transfer from NCT, Route 7. 9. Reinstitution of bus stops at Madonna Plaza in front of Lucky's and Sear's. 10. Operational wheel chair lifts. South County Area Transit 11. Expand seat to provide service in the early evenings (8:00 p.m.) and on Saturdays. 12. Improved marketing at SCAT; increased advertising of the service and better availability of schedules. Regional Handicapped System 13. Increased marketing of the Runabout, directed at lower priority needs. 4847-1 (101) -8- • O � p q M FA '� uomar a 4) $4 o a p O M 4 q w M s a/ a s �o Ila 41 w O i0 � d P u� •d O to x q 41 p as q x • 8 0g z0 V"O d 0 9 as + > m n 14 OV 0 m d+, ., •+q+ a0 O • "7 4 O a+44 .Or MpO d +q� u 0J7 b V OY lYa - m u 0 w � 0%14 q O �+W O '•i O Y Y Y O 4 w w Y 1 +d b J LA 0 Ori4 M M O .'1 ar w 0 M m M w m U w M m w m cv w o. 00a. 4! a0 u m p.q m3 p ill. 0a 8aa0O Mpo° > o Z . $ a N u a - ar 0ar o Ww ar o Wa+ a ., a aro ar o zw a zz z. ai a ztAA mw > to zz z qoaw acvi wQ ac�i oav aQ u ~ FO Ho�-+ d Hd Hd ►� d y oqd ad U3i ' vi a V3 a vi P4 cn a vi 0 041 41 41 O M rl ri 148 y H U O " >•L p W N �'1 0 •� L N = tl N 3 tl 7G �t p W O W N -0 O N N'O O *0 O �7 p •f v4 a .0 `` of u ao u to u Od r\ S N W �706 N P6 M 04 w C7% - a ..� U3 cn ►' W ' GGo co Go � ooGo ao ao CA A ca a O 1.4 H u U °' d GGoo � oho 0 92 64 q 0 8 0 u 0 u ' v u � > .a Y M rl 8 die � ai.i a� >e O N ro p v+0. %p q O ti °' w o a aD d ti•1 0 • .i M p 0 P4 v u g 04 .. rl ♦J m 0 d p m 6ow e � - 4, p .4weoofO .i a 0 {FAa N C W p y � U1 Te0.i b U m O rl IT p M w.-1 'U O o u C2 da'r►Ot M O m o d • O 440 O , PC PG y f 0 NL u o w ar •f 1u � 7oMO 00 O to w N 1 w W N ► w N w w p > -4'D O M( L y 0 X v M •• m L+.i A O 8 \�. \1.(uO • d rl • a7 •i O '.0 O Atli M U b z .+ tl ma W A Ua 3N as 'Z.N sa w m w3a M H M M M M a 7 M 41 w w w U3 La +i M vui �uj M ar U) F H F F F F ar B a° v IT v v CD cn viaz o o "' • o. 0 0 0 C-1-9 s J w 14 \ pw 14 q a m o 04 o 0 'o v 1 ti m A e041 1 co 44..ggaj 14 m d W am d L Ou!M - N Cy w Ai Y •rf a •'1 - "7 d 'rf w 13 4wi w 14 w O M O$4 a..4 m a0 a aw o v a�iwd d7 v7C i °� a .. zpd a zv3 Aa zzh b w .ac 4 E�+ c Ed Nd MC Ch Cl) F m y►a N wd 93 o-4 U3 �l r4 10 Co O ad W h W y 'WN A$ U3 1% u1N Y 0 40i O •.a0i ^ W rl F 0►Y vv F 41 to 0 ac C3 y MM m N« 0 ^� 0u 44 N•ZO O .i o) m m m C4 coW 41 02 14 xvso mi a w xto hpdH q N y0% 0+ 0 O 00 q d UPQ O Go O F _ o• o co co u93 co a +0+ u A a+ o a °i1 gov v 0 4 LM co +n w N 0 a Cd cn 0 41 co w A. C-4 m is no v a �;v; z 40 N fir► c� .� •e .o w u -00 \rl m y N W m 0\ u w m 0 a, w a1 m Ed o d 14 YC d N N Cd A N • M v W 7 8 4! • 00 m $4 0 1 •.4 b r•1 va Co ri pG '� B w 41 M -4 R co O B " O A o! a �t 7 .F. 00 R e4 M.6 rl d W V W N as w $4U A O N m o m n inrl N v 4 U w+i $4 N P4 b h . .r1\Pw 0% O. ca M 93 0 Od dON wri uu m N 4; -a A N O m N N O N A4+ 0 vi 4 N 00.W R • -4 H 00 Nu 0 4+ u 00bW u m Y 14 b .0 ad dO N m of u p0 4J N OO y� mO R7 PO U R7 0!W pd A WN9H� mmu64 O -1 o me.1 41 1 O MO m O .,t 41 O � .4 4) wa m� _ e ';d d A A m R Ori m � L +4 � 0! m C! TS N O mz i gM +'� •.4 N Irl •rl 01 u y 7 oo 7 04 N O W w a ,ac» aA ►�da v A zadva z 4+ R. 41U0, aro 0 a 41 M M fi H 14 ON $4 a � e � rN•1 i.a M N M W Mu b CH/1 Y rl +i M tl N H �T .•1 -4 41 4.i O+ of + L-40 -Oi H -4.1 O Cd r- -4 0 Uhl H E 9 a omC4 co N o dy A vialtj o 0 0 a O H C7 7 C-1-10 UNMET NEED REQUEST #1 PROVIDE TRANSIT SERVICE BETWEEN THE FIVE CITIES AND SAN LUIS OBISPO (INCLUDING NIPOMO AND AVILA BEACH) SUMKARY The Area Council has determined transit service between the Five Cities and San Luis Obispo to be an Unmet Transit Need. This report considers the reasonableness of providing the transit service. The analysis is based on the adopted criteria for determining transit needs that are reasonable to meet. RECOMMENDATION Staff: a. Find the Avila Beach and Nipomo service to be premature and unreasonable. b. Find the service reasonable to meet between the Five Cities and San Luis Obispo. c. Initiate a pilot program with three round trips per day operated by North Coastal Transit. d. Direct Regional Transit Manager to work with affected jurisdictions and develop an implementation plan that covers the items on page B-1-14. CTAC: Concur with staff as revised. TTAC: Concur with staff as revised. SLOACC ACTION: BACKGROUND Requests to provide transit service between the Five Cities and San Luis Obispo were received at both initial Unmet Needs hearings held December 1, and December 11, 1986. These requests consisted of 18 persons presenting public testimony and 5 telephone requests. On January 8, 1987, the Area Council found this request to be an unmet need and directed staff to conduct a reasonableness test. The following staff report discusses the feasibility and options for providing transit service between the Five Cities and San Luis Obispo. Much of the information used was taken from the Regional Transit System Study completed in the Fall of 1985. Between February 1981 and December 1982, transit services were provided between the Five Cities and San Luis Obispo by a private nonsubsidized B-1-4 operator. Previous Area Council discussions have inferred that the service was a failure due to low ridership. It should be noted that ridership was not the issue, but that discontinuation of the service was a result of the operators loss of two contracts it had to provide San Luis Obispo city service and North Coastal Transit service. When the operator lost those contracts, it also lost the use of the vehicle used to operate the Five-Cities to San Luis Obispo service. In addition the service operated successfully for almost two years without governmental subsidies although the service had structural weaknesses including: the route, which traveled via Price Canyon Road avoiding Shell Beach, the fare which was twice as much as comparable services, and the interphasing with existing services. DISCUSSION Prior to conducting the reasonableness determination on the unmet transit need between the Five Cities and San Luis Obispo, a number of items must be discussed including the extent of the proposed service, socioeconomic and demographic comparisons, routing alternatives, cost estimates and service provider. Extent of Service -- Nipomo and Avila Beach Service Transit service to Nipomo and Avila Beach was also requested as a part of this proposed Five Cities transit service. The Area Council has adopted Regional Transit Standards for new or expanded service in the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). The plan includes two standards to judge proposed transit services. These two standards are population and density. POPULATION SERVICE 5,000 Paratransit Only 5,000-10,000 Limited Transit 10,000+ Transit Service DENSITY SERVICE 2 Persons Per Acre Paratransit Only 2-3 Persons Per Acre Fixed Route or Paratransit 3+ Persons Per Acre Conventional Transit POPULATION Nipomo 6,390 Avila Beach 1,190 B-1-5 DENSITY Nipomo 6,750 Persons = 1.9 Persons Per Acres 3,534 Acres Avila Beach 1,990 Persons = 5.3 Persons Per Acres 373 Acres The tables above indicate that neither area satisfies both criteria for new or expanded transit service. The possibility of a service connection to Avila Beach could be accommodated as a midday extension of the service as proposed in the Regional Transit System Study. Commute service for Avila Beach would detract from the convenience by adding an additional 20 to 25 minutes for Five-Cities residents which could lower ridership levels. Transit service to Nipomo is premature, and its geographic location does not lend itself to an extension of a service traveling between Five Cities and San Luis Obispo City. Any service to Avila Beach or Nipomo would primarily increase the county's contribution to the service. Socioeconomic and Demographic Comparisons A demographic assessment was conducted in order to determine whether the Five-Cities area has the characteristics that would normally support a regional transit service. This assessment compares socioeconomic and demographic data from the Five Cities with similar data from the North County (Atascadero and Santa Margarita) and the North Coast (South Bay, Morro Bay, Cayucos, Cambria and San - Simeon). Table 1 below is a breakdown of the data used. TABLE 1 SOCIOECONOMIC AND DEMOGRAPHIC COMPARISONS Five North North Cities Coast County General Characteristics Population 35,060 31,300 20,100 Specific Commuters College students 900 1,600 600 Residents who work in SLO 4,600 4,100 2,400 Transit Dependent Groups Households w/o autos 730 560 220 Unemployed 1,400 1,000 550 Household annual income below $5,000 1,750 1,600 600 Households receiving public assistance 3,650 5,200 3,400 B-1-6 Based on the above comparison of the Five-Cities with two separate areas within the county that maintain regional transit services, it appears that the Five-Cities area does have the potential ridership to maintain a similar service. Routing Alternatives Two routing alternatives (as shown on Attachment A) are discussed based on information collected at last year's Unmet Needs hearings. These alternatives will be used to provide rough cost estimates for the proposed service. Should the service be found reasonable to meet, it is recommended that the identification of a route be deferred to allow all affected jurisdictions to discuss a route from a number of available alternatives. Alternative 1. Linear Route with SCAT as Feeder. The Regional Transit System Study (Fall 1985) evaluated a variety of potential routing alternatives between the Five Cities and San Luis Obispo city. At last year's Unmet Needs Hearing, the Regional Productivity Committee recommended a linear route with SCAT providing feeder service. This alternative includes transit service to the city/County Government Center and Cal Poly. The linear route travels through Arroyo Grande, north Grover City and Pismo Beach. SCAT Route #2 would provide service to south Grover City and Oceano. If this alternative is implemented, it will be necessary for SCAT to extend services by 25 minutes both in the morning and evening. This time extension could also benefit SCAT ridership by attracting the more dependable commute riders within the Five Cities. The additional cost to SCAT for extended hours will be offset by the cost of a linear route as opposed to a larger route which would loop through the Five-Cities area. The route combines portions of existing SCAT routes and utilizes existing bus stops. In an attempt to maximize the population served, this route travels via Shell Beach Road and Highway 101 as opposed to Price Canyon Road and Highway 227. Suggestions for routing alternatives submitted at the two initial unmet needs hearings included extensions of this service to the San Luis Obispo Airport and to General Hospital. An airport loop would provide almost no increase in ridership and may result in reduction of riders in the Shell Beach area. People often have luggage when flying which is not conducive to riding public transit. In addition, people traditionally are taken to the airport. Given the income of the typical airline passenger, taxi and rent-a-car services provide an adequate means of transportation to and from the airport. Currently, San Luis Obispo Transit does provide service to General Hospital. Potential riders of the proposed Five Cities to San Luis Obispo service may make transfers at the City Hall. B-1-7 For the above-stated reasons, the proposed routing alternative does not include service to the airport or General Hospital. Alternative 2 - Linear Route Only. This alternative includes the same linear route discussed previously in Alternative 1, but does not include SCAT as a feeder service. This alternative also travels via Highway 101 and provides services to the city/County Government Center and Cal Poly. Within the Five Cities, the route travels through Arroyo Grande, north Grover City and Pismo Beach. Although this alternative will not require additional cost for SCAT, residents of south Grover City and Oceano will not be adequately served. Cost Estimates The following provides cost estimates for the proposed transit service using the above routing alternatives. SCAT Feeder Service -- The recommended feeder service would require an increase in current SCAT operations of 50 minutes/day or .83 hours/day. Assuming there are 255 operating days/year, the SCAT feeder service would require 212 additional service hours/year. Using SCAT FY 85/86 cost/hour of $29.58, the total projected cost is 1-6,_211. Linear Route -- Table 2 provides the projected cost for the proposed linear route based on three options for providing the service. The service providers identified will be discussed later in this report in more detail. TABLE 2 PROJECTED COST FOR LINEAR ROUTE 2 Round Trips/Year 3 Round Trips/Year NCT $40,105 $66,158 SCAT 41,123 61,685 Santa Barbara Transportation 32,573 48,859 Assumptions: Linear Route One-way = 5089.5 miles/year assumes 20.7 miles for 165 days/ year (3415.5) when Cal Poly is in regular session (fall, winter, spring) plus 18.6 miles for 90 days/year (1674). NCT existing contract cost = $1.97 per mile SCAT existing contract cost = $2.02 per mile Santa Barbara Transportation new contract cost (estimate provided by Santa Barbara Transportation) _ $1.60 per mile All cost per mile figures include vehicle leasing costs. B-1-8 Total Service Cost -- Table 3 provides the total projected cost for the Five Cities to San Luis Obispo transit service. TABLE 3 PROJECTED AGENCY COST FOR FIVE CITIES TO SAN LUIS OBISPO TRANSIT SERVICE Linear Route SCAT Total Service (3 round trips/day) Feeder Service Cost Arroyo Grande $16,825 $2,383 $19,208 Grover City 13,793 1,756 15,549 Pismo Beach 10,459 - 1,066 11,525 SLO County 10,459 1,066 11,525 SLO City 11,622 -0- 11,622 TOTAL $63,158 $6,271 $69,429 Assumptions: Linear Route -- Cost is 'based on NCT cost per mile $1.91 -- Includes $3,000 marketing costs -- SLO city portion based on 107 of VSM Five Cities portions based on population - Overhead miles (427) distributed equally among all Jurisdictions. SCAT Feeder Service -- Distribution based on population. Service Provider Several different organizational options are available to provide" the service. These options include the South County Area Transit (SCAT), a new Joint Powers Agreement or a revised North Coastal Transit (NCT) Authority JPA. 1.0 SCAT. The South County Area Transit System is a JPA consisting of the three southern cities and the county. It provides a community fixed route service in the Five Cities area. The system has three new larger buses, two for service and one for backup. SCAT could provide the service with its backup bus but "it would require the following: g 1.1 Revised JPA to include the city of San Luis Obispo. 1.2 Purchase of another backupbus or lease bus or a mutual aide agreement for backup services between SLO city, NCT or the contractor. B-1-9 ti. 1.3 Revised contract for services with Santa Barbara Transportation Company. NOTE: SCAT Board has considered this and has indicated they have no interest in administering the service. 2.0 New JPA. Another Joint Powers Agreement could be formed between the three southern cities, the county and San Luis Obispo. This option would be similar to providing an entirely new service with a new organization requiring a JPA contract, bus services and administra- tion. This option should not be considered as such services could be provided with less administrative overhead by existing organizations. 3.0 A Revised NCT Authority. NCT presently provides service between San Luis Obispo and Morro Bay and between San Luis Obispo and Atascadero. It is a JPA consisting of the cities of Morro Bay, San Luis Obispo, the County and Cuesta College. Atascadero has declined membership. The service presently has three large accessible buses, one backup bus and a mutual aide agreement with the city of San Luis Obispo for additional backup services needed. A revised* JPA could be established to add the cities of Arroyo Grande, Grover City and Pismo Beach. The Regional Transit System Study (RTSS) and the RTP, however, have recommended consolidation of services as a means to reduce overhead. The provision of a South County to San Luis Obispo transit link provides an opportunity to implement this recommendation. The NCT JPA could be combined with the existing Regional Transit Authority (the Area Council), which is the governing authority for the Regional Handicapped System. This option has the advantage of combining two existing JPA's, reducing administrative overhead and eliminating the need for an additional JPA and an additional mutual aide agreement. Such a modification would necessitate: 3.1 Modify the RTA JPA to include the: present NCT services and the Five Cities/SLO service. 3.2 Modify voting structure of JPA to restrict voting to those members that receive the regional fixed-route service, and clarify Cuesta College input. 3.3 New name, paint and schedule scheme for the new service and NCT. 3.4 Provide bus parking in South County. 3.5 Expand the contract with Laidlaw to provide the service. B-1-10 r Reasonable to Meet Evaluation The Area Council has adopted the following criteria to be used in determining whether "unmet transit needs" are "reasonable to meet." If, based upon these factors, "reasonable needs" are suspected, the cost effectiveness criterion OF) is employed. A. Feasibility -- The proposed service shall be feasible to fund within the existing and projected limits of TDA funds available to the affected jurisdiction(s) and in accordance with the funding priorities established by the Area Council. The maximum projected net cost of 66,471 for three round trips per day is feasible to fund within the limits of transit funds available to the affected jurisdictions. The 1987/88 projected TDA fund balance exclusive of this service for each affected agency is provided below. Estimated FY 1987/88 TDA Balance (after existing transit expenditures) (plus increase in TDA over RTP Projections) - Arroyo Grande $144,143 + $60,713 - $204,856 Grover City 110,483 + 46,574 - 157,057 . Pismo Beach 70,944 + 29,906 = 100,850 sLO City 245,847 + 174,037 = 419,884 SLO County 1,079,834 + 368,628 = 1,448,462 TOTAL $1,651,251 $679,858 $2,331,109 B. Community Acceptance -- The proposed service shall have community acceptance from the general public and elected officials. Community support has been identified through the testimony received and audience in attendance at both unmet needs hearings held this year. In addition, the public interest survey conducted in Fall 1985 indicated there was a very strong public interest in such a transit service in all five subareas studied and among all income groups and age ranges. Elected official support for this service is unknown at this time. C. Timing -- The proposed service shall be in response to an existing rather than a future need. The testimony received this year and in previous years appears to express a current need rather than a future need. B-1-11 D. Equity -- The proposed service shall not exceed the transit level of service standards established in the Regional Transportation Plan. Regional Standard 2 states that three round trips daily should be provided between all communities of over 10,000. Currently, the Five Cities and San Luis Obispo both have populations well over 10,000. The proposed service, in accordance with the regional standard, is three round trips daily and includes a commuter run in the morning and evening return. Regional equity of transit services has also been raised as an issue during the public hearing process. Regional fixed-route services presently exist between San Luis Obispo and both the north county and north coastal areas. Four round trips are provided daily between San Simeon and Morro Bay, an area having a population base of approximately 17,600; annual FY 85/86 ridership is 16,606. The Atascadero/Santa Margarita Area is also served with regional transit services. The area has a population base of 20,100 generating 8,346 annual riders per year on one round trip a day. No similar service is provided in the Five-Cities area, which has a population base of 35,060. E. Duplication -- The proposed service shall not duplicate or compete with other transit services. The proposed service will not duplicate or compete with any existing transit service. Greyhound does provide service between the Five Cities and San Luis Obispo, but does not provide service for commuters or the handicapped. In addition, the one-way fare of $2.95 for Greyhound service from Arroyo Grande to San Luis Obispo is cost prohibitive for many people. The current Greyhound schedule is as follows: Northbound'Greyhound (read down each column) Arroyo G. 4:55 a.m. 8:40 a.m. 11:40 a.m. 1:45 p.m. 8:45 p.m. Pismo B. 5:03 a.m. 8:45 a.m. 11:50 a.m. --- 8:53 p.m. SLO City 5:35 a.m. 9:35 a.m. 12:40 p.m. 2:40 p.m. 6:15 p.m. Southbound Greyhound (read down each column) SLO City 7:00 a.m. --- 12:30 p.m. 2:30 p.m. 5:10 p.m. Pismo B. --- 7:30 a.m. 12:52 p.m. 2:52 p.m. 5:27 p.m. Arroyo G. 7:25 a.m. 7:40 a.m. 1:00 p.m. 3:00 p.m. 5:35 p.m. B-1-12 Based upon the above discussion of criteria A-E, the unmet transit need between Five Cities and San Luis Obispo is suspected to be reasonable to meet. The final criteria of cost effectiveness must now be discussed. But prior to evaluating this criteria, the projected ridership and fares for the proposed service needs to be discussed. Ridership projections -- Projection methodology taken from RTSS los estimates. The commute service ridership projection is 14,725 using a ratio of .42 of the number of annual rides to the population of the Five Cities (35,060). Using .42 ratio is based on the NCT ratio of annual ridership to population. Midday ridership is generally 40% of the commute ridership or 5,890. The total ridership is then projected to be 20,615. This compares with SLOCAT (Morro Bay to San Simeon) annual ridership of 16,606 and North Coastal (Atascadero to San Luis Obispo) commute ridership of 8,346. Fare Projections -- Assuming the fares between Pismo Beach and San Luis Obispo 17% of total ridership) are $1.00 (3,505) and all other fares being $1.25 ($21,388); the total fares are projected to be $24,893. F. Cost Effectiveness -- The proposed service shall have a projected fare to operating cost ratio that meets state requirements and shall have a projected operating cost per passenger as provided by comparable services. The projected farebox ratio of 37% ($25,893/66,429) is clearly above the minimum farebox ratio of 10% as required by the Transportation Development Act. The projected operating cost per passenger is $3.22 ($66,429/20,615) which is comparable to FY 85/86 North Coastal Transit cost of 2.71 per passenger for Route 9 (Atascadero to SLO) and $3.83 per passenger for FY 85/86 SLOCAT Morro Bay to San Simeon. CONCLUSION It is recommended that this service be found reasonable to meet, implement three round trips/day and direct affected jurisdictions to develop an implementation plan covering the following items for adoption on May 7, 1987. Service Operator It is recommended that the service be provided as an extension of North Coastal Transit under the direction of the Regional Transit Manager with the South County Area Transit (SCAT) System as a feeder system. B-1-13 Routing Structure Several alternative routes were developed in the Regional Transit System Study. The linear route with SCAT as a feeder is recommended for implementation. Last year the Productivity Committee felt strongly that this alternative is the most appropriate service. It is recommended that the-Regional Transit Manager work with the affected entities and SCAT to recommend a route and a SCAT schedule modification. Fare Structure Recommendations The Regional Transit System Study identifies a cash fare proposal on page 3-32. It is recommended that this fare structure be implemented. Marketing It is recommended that the Regional Transit Manager work with the Commute Managers to develop a marketing program. Performance Criteria The new service should meet or exceed TDA requirements, .or show due progress after a six month review period to continue operation. It is also recommended that TDA performance measures be evaluated after this six-month period to adjust the service if necessary to increase the _economy and efficiency of the system. Implementation It is recommended that the Regional Transit Manager work with the affected agencies and SCAT and finalize the routing cost and operations recommendations. presented above for review by the Area Council. TTAC Comments: Implement an experimental service provided by North Coastal Transit for trial period of time; then, if service proves successful, develop JPA. SCAT Board has indicated they have no interest in the operation or management of the service. The Board is in favor of creating a new JPA but opposes a revised NCT JPA. Report prepared by Karen Bass, Transportation Planner and reviewed by Ronald De Carli, Program Manager KB/dt/cl/sb/6213-1/124 B-1-14 UNMET NEEDS REQUEST #2 EXPANSION OF THE REGIONAL HANDICAPPED SYSTEM SUMMARY The Area Council has determined expansion of the Regional Handicapped System (Runabout), to provide for lower priority needs, to be an unmet need. The discussion provides a review of the system's current operations. Following that review, it was found that the system can be expanded to provide lower priority trips on Saturdays without any additional contract hours. As a result, the reasonableness evaluation is nonapplicable at this time. RECOMMENDATION Staff: Direct the provision of a trial Saturday service using existing banked hours. CTAC: Concur with staff. TTAC: Concur with staff. SLOACC ACTION: BACKGROUND Requests to expand the Regional Handicapped System (Runabout) to meet lower priority trips were received at the initial unmet needs hearing held on December_ 11, 1987. The requests consisted of two persons presenting public testimony and one written request from a social service agency representing the developmentally disabled community. On January 8, 1986, the Area Council found this request to be an unmet need. DISCUSSION The following discusses the feasibility of expanding the Regional Handicapped System to meet lower priority needs. Included is a review of the Runabout's current operation. Current Runabout Operations The Runabout is , a specialized countywide transit service for the handicapped. Four vehicles are used full time, a fifth vehicle is used at peak demand periods and a sixth vehicle is maintained as a back-up. The standard one-way fare is $2.00 regardless of trip length. B-1-15 0 -Z Runabout operates on a trip priority basis with "medical" trips having the highest priority. Approximately 70%, of Runabout's trips are for medical needs. The system carried 15,298 passengers in fiscal year 1985/86. On November 1, 1985, a new contract went into effect which allowed the contractor to bank all unused hours per month. Following last year's unmet needs hearings, Runabout's operating hours were increased (beginning July 1, 1986) by 50 hours to a total of 920 operating hours per month. Also added in July was the ability to use a fifth vehicle during peak demand periods. According to the contractor, the use of the fifth vehicle has resulted in a large decrease in the length of time passengers have to wait and has provided more service for lower priority needs. In August, the Runabout began providing transportation every other Thursday night specifically for lower priority needs. In October, some lower priority trips included transportation of some Friendship School students to a Halloween dance at Cal Poly and some disabled young adults to the movies. Thursday evening service was increased to every week in November. Table 1 identifies the Runabout hours used and banked since July 1, 1986 when the hours were increased to 920 per month and the use of the fifth vehicle began. Please note that the "banked hours to date" shown for July 1986 were hours that had accumulated since November 1985, when the ..ability to bank hours began. TABLE 1 Regional Handicapped System Hour Use July 1986 - December 1986 Banked Hours Hours Used Hours Banked Banked Hours Used To Date July 921 0 1 548 August 908 12 0 560 September 959.5 0 39.5 520.5 October 987.5 0 67.5 453 November 814 106 0 559 December 818 102 0 661 Total 5,408 220 108 661 As shown in the table above, the Runabout monthly service is quite sporadic. This is due to many factors including; the loss or inclusion B-1-16 of standing dialysis or physical therapy appointments, holidays and vehicle breakdown and maintenance. However, between July and January, the Runabout has used an average of 901 hours per month and has banked an average of 19 per month. CONCLUSION A specific request regarding the Runabout expansion for lower priority needs was for the extension of service on Saturdays when medical needs would have relatively no impact on the system. In reviewing the banked hours to date and the average used in the last six months, it appears that the system could be expanded eight hours on Saturdays without increasing the current monthly contract hours. In discussions with the contractor, Central Rehabilitation Clinic, they agreed that Saturday service could be provided within the existing hours. Further, Central Rehabilitation Clinic stated they are willing to expand operations to Saturday provided they receive substantial ridership. Staff recommends that a six month trial service be implemented to ascertain if the ridership levels warrant the service extension. It is also recommended that the service be advertised to encourage lower priority trips using existing marketing funds. Report prepared by Karen Bass, Transportation Planner and reviewed by Ronald De Carli, Program Manager KB/jgm/6252-1 B-1-17 UNMET NEED REQUEST #3 PROVIDE DEMAND RESPONSIVE TRANSIT SERVICE FOR THE "FRAIL ELDERLY" IN THE FIVE CITIES AREA SUMMARY The Area Council has determined demand responsive service for the frail elderly in the Five Cities area to be an unmet need. This report considers the reasonableness of providing the transit service. The analysis evaluates several different options using the adopted criteria for determining transit needs that are reasonable to meet. These options include: a subsidized senior taxi, a dial-a-ride, expansion of the handicapped system and expansion of the senior van program. RECOMMENDATION Staff: a. Find that the service is reasonable to meet and adopt a subsidized senior taxi program restricted to use by the "frail elderly" in the Five Cities area. b. Direct staff to work with the affected jurisdictions to develop an implementation plan and cost-sharing formula for consideration on May 7, 1987. CTAC: Find the service reasonable to meet. Adopt a subsidized senior "Transit Service" for the frail elderly and direct staff to work with the affected jurisdictions to develop an implementation plan and cost-sharing formula for consideration on May 7,1987. TTAC: Find the service reasonable to meet. Adopt a subsidized senior "Transit Service" for the frail elderly and forward to SCAT board for action on implementation plan and cost-sharing formula, with SCAT to report back in 60-90 days. SLOACC ACTION: BACKGROUND Requests to provide a demand responsive transit system for the "frail elderly" in the Five Cities area were received at both initial unmet needs hearings held December 1 and December 11, 1986. These requests consisted of testimony by the transportation coordinator of the Pismo Beach Senior Club and a member of the Pismo Beach City Council. On January 8, 1987, the Area Council found this request to be an unmet need and directed staff to conduct a reasonableness test. The following staff report discusses the feasibility and options for providing demand responsive transit service for the "frail elderly" in the Five Cities area. B-1-18 i+ DISCUSSION Prior to conducting the reasonableness determination, it is important to analyze the existing transit conditions, identify the possible extent of the "frail elderly" population, determine the likely demand to be expected and evaluate possible options for providing the service. Existing Services At present, the Pismo Beach and Grover City Senior Clubs provide general transit services throughout the area, subsidized by these two cities. These clubs' ability to provide such service is somewhat limited in relation to the demand from the entire Five Cities area. There are no senior van programs in operation at present in Arroyo Grande or Oceano. During fiscal year 1984/85 the Pismo Beach club carried an estimated 5,400 seniors and the Grover City club an estimated 3,200 seniors. A club was in existence in Oceano and carried comparable numbers. Other transit services include the South County Area Transit (SCAT), a fixed route service and the Regional Handicapped System servicing the handicapped population in the Five Cities area. Although SCAT has accessible buses it is not meeting the door-to-door needs of the "frail elderly." The Regional Handicapped System does fulfill some of these needs, but primarily on a "medical" priority. Ridership Base Identification of the "frail elderly" required projection of 1980 census data on the over 65 population group, the over 75 age group and the distribution of those with "transportation disabilities". Using this data, an estimated 900 seniors are in the target group of "frail elderly" in the Five Cities area. Potential Demand The Paso Robles senior taxi program was analyzed to determine an estimated total number of trips that can be expected. The total senior population was compared with the total number of trips made during fiscal year 1985/86. It was determined that an average of four trips per person, per year, can be expected. It is important to understand that this is a statistical evaluation based on the system's use by the entire senior citizen age group. Therefore, based on the calculated estimate of average trips per year by the elderly in Paso Robles, the total estimated trips per year in the Five Cities area, by the "frail elderly", is an estimated 3,600 trips. Possible Options The evaluation of possible options for providing a demand responsive transit system for the "frail elderly" in the Five Cities area includes B-1-19 four possibilities. They are: a subsidized senior taxi service, dial-a-ride service, modification/expansion of the Regional Handicapped System and modification/expansion of the Senior Van Program. Subsidized Senior Taxi Service - This option has advantages related to cost and flexibility. If it is not used by the target group of "frail elderly" then no cost to the jurisdictions will result. By using an established private enterprise firm, the cost of providing vehicles is avoided. The disadvantages include the possibility of rapidly escalating costs if program limits are not carefully set. The service is proposed to be restricted to the "frail elderly" and for trips within the Five Cities area. In addition, without limitations, potential competition with SCAT may occur. By taking care in establishing the fare structure, administrative process, contract provisions, service zoning and subsidy provision, any disadvantages can be restricted. The probable cost, based on those of the Paso Robles Taxi Program, would be an average of approximately $8.00 per trip. Using the estimated trips per year, the total operating cost would be an estimated $28,800. If a fare of $1.50 were required, it would produce $5,400. The estimated subsidy for a one year operation would then be an estimated $23,400 split among four jurisdictions. The farebox ratio would be approximately 19%. This is the recommended option due to its low cost, flexibility and overall operational characteristics as a service to the frail elderly. Dial-A-Ride Service - The advantages of this option are that it would be equitable and fair in relation to the existing services in the county and the jurisdictions of the Five Cities area. It could be contracted to the SCAT system allowing cost savings by using existing maintenance and administration capability. Possible disadvantages are relatively high cost and competition with the SCAT system unless carefully restricted. This is the recommended option due to its low cost, flexibility and overall operational characteristics as a service to the frail elderly. Operating costs could range from an estimated $20 to $40 per hour. The lowest estimate assumes incorporation with the SCAT system and the highest for an independent operation. If .weekly operating hours were set at 40 hours, total operating costs for one year will range from an estimated $41,600 to $83,200. With a fare of 751 per trip and total estimated trips per year by the "frail elderly" of 3,600, the total fares would be approximately $2,700. The total subsidy required is then estimated at between $38,900 to $80,500. This option, limited to the "frail elderly", is one of the highest cost options and has the potential of not generating enough ridership, if restricted to the "frail elderly", to make the required farebox ratio. In addition, if it is opened to the entire elderly population the subsidy would rise dramatically and the service would be in competition with SCAT. Modification/Expansion of Regional Handicapped System - At present there is a policy to accept seniors on a space available basis. A majority of B-1-20 • • -�37 the trips (approximately 70%) are for medical purposes by the . handicapped. The average operating cost per passenger during fiscal year 1985/86 was an estimated $15.00 per trip. The total cost per year for the "frail elderly" would be an estimated $54,000. In addition, another van would have to be purchased for stationing in the Five Cities area. These vehicles cost an estimated $25,000. Total first year cost would be an estimated $79,000, the highest cost evaluated. Modification/Expansion of the Senior Van Program - At present only two cities in the area subsidize senior van programs; Pismo Beach and Grover City. During fiscal year 1984/85, the Pismo Beach club carried an estimated 2,200 passengers and the Grover City club 1,900. The Oceano club, which last operated that year, carried an estimated number of passengers comparable to the others. The policy of the Pismo Beach club is to carry any resident of the city and/or member of the club. Both clubs have service limitations based on driver availability and service flexibility. A large senior population exists in the Arroyo Grande and Oceano areas, both without senior van programs. An estimated 40% of all seniors in the Five Cities area live in Arroyo Grande. In order to meet the transit needs of all the elderly, and especially the frail elderly, service capacity of the existing clubs could be expanded and/or additional clubs could be formed in Arroyo Grande and Oceano to provide transit service to those areas. The establishment of a new senior van program would cost an estimated $13,000 to $17,000 for a vehicle, an annual operating subsidy of an estimated $2,500 and insurance, required - .by the Area Council, of an estimated $2,000 per year. The costs associated with this option are relatively low compared to the others, however, the problems related to establishing a club and maintaining volunteer drivers are significant. Therefore, this is not the preferred option for providing dependable transit service to the "frail elderly." Reasonable to Meet Evaluation To determine whether the "unmet need" is "reasonable to meet," the following criteria shall be considered. These include: feasibility, community acceptance, timing, equity and duplication. If, based upon these factors, "reasonable needs" are suspected, the cost effectiveness criterion is employed. The criteria will be applied to the proposed subsidized senior taxi option. A. Feasibility - The proposed service shall be feasible to fund within the existing and projected limits of TDA funds available to the affected jurisdictions and in accordance with funding priorities established by the Area Council. The options and their costs are: .Options Cost to Subsidize Subsidized Senior Taxi 23,400 Dial-A-Ride Service 38,900 Expanded Handicapped System 79,000 Expanded Senior Van Program -- vehicle: 13,000 (min.) -- op. subsidy: 4,500 0 17,500 B-1-21 For fiscal year 1987/88, the projected TDA fund availability and spending distribution for the affected jurisdictions is as follows: Total Streets Jurisdiction TDA & Roads Transit % Transit Pismo Beach 150,237 100,850 49,387 32% Grover City 233,973 157,057 76,915 32% Arroyo Grande 305,005 204,856 100,149 32% SIA County 1,851,862 1,079,834 403,402 21% There is adequate funding among all jurisdictions to meet either of the four transit options. B. Community Acceptance - The proposed service shall have community acceptance from the general public and elected officials. The proposed "demand responsive" service for the "frail elderly" has been promoted by two people representing significant segments of the Five Cities population. One who testified is a member of the Pismo Beach City Council and the other is the transit coordinator for the Pismo Beach Senior Club. The proposed service appears to have community acceptance. The acceptance by elected officials is unknown. C. Timing - The proposed service shall be in response to an existing rather than future need. Based on the testimony, research conducted with representatives of organizations in the Five Cities area and the recently completed Senior Transportation Study, the proposed service is in response to an existing need. D. Equity - The proposed service shall not exceed the transit level of service standards established in the Regional Transportation Plan. Since the proposed service is for the "frail elderly," who cannot walk to conventional bus stops and rely on* door-to-door type service, the regional standards of the RTP do not apply. In terms of equity within the Five Cities area, the proposed service will provide improved equity among the affected jurisdictions. The service will also provide for equitable senior transportation in comparison with most other areas in the region. E. Duplication - The proposed service shall not duplicate or compete with other transit services. The proposed senior taxi service restricted to the "frail elderly," will provide a demand responsive system and will not compete with an existing transit service. B-1-22 F. Cost Effectiveness - The proposed service shall have a projected fare To operating cost ratio that meets state requirements and shall have a projected_ and operating cost per passenger as provided by comparable service. The proposed senior taxi service, as proposed with a fare of $1.50 per trip, will produce a farebox ratio of approximately 19%. This ratio exceeds the state requirements. The estimated operating cost per passenger is comparable to similar services. CONCLUSIONS Based on application of the "reasonable to meet" criteria to the proposed senior taxi option, staff concludes that it is reasonable to meet. Further recommend that staff work with the affected jurisdictions to develop an implementation plan including a cost-sharing agreement for adoption at the May, 1987 meeting. Report prepared by Michael Harmon, Associate Transportation Planner and reviewed by Ronald De Carli, Program Manager MH/jgm/cl/6249-1 B-1-23 UNMET NEEDS REQUEST #4 DEMAND RESPONSIVE SERVICE BETWEEN LOS OSOS AND MORRO BAY FOR THE FRAIL ELDERLY SUMMARY The Area Council has determined demand responsive transit service between Los Osos and Morro Bay to be an Unmet Need. This report considers the reasonableness of providing this transit service. The analysis evaluates several different options using the adopted criteria for determining transit needs that are reasonable to meet. RECOMMENDATION Staff: a. Find the request not reasonable to meet. CTAC: Concur. TTAC: Concur. SLOACC ACTION: BACKGROUND Two requests were received to provide this service, one at the Unmet Needs hearing on December 11, 1986 and one through the mail. On January 8, 1987, the Area Council found this to be an Unmet Need and directed staff to conduct a reasonableness test. The following discusses the feasibility of providing this service based on the adopted criteria for determining transit needs that are reasonable to meet. DISCUSSION For this evaluation, four alternatives were evaluated: 1) Provide funding for the South Bay Seniors to purchase and/or operate a Senior Van. B-1-24 a 2) Expand South Bay Dial-A Ride (DAR) service to take frail elderly into Morro Bay. 3) Expand South Bay DAR and interface with Morro Bay DAR using "scatter- gather" method. 4) Combine Morro Bay DAR and South Bay DAR to provide service in and between both communities. Another possible alternative, the expansion of Morro Bay DAR, will not be considered as the request is to transport the frail elderly from the South Bay to Morro Bay. Additionally, the city of Morro Bay is already spending more than their TDA allocation which is unreasonable to meet in accordance with item A - feasibility. Each of the alternatives considered could be a duplication of either the NCT service between Los Osos and Morro Bay or South Bay DAR within the South Bay if not restricted to frail elderly ridership. Providing funding to the South Bay Seniors to purchase and/or operate a Senior Van would be the most economical option and could be used to provide senior citizens of the South Bay transportation to other areas in the county at times when transit is not operating. The county of San Luis Obispo could decide to subsidize this van with other than TDA .funds if they so desire, however, this would be outside the context of the Unmet Needs Hearing process. Expanding the South Bay DAR to provide this service could be very costly for its limited scope of operations or could severely affect the level of service of the demand responsive service in the South Bay. Coordinating the expansion of South Bay DAR to interface with Morro Bay DAR would lessen the impact on level of service in the South Bay but could impact Morro Bay for a service to non-residents of that city. It would also be an inconvenience for riders to take two buses for one trip and could be expensive. Severely restricting trips for the frail elderly for medical appointments only and limiting these trips to one or two days per week during certain hours where South Bay DAR's ridership is low would reduce the levels of service impacts but may be too restrictive to be useful to the frail elderly who need this service. One final option remains to be considered. This would be the consolidation of South Bay Dial-A-Ride and Morro Bay Dial-A-Ride under one operator. This would not only provide optimal levels of service between the communities but within both communities as well. However, the political and financial ramifications of this option are too complicated to discuss within the guidelines of these unmet hearings. The probability is that these optimal services could be provided at minimum costs to both the city of Morro Bay and the county of San Luis Obispo. Therefore, it is suggested that the two entities study this option in detail at the earliest possible time. B-1-25 The following is the "reasonable to meet" evaluation for providing service to transport the frail elderly in Los Osos to Morro Bay. A. Feasibility. The proposed service shall be feasible to fund within the existing and projected limits of TDA funds available to the affected jurisdiction(s) and in accordance with funding priorities established by the Area Council. Senior Van Feasibility. The vehicle the South Bay Seniors would like to purchase costs approximately $17,000. The county spent about 27% of its $1.4 million 1985/86 TDA allocation. This is compared to 54% in the region. Funding this van would add a little more than 1% to the county total, and with possible other funding sources, this amount would be less than 1%. Additionally, if the county were to provide an operating subsidy to the South Bay Seniors, the yearly costs would be approximately $4,500 per year. These costs would be well within limits of funding available to the county. South Bay DAR Expansion. In order to take South Bay residents into Morro Bay, the operators of South Bay Dial-A Ride stated the system would have to add another bus to provide this service. The cost of the 16 passenger, lift-equipped vehicle would be approximately $45,000. In addition, operational costs would be $45.50 per hour. This would add a yearly cost of approximately $100,000 for a total first year cost of $145,000 or 10% of the county's TDA allocation. This would make the county's transit expenditures approximately 37% of their TDA allocation which is feasible to fund. B. Community Acceptance. The proposed service shall have community acceptance from general public and elected officials. Minimal community support has been identified through the testimony received. Although only two requests were taken, one request was from a representative of the South Bay Seniors which has over 400 members. Elected official support for this service is unknown at this time. C. Timing. The proposed service shall be in response to an existing rather than a future need. Although testimony received was minimal, it is apparent that there is a current need to provide service, especially for medical trips. D. Equity. The proposed service shall not exceed the transit level of service standards established in the Regional Transportation Plan. Since there is currently both a demand response system and a fixed route system available, the standards for levels of service are already met in the South Bay. However, due to the fact that the B-1-26 frail elderly cannot take the demand response system to Morro Bay, a ' gap in that service does exist. E. Duplication. The proposed service shall not duplicate or compete with other transit services. Unless the use of any new service is restricted to trips for the frail elderly out of the South Bay area, this service could be in competition with both the North Coastal Transit System's fixed route service between Los Osos and Morro Bay and/or _the South Bay Dial-A-Ride door-to-door service within the South Bay area. Therefore, if the new service is to be provided, it must be used only for that specified purpose or outside of the operating hours of the established transit services. Currently, North Coastal Transit operates from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. with 5 round trips from Los Osos to Morro Bay approximately every other hour on weekdays. South Bay Dial-A-Ride operates from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on weekdays. F. Cost Effectiveness. The proposed service shall have a projected fare to operating cost ratio that meets state requirements and shall have a projected operating cost per passenger as provided by comparable services. Comparable services may be based upon the averages of services provided in similar geographic areas, socioeconomic confines and physically similar systems. Due to the fact that the Senior Van Program utilizes volunteers for. services that other systems incur costs for, it is relatively inexpensive in costs per passenger and costs per mile. The following chart, summarizes these costs comparing the regional Senior Van program and South Bay Dial-A-Ride from FY 1984/85. Senior Van Program South Bay DAR Cost/mile .49 $2.51 Cost/passenger $1.20 $3.46 The van subsidy is very cost effective compared to South Bay_ DAR and other demand responsive systems in general. To analyze the expansion of South Bay DAR to provide this service, we must make an estimate of what the expected ridership could be. We can compare this service to two other routes of the SLOCAT system. The Morro Bay to San Simeon service and the Bay Osos Direct are most comparable to the proposed service. In comparing these services, it was felt that passengers per hour would be the best estimator available as these two systems are fixed routes and the costs of a fixed route system are generally much lower than a demand responsive system. These fixed routes do offer a service between comparable geographic areas, however, and this can be statistically analyzed using the passengers per hour figure. Using these estimators, the following chart summarizes the expected operating costs, fares, farebox ratio and passengers per hour. The fares are based on a $1.00 cost per ride. This figure was supplied by SLOCAT as the amount they would charge for this service. B-1-27 Estimated Costs for Morro Bay Service 1985/86 New Service Only Total . Operating Cost114,568 104,422 218,990 Fares 12,631 17,786 30,417 Fares/Op. Costs 11.02% 17.0% 13.9% Passengers/hour 13.25 7.75 ( 10.5 The above figures display the expected totals .for the service without any restrictions. However, the service would be a duplication of service without restrictions allowing for its use by only the frail elderly. The frail elderly amount to approximately 1% of the South Bay population. Even if we estimate that these 1% can generate 50% of the estimated ridership of the total population, which is highly unlikely, the ridership levels would still be too low to make the South Bay DAR farebox ratio 10% - which is the state minimum. Other options using an expansion of South Bay DAR are available to provide this service. The first option would be to restrict rides to frail elderly for medical purposes only while limiting the service to one or two days a week during hours of lowest ridership. In this way, South Bay Dial-A-Ride may not need to add a vehicle to their fleet. However, this could greatly impact the levels of service currently provided by increasing waiting time to what the operators feel is unacceptable. This could also increase costs enough to lower their farebox ratio, which is currently 11%, below the state minimum of 10%. The second alternative would be to coordinate service between the South Bay and Morro Bay Dial-A-Rides in a "scatter/gather" method. Using this method, South Bay Dial-A-Ride could pick up the frail elderly in Los Osos and drop them off at a predetermined point such as the state park or the Pacific Care Center. Then, the Morro Bay Dial-A-Ride could pick them up and deliver them to their destinations in Morro Bay. Although this would not impact South Bay DAR nearly as much as the first option, the operators still feel it would impact their system enough to cause unacceptable levels of service. It would also affect the levels of service to the Morro Bay DAR in addition to creating a situation where the city of Morro Bay is transporting nonresidents with their own funds at a loss. Additionally, the financial impact of this alternative cannot be determined as it would affect both the systems in mileage and ridership. Finally, this option would be an inconvenience to the frail elderly who would have to arrange for both connections and pay fares twice. Report prepared by James Raisanen, Transportation Planner and reviewed by Ronald De Carli, Program Manager JR/hf/jgm/6251-1/93 B-1-28 Adak �- NNW SAN LUIS OBISPO AREA COORDINATING COUNCIL STAFF REPORT MEETING DATE : MARCH 5, 1987 SUBJECT: LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FUND AND STATE TRANSIT ASSISTANCE FUND APPORTIONMENTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1987/88 SUMMARY Prior to March 1 of each year, the transportation planning agency is required to determine and advise all prospective claimants of their local transportation fund (LTF) apportionment for the following year. All prospective claimants were advised of the proposed apportionment by separate notice mailed during February. CTAC and TTAC has also reviewed this information on 2/19 and 2/17 respectively. RECOMMENDATIONS Staff: Adopt the local transportation fund and State Transit Assistance fund apportionments for F.Y. 1987/88. CTAC: Information item. No action. TTAC: Concur with staff. DISCUSSION Local Transportation Fund (LTF). The County Auditor has estimated that $3,928,700 will be made available for apportionment during fiscal year 1987/88. Add to this a projected fund balance of $411,000 for a total apportionment of $4,339,700. This represents an increase in funding from the present fiscal year where the County Auditor estimated $3,510,000 would be apportioned to our region from the State. Table A identifies the amount of local transportation funds (LTF) and state transit assistance (STA) funds that are received by the region. The actual amount of LTF available depends on the amount of sales tax paid in the region. The County Auditor expects approximately a 5% increase in Fiscal Year 87/88. This correlates with recent releases made by the State Controller and substantiates assumptions made in the 1986 Regional Transportation Plan. Should additional funding become available, it will either be redistributed to member agencies or carried as a fund balance for next year (depending on when the increase is evident). D-1-1 TABLE A TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT FUNDS LOCAL TRANSPORTATION AND STATE TRANSIT ASSISTANCE FUNDS YEARS LTF FUNDS % STA FUNDS % TOTAL _ % 1973/74 $ 786,084 $ N/A $ 786,084 1974/75 846,076 +7.6 N/A 846,076 +7.6 1975/76 996,562 +17.8 N/A 996,562 +17.8 1976/77 1,196,471 +20.1 N/A 1,196,471 +20.1 1977/78 1,419.793 +18.7 N/A 1,419,793 +18.7 1978/79 1,561,599 +10.0 N/A 1,561,599 +10.0 1979/80 1,784,916 +14.3 114,077 1,898,993 +21.6 1980/81 2,047,574 +14.7 200,927 +76.1 2,248.501 +18.4 1981/82 2,259,779 +9.4 219,984 +9.5 2,479,763 +10.3 1982/83 2,298,234 +1.7 295,605 +34.4. 2,593,839 +4.6 1983/84 2,785,137 +21.2 372,882 +26.1 3,158,019 +21.8 1984/85 3,128,641 +12.3 372,204 -(2.6) 3,500,845 +10.8 1985/86 3,276,111 +4.7 356,492 -(4.2) 3,632,603 +3.8 1986/87 3,383,000 +3.3 100,700 -(71.9) 3,483,700 -(4.1) 1987/88 3,928,700 +16.1 172,329 (+71.1) 4,101,029 +17.7 The Transportation Development Act requires several allocations be made prior to final apportionment. These include: administration, planning, pedestrian and bicycles, and community transit for Social Service organizations (Article 4.5). Each priority allocation is discussed below: Administrative Allocation, PUC Section 99233.1 (Projected $45,900 plus a beginning balance of $5,500 and interest). This allocation consists of funds necessary to administer the State Transit Assistance and Local Transportation Fund and conduct the annual Unmet Needs Hearings. These costs include projected Area Council Administrative costs ($22,500), County Auditor fees ($2,500), County overhead charges ($3,400), and fiscal audit fees ($19,000) for all transit claimants and transit . operations and a carryover SCAT performance audit ($5,000). D-1-2 These costs have been reduced from F.Y. 1986/87 when a total of $66,100 was allocated to complete performance audits reguired by state law. . The audit costs are based on contracts made with two local accounting firms in March 1, 1986. Planning Allocations, PUC Section 99233.2 ($85,500). These allocations pay a portion of the planning costs. Other services include Caltrans planning subventions ($40,000), Ridesharing funds ($52,000), UMTA Section 8 grants $16,000, and carry over funds. Since F.Y. 83/84 Caltrans has required the RTPA to fund an ever increasing portion of the planning program with TDA funds. This year Caltrans may increase the subvention funding by $22,000. This increase is not reflected in this apportionment as receipt of these funds may be of a more discretionary nature. This allocation also includes a $10,000 contingency that will only be used based on approval by the Area Council. Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities, PUC Section 99233.3 (none). The Transportation Development Act requires that up to 2% of the remaining funds shall be made available for bicycle and pedestrian facilities unless the RTPA determines differently. The Area Council on November 6, 1986, reaffirmed their prior policy that each entity has the best judgment to determine whether these funds would be better spent for bicycles and pedestrian facilities, local transit or streets and roads in their efforts to obtain a balanced local transportation system. Community Transit for Social Service Organizations, (PUC Section 99233.7). The Transportation Development Act also allows up to 5% of the remaining LTF, or $212,400 to be claimed by a Consolidated Transportation Services Agency (CTSA) for Social Services transportation coordination (Article 4.5). No additional funding is requested in this category. Fund Apportionment. The funds have been apportioned based upon the official State of California Department of Finance population estimates (dated May 1, 1986) for each entity pursuant to previously adopted Area Council policy. State Transit Assistance Fund Apportionment. The State Department of Transportation has estimated that a total of $172,329 in State Transit Assistance (STA) funds are projected to be allocated to our RTPA during F.Y. 87/88. This includes $5,623 in operator revenues which will be allocated directly to the appropriate transit operator. The remaining funds are discretionary funds to be allocated at the discretion of the Area Council. The Area Council in the 1986 RTP update reaffirmed their policy to apportion all non-operator allocations on the basis of population (estimated to be $166,706). During F.Y. 1986/87 the $339,298 in STA funds that were initially allocated to the region was stricken from the budget by the Governor. It is unknown whether this may occur again this year. The fund is volatile, but may have become somewhat stabilized as a result of increases in the diesel fuel tax. jm/sb/48431 D-1-3 1987/88 LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FUND AND STATE TRANSIT ASSISTANCE FUND APPORTIONMENTS FOR THE SAN LUIS OBISPO REGION On , 1987 the San Luis Obispo Area Coordinating Council apportioned the following sums to the designated eligible claimants in accordance with the Transportation Development Act statutes and the California Administrative Code. The STA apportionment was an estimate. Further revisions may be required upon adoption of the State budget. ESTIMATED FUNDS FOR APPORTIONMENT Local Transportation Fund (LTF) Auditor's estimate of funds F.Y. 1987/88 $3,928,700 Auditor's estimated fund balance 6/30/87 $ 411,000 Subtotal $4,339,700 LTF: Regionwide Allocations (1) Est. Admin. Alloc. (Sec. 99233.1) $45,900 _ Est. Planning Alloc (Sec. 99322.2) 85,500 Est. Pedestrian/Bicycle Alloc. (Sec. 99233.3) -0- Est. Comm. Transit Services (Sec. 99233.7) -0- Total Regional Allocations $91,400 TOTAL LTF FUNDS AVAILABLE FOR APPORTIONMENT $4,248,600 STA: "Operator" Allocations (Section 99314) County of San Luis Obispo $ 400 City of Atascadero 270 City of Morro Bay 340 City of San Luis Obispo 1,130 North Coastal Transit 1,680 SLO Transit Authority _ $1,780 Total STA Operator Allocations $5,600 STA FUND APPORTIONMENT (SECTION 99313) $166,700 TOTAL STA FUNDS $172,300 TOTAL LTF AND STA FUNDS AVAILABLE FOR APPORTIONMENT $4,415,300 D-1-4 FISCAL YEAR �9S7/l98E�' TRAmSPORTA�I�� ��VELCP�EN� .ACr --- ^ RUND APPORTIONMENT' Cl POPULAFION PERCENT LTF STA TOTAL TDA W NlY LTF & STA ^ " ^ ^ ^ . . . . . . . . . . . . ~ , . , , , , . , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ~ , , , , , , , , , , , , , , NDE 13, 328 6. 91% $293, 490 $11 , 516 $305, 005 J\ ^ m | oS��*U��U l9, 9S9 10. 36% $440, 169 $17, 271 $457, 439 ' GROVER CITy 10, 224 5. 30% $225, 138 $8, 834 *233, 972 MORRO BAY 9, 881 5. 12% $217, 585 $8, 537 $226, 122 PASO ROBLES 13, S24 7. 16% e304, 412 $11 , 944 W16, 356 ' PISnO BEACH 67565 3. 40% S144, 565 $5, 672 $15Q, 237 � Si'O CITY 38, 205 19. 80% W41 , 295 W00, 009 $874, 301!- SLO COUNTY 80022 41 . 94% $1 , 731 , 947 $69, 917 $1 , 85| , 8a* ------------------------------------------------------------------------ TOTAL REGION 192, 938 100. 00% $4, 248, 600 $166, 700 $4, 415, 300 Pooulation data as of January 1 , 1986. Published May 1 , 1986 by the California Department of Finance Anv Qxcess carryover from FY S6/87 anc prior years wi l 3 b� roal locared to member agencies or used to reduce future apportionments. � � D-l-5 �r SAN LUIS OBISPO AREA COORDINATING COUNCIL STAFF REPORT MEETING DATE: MARCH 5, 1987 SUBJECT: TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT FUND AUDITS SUBJECT Financial and compliance audits are required annually for all recipients of TDA funds. These audits are required to be submitted to the state by December 31st, and can be extended for 90 days by the Area Council. Four audits have been granted a time extension and are undergoing final review. RECOMMENDATIONS Accept and file completed audits; ratify time extensions for uncompleted audits; and request affected jurisdictions to comply with all audit recommendations. DISCUSSION Two auditing firms were granted contracts in March, 1986 to conduct audits on all TDA fund recipients in the region. These firms are Glenn, Burdette, Phillips and Booker and Robert Moss Accountancy Corporation. The following fiscal audits have been completed and submitted to Caltrans on January 5th pursuant to California Administrative Code Section 6664 and 6662. City of Arroyo Grande City of Atascadero City of Pismo Beach City of Paso Robles San Luis Obispo County Regional Transit Authority (Regional Handicapped System) San Luis Obispo Area Coordinating Council (Region's RTPA) LTF and STA transit fund audits The remaining audits have been granted 90 day extensions as provided by CAC 6664. These include: City of Grover South County Area Transit System (JPA) North County Transit System (JPA) San Luis Obispo City These audits have recently been submitted and are undergoing review at this time. RD/cl/6328-1/97 A-1-1 AdhL i SAN LUIS OBISPO AREA COORDINATING COUNCIL STAFF REPORT MEETING DATE : MARCH 5, 1987 SUBJECT: YEAR-TO-DATE FINANCIAL REPORT SUMMARY The attached Year-to-Date Financial Report of the San Luis Obispo Regional Transportation Planning Agency covers the period between July 1, 1986 to January 31, 1987. RECOMMENDATION Review, receive and file. DISCUSSION The financial report provides budgeted and actual revenues and expenditures for the three budget units that comprise .the Regional Transportation Planning Agency as well as a total column. These three budget units include: BU 2821, Transportation Planning, BU 2822 Transportation Development Act Administration; and BU 2823 Social Services Vehicle Insurance Program. Beginning Balance A beginning balance of $9,000 was included in the adopted budget, but not allocated among each budget unit. Total year-end cash is $27,585 less an encumbrance of $15,600, leaving a net cash balance of $11,985. In November, your council approved a reallocation of the actual cash balance to be brought into line with budgeted expenditures as follows: BU 2821 ($10,000): BU 2822 ($17,185) ; BU 2823 ($400) The county Auditor has indicated they cannot modify the cash balance, rather the planning and administration allocations must be modified. A revised allocation instruction was submitted to the auditor to institute this change transferring $14,000 from the administrative allocation (BU 2822). to the planning allocation (BU 2821). This transfer will be shown on the next monthly statement. Revenues A total of $40,000 in State Subventions has been received. The budget was originally developed on the assumption of $45,000 in State A-2-1 Subventions. The total TDA allocation of $127,900 was requested and received in an upfront payment to make up the differences in State Subventions. Contributions from other government agencies is expected in February/March as a response to billings for the Senior Van Insurance Program. ' Expenditures Total salaries budgeted for the year is $128,200 or $10,680 per month. Total salaries expended year-to-date is $59.066 or $15,700 less than originally budgeted. These salary savings are the result of the resignation of a staff person in October and a lower than expected support staff expenditures. A staff replacement was hired in January. Another significant cost in the budget are the audits. A total of $26,000 has been budgeted and $15,600 encumbered. All of these funds are - expected to be spent in accordance with approved contracts. A total of $21,980 has been expended year-to-date. All other expenditure accounts are within budget and expected to expend less than budgeted by year-end. The one account exceeding budget is Copying (Account 2142). Total projected copying costs by year-end is $3,400 or $1,400 over budget. This cost is expected to be offset by less than projected expenditures in all other Services accounts. The loan from BU 2821 in the amount of $18,849, authorized at the November meeting to pay for the Senior Van Insurance premium will be paid back in the near future. A total cash balance of $25,000 is projected by year-end. RD/cl/5842-1/110 Attachment A-2-2 4EGIONAL TRANSPURTA11UN PLANN1Nd FINANCIAL REPORT Month ending January 31, 1987 Acct Budgeted Actual Budgeted Actual Budgeted Actual- Total Total No B.U.2821 B.U. 2821 B.U. 28'.2 B.U. 2822 B.U.2823 B.U. 2823 Budgeted Actual ly 1, 1985 BEGINNING BALANCE $8,800.00 (53,627.77) $200.00 $30,774.13 $0.00 $438.30 N 9,000.00 27,584.66 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------" REVENUES: Interest 9410 2,000.00 2,322.99 2,128.20 13.30 2,000.00 4,464.49 State Aid 9539 0.00 0.00 Ridesharing 47,800.00 18,134.36 47,800.00 18,134.36 Subventions 40,000.00 40,000.00 40,000.00 40,000.00 Section 8 0.00 0.00 Other Gov't Agencies 9599 $22,300.00 22,300.00 0.00 Trans. Dev. Act 9842 0.00 0.00 Planning (LTF) 77,600.00 77,600.00 77,600.00 77,600.00 Admin (LTF) 50,300.00 50,300.00 50,300.00 50,300.00 Deferred Billing 15,600.00 15,600.00 0.00 Other 9959 45.00 0.00 45.00 SUB-TOTAL REVENUES $167,400.00$138,102.35 565,900.00 $52,428.20 $22,300.00 $13.30 255,600.00 190,543.85 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TOTAL REVENUES/BEG.BAL. $176,200.00$134,474.58 $66,100.00 $83,202.33 522,300.00 $451.60 $0.00 264,600.00 218,128.51 ACCOUNTS PAYABLE 0500 2,871.43 500.00 0.00 3,371.43 0501 18,849.00 0.00 18,849.00 LOAN RECEIVABLES 0.00 0.00 Intra Fund 0090 3,371.43 -0.00 3,371.43 Intra Fund 0091 14,610.50 4,238.50 0.00 18,849.00 Accrued Liabilities/Salaries 0530 1,580.83 6,420.00 0.00 8,000.83 TOTAL $16,191.33 ' $10,658.50 $18,849.00 0.00 45,698.83 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- EXPENDITURES Salaries 1000 44,200.00 23,935.61 44,200.00 23,935.61 MA 2151 0.00 0.00 Professional 56,400.00 30,355.04 20,500.00 9,999.73 2,200.00 289.02 79,100.00 40,643.79 Office Support 12,600.00 1,400.00 300.00 14,300.00 0.00 MA Reimbursement 5021 (9,400.00) (5,513.80) (9,400.00) (5,513.80) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SUB-TOTAL SALARIES $103,800.00 $48,776.85 21,900.00 $9,999.73 $2,500.00 $289.02 128,200.00 59,065.60 Communications 2030 1,200.00 380.24 1,200.00 380.24 Insurance-Health 2070 2,800.00 1,165.50 18,849.00 2,800.00 20,014.50 Maintenance Contract 2091 500.00 120.42 500.00 120.42 Memberships 2120 400.00 90.00 400.00 90.00 Office Supplies 2140 1,800.00 506.81 1,800.00 506.81 Postage 2141 500.00 160.07 500.00 160.07 Copying 2142 2,000.00 2,372.61 61.78 2,000.00 2,434.39 Audits: 0.00 0.00 Fiscal/Perfarmance 2150 26,000.00 11,728.00 26,000.00 11,728.00 Encumbered 85/86 2150 15,600.00 10,252.00 15,600.00 10,252.00 Consultant 2150 3,000.00 3,000.00 0.00 General County Overh'd 2152 2,000.00 962.00 2,000.00 962.00 Admin.Services 2155 2,400.00 2,400.00 0.00 Public Notices 2160 300.00 232.00 200.00 93.25 500.00 325.25 Rents/Leases 2180 300.00 80.00 300.00 80.00 Special Dept.50enses 2200 ?00.00 200.00 0.00 Travel 2221-2224 2,500.00 1,435.66 2,500.00 1,435.66 Classes/Seminars 2225 600.00 600.00 0.00 Utilities 2230 0.00 0.00 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SUB-TOTAL SERVICES/SUPPLIES $18,10040 $7,505.31 $44,200.00 $22,135.03 $0.00 $18,849.00 62,300.00 48,489.34 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ridesharing 3010 47,800.00 18,134.36 0.00 47,800.00 18,134.36 Fixed Assets 4030 1,500.00 0.00 1,500.00 0.00 Vehicle Insurance, 2070 19,800.00 18,849.00 19,800.00 18,849.00 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SUB-TOTAL $49,300.00 18,134.36 0.00 $19,800.00 69,100.00 18,134.36 --- - - - - - ------- -------------- TAL EXPEND.ACCRUAL BASIS $171 200.00 $74,416.52 $66 100.00 $32 134.76 $22,300.00 $19 138.02 259,600.00 125,689.30 d'I.Expend.Priar Tear 0.00 0.00--------" -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------- TOTAL EXPEND.CASH BASIS $74,416.52 $66,100.00 $32,134.76 $22,300.00 $19,138.02 88,400.00 125,689.30 Intrafund Transfer 0.00 0.00 0.00 Reserve Contingency 5,000.00 --------------------------------------•----------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------- TOTAL EXPENDITURES $176,200.00 $74,416.52 $66,100.00 $32,134.76 $22,300.00 $19,138.02 264,600.00 125,689.30 SAN LUIS OBISPO AREA COORDINATING COUNCIL STAFF REPORT MEETING DATE: MARCH 5, 1987 SUBJECT: FY 86/87 OVERALL WORK PROGRAM STATUS REPORT SUMMARY A status report on work completed in the FY 86/87 Overall Work Program has been completed and forwarded to Caltrans in February, 1987. Work is generally proceeding on schedule with the exception of the Route 101 Study which has slipped at least six months. RECOMMENDATION Authorize modification of OWP to delay SCAT performance audit and merge it with a proposed short-range operational survey in FY 87/88; and to change schedule of Rt. 101 Corridor study. DISCUSSION The report briefly describes the status of each work element and task provided in the OWP as amended. All work is proceeding on schedule with the exception of the Highway 101 Corridor Study. We have consciously shifted our efforts to completing the RTP on schedule as directed by Caltrans. As- you are aware, the RTP and its environmental evaluation was adopted (on schedule) in November, 1986. Complying with this hearing date was a priority, resulting in the need to shift manpower/resources off the Highway 101 corridor study. This effort, however, has not been in vain as much of the base data conducted for the RTP was needed for the Corridor Study. A further slippage resulted from the resignation of the project planner. His replacement is now on staff. We expect the overall schedule to slip six months and extend into F.Y. 87/88. Two other minor slippages are noted. The performance audits were finalized in mid-November. These were initially scheduled for completion in September. These audits will be reviewed before the Productivity Committee in March. Another slippage is work on the 1986 Air Quality Plan Update. Due to staff shortfalls at the County Air Pollution Control District (APCD), they have placed an indefinite "hold" on this project. A-3-1 Overall, we are very pleased with our work progress and believe the major projects have been completed on schedule. We have also continued to increase our intergovernmental coordinated efforts. Our recent efforts have involved intergovernmental meetings to resolve problems or facilitate projects on the following: - Route 227 Special Study (Arroyo Grande, San Luis Obispo County, Caltrans) - Cuesta College/CMC improvements (Camp SLO, Cuesta College, Mens Colony, County Operations, Caltrans, etc.) - Highway 46/101 Project - Highway 41/Salinas River Project - Pismo Creek Bridge Replacement - Fourth Street, Five Cities Drive - Community Unmet Needs Hearing - Tefft Street/101 Interchange - Increased coordination and grant assistance - three airports, social service agencies, and transit operators. A copy of the complete status report is available on request. Report prepared for by Ronald De Carli, Program Manager RD/sb/jm/cl/6072-1/77 A-3-2 V O � D Y , a cFa 1 - C v.w < m �.�•. r. 1 • i t` 1 oo c, M S Too 1 1 l i•: �i W y j 1• In 1� 1 cn i ►my i � �i Y A H z > M t� H O aPao-. 1 t~a>w Aj 03 A 1 •:i 1 C G« ' O O ?C Kfi XX xXK xx x x m Co NIr-1„ n r1l� N v•i co N h h�N col-o N �I � OI Y B 0 •r� 1+ C ti« M p m Y 0.6 7 7 O 8 « W 2 M N X M mu a+ M W -.^0% H 0. U O O 93 0 mS6.1 o4 O -1 13 u a Y y ~ O f. 0 O O O M O Y 14 u 8 u w u« - to W q a F0 0 0 q Y Y Y0 C u« 1+« O m a « Y H M Y Y«« O Y N Y.-1 0. .y 0 0 H 0 «b«•0 F b < Y co> HYa+ PL Y O uO B W« « A.0 7 m Y W Y $4 u.-1 Q1<b<SUuYm W7•.<y« Y M41 y beo► 0. >z m O N p. -4.i a N >. A.0r+ 0fM•'1 «0 W. Y « a V 0 9 0 .t z 0 Y 0 �z '0A p to r Y Y«•0 O O " uYzz > a7p YN M mHa.c b p �.0�m ro- iyG p.0 W m< 19 M A. m u O U CIO 4.0 + m p 71 0..0- p 4N >.U430 O � ». . 5 actncad =tHN <U U O.-1 N to.t h 10 O14 N Cl O-1N en.t w1%0 O.-1 N 4n.Y an•O O.-1 N Cl.-q O 0000000 O OO O .-1 ri-4•q r1.-1.-1 N N NN N NN P)t•►cn v V h O Cl Cl O O CO o 0 C. O C.CO 0 0 0 CO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CO O CO o 0 O .-1.•i.-1 r4•-i ri ri N N N to /•1 m rl t•1 m m m en t•1 11 en Cl)qq 4+1 t1 en t•1 en r1 r1 cl+ .3_3 -8- ti .. 1` co Fv � M O m M S 1 Z' r-1 D p Z to w xs•�j a 1 u v A I I z > >® I Go a%o I " 1 v 1 ac I • I • < 1 1 1 1 �.0. K K KKK KICK K O a of of �n�•n o MI.,�•, �l0 0C, z) of %nl%n•n N a► of of olio co�o of of t0 ap N N N N N t�N c+1 \ .O f rl•'1 r1 N -t f.-4 m P m W H T > ufA 93 d m u•mi H O O v a 40Q. o .# oM eua u v u 0 aG Is a-6 q 0 y eg0�Ol mu H OUN V M H to W r1\ m N O 41•.04 U .y a •o q ►r a.�H b day pg m m S m q F+ A.ti H 0 a O T ami N a � � W N < 00 p u nGi b U m z H M H d ep 0. O q C1 M to H .�'d q 7 O W W N WUrCy1 - VUN v bT �bp bau Iu\w.� z m < a5 ►pyC u KA Aw a 0 v,WF V L, MWa►z 06 .i W Y rl O 0 Y YTV H 0\ V 0 V O O U O oG u v, Oro M 1q U q > q 46 04 0,4 O 0. 3 Q0. H 0.O a a q mM q1 O OGOG V, <to oL oG q �-y7 a O O O � a, CO OD O.N O N O.-1 N C1 Cl O O H N f•1 O O O.-1 N%1 O O •O f> CO co[O cr. O O Co O .-1 N -4 N t"1 cn �t • —f n -O-O— —4 fl co 4 In I'1 In rl Pl I'1�•1 c'1 c•1 e'1 '1/T1 P1 f•1 m ly1 en c'1�1 m cn en e1 e'1 Pf m t'f ti e , e oo1 lV. o = M r1 W w cn r-1 � co W .. a � h > u A � � z � a+ 0% o. .r Y 7 ti 1 C R O X X X X X X - cc e O OOmN In 40 GoI^!. 00 N .4 17 10 N N N 1.4x u IZ W 00 b 7 e e F e u ^ 4 u W ee0 V G.$4 a0 z < i v'i - �a z .. a voce, oeeo9a4, a °0 to o Ha G HTa.u+ m ^v d n T U e B rr u uH da V! " N H y . G w p 04 00 CI U O co .4 -4 O H a aw"' e.,< e . e•1 m u w gq B 0 y 6 A. C; d 9 H 00 en P.UM < U9"cn <0 a S <saa V W O O.-1 N O•-i N t•1 J h O.-1 N V" •*•4 0.000 C>00 v-1 N N N C4 N C4 N N N N4 0 0 0 0 0 0 f•1 �"'1 r•1�'1 �•1�"1�•1/"1�•1�"1 V V J V V V p( -9a- �- r, AdIkk SAN LUIS OBISPO AREA COORDINATING COUNCIL STAFF REPORT MEETING DATE : MARCH 5, 1987 SUBJECT: PROGRESS REPORT ON A TRI-COUNTY SOCIOECONOMIC MONITORING PROGRAM PREPARED BY THE COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA DEPARTMENT OF REGIONAL PROGRAMS SUMMARY The status report describes the process, procedures, meetings, survey forms and products involved in the Socioeconomic Monitoring and Mitigation Program (SEMP) being implemented in Santa Barbara, Ventura and San Luis Obispo Counties. The program was established by Santa Barbara County which requires, as a condition. of approval on major oil, gas and pipeline projects, participation by each applicant. The primary goal is to address significant socioeconomic impacts of such projects on the region. RECOMMENDATION Monitor and evaluate relevant data on projects in San Luis Obispo County for impacts and mitigation measures for incorporation in the Regional Transportation Plan. DISCUSSION The intent of the program, which is administered by Santa Barbara County in cooperation with Ventura and San Luis Obispo Counties, is "to verify the information and impacts identified in the EIR/EIS process and to allow impacted jurisdictions to require mitigation for the actual project related impacts that are experienced over time." The program objectives, used to create the technical specifications of the program, include: 1. Provide accurate estimates of employment related to offshore development. 2. Provide accurate estimates of facilities and services impacts related to offshore development. 3. Meet the information needs of counties, cities, school districts and special districts. A-4-1 4. Establish a single method for impact assessment thereby improving the consistency of further EIS/EIR projections. 5. Ensure credibility among all parties. To carry out the data gather process, a comprehensive range of questionnaires was developed. These included: a contractor identification form; expenditures and employment forms for contractors and subcontractors and operating companies; a service/supply firm survey; and an employee questionnaire. The first survey period was during the fourth quarter of 1985 and a second period was scheduled in June 1986. A technical advisory committee was established which included members from all companies operating a project; the Santa Barbara County Energy Division, Ventura County and San Luis Obispo County. Representatives from the San Luis Obispo County Planning Department are coordinating with the technical advisory committee. Initial data is expected to become available during February 1987. The designated coordinator for the program from the San Luis Obispo County Planning Department does not see any significant role based on probable data. The staff of the Area Coordinating Council will continue to monitor the process as it develops and present any significant findings to the council for action. A copy of the progress report on Tri-County Socioeconomic Monitoring is available for review by all interested parties. Report prepared by Mike Harmon, Transportation Planner and reviewed by Ronald De Carli, Program Manager Report prepared by Michael Harmon, Associate Transportation Planner and reviewed by Ronald De Carli, Program Manager MH/jgm/6240-1 A-4-2 SAN LUIS OBISPO AREA COORDINATING COUNCIL STAFF REPORT MEETING DATE : MARCH 5, 1987 SUBJECT: MINIMUM REQUIRED FAREBOX RATIOS: SAN LUIS OBISPO MUNICIPAL TRANSIT, SOUTH COUNTY AREA TRANSIT SYSTEMS, AND NORTH COASTAL TRANSIT SYSTEM. SUMMARY The city of San Luis Obispo has asked the Area Council to investigate options available to reduce their minimum required farebox ratio as specified in the Transportation Development Act (TDA) to allow the city additional flexibility in expanding their bus system. This investigation has led to the conclusion that the city system, as well as the South County Area Transit System and North Coastal Transit System, should be reduced to meet the minimum farebox recovery ratio of 10% as specified for post 78/79 transit operations. RECOMMENDATION Staff: Recognize new -reduced farebox minimum ratios for the city, North Coastal Transit, and the SCAT Transit Systems. CTAC: Information item. No Action. TTAC: Information item. No Action. BACKGROUND The Transportation Development Act provides funding for transit services subject to compliance with requirements. One such requirement is that all transit systems must obtain a certain specified' minimal farebox ratio. For older (pre 78/79) systems, the Act requires the system to maintain: a 10% farebox ratio or the ratio it had during the 1978/79 fiscal year, whichever is greater. The San Luis Obispo North Coastal Transit and South County Area Transit Systems initiated service prior to FY 1978/79. These systems obtained the following ratios: SLO City Transit: • fare revenue to operating costs 26.5% • fare revenue and local support to operating costs 42.0% NCT fare revenue to operating costs 14.0% SCAT fare revenue to operating costs 14.8% A-5-1 -Coa The SCAT farebox ratio was initially '11.5% but was increased, as required by the Act, when the system did not achieve the required ratio in subsequent years. These ratios have been used in judging the performance of each transit system since 1978/79. DISCUSSION The city of San Luis Obispo has requested an evaluation of options to reduce this required ratio to allow the city additional flexibility in expanding their system. Staff has evaluated recent changes in state law and has found no provision available to reduce the required ratios. This evaluation, however, has clarified that the original minimum ratio was applied incorrectly. PUC Section 99268.2 mandates a 10% farebox ratio or the ratio that applied during 78/79, whichever is greater. This section only pertains to "transit operators." The above systems, however, are technically referred to as "transit claimants" until they subsequently purchased their own vehicles at which time they became a "transit operators" as recognized by TDA. These three systems all purchased their vehicles after 78/79. Their farebox ratio is therefore the minimum of 10% as specified in PUC Section 99268.4. This interpretation was supported by Mr. Jess Morano of the Caltrans Division of Mass Transportation after his discussion with the Caltrans legal division (January 23, 1987). RD/cl/6222-1/97 A-5-2 fA towl, pow BUSINER IMPROVEMENT ASOJCIATION P.O. Box 1607 j Atascadero, CA 93423 MARCH 2, 1987 TO: MAYOR MACKEY, COUNCIL MEMBERS, CITY STAFF, AS MEMBERS OF THE EXECUTIVE BOARD OF THE BIA WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, WOULD LIKE TO RECOMMEND: 1. THE MERCEDES RE-ALLIGNMENT BE APPROVED AND COMPLETED AS SOON AS POSSIBLE ****AND**** 2. THE LEWIS AVE. BRIDGE ALSO BE COMPLETED AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. THE BIA FEELS THAT THESE IMPROVEMENTS WILL IMPROVE TRAFFIC CIRCULATION AND WILL ALSO AID IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE CENTRAL DOWNTOWN AREA. SINCERLY, KIRK PEANFJIN BIA PRES. ERIC HAGEN (SWAUd4R & ASSOC. ) JA 'PORTER (A 4—SCADERO NEWS) JOE GRISANTI (GRISANTI HDW) )m ALSH (SHOE CORRAL) OHN8 (NOSTALGIA) M 4T e;(P. IRWIN MANNIN(j -(ATASCADER BOB�'�IROPH IZZA EXPRESS) ERIKA BANNER (ERIKAIS) DOWNTOWN PLAN FOR ATASCADERO CITY PROGRAMS (EXISTING) LEWIS AVENUE BRIDGE StatUS7 MERCEDES ALIGNMENT status? GENERALPLAN UPDATE industry as relates to traffic on traffic way ECONOMIC BASE ANALYSIS BIA should recommend to proceed tool for future master plan for downtown CDB OVERLAY ZONE tool for future master plan for downtown address special concerns of CBD parking: assessments vs. space allotments ARC GUIDELINES need special guidelines for CBD UNDERGROUND UTILITIES - in process REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY phase I=ECONOMIC BASE ANALYSIS above financing tool explore options as to procedure (Main Street Program, etc. ) CITY PROGRAMS (FUTURE) MASTER PLAN FOR THE DOWNTOWN CIVIC CENTER COMPLEX RELOCATE LEWIS AVENUE AND ATASCADERO JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL PARKING/CIRCULATION PLAN FOR EL CAMINO REAL (THROUGH CBD) CREEKSIDE PLAN COMPLETE TRAFFIC WAY OFFRAMP OVERPASS AT ATASCADERO MALL HISTORIC DISTRICT ARCHITECTURAL GUIDELINES (AS PERTAIN TO CBD) parking beautification sign ordinance ARC guidelines facade studies street furniture lighting R BIAPR_0_GR_A_M_S_ PROMOTION: MONT14LY PROMOTIONS BLOCk::ING OFF OF ENTRADA FOR "FARMER' S MARKET" PARK I NG: PARKING PLAN: PHASE 1 , 2, 3 ESTABLISHMENT OF ASSESSMENT SYSTEM FOR FUTURE PARKING assessments vs. space allotments? create fund for future parking BEAUTIFICATION: STREET TREES CLEAN-UP PROGRAM on-going enforcement necessary awards program CREEk::S I DE PLAN (SHORT-TERM) clean-up pedestrian trails, benches, etc. STREET LIGHTS