Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/03/1994, C-10 - SLORTA EVENING EXPANSION IIIII^INIII�IIIIIII�I�II�III vJ MEETING DATE: Ciof San LUIS OBISpO May 3, 9994 COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT ITEM UMBER: FROM: Michael D. McCluskey, Director of Public Worksv1 Prepared by: Harry Watson, Transit Manager t SUBJECT: SLORTA Evening Expansion CAO RECOMMENDATION: By motion, recommend A: concurrence with SLOCOG alternatives 1; change route time, B: concurrence with SLOCOG alternative 3; delay until Cuesta Grade Project; C: against SLOCOG alternative 2; new evening service unless the new service is fully funded by north county agencies. DISCUSSION: Through the Unmet Transit Needs process held annually by SLOCOG, expanded evening service was requested to the North County. The primary purpose was to serve students attending evening classes at Cal Poly. This Unmet Transit Needs request was determined to be an "unmet" but not "reasonable to meet" by the Council of Governments (COG), as it did not meet their criteria (minimum farebox return of 10%). Members of the COG Board representing the North County communities requested COG staff to initiate a letter to all affected jurisdictions proposing the new evening service be established regardless of the criteria and thus outside of the Unmet Needs process. The new routing is intended to provide service for Cal Poly students traveling to north county areas. They would like service twice daily at 6:30 pm and 10:00 pm, five days per week. It would begin at the Government Center, travel to Cal Poly, take on passengers, travel a few blocks on City streets to access Hwy 101 and then proceed on to its ultimate destinations in the north county. The route would likely be reversed on the return trip on the first run. The attached SLOCOG letter requests city direction on three alternatives: 1. change the current last route time, providing only one of the late runs, with no fiscal impact 2. Alternative 1 and add a new route time with a fiscal impact of $65,000 3. delay any new route until implementation of the Route 101/Cuesta Grade Improvements Project (Caltrans funded transit service as a construction traffic impact mitigation measure). Staff has no objections to alternatives 1 or 3 but recommends against alternative 2 for the reasons stated below. It should be pointed out that under alternative 1 and 2 there could be a loss of existing commuter ridership if the 5:15 pm bus is rescheduled to depart at 6:30 pm. The SLOCOG Board requested member agency Council's to indicate their support because the route could not meet the "reasonable to meet" criteria and the existing route funding formula. If there is any cost, San Luis Obispo would be a full financial participant because of the bus simply driving on our streets. Because of the very limited service within the City (primarily Grand Ave. between Hwy 101 and Cal Poly), it is unlikely that anyone but college students living in the north county would ever board the bus. Thus the service would be north county residents traveling to a county destination (Cal Poly) but needing to use about three city blocks in order to make the connection. Those boarding the SLORTA bus to travel from City Hall to Cal Poly only, would result in additional loss of revenue to our system. The existing transit funding formula for member agencies is based on population and not on length of route within jurisdictions nor passenger origination/destination counts. Thus SLO would be charged (via the formula) for what is essentially a county route simply because a portion of the route traverses the city. If north county jurisdictions wish to create a route that will only benefit those jurisdictions, staff recommends that those agencies fully fund that route from their respective TDA allocations. The new evening service (SLOCOG alternative 2) was requested as a trial for a test period of six months and a farebox return goal of 10%. Neither of these two issues is mentioned in the attached letter. Staff is especially leery of any "test" route. The SLOCOG Board has shown with the" Santa Maria test route", a reluctance to effectively manage test routes. Additionally all existing routes are required to meet a minimum 20% farebox return. The fact that the proposal requires only a 10% return does not show good policy in the use of scarce resources for the public good. FISCAL IMPACT: The expected cost of the new evening service (alternative 2) is estimated to be $65,000 for the first year. The City's portion of the cost is based on population on the route (approximately 25%) and would thus be about $14,000. This would be a direct reduction in funds received by the City and may lead to a reduction in SLO Transit operations. The SLOCOG's alternative 1 and 3 will have little or no fiscal impact to the City. The new service is supposed to meet its ridership and farebox goals with in six months or be canceled. attachment - SLOCOG Letter SLORTAexpand C-1� -CA San Luis Obi -)o ouncil of governments Ar Grande RegioRe Transportation Planning A tascadero nal g genc Ay Grover Beach Morro Bay Metropolitan Planning Organization Paso Robles Congestion Management Agency Pismo Beach SanLuiSanLui CGounTy April 13, 1996 John Dunn r= , � Y�f E e G : r.- City of San Luis Obispo 995 Palm Stree APr7 14 1994 San Luis Obispo, CA 93446 RE: Weekend and Evening Transit Service to the North County Dear Mr. Dunn On April 6th, the San Luis Obispo Council of Governments (SLOCOG) approved funding for Saturday transit service to the north and south county as result of the annual unmet transit needs hearing process. The funding for this service will come from the Transportation Development Act's discretionary State Transit Assistance account. The expected annual costs are approximately $54,000 (South County- Route 10, $16,000; North County - Route 9, $38,000) should these two routes demonstrate due progress after a six-month review by maintaining a farebox over 10% Ona related issue, the SLOCOG Board has determined evening transit service to the north county to be an "unmet transit need". The Board postponed any further action implementing the service untill input is received from affected jurisdictions. Attached please find SLOCOG's staff report and analysis of the proposed evening service as part of the unmet transit needs analysis. The staff analysis reviewed two options; 1) delaying the SLO Route 9(a) departure time from 5:25 pm to 6:30 pm. (No fiscal impact), and/or 2) provide a later evening run to the North County departing SLO at 8 p.m. or 10 p.m. (Annual Fiscal effect = 565,000). At this time SLOCOG staff would like to include a third option for consideration. Next fiscal year Caltrans will purchase six buses to assist in the transportation systems management of the Route 101/Cuesta Grade Improvements Project. We expect the operating expenses to be subsidized by Caltrans prior to and during the construction of the project. This scenario should not greatly affect the TDA draw of the member jurisdictions. IOur Board would like your Council's opinion on the central question before their May 4, 1994 scheduled meeting; Does your City support evening transit service to the north county? If so, under what operating and funding conditions? Time permitting, please schedule this item for discussion before your City Council to indicate their opinion on this issue. SLOCOG staff is available to attend meetings and provide additional information as necessary. Should you have any additional questions please contact Richard Murphy of my staff at 781-5754. Sincerely, Ron DeCarli, Executive Director Richard Murphy, Associate Planner 'SANLUIS I IR IS cff—OF WORKS/Ui01LITl S 1150 Osos St. Suite 202, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 ♦ Tel. (805) 781-4219 ♦ Fax. (805) 781-5703 C- �fl 3 Unmet Transit Needs aasonable to Meet Analysis April 6 1994 Criteria 5-8 1 IncreaseYreekendar11.�1.6d ... evening service an all routes, at cRlTERIA east on a ltmlted basis 5 6 8 REC ..... ATI01i. t=1nd request for weekend service o ryori Routes; and 1t) ! ,r> / ✓ (six month Bitot fun} to be reasonable to meet ;Evening and weekert; ser+iice foralt other rotates unreasonable is meet d>_te fo;fa�ebo�c Yo ectlons tsetow;;10% ,. ' BACKGROUND In previous years, this board has historically reviewed evening and weekend transit service requests throughout the County. For evening and weekend service to be successful, routes must intersect large population centers, with destination points of significant community interest (i.e. schools, employment and entertainment centers, and recreation areas). Typically extensive marketing is required to bring attention to the availability of evening and weekend service. Two other specific transit requests (evening service to Cuesta College/Cal Poly and evening service to the North County) have been evaluated independent of this regionwide analysis and can be found on the preceding pages. CONCLUSION The weekend transit service recommended for a six month pilot program (July 1, 1994 thru Jan 1, 1995) is reasonable to meet as presented above conditioned that the Route 10 service provide summer transit service directly to Avila Beach. Further discussion regarding ridership to Avila Beach is presented in Reasonable to Meet Analysis#4 (Direct service to Avila Beach). ANALYSIS -CRITERIA EVALUATION 5) PROJECT TO GENERATE 10% FAREBOX RATIO Weekend Service (Saturday Only) Route 12 (North Coast) currently is the only route on the CCAT system that provides Saturday service. In order to attract the necessary ridership to ensure successful Saturday transit service, new routes must be timed to provide systemwide convenience for the riders, providing connections to major destination points. A pilot run connecting the North and South County with Route 12 (North Coast) would likely attract the necessary ridership to meet the required 10% farebox as presented in Table 1 below. Table 1 Rouse 9:Add3 rounclarips to sere Paso Rodes Ternnicton,A1asca&ro,Sh1ARQ and SLO Cost per vehicle Hts Required for Total Cost Per Required Existing Ridership service hour Service Dav ;. Ridc'ishi Per Da' 57732 11 9.63 5744.69 1 :.._78. r: 100':. : •Requ eed Ridership-Pas aan gen needed to meet 100%farebox olio at avg.S.96 per trip Route 10:Add roundtri ps ro serge Five Cities,and SLO Cost per%chide His Requited for Total Cost Per Rcpircd Existing Ridership service hour Service Da . RidcrsM . .'Per Da . $263.45 1 3.58 1 5953.80 38 73 Required Ridership=Passangeo needed to meet IMA farcbox ratio at avg.S.94 Per trip B-1-8 Unmet Transit Needs asonable to Meet Analysis April 6, 1994 Criteria 5 8 The annual gross cost to provide three roundtrips on Route 9 for Saturday service is approximately $38,723(Total cost per day$744.69 x 52 weeks). Anticipated annual revenue is $3,200.00. (12.38% farebox). The annual gross cost to provide three roundtrips on Route 10 for Saturday service is approximately $18,397(Total cost per day$353.80 x 52 weeks). Anticipated annual revenue is $2,100.00. (17% farebox). Average Saturday ridership for the first seven months of the fiscal year is 65 passengers per day, versus 55 passengers per day during the week. Weekend destination points and service industry employment in San Luis Obispo and the Five Cities, combined with the availability of North Coast recreation and shopping attractions provided by existing Route 12, should maintain ridership levels for Route 9 and 10 at their current levels, well above the necessary 10% farebox required. The total net cost for a six month pilot project for the two routes is approximately$25,000 (Source SLORTA Operation Data) Evening Service Table 2 provides year to date farebox information of the regional bus system, CCAT. Evening weekend ridership is generally 25% of the daytime ridership and the table applies this generally accepted principle to determine evening farebox projections. Table 2-Existing Farebox and Projected Farebox Route#,.: . r , Service Area. nation Points Fareboz Firebox. De sit (E Vwv&for Weekend Service) ! 9 Protected k . .. Populatlon ax Servetl Populatlori#Served 3 e Fxlsting (25/°,o ML) Route 7 San Luis Obispo l-0b pyoy M 15 Cuesta College and Cal Poly 25.51% 6.38% 42K 25K Route 7 San Luis Obispo Los Osos/Abrro Bay Cuesta College and Cal Poly 40.61% 10.15% Express 42K 25K Route 8 San Luis Obispo Los Osos/Abrro Bay Cuesta College and Cal Poly 46.43% 11.61% 42K 25K Route 9 San Luis Obispo North County SLO;Access Routes to North Coast 12.38% 3.09% 42K 54K and South County Coastal areas. Route 9( San Luis Obispo Atascadero Same as 9 18.07% 4.52% 42K 23K Route 9(B San Luis Obispo North County Sarre as 9 17.70% 4.43% 42K 54K Route 10 San Luis Obispo South County SLO and So.County shopping,cultural 17.10% 4.28% 42K 23K entertainment events;coastal rec. Route 11 San Luis Obispo Los Osos 16.06% 4.02% 42K 14K Route 12 San Luis Obispo Estero/Carob/SSIM WeeKend service akeady on line 6.47% 1.62% 42K 34k Route 14 San Luis Obispo Five Cdies/Santa Maria IsLO and So.County shopping,cultural 4.56% 1.14%71 42K 73K I entertainment events;coastal ree. B-1-9 Unmet Transit Needs :asonable to Meet Analysis April 6 1994 Criteria 5-8 Commuting Cal Poly and Cuesta College evening students could increase evening ridership figures, however the data provided in Analysis #2 (evening service to the North County), suggests that student ridership will unlikely provide significant farebox contributions for evening service outside the service areas of Route 7 and 8 Additional evening service to Cuesta College/Cal Poly(i.e. San Luis Obispo and Los Osos). Analysis#3, is evaluated in more detail on page 6) - SERVICE WILL NOT INVOLVE FUNDING FROM A NON-SERVED ENTITY. None of the proposed routes will require funding from entities not being served. 7) - Service is comparable with other services or is market-driven. This service is comparable with CCAT Route 12 providing weekend service to the North Coast. 8) - REQUEST IS FUNDABLE WITH EXISTING TDA FUNDS, WITHOUT REDUCING OTHER EXISTING SERVICES. Sufficient TDA funds exist for regional transit service (i.e discretionary State Transit Assistance monies in the event that Local Transportation Funds are already committed), The proposed pilot run could be funded solely from STA monies, not affecting the LTF contribution to those areas served by the regional transit system; (i.e Route 10-Arroyo Grande, Pismo Beach, Grover Beach, San Luis Obispo, County of San Luis Obispo, Route 9 -Atascadero, Paso Robles, San Luis Obispo and the County of San Luis Obispo). #2 Provide evening service from SLO to the North County CWERA A o accommodate.tate evenang commuters and`recreatian nders 5 7 B R>=COMNIENDAT!ON. Frnd request to be an unmet need, reasCnatile to meet based an#arebox ro ectlons'under 10 0/c BACKGROUND Eighteen requests were received to establish evening and weekend service between the City of San Luis Obispo and North County. Presently there is no service between San Luis Obispo City and North County after 5:15 pm (5:25 for express service to Atascadero). Most requests cited the need for transit service after evening meetings, Cal Poly events, farmer's market, and recreation (dinner and a movie). To meet these requests requires expansion of Route 9 CCAT service. This expansion of service could meet the needs either of commuters or choice riders wishing to spend an evening in San Luis Obispo, depending upon timing of the run. This same request was evaluated as a transit need in the 1992/93 Unmet Needs process and was found by staff to be reasonable to meet, conditioned that SLORTA meet the need through schedule adjustments with human services agencies or through the establishment of a low cost trial run at 6:00 pm and 10:00 pm to verify a market for the service expansion. Evening service has generally been requested over the years, and Route 9 has been one of the two most requested evening services each year. , B-1-10 Unmet Transit Needs easonable to Meet Analysis April B, 1994 Criteria 5-8 CONCLUSION Find request to provide evening Route 9 service unreasonable to meet; and direct SLORTA to review this request as part of the short range transit planning process. Other transit service providers should be considered as part of the analysis. ANALYSIS -CRITERIA EVALUATION 5) PROJECT TO GENERATE 10% FAREBOX RATIO. Evening buses can be variously interpreted. Possible options include a later commuter bus than the 5:25pm direct to Atascadero and/or a later bus (8pm or 10pm) to serve people with late meetings and recreational needs. During the day, routes 9, 9(a), and 9(b) have operated at an average farebox ratio of 16.05%, responding strongly to the market for transit over the grade. Option 1 Replace the 5:25pm direct from San Luis Obispo to Atascadero, Route 9a, with a later commuter bus (departing SLO around 6:30pm), expanding the final destination to Paso Robles. The net fiscal . effect would only impact the City of Paso Robles as this expanded service would be a continuance of an existing service. Route 9a to Atascadero currently operates at an 18% farebox. As a result of delaying the departure of this run to 6:30 pm and expanding the service to Paso Robles, it is expected that a 10% farebox would be met. However, implementation of this option will only partially meet this unmet transit need. Option 2 Provide a later evening run to the North County departing San Luis Obispo at 8pm or 10pm. To maximize potential ridership, scheduling the departure of an additional run to the North County from SLO should coincide with arriving SLO Transit buses from Cuesta College and Cal Poly. Daily ridership for the first seven months of this fiscal year for all three north county runs has averaged 16.05%. Evening runs historically operate at 25% fairbox of the average daily ridership; therefor a later evening run to the North County is projected at 4.01% farebox. Another cause for concern regarding the effectiveness of a later evening route would hinge on the location of bus stops relative to the riders perception of personal safety. A late run to Paso Robles would likely require an individual to walk more than twenty minutes or a 1/4 mile from the bus stop to their.residence. In order for this run to attract ridership, it would need the transit service support of Paso Robles, Templeton, and Atascadero Dial-a-ride services. At this time, evening service to the North County can not make the necessary farebox required to support the service. The following table provides a breakdown of the expected daily ridership and the required number of passengers to meet a 10%farebox based on adding one evening north bound run from San Luis Obispo to the north county. SERVICE WILL NOT INVOLVE FUNDING FROM NON-SERVED ENTITY. Option 1 None of the expanded service options will require funding from entities not being served. Option 2 None of the expanded service options will require funding from entities not being served. B-1-11 e ./0-V Unmet Transit Needs easonable to Meet Analysis April 6 1994 Criteria 5-8 Table 1 Route 9:Add I Additional Route Ser--in Cal Poly,Ataseadero,S.Marg.,Paso Robles,&Templeton service Required Total Cost .Required Ridership hour for Service Per Da Ridershi' V.Per Day $77.32 1.61 $124.10 -13.: ':•J. 10 i..; *Required Ridership=Passangers needed to meet 10%farebox ratio at$.96 per trip Expected Ridership Per Day is projected using the following two equations L(Potential Cal Poly&Cuesta Evening Students living in Service Area)•(%of persons riding bus)*(25) Potential persons Evening Students ridin btu Service Total 94 4% 1 0.25 1 (%of persons riding bus)=%of students]tiro use bus service 4% (25)=general]), accepted evening service is 1/4 of daytirre/vveekday service 2 Generalh,acce tedjnci altodetemvne%ridershipofe:istingusers) Existing Evening Riders Service Total 37 25% 1 9 (.25)=generally accepted evening service is 1/4 of daytime/week-day service SERVICE IS COMPARABLE WITH OTHER SERVICES OR IS MARKET-DRIVEN. Option 1 There are presently five round trips per day on Route 9. North Coast, Route 12, has six round trips per day, South County, six (3 Rt. 10, 3 Rt. 14). The expanded early evening service of Route 9 would be comparable to other services provided elsewhere in the County. Option 2 Later evening service is currently available on San Luis Obispo Transit. San Luis Obispo's cultural, entertainment, and other public events may provide the market"necessary for a successful evening service. REQUEST IS FUNDABLE WITH EXISTING TDA FUNDS WITHOUT REDUCING OTHER EXISTING SERVICES. Option 1 Sufficient TDA funds exist for regional transit service (i.e discretionary State Transit Assistance monies in the event that Local Transportation Funds are already committed), This service could funded solely from STA monies during the pilot service, not affecting the LTF contribution to those areas served by the regional transit system; i.e San Luis Obispo, Atascadero, Paso Robles, and the County of San Luis Obispo. Option 2 Sufficient TDA funds exist for regional transit service (i.e discretionary State Transit Assistance monies in the event that Local Transportation Funds are already committed), This service could be funded solely from STA monies, not affecting the LTF contribution to those areas served by the regional transit system; i.e San Luis Obispo, Atascadero, Paso Robles, and the County of San Luis Obispo. I B-1-12 ����'������►►►ii��illllll� llllll� Froi-rli- MY Of SM US MS PO k*sws COUNCIL AGENDA Tuesday, May 3, 1994 - 6:00 PM Council Chamber, City Hall REGULAR MEETING 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Peg Pinard PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL Council Members Penny Rappa, Dave Romero, Bill Roalman, Vice Mayor Allen K. Settle and Mayor Peg Pinard PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD (Not to exceed 75 minutes total] The`Council welcomes your.lnput 'You may address the Council by completing a speakers slip and grnng d to the City.Clerk'prlor to°the meeting At this time, you may address the Council on items that are:not on`ihe agenda or items on the Consent`Agenda Time Ilmd is three minutes State lawdoes not allow Council to'cfiscuss;ortcike,action,on issues b..............o. .... ......t on tfie agenda, except that members of the:Councli or staff may bnefly respond to statements made or questions posed by persons exercising'their public testimony rights {Gov.Code'$54954 2) _ Staff maybe asked to follow'up on such dams Staff reports and other written documentation relating to each item referred to on this agenda are on'fve lrt the City Cleric's Office m'Room #1 of City Hall © Council meetings are broadcast on KCPP,913 FM. The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its servirss,programs and activities. Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(805)78VA10. Please.speak to the City Clerk prior to the meeting if you require a hearing amplification device.For more agenda information,call 781-7103. 1 Council Agenda Tuesday, May 3, 1994 ............. ........ ........... PUBLIC:HEARIN ....... ... Me: ............ ........... .............. .. ................ .If you have .............................. tilted... ...... ... . : Speaker.......... ...o...r......W...1Q.... call ... the . .......b ftft M..e.... W..... . ...W into q:microgoo :W.bivo.your name and city of onwjof�ffi ease .. ... YoUtcommentsAo 3:mInutASO d.project.preser tlonslimitedJ&10: .. .... I 7: tf you challenge the issue m court, you may on be nonly those You r cl::: �: oskissum ome issues hearing; ib d: bel ...... eSM V e ....e... ........... .n :; .....corre....... .. ...sp ... .......: . ondend'WdI.N. red.to the Ccty before or during the public hearing - ......... ................ ............................. ► . ................ .......... 1 APPEAL - DOWNTOWN CENTER PROJECT (JONAS/407 30 min.) Public hearing to consider an appeal by Copeland Enterprises of a Planning Department staff determination that the Downtown Center project is not a upipeline" project and for purposes of water allocation is not eligible for building permits as a Opipelinew project. * RECOMMENDATION: Adopt resolution ("AJ determining that the Copeland's Downtown Center is not an extension of French Pavilion and for purposes of water allocation is not eligible for building permits as a "pipeline" project. 6:30 P.M. - ADJOURN TO CLOSED SESSION: Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation (Gov. Code §.54956.9) Name of Case: Linda C. Bums v. City of San Luis Obispo. SLO Superior Court Case No. CV 71979. RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION TO REPORT ON ACTION TAKEN. 7m00 P.M. - CONVENE REGULAR MEETING ...... sx. .............................................................. ...... ...... ........................... PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD to exceed 15 minutes .............................. ... ....... b t ........The:Council.welcomes-your iliPUL: you may ad rq; pthe h#Counci'I. ycomp.e inga sp.e... s lip and:gmng a- .: :a ress: . d Jft to the..Q!ty:QI&k: 'o t th t! .::: Atth1s.time,:you m address......... pn r o: emee ng . ......... ... ........ .................... . ..... . on items that are n on e:.:agenda:or:items:::.:on:.:the:Consent A nda ::Time:..fim1F.:. s. Agenda ........I three minutes.:: Stat e Iaw dces:n alloW Council to: . is. cus. s ortake action on...sues not...n. ... .......................... ...... ..._ on the :agenda," except that membersof he.:Council or s respqq ..... ............. ........ ... . ........... . . .....statements:ma e:or�:auestons posed by persont exercising their e'r,publictestimony rights X. (Gqy :Cod..045!� ..2.. )....... . Maybe::asked tolP11PW!UD.bn:sucm items; Staff:.repor.ts..and..... ........... oth drwrittemdocumentation relatingo each:Rem referred.to.w...thIt agenda!ar&!-on::file ... . . ....... .......... e:: clerkS.Officeii'm Room.4 1.:.9 f CityHall .............................................. .... ............... ... ........... ............ ........... ......................................................................... ........................................ .. .... . ....... so s. . . .: . ... ......... .. .... ... .... ............. ............. ....................... ........................%....... ............. ... ................... 2 Council Agenda Tuesday, May 3, 1994 ............ ........ . ............... .......... ................ ........... .................%. .... .... .. ..:. . . ........................... .. ......... ......................... .................... .'RCQN9ENV 15N �: : Consent en ajs:approvedThe on one: mo bk...............C......o...............FM..... .-b... e.. rt.MaVp U.W.........consent .........n.s......e.....h....V......v.. ...... .. .................. . .................. ........ ........... iteff Lst0�� : items .... ............ ..... ........ ............... ....... ......................... ........... ausiness . .............. . ..................... ............... ... ........................ .......................................... ...................... ........................................ ........ ............... ► C-1 COUNCIL MINUTES (GLADWELL) Consideration of the minutes of Tuesday, March 15, 1994 at 7:00 p.m.; Wednesday, March 16, 1994 at 10:30 a.m.; Monday, March 28, 1994 at 7:00 p.m.; and, Tuesday, April 5, 1994 at 7:00 p.m. ♦ RECOMMENDATION: By motion, waive oral reading and approve minutes as amended. ► C-2 STATE MOBILE HOME RENT CONTROL INITIATIVE (GLADWELL/428) Consideration of opposing the State aRental Assistancen initiative. ♦ RECOMMENDATION: Adopt resolution opposing initiative. ► C-3 SURPLUS PROPERTY (STATLER/165) Consideration of declaring vehicles and equipment as surplus property. + RECOMMENDATION: Adopt resolution declaring vehicles and equipment as surplus property and ordering sale and disposal. ► C-4 REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS - INFORMATION SYSTEMS MASTER PLAN (STATILER/179) Consideration of a Request for Proposals (RFP) to prepare an information systems master plan at an estimated cost of $95,000. (RFP is available in the Council Office for review.) * RECOMMENDATION: Approve RFP and authorize the City Administrative Officer to award contract to successful bidder. 3 Council Agenda Tuesday, May 3, 1994 ► C-5 SKATEBOARD PROGRAM (LeSAGE/800) Consideration of authorizing the Parks and Recreation Department to offer a skateboard program at Santa Rosa Park. ♦ RECOMMENDATION: By motion, authorize skateboard program. ► C-6 POWER BLOWER REGULATIONS (JONAS/703 - 30 min.) Consideration of giving final passage to an ordinance amending the noise regulations to limit hours of operation of power blowers. ♦ RECOMMENDATION: Give final passage to Ordinance No. 1261. ► C-7 SIGN ORDINANCE CORRECTION (GLADWELL/424) Consideration of giving final passage to an ordinance with correct amendment to sign regulations and rescinding Ordinance No. 1253. ♦ RECOMMENDATION: Give final passage to Ordinance No. 1262. ► C-8 GRANT APPLICATION - TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND INFORMATION_ INFRASTRUCTURE ASSISTANCE PROGRAM (STATLER/179) Consideration of authorizing the City Administrative Officer to apply for Telecommunications and Information Infrastructure Assistance Program grant funds in the amount of $320,000 for a demonstration project ($210,000) and planning project ($110,000). ♦ RECOMMENDATION: Adopt resolution authorizing CAO to apply for grant funds. ► C-9 PROPERTY ACQUISITION - BULLOCK LANE (McCLUSKEY/168) Consideration of approving an agreement with the estate of Cecil Munch for the purchase of certain real property located at 3220 Bullock Lane. 4 Council Agenda Tuesday, May 3, 1994 * RECOMMENDATION: By motion, authorize the Mayor to execute an agreement for purchase of 3220 Bullock Lane. . ....... ..... . . .............. ............ ....................... ................ ............ .. .............. ..................... ........... oXX: APPOINTMENT .. .... ... ..... ► ....... ...... .... ............... N .............. ... .............................. .. ...... Al. APPOINTMENT TO AREA AGENCY ON AGING (PINARD/123) Consideration of appointing Joan Lawrence to a two-year term on the Board of Directors for the Area Agency on Aging. ♦ RECOMMENDATION: By motion, confirm appointment. .......... ........ ... ......... ............. ............ .............. ...................................... . .. ........................................ IA196N.::REPORTS: 6t:t6-.:vxceed[�A:5:ffiihtA ........ ... . . ........... ..... Time'.......... ....... 3 minutes Council Membersleport::omconferen brbth6KCK� ................ ............... ............... . ............... ........ ...... ......................... ............ .......... .... .. ...... ............. ............ ................ .......... HEARINGS.... .. PUBLIC . ... .... ...... ...... ....... .. ................ . .......................... .............. .......... ............. ............................. . . ........ ... . .................. 11 t th d- lf.you have.:filled.out a Speaker:Slip., .the:.Mayor:wi ..:!ca...:you lo::. . e podiumPlease eak . ............. into a microphone.,. :an give your nameandcity 0.residence:jor: . erecor Pleasb::Jift��:�:� t the ... d. . ........ . 64th .................... ...:.your:comments.to.3 minutes,:consultant:.and::protect ntations:::Iithit6d:.tb.::10�:thih. rojq. presentations.... ...... .......... eAssuyou may::. If YOU chbilengo the e in court, 6 im eastolralsing onjyj... pse.issuos%yow ... ...... ............. .raised...... or �:pu someone. i:�..else,::..raise 'at thts::: 1511 h a d d 6 d: below, W er escri e 6tt : y . correspondence ... de...i.v....e.....r..e...d. lo:the: tybefore ...:.o...r..dup%the public h ... . .......... ............. ► .. ................. .. .............. . 2. LAND USE ELEMENT REVISIONS (JONAS/462 - 3 hrs.) Continued public hearing to consider revisions to the Land Use Element of the General Plan. (Continued from 3/28/94 and 4/5/94.) ♦ RECOMMENDATION: By motion, direct staff to make appropriate changes to the February 1994 Draft General Plan Land Use Map. Please bring agenda report and related material from previous meetings. 5 Council Agenda Tuesday, May 39 1994 ............... COMMUNICATIONS........ ............. .......1MUNICATION&(hot to exceed 15 minutes) ... Atthis'time,.an :Coundo Mimberor &Cty:Admmistrativefor may ask question e:: cationmace an::�ani:; .no repoTt"d ... .... �]SUbjectt0: CoUh dl:Pbljd;: wand:Proc...q....... evMav D ce: or.other ...... ....... .......... ...��:��xesourcww��: Of . 0. report back to the Counat at amatter, matter.......... h-t meeting:conceffq.rqj.:. y- .:�. awrtI ... ........... ....... Co'd 549 ........ .....:bf.businesst (Govim ... ... ..... .................. A. ADJOURN TO TUESDAY, MAY 10, 1994 AT 7:00 P.M. 6 r ti '�NG AGENDA DAI't ITEM # 976 Buchon Street • San Luis Obispo, CA • 93401 • Tel. 546-0518 3 May, 1994 San Luis Obispo City Council 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100 Dear Mayor Pinard and Councilmembers, 1 was approached in April by Tom Martin and Roger Elkin and asked to comment on their proposal to install transit shelters in San Luis Obispo and throughout the county. My first reaction was that we don't need any more outdoor advertising, but after hearing the proposal and the potential benefits, think that it is an idea that is at least worthy of a little staff time to explore. There is no doubt that a citywide system of bus shelters would make riding the bus more attractive and contribute to the comfort and safety of transit users. Other benefits include revenue to the city, a savings of maintenance dollars, and potential savings of the capital costs of the city installing the shelters. They are also offering ad space to non-profits at no cost. The down side of all this is the visual impact that the shelters and the advertising will have on our city. 1 am concerned about the content of the ads. I do not want to see naked women advertising Budweiser or Army recruitment posters all over the city. I would like to see an emphasis on local ads and locally produced ads, preferably ones with "good taste" and with some degree of creativity. 1 am also concerned about the placement of the shelters and the lighting of the advertisements. 1 don't think that lit advertising fits into residential neighborhoods very well. Can these problems be worked out? I don't know. How does one require "good taste"? Maybe the Architecture Review Committee would want to look at this. do think that the proposal is worth exploring and no harm would be done to ask staff to look it over and bring back their findings to you for a decision. If the negative impacts can be dealt with, this could be good for the city's transit program. Sincerely, Iff COUNCIL ❑ CDD DIR L'rCAO ❑ FIN DIR CAO ❑ FIRE CHIEF P t Veesart VArrMEY M'PWDIR ❑'C4 ❑ ROUCE CHF ❑ MGW T� ❑ REC DIR ❑ C READ FILE ❑ UT1L DIR M1.y I C. ?:2 0PERS DIR MY- L-S nUN 1b;4U MKI M - rHSU KUbLtb rHn NU. Nu e[ dl leJ r. us Tse Tom Kartin From: 5herco Davie 2-21-94 2:56pm p. 2 of 2 MEETING AGEND 1 DATE 3'9'S° ITEM 9 Pebruary 18,1994 Honorable Mayor and City Council Members City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Dear Mayor Pinard and City Council Members; At a recent Board Meeting of the San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce a presentation was made by Martin Media on bus shelters for the City of San Luis Obispo. This bus shelter proposal appears to ideally correspond to both the Chamber's and the City's desire to encourage regional transit,reduce congestion and ultimately enhance air quality. The Chamber's Board unanimously agreed that this concept was worthy of further exploration. Mus,the Chamber asks that you direct staff to thoroughly evaluate the idea and report their findings to City Council at their earliest convenience. Sincerely, Wanda Strassburg,President San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce JCOUNCIL O CDD DIR !7 CAO ❑ FIN DIR E(ACAO O FIRE CHIEF ATTORNEY O,�PW DIR 2 JCiLER*=G ❑ POLICE CHF CI MGG TEAM ❑ REC DIM ❑ C FILE ❑ UTIL DIR !40AY ' 1994 O PERS DIR CITY CLERK