Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/03/1998, CLR 1 - LIAISON REPORT MEETING AGENDA DATE ITEM # CZ i! January 28, 1998 MEMORANDUM TO: Council Colleagues FROM: Council Member Dave Romero SUBJECT: Liaison Report In my new duties as representative to SLOCOG,I have come across both a State and Federal Legislature Program,with Objectives and Policies. These will be approved by the SLOCOG Board at their February meeting. I thought these would be of interest to the City Council. Note in particular,the items related to the Housing Law noted on page D-1-4. DR:ss Attachment c: John Dunn Mike McCluskey [E03 '% "- ❑CDD DIR o FIN 0:1 O ❑FIRE C;::= ORNEY DPW DIR ❑POLICE CHFT j� ❑RTC DIR ❑UTIL DIR 0 PERS DIR - r �` RA ED cl C SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS DRAFT 1998 STATE & FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM '-' January, 1998 STATE OBJECTIVES & POLICIES . (Newly added objectives and polices are underlined) A. Overall Funding Sources & Programs - Protect existing.funding levels and programs, seek new funding sources, and increase flexibility for all sources to meet the needs of the region. 1. Supplemental Funding Support legislation authorizing establishment of funding sources at the local and regional level to supplement federal and state sources and address unique local and regional transportation needs. 2. TDA & STA Funding - Support actions to preserve and protect Transportation Development Act (TDA) and State Transit Assistance (STA) funding for public transit, streets and roads, and other transportation programs. 3. Fund Transfers - Strongly oppose legislation and or other actions which allow transfers or loans of transportation user fee revenues (including TDA and STA funds), income or interest to the State General Fund, to limited special purpose agencies, for use on non-transportation programs; and support pay back of any outstanding loans and transfers to the General Fund of Transportation funds which occurred in previous budgets. 4. Passenger Rail Service - Support legislation to provide a fair share of funding to improve passenger rail service to the Central Coast, including all capital improvements and operating costs necessary to increase schedule reliability, and allow higher speed service; and maintain service by all Amtrak train and feeder bus services to the San Luis Obispo region. 5. FTA Section 16 - Support legislation assuring that the San Luis Obispo region continues to receive its fair share of FTA Section 16 program funds administered by the State. 6. Income Tax Benefits - Support legislation providing income tax deductions to employers that encourage use of transportation demand management programs and public transit. B. Administrative Policies & Procedures - Streamline and/or eliminate unnecessary, duplicative or ineffective state policies and procedures. 1. Caltrans Oversight& Project Support Costs - Support a reduction in the extent of Caltrans oversight in administering Federal grants, and extent of support costs in project delivery. 2. Environmental Quality Act- Support legislation reducing or eliminating unnecessary, and/or duplicative requirements and procedures of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in relation to the National Environmental Quality Act (NEPA), provided there is no loss of environmental protection. C. STIP Reform- Support efforts to ensure that implementation of State Transportation Imorovement Program (STIP) reform enacted in SB 45 including clean-up legislation, fully and fairly addresses the needs of the San Luis Obispo region. 1. Revenue Flexibility - Support adoption of guidelines and/or legislation which,Will• provide maximum flexibility for the use of Regional Improvement Program funds for transportation system improvements and programs. D-1-3 2. Planning Funds - Support a Provision in cleanup legislation to SB 45 authorizing the use of up to one percent of Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP) funds for Droiect Planning pumoses by Regional Transportation Planning Agencies (RTPA's) receiving Federal.—,. :: Planning (PL)funds in counties with an urbanized area of under 200 000. 3. Intercity Rail Services - Support a provision in cleanup legislation to SB 45 that re- establishes the State funding distinction between intercity, commuter, and urban rail transit systems to ensure statewide service equity. 4. Interregional Improvement Program (11121 Priorities - Support a provision in clean-up legislation that requires Caltrans to coordinate with regional agencies in setting priorities for protects to be funded in the IIP. 5. Soundwall Projects - Support legislation clarifying the intention of SB 45 that expenditures for soundwall protects be the responsibility of regional agencies within the context of the Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP). D. Housing Law Reform - Support State Housing Element Law reform emphasizing local control, simplified procedures, self certification, and provision of affordable housing, based on the following policies: 1. Housing Allocations - Support legislation requiring that credible regional housing allocations be negotiated between the COG's and the State based on acceptable performance objectives, considering regional population forecasts and resource constraints. 2. Appeal Process - Support legislation authorizing the Council of Governments (COG) to appeal both the housing allocation methodology and Droposed allocations to the Secretary of Business Transportation. and Housing (BT&H). 3. Single Document - Support legislation directing that the Housing and Community Development (HCD) guidelines be revised to permit one document, to the extent possible, to serve as both the housing element and a federal housing plan. 4. Self-Certification -Support legislation allowing a local agency to self-certify its compliance with the Regional Housing Needs allocation based on regionally developed performance objectives. 5. Appeal Process - Support legislation placing limitations on the scope of appeals of local agency self-certifications, and to have such appeals reviewed by the COG's instead of HCD. 6. Affordable Housing - Support legislation that would end the current practice of withholding funds needed to provide affordable housing in jurisdictions not meeting their Regional Housing . Needs.goals. 7. Housing Shifts - Support legislation allowing individual cities and the county government in a single county to negotiate shifts of housing needs between each other based upon reasonable criteria. 8. Housing Rehabilitation - Support legislation allowing local jurisdictions to receive credit in low and moderate income housing production by rehabilitating low and moderate income existing units. I.E. Transportation & Welfare Reform - Support reforms of State welfare programs that address the needs of recipients for transportation to employment and/or educational sites, based on the following policies: (Note:policies 5, 6& 7 were recommended by the County Welfare Reform Tasldorce and unanimously supported by CTAC for inclusion in the .) Ae program SAN LUIS OBS :,SD COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS DRAFT 1998 STAT::: u FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM January, 1998 - FEDE,�-IL OBJECTIVES & POLICIES (Newly add&•_`` objectives and polices are underlined) A. Overall Funding Sources & Prc-trams - Protect and increase funding levels, increase flexibility for use of all sources to meet the ?eeds of the region. 1. Funding Reductions - Oppose reductions of Federal funding for transit system improvements, and support equal protection of transit funds with highway funds by.creating a Transit Trust Fund similar to ':'-�_ Highway trust Fund. 2. Unfunded Mandates - Sup ,D t provisions restricting or eliminating federal sanctions, and fully fund mandates impose.-. by Congress (particularly in regard to the provision of transit services required by the Americans with Disabilities Act) or by the Executive Branch through administrative regulation. Mandates should be required to demonstrate cost-effectiveness and should be fully funded by Congress. 3. Amtrak Funding - Support a orts by Amtrak West to secure allocation of adequate funding (Est. $105 M.) from the $2.3 Billion provided in the Amtrak Reauthorization Act of 1997 to replace the ten sets of rail equipment used by the San Diegan passenger service, and construct other imorovements to the physical rail plant on the San Diegan Corridor (Est. $75 4. Passenger Rail Service - Support legislation to improve the speed and frequency of passenger rail service to the Central Coast, including capital improvements-necessary to increase on-time per(ormanc.-, reduce travel times, maintain service on the San Diegan to San Luis Obispo corridor, an= to provide expanded Amtrak service to and through the region, and to the San Francisco Bay Area. 5. Telecommuting - Suppor Federal activities that promote and/or fund electronic communications and telecommuting as a transportation alternative. 6. Census 2000 - Support co,ainuation of the long form of the census in the collection of detailed household travel anc demographic data in the 2000 census. 7. Clean Air Act- Oppose proposed changes to the Clean Air Act that would require attainment areas, including San Luis O`:spo County, to conduct conformity analysis currently required only in non-attainment areas. B. ISTEA Reauthorization - Suppo t provisions in the upcoming reauthorization of.the Intennodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 9999 (ISTEA) that streamline, reduce or eliminate unnecessary, duplicative or ine ,active administrative procedures and requirements and are consistent with the principles ado,)-ed by SLOCOG, the State of California, California Association of Councils of Governments (UALCOG), County Supervisors Association{CSAC), and the League of California Cities, as fo"osys: 1. Funding Dedication & EqU ?y - Reauthorization should ensure that all federally imposed transportation excise taxes 2 - fees are devoted exclusively to transportation purposes, that the transportation trust funs- n.ra,=oved fm rn the-unifier' Forloral budget that available balances in the trust funds �espent down, and that the provision that federally imposed transportation excise taxes a--i user fees will be equitably distributed and assuring that donor states receive minimum alloy-.ions of no less than 95%. D-1-6 1. Transportation Costs-Wherever possible, purchased service for welfare recipients should be. at the total cost, whether it is an eligible expense for the welfare recipient (to buy tokens,• passes, pay for carpooling expenses, etc.) or for the county welfare department to buy service from the transit operator. 2. Local Flexibility - Welfare directors and transit operators should collectively determine and implement what transportation programs and policies they see as necessary. 3. Planning Structure - The existing transit planning structure should be used to the maximum extent possible-ie. the Consolidated Transportation Services Agency(CTSA), Regional Transit Advisory Committee (RTAC) etc. - to promote and in insure coordination between transit services. 4. Unenforceable or Unfunded Mandates - To the maximum degree possible, oppose establishment of mandates related to transportation services that are not funded or cannot be enforced. 5. Barriers to Mobility - Support legislation removing barriers to mobility for welfare recipients seeking gobs fie. through the integrated use of school buses. and Headstart buses), and restrictions on school-childcare transport to the extent possible without endangering the lives of children. 6. Welfare to Work Transitions - Support legislation providing incentives for development of services that augment welfare to work transitions, such as insurance pools for childcare providers entrepreneurial financing work-at-home options state contractor trainee programs workman's comp coverage for intems after-school daycare, and low cost auto repair using facilities located in high schools, community colleges and state training or corrections facilities. 7. Funding for Fixed Route Transit Services -Support legislation providing more funding for the operation of existing fixed route transit services during off-peak periods and to serve rural areas to assist in meeting the goals of welfare reform. 2. Funding Flexibility - Rea,_ithorization should preserve the basic architecture of the current program categories and refrain from creating any new funding pots, categories or take-downs• for specific transportation modes or purposes. Transferability and flexibility should be expanded . 3. CMAQ Funding - Reauthorization should consolidate the Congestion Management Air Quality (CMAQ) program with the Surface Transportation Program (STP), or make CMAQ funding available for all counties on the margin of maintaining "attainment" status. 4. Federal Regulatory Oversight - Reauthorization should support provisions curtailing the rulemaking authority of the US DOT and US EPA, reconcile the conformity requirements of the Clean air Act of 1990 with the limited effect transportation projects and programs on air quality, eliminate federal/state duplication between NEPA and CEQA, limit review of state and local activities, and (to the maximum extent possible) provide for the certification and delegation of current federal authority to the State, MPO's, cities, counties,and other local agencies 5. Innovative Funding - P'�authorization should authorize and encourage state and local jurisdictions to apply innovative solutions, including privatization, public-private partnerships, Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS), and joint development projects to address significant traffic congestion problems. 6. Federal, State & Local Relationships - Reauthorization should reduce the federal role in transportation policy, strengthen state/local decision making, limit federal involvement to strategic planning, safety, and applied research and development. 7. High Speed Rail - Reauthorization should continue funding for high speed rail, and allow the use of such funding for incremental upgrades of corridors with conventional rail to allow speeds of 110 MPH. Staff Report Prepared by Mike Harmon agenda/febldraft 1998 legislative program D-1-7 Y. MEETING AGENDA DATE 3 9 ITEM # February 3, 1998 MEMORANDUM TO: Council Colleagues FROM: Council Member Dodie Williams SUBJECT: Traffic and Signal Concerns The following areas are of concern, not only to me , but to residents in these areas: 1) On Madonna Road traveling south there are three traffic lanes until the turnoff at Laguna Lake Park. After that intersection, it merges into two lanes. We have had numerous accidents and "near misses" because of that merge lane. I believe that at Laguna Lake Park, the right hand lane should be a"right tum only" into the park. 2) Several residents on Oceannaire have contacted me regarding the need for stop signs due to the number of drivers who use Oceannaire as a through-way instead of going around on Madonna Road. I believe we should install stop signs at Balboa and Lakeview. These streets are used by students at C.L. Smith School and the stop signs would create a much safer environment in addition to slowing the through traffic. Council has received a letter from Leslie Halls emphasizing the need for the stop signs. 3) At South Higuera and Los Osos Valley Road numerous Los Verdes homeowners have complained that there is no time when they can make a safe exit from the Los Verdes developments. They have requested that there be no "right turn on red" sign posted at that intersection. I request that staff look into all three of these traffic areas and return to Council with recommendations and/or solutions within 45 days. DW:ss c: City Council FD-CCIERK�'/�4ORIG :UTnIL ]DIR 13 Y POLI IR DIR DATE MEETING a 3 g AGENDA � _ITEM # San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce 1039 Chorro Street • San Luis Obispo. California 93,401-3278 (805) 781-2777 • FAX (805) 543-1255 e-rnail: slochamber@slochamber.org David E. Garth. President/CEO February 3, 1998 Mayor Allen Settle City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Re: Multi-Modal Transit Transfer Center Dear Mayor Settle: The San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce is a long time supporter of alternative transportation. In 1997 the Chamber expended a great deal of time and energy grappling with parking problems in downtown San Luis Obispo. In grappling with these issues, we learned that alternative transportation is a key component to a successful parking program in a downtown and a strong local economy. We support the "user friendly" centralized transit transfer center such as the one before you tonight. We do however, suggest, that while finalizing the design plans for this transit center, you continue to seek mitigation measures for the parking spaces which will be lost upon its construction. Thank you for your consideration of our concerns. ❑CDD n'9 FG ❑F}Fc C:Sincerely, RNEY ❑?W DIR RKIORIG ❑POLICE CHFj TEA61 ❑REC DIR *4011111 ❑pUT�ILpDIRe❑�DIR TEN YEARS Shelly Stanwyck Director of Governmental Affairs R E C;-7-.I V E D FEB 0 3 1997 ACCREDITED A C C R E COMMERCE c• SLO G' `::OUNCIL FES-03-95 04 :56 PM JH. MRRX. 305 541 2239 P. 01 MEETING AGENDA DATE g,— w..AdEE71 :>' AG14DA 1228 A Palm Street, P. O. Box 1145 DATE ITEM # Z s San Luis Obispo, CA 93406- 1145 Phone/ Fax (805) 545 -5919 January 30, 1998 �OUNCIL ❑O in Switzerland and Poland ,CAO ❑FIN D11 ^- Cit Council members AO 13 FIRE City V�TTORNEY lift DIR City of San Luis Obispo Ia"cLERKIORIG ❑POLICE CHF 990 Palm Street MGMT�EA61 [3 REC❑UTIL DIIR San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 L C'Al3l�5►tf ❑PERS DIR H• .9flCo Re: Tuesday Feb. 3 City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 2 - Multi Modal Transportation Center Dear Council members: I would like to comment on the above matter as follows: 1. I'm happy to learn that plans for moving the pulse of our bus system out of downtown, as well as plans for a traffic light at the intersection of Upham and Santa Barbara Street, were abandoned. 2. As a taxpayer, I feel a little bit sad that it took us nearly two years and numerous consultants reports worth tens of thousands of dollars just to teach us some basic truths about pulsating bus systems which have been widely known in the profession for over twenty years. It should also be pointed out that we do not even have a long term transit plan which could considerably hamper our ability to convince the California Transportation Commission of our serious desire to enhance public transportation. 3. Given the strong demand on public transportation (students, working people, seniors, welfare-to-work recipients, etc.) I see a certain consensus, that an ideal downtown bus terminal should: a. contain approximately 16 spaces for buses (including Amtrak and Greyhound) and paratransit as well as restaurants, etc.; b. be on flat terrain (handicapped people) and without interference by private cars except for access traffic; (see examples in Santa Cruz, Santa Barbara, Oxnard, etc.) 4. Such a terminal necessitates a surface of more than one acre (better, five to six thousand square meters) which cannot easily be found off-street in or near downtown.. 5. Therefore, we need to include existing street surface, re-route private traffic, and create bus/pedestrian zones as done in many other towns. I pointed this out to you in a letter with sketches on June 3, 1996. Unfortunately, such ideas were not even raised in the stakeholders group meetings. R90EIVED JAN 3 0 1998 9l O CiTY CLERK '/ SLO City Council, January 30, 1998 page 2 Just as food for thought, I add another sketch (appendix 1)for an "instant" bus terminal on Santa Rosa Street. If possible, the bus terminal could be expanded into the Shell Station and a parking garage could be built over it. The first question for the Council, therefore, is not whether we want one of the minimalist alternatives b,c or d, but whether the Council allows some broader thinking about bus/pedestrian zones which exclude or strongly reduce private traffic in these areas. If this is the case, there are several options. Some of them, for example Appendix 2, are less stringent than Appendix 1. 6. It may be of interest to you that Cal Poly students in a Public Transportation class will present some sketches of downtown multi-modal transportation centers on Thursday, March 5 at 3:30 in the City/County library. You are all invited to attend. 7. If the Council wants to go ahead along the lines of alternative b, c and d, there should be an open competition among local civil engineers to design the facility. It is hard to understand why we need to fly consultants in from San Francisco to tell us the turning radius of a bus. The argument that we are under time pressure is not convincing given the fact that we were told two years ago that we would lose Prop. 116 money if we didn't come up with a project in a year's time. 8. Most of all, however, we must have an open democratic discussion with public workshops about the future of downtown transportation. Workshops allow the opportunity for community input in a non-confrontational way, which is currently promoted in Arroyo Grande (Appendix 3). 1 am worried that the EIR for the Downtown Parking and Access Study (which is now being started more or less behind closed doors) will be the object of an even bigger controversy than the extremely biased EIR for the Marsh Street Parking Garage. This EIR could tum out to be a considerable waste of public monies, given the fact that we do not even know how future traffic will function in downtown. I would like to thank you for inviting me to participate in the stakeholders group and I hope you can consider the above points. Sincerely, 4��J�-• Eugene H. Jud Jud Consultants enclosures ■e■■■■e■■■■■■■■■■ ■■■� ■■I ,ids ■ s■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ , ; ter_ Arm ■�■■■s■■■■■■■■■s■■■■�■■■■■■■■■■gee■ ■ ■ ,■■s m "■■■�■e■■■■tee■■�■■■■ ■■r0■ ■: : �n■■ ■■■■■orR. ■�■■ ■� ■■■■■ ■■■ .e■ ■■■ ®■■■ ai Nei!/ ■■■■NEEM ■■ -�1 ■■ ,4 � 3■■Sr. alp■■■s■■■■■s mi ■MEI■EM■■■■ v■ ■ �ii�i■■■■ ■■■RAI ■■■■■e■■ ■■s■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ !32zrm i'1■■C���J■■�.•�� IIS■iiirii■� I! '!■Nil■■■■■ !■■e■�■■■■■e■e � i■iese■!ee■■■®!i■!!e 1■ei:��■!`�iii�ir�i�■� `�e®■■■■■e■■Nee! �0 s■■■■■s■■■tea■■■■■�■��■■■■■s■s■■■■■■ e■�i■e!■■�e■e��■S®®■e:eee!■fie®eee ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ ..■...■� ■■■■.■■■..■■ ■■■.. •�■■■ ■■■■■■■■.■■■■■.■ .. , ... ■.■■■■....■■■■. . T SS :ENO 1 FMEN WMAA I■■ ■■.■e■.■■....■■.■ ..■....■■■.►�a■No MEEs Is mr ■■■.■■..■�, �■ ,�■■■s��■■ �►,�■■■�ro■e■, ■ tea■■y:,'s� .7 ►� VAT- Now ,Ge�lr�e�a�e1�.■■.■■■� ..■.■■■.■■■..■■■■■■■OEM■..■■■■■mumm .■■..■.■..■.■■■■■■■■■■■■■iso, MEMO ■■■■■■ Qrs■ ■.■�...■. n■�_..�v=Si■ ..■ ■■.■.. ME NONE Irl.■■■■■■■ ..■.■■.■■.■ ...■.■■ [�� ■■■■ ■miE`��3OEM■■ ..■■.■...■■ 1■■.■.■.E■®. � � nl .■r...■ ■■.■■■■■■■■ .■■■..■r�i■Ei �.l�■....■■ ...■■■....■ .■.■.■N�r9l�l ��,■■■.■■.■ ■■■■...■.■■ ISVA 1,� �G���! ■ i ■.■■■■■■ P4 in mie PAP ..■■■■■■■w■ ■■.■ 9.1■ieIN IGI ■■■e.. ..■■..■■■t�. ■..!�■■iii. ll�l ■■■■■■■ .■■■.■.■■ . ■ ee. ��■■■... ■■N...■ .■......��. C.■.moi■.....�It■It■■■■..■■ ■■■■■■■■■■Mii■■■■■■■■■■OYC'tNil■■■Ill.■■■ ■.■■■.■■■■■.■■■■.■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■mom ME ME ■.■■■■..■.■.■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■O■■■■■ ■.■■■■........■.■■■■■■■■■■.■s°mom ■■ ..■.■■.s.■■■..e....■�■■..■■■.■■■s.. e.■■■■■■s■.■..■s■■■■..■■■■■■■■....■ .■.■.■■■.■..■■.■.■■.�..■..■s■■■....■ ■■■■■■■■.■.■.■..■■■ ■■.■.■■■■■■■■.■ ■■■■■■.e.■■...■..■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■. ■■■®■■■.■■■■■■■■■■■■■OMEN■OMEN■mom ■ ■■■■■■■■■■.■e.■■.■■■■.■■■■■■■■■.■■ .■..■■■■.■■e..■■.■■■■.■.■.MEN.■■■■ ■■■.■■■.■.■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ ■■°■■■■■■■■■■■■■s■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■® O� PRROYpC 3 '"`°p"°""'E°'Z The City of Arroyo Grande Invites You to o _ V ^f � NlT f0. IBf 1 + C4C/FOft Help Shape the Future . of Arroyo Grande Be a part of the General Plan Update Process Help Develop a Shared Community Vision Join Us at the First Community Visioning Workshop When: Saturday, February 28, 1998 Where: Arroyo Grande High School Gym Time: 10:00 a.m. - 2:00 p-m. Bring: A friend, a neighbor — the whole family! • How do you envision the City of Arroyo Grande in the future? • What type of community will your children inherit? • How should the City address the issue of growth? Y How can the City address traffic concerns? . • What would you like to see done to improve your community? . THIS IS AN OPPORTUNITY TO TELL US WHAT IS IMPORTANT TO YOU AND TO SHARE YOUR IDEAS ABOUT HOW TO MAKE ARROYO GRANDE A BETTER PLACE TO LIVE, WORK, LEARN, AND PLAY. . For more information, please call Helen Elder, AICP, Associate Planner, Community Development Department, rty�royo Grande at(805)473-5420.