HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-06-2018 Agenda Packet (link added)
Tuesday, February 6, 2018
3:30 PM
REGULAR MEETING
Council Hearing Room
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo Page 1
CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Heidi Harmon
ROLL CALL: Council Members Aaron Gomez, Andy Pease, Dan Rivoire, Vice
Mayor Carlyn Christianson and Mayor Heidi Harmon
PUBLIC COMMENT ON CLOSED SESSION ITEMS
CLOSED SESSION
A. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – EXISTING LITIGATION
Paragraph (1) of subdivision (d) of Government Code § 54956.9;
Name of case: Application of Pacific Gas and Electric Company for Approval of the
Retirement of Diablo Canyon Power Plant, Implementation of the Joint Proposal, And
Recovery of Associated Costs Through Proposed Ratemaking Mechanisms (U39E) A:
16-08-006
ADJOURNED TO THE REGULAR MEETING OF FEBRUARY 6, 2018 TO BEGIN AT
4:00 PM IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER
Packet Pg. 1
San Luis Obispo City Council Agenda February 6, 2018 Page 2
4:00 PM
REGULAR MEETING
Council Chamber
990 Palm Street
CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Heidi Harmon
ROLL CALL: Council Members Aaron Gomez, Andy Pease, Dan Rivoire, Vice
Mayor Carlyn Christianson and Mayor Heidi Harmon
PUBLIC COMMENT ON AGENDA ITEMS ONLY
PUBLIC HEARINGS ITEMS AND BUSINESS ITEMS
1. PUBLIC HEARING - REQUEST FROM THE HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO REGARDING ISSUANCE OF A TAX-EXEMPT
LOAN TO DEVELOP 36 AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS AT 3175 VIOLET
STREET (CODRON / VERESCHAGIN – 15 MINUTES)
Recommendation:
1. Conduct a public hearing under the Tax and Equity Fiscal Re sponsibility Act (TEFRA)
of 1982 and pursuant to the requirements of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986; and
2. Adopt a Resolution entitled, “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo, California, approving the incurring of a tax exempt obligation by the Housing
Authority of the City of San Luis Obispo for the purpose of providing financing for the
construction of Courtyard at the Meadows,” to develop 36 affordable housing units at
3175 Violet Street.
2. PUBLIC HEARING - ORDINANCE INTRODUCTION - REGULATING THE USE
OF CITY FUNDS FOR SPECIFIED PLASTIC BOTTLED BEVERAGES, IN
COMPLIANCE WITH RECENTLY ADOPTED ORDINANCE NUMBER 1641 (2017
SERIES) (BRADFORD / ERIKSSON – 15 MINUTES)
Recommendation:
Introduce an Ordinance entitled “An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo, California, adding section 3.24.075(f) to the Municipal Code in compliance with
recently adopted chapter 8.07 regulating single-use plastic beverage bottles.”
Packet Pg. 2
San Luis Obispo City Council Agenda February 6, 2018 Page 3
STUDY SESSION ITEMS
3. WATER AND WASTEWATER RATE SETTING METHODOLOGY (MATTINGLY /
HIX / FLOYD / METZ – 60 MINUTES)
Recommendation:
Participate in a study session on water and wastewater rate setting methodology with HDR
Engineering, Inc.
ADJOURNED TO THE REGULAR MEETING OF FEBRUARY 6, 2018 TO BEGIN AT
6:00 PM IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER
Packet Pg. 3
San Luis Obispo City Council Agenda February 6, 2018 Page 4
6:00 PM
REGULAR MEETING
Council Chamber
990 Palm Street
CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Heidi Harmon
ROLL CALL: Council Members Aaron Gomez, Andy Pease, Dan Rivoire, Vice
Mayor Carlyn Christianson and Mayor Heidi Harmon
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Vice Mayor Carlyn Christianson
CITY ATTORNEY REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD FOR ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA (not to exceed 15
minutes total)
The Council welcomes your input. You may address the Council by c ompleting a speaker slip
and giving it to the City Clerk prior to the meeting. At this time, you may address the Council
on items that are not on the agenda. Time limit is three minutes. State law does not allow the
Council to discuss or take action on issues not on the agenda, except that members of the
Council or staff may briefly respond to statements made or questions posed by persons
exercising their public testimony rights (gov. Code sec. 54954.2). Staff may be asked to
follow up on such items
CONSENT AGENDA
Matters appearing on the Consent Calendar are expected to be non-controversial and will be
acted upon at one time. A member of the public may request the Council to pull an item for
discussion. Pulled items shall be heard at the close of the Consent Agenda unless a majority of
the Council chooses another time. The public may comment on any and all items on the
Consent Agenda within the three minute time limit.
4. WAIVE READING IN FULL OF ALL RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES
(GALLAGHER)
Recommendation:
Waive reading of all resolutions and ordinances as appropriate.
Packet Pg. 4
San Luis Obispo City Council Agenda February 6, 2018 Page 5
5. MINUTES OF JANUARY 9, 2018 (GALLAGHER)
Recommendation:
Approve the Minutes of the City Council meeting of January 9, 2018.
6. AFFORDABLE HOUSING FUND ALLOCATION FOR COURTYARD AT THE
MEADOWS ($630,000) (CODRON / VERESCHAGIN)
Recommendation:
Adopt a Resolution entitled, “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo, California, approving affordable housing fund award to the Housing Authority of
San Luis Obispo and San Luis Obispo Nonprofit Housing Corporation for Courtyard at the
Meadows in the amount of $630,000,” to assist with construction costs for a 36-unit
affordable housing project at 3175 Violet Street.
7. MODIFICATIONS TO PROJECT MITIGATION MEASURES AND CONDITIONS
OF APPROVAL ASSOCIATED WITH FINAL MAP #3063-PHASE 1 (RIGHETTI
RANCH – ORCUTT AREA SPECIFIC PLAN [OASP]) TO ALLOW
INFRASTRUCTURE, BUILDING PERMIT ISSUANCE AND OCCUPANCY
PERMIT PHASING, INCLUDING CONSIDERATION OF CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) FINDINGS AND CONSISTENCY
DETERMINATIONS REGARDING THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION (2015) AND OASP FINAL EIR (2010) (MOD #1220-
2017; 3987 ORCUTT ROAD) (CODRON / SCOTT)
Recommendation:
As recommended by the Planning Commission, adopt a Resolution entitled, “A Resolution
of the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, approving amendments to
mitigation measures and conditions of approval for an approved subdivision (mod -1220-
2017; tract #3063 a.k.a. “Righetti Ranch”; 3987 Orcutt Road).”
8. AMENDMENTS TO THE BICYCLE ADVISORY COMMITTEE BYLAWS AND
ADOPTING A REVISED ADVISORY BODY HANDBOOK (GRIGBY / HUDSON
/FUKUSHIMA)
Recommendation:
As recommended by the Bicycle Advisory Committee, adopt a Resolution entitled, “A
Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, amending the
Bylaws of the Bicycle Advisory Committee to include pedestrian transportation, changing
the committee name to the Active Transportation Committee, and adopting a revised
Advisory Body Handbook.”
Packet Pg. 5
San Luis Obispo City Council Agenda February 6, 2018 Page 6
9. AUTHORIZE FUNDS FROM THE LAW ENFORCEMENT GRANT
FUND/TRAFFIC IMPOUND ACCOUNT TO PURCHASE EQUIPMENT RELATED
TO TRAFFIC SAFETY (CANTRELL / ELLSWORTH)
Recommendation:
Appropriate $13,800 from available fund balance in the Law Enforcement Grant
Fund/Traffic Impound Account to purchase a portable Traffic Collision/Crime Scene
Reconstruction System.
10. MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION GRANT PROGRAM (OLSON
/ BLATTLER)
Recommendation:
1. Authorize Fire Department to participate in a grant application process from the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for funding to develop a multi-jurisdictional
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) through a fund match by the City not to exceed
$7,500; and
2. Authorize City Manager to execute documents necessary to appropriate the grant funds
upon notification that the grant has been awarded.
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS AND BUSINESS ITEMS
11. 2016 TRAFFIC SAFETY REPORT (GRIGSBY / CANTRELL / HUDSON / CRISP - 30
MINUTES)
Recommendation:
Receive the 2016 Traffic Safety Report and approve the recommended traffic safety
measures.
12. PUBLIC HEARING - BROAD STREET BICYCLE BOULEVARD (ANHOLM
BIKEWAY) PLAN (GRIGSBY / HUDSON / SCHWARTZ – 90 MINUTES)
Recommendation:
As recommended by the Bicycle Advisory Committee, adopt a Resolution entitled “A
Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California , adopting the
Anholm bikeway plan (preferred alternative).”
Packet Pg. 6
San Luis Obispo City Council Agenda February 6, 2018 Page 7
COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS
(Not to exceed 15 minutes) Council Members report on conferences or other City activities.
At this time, any Council Member or the City Manager may ask a question for clarification,
make an announcement, or report briefly on his or her activities. In addition, subject to
Co uncil Policies and Procedures, they may provide a reference to staff or other resources for
factual information, request staff to report back to the Council at a subsequent meeting
concerning any matter, or take action to direct staff to place a matter of business on a future
agenda. (Gov. Code Sec. 54954.2).
ADJOURNMENT
The next Regular City Council Meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, February 20, 2018 at 4:00
p.m. and 6:00 p.m., respectively, in the Council Chamber, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, Sa n
Luis Obispo, California.
LISTENING ASSISTIVE DEVICES are available for the hearing impaired--please see City Clerk.
The City of San Luis Obispo wishes to make all of its public meet ings accessible to the
public. Upon request , this agenda will be made available in appropriate alternative formats to
persons with disabilities. Any person with a disability who requires a modification or
accommodation in order to participate in a meeting should direct such request to the City
Clerk’s Office at (805) 781-7100 at least 48 hours before the meeting, if possible.
Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (805) 781-7107.
City Council regular meetings are televised live on Charter Channel 20. Agenda related
writings or documents provided t o the City Council are available for public inspection in the
City Clerk’s Office located at 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California during normal
business hours, and on the City’s website www.slocity.org. Persons with questions concerning
any agenda item may call the City Clerk’s Office at (805) 781 -7100.
Packet Pg. 7
Page intentionally left
blank.
Packet Pg. 8
Meeting Date: 2/6/2018
FROM: Michael Codron, Community Development Director
Prepared By: Cara Vereschagin, Planning Technician
SUBJECT: REQUEST FROM THE HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF SAN
LUIS OBISPO REGARDING ISSUANCE OF A TAX-EXEMPT LOAN TO
DEVELOP 36 AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS AT 3175 VIOLET STREET
RECOMMENDATION
1. Conduct a public hearing under the Tax and Equity Fiscal Responsibility Act (TEFRA) of
1982 and pursuant to the requirements of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 ; and
2. Adopt a resolution allowing the issuance of a tax-exempt loan by the Housing Authority of
the City of San Luis Obispo to develop 36 affordable housing units at 3175 Violet Street.
DISCUSSION
Background
The Housing Authority of the City of San Luis Obispo (the “Authority”) is requesting that the
Council hold a public hearing regarding the issuance of a tax-exempt loan to develop Courtyard
at the Meadows, 36 affordable housing units located at 3175 Violet Street.
Although there is no financial participation (or liability, direct or indirect) by the City in
approving the issuance of this “conduit” financing, Council conduct of a public hearing and
approval of the reissuance is required under federal regulations for tax-exempt financing.
The Housing Authority is committed to providing much needed ad ditional affordable housing in
the City of San Luis Obispo. The primary funding source for this project will be low income
housing tax credits awarded by the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC). These
tax credits are then purchased by invest ors who become a limited partner. California statue does
not allow Housing Authorities to be a party in these partnerships, so the Housing Authority will
hold its interest through its related entity San Luis Obispo Non-profit Housing Corporation
(SLONP). SLONP will serve as the sole Managing General Partner for Courtyard at the
Meadows. The partnerships have a 15-year compliance period over which the tax credits are
earned. After the 15 years, the limited partner has the option to seek a buyer for its int erest. The
project will feature an affordability requirement for a minimum of 55 years.
Project Summary
1. Courtyard at the Meadows will consist of 100% of the units to be rented to households at
60% Area Median Income and below for a minimum of 55 years. T he project consists of
36 units: 9 one bedroom units, 18 two bedroom units, and 9 three bedroom units.
Packet Pg. 9
1
2. Estimated total development costs are projected to be $14.9 million. Of this, it is
anticipated that roughly $10 million in tax exempt bond financing will be utilized to
finance the project development.
3. The issuance of the Bond requires that the Council conduct a public hearing regarding the
financing of the Project under the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982
(“TEFRA”), and pursuant to the requirements of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. The
TEFRA public hearing allows Council to adopt a resolution approving the issuance by
the Authority of the Bonds, in order to build and maintain the housing facilit y.
No City Liability for the Financing
There is no City liability in approving the issuance of conduit financing. The bonds are payable
solely from the payments by the Borrower on a loan made to it (the “Borrower Loan”) by the
Authority from the proceeds of the Bonds. The rental payme nts by tenants in the Project are the
source of revenue used by the Borrower to repay the Borrower Loan. The City has no financial,
legal, or moral obligation, liability or responsibility for the Project or for the repayment of the
Bonds or the repayment o f the Borrower Loan. The documents for the Bonds clearly provide that
the Bonds are payable solely from payments on the Borrower Loan made by the Borrower.
Outside of holding this hearing and adopting the required resolution, no other participation or
activity of the City with respect to the bonds will be required.
City’s Conduit Financing Policy
While the Council is not obligated to approve this request, it would be consistent with past City
actions regarding conduit financing.
Under the City’s debt financing and management policies, consideration of a request for conduit
financing is generally a two -step process:
1. First asking the Council if they are interested in considering the request and establishing
the ground rules for evaluating it.
2. And then returning with the results of this evaluation and recommending approval of
appropriate financing documents if warranted.
City’s Past Experience with Conduit Housing Bonds
The City has approved eleven “conduit” housing bond issues in the past as reflected in the
following summary. There have been no financial difficulties with any of these bond issues.
1. 1985. 168-unit apartment development on Southwood Drive (refinanced in 1993).
2. 1998. 30-unit development (all affordable for seniors and persons with disabilities) on
Brizzolara Street.
3. 1999. 122-unit apartment development by the De Vaul Ranch Company, of wh ich 26 units
will be affordable: 24 for “very-low” and 2 for “moderate” income households.
Packet Pg. 10
1
4. 2002. 19-unit senior apartment development at 433 Pacific Street (Pacific and Carmel).
5. 2005. 40 affordable one-bedroom units for seniors as well as one manager’s unit in an
existing historic single-family residence at 2005 Johnson Avenue (“Del Rio Terrace”).
6. 2009 and 2011. 8-unit housing project at 1468 East Foothill Boulevard for the University
Board of the Santa Barbara Presbytery.
7. 2012. 120-unit apartment project affordable to low and very-low income households located
at 1550 Madonna Road.
8. 2013. 19-unit apartment project affordable rental apartment facility for seniors located at
433 Pacific (“Carmel Street Apartments”).
9. 2013. 40-unit affordable rental apartment facility for seniors located at 2005 Johnson
Avenue (“Del Rio Terrace”).
10. 2015. Rehabilitation of 55 affordable rental units located at 1092 Orcutt Road, 1102
Ironbark, and 1363 Pismo Street.
11. 2016. 46-unit affordable apartment development at 3680 Broad Street (“Iron Works”).
Next Steps
After the TEFRA public hearing and adoption of the Resolution of the Council approving the
is suance of the Bonds, the Authority will apply for low income housing tax credits and tax
exempt bonds in March of 2018. There will be no further actions required by the City.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The project is exempt from environmental review per Sectio n 15061 (b)(3) General Rule of the
CEQA Guidelines. The project is an action to award funding. Courtyard at the Meadows was
determined to be consistent with the Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact of
the Margarita Area Specific Plan by the City Council on April 15, 2014.
FISCAL IMPACT
There are no fiscal impacts to the City associated with this matter. As noted above, the City has
no liability, directly or indirectly, for the financing.
Packet Pg. 11
1
ALTERNATIVES
1. Do not approve the issuance of bo nds by the Housing Authority. The project has already
received all necessary entitlements, as well as multiple City loan commitments. Due to
the lack of liability for repayment of Bonds by the City, this option is not recommended.
2. Defer consideration of the request. Due to the critical need for tax exempt bond
financing in order to construct the apartments, this option is not recommended.
Attachments:
a - TEFRA Resolution_Courtyard
Packet Pg. 12
1
R _______
RESOLUTION NO. ______ (2018 SERIES)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS
OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE INCURRING OF A TAX
EXEMPT OBLIGATION BY THE HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY
OF SAN LUIS OBISPO FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROVIDING
FINANCING FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF COURTYARD AT THE
MEADOWS.
WHEREAS, the Housing Authority of the City of San Luis Obispo (the "Authority") is
authorized by Chapter 1 of Part 2 of Division 24 of the Health and Safety Code of the State of
California, as amended (the "Act"), to incur indebtedness and to make loans for housing purposes
specified in the Act; and
WHEREAS, the Authority has expressed an interest in establishing a California limited
partnership (the “Borrower”) and in assist ing the Borrower in constructing the Courtyard at the
Meadows affordable rental project at 3175 Violet Street (referred to in this Resolution as the
“Housing Facility”); and
WHEREAS, such assistance will involve the issuance by the Authority of debt obligations
(which may be in the form of a loan evidenced by a note or tax-exempt revenue bonds, and referred
to in this Resolution as the “Bonds”) in the amount not to exceed $10,000,000, and a loan of the
proceeds of the Bonds to the Borrower; and
WHEREAS, all housing units in the Housing Facilit y will be rented to persons and
families of low or very low income as required by the Act and the Internal Revenue Code of 1986,
as amended (the "Code"); and
WHEREAS, the Bonds will be considered to be a "qualified exempt facility bonds" under
Section 142(a) of the Code; and
WHEREAS, Section 147(f) of the Code requires that the "applicable elected
representative" with respect to the Authority approve the issuance by the Authority of the Bonds
following the holding of a public hearing with respect thereto; and
WHEREAS, the Authority has determined that the City Council is the "applicable elected
representative" to approve the issuance by the Authority of the Bonds because the Housing Facilit y
is located within the City; and
WHEREAS, notice of a public hearing by the Council regarding the financing of the
Housing Facility has been duly given as required by the Code; and
Packet Pg. 13
1
Resolution No. ______ (2018 Series) Page 2
R ______
WHEREAS, the Council has held the public hearing at which all interested persons were
given an opportunity to be heard on all matters relative to the location, operation and financing of
the Housing Facilit y, including the Authority's issuance of the Bonds and subsequent lending of
the proceeds thereof to the Borrower to pay costs of the construction by the Borrower of the
Housing Facilit y; and
WHEREAS, the City will not be a party to any of the agreements or other documents
related to the Bonds and the financing of the Housing Facilit y, the City will have no liability or
responsibility relat ed to the repayment or administration of the Bo nds, and the issuance of the
Bonds and the financing of the Housing Facilit y will not impose any legal, financial or moral
obligation on the City; and
WHEREAS, it is in the public interest, for the public benefit and in furtherance of the
public purpose of the City that the Council approve the issuance by the Authority of the Bonds for
the aforesaid purposes.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo does declare, determine and order as follows:
SECTION 1. The Council of the City of San Luis Obispo hereby approves the issuance
by the Authority of the Bonds for purposes of the Code.
SECTION 2. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption.
Upon motion of Council Member _______________ seconded by Council Member
_______________ and on the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
The foregoing Resolution was adopted this ______ day of ____________ 2018.
Mayor Heidi Harmon
ATTEST:
Carrie Gallagher
City Clerk
Packet Pg. 14
1
Resolution No. ______ (2018 Series) Page 3
R ______
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Christine Dietrick
City Attorney
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City
of San Luis Obispo, California, this ______ day of ______________, _________.
______________________________
Carrie Gallagher
City Clerk
Packet Pg. 15
1
Page intentionally left
blank.
Packet Pg. 16
1
Meeting Date: 2/6/2018
FROM: Xenia Bradford, Finance Director
Prepared By: Kristin Eriksson, Purchasing Analyst
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF AN ORDINANCE REGULATING THE USE OF
CITY FUNDS FOR SPECIFIED PLASTIC BOTTLED BEVERAGES, IN
COMPLIANCE WITH RECENTLY ADOPTED ORDINANCE NUMBER
1641 (2017 SERIES).
RECOMMENDATION
Introduce an Ordinance (Attachment A) to amend Chapter 3.24 of the Municipal Code to
prohibit the use of City funds to purchase single -use plastic bottled beverages of less than 21
ounces, as provided in Chapter 8.07 of the Municipal Code.
BACKGROUND
On November 7, 2017, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 1641 (2917 Series), which
added Chapter 8.07 to the Municipal Code, establishing, in part, regulations to restrict the
sale/distribution of plastic beverage bottles on City property. Section 8.07.040(A) of that
Chapter requires that, “City funds shall not be used to purchase bottled beverages except as
exempted or allowed under this ordinance. The City’s purchasing policies shall be amended for
consistency w ith this chapter.”
DISCUSSION
In light of Section 8.07.040(A)’s mandate to amend purchasing policies consistent with
Ordinance 1641, it is recommended that a new Subsection be added to Municipal Code Section
3.24.075 (Environmentally Preferred Purchase s) to expressly prohibit the use of City funds to
purchase single-use bottled beverages of less than 21 ounces. This will provide for consistency
between the City’s Environmental Purchasing Policy and the requirements set forth in Ordinance
Number 1641.
Proposed Ordinance
The proposed Ordinance is provided as Attachment A to this report.
CONCURRENCES
Administration staff participated in the development and review of the draft ordinance.
Packet Pg. 17
2
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The proposed ordinance is exempt from the environmental review requirements of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of Title 14 of the California
Code of Regulations because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the
activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment. Further, the proposed
Ordinance is exempt from CEQA on the separate and independent ground that it is an action of a
regulatory agency (the City) for the protection of the environment because, amo ng other things,
it will reduce the amount of single use plastic bottles that enter the local landfill or end up as
litter. Thus, this Ordinance is categorically exempt from the requirements of CEQA under
Section 15308 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations as an action by a regulatory
agency for the protection of the environment.
FISCAL IMPACT
At this time, the impacts of implementing and enforcing the additional elements of the Ordinance
can be incorporated into existing resources.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Amend the proposed ordinance. The City Council may modify the proposed
amendments to the Municipal Code. Specific direction should be given to staff regarding
any modifications.
2. Continue the proposed ordinance. The City Council may continue actio n, if more
information in needed. Direction should be given to staff regarding additional
information needed to make a decision. This is not recommended, as the related
ordinance (Ordinance 1641) will be effective on March 1, 2018.
3. Reject the proposed ordinance. The City Council may reject the proposed ordinance
although this amendment . This is not recommended, as the related and already-adopted
ordinance (Ordinance 1641) requires the change to the City’s purchasing policy.
Attachments:
a - Draft Ordinance_1st Hearing
b - Ordinance Number 1641 (2017 Series)
c - 11-07-2017 Agenda Action Update
Packet Pg. 18
2
O ______
ORDINANCE NO. _____ (2018 SERIES)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS
OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, ADDING SECTION 3.24.075(F) TO THE
MUNICIPAL CODE IN COMPLIANCE WITH RECENTLY ADOPTED
CHAPTER 8.07 REGULATING SINGLE-USE PLASTIC BEVERAGE
BOTTLES
WHEREAS, the City of San Luis Obispo (“City”) has the police power to protect the
health, safety and welfare of the community, including the ability to protect and enhance the
natural environment ; and
WHEREAS, regulating the use of plastic beverage bottles will help to minimize waste
associated with plastic bottle usage and help to maximize the operating life of landfills; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a study session
in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on January 3,
2017, and directed staff to develop regulations to restrict the sale/distribution of plastic beverage
bottles on City property and increase the availability of water bottle filling stations in the City; and
WHEREAS, on November 7, 2017, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo
adopted Ordinance Number 1641 (2017 Series) to add Chapter 8.07 of the Municipal Code,
establishing, in part, regulations to restrict the sale/distribution of plastic beverage bottles on City
property; and
WHEREAS, Ordinance Number 1641 (2017 Series) mandates the City to amend its
purchasing policies to be consistent with the City’s regulations on single use plastic bottles.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo
as follows:
SECTION 1. Recitals. The above recitals are true and correct and incorporated herein by
this reference as the findings of the City Council.
SECTION 2. Action. Section 3.24.075 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code is hereby
amended to read as follows:
3.24.75 Environmentally Preferred Purchases.
A. It is the intent of the city Council that the City of San Luis Obispo take a leadership role not
only in recycling its waste products but also in the purchase of recycled products for use in the
delivery of city services. It is the purpose of this section to provide direction to the city
administrative officer in the procurement and use of recycled products. For the purpose of this
section, recycled materials are defined as any materials (e.g., glass, paper, plastic, etc.) that are
separated by type, reprocessed by industrial methods, and used as raw materials for the
manufacture of new products.
Packet Pg. 19
2
Ordinance No. _____ (2018 Series) Page 2
O ______
B. It is the policy of the City of San Luis Obispo to purchase and use recycled products whenever
possible to the extent that such use does not negatively impact health, safety, or operational
efficiency.
C. It is the policy of the City of San Luis Obispo to encourage the purchase of products which
can be recycled or reused.
D. The City will purchase and use recycled paper for masthead stationery, envelopes and printing
purposes. In addition, recycled paper shall be purchased and used in all copy machines which
will accept it. City staff will encourage the copier industry to develop high- speed copiers which
will accept recycled paper.
E. City departments shall examine their purchasing specifications and, where feasible, purchase
equipment, supplies, and services that result in less harm to the natural environment. This
involves the purchase of equipment, supplies, and services in a manner that uses less harmful
materials, employs recycled or recovered materials (where appropriate and available), and utilizes
techniques intended to result in less impact on the environment than other available methods.
F. It is the policy of the City of San Luis Obispo that City funds shall not be used to purchase
single-use plastic bottled beverages of less than 21 ounces, as provided in Chapter 8.07 of this
Code.
FG A ten percent preference, not to exceed one thousand dollars per contract, may be given to
recycled products. The fitness and quality of the
recycled product must be at least equal to unrecycled products as determined by the city. The
preference percentage shall be based on the lowest bid or price quoted by the supplier or suppliers
offering nonrecycled products.
GH Price preferences may be offered in excess of the ten percent ceiling established in this
section, if it can be shown that purchase of a recycled product or material will result in greater
long-term savings to the city. Award of a bid in excess of the ceiling, however, requires the
approval of the city administrative officer or city Council as established in the city’s purchasing
manual.
SECTION 3. A summary of this ordinance, together with the names of Council members
voting for and against, shall be published at least five (5) days prior to its final passage, in The
Tribune, a newspaper published and circulated in this City. This ordinance shall go into effect at
the expiration of thirty (30) days after its final passage. A copy of the full text of this Ordinance
shall be on file in the Office of the City Clerk on and after the date following introduction and
passage to print and shall be available to any member of the public.
INTRODUCED on the ____ day of ____, 2018, AND FINALLY ADOPTED by the
Council of the City of San Luis Obispo on the ____ day of ____, 201 8, on the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Packet Pg. 20
2
Ordinance No. _____ (2018 Series) Page 3
O ______
____________________________________
Mayor Heidi Harmon
ATTEST:
____________________________________
Carrie Gallagher
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_____________________________________
J. Christine Dietrick
City Attorney
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City
of San Luis Obispo , California, this ______ day of ______________, _________.
______________________________
Carrie Gallagher
City Clerk
Packet Pg. 21
2
Packet Pg. 22
2
Packet Pg. 23
2
Packet Pg. 24
2
Packet Pg. 25
2
Packet Pg. 26
2
Packet Pg. 27
2
Action Update
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO CITY COUNCIL
Tuesday, November 7, 2017
Regular Meeting of the San Luis Obispo City Council
ROLL CALL
Present: Council Members Carlyn Christianson, Aaron Gomez, Andy Pease, Vice Mayor Dan
Rivoire, and Mayor Heidi Harmon
Absent: None.
Staff: Derek Johnson, City Manager; Christine Dietrick, City Attorney; Greg Hermann, Acting
Assistant City Manager; and Carrie Gallagher, City Clerk
AGENDA ITEMS ACTION
APPOINTMENTS
1. APPOINTMENTS TO VARIOUS CITY ADVISORY BODIES APPROVED
(5-0)
CONSENT CALENDAR
2. WAIVE READING IN FULL OF ALL RESOLUTIONS AND
ORDINANCES
APPROVED
(5-0)
3. CONSIDERATION OF THE HUMAN RELATION
COMMISSION’S RECOMMENDED PRIORITIES FOR THE
2018 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT
(CDBG) AND GRANTS-IN-AID (GIA) PROGRAMS
APPROVED
(5-0)
4. STRATEGY TO UPDATE THE PARKS AND RECREATION
GENERAL PLAN ELEMENT AND MASTER PLAN, AND
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR CONSULTANT
SERVICES
APPROVED
(5-0)
5. FY 2017-18 APPLICATION FOR DEPARTMENT OF
ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL AND THE OFFICE
OF TRAFFIC SAFETY LOCAL ENFORCEMENT GRANT
APPROVED
(5-0)
6. VEHICLE & EQUIPMENT SURPLUS DESIGNATION AND
AUTHORIZATION OF SALE
APPROVED
(5-0)
7. ORDINANCE ADOPTION - BEVERAGE STRAWS UPON
REQUEST
ORDINANCE 1640 (2017 SERIES)
ADOPTED
(5-0)
Packet Pg. 28
2
Action Update – City of San Luis Obispo City Council Meeting of November 7, 2017 Page 2
8. ORDINANCE ADOPTION - REGULATING THE SALE
AND DISTRIBUTION OF SINGLE-USE PLASTIC
BOTTLES AND ESTABLISHING REGULATIONS TO
INCREASE AVAILABILITY OF WATER BOTTLE
FILLING STATIONS
ORDINANCE 1641 (2017 SERIES)
ADOPTED
(5-0)
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS AND BUSINESS ITEMS
9. PUBLIC HEARING - ANNUAL PUBLIC HEARING FOR
THE TOURISM BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT
RESOLUTION 10845 (2017 SERIES)
ADOPTED
(5-0)
10. PUBLIC HEARING - IMPLEMENTING ACTIONS FOR THE
AVILA RANCH COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO.
2017-1
RESOLUTION 10846 (2017 SERIES)
ORDINANCE 1642 (2017 SERIES)
RESOLUTION
ADOPTED
(5-0)
ORDINANCE
INTRODUCED
(5-0)
11. SETTING THE STAGE – PROCESS FOR DEVELOPING A
FISCAL HEALTH RESPONSE PLAN
RECEIVED AND
FILED
12. APPOINTMENTS TO THE 2018 COUNCIL
COMPENSATION COMMITTEE
APPROVED
(5-0)
TO APPOINT A 5
MEMBER
COMMITTEE
CONSISTING OF:
JOHN EWAN
FRANK GUYTON
LOUISE MATHENY
DALE STOKER
BRETT STRICKLAND
AND
ALTERNATE:
LOUISE JUSTICE
Packet Pg. 29
2
Page intentionally left
blank.
Packet Pg. 30
2
Meeting Date: 2/6/2018
FROM: Carrie Mattingly, Utilities Director
Prepared By: Jennifer Metz, Utilities Projects Manager
SUBJECT: WATER AND WASTEWATER RATE SETTING METHODOLOGY
RECOMMENDATION
Participate in a study session on water and wastewater rate setting methodology with HDR
Engineering, Inc.
DISCUSSION
Background
The City reviewed its water and wastewater rate structures
through study sessions in 2017 concluding on January 9,
2018. During one of these sessions the City Council
updated its rate structure goals. Key changes to the
proposed rate structures in alignment with these goals are:
1. A greater percent of revenues collected through
the fixed portion of the water and wastewater
rates.
2. The fixed portion of the water and wastewater
rates for non-residential water users based on
meter size.
3. The number of tiers for residential water users
increased from two to three.
Eighty to ninety percent of expenses associated with providing water and wastewater services are
fixed, meaning the expenses are the same each year regardless of the amount of water sold or
wastewater treated. These fixed costs include debt payments and operation and maintenance.
Currently, fixed revenues are 14 and 11.5 percent respectively. The appropriate level of fixed
revenue required for the water and wastewater funds will be proposed in alignment with
Council’s rate structure goals.
Rate Study and Proposition 218
With the Council’s guidance on rate structure goals, the City is moving forward with its water
and wastewater rate setting analysis and process. The goal of the rate setting process is to
provide sustainable funding to the City’s Water and Sewer Fund s for operation, maintenance,
and capital project needs. Rates must be developed that are stable, equitable, and cost -based in
compliance with California Constitution Article XIII C and D, commonly referred to as
Proposition 218 (Prop 218).
Table 1: City Council Rate
Structure Goals
✓ Revenue Stability and
Predictability
✓ Discourage Wasteful Use
✓ Stability and Predictability
of the Rates
✓ Fair Allocation of Total Cost
of Service Among Customer
Classes
✓ Reflect all Present and
Future Costs
Packet Pg. 31
3
The City hired HDR Engineering, Inc. (HDR) to assist with this process and prepare the rate
studies. The stud ies will provide necessary documentation and an administrative record of the
cost basis for the proposed water and wastewater rates in compliance with California
Constitution Article XIII D, section 6 which regulates property-related fees and charges to which
water and wastewater are bound [California Supreme Court in Bighorn-Desert View Water
Agency v. Verjil (2006)]. In accordance with the provisions of Prop 218, water and wastewater
rates are designed based on a cost -of-service methodology that fairly apportions costs to all
customers.
Rate Setting Process - Methodology
The City’s water and wastewater rate setting process will use a three-component methodology
accepted in the water and wastewater industry: a revenue requirement analysis; a cost of service
analysis; and rate design analysis, described in detail below, will incorporate the Council’s rate
structure goals.
Revenue Requirements Analysis
The City’s current Water and Sewer Funds revenue requirement s from the 2017-19 Financial
Plan are shown in Figure 1. The following financial objectives and recognized best management
practices will be used in the revenue requirement analysis to identify projected rates:
1. Current and Projected Operation and Maintenance Expenses - aligned with Fiscal
Health Response Plan direction to the City’s Enterprise Funds.
2. Debt Service Coverage Requirements - based on outstanding obligations; driven by
capital needs and policy direction.
3. Level of Operating Expenses in Reserves - funding reserves to maintain prudent
financial practices.
$18.7
$18.9
$19.1
$19.2
$19.4
$19.6
$15.6
$16.2
$16.8
$17.5
$19.2
$21.2
$- $5.0 $10.0 $15.0 $20.0 $25.0
2017-18 (Current)
2018-19
2019-20
2020-21
2021-22
2022-23
Current and Projected
Water and Wastewater Fund Revenue Requirements
(In million $)
Wastewater Fund Water Fund
Packet Pg. 32
3
4. Rate Funded Capital Program - target annual asset depreciation expenses at a
minimum, with the balance of necessary capital projects funded through reserves,
capacity and connection fees, and/or long-term debt proceeds. Current annual
depreciation for water ~$3 million; wastewater ~$2.5 million.
5. Term of Rate Increases - The City has historically aligned its rate increases with its
Financial Plan cycle every two years, however, a longer term of projected increases
such as three years, or a shorter term such as a single year, will be considered.
6. Inflationary Rate Increases – to minimize the potential for dramatic rate increases
associated with not maintaining adequate revenues to absorb chemical and electrical
cost increases rates should increase by an inflationary factor annually at a minimum,
such as the Municipal Cost Index.
7. Affordability - will be assessed by comparing the City’s average customer water and
wastewater bills as a percentage of median household income.
As described in objective #4, Rate Funded Capital Program, the rate studies will identify a rate
funded capital program based on annual depreciation. The City adopted a series of water and
wastewater master plans to identify and prioritize necessary capital improvements following the
adoption of the General Plan’s updated Land Use Element in November 2014. The City updated
its water and wastewater asset lists as part of those efforts. The master plans include:
• Potable Water Distribution System Operations Master Plan (2015)
• Wastewater Collection System Infrastructure Renewal S trategy (2015)
• Water Resource Recovery Facility Facilities Plan (2015)
• Recycled Water Master Plan (2017)
These documents, along with the City’s Financial and Capital Improvement Plans, provide the
basis for depreciation estimates and future project capita l costs.
Cost of Service Analysis
The cost of service analysis will describe customer class characteristics, identify unit costs, and
equitably allocate costs among the City’s customer classes to establish the cost -basis of the
proposed rates. At least three technical approaches will be considered to demonstrate the
individual pricing of the tiers including:
• Cost differences in water supply (i.e., contract purchases).
• Cost differences from high peak use consumers (relationship of average use to peak use).
• Direct assignment of costs to specific tiers (e.g., conservation program costs, etc.).
This analysis will also look at water consumption, seasonal usage patterns, water meter sizes,
wastewater strength, and other factors to determine service-related cost factors. For residential
customers, tier pricing will be developed to provide the cost -basis and meet the requirements of
Prop. 218.
Rate Design Analysis
The final step in the preparation of the City’s water and wastewater rate studies is the design of
rates to collect the desired levels of revenues based on the results of the revenue requirement and
Packet Pg. 33
3
cost of service analyses. Rate design will align with the goals identified by the City Council
through the rate structure review.
The City’s recycled water rate design, including the
construction water permit cost, will also be reviewed as
part of the water rate study.
Public Outreach
The City is committed to helping the public understand the
rate setting process. The Utilities Department included a
feature article on the water and wastewater rate structure
changes in the most recent Resource publication and
information on the Utilities web page. Outreach efforts,
such as open houses at 879 Morro Street, will continue
until final consideration of the propo sed rates in June.
CONCURRENCES
Concurrence from other City departments is not required
for this item.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
No environmental review is required for this study session. Modification of rates and charges by
public agencies is statutorily exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
under Section 15273 of the Public Resources Code because the change in fees is not intended to
fund expansion of capital projects not otherwise evaluated under CEQA.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with Council participation in this study session.
Packet Pg. 34
3
San Luis Obispo Page 1
Tuesday, January 9, 2018
Rescheduled Regular Meeting of the City Council
CALL TO ORDER
A Rescheduled Regular Meeting of the San Luis Obispo City Council was called to order on
Tuesday, January 8, 2018 at 5:30 p.m. in the Council Hearing Room, located at 990 Palm Street,
San Luis Obispo, California, by Mayor Harmon.
ROLL CALL
Council Members
Present: Council Members Aaron Gomez, Andy Pease, Dan Rivoire, Vice Mayor Carlyn
Christianson, and Mayor Heidi Harmon.
Council Members
Absent: None
City Staff
Present: Derek Johnson, City Manager; Christine Dietrick, City Attorney; and Carrie
Gallagher, City Clerk; were present at Roll Call. Other staff members presented
reports or responded to questions as indicated in the minutes.
PUBLIC COMMENT ON CLOSED SESSION ITEMS
None.
---End of Public Comment ---
CLOSED SESSION
A. CONFERENCE REGARDING PROPERTY NEGOTIATIONS
Pursuant to Government Code §54956.8
Property: 1042 Pacific Street, APN 002-443-017
Agency Negotiators: Derek Johnson, Christine Dietrick, Daryl Grig sby, Greg Hermann,
Jon Ansolabehere, Matt Horn, Michael McGuire, Cathy Springford
Negotiating Parties: 1042 Pacific Street, G.P.
Under Negotiation: Price and terms of payment
Packet Pg. 35
5
San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of January 9, 2018 Page 2
B. CONFERENCE REGARDING PROPERTY NEGOTIATIONS
Pursuant to Government Code §54956.8
Property: 1043 Marsh Street, APN 002-443-016
Agency Negotiators: Derek Johnson, Christine Dietrick, Daryl Grigsby, Greg Hermann,
Jon Ansolabehere, Matt Horn, Michael McGuire, Cathy Springford
Negotiating Parties: Elizabeth Lucille Zanoli, Trustee
Under Negotiation: Price and terms of payment
C. CONFERENCE REGARDING PROPERTY NEGOTIATIONS
Pursuant to Government Code §54956.8
Property: 1080 Marsh Street, APN 002-435-023
Agency Negotiators: Derek Johnson, Christine Dietrick, Daryl Grigsby, Greg Hermann,
Jon Ansolabehere, Matt Horn, Michael McGuire, Cathy Springford
Negotiating Parties: Maino Family
Under Negotiation: Price and terms of payment
D. CONFERENCE REGARDING PROPERTY NEGOTIATIONS
Pursuant to Government Code §54956.8
Property: 1020 Marsh Street, APN 002-435-024
Agency Negotiators: Derek Johnson, Christine Dietrick, Daryl Grigsby, Greg Hermann,
Jon Ansolabehere, Matt Horn, Michael McGuire, Cathy Springford
Negotiating Parties: Maino Family
Under Negotiation: Price and terms of payment
E. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL—EXISTING LITIGATION
Paragraph (1) of subdivision (d) of Government Code § 54956.9; Name of case: Preserve the
SLO Life-Buckley Road, Los Verdes Park Unit One Homeowners’ Association, Inc., and
Los Verdes Park (Unit 2) Ho meowners’ Association, Inc. vs. City of San Luis Obispo, City
Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, and Does 1 through 15; Avila Ranch, LLC, Andrew
Mangano, and Does 16 through 30; San Luis Obispo County Superior Court Case No.17CV-
0573
ADJOURNED TO THE RESCHEDULED REGULAR MEETING OF JANUARY 9, 2018 TO
BEGIN AT 6:00 PM IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER
Packet Pg. 36
5
San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of January 9, 2018 Page 3
CALL TO ORDER
A Rescheduled Regular Meeting of the San Luis Obispo City Council was called to order on
Tuesday, January 9, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber, located at 990 Palm Street, San
Luis Obispo, California, by Mayor Harmon.
ROLL CALL
Council Members
Present: Council Members Aaron Gomez, Andy Pease, Dan Rivoire, Vice Mayor Carlyn
Christianson, and Mayor Heidi Harmon.
Council Members
Absent: None
City Staff
Present: Derek Johnson, City Manager; Christine Dietrick, City Attorney; Greg Hermann,
Interim Deputy City Manager; and Carrie Gallagher, City Clerk; were present at
Roll Call. Other staff members presented reports or responded to questions as
indicated in the minutes.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Council Member Gomez led the Pledge of Allegiance.
CITY ATTORNEY REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION
City Attorney Dietrick stated that there was no reportable action for Closed Session Items A
through E.
PRESENTATIONS
1. PROCLAMATION - WOMEN'S MARCH SAN LUIS OBISPO MONTH
Mayor Harmon presented a Proclamation to Dawn Addis and Pat Harris representing SLO
Women’s March, declaring January 2018 as Women’s March San Luis Obispo month.
APPOINTMENTS
2. COUNCIL LIAISON SUBCOMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS 2018
City Clerk Gallagher presented the contents of the report.
Public Comments:
None
---End of Public Comments---
Packet Pg. 37
5
San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of January 9, 2018 Page 4
ACTION: MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER PEASE, SECOND BY COUNCIL
MEMBER GOMEZ, CARRIED 5-0 to approve Council Liaison Subcommittee assignments
for calendar year 2018 as outlined in 2018 Subcommittee Worksheet.
3. APPOINTMENT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION (PC)
City Clerk Gallagher presented the contents of the report.
Public Comments:
Scott Mann
---End of Public Comments---
ACTION: MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER PEASE, SECOND BY COUNCIL
MEMBER RIVOIRE, CARRIED 5-0 to confirm the appointment of Mike Wulkan to the
Planning Commission to complete an unexpired term through March 31, 2021.
PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA
Mayor Harmon spoke regarding the importance of c ivility.
Luke Dunn
Eugene Jud
Kayne Randolph
---End of Public Comment ---
CONSENT AGENDA
ACTION: MOTION BY VICE MAYOR CHRISTIANSON, SECOND BY COUNCIL
MEMBER RIVOIRE, CARRIED 5-0 to approve Consent Calendar Items 4 thru 9.
4. WAIVE READING IN FULL OF ALL RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES
CARRIED 5-0, to waive reading of all resolutions and ordinances as appropriate.
5. MINUTES OF DECEMBER 12, 2017
CARRIED 5-0, to approve the minutes of the City Council meeting of December 12, 2017.
6. FY 2016-17 ANNUAL REPORT ON DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES
Packet Pg. 38
5
San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of January 9, 2018 Page 5
CARRIED 5-0, to:
1. Review the 2016-17 Fiscal Year Report on Development Impact Fees; and
2. Adopt Resolution No. 10853 (2018 Series) entitled “A Resolution of the City Council of
the City of San Luis Obispo, California, accepting the 2016 -17 Annual Report on
Development Impact Fees and reaffirming the necessity of Development Impact Fees ”
accepting the report and making findings related to impact fee balances and in-lieu fees.
7. 2018 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) FUNDING
RESERVATION LETTER TO THE SAN LUIS OBISPO NON-PROFIT HOUSING
CORPORATION
CARRIED 5-0, authorize the Community Development Director to execute a Reservation
Letter, authorizing t he City to reserve $288,847 in Community Development Block Grant
(CDBG) funds awarded to the San Luis Obispo Nonprofit Housing Corporation for property
acquisition for the Courtyard at the Meadows affordable housing project.
8. HISTORIC SIGNIFICANCE DETERMINATION FOR A CONTRIBUTING LIST
PROPERTY AT 676 MOUNTAIN VIEW STREET
CARRIED 5-0, to adopt Resolution No. 10854 (2018 Series) entitled “A Resolution of the
City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, removing the property at 676
Mountain View Street from the Contributing Properties List of Historic Resources (676
Mountain View St, HIST-1138-2017)” determining that the structures at 676 Mountain
View Street do not meet eligibility criteria for listing as Historic Resources and removing
the property from the Contributing Properties List of Historic Resources.
9. UNREPRESENTED CONFIDENTIAL EMPLOYEES RESOLUTION
CARRIED 5-0, to adopt Resolution No. 10855 (2018 Series) entitled “A Resolution of the
City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, regarding compensation for the
Unrepresented Confidential Employees and superseding previous Resolutions in conflict” with
a six-month term (January 1, 2018-June 30, 2018) and continuing Unrepresented
Confidential Employee compensation without changes.
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS AND BUSINESS ITEMS
10. PUBLIC HEARING - REVIEW OF AN APPEAL (FILED BY RENTON PARTNERS,
LLC) OF THE TREE COMMITTEE’S DECISION TO DENY REMOVAL OF ONE
FICUS STREET TREE LOCATED IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY AT 435
MARSH STREET ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF
THE SUBJECT PROPERTY
EX PARTE COMMUNICATION
Vice Mayor Christianson reported having gone to view the tree in question, Council
Member Pease noted a site visit, Council Members Rivoire, Gomez and Mayor Harmon
reported having no Ex Parte Communications.
Packet Pg. 39
5
San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of January 9, 2018 Page 6
Community Development Director Michael Codron and Associate Planner Kyle Bell
provided an in-depth staff report and responded to Council questions.
Public Comments:
Applicant Representative Jim Rendler, Renton Partners, LLC spoke regarding the
opportunity to have a legacy project on the land. He noted having met with staff to ensure
all goals were met and added that to maintain the tree would cause a financial impact. He
stated that the initial reason for meeting with the Tree Committee was to request removal
and felt that an undue hardship would be caused if the tree remained. He discussed the trees
location; he hopes to keep the New Zealand Christmas Tree and noted that replacement of a
larger tree is a better option.
Daniel Sinton spoke on behalf of the applicant to discuss the New Zealand Christmas Tree
alternative.
Scott Loosley, speaking on behalf of the Tree Committee discussed issues of controversial
applications; he noted confusion of the review process specific to multiple committees
weighing in on tree removals prior to and along with the Tree Committee ’s review.
---End of Public Comment ---
ACTION: MOTION BY VICE MAYOR CHRISTIANSON, SECOND BY
COUNCIL MEMBER PEASE, CARRIED 5-0 to: adopt Resolution No. 10856 (2018
Series) entitled “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo,
California, upholding an appeal to the Tree Committee decision to deny a tree removal
request as represented in the City Council agenda report and at tachments dated January 9,
2018 (435 Marsh Street APPL-1250-2017),” thereby granting final approval to remove the
street tree based on findings of consistency with the General Plan, Zoning Regulations and
applicable City Standards. As amended:
SECTION 1. ITEM 1 TO READ:
THE TREE HAS CAUSE DAMAGE TO THE SIDEWALK AND CURB ADJACENT TO THE
PROPERTY DUE TO THE INVASIVE NATURE OF FICUS TREE ROOT SYSTEMS,
WHICH MAY LEAD TO CONTINUED…….
SECTION 1. ITEM 2. TO READ:
AND REPLACING WITH SIX TREES TO THE APPROVAL OF THE CITY ARBORIST…
SECTION 1. ITEM 3.TO READ:
INCLUDES SIX TREE SPECIES…
ADDITIONALLY, TO INCLUDE:
PROVIDE A MORE SUBSTANTIAL URBAN FOREST TO THE APPROVAL OF THE CITY
ARBORIST.
AND SECTION 3. ITEM 1 TO READ:
SHALL INCLUDE SIX NEW 36 INCH BOX OR LARGER STREET TREES WITH TREE
WELLS, GRATES AND GUARDS TO THE APPROVAL OF THE CITY ARBORIST AND…
Packet Pg. 40
5
San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of January 9, 2018 Page 7
11. WATER AND WASTEWATER RATE STRUCTURE REVIEW
Utilities Director Carrie Mattingly, Utilities Project Manager Jennifer Metz, Shawn Koorn
from HDR Engineering, Inc., provided an in-depth staff report with the use of a Power Point
Presentation and responded to Council questions.
Public Comments:
None
---End of Public Comment ---
ACTION: MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER RIVOIRE, SECOND BY VICE
MAYOR CHRISTIANSON, CARRIED 5-0 to: direct staff to incorporate the updated water
and wastewater rate structures into the Water and Wastewater Rate Study and fund analyses.
RECESS
Council recessed at 8:25 p.m. and reconvened at 8:35 p.m., with all Council Members present.
STUDY SESSION
12. PRELIMINARY RESULTS OF THE CAPITAL FACILITIES FEE PROGRAM
NEXUS STUDY: STUDY SESSION #2
Community Development Director Michael Codron and Community Development Director
Xzandrea Fowler provided an in-depth staff report with the use of a Power Point
Presentation and responded to Council questions.
Utilities report presentation provided by Shawn Koorn from HDR Engineering, Inc provided
the Utilities Department report.
Public Comments:
Kevin Hauber
Stephen Peck
Charlene Rosales, San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce
Marshall Ochylsia, San Luis Ranch
Andrew Hackleman
Laurie Tamura, Land Planner working with San Luis Ranch
Steve Delmartini
---End of Public Comment ---
By consensus, Council received and filed the:
1. Study session and presentation on the revised preliminary results of the Capital Facilities
Fee Program Nexus Study and the Water and Wastewater Capacity and Connection Fee
Program Study; and
Packet Pg. 41
5
San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of January 9, 2018 Page 8
2. Received public input and provided the following guidance to staff for further revisions
of the Capital Facilities Fee Program and Capacity and Connection Fees:
a. Pursue two-way dialogue with developers and property owners on the topic of feasibility
and fee burdens
b. Cannot be maximum fees, need policy adjustments to go beyond the technical
adjustments
c. Continue to look for ways to incentivize infill development and smaller units
d. Shade towards getting housing built sooner
e. Consider all of the suggestions on Packet Page 311 to reduce infrastructure costs
f. Consider other ways to pay for General Government, Public Safety, Parks costs
g. Work with Avila Ranch on the Los Osos Valley Road sub-area
h. Pursue the citywide fee rather than separate fees for the north area and south area
i. Consider more granularity, such as basing each fee on building area to incentivize smaller
units
j. Agree with nexus for a parks fee on non-residential development, but consider if there is
another way to fund parks
k. It may be useful to “back into” recommended fees based on what a workforce housing
project can bear
l. Continue discounts fo r retail and hotel
m. To accomplish affordable housing, we need flexibility
n. A tax, similar to Measure J, may be necessary to support infrastructure for housing
o. Despite the discussion about policy adjustments, new development is still required to pay
its fair share
p. It is time to search deeply for other funding sources for important infrastructure
q. The City should be mindful that if most new development is of smaller units with little to
no yard, demand for parks will increase and;
3. Directed staff to return on March 6, 2018, with applicable ordinances and resolutions to
implement the updated Capital Facilities Fee Program based on the options endorsed by
City Council.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS AND LIAISON REPORTS
Council Member Pease reported attending a sold out zero net energy class for design and
building professionals, she added that the morning welcome was provided by Mayor Harmon;
additionally, she congratulated Council Member Rivoire for his Vice Chair election to SLOCOG.
Council Member Rivoire thanked Council Member Pease and added that he hopes his election
will provide our City with a strong presence, he noted challenging times ahead for setting
regional priorities and hopes to serve San Luis Obispo City well.
Mayor Harmon reported attending the Cal Poly Solar Farm Tour, meeting with Sheriff Parkinson
to discuss mental health challenges in the community and hopes a partnership can be created, she
reported having traveled with City Attorney Dietrick to San Francisco to speak to the CPUC
regarding t he Diablo joint proposal settlement and lastly she reported having received an
invitation to join San Luis Costal High Common Ground Task Force, she noted the groups
diversity and the opportunity ahead to come together to create a great outcome.
Packet Pg. 42
5
San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of January 9, 2018 Page 9
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 10:43 p.m. The next Regular City Council Meeting is scheduled
for Tuesday, January 16, 2018 at 6:00 p.m., respectively, in the Council Chamber, 990 Palm
Street, San Luis Obispo, San Luis Obispo, California.
__________________________
Carrie Gallagher
City Clerk
APPROVED BY COUNCIL: XX/XX/2018
Packet Pg. 43
5
Page intentionally left
blank.
Packet Pg. 44
5
Meeting Date: 2/6/2018
FROM: Michael Codron, Community Development Director
Prepared By: Cara Vereschagin, Planning Technician
SUBJECT: AFFORDABLE HOUSING FUND ALLOCATION FOR COURTYARD AT
THE MEADOWS ($630,000)
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a resolution approving Affordable Housing Fund allocations in the amount of $630,000 to
assist with construction costs for a 36-unit affordable housing project at 3175 Violet Street.
DISCUSSION
The Affordable Housing Fund (AHF) has been collected from commercial and residential
developers to meet the City’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance “in-lieu” of those developers
providing actual housing units. State planning and zoning law requires the fund to be used only
for the purpose that it was established – to support affordable housing in the City o f San Luis
Obispo. These funds are awarded at the City Council’s sole discretion, based on previously
adopted criteria (Attachment A). Requests for AHF support are evaluated by staff and forwarded
to the City Council for consideration. The project requesting funds is described below and
evaluated for how it meets these criteria.
Overview of Request
The Housing Authority of San Luis Obispo (HASLO) and the San Luis Obispo Nonprofit
Housing Corporation (SLONP) is requesting an allocation of $630,000 in Affordable Housing
Funds for the Courtyard at the Meadows project (Attachment B).
The Courtyard at the Meadow project is located within the Serra Meadows residential
development. To comply with the City’s inclusionary housing requirements, 27 affordable un its
were conditioned for the neighborhood. Of the 27 units, 18 were to be available to 120% Area
Median Income (AMI) or a workforce level of affordability, and the remaining 9 were to be
available to 80% AMI or moderate-income affordability. In a collaboration between HASLO
and SLONP, t he Courtyard at the Meadows project proposes 36 affordable units (9 more than
required), available to 50% and 60% AMI, or very-low and low-income residents (substantially
increasing the affordability level). The project will feature 9 one-bedroom, 18 two-bedroom, and
9 three-bedroom units, including a manager’s unit.
Packet Pg. 45
6
The requested amount of $630,000 from the City’s Affordable Housing Fund will assist HASLO
and SLONP to compete with federal low-income housing tax credits. This award of City
funding will leverage over $12 million in other financing sources. Since Courtyard at the
Meadows proposes 36 affordable housing units, beyond the 27 originally required by the
inclusionary housing requirement for the Serra Meadows development, this AHF allocation will
ensure deeper affordability levels for the community. The table below visually displays this
significant added value Courtyard at the Meadows proposes, in relation to the original Serra
Meadows requirement.
Scenarios Unit Count Affordability Level of
units
Serra Meadows
Inclusionary Housing
Requirement
27 units
18 units 120% AMI
(workforce)
9 units 80% AMI
(moderate)
Courtyard at the
Meadows Proposal 36 units
31 units 60% AMI
(low-income)
4 units 50% AMI
(very-low income)
Value Gained 9 units Affordability Doubles
AWARD CRITERIA
In making its recommendations to City Council for how AHFs should be allocated, staff
considers Council adopted criteria including: eligibility, need, suitability, timing, financial
effect iveness, and readiness (Attachment A). The following is an analysis of the request relative
to the criteria.
Eligibility. Use of the AHF for the requested purpose will increase or improve the City’s
affordable housing inventory and promote General Plan policies regarding housing, as follows:
Courtyard at the Meadows Project is eligible for Affordable Housing Funds because it
increases the City’s affordable housing inventory and implements several General Plan
policies regarding housing. The project will increase the supply of affordable housing for
very-low and low- income households with the construction of 36 units.
Need. There exists a substantial or overarching need for the type of unit to be assisted, as
follows:
The City of San Luis Obispo has a substantial need for affordable housing to meet goals
stated in the City’s General Plan Housing Element . San Luis Obispo County had one of
the lowest rental housing vacancy rates in the State of California at 1.7%, according to
the California State Department of Finance. Courtyard at the Meadows will provide
affordable, rental housing opportunities for the community, which directly supports the
Packet Pg. 46
6
Housing Major City Goal to produce housing types to be economically feasible for lower
income residents.
Suitability. The project to be assisted is appropriate for its location both in terms of land use
and design, as follows:
Courtyard at the Meadows is ideally suited for this location, as the Residential
Multifamily R-3 zoning classification is consistent with the proposed use. The Spanish
architectural design style is reflective of the Margarita Area Specific Plan, featuring low
slope roofs, mission tile, recessed exterior window faces and arched openings. All
elevations are visually interesting, providing intriguing architectural treatments that
enhance all views of the structures. Thus, Courtyard at the Meadows received unanimous
approval by the Ar chitectural Review Commission in September 2016.
Timing. The project would better serve the City’s needs if it were built immediately as opposed
to later, as follows:
Courtyard at the Meadows has received all local approvals and is preparing to submit for
a building permit application. The project is also assembling various competitive sources
for financing. In March 2018, HASLO will apply to the California Debt Limit Allocation
Committee for an allocation of private activity bond tax exempt financing, and to the
California Tax Credit Allocation Committee for an allocation of Low -Income Housing
Tax Credits. Construction of the project is expected to begin in late 2018.
Financial Effectiveness. But for the requested assistance, the project would not be
economically feasible; or AHF funding “leverages” significant additional funding from other
sources, as follo ws:
This is a highly effective use of t he City's Affordable Housing Funds, as it will leverage
at least $12 million in other funds for Courtyard at the Meadows. The 36 units will
remain affordable for 55 years pursuant to a low-income housing tax credit (LIHTC)
regulatory agreement. Additionally, HASLO will ensure that the units will remain
permanent affordable housing resources for the community. Project financial feasibility
is dependent upon Affordable Housing Funds.
Readiness. The project has all necessary City approvals and is ready to proceed, as follows:
Courtyard at the Meadows has obtained all the necessary City discretionary approvals.
HASLO intends to apply for a building permit in March 2018. Upon the award of a City
Affordable Housing Fund award, HASLO will be eligible to apply for Low Income
Housing Tax Credits, and other private activity bond financing. S hould the project
receive all funding, HASLO/SLONP anticipates starting construction in late 2018.
Packet Pg. 47
6
STATUS OF THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING FUND
A current status report on the AHF is included (Attachment C). The report indicates that if the
proposed allocations are approved by the City Council, the fund will retain $1,123,088 to
allocate to future affordable housing projects.
Staff is recommending funding for the request listed in the table below. The attached resolution
(Attachment D) recommends funding for a total of $630,000. The proposed funding amounts to
approximately 36% of the funds currently available to be allocated to new pro jects. Based on the
recent previous years of years of building permit activity, it can be hypothesized that this funding
amount will be restored to the AHF in the upcoming years.
Current Requests/Proposed Allocations AHF Available Balance $1,753,088
Courtyard at the Meadows 36 Units $630,000
Total Requests 36 Units $630,000
Net Available for New Programs if Current Request Approved $1,123,088
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The authorization to submit an Affordable Housing Fund request is exempt from environme ntal
review per Section 15061 (b)(3) General Rule of the CEQA Guidelines. In addition, the project
is an action to award funding, and is located within the Margarita Area Specific Plan (MASP).
The City Council certified the Final Program EIR for the MASP on October 12, 2004. On April
15, 2014, the City Council adopted the Tiered Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
(MND) which addressed the changes and revisions to Tract #2342 and #2353. Lot 108 of Tract
#2353 was to be dedicated for afforda ble housing, thus it was determined through the entitlement
process that Courtyard and the Meadows was consistent with the Mitigated Negative
Declaration, and all mitigation measures adopted as part of the MASP EIR and Subsequent
Tiered MND were applicable to the project are carried forward and applied to the project to
effectively mitigate the impacts previously identified.
FISCAL IMPACT
The recommended allocations would be in the form of loans paid out of the AHF, which consists
of in-lieu fees collected under the City’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance. The AHF may only be
used for projects or purposes that create or support affordable housing within the City. The
project will have no impact on the General Fund. AHF loans typically have a 20 to 30 year term
with a rate of 3-4% simple interest. The details of each loan will be finalized prior to release of
funds and structured specific to each project’s financing package. Based on prior expenditures
and pending commitments, there will be a balance of $1,123,088 remaining in the AHF after this
award.
Packet Pg. 48
6
ALTERNATIVES
1. Do not authorize AHF awards for the proposed project. This action is not recommended
because the project appears to meet the criteria for AHF assistance and are consistent
with the Housing Ele ment of the General Plan. This would also affect the Project’s
eligibility to compete for additional federal funding.
2. Approve an AHF award for a different amount. The City Council can approve an award
for a different amount other than the recommendation. This is not recommended as the
project has carefully considered its need for assistance and the amounts requested reflect
what is needed for successful financing of the project.
3. Continue consideration of the proposed award. The City Council can direct staff to
return with additional information regarding the funding request so that a final decision
on the award amount can be made. Staff does not recommend this action because this
delay in time would not allow for SLONP to include the City’s commitment for funding
in their Low-Income Housing Tax Credit application.
Attachments:
a - Reso 9263 Establish Affordable Housing Fund Criteria
b - Courtyard_AHFundRequest_HASLO_1.10.18
c - AHF status report 1.1.18
d - Resolution
Packet Pg. 49
6
Packet Pg. 50
6
Packet Pg. 51
6
Packet Pg. 52
6
Packet Pg. 536
Suitability
Courtyard at the Meadows is zoned R-3 Residential Multifamily, consistent with the proposed use. The
Spanish architectural style is consistent with the Margarita Area Specific Plan and features low slope
roof, mission tile, recessed exterior window faces and arched openings. All elevations are visually
interesting and receive interesting architectural treatments that enhance views of the structures from all
views on and off site. The Architectural Review Committee unanimously approved the project in
September 2016.
Timing
Courtyard at the Meadows has received all local approvals and is preparing to submit for a building
permit application. The project is assembling various competitive sources of financing. In March 2018
HASLO will apply to the California Debt Limit Allocation Committee for an allocation of private activity
bond tax exempt financing, and to the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee for an allocation of
Low-Income Housing Tax Credits. Construction is expected to begin in late 2018.
Financial Effectiveness
This is a highly effective use of the Affordable Housing Funds; they will leverage an estimated $12 million
in other federal, state, and private financing. The apartments will remain affordable for 55 years
pursuant to a LIHTC regulatory agreement. Additionally, HASLO's as a public agency will ensure that the
units remain a permanent affordable housing resource for the community. Project financial feasibility is
dependent upon Affordable Housing Funds.
Readiness
Courtyard at the Meadows has obtained all the necessary City discretionary approvals. HASLO intends
to apply for a building permit in March 2018. Upon award of the Affordable Housing Funds, HASLO will
apply for Low Income Housing Tax Credits and private activity bond financing. The project is scheduled
to start construction in late 2018.
We appreciate your consideration of our funding request and are happy to answer any questions you
may have.
Ex
HASLO
(805)594-5323
ssmith@haslo.org
Packet Pg. 54
6
City of San Luis Obispo
Fiscal Status of Affordable Housing Fund
January 1, 2018 - Point in Time Status
Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance
Expenditures
Fiscal Year In-Lieu Fees Interest Rents
BEGIN
funds
reimbursem
ent
BEGIN
reuse
funds*
BEGIN City
matching
funds*Total Beginning Ending
2000-01 193,700 8,200 201,900 201,900
2001-02 464,900 20,000 484,900 201,900 686,800
2002-03 747,800 28,300 776,100 (215,000) 686,800 1,247,900
2003-04 60,500 8,500 69,000 (30,000) 1,247,900 1,286,900
2004-05 323,300 32,500 355,800 (30,000) 1,286,900 1,612,700
2005-06 1,863,700 68,500 1,932,200 1,612,700 3,544,900
2006-07 627,200 160,500 787,700 (530,000) 3,544,900 3,802,600
2007-08 682,400 155,600 838,000 (630,000) 3,802,600 4,010,600
2008-09 465,700 199,700 1,400 666,800 (892,500) 4,010,600 3,784,900
2009-10 (21,300) 32,600 9,000 270,000 290,300 (3,407,600) 3,784,900 667,600
2010-11 332,800 16,000 3,900 30,000 382,700 (39,800) 667,600 1,010,500
2011-12 848,800 21,900 870,700 (112,700) 1,010,500 1,768,500
2012-13 182,700 700 183,400 (30,000) 1,768,500 1,921,900
2013-14 777,300 12,700 100,955 117,857 1,008,812 (47,000) 1,921,900 2,883,712
2014-15 159,602 9,193 86,430 93,121 348,346 (697,000) 2,883,712 2,535,058
2015-16 625,506 34,414 659,920 (636,978) 2,535,058 2,558,000
2016-17 1,130,587 15,079 359,081 1,504,747 (1,490,919) 2,558,000 2,571,828
2017-18 98,877 29 1560 100,466 - 2,571,828 2,672,295
Cumulative Total 9,564,072 824,415 373,381 301,560 187,385 210,978 11,461,791 (8,789,497) 2,672,295
Commitments Not Yet Funded
Commitment to the General Fund Transfer (52,000)
Commitment for Iron Works Affordable Housing paid
Commitment to remaining BEGIN Downpayment Assistance Loans (17,207)
Commitment to Bishop Street Studios (850,000)
Total Available for New Progams as of January 1, 2018 1,753,088
Revenues Fund Balance
Packet Pg. 55
6
R ______
RESOLUTION NO. XXXX (2018)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS
OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AFFORDABLE HOUSING FUND
AWARD TO THE HOUSING AUTHORITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO AND
SAN LUIS OBISPO NONPROFIT HOUSING CORPORATION FOR
COURTYARD AT THE MEADOWS IN THE AMOUNT OF $630,000
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo met in the Council
Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on February 6, 2018, for
the purpose of considering a request for Affordable Housing Fund (AHF) assistance; and
WHEREAS, the Courtyard at Meadows Project proposed by the Housing Authority of
San Luis Obispo (HASLO) and the San Luis Obispo Nonprofit Housing Corporation (SLONP)
located at 3175 Violet Street, San Luis Obispo, meets eligibility criteria established by the City
Council; and
WHEREAS, Housing Element policies and programs encourage and support the
maintenance and rehabilitation of existing affordable housing as well as the construction of new
affordable housing in the City; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has duly considered all evidence, including the testimony
of the applicant, interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations by staff presented at
said meeting.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Environmental Determination. The project is exempt from environmental
review per Section 15061 (b)(3) General Rule of the CEQA Guidelines. The project is an action
to award funding. Co urtyard at the Meadows was determined to be consistent with the Mitigated
Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact of the Margarita Area Specific Plan by the City
Council on April 15, 2014.
SECTION 2. Findings. The City Council does hereby make the following findings in
support of the proposed AHF awards:
1. Eligibility: Use of the AHF for the requested purpose will increase or improve the City’s
affordable housing inventory and promote General Plan policies rega rding housing, as
follows:
Courtyard at the Meadows Project is eligible for Affordable Housing Funds because it
increases the City’s affordable housing inventory, and implements several General Plan
policies regarding housing. The project will increase t he supply of affordable housing for
very-low and low- income households with the construction of 36 units.
Packet Pg. 56
6
Resolut ion No. _____ (2018 Series) Page 2
R ______
2. Need: There exists a substantial or overarching need for the type of unit to be assisted, as
follows:
The City of San Luis Obispo has a substantial need for affordable housing to meet goals
stated in the City’s General Plan Housing Element. San Luis Obispo County had one of the
lowest rental housing vacancy rates in the State of California at 1.7%, according to the
California State Department of Finance. Courtyard at the Meadows will provide affordable,
rental housing opportunities for the community.
3. Suitability: The project to be assisted is appropriate for its location both in terms of land use
and design, as follows:
Courtyard at the Meadows is ideally suited for this location, as the Residential Multifamily
R-3 zoning classification is consistent with the proposed use. The Spanish architectural
design style is reflective of the Margarita Area Specific Plan, featuring low slope roofs,
mission tile, recessed exterior window faces and arched openings. All elevations are visually
interesting, providing intriguing architectural treatments that enhance all views of the
structures. Thus, Courtyard at the Meadows received unanimous approval by the
Architectural Review Commission in September 2016.
4. Timing: The project would better serve the City’s needs if it were built immediately as
opposed to later, as follows:
Courtyard at the Meadows has received all local approvals and is preparing to submit for a
building permit application. The project is also assembling various competitive sources for
financing. In March 2018, HASLO will apply to the California Debt Limit Allocation
Committee for an allocation of private activity bond tax exe mpt financing, and to the
California Tax Credit Allocation Committee for an allocation of Low -Income Housing Tax
Credits. Construction of the project is expected to begin in late 2018.
5. Financial Effectiveness: But for the requested funding, the project would not be
economically feasible; or AHF funding “leverages” significant additional funding from other
sources, as follows:
This is a highly effective use of the City's Affordable Housing Funds, as it will leverage at
least $12 million in other funds for Courtyard at the Meadows. The 36 units will remain
affordable for 55 years pursuant to a low-income housing tax credit (LIHTC) regulatory
agreement. Additionally, HASLO will ensure that the units will remain permanent
affordable housing resources for the community. Project financial feasibility is dependent
upon Affordable Housing Funds.
Packet Pg. 57
6
Resolut ion No. _____ (2018 Series) Page 3
R ______
6. Readiness: The project has all necessary City approvals and is ready to proceed, as follows:
Courtyard at the Meadows has obtained all the necessary City discretionary approvals.
HASLO intends to apply for a building permit in March 2018. Upon the award of a City
Affordable Housing Fund award, HASLO will be eligible to apply for Low Income Housing
Tax Credits, and other private activity bond financing. Should the project receive all
funding, HASLO/SLONP anticipates starting construction in late 2018.
SECTION 3. AHF Award, HASLO/SLONP (Courtyard at the Meadows). The City
Council does hereby approve an AHF award in an amount not to exceed $630,000, subject to the
following condition of approval:
1. Prior to release of any portion of the AHF award, the applicant shall enter into an
affordability agreement with the City for 36 for-rent affordable housing units located at 3175
Violet Street for a term of 55 years, which will be recorded against the title of the property.
The form of said agreement shall be subject to the approval of the City Attorney.
Upon motion of , seconded by , and on the
following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolut ion was adopted this 6th day of February 2018.
____________________________________
Mayor Heidi Harmon
ATTEST:
____________________________________
Carrie Gallagher
City Clerk
Packet Pg. 58
6
Resolut ion No. _____ (2018 Series) Page 4
R ______
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_____________________________________
J. Christine Dietrick
City Attorney
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City
of San Luis Obispo, California, this ______ day of ______________, _________.
____________________________________
Carrie Gallagher
City Clerk
Packet Pg. 59
6
Page intentionally left
blank.
Packet Pg. 60
6
Meeting Date: 2/6/2018
FROM: Michael Codron, Community Development Director
Prepared By: David Watson, Consulting Planner
Shawna Scott, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: MODIFICATIONS TO PROJECT MITIGATION MEASURES AND
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL ASSOCIATED WITH FINAL MAP #3063-
PHASE 1 (RIGHETTI RANCH – ORCUTT AREA SPECIFIC PLAN [OASP])
TO ALLOW INFRASTRUCTURE, BUILDING PERMIT ISSUANCE AND
OCCUPANCY PERMIT PHASING, INCLUDING CONSIDERATION OF
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) FINDINGS AND
CONSISTENCY DETERMINATIONS REGARDING THE PREVIOUSLY
APPROVED MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (2015) AND OASP
FINAL EIR (2010) (MOD #1220-2017; 3987 ORCUTT ROAD)
RECOMMENDATION
As recommended by the Planning Commission, adopt a Resolution to a pprove Amendments to
the Project Mitigation Measures and Conditions of Approval to allow phasing of the completion
of certain public improvements to coincide with the phasing of issuance of building and
occupancy permits for Phase 1 of Tract #3063 (Righetti Ranch).
REPORT-IN-BRIEF
The applicant, Ambient Co mmunities (Ambient) received approval for Vesting Tentative Tract
Map #3063 in 2015 to create a project consisting of 304 residential parcels, 22 parkland and
open space parcels, and a host of roadways, water and wastewater systems, utilities, bicycle and
pedestrian paths to support the subdivision project. The project was approved to be built in
generally three (3) phases of major construction activities.
As detailed construction plans have been prepared by Ambient and processed by city staff, it has
become clear that the specific sequencing of construction of each distinct phase includes many
tracks that are running in parallel to one another. For example, the crossing of creek corridors
with roads and utilities is governed by various resource agencie s that have their own timelines
and sequencing for when such work can be done. Generally prohibiting construction during the
winter months (November-April) means that the windows for Ambient to complete major
improvements become shortened to six (6) months at a time, and in some cases may be
completed in segments rather than all at once. One such parallel track includes providing
circulation systems that accommodate a minimum of two points of access that in some cases
require crossing these creeks and therefore subject this construction to the resource agency limits
on construction windows.
In 2015, the Ambient proposal was evaluated against the 2010 Final EIR (FEIR) prepared for the
OASP, and an Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS-MND) was prepared in 2015 for
the detailed subdivision application. Mitigation Measures from both the FEIR and IS -MND
Packet Pg. 61
7
were imposed on the tentative map approval. For the purposes of the 2015 approvals, the
completion of supporting and necessary public infrastructure was largely tied to traditional
milestones of “prior to issuance of building permits” or “prior to the issuance of occupancy
permits”. The Ambient request is to modify and adjust the completion of certain infrastructure
with alternate milestone dates for the Phase 1 project.
DISCUSSION
The proposed modifications fall into four (4) broad categories. These include:
• Off-site vehicular improvements to be delayed beyond Phase 1 building permit issuance;
• Off-site pedestrian improvements delayed beyond Phase 1 building permit issuance;
• On-site improvements delayed by resource agency construction window limitations; and,
• On-site park grading and pathways that could be deferred beyond Phase 1 building permit
issuance.
Existing and proposed modificatio ns are provided as Attachment D (Tract #3063 Mitigation
Measures Mark-up for Proposed Amendments) and Attachment E (Tract #3063 Conditions of
Approval Mark-up for Proposed Amendments), and the applicant’s proposed construction
schedule and exhibit showing the referenced infrastructure and improvements are provided in
Attachment F (Deferred Improvements Exhibit and Ambient Communities proposed
construction schedule).
On January 10, 2018, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider the Ambient
proposals and to form a recommendation to Council. The detailed staff report for that meeting
(Attachment H), provides a complete analysis of Mitigation Measure and Condition
modifications supported by staff. The Planning Commission voted 5-0-2 (two abstentions due to
absence and noted conflict of interest) to recommend approval of the amendments and associated
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) findings as recommended by staff (refer to
Attachment H). No public comments or correspondence were received.
The proposal is summarized in brief below (refer to Attachments E, F, G, and H for additional
information and analysis of proposed modifications to conditions of approval and mitigation
measures).
Off-site Vehicle Improvements That Can Be Delayed Beyond Issuance Phase 1 Bldg Permit
Conditions of Approval (COA) #17 and #28 address improvements involving secondary access
provided with a re-aligned Hansen Lane centerline (COA #17) and modifications to the Tank
Farm and Orcutt Road intersection (COA #28). Each of these conditions required the roadway
improvements to be completed prior to building permit and/or occupancy of any of the Phase 1
units. The applicant is requesting that these improvements be permitted to be started during
Phase 1, but defer completion prior to occupancy of any of the homes for Phase 2 (COA #28 -
roundabout) and issuance of building permits for Phase 3 (COA #17 – permanent secondary
access).
Packet Pg. 62
7
Off-site Pedestrian Improvements Delayed Beyond Issuance of Phase 1 Building Pe rmits
COAs #27 and #30 required the completion of curb, gutter and sidewalk frontage road
improvements along the perimeter of the subdivision, which were designed into the Phase 1 tract
improvement plans prior to issuance of Phase 1 building permits. The applicant is requesting to
defer some of these improvements, as shown on the approved street improvement plans, to a date
after initial occupancies in Phase 1.
On-site Improvements Delayed by Resource Agency Restrictions on Construction Windows
COAs #16 and #18 established requirements that addressed both internal vehicular circulation
and utility extensions to serve the Righetti Ranch project. By nature of the master plan of
development for the Orcutt Area, the Righetti improvements have been designed to connect into
other developing properties within the OASP. As part of the roadway and utility network in the
OASP and as approved under the Phase 1 Tract, several creek crossings are required that require
resource agency permits (i.e. Regional Water Qua lity Control Board, California Department of
Fish & Wildlife and the Army Corps of Engineers) that each have their own unique standards
and requirements for constructing within their jurisdictional areas. In this case, tentative tract
plans that called fo r extensions of utilities and circulation systems over and through these
jurisdictional areas are delayed by resource agency construction restrictions over the 2017 -2018
winter (generally November-April), thereby delaying the commencement of either utility or
vehicular systems until May of 2018, which would delay some of these utilities and roadways
until at least the latter part of 2018, if not into 2019.
The applicant is requesting that the option for a “temporary” secondary access be considered if
they are unable to complete the crossings of the Righetti Ranch or Tiburon Road bridges due to
the resource agency construction timing restrictions. An associated part of this request is the
limited deferral of the water, wastewater, and recycled water infra structure connections to be
installed on the bridges.
On-site Improvements That Can Be Delayed Beyond Issuance of Phase 1 Building Permits
COA #32 required the rough grading and extension of bicycle and pedestrian pathways through
Righetti Ranch as part of Phase 1, to be completed prior to issuance of building permits. The
applicant has requested that the bicycle and pedestrian path grading/connections within Phase 2
to occur during the development of Phase 2, and that the paths proposed to traverse the park be
completed during construction of the park.
Staff is supportive of these modifications and recommends City Council approval as
unanimously recommended by the Planning Commission.
CONCURRENCES
The recommended modifications and associated findings presented in Attachment A (Draft
Resolution) incorporate comments provided by other City Departments including Public Works
(Transportation), Fire, Utilities, and Administration (Natural Resources and City Attorney).
Packet Pg. 63
7
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Staff is reco mmending that City Council adopt the following CEQA Findings, which conclude
that the proposed modifications are consistent with previous FEIR and IS -MND actions on the
Righetti Ranch project and do not trigger any subsequent environmental analysis per CEQ A
Guidelines 15162:
1. The proposed mitigation measure amendments are consistent with the requirements of
the Orcutt Area Specific Plan Final Environmental I mpact Report (FEIR) certified and
adopted by the City Council on March 2, 2010, and the Initial Study-Mitigated Negative
Declaration (IS-MND) adopted by the City Council on May 19, 2015 for VTTM#3063.
2. Proposed modifications to MMs T-1(a) and T-2(d) provide for the construction of a turn
pocket and roundabout for intersection widening and signalization, consistent with the
City’s Circulation Element principles, and implements these improvements prior to any
significant traffic generation accessing Orcutt Road from the Righetti Ranch project,
thereby matching trip generation to the completion of the intersection roundabout.
3. Orcutt and Tank Farm Road frontage improvements and Hansen Lane realignment can be
timed to be completed in phases to meet the traffic generation demands of phased
occupancy of the Righetti Ranch project.
4. Traffic safety measures can be completed on Tank Farm Road as traffic generation
demand occurs at or before Phase 1 occupancy of residential units, and internal roadway
connections over and across jurisdictional areas would be completed prior to Phase 2
building permit issuance, to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works.
5. All potentially significant effects were analyzed adequately in the referenced FEIR
and IS-MND, and reduced to a level of insignificance, provided the amended mit igation
measures are incorporated into the development project and the mit igation monitoring
program as described on Exhibit 1 to this resolution.
6. Consistent with the Public Resources Code and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a)
(CEQA), the proposed changes to mitigation measures and conditions of approval as
outlined herein do not trigger any of the following threshold circumstances:
a) Substantial changes are not proposed requiring major revisions to the previously
certified FEIR and IS-MND, nor are any new or substantially increased significant
environmental effects to the Righetti Ranch project resulting from the proposed
modifications. The project remains a residential master planned community
consistent with the OASP and the 2015 VTTM approvals, and no increases in lots,
density, land uses or other project entitlements are proposed with these amendments.
Packet Pg. 64
7
b) No substantial changes have occurred with respect to the manner in which the
Righetti Ranch project will be undertaken. The mitigation measure and condition
modifications maint ain the previously approved mitigation measures, and provide for
additional clarity and detail in the timing of completion of those measures as detailed
herein.
c) No new information of substantial importance has become available since
certification of the noted FEIR and IS-MND that would represent a new or more
significant environmental impact not previously considered; all previously adopted
mitigation measures remain feasible and applicable to the project as approved; and no
considerably different impacts not otherwise analyzed in the FEIR and IS-MND
result from these mitigation measure and conditions of approval modifications.
FISCAL IMPACT
The proposed modifications would not affect how the OASP Public Facilities Financing Plan is
implemented, and associated application fees for the requested modification were provided by
the applicant. Therefore, no fiscal impacts are anticipated.
ALTERNATIVES
1. City Council not approve one or more of the proposed changes to the COAs and MMs as
described. Findings of the City Council concerning such a recommendation will need to
be developed if this Alternative is selected. This is not a recommended alternative
because the Planning Commission voted unanimously to approve all the amendments, the
project is consistent with the Orcutt Area Specific Plan, and no new environmental
impacts are created by the amendments.
2. Continue the item. An action to continue the item should include a detailed list of
additional information or analysis required.
Attachments:
a - Draft Resolution
b - Resolution Exhibit 1
c - Resolution Exhibit 2
d - Amended Mitigation Measures
e - Amended Conditions of Approval
f - Applicant Request
g - CDD Response
h - PCAR and Resolution No. 1002-18
Packet Pg. 65
7
R _____
RESOLUTION NO. XXXX (2018)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS
OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AMENDMENTS TO
MITIGATION MEASURES AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR AN
APPROVED SUBDIVISION (MOD-1220-2017; TRACT #3063 A.K.A.
“RIGHETTI RANCH”; 3987 ORCUTT ROAD)
WHEREAS, on May 19, 2015 the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo
conducted a public hearing, adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration, and approved Vesting
Tentative Map #3063 (Righetti Ranch); and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a
public hearing on January 10, 2018 for the purpose of formulat ing and forwarding
recommendat ions to the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo regarding proposed
mitigation measure and condition amendments, and recommended approval of amendments to
various mitigation measures and project conditions to facilitate phasing of certain required
infrastructure with timing of building permit issuance and occupancy permits; and
WHEREAS, on February 6, 2018 the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo
considered proposed amendments to specified mitigation measures and conditions as proposed
by the applicant and recommended by staff and the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, notices of said public hearing were made at the time and in the manner
required by law; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has duly cons idered all evidence, including the testimony
of the applicant, interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendat ions by staff.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo to approve specific amendments to environmental mitigation measures and project
conditions of approval based on the following Findings and Conditions:
SECTION 1. CEQA Findings, Mitigation Measures and Mitigation Monitoring
Program. Based upon all the evidence, the City Council makes the following California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) findings in support of the Application to Amend Mitigation
Measures #MOD-1220-2017 for final map and subdivision #3063:
1. The proposed mitigation measure amendments are consistent with the requirements of
the Orcutt Area Specific Plan Final Environmental I mpact Report (FEIR) certified and
adopted by the City Council on March 2, 2010, and the Initial Study-Mitigated Negative
Declaration adopted by the City Council on May 19, 2015 for the VTTM#3063.
2. Proposed modifications to MMs T-1(a) and T-2(d) provide for the construction of a turn
pocket and roundabout for intersection widening and signalization, consistent with the
City’s Circulation Element principles, and implements these improvements prior to any
Packet Pg. 66
7
Resolution No. _____ (2018 Series) Page 2
R _____
significant traffic generation accessing Orcutt Road from the Righetti Ranch project,
thereby matching trip generation to the completion of the intersection roundabout.
3. Orcutt and Tank Farm Road frontage improvements and Hansen Lane realignment can be
timed to be completed in phases to meet the traffic generation demands of phased
occupancy of the Righetti Ranch project.
4. Traffic safety measures can be completed on Tank Farm Road as traffic generation
demand occurs at or before Phase 1 occupancy of residential units, and internal roadway
connections over and across jurisdictional areas would be completed prior to Phase 2
building permit issuance, to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works.
5. All potentially significant effects were analyzed adequately in the referenced FEIR
and IS-MND, and reduced to a level of insignificance, provided the amended mit igation
measures are incorporated into the development project and the mit igation monitoring
program as described on Exhibit 1 to this resolution.
6. Consistent with the Public Resources Code and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a)
(CEQA), the proposed changes to mitigation measures and conditions of approval as
outlined herein do not trigger any of the following threshold circumstances:
a) Substantial changes are not proposed requiring major revisions to the previously
certified FEIR and IS-MND, nor are any new or substantially increased significant
environmental effects to the Righetti Ranch project resulting from the proposed
modifications. The project remains a residential master planned c ommunity
consistent with the OASP and the 2015 VT TM approvals, and no increases in lots,
density, land uses or other project entitlements are proposed with these amendments.
b) No substantial changes have occurred with respect to the manner in which the
Righetti Ranch project will be undertaken. The mitigation measure and condition
modifications maintain the previously approved mitigation measures, and provide for
additional clarity and detail in the timing of completion of those measures as detailed
herein.
c) No new information of substantial importance has become available since
certification of the noted FEIR and IS-MND that would represent a new or more
significant environmental impact not previously considered; all previously adopted
mitigation measures remain feasible and applica ble to the project as approved; and
no considerably different impacts not otherwise analyzed in the FEIR and I S-MND
result from these mitigation measure and conditions of approval modif ications.
Packet Pg. 67
7
Resolution No. _____ (2018 Series) Page 3
R _____
SECTION 2. Condition of Approval Modifications. Based upon all the evidence and
public testimony received, the City Council hereby approves the proposed modifications to
project conditions as described in Exhibit 2 to this resolution.
Upon motion of _______________________, seconded by _______________________, and on
the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was adopted this ______ day of _______________ 2018.
____________________________________
Mayor Heidi Harmon
ATTEST:
____________________________________
Carrie Gallagher
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_____________________________________
J. Christine Dietrick
City Attorney
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City
of San Luis Obispo, California, this ______ day of ______________, 2018.
____________________________________
Carrie Gallagher
City Clerk
Packet Pg. 68
7
Exhibit 1, Page 1
Righetti Ranch Request for Mitigation Measure Amendments
Exhibit 1
02-06-2018
TRANSPORTATION MITIGATION MEASURES
T-1(a) Orcutt Road/Tank Farm Road Intersection Improvements. Applicant
shall install a right turn pocket on the southbound approach of Orcutt Road
to Tank Farm Road prior to issuance of occupancy for Phase 1 Tract 3063.
The turn pocket will extend as far as practical north along Orcutt to the creek
culvert approximately 165 feet north of Tank Farm Road. Relocation or
undergrounding of power poles and utilities may be necessary to achieve
this improvement. The turn pocket shall be extended to a total length of
200’ and the intersection shall be modified to eliminate the skew prior to
occupancy of Phase 2, unless incorporated into the construction of a
roundabout to the satisfaction of the City Public Works Director.
T-1(a) Monitoring Program:
Compliance and implementation shall be reviewed by the City Engineer’s office with the
subdivision plans and shall be completed prior to issuance of occupancy for Phase 1 and
Phase 2 of Tract 3063.
T-2(d) Orcutt Road/Tank Farm Road Intersection Signalization or
Roundabout. Applicant shall provide right-of way as necessary for a
modern roundabout or traffic signal at the intersection of Orcutt Road/Tank
Farm Road, subject to approval of the Director of Public Works, as a
condition of Phase 2 final map recordation. Applicant shall pay “fair share”
OASP Impact Fee contributions.
T-2(d) Monitoring Program:
Packet Pg. 69
7
Exhibit 1, Page 2
Compliance will be addressed by (1) dedication and/or acquisition and dedication of right-
of-way as needed for signalization or roundabout, at City’s discretion, with Phase 2, and
(2) payment of OASP Impact Fees at time of issuance of building permits for any phases
of Tract 3063.
T-3 Street E-2 & Hanson Lane Alignment. Applicant shall align centerlines of
E-2 Street & Hanson Lane with side street stop control and a Two Way Left
Turn Lane.
T-3 Monitoring Program:
Compliance and implementation shall be reviewed by the City Engineer’s office with the
subdivision plans and shall be completed prior to issuance of any building permits for
Phase 3 of Tract 3063.
T-5 Tank Farm & Orcutt Frontage Improvements. Applicant shall design and
install frontage improvements along Tank Farm Road & Orcutt Road,
providing pedestrian access along both street frontages and the connecting
gap.
T-5 Monitoring Program:
Compliance and implementation shall be reviewed by the City Engineer’s office with the
subdivision plans and shall be completed prior to issuance of occupancy for the Tract
3063 phases shown on the approved street improvement plans, unless otherwise
required or deferred by the Public Works Director. The applicant shall bond for Tank
Farm and Orcutt Frontage Improvements; an A.M. Best Rated A:VII-bond shall be
required. The City reserves the right to call upon the bond a minimum of one year
following issuance of the first Phase 1 occupancy or by April 16, 2019, whichever occurs
first.
Packet Pg. 70
7
Exhibit 1, Page 3
T-6 Traffic Calming & Safety Measures. Applicant shall provide raised
intersections at D & D4 Streets and C & C3 Streets. Provide single lane
urban compact roundabout control at intersection D & Tank Farm with
speed reduction curves and at intersection A & B. Provide side street stop
control at Street E & Orcutt Road intersection.
T-6 Monitoring Program:
Compliance and implementation shall be reviewed by the City Engineer’s office with the
subdivision plans. The roundabout at the intersection of D Street and Tank Farm Road
shall be completed prior to issuance of occupancy of Phase 1 of Tract 3063. Side street
stop control at the Street E and Orcutt Road intersection shall be completed prior to
issuance of occupancy for Phase 3 of Tract 3063. The raised intersections shall be
completed prior to issuance of occupancy for the phase that is required to construct that
particular intersection. The applicant shall bond for the raised intersections at D& D4
Streets and C and C3 Streets and single lane urban compact roundabout control at
intersection D and Tank Farm with speed reduction curves and at intersection A and B;
an A.M. Best Rated A:VII-bond shall be required. The City reserves the right to call upon
the bond a minimum of one year following issuance of the first Phase 1 occupancy or by
April 16, 2019, whichever occurs first. No Phase 2 building permits shall be issued prior
to implementation of D and D4, C and C3, D and Tank Farm, and A and B intersection
improvements to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director.
Packet Pg. 71
7
Exhibit 2, Page 1
Righetti Ranch Request for of Approval Amendments
Exhibit 2
02-06-2018
TRANSPORTATION CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
16. Secondary access is required from all portions and /or phases of the subdivision
where more than 30 dwelling units are proposed. The location and development of the
proposed secondary access shall be presented to the City for review and approval prior
to the preparation of the related improvement plans or final map approval. Prior to
occupancy of Phase 1, primary access to Phase 1 shall be available from Tank Farm
Road, and secondary emergency access shall be provided from Orcutt Road either
permanently via Tiburon Road or temporarily via a construction road that traverses Phase
3. An easement for the temporary access will be required. No Phase 2 building permits
shall be issued prior to completion of permanent secondary access improvements to the
satisfaction of the Public Works Director and Fire Marshal.
17. Secondary access from the E Street neighborhood shall be aligned with Hansen
Lane unless a suitable alternate secondary access point can be approved to the
satisfaction of the Community Development and Public Works Directors and in
compliance with Mitigation Measure T-3.
18. The applicant shall comply with Resolution No. 10620 (2015 Series), Jones
Vesting Tentative Tract Map condition #15, regarding access, egress, and provision of
water supply across Tract 3063 Phase 1 development. The applicant shall bond for all
water and sewer improvements proposed for connection to the Righetti Ranch Bridge,
Tiburon Bridge, and Tiburon Culvert Extension. The City reserves the right to call upon
the bonds a minimum of one year following issuance of the first Phase 1 occupancy or by
April 16, 2019, whichever occurs first. The following improvements shall be completed
by October 2018: All water, recycled water, and sewer improvements not placed on the
deferred bridge and culvert structures shall be completed no later than October 2018.
Packet Pg. 72
7
Exhibit 2, Page 2
Additionally, all work related to the construction of new pressure reducing stations along
Tanglewood Road and Righetti Ranch Road shall be completed prior to October of 2018,
and shall maintain the existing control valve located at Industrial Way. The new pressure
reducing valves must include all new: valves, vaults, panels, PLC, telemetry, CLA-VALs,
bypass valve, and all necessary appurtenances needed to construct a functioning station
that can be integrated with the current water distribution system. No Phase 2 building
permits shall be issued prior to completion of Jones Ranch access and Righetti Ranch
water supply improvements to the satisfaction of the Public Works and Utilities Directors.
27. The Orcutt Road improvements from B Street to Tank Farm Road and along the
Tract 3066 (Jones) frontage shall be constructed with Phase 1 of the map, unless a
deferral is requested by the subdivider and granted by the City Public Works Director.
Prior to approval of any deferrals, the subdivider shall demonstrate that the construction
of the required improvements is impractical and that any deferred improvements do not
result in an undue burden on future phases.
28. Prior to occupancy of Phase 1, a southbound right turn pocket shall be constructed
at the Tank Farm / Orcutt intersection. The turn pocket will extend as far practical north
along Orcutt to the creek culvert approximately 165 feet north of Tank Farm Road.
Relocation or undergrounding of power poles and utilities may be necessary to achieve
this improvement. The turn pocket shall be extended to a total length of 200’ and the
intersection shall be modified to eliminate the skew prior to occupancy of Phase 2, unless
incorporated into the construction of a roundabout to the satisfaction of the City Public
Works Director. The subdivider shall acquire and dedicate the necessary right-of-way for
a roundabout as a condition of Phase 2 final map recordation. The required right-of-way
shall be based on the City’s design. If the City provides a construction-ready roundabout
design (1) prior to October 31, 2018, or (2) prior to issuance of encroachment permit(s)
to construct the Phase 2 public infrastructure, whichever is later, AND the City provides
sufficient design plans for work in the jurisdictional areas (the culvert extensions) by
August 31, 2018, the subdivider shall construct and complete the roundabout prior to
issuance of any certificates of occupancy for Phase 2. If City is unable to deliver the
Packet Pg. 73
7
Exhibit 2, Page 3
roundabout design in the time specified, the subdivider shall provide an appropriate surety
prior to the issuance of any certificates of occupancy for Phase 2 to guarantee
construction of the roundabout, and the roundabout shall be constructed and completed
prior to issuance of building permits for Phase 3. City’s review and approval of the Phase
2 public improvement plans and issuance of corresponding encroachment permit(s) shall
not be unreasonably delayed for the sole purpose of complying with this condition. All
overhead utilities conflicting with this improvement shall be undergrounded.
30. The Tank Farm Road improvements from the railroad tracks to Orcutt Road shall
be constructed in accordance with the phasing shown on the approved street
improvement plans, unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Director.
32. Rough grading of the park lot and completion of bicycle and pedestrian paths
connecting Tract 3063, Tract 3066, and adjoining OASP neighborhoods with the existing
park facilities at Islay Park shall be constructed pursuant to approved onsite Phase 1
Public Improvement Plans, or as approved by the Public Works Director and Natural
Resources Manager. Rough grading of the park shall occur prior to issuance of
occupancy of Phase 1. Rough grading of the bicycle/pedestrian paths through Phases 1
and 2 of Tract 3063 shall occur prior to issuance of occupancy for Phase 2. Rough
grading of the bicycle/pedestrian path through the park shall occur during rough grading
of the park.
35. All mitigation measures (mm) specific to Transportation requirements shall be
provided as detailed under CEQA Section 1, above or as amended, to the satisfaction of
the City Engineer.
101. The project shall provide a minimum of two points of access to the subdivision from
an existing public way wherever there are more than 30 housing units. Emergency
Vehicle Access points will NOT be accepted in lieu of full access, unless otherwise
approved by the Public Works Director and the Fire Marshal. Prior to occupancy of Phase
1, primary access to Phase 1 shall be available from Tank Farm Road, and secondary
Packet Pg. 74
7
Exhibit 2, Page 4
emergency access shall be provided from Orcutt Road either permanently via Tiburon
Road or temporarily via a construction road that traverses Phase 3. An easement for the
temporary access will be required. No Phase 2 building permits shall be issued prior to
completion of permanent secondary access improvements to the satisfaction of the Public
Works Director and Fire Marshal.
Packet Pg. 75
7
Righetti Ranch Request for Mitigation Measure Amendments
Attachment D
02-06-2018
TRANSPORTATION MITIGATION (Measures Approved in 2015)
T-1(a) Orcutt Road/Tank Farm Road Intersection Improvements. Applicant
shall install a 200’ right-turn lane on the southbound Orcutt Road approach
to Tank Farm Road shall be installed with Phase 1 Tract 3063
improvements.
T-1(a) Monitoring Program:
Compliance and implementation shall be reviewed by the City Engineer’s office with the
subdivision plans and shall be completed prior to issuance of any building permits for
Phase 1 of Tract 3063.
T-2(d) Orcutt Road/Tank Farm Road Intersection Signalization. Applicant shall
provide right-of way as necessary as part of Phase 1 Tract 3063
improvements, and pay “fair share” OASP Impact Fee contributions.
T-2(d) Monitoring Program:
Compliance will be addressed by (1) dedication of right-of-way as needed for signalization
at the time of final map recordation and (2) payment of OASP Impact Fees at time of
issuance of building permits for Tract 3063.
T-3 Street E-2 & Hanson Lane Alignment. Applicant shall align centerlines of
E-2 Street & Hanson Lane with side street stop control and a Two Way Left
Turn Lane.
T-3 Monitoring Program:
Packet Pg. 76
7
Compliance and implementation shall be reviewed by the City Engineer’s office with the
subdivision plans and shall be completed prior to issuance of any building permits for
Phase 1 of Tract 3063.
T-5 Tank Farm & Orcutt Frontage Improvements. Applicant shall design and
install frontage improvements along Tank Farm Road & Orcutt Road,
providing pedestrian access along both street frontages and the connecting
gap.
T-5 Monitoring Program:
Compliance and implementation shall be reviewed by the City Engineer’s office with the
subdivision plans and shall be completed prior to issuance of any building permits for
Phase 1 of Tract 3063.
T-6 Traffic Calming & Safety Measures. Applicant shall provide raised
intersections at D & D4 Streets and C & C3 Streets. Provide single lane
urban compact roundabout control at intersection D & Tank Farm with
speed reduction curves and at intersection A & B. Provide side street stop
control at Street E & Orcutt Road intersection.
T-6 Monitoring Program:
Compliance and implementation shall be reviewed by the City Engineer’s office with the
subdivision plans and shall be completed prior to issuance of any building permits for
Phase 1 of Tract 3063.
Packet Pg. 77
7
TRANSPORTATION MITIGATION (Measures with Strikeout and Underline Markup
of Amendments 2018)
T-1(a) Orcutt Road/Tank Farm Road Intersection Improvements. Applicant
shall install a 200’ right-turn lane right turn pocket on the southbound
approach of Orcutt Road approach to Tank Farm Road shall be installed
with prior to issuance of occupancy for Phase 1 Tract 3063 improvements.
The turn pocket will extend as far as practical north along Orcutt to the creek
culvert approximately 165 feet north of Tank Farm Road. Relocation or
undergrounding of power poles and utilities may be necessary to achieve
this improvement. The turn pocket shall be extended to a total length of
200’ and the intersection shall be modified to eliminate the skew prior to
occupancy of Phase 2, unless incorporated into the construction of a
roundabout to the satisfaction of the City Public Works Director.
T-1(a) Monitoring Program:
Compliance and implementation shall be reviewed by the City Engineer’s office with the
subdivision plans and shall be completed prior to issuance of any building permits
occupancy for Phase 1 and Phase 2 of Tract 3063.
T-2(d) Orcutt Road/Tank Farm Road Intersection Signalization or
Roundabout. Applicant shall provide right-of way and as necessary for a
modern roundabout or traffic signal at the intersection of Orcutt Road/Tank
Farm Road, subject to approval of the Director of Public Works, as a
condition of Phase 2 final map recordation. Applicant shall pay “fair share”
OASP Impact Fee contributions.
T-2(d) Monitoring Program:
Compliance will be addressed by (1) dedication and/or acquisition and dedication of right-
of-way as needed for signalization or roundabout, at City’s discretion, with Phase 2, at
Packet Pg. 78
7
the time of final map recordation and (2) payment of OASP Impact Fees at time of
issuance of building permits for any phases of Tract 3063.
T-3 Street E-2 & Hanson Lane Alignment. Applicant shall align centerlines of
E-2 Street & Hanson Lane with side street stop control and a Two Way Left
Turn Lane.
T-3 Monitoring Program:
Compliance and implementation shall be reviewed by the City Engineer’s office with the
subdivision plans and shall be completed prior to issuance of any building permits for
Phase 1 3 of Tract 3063.
T-5 Tank Farm & Orcutt Frontage Improvements. Applicant shall design and
install frontage improvements along Tank Farm Road & Orcutt Road,
providing pedestrian access along both street frontages and the connecting
gap.
T-5 Monitoring Program:
Compliance and implementation shall be reviewed by the City Engineer’s office with the
subdivision plans and shall be completed prior to issuance of any building permits for
Phase 1 of Tract 3063 occupancy for the Tract 3063 phases shown on the approved
street improvement plans, unless otherwise required or deferred by the Public Works
Director. The applicant shall bond for Tank Farm and Orcutt Frontage Improvements; an
A.M. Best Rated A:VII bond shall be required. The City reserves the right to call upon the
bond a minimum of one year following issuance of the first Phase 1 occupancy or by April
16, 2019, whichever occurs first.
T-6 Traffic Calming & Safety Measures. Applicant shall provide raised
intersections at D & D4 Streets and C & C3 Streets. Provide single lane
Packet Pg. 79
7
urban compact roundabout control at intersection D & Tank Farm with
speed reduction curves and at intersection A & B. Provide side street stop
control at Street E & Orcutt Road intersection.
T-6 Monitoring Program:
Compliance and implementation shall be reviewed by the City Engineer’s office with the
subdivision plans and shall be completed prior to issuance of any building permits for
Phase 1 of Tract 3063. The roundabout at the intersection of D Street and Tank Farm
Road shall be completed prior to issuance of occupancy of Phase 1 of Tract 3063. Side
street stop control at the Street E and Orcutt Road intersection shall be completed prior
to issuance of occupancy for Phase 3 of Tract 3063. The raised intersections shall be
completed prior to issuance of occupancy for the phase that is required to construct that
particular intersection. The applicant shall bond for the raised intersections at D& D4
Streets and C and C3 Streets and single lane urban compact roundabout control at
intersection D and Tank Farm with speed reduction curves and at intersection A and B;
an A.M. Best Rated A:VII- bond shall be required. The City reserves the right to call
upon the bond a minimum of one year following issuance of the first Phase 1 occupancy
or by April 16, 2019, whichever occurs first. No Phase 2 building permits shall be
issued prior to implementation of D and D4, C and C3, D and Tank Farm, and A and B
intersection improvements to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director.
Packet Pg. 80
7
TRANSPORTATION MITIGATION (Measures ‘Clean’ Amendments 2018)
T-1(a) Orcutt Road/Tank Farm Road Intersection Improvements. Applicant
shall install a right turn pocket on the southbound approach of Orcutt Road
to Tank Farm Road prior to issuance of occupancy for Phase 1 Tract 3063.
The turn pocket will extend as far as practical north along Orcutt to the creek
culvert approximately 165 feet north of Tank Farm Road. Relocation or
undergrounding of power poles and utilities may be necessary to achieve
this improvement. The turn pocket shall be extended to a total length of
200’ and the intersection shall be modified to eliminate the skew prior to
occupancy of Phase 2, unless incorporated into the construction of a
roundabout to the satisfaction of the City Public Works Director.
T-1(a) Monitoring Program:
Compliance and implementation shall be reviewed by the City Engineer’s office with the
subdivision plans and shall be completed prior to issuance of occupancy for Phase 1 and
Phase 2 of Tract 3063.
T-2(d) Orcutt Road/Tank Farm Road Intersection Signalization or
Roundabout. Applicant shall provide right-of way as necessary for a
modern roundabout or traffic signal at the intersection of Orcutt Road/Tank
Farm Road, subject to approval of the Director of Public Works, as a
condition of Phase 2 final map recordation. Applicant shall pay “fair share”
OASP Impact Fee contributions.
T-2(d) Monitoring Program:
Compliance will be addressed by (1) dedication and/or acquisition and dedication of right-
of-way as needed for signalization or roundabout, at City’s discretion, with Phase 2, and
Packet Pg. 81
7
(2) payment of OASP Impact Fees at time of issuance of building permits for any phases
of Tract 3063.
T-3 Street E-2 & Hanson Lane Alignment. Applicant shall align centerlines of
E-2 Street & Hanson Lane with side street stop control and a Two Way Left
Turn Lane.
T-3 Monitoring Program:
Compliance and implementation shall be reviewed by the City Engineer’s office with the
subdivision plans and shall be completed prior to issuance of any building permits for
Phase 3 of Tract 3063.
T-5 Tank Farm & Orcutt Frontage Improvements. Applicant shall design and
install frontage improvements along Tank Farm Road & Orcutt Road,
providing pedestrian access along both street frontages and the connecting
gap.
T-5 Monitoring Program:
Compliance and implementation shall be reviewed by the City Engineer’s office with the
subdivision plans and shall be completed prior to issuance of occupancy for the Tract
3063 phases shown on the approved street improvement plans, unless otherwise
required or deferred by the Public Works Director. The applicant shall bond for Tank
Farm and Orcutt Frontage Improvements; an A.M. Best Rated A:VII-bond shall be
required. The City reserves the right to call upon the bond a minimum of one year
following issuance of the first Phase 1 occupancy or by April 16, 2019, whichever occurs
first.
Packet Pg. 82
7
T-6 Traffic Calming & Safety Measures. Applicant shall provide raised
intersections at D & D4 Streets and C & C3 Streets. Provide single lane
urban compact roundabout control at intersection D & Tank Farm with
speed reduction curves and at intersection A & B. Provide side street stop
control at Street E & Orcutt Road intersection.
T-6 Monitoring Program:
Compliance and implementation shall be reviewed by the City Engineer’s office with the
subdivision plans. The roundabout at the intersection of D Street and Tank Farm Road
shall be completed prior to issuance of occupancy of Phase 1 of Tract 3063. Side street
stop control at the Street E and Orcutt Road intersection shall be completed prior to
issuance of occupancy for Phase 3 of Tract 3063. The raised intersections shall be
completed prior to issuance of occupancy for the phase that is required to construct that
particular intersection. The applicant shall bond for the raised intersections at D& D4
Streets and C and C3 Streets and single lane urban compact roundabout control at
intersection D and Tank Farm with speed reduction curves and at intersection A and B;
an A.M. Best Rated A:VII-bond shall be required. The City reserves the right to call
upon the bond a minimum of one year following issuance of the first Phase 1 occupancy
or by April 16, 2019, whichever occurs first. No Phase 2 building permits shall be
issued prior to implementation of D and D4, C and C3, D and Tank Farm, and A and B
intersection improvements to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director.
Packet Pg. 83
7
Righetti Ranch Request for of Approval Amendments
Attachment E
02-06-2018
TRANSPORTATION CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL (Approved in 2015)
16. Secondary access is required from all portions and /or phases of the subdivision
where more than 30 dwelling units are proposed. The location and development of the
proposed secondary access shall be presented to the City for review and approval prior
to the preparation of the related improvement plans or final map approval.
17. Secondary access from the E Street neighborhood shall be aligned with Hansen
Lane unless a suitable alternate secondary access point can be approved to the
satisfaction of the Community Development and Public Works Directors.
18. The proposed westerly Phase 1 of Jones Ranch shall require access to Orcutt
Road in conjunction with development of Phase 1. Secondary access will be provided to
Tank Farm Road through Tract 3063. This requires completion the B Street Bridge as
part of Phase 1 development. Regardless of access, the required water supply to this
phase may require a looped water main with indications that the B Street Bridge may
need to be constructed in support of the required water main extension to serve Righetti
VTM#3063 prior to commencing with combustible construction.
27. The Orcutt Road improvements from B Street to Tank Farm Road and along the
Tract 3066 (Jones) frontage shall be constructed with Phase 1 of the map, unless a
deferral is requested by the subdivider and granted by the City. Prior to approval of any
deferrals, the subdivider shall demonstrate that the construction of the required
improvements is impractical.
28. Prior to occupancy of Phase 1 the Tank Farm/Orcutt intersection shall be modified
to provide a southbound right-turn lane on Orcutt Road and to eliminate the skew, as
Packet Pg. 84
7
required in the OASP. All overhead utilities conflicting with this improvement shall be
undergrounded.
30. The Tank Farm Road improvements from the railroad tracks to Orcutt Road shall
be constructed with Phase 1 of the map, unless a deferral is requested by the subdivider
and granted by the City. Prior to approval of any deferrals, the subdivider shall
demonstrate that the construction of the required improvements is impractical.
32. Rough grading of the park lot and completion of bicycle and pedestrian paths
connecting Tract 3063, Tract 3066, and adjoining OASP neighborhoods with the existing
park facilities at Islay Park shall be required with Phase 1 of the map.
35. All mitigation measures (mm) specific to Transportation requirements shall be
provided as detailed under CEQA Section 1, above, to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer.
101. The project shall provide a minimum of two points of access to the subdivision from
an existing public way wherever there are more than 30 housing units. Emergency
Vehicle Access points will NOT be accepted in lieu of full access.
TRANSPORTATION CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL (with Strikeout and Underline
Markup of Amendments 2018)
16. Secondary access is required from all portions and /or phases of the subdivision
where more than 30 dwelling units are proposed. The location and development of the
proposed secondary access shall be presented to the City for review and approval prior
to the preparation of the related improvement plans or final map approval. Prior to
occupancy of Phase 1, primary access to Phase 1 shall be available from Tank Farm
Road, and secondary emergency access shall be provided from Orcutt Road either
permanently via Tiburon Road or temporarily via a construction road that traverses Phase
Packet Pg. 85
7
3. An easement for the temporary access will be required. No Phase 2 building permits
shall be issued prior to completion of permanent secondary access improvements to the
satisfaction of the Public Works Director and Fire Marshal.
17. Secondary access from the E Street neighborhood shall be aligned with Hansen
Lane unless a suitable alternate secondary access point can be approved to the
satisfaction of the Community Development and Public Works Directors and in
compliance with Mitigation Measure T-3.
18. The proposed westerly Phase 1 of Jones Ranch shall require access to Orcutt
Road in conjunction with development of Phase 1. Secondary access will be provided to
Tank Farm Road through Tract 3063. This requires completion the B Street Bridge as
part of Phase 1 development. Regardless of access, the required water supply to this
phase may require a looped water main with indications that the B Street bridge may need
to be constructed in support of the required water main extension to serve Righetti
VTM#3063 prior to commencing with combustible construction. The applicant shall
comply with Resolution No. 10620 (2015 Series), Jones Vesting Tentative Tract Map
condition #15, regarding access, egress, and provision of water supply across Tract 3063
Phase 1 development. The applicant shall bond for all water and sewer improvements
proposed for connection to the Righetti Ranch Bridge, Tiburon Bridge, and Tiburon
Culvert Extension. The City reserves the right to call upon the bonds a minimum of one
year following issuance of the first Phase 1 occupancy or by April 16, 2019, whichever
occurs first. The following improvements shall be completed by October 2018: All water,
recycled water, and sewer improvements not placed on the deferred bridge and culvert
structures shall be completed no later than October 2018. Additionally, all work related to
the construction of new pressure reducing stations along Tanglewood Road and Righetti
Ranch Road shall be completed prior to October of 2018, and shall maintain the existing
control valve located at Industrial Way. The new pressure reducing valves must include
all new: valves, vaults, panels, PLC, telemetry, CLA-VALs, bypass valve, and all
necessary appurtenances needed to construct a functioning station that can be integrated
with the current water distribution system. No Phase 2 building permits shall be issued
Packet Pg. 86
7
prior to completion of Jones Ranch access and Righetti Ranch water supply
improvements to the satisfaction of the Public Works and Utilities Directors.
27. The Orcutt Road improvements from B Street to Tank Farm Road and along the
Tract 3066 (Jones) frontage shall be constructed with Phase 1 of the map, unless a
deferral is requested by the subdivider and granted by the City Public Works Director.
Prior to approval of any deferrals, the subdivider shall demonstrate that the construction
of the required improvements is impractical and that any deferred improvements do not
result in an undue burden on future phases.
28. Prior to occupancy of Phase 1, a southbound right turn pocket shall be constructed
at the Tank Farm / Orcutt intersection. The turn pocket will extend as far practical north
along Orcutt to the creek culvert approximately 165 feet north of Tank Farm Road.
Relocation or undergrounding of power poles and utilities may be necessary to achieve
this improvement. shall be modified to provide a southbound right-turn lane on Orcutt
Road and to eliminate the skew, as required in the OASP. The turn pocket shall be
extended to a total length of 200’ and the intersection shall be modified to eliminate the
skew prior to occupancy of Phase 2, unless incorporated into the construction of a
roundabout to the satisfaction of the City Public Works Director. The subdivider shall
acquire and dedicate the necessary right-of-way for a roundabout as a condition of Phase
2 final map recordation. The required right-of-way shall be based on the City’s design. If
the City provides a construction-ready roundabout design (1) prior to October 31, 2018,
or (2) prior to issuance of encroachment permit(s) to construct the Phase 2 public
infrastructure, whichever is later, AND the City provides sufficient design plans for work
in the jurisdictional areas (the culvert extensions) by August 31, 2018, the subdivider shall
construct and complete the roundabout prior to issuance of any certificates of occupancy
for Phase 2. If City is unable to deliver the roundabout design in the time specified, the
subdivider shall provide an appropriate surety prior to the issuance of any certificates of
occupancy for Phase 2 to guarantee construction of the roundabout, and the roundabout
shall be constructed and completed prior to issuance of building permits for Phase 3.
City’s review and approval of the Phase 2 public improvement plans and issuance of
Packet Pg. 87
7
corresponding encroachment permit(s) shall not be unreasonably delayed for the sole
purpose of complying with this condition. All overhead utilities conflicting with this
improvement shall be undergrounded.
30. The Tank Farm Road improvements from the railroad tracks to Orcutt Road shall
be constructed with Phase 1 of the map, unless a deferral is requested by the subdivider
and granted by the City. Prior to approval of any deferrals, the subdivider shall
demonstrate that the construction of the required improvements is impractical. in
accordance with the phasing shown on the approved street improvement plans, unless
otherwise approved by the Public Works Director.
32. Rough grading of the park lot and completion of bicycle and pedestrian paths
connecting Tract 3063, Tract 3066, and adjoining OASP neighborhoods with the existing
park facilities at Islay Park shall be required constructed pursuant to approved onsite
Phase 1 Public Improvement Plans, or as approved by the Public Works Director and
Natural Resources Manager with Phase 1 of the map. Rough grading of the park shall
occur prior to issuance of occupancy of Phase 1. Rough grading of the bicycle/pedestrian
paths through Phases 1 and 2 of Tract 3063 shall occur prior to issuance of occupancy
for Phase 2. Rough grading of the bicycle/pedestrian path through the park shall occur
during rough grading of the park.
35. All mitigation measures (mm) specific to Transportation requirements shall be
provided as detailed under CEQA Section 1, above or as amended, to the satisfaction of
the City Engineer.
101. The project shall provide a minimum of two points of access to the subdivision from
an existing public way wherever there are more than 30 housing units. Emergency
Vehicle Access points will NOT be accepted in lieu of full access, unless otherwise
approved by the Public Works Director and the Fire Marshal. Prior to occupancy of Phase
1, primary access to Phase 1 shall be available from Tank Farm Road, and secondary
emergency access shall be provided from Orcutt Road either permanently via Tiburon
Packet Pg. 88
7
Road or temporarily via a construction road that traverses Phase 3. An easement for the
temporary access will be required. No Phase 2 building permits shall be issued prior to
completion of permanent secondary access improvements to the satisfaction of the Public
Works Director and Fire Marshal.
Packet Pg. 89
7
TRANSPORTATION CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL (‘Clean’ Amendments 2018)
16. Secondary access is required from all portions and /or phases of the subdivision
where more than 30 dwelling units are proposed. The location and development of the
proposed secondary access shall be presented to the City for review and approval prior
to the preparation of the related improvement plans or final map approval. Prior to
occupancy of Phase 1, primary access to Phase 1 shall be available from Tank Farm
Road, and secondary emergency access shall be provided from Orcutt Road either
permanently via Tiburon Road or temporarily via a construction road that traverses Phase
3. An easement for the temporary access will be required. No Phase 2 building permits
shall be issued prior to completion of permanent secondary access improvements to the
satisfaction of the Public Works Director and Fire Marshal.
17. Secondary access from the E Street neighborhood shall be aligned with Hansen
Lane unless a suitable alternate secondary access point can be approved to the
satisfaction of the Community Development and Public Works Directors and in
compliance with Mitigation Measure T-3.
18. The applicant shall comply with Resolution No. 10620 (2015 Series), Jones
Vesting Tentative Tract Map condition #15, regarding access, egress, and provision of
water supply across Tract 3063 Phase 1 development. The applicant shall bond for all
water and sewer improvements proposed for connection to the Righetti Ranch Bridge,
Tiburon Bridge, and Tiburon Culvert Extension. The City reserves the right to call upon
the bonds a minimum of one year following issuance of the first Phase 1 occupancy or by
April 16, 2019, whichever occurs first. The following improvements shall be completed
by October 2018: All water, recycled water, and sewer improvements not placed on the
deferred bridge and culvert structures shall be completed no later than October 2018.
Additionally, all work related to the construction of new pressure reducing stations along
Tanglewood Road and Righetti Ranch Road shall be completed prior to October of 2018,
and shall maintain the existing control valve located at Industrial Way. The new pressure
reducing valves must include all new: valves, vaults, panels, PLC, telemetry, CLA-VALs,
Packet Pg. 90
7
bypass valve, and all necessary appurtenances needed to construct a functioning station
that can be integrated with the current water distribution system. No Phase 2 building
permits shall be issued prior to completion of Jones Ranch access and Righetti Ranch
water supply improvements to the satisfaction of the Public Works and Utilities Directors.
27. The Orcutt Road improvements from B Street to Tank Farm Road and along the
Tract 3066 (Jones) frontage shall be constructed with Phase 1 of the map, unless a
deferral is requested by the subdivider and granted by the City Public Works Director.
Prior to approval of any deferrals, the subdivider shall demonstrate that the construction
of the required improvements is impractical and that any deferred improvements do not
result in an undue burden on future phases.
28. Prior to occupancy of Phase 1, a southbound right turn pocket shall be constructed
at the Tank Farm / Orcutt intersection. The turn pocket will extend as far practical north
along Orcutt to the creek culvert approximately 165 feet north of Tank Farm Road.
Relocation or undergrounding of power poles and utilities may be necessary to achieve
this improvement. The turn pocket shall be extended to a total length of 200’ and the
intersection shall be modified to eliminate the skew prior to occupancy of Phase 2, unless
incorporated into the construction of a roundabout to the satisfaction of the City Public
Works Director. The subdivider shall acquire and dedicate the necessary right-of-way for
a roundabout as a condition of Phase 2 final map recordation. The required right-of-way
shall be based on the City’s design. If the City provides a construction-ready roundabout
design (1) prior to October 31, 2018, or (2) prior to issuance of encroachment permit(s)
to construct the Phase 2 public infrastructure, whichever is later, AND the City provides
sufficient design plans for work in the jurisdictional areas (the culvert extensions) by
August 31, 2018, the subdivider shall construct and complete the roundabout prior to
issuance of any certificates of occupancy for Phase 2. If City is unable to deliver the
roundabout design in the time specified, the subdivider shall provide an appropriate surety
prior to the issuance of any certificates of occupancy for Phase 2 to guarantee
construction of the roundabout, and the roundabout shall be constructed and completed
prior to issuance of building permits for Phase 3. City’s review and approval of the Phase
Packet Pg. 91
7
2 public improvement plans and issuance of corresponding encroachment permit(s) shall
not be unreasonably delayed for the sole purpose of complying with this condition. All
overhead utilities conflicting with this improvement shall be undergrounded.
30. The Tank Farm Road improvements from the railroad tracks to Orcutt Road shall
be constructed in accordance with the phasing shown on the approved street
improvement plans, unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Director.
32. Rough grading of the park lot and completion of bicycle and pedestrian paths
connecting Tract 3063, Tract 3066, and adjoining OASP neighborhoods with the existing
park facilities at Islay Park shall be constructed pursuant to approved onsite Phase 1
Public Improvement Plans, or as approved by the Public Works Director and Natural
Resources Manager. Rough grading of the park shall occur prior to issuance of
occupancy of Phase 1. Rough grading of the bicycle/pedestrian paths through Phases 1
and 2 of Tract 3063 shall occur prior to issuance of occupancy for Phase 2. Rough
grading of the bicycle/pedestrian path through the park shall occur during rough grading
of the park.
35. All mitigation measures (mm) specific to Transportation requirements shall be
provided as detailed under CEQA Section 1, above or as amended, to the satisfaction of
the City Engineer.
101. The project shall provide a minimum of two points of access to the subdivision from
an existing public way wherever there are more than 30 housing units. Emergency
Vehicle Access points will NOT be accepted in lieu of full access, unless otherwise
approved by the Public Works Director and the Fire Marshal. Prior to occupancy of Phase
1, primary access to Phase 1 shall be available from Tank Farm Road, and secondary
emergency access shall be provided from Orcutt Road either permanently via Tiburon
Road or temporarily via a construction road that traverses Phase 3. An easement for the
temporary access will be required. No Phase 2 building permits shall be issued prior to
Packet Pg. 92
7
completion of permanent secondary access improvements to the satisfaction of the Public
Works Director and Fire Marshal.
Packet Pg. 93
7
979 Osos Street Suite E, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 805.602.0009
October 9, 2017
Michael Codron
Community Development Director
City of San Luis Obispo
919 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Subject: Righetti Ranch Tract #3063 Infrastructure Phasing
Dear Mr. Codron;
Because of jurisdictional restraints, the B and C Street bridges, the Tiburon and Jones
culverts, and the Orcutt culvert extensions cannot be started until May 2018. Because
these improvements are crucial to Tract #3066 (Jones) but not Tract #3063 Phase 1
(Righetti), we have had to de-couple the improvements of Jones from Righetti. To
create an orderly development schedule, we must allow our buyer to close on the
Righetti lots in February and begin the process of developing homes. While we fully
expect to have all improvements listed above installed before any occupancy occurs, our
buyer cannot get financing unless occupancy is assured. Therefore, we are asking the
City to allow occupancy to the 151 lots of Righetti Phase 1 without the installation of the
above listed improvements under the following circumstances.,
• In-Tract Improvements: The Righetti in-tract improvements including water, fire
hydrants, reclaimed water, sewer, stormwater, and curb/gutter/streets are
completed.
• Access: The primary access to Righetti off Tank Farm as well as a secondary
emergency access from Orcutt is completed.
• Fire Flow: The offsite water main from Cedar Ct. will be installed and connected
to the existing water main running parallel to the railroad tracks. With this
connection, modeling done by the Wallace Group has determined that fire flow
at the worst-case hydrant easily meets the fire department requirements.
Packet Pg. 94
7
Righetti Ranch Tract #3063 Infrastructure Phasing October 9, 2017
2 of 5
As mentioned in our meeting last Friday, by allowing occupancy to Righetti under the
above listed conditions, development on the entire site can move forward in a timely
manner as described in the timeline and map enclosed.
Per Staff’s request enclosed is a table of Tract #3063 VTM’s Mitigation Measures and
Conditions alongside our requests.
Transportation Mitigations:
T-3 Street E-2 & Hanson Lane
Alignment.
Applicant shall align the centerlines of E-
2 and Hanson Lane with side street stop
control and Two-Way Left Turn Lane
T-3 Monitoring Program:
Compliance and implementation shall be
reviewed by the city Engineer’s office
with the subdivision plans and shall be
completed prior to issuance of any
building permits for Phase 1 of tract 3063
Discussion:
E-2 Street is part of Phase 3 as shown on
sheet C12 of the tract #3063 Tentative
Map.
Ambient Request:
Ambient requests that T-3 monitoring
requirements be updated to Phase 3 of
Tract #3063, as shown in in approved
improvement plans.
T-5 Tank Farm & Orcutt Frontage
Improvements.
Applicant shall design and install frontage
improvements along Tank Farm Road &
Orcutt Road, providing pedestrian access
along both streets frontages and
connecting gap
T-5 Monitoring Program:
Compliance and implementation shall be
reviewed by the city Engineer’s office
with the subdivision plans and shall be
completed prior to issuance of any
building permits for Phase 1 of tract 3063
Discussion:
Phasing of the Tank Farm and Orcutt
frontage improvements was worked-out
during the final engineering process and is
specified in the approved “TRACT 3063
PHASES 1-3 OFFSITE STREET
IMPROVEMENT PLANS ORCUTT
ROAD & TANK FARM ROAD”.
However, Jones Ranch (Tract 3066) is
delayed by restricted access within
jurisdictional boundaries and its
improvements have decoupled from the
Tract 3063 improvements.
Ambient Request:
Ambient requests that the 151 lots within
phase 1 of tract 3063 be allowed
occupancy without the Phase 1 frontage
improvements along Orcutt associated
with tract 3066 frontage.
T-6 Traffic Calming & Safety
Measures
Discussion 1
The C Street Bridge (Righetti Ranch
Bridge) is delayed due to restricted access
Packet Pg. 95
7
Righetti Ranch Tract #3063 Infrastructure Phasing October 9, 2017
3 of 5
Applicant shall provide raised
intersections at D&D4 Streets and C &
C3 Streets. Provide single lane urban
compact roundabout control at
intersection A & B. Provide side street
stop control at Street E & Orcutt Road
Intersection
T-6 Monitoring Program:
Compliance and implementation shall be
reviewed by the city Engineer’s office
with the subdivision plans and shall be
completed prior to issuance of any
building permits for Phase 1 of tract 3063
within the jurisdictional boundaries and
cannot be completed until mid-summer
2018. Therefore, Righetti Ranch North of
the Bridge, the A & B Street roundabout,
and the C & C3 Street intersection will
not be accessible to tract 3063 Phase 1
until after the bridge is completed.
Ambient Request 1:
Ambient requests that the 151 lots within
Phase 1 of Tract 3063 be allowed
occupancy based on primary access from
Tank Farm Road and a secondary
emergency access from Orcutt via a
construction road through Phase 3 of the
project.
Discussion 2
The intersection E & Orcutt is part of
Phase 3 as shown on sheet C12 of the
VTM.
Ambient Request 2:
Ambient requests that the controls of E &
Orcutt intersection be linked to Phase 3 of
Tract 3063 development as specified in
the approved improvement plans.
Conditions:
16. Secondary access is required from
all portions and/or phases of the
subdivision where more than 30 dwelling
units are proposed. The location and
development of the proposed secondary
access shall be presented to the City for
review and approval prior to the
preparation of the related improvement
plans of final map approval
Ambient Request:
Ambient requests that the 151 lots within
Phase 1 of Tract 3063 be allowed
occupancy based upon primary access
from Tank Farm Road and secondary
emergency access from Orcutt via a
construction road through Phase 3 of the
project.
Packet Pg. 96
7
Righetti Ranch Tract #3063 Infrastructure Phasing October 9, 2017
4 of 5
17. Secondary access from the E street
neighborhood shall be aligned with
Hanson Lane unless a suitable alternate
secondary access point can be approved to
the satisfaction of the community
Development and Public Works Directors.
Ambient Request:
Per T-3 Above, Ambient requests that
condition 17 be updated to Phase 3 of
Tract 3063 as specified in the approved
improvement plans.
18. The proposed westerly Phase 1 of
Jones shall require access to Orcutt Road
in conjunction with development of Phase
1. Secondary access will be provided to
Tank Farm Road through Tract 3063.
This requires completion of the B Street
Bridge as part of Phase 1 development.
Regardless of access, the required water
supply to this phase may require a looped
water line main with indications that the B
Street Bridge may need to be constructed
in support of the required water main
extension to serve Righetti VTM#3063
prior to commencing with combustible
construction
Ambient Request:
Condition 18 is a requirement that directs
phasing of Tract 3066 and is listed as
condition 15 in 3066’s VTM. Because
this condition is already listed for 3066’s
development, Ambient requests that
condition 18 be removed from tract 3063.
In addition, Ambient requests that
Utilities allow consideration of either
“high lining” the water line over the
creeks with temporary bridges, boring
under the creek beds with a permanent
line, or excavating for a permanent water
line if we can complete the excavations
before jurisdictional deadlines.
28. Prior to occupancy of Phase 1 the
Tank Farm/Orcutt intersection shall be
modified to provide a southbound right-
turn lane on Orcutt Road and eliminate the
skew, as required in the OASP. All
overhead utilities conflicting with this
improvement shall be underground.
Ambient Request:
This condition was worked-out during the
final engineering approval process with a
right turn lane as shown on sheet C50 of
the approved plans built in Phase 1 and
rebuilding the intersection to eliminate the
skew completed in Phase 2. Now that the
City is moving forward with a roundabout
at this location, Ambient requests that the
requirement to rebuild the intersection to
eliminate the skew in Phase 2 be dropped
30. The Tank Farm improvements
from the railroad tracks to Orcutt Road
shall be constructed with Phase 1 of the
map, unless a deferral is requested by the
subdivider and granted by the City. Prior
to approval of any deferrals, the
subdivider shall demonstrate that the
construction of the required improvements
is impractical.
Ambient Request:
Phasing of the Tank Farm frontage
improvements has been worked out
during the final engineering process and is
shown in the approved street improvement
plans.
Packet Pg. 97
7
Righetti Ranch Tract #3063 Infrastructure Phasing October 9, 2017
5 of 5
32. Rough grading of the park lot and
completion of bicycle and pedestrian
paths connecting Tract 3063, Tract 3066,
and adjoining neighborhoods with the
existing park facilities at Islay Park shall
be required with Phase 1 of the map.
Ambient Request:
The bike path connecting Tracts 3063 and
3066 runs through and is part of Phase 2
of Tract 3063 and the Neighborhood park.
Ambient requests that condition 32
requiring the path through Phase 2 of
Tract 3063 to occur during the
development of Phase 2 and the portion
running through the Park to occur during
the construction of the park. In addition,
the phasing of any improvements linking
neighborhoods to Islay Park to occur as
agreed and shown in the approved 3063
offsite street improvement plans
Sincerely,
Dante Anselmo
Principal
Ambient Communities | Central Coast, LLC
Packet Pg. 98
7
Orcutt Right Turn Lane Completed Prior to Tract #3063 OccupancyTank Farm Roundabout Completed Prior to Tract #3063 OccupancyRighetti Ranch Bridge Completed Mid-Summner 2018Tiburon Bridge Completed Mid-Summer 2018Offsite Water Line Completed Prior to Tract #3063 OccupancySecondary Emergency Access Completed Prior to Tract #3063 OccupancyTiburon, Orcutt Fronage, Ranch House, Sponza copleted Prior to Tract #3066 Occupancy10/9/2017 1:52:44 PMTract #3063 Phase 3Tract #3063 Phase 2Tract #3063 Phase 1Tract #3066Packet Pg. 997
IDTask ModeTask Name1PHASE 12Righetti Offsites3Orcutt Road Right Turn Lane4Tank Farm Roundabout5Offsite Waterline6Righetti Ranch Bridge9Righetti Ranch Bridge Complete103063 Site Improvements (4,500's, 5,000's, 6,000's)18Lot Delivery (Righetti: 4,500's, 5,000's, 6,000's)19Model Complex Costruction20Home Construction21First Home Occupancy (3063)22Post Closing Obligations (3063)25Jones Offsites26Tibouron Bridge29Tiburon Bridge Complete30Orcutt/Tiburon Intersection31Jones 3066 Site Improvements (Du/tri, 5,000's)39Lot Delivery (Jones:Du/Tri, 5,000's)40Model Complex Costruction41Home Construction42First Home Occupancy (3066)43Post Closing Obligations (3066)Righetti Ranch Bridge Complete7/23Lot Delivery (Righetti: 4,500's, 5,000's, 6,000's)2/15First Home Occupancy (3063)11/22Tiburon Bridge Complete7/6Lot Delivery (Jones:Du/Tri, 5,000's)7/6First Home Occupancy (3066)6/7No Work Within Jurisditional bounary 11/1/17 - 5/1/18AprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDecJanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDecJanFebMarAprMayJunJulQtr 2, 2017Qtr 3, 2017Qtr 4, 2017Qtr 1, 2018Qtr 2, 2018Qtr 3, 2018Qtr 4, 2018Qtr 1, 2019Qtr 2, 2019Qtr 3, 2019TaskSplitMilestoneSummaryProject SummaryInactive TaskInactive MilestoneInactive SummaryManual TaskDuration-onlyManual Summary RollupManual SummaryStart-onlyFinish-onlyExternal TasksExternal MilestoneDeadlineProgressManual ProgressPage 1Project: 2017 10Date: Mon 10/9Packet Pg. 1007
Packet Pg. 101
7
Packet Pg. 102
7
"C" STREET BRIDGE DEFERREDTRACT #3063 PHASE 1 (RIGHETTI)151 LOTS"B" STREET BRIDGE AND CULVERTS DEFERREDWATER LINE FROM CEDAR CT. DEFERREDTRACT #3063 RIGHETTI RANCH PHASE 2TRACT #3063 RIGHETTI RANCH PHASE 3"C" STREET UNDERGROUNDS & ROAD IMPROVEMENTS DEFERRED"A","B", AND SPONZA UNDERGROUNDS & ROAD IMPROVEMENTS DEFERREDBIKE PATHS DEFERREDTRACT #3066 JONES RANCHORCUTT ROAD FRONTAGE DEFERREDEXHIBIT A: DELAYED IMPROVEMENTSBIKE PATH THROUGH PARK PART OF PARK CONSTRUCTION PLANSTRACT 3063 IN-TRACT SEWER, STORM DRAIN, WATER, FIRE HYDRANTS, CURB/GUTTER STREETS, TANK FARM ROUNDABOUT-NOT DEFERRED-11/20/2017 3:19:29 PMK:\1 Ambient Projects\CA, SLO - Righetti Ranch\REVIT Files\Righetti Jones Construction Phasing v2017.rvtPacket Pg. 1037
IDTask ModeTask Name1PHASE 12Righetti Offsites3Orcutt Road Right Turn Lane4Tank Farm Roundabout5Offsite Waterline6Righetti Ranch Bridge9Righetti Ranch Bridge Complete103063 Site Improvements (4,500's, 5,000's, 6,000's)18Lot Delivery (Righetti: 4,500's, 5,000's, 6,000's)19Model Complex Costruction20Home Construction21First Home Occupancy (3063)22Post Closing Obligations (3063)25Jones Offsites26Tibouron Bridge29Tiburon Bridge Complete30Orcutt/Tiburon Intersection31Jones 3066 Site Improvements (Du/tri, 5,000's)39Lot Delivery (Jones:Du/Tri, 5,000's)40Model Complex Costruction41Home Construction42First Home Occupancy (3066)43Post Closing Obligations (3066)Righetti Ranch Bridge Complete7/23Lot Delivery (Righetti: 4,500's, 5,000's, 6,000's)2/15First Home Occupancy (3063)11/22Tiburon Bridge Complete7/6Lot Delivery (Jones:Du/Tri, 5,000's)7/6First Home Occupancy (3066)6/7No Work Within Jurisditional bounary 11/1/17 - 5/1/18AprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDecJanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDecJanFebMarAprMayJunJulQtr 2, 2017Qtr 3, 2017Qtr 4, 2017Qtr 1, 2018Qtr 2, 2018Qtr 3, 2018Qtr 4, 2018Qtr 1, 2019Qtr 2, 2019Qtr 3, 2019TaskSplitMilestoneSummaryProject SummaryInactive TaskInactive MilestoneInactive SummaryManual TaskDuration-onlyManual Summary RollupManual SummaryStart-onlyFinish-onlyExternal TasksExternal MilestoneDeadlineProgressManual ProgressPage 1Project: 2017 10Date: Mon 10/9Packet Pg. 1047
Packet Pg. 105
7
Packet Pg. 106
7
Packet Pg. 107
7
Packet Pg. 108
7
Packet Pg. 109
7
Packet Pg. 110
7
Packet Pg. 111
7
Packet Pg. 112
7
Packet Pg. 113
7
Packet Pg. 114
7
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT
SUBJECT: Consideration of a Request to Amend Project Conditions and Mitigation Measures
associated with a Final Tract Map #3063-Phase 1 (Righetti Ranch) to Allow Phase 1
Occupancy and Infrastructure Phasing on the Righetti Ranch property including
Consideration of Consistency Determinations Regarding Previously Approved Mitigated
Negative Declaration (2015) and the OASP Final EIR (2010).
PROJECT ADDRESS: 3987 Orcutt Road BY: David Watson, Consulting Planner (704-8728)
Watson Planning Consultants
dave@watsonplanning.us
VIA: Doug Davidson, Deputy Director (781-7177)
ddavidson@slocity.org
FILE NUMBERS: Application #MOD-1220-2017, Final Tract Map #3063, Phase 1
Related File Numbers GPA-SPA #Tract 3063, ER #Tract 3063
RECOMMENDATION: Recommend the City Council Approve Various Amendments to Mitigation
Measures and Conditions of Approval to facilitate Phased Completion of Infrastructure and Occupancy
for Phase 1 Homes for Final Map #3063 (Application #MOD-1220-2017).
SITE DATA
Applicant and
Representative
Travis Fuentes, Dante Anselmo
Ambient Communities
Zoning R‐1‐SP, R‐2‐SP, R‐3‐SP
C/OS‐SP, P‐F‐SP
General Plan Orcutt Area Specific Plan
Site Area 143.82 acres
Environmental
Status
Orcutt Area Specific Plan Final EIR
certified 2010; Mitigated
Negative Declaration for Righetti
Tract #3063 adopted 2015;
recommended findings of
consistency.
Meeting Date: January 10, 2018
Item Number: 3
Righetti Ranch
Packet Pg. 115
7
#MOD-1220-2017 / VTM #3063, Phase 1 Infrastructure and Conditions Phasing (Righetti Ranch)
Page 2
1.0 SUMMARY AND COMMISSION’S PURVIEW
In 2015, the applicant, Ambient Communities (Ambient), received approval for a Vesting Tentative
Tract Map to create 304 residential parcels and 22 parkland and open space parcels on the 144-acre
Righetti Ranch property.
Following approval, Ambient has been working with staff to process the Phase 1 Final Map and
infrastructure improvement plans to begin construction of their project. The Phase 1 Final Map and
improvement plans were approved by the City Council on February 21, 2017, and groundbreaking for
Phase 1 occurred earlier this year. Phase 1 of Tract #3063 includes 151 residential lots, public and
private parks and open space properties, and extensive infrastructure improvements both on-site and off-
site to support development of the Righetti Ranch project, as well as tie into the overall development
plans for the Orcutt Area as defined under the Orcutt Area Specific Plan (OASP).
The Planning Commission’s role is to consider the applicant’s request to phase the completion of Phase
1 infrastructure, to allow occupancy of up to 151 residential units in the Phase 1 project under phased
completion of infrastructure, and make recommendations to the City Council on adoption of the
proposed amendments. The Commission is also tasked with review of an environmental analysis (in the
form of findings of consistency with the previously-adopted Initial Study-Mitigated Negative
Declaration) and to make recommendations to the City Council regarding the environmental
determination.
1.1 Approved Project Description
Tract #3063 (Righetti Ranch) was approved to construct up to 304 residential homes and retain one
homestead site on 143.83 acres. Tract #3063 would construct on-site trails and connect to nearby
public trails, provide on-site and regional storm water management features, construct roadways
and utilities to support internal uses, and also tie into the City’s regional off-site networks of
roadways, water, wastewater and recycled water utilities.
Packet Pg. 116
7
#MOD-1220-2017 / VTM #3063, Phase 1 Infrastructure and Conditions Phasing (Righetti Ranch)
Page 3
A statistical summary of the Righetti Ranch Tract #3063 project includes:
Proposed
Project
Gross
Acreage
Commercial
Land Uses
Residential
Land Uses
Proposed Parks & Open
Space
Righetti
Ranch
143.83
acres
None
proposed
272 single family units
32 multi-family units
304 total residential
14.26 acres Parks
75.42 acres Open Space
89.68 acres (62.4%)
Applicant’s Request For Modifications
1.2 Summary of Applicant Request
The applicant has requested modifications to Mitigation Measures (MMs) in Attachment 2 and
Conditions of Approval (COAs) in Attachment 3 largely to address the timing of the completion of
specific infrastructure improvements, and the issuance of building permits and in some cases
occupancy permits that were to be withheld until such time as specific infrastructure was completed.
The applicant’s requests are addressed in greater detail in Attachments 4 (Applicant’s Request for
Deferred Improvements Exhibit and Ambient Communities Proposed Construction Schedule) and
5 (Community Development Director Response to Ambient and Associated Exhibits 12-6-2017).
By way of summary, these “deferred” improvements fall into four (4) larger categories that can be
summarized as follows:
Figure 1 ‐ Tract 3063 Lots and Land Use/Zoning
Configurations
Packet Pg. 117
7
#MOD-1220-2017 / VTM #3063, Phase 1 Infrastructure and Conditions Phasing (Righetti Ranch)
Page 4
Off-site vehicular improvements to be delayed beyond Phase 1 Building Permit issuance;
Off-site pedestrian improvements delayed beyond Phase 1 Building Permit issuance;
On-site improvements delayed by Resource Agency construction window limitations; and,
On-site park grading and pathways that could be deferred beyond Phase 1 Building Permits.
Off-site Vehicle Improvements That Can Be Delayed Beyond Issuance of Phase 1 Bldg Permit
Conditions of Approval (COAs) #17 and #28 address improvements involving secondary access
provided with a re-aligned Hansen Lane centerline (COA #17) and modifications to the Tank Farm
and Orcutt Road intersection (COA #28). Each of these conditions required the roadway
improvements to be completed prior to building permit and/or occupancy of any of the Phase 1
units. The applicant is requesting that these improvements be permitted to be started during Phase
1, but defer completion prior to occupancy of any of the homes for Phase 2 (COA #28 - roundabout)
and issuance of building permits for Phase 3 (COA #17 – permanent secondary access).
As described more fully under Section 2.0 below, Evaluation of CEQA and Condition
Recommendations, staff is supportive of deferring the completion of the Tank Farm-Orcutt
roundabout and permanent secondary access (refer to Attachments 2 and 3 for complete
recommended language).
Off-site Pedestrian Improvements Delayed Beyond Issuance of Phase 1 Building Permits
COAs #27 and #30 required the completion of curb, gutter and sidewalk frontage road
improvements along the perimeter of the subdivision, which were designed into the Phase 1 tract
improvement plans prior to issuance of Phase 1 building permits. The applicant is requesting to
defer some of these improvements, as shown on the approved street improvement plans, to a date
after initial occupancies in Phase 1.
As described more fully under Section 2.0 below, Evaluation of CEQA and Condition
Recommendations, staff is supportive of deferring the completion of some of these frontage
road improvements.
On-site Improvements Delayed by Resource Agency Restrictions on Construction Windows
COAs #16 and #18 established requirements that addressed both internal vehicular circulation and
utility extensions to serve the Righetti Ranch project. By nature of the master plan of development
for the Orcutt Area, the Righetti improvements have been designed to connect into other developing
properties within the OASP. As part of the roadway and utility network in the OASP and as
approved under the Phase 1 Tract, several creek crossings are required that require Resource Agency
permits (i.e. Regional Water Quality Control Board, California Department of Fish & Wildlife and
the Army Corps of Engineers) that each have their own unique standards and requirements for
constructing within their jurisdictional areas. In this case, tentative tract plans that called for
extensions of utilities and circulation systems over and through these jurisdictional areas are delayed
by Resource Agency construction restrictions over the 2017-2018 winter (generally November-
April), thereby delaying the commencement of either utility or vehicular systems until May of 2018,
which would delay some of these utilities and roadways until at least the latter part of 2018, if not
into 2019.
Packet Pg. 118
7
#MOD-1220-2017 / VTM #3063, Phase 1 Infrastructure and Conditions Phasing (Righetti Ranch)
Page 5
The applicant is requesting that the option for a “temporary” secondary access be considered if they
are unable to complete the crossings of the Righetti Ranch or Tiburon Road bridges due to the
Resource Agency construction timing restrictions. In addition, a part of this request is the limited
deferral of the connections across these crossings of various water, wastewater and recycled water
utilities.
As described more fully under Section 2.0 below, Evaluation of CEQA and Condition
Recommendations, staff is supportive of deferring the completion of these on-site roads and
utility improvements (refer to Attachments 2 and 3 for complete recommended language).
Staff is also supportive of allowing an interim-temporary secondary access to be constructed
to serve Phase 1 until such time as a permanent secondary access can be completed prior to
issuance of Phase 2 building permits.
On-site Improvements That Can Be Delayed Beyond Issuance of Phase 1 Building Permits
COA #32 required the rough grading and extension of bicycle and pedestrian pathways through
Righetti Ranch as part of Phase 1, to be completed prior to issuance of building permits. The
applicant has requested that the bicycle and pedestrian path grading/connections within Phase 2 to
occur during the development of Phase 2, and that the paths proposed to traverse the park be
completed during construction of the park.
As described more fully under Section 2.0 below, Evaluation of CEQA and Condition
Recommendations, staff is supportive of deferring the completion of these park and
recreation improvements (refer to Attachments 2 and 3 for complete recommended
language).
2.0 EVALUATION - CEQA REVIEW AND REVISED MITIGATION MEASURE
RECOMMENDATIONS
2.1 Environmental Review
Approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map #3063 included use of the 2010 Final EIR for the OASP
(‘tiering’ off the FEIR), as well as a focused Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) that updated
mitigation measures to be more specific to the proposed subdivision application. The original FEIR
and MND included extensive analysis of topic areas including:
Aesthetics associated with modification of the Righetti URL
Air Quality
Biological Resources
Cultural Resources
Noise
Public Services
Transportation
Utilities and Service Systems
The applicant’s proposed modification to the conditions summarized above are shown in
Attachment 3. This attachment includes the text of the original COA, as well as a proposed
modification to the COAs in strike-through format. These amendments represent a combination of
the applicant’s request and staff’s recommended modifications.
Packet Pg. 119
7
#MOD-1220-2017 / VTM #3063, Phase 1 Infrastructure and Conditions Phasing (Righetti Ranch)
Page 6
Attachment 2 includes the original adopted mitigation measures under discussion, a markup of
proposed mitigation measures, and a final ‘clean’ version of recommended changes to these
amendments for Tract #3063, as reference for the following discussion. Attachment 4 includes the
applicant’s request. Attachment 5 provides a letter response to Ambient from the Community
Development Director dated December 6, 2017 including exhibits showing the requested deferrals
and construction schedule proposed by Ambient.
Transportation
Transportation issues were addressed in Mitigation Measures (MM) for the project that addressed
the following anticipated environmental impacts:
MM T-1(a) and MM T-2(d) address the need to provide a 200’ right-turn lane on southbound
Orcutt Road at Tank Farm Road to address adding vehicle stacking demands and associated vehicle
delays due to increasing traffic from the OASP at this intersection. These MMs also anticipated
right-of-way dedication and Transportation Impact Fees (TIF) for a future signalized intersection at
Orcutt and Tank Farm Road. During review of the project improvement plans the applicant and
City Public Works Transportation staff agreed that an alternate to the turn lane and signalization
option was the construction of a roundabout to solve these intersection needs. Staff has determined
that there are sufficient OASP contributions to complete the roundabout improvements using the
turn pocket and signalization funds otherwise required under the Public Facilities Financing Plan
(PFFP). The City is currently updating its AB 1600 citywide transportation impact fees. As part of
that process additional funding for the roundabout may be included in the city TIF. The FEIR
Traffic Analysis suggests that the traffic generated by 151 units comprising Phase 1, along with the
limited distribution of vehicle trips from those units into the Orcutt-Tank Farm Road intersection,
would not result in a significant adverse impact at this intersection under the Phase 1 project. The
roundabout improvement alternative for this intersection would be needed at a point further into the
future than the traffic projected to occur for the Phase 1 Righetti project and for these reasons staff
supports delaying this improvement until occupancy of any Phase 2 units. Attachment 3 includes
modified language for these mitigation measures to align timing for the roundabout improvements
to Phase 2 of Righetti Ranch. Phase 1 improvements will continue to include the right turn pocket
from Orcutt to Tank Farm Road extended as far as practical to the existing culvert approximately
165’ north of the intersection.
MM T-3 addresses the realignment of the Hansen Lane intersection with the Righetti project. The
Hansen Lane portion of the Righetti Ranch project is not proposed to be needed until issuance of
building permits in this area, which is anticipated for Phase 3 of the development project. Based on
Phases 1 and 2 project traffic anticipated in the FEIR, the need for the Hansen Lane realignment is
not necessary until Phase 3 construction on Righetti. Attachment 3 includes modified language for
this mitigation measure to provide for these improvements before issuance of building permits in
Phase 3 of Righetti Ranch.
MM T-5 provides for the installation of frontage improvements for both Tank Farm and Orcutt
Roads as part of Phase 1 prior to the issuance of any building permits. While this MM recognizes
the importance of completing pedestrian improvements as an alternate to vehicular traffic, it is
reasonable to assume that the Phase 1 project will have more of a need for pedestrian frontage
improvements abutting Tank Farm Road, and to tie that portion of Righetti frontage improvements
Packet Pg. 120
7
#MOD-1220-2017 / VTM #3063, Phase 1 Infrastructure and Conditions Phasing (Righetti Ranch)
Page 7
to the Phase 1 units abutting Tank Farm Road. Due to the absence of vehicular traffic accessing
Orcutt Road as part of Phase 1 (except for emergency “temporary” access as noted under revised
COA #16, noted above) increased needs for pedestrian safety/access alternatives on Orcutt Road
will be unlikely to be needed before Phase 2 vehicle access is made at Orcutt Road. Pedestrians
from Phase 1 will cross Tank Farm Road at the roundabout constructed as part of Phase 1 and use
the existing sidewalks on Tank Farm Road to access Islay Park and the Marigold Center.
MM T-6 provided for a series of traffic calming and safety measures, including raised intersection
traffic calming within the project at various locations internal to the project. These improvements
were to be completed prior to the issuance of building permits for Phase 1. As suggested above,
these improvements include both off-site (Tank Farm) and on-site (internal street intersection)
features. The FEIR and MND analyzed the need for these improvements as new development was
coming on line. To this extent, it is reasonable to conclude from reviewing the FEIR and MND that
the limited through access for vehicles within the subdivision (as further restricted by the
“temporary” secondary access in the initial Phase 1 project) would limit the value of traffic calming
in the initial phase of the project. However, traffic entering and exiting the Righetti project will
interact with Tank Farm Road traffic. On this basis, MM T-6 can be modified to establish a two-
step process for implementing traffic calming and safety measures at Righetti Ranch. Attachment
3 includes modifications to MM T-6 that would require the Tank Farm improvements to be
completed prior to occupancy and new traffic from Phase 1, but to defer internal improvements to
such time as the “permanent” secondary access at Tiburon is completed with Phase 2.
Utilities
While there are not any MMs that need to be revised as part of this request, it is important to note
that staff has proposed additional condition language under COA #18 as described above, to reflect
the timing of creek crossings, which will support utility extensions and connections for development
on Righetti, as well as those projects to the north of Righetti that will rely on some of the Righetti
improvements. Utility staff has participated in the discussions of deferral of Phase 1 improvements
and has recommended that certain improvements be completed before the next winter season (2018-
2019) restrictions are in place. The specific improvements recommended in revised COA #18
(Attachment 2) to be completed before next winter (October 2018) include:
Construct new pressure reducing stations along Tanglewood and Righetti Ranch Roads
Maintain existing control valve at Industrial Way
Complete all water, recycled water and wastewater improvements not otherwise included
with the delayed creek crossings
2.2 Summary of CEQA Recommendations
Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission recommend the following CEQA Findings of
Consistency with previous FEIR and MND actions on the Righetti Ranch project, in the event that
any or all the modified COAs for the project are approved (refer to Attachment 1):
Finding #1: Proposed modifications to MMs T-1(a) and T-2(d) provide for the construction of
a turn pocket and roundabout for intersection widening and signalization,
consistent with the City’s Circulation Element principles, and implements these
improvements prior to any significant traffic generation accessing Orcutt Road
from the Righetti Ranch project, thereby matching trip generation to the
Packet Pg. 121
7
#MOD-1220-2017 / VTM #3063, Phase 1 Infrastructure and Conditions Phasing (Righetti Ranch)
Page 8
completion of the intersection roundabout.
Finding #2: Orcutt and Tank Farm Road frontage improvements and Hansen Lane
realignment can be timed to be completed in phases to meet the traffic generation
demands of phased occupancy of the Righetti Ranch project.
Finding #3: Traffic safety measures can be completed on Tank Farm Road as traffic
generation demand occurs at or before Phase 1 occupancy of residential units, and
internal roadway connections over and across jurisdictional areas would be
completed prior to Phase 2 building permit issuance, to the satisfaction of the
Director of Public Works.
3.0 REVISED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL (COAs) RECOMMENDATIONS
Attachment 3 includes the original 2015 COAs, a mark-up of changes proposed for the following
condition amendments, and a final ‘clean’ version of the proposed COA amendments:
COA #16
This condition required a secondary access be available when more than 30 dwelling units are
constructed. The applicants had intended to comply with this COA by extending Righetti Ranch Road
from Tank Farm Road to Tiburon Way and then constructing Tiburon Way (over the Jones Ranch
project, Tract #3066) to Orcutt Road. This couplet would provide two fully improved streets to serve
the entire Righetti property, as well as secondary access to Jones Ranch (also being developed by
Ambient Communities).
When the Resource Agencies imposed a restriction over winter construction in and over the creek
crossings (generally November-April) it became clear that secondary access could not be achieved as
originally conceived until late in 2018, if not pushing beyond the 2018-2019 winter into Spring-Summer
2019. This would have delayed significant home construction, and therefore prompted the discussion of
viable emergency alternatives for secondary access.
This alternative to use of Tiburon Way is supported by Fire, Public Works and Community Development
staff as a “temporary” roadway for emergency use only across a construction road traversing Phase 3
above the Hansen Lane realignment. Revised COA #16 would require an easement for use of this
construction road, as well as improvements to the satisfaction of Fire and Public Works. This flexibility
would be limited to building permits for Phase 1 only. No building permits will be permitted for Phase
2 until the permanent secondary access is completed. With these changes secondary access would be in
place throughout construction and public safety would not be compromised. Permanent secondary
roadway access would be available during Phase 3 of this project.
COA #17
This COA included reference to the needed realignment of the Hansen Lane intersection with the
Righetti “E” Street neighborhood. Delays in constructing this neighborhood to Phase 3 serves to allow
a change to the COA from Phase 1 to Phase 3. This COA is proposed to allow a later improvement
Packet Pg. 122
7
#MOD-1220-2017 / VTM #3063, Phase 1 Infrastructure and Conditions Phasing (Righetti Ranch)
Page 9
consistent with the applicant’s building program, and consistent with the requirements of modified MM
T-3.
COA #18
This condition was originally conceived when it was expected that the Jones Ranch improvement of
Tiburon Way would provide secondary Righetti Ranch access. As discussed above, delays due to
Resource Agency restrictions led to an alternate for a “temporary” emergency access located in the Phase
3 portion of this project. The modifications proposed to this condition as shown in Attachment 3 will
provide for this alternative to secondary access, and facilitate the Utility Department’s needs in
completing segments of the utility system to serve each phase of the Righetti project. In addition to
requirements for bonding and specified timeframes for completion of utility infrastructure, no Phase 2
building permits would be issued under the revised COA until such time as these access and utility
improvements are completed to the satisfaction of the respective Public Works and Utility Directors.
COA #27
This condition provided for the completion of frontage road improvements on Orcutt Road. While there
is flexibility in the 2015 original condition to allow deferral of the timing of this work, the amendment
suggested makes it clear that the Public Works Director has this authority. Again, these actions would
be considered by staff in a manner consistent with MM T-5.
COA #28
This COA has been modified to permit the construction of a roundabout as an alternative to a more
traditional intersection and signal light, but the roundabout feature has been delayed to Phase 2. During
Phase 1 the right turn lane will improve peak hour movements through this intersection. This is because
Phase 1 project traffic generation does not warrant the full roundabout improvement, and because the
Phase 1 Righetti project as modified will not direct daily traffic from new residents into this intersection
to a significant, adverse environmental degree during Phase 1. It is clear this intersection is impacted in
the evening peak period, and this 2-staged improvement will provide some immediate relief while
providing Righetti’s fair share participation in a larger improvement in the form of the roundabout.
COA #30
This COA provided for the completion of Tank Farm Road frontage road improvements with Phase 1 of
the project, unless a deferral was requested by the applicant. In this case Ambient did not request such
a deferral as they were processing their final map. In discussion over these amendments, it became clear
Ambient was looking to phase the Tank Farm and Orcutt frontage improvements. As discussed earlier,
staff is supportive of completing the Tank Farm Road improvements as part of Phase 1 occupancies. As
discussed under MM T-5 above, this adjustment and separation of the Tank Farm Road from Orcutt
Road frontage improvements can be provided in a timely manner and serve the needs of the developing
OASP. Bonding and timing restrictions are required to guarantee completion of these improvements
pursuant to the approved street improvement plans.
COA #32
This COA originally provided for the rough grading of the Neighborhood Park and the completion of
on-site pedestrian and bicycle lanes in the Phase 1 project. As discussed herein, the Phase 1 project is
effectively being extended over what will amount to multiple calendar years as the applicant works to
meet the winter restrictions imposed by the Resource Agencies. To this extent, modified COA #32 in
Packet Pg. 123
7
#MOD-1220-2017 / VTM #3063, Phase 1 Infrastructure and Conditions Phasing (Righetti Ranch)
Page 10
Attachment 3 acknowledges that these improvements have already been designed and approved as part
of the Phase 1 tract improvement plans, but allows the Public Works Director and Natural Resources
Manager some latitude in phasing these improvements to match internal streets and parkways as they
are completed. It also clarifies that rough grading of the pedestrian and bicycle paths through the park
would occur at the time of rough grading for the Neighborhood Park itself, not before.
COA #35
The minor modification to this condition acknowledges any adopted modifications to mitigation
measures.
COA #101
This condition has been modified for consistency with amended COA 16, which clarifies how secondary
emergency access from Orcutt Road would be via Tiburon Road or temporarily via a construction road
that traverses Phase 3.
Surety Bonding and Development Timing
As part of these discussions staff and Ambient have agreed that to provide additional assurances that
Ambient continues to move all aspects of these “deferred/delayed” improvements forward. The
Subdivision Agreement will be amended to guarantee completion of all “deferred” improvements within
12 months following initial occupancies or if needed for orderly development as the other OASP
subdivisions are constructed. Additionally, an absolute completion date for all “deferred” improvements
would be set no later than April 16, 2019, as agreed by Ambient.
The developer shall bond for the completion of the Delayed Improvements. A bond (A.M. Best Rating
of at least A:VII) will be required. The City shall have the option of calling upon these bonds a minimum
of one year following issuance of the first Tract 3063 Phase 1 occupancy or by April 16, 2019, whichever
occurs first. The City shall also have the option of calling upon these bonds prior to issuance of
occupancy for Tract #3066 Jones Ranch and Tract #3044 Taylor Ranch. All water, recycled water, and
sewer improvements not placed on the deferred bridge and culvert structures shall be completed no later
than October 2018. Additionally, all work related to the construction of new pressure reducing stations
along Tanglewood Road and Righetti Ranch Road shall be completed prior to October of 2018, and shall
maintain the existing control valve located at Industrial Way. The pressure reducing stations must
include all new: valves, vaults, panels, PLC, telemetry, CLA-VALs, bypass valve, and all necessary
appurtenances needed to construct a functioning station that can be integrated with the current water
distribution system. No Phase 2 building permits shall be issued prior to completion of Jones Ranch
access and Righetti Ranch water supply improvements to the satisfaction of the Public Works and
Utilities Directors.
4.0 CONCLUSION
It is staff’s recommendation that the Commission move to recommend the following actions to the City
Council:
4.1 Recommend changes to Mitigation Measures and Monitoring Programs T-1(a), T-2(d), T-3, T-5
and T-6 as proposed (refer to Attachment 2).
Packet Pg. 124
7
#MOD-1220-2017 / VTM #3063, Phase 1 Infrastructure and Conditions Phasing (Righetti Ranch)
Page 11
4.2 Recommend changes to Conditions #16, #17, #18, #27, #28, #30 #32, #35, and #101 as proposed
(refer to Attachment 3).
4.3 Adopt a resolution recommending City Council approval of the changes noted in Attachments 2
and 3 as contained therein (refer to Attachment 1).
5.0 ALTERNATIVES
5.1 Recommend the City Council not approve one or more of the proposed changes to the COAs and
MMs as described. Findings of the Planning Commission concerning such a recommendation
will need to be developed if this Alternative is selected.
5.2 Continue the item. An action to continue the item should include a detailed list of additional
information or analysis required.
6.0 ATTACHMENTS
1. Draft Planning Commission Resolution
2. Tract #3063 Conditions of Approval Mark-up for Proposed Amendments
3. Tract #3063 Mitigation Measures Mark-up for Proposed Amendments
4. Applicant Request
5. Community Development Director letter to Ambient and associated Deferred Improvements
Exhibit and Ambient Communities proposed construction schedule (dated 12-6-2017)
Online Resources and Documents:
Information regarding the OASP can be found here:
http://www.slocity.org/government/department-directory/community-development/planning-
zoning/specific-area-plans/orcutt-area
The OASP Final EIR is available here: http://www.slocity.org/government/department-
directory/community-development/documents-online/environmental-review-documents/-folder-
717
The Righetti Ranch (Tract 3063) Council Agenda Report and Initial Study/Mitigated Negative
Declaration are available here: http://opengov.slocity.org/weblink/1/doc/35931/Page1.aspx
Packet Pg. 125
7
Page intentionally left
blank.
Packet Pg. 126
7
Meeting Date: 2/6/2018
FROM: Daryl R. Grigsby, Director of Public Works
Prepared By: Jake Hudson, Transportation Manager
Adam Fukushima, Active Transportation Manager
SUBJECT: AMENDMENTS TO THE BICYCLE ADVISORY COMMITTEE BYLAWS
AND ADOPTING A REVISED ADVISORY BODY HANDBOOK
RECOMMENDATION
As recommended by the Bicycle Advisory Committee, adopt a resolution revising the Advisory
Body Handbook and Bicycle Advisory Committee (BAC) bylaws, renaming the Committee to
the Active Transportation Committee (ATC) and expanding the Committee's purpose to include
oversight and policy direction on pedestrian as well as bicycle transportation.
DISCUSSION
Since the adoption of the Land Use and Circulation Element (LUCE) update, a Pedestrian Plan
has been a component of the Public Works work program and a Major City Goal. Policy 5.2.5 of
the Circulation Element required the City to consider the benefits of consolidating the Bicycle
Plan and a citywide Pedestrian plan into one, more comprehensive plan – an Active
Transportation Plan. Given the overlap of pedestrian and bicycle policies and programs (most
notably the state and national push towards Active Transportation as a whole), staff is
recommending a single consolidated Active Transportation Plan to encompass both bicycle and
pedestrian modes rather than creating two separate standalone documents.
The Bicycle Transportation Plan, being the City’s primary bicycle policy document, has
historically been overseen by the Bicycle Advisory Committee. With the expansion and retitle of
that Plan to an Active Transportation Plan, its logical for the Bicycle Advisory Committee’s
purview and title to also be expanded to include both pedestrians and bicyclists.
The Bicycle Advisory Committee has been discussing this conversion over the course of the last
year. Ultimately, at the November 16, 2017 meeting the Bicycle Advisory Committee voted
unanimously to recommend, to the City Council, amending the Bylaws to expand its purview to
cover pedestrians and bicycles and be retitled to an Active Transportation Committee.
Committee members have stated that this transition will lead to better coordination among the
two active transportation modes, help make applications for grant funding more competitive, and
provide an advisory body voice for pedestrian transportation.
Packet Pg. 127
8
The proposed bylaws changes are very minor as shown below, mainly replacing the current title
with the proposed and adding “walking” to the purpose statement.
1. Bicycle Advisory Committee Bylaws
ARTICLE 1.
The purpose of the Bicycle Advisory Committee (BAC) Active Transportation
Committee (ATC) is to provide oversight and policy direction on matters related
to bicycle and pedestrian transportation in San Luis Obispo and its relationship to
bicycling and walking outside the City.
2. Other Revisions to the Handbook
Revised all references to the “Bicycle Advisory Committee” throughout the
Handbook to “Active Transportation Committee.”
CONCURRENCES
At its November 16, 2017 meeting the Bicycle Advisory Committee voted unanimously to
recommend, to the City Council, amending the Bylaws to expand the purpose of the committee
to include pedestrian transportation and to change the name of the committee to the Active
Transportation Committee.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The recommended action is not a “Project” as defined by the California Environmental Quality
Act.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with the staff recommendation.
ALTERNATIVES
Council could decide not to adopt the resolution and/or provide additional direction regard ing the
bylaws, the Bicycle Advisory Committee name, and handbook amendments.
Attachments:
a - Resolution
b - Exhibit A - DRAFT AB Handbook Amendments 2018
c - 11-16-17 BAC Minutes
Packet Pg. 128
8
R _____
RESOLUTION NO. (2018 SERIES)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS
OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE BYLAWS OF THE BICYCLE
ADVISORY COMMITTEE TO INCLUDE PEDESTRIAN
TRANSPORTATION, CHANGING THE COMMITTEE NAME TO THE
ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE, AND ADOPTING A
REVISED ADVISORY BODY HANDBOOK
WHEREAS, in accordance with the Charter of the City of San Luis Obispo, the San Luis
Obispo Municipal Code, and its own Resolutions, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo
appoints individuals to serve on its advisory bodies; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with City policy including the Climate Action Plan and the
Circulation Element to the General Plan, the City shall adopt a Pedestrian Plan to encourage
walking as an important element of the transportation system and the City will begin the planning
effort to develop an Active Transportation Plan to include both bicycle and pedestrian
transportation; and
WHEREAS, the Bicycle Advisory Committee has played a key role in the development
of the Bicycle Transportation Plan and will be instrumental in the development of the Active
Transportation Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Bicycle Advisory Committee recommended at its November 16, 2017
meeting to amend its Bylaws to expand the purpose of the committee to include pedestrian
transportation and to change the name of the committee to the Active Transportation Committee ;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo
as follows:
SECTION 1. The amended Advisory Body Bylaws and Advisory Body Handbook as set
forth in Exhibit “A” are hereby approved and adopted. The City Clerk is hereby authorized to update
the Advisory Body Handbook, consistent with the City Council Policies and Procedures, Resolutions,
and Ordinances as necessary.
Packet Pg. 129
8
Resolution No. _____ (2018 Series) Page 2
R _____
SECTION 3. The City Clerk is hereby directed to furnish a copy of the Advisory Body
Handbook to all department heads, support staff, and advisory body members.
Upon motion of , seconded by , and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was adopted this _____ day of _____________________, _______.
______________________________
Mayor Heidi Harmon
ATTEST:
_____________________
Carrie Gallagher
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_____________________________________
J. Christine Dietrick
City Attorney
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City
of San Luis Obispo, California, this ______ day of ______________, _________.
____________________________________
Carrie Gallagher
City Clerk
Packet Pg. 130
8
ADVISORY BODY HANDBOOK
Adopted by Resolution No. xx (20187 Series)
Updated on February 6, 2018xx
Prepared by the Office of the City Clerk
Packet Pg. 131
8
Advisory Body Handbook February 6, 2018 June 6,2017
City of San Luis Obispo 1 | P a g e
Contents
Introduction ................................................................................................................................3
Section 1. Advisory Body Basics .................................................................................................4
A. Background ........................................................................................................................4
B. Opportunities for Service ....................................................................................................4
C. Membership Qualifications & Appointment Process ...........................................................5
D. Oath of Office ....................................................................................................................6
E. Orientation ..........................................................................................................................7
F. Training ..............................................................................................................................8
G. Term of Office ....................................................................................................................8
H. Removal from Office ..........................................................................................................8
I. Vacancies .............................................................................................................................8
J. Ethics and Conflict of Interest ..............................................................................................8
K. Awards and Recognition ................................................................................................... 10
Section 2. How City Government Works ................................................................................... 11
A. City Charter ...................................................................................................................... 11
B. City Council ..................................................................................................................... 11
C. City Organization ............................................................................................................. 12
D. Council-Appointed Officers .............................................................................................. 13
E. City Departments .............................................................................................................. 13
Section 3. How Advisory Bodies Work ..................................................................................... 16
A. Council Liaison Members ................................................................................................. 16
B. Bylaws and Procedures ..................................................................................................... 16
C. Continuity of Work and New Ideas ................................................................................... 17
D. Communications ............................................................................................................... 18
E. Role of City Staff Persons and Advisory Body Members .................................................. 19
F. Absences, Leaves of Absence, and Resignations ............................................................... 19
G. Functional Review ............................................................................................................ 20
Section 4. The Brown Act ......................................................................................................... 21
A. Overview .......................................................................................................................... 21
B. Brown Act Provides for Public Comments ........................................................................ 21
C. Common Questions about the Brown Act ......................................................................... 22
Section 5. Tips for Being an Effective Advisory Body Member ................................................ 24
A. Understanding Your Role and Scope of Responsibility ..................................................... 24
B. Prepare Ahead for Meetings .............................................................................................. 24
Packet Pg. 132
8
Advisory Body Handbook February 6, 2018 June 6,2017
City of San Luis Obispo 2 | P a g e
C. Develop Positive Relationships ......................................................................................... 25
D. Encourage and Honor Public Participation ........................................................................ 26
E. Respect Individual Viewpoints .......................................................................................... 26
F. Communicate Effectively .................................................................................................. 27
G. Special Tips for the Chairperson ....................................................................................... 27
H. Managing Difficult Meetings ............................................................................................ 28
I. Public Records Act and Public Records Retention .............................................................. 29
Section 6. Advisory Body Bylaws ............................................................................................. 30
A. Administrative Review Board Bylaws (T/SP) ................................................................... 31
B. Architectural Review Commission (A) ............................................................................. 35
C. Bicycle Advisory Active Transportation Committee Bylaws (T/SP).................................. 38
D. Citizens' Revenue Enhancement Oversight Commission Bylaws (T/SP) ........................... 40
E. Construction Board of Appeals Bylaws (T/SP) .................................................................. 45
F Cultural Heritage Committee Bylaws (A) ........................................................................... 48
G. Human Relations Commission Bylaws (A) ....................................................................... 51
H. Jack House Committee Bylaws (T/SP).............................................................................. 53
I. Mass Transportation Committee Bylaws (T/SP) ................................................................. 56
J. Parks & Recreation Commission Bylaws (A) ..................................................................... 58
K. Personnel Board Bylaws (A) ............................................................................................. 61
L. Planning Commission Bylaws (A) .................................................................................... 63
M. Promotional Coordinating Committee Bylaws (A) ........................................................... 67
N. Tourism Business Improvement District Board Bylaws (T/SP) ......................................... 70
O. Tree Committee Bylaws (T/SP) ........................................................................................ 73
Appendix A. Mission Statement ................................................................................................ 75
Appendix B. Organizational Values .......................................................................................... 76
Packet Pg. 133
8
Advisory Body Handbook February 6, 2018 June 6,2017
City of San Luis Obispo 3 | P a g e
Introduction
Welcome to San Luis Obispo City Government!
The City Council and staff hope that this Advisory Body Handbook will answer many of your
questions and provide you with fundamental information related to the responsibilities of the
City’s various advisory bodies.
Serving on one of the City commissions, committees, or boards can be a fascinating and
rewarding experience. These advisory bodies are charged with formulating new ideas,
information gathering, receiving public testimony and comments, analyzing complex issues, and
making recommendations on spec ific projects and broad policy - all toward helping the City
Council make better-informed decisions.
As you may realize, it isn’t always easy. I ssues are often more complex than anticipated, public
opinion can be sharply divided, questions may overlap, and sometimes the province of one body
may also be the territory of another.
Much of the information in this Handbook comes from a variety of City policy documents, such
as the City’s Charter, Municipal Code, Financial Plan (or budget) and Council Policies and
Procedures. In addition, State Law governs certain responsibilities of advisory body members.
The material presented is intended to: 1) give interested persons an understanding of why the
City’s advisory bodies have been established and how they function within the overall
governmental framework; and, 2) summarize the roles, relationships and responsibilities of each
advisory body member. The Handbook is divided into six sections:
Section 1: Advisory Body Basics
Section 2: How City Government Works
Section 3: How Advisory Bodies Work
Section 4: The Brown Act
Section 5: Tips for Being an Effective Member and Chair of an Advisory Body
Section 6: Advisory Body Bylaws
Thank you for your interest in serving on one of our citizen advisory bodies and volunteering
your time and skills to enhance our community.
Packet Pg. 134
8
Advisory Body Handbook February 6, 2018 June 6,2017
City of San Luis Obispo 4 | P a g e
Section 1. Advisory Body Basics
A. Background
San Luis Obispo has a long history of involving its citizens in the business of their City
government. Advisory committees and commissions provide an opportunity for interested
residents to participate in the governing of their community under guidelines and procedures
established by the Council. Advisory bodies can improve the quality of City government by
providing the Council with resources to make better -informed decisions. Because of the nature of
various advisory bodies, they can serve as the “eyes and ears” of the Council for issues and
matters that otherwise might not receive the attention they deserve. Other benefits of advisory
bodies include improvement in the lines of communication between the public and the Council,
greater opportunities for discussion of public issues, and more citizen in volvement in City
government.
There is considerable variety in the purpose or charge of these bodies. Some are required by State
law or the Charter and are directed to guide certain City activities such as community planning or
personnel affairs. Others have been created by the City Council to serve San Luis Obispo’s unique
needs. Some bodies considered “technical” or “special purpose” have been formed to address
defined subjects and frequently require members with specific areas of expertise.
The authority of an advisory body will depend upon its specific purpose. Some have been
delegated specific authority to approve or deny projects. Decisions made by an advisory body
may be appealed to the Council. The Council may not always accept the recommendation of an
advisory body because of additional information available or a need to balance the
recommendation with policy or community priorities.
Generally, advisory bodies are empowered only to make recommendations to the Council or to
the City staff, unless specifically authorized by law or Council to do otherwise. Lastly, there
should be two -way communication so that commissions are aware of the long-term goals
Council has adopted, and the advisory body is able to present new ideas to the Council.
Commission members are encouraged to attend Council meetings.
B. Opportunities for Service
Interested individuals may apply for appointment to any of the following City bodies:
(T/SP) – denotes “technical or special-purpose”
(A) – denotes “advisory”
• Administrative Review Board (T/SP)
• Architectural Review Commission (A)
• Bicycle Advisory Active Transportation Committee (T/SP)
• Citizens’ Revenue Enhancement Oversight Commission (T/SP)
• Construction Board of Appeals (T/SP)
• Cultural Heritage Committee (A)
• Housing Authority of San Luis Obispo (T/SP)
• Human Relations Commission (A)
• Jack House Committee (T/SP)
Packet Pg. 135
8
Advisory Body Handbook February 6, 2018 June 6,2017
City of San Luis Obispo 5 | P a g e
• Mass Transportation Committee (T/SP)
• Parks & Recreation Commission (A)
• Personnel Board (A)
• Planning Commission (A)
• Promotional Coordinating Committee (A)
• Tourism Business Improvement District Board (T/SP)
• Tree Committee (T/SP)
There are opportunities for San Luis Obispo residents to serve on the following City committee:
• Investment Oversight Committee (IOC), as set forth in the Investment Management Plan,
this committee is responsible for reviewing the City’s portfolio on an ongoing basis to
determine compliance with the City’s investment policies and for making
recommendations to the City Treasurer (Finance Director regarding investment
management pract ic es.)
In addition, there are opportunities for San Luis Obispo residents to serve on the following
regional bodies:
• Central Coast Commission for Senior Citizens Area Agency on Aging (AAA), a non-
profit organization responsible for allocating federal and stat e dollars to local agencies to
insure that supportive, nutrition and health promotion services are available to older
adults in San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara Counties.
• Citizens Transportation Advisory Committee (CTAC), which provides citizen review and
recommendations on agenda items to staff and COG Board. - provides citizen review and
recommendations on matters considered by the County Council of Governments.
• San Luis Obispo County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Zone 9 Advisory
Committee, which was formed to assist the San Luis Obispo County Board of
Supervisors on policy decisions relating to Zone 9. The Advisory Committee assists in
determining the needs, desires, and financial capabilities of property owners in Zone 9.
The Advisory Committee also recommends specific programs to alleviate and control
flood damage, with recognition of the ecological and aesthetic values of the programs.
C. Membership Qualifications & Appointment Process
The City of San Luis Obispo encourages participation of a wide variety of its citizens through
service on an advisory body. Unless specified, there is no special education, training or
background required for appointment.
With the following exceptions, only residents who are registered voters within the City limits are
eligible to apply to an advisory body. Exceptions include the Tourism Business Improvement
District (TBID) Board, one representative from the TBID Board serving on the Promotional
Coordinating Committee, the Cal Poly employee and student representatives serving on the Mass
Transportation Committee, and members of the Housing Authority. In addition, part - or full-time
City officials and management employees are not eligible to apply.
Packet Pg. 136
8
Advisory Body Handbook February 6, 2018 June 6,2017
City of San Luis Obispo 6 | P a g e
Note: Former members of the City Council may not be appointed to serve on an advisory body
until one year after the expiration of their term of office. (Charter §409)
Basic elements of the appointment process are as follows:
1. Each person seeking appointment or reappointment to an advisory body shall obtain and file
an application in the Office of the City Clerk. Application may be made for a vacancy that
currently exists or which may occur in the future.
2. Applicants should have read and become familiar with the contents of this handbook.
3. Applicants shall be interviewed by a Council Liaison Subcommittee (CLS) consisting of two
Council Members. At the discretion of the CLS, interviews may be waived for those
applicants designated by another agency or for applicants who have been interviewed
previously for a vacancy on the same advisory body to which they’ve applied within the past
year. The Chair or the Vice Chair of the advisory body is invited to participate in the
interviews. The CLS will independently make the final nominee selection. If the Chair or the
Vice Chair is unable to participate or is being considered for reappointment, another member
who is available may attend. The CLS shall submit recommendations for appointment to the
entire Council. If a unanimous decision by the Subcommittee for rec ommendation to the full
Council cannot be reached, the Council shall take a separate motion for each candidate
proposed by each member of the CLS.
4. Applicants not appointed will be so advised and their applications held for no less than one
year for consideration in the event of a future vacancy.
5. As a general policy, an applicant shall not be appointed to serve on more than one advisory
body except that a member may also serve on one technical or special-purpose committee at
the same time. Unless excepted as previously stated, if an applicant is appointed to another
advisory body, he/she must immediately resign from one body upon being appointed to
another.
6. Liaisons to advisory bodies (i.e., the CLS) are selected annually by the full Council —usually
in December or early January. The Mayor and Vice Mayor shall submit recommendations to
the full Council and rotate nominations for Council Liaison Subcommittees to provide an
opportunity for each member to serve as a liaison at least once on each advisory body when
possible. When terms of office do not allow each member to serve once, members with
greatest seniority shall have first right of selection. Automatic rotation for the technical and
regional committees is not always followed, allowing Council Members t o develop a higher
level of expertise for some of the more complex committees, as well as continuity where
appropriate.
D. Oath of Office
Following appointment and usually at the next meeting of the advisory body, the City Clerk, or
designee, will administer the Oath of Office pursuant to the City Charter. The Oath may also be
administered in the Office of the City Clerk.
Packet Pg. 137
8
Advisory Body Handbook February 6, 2018 June 6,2017
City of San Luis Obispo 7 | P a g e
E. Orientation
After the appointments are made by the Council, new appointees will be given a resource manual
to be provided by t heir staff liaison which will include a variety of introductory references to
assist them in becoming more fully knowledgeable about City government. The department
serving as staff support to a particular advisory body will coordinate and conduct an orientation
with new appointees. Before or during that orientation, support staff will provide relevant
documentation and background information about the specific advisory body upon which the
new appointee shall serve.
Packet Pg. 138
8
Advisory Body Handbook February 6, 2018 June 6,2017
City of San Luis Obispo 8 | P a g e
F. Training
The City Clerk’s Office and the City Attorney’s Office conducts a training every two years to
review Conflict of Interest laws, Brown Act regulations, and best practices for meeting
management. Newly-appointed members are encouraged to view archived recordings of the
training available on the City’s website and to communicate any questions they may have to the
City or City Attorney.
G. Term of Office
The term of office for each appointee to an advisory body shall be from one year to a maximum
of four years. The length of a term is dictated by the principle that no more than two terms on
any committee will expire each year. This rule ensures continuity for all committees. Annual
appointments commence on April 1st, appointments to unexpired terms begin the day the
appointment is made by the Council. No appointee shall serve on the same advisory body for
more than two consecutive, full terms (eight years), but may subsequently serve on another
advisory body unless noted otherwise. Exceptions include the Board of Appeals, Housing
Author ity, and Jack House Committee.
A mid-term appointment to a vacant seat on an advisory body shall not preclude the appointee
from serving two additional consecutive full terms, provided that the initial, partial term served is
less than half of a full term.
H. Removal from Office
Members of advisory bodies serve at the pleasure of the Council and may be removed without
cause by Council action in an open public meeting.
I. Vacancies
Seats become vacant in two ways; they either expire at the end of the term o r an “unscheduled”
vacancy occurs when a member resigns during a term. The City Clerk’s Office will advertise in
accordance with statutory requirements and a subsequent appointment shall be made consistent
with the provisions set forth in Section C, above.
J. Ethics and Conflict of Interest
1. The duties of an advisory body member shall be performed in good faith and in a manner
which the member believes to be in the best interest of the City.
2. It is improper for any member of an advisory body to utilize, for personal pecuniary gain or
in an otherwise self-dealing manner, any information which is received by reason of said
membership and is not a matter of public record.
3. No member of an advisory body shall have a material financial interest in any contract or
other transaction involving that advisory body. The member shall promptly disclose such
interest in any proposed activity of the advisory body and shall not participate in any related
deliberations or actions of that body, nor vote on the matter.
4. Potential conflicts of interest may arise when an advisory body member serves on another
board within the community and there is a clash of duties between the two positions, e.g.
when one board exercises supervisory, auditory, or removal powers over the other.
Packet Pg. 139
8
Advisory Body Handbook February 6, 2018 June 6,2017
City of San Luis Obispo 9 | P a g e
5. The Political Reform Act of 1974, as amended (Government Code sections 81000 -91014)
and the City’s Conflict of Interest Code; (Resolution No. 10758 (2016 Series) require certain
elected and appointed officials and designated employees to disclose certain per sonal
financial holdings. Most of the City’s advisory bodies are solely advisory, meaning that final
decisions are made by the City Council, and therefore are not required to file Statements of
Economic Interest (Form 700).
The following committees/commissions have limited decision-making authority therefore, they
are required to file Statements of Economic Interest (Form 700) with the Office of the City
Clerk.
• Administrative Review Board
• Architectural Review Commission
• Construction Board of Appeals
• Cultural Heritage Committee
• Housing Authority of San Luis Obispo
• Human Relations Committee
• Investment Oversight Committee
• Planning Commission
• Promotional Coordinating Committee
Filing dates for Statement of Economic Interest (Form 700) are mandated by State law and are as
follows:
• Assuming Office Statement – Must be filed within 30 days of taking office.
• Annual Statements – Must be filed by April 1st of each year.
• Leaving Office Statement – Must be filed within 30 days of leaving office.
Please Note: The City Council has adopted a late fine policy pursuant to State law (December
13, 2016). A late fee of $10.00 per day may be assessed for filing late. In addition, failure to file
timely or not at all may be grounds for removal, so it is important to comply with the filing
requirements and associated deadlines.
6. In addition to the requirement to file Statements of Economic Interest (Form 700), the
following advisory body members and Staff are required to complete two hours of ethics
training pursuant to State Law within one year of assuming office, and further to renew this
training at least once every two years thereafter. The original proof of participation
certificate, awarded after completion of the training, must be sent to the City Clerk.
• Architectural Review Commission
• Housing Authority
• Planning Commission
• Tourism Business Improvement District
• Primary Staff Liaisons to the Above
7. Individual advisory body members should avoid making public comments on Council actions
or public policies that might appear to represent the official position of their advisory body.
Advisory body actions, with the voting of each member, are conveyed to the Council in the
form of official minutes or by resolution. The chairperson of an advisory body i s the
spokesperson for the advisory body.
Packet Pg. 140
8
Advisory Body Handbook February 6, 2018 June 6,2017
City of San Luis Obispo 10 | P a g e
8. Questions regarding possible ethical issues or conflicts of interest should be reviewed with
the chairperson, City Attorney, or City Clerk, as appropriate under the circumstances, in
advance of the subject meeting or discussion.
K. Awards and Recognition
The City Council values and appreciates each citizen who volunteers his/her time and energy to
serving the City on an advisory body. An annual appreciation event hosted by the City Council is
one way in which appreciation is expressed for all advisory body members. When a member
terminates service on an advisory body, the Council will recognize that member’s contribution to
the City through an appropriate expression of appreciation. If that advisory body wishes to make
its own presentation to an outgoing member, the chairperson shall communicate with the City
Clerk in order to avoid duplication of awards.
Packet Pg. 141
8
Advisory Body Handbook February 6, 2018 June 6,2017
City of San Luis Obispo 11 | P a g e
Section 2. How City Government Works
A. City Charter
San Luis Obispo is a "charter" City as contrasted to a "general law" City. Under California law,
the authority of a general law City is derived only from the powers granted to it by the general
laws adopted by the State Legislature pertaining to the organization and operation of a
municipality, and from the police power granted to it by the State Constitution. On the other
hand, a charter City's power is not defined or limited by the State's general laws. Instead, with
respect to municipal affairs, a charter City's powers are defined by the City's own charter, su bject
only to the limitations of the State Constitution. As a result, charter cities usually have more
operational latitude than do the more prevalent general law cities. A charter serves as the City's
"constitution" and may only be amended by a vote of the people.
San Luis Obispo's Charter was first adopted on May 1, 1876, and has been amended by popular
vote on several subsequent occasions. In 1955, the Charter was amended to approve a Council -
Mayor-City Manager form of government. The City’s organizatio nal structure is outlined in the
chart on the following page.
B. City Council
The City Charter provides for an elected, five-member City Council as the governing body of the
City. Four Council Members serve staggered four -year terms (two are elected every two years).
The fifth member is the Mayor who is elected for a two -year term. City Council elections are
held in November of even numbered years. Regular Council meetings are held on the first and
third Tuesdays of each month in the Council Chamber at City Hall. In addition, special meetings
and study sessions are held from time to time as the need arises. The Mayor is the official
spokesperson for the Council.
The Council has the power to make and enforce all laws and regulations relating to municipal
affairs, subject to the limitations of the City Charter, the United States and California
Constitutions, and certain state statutes.
Final decisions on City taxes and fees, budgets, City policies including the General Plan and land
use issues, and other matters are made by the City Council.
Packet Pg. 142
8
Advisory Body Handbook February 6, 2018 June 6,2017
City of San Luis Obispo 12 | P a g e
C. City Organization
As shown on the Organizational Chart, the City Council is directly responsible to the citizens for
the operation and well-being of the City. To carry out these responsibilities, the Council relies
on:
1. The administrative skills of a City Manager
2. The legal advice of a City Attorney
3. The citizen advice rendered by advisory commissions, committees, and boards.
Citizens
Mayor and City
Council
Advisory BodiesCity Manager
UtilitiesPublic WorksPoliceParks and
Recreation
Human
ResourcesFireFinance Community
Development
Administration &
Information
Technology
City Attorney
Elected
Official
Council
Appointed
City Manager
Appointed
Packet Pg. 143
8
Advisory Body Handbook February 6, 2018 June 6,2017
City of San Luis Obispo 13 | P a g e
D. Council-Appointed Officers
City Manager: The City Charter require s the Council to appoint an executive to run the City’s
day-to- day operations. The City Manager is appointed by and directly responsible to the Council
for all City activities. The nine operational departments, through their directors or chiefs, are
responsible to the City Manager.
City Attorney: The City Attorney provides legal services and advice to the Council, the City
Manager, departmental staff, advisory bodies and other City agencies or officials. The City
Attorney represents the City in court, prepares ordinances and other legal documents, and
prosecutes cases involving violations of City laws. The City Attorney is appointed by, and is
directly responsible to, the Council.
E. City Departments
The following departments are directly responsible to the City Manager.
Administration: The Administration Department is responsible for providing information and
recommendations to the Council, implementing Council policies, and guiding the day-to-day
operations of the City. In addition, the City Clerk, Economic Development, Natural Resources
and Cultural Activities programs are carried out by staff in the Administration Department, under
the supervision of the Assistant City Manager. The City Clerk provides a full range of services
for the City Council, including preparation of the minutes, codifying ordinances, and conducting
elections. The City Clerk also administers the advisory body appointment process. Economic
Development provides staff support for two City advisory bodies, including the Promotional
Coordinating Committee and the Tourism Business Improvement Board. The Natural Resources
Program frequently makes presentations and seeks concurrence and recommendations from the
Parks and Recreation Commission and the Planning Commission regarding conserva tion plans
for City-owned open space areas.
Community Development : The Community Development Department has four divisions, all
under the direction of the Community Development Director who is appointed by, and is
responsible to, the City Manager. The Long Range Planning Division is responsible for the
preparation, maintenance, and implementation of the City’s General Plan and its various
elements. The Development Review Division assists the community with land use issues,
evaluates all types of development applications, and maintains the City’s development
regulations. The Building and Safety Division administers state and local building codes and is
responsible for ensuring safe and sound public and private construction. The Division is
responsible for the enforcement of municipal, zoning and property maintenance requirements,
State Housing and Building Codes, and State and Federal regulations pertaining to disabled
accessibility. The Division issues building permits, reviews and approves building plans, a nd
performs inspections of construction projects to insure code conformity. The Administration
Division provides management and support for the three other divisions and is responsible for
database and records management, organization development, human re source management,
budgeting and resource allocation, contract and securities management, citywide addressing,
committee and commission support, public Information and support services.
Packet Pg. 144
8
Advisory Body Handbook February 6, 2018 June 6,2017
City of San Luis Obispo 14 | P a g e
Finance: The Finance Department is responsible for billing and collecting all monies owed to the
city which includes water and wastewater charges, business license fees and transient occupancy
taxes. The department also processes payroll bi- weekly for all city employees and processes
weekly payments to its vendors. The department also manages the City’s investments, provides
centralized accounting, prepares all financial reports and develops the city’s short and long -term
financial plans. Under the Charter provision that allows for combining positions, it is the City’s
lo ngstanding policy that whomever the City Manager appoints as the Director of Finance also
serves as City Treasurer. The Department’s goals are: developing and implementing efficient and
effective financial policies, plans and reporting systems that help the operating departments
achieve their objectives and assure the City's long-term fiscal health; customer service and public
access to City information; and providing quality service to all of the department’s customers -
both external and internal to the organization.
Fire: The San Luis Obispo City Fire Department is a progressive all-hazards, community-
focused organization. Operating from four fire stations located throughout the City to decrease
response times, highly trained fire companies respond rapidly and with compassion to help
citizens, visitors, and business owners in need. While running in to burning buildings to save
lives and property is a vital part of our tradition that lives on today, San Luis Obispo City
responders are cross trained as paramedic to provide advanced life support; as hazardous
materials technicians to mitigate dangerous leaks and spills; as urban search and rescue
technicians to rescue people from trails, peaks, waterways, and industrial accidents; and as wild
land firefighting experts to protect our community and preserve our beautiful coastal
environment. These same responders partner with the department’s Fire Prevention staff to
ensure buildings are constructed and maintained with citizen safety in mind and that fires are
investigated to determine cause and prevent further loss. Fire Department members are also
active in the community in an education role, regularly interacting with business owners and
managers, children, and at -risk populations.
Human Resources: The Human Resources Department conducts a comprehensive personnel
management program to attract and retain competent City employees. The Director is
responsible for recruiting, testing, classifying, evaluating and training employees, evaluating
employee salaries, administering the City’s Personnel Rules and Regulations and Work Force
Diversity Program, and directing the City’s Risk Management Program. The Director of Human
Resources is appointed by, and is responsible to, the City Manager.
Information Technology: The Information Technology Department is responsible for managing
information technology operations such as the City’s fiber optic network, data file servers, fixed
and mobile computer workstations, fixed and mobile telephones along with multiple radio
systems. An extensive Geographic Information System (GIS), a utility services supervisory
control and data acquisition (SCADA) system, and highly functional data base systems are also
provided and maintained by the Department as services to other departments a nd the public. The
Department’s goals are: protecting the City’s technology assets from unauthorized use;
effectively using the City’s information technology resources in improving productivity,
customer service and public access to City information; and partnering to provide excellent
service to our community by connecting people to information and technology solutions.
Packet Pg. 145
8
Advisory Body Handbook February 6, 2018 June 6,2017
City of San Luis Obispo 15 | P a g e
Parks & Recreation: The Parks & Recreation Department programs recreational activities in City
parks, facilities and open space. It consists of the following divisions: Administration,
Facilities/Aquatics; the Laguna Lake Golf Course; Ranger Services; Recreational Sports;
Community Services and Events and Youth Services. The Department serves all ages and
abilities from young children to teens to boomers and seniors. Recreational activities range from
after school childcare at local schools to the use of the Damon Garcia Sports fields to a range of
activities at the Senior Center. The department facilitates contract classes, special events, the
City’s Public Art and Community Garden programs and the Santa Rosa Skate Park for local
residents use and enjoyment. The department mission is to enhance and promote personal well-
being and a sense of community. With the assistance of the Parks and Recreation Commission
the Department evaluates the City’s policies for open space, parks and recreational facilities and
actively seeks state and federal grants to help pay for projects consistent with the Parks and
Recreation Element of the General Plan.
Police: The Police Department has primary jurisdiction for the enforcement of state law within
City of San Luis Obispo as well as certain ordinances included in the City’s municipal code.
Additionally, the Police Department implements and manages programs designed to reduce
crime, and partners with other City departments, government entities, stakeholder groups, and
individual citizens to protect the quality of life in San Luis Obispo. This department is under the
direction of the Chief of Police who is appointed by, and is responsible to, the City Manager.
Public Works: The Public Works Department is responsible for two primary areas, Managing the
Transportation Network and Building and Maintaining Public Infrastructure. Managing the
Transportatio n Network, the Department is responsible for several elements which include:
traffic signals and signage, traffic safety, traffic studies, traffic calming, street construction and
maintenance, sidewalk maintenance, transportation and bike planning, bike fa cility development,
bike parking, parking meters on-street, in public surface lots, and in three current structures,
neighborhood parking districts, SLO Transit system, including buses, shelters and other transit
facilities and bridges. Building and Mainta ining Public Infrastructure includes; parks, street
lights, urban forest, landscaped areas, storm water and flood control facilities, private
development review and inspection, City buildings and facilities and City fleet. Several programs
carry out the work of the Department, and the department is managed by the Public Works
Director, who is appointed by, and is responsible to, the City Manager.
Utilities: The Utilities Department provides essential services that support the community’s
health, well-being, and quality of life. With an ethic of being efficient stewards of the
community’s resources and environment, the department treats and distributes the co mmunity’s
potable water and then collects, treats, and recycles the wastewater for beneficial uses. It believes
in a culture of employee development, empowerment, innovation, and creativity. Its goal is to be
a valued partner in ensuring the public health and safety of our community. The Utilities
Department also manages the solid waste service franchise provided by San Luis Garbage
Company.
Packet Pg. 146
8
Advisory Body Handbook February 6, 2018 June 6,2017
City of San Luis Obispo 16 | P a g e
Section 3. How Advisory Bodies Work
A. Council Liaison Members
Each year the Council selects two of its members to be “Liaison Members” to each advisory
body. The primary responsibility of these subcommittees is to review applications of citizens
who would like to serve on a particular advisory body and thereafter hold interview sessions and
make recommendations to the full Council for final appointment.
These Council Liaison members can be called upon to facilitate the flow of information between
the Council and that advisory body. From time to time they may attend advisory body meetings.
B. Bylaws and Procedures
1. Bylaws: Each advisory body has approved bylaws that set forth procedures, purpose, specific
functions, meetings, officers, budget, etc. (Charter, Article XII, Section 1204). By May 1st of
each odd-numbered year, the bylaws of each advisory body shall be review ed by that body.
Any proposed changes shall be submitted to the Council through the City Clerk for approval.
If no changes are proposed, a report of the review shall be submitted.
2. Code of Ethics: Each body shall be governed by the City’s adopted Code of E thics
(Resolution No. 8313 [1994 Series]).
3. Parliamentary Procedures: All advisory body meetings shall be conducted in accordance with
City practices and policies. Robert’s Rules of Order, Newly Revised, shall also be used as a
guide in conducting meetings. Questions should be directed to the appropriate City staff. A
quorum of the Committee shall be as stated in individually adopted advisory body bylaws or
procedures.
4. Meetings & Events: All regular meetings shall be held at the established time and place set
for that body, unless a change is approved by Council. Council may hold an event from time
to time to recognize advisory body members. (See also Section 1 K). Special meetings may
be held pursuant to State Law (see Section 4. The Brown Act).
5. Meetings are recorded: Planning Commission meetings are video -recorded. All other
advisory body meetings shall be audio -recorded. Recordings shall be retained for a
minimum of two (2) years and in accordance with the City’s approved Records Retention
Schedule.
6. Action Minutes: The recording secretary for each advisory body shall record the official
actions taken. Minutes shall be prepared and retained permanently in an “action minutes ”
fo rmat in accordance with Council policy (Resolution No. 5304 (1984 Series).
7. Correspondence from the Public: Written correspondence received from members of the
public regarding any agenda item are retained as part of the official record of the meeting.
Consistent with City Council practice, citizens are encouraged to present written comments
(including emails) at least one day prior to the meeting. This provides advisory bodies with a
greater opportunity to review and consider issues and/or concerns expressed in written
communications prior to a meeting. (See Section 5 I. “Public Records Act and Public
Records Retention” on page 29 for more information about records, including emails).
Packet Pg. 147
8
Advisory Body Handbook February 6, 2018 June 6,2017
City of San Luis Obispo 17 | P a g e
8. Public Comments on Agenda Items: Consistent with City Council practice for receiving
public testimony on agenda items (with the exception of certain types of public hearings),
advisory bodies are encouraged to limit public comments to three (3) minutes per speaker to
ensure that everyone who wishes to be heard has the o pportunity to do so. The Chair, with
the consensus of the advisory body, may allow additional brief testimony from speakers who
have already commented on the same agenda item; however speakers should not be allowed
to yield their time to another speaker.
C. Continuity of Work and New Ideas
1. Continuity: There exists a pattern of continuing work for every advisory body in order that
the needs of the community are served in a thoughtful yet expeditious manner. Advisory
body chairpersons and the assigned professional staff are the responsible parties for
establishing an even flow of work. New members to advisory bodies are expected to
familiarize themselves with the workload. Normally, it will take new members a bit of time
to develop a full understanding of their new work and confidence in their decision-making
abilities. Staff members can be helpful with questions.
2. New Ideas: Advisory body members should view themselves as an extension of the abilities
of the Council and staff to see and hear matters of importance in our community. Sometimes
old policies and established ways of doing things need to be changed. Sometimes fresh ideas
need to be given a trial. How does the process of developing a new “idea” work?
a. Test the idea on friends; are reactions favorable?
b. Bring the idea to your advisory body under the portion of your agenda where
individual member comments on items not on the agenda are entertained. If fellow
members react favorably; the idea should be formalized in written form.
c. At this point, the “cost” of the idea in terms of staff time and dollars must be
evaluated. If staff sees the cost to be minor and the impact on City operations to be
negligible, the idea can be agendized, discussed publicly and a final decision can be
made for a recommendation to the City Council.
d. Should the “cost” in staff time and money be deemed high, then the Council should
be properly informed and budgeting and staff time approved before further action is
taken by the advisory body.
A good time for advancing new ideas is during the Financial Plan and City Goal Setting
process, when advisory bodies are actively encouraged to offer such suggestions to the
Council, as most of the resource decisions are made at that time.
Packet Pg. 148
8
Advisory Body Handbook February 6, 2018 June 6,2017
City of San Luis Obispo 18 | P a g e
D. Communications
1. Written Reports: Advisory bodies are occasionally requested to make special reports or
recommendations to the Council on specific subjects. The Council may make this request in
writing, with specific direction as to the approach, scope, and schedule for the study desired.
These recommendations often play a major role in assisting the Council to reach a final
decision on important issues.
a. Any recommendation or report from an advisory body is required to be in written
form. If the matter is to appear on the Council agenda, the report must be submitted to
the City Clerk no later than two weeks prior to the Council meeting at which the
report is to be considered. This report becomes part of the record and is forwarded to
each Council Member for review in advance of public consideration.
b. Some advisory bodies may receive study or action requests from citizens or groups.
These requests should also be presented in writing to the advisory body, which will
then determine if the committee wishes to pursue that particular issue. The committee
shall advise the Council of the request and the body’s determination for action.
2. Goals/Budget : Each advisory body shall prepare proposed major City Goals and Objectives
in a manner established by the City Manager. The advisory body chairperson will be
responsible for speaking to this proposal when the Council conducts its goal setting in study
session. The City Manager will notify the chairperson of time and place of such Council
review. More detailed budget proposals will be made through advisory body staff, consistent
with the budget schedule and process.
3. Statements: An advisory body does not have authority to speak for the City. If the body
wishes to recommend that a statement be made, such as a letter written to state a position, it
shall be submitted to and receive approval of the Council.
4. Public Forums and Surveys: An advisory body shall not sponsor or co-sponsor a public
forum, meeting or survey without the prior approval of the Council.
5. Personal Testimony: If a member of an advisory body appears before the Council (or another
advisory body) in a capacity other than as representative of his/her body, it should be
explained in advance that any statements made are not to be construed as representing the
opinions or recommendations of the advisory body.
6. Changes: Changes in a member’s address or telephone number, and the names of new
officers, shall be submitted to the City Clerk and advisory body staff liaison as soon as
possible.
7. Quarterly Meetings: The Mayor shall meet quarterly with the chairpersons of all advisory
bodies. The purpose shall be for informational updates and to encourage commu nication.
Quarterly written reports shall be submitted at this meeting and are shared with all Council
Members. The chairperson shall report back to the full committee at the next regular meeting.
Packet Pg. 149
8
Advisory Body Handbook February 6, 2018 June 6,2017
City of San Luis Obispo 19 | P a g e
8. Annual Report : Each advisory body is required by the Charter to submit to the Council by
May 1st an annual report describing its activities and evaluating its progress for the year
(Charter, Article XII, Section 1205). To provide more timely information to the Council,
most Committees submit reports at the Mayor /Advisory Body Chairs Quarterly Meetings
throughout the year, thereby fulfilling the Charter requirement.
E. Role of City Staff Persons and Advisory Body Members
Staff support and assistance is provided, but advisory bodies do not have supervisory authorit y
over City employees. While they may work closely with advisory bodies, staff members remain
responsible to their immediate supervisors and ultimately to the City Manager and Council. The
advisory body members are responsible for the functions of the advisory body and the
chairperson is responsible for committee compliance with the policies outlined in this handbook.
Staff support includes preparation of a summary agenda subject to approval by the chairperson,
and preparation of agenda reports providing a brief background of the issue, a list of alternatives,
recommendations and appropriate backup material, as necessar y. Staff will assist advisory bodies
in the conduct of public meetings and ensure that the business listed on the agenda is addressed.
Advisory body members should have sufficient information to reach decisions based upon a
clear explanation of the issues involved. The recording secretary for each advisory body insures
that meetings are recorded and action minutes are taken as needed.
It is important that recommendations the advisory bodies wish to communicate to the City
Council are made through adopted or approved Council agenda procedures. Staff members shall
assist the advisory body chair to insure appropriate legal review or City and state legislation is
complied with.
F. Absences, Leaves of Absence, and Resignations
1. Attendance: If an advisory body me mber fails, for any reason, to attend three consecutive
regular meetings or a total of six regular meetings within any twelve -month period, that
member shall automatically be considered for replacement. The chairperson of the advisory
body shall inform the Council, through the City Clerk, of such a situation, explaining any
extenuating circumstances resulting in the absences.
2. Absences: There shall be no “excused” absences. Because of quorum requirements, when an
absence is anticipated, the individual advisory body member is responsible for notifying the
chairperson or the secretary in advance and the absence shall be counted in that member’s
attendance record.
3. Leaves of Absence: Leaves of absence are not granted to advisory body members except
under very u nusual circumstances and when authorized in advance by the Council.
4. Resignation: In the event a member finds it necessary to resign from an advisory body, a
letter of resignation stating the effective date of the resignation shall be immediately directed
to the Council through the City Clerk, with a copy forwarded to the chairperson of the
advisory body.
Packet Pg. 150
8
Advisory Body Handbook February 6, 2018 June 6,2017
City of San Luis Obispo 20 | P a g e
G. Functional Review
1. Election: When possible, in April, each advisory body, at its regular meeting, shall elect a
chairperson and a vice chairperson.
2. Terms of Office: The term of office of a chairperson or vice chairperson shall be one year,
commencing upon election. No person shall serve as chairperson or vice chairperson for
more than two consecutive terms except if noted elsewhere under specific board s and
commissions.
Completion of a partial term of office as chairperson or vice chairperson shall not preclude
an advisory body member from serving two additional consecutive full terms, provided that
the partial term served is less than one year.
Packet Pg. 151
8
Advisory Body Handbook February 6, 2018 June 6,2017
City of San Luis Obispo 21 | P a g e
Section 4. The Brown Act
A. Overview
The State Legislature has declared that the actions of public bodies be taken openly and that their
deliberations be conducted openly. California’s Ralph M. Brown Act (found in the Government
Code Section 54950 through 54961), also known as the “open meeting law,” applies to all
advisory bodies, and requires that they:
1. Meet within the jurisdictional limits of the City.
2. Post the agenda 72 hours before a regular meeting containing a brief general description of
each item of business to be transacted or discussed.
3. Hold open and public meetings.
4. Give notice of the meetings to any requesting party at least 24 hours prior to the meeting.
5. Provide in bylaws or rules for time and place of regular meetings, if regular meeting s are to
be held.
A meeting is defined as a gathering of a majority (quorum) of the advisory body for the purpose
of discussing items before the body or conducting other business of the body. It is important to
understand that the Brown Act generally pro hibits any action or discussion of items not on the
posted agenda. There are special posting requirements for advisory body agendas:
• Regular Meetings – 72 hours in advance
• Special Meetings – 24 hours in advance
• Adjourned Meetings – a regular or special meeting may be adjourned to a specific time
and place (usually to continue a public hearing or other business). A special notice is
required and should be posted within 24 hours of adjournment.
B. Brown Act Provides for Public Comments
The Brown Act mandat es that regular meeting agendas allow for two types of public comment
periods. The first is a general audience comment period, where the public can comment on any
item of interest that is within subject matter jurisdiction of the local agency and that is n ot listed
on the posted agenda. This general audience comment period may come at any time during a
meeting (§54954.3).
The second type of public comment period is the specific comment period pertaining to items on
the advisory body’s agenda. The Brown Act requires that the advisory body allow these specific
comment periods on agenda items to occur prior to or during the advisory body’s consideration
of that item (§54954.3), including consent calendar items.
Public Comments at Special Meetings: The Brown Act requires that agendas for special
meetings provide an opportunity for members of the public to speak about any item listed on the
agenda prior to the advisory body’s consideration of that item (§54954.3). Therefore, for special
meetings, advisory bodies must allow public comments for items on the agenda, however (unlike
regular meetings), a public comment period for items not on the agenda is not required.
Packet Pg. 152
8
Advisory Body Handbook February 6, 2018 June 6,2017
City of San Luis Obispo 22 | P a g e
Limitations on Length and Content of Public's Comments: The Brown Act allows a legislative
body to adopt reasonable regulations limiting total amount of time allocated for public testimony.
In San Luis Obispo, the typical time limit for speakers is three (3) minutes.
It is not permissible to prohibit public criticism of policies, procedures, programs , or services of
the City or acts or omissions of the City (§54954.3(c)). This does not mean that a member of the
public may speak on “anything.” If the topic is not within the subject matter jurisdiction of the
advisory body, the Chair should remind the speaker to direct his/her comments to only those
subjects within the advisory body’s purview.
C. Common Questions about the Brown Act
The following is intended to give advisory body members a broad understanding of the Brown
Act. Please consult with the staff liaison, the City Clerk, or the City Attorney for more specifics.
1. What are serial meetings?
A serial meeting is any direct communication amongst a majority of the members, outside of
a meeting, to develop a collective concurrence as to action to be taken on an item by the
members. Serial meetings are strictly prohibited by the Brown Act.
Even though a majority of members never gather in a room at the same time, a Brown Act
violation may occur if ideas are exchanged among the majority by going throu gh any person
acting as an intermediary (including staff), and/or through the use of a technological devices,
e.g. telephone answering machine, computer email, or voice mail.
2. What are some examples of serial meetings?
The most common example of a serial meeting is when “Member A” calls “Member B” and
then “Member B” calls “Member C,” and so on to share ideas among a majority of the
advisory body.
Another example: A member of a five-member advisory body receives a letter regarding City
business and writes a note on that letter that says "I agree," and then provides a copy of the
letter to two other members.
Email can also be troublesome. Here’s an example of how easy it can be to unintentionally
conduct a serial meeting: A staff member sends out via email a document in draft form for
review by the advisory body prior to a meeting. “Member A” recommends to staff a revision
and copies fellow advisory body members. “Member B” disagrees with the proposed change
and others begin to “weigh in” on the subject.
3. This seems restrictive... aren’t there any exceptions?
Of course, prohibition against serial meetings does not prohibit all communication between
individuals regarding City business. The Brown Act only prohibits use of serial meetings for
the purpose of "developing a collective concurrence" concerning an issue . This does not
prohibit a staff person from "briefing" members provided that the briefing is limited to
Packet Pg. 153
8
Advisory Body Handbook February 6, 2018 June 6,2017
City of San Luis Obispo 23 | P a g e
furnishing information, and the staff person does not solicit opinions concerning an
appropriate course of action for City and then share them among the members.
4. What’s a Quorum?
A quorum is the majority (more than half) of the total number of established members of the
committee. A quorum must be present for any business discussion or action to take place. A
quorum must be present for the duration of a meeting. If a member leaves during the
meeting, resulting in the lack of a quorum, no further business may be conducted and the
meeting must be adjourned.
If vacancies exist on the advisory body, those vacant positions still count towards the
quorum. Fo r example, if one seat is vacant on a five-member body, and two members are
absent there is not a quorum.
5. What are some exceptions to the Brown Act?
Advisory body members may attend and/or participate in the following as long as a majority
of the members do not discuss amongst themselves matters that are within the subject
jurisdiction of the advisory body:
• Informational or educational workshops or conferences
• Community meetings, such as town hall meetings, workshops, forums, etc. not sponsored
by the advisory body
• A meeting of another body of the local agency
• Social or ceremonial events.
6. Can an advisory body conduct a retreat?
“Team building” or “goal setting” retreats may be held, but they must be held within the
City, be properly noticed, and be open to the public.
Packet Pg. 154
8
Advisory Body Handbook February 6, 2018 June 6,2017
City of San Luis Obispo 24 | P a g e
Section 5. Tips for Being an Effective Advisory Body Member
A. Understanding Your Role and Scope of Responsibility
After appointment by the Council, the City Clerk will present new advisory body members with
a useful binder of information about the City, which includes this handbook. In addition, the City
staff member designated to serve in support of your advisory body will schedule an orientation
appointment with you. This is your chance to learn more about City government and the scope of
responsibility of the advisory body to which you have been appointed. In addition to reading this
Handbook (which will answer many of your questions), start preparing for your new role by:
1. Reviewing the City’s Mission Statement, Organizational Values, and your advisory body by-
laws.
2. Reading the other information provided to you in your orientation binder about the City and
your specific advisory body. Keep the binder handy for easy reference and review.
3. Getting to know fellow advisory body members a nd staff. Learn the history and “language”
of your advisory body. Ask about upcoming issues.
4. Considering meeting with the Chair of your advisory body and/or a Council Liaison to learn
more about your role and to understand expectations. This will help you focus in on the “big
picture” and how you fit in.
5. Becoming familiar with basic meeting management and diplomatic decision-making
procedures.
6. Attending training programs and workshops offered to you by the City.
B. Prepare Ahead for Meetings
Most citizens understand when they apply to serve on an advisory body that they will be making
a commitment of time to attend meetings, but many are often surprised by the amount of time it
takes to prepare properly for a meeting. Being prepared is key to making good decisions and
will strengthen the value of your advisory body’s recommendations.
1. Do your homework! This involves setting enough time aside to review thoroughly and
consider the entire agenda packet.
2. When you receive your agenda packet, read it carefully. Be prepared to discuss fully,
evaluate, and act on all matters scheduled for consideration. Think about:
a. The number of items.
b. Those items that may be controversial.
c. Difficult procedural items.
d. Issues you know little about.
Packet Pg. 155
8
Advisory Body Handbook February 6, 2018 June 6,2017
City of San Luis Obispo 25 | P a g e
3. Visit any sites or facilities that will help you understand the issues.
4. Start a list of questions for staff.
5. Call or meet with staff before the meeting to learn more, if need be. Getting more information
ahead of time may make your decision-making easier and help move the meeting. Your
questions may also alert staff to issues that others may also be pondering. Advance knowledge
assists staff with preparing oral reports and adequately addressing the issues during the
meeting.
6. Show up on time and be ready to work. (It’s also helpful to be well rested!)
C. Develop Positive Relationships
Being selected by the City Council to serve on an advisory body is a high honor and provides a
unique opportunity for genuine public service. Open, honest and supportive relationships with
the City Council, with City staff and fellow members of your advisory body will ensure your
success and effectiveness.
1. The proper channel to contact City staff on items of consideration is through the designated
City staff person providing support to your advisory body.
2. Demonstrate respect to your fellow advisory body members by being a good listener, by
communicating honestly, and by being dependable.
3. Adopt a positive attitude and become a problem-solver.
4. If you have a new idea, propose it to the group as a whole. (See also Section 3.C.2,
Continuity of Work and New Ideas.)
5. If friction develops, individuals should make every attempt to clarify differences and make
certain that clear communication is taking place. The public meeting should not be used to
express anger or disagreement.
6. If differences cannot be resolved, consider consulting with the appropriate individual/s next
in line in the “chain of command”: 1) Staff Liaison or Chair, 2) the Department Head, 3) City
Manager or Council Liaison.
Packet Pg. 156
8
Advisory Body Handbook February 6, 2018 June 6,2017
City of San Luis Obispo 26 | P a g e
D. Encourage and Honor Public Participation
Some advisory body meetings are well attended by the public and others are not. Nevertheless,
it’s important to remember that everyone is entitled to his or her own opinions.
Some members of the public are quite used to speaking before a public body, but most are not.
Individuals may address the advisory body to either present an issue or concern, or to speak for
or against an item. This may be the first time they have ever done this, and they may find the
experience intimidating. Anxiety can be expressed in a variety of ways, including
aggressiveness or forgetfulness, so be patient and remember to:
1. Be fair and consistent.
2. Pay attention to all speakers and actively listen to what they are saying.
3. Ask questions for clarification, but avoid debate or “cross-examining.”
4. Be sure that your body language is not sending mixed or negative messages.
5. See also this section H: Special Tips for the chairperson.
E. Respect Individual Viewpoints
Although it may seem like this tip could simply go unsaid, it is important to remember it
(especially when you feel very strongly about a matter): Treat fellow members of your advisory
body, staff, and the public with respect and courtesy at all times.
1. Allow others time to present their views fully.
2. Actively listen and seek to understand.
3. Avoid interrupting others.
4. Be open to new ideas.
5. Explore alternatives.
6. When necessary, agree to disagree.
Packet Pg. 157
8
Advisory Body Handbook February 6, 2018 June 6,2017
City of San Luis Obispo 27 | P a g e
F. Communicate Effectively
Advisory body members serve as a communications link between the community, staff, and City
Council. You provide a channel for citizen expression. Not only is it important for you to listen
carefully to others, but you also need to be able to communicate effectively what you are hearing
and thinking.
1. Take notes to remind yourself of questions you want to ask or important comments you wish
to make.
2. Be direct, open, and forthright.
3. Provide rationale for opinions or recommendations.
4. Stay on topic.
5. Take your charge seriously, but maintain composure and keep your sense of humor.
6. When speaking to the public and/or press, be sure you are representing the majority views of
your individual advisory body. Personal opinions should be clearly identified as such.
7. Speak clearly and be sure people can hear you.
8. If you wish to communicate using electronic mail (email), use the tool wisely. It is easy to
unintentionally violate the Brown Act, so certain caution must be exercised when using
email. (See Section 4 C, Common Questions about the Brown Act.)
G. Special Tips for the Chairperson
The chairperson’s main role is to provide the advisory body with group direction and to set the
tone for meetings. The Chair must balance being strong enough to move the meeting along and
democratic enough to involve all members in the meeting. The effective chairperson:
Remembers to explain the public participation process to the audience. (For example: “The
commission will hear first from staff who will present the staff report. Commission questions to
staff will follow and then the floor will be open to the public, who may comment on the matter.
Following public comment, the matter will come back to the commission for our deliberation
and action.”)
1. Announces each item before discussion begins.
2. Is even-handed and fair to all participants.
3. Observes specified time limits.
4. Protects commissioners and staff from verbal attacks.
5. Solicits opinions, feelings, and positions from all members.
6. Encourages the generation of alternative solutions.
Packet Pg. 158
8
Advisory Body Handbook February 6, 2018 June 6,2017
City of San Luis Obispo 28 | P a g e
7. Protects new thoughts from being rejected prior to fair evaluation.
8. Discourages finger pointing and blame-orientated statements or questions.
9. Keeps the discussion focused on the issue.
10. Delays evaluation and analysis of alternatives until all are on the table.
11. Guides the process of screening alternative s and selecting the solution.
12. Attempts to obtain consensus.
13. Moves the meeting along and does not let the advisory body drift off the subject at hand.
H. Managing Difficult Meetings
Here are some additional tips for managing any meeting, but particularly the difficult ones:
1. Encourage the designation of a spokesperson for any groups.
2. Ask staff to make sure there are plenty of extra agendas and staff reports.
3. Establish and announce rules before the meeting begins.
4. Introduce each item and possible actions.
5. Try not to waste time on routine items.
6. Encourage speakers to address the advisory body and not the audience.
7. Discourage clapping and shouting.
8. Use recesses to help diffuse hostility.
9. Adhere to speaker time limits.
10. If you don’t already, use speaker slips/cards.
11. Make sure that all advisory body members are addressing each other, through you, and not
the audience.
12. Consider continuing an item for further discussion if it appears consensus may not be
reached.
Packet Pg. 159
8
Advisory Body Handbook February 6, 2018 June 6,2017
City of San Luis Obispo 29 | P a g e
I. Public Records Act and Public Records Retention
The state’s Public Records Act (Government Code Sections 6250 et seq.) generally authorizes
any person to request and receive copies of public records maintained by any state or local
agency, unless the records sought are exempt from disclosure. The definition of “public record”
is quite extensive and incorporates almost every conceivable sort of electronic or hard copy
image, document or communication that relates in a substantive way to the conduct of City
business, that is in the possession of a public employee or official. Public records are required to
be retained by public agencies under a different set of statutes for varying periods of time. Public
records stored on either City or personal devices and accounts must comply with the Public
Records Act and retention statutes. See the City ‘s Records Retention Policy, Electronic
Communications Policy, and Cell Phone Policy for what constitutes a public record that must be
retained.
Advisory board members that receive records substantively re lating to City business, either hard
copy or electronic, at home or work should forward them to appropriate City staff for storage and
retention on the City’s system.
No advisory board member has a City managed email account. Each board member is required
to forward email records pertaining to their conduct of City business, received directly or
through private accounts or devices, to the advisory body mailbox. The staff member assigned
to the respective board can advise the members as to how to forwar d records to the advisory
body mailbox.
Packet Pg. 160
8
Advisory Body Handbook February 6, 2018 June 6,2017
City of San Luis Obispo 30 | P a g e
Section 6. Advisory Body Bylaws
Permanent advisory bodies are established by the City Council by either ordinance or resolution.
Membership is defined in the enabling legislation and all members are appointed by the Council.
Members are selected:
• On the basis of interest, experience and knowledge in the field pertinent to the committee.
• To represent a particular segment of the community (student, elderly, disabled).
• From a broad representation of community interest and expertise.
Most advisory bodies meet regularly at established times. Technical or special-purpose bodies
may meet regularly or only when projects or proposals require their attention.
Packet Pg. 161
8
Advisory Body Handbook February 6, 2018 June 6,2017
City of San Luis Obispo 31 | P a g e
A. Administrative Review Board Bylaws (T/SP)
MEMBERSHIP
The Administrative Review Board (ARB) consists of three members appointed for two year
terms. However, after appointment of the initial board for a two year term, one member is
eligible to be appointed for a one year term, and two members are eligible to be appointed for a
two year term. Thereafter, appointments will be made in a staggered, every other year pattern, so
that the term of one member will expire in one given year, and the term of the other members
will expire one year later.
Members must be residents and registered voters of the City pursuant to the City of San Luis
Obispo City Council Policies & Procedures Manual, and qualified by experience, training or
education in the conduct of administrative hearings.
PURPOSE
The purpose of the Board is described in Article 1. Functions.
ARTICLE 1. FUNCTIONS
The Administrative Review Board is established to provide the following functions:
1. To conduct and decide, as final decision maker for the City, administrative appeal
hearings relating to administrative citations issued for certain contested San Luis Obispo
Municipal Code enforcement matters that require a more detailed administrative record.
This Board will not hear appeals of citations issued for violations of Title 1 5 (Building
and Construction), which appeals are heard by the Construction Board of Appeals, or
appeals of most zoning or subdivision appeals, which are heard by the Planning
Commission.
2. To issue written decisions based on findings of fact supported by evidence introduced at
the hearing in a format sufficient to enable an appellant to challenge the decision by
petition for writ to the Superior Court.
ARTICLE 2. MEETINGS
1. The Board shall meet at least once annually to elect its officers, consider adoption of any
policies or procedures, and make any recommendations to the Council.
2. Regular meetings of the Board shall be held on the second Tuesday of each month at 3:00
p.m.
3. Other meetings shall be held as needed, in accordance with Municipal Code section
1.24.110 B, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Appellant and the Department
Head of the department that issued the citation that is the subject of the appeal. The
agenda for any such meeting shall be publicly posted at least three days in advance of the
meeting in a form and manner acceptable to the City Clerk.
Packet Pg. 162
8
Advisory Body Handbook February 6, 2018 June 6,2017
City of San Luis Obispo 32 | P a g e
4. Meetings shall be held in the Council Hearing Room, City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San
Luis Obispo, California, or at a location otherwise noticed.
5. In the event the Board desires to hold all or any portion of a meeting at a place other than
the City Hall, then the place of such meeting shall be posted on the bulletin board located
at the entrance to City Hall prior to the time herein designated for such meetings in
accordance with law.
ARTICLE 3. OFFICERS
1. Officers of the Board shall be a Chairperson and a Vice Chairperson.
2. Offices shall be filled from appointed members by voice vote of the voting membership.
3. Election of officers shall be held annually at the first meeting held after April 1.
4. The City Clerk shall designate a staff person to serve as Secretary to the Board.
ARTICLE 4. DUTIES OF THE CHAIRPERSON
The Chairperson shall preside at all meetings of the Board. The Chairperson shall preserve order
and decorum at all meetings, shall vot e on all questions and announce the Board’s decisions on
all subjects.
ARTICLE 5. DUTIES OF VICE CHAIRPERSON
The Vice Chairperson shall act as Chairperson during the temporary absence or incapacitation of
the Chairperson.
ARTICLE 6. DUTIES OF THE SECRETARY
1. It shall be the duty of the Secretary to keep full, true and correct records of the action of
the Board and provide each member of the Board with minutes of each meeting. The
Secretary shall also audio record the meeting.
2. After final action by the Board on an appeal, the Secretary shall transmit copies of the
decision to the appellant, Board and City department initiating the administrative citation.
3. Minutes will be submitted to the Board for approval at the next meeting.
4. The Secretary shall prepare an agenda for each meeting.
Packet Pg. 163
8
Advisory Body Handbook February 6, 2018 June 6,2017
City of San Luis Obispo 33 | P a g e
ARTICLE 7. CONDUCT OF MEETINGS
1. Board members should address questions through the Chairperson.
2. Members of the audience should address Board members or other persons present
through the Chairperson.
3. After roll call, the Chairperson shall publicly announce the procedures to be followed to
consider the hearing item(s)and then proceed as follows:
a. Members of the public wishing to speak in favor of, or in opposition to, the appeal
shall be invited to comment.
b. The Chairperson shall introduce the appeal and ask for oral staff reports.
c. The staff report and any administrative citation issued and submitted to the Board
shall be placed into the record with all communications received regarding the
appeal. Staff reports shall be submitted for all appeal hearings in a form
acceptable to the Board.
d. The administrative citation and any documents, photos or other written
information provided to the appellant at time of, or prior to, issuance of the
administrative citation shall be admitted as prima fascia evidence under
Government Code Section 53069.4.
e. The appellant or the attorney for the appellant shall be invited to make a
presentation on the appeal and to address the staff presentation, public comments
or Board questions.
4. The City shall have an opportunity to respond to the appellant’s presentation, answer any
questions from the Board and may briefly summarize its position.
5. The appellant shall have the opportunity to address any final comments, answer any
questions from the Board and may briefly summarize its position.
6. Thereafter, discussion shall be confined to members of the Board; provided that the
Board may at any time prior to a decision on an item, ask questions of City staff, the
appellant or any person present as it deems necessary and appropriate to its resolution of
the appeal.
7. The Board, upon formal motion, shall take action on the appeal. A board member shall
not vote unless he or she was present during the entire hearing, unless he or she listens to
the tape of the hearing or reads the written hearing record (if any) prior to voting.
8. The Board shall issue a written decision, which shall contain, at a minimum, the
information required by Municipal Code Section 1.24.130. If the action is other than the
st aff recommendation, the Board shall direct staff to prepare a proposed decision for
Board consideration at the next meeting reflecting the deliberation and conclusion of the
Packet Pg. 164
8
Advisory Body Handbook February 6, 2018 June 6,2017
City of San Luis Obispo 34 | P a g e
Board, which shall be distributed to the Board and appellant at least 72 hours prior to the
next meeting. The decision shall include information concerning the appellant’s right of
petition for writ and/or right of appeal for a trial de novo to the Superior Court
ARTICLE 8. QUORUM
A majority of the number of established Board members shall constitute a quorum for the
transaction of business.
ARTICLE 9. VOTING
1. The vote on all motions deciding the appeal may be, but is not required to be, by
resolution and a roll call vote shall be taken for the ayes and noes prior to the
consideration of the next order of business. All other motions may be by voice vote.
2. Failure of any motion resolution or other action to receive two affirmative votes shall
result in failure or denial of the motion, resolution or other action.
ARTICLE 10. AGENDA
In order for items and materials to be included on an agenda or to be acted upon by the Board,
they must be submitted to the Secretary of the Board at least 3 days prior to the date on which
said request will be considered by the Board, unless a longer period is specified in Chapter 1.24
of the Municipal Code. Such request must be made in writing.
(COUNCIL ADOPTED ON 12/13/2016)
Packet Pg. 165
8
Advisory Body Handbook February 6, 2018 June 6,2017
City of San Luis Obispo 35 | P a g e
B. Architectural Review Commission (A)
MEMBERSHIP
The Architectural Review Commission (ARC) has seven members. Members must be residents
and registered voters of the City. The only special qualifications for membership are a proven
interest in the City’s physical environment and the ability to make positive and fair aesthetic
evaluations.
PURPOSE
The ARC shall review and approve plans for all structures and physical improvements, and for
any relocation, addition, extension, or exterior change to existing buildings, structures and
physical improvements, as set forth in Section 2.48.050 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code.
Approval by the ARC must be obtained before a building permit or other city permit may be
issued authorizing construction, alteration, relocation, addition, or extension.
ARTICLE 1. MEETINGS
1. Regular meetings shall be held at 5:00 p.m. on the first and third Monday of each month.
2. Agenda items shall be completed by 9:00 p.m. unless a majority of Commissioners agree
to extend the meeting.
3. Regular meetings shall be held in the Council Hearing Room, City Hall, 990 Palm Street,
San Luis Obispo, California.
4. In the event that the Architectural Review Commission desires to hold all or any portion
of a regular meeting at a place other than the Council Hearing Room, then the place of
such meeting shall be posted on the doors of the Council Hearing Room prior to the time
designated for the meeting in accordance with law.
ARTICLE 2. ELECTION OF OFFICERS
1. The Commission shall select a Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson from among its
members to serve for a one-year term beginning April 1st of each year.
2. Commissioners shall serve as Chairperson or Vice-Chairperson at the discretion of the
Commission.
3. The Chairperson shall preside at all meetings of the Commission. The Vice -Chairperson
is Chairperson in the absence of the Chairperson or in case of inability of the Chairperson
to act.
Packet Pg. 166
8
Advisory Body Handbook February 6, 2018 June 6,2017
City of San Luis Obispo 36 | P a g e
ARTICLE 3. CONDUCT OF MEETINGS
1. Commissioners should address questions through the Chairperson.
2. Members of the audience should address Commissioners or other persons present through
the Chairperson.
3. Procedure for reviewing public hearing items:
After roll call the Chairperson shall announce to the public the procedures to be followed
to consider the public hearing items and then proceed as follows:
a. The Chairperson shall introduce the items and ask for oral staff reports.
b. The staff report previously submitted to the Architectural Review Commission
shall be placed into the record with all communications received regarding the
proposal. Staff reports shall be submitted for all public hearing items in a form
acceptable to the Commission.
c. The applicant shall be invited to make a presentation on behalf of the request.
d. Members of the public wishing to speak in favor or in opposition of the
application shall be invited to make a presentation.
e. The public hearing shall be closed to the public and discussion confined to
members of the Commission; provided that the Commission may reopen the
public hearing at any time prior to a decision on an item on an affirmative vote of
the majority of those members present.
f. The Commission, upon formal motion, shall take action on the proposal. The
Chairperson shall inform the applicant and public of the right of appeal and
procedures for filing such an appeal.
ARTICLE 4. QUORUM
1. Four members of the Commission constitutes a quorum for the transaction of business.
2. No approval or other action of the Commis sion shall become effective without receiving
the affirmative vote of a majority of the members present.
ARTICLE 5. VOTING
1. Except as otherwise provided in the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code and state law, no
motion or any other action shall be passed or become effective without receiving the
affirmative vote of at least a majority of members present.
2. Failure to receive such an affirmative vote shall result in failure or denial, as appropriate,
of the motion or other action.
Packet Pg. 167
8
Advisory Body Handbook February 6, 2018 June 6,2017
City of San Luis Obispo 37 | P a g e
3. Except as allowed under the Political Reform Action of 1974, any member abstaining due
to a declared conflict of interest shall not participate in the discussion of the items or
otherwise influence or attempt to influence in any manner the decision on the item.
4. All members, when present, must vote except when refraining from participating due to a
potential conflict of interest.
5. Commissioners not supporting a motion for project approval shall summarize the reason
for their vote.
ARTICLE 6. PUBLIC RECORDS
1. Records of all public hearings shall be made available to the public in the office of the
Community Development Department.
2. Secretary Duties: The secretary shall keep minutes of each meeting and shall record the
official action taken. The records of all proceedings and the basis for all findings shall be
available to the Council and to the public.
ARTICLE 7. ATTENDANCE
1. Any member of the Architectural Review Commission who fails, for any reason, to
attend three consecutive regular, adjourned regular, or specially-scheduled (excluding
Commission site visits) meetings, or a total of six such Commission meetings within any
12 month period, shall be reviewed by the Chairperson for possible referral to the City
Council.
ARTICLE 8. FILLING VACANCIES AND REMOVAL OF MEMBERS
1. Vacancies shall be filled for unexpired terms. The Council, by majority action, may
remove any Commissioner as provided in the City Charter.
ARTICLE 9. RULES, REGULATIONS AND PROCEDURES
1. The Commission may adopt rules, regulations and procedures as required for the
transaction of its business. These rules shall become effective upon approval of the
Council.
COMPENSATION
The City Council has approved a stipend of $60 per meeting (not to exceed $240 monthly) for
each member of the ARC (Resolution No. 10516 [2014 Series]).
Packet Pg. 168
8
Advisory Body Handbook February 6, 2018 June 6,2017
City of San Luis Obispo 38 | P a g e
C. Bicycle Advisory Active Transportation Committee Bylaws (T/SP)
ARTICLE 1. PURPOSE
The purpose of the Bicycle Advisory Active Transportation Committee (BAC) (ATC) is to
provide oversight and policy direction on matters related to bicycle and pedestrian transportation
in San Luis Obispo and its relationship to bicycling and walking outside the City.
ARTICLE 2. COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP AND TERMS OF OFFICE
The Bicycle Advisory Active Transportation Committee shall have seven members appointed by
the City Council to staggered terms of four years. Members must be residents and registered
voters of the City. Committee members will serve at the pleasure of the City Council. Any
Committee member may be reappointed, provided no appointee serves more than two
consecutive four-year terms. A member who has served two consecutive four -year terms can be
reappointed after a one year absence from the Committee.
ARTICLE 3. OFFICERS
The officers will consist of a Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson who will be elected annually at
a regular Committee meeting in each calendar year. The Chairperson will pres ide over all
meetings of the Committee and perform such duties as directed by the Committee. The Vice -
Chairperson will serve in the absence or incapacity of the Chairperson.
ARTICLE 4. MEETINGS
1. The Committee will hold a regular meeting at least quarterly. The meetings are generally
held the third Thursday of every other month (January, March, May, July, September and
November) at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Hearing Room, City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San
Luis Obispo, California. All meetings will be open to the public.
2. The Chairperson or any four members of the Committee may call a special meeting,
provided that a week's prior notice is given in writing to each member.
3. A quorum will consist of a majority of established Committee members.
4. All actions of the Committee will be decided by a majority vote or consensus and will be
directed through the Chairperson.
5. All members present must vote, except when abstaining due to a declared conflict of
interest.
A failure or refusal to vote when present (except for a declared conflict of interest) will
be construed as an affirmative vote.
6. Any member with a declared conflict of interest will not vote or participate in any
discussion of any item o r in any manner attempt to influence the decision on that item.
Packet Pg. 169
8
Advisory Body Handbook February 6, 2018 June 6,2017
City of San Luis Obispo 39 | P a g e
ARTICLE 5. SUBCOMMITTEES
Subcommittees consisting of less than a quorum of the Committee can be appointed as
needed by the Chairperson.
ARTICLE 6. ADVISORY BODY POLICIES
The Committee adopts and incorporates by reference all policies as stated in the City of
San Luis Obispo Advisory Body Handbook that are not in conflict with these bylaws.
Packet Pg. 170
8
Advisory Body Handbook February 6, 2018 June 6,2017
City of San Luis Obispo 40 | P a g e
D. Citizens' Revenue Enhancement Oversight Commission Bylaws (T/SP)
MEMBERSHIP
The Citizens’ Revenue Enhancement Oversight Commission (REOC) has five members.
Members must be residents and registered voters of the City. When recruiting members, the City
seeks members that have experience with finance, budgeting, or municipal accounting, though
this is not a requirement of membership.
PURPOSE
REOC was established to provide transparency and maximize city accountability, as part of the
passage of a ballot measure approving a general use tax to protect and maintain essential services
and facilities—such as open space preservation; bike lanes, sidewalks and other traffic
congestion relief projects; public safety; neighborhood street paving and code enforcement; flood
protection; senior citizen programs including services and facilities; and other vita l general
purpose services and capital improvement projects. REOC is responsible for reviewing and
making budget recommendations directly to the City Council regarding expenditures from the
essential services transactions (sales) and use tax, and reporting annually to the community on
the City’s use of these tax revenues. (San Luis Obispo Municipal Code §3.15.020)
ARTICLE 1. MEETINGS
1. The REOC shall meet a minimum of four times per year to conduct its business.
2. REOC regular meetings will follow the diagram on the next page and be integrated into
the City’s budget processes for the two -year financial plan, fiscal year-end, and financial
plan supplement. Meeting dates may change from year to year according to the a ctual
budget schedule.
Packet Pg. 171
8
Advisory Body Handbook February 6, 2018 June 6,2017
City of San Luis Obispo 41 | P a g e
3. Agenda items shall be completed by 9:00 p.m. unless a majority of Commissioners agree
to extend the meeting.
4. Regular meetings shall be held in the Council Hearing Room, City Hall, 990 Palm Street,
San Luis Obispo, California.
5. Special meetings may be called by a majority of the REOC, or by City staff in
consultation with the Chairperson, if additional meetings are necessary to accomplish the
purpose and duties of the Commission.
6. In the event that the REOC desires to hold all or any portion of a regular meeting at a
place other than the Council Hearing Room, then the place of such meeting shall be
posted on at the doors of the Council Hearing Room prior to the time designated for the
meeting in accordance with law.
Packet Pg. 172
8
Advisory Body Handbook February 6, 2018 June 6,2017
City of San Luis Obispo 42 | P a g e
ARTICLE 2. ELECTION OF OFFICERS
1. The Commission shall select a Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson from among its
members to serve for a one-year term beginning with the first meeting following the start
of each fiscal year (July 1).
2. Commissioners shall serve as Chairperson or Vice-Chairperson at the discretion of the
Commission.
3. The Chairperson shall preside at all meetings of the Commission. The Vice -Chairperson
is Chairperson in the absence of the Chairperson or in case of inability of the Chairperson
to act.
ARTICLE 3. CONDUCT OF MEETINGS
1. Commissioners should address questions through the Chairperson.
2. Members of the audience should address Commissioners or other persons present through
the Chairperson.
3. Procedure for reviewing public hearing items:
After roll call the Chairperson shall announce to the public the procedures to be followed
to consider the items listed on the agenda and then proceed as follows:
a. The Chairperson shall introduce the items and ask for oral staff r eports, as
appropriate.
b. The staff report previously submitted to the REOC shall be placed into the record
with all communications received regarding the item. Staff reports shall be
submitted for all public hearing items in a form acceptable to the Commission.
c. Members of the public wishing to speak on the topic of the agenda item shall be
invited to make a presentation. Public comment shall be accepted for agenda
items that are listed as presentations, business items, or public hearings.
d. Following public testimony on an agenda item, the public hearing or public
testimony portion of the meeting shall be closed to the public and discussion
confined to members of the Commission; provided that the Commission may
reopen the public hearing or invite additional testimony at any time prior to a
decision on an item on an affirmative vote of the majority of those members
present.
e. The Commission, upon formal motion, shall take action on the item or
recommendation.
Packet Pg. 173
8
Advisory Body Handbook February 6, 2018 June 6,2017
City of San Luis Obispo 43 | P a g e
ARTICLE 4. QUORUM
1. Three members of the Commission constitutes a quorum for the transaction of business.
2. No action of the Commission shall become effective without receiving the affirmative
vote of a majority of the members present.
ARTICLE 5. VOTING
1. Except as otherwise provided in the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code and state law, no
motion or any other action shall be passed or become effective without receiving the
affirmative vote of at least a majority of members present.
2. Failure to receive such an affirmative vot e shall result in failure or denial, as appropriate,
of the motion or other action.
3. Except as allowed under the Political Reform Action of 1974, any member abstaining due
to a declared conflict of interest shall not participate in the discussion of the items or
otherwise influence or attempt to influence in any manner the decision on the item.
4. All members, when present, must vote except when refraining from participating due to
actual or potential conflict of interest.
5. Commissioners not supporting a motion for action shall summarize the reason for their
vote.
ARTICLE 6. PUBLIC RECORDS
1. Records of all public hearings shall be made available to the public in the office of the
City Clerk.
2. Secretary Duties: The secretary shall be a representative of the City Clerk’s Office, and
shall keep minutes of each meeting and shall record the official actions taken. The
records of all proceedings shall be available to the Council and to the public.
ARTICLE 7. ATTENDANCE
1. Any member of the REOC who fails, for any reason, to attend three regular, adjourned
regular, or specially-scheduled meetings, within any 12 month period, shall be reviewed
by the Chairperson for possible referral to the City Council.
ARTICLE 8. FILLING VACANCIES AND REMOVAL OF MEMBERS
1. Vacancies shall be filled for unexpired terms. The Council, by majority action, may
remove any Commissioner as provided in the City Charter.
Packet Pg. 174
8
Advisory Body Handbook February 6, 2018 June 6,2017
City of San Luis Obispo 44 | P a g e
ARTICLE 9. RULES, REGULATIONS AND PROCEDURES
1. The Commission may adopt rules, regulations and procedures as required for the
transaction of its business. These rules shall become effective upon approval of the
Council.
Packet Pg. 175
8
Advisory Body Handbook February 6, 2018 June 6,2017
City of San Luis Obispo 45 | P a g e
E. Construction Board of Appeals Bylaws (T/SP)
MEMBERSHIP
The Construction Board of Appeals (CBOA) consists of seven members. Members must be
residents and registered voters of the City pursuant to the City of San Luis Obispo City Council
Policies & Procedures Manual. Five of the seven members shall be qualified by experience and
training to pass on matters pertaining to building construction and building service equipment,
hazards of fire, explosions, hazardous conditions or fire protection and who are not employees of
the City. Two members of the Board shall be physically disabled persons, as defined in the
adopted California Building Code. Board members may serve simultaneously on other non-
technical City advisory bodies pursuant to the City of San Luis Obispo City Council Policies &
Procedures Manual.
PURPOSE
The purpose of the Board is described in Article 1. Functions.
ARTICLE 1. FUNCTIONS
The Construction Board of Appeals is established to provide the following functions:
1. To determine the suitability of alternate materials, methods of construction, and other
specifications set out in the City’s adopted Uniform Codes.
2. To interpret the provisions of the City’s adopted Uniform Codes and to hear and decide
appeals of orders, decisions or determinations made by the Chief Building Official, Code
Official or Fire Marshall relative to the application and interpretations of the adopted
Codes of Title 15.
3. To conduct hearings and provide the second level of administrative review for contested
Administrative Citations issued pursuant to the adopted codes of Title 15 or otherwise
issued by the Chief Building Official. To serve as the acting Housing Appeals Board
required under California Health & Safety Code section 17920.6, and to also serve as the
appeals body for any other adopted codes found within Title 15 of the San Luis Obispo
Municipal Code, including disability access requirements imposed by the California
Building Standards Code and the California Health & Safety Code.
ARTICLE 2. MEETINGS
1. Meetings shall be on call of the Chief Building Official on at least three days public
notice given in a form acceptable to the City Clerk.
2. Meetings shall be held in the Council Chamber, City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis
Obispo, California, or at a location otherwise noticed.
3. In the event the Board desires to hold all or any portion of a meeting at a place other than
the City Hall, then the place of such meeting shall be posted on the bulletin board located
Packet Pg. 176
8
Advisory Body Handbook February 6, 2018 June 6,2017
City of San Luis Obispo 46 | P a g e
at the entrance to City Hall prior to the time herein designated for such meetings in
accordance with law.
ARTICLE 3. OFFICERS
1. Officers of the Board shall be a Chairperson and a Vice Chairperson.
2. Offices shall be filled from appointed members by written ballot of the voting
membership.
3. Election of officers shall be held annually at the first meeting held after April 1.
ARTICLE 4. DUTIES OF THE CHAIRPERSON
The Chairperson shall preside at all meetings of the Board. The Chairperson shall preserve order
and decorum at all meetings, shall vote on all questions and announce the Boar d’s decisions on
all subjects.
ARTICLE 5. DUTIES OF VICE CHAIRPERSON
The Vice Chairperson shall act as Chairperson during the temporary absence or incapacitation of
the Chairperson.
ARTICLE 6. DUTIES OF THE SECRETARY
1. In the event the Chairperson and Vice Chairperson are absent, the Secretary shall call the
meeting to order and the Board shall elect one of its members to act as Chairperson pro
tempore.
2. It shall be the duty of the Secretary to keep full, true and correct records of the action of
the Board and provide each member of the Board with minutes of each meeting.
3. The Secretary shall transmit copies of decisions and written findings to the City Council.
4. Minutes will be submitted to the Board for approval at the next meeting.
5. The Secretary shall prepare an agenda for each meeting.
ARTICLE 7. CONDUCT OF MEETINGS
1. Board members should address questions through the Chairperson.
2. Members of the audience should address Board members or other persons present
through the Chairperso n.
Packet Pg. 177
8
Advisory Body Handbook February 6, 2018 June 6,2017
City of San Luis Obispo 47 | P a g e
ARTICLE 8. QUORUM
A majority of the number of established Board members shall constitute a quorum for the
transaction of business.
ARTICLE 9. VOTING
1. The vote on all motions making recommendation to the City Council shall be by
resolution, and a roll call vote shall be taken for the ayes and noes prior to the
consideration of the next order of business. All other motions may be by voice vote.
2. Failure of any motion resolution or other action to receive three affirmative votes shall
result in failure or denial of the motion, resolution or other action.
ARTICLE 10. AGENDA
In order for items and materials to be included on an agenda or to be acted upon by the
committee, they must be submitted to the Secretary of the Board at least ten days prior to the
date on which said request will be considered by the Board. Such request must be made in
writing setting forth the following:
1. The applicable Code provision.
2. The nature of the requested change or interpretation.
3. The reasons for the change or interpretation.
ARTICLE 11. REFERRAL TO CITY COUNCIL
After the conclusion of the hearing on the request, all decisions and findings shall be made in
writing to the City Council with a duplicate copy to the appellant. The Board may recommend
such new legislation as may be necessary.
Packet Pg. 178
8
Advisory Body Handbook February 6, 2018 June 6,2017
City of San Luis Obispo 48 | P a g e
F Cultural Heritage Committee Bylaws (A)
ARTICLE 1. PURPOSE
The Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC) promotes the preservation of architectural,
archaeological, historical and cultural resources in San Luis Obispo, by:
1. Helping the public pursue cultural resource preservation projects.
2. Sponsoring educational programs and research which improves our understanding of the
community’s history and archaeology.
3. On request, commenting on the effects of public and private actions on community
cultural resources.
4. Helping with the administration of City-sponsored benefit programs.
ARTICLE 2. COMPLIANCE WITH OTHER REQUIREMENTS
The functioning of the Cultural Heritage Committee and all of its actions and decisions shall be
in compliance with the provisions of the Advisory Body Handbook and as established by
Council Resolution.
ARTICLE 3. MEMBERSHIP
1. The CHC will have seven members appointed by the City Council. Members must be
residents and registered voters of the City. If possible, membership of the Committee
should include a person knowledgeable in local history, a person with training or
experience in structural rehabilitation, a person knowledgeable in local archaeology, and
a person with knowledge of archit ecture.
2. If possible, the Committee should include one resident from each of the five Historical
Preservation Districts created but the Council is not limited to this district residency
requirement when making appointments.
ARTICLE 4. TERMS OF APPOINTMENT
Members shall be appointed by the City Council for an initial term of a maximum of four years
and may be reappointed for additional terms, not exceeding a total of two consecutive four -year
terms.
Packet Pg. 179
8
Advisory Body Handbook February 6, 2018 June 6,2017
City of San Luis Obispo 49 | P a g e
ARTICLE 5. OFFICERS
1. A Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson shall be elected by the Committee at its first
meeting in April for one-year terms. No person may serve in the office of Chairperson or
Vice-Chairperson for more than two consecutive terms.
2. The Chairperson shall preside over all Committee meetings, vote on all matters, appoint
all subcommittees, call special meetings, and submit an annual report and budget to the
Committee for approval and presentation to the City Council.
3. The Vice-Chairperson shall serve in the absence or incapacity of the Chairperson and
perform such other duties as requested by the Chair.
ARTICLE 6. MEETINGS
1. The Committee shall hold a regular meeting each month. All meetings shall be open to
the public. Regular meetings shall be held at 5:30 p.m. on the fourth Monday of each
month in the City Council Hearing Room, City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo,
California.
2. A quorum shall consist of a majority of the established members.
3. All action of the Committee shall be decided by a majority vote or conse nsus of the
quorum directed through the Chairperson.
4. Minutes of each meeting shall be forwarded to the City Council and be available as a
public record.
5. The Chairperson or a quorum majority of the Committee may call a special meeting,
provided that all public notice requirements are met.
6. All Committee meetings shall be conducted according to City practices, customs, and
policies.
Robert’s Rules of Order, Newly Revised, may be used as a guideline.
7. All members present must vote, except when a member declares a conflict of interest.
Any member declaring a conflict of interest shall not vote or participate in any related
deliberations or action of the Committee.
ARTICLE 7. ABSENCES AND RESIGNATIONS
1. If a member fails to attend three consecut ive regular meetings or a total of six regular
meetings within any 12 months, the member shall automatically be considered for
replacement. The Chairperson of the Committee shall inform the Council of such a
situation and explain any special circumstances.
Packet Pg. 180
8
Advisory Body Handbook February 6, 2018 June 6,2017
City of San Luis Obispo 50 | P a g e
2. Committee members are responsible for notifying the Chairperson or the Secretary in
advance when an absence is anticipated.
3. If a member needs to resign from the Committee, the member shall immediately direct a
letter to the City Council with copie s forwarded to the Committee Chairperson and City
Clerk.
ARTICLE 8. SUBCOMMITTEES
Subcommittees shall be appointed, as needed, by the Chairperson. Subcommittees may include
non-Committee members who shall have no voting power.
ARTICLE 9. AMENDMENTS
Bylaw amendments shall be submitted for Council approval by an affirmative vote of the
members present at a regular meeting of the Committee, provided that such amendments shall
have been discussed by the Committee on the agenda of at least two meetings pr ior to the vote.
The members shall receive the proposed amendments at least 10 days prior to the first meeting.
Packet Pg. 181
8
Advisory Body Handbook February 6, 2018 June 6,2017
City of San Luis Obispo 51 | P a g e
G. Human Relations Commission Bylaws (A)
ARTICLE 1. PURPOSE
It is the purpose of the Human Relations Commission (HRC) to advise the Council in its actions
to create an environment within the City in which all persons can enjoy equal rights and
opportunities regardless of race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, age, or
physical, mental or economic status. The Human Relations Commission shall make
recommendations to the City Council or the City Manager on how these social concerns and
human needs can best be addressed.
ARTICLE 2. MEMBERSHIP AND TERMS OF OFFICE
The HRC has seven members. Members must be residents and registered voters of the City.
While there are no special qualifications for applicants, the Council usually seeks individuals
with experience, or a demonstrated interest in community social issues.
Commissioners shall be appointed by the City Council for terms of four years, commencing on
April 1st. Commissioners shall serve at the pleasure of the City Council. Any Commissioner may
be reappointed, provided that no appointee shall serve more than two consecutive four -year
terms.
ARTICLE 3. MEETINGS
1. The Commission shall hold a regular meeting at least quarterly.
2. Regular meetings will be held generally on the first Wednesday of the month at a
specified time and place.
3. The Commission meetings shall be open to the public and shall be held at City Hall in the
Council Hearing Room or other previously announced locations at specific times as
required by California law.
4. A quorum shall consist of a majority of the established Commissioners.
5. All actions of the Commission shall be decided by a majority vote or consensus and shall
be directed through the Commission Chair.
6 Minutes of each meeting shall be forwarded to the City Council and be available as a
public record.
7. The Chairperson or any three members of the Commission may call a special me eting
providing a week’s prior notice is given in writing to each member.
8. All Commission meetings shall be conducted according to Robert’s Rules of Order.
9. All members present must vote, except when abstaining due to a declared conflict of
interest.
Packet Pg. 182
8
Advisory Body Handbook February 6, 2018 June 6,2017
City of San Luis Obispo 52 | P a g e
10. Any member with a declared conflict of interest shall not vote on or participate in any
discussion of any item or in any manner attempt to influence the decision on that item.
ARTICLE 4. SUBCOMMITTEES
Subcommittees consisting of less than a quorum of the Commission shall be appointed, as
needed, by the Chairperson. Study committees may include non-commission members who shall
have no voting power.
ARTICLE 5. OFFICERS
1. The officers shall be a Chairperson and a Vice-Chairperson who shall be elected at the
Commission meeting in April for one-year terms.
2. The Chairperson shall preside over all meetings of the Commission, prepare all meeting
agendas and perform such duties as directed by the Commission.
3. The Vice-Chairperson shall serve in the absence or incapacity of the Chairperson.
ARTICLE 6. AMENDMENTS
Bylaw amendments shall be submitted for Council approval by an affirmative vote of the
members present at a regular meeting of the Commission, provided that such amendments shall
have been discussed by the Commission on the agenda of at least two meetings prior to the vote.
The members shall receive the proposed amendments in writing at least ten (10) days prior to the
first reading.
Packet Pg. 183
8
Advisory Body Handbook February 6, 2018 June 6,2017
City of San Luis Obispo 53 | P a g e
H. Jack House Committee Bylaws (T/SP)
ARTICLE 1. PURPOSE
The Jack House and Grounds were deeded to the City of San Luis Obispo on March 10, 1975. In
accepting the deed, the City agreed to appoint a committee of seven (7) members to advise the
Council on the House and Grounds. The Jack House Committee (JHC) is charged with the
responsibility to advise the City Council on matters concerning: Facility use, fees and charges,
capital improvements, and any other item affecting the House and Grounds.
ARTICLE 2. COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP
The grant deed requires that persons with “special expertise” fill four (4) of the seven (7) seats
on the Jack House Committee as follows:
1. A representative of the San Luis Obispo County History Center.
2. One member of the faculty, current or retired, of California Polytechnic State University
College of Architecture and Environmental Design, preferably an architectural historian.
3. One member of the faculty, current or retired, of California Polytechnic State University
College of Agriculture, preferably a horticulturist.
4. A member of the San Luis Obispo Parks and Recreation Commission.
The City Council has resolved that due to these special conditions and requirements, members
with this special expertise may serve terms of undetermined length, t he choice being left to
individual Committee members.
The remaining three (3) Committee members are required to be residents and registered voters of
the City of San Luis Obispo . They shall serve four-year terms, with a maximum of eight years.
The coordinator of the volunteer docent group shall serve as ex-officio (non-voting) Jack House
Committee member and shall not count toward a quorum.
ARTICLE 3. MEETINGS
1. The Committee shall hold a regular meeting each month but not less than ten (10) times
a year.
2. Meetings will be held at 5:30 p.m. the second Wednesday of each month.
3. The Committee meetings shall be open to the public and shall be held at the Parks and
Recreation Department Office, the Jack House or any other previously announced
locations at specific times as required by California law.
4. A quorum shall consist of a majority of the Committee members currently serving.
Packet Pg. 184
8
Advisory Body Handbook February 6, 2018 June 6,2017
City of San Luis Obispo 54 | P a g e
5. All actions of the Committee shall be decided by a majority vote or consensus and shall
be directed through the Committee Chair.
6. Minutes of each meeting shall be forwarded to the City Council and be available as a
public record.
7. The Chairperson or any three members of the Committee may call a special meeting
provided a week’s prior notice is given in writing to each member.
8. All Committee meetings shall be conducted according to Robert’s Rules of Order.
9. Except for the ex-officio member (who serves as the coordinator of the volunteer docent
group), all Committee members shall vote.
10. Any Committee member with a declared conflict of interest shall not vote on or
participate in any discussion of any item or in any manner attempt to influence the
decision on that item. The member with such conflict shall remove himself/herself from
the room until such discussion has concluded.
ARTICLE 4. SUBCOMMITTEES
Subcommittees consisting of less than a quorum of the Committee shall be appointed, as needed,
by the Chairperson. Subcommittees shall convene for a specific purpose, study or project and
shall have a limited term, not -to-exceed 12 consecutive months. Study subcommittees may
include non-Committee members who shall have no voting power.
ARTICLE 5. OFFICERS
1. The officers shall be a Chairperson and a Vice-Chairperson who shall be elected at the
Committee meeting in April for two -year terms.
2. The Chairperson shall preside over all meetings of the Committee, assist in preparing all
meeting agendas and perform such duties as directed by the Committee.
3. The Vice-Chairperson shall serve in the a bsence or incapacity of the Chairperson.
ARTICLE 6. STAFF
The Director of Parks and Recreation or designee is the staff liaison to the Jack House
Committee. The Director may designate such other staff as is necessary to provide support to the
Committee.
The Director of Public Works should designate a Public Works staff representative for both the
house (building maintenance) and the garden (parks maintenance). The Committee shall receive
notification if there are any changes to staff representation.
The Committee shall support volunteer opportunities via a docent program for the historic Jack
House and gardens through the use of volunteers serving as tour guides of the historic home,
Packet Pg. 185
8
Advisory Body Handbook February 6, 2018 June 6,2017
City of San Luis Obispo 55 | P a g e
gardens, exhibitions and special tours. The ex-officio (non-voting) Jack House Committee
member shall serve as the coordinator of this volunteer group in accordance with best
management practices for volunteer guides of historic sites.
ARTICLE 7. AMENDMENTS
Prior to May 1, in each odd number year, these by-laws shall be reviewed by the Committee. By-
law amendments shall be submitted for Council approval by an affirmative vote of the members
present at a regular meeting of the Committee, provided such amendments shall have been
discussed by the Committee on the agenda of at least two meetings prior to the vote. The
members shall receive the proposed amendments in writing at least ten days (10) prior to the first
meeting.
Packet Pg. 186
8
Advisory Body Handbook February 6, 2018 June 6,2017
City of San Luis Obispo 56 | P a g e
I. Mass Transportation Committee Bylaws (T/SP)
ARTICLE 1. PURPOSE
The purpose of the Mass Transportation Committee (MTC) is to advise City staff and the City
Council on all matters related to public transportation in San Luis Obispo (buses, trolley, and
taxi).
ARTICLE 2. COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP
The Committee has seven vot ing members, consisting of one Cal Poly employee designated by
Cal Poly and one Cal Poly student representative designated by Associated Students, Inc. (ASI);
one person 62 years of age or older; one person from the business community; one person with
technical transportation planning experience; one person with a disability; one member -at-large.
In addition, when possible, two alternate members selected from the general public will be
appointed. The Cal Poly and technical planning representatives are exemp t from the residency
requirements. All other members must be residents and registered voters of the City.
ARTICLE 3. TERMS OF OFFICE
Committee members will be appointed by the City Council to staggered terms of four years.
Committee members will serve at the pleasure of the City Council. Any Committee member may
be reappointed, providing no appointee serves more than two consecutive terms (eight years). A
member who has served eight years can be reappointed after a one year absence from the
Committee.
ARTICLE 4. MEETINGS
1. The Committee will hold a regular meeting at least quarterly.
2. The Committee will approve an annual regular meeting schedule by June of each year.
3. The Committee meetings will be open to the public and held at the Council Hearing,
unless otherwise noticed.
4. A quorum will consist of a majority of the established Committee members.
5. All actions of the Committee will be decided by a majority vote or consensus and will be
directed through the Committee Chair.
6. Minutes of each meeting will be available as a public record in the Public Works
Department.
7. The Chairperson or any four members of the Committee may call a special meeting,
provided that a week’s prior notice is given in writing to each member.
8. All Committee meetings will be conducted in accordance with City practices, customs,
and policies. Robert's Rules of Order, Newly Revised, may be used as a guideline.
Packet Pg. 187
8
Advisory Body Handbook February 6, 2018 June 6,2017
City of San Luis Obispo 57 | P a g e
9. All members present must vote, except when abstaining due to a declared conflict of
interest. A failure or refusal to vote when present (except for a declared conflict of
interest) will be construed as an affirmative vote.
10. Any member with a declared conflict of interest will not vote or participate in any
discussion of any item or in any manner attempt to influence the decision on that item.
11. If, or when, a voting member of the MTC is absent from an MTC meeting, one of the
Alternate members shall take the place of the voting member in order to maintain as
many voting members as possible. If only one voting member of the MTC is absent,
choice between the two Alternates will be decided by a fair game of chance such as a
coin flip or roll of the die performed by the Chairperson of the MTC.
ARTICLE 5. SUBCOMMITTEES
Subcommittees consisting of less than a quorum of the Committee can be appointed as needed
by the Chairperson.
ARTICLE 6. OFFICERS
1. The officers will consist of a Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson who will be elected at
the Committee meeting in May for one-year terms that commence the first meeting of the
next fiscal year.
2. The Chairperson will preside over all meetings of the Committee, prepare (with the
assistance of staff) all meeting agendas and perform such duties as directed by the
Committee.
3. The Vice-Chairperson will serve in the absence or incapacity of the Chairperson.
ARTICLE 7. NEW MEMBER TRANSIT PASSES
In order to assist new MTC members with their transit advocacy function, new members shall
receive an initial 31 Day Transit Pass for their personal use.
ARTICLE 8. POLICIES
The Committee adopts policies as stated in the City of San Luis Obispo Advisory Body
Handbook, incorporated herein by reference.
Packet Pg. 188
8
Advisory Body Handbook February 6, 2018 June 6,2017
City of San Luis Obispo 58 | P a g e
J. Parks & Recreation Commission Bylaws (A)
ARTICLE 1. PURPOSE
The Parks & Recreation Commission (PRC) is a body of citizens appointed to advise the City's
Parks & Recreation Department and the City Council on the development and operation of
recreation programs and parks, and on the implementation of the Parks and Recreation Element
of the City's General Plan. It also provides recommendations to the City Council and San Luis
Obispo Coastal Unified School District Board of Trustees regarding those facilities which have
been mutually designated as joint use facilities; and for the operation of recreational facilit ies,
priority for use of the facilities, and development of new recreation facilities at Sinsheimer Park.
ARTICLE 2. MEMBERSHIP
1. The Parks and Recreation Commission shall consist of seven members.
2. Members are appointed by the City Council for a term of four years. Members are
eligible for reappointment for an additional four -year term. Members are subject to a term
limit of eight years, or two consecutive four -year terms.
ARTICLE 3. MEETINGS
1. Regular meetings of the Parks & Recreation Commiss ion shall be held on the first
Wednesday of each month at 5:30 p.m., except during the annual tour of the City's parks
and facilities.
2. Meetings will be held in the Council Chamber, City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis
Obispo, California. In the event t hat the Parks & Recreation Commission chooses to hold
all or any portion of a regular meeting other than at City Hall, then the place of such
meeting shall be posted at least 72 hours in advance at the Parks & Recreation
Department office, 1341 Nipomo Street, San Luis Obispo, California and on the bulletin
board located at the entrance to the City Hall prior to the established meeting time.
ARTICLE 4. ELECTION OF OFFICERS
1. In April of each year, the Parks & Recreation Commission shall select a Chair and Vice
Chair from among its members to serve a one-year term.
2. Commissioners shall serve as Chair or Vice Chair at the discretion of the Commission.
3. The Chair shall preside at all meetings of the Parks & Recreation Commission. The Vice
Chair will act as the Chair in the absence of the Chair or in case of the inability of the
Chair to act.
4. In the event that the Chair and Vice Chair are unavailable to attend to their duties, the
assembled members shall determine a Chair Pro Tempore.
5. No person shall serve as Chair or Vice Chair for more than three consecutive terms.
Packet Pg. 189
8
Advisory Body Handbook February 6, 2018 June 6,2017
City of San Luis Obispo 59 | P a g e
ARTICLE 5. CONDUCT OF MEETINGS
All meetings will be conducted in accordance with City practices, customs, and policies. Robert's
Rules of Order, Newly Revised shall be utilized as a guide in the conduct of meetings.
ARTICLE 6. QUORUM
Four members of the Parks & Recreation Commission shall constitute a quorum for the purposes
of conducting business.
ARTICLE 7. VOTING
1. Except as otherwise provided in the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code and state law, no
resolution, motion or other action shall be passed or become effective without receiving
the affirmative vote of at least a majority of the members present.
2. Failure to receive such an affirmative vote shall result in failure or denial, as appropriate,
of the motion, resolution or other action.
3. Except as allowed under the Political Reform Act of 1974, as amended, any member
abstaining due to a declared conflict of interest shall not participate in the discussion of
the items o r otherwise influence or attempt to influence in any manner the decision on the
item.
4. All members, when present, must vote except when abstaining due to a declared conflict
of interest.
5. Failure or refusal to vote when present —except for a declared conflict of interest—shall
be counted as an affirmative vote.
ARTICLE 8. PUBLIC RECORDS
Records of all public hearings shall be made available to the public in the offices of the Parks &
Recreation Department.
ARTICLE 9. ATTENDANCE
Any member of the Parks & Recreation Commission who fails, for any reason, to attend three
consecutive regular meetings or a total of six regular meetings within any twelve month period
shall be automatically be considered for replacement by the City Council. The Chairperson of the
Parks & Recreation Commission shall inform the Council of such a situation, explaining any
special circumstances.
Packet Pg. 190
8
Advisory Body Handbook February 6, 2018 June 6,2017
City of San Luis Obispo 60 | P a g e
ARTICLE 10. COMMITTEES
1. A member of the Parks & Recreation Commission shall represent the Commission and sit
as a voting member on the following City advisory bodies: Jack House Committee and
Tree Committee.
2. Additional committee assignments shall be made as deemed necessary by the Chair.
3. Committee assignments will be made in April of each year.
ARTICLE 11. AMENDMENTS
1. These bylaws may be recommended for amendment by the majority vote of the
Commission members present at a regular meeting, provided that a quorum is present.
Members shall receive the proposed amendments at least seven days prior to the meeting
in which the amendment is proposed.
2. Prior to May 1 in each odd-numbered year, these bylaws shall be reviewed by the
Commission. Any proposed changes shall be submitted to the City Council for approval.
If no changes are proposed, a report of the review shall be submitted.
Packet Pg. 191
8
Advisory Body Handbook February 6, 2018 June 6,2017
City of San Luis Obispo 61 | P a g e
K. Personnel Board Bylaws (A)
ARTICLE 1. PURPOSE
It is the purpose of the Personnel Board (PB) to hear employee appeals of disciplinary action, to
review employee grievances, and to hear issues of Council censure. The Board shall then make
advisory recommendations to the City Council. The Personnel Board shall also perform other
duties pertaining to personnel management as directed by the City Council.
ARTICLE 2. MEMBERSHIP AND TERMS OF OFFICE
Five members of the Personnel Board shall be appointed by the City Council and shall serve for
terms of four years. Members must be residents and registered voters of the City.
1. Appointments will be made in a staggered every-other-year pattern, such that two
members’ terms will expire during a given year and the terms of the other three members
will expire two years later.
2. Any vacancies on the Personne l Board shall be filled for the unexpired term of the person
replaced.
3. Members shall be appointed for no more than two consecutive terms (eight years).
ARTICLE 3. OFFICERS
1. The officers shall be a Chairperson and a Vice-Chairperson who shall be elected at the
first meeting of alternate calendar years to serve two -year terms.
2. The Chairperson shall preside over all meetings of the Personnel Board, subpoena
witnesses and require the production of books, papers and any other materials pertinent t o
the investigation or hearing.
3. The Vice-Chairperson shall serve in the absence of the Chairperson.
4. The Director of Human Resources or his or her designee shall serve as recording
secretary, keeping record of all meetings, and shall issue all neces sary notices, copies of
agendas, minutes and copies of necessary documents.
Packet Pg. 192
8
Advisory Body Handbook February 6, 2018 June 6,2017
City of San Luis Obispo 62 | P a g e
ARTICLE 4. MEETINGS
1. The Personnel Board shall meet as needed.
2. Three members of the Board shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business.
However, for the purpose of a hearing on appeal of a disciplinary action, no Board
member may vote on a decision if absent from part of a hearing, unless such member
certifies that he/she listened to a recording of or read the transcript of the missed portion
of the hearing.
3. Pursuant to Personnel Exception of the Brown Act (Government Code Section 54957), a
meeting may be closed to the public at the request of any appellant when the pending
issue deals with a particular employee.
4. The Chairperson or the legal advisor to the Board shall administer oaths to all witnesses
appearing before the Board. Any regular officer or employee of the City who fails to take
the oath or fails to testify truthfully under oath at a hearing shall be subject to disciplinary
action.
5. All grievance and disciplinary appeal hearings shall be recorded.
6. At the request of the appellant, a court reporter shall be used. The cost of the court
reporter shall be paid as agreed upon by both sides.
7. All actions of the Board shall be decided by majority vote, and shall be directed through
the Board Chairperson.
8. The Board may meet with its legal advisor, as needed and outside the presence of any
other persons, to receive opinions and advice.
9. The Board may direct the parties to submit hearing briefs outlining the facts and
arguments to be presented prior to any hearing. The Chairperson shall establish a
schedule for submission of the hearing briefs.
ARTICLE 5. AMENDMENTS
At such time as these bylaws need to be amended, the Director of Huma n Resources shall meet
with the Board and determine an appropriate procedure for making such amendment(s).
Packet Pg. 193
8
Advisory Body Handbook February 6, 2018 June 6,2017
City of San Luis Obispo 63 | P a g e
L. Planning Commission Bylaws (A)
MEMBERSHIP
The Planning Commission (PC) has seven members who are not necessarily planning
professionals. Members must be residents and registered voters of the City. No special training is
required for appointment. Members occasionally may be requested to attend seminars and
workshops to enhance skills in planning.
PURPOSE
The Planning Commission’s basic responsibility is to make recommendations to the City Council
for the City’s development , as set forth in San Luis Obispo Municipal Code §2.12.040. To carry
out this responsibility the commission will:
1. Prepare and recommend a general plan and appropriate attachments;
2. Prepare and recommend appropriate specific plans;
3. Review the City’s capital improvement program annually;
4. Perform authorized duties related to development review;
5. Perform such other duties required by the Council or by State or City laws.
ARTICLE 1. MEETINGS
1. Regular meetings shall be held at 6:00 p.m. on the second and fourth Wednesday of each
month.
2. No agenda item shall be introduced after 11:00 p.m. without the consent of a majority of
Commissioners present.
3. Regular meetings shall be held in the Council Chamber, City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San
Luis Obispo, California.
4. In the event the Planning Commission desires to hold all or any portion of a regular
meeting at a place other than the City Hall, then the place of such meeting shall be posted
on the bulletin board located at the entrance to City Hall prior to the time herein
designated for such regular meetings in accordance with law.
Packet Pg. 194
8
Advisory Body Handbook February 6, 2018 June 6,2017
City of San Luis Obispo 64 | P a g e
ARTICLE 2. ELECTION OF OFFICERS
1. The Commission shall select a Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson from among its
members to serve for a one-year term beginning the first meeting in April of each year.
2. Commissioners shall serve as Chairperson or Vice-Chairperson at the discretion of the
Commission.
3. The Chairperson shall preside at all me etings of the Commission. The Vice-Chairperson
is Chairperson in the absence of the Chairperson or in case of inability of the Chairperson
to act.
4. No person shall serve as Chairperson or Vice-Chairperson for more than two consecutive
terms.
ARTICLE 3. CONDUCT OF MEETINGS
1. Commissioners should address questions through the Chairperson.
2. Members of the audience should address Commissioners or other persons present through
the Chairperson.
3. Procedure for reviewing public hearing items:
After roll call the Chairperson shall announce to the public the procedures to be followed
to consider the public hearing items and then proceed as follows:
a. The Chairperson shall introduce the items and ask for oral staff reports.
b. The staff report precisely submitted to the Planning Commission shall be placed
into the record with all communications received regarding the proposal. Staff
reports shall be submitted for all public hearing items in a form acceptable to the
commission.
c. The applicant shall be invited to make a presentation on behalf of the request.
d. Members of the public wishing to speak in favor or in opposition of the
application shall be invited to make a presentation.
e. The applicant shall have the opportunity at the end of the public hearing to
address comments made by the public and address any further commission
questions.
f. The public hearing shall be closed to the public and discussion confined to
members of the Commission; provided that the Commission may reopen the
public hearing at any time prior to a decision on an item on an affirmative vote of
the majority of those members present.
Packet Pg. 195
8
Advisory Body Handbook February 6, 2018 June 6,2017
City of San Luis Obispo 65 | P a g e
g. The Commission, upon formal motion, shall take action to dispose of the
proposal. The Chairperson shall announce the vote and therea fter, inform the
applicant and public of the right of appeal and procedures for filing such appeal.
ARTICLE 4. QUORUM
Four members of the Planning Commission constitute a quorum for transacting business.
ARTICLE 5. VOTING
1. Except as otherwise provided in the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code and state law, no
resolution, motion or any other action shall be passed or become effective without
receiving the affirmative vote of at least a majority of members present.
2. Failure to receive such an affirmative vote shall result in failure or denial, as appropriate,
of the motion, resolution or other action.
3. Except as allowed under the Political Reform Action of 1974, any member abstaining due
to a declared conflict of interest shall not participate in the discussion of the items or
otherwise influence or attempt to influence in any manner the decision on the item.
4. All members, when present, must vote except when abstaining due to a declared conflict
of interest.
5. Failure or refusal to vote when present—except for a declared conflict of interest — shall
be counted as an affirmative vote.
ARTICLE 6. PUBLIC RECORDS
Records of all public hearings shall be made available to the public in the office of the
Community Development Department.
ARTICLE 7. ATTENDANCE
Any member of the Planning Commission who fails, for any reason, to attend three consecutive
regular, adjourned regular, or specially-scheduled (excluding Commission site visits) meetings,
or a total of six such commission meetings within any 12-month period, shall be automatically
considered by the City Council for removal from office. The Chairperson shall inform the
Council of such situation, explaining any special circumstances.
ARTICLE 8. POLICY
All matters of policy not covered by law may be adopted as a “Resolution of Policy” and when
so adopted shall be considered the official policy of the Planning Commission subject to
ratification of the City Council.
Packet Pg. 196
8
Advisory Body Handbook February 6, 2018 June 6,2017
City of San Luis Obispo 66 | P a g e
COMPENSATION
The City Council has approved a stipend of $60 per meeting (not t o exceed $240 monthly) for
each member of the Planning Commission (Resolution No. 10516 [2014 Series]).
Packet Pg. 197
8
Advisory Body Handbook February 6, 2018 June 6,2017
City of San Luis Obispo 67 | P a g e
M. Promotional Coordinating Committee Bylaws (A)
ARTICLE 1. PURPOSE
The Promotional Coordinating Committee (PCC) advises the Council in working to improve the
quality of life for all City residents and our visitors. The Committee recommends projects to help
promote the City as a regional trade, recreation, and tourist center, consistent with community
goals.
ARTICLE 2. MEMBERSHIP
The PCC shall consist of seven members appointed by the Council. Six of the members shall be
residents of the City of San Luis Obispo. The seventh member shall be the Chair of the Tourism
Business Improvement District (TBID) Board as appointed by the TBID Board. Committee
members shall be appointed for a term of four years, commencing on April 1st or other date as
directed by the Council. No Committee member shall serve more than two consecutive terms
(eight years) on the PCC. Any Committee member who has been appointed to fill a vacant seat
in mid-term shall not be precluded from thereafter serving two four -year terms (eight years), so
long as the initial, partial term is less than one year. The representative from the TBID Board
shall serve a term concurrent with his/her t erm as the Chairperson of the TBID Board.
ARTICLE 3. OFFICERS
The officers shall be a Chairperson and a Vice Chairperson, each of whom shall be elected for a
one-year term at the March meeting of the PCC for the term starting in April. No Committee
member shall serve more than two consecutive one-year terms as Chairperson or Vice
Chairperson. Any Committee member who has been appointed to fill a vacant seat as
Chairperson or Vice Chairperson in mid-term shall not be precluded from thereafter serving as
Chairperson or Vice Chairperson for two consecutive one -year terms, so long as the initial,
partial term is less than six months.
The Chairperson shall preside over all meetings of the PCC, prepare all meeting agendas with
staff, and otherwise perform such duties as directed by the PCC or Council.
The Vice Chairperson shall serve in the absence or incapacity of the Chairperson.
ARTICLE 4. MEETINGS
1. The PCC shall hold a regular meeting each month, but no fewer than ten times per year.
2. The meetings are to be held at City Hall, the second Wednesday of each month, unless
another location and/or time has been announced as required by California law.
3. The meetings shall be open to the public.
4. A quorum shall consist of a majority of the Committee member currently serving on the
PCC.
Packet Pg. 198
8
Advisory Body Handbook February 6, 2018 June 6,2017
City of San Luis Obispo 68 | P a g e
5. All actions of the PCC shall be by a majority vote or consensus and shall be directed
through the Chairperson.
6. Minutes of each meeting shall be taken and forwarded to the Council and shall be -
available as a public record.
7. A special meeting may be called at any time by the Chairperson or by a majority of the
Committee members currently serving on the PCC, provided each member is given
written notice of the special meeting at least 24 hours prior to the meeting, and the time
and place of the special meeting is announced as required by California Law.
8. All meetings shall be conducted in general accordance with Robert’s Rules of Order,
newly revised edition, subject to minor variation by the Chair as appropria te to the needs
of the advisory body.
9. All Committee members present at a meeting shall vote on any motion or resolution
brought before the PCC, except when abstaining due to a conflict of interest.
10. Any Committee member with a conflict of interest shall not vote on or participate in any
discussion of an item or in any way attempt to influence the decision on such item.
11. Any member who fails to attend three regular meetings within any twelve -month period
may be automatically considered for replacement at the discretion of the Committee.
ARTICLE 5. SUBCOMMITTEES
Subcommittees shall be appointed, as needed, by the Chairperson. Standing subcommittees are
the Grants-in-Aid and Events Promotion subcommittees. The subcommittee members will serve
for a two year term. After two years they will automatically rotate to the other standing
subcommittee.
ARTICLE 6. FUNCTIONS AND DUTIES
The functions and duties of the PCC shall include, but not be limited to, the following:
1. Planning a comprehensive program to promote the City of San Luis Obispo consistent
with City goals and objectives.
2. Develop promotional programs and projects for the City of San Luis Obispo.
3. Hear requests for financial aid from cultural and promotional groups seeking grants from
the City of San Luis Obispo and make recommendations to the Council thereon.
4. Present an annual assessment report to the City Council regarding the Promotional
Coordinating Committee’s Grants-in-Aid program and other programs as appropriate.
Packet Pg. 199
8
Advisory Body Handbook February 6, 2018 June 6,2017
City of San Luis Obispo 69 | P a g e
5. Initiate and support community activities that are meaningful to residents and visitors of
the City of San Luis Obispo.
6. Provide a liaison to Grant-In-Aid recipients who work to promote the quality of life for
residents and visitors of the City of San Luis Obispo.
7. Perform any other lawful tasks as directed by the Council.
ARTICLE 7. AMENDMENTS
These bylaws may be amended by the Council, upon the recommendations of two -thirds of the
Committee members currently serving on the PCC, provided that the text of any such proposed
amendment shall have first been provided in writing to each Committee member.
Packet Pg. 200
8
Advisory Body Handbook February 6, 2018 June 6,2017
City of San Luis Obispo 70 | P a g e
N. Tourism Business Improvement District Board Bylaws (T/SP)
ARTICLE 1. PURPOSE
The Tourism Business Improvement District Board (TBID Board) advise s the Council in the
administration and use of the TBID assessment funds. The Board recommends projects to
promote tourism to the City of San Luis Obispo to directly benefit the City’s lodging industry.
ARTICLE 2. MEMBERSHIP
The TBID Board shall consist of seven members from the San Luis Obispo City lodging industry
as appointed by the Council. Because of the diversity among assessment district members
represented by the Board, including local, regional and national lodging industry interests, it is
neither practical nor advisable to limit Board membership to City residents. Accordingly,
membership on the TBID Board shall be exempt from residency requirements otherwise
applicable to City Advisory bodies.
Board members shall be appointed for a term of four years, commencing on April 1st or any
other date as directed by the Council. No Board member shall serve more than two consecutive
terms (eight years) on the TBID Board. Any Board member who has been appointed to fill a
vacant seat in mid-term shall not be precluded from thereafter serving two four-year terms (eight
years), so long as the initial, partial term is less than one year.
One member of the TBID Board shall be appointed by the Board to the Promotional
Coordinating Committee for a term concurrent with his/her TBID Board term.
ARTICLE 3. OFFICERS
The officers shall be a Chairperson and a Vice Chairperson, each of whom shall be elected for a
one-year term at the March meeting of the TBID Board for a term starting in April. No Board
member shall serve more than two consecutive one-year terms as Chairperson or Vice
Chairperson. Any Board member who has been appointed to fill a vacant seat as Chairperson or
Vice Chairperson in mid-term shall not be precluded from thereafter serving as Chairperson or
Vice Chairperson for two consecutive one-year terms, so long as the initial, partial term is less
than six months.
The Chairperson shall preside over all meetings of the TBID Board, prepare all meeting agendas
with staff, and otherwise perform such duties as directed by the TBID Board or Council.
The immediate Past Chairperson shall automatically serve as the Vice Chairperson in order to
give support to the incoming Chairperson and guarantee continuity and stability for the board
proceedings during the absence of the Chairperson. The Vice Chairperson shall serve in the
absence or incapacity of the Chairperson.
Packet Pg. 201
8
Advisory Body Handbook February 6, 2018 June 6,2017
City of San Luis Obispo 71 | P a g e
ARTICLE 4. MEETINGS
1. The TBID Board shall hold a regular meeting each month and no fewer than ten times per
year.
2. The meetings are to be held in the Council Hearing Room, City Hall, 990 Palm Street,
San Luis Obispo, California the second Wednesday of each month, unless another
location and/or time has been announced as required by California law.
3. The meetings shall be open to the public.
4. A quorum shall consist of a majority of the members currently serving on the TBID
Board.
5. All actions of the TBID Board shall be by a majority vote or consensus and shall be
directed through the Chairperson.
6. Minutes of each meeting shall be taken, shall be available as a public record and
forwarded to the Council if requested.
7. A special meeting may be called at any time by the Chairperson or by a majority of the
Board members currently serving on the TBID Board, provided each member is given
written notice of the special meeting at least 24 hours prior to the meeting, and the time
and place of the special meeting is announced as required by California Law.
8. All meetings shall be conducted in general accordance with Robert’s Rules of Order,
newly revised edition, subject to minor variation by the Chair as appropriate to the needs
of the advisory body.
9. All Board members present at a meeting shall vote on any motion or resolution brought
before the TBID Board, except when abstaining due to a conflict of interest.
10. Any Board member with a conflict of interest shall not vote on or participate in any
discussion of an item or in any way attempt to influence the decision on such item.
11. Any failure to attend three consecutive meetings or a total of six regular meetings within
any twelve-month period shall result in that member being automatically considered for
replacement.
Packet Pg. 202
8
Advisory Body Handbook February 6, 2018 June 6,2017
City of San Luis Obispo 72 | P a g e
ARTICLE 5. FUNCTIONS AND DUTIES
The functions and duties of the TBID Board shall include, but not be limited to, the following:
1. Plan a comprehensive program to promote tourism to the City of San Luis Obispo and
prepare an annual marketing program consistent with industry goals and objectives.
2. Develop advertising and promotional programs and projects to benefit t he lodging
industry in San Luis Obispo.
3. Present an annual assessment report to the City Council regarding the implemented
promotional programs and projects.
4. Perform any other lawful tasks as directed by the Council.
ARTICLE 6. AMENDMENTS
These bylaws may be amended by the Council, upon the recommendations of two -thirds of the
members currently serving on the TBID Board, provided that the text of any such proposed
amendment shall have first been provided in writing to each Board member.
ARTICLE 7. FUND RESERVE POLICY
The purpose of the Fund Reserve policy for the TBID is to ensure stability of the program under
economic uncertainties. For the TBID Fund the level of the reserve has been established at
$100,000. Under this policy, it is allowable for total expenditures to exceed revenues in a given
year; however, the fund reserve can only be used to fund “one-time,” non-recurring expenditures
upon TBID Board approval. In the instance funds are used, the reserve fund would be
replenished to the established level in the next fiscal year.
Packet Pg. 203
8
Advisory Body Handbook February 6, 2018 June 6,2017
City of San Luis Obispo 73 | P a g e
O. Tree Committee Bylaws (T/SP)
ARTICLE 1. PURPOSE
The purpose of the Tree Committee (TC) is to advise City staff and the City Council on all
matters related to trees in San Luis Obispo.
ARTICLE 2. COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP
The Tree Committee shall have seven members and shall consist of one representative from the
Parks and Recreation Commission, one representative from the Architectural Review
Commission, and five members from the general public (one of whom sha ll be a horticultural
expert, if possible). Members must be residents and registered voters of the City.
ARTICLE 3. TERMS OF OFFICE
Committee members will be appointed by the City Council to staggered terms of four years,
commencing April 1. Committee members will serve at the pleasure of the City Council. Any
Committee member may be reappointed, provided no appointee serves more than two
consecutive terms (eight years).
ARTICLE 4. MEETINGS
1. The Committee will hold a regular meeting each month.
2. Regular meetings will be held at 5:00 pm the fourth Monday of each month.
3. The Committee meetings will be duly advertised according to the Ralph M. Brown Act,
and open to the public and held at the City’s Corporation Yard, located at 25 Prado Road
in Conference Room A, San Luis Obispo, California or other previously announced
locations at specific times as required by California law.
4. A quorum will consist of three voting Committee members.
5. All actions of the Committee will be decided by a major ity vote or consensus and will be
directed through the Committee Chair.
6. Minutes of each meeting will be available as a public record in the Public Works
Department.
7. The Chairperson or any three members of the Committee may call a special meeting
provided that a week’s prior notice is given in writing to each member and the meeting is
otherwise properly noticed pursuant to the Brown Act.
8. All Committee meetings will be conducted in accordance with City Practices, customs,
and policies. Robert's Rules of Order, Newly Revised, shall be utilized as a guide in the
conduct of meetings.
Packet Pg. 204
8
Advisory Body Handbook February 6, 2018 June 6,2017
City of San Luis Obispo 74 | P a g e
9. All members present must vote, except when abstaining due to a declared conflict of
interest.
A failure or refusal to vote when present (except for a declared conflict of interest) will
be construed as an affirmative vote.
10. Any member with a declared conflict of interest will not vote or participate in any
discussion of any item or in any manner attempt to influence the decision on that item.
ARTICLE 5. SUBCOMMITTEES
Subcommittees consisting of less than a quorum of the Committee can be appointed as needed
by the Chairperson.
ARTICLE 6. OFFICERS
1. The officers will consist of a Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson who will be elected at
the Committee meeting in April fo r one year terms.
2. The Chairperson will preside over all meetings of the Committee, prepare (with the
assistance of staff) all meeting agendas and perform such duties as directed by the
Committee.
3. The Vice-Chairperson will serve in the absence or incapacity of the Chairperson.
ARTICLE 7. POLICIES
The Committee adopts policies as stated in the City of San Luis Obispo Advisory Body
Handbook, incorporated herein by reference.
Packet Pg. 205
8
Advisory Body Handbook February 6, 2018 June 6,2017
City of San Luis Obispo 75 | P a g e
Appendix A. Mission Statement
SAN LUIS OBISPO STYLE
QUALITY WITH VISION
WHO ARE WE?
People Serving People
A team that puts high value on each citizen it serves.
Providers of programs that meet basic service needs of each citizen.
Enhancers of the quality of life for the community as a whole.
WHAT DO WE STAND FOR?
Quality in all Endeavors – Pride in Results
Service to the community – the best – at all times.
Respect – for each other and for those we serve.
Value – ensuring deliver y of ser vice with value for cost.
Community in volvement – the opportunity to participate in attaining the goals of the
Cit y.
WHERE ARE WE GOING?
Into the Future with a Design
Planning and managing for leve ls of service consistent with the needs of the citizens.
Offer ing skills development and organizat ional direction for emplo yees in order to
improve the deliver y of municipal services.
Developing sources of funding and establishing a sound financial management program
which will result in fiscal independence and flex ibility in the delivery of City Services.
Providing the residents of the Cit y with accurate and time ly informat ion on issues which
affect them, and encouraging the full utilizat ion of City services.
Promoting the Cit y as a regional trade, recreational and tourist center and improving the
quality of life for residents and vis itors.
Packet Pg. 206
8
Advisory Body Handbook February 6, 2018 June 6,2017
City of San Luis Obispo 76 | P a g e
Appendix B. Organizational Values
Shared Vision, Mission and Goals
We have a sense of co mmon purpose and
direction pursued with passion and translated
into concrete actions.
Service
We are dedicated to the best use of resources to
fulfill identified community goals and needs.
Leadership and Support
We recognize that the ability to lead can be found
at all levels and that to create an environment to
succeed requires leading by example.
Communication
We foster open and clear discussion that
encourages the willingness to speak up and to
list en, within a framework of respect and
understanding.
Team Players
We encourage effective working relat ionships
within and between departments and the public
to address issues and achieve valuable results.
Honesty, Respect and Trust
We honor co mmit ments, ackno wledge
legitimate differences of opinion and accept
decisions reached with integrit y.
Initiative and Accountability
We take personal responsibility to do what
needs to be done and report the results in a
straightforward manner.
Innovation and Flexibility
We are open to change and willing to try new
ways to fulfill the organizat ion’s vis ion,
mission, and goals more effective ly.
Employee Development and Recognition
We encourage and support each emplo yee to
improve relevant job skills and celebrate
personal and team acco mplishments.
Stewardship and Ethics
We pro mote public trust by using City
resources wisely, and through consistent
fulfillment of these values.
Packet Pg. 207
8
Minutes
Bicycle Advisory Committee
Council Hearing Room, City Hall, 990 Palm St, San Luis Obispo
Thursday, November 16, 2017 at 6:00 p.m.
MISSION:
The purpose of the Bicycle Advisory Committee (BAC) is to provide oversight and policy
direction on matters related to bicycle transportation in San Luis Obispo and its relationship to
bicycling outside the City.
Lea Brooks (Chair) called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
ROLL CALL:
Present: Lea Brooks (Chair), Ken Kienow (departed at 7:46 p.m.), Jonathan Roberts, Timothy
Jouet, Jenna Espinosa (arrived at 6:03 p.m.), Layla Lopez (arrived at 6:12 p.m.)
Absent: Howard Weisenthal (Vice Chair),
Staff: Active Transportation Manager Ad am Fukushima, Recording Secretary Lareina Gamboa
Public Comment on Items Not on the Agenda
Harry Busselen, resident, is concerned about the number of Cal Poly students bicycling without
bike lights at night.
Barry Lewis, resident, suggested that any bike sales in SLO should be accompanied with an
informative pamphlet about the Rules of the Road.
MINUTES: September 21, 2017 Meeting
CM Jouet motioned to approve the Minutes with no amendments. CM Kienow seconded the
motion. The motion passed unanimously.
PRESENTATION ITEMS
Agenda Item #1: CITY FISCAL HEALTH CONTINGENCY PLAN (FHCP)
Public Works Director, Daryl Grigsby, informed the committee that in light of recent events with
the California Public Employees Retirement System (CalPERS) that there is a City budget
shortfall in making the retirement payments . He described the draft plan to address the shortfall
that is on the December 12 th City Council agenda.
Public Comment:
Packet Pg. 208
8
Myron Amerine, resident, given the budget shortfall would prefer the city to focus on funding low
hanging fruit concerning bike facilities than large infrastructure projects.
Agenda Item #2: Capital Facilities Fee Program Nexus Study Update
Over the last twenty years, the Capital Facilities Fee Program has helped fund improvements to
infrastructures, however, with the ever changing economic circumstances the City began the
process of updating this program. Xzandrea Fowler, Director for Long Range Planning,
presented some of the updates that may be occurring over th e next few months to the Fee
Program. These updates include fees for any new developments that relate to a range of
transportation, parks, general government, public safety, and water & sewer capital facilities.
Public Comment:
James Park, resident, commented on the lack of affordable housing in the city.
Myron Amerine, resident, liked how the Fee Program was addressing multi-modal transportation
David Figueroa, resident, asked for clarification on fees and whether the fees covered new
developments only or existing projects.
ACTION ITEMS
Agenda Item #3: Transition to an Active Transportation Committee
Active Transportation Manager Adam Fukushima provided information on expanding the
committee’s bylaws to include pedestrian transportation as part of its mission as well as
amending the name of the committee to the Active Transportation Committee. Fukushima
provided info on how this change would impact the development of the Active Transportation
Plan as well as the City’s competitiveness in applying fo r state and federal grants.
Public Comment:
James Park, resident, commented on the need for a bus lane.
Myron Amerine, resident, commented in support of the concept and knows it will evolve over
time with council and plans.
Harry Busselen, resident, commented in support including pedestrians in the mission . He said
that pedestrians need a voice and they do not currently have one. He mentioned the need to
address the interaction of bicyclists with pedestrians.
David Figueroa, resident and a member of the Mass Transportation Committee (MTC), is in
support of an Active Transportation Committee to include bikes and pedestrians. He sees
opportunities for collaboration with the Mass Transportation Committee (MTC) on pedestrian
connections to transit.
Packet Pg. 209
8
CM Kienow motioned to recommend bylaw amendments to the city council to expand the
mission of the committee to include bicycle and pedestrian transportation and to change the
name of the committee to the Active Transportation Committee. CM Lopez seconded the
motion. The motion passed unanimously.
Agenda Item #5: Committee Items
● Adopt-a-Trails subcommittee
There was discussion among the committee members on the task of the subcommittee although
no action was taken.
Agenda Item #6: Project Updates
Update given on the Broad Street Bike Blvd Project including the upcoming Community Meeting
on Dec 11th.
Project updates given on the paving of Madonna Road and Los Osos Valley Road including
buffered bike lanes and green pavement.
A status report was given on the Bob Jones Trail from Calle Joaquin to Oceanaire.
Information was given on the Laurel Lane striping reconfiguration project.
The negotiations for the pathway between Foothill Blvd and Ramona through the Latter-Day
Saints Church have begun and staff will keep the committee up to date.
Adam Fukushima informed the BAC that the San Luis Coastal Unified School district has
updated their wellness policy to include bicycling and walking to school. This change makes the
city’s application for SLOCOG Safe Routes to School funding more competitive.
Since the Zoning draft was a lot more work than previously thought, a special meeting will be
held in December to catch up on
COMMITTEE AND STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS
CM Brooks announced that Cal Poly was designated a Bronze award for being a bike friendly
university.
Cal Poly released a draft of their environmental impact report for their Master Plan. CM Brooks
is concerned about the lack of acknowledgment of the amount of traffic that will impa ct the city
and would like city staff to look over the draft.
ADJOURN
Packet Pg. 210
8
CM Roberts motioned to adjourn the meeting at 8:24 p.m. to a Special Meeting of December
14, 2017. CM Jouet seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
Respectfully submitted,
Lareina Gamboa
Recording Secretary
APPROVED BY THE BICYCLE ADVISORY COMMITTEE: 01/18/2018
Packet Pg. 211
8
Page intentionally left
blank.
Packet Pg. 212
8
Meeting Date: 2/6/2018
FROM: Deanna Cantrell, Chief of Police
Prepared By: Melissa Ellsworth, Senior Administrative Analyst
SUBJECT: AUTHORIZE FUNDS FROM THE LAW ENFORCEMENT GRANT
FUND/TRAFFIC IMPOUND ACCOUNT TO PURCHASE EQUIPMENT
RELATED TO TRAFFIC SAFETY
RECOMMENDATION
Appropriate $13,800 from available fund balance in the Law Enforcement Grant Fund/Traffic
Impound Account to purchase a portable Traffic Collision/Crime Scene Reconstruction System.
DISCUSSION
The San Luis Obispo Police Department utilizes a Traffic Callout Team to process crime and/or
traffic collision scenes. The current equipment used for data collection by the team is well over
12 years old; technology has significantly improved to allow for more detailed and precise data
collection. Currently, the average time spent on evidence collection using existing equipment is
approximately 4-5 hours. Utilizing modern technology, such as a laser scanner, will greatly
reduce data collection time to approximately 20 -30 minutes. Newer technology utilizes
scanners to “scan” entire scenes, as opposed to department personnel taking measurements by
hand.
Staff is requesting to utilize funds from the Traffic Impound account to pay for a portion of the
equipment cost, the remaining balance will be covered using grant funding. It is estimated that
the reconstruction system will cost approximately $32,800.
Traffic Collision/Crime Scene Reconstruction System $32,800
Funding Sources:
2018 OTS Grant Funding for equipment $19,000
Traffic Impound Acct $13,800
Total $32,800
CONCURRENCES
The Director of Finance and Information Technology concurs with the recommendation.
FISCAL IMPACT
All costs associated with the purchase will come from fees accumulated in the Law Enforcement
Grant Fund/Traffic Impound Account. At the beginning of FY 2017-18, the approximated
balance of this account is $16,000 and is available for use pursuant to the grant parameters.
Packet Pg. 213
9
This account was established in 2000 as a requirement of the Office of Traffic Safety Grant to
receive fees collected from violators whose vehicles were impounded because they were driving
without a valid license. Pursuant to the grant requirements, these funds must remain separate
from the General Fund and must be used for traffic-related programs. The purchase o f the laser
scanner/data collection reconstruction system meets these guidelines. Allocation from the Law
Enforcement Grant Fund/Traffic Impound account requires Council approval.
If council approves staff’s recommendation, staff will follow the City’s P urchasing Guidelines
per Section 295 of the Financial Management Manual for General Purchases.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Do not purchase. This alternative is not recommended; purchasing updated equipment will
allow staff to enhance data collection for both traffic c ollisions and crime scenes in a more
accurate and timely manner.
2. Delay purchase. Staff does not recommend this option at this time. Funding is available in
the Traffic Impound account to offset the cost and the use of grant funding is available as
well specifically for this purpose. If the purchase is delayed, there is no guarantee that the
department will be allocated grant funding again to be used toward this purchase.
Packet Pg. 214
9
Meeting Date: 2/6/2018
FROM: Garret Olson, Fire Chief
Prepared By: James Blattler, Administrative Analyst
SUBJECT: MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION GRANT PROGRAM
RECOMMENDATION
1. Authorize Fire Department to participate in a grant application process from the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for funding to develop a multi-jurisdictional Local
Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) through a fund match by the City not to exceed $7,500 ; and
2. Authorize City Manager to execute documents necessary to appropriate the grant funds upon
notification that the grant has been awarded.
DISCUSSION
Background
Through the Hazard Mitigation Act of 2000 (DMA 2000), the U.S. Congress set a goal to
encourage local governments and states to develop plans and undertake projects to mitigate the
impact of natural disasters to a community before disasters occur. Federal requirements
established by FEMA as a result of this legislation, include a requirement that hazard mitigation
plans be reviewed and updated a minimum of every five years, and following any major disaster
declaration, to maintain eligibility for funding and technical assistance from state and Federal
hazard mitigation programs.
The San Luis Obispo City Council adopted the City’s first LHMP in 2006 and later adopted the
updated LHMP in 2014. At time of adoption, both documents were subsequently reviewed by the
California Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES), and approved by FEMA.
At the end of 2017, the County of San Luis Obispo approached the City and proposed
developing a mu lti-jurisdictional LHMP for participating agencies throughout the County, which
would meet the Federal requirements established by FEMA. The County would seek a grant to
support the development of the plan and would require participating agencies to supply a
proportional funding match based on each participating agency’s population.
After considering the significant staff time and funding required to update the City’s current
LHMP, which is due for an update in 2019, staff recommends partnering with the Co unty. The
first step in this partnership would be to participate in the grant application process.
Packet Pg. 215
10
Grant Request
City staff is requesting authorization to partner with the County of San Luis Obispo who will
submit the grant to FEMA totaling $275,000 with a 25% local match requirement of $68,750.
Based on the City’s population served the City’s share would be $7,500 .
FISCAL IMPACT
A multi-jurisdiction grant led by the County will result in significant cost savings to the City
which it would otherwise bear through a sole Agency LHMP grant. The City’s $7,500 grant
match will be funded though the Fire Department’s current operating budget and is considerably
lower than the match required in 2012, which totaled $16,200. Additionally, the City would incur
staff time needed to develop the grant.
ALTERNATIVES
The Council could decide not to pursue the grant monies through a cooperative grant. This is not
recommended as the grant opportunities are limited and the grant funds would only serve to
enhance preparedness for, response to and recovery from local disasters.
Packet Pg. 216
10
Meeting Date: 2/6/2018
FROM: Daryl Grigsby, Public Works Director
Deanna Cantrell, Police Chief
Prepared By: Jake Hudson, Transportation Manager
Matt Crisp, Transportation Planner/Engineer
SUBJECT: 2016 TRAFFIC SAFETY REPORT
RECOMMENDATION
Receive the 2016 Traffic Safety Report and approve the recommended traffic safety measures.
DISCUSSION
Background
The Public Works and Police Departments are pleased to present the 1 6th edition of the City of
San Luis Obispo Traffic Safety Report (TSR). The annual TSR began in 2001 and documents the
activities and performance of the City’s Traffic Safety Program, identifies high collision
locations within the City and recommends mitigation improvements to address safety issues
where appropriate. Now in its 16th year, the program has demonstrated continued effectiveness
and lasting outcomes. Despite increases in traffic volumes in many areas, total collisions in 2016
were the lowest since the program began, down approximately 9% from the previous year and
down 58% since the program inception. More importantly, total injury collisions decreased 10%
from the prior year and are down 36% since the program began. There were 4 more pedestrian
collisions in 2016 compared to 2015, a 17% increase. Bicycle collisions have declined by 32%
from peak levels in 2009 and declined by 11% from 2015 totals.
2016 Traffic Safety Report Overview
The TSR reviews all intersections and street segments in the City for calendar year 2016 and
identifies patterns and collisions rates. This information enables st aff to prioritize work efforts
and inform policy makers and the community. Based on these patterns, recommendations are
made for the highest collision locations of each intersection and street segment by classification.
Staff develops specific actions and improvements at each location, or, recommends continued
monitoring if no prevalent pattern can be identified. The reason this information is presented for
the prior year is due primarily to late reporting by individuals involved in traffic collisions,
complex incidents that require extended investigation periods, and the amount of staff time
required analyze the data and prepare recommendations.
The TSR identifies patterns for the highest -rate collision locations of similar street classifications
and then are separated for the following transportation modes: Automobiles, Bicycles, and
Pedestrians. These locations are narrowed down and the top five locations are analyzed to
identify possible mitigation strategies to address safety issues. For example, all ar terial segments
are compared to each other to establish the highest rate locations and thereby establish the
Packet Pg. 217
11
priority order for mitigation or safety improvements. In order to determine if corrective measures
could reduce the likelihood of a collision type identified in the pattern, a comprehensive review
of each location is conducted. This review includes a survey of the field conditions and travel
behavior.
There were 10 total high-ranking locations in the 2016 TSR where safety improvement projects
are identified. These locations are listed in Table 1 below:
Table 1 Safety Improvement Projects – All Recommended Projects
No. Location Project
1 Marsh & Nipomo Re-orient traffic signal heads. Monitor for future
consideration of mast arms and overhead signal indications
2 Higuera & Nipomo Re-orient traffic signal heads. Monitor for future
consideration of mast arms and overhead signal indications
3 Foothill & Broad Intersection is under consideration for reconfiguration as
part of the adjacent development. Ensure design
addresses collision pattern.
4 Broad & Industrial Collision pattern attributed to driver inattention and
negligence. Conduct focused enforcement.
5 Marsh & Toro Install advanced “STOP AHEAD” signing and striping
6 Higuera & Bridge Widen Higuera and install two-way-left-turn-lane, project
is currently underway funded through State grants.
7 Higuera & Vachell Paint “KEEP CLEAR” in intersection. Future improvements
include turn restrictions in conjunction with the Avila
Ranch development and the Buckley Road extension
8 Santa Rosa & Mantalban Coordinate with Caltrans to install marked crosswalks
across Montalban on each side of Santa Rosa and/or
pedestrian signing
9 Santa Rosa & Mill Collision pattern attributed to driver inattention and
negligence. Conduct focused enforcement
10 Foothill (Santa Rosa to California) Coordinate with The SLO Student Living (apartment
complex) to relocate or modify entry monument sign
Packet Pg. 218
11
There are currently numerous projects that have either been completed or are underway. Of the
recommended projects from this report one is underway. These locations are listed in Table 2
below:
Table 2: Previous Safety Improvement Projects – Underway or Completed
No. Location Project Status
1 Santa Rosa & Walnut Green Bike Lanes Refreshed in fall of 2016
2 Santa Rosa & Olive Green Bike Lanes Refreshed in fall of 2016
3 Monterey & Santa
Rosa
Install Flashing Yellow Arrows Completed in fall of 2016
4 California & Monterey Green Bike Lanes Refreshed in fall of 2016
5 Monterey & Osos Reconstruct Traffic Signal To be completed in March
2018
6 Marsh & Garden Reconfigure Garden Street between
Marsh and Higuera
Temporarily modified to
ultimate configuration. Final
improvements to be
completed as part of
development project
7 Higuera (Bridge to Elks) Widen Higuera and install two-way-left-
turn-lane
Coordinating with Caltrans to
obtain R/W. Design complete
8 Higuera & Broad Leading Pedestrian Crossing Interval Complete
9 Chorro & Monterey Leading Pedestrian Crossing Interval Complete
10 Marsh & Chorro Leading Pedestrian Crossing Interval Complete
11 California & US 101 NB
Ramps
Upgrade warning signs Complete
12 Foothill & Chorro Upgrade 8” to 12” signal indications Complete
13 Grand & Loomis Install bulb-outs Pending funding
14 Chorro & Peach Upgrade ADA ramps and relocate utility
pole
Design underway
15 Foothill & Broad Upgrade traffic signal indications Complete
16 Laurel & Southwood Implement lane reduction, or
“complete street” revisions along
Laurel Lane between Johnson and
Orcutt
Currently in public outreach
phase. To be implemented in
summer 2018
17 California & Taft Construct Roundabout Design Underway
Packet Pg. 219
11
Table 3: Safety Improvement Projects – New Projects Feasible Under Current Safety
Funding Allocation
No. Location Project
1 Marsh & Nipomo Upgrade traffic signal to include mast arms
2 Foothill & Broad Intersection is under consideration for reconfiguration as part
of the adjacent development. Ensure design addresses
collision pattern
3 Broad & Industrial Upgrade and add signal indicators. Investigate the installation
of officer assist red light enforcers
4 Marsh & Toro Install advanced “STOP AHEAD” signing and striping
5 Higuera & Vachell Paint “KEEP CLEAR” in intersection
6 Santa Rosa & Mantalban Coordinate with Caltrans and Paint crosswalks across
Montalban on each side of Santa Rosa
7 Santa Rosa & Mill Upgrade and add signal indicators. Investigate the installation
of officer assist red light enforcers
8 Foothill (Santa Rosa to
California)
Coordinate with The SLO Student Living to move sign
Vision Zero
As part of the 2015 Traffic Safety Report the City adopted a Vision Zero policy. Vision Zero is
the philosophy that loss of life is not an acceptable price to pay for mobility and that regardless
of who is at fault in traffic collisions, public agencies should take a systematic approach to
improving safety and achieving a transportation system with zero fatalities or serious injuries.
This new philosophy of shifting the focus from the roadway user to the roadway design resulted
in Sweden and other European countries practicing Vision Zero to reduce their traffic fatalities
by 50% or more.
The City has had tremendous success with its current traffic safety program and practices, traffic
collisions have been reduced by 58% as a result of these efforts. The annual traffic safety
program is the City’s primary mechanism for implementation of its Vision Zero policy. On page
15 of the 2016 Traffic Safety Report there is a list of Traffic Safety Education C ampaigns that
the City also participates in annually.
CONCURRENCES
The Police & Fire Departments have reviewed the 2016 TSR and concurs with its findings.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This report is exempt of CEQA
Packet Pg. 220
11
FISCAL IMPACT
The estimated cost of new pro ject is $85,000. Staff is recommending that these projects be
funded through the City’s Traffic Safety Budget which has a current balance of $87,500, leaving
a balance of $2,500.
ALTERNATIVES
1. The Council may choose to focus traffic safety improvements on other non-collision
priority areas. Staff does not recommend this as the project identified in this report will
yield a much higher public health and safety benefit over locations that are not
experiencing high collision rates.
Attachments:
a - 2016 TSR
Packet Pg. 221
11
Public Works and Police Department
September 2016
2016 Annual Traffic Safety Report
Packet Pg. 222
11
ii2016 Traffic Safety Report
September 2016
Table of Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................. 1
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................. 2
BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................ 2
MOVING TOWARDS VISION ZERO .................................................................................................... 2
MEASURING PROGRESS ................................................................................................................. 3
HOW TO NAVIGATE THIS REPORT .................................................................................................... 4
CITYWIDE COLLISION TRENDS ................................................................................................... 5
INJURY COLLISION TREND .............................................................................................................. 5
FATAL COLLISION TREND ............................................................................................................... 5
OVERALL COLLISION TREND ........................................................................................................... 6
PEDESTRIAN COLLISION TREND ...................................................................................................... 7
BICYCLE COLLISION TREND ............................................................................................................ 7
PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE SERIOUS INJURIES AND FATALITIES ........................................................ 8
HUMAN AND ECONOMIC IMPACT ...................................................................................................... 8
TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT MEASURES ..................................................................................... 10
CITATION TRENDS ........................................................................................................................ 10
DUI ARRESTS .............................................................................................................................. 11
CITATIONS BY VEHICLE CODE SECTION 2016 ................................................................................ 12
ONGOING ACTIVITIES TO MAKE OUR STREETS SAFER ....................................................... 13
COMPLETED/PLANNED SAFETY PROJECTS & PROGRAMS .............................................................. 13
TRAFFIC SAFETY EDUCATION CAMPAIGNS ..................................................................................... 14
PERCEPTION OF TRANSPORTATION SAFETY – UTILIZING PUBLIC INPUT ........................................... 15
2015 HIGH COLLISION RATE LOCATIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS .................................... 17
WHERE COLLISIONS ARE OCCURRING ........................................................................................... 17
MOST COMMON COLLISION TYPES AND FACTORS .......................................................................... 21
HIGH COLLISION RATE LOCATIONS – PEDESTRIANS ....................................................................... 24
PEDESTRIAN LOCATION RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................ 25
HIGH COLLISION RATE LOCATIONS – BICYCLES ............................................................................. 26
BICYCLE LOCATION RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................................................................... 27
HIGH COLLISION RATE LOCATIONS – ARTERIAL/ARTERIAL INTERSECTIONS ..................................... 28
ARTERIAL/ARTERIAL INTERSECTIONS RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................. 29
HIGH COLLISION RATE LOCATIONS – ARTERIAL/COLLECTOR INTERSECTIONS ................................. 30
ARTERIAL/COLLECTOR INTERSECTIONS RECOMMENDATIONS ......................................................... 30
HIGH COLLISION RATE LOCATIONS – ARTERIAL/LOCAL INTERSECTIONS .......................................... 31
ARTERIAL/LOCAL INTERSECTIONS RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................. 32
HIGH COLLISION RATE LOCATIONS – COLLECTOR/COLLECTOR INTERSECTIONS .............................. 33
COLLECTOR/COLLECTOR INTERSECTIONS RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................................... 33
HIGH COLLISION RATE LOCATIONS – COLLECTOR/LOCAL INTERSECTIONS ...................................... 34
COLLECTOR/LOCAL INTERSECTIONS RECOMMENDATIONS .............................................................. 34
LOCAL/LOCAL INTERSECTIONS ...................................................................................................... 35
HIGH COLLISION RATE LOCATIONS – ARTERIAL SEGMENTS ............................................................ 36
ARTERIAL SEGMENTS RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................... 37
HIGH COLLISION RATE LOCATIONS – COLLECTOR SEGMENTS ........................................................ 38
COLLECTOR SEGMENTS RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................ 38
Packet Pg. 223
11
iii2016 Traffic Safety Report
September 2016
APPENDIX A – COLLISION ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY
APPENDIX B – 2015 HIGH COLLISION LOCATIONS - STATUS UPDATE
APPENDIX C – 2016 COLLISION DIAGRAMS
List of Figures
Figure 1: 2016 Citywide Traffic Collisions ........................................................... 19
Figure 2: 2016 Citywide Pedestrian Collisions .................................................... 20
Figure 3: 2016 Citywide Bicycle Collisions .......................................................... 21
Figure 4: 2016 High Collision Intersection Locations .......................................... 39
Figure 5: 2016 High Collision Rate Roadway Segments .................................... 40
Packet Pg. 224
11
12016 Traffic Safety Report
September 2016
Executive Summary
The Public Works & Police Departments are pleased to present the 16th cycle of
the City’s annual traffic safety program. The Annual Traffic Safety Program
began in 2002 in an attempt to identify high collision locations within the City. In
addition, the program actively pursues corrective measures that may reduce
collision rates and improve safety within the City. This program has had
continued success with a 62% reduction in citywide
collisions since the program began, despite increasing
traffic volumes.
This safety program has demonstrated continued
success and again in 2016, total collisions are again
the lowest on record, down by 9% from 2015. While
reducing the overall collision rate continues to be a
priority, over time the safety program has continued to
increase focus on the most serious collisions—those that result in severe injuries
or death. Because injury collisions require a police report and an investigation by
a peace officer, these reports provide a clearer picture of the collision
circumstances, and can establish a more reliable year-to-year trend as policies
change with regard to collision response.
There was one fatality on City Right of Way in 2016, however, not on a City
Street. A pedestrian was struck in the sidewalk crossing the railroad tracks on
Foothill Boulevard near California. Injury collisions decreased by 10% from the
previous year and by 36% from 2002 when the safety program began. Severe
injury collisions increased by 186% from 2015, with a 54% increase since 2002.
There were more severe collisions this year than any other year since the
program began. It is unclear why there was a spike in 2016 but Staff will continue
to monitor and determine if 2016 was an anomaly in the next Safety Report.
The program also includes thorough evaluations of bicycle and pedestrian safety,
as these road users are more vulnerable to serious injury or death from collisions
with motor vehicles. Bicycle collision trends have shown an 11% decline from the
previous year and a 32% decline from peak levels in 2009. Except for a
significant peak in 2013, annual pedestrian collisions have been relatively static
since 2008. Although 2016 saw a 17% increase that number only represented 4
additional pedestrian collisions.
The following report displays trends in collision history, traffic citations, and traffic
safety measures and identifies high-collision rate locations in 2016. As in
previous Traffic Safety Reports, staff reviewed all high-collision rate intersections
and street segments and has recommended mitigation measures to increase
safety at the top five locations in each category.
In 2009, the City of San Luis Obispo
received the International Public
Agency Achievement award from the
Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) for
this program. This award is one of the
highest recognitions a public agency
can receive for its traffic engineering
practices.
Packet Pg. 225
11
22016 Traffic Safety Report
September 2016
Our goal is that the combination of data-driven analysis, appropriate mitigation,
and consistent and focused education and enforcement will continue to reduce
traffic collisions and improve the safety of our streets for all users.
Packet Pg. 226
11
32016 Traffic Safety Report
September 2016
Introduction
Background
Since its inception in 2002, the annual Traffic Safety Report (TSR) provides an
overview of the City of San Luis Obispo’s efforts to monitor and improve safety
for all road users. Every year, the City prepares a TSR for the previous twelve-
month period with the following specific objectives:
Identify the intersections and street segments within the City associated
with the highest collision rates, and thoroughly analyze collision patterns in
order to develop potential mitigation measures for the five highest
locations that will reduce the potential for collisions—particularly those
involving severe injuries and/or fatalities, and;
Identify the predominant pedestrian and bicycle collision types and high-
collision locations, and thoroughly analyze collision data and police
reports so as to determine potential mitigation measures for the five
highest-rate collision locations that may reduce the potential for collisions,
and;
Report on traffic enforcement efforts, traffic safety education activities, and
evaluate the effectiveness of mitigation measures implemented in the
previous twelve month period.
The locations mentioned in this report should not be interpreted as a list of
dangerous or “least safe” intersections or streets within the City. The specific
total of collisions for any location for any year is a function of various factors such
as weather patterns, construction, traffic volumes, roadway conditions and driver
habits. Many of these factors are often difficult to identify and are most often
beyond the ability of the engineer to change or control. However, the City's
mitigation program attempts to identify roadway elements that can be modified so
as to make the transportation infrastructure more driver friendly, reduce driver
confusion, promote bicycle and pedestrian
safety and comfort, and limit impact severity.
Moving Towards Vision Zero
Vision Zero is a multi-national traffic safety
initiative, first initiated in Sweden, with a
straightforward message: No loss of life is
acceptable. At its core, Vision Zero seeks the
elimination of deaths and serious injuries from
our roadways. Since 1997, Sweden and other
European countries practicing Vision Zero
Packet Pg. 227
11
42016 Traffic Safety Report
September 2016
have been able to reduce their traffic fatalities by almost 50%.
In recent years, Vision Zero has gained steam throughout the United States, with
cities such as San Francisco, New York, Portland and Los Angeles adopting
Vision Zero Policies and action plans. According to the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA), motor vehicle traffic crashes are the number one
leading cause of death for people ages 13 through 25 and result in over 30,000
deaths per year in the United States alone. By focusing on not only reducing
overall traffic collisions, but preventing severe collisions, particularly to vulnerable
users such as pedestrians, bicyclists and people with disabilities, communities
can achieve real live benefits and save lives.
While the City of San Luis Obispo has not adopted a formal Vision Zero policy,
the City has demonstrated a long-standing commitment towards eliminating
traffic-related fatalities and serious injuries. Through (a) the data-driven analysis
performed in the annual TSR, (b) regular collaboration between City Public
Works and Police Departments to identify priorities for focused traffic safety
enforcement, and (c) ongoing community education and outreach campaigns, the
City is continually striving to improve the safety and efficiency of transportation
facilities for all modes and users.
Measuring Progress
Progress towards improving traffic safety for all road users is measured in the
TSR using the following metrics:
Total collisions, fatalities and serious injuries
Total pedestrian collisions, fatalities and serious injuries
Total bicycle collisions, fatalities and serious injuries
The traffic safety data for these metrics is obtained from traffic collision reports
provided by the San Luis Obispo Police Department. The TSR for a given year
will normally be prepared after City collision statistics become available in April or
May of the following year; thus, the data analyzed in this TSR is for the 2016
calendar year. Collision data is reviewed for each intersection and roadway
segment within the City and entered into the City Public Works Department’s
traffic collision database. Auto, pedestrian and bicycle volumes are then utilized
in conjunction with collision totals to calculate collision rates for all locations in
the City. Considering the calculated collision rates, as well as collision severity,
locations are ranked for each type of intersection and roadway segment within
the City. The five highest-ranked collision locations for each category are
analyzed in further detail and mitigation measures are presented, where feasible.
Packet Pg. 228
11
52016 Traffic Safety Report
September 2016
Additional discussion regarding the technical analysis methodology applied in
this TSR is provided in the Appendix.
How to Navigate this Report
The remainder of the 2016 TSR is organized into the following sections:
Citywide Collision Trends – Page 6
How safe are San Luis Obispo’s streets? This section describes the state
of traffic safety in the City, discussing trends in traffic collisions from 1999
to 2016.
Traffic Enforcement Measures – Page 11
This section describes traffic enforcement efforts of the City Police
Department, discussing traffic citations, DUI arrests and hazardous driving
trends.
Ongoing Activities to Make our Streets Safer – Page 14
How are we making San Luis Obispo’s streets safer? This section
describes the ongoing efforts to improve the safety of transportation
facilities for all modes of travel within the City.
2016 High Collision Rate Locations & Recommendations – Page 18
What have we learned about traffic safety in 2016? This section describes
the high collision rate intersections and roadway segments for 2016, and
presents potential mitigation recommendations for high-priority locations.
Packet Pg. 229
11
62016 Traffic Safety Report
September 2016
Citywide Collision Trends
Injury collisions are the most accurate representation of City collision trends
because these types of collision are most consistently reported and investigated.
In 2015, injury collisions decreased by 10% from 2015. Injury collisions are also
36% lower than 2002 when the safety program began.
Injury Collision Trend
Fatal Collision Trend
It’s difficult to identify a trend in fatal collisions because these types of collisions
are typically sporadic, uncommon, and occur under unusual circumstances.
There was one fatal collision within the City in 2016. A pedestrian was struck in
the sidewalk while crossing the railroad tracks on Foothill Boulevard near
California. Further, fatal and severe injury collisions decreased by 12% from
2014, with a 43% reduction since 2002.
240
267 268
309 308 315
285
250 257
240 236 233
220
191
207 201
220
197
150
170
190
210
230
250
270
290
310
330
Injury CollisionsYear
Injury Collisions
22
110
4
3
2
0 0 0
3
1
2
0 111
0
1
2
3
4
5
Fatal CollisionsYear
Fatal Collisions
Packet Pg. 230
11
72016 Traffic Safety Report
September 2016
Overall Collision Trend
In 2016 there were 482 total reported collisions in the City—the lowest total on
record, down 9% from 2015 and down 62% from the introduction of the safety
program.
It should be noted that the Overall Collision chart above does not represent all
collisions that occur in the City—merely all reported collisions occurring on public
streets for which a report is generated. Many collisions are either unreported by
the involved parties, reported by the parties without an officer investigation, or
there is no response to the collision by emergency services. Therefore, the actual
total collisions may vary between years. A more accurate measure are the injury
and fatal collision trends, as police always respond to collisions where the
reporting party indicates there is an injury.
910
1023
1140
1256
1097
1207
1089
873 866
793
683
598 619 594 570 548 531
482
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
1100
1200
1300
Total CollisionsYear
Packet Pg. 231
11
82016 Traffic Safety Report
September 2016
Pedestrian Collision Trend
Despite rising pedestrian volumes, pedestrian collisions have remained relatively
static since 2008, with the exception of an unexplained spike in 2013. In 2016,
the number of pedestrian collisions rose slightly but have returned to that of the
recent trend.
Bicycle Collision Trend
Despite rising bicycle volumes, bicycle collisions have generally been on the
decline in recent years. Bicycle collision trends have shown a 32% decline from
peak levels in 2009. In 2016, bicycle collision totals returned to the 2014 total
which represented an 11% decrease from 2015.
24
37
19
41
24
41
26 27
18
25 24 22 24 26
39
24 23
27
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
Pedestrian CollisionsYear
52
46 45
53 55
50
55
61 59 59
73 69 67 69
63
50
56
50
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
Bicycle CollisionsYear
Packet Pg. 232
11
92016 Traffic Safety Report
September 2016
Pedestrian and Bicycle Serious Injuries and Fatalities
Over the past five years (2012-2016), 2,725 traffic collisions have been reported
in the City—about 545 per year. Roughly 16% of these collisions involved a
bicyclist or pedestrian. However, as illustrated in the graphic below, 46% of the
collisions resulting in severe injury or death involved a bicyclist or pedestrian.
These trends indicate that bicyclists and pedestrians are overrepresented in
collisions that resulted in severe and life-threatening injuries and there is
continued need for mitigation strategies that target bicycle and pedestrian
collisions.
Human and Economic Impact
Traffic collisions result in direct economic costs to those involved—wages and
productivity losses, medical expenses and legal costs, and motor vehicle
damages—but, this represents only a portion of total costs associated with
collisions. Traffic collisions also have indirect impacts to the families of those
involved, employers and society as a whole. A study by the NHTSA found that
more than 75 percent of collision costs are born by society in the form of
insurance premiums, taxes and congestion-related costs such as travel delay,
excess fuel consumption and lost quality of life associated with deaths and
injuries.
Comprehensive costs include the economic cost components associated with
traffic collisions, but also the indirect societal costs. Using cost estimates by
crash severity published in the American Association of State Highway
transportation Officials’ (AASHTO) Highway Safety Manual, adjusted to reflect
2016 dollars, the comprehensive costs associated with the 531 citywide traffic
collisions occurring in 2016 were calculated to be more than $25 million.
Comprehensive collision costs for 2016 by collision type are summarized in
Table 1 below.
Packet Pg. 233
11
102016 Traffic Safety Report
September 2016
Table 1: 2016 City of San Luis Obispo Comprehensive Collision Costs
Collision Severity Number of
Collisions
Cost per
Collision Cost
Fatal 1 $5,669,881 $5,669,881
Disabling Injury 20 $300,591 $6,011,820
Non-Incapacitating Injury 138 $109,811 $15,153,918
Possible Injury 38 $61,904 $2,352,352
Property Damage Only 286 $10,012 $2,863,432
Total 483 $32,051,403
Source: Crash Cost Estimates based on AASHTO’s Highway Safety Manual, 2010. Costs adjusted to
2016 dollars based on Consumer Price Index and Employment Cost Index per Highway Safety
Manual guidance.
Packet Pg. 234
11
112016 Traffic Safety Report
September 2016
Traffic Enforcement Measures
Traffic citations are one method used to promote compliance with the vehicle
code and create a safer environment for road users. The vehicle code includes
many sections for enforcement. Some vehicle code violations are more serious
than others and are designated as “Hazardous Violations”. Vehicle Code
Violations are tracked by the Department of Motor Vehicles, and hazardous
violations are weighted by a point system. All hazardous vehicle code sections
carry at least one point and some carry two points. The point system is used to
assess the driving behavior of motorists and place restrictions on negligent
drivers, which helps make roadways safer by removing drivers with hazardous
driving behavior. The chart below depicts the total citations (hazardous and non-
hazardous) by the Police Department since 1999.
Citation Trends
As shown in the chart above, citation trends can fluctuate from year-to-year.
These trends are not necessarily a direct reflection of overall driving behavior,
but can coincide with the resources and staffing levels of the Police Department.
2394200117912243255089678993417693120209828061474152415711407174023615734674171146508480226633454358544887437594746864124619552934399552261620
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
CitationsYear
Hazardous Citations Total Citations
Packet Pg. 235
11
122016 Traffic Safety Report
September 2016
Dui Arrests
Driving under the influence (DUI) violations have been a focal point of
enforcement in an effort to reduce injury traffic collisions. Since 1999, the Police
Department has averaged 362 DUI arrests each year. Of those arrests, about
five to ten drivers each year were arrested for felony DUI after being involved in a
collision that causing injury to someone involved. In 2016 the Police Department
arrested 401 people for DUI. Half (50%) of the DUI arrests involved drivers who
were between 18 and 25 years old and over three-quarters (80%) were between
the 18 and 35 years old.
50%
30%
9%
11%
2016 DUI Arrests by Age
18-25
26-35
36-45
Over 46457480396502410304312412331339248213241256377445 393401100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
550
DUI ArrestsYear
Packet Pg. 236
11
132016 Traffic Safety Report
September 2016
Citations by Vehicle Code Section 2015
The following chart depicts the distribution of vehicle code citations by type for
2016.
Insurance related
(§16000‐17714)
19%
Distraction and
Driving Offenses
(§23100‐23135)
18%
Speed (§22348‐
22413)
19%
Stop Sign
(§22450‐
22456)…
Driver's License
related (§12500‐
15325)
11%
Traffic Control Devices
(§21350‐21468)
9%
Bicycle Violation
(§21200‐21212)
4%
Right side of Roadway
(§21650‐21664)
3%
Turning & Signals
(§22100‐22113)
2%
Failure to Yield
(§21800‐21809)
2%
Pedestrian Violation
(§21949‐21971)
2%
Packet Pg. 237
11
142016 Traffic Safety Report
September 2016
Ongoing Activities to Make Our Streets Safer
Completed/Planned Safety Projects & Programs
Transportation safety has always been a priority for the City. Each year the
Public Works Department implements traffic safety improvement through a
variety of programs and projects. These improvements are usually stand-alone
projects, but are often included in other City CIP projects or as part of individual
land development projects. Table 2 below identifies notable traffic safety
improvements that were completed recently or planned for implementation in the
near future.
Table 2: Completed or Planned Transportation Safety Projects
Location Project Description
Traffic Signal Improvements
Marsh & Santa Rosa
Monterey & Grand
Monterey & Santa Rosa
Install Flashing Yellow Left-Turn Arrows.
Implementation planned for fall of 2016.
Monterey & Santa Rosa Implemented Advanced Pedestrian Phasing.
Foothill & Broad
Santa Rosa & Mill
California & Mill
Upgraded signal indications from 8” to 12”.
Monterey & Osos Construction to be completed in February 2018.
Citywide Updated traffic signal timings to provide sufficient bicycle
clearance intervals.
Pedestrian & Bicycle Improvements
Highland & Ferrini Install bike slot through median to allow left-turn movements
for bicyclists. To be completed summer 2016.
Higuera & Marsh Lighted Crosswalks Replace downtown lighted crosswalks on Higuera and
Marsh Streets. To be completed fall of 2016.
Santa Rosa Green Bike Lanes* Installed green bike lanes on Santa Rosa Street between
Montalbon and Walnut Streets.
Broad & Orcutt Installed green bike lane extension through intersection.
Roadway Improvements
Higuera Street, 500-700 Block Reconfigured on-street parking stalls that do not conform to
current City Standards.
Median at South & Parker Constructed permanent median along South Street at
Parker Street, replacing the temporary median installed in
2014. Completed in spring of 2016.
Broad & Upham Crosswalk Upgrade uncontrolled crossing at Broad & Upham with
enhanced flashers (rapid rectangular flashing beacons) and
pavement markings.
Signing & Striping Improvements
Morro & Pacific Two-way stop-control orientation reconfigured.
Broad & Orcutt Striping on NB approach improved.
Chorro & Peach Lane reconfigurations to Chorro Street implemented
between Mill and Walnut.
Packet Pg. 238
11
152016 Traffic Safety Report
September 2016
Location Project Description
Highland Drive Centerline striping added as part of 2016 roadway
resurfacing project.
Sight Distance Improvements
Cerro Romauldo & Ferrini Installed parking restriction.
Cerro Romauldo & La Canada Installed parking restriction.
Cerro Romauldo & Santa Lucia Installed parking restriction.
Other Projects/Programs
Fixilini NTM Construction Construct permanent traffic diverter at Fixilini Street & Iris
Street intersection. Completed in spring 2016.
South Chorro NTM Test Project Install temporary neighborhood traffic circles at Chorro &
Islay, Chorro & Church and Chorro & High. Completed in
winter of 2016.
*Project recommended in previous Traffic Safety Report
Traffic Safety Education Campaigns
Between City-led efforts and activities led by local partners, such as Bike SLO
County and SLOCOG/Rideshare, there are a multitude of ongoing traffic safety
education and outreach campaigns provided to the community of San Luis
Obispo each year. Key education and outreach activities are summarized below:
Partnership with the California Office of Traffic Safety
A Selective Enforcement Grant funds a full-time DUI officer position. This
officer is utilized specifically for DUI enforcement in an effort to further
reduce the number of alcohol and drug related driving incidents.
Bicycle Rodeo
The City hosts a hands-on bicycle training class targeting youth teaching
bicycle skills & operations.
Pedestrian Halloween Safety Campaign
The City provides reflective Halloween bags with safety tips to local
schools free of cost.
Impaired Driver Offender Classes
City officers attend and supplement DUI offender courses to provide a
unique positive opportunity to discuss, face to face, the impacts of driving
under the influence.
Every Fifteen Minutes Program
The City participates in a multi department and agency event simulating
the psychological effects of student fatalities as a result of traffic collisions.
Packet Pg. 239
11
162016 Traffic Safety Report
September 2016
Child Car Seat Instruction & Assistance
The City provides child safety seat installation and inspection free of cost.
Channel 20 Public Safety Announcements
Bicycle Safety Posters
City of SLO Partnerships:
Bike SLO County
Safety Education Courses
Elementary School Safety Assemblies
Safety Brown Bag Lunch at Participating Businesses
SLOCOG/SLO Rideshare
Safe Routes to School Program
Perception of Transportation Safety – Utilizing Public Input
While the Traffic Safety Program has proven to be a useful tool for identifying
citywide collision trends and prioritizing locations for safety improvement projects,
the process relies on collisions to
occur and be recorded by the City
Police Department. An inherent
limitation with this process is that
locations that may have perceived
safety or comfort issues for road users
are not identified by City staff unless
actual incidents are shown in the
collision data. For locations such as a
crossing where drivers fail to yield to
pedestrians, or a traffic signal where
bicyclists are not given sufficient
green time to comfortably pass
through the intersection, these issues
may not be highlighted unless
residents submit a specific complaint
or an actual collision occurs.
To improve the ability of City staff to appropriately consider locations where the
transportation safety or comfort concerns are perceived by the public, the City
Public Works Department is in the process of developing an interactive public
input map where users can pinpoint locations and provide comments describing
safety concerns that they have observed. The New York City Department of
As part of their Vision Zero program, the NYCDOT uses an online
transportation safety public input map to allow citizens to identify
problem locations in the city.
Packet Pg. 240
11
172016 Traffic Safety Report
September 2016
Transportation developed a similar tool as part of their Vision Zero program to
solicit public input on various safety concerns throughout the city. Ultimately, this
perception map would be utilized by the City of San Luis Obispo to complement
the existing Traffic Safety Program to develop a more holistic understanding of
the transportation safety and mobility needs off all our road users.
Packet Pg. 241
11
182016 Traffic Safety Report
September 2016
2016 High Collision Rate Locations & Recommendations
Where Collisions are Occurring
Intersections are the most common location for all collisions. As shown in the
figure below, 63% of 2016 collisions in the City occurred at intersections, with
70% of those occurring at signalized intersections. This finding highlights the
importance of focusing traffic safety efforts on intersections.
All of the traffic collision reported in 2016 are shown on the map in Figure 1. All
pedestrian and bicycle collisions reported in 2015 are shown on the maps in
Figure 2 and Figure 3, respectively.
High-collision intersections are shown in Figure 4, while high-collision roadway
segments are shown in Figure 5.
Packet Pg. 242
11
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
Tank Farm Rd
B
r
o
a
d
S
t
J
o
h
n
s
o
n
A
v
e
Madonna RdS Higuera StFoothill Blvd
S
a
n
t
a
R
o
s
a
S
t
C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
B
l
v
d
Monterey StS Higuera StChorro StL
o
s
O
s
o
s
V
a
l
l
e
y
R
d Laurel LnC
h
o
r
r
o
S
t
Ramona Dr
South St
O
r
c
u
t
t
R
d
FIGURE 12016 CITYWIDE COLLISIONS
2016 Traffic Safety Report
O
Severe Injury Collision
1 Collision
2 - 3 Collisions
4 - 6 Collisions
7 - 10 Collisions
Legend
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
Fatal Collision!(
Packet Pg. 243
11
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
Tank Farm Rd
B
r
o
a
d
S
t
J
o
h
n
s
o
n
A
v
e
Madonna RdS Higuera StFoothill Blvd
S
a
n
t
a
R
o
s
a
S
t
C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
B
l
v
d
Monterey StS Higuera StChorro StL
o
s
O
s
o
s
V
a
l
l
e
y
R
d Laurel LnRamona Dr
South St
O
r
c
u
t
t
R
d
B
r
o
o
k
p
i
n
e
Tank Farm Rd
PradoHigueraMarsh B
r
o
a
d
C
h
o
r
r
o
O
s
o
s
M
o
r
r
oPeach
FIGURE 22016 CITYWIDE PEDESTRIAN COLLISIONS
2016 Traffic Safety Report
O
Severe Injury Collision
1 Collision
2 - 3 Collisions
4 - 6 Collisions
7 - 10 Collisions
Legend
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
Fatal Collision!(
Packet Pg. 244
11
!(
!(
!(
!(
Tank Farm Rd
B
r
o
a
d
S
t
J
o
h
n
s
o
n
A
v
e
Madonna RdS Higuera StFoothill Blvd
S
a
n
t
a
R
o
s
a
C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
B
l
v
d
Monterey StS Higuera StChorro StL
o
s
O
s
o
s
V
a
l
l
e
y
R
d Laurel LnC
h
o
r
r
o
S
t
Ramona Dr
South St
Or
c
u
t
t
R
dGrand AveHigueraMarshB
r
o
a
d
S
t
O
s
o
s
C
h
o
r
r
o
Orcutt
Prado
FIGURE 32016 CITYWIDE BICYCLE COLLISIONS
2016 Traffic Safety Report
O
Severe Injury Collision
1 Collision
2 - 3 Collisions
4 - 6 Collisions
7 - 10 Collisions
Legend
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
Fatal Collision!(
Packet Pg. 245
11
222016 Traffic Safety Report
September 2016
Most Common Collision Types and Factors
As shown in the figure below, broadside and rear-end collisions were by far the
most common type of collisions reported in 2016, representing 34% and 30%,
respectively, of the total recorded incidents.
As shown below, broadside and rear-end collisions were also the most common
type of injury collision reported in 2016, representing 32% and 33% of total
recorded injury collisions. While collisions involving a vehicles with pedestrians
represent only 6% of total collisions in 2016, they account for 13% of injury
collisions and collisions involving both pedestrians and bikes make nearly 33% of
severe injury collisions. Thus, mitigating these crash types offers the greatest
potential for reducing the number of serious injury and fatal incidents.
24%
(118)
30%
(143)
20%
(94)12%
(23)6%
(29)
5%
(27)2%
(10)1%
(7)
0%
10%
20%
30%
Broadside Rear End Sideswipe Hit Object Vehicle/
Pedestrian
Head-On Other Overturned
Type of Collision
Collisions by Type
(482 Total)
X% = % of Total Collisions
(Y) = Total Number of
Collisions
32%
(63)
33%
(65)
9%
(18)
5%
(9)13%
(26)
3%
(5)2%
(4)
3%
(6)
0%
10%
20%
30%
Broadside Rear End Sideswipe Hit Object Vehicle/
Bicycle
Vehicle/
Pedestrian
Head-On Other
Type of Collision
Injury Collisions by Type
(196 Total)
Packet Pg. 246
11
232016 Traffic Safety Report
September 2016
The most common factors attributed to recorded collisions in 2016 are
summarized in Table 3 below. Improper turning movements and speeding
represent the most prevalent factors in overall collisions and injury collisions. DUI
collisions represented 10% of all reported collisions, but DUI along with Unsafe
speed ranks as the most prevalent factor attributed to severe injury and fatal
collisions.
Table 3: Primary Collision Factors
Factor Rank %
All Collisions
Improper Turning 1 23%
Unsafe Speed 2 20%
Unsafe Starting or Backing 3 12%
Traffic Signal/Sign Violation 4 10%
DUI 5 9%
Injury Collisions
Improper Turning 1 21%
Unsafe Speed 2 19%
Automobile Right-of-Way Violation 3 11%
Traffic Signal/Sign Violation 4 10%
DUI 5 6%
Severe Injury & Fatal Collisions
Unsafe Speed 1 25%
DUI 2 25%
Improper Turning 3 13%
Unsafe Lane Change 4 13%
Other 5 13%
The table below lists the pedestrian collisions by type recorded in 2016, as well
as the party at fault. As shown in the table, motorist failure to yield during various
movements were the most frequent types of reported pedestrian collisions. The
large majority (90%) of pedestrian collisions were the result of motorist fault.
Table 4: Pedestrian Collisions by Type
Pedestrian Collision Type No.%Party at Fault %
Cyclist on Sidewalk 1 5% Driver 90%
Motorist Failed to yield 16 80% Pedestrian 5%
Motorist Failed to Stop 1 5% Cyclist 5%
Motorist Backing 1 5%
Motorist Improper Turn 1 5%
Total 20 100%
Packet Pg. 247
11
242016 Traffic Safety Report
September 2016
The table below lists the bicycle collisions by type recorded in 2016, as well as
the party at fault. Cyclists losing control/hitting fixed objects and failing to yield
the right of way to the motorists, and motorist right-turn movements were the
most common types of bicycle collisions reported. About 60% of reported bicycle
collisions were the fault of the bicyclist.
Table 5: Bicycle Collisions by Type
Bicycle Collision Type No. % Party at Fault %
Cyclist Lost Control 11 22% Driver 40%
Cyclist Failed to Yield 6 16% Bicyclist 60%
Motorist Right-Turn 8 12%
Motorist Failed to Yield 5 12%
Motorist Left-Turn 2 10%
Cyclist Lane Change 1 6%
Cyclist Under the Influence 6 4%
Wrong-Way Cyclist 2 4%
Motorist Overtaking or Sideswipe 3 2%
Cyclist on Sidewalk 4 2%
Motorist Starting or Backing 1 2%
Cyclist no Light 1
Total 50 100%
Packet Pg. 248
11
252016 Traffic Safety Report
September 2016
High Collision Rate Locations – Pedestrians
Rank
Prev.
Year
Rank
Intersection Control 5 Yr.
Collisions
PH
Veh.
Vol
PH
Ped.
Vol
REV
1 NR Santa Rosa & Montalban SSSC 3 3,347 25 2,008
2 1 Santa Rosa & Walnut Signal 4 2,741 29 1,890
3 2 Santa Rosa & Olive Signal 4 3,436 39 1,762
4 3 Foothill & Santa Rosa Signal 4 4,126 106 778
5 5 Santa Rosa & Monterey Signal 5 2,166 227 239
6 NR Foothill & Carpenter SSSC 3 905 100 136
7 NR Broad & Higuera Signal 6 1,158 242 40
8 8 Marsh & Chorro Signal 3 1,507 988 26
9 NR Higuera & Chorro Signal 3 1,315 1,680 12
NR = Not Ranked
SSSC = Side Street Stop-Control
PH = Peak Hour
REV = Relative Exposure Value
Packet Pg. 249
11
262016 Traffic Safety Report
September 2016
Pedestrian Location Recommendations
Rank Intersection Control 5 Yr.
Collisions
PH
Veh.
Vol
PH
Ped.
Vol
REV
1 Santa Rosa & Montalban SSSC 3 3,347 25 2,008
Pattern: Turning traffic failing to yield to pedestrians.
Recommendation: Paint crosswalks across Montalban on both sides of Santa Rosa to more
clearly define the crosswalk and where vehicles should stop and wait.
2 Santa Rosa & Walnut Signal 4 2,741 29 1,890
Pattern: Turning traffic not yielding to pedestrians and unsafe pedestrian crossings.
Recommendation: Intersection under State jurisdiction. Forward to Caltrans for study and
continue to monitor in 2017.
3 Santa Rosa & Olive Signal 4 3,436 39 1,762
Pattern: Turning traffic failing to yield to pedestrians.
Recommendation: Intersection under State jurisdiction. Forward to Caltrans for study and
continue to monitor in 2017.
4 Foothill & Santa Rosa Signal 4 4,126 106 778
Pattern: Turning traffic failing to yield to pedestrians.
Recommendation: Intersection under State jurisdiction. Forward to Caltrans for study and
continue to monitor in 2017.
5 Santa Rosa & Monterey Signal 5 2,166 227 239
Pattern: Turning traffic failing to yield to pedestrians.
Recommendation: Yield to Pedestrian signs installed in April of 2011. Advanced Pedestrian
Phasing implemented in spring of 2016. Flashing Yellow Arrows were installed in late 2016.
No pedestrian collisions occurred after the installation of the Flashing Yellow Arrows.
Continue to monitor and report it 2017 Traffic Safety Report.
Packet Pg. 250
11
272016 Traffic Safety Report
September 2016
High Collision Rate Locations – Bicycles
Rank
Prev.
Year
Rank
Intersection Control 5 Yr.
Collisions
PH
Veh.
Vol
PH
Bike.
Vol
REV
1 2 Santa Rosa & Olive Signal 4 3,436 19 3,617
2 8 California & Monterey Signal 7 1,902 38 1,752
3 7 Foothill & Santa Rosa Signal 5 4,126 70 1,474
4 NR Broad & South Signal 3 3,350 41 1,226
5 4 California & 101 N/B Ramps SSSC 4 1,528 27 1,132
6 3 California & Taft SSSC 4 1,680 35 960
7 NR Grand & Mill SSSC 3 576 9 960
8 NR Madonna & Oceanaire Signal 3 2,292 36 955
9 11 Broad & Leff SSSC 3 1,017 16 953
10 9 California & Palm SSSC 4 957 30 638
11 10 California & Foothill Signal 3 2,041 145 211
NR = Not Ranked
AWSC = All-way Stop-Control
SSSC = Side-Street Stop-Control
PH = Peak Hour
REV = Relative Exposure Value
Packet Pg. 251
11
282016 Traffic Safety Report
September 2016
Bicycle Location Recommendations
Rank Intersection Control 5 Yr.
Collisions
PH
Veh.
Vol
PH
Bike.
Vol
REV
1 Santa Rosa & Olive Signal 4 3,436 19 3,617
Pattern: Vehicles travelling NB on Santa Rosa turning right are causing "right hook" collisions.
Recommendation: Green bike lane extensions through intersections installed along Santa
Rosa from Walnut to Montalban in August of 2015 and reinstalled in July 2016. Only collisions
in 2016 were due to red light violations. Continue to monitor in 2017.
2 California & Monterey Signal 7 1,902 38 1,752
Pattern: NB vehicle vs. NB bicyclist right-hook collisions.
Recommendation: Green bike lanes were reinstalled and only collisions in 2016 were red light
violations.
3 Foothill & Santa Rosa Signal 5 4,126 70 1,474
Pattern: No discernible pattern.
Recommendation: Intersection under State jurisdiction. Forward to Caltrans for study and
continue to monitor in 2017.
4 Broad & South Signal 3 3,350 41 1,226
Pattern: No discernible pattern
Recommendation: Continue to monitor in 2017.
5 California & 101 N/B Ramps SSSC 4 1,528 27 1,132
Pattern: Cyclists vs. NB motorists turning left onto HWY 101 ramp and/or coming from HWY
101 ramps.
Recommendation: Green bike lanes were installed and there were no collisions in 2016.
Continue to monitor.
Packet Pg. 252
11
292016 Traffic Safety Report
September 2016
High Collision Rate Locations – Arterial/Arterial Intersections
Rank
Prev.
year
Rank
Intersection Control Collisions Volume Rate*
1 NR Broad & Higuera Signal 4 12,349 0.887
2 5 Higuera & Chorro Signal 4 12,801 0.856
3 NR Marsh & Nipomo Signal 4 13,884 0.789
4 NR Higuera & Nipomo Signal 3 12,454 0.660
5 1 Santa Rosa & Monterey Signal 6 25,936 0.634
6 7 Higuera & Madonna Signal 7 31,323 0.612
7 3 Marsh & Broad Signal 3 18,300 0.449
8 10 Marsh & Osos Signal 3 18,516 0.444
9 NR Monterey & Johnson Signal 3 19,224 0.428
10 8 Foothill & Santa Rosa Signal 7 50,862 0.377
11 4 California & Monterey Signal 3 22,172 0.371
12 13 Los Osos Valley & Madonna Signal 5 38,267 0.358
13 NR Higuera & Los Osos Valley Signal 3 24,333 0.338
14 NR Broad & South Signal 4 36,846 0.297
15 NR
Los Osos Valley & 101 S/B On/Off
Ramp Signal 3 35,036 0.235
16 11 Madonna & 101 N/B On/Off Ramp Signal 3 35,450 0.232
NR = Not Ranked
Rate = Collision frequency per million vehicles entering the intersection
Packet Pg. 253
11
302016 Traffic Safety Report
September 2016
Arterial/Arterial Intersections Recommendations
Rank Intersection Control Collisions Volume Rate
1 BROAD & HIGUERA Signal 4 12,349 0.887
Pattern: Pedestrian being hit be turning vehicles.
Recommendation: A pedestrian lead time was implemented at this intersection. Pedestrian
collisions that in 2016 occurred before a pedestrian lead time had been implemented. Staff will
continue to monitor.
2 HIGUERA & CHORRO Signal 4 12,801 0.856
Pattern: No discernable pattern.
Recommendation: Continue to monitor in 2017.
3 MARSH & NIPOMO Signal 4 13,884 0.789
Pattern: Red light violations.
Recommendation: Upgrade traffic signal to include mast arms for each approach.
4 HIGUERA & NIPOMO Signal 3 12,454 0.660
Pattern: Red light violations.
Recommendation: Upgrade traffic signal to include mast arms for each approach.
5 SANTA ROSA & MONTEREY Signal 6 25,936 0.634
Pattern: Pedestrians being hit by turning vehicles.
Recommendation: A pedestrian lead time was implemented at this intersection. One pedestrian
collision occurred after the pedestrian lead time was implemented. Staff will continue to monitor.
Packet Pg. 254
11
312016 Traffic Safety Report
September 2016
High Collision Rate Locations – Arterial/Collector Intersections
Rank
Prev.
Year
Rank
Intersection Control Collisions Volume Rate
1 12 Higuera & High Signal 4 15,737 0.696
2 5 Foothill & Broad Signal 5 20,607 0.665
3 15 Madonna & Oceanaire Signal 4 26,049 0.421
4 4 Broad & industrial Signal 5 32,749 0.418
5 30 Santa Rosa & Mill Signal 3 22,165 0.371
NR = Not Ranked
SSSC = Side-Street Stop-Control
Rate = Collision frequency per million vehicles entering the intersection
Arterial/Collector Intersections Recommendations
Rank Intersection Control Collisions Volume Rate
1 Higuera & High Signal 4 15,737 0.696
Pattern: No discernible pattern.
Recommendation: Continue to monitor in 2017.
2 Foothill & Broad Signal 5 20,607 0.665
Pattern: Vehicles exiting Blackhorse driveway and failing to yield the right of way at signalized
intersection.
Recommendation: Evaluate signal and driveway modifications with adjacent development.
3 Madonna & Oceanaire Signal 4 26,049 0.421
Pattern: No discernible pattern.
Recommendation: Continue to monitor in 2017.
4 Broad & industrial Signal 5 32,749 0.418
Pattern: Rear end at red lights.
Recommendation: Upgrade and add signal indicators for more visibility. Investigate the installation of
officer assist red light enforcers. Continue to monitor.
5 Santa Rosa & Mill Signal 3 22,165 0.371
Pattern: Red light violations
Recommendation: Upgrade and add signal indicators for more visibility. Investigate the installation of
officer assist red light enforcers. Continue to monitor.
Packet Pg. 255
11
322016 Traffic Safety Report
September 2016
High Collision Rate Locations – Arterial/Local Intersections
Rank
Prev.
Year
Rank
Intersection Control Collisions Volume Rate
1 NR Marsh & Toro TWSC 3 7305 1.125
2 NR Higuera & Morro Signal 4 10164 1.078
3 NR Higuera & Bridge SSSC 4 17134 0.640
4 9 Higuera & Vachell SSSC 5 25347 0.540
5 8 Los Osos Valley & Calle Joaquin Signal 4 34085 0.322
6 NR Santa Rosa & Montalban SSSC 4 34338 0.319
7 NR Madonna & El Mercado Signal 3 28769 0.286
8 NR Broad & Sweeney TWSC 3 30358 0.271
9 10 Los Osos Valley & Froom Ranch Signal 3 37272 0.221
10 2 Santa Rosa & Olive Signal 3 40678 0.202
NR = Not Ranked
SSSC = Side-Street Stop-Control
Rate = Collision frequency per million vehicles entering the intersection
Packet Pg. 256
11
332016 Traffic Safety Report
September 2016
Arterial/Local Intersections Recommendations
Rank Intersection Control Collisions Volume Rate
1 Marsh & Toro TWSC 3 7305 1.125
Pattern: Stop sign violations from Toro.
Recommendation: Install advanced "STOP AHEAD" signing and striping. Targeted
enforcement and continue to monitor.
2 Higuera & Morro Signal 4 10164 1.078
Pattern: Drivers hitting vehicles while trying to parallel park.
Recommendation: Existing parking stalls currently meet City standard. No historical pattern -
continue to monitor.
3 Higuera & Bridge SSSC 4 17134 0.640
Pattern: Drivers being hit while crossing Higuera by vehicles that are "hidden" by traffic
stopped for signal.
Recommendation: Currently working with Caltans to widen Higuera between Bridge and Elks
Lane to install a two-way-left-turn-lane.
4 Higuera & Vachell SSSC 5 25347 0.540
Pattern: Drivers being hit while crossing Higuera by vehicles that are "hidden" by traffic
stopped for signal.
Recommendation: Paint "KEEP CLEAR" in intersection to increase visibility. Avila Ranch
development includes improvements at this intersection to restrict access to right in/right out
only.
5 Los Osos Valley & Calle Joaquin Signal 4 34085 0.322
Pattern: Red light violations and failure to yield right of way while making left turn into Calle
Joaquin.
Recommendation: Targeted enforcement and continue to monitor.
Packet Pg. 257
11
342016 Traffic Safety Report
September 2016
High Collision Rate Locations – Collector/Collector Intersections
No Locations Ranked Under this Category
High Collision Rate Locations – Collector/Local Intersections
No Locations Ranked Under this Category
Local/Local Intersections
No Locations Ranked Under this Category
Packet Pg. 258
11
352016 Traffic Safety Report
September 2016
High Collision Rate Locations – Arterial Segments
Rank Prev.
Rank Segment Collisions
Ped-
Bike
Coll.
Vol.
Seg.
Length
(mi.)
Rate Location
1 5 Higuera 4 0 9,275 0.39 3.01 Nipomo to Marsh
2 NR Monterey 3 0 12,441 0.28 2.39 California to Grand
3 2 California 3 1 17,509 0.28 1.66 Foothill to Hathway
4 NR Foothill 3 0 17,227 0.30 1.61 SantaRosa to California
5 8 Los Osos Valley 10 1 30,988 0.59 1.50 Froom to Calle Joaquin
6 NR Madonna 6 1 16,772 0.50 1.96 SB Hwy 101 to Higuera
7 NR Marsh 3 0 10,994 0.52 1.44 Hwy 101 to Broa
8 NR Broad 3 0 22,944 0.39 0.92 Tank Farm to Fuller
9 NR Higuera 5 1 16,384 0.98 0.85 Madonna to Margarita
NR = Not Ranked
Rate = Collision frequency per million vehicle-miles traveled along segment
Packet Pg. 259
11
362016 Traffic Safety Report
September 2016
Arterial Segments Recommendations
Rank Segment Collisions Volume
Seg.
Length
(mi.)
Rate Location
1 Higuera 4 9,275 0.39 3.01 Nipomo to Marsh
Pattern: No discernable pattern.
Recommendation: Continue to monitor in 2017.
2 Monterey 3 12,441 0.28 2.39 California to Grand
Pattern: No discernable pattern.
Recommendation: Continue to monitor in 2017.
3 California 3 17,509 0.28 1.66 Foothill to Hathway
Pattern: No discernable pattern.
Recommendation: Continue to monitor in 2017.
4 Foothill 3 17,227 0.30 1.61 SantaRosa to California
PatternVehicles coming from 1050 Foothill (The SLO Student Living) driveway causing collisions on
Foothill.
Recommendation: Coordinate with The SLO Student Living facility to move their sign to the other side of
the driveway to improve sight distance of westbound traffic. Continue to monitor in 2017.
5 Los Osos Valley 10 30,988 .59 1.5 Froom to Calle Joaquin
Pattern: Collisions result of general traffic congestion including rear ends, merging violations, and cars
attempting to exit private driveways.
Recommendation: Several factors should begin to alleviate some of this congestion. The interchange
widening has already decreased congestion along this corridor. Recent striping changes should slow
traffic and provide more clear lane assignments. The Prado interchange in the City Master Plan will also
alleviate congestion in the long term. Continue to monitor in 2017.
Packet Pg. 260
11
372016 Traffic Safety Report
September 2016
High Collision Rate Locations – Collector Segments
There were no High Collision Rate Locations for Collectors
Packet Pg. 261
11
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
Tank Farm Rd
B
r
o
a
d
S
t
J
o
h
n
s
o
n
A
v
e
Madonna Rd
Foothill Blvd
S
a
n
t
a
R
o
s
a
S
t
C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
B
l
v
d
Monterey StS Higuera StChorro StLo
s
O
s
o
s
V
a
l
l
e
y
R
d
Laurel LnOr
c
u
t
t
R
d
South St
£¤101
High St
OceanaireHiguera StMarsh StO
s
o
s
S
tMill StMontalbanBroad StGrand AvePalm StC
h
o
r
r
o
Industrial
OliveSanta
Ro
sa
VachellS Higuera StBridge
M
o
r
r
o
B
r
o
a
d
N
i
p
o
m
o
Walnut
Calle Joaquin5
4
1
3
2
1
5
4
3
2
5
4
3
2
1
5
4
3
2
1
5
4 3
21
FIGURE 42016 HIGH COLLISION INTERSECTION LOCATIONS
2016 Traffic Safety Report
O
Note: Only top five ranked locations shown for each intersection type.
!(Arterial/Arterial Intersection
!(Arterial/Collector Intersection
!(Arterial/Local Intersection
!(Collector/Collector Intersection (0 in 2016)
Collector/Local Intersection (0 in 2016)
!(Pedestrian Collision Intersection
!(Bicycle Collision Intersection
Legend
Intersection Ranking#
!(
Packet Pg. 262
11
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
Tank Farm Rd
B
r
o
a
d
S
t
J
o
h
n
s
o
n
A
v
e
Madonna Rd
Foothill Blvd
S
a
n
t
a
R
o
s
a
S
t
C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
B
l
v
d
Monterey StS Higuera StChorro StLo
s
O
s
o
s
V
a
l
l
e
y
R
d
Laurel LnOr
c
u
t
t
R
d
South St
£¤101
High St
OceanaireHiguera StMarsh StO
s
o
s
S
tMill StMontalbanBroad StGrand AvePalm StC
h
o
r
r
o
Industrial
OliveSanta
Ro
sa
VachellS Higuera StBridge
M
o
r
r
o
B
r
o
a
d
N
i
p
o
m
o
Walnut
Calle Joaquin5
4
1
3
2
1
5
4
3
2
5
4
3
2
1
5
4
3
2
1
5
4 3
21
FIGURE 42016 HIGH COLLISION INTERSECTION LOCATIONS
2016 Traffic Safety Report
O
Note: Only top five ranked locations shown for each intersection type.
!(Arterial/Arterial Intersection
!(Arterial/Collector Intersection
!(Arterial/Local Intersection
!(Collector/Collector Intersection (0 in 2016)
Collector/Local Intersection (0 in 2016)
!(Pedestrian Collision Intersection
!(Bicycle Collision Intersection
Legend
Intersection Ranking#
!(
Packet Pg. 263
11
Tank Farm Rd
B
r
o
a
d
S
t
J
o
h
n
s
o
n
A
v
e
Madonna RdS Higuera StFoothill Blvd
S
a
n
t
a
R
o
s
a
S
t
Ca
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
B
l
v
d
Monterey StS Higuera StChorro StL
o
s
O
s
o
s
V
a
l
l
e
y
R
d Laurel LnC
h
o
r
r
o
S
t
Margarita
Br
o
a
d
S
tHigueraMarsh
FIGURE 52016 HIGH COLLISION RATE ROADWAY SEGMENTS
2016 Traffic Safety Report
O Legend
Roadway Segment Collisions
High Collision Rate Arterial Segments(> 0.85 collisions per million vehicle miles traveled)
!(
High Collision Rate Arterial Segments (Top 5 Ranked)(> 1.5 collisions per million vehicle miles traveled)
Packet Pg. 264
11
APPENDIX A
Collision Analysis Methodology
Packet Pg. 265
11
Study Methodology
Collision Data
Reported traffic collisions obtained by the City of San Luis Obispo Police Department
are the basis used by the City Traffic Engineering group to evaluate traffic safety1.
Collisions totals are obtained for each intersection and roadway segment within the
City and entered into the City’s traffic collision database. Collisions occurring on private
property or outside of the City Limits are not included in the dataset. Collision locations
are then grouped by intersection type (i.e. arterial-arterial, arterial-collector, collector-
collector, etc.) and street segment. For locations with at least three (3) total collisions
in the past year or at least three (3) bicycle or pedestrian collisions in the previous five-
year period, collision rates are calculated and collision diagrams are generated.
Based on the collision patterns for the five highest ranked intersections and roadway
segments, as ranked based on collision rate, mitigation measures are formulated
where a collision pattern can be identified. Mitigation measures for these sub-
categories will be implemented in as projects are designed and funding becomes
available.
Traffic Volumes
Vehicle and pedestrian volumes play an important role in calculating collision
rates for selected locations within the City. Vehicle volume counts were collected
in 2014 as a basis to establish actual conditions in the field environment. Where
volume counts were not available, volumes were estimated based on previous
experience and engineering judgment.
Collision Rate Calculations
Collision rates were calculated using the following formulas:
Intersections: Segments:
RI = N X 1,000,000 RS = N X 1,000,000
V X 365 365 X V X L
1 It is important to note that the data contained within the Public Works Traffic Collision Database may
vary from other sources of collision data such as the California - Statewide Integrated Traffic Records
System (SWITRS) or the City’s Emergency Dispatch Records System. While SWITRS data is similarly
derived from official police collision reports, many times the reports are coded incorrectly due to
jurisdictional boundary issues and/or agency reporting inaccuracies. Likewise, City emergency
dispatch may receive a call regarding a traffic collision but when the dispatched officer arrives, the
vehicles have been moved on or there is no evidence of occurrence. Therefore, statistics derived
from this data may be inaccurate for engineering purposes because no official proof or record exists
of the actual collision type.
Packet Pg. 266
11
Where:
RI = Intersection Collision Rate = Collision frequency per million vehicles
entering the intersection.
RS = Segment Collision Rate = Collision frequency per million vehicle
miles traveled along the segment.
N = Number of collisions (collision frequency) of the location.
V = Average daily vehicular volume using the street segment or
intersection.
L = Length of street segment (in miles) being analyzed.
For high-rate bicycle and pedestrian collision locations, collision rates were
calculated as follows:
Pedestrians: Bicycles:
PREV = 5 X N X PHVV BEV = 5 X N X PHVV
PHPV PHBV
Where:
PREV = Pedestrian relative exposure value.
PREV = Bicycle relative exposure value.
N = Number of collisions (5-year collision frequency) of the location.
PHVV = Average peak hour vehicular volume.
PHPV = Average peak hour pedestrian volume.
PHBV = Average peak hour bicycle volume.
The pedestrian and bicycle relative exposure value formula is derived from the
traditional collision rate calculation, however it factors the volume of either the
bicycle or pedestrian with that of vehicles at a given location.
Packet Pg. 267
11
APPENDIX B
2016 Collision Diagrams
Packet Pg. 268
11
Pedestrian Intersections
Packet Pg. 269
11
SANTA ROSA & FOOTHILL
2012 - 2016
5 Crashes Pedestrian Intersection
[121121049][130205031][141206081][150623044]
[160624030]
(0) crashes could not be placed in this schematic
Straight
Stopped
Unknown
Backing
Overtaking
Sideswipe
Parked
Erratic
Out of control
Right turn
Left turn
U-turn
Pedestrian
Bicycle
Injury
Fatality
Nighttime
DUI
Fixed objects:
General Pole
Signal Curb
Tree Animal
3rd vehicle
Extra data
Pd' Programming, Inc. 1/17/2018
Crash Magic Online
Packet Pg. 270
11
SANTA ROSA & MONTALBAN (1)
2012 - 2016
3 Crashes Pedestrian Intersection
[160322044]
[160523034][160705078](0) crashes could not be placed in this schematic
Straight
Stopped
Unknown
Backing
Overtaking
Sideswipe
Parked
Erratic
Out of control
Right turn
Left turn
U-turn
Pedestrian
Bicycle
Injury
Fatality
Nighttime
DUI
Fixed objects:
General Pole
Signal Curb
Tree Animal
3rd vehicle
Extra data
Pd' Programming, Inc. 1/17/2018
Crash Magic Online
Packet Pg. 271
11
SANTA ROSA & MONTEREY (1)
2012 - 2016
5 Crashes Pedestrian Intersection
[120119061]
[130208016]
[150503059]
[160119018]
[160323058]
(0) crashes could not be placed in this schematic
Straight
Stopped
Unknown
Backing
Overtaking
Sideswipe
Parked
Erratic
Out of control
Right turn
Left turn
U-turn
Pedestrian
Bicycle
Injury
Fatality
Nighttime
DUI
Fixed objects:
General Pole
Signal Curb
Tree Animal
3rd vehicle
Extra data
Pd' Programming, Inc. 1/17/2018
Crash Magic Online
Packet Pg. 272
11
SANTA ROSA & OLIVE
2012 - 2016
4 Crashes Pedestrian Intersection
[130913058]
[140320027]
[151023057]
[151211082]
(0) crashes could not be placed in this schematic
Straight
Stopped
Unknown
Backing
Overtaking
Sideswipe
Parked
Erratic
Out of control
Right turn
Left turn
U-turn
Pedestrian
Bicycle
Injury
Fatality
Nighttime
DUI
Fixed objects:
General Pole
Signal Curb
Tree Animal
3rd vehicle
Extra data
Pd' Programming, Inc. 1/17/2018
Crash Magic Online
Packet Pg. 273
11
SANTA ROSA & WALNUT
2012 - 2016
4 Crashes Pedestrian Intersection
[121213009]
[140312026]
[141209011][150714029](0) crashes could not be placed in this schematic
Straight
Stopped
Unknown
Backing
Overtaking
Sideswipe
Parked
Erratic
Out of control
Right turn
Left turn
U-turn
Pedestrian
Bicycle
Injury
Fatality
Nighttime
DUI
Fixed objects:
General Pole
Signal Curb
Tree Animal
3rd vehicle
Extra data
Pd' Programming, Inc. 1/17/2018
Crash Magic Online
Packet Pg. 274
11
Bicycle Intersections
Packet Pg. 275
11
BROAD & SOUTH
2012 - 2016
2 Crashes Bicyclist at Intersection
[140707059][161230027](0) crashes could not be placed in this schematic
Straight
Stopped
Unknown
Backing
Overtaking
Sideswipe
Parked
Erratic
Out of control
Right turn
Left turn
U-turn
Pedestrian
Bicycle
Injury
Fatality
Nighttime
DUI
Fixed objects:
General Pole
Signal Curb
Tree Animal
3rd vehicle
Extra data
Pd' Programming, Inc. 1/17/2018
Crash Magic Online
Packet Pg. 276
11
CALIFORNIA & 101 N/B ON/OFF RAMP
2012 - 2016
5 Crashes Bicyclist at Intersection
[130124051][140710018][141107025][150121040][151012016](0) crashes could not be placed in this schematic
Straight
Stopped
Unknown
Backing
Overtaking
Sideswipe
Parked
Erratic
Out of control
Right turn
Left turn
U-turn
Pedestrian
Bicycle
Injury
Fatality
Nighttime
DUI
Fixed objects:
General Pole
Signal Curb
Tree Animal
3rd vehicle
Extra data
Pd' Programming, Inc. 1/17/2018
Crash Magic Online
Packet Pg. 277
11
CALIFORNIA & MONTEREY
2012 - 2016
7 Crashes Bicyclist at Intersection
[130528068][130911013][140117049][150205021][151015057][160329016][160413081](0) crashes could not be placed in this schematic
Straight
Stopped
Unknown
Backing
Overtaking
Sideswipe
Parked
Erratic
Out of control
Right turn
Left turn
U-turn
Pedestrian
Bicycle
Injury
Fatality
Nighttime
DUI
Fixed objects:
General Pole
Signal Curb
Tree Animal
3rd vehicle
Extra data
Pd' Programming, Inc. 1/17/2018
Crash Magic Online
Packet Pg. 278
11
SANTA ROSA & FOOTHILL
2012 - 2016
7 Crashes Bicyclist at Intersection
[121213062][130921069]
[140411033][140902061][150129089][150613067][151130051]
(0) crashes could not be placed in this schematic
Straight
Stopped
Unknown
Backing
Overtaking
Sideswipe
Parked
Erratic
Out of control
Right turn
Left turn
U-turn
Pedestrian
Bicycle
Injury
Fatality
Nighttime
DUI
Fixed objects:
General Pole
Signal Curb
Tree Animal
3rd vehicle
Extra data
Pd' Programming, Inc. 1/17/2018
Crash Magic Online
Packet Pg. 279
11
SANTA ROSA & OLIVE
2012 - 2016
5 Crashes Bicyclist at Intersection
[120814056][120925012][130705043][130924026][151013031](0) crashes could not be placed in this schematic
Straight
Stopped
Unknown
Backing
Overtaking
Sideswipe
Parked
Erratic
Out of control
Right turn
Left turn
U-turn
Pedestrian
Bicycle
Injury
Fatality
Nighttime
DUI
Fixed objects:
General Pole
Signal Curb
Tree Animal
3rd vehicle
Extra data
Pd' Programming, Inc. 1/17/2018
Crash Magic Online
Packet Pg. 280
11
Arterial/Arterial Intersections
Packet Pg. 281
11
BROAD & HIGUERA
2016
4 Crashes Within 75 ft from Intersection
[160131031][160309009][160607050][160713090]
(0) crashes could not be placed in this schematic
Straight
Stopped
Unknown
Backing
Overtaking
Sideswipe
Parked
Erratic
Out of control
Right turn
Left turn
U-turn
Pedestrian
Bicycle
Injury
Fatality
Nighttime
DUI
Fixed objects:
General Pole
Signal Curb
Tree Animal
3rd vehicle
Extra data
Pd' Programming, Inc. 1/19/2018
Crash Magic Online
Packet Pg. 282
11
CHORRO & HIGUERA
2016
4 Crashes Within 75 ft from Intersection
[160120009]
[160505061]
[160806018]
[160808039]
(0) crashes could not be placed in this schematic
Straight
Stopped
Unknown
Backing
Overtaking
Sideswipe
Parked
Erratic
Out of control
Right turn
Left turn
U-turn
Pedestrian
Bicycle
Injury
Fatality
Nighttime
DUI
Fixed objects:
General Pole
Signal Curb
Tree Animal
3rd vehicle
Extra data
Pd' Programming, Inc. 1/19/2018
Crash Magic Online
Packet Pg. 283
11
MARSH & NIPOMO
2016
4 Crashes Within 75 ft from Intersection
[160106055]
[160319058]
[160920011][161228043](0) crashes could not be placed in this schematic
Straight
Stopped
Unknown
Backing
Overtaking
Sideswipe
Parked
Erratic
Out of control
Right turn
Left turn
U-turn
Pedestrian
Bicycle
Injury
Fatality
Nighttime
DUI
Fixed objects:
General Pole
Signal Curb
Tree Animal
3rd vehicle
Extra data
Pd' Programming, Inc. 1/19/2018
Crash Magic Online
Packet Pg. 284
11
HIGUERA & NIPOMO
2016
3 Crashes Within 75 ft from Intersection
[160130043][160216038]
[160502050]
(0) crashes could not be placed in this schematic
Straight
Stopped
Unknown
Backing
Overtaking
Sideswipe
Parked
Erratic
Out of control
Right turn
Left turn
U-turn
Pedestrian
Bicycle
Injury
Fatality
Nighttime
DUI
Fixed objects:
General Pole
Signal Curb
Tree Animal
3rd vehicle
Extra data
Pd' Programming, Inc. 1/19/2018
Crash Magic Online
Packet Pg. 285
11
Santa Rosa & Monterey
2016
6 Crashes Within 75 ft from Intersection
[160119018]
[160207013]
[160323058]
[160430078][160524042][160906021](0) crashes could not be placed in this schematic
Straight
Stopped
Unknown
Backing
Overtaking
Sideswipe
Parked
Erratic
Out of control
Right turn
Left turn
U-turn
Pedestrian
Bicycle
Injury
Fatality
Nighttime
DUI
Fixed objects:
General Pole
Signal Curb
Tree Animal
3rd vehicle
Extra data
Pd' Programming, Inc. 1/19/2018
Crash Magic Online
Packet Pg. 286
11
Arterial/Collector Intersections
Packet Pg. 287
11
HIGUERA & HIGH
2016
4 Crashes Within 75 ft from Intersection
[160129099][160216067][160504052][160823056](0) crashes could not be placed in this schematic
Straight
Stopped
Unknown
Backing
Overtaking
Sideswipe
Parked
Erratic
Out of control
Right turn
Left turn
U-turn
Pedestrian
Bicycle
Injury
Fatality
Nighttime
DUI
Fixed objects:
General Pole
Signal Curb
Tree Animal
3rd vehicle
Extra data
Pd' Programming, Inc. 1/19/2018
Crash Magic Online
Packet Pg. 288
11
FOOTHILL & BROAD
2016
5 Crashes Within 75 ft from Intersection
[160227095]
[160314071]
[160522052]
[161013031]
[161103029]
(0) crashes could not be placed in this schematic
Straight
Stopped
Unknown
Backing
Overtaking
Sideswipe
Parked
Erratic
Out of control
Right turn
Left turn
U-turn
Pedestrian
Bicycle
Injury
Fatality
Nighttime
DUI
Fixed objects:
General Pole
Signal Curb
Tree Animal
3rd vehicle
Extra data
Pd' Programming, Inc. 1/19/2018
Crash Magic Online
Packet Pg. 289
11
MADONNA & OCEANAIRE
2016
4 Crashes Within 75 ft from Intersection
[160123019][160417020][160420079]
[161213087]
(0) crashes could not be placed in this schematic
Straight
Stopped
Unknown
Backing
Overtaking
Sideswipe
Parked
Erratic
Out of control
Right turn
Left turn
U-turn
Pedestrian
Bicycle
Injury
Fatality
Nighttime
DUI
Fixed objects:
General Pole
Signal Curb
Tree Animal
3rd vehicle
Extra data
Pd' Programming, Inc. 1/19/2018
Crash Magic Online
Packet Pg. 290
11
BROAD & INDUSTRIAL
2016
5 Crashes Within 75 ft from Intersection
[160138032][160305047][160711068][160727062][160819048](0) crashes could not be placed in this schematic
Straight
Stopped
Unknown
Backing
Overtaking
Sideswipe
Parked
Erratic
Out of control
Right turn
Left turn
U-turn
Pedestrian
Bicycle
Injury
Fatality
Nighttime
DUI
Fixed objects:
General Pole
Signal Curb
Tree Animal
3rd vehicle
Extra data
Pd' Programming, Inc. 1/19/2018
Crash Magic Online
Packet Pg. 291
11
SANTA ROSA & MILL
2016
3 Crashes Within 75 ft from Intersection
[160106021][160203033][161103090](0) crashes could not be placed in this schematic
Straight
Stopped
Unknown
Backing
Overtaking
Sideswipe
Parked
Erratic
Out of control
Right turn
Left turn
U-turn
Pedestrian
Bicycle
Injury
Fatality
Nighttime
DUI
Fixed objects:
General Pole
Signal Curb
Tree Animal
3rd vehicle
Extra data
Pd' Programming, Inc. 1/19/2018
Crash Magic Online
Packet Pg. 292
11
Arterial/Local Intersections
Packet Pg. 293
11
MARSH & TORO
2016
3 Crashes Within 75 ft from Intersection
[160227078]
[160827054]
[160906068]
(0) crashes could not be placed in this schematic
Straight
Stopped
Unknown
Backing
Overtaking
Sideswipe
Parked
Erratic
Out of control
Right turn
Left turn
U-turn
Pedestrian
Bicycle
Injury
Fatality
Nighttime
DUI
Fixed objects:
General Pole
Signal Curb
Tree Animal
3rd vehicle
Extra data
Pd' Programming, Inc. 1/19/2018
Crash Magic Online
Packet Pg. 294
11
HIGUERA & MORRO
2016
4 Crashes Within 75 ft from Intersection
[160327033][160509043][160916034][160917046]
(0) crashes could not be placed in this schematic
Straight
Stopped
Unknown
Backing
Overtaking
Sideswipe
Parked
Erratic
Out of control
Right turn
Left turn
U-turn
Pedestrian
Bicycle
Injury
Fatality
Nighttime
DUI
Fixed objects:
General Pole
Signal Curb
Tree Animal
3rd vehicle
Extra data
Pd' Programming, Inc. 1/19/2018
Crash Magic Online
Packet Pg. 295
11
HIGUERA & BRIDGE
2016
4 Crashes Within 75 ft from Intersection
[160303066][160303071][160422056][161208016](0) crashes could not be placed in this schematic
Straight
Stopped
Unknown
Backing
Overtaking
Sideswipe
Parked
Erratic
Out of control
Right turn
Left turn
U-turn
Pedestrian
Bicycle
Injury
Fatality
Nighttime
DUI
Fixed objects:
General Pole
Signal Curb
Tree Animal
3rd vehicle
Extra data
Pd' Programming, Inc. 1/19/2018
Crash Magic Online
Packet Pg. 296
11
HIGUERA & VACHELL
2016
5 Crashes Within 75 ft from Intersection
[160201056]
[160209060]
[160712011][160724043][160921028](0) crashes could not be placed in this schematic
Straight
Stopped
Unknown
Backing
Overtaking
Sideswipe
Parked
Erratic
Out of control
Right turn
Left turn
U-turn
Pedestrian
Bicycle
Injury
Fatality
Nighttime
DUI
Fixed objects:
General Pole
Signal Curb
Tree Animal
3rd vehicle
Extra data
Pd' Programming, Inc. 1/19/2018
Crash Magic Online
Packet Pg. 297
11
LOS OSOS VALLEY & CALLE JOAQUIN
2016
4 Crashes Within 75 ft from Intersection
[160116021]
[160921051]
[161023046]
[161027072]
(0) crashes could not be placed in this schematic
Straight
Stopped
Unknown
Backing
Overtaking
Sideswipe
Parked
Erratic
Out of control
Right turn
Left turn
U-turn
Pedestrian
Bicycle
Injury
Fatality
Nighttime
DUI
Fixed objects:
General Pole
Signal Curb
Tree Animal
3rd vehicle
Extra data
Pd' Programming, Inc. 1/19/2018
Crash Magic Online
Packet Pg. 298
11
Meeting Date: 2/6/2018
FROM: Daryl R. Grigsby, Director of Public Works
Prepared By: Jake Hudson, Transportation Manager
Luke Schwartz, Transportation Planner-Engineer
SUBJECT: BROAD STREET BICYCLE BOULEVARD (ANHOLM BIKEWAY) PLAN
RECOMMENDATION
As recommended by the Bicyc le Advisory Committee, adopt a resolution approving the Anholm
Bikeway Plan Preferred Alternative, as defined in Attachment B.
REPORT-IN-BRIEF
P lanning efforts for the Broad Street Bicycle Boulevard project have progressed with the goal of
developing a safe, low-stress priority route for bicyclists and pedestrians connecting the City’s
Downtown Core to Foothill Boulevard. The corridor also serves as a key safe route to school
corridor for Pacheco and Bishop’s Peak elementary schools. The intent of this effort is to provide
a route that is attractive to not only experienced cyclists, but users of all ages and ability levels.
Based on a two-year process of community engagement and extensive technical analysis, staff
has developed final recommendations for the plan. As directed by the City Council at its August
15, 2017 Study Session, two distinct alternatives have been developed for the most challenging
portion of this route–the segment between Lincoln Street and Foothill Boulevard. Each of the
two proposed alternatives include unique benefits and trade-offs, and varying levels of support
and opposition from the community.
At its August 15, 2017 Study Session, Council directed staff to develop a primary alternative that
provided additional separation for bicyclists by looking at partial on-street parking space
removal. This primary alternative—referred to as the Preferred Alternative—includes installation
of protected/buffered bike lanes along the majority of the route connecting Downtown and
Foothill Boulevard, with the tradeoff of removal of 73 on-street parking spaces. The Lincoln
Street Alternative, a secondary option presented for consideration at the request of the Council,
includes a shared route with pavement markings, route signage and minor traffic calming to
convey the bikeway route. Minimal parking loss is required for the Lincoln Alternative, with the
tradeoff of a less desirable route with lower potential to attract new cyclists and increase bicycle
mode share.
The Bicycle Advisory Committee reviewed the Anholm Bikeway Plan alternatives on January
18, 2018 and has recommended the Preferred Alternative to the City Council for approval.
Council will receive full presentation of each plan along with the pros and cons of each
alternative. Council is asked to consider the technical analysis presented in each plan, and
community input for each alternative, and adopt a final plan to carry forward into design and
implementation. This project supports several key City programs and policies, including t he
Packet Pg. 299
12
Multimodal Transportation Major City Goal, the General Plan objective to achieve 20 percent
bicycle mode share citywide, Climate Action Plan recommendation to increase bicycle use for
transportation, and Vision Zero initiative to eliminate traffic-related deaths and severe injuries
for all the city’s road users by 2030.
DISCUSSION
Background
The Broad Street Bicycle Boulevard has been a component of the City’s Bicycle Transportation
plans since 2007, with the goal of providing a low-stress, priority route for bicyclists and
pedestrians connecting the Downtown Core to Foothill Boulevard. For bicyclists, a “low-stress”
route minimizes stressful factors such as difficult terrain, gaps in connectivity, and most
importantly, perceived safety concerns about conflicts with high-speed/volume motor vehicle
traffic. Simply put, a low-stress route is a connection that is attractive to users of all ages and
ability levels, from families with young children to less-experienced adult cyclists who may be
intimidated sharing the street with vehicular traffic under current conditions. Additionally, the
proposed multimodal corridor serves a dual purpose as a safe routes to school connection for
Pacheco and Bishop’s Peak elementary schools. This project is established as a “first priority”
bike project in the 2013 Bicycle Transportation Plan and supports several City programs and
policies, including the Multimodal Transportation Major City Goal, the General Plan objective to
achieve 20 percent bicycle mode share citywide, Climate Action Plan, and Vision Zero initiative
to eliminate traffic-related deaths and severe injuries for all the city’s road users by 2030.
Development of this plan began approximately two years ago as part of the 2015 -17 Financial
Plan, and progress has accelerated after adoption of the 2017-19 Financial Plan when the Broad
Street Boulevard project was identified as one of the top priorities in Multimodal Major City
Goal. Over this time, numerous iterations of plan concepts evolved and were focused into a
series of alternatives through several public workshops, community design charrettes, online
forums, and community surveys. Through this public feedback, four themes emerged which were
reflected in the various alternatives. Those four themes, in no particular order, are:
1. The desire for physical separation from motor vehicle traffic—protected lanes;
2. The desire to have the improvements follow the route most cyclists are currently using ,
avoiding difficult topography and circuitous routing (i.e. follow existing Desire Lines1);
3. The request to not disrupt or substantially change vehicle flows; and
4. The wish to avoid removal of on-street parking.
In August of 2017, Staff presented preliminary design options to the Bicycle Advisory
Committee (BAC) and City Council to receive direction o n narrowing the range of options and
focusing further plan development on one or two alternatives to be brought back before the BAC
and City Council for final action. Council directed staff to continue development of an
1 In transportation planning, desire lines refer to paths created by pedestrians or bicyclists to follow the shortest or
most easily navigated route between origin and destination—often as a shortcut to a more circuitous, or inefficient
designated route. An example would be a dirt footpath worn across a field, created over time by pedestrians or
bicyclists, bypassing a more circuitous paved trail in lieu of a shorter path.
Packet Pg. 300
12
alternative that included protected bike lanes in exchange for on-street parking on one-side of the
street , with a more in-depth analysis of the associated on-street parking loss. Council also
directed staff to continue development of a secondary alternative following Lincoln Street, which
required minimal parking loss. Staff has completed this work and is now prepared for Council
consideration of final adoption.
Although this planning effort continues to be called the “Broad Street Bicycle Boulevard Plan”,
City staff is recommending that the actual plan document be titled “Anholm Bikeway Plan”
because neither option is technically a bicycle boulevard , nor is it established exclusively on
Broad Street. “Anholm Bikeway Plan” is a working title and will be used herein to refer to the
project; however, staff welcomes any recommendations of alternative titles to the plan. Other
common terms used to describe streets that are intended to provide equal priority for bikes,
pedestrians, transit , automobiles and neighborhood livability are sometimes call “neighborhood
greenways”. Whatever the term that is being used, the intent is to promote all modes and
provide equal access and use.
The Plan
Consistent with Council direction, two alternative plans are being presented for the Northern
Segment of the proposed corridor (Lincoln Street to Foothill Boulevard). These alternatives are:
1. Preferred Alternative (Protected Bike Lanes) – Converts one side of on-street parking to
protected or buffered bike lanes, with a route alignme nt following Chorro, Mission,
Broad, and Ramona.
2. Lincoln Street Alternative (Minimal Parking Loss) – Retains a shared street configuration
where bicyclists and drivers share travel lanes, with a route alignment following Lincoln,
Mission, Broad and Ramona.
Two stand-alone Anholm Bikeway Plan documents have been prepared—one for the Preferred
Alternative, and one for the Lincoln Street Alternative. These documents, which include detailed
project descriptions, conceptual design drawings, analysis of benefits and trade-offs, proposed
costs and implementation strategies, are provided for review as Attachment B and Attachment E.
Each Northern Segment alternative, as well as recommendations for the Southern Segment
(Downtown to Lincoln Street) are summarized below.
Northern Segment – Preferred Alternative (Protected Bike Lanes)
The Preferred Alternative is described in detail in Attachment B.
The Preferred Alternative, as requested by the City Council for further refinement and study
during the August 2017 Counc il Study Session, proposes conversion of one side of on-street
parking to dedicated protected/buffered bike lanes along Chorro Street, Broad Street and
Ramona Drive. The proposed corridor includes a two-way protected bikeway on the west side of
Chorro (Lincoln to Mission), shared mixed-flow lanes along the low-traffic portion of Mission
(Chorro to Broad), a southbound buffered/protected bike lane and northbound shared lane on
Broad (Mission to Ramona), a two-way protected bikeway on the north side of Ramona (Broad
to Safe Routes to School Path), and construction of the planned Safe Routes to School
Bicycle/Pedestrian Path connecting Ramona to the planned bicycle/pedestrian crossing at the
Packet Pg. 301
12
Foothill/Ferrini intersection. Enhanced route signage and pavement markings are proposed
throughout the corridor for wayfinding purposes and to increase the visibility of the corridor as a
priority multimodal route.
The Preferred Alternative makes over 80 percent of the 1.3 -mile trip between Downtown and
Foothill Boulevard possible via physically protected or buffered bike lanes—the type of facilities
that are attractive to cyclists of all ages and ability levels. For this reason, this alternative is
expected to have the greatest potential to increase bicycle mode share. The primary tradeoff with
this alternative is the loss of 73 on-street parking spaces along the route, which is the chief
shared concern of neighborhood residents. To better understand the potential effects of this
parking loss on the neighborhood, parking data was collected throughout the vicinity of the
proposed bikeway during fall of 2017. Findings of the parking study are summarized in Table 1.
Table 1: Peak Period On-Street Parking Conditions with and without Project
It should be noted that this parking analysis does not reflect the recently approved, but not yet
occupied, multifamily residential developments at 22 Chorro and 41 Palomar. As approved,
these projects were found to include on-site parking consistent with City requirements, including
an allowed parking reduction for mixed-use development and for incorporating auto trip
reduction measures, such as increased bicycle parking and other amenities to encourage use of
alternative transportation modes. The proposed implementation and monitoring pla n for the
Anholm Bikeway strategically delays removal of street parking fronting residential properties
along Broad and Chorro Streets until a later project phase to allow for monitoring of parking
conditions after occupancy of these development projects. As discussed further below, formation
of a residential permit parking district would be an appropriate strategy to address concerns of
potential parking spillover from these developments into nearby neighborhood streets—
particularly considering that multifamily residential properties are not eligible to receive permits
for street parking within parking districts.
With the reduction in on-street parking supply associated with the proposed bikeway project ,
street parking is anticipated to be scarce during peak periods along certain segments of Chorro,
Broad and Ramona. For segments where peak parking demand nears or exceeds available
supply, there is generally available street parking within one-to-two blocks (about a 1- to 3-
minute walk). Some residents who favor parking on street out of convenience may simply park
in their garage or driveway more frequently if parking on street becomes difficult to find.
(Informal observations during parking data collection found that 30 -40 percent of residential
driveways were vacant along Chorro and Broad Streets during peak periods). Other residents
living in homes with high auto ownership and/or with limited off-street garage/driveway parking
Packet Pg. 302
12
will likely continue to rely on street parking and may need to walk 1 -2 blocks at times of peak
demand to find available parking nearby. It’s important to acknowledge that under either
circumstance, some residents consider the lack of readily-available on-street parking fronting
their home as an unacceptable hardship in exchange for improved bicycle facilities.
While there are no adopted plans or policies that obligate the City to provide street parking for
private vehicles, staff is sensitive to the concerns of the neighborhood and have outlined the
following po tential strategies in the Anholm Bikeway Plan to address parking concerns:
• Residential Parking District – If the Council moves forward with the Preferred
Alternative, it is recommended that the City initiate the process to form a parking
district (s) in the Anholm neighborhood. Actual boundaries of the district will be
determined as part of this process and will require a 60% vote of support from
households and Council Approval. There is a limit of two permits per residents at a cost
of $15 per permit. The initial $15 permit fee for all is proposed to be funded by the
project at no cost to the neighborhood, any subsequent permit fees would be subject to
the standard provisions of the parking residential parking district program.
• Accessible On-Street Parking – The plan retains on-street parking on at least one side of
the street for the length of the route. On a case-by-case basis, residents can request
installation of designated ADA accessible on-street parking stalls along segments of the
proposed bike route where parking remova l is proposed.
• Phasing/Monitoring Strategies – The project is proposed to be constructed in three
phases with a one-year monitoring period and a subsequent performance report that will
be presented to Council. The phasing plan allows for parking removal t o occur
incrementally and provides time for initiation a parking district prior to removal of street
parking along Broad and Chorro, if supported by residents. In addition, t he initial
installation of protected bike lanes will be made with temporary device s that could easily
be modified/removed and parking restored if the Council Directed staff to do so. Lastly,
the phased approach allows for monitoring and adjustments to project designs and the
possibility of spillover parking from the 71 Palomar and 22 Chorro projects.
Although the Anholm Bikeway Plan is primarily a bicycle project, several other features are
proposed along the Northern Segment to improve safety and mobility for pedestrians, including:
• Installation of speed cushions along Broad between M ission and Ramona to calm traffic
and reduce auto speeds to a level conducive to a walkable, bikeable environment.
• Construction of a raised intersection at Broad/Murray to calm traffic and improve the
intersection crossing environment for pedestrians and bicycles.
• Installation of additional street lighting along the proposed bikeway route.
• Construction of corner bulbouts at Broad/Ramona/Meinecke, new sidewalks along west
side of Broad, installation of accessible curb ramps and higher -visibility crosswalk
markings at several intersections to improve pedestrian accessibility and safety along the
proposed route.
The primary elements of the Preferred Alternative are illustrated in Figure 1.
Packet Pg. 303
12
Figure 1: Northern Segment Summary Map – Preferred Alternative (Protected Bike Lanes) Packet Pg. 30412
Northern Segment – Lincoln Street Alternative (Minimal Parking Loss)
The Lincoln Street Alternative is described in detail in Attachment E.
The Lincoln Street Alternative was requested by the City Council for consideration as a
secondary option if the parking loss proposed in the Preferred Alternative is determined to be too
impactful to the neighborhood. This alternative retains a shared street environment throughout
the Northern Segment, where bicyclists and motorists share travel lanes , albeit with the addition
of guide signage, bikeway pavement markings and minor traffic calming measures. The
proposed route alignment follows Lincoln Street (Chorro to Mission), Mission (Lincoln to
Broad), Broad (Mission to Ramona), Ramona (Broad to Safe Routes to School Path), and
construction of the planned Safe Routes to School Bicycle/Pedestrian Path connecting Ramona
to the planned bicycle/pedestrian crossing at the Foothill/Ferrini intersection. This alternative
requires elimination of less than 10 on-street parking spaces—strictly at corners where bulbouts
are proposed to improve pedestrian crossings, and on Ramona at the entry to the planned Safe
Routes to School Path.
While the Lincoln Alternative requires minimal loss of on-street parking, it has the tradeoff of
having less potential to increase bicycle mode share. Lincoln Street is already a superior cycling
environment over Chorro & Broad Street ; however, only 12 percent of the approximately 300
daily cyclists that travel between Downtown and Foothill currently choose Lincoln over Broad &
Chorro Streets—mainly due to the route being longer and more circuitous. Pedestrians and
bicyclists using the streets for transportation as opposed to leisure will most commonly choose
the shortest and most int uitive path over a path with an improved environment, even when the
distance or time difference is minor. In addition to this, the Broad Street and Ramona Drive
portions of the proposed bikeway route will continue to carry traffic volumes that exceed the
t hreshold s generally recommended for shared bicycle streets. Implementation of additional
traffic calming will provide some benefits to cycling along these streets, but the frequent
conflicts with passing autos will likely continue to deter many less experienced riders.
The Lincoln Street Alternative includes the same pedestrian improvements for the Northern
Segment as the Preferred Alternative, which are listed in the previous section of this report.
The primary elements of the Lincoln Street Alternative are illustrated in Figure 2.
Packet Pg. 305
12
Figure 2: Northern Segment Summary Map – Lincoln St. Alternative (Minimal Parking Loss) Packet Pg. 30612
Southern Segment
One set of recommendations is proposed for the Southern Segment of the Anholm Bikeway Plan,
extending from Downtown (Monterey Street) to Lincoln Street. The plan recommendations for
this segment are summarized as follows:
• Install safety lighting and streetscape enhancements at Highway 101/Chorro Street
undercrossing. Staff will explore opportunities through grants and other City programs to
include community artwork and/or other aesthetic features to enhance this location as a
key gateway to the downtown.
• Extend existing buffered bike lanes on Chorro between Lincoln and Palm, and add
physical separation within buffers to create protected bike lanes.
• Provide enhanced pavement markings and route signage on Chorro between Palm and
Monterey to convey the priority bikeway link into Downtown.
• Construct corner bulbouts at Chorro/Walnut to shorter pedestrian crossing exposure.
• Install accessible curb ramps and enhanced crossing markings for bicycles and
pedestrians at the Chorro/Peach and Chorro/Walnut intersections.
Potential Highway 101/Broad Street Ramp Closure
In the 2013 Bicycle Transportation Plan, the Broad Street Bicyc le Boulevard identifies a
potential future grade-separated bicycle/pedestrian crossing of Highway 101 at Broad Street .
This project has been considered as part of this planning process however the scope of the
project is significant and requires the ultimate closure of the Broad Street 101 on- and off-ramps
by Caltrans. Recent studies of the potential closure of the Broad Street ramps by both the City
and Caltrans, including consideration for closure of the southbound ramps only, have concluded
that closure of the ramps is not feasible at this time without significant, and costly improvements
to the adjacent Highway 101/Santa Rosa Street (Highway 1) interchange. A separate project
would need to be created to consider the system implications of such a closure that is beyond the
scope of the bicycle boulevard project. In addition to the high-cost improvements required
simply to facilitate closure of the ramps, construction of the grade-separated pedestrian/bicycle
crossing would involve substantial costs and fu nding challenges on its own. For these reasons,
these improvement s are not included as part of the Anholm Bikeway Plan at this time; however,
staff will continue to work with Caltrans to pursue closure of the ramps and will reevaluate the
potential for a pedestrian/bicycle crossing at this location in future years if closure of the ramps
becomes feasible. Making the recommended improvements along Chorro south of Lincoln Street
improves the bicycle separation objectives of bike plan without significant operation impacts or
capital cost outlay.
Community Input
To supplement the input already received at previous community meetings and via the project’s
web forum, staff conducted additional informal surveys of residents to gauge support for the two
proposed project alternatives for the Northern Segment . An online survey was made available for
citywide participation via the project webpage, while a mail-in survey was distributed to
approximately 1,200 residents in the Broad and Chorro neighborhood. In total, 697 survey
responses have been received as of January 16, 2018. The results of this survey are summarized
below.
Packet Pg. 307
12
As shown in the survey results, there is a clear differentiation of the support for either alternative
between the community-wide sample and residents of the Anholm neighborhood. This would be
expected as it mirrors concerns of the residents regarding potential parking removal. Where
survey participants selected “Other” as a preferred option, comments generally supported no
change at all, many citing the limited benefit of the Lincoln alternative, or prioritization of other
improvements in the city over this project. All comments received during the community survey
process are included as a Council Reading File in Attachment G.
Implementation Strategy
The proposed implementation strategy is similar for either alternative and includes the two
elements of the recently adopted Safe Routes to School (SRTS) plan for Bishop’s Peak and
Pacheco Elementary Schools: the bike and pedestrian crossing at Foothill/Ferrini and the Class I
Path between Foothill & Ramona. Proposed project phasing is summarized as follows:
Phase I (2018-19)
1. Right of Way Acquisition from Church of Latter Day Saints Property
2. Processing of Residential Parking District
3. Construction of Bicycle & Pedestrian Crossing at Foothill & Ferrini
4. Construction of SRTS Class I Path between Foothill & Ramona
5. Installation of Measures along Ramona (Depending on Adopted Plan)
- 12 Month Performance Monitoring and Status Report to Council
- Continued coordination with Caltrans on Highway 1 & 101 Improvements &
Following Broad Ramp Closure.
Packet Pg. 308
12
Phase II (2019-20)
1. Installation of Temporary Measures South of Ramona (Depending on Adopted Plan)
2. Installation of Lighting and Streetscape Enhancements at Chorro & 101 Undercrossing.
- 12 Month Performance Monitoring and Status Report to Council
- Continued coordination with Caltrans on Hwy 1 & 101 Improvements & Following
Broad Ramp Closure.
Phase III (2020 & Beyond)
1. Incremental conversion of Temporary Measures to Permanent installations
2. Installation of ancillary spot improvements, such as raised intersection at Broad/Murray,
installation of sidewalks along west side of Broad, curb ramps and additional street lights.
- Continued coordination with Caltrans on Hwy 1 & 101 Improvements & Following
Broad Ramp Closure.
CONCURRENCES
The Bicycle Advisory Committee reviewed the Anholm Bikeway Plan alternatives on January
18, 2018, and recommended approval of the Preferred Alternative to the City Council. Due to the
limited time between the Bicycle Advisory Committee Meeting and City Council Meeting, draft
minutes will be provided as part of Council Correspondence.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The findings of the CEQA environmental analysis conducted for each project alternative is
included as Attachment C and Attachment F.
Per Section 15304 of the State California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines , the
project is categorically exempt from CEQA under Class 1, Existing Facilities; Section 15301 and
Class 4, Minor Alterations to Land, because the project would be constructed on existing city
streets within the public right of way. The project will be constructed in an area that has no value
as habitat for biological resources and would not be located in agricultural areas. The proposed
street lights would be located in an urban area and would not significantly increase light or glare
beyond existing conditions. The project has been reviewed by the City Public Works Department
(Transportation Division) and Community Development Department, and no significant traffic
impacts were identified, based on the description and location of the project. The project is
consistent with General Plan policies that promote an integrated system of bikeways, walkways,
and traffic calming measures that promote a safe, multimodal transportation network.
FISCAL IMPACT
Staff is proposing to implement elements of the Bishop’s Peak and Pacheco Safe Routes to
School Plan in conjunction with the Broad Street Bicycle Boulevard (Anholm Bikeway) Plan—
both projects are included in the adopted FY2017-19 Financial Plan. There is currently $610,000
approved through FY2018/19 in the FY2017-19 Financial Plan for project implementation. At
Packet Pg. 309
12
the time the current financial plan was adopted, the scope was yet to be de fined and the cost
estimates were speculative for the Broad Street Bicycle Boulevard (Anholm Bikeway) Plan. For
example, a final plan had yet to be adopted and potential costs could range significantly,
depending on the type of features to be approved. The cost for Phase I of the Anholm Bikeway
(Preferred Alternative) improvements is estimated at $900,000, leaving a budget shortfall of
$290,000 for Phase I. To address this shortfall, staff will be requesting $290,000 as part of the
FY2017-19 Budget Supplement through SB-1 State funding.
Phase II of Anholm Bikeway Plan implementation is included in the five -year Capital
Improvement Program (CIP), with $270,000 identified for FY2019/20. Again, at the time the
current Financial Plan was adopted, the scope of these improvements was yet to be defined.
Under the recommended plan, the estimated cost for Phase II implementation is $475,000. Staff
will be requesting these funds as part of the FY2019-21 Financial Plan. Due to the incremental
nature of Phase III imple mentation, it’s anticipated that these improvements can be scaled and
phased in as future budgets permit.
Broad Street Bicycle Boulevard (Anholm Bikeway Plan) improvements are under consideration
for inclusion in the Citywide Transportation Impact Fee Program update, which is expected to be
finalized in 2018 and could provide additional funding opportunities. In addition, staff will
pursue any available grant funding for unfunded portions of the project.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Council could adopt a resolution ado pting the Anholm Bikeway plan under a hybrid of
features from the Preferred Alternative (protected bike lanes) and the Lincoln Alternative
(shared streets).
An example hybrid plan could include the Preferred Alternative’s protected lanes on
Chorro & Ramona, with the Lincoln Alternative’s class III shared lanes, traffic calming,
and no parking removal on Broad where parking is most limited. This example is a
supportable alternative by staff.
2. Council could adopt a resolution adopting the Anholm Bikeway Plan under the Lincoln
Street Alternative, as defined in Attachment E. Staff does not recommend this alternative
because this option is expected to have limited effect on achieving the bicycle mode share
goals, as adopted in the City General Plan.
3. Council could either defer adoption of any plan to some future point uncertain or decide
to adopt no plan and direct staff to return with an amendment to the Bicycle
Transportation plan removing the planned facility augmentation.
Packet Pg. 310
12
Attachments:
a - Council Resolution Adopting the Anholm Bikeway Plan (Preferred Alt)
b - Council Reading File - Final Report (Preferred Alt)
c - CEQA Notice of Exemption (Preferred Alternative)
d - Council Resolution Adopting the Anholm Bikeway Plan (Lincoln Alt)
e - Council Reading File - Final Report (Lincoln Alt)
f - CEQA Notice of Exemption (Lincoln Alternative)
g - Council Reading File - Final Survey Summary
Packet Pg. 311
12
R ______
RESOLUTION NO. XXXXX___ (2018 SERIES)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS
OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING THE ANHOLM BIKEWAY PLAN
(PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE)
WHEREAS, the Bicycle Transportation Plan and the Land Use and Circulation Elements
to the General Plan support reducing use of single-occupant motor vehicles by supporting
alternatives, such as walking and bicycling ; and
WHEREAS, the Circulation Element to the General Plan has modal split objectives of 20
percent for bicycles and 18 percent for walking, carpools, and other forms of transportation ; and
WHEREAS, the proposed Anholm Bikeway Plan develops dedicated, protected bicycle
facilities—the types of infrastructure that have been shown in other communities to provide
substantial benefits to bicycle safety and increase bicycle mode share ; and
WHEREAS, the City has identified Multi-Modal Transportation as a Major City Goal,
with the purpose of prioritizing implementation of the Bicycle Transportation Plan, pedestrian
safety, and the Short -Range Transit Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Bicycle Transportation Plan recommends development of a low-impact
route for bicyclists and pedestrians connecting the downtown core to Foothill Boulevard as a “first
priority” project ; and
WHEREAS, the City has adopted a Vision Zero policy to eliminate all fatal traffic deaths
and severe injuries by 2030, with a focus on improving pedestrian and bicyclist safety; and
WHEREAS, the City coordinated with neighbors and other community members on
outreach and public input through community meetings and other methods; and
WHEREAS, on January 18, 2018 the Bicycle Advisory Committee reviewed the Anholm
Bikeway Plan at a public hearing and recommended that the City Council approve the Plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo
that
SECTION 1. Findings. This Council, after consideration of the Anholm Bikeway Plan as
recommended by the Bicycle Advisory Committee, staff recommendations, public testimony, and
reports thereof, makes the following findings:
1. The proposed Anholm Bikeway Plan will develop low-stress, protected bicycle facilities,
which have been a well-documented strategy to make bicycling safer, more accessible, and
attractive as a transportation option for users of all ages and ability levels.
2. The proposed Anholm Bikeway Plan will further General Plan goals to increase bicycle and
walking mode share.
Packet Pg. 312
12
Resolution No. _____ (2018 Series) Page 2
3. The proposed Anholm Bikeway Plan will provide improved infrastructure for walking and
bicycling, improving the viability of active transportation modes for school access and to
connect the downtown with the neighborhoods to the north.
SECTION 2. Environmental Review. Per Section 15304 of the State California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, the project is categorically exempt from CEQA
under Class 1, Existing Facilities; Section 15301 and Class 4, Minor Alterations to Land, because
the project would be constructed on existing city streets within the public right of way. The project
will be constructed in an area that has no value as habitat for biological resources and would not
be located in agricultural areas. The proposed street lights would be located in an urban area and
would not significantly increase light or glare beyond existing conditions. The project has no
potentially significant traffic impacts. The project is consistent with General Plan policies that
promote an integrated system of bikeways, walkways, and traffic calming measures that promote
a safe, multimodal transportation network.
Packet Pg. 313
12
Resolution No. _____ (2018 Series) Page 3
SECTION 3. Approval. The Anholm Bikeway Plan, as described and depicted in
Attachment B, is hereby approved.
Upon motion of _______________________, seconded by _______________________, and on
the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was adopted this _____ day of _____________________ 2018.
____________________________________
Mayor Heidi Harmon
ATTEST:
____________________________________
Carrie Gallagher
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_____________________________________
J. Christine Dietrick
City Attorney
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City
of San Luis Obispo , California, this ______ day of ______________, _________.
____________________________________
Carrie Gallagher
City Clerk
Packet Pg. 314
12
Notice of Exemption
To: Office of Planning and Research From: City of San Luis Obispo
1400 Tenth Street, Room 121 Community Development Department
Sacramento, CA 95814 919 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218
County Clerk
County of San Luis Obispo
1144 Monterey Street, Suite A
San Luis Obispo, CA 93408
Applicant Address:
919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Email: lschwartz@slocity.org
Phone Number: 805-781-7190
Project Title: Anholm Bikeway Plan
Project Location - Specific: Chorro, Broad, Mission, and Ramona Streets between Foothill Blvd and Monterey Street
Project Location - City: San Luis Obispo Project Location - County: San Luis Obispo
Description of Project:
The project proposes bicycle and pedestrian improvements within the existing street right-of-way, including traffic calming
measures, pavement markings, signage, bulbouts, ADA curb improvements, sidewalk improvements, and installation of
bike routes (Class III), buffered bike lanes (Class II) and protected bike lanes (Class IV) on Chorro Street (Monterey to
Mission), Mission Street (Chorro to Broad), Broad Street (Mission to Ramona) and Ramona Drive (west of Broad). The
project would remove portions of on-street parking on one side of the street along segments of Chorro, Broad and
Ramona to provide width for bicycle facilities. The project includes restriping of existing portions of streets to convey
bicycle facilities, and adds additional street lighting along the proposed route per City Engineering Standards.
Name of Public Agency Approving the Project: City of San Luis Obispo
Name of Person or Agency Carrying Out the Project:
Exempt Status (check one):
Ministerial (Section 21080(b)(1); 15268;
Declared Emergency (Sec. 21080(b)(3); 15269(a));
Emergency Project (Sec. 21080(b)(4); 15269(b)(c)
Categorical Exemption. State type and section number: Existing facility – Section 15301 (c) (f); Minor Alterations
to Land – Section 15304 (h)
Statutory Exemptions. State code number:
General Rule Exemption (Sec. 15061(b)(3))
Reasons why project is exempt:
The project is categorically exempt under Class 1, Existing Facilities; Section 15301 and Class 4,
Minor Alterations to Land; Section 15304 of the State California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
Guidelines, because the project would be constructed on existing city streets within the public right of
way. The project will be constructed in an area that has no value as habitat for biological resources
and would not be located in agricultural areas. The proposed street lights would be located in an
urban area and would not significantly increase light or glare beyond existing conditions. The project
has been reviewed by the City Public Works Department, Transportation Division, and no significant
traffic impacts were identified, based on the description and location of the project. The project is
consistent with General Plan policies that promote an integrated system of bikeways, walkways, and
traffic calming measures that promote a safe, multimodal transportation network.
Lead Agency
Contact Person: Luke Schwartz Area Code/Telephone/Ext. 805-781-7190 Email: lschwartz@slocity.org
Packet Pg. 315
12
If filed by applicant:
1. Attach certified document of exemption finding.
2. Has a notice of exemption been filed by the public agency approving the project? Yes No
Signature: ________________________ Date: January 25, 2018
Title: Tyler Corey, Principal Planner
Signed by Lead Agency Date Received for Filing at OPR: __________
Signed by Applicant
Revised December 2016
Packet Pg. 316
12
R ______
RESOLUTION NO. _XXX___ (2018 SERIES)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS
OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING THE ANHOLM BIKEWAY PLAN
(LINCOLN STREET ALTERNATIVE)
WHEREAS, the Bicycle Transportation Plan and the Land Use and Circulation Elements
to the General Plan support reducing use of single-occupant motor vehicles by supporting
alternatives, such as walking and bicycling ; and
WHEREAS, the Circulation Element to the General Plan has modal split objectives of 20
percent for bicycles and 18 percent for walking, carpools, and other forms of transportation ; and
WHEREAS, the proposed Anholm Bikeway Plan recommends addition of enhanced
signage, pavement markings and traffic calming to improve conditions for bicycling ; and
WHEREAS, the City has identified Multi-Modal Transportation as a Major City Goal,
with the purpose of prioritizing implementation of the Bicycle Transportation Plan, pedestrian
safety, and the Short -Range Transit Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Bicycle Transportation Plan recommends development of a low-impact
route for bicyclists and pedestrians connecting the downtown core to Foothill Boulevard as a “first
priority” project ; and
WHEREAS, the City has adopted a Vision Zero policy to eliminate all fatal traffic deaths
and severe injuries by 2030, with a focus on improving pedestrian and bicyclist safety; and
WHEREAS, the City coordinated with neighbors and other community members on
outreach and public input through community meetings and other methods; and
WHEREAS, on January 18, 2018 the Bicycle Advisory Committee reviewed the Anholm
Bikeway Plan at a public hearing and recommended that the City Council approve the Plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo
that
SECTION 1. Findings. This Council, after consideration of the Anholm Bikeway Plan as
recommended by the Bicycle Advisory Committee, staff recommendations, public testimony, and
reports thereof, makes the following findings:
1. The proposed Anholm Bikeway Plan will support bicycling as a more visible and attractive
transportation option for users of all ages and ability levels.
2. The proposed Anholm Bikeway Plan will support General Plan goals to increase bicycle and
walking mode share.
3. The proposed Anholm Bikeway Plan will provide improved infrastructure for walking and
bicycling, improving the viability of active transportation modes for school access and to
connect the downtown with the neighborhoods to the north.
Packet Pg. 317
12
Resolution No. _____ (2018 Series) Page 2
SECTION 2. Environmental Review. Per Section 15304 of the State California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, the project is categorically exempt from CEQA
under Class 1, Existing Facilities; Section 15301 and Class 4, Minor Alterations to Land, because
the project would be constructed on existing city streets within the public right of way. The project
will be constructed in an area that has no value as habitat for biological resources and would not
be located in agricultural areas. The proposed street lights would be located in an urban area and
would not significantly increase light or glare beyond existing conditions. The project has no
potentially significant traffic impacts. The project is consistent with General Plan policies that
promote an integrated system of bikeways, walkways, and traffic calming measures that promote
a safe, multimodal transportation network.
SECTION 3. Approval. The Anholm Bikeway Plan, as described and depicted in
Attachment D, is hereby approved.
Upon motion of _______________________, seconded by _______________________,
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was adopted this _____ day of _____________________ 2018.
____________________________________
Mayor Heidi Harmon
ATTEST:
____________________________________
Carrie Gallagher
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_____________________________________
J. Christine Dietrick
City Attorney
Packet Pg. 318
12
Resolution No. _____ (2018 Series) Page 3
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City
of San Luis Obispo , California, this ______ day of ______________, _________.
____________________________________
Carrie Gallagher
City Clerk
Packet Pg. 319
12
Notice of Exemption
To: Office of Planning and Research From: City of San Luis Obispo
1400 Tenth Street, Room 121 Community Development Department
Sacramento, CA 95814 919 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218
County Clerk
County of San Luis Obispo
1144 Monterey Street, Suite A
San Luis Obispo, CA 93408
Applicant Address:
919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Email: lschwartz@slocity.org
Phone Number: 805-781-7190
Project Title: Anholm Bikeway Plan
Project Location - Specific: Chorro, Broad, Mission, Lincoln, and Ramona between Foothill Blvd and Monterey Street
Project Location - City: San Luis Obispo Project Location - County: San Luis Obispo
Description of Project:
The project proposes bicycle and pedestrian improvements within the existing street right-of-way, including traffic calming
measures, pavement markings, signage, bulbouts, ADA curb improvements, sidewalk improvements, and installation of
bike routes (Class III) on Lincoln Street (Chorro to Mission), Mission Street (Lincoln to Broad), Broad Street (Mission to
Ramona) and Ramona Drive (west of Broad). The project would remove approximately 10 on-street parking spaces to
improve pedestrian and bicycle safety at intersections. The project includes restriping of existing portions of streets to
convey bicycle facilities, and adds additional street lighting along the proposed route per City Engineering Standards.
Name of Public Agency Approving the Project: City of San Luis Obispo
Name of Person or Agency Carrying Out the Project:
Exempt Status (check one):
Ministerial (Section 21080(b)(1); 15268;
Declared Emergency (Sec. 21080(b)(3); 15269(a));
Emergency Project (Sec. 21080(b)(4); 15269(b)(c)
Categorical Exemption. State type and section number: Existing facility – Section 15301 (c) (f); Minor Alterations
to Land – Section 15304 (h)
Statutory Exemptions. State code number:
General Rule Exemption (Sec. 15061(b)(3))
Reasons why project is exempt:
The project is categorically exempt under Class 1, Existing Facilities; Section 15301 and Class 4,
Minor Alterations to Land; Section 15304 of the State California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
Guidelines, because the project would be constructed on existing city streets within the public right of
way. The project will be constructed in an area that has no value as habitat for biological resources
and would not be located in agricultural areas. The proposed street lights would be located in an
urban area and would not significantly increase light or glare beyond existing conditions. The project
has been reviewed by the City Public Works Department, Transportation Division, and no significant
traffic impacts were identified, based on the description and location of the project. The project is
consistent with General Plan policies that promote an integrated system of bikeways, walkways, and
traffic calming measures that promote a safe, multimodal transportation network.
Lead Agency
Contact Person: Luke Schwartz Area Code/Telephone/Ext. 805-718-7190 Email: lschwartz@slocity.org
Packet Pg. 320
12
If filed by applicant:
1. Attach certified document of exemption finding.
2. Has a notice of exemption been filed by the public agency approving the project? Yes No
Signature: ______________________________ Date: January 25, 2018
Title: Tyler Corey, Principal Planner
Signed by Lead Agency Date Received for Filing at OPR: __________
Signed by Applicant
Revised December 2016
Packet Pg. 321
12
Page intentionally left
blank.
Packet Pg. 322
12