Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout6/2/2026 Item Public Comment, See Daniel See < To:E-mail Council Website Cc:Parkside Jason Caron; Parkside 38 Bobbi Binder; Parkside 35 Sharon Spatafora; Parkside 32 Lisa Russell; Villages HOA Tom Forselles; Villages HOA Cornel Morton; Villages HOA Cornel Morton; Villages HOA Laura Tremblay; SArmandico@aol.com; Wesley Thompson; Caltrans Tyler LeSage Subject:Council Meeting 6/2/2026 - Agenda Item 4 (Public Comment) - King Ct / South St Intersection Attachments:SLO City Council Letter 6-2-26 - King South Intersection.pdf Mayor Stewart, City Council, Ms. McDonald, Ms. Dietrick, I am writing on behalf of the 2 HOA Boards and 300+ residents and owners of the 2 complexes on King Ct. I am writing in my personal capacity, not on behalf of, or in relation to, my employer. Recently discovered City correspondence reveals that this project did NOT undergo proper public outreach (snippets and full memo linked below and attached), as the many residents of King Ct knew and as has been shared previously. The Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon project was first learned about by affected residents via a Facebook post by the City of SLO on March 22, 2026. Phone contact was soon made with the City Engineering Department to discuss, wherein we were informed that it was simply “too late” to do anything different now. The project was initially planned as a full traffic signal, which would have permitted 300+ residents of the 130 households on King Ct a dedicated left turn movement at the intersection, with all traffic on South St suspended at a red light. This intersection is effectively a glorified driveway for the residents of King Ct; it is our sole means of vehicular connection to the outside world. Every single vehicle trip from home begins at this intersection. The project was subsequently changed to a Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon, without our notice, and does not offer us any respite from the high volume traffic on South St, and in fact, will make our sole means of egress even more difficult and unsafe. Public outreach was explicitly not pursued upon changing the operational characteristics of this intersection, which are completely different from a fully signalized intersection. The impact on the residents of King Ct of this change to the design was either not studied at all, or simply not presented to the City Council to make an informed decision with the knowledge that our Level of Service would be negatively impacted by the PHB configuration, and certainly not communicated to us. The City of SLO Council Agenda Correspondence between the Engineering Department and City Council, dated Oct 7, 2025 (linked, attached, and snippets below), reveals the vehicle movement exiting King Ct was the only of the 8 possible qualifying factors warranting a signal per the California MUTCD, with a Level of Service “F” and a delay of 143 seconds / vehicle during peak morning hours, under current conditions. Note that not even pedestrian movements were found to be substantial enough for a signal warrant under the MUTCD criteria. Our exit movement was the sole justification for the original signal project per the MUTCD, apart from public/City desire to increase pedestrian safety and establish a stronger bikeway and Safe Routes to School, which we are in support of and not trying to negate (we are pedestrians and cyclists too). https://opengov.slocity.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=215177&dbid=0&repo=CityClerk 1 The PHB project as designed will further deteriorate our Level of Service at the intersection (though Grade F is the worst grade already), since we will be given no dedicated, protected opportunity to utilize the intersection, as would the original, fully-signalized alternative. This will lead to longer delays, and fewer and smaller (ie, more dangerous) opportunities to exit. Drivers exiting King Ct will be faced with the prospect of making riskier maneuvers in these fewer and smaller gaps in South St traffic, which is unsafe for all users. The above mentioned Oct 7, 2025 correspondence also reveals what the residents of King Ct already knew: that NO public outreach was conducted upon the change in design from a full signal to the Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon. We were simply disregarded from consideration in any proper analysis of the intersection or any public outreach to come up with agreeable solutions. The above mentioned correspondence demonstrates dereliction of duty to inform residents of nearby projects, per the City’s Public Engagement and Noticing Manual. As this intersection is our sole means of ingress and egress, we are maximally impacted by any changes to its operation, and clearly should have been notified of any proposed change to the project. The answers to the questions in the above correspondence should have prompted additional questions from both City Engineering Staff and City Council and the required outreach prior to the project’s approval. As a reminder, I am a licensed Civil Engineer working for Caltrans and part-time Faculty at Cal Poly (writing to you here in my personal capacity), and have consulted with a couple fellow Caltrans coworkers (another licensed Engineer and a Transportation Planner) who are also personally affected by this intersection in coming up with some simple, low cost improvements to the intersection. After being turned away via phone call to the Engineering Department, we wrote to the SLO City Council and Engineering Department and proposed a few very-low-schedule-impact, very-low-cost modifications to the Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon project to provide better 2 service to the residents of King Ct in addition to the pedestrian and cyclist safety benefits promised by the PHB. Our proposed enhancements also very closely mirror the recently completed City of SLO project at Tank Farm Rd and Poinsettia St, so safety and operability of our proposal are clearly in line with City standards. The City has responded to said letter, yet is still declining to make any changes to the project, citing that it is too late to do so. Two of the 3 modifications recommended previously are estimated to take no additional time for the project’s schedule, and the other modification no more than a week of construction, of similar material and method as the existing project, with minimal cost, and may possibly negate the need for a full signal later on. The further deterioration of service of our sole egress with the PHB will also negatively impact property values of King Court properties. A less functional and less safe sole means of egress for our homes has the ability to negatively impact our property values, as they become less attractive to potential buyers. Potential buyers might shy away from or make lower offers on any units for sale in the near term, and those that do sell at reduced prices will become comparisons (‘comps’) for future sales, impacting us for longer duration even if the full signal is eventually realized. We have gathered petition signatures from the residents and owners of 77 of the 130 units (59%) on King Ct. over this past weekend (May 30th and 31st), many of whom I talked to personally. Residents all pointed out the lack of communication and are overwhelmingly concerned about the more difficult westbound egress (left turn) and corresponding reduction in safety of that movement at the intersection with the PHB project as designed, as well as the reduction in property values. Of the remaining 53 units, only 4 of the people we were able to contact declined to participate and sign. The remaining 49 units were unable to be contacted for signatures due to either their unit being vacant, not being home, or simply not answering the door. Scanned images of the signature sheets are attached. The 300+ residents of the 130 households, along with both HOA Boards on King Ct implore you to conduct proper public outreach and truly serve all users’ needs, particularly those whose every vehicle trip begins with navigating this difficult intersection. The HOA Boards of both complexes have expressed the willingness to pursue this matter legally, as we have a fiduciary responsibility to protect the property values of our homes. Instead, we look forward to working with the City to provide a safe and functional intersection for all users, particularly those that have no choice but to use this intersection. Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. -Dan See, MS, PE Civil Engineer, Caltrans Adjunct Faculty, Civil Engineering Department, Cal Poly HOA Board Treasurer, Parkside Condominiums (2221 King Ct) Parkside HOA Board The Villages HOA Board 3 City Council Meeting – June 2, 2026 Mayor Stewart, City Council, Ms. McDonald, Ms. Dietrick, I am writing on behalf of the 2 HOA Boards and 300+ residents and owners of the 2 complexes on King Ct. I am writing in my personal capacity, not on behalf of, or in relation to, my employer. Recently discovered City correspondence reveals that this project did NOT undergo proper public outreach (snippets and full memo linked below and attached), as the many residents of King Ct knew and as has been shared previously. The Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon project was first learned about by affected residents via a Facebook post by the City of SLO on March 22, 2026. Phone contact was soon made with the City Engineering Department to discuss, wherein we were informed that it was simply “too late” to do anything different now. The project was initially planned as a full traffic signal, which would have permitted 300+ residents of the 130 households on King Ct a dedicated left turn movement at the intersection, with all traffic on South St suspended at a red light. This intersection is effectively a glorified driveway for the residents of King Ct; it is our sole means of vehicular connection to the outside world. Every single vehicle trip from home begins at this intersection. The project was subsequently changed to a Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon, without our notice, and does not offer us any respite from the high volume traffic on South St, and in fact, will make our sole means of egress even more difficult and unsafe. Public outreach was explicitly not pursued upon changing the operational characteristics of this intersection, which are completely different from a fully signalized intersection. The impact on the residents of King Ct of this change to the design was either not studied at all, or simply not presented to the City Council to make an informed decision with the knowledge that our Level of Service would be negatively impacted by the PHB configuration, and certainly not communicated to us. The City of SLO Council Agenda Correspondence between the Engineering Department and City Council, dated Oct 7, 2025 (linked, attached, and snippets below), reveals the vehicle movement exiting King Ct was the only of the 8 possible qualifying factors warranting a signal per the California MUTCD, with a Level of Service “F” and a delay of 143 seconds / vehicle during peak morning hours, under current conditions. Note that not even pedestrian movements were found to be substantial enough for a signal warrant under the MUTCD criteria. Our exit movement was the sole justification for the original signal project per the MUTCD, apart from public/City desire to increase pedestrian safety and establish a stronger bikeway and Safe Routes to School, which we are in support of and not trying to negate (we are pedestrians and cyclists too). https://opengov.slocity.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=215177&dbid=0&repo=CityClerk The PHB project as designed will further deteriorate our Level of Service at the intersection (though Grade F is the worst grade already), since we will be given no dedicated, protected opportunity to utilize the intersection, as would the original, fully-signalized alternative. This will lead to longer delays, and fewer and smaller (ie, more dangerous) opportunities to exit. Drivers exiting King Ct will be faced with the prospect of making riskier maneuvers in these fewer and smaller gaps in South St traffic, which is unsafe for all users. The above mentioned Oct 7, 2025 correspondence also reveals what the residents of King Ct already knew: that NO public outreach was conducted upon the change in design from a full signal to the Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon. We were simply disregarded from consideration in any proper analysis of the intersection or any public outreach to come up with agreeable solutions. The above mentioned correspondence demonstrates dereliction of duty to inform residents of nearby projects, per the City’s Public Engagement and Noticing Manual. As this intersection is our sole means of ingress and egress, we are maximally impacted by any changes to its operation, and clearly should have been notified of any proposed change to the project. The answers to the questions in the above orrespondence should have prompted additional questions from both City Engineering Staff and City Council and the required outreach prior to the project’s approval. As a reminder, I am a licensed Civil Engineer working for Caltrans and part-time Faculty at Cal Poly (writing to you here in my personal capacity), and have consulted with a couple fellow Caltrans coworkers (another licensed Engineer and a Transportation Planner) who are also personally affected by this intersection in coming up with some simple, low cost improvements to the intersection. After being turned away via phone call to the Engineering Department, we wrote to the SLO City Council and Engineering Department and proposed a few very-low-schedule-impact, very-low-cost modifications to the Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon project to provide better service to the residents of King Ct in addition to the pedestrian and cyclist safety benefits promised by the PHB. Our proposed enhancements also very closely mirror the recently completed City of SLO project at Tank Farm Rd and Poinsettia St, so safety and operability of our proposal are clearly in line with City standards. The City has responded to said letter, yet still declined to make any changes to the project, citing that it was too late to do so. Two of the 3 modifications recommended previously are estimated to take no additional time for the project’s schedule, and the other modification no more than a week of construction, of similar material and method as the existing project, with minimal cost, and may possibly negate the need for a full signal later on. The further deterioration of service of our sole egress with the PHB will also negatively impact property values of King Court properties. A less functional and less safe sole means of egress for our homes has the ability to negatively impact our property values, as they become less attractive to potential buyers. Potential buyers might shy away from or make lower offers on any units for sale in the near term, and those that do sell at reduced prices will become comparisons (‘comps’) for future sales, impacting us for longer duration even if the full signal is eventually realized. We have gathered petition signatures from the residents and owners of 77 of the 130 units (59%) on King Ct. over this past weekend (May 30th and 31st), many of whom I talked to personally. Residents all pointed out the lack of communication and are overwhelmingly concerned about the more difficult westbound egress (left turn) and corresponding reduction in safety of that movement at the intersection with the PHB project as designed, as well as the reduction in property values. Of the remaining 53 units, only 4 of the people we were able to contact declined to participate and sign. The remaining 49 units were unable to be contacted for signatures due to either their unit being vacant, not being home, or simply not answering the door. Scanned images of the signature sheets are attached. The 300+ residents of the 130 households, along with both HOA Boards on King Ct implore you to conduct proper public outreach and truly serve all users’ needs, particularly those whose every vehicle trip begins with navigating this difficult intersection. The HOA Boards of both complexes have expressed the willingness to pursue this matter legally, as we have a fiduciary responsibility to protect the property values of our homes. Instead, we look forward to working with the City to provide a safe and functional intersection for all users, particularly those that have no choice but to use this intersection. Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. -Dan See, MS, PE Civil Engineer, Caltrans Adjunct Faculty, Civil Engineering Department, Cal Poly HOA Board Treasurer, Parkside Condominiums (2221 King Ct) Parkside HOA Board The Villages HOA Board City ofSanLuisObispo, CouncilMemorandum City of San Luis Obispo Council Agenda Correspondence DATE: October 7, 2025 TO: Mayor and Council FROM: Aaron Floyd, Interim Director of Public Works Prepared By: Luke Schwartz, Transportation Manager VIA: Whitney McDonald, City Manager SUBJECT: ITEM 6d - AUTHORIZATION TO ADVERTISE THE SOUTH STREET AND KING COURT CROSSING PROJECT, SPECIFICATION NO. 2001059 Staff received the following questions regarding the South & King Crossing Project. The questions are below with staff’s response shown in italics: 1) The staff report indicates that a full traffic signal meets warrants at this location. Is there any data on queuing for residents of King Ct trying to turn onto Broad? How significant is the delay? Yes, the existing intersection meets one of the eight warrants for signalization per the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CAMUTCD)—the Peak Hour Volume warrant. All other warrants, such as those based on crash history, pedestrian crossing volume, 4-hour and 8-hour vehicle volume warrants, are not currently satisfied. The table below summarizes average vehicle delays and queuing on the King Street/Court intersection approaching during existing AM and PM peak hour periods. Approach AM Peak Hour 7:30AM-8:30AM) PM Peak Hour 3:15PM-4:15PM) LOS Avg. Delay sec/veh) 95th%1 Queue vehicles) LOS Avg. Delay sec/veh) 95th% Queue vehicles) Northbound King Court F 143.6 4 D 30.9 0.7 Southbound King Street C 15.4 0.9 C 21.3 0.5 1 The 95th percentile queue length represents the queue length that has a 5% chance of being exceeded during a given period. It's a critical metric in traffic engineering used to design storage lane lengths for intersections, ensuring that these lanes will overflow only 5% of the time and prevent blockage of main travel lanes. This percentile value is significantly longer than the average queue length, which better represents typical driver experience. Item 6d – Authorization to Advertise the South & King Crossing Project Page 2 As shown above, there is notable delay for vehicles at the northbound King Court approach during the AM Peak Hour, where drivers experience longer waits when attempting to turn left from King Court to South Street. Vehicle delays and queues reported in the table are based on software calculations; however, in-person observations indicate that these values reasonably reflect existing real-word conditions. It should be noted that while signal warrant analysis is a key component of a proper engineering and traffic study used to guide the decision to install a traffic signal, satisfying one or more MUTCD warrants alone does not require installation of a traffic signal. 2) Were King Ct residents consulted on preferences for a full traffic signal versus the proposed ped signal? King Street/Court residents were not directly consulted regarding their preference for a full traffic signal vs. a pedestrian hybrid beacon. This is because staff were not comfortable advancing a full traffic signal as a viable design option at this time due to concerns from city emergency services. There was particular concern that a full signal would significantly increase delays for San Luis Obispo Fire (SLO Fire) emergency response along South Street from nearby Fire Station #1. The proposed pedestrian hybrid beacon system has been designed to allow for relatively low-cost conversion to a full traffic signal if desired in the future. 3) Why are we including the installation of the EVP equipment in police and fire vehicles along with this item? Won’t this equipment be used by vehicles all over the city? There is concern from SLO Fire and SLO Police regarding any proposed street design changes that present a potential to increase emergency response times, including the installation of a new traffic signal or pedestrian hybrid beacon along a primary emergency response corridor, such as South Street. As noted in the City’s Draft Vision Zero Action Plan (See Chapter 5: Post-Crash Care), investment in EVP equipment is a key recommendation to improve access to post-crash emergency medical care, which will support the City’s overarching Vision Zero goal. Because there was concern regarding potential increases in emergency response times with this specific crossing project at South & King, staff is recommending EVP equipment investments at this time and acknowledge that these investments will also benefit emergency response at other locations throughout the city. Item 6d – Authorization to Advertise the South & King Crossing Project Page 3 4) Can we have in-house staff install all the EVP equipment on police and fire vehicles to save on installation costs? EVP equipment for SLO Fire Department will be installed by their in-house mechanic, who is familiar with these systems. However, the SLO Police Department and City Fleet Services Division do not have in-house staff with the expertise and resources needed to install EVP equipment on up to 20 SLO Police vehicles. These installations will likely need to be done by an outside contractor. This additional cost for installation is reflected in the cost estimates referenced in the staff report.