HomeMy WebLinkAbout8775-8799RESOLUTION NO. 8799 (1998 Series)
Attachment 93
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF S_ AN LUIS OBISPO
AMENDING THE EDNA -ISLAY SPECIFIC PLAN
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on March 17, 1998, and has
considered testimony of interested parties, the records of the Planning Commission hearing and
action, and the evaluation and recommendation of staff; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has approved a Negative Declaration of environmental
impact, by Resolution No. 9797
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Finding. The'specificplan amendment is consistent with the General Plan.
SECTION 2. Specific Plan Amendment. The Edna -Islay Specific Plan is amended as
shown in the attached Exhibit A.
SECTION 3. Document Revision. The Community Development Director shall cause
the amendment to be reflected in documents which are available for reference_ in City Hall and
which are available to the public.
SECTION 4. Effective Date. This amendment shall take affect at the expiration of 30
days following approval.
On motion of Smith , seconded by Williams and
on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Council Members Smith, Williams, Romero and Mayor Settle
NOES: Council Member Roalman
ABSENT: None
the foregoing resolution was adopted this _5 tltiay of May 1998.
R 8799
Resolution No. 8799
Page 2
Mayor Allen K. Settle
ATTEST:
ity Clerk Bo ie Gp*
APPROVED AS TO FORM.
//! 4 �.
[Exhibit A -Part I of 2)
S
It Lu
Lu V1
Vat
LU V uj -%A
N :t LU LU
co
co
CIA
cc
CO
C6
C13
0
41
cc
=E
E
0
O
.2 E
E
a; ;
.24)
E
1
10
.5
.24
o cL
K>O(
CA:
S
It Lu
Lu V1
Vat
LU V uj -%A
N :t LU LU
co
co
CIA
Clq
LL
0
Z Lu-<
< cn,.j
�j m CL
a. 13 z
>-ZO
a�Q
cc <
0
Z<m
OUJO
u cc
(n U
O
°o
0)
cc
CO
C13
0
ca
0
Clq
LL
0
Z Lu-<
< cn,.j
�j m CL
a. 13 z
>-ZO
a�Q
cc <
0
Z<m
OUJO
u cc
(n U
O
°o
0)
p ....
%f :::::..............
...:: :
...... .. •.........•1
.......... :
Jo
Exhibit A - Part 2 of 2
7T°
� �Y
;i /
I
Aad.acv FIG e v3a�rON-1 ,k V.(lN62
Q
�tU
Q W
�Z
O�
�
W U;
xW=
0 U.,
USN:
„I
I
II
I
lu
�J a
r
Q
v/ rr
r j
cc
00
c� N
IL
Q
�LU
Q�
ZQ
W
O
�
U
u)z
Z
■
�,
J
el z
oQ
a�
tV
Q
Q
O
N
��,
G'
Attachment #2
RESOLUTION NO. 8798 (1998 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF RECOMMENDATION BY THE SAN LUIS OBISPO CITY
COUNCIL REQUESTING THAT THE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION
COMMISSION APPROVE ANNEXATION NO. -51- 53
THE FULLER ROAD AREA ANNEXATION (ANNX 70 -97)
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission and City Council have held hearings on
the proposed annexation on January 28; 1998; and March 17, 1998 respectively; and
WHEREAS, the City Council on March 17, 1998, by Resolution No. 87 97
Series), approved a Negative Declaration for the proposed annexation, pursuant to the
California Environmental Quality.Act Guidelines Section 15090; and
WHEREAS, on recommendation of the Planning Commission and as a result of
its deliberations, the Council has approved an amendment of the Zoning Map .by
prezoning the annexation property to Low- density Residential with Specific Plan (R -1-
SP), Medium - density Residential with Specific Plan (R- 2 7SP), Service Commercial (C-
S), and Conservation Open Space (C /OS); and
WHEREAS, City Council approval is a prerequisite for the San Luis Obispo
County_ Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) to initiate formal annexation
proceedings; and
WHEREAS, the territory to be annexed is inhabited, and a description of the
boundaries of the territory is set forth in attached Exhibit B; and
WHEREAS, this proposal is consistent with the sphere of- influence adopted by
the Local Agency Formation Commission of San Luis Obispo County for the City of San
Luis Obispo;
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City . of San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1: Findings.
1. Annexation is appropriate_ since the annexation area's northern and eastern
sides are contiguous with the City.
2. Annexation of the site is a logical addition to the City due to its location,
existing development, and, availability of services.
I The proposed annexation will promote the health, safety, and welfare of
persons living or working in the vicinity of the annexation area
A Q700
Resolution No. 8798
Page 2
SECTION 2: Annexation Area Described. The annexation shall consist of that
area, covering approximately 75 acres on the east side of Broad Street (Highway 227),
south of El Capit I an Way, and including the highway right-of-way, as shown on the site
location map attached as Exhibit A and legally described in attached Exhibit B.
SECTION 3: Council Recommendation. The City Council recommends that the
Local Agency Forrhation Conum—ssion of San Luis Obispo County approve the proposed
annexation, subject to property owners.' compliance With City requirements regarding
public improvements, in accordance with California Government Code Section 56844
and f6llowing.
SECTION 4: Implementation. The City Clerk shall forward a copy of this
resolution and prezoning actions, the Negative Declaration of environmental impact, and
all pertinent supporting documents to the Local Agency Formation Commission.
ission.
On motion of Smith seconded by Williams and
on the f6llpwing roll call vote:
Ayes: Council Members Smith, Williams, Romero and Mayor Settle
Noes: Council Member Roalman
I Absent: None
the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 5th day of May
1999.
Mayor Allen. Se. e
ATTEST:
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
p fe�";Ni en
orn &ns
, ", -7-�-
L
Exhibit B
ANNEXATION NO. 51= TO THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
FULLER ROAD ET AL
LEGAL DESCRIPTION - PAGE 1 OF 3
That portion of land situated in the County of San Luis Obispo, State of California, being
portions of Lots 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 8.2, 103 and 108; all of Lots 104, 105, 106 and 107, .
together with a portion of a 30 ft. road known as Fuller Road, a portion of Broad St.
(State Highway 227; formerly Edna Road), within the San Luis Obispo Suburban Tract;
including the Pacific Coast Railroad.Right of Way; as shown on the map recorded on
February 7, 1906 in Book 1, Pg. 92 of Record of Surveys in the office of the County
Recorder of said County; more particularly described.as follows:
Commencing at a 1 -1/2" iron pipe with tag stamped RCE 12545, accepted as marking the
intersection of the easterly prolongation of the northerly line of Lot .103 of said San Luis
Obispo Suburban Tract with the easterly line of the Pacific Coast Railroad Right of Way,
as shown on that certain map recorded February 7, 1986 and filed in Book 51 , Page 51 of
Record of Surveys in the office of the said County. Recorder; being the POINT OF
BEGINNING;
THENCE, southerly along the easterly boundary of the said Pacific Coast Railroad Right
of Way, through its various courses, to a point marked S.188 on the map of said Record
of Survey filed in Book 51, at page 51, said point being the "southerly comer of Lot 111
per said San Luis Obispo Suburban Tract; THENCE,. southwesterly, along the south-
westerly prolongation of the southeasterly line of Lot 111 of said San Luis Obispo
Suburban Tract, a distance of 34K, more or less, to a point on the centerline of said
Pacific Coast Railroad Right of Way; THENCE, southeasterly along the said Pacific
Coast Railroad centerline, a distance of 8.26 ft., more or less, to the most northerly point
of Tract 2211, recorded in Book 18 of Maps at Page 31, in the office of the said County
Recorder, also lying on the centerline of the 30 ft. wide road, now known as Fuller Road;
THENCE, southwesterly along the northwesterly boundary of said Tract 2211 a distance
of 103,29 ft., more or less, along the centerline of said Fuller Rd., to the northwesterly
comer of said Tract 2211; THENCE, southeasterly along the various courses of the
southwesterly boundary of said Tract 2211, a distance of 936 ft., more or less, to the most
southerly comer of said Tract 2211, also being the common corner of Lots 107, 108 and
109 of said San Luis Obispo Suburban Tract; THENCE, southerly along the easterly line
of said Lot 108, a distance of 1, -593 ft., more or less, to a point on the existing
northeasterly Right of Way line of Broad Street (State Highway 227);
THENCE, southwesterly along a line at right angles to the northeasterly line of Lot 75 of
said San Luis Obispo Suburban Tract, also being the existing southwesterly Right of Way
line of said Broad St., a distance of 127 ft., more or less; to a point on the said
southwesterly Right of Way line;
�1 \
ANNEXATION NO. 51 - TO THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
LEGAL DESCRIPTION - PAGE 2 OF 3
THENCE, northwesterly along the said southwesterly Right of Way line of Broad St;, a
distance of 2,029 ft., more or less, to an angle point in Broad St.; THENCE, continuing
northwesterly along the said southwesterly Broad St. Right of Way line a.distance of
67.14 ft. to the beginning of a non - tangent curve, concave to the east and having a radius
of 3,555 ft., through a central angle of 14 degrees 35 min. 54,sec., a distance of 905.77 ft.
to the E.C. of said curve;
THENCE, continuing northwesterly along said Right of way line, tangent to said curve, a
distance of 521.35 ft. to the beginning of a curve, concave to the west, having a radius of
6,945 ft., through a central angle. of 3 degrees 37 min: 24 sec. a distance of 439.20 ft. to
the E.C. and also being an angle point to the left. on said Right of Way; THENCE,
continuing northwesterly along said Right of Way a distance of. 102.69K, more or less,
to a point distant 80 ft. westerly of the centerline of Broad St. per the State Highway
Right of Way Map; THENCE, continuing northwesterly, parallel with and distant 80 ft.
southwesterly of the said centerline of Broad St., a distance of 125 $. to a point;
THENCE, continuing northwesterly along the said Right of Way line, a distance of 48.81
ft., more or less, to a point on the existing City of San Luis Obispo City Limit.Line;
THENCE, northeasterly along the existing City Limit Line a distance of 94 ft., more or
less, to an angle point in the existing City Limit Line, said point also being the northwest
comer of Lot 101 and lying on the easterly original Right. of Way line of Broad St., per
the aforesaid San Luis Obispo Suburban Tract;
THENCE, southeasterly along the said existing San Luis Obispo City Limit Line and
westerly line of Lots 101 and 102, to the southwest comer of Lot 102; THENCE, easterly
along the southerly line of said Lot 102, a distance of 26.21 ft., more or less, to the
existing northeasterly Right of Way line of Broad St., also being. the northwestern comer
of Lot 16, as shown on the map of Tract 2248 as recorded in Book 18, Page 18 of maps in
the office of the said County Recorder;
THENCE, southeasterly along the existing northeasterly Right of Way line of said Broad
St., to its intersection with the southerly Right of Way line of El Capitan Way, said point
being 140 ft. northerly of the southerly line of Lot 103 of said San Luis Obispo Suburban
Tract., THENCE, easterly along the said existing southerly line of El C.apitan Way and.its
easterly projection, parallel with the southerly line of Lot 103, a distance of 899.61 ft.,
more or less, to the southwesterly line of the aforesaid Pacific Coast Railroad Right of
ANNEXATION NO. 51- TO THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
LEGAL DESCRIPTION - PAGE 3 OF 3
Way; THENCE, northwesterly along the said southwesterly Right of Way line of the
Pacific Coast Railroad, through its various courses, a total distance of 183.15 ft., more or
less, to the northeast corner of said Lot 103 and also being a point marked S 178 on the
said, San Luis Obispo Suburban Tract; THENCE, northeasterly along the northeasterly
prolongation of the northerly line of said Lot 103, a distance of 63. 1.1 ft., more or less, to
the POINT OF BEGINNING.
END OF DESCRIPTION (Containing 70.7 Acres, more or less)
DevRev \ ... \Annex. 51 & 52 legal desc
G���°z�,
���--
��
J
Attachment #1
RESOLUTION NO. 8797 (1998 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
APPROVING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVRONMENTAL IMPACT
FOR THE FULLER ROAD AREA ANNEXATION AND THE
AERO DRIVE AREA ANNEXATION (ER 70 -97, ER 12 -97)
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on March 17, 1998, and has
considered testimony of interested parties, the records of the Planning_ Commission hearing and
action, and the evaluation and recommendation of staff-, and
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the draft Negative Declaration of
environmental impact as prepared by staff and.reviewed by the Planning Commission.
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:
.SECTION 1. Environmental Determination. The City Council finds and determines that
the project's Negative Declaration adequately addresses the potential significant environmental
impacts of the proposed annexations and related General Plan amendment, Edna -Islay Specific
Plan amendment, and zoning, an d reflects the independent judgment of the City Council. The
Council determines that the annexations and resulting development may have one or more
significant effects on the environment, but (1) the potential impacts have been adequately
analyzed in an earlier environmental. impact report pursuant to applicable legal standards,
including findings of overriding considerations for some potential cumulative impacts and (2)
impacts for which findings of overriding considerations have not previously been made have
been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, or through revisions or mitigation
measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. These revisions and mitigation measures
are described in the record of action o_ n the project_. The Council hereby. adopts said Negative
Declaration.
On motion of Smith , seconded by Williams and
on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Council Members Smith, Williams, Romero and Mayor Settle
NOES: Council. Member Roalman
ABSENT: None
R 8797
Resolution No. 8797
Page 2
the foregoing resolution was adopted this 5th A- -c M- ^ ^n
ATTEST:
Clerk i • /
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
A, ./ 0 MA -
"// ,
• F' n
�,A/ lJ!
�"
��
l
i
RESOLUTION NO. 8796 (1998 Series)
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
AUTHORIZING THE SUBMITTAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECT PROPOSALS
TO THE CENTRAL COAST REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD
WHEREAS, several agencies of the State of California are involved in settlement
negotiations with Unocal regarding past discharges of contaminants at Unocal's Guadalupe Oil
Fields; and
WHEREAS, part of the settlement will include funds for water quality projects with a nexus
to the water quality problems caused by the discharges at Guadalupe; and
WHEREAS, the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (Regional Board)
has developed specific criteria to evaluate potential projects; and
WHEREAS, the Regional Board has solicited proposals from government agencies and
nonprofit organizations for consideration in disbursing monies derived from the settlement
negotiations..
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo hereby:
1. Authorizes the submittal of environmental project proposals to the Central Coast Regional
Water Quality Control Board for grant support for environmental projects, including land
acquisition and aquatic habitat enhancement.
2. Appoints the City Administrative Officer as .agent of the City to conduct all negotiations,
execute and submit all documents, including, but not limited to, submittals, agreements,
amendments, payment requests and so on, which may be necessary for the completion of the
aforementioned proposals.
Approved and adopted this 5'b day of May, 1998.
On motion of Roalman seconded by
following roll call vote:
Smith.
and on the
AYES:Council Members Roalman, Smith, Romero, Williams & Mayor Settle
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
The foregoing resolution was adopted this
Allen K. Settle, Mayor
ATTEST:
n�
_ .
!MSM NW-73
•
5th day of May ,1998.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
W/ pInFlI MYI:.t
R gly Attorney
n 0�nc
LU�,'�r
RESOLUTION NO. 8795 (1998 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
DENYING AN APPEAL FOR A TREE REMOVAL REQUEST AT
794 MEINECKE STREET
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo
as follows:
SECTION 1. Finding: That this Council, after consideration of the applicant's
appeal; and the San Luis Obispo Tree Committee's action, staff recommendations and reports
thereon, make the following finding:
a. Removing the trees would not promote good arboricultural practice.
SECTION 2. The appeal is hereby denied.
Upon motion of C:;:Romero;.:.: ::. ; seconded by Williams
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Council Members ?'Romero, Williams, Roalman, Smith, Mayor Settle
NOES`. None
ABSENT. None
the foregoing resolution was adopted this 5 th day of May , 1998.
Mayor Allen Settle
ATTEST:
( /
If-
B 'e Gawf, ty Cly c
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
n 0-7nr
C:
���;r��,
� �,. �
�� ��, ,
��� f�-
�_
RESOLUTION NO. 8794 (1998 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
ADOPTING GUIDELINES FOR ACQUIRING AND IMPROVING PARK LAND
IN ANNEXATION AREAS
WHEREAS, the City's General Plan says the City shall develop and maintain a park system at
the rate of 10 acres of park land per 1,000 residents, and that the costs of public facilities and services
needed for new development.shall be borne by the new development; and
WHEREAS, State law allows the City to achieve these goals whenever a discretionary,
legislative act of the City is required, such as an annexation, zone change, general plan amendment or
development agreement; and
WHEREAS, if the City does not achieve its General Plan goal with each residential
development it approves, any gap between this goal and current circumstances will grow even larger,
and that much more difficult to achieve at some time in the future. Service levels will fall for both
existing and new residents; and
WHEREAS, the City wants to ensure that it clearly communicates its goals — and method for
achieving them — to those proposing residential annexations in order to avoid any misunderstandings
about development requirements and related costs; and that it achieves these goals in the most effective
manner possible.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo that it
hereby adopts the attached guidelines for acquiring and improving park land in annexation areas.
Upon motion of Council Member- .Smith. -- _, seconded by Council Member Williams
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:Council Member Smith, Williams, Romero, Roalman, Mayor Settle
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
the foregoing resolution was adopted this 21 day of aril ) 1998.
Mayor Allen Settle
- ATTEST:
onnie Gawf, ,ei y Q&
A, 0 0 LIVING 14
i
� , iv
R 8794
�i����Illlllllllll� Il�ui�ll city of
san Luis omspo
Park Land Acquisition and Improvement in Annexation Areas
A. OVERVIEW
The purpose of these guidelines is to provide a framework for achieving General Plan
park system goals in annexation areas. While these guidelines are not intended to be
"hard and fast rules," they are intended to provide sufficient direction to help ensure that:
We clearly communicate our goals — and method for achieving them — to those
proposing residential annexations in order to avoid any misunderstandings about
development requirements and related costs.
2. We achieve these goals in the most effective manner possible.
B. GENERAL PLAN POLICIES
The General Plan sets forth two key policies regarding the City's park system standards;
and new development's responsibility to pay for the cost of the park land necessary to
serve it:
1. The City shall develop and maintain a park system at the rate of 10 acres of park
land per 1,000 residents (PR 6.1.1).
2. The costs of public facilities and services needed for new development shall be
borne by the new development, unless the community chooses to help pay the
costs for a certain development to obtain community-wide benefits (LU 1.14).
C. IMPLEMENTATION GUIDELINES
In accordance with General Plan policies, the City will use the following guidelines in
acquiring and improving park land whenever State law allows us to do so. This is most
likely to occur in the case of annexations. However, these guidelines are also applicable
whenever discretionary approvals of the City are requested, such as zone changes, general
plan amendments or development agreements.
Park land acquisition and improvement goal. The City will achieve a ratio of
10 acres of park per 1,000 residents projected to reside in the annexation area.
This includes land and improvements.
a. Privately owned and maintained landscaped areas such as interior
parkways and community greens may be considered as contributing to this
goal. This will be determined on a case -by -case basis depending on the
purpose and nature of such areas, and the level of public access to them.
Park Land Acquisition and Improvement in Annexation Areas Page 2
b, School sites may also be considered as contributing towards this goal.
This will be determined on a case -by -case basis depending on the location
of the proposed school site to planned park sites, and the likelihood that
the school site will be used as a "joint use" facility.
C. Open space will not typically be counted as park land in meeting the 10
acres per 1,000 residents standard. The City's General Plan is clear in its
distinctions between open space and parks, and the purpose of these
guidelines is to help implement the General Plan's park system goals, not
open space goals.
2. Property owner dedication and developer improvement requirement.
Through an annexation agreement; the City will generally require the dedication
and full improvement of required park land by the property owner and/or
developer (applicant) as a condition of the annexation. This means that the City
will typically not take the lead role in acquiring and improving parks in
annexation areas; this is the applicant's responsibility similar to the construction
of other on -site, project- related infrastructure improvements such as streets,
sidewalks, storm drainage collection, water distribution lines and sewer collection
lines.
3. Acquisition and improvement phasing. The phasing of when dedication and
improvements are required by the applicant will be set forth in the annexation
agreement, specific plan or development plan. While this will be determined on a
case -by -case basis, land dedication and improvements should generally be phased
as follows:
a. Land should be dedicated upon annexation.
b. Phase 1 improvements (as defined in the annexation agreement, specific
plan or development plan) should be completed before the first certificate
of occupancy is issued; other improvement phases and standards may be
established in the annexation agreement, specific plan or development
plan.
C. All improvements should be completed by the time that about two- thirds
of the units are available for occupancy.
4. Fees in -lien of dedication and improvement. Depending on the circumstances,
the City may prefer to develop some portion of the required park acquisition and
improvements on property that is not being annexed. This would generally occur
when the City plans to meet part of the "10 acres per 1,000 residents" requirement
through a community -wide facility that is not located in the annexation area, or
when the annexation area is not large enough to dedicate and improve a
meaningful amount of park land. Whenever fees are paid in lieu of dedicating and
improving park land, they will be;
Park Land Acquisition and Improvement in Annexation Areas Page 3
a. Restricted solely for park land acquisition and improvement.
b. Determined, assessed, collected and accounted for in a manner consistent
with state requirements for development impact fees as set forth in AB
1600.
C. Used for park land and improvements that directly serve the annexation
area, unless a finding is made that the area is already adequately served by
existing neighborhood facilities. In this case, fees will be used to acquire
or improve community -wide facilities.
5. Case -by -case review. The following issues will be addressed on a case -by -case
basis as part of the specific plan or development review process:
a Amount of park land to be dedicated and improved within the annexation
areas versus the amount that will be met through the payment of in -lieu
fees in meeting the overall goal of 10 acres of parks per 1,000 residents.
b. Location and type of park land to be developed in the annexation area.
C. Value of the park land and improvements that will not be developed in the
annexation, and the resulting amount of fees to be paid.
d. Timing as to when these fees will be paid.
e. Timing as to when park improvements will be made by the applicant.
f. Distribution of any in -lieu fees between neighborhood versus community
parks and facilities, and the need to redress any deficit in the availability of
neighborhood parks in the vicinity of the annexation area.
H: Margarita Area Specific Plan/Park Land Acquisition in Annexation Areas
W ✓�
Cz�
8793
RESOLUTION NO. (1998 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
AMENDING PROCEDURES FOR COMPENSATING
PROPERTY OWNERS IN THE COMMERCIAL FIRE ZONE FOR
UNDERGROUND WATER LINE CONNECTIONS
REQUIRED FOR FIRE SPRINKLER RETRO -FIT
WHEREAS, on June 6, 1990, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 1170 amending the
San Luis Obispo Municipal Code Chapter 15, Section 15.08.010, adopting the Uniform Fire
Code (UFC) and repealing Sections 15.08.040 through 15.08.350, and
WHEREAS, the 1988 UFC, Section 10.306(c) requires "existing buildings that are in the
`commercial fire zone,' as established in Section 10.501 of the UFC as amended by the City of
San Luis Obispo, shall have an automatic sprinkler system installed and operational throughout,
by January 1, 2000," and
WHEREAS, Ordinance 1205 (1992) Series amended the 1988 Uniform Fire Code Section
10.306(c) to add the exception that `Buildings of un- reinforced masonry construction shall have
an automatic fire - sprinkler system installed and operational by the deadline set forth in the
Building Code for compliance with seismic retro -fit standards ", and
WHEREAS, Council directed staff to bring back a Capitol Improvement Program over a
nine -year period to help compensate property owners for the cost associated with the waterline
connections in the "downtown core" for buildings requiring a retro -fit sprinkler system.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the City Council authorizes the compensation
of each property owner in the commercial fire zone (Exhibit 1), who is required to sprinkler
retro -fit; actual costs up to the amount of $150 per foot for underground waterline connections
from the property line to the point of connection with the City's water system.
R 8793
v .
� I
Resolution No. 8793 (1998 Series)
Page 2
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the City Council would also reimburse property owners
for actual costs incurred for connecting to the City water main up to the maximum amounts listed
on the following table.
Water Main Size
Max. Cost Reimbursement
4" & 6"
$2,000
8"
$2,500
10"
$3,500
12"
$5,000
Upon motion of. Magnr cPtti a seconded by Council Member Romero
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Mayor Settle, Council Member Romero, Roalman, Williams, Smith
NOES: None
ABSENT None
the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 21 day of Aril 1998.
—e
Mayor Allen Settle
ATTEST:
/Eity Clerk, ;6nni . Ga&
���
O
� �.�
i
RESOLUTION NO.8792 (1998 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
DENYING THE APPEAL AND UPHOLDING THE ACTION OF THE
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION TO DENY A REQUEST FOR
EXCEPTIONS TO THE SIGN REGULATIONS REGARDING THE NUMBER, SIZE,
HEIGHT AND LOCATION OF SIGNS FOR THE ECONO LODGE MOTEL AT 950
OLIVE STREET
WHEREAS, the applicant requested an exception to the sign regulations to allow two
additional freestanding signs for the Econo Lodge Motel at the above address; and
WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Commission.reviewed the request at its March 16,
1998 meeting and denied the exceptions based on the findings that there were no exceptional
circumstances which would justify exceptions to the sign regulations; and
WHEREAS, on March 23, 1998, the applicant appealed the Architectural Review
Commission's action to the City Council; and
WHEREAS, on April 21, 1998, the City Council conducted a duly noticed public
hearing to consider testimony of the appellant and other interested parties; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the project is categorically exempt
under Section 15311 of the CEQA Guidelines.
BE IT RESOLVED, by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings. That this Council, after consideration of the applicant's request
for exceptions to the sign regulations and the Architectural Review Commission's action, the
appellant's statements, staff recommendations, public testimony; and reports thereof, makes the
following findings:
1. There are no exceptional or unusual circumstances which apply to the property
involved which do not apply generally to properties in the vicinity in the same
zoning.
2. There -are not special circumstances which would justify exceptions to the Sign
Regulations regarding the number, size, height, and location of signs in the
Tourist Commercial zone.
3. Granting an exception would constitute a special privilege or entitlement
inconsistent with limitations applied to other properties in the vicinity with the
same zoning.
4. Granting an exception would not be consistent with the purpose and intent of the
sign regulations.
R R7Q9
8792
Resolution No. (1998 Series)
Page 2
5. Signage in compliance with the adopted Sign Regulations can adequately identify
this business in the Commercial Tourist zone.
SECTION 2. Denial. The appeal of the Architectural Review Commission's action is
hereby denied, and the action of the Architectural Review Commission is upheld.
Upon motion of col,nri l Member Rnal man , seconded by Council Member Romero
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Council Member Roalman, Romero, Williams, Smith, Mayor Settle
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
the foregoing resolution was adopted this 21
ATTEST:
r/ NEW
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
day of April
1998.
�I/ e
Mayor Allen Settle
n
�� ✓1 �. 11
�fJ �� J
-•.
' �:
�t e
�l'.
.`.
V� � �
.:���
t \�\,
a
Ink
RESOLUTION NO. 8791 (1998 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS
OBISPO DENYING AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S
ACTION ON AN ADMINISTRATIVE USE PERMIT ALLOWING A
CONFORMING ADDITION TO A NON- CONFORMING STRUCTURE
AT 121 PENMAN WAY, A 6 -98
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on March 11, 1998,
and denied appeals to the Hearing Officer's action, thereby, approving an administrative use
permit allowing a conforming addition to a non - conforming structure and denying a building
height exception to allow a 27 -foot high structure where a 25 -foot high structure is allowed; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission's action was appealed on.March 19,1998; and
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a, public hearing on April 21, 1998, and has
considered testimony of interested parties including the appellants, the applicant, the records of
the Planning Commission hearings, and the evaluation and recommendation of staff.
BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings. That this Council, after consideration of administrative use
permit A -6 -98 and the Commission's decision, staff recommendation, public testimony, and
reports thereof, makes the following findings:
The proposed addition is consistent with the intent of Chapter 17.14 of the zoning
regulations as the project will improve the structure's non - conforming by
removing an existing non - conforming carport.
2. The proposed addition is a logical extension of the existing non - conforming
house, and it will not alter the overall character of the neighborhood.
3. The building roof can be redesigned to lower the overall building height to
comply with the maximum height standard in the R -1 zone (Section 17.24.020C).
R8791
A
8791
Resolution No. (1998 Series)
Page 2
4. Compliance with the City's maximum building height standard (25 feet) will
minimize any obstruction of views from the adjoining properties on Serrano
Drive and Serrano Heights.
During review of administrative use permit (A 6 -98), the City was informed of an
illegal non -conforming accessory structure on the property. This accessory
structure is not part of the subject administrative use permit, and it is being
processed separately.
SECTION 2. Condition.
In processing the building permit for the house addition, the applicant shall
concurrently bring all violations related to the accessory structure into compliance
with the applicable City Codes.
SECTION 3. Denial. The appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to approve
administrative use permit A -6 -98 is hereby denied.
On motion of Council Member Roalman , seconded by
Council Member Smith , and on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Council Member Roalman, Smith, Williams, Mayor Settle
NOES: Council Member Romero
ABSENT: None
the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 21st day of April, 1998.
Mayor Allen Settle
ATTEST:
7city Cler"onre Ga
APPROVED:
I_Ue
lir
ii , 'I
`,. Jorgensen
�f // � /V
!. W'
,r \
�''jb' � -Z /l
���C
\P.
V
,�
RESOLUTION NO. 8790 (1998 Series)
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO APPROVING
PROPOSED CABLE SYSTEM TRANSFERS
WHEREAS, Sonic Cable Television of San Luis Obispo ( "Sonic ") holds a
franchise to operate a cable television system in the City of San Luis Obispo ( "City"); and
WHEREAS, Christopher Cohan ( "Cohan") is the general partner and a limited
partner in Sonic Partners, L.P. ( "Sonic Partners "), which is the sole owner of Sonic
Enterprises ( "SE "), which in turn owns Sonic Communications ( "SCI "), which in turn
owns Sonic; and
WHEREAS, Sonicvest is a new company created for the purpose of acquiring all
the stock of SE and facilitating the transaction more fully described in an FCC Form 394
submitted to the City on or about September 29, 1997, and prior to the consummation of
such sale of stock Cohan intends to transfer all of his interest in Sonic Partners to the
Trust, and the Trust intends to acquire all of the other partnership interests in Sonic
Partners, thereby terminating Sonic Partners' existence (collectively, the
"Cohan/Sonicvest Transactions "), which will result in a change in control from Sonic to
Sonicvest; and
WHEREAS, Charter Communications Properties, L.L.C. ( "CCP ") desires to
acquire all the assets of Sonic as more fully described in the FCC Form 394 submitted to
the City on or about September 29, 1997 (the "Sonic /CCP Transaction "); and
WHEREAS, CCP is an indirectly, wholly -owned subsidiary of Charter
Communications, Inc. ( "Charter "); and
WHEREAS, CCP has entered into a management agreement with Charter; and
WHEREAS, more specifically, (1) Cohan, Sonic, and Sonievest have asked the
City to approve a transaction that will ultimately result in an assignment of Cohan's
control of Sonic to Sonicvest, and (2) Sonic, and CCP have asked the City to approve a
second transaction that will result in a sale of Sonic's assets from Sonicvest to CCP,
which transactions are collectively referred to as the "Change of Control and Transfer of
Ownership" and
WHEREAS, as of the date of this Resolution, Sonicvest does not have the
independent financial, technical or legal qualifications to justify the transfer to it, and
whereas CCP's Form 394 relies in part on the experience and resources available through
Charter, to justify the transfer to it; and
R 8790
Resolution No. 8790 (1998 Series)
Page 2
WHEREAS, the parties to the Cohan/Sonicvest Transaction have represented that
Sonia will continue to be the grantee until the Sonic/CCP Transaction is completed, at
which time CCP will be the grantee; and
WHEREAS, the City is willing to approve the Change of Control and Transfer of
Ownership, but only if the parties are willing to satisfy certain conditions; if the
performance of CCP is unconditionally guaranteed by its parent, Charter
Communications, Inc.; and only subject to certain other conditions designed to ensure
that the interests of the public and the City are not adversely affected;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY THAT:
SECTION 1. Subject to the provisions of this Resolution, the Change of Control and
Transfer of Ownership are approved, if
(a) by April 21, 1998, Sonic, Sonicvest, SCI, SE, Cohan (on his own behalf
and as Trustee of the Trust), CCP and Charter each sign and deliver to the City the
attached Change of Control and Transfer of Ownership Agreement (the "Transfer
Agreement "); and
(b) by April 21, 1998, Charter and Cohan each sign and deliver to the City the
Guaranties required by the Transfer Agreement; and
(c) all conditions set forth in the Transfer Agreement are satisfied, in
accordance with their terms, by the time that they are required to be satisfied. Without
limiting the foregoing, by way of example and not limitation, the limitations on
Sonicvest's holding of the franchise must be satisfied; and
(d) the Change of Control and Transfer of Ownership is completed by June
30, 1998, and the transactions and the relationships. between Charter and CCP do not
differ in any material respect from the transactions and relationships as represented to the
City in writings and
(e) CCP becomes a signatory to the franchise, or otherwise files an
unconditional acceptance of the franchise acceptable to the City irrimediately upon the
completion of the Change of Control and Transfer of Ownership.
SECTION 2. The City finds that it is not in the public interest to approve the Change of
Control and Transfer of Ownership, given the status of the franchise, and the information
provided in the Form 394 and in response to document requests, unless all the conditions
in Section. I are satisfied: The request for approval of the transactions shall be deemed
denied as of the date of this Resolution if each and every one of the conditions is not fully
satisfied, or if the provisions of this Resolution are for any reason deemed unenforceable.
SECTION 3. This Resolution is specifically made without a finding or representation
that Sonic is in compliance with all the terms and conditions of its franchise, or that
R 8790'
Resolution No. 8790 _ (1998 Series)
Page 3
Sonicvest or that CCP is or is not financially, technically or legally qualified to hold the
franchise.
SECTION 4. This Resolution is not an approval of any other transaction, whether
required or allowed by the Change of Ownership or Transfer of Control, nor does the
approval of the transactions in any respect limit the enforceability of any franchise
provision. In the event of a conflict between any provision of any document related to
the Change of Ownership or Transfer of Control and the Transfer Agreement, this
Resolution or the Franchise, then the Transfer Agreement, this Resolution and the
franchise shall control; CCP shall be required to comply with its obligations under the
same, notwithstanding the provisions of any other agreement.
SECTION 5. The City Administrative Officer is hereby authorized to sign the Transfer
Agreement attached hereto, on behalf of the City.
On motion of Council Mbr. Williams , seconded by Council Member Romero
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Council Member Williams, Romero, Smith,' Roalman, PIayor Settle
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted this 21� day of April, 1998.
ATTEST:
onnie Gaw �,e,ity , erk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
I rd?,?j
�tA-
RESOLUTION NO. 8788
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
AUTHORIZING APPLICATION FOR GRANT FUNDS FROM THE UNITED STATES
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE FOR THE PROJECT KNOWN AS
UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD PROPERTY ACQUISITION
WHEREAS, the City of San Luis Obispo is considering the acquisition of certain
real property in the vicinity of the City, commonly known as the Union Pacific Railroad
property, for wildlife habitat, passive recreation, scenic conservation, potential mitigation
and other public purposes, in partnership with several other public agencies; and
WHEREAS, the United State Fish and Wildlife Service has created the small
grants program of the North American Wetlands Conservation Act, whose purpose is to
assist in the preservation of small areas of wetland throughout the nation; and
WHEREAS, said property contains small areas of wetland within it, which meet the
intent of the Act in linking preservation of small areas of wetlands and associated
uplands;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of San
Luis Obispo hereby:
1. Authorizes the filing of an application to the Small Grants Program of the North
American Wetlands Conservation Act for grant assistance for the above project; and
2. Appoints the City Administrative Officer as agent of the City to conduct all
negotiations, execute and submit all documents, including, but not limited to; applications,
agreements, amendments, payment requests and so on, which may be necessary for the
completion of the aforementioned project.
Approved and adopted this 21 st day of April, 1998.
On motion OfCouncil Mbr.Williamr� seconded by Council Member Romero and
on the following roll 66111-Vote -
AYES: Council Member Williams, Romero, Roalman, Smith, Mayor Settle
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
The foregoing resolution was adopted this 21
len K. Settle, May
ATTEST:
nnie L. C
, ' Cle c
day of April , 1998.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Attorney
n Q-7 o4
��
���, ---
�v�� -�G�
��
(�
ti
RESOLUTIONNO. 8789
i
(1998 SERIES)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
ACCEPTING THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS FOR TRACT 2126
WHEREAS, the City Council made certain findings concerning Tract 2126, as
contained in Resolution No. 8145 (1993 Series), and
WHEREAS, the City Council approved the final map for Tract 2126 per Resolution
No. 8641 (1997 Series), and
WHEREAS, the subdivider has satisfactorily completed the subdivision improvements for
Tract 2126, in accordance with City standards, specifications and the subdivision agreement and
has requested that the City accept the public improvements for maintenance and operation and
release of pertinent surety.
NOW THEREFORE, the City Council hereby accepts the public improvements for Tract
No. 2126. The Faithful Performance surety is hereby reduced to ten (10) percent of its
principal amount, in accordance with the subdivision agreement. The Labor and Materials surety
shall be held for the period prescribed in Section 66499.7 of the Subdivision Map Act.
On motion of Council Mbr. Williams, seconded by Council Member Romero
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Council Member Williams, Romero, Roalman, Smith, Mayor Settle
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted this 21 day of April , 1998.
Mayor Allen K. Se e
Resolution No. 8789 (1998 Series)
Page Two
ATTEST:
Vfi �
6. �,
Approved as to Form:
Jorgen
son
I: \Council Agenda Reportffinal Acceptance - Tract 2126,
�� �,
r- �.
_�
h�� J
�,,,�
c
� -<z�
•Y� .%
;�
RESOLUTION NO. 8787 (1998 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
ADOPTING THE 1998 PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT PLAN
WHEREAS, the Council adopted the 1987 Pavement Management Plan on February 16ffi,
1988 by Resolution No. 6398, and;
WHEREAS, the 1987 Pavement Management Plan established a 10 year goal in which to
reduce a backlog of needed work, and;
WHEREAS, ten years have passed since the adoption of the 1987 Pavement
Management Plan, and;
WHEREAS, the Council has commissioned the preparation of a new Pavement
Management Plan, and;
and;
WHEREAS, the staff has presented Council with the 1998 Pavement Management Plan,
WHEREAS, the Council finds the 1998 Pavement Management Plan to be acceptable.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo
as follows:
SECTION 1. Resolution 6398 is hereby rescinded and;.
SECTION 2. The 1998 Pavement Management Plan is hereby adopted.
Upon motion of _ Council Member Romero , seconded by council Member Williams,
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Council Member Romero, Roalman, Smith, Williams, Mayor Settle
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
the foregoing resolution was adopted this 14 day of April , 1998
Mayor Allen Settle
ATTEST:
B e Gawf, City erk
R8787
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
". �.:.
/�, ,)
W � � .�•
v`
�aW
l
2-111 V/9 S; /
PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT PLAN
APRIL 1998
Michael D. McCluskey, Director of Public Works
Prepared by:
Wayne Peterson, City Engineer
Joe McDermott, Streets Supervisor
Public Works Department
City of San Luis Obispo
PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT PLAN
Table of Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1
INTRODUCTION 4
Pavement Management - The Basics
History of Pavement Management - San Luis Obispo
PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT- DESIGN ELEMENTS G
Pavement is a Valuable Asset
The Design Life of Pavement
How Pavements Age and Are Rated
Pavement Condition -The Public View
PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT SOFTWARE 9
What is a Pavement Management Software Program?
How Staff Chose the New Software?
Now did we install the new system?
How Does MicroPaver Work?
ANALYSIS -HOW DOES THE CITY'S SYSTEM STAND UP? 12
System Description
Street Condition Analysis
Effects of Good Design Standards
Effects of inadequate design standards, i.e. bus route impacts
The Street Sealing Program
Summary of Current Condition
Total Value of Deficiency
Funding levels for Pavement Management
PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT PROGRAM RECOMMENDATIONS 20
Policy Recommendations
Pavement Condition Level
Roadway Design Criteria
Implementation Plan
Program Components
I
RECOMMENDED PROGRAM FUNDING LEVELS 28
Recommended Funding for Global Maintenance
Recommended Funding for Major Maintenance
Recommended Funding for Program Management
Recommended Staffing for Program Management
Funding Summary
FINANCING THE PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT PLAN 33
APPENDIX
A Procedures followed to create the 1997 pavement inventory
B 1997 -8 Cal -Trans Partnership Paving Program
C Five Year City Wide Work Program - with $1,500,000 major maintenance and
$500,000 global maintenance programs
D Bus Route Impacts to Surface Condition
E Existing Pavement Deficiency
F Condition - Central Business District - $150,000 per year
G Annual Work Plan of integrating all Pavement Management Programs
H Budget to raise overall PCI
I Pavement. Maintenance Areas Plan
J One Year Work Program- with $4,000,000 combined major maintenance and
global maintenance
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In July of 1995, the City Council adopted an objective to complete a new Pavement
Management Plan which would replace the previous Plan adopted in 1987. City staff has
diligently pursued completion of this objective and this Plan represents a culmination of
those efforts.
The street system of the City of San Luis Obispo is important: it is the City's single most
valuable asset; it offers an immediate impression to visitors and residents about the
quality of life here in San Luis Obispo. Protecting and enhancing this asset is the
fundamental task of a good pavement management program, and a manifestation of good
City government.
The heart of a program is a computer software program which can analyze the conditions
of various street segments via special algorithms and then makes maintenance
recommendations according to the available budget. The City purchased MicroPaver, a
program originally written by the Army Corps of Engineers to maintain military bases.
This program is made available to the public via the American Public Works Department
and the University of Illinois. It is continually updated and maintained by the Corps and
is in use throughout the United States and worldwide.
Every street in the City was broken into multiple segments for data analysis; field
inspected and input into the program. Analysis shows a current value of the City's street
system at $43 Million with a potential total value of $60 Million. With a deficiency of
nearly $17 Million to correct, the pavement management program question becomes: "Is
it possible to achieve total value, and if not, what is the best strategy to keep the system
from deteriorating further and if possible, to improve the system ?"
It is the opinion of this Plan that, given the financial status of cities in California, it is not
possible to fund a program with an objective to achieve 100% of the potential street
system value. Therefore this Plan recommends a comprehensive program which will,
over a period of about ten years, raise the value of the system to approximately 80% of its
potential value. A street system with this value will have a much better appearance,
experience less complaints and provide a smoother ride for the public.
This Plan incorporates many of the elements of the 1987 Plan but takes a more pro - active
role in maintaining the street system - particularly in the Downtown. New techniques for
pavement management have emerged since 1987 and many are still in the research stage.
This Plan encourages the selective use of appropriate new technologies that will make
pavement management even more cost effective and efficient.
Is this Pavement Management Plan perfect? The answer is no. Just as the 1987 Plan was
based on an a just emerging pavement management software program, this Plan assumes
that local road conditions (and therefore maintenance strategies) follow a certain
degradation curve. The actual curve can only be determined with successive road
segment data collected over time and input to software. Design recommendations are
likewise based upon vehicle and truck counts currently available and projected for the
Pavement Management Plan
Page 1
future. Finally, the life extending capabilities of various design and maintenance
strategies are based on nationwide averages.
Due to all these variables, this Plan recommends that a full street system analysis be
prepared as a part of each two year budget preparation. This will serve a two fold
purpose: a) the data input allows the software model to better predict the condition and
therefore needs of the street system; and b) it keeps the Council aware of the importance
of the street system and better helps the Council decide the degree of funding needed.
Total program recommended funding levels are nearly twice those of the current program,
increasing from $1.2 million annually today for sealing and overlay, to $2.3 million to
fully achieve the pavement management objectives recommended in this Plan. This Plan
also includes a recommendation for a new staff position to administer the program,
maintain the software and prepare plans and specifications for the needed maintenance
projects. In effect this creates an "advocate for pavement" on staff much like those that
exist now for sewer, water, parks, etc.
Why does this Plan recommend higher costs than the previous one? A number of issues
all contribute the answer.
• The previous system was designed to fully seal only 80% of the entire roadway
system versus the planned 95% level recommended in this Plan.
• The previous plan had no proactive approach to 5% of the system representing the
Downtown..
• The length of the City's roadway system has increased by 16% since 1987 (about
1.5% per year) and while adjustments were provided for increasing material costs, no
adjustments were made for roadway system increases.
• Estimates of the dollar amount required to "catch up" on major maintenance were
probably low in the 1987 Plan.
• Roads that were only 10 years old then are 20 years old today and thus further
deteriorated and the maintenance strategies are far different, more effective and more
expensive.
• Funding was not consistently provided for the major maintenance identified in the
1987 Plan.
Totaling all factors together creates a geometric funding deficiency rather than a simple
arithmetic function. This Plan will help avoid these problems by providing a clearer,
more quantifiable measure of pavement condition and return the streets to a more
favorable condition found 10 years ago.
Analysis of the current maintenance program and funding levels shows the existing street
system in a gradual decline. A program that just maintains the status quo requires an
annual increase in budget of about $200,000.
The new 'Area" program. A major component of this Plan is described as the "area"
program. Citizens often complain that government agencies waste taxpayer dollars by
paving a street one year and then ripping it up the following year with a sewer or water
Pavement Management Plan
Page 2
line project. This Plan proposes that all underground work necessary within the
designated "area" would be completed in one year. The following year would be devoted
to paving projects. And after that, no projects would occur in that area for another six
years unless an emergency arises.
Nationwide, pavement traditionally has received a fairly low priority for funding until
such time as the public really starts to complain. A good pavement management plan
prevents numerous complaints while keeping the public aware that the system is actively
being managed. By adopting and implementing this, the 1998 Pavement Management
Plan, the City of San Luis Obispo can expect a significant improvement to its street
system. It provides a pro- active approach to long range planning, decreasing
neighborhood disruption and maintaining the commercial viability of the Downtown. It
will serve the needs of the community well into the next century.
Pavement Management Plan
Page 3
INTRODUCTION
Pavement Management - The Basics
Pavement management is the process and methodology of controlling the condition of the
traveled roadway surface; preserving its appearance, usefulness, safety and longevity.
Good pavement management accomplishes these goals in an effective and efficient
manner. A comprehensive pavement management program includes three major
elements: a) on -going or Global Maintenance; b) rehabilitation or Major Maintenance;
and c) inspection, monitoring, data input or Program Administration. Without one of the
three elements pavement management can survive, but at the cost of effectiveness and
efficiency.
Global maintenance is intended: to extend the life of roadways which exist in a good
condition, and to maintain all other streets in a safe and operational condition until such
time as major maintenance can take place. This form of maintenance includes street
sweeping, crack sealing, and surface sealing. The City has conducted, for a number of
years, a successful surface sealing program including chip seals, cape seals and micro -
surfacing.
Major maintenance involves an engineered design to rehabilitate a given roadway
segment and, in essence, return it to the condition of a brand new surface. Roadway
overlays and reconstruction are examples of this type of maintenance.
Program administration requires a significant effort because the street system is most
often a city's most valuable asset. The software to evaluate and make recommendations
is complicated; the data necessary is extensive; and knowledge of pavement design and
experience in the field is necessary to make effective and efficient decisions.
History of Pavement Management in the City
Prior to 1987, the Public Works Department managed the City's pavement by conducting
an annual field review. The review was conducted by the Department Head and the
Street Superintendent. The review was conducted over a two to four week period by
driving each of the city's streets, and recording the needs of the pavement on a map. The
result was an annual work program, constrained by the budget, to correct observed
deficiencies by improving the pavement by overlay or reconstruction and to extend
existing pavement life by application of a chip seal.
In 1987, the City adopted a Pavement Management Plan that used a proprietary software
program to rate street conditions and recommend maintenance. This system was installed
and managed by staff at the Corporation Yard. The program identified a large city-wide
deficiency in street conditions. As a result, the City Council approved additional funding
for a major maintenance program which was projected to cure the deficiency within a ten
year peri od. Additionally, a global maintenance program was approved with a goal to
extend the life expectancy of the existing city street system..
In 1993, the City experienced a budget shortfall and addressed the shortage of funds by a
combination of staffing reductions and cutting back on programs. At the time, three
Pavement Management Plan
Page 4
different positions at the Corporation Yard were responsible for the operation and
maintenance of the Pavement Maintenance program. Two of the positions were
eliminated, and the person in the third position retired and his position was not filled. In
addition funds for major maintenance were reduced. Thus due to significant problems at
the time, two of the key areas for a pavement management program - major maintenance
and program administration - were negatively affected and streets scheduled for major
maintenance were delayed.
In 1995, the condition of Marsh Street was determined to be extraordinarily deteriorating.
With the opening of significant improvements in the downtown, the Council directed the
expenditure of over a year's worth of major maintenance funding be used to provide
significant improvements to Marsh Street, including beautification and drainage
improvements. Other streets scheduled for this type of maintenance were further delayed.
During the City Council budget deliberations in the spring of 1995, staff proposed and the
Council concurred with the need for a new pavement management system. However, the
Council rejected the request to hire a consultant to prepare the pavement management
plan and directed that the plan be prepared using only staff resources. The plan was to be
prepared within the existing workload and a budget of $15,000 was allocated. Because of
multiple other projects and Council goals, staff preparation of this comprehensive report
took longer than originally anticipated. This report is the conclusion of much staff time
and effort.
Pavement Management Plan
Page 5
PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT - DESIGN ELEMENTS
Pavement is a Valuable Asset
The surfaced or paved area within the city is both a large and valuable asset.
Approximately 1 /8'h of the surface area within the city limits is currently covered with
street pavement, not including the area paved and used for parkways, sidewalks, parking
lots or private streets and driveways. The replacement value of just this public street
pavement is approximately $60 million dollars. Managing the City's largest asset in an
effective and efficient manner is incumbent upon staff, and expected by the City's
citizens.
Due to the significant asset value, an effective management program must contain key
policies adopted by the local elected officials. It is important that all policy makers have
a basic understanding of pavement design and its aging process before giving direction to
implement a pavement management plan.
The Design Life of Pavement
The design life of pavement is a policy area that directly affects initial construction cost,
and secondarily affects on -going maintenance costs. In theory, the design life is time
from initial construction until it is time to remove and reconstruct the roadway section
again. The standard pavement design life in the United States is 20 years. However,
different design periods are possible as a standard design life in Europe is 50 years. The
European view is more costly initially but requires significantly less maintenance over the
life of the pavement.
Extended life expectancy can be obtained by either designing pavement with different
parameters or by using different materials. In an effort to learn from the Europeans, the
United States sent experts to study their designs with the goal of returning with new
knowledge on how to build better and longer lasting roads. The result of that research
effort is a new pavement design called Superpave. Many states have adopted it while
others, including California, are still analyzing the design parameters and doing testing.
Another example of roads with long design lives can be found here in San Luis Obispo in
the existing network of concrete streets. While they may have ride or appearance
problems, they are still structurally sound and viable streets.
Because the pavement has been designed for a 20 year life, and because there would
never be enough funds to totally replace the entire street network every 20 years,
pavement management programs have been developed with an emphasis on design life
extension. Thus a key policy and accompanying component of a pavement management
plan is a strategy on how best to achieve extension of pavement life.
How Pavements Age and Are Rated
Most pavements placed today are asphalt. Asphalt is a combination of small rock, sand
and asphaltic emulsions which act as a binder for the other material. All asphalt roads are
considered a flexible design; meaning that the road will flex under loading but rebound to
its original shape after the load has passed. It is the asphalt binder that provides the
flexibility. However, asphalt is subject to oxidation by sun light and as such loses its
Pavement Management Plan
Page 6
ability to bind the structural parts of the pavement and yet remain flexible. If not repaired
or maintained, the pavement becomes rigid and is no longer able to sustain the loads.
The pavement cracks and breaks and then must be removed and replaced.
The asphaltic emulsions also provide a watertight seal at the surface of the pavement.
This keeps water from penetrating through the pavement to the soil which supports it.
Dry soil has the strength to support a flexible pavement while wet soil does not; leading
again to structural failure. Thus it is important that a good surface seal be maintained to
keep water intrusion to a minimum.
All pavements age in a non - linear way. If all things are equal, the condition of a new
pavement remains in an excellent condition for several years while oxidation slowly takes
place. Then, gradually, the condition begins to deteriorate as either the soil looses
strength or the pavement becomes rigid. At some point, the rate of deterioration plunges
steeply. This leads to a street in poor condition and rapidly increasing maintenance costs.
Finally, the condition of the road stabilizes in a very poor condition.
Pavements in varying states of repair and ride were evaluated and a standard methodology
of measurement, the Pavement Condition Index (PCI) was established to provide a
basis for comparison and recommendation of maintenance strategies. A high PCI is a
road in good to excellent condition, while a low PCI is a road in poor condition.
The figure below shows a typical degradation curve for an asphalt roadway over a period
of time. The goal of a good pavement management program is to maintain an average
PCI of the street system as high as possible.
IW
so
PCI
5 10 15 20
TIME
Typical Street Degradation Curve
Obviously, a key question that must be asked is: "At what point is it no longer
economical to try to maintain or extend the pavement life ?" The point where the
pavement condition begins to rapidly deteriorate is called the critical point or pci and the
most common critical PCI is 50. Pavement management programs recommend
maintenance strategies that extend pavement life for streets above the critical point. For
those below the critical point, strategies are recommended which keep the streets in a safe
condition until such time as the road can be reconstructed. Figure 1 shows the critical
point in relation to the degradation curve and time.
Pavement Management Plan
Page 7
Good pavement management means the cost to maintain the pavement in a good or
excellent condition is relatively low, as long as the work is done before the condition
begins rapid deterioration. Once the pavement has begun to deteriorate rapidly the cost to
restore the pavement to excellent condition increases rapidly to the point where it may not
make economic sense to spend money doing routine maintenance. Most experts in
pavement management recommend that priority be placed on spending money to keep
streets maintained above the critical point.
If the condition of the pavement is above the critical point, global maintenance should be
performed frequently enough to keep it there. As pavements fall further towards the
critical point, forms of major maintenance such as overlays and spot repairs are
appropriate forms of maintenance to extend pavement life. Pavements that fall slightly
below the critical point can sometimes be restored with a combination of overlay and .
reconstruction but when pavement falls further, complete reconstruction is necessary.
Reconstruction is the most costly solution to pavement problems.
The decision to allow a deteriorated pavement to remain must be made considering
potential risks. It may be rough, but it cannot have structural problems such that vehicles
using it are placed in an unsafe condition. Factors that must be considered include the
number of vehicles per day, the type of vehicles (emergency, trucks, motorcycles and
bikes, etc.). These factors tend to favor programs which place priority on maintenance,
including reconstruction, on arterial and collector roads. Finally, all pavement
management programs need an element that assures that the needs of pedestrians crossing
the street are met, regardless of the condition of the street.
Pavement Condition - The Public View
Some streets in the community will need to be maintained for more than just
transportation purposes. They serve to provide identity. An example of this was the
decision to spend significant resources on the rehabilitation of Marsh Street in the
downtown. Visitors entering the community receive their first impressions as they
observe the condition of the streets. Pavement condition is also a statement of the
governing body's performance. A well maintained, attractive street system is an indicator
of good government.
The public only intuitively knows the PCI of the City's street system. They know and
appreciate smooth streets and a fast response to a service request (such as a pothole
repair). Citizens take pride in well maintained streets and recognize that streets that
provide access to the community for our residents and visitors and streets in the principal
business areas have different needs. These streets should be maintained to a higher
standard and may have differing design standards such as decorative stamped concrete,
pavers, colored materials etc. Policies which recognize these differing standards of
expectations should be part of a good pavement management program.
Pavement Management Plan
Page 8
PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT SOFTWARE
What is a Pavement Management Software Program?
Pavement management programs can consist of basic maintenance operations directed
from a very simple file card system to a highly complex combination of maintenance
strategies tied to computerized databases. The heart of most modem programs is a
software program that contains the streets database and, on the basis of input inspection
data, makes recommendations of various maintenance strategies.
The primary purpose of the software is to provide the pavement manager a reliable basis
for making economical decisions, resulting in the best pavement the budget will allow.
Typically the database will provide information about the kind, quantity and quality of the
pavement. The system of paved areas is broken into various sized segments that are
unique in character. The pavement type, history, and condition is recorded. The
information is used to identify needed maintenance. If money is not a limiting factor, the
project strategy is not difficult. Since budgets are a reality, the manager must use the
most economical alternative maintenance strategy in order to extend the pavement life
and maintain the surface at an acceptable condition.
The software is designed to identify a work plan that will optimize expenditures. It does
this by providing a consistent method of pavement evaluation and comparing the results
with time. Any performed maintenance effort on the pavement is input. Periodically
pavements are re- inspected to document the rate at which it ages. Some systems include
a method of forecasting the rate of expected deterioration based upon the history of
similar pavements in the system. The system tells the engineer whether the overall
system is getting better, poorer or staying the same. A well managed system will tell the
pavements' owner, the City, whether more or less funding should be allocated for
maintenance and will tell the engineer the effectiveness of the maintenance systems being
used.
One feature that many newer software programs have is GIS interaction. This allows the
manager to see the data in a geographical relationship. It helps in developing a plan of
operation in order to perform a more logical maintenance program.
The implementation of a sophisticated software program is a large project. Every street
in the system must be investigated to identify the history of the current surface.
Following this, the street must be inspected using a systematic approach to make the
results meaningful. Lastly, a good record must be made of the history and inspection.
With all of the data gathered, the final and relatively important activity is an evaluation of
the report and the development of a work plan and related budget. This process involves
a series of trial runs to find what alternative work plans will result in the most
improvement to the system within the budget allowed. Initially, the first evaluations are
made for the purpose of identifying the amount of the deficiency and are the beginning
point for evaluation and eventual recommendation.
Pavement Management Plan
Page 9
How Staff Chose the New Software
Prior to beginning this project, staff met and discussed goals for a management system.
Desirable features were discussed and agreed upon. The system had to be simple, result
in consistent inspection results, be supported by a credible organization and relatively
easy to use. It needed to work on the City's chosen computer hardware both now and in
the future, and provide flexible reports indicating pavement conditions. It had to produce
budget- planning documents that allowed the use of materials we now use and ones we
may like to consider for use in the future. Annual updates must be easily made and Cal
Poly students should be easily trained to inspect and input the data. Last of all the
program costs and costs to inspect and install the data needed to fit within the budget
established by the Council. Staff reviewed comparison reports prepared for the Federal
Highway Administrations LTAP program.
Staff attended programs put on by the Institute of Transportation Studies at Berkeley and
examined samples of many of the better programs. Based on all information gathered,
staff made the decision to purchase MicroPaver. This program has been under continual
development by the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers since the 1970's and is supported by
the University of Illinois and the American Public Works Association. The program was
originally developed to assist the military in the maintenance of its bases. It will continue
to be updated and supported, as the government has a strong desire to maintain the
program since it has proven to be an effective tool for maintenance of military bases and
commercial airports. Nations around the world have also adopted it for use in their
countries. The program is designed to run on desktop computers under Windows NT or
95. It is also designed to link directly with ARCVIEW, the City's chosen GIS software.
In addition, it has a very simple inspection system that is easy to use and results in
consistent evaluations. Also modules are currently being designed to assist maintenance
programming in other areas including storm drains, sidewalks and buildings.
How did we install the new system?
Once MicroPaver was ordered, two staff members spent a week at the University of
Illinois leaming how to operate it. Upon returning to San Luis Obispo, staff began the
process of installing the software and the database. The first project was to identify the
current pavement inventory and its condition. To do this, the entire inventory used in the
prior system was reviewed and checked against historical plans. Next, the pavement
areas were mapped utilizing AutoCad and the City's base map system. This provided an
accurate plotting of the location and area of each segment of pavement. The segment
areas were further divided on the AutoCad maps to create sample areas for inspection.
Crews of student interns were trained in defect identification and measurement following
procedures established by the Corps of Engineers. The interns inspected the sample areas
identified on the drawings. It is important that the sample area be well defined, because
the real power of the program results when the same sample area is reviewed over time
and the rate of aging and deterioration of the pavement is established.
Pavement Management Plan
Page 10
After the pavements were inspected, the resulting data was entered into the computer and
a pavement condition index, PCI, was established for each segment of roadway. The PCI
is a very important index in pavement management: the higher the PCI, the better the
pavement's condition and less funding is necessary for rehabilitation; the lower the PCI,
the worse the ride, the condition, the public approval etc., and significantly more funding
is necessary for rehabilitation.
How Does MicroPaver Work?
MicroPaver bases its recommendations upon the data input and the Pavement Condition
Index or PCI. The PCI is a number ranging from 0 -100. A perfect street would have a
rating of 100. A PCI is calculated from inspection information an d is assigned to each
street segment. The street segments are assigned to a family of streets having similar
characteristics. i.e. they were built of similar material, concrete or asphalt. The PCI for
each street segment was then plotted against pavement age on a chart for each family.
The program uses the data to define the degradation curve for each family of pavement..
This curve projects the condition of each pavement in future years. It can also be used to
estimate the current condition of similar pavement that was not inspected.
Based upon the PCI and the available budget, MicroPaver assigns work on a priority basis
as follows:
1. Global Maintenance - Stop Gap Work. This work, which would be performed by
City Crews, is assigned to those streets below the critical point in order to make the
streets safe for vehicular traffic and includes repair of potholes, and grind and pave
operations.
2. Global Maintenance - Preventative Maintenance. Streets, above the critical point, are
next identified which will benefit from a maintenance program to extend street life.
This is generally done via a street sealing program and is usually performed under
contract.
3. Major Maintenance - Structural Repair. Resources are next allocated for roads above
the critical point but with areas of structural failure. Repairs performed extend
roadway life and make the road eligible for the more cost beneficial form of global
maintenance.
4. Major Maintenance - Overlays and Reconstruction. All remaining resources are
directed to those streets in the worst condition. Once this work has taken place the
PCI is essentially 100 and the street is eligible for ongoing preventative maintenance.
MicroPaver places emphasis on preserving and extending pavement life. It only
recommends work that is cost - effective - even for streets in the worst condition. It works
on the premise that once a street deteriorates to a low point the cost of rehabilitation does
not increase with time.
Pavement Management Plan
Page I l
ANALYSIS OF THE CITY'S STREET SYSTEM
System Description
The City has 187 KM (116 miles) of streets. As previously mentioned, the paved area of
City surface is over 1/8 1h of the City's total incorporated area. The streets have been built
over a period of many years, and the materials used for pavement is a variety of concrete
and/or asphalt over the native ground or imported base material. Streets are commonly
classified by the surface material or wearing surface. The existing street surfaces are
classified as shown in the following chart.
Street Surface Material
Original Asphalt Pavement
AC
Overlaid Asphalt Pavement
AAC
Concrete Pavement
PCC
Concrete Pavement overlaid with Asphalt
APC
Oiled or gravel street'
GR
Streets are also classified by use. While the City's Circulation Element has a number of
classifications, for the purposes of pavement management, streets will be classified as
Central Business District, Arterial, Collector, or Local.
The following table describes the existing street system by both street classification and
pavement type.
Pavement
Asphalt Pavement 45%
Overlaid Asphalt Pavement 42%
Concrete Pavement 1%
Concrete Pavement overlaid with Asphalt 9%
1 Un -paved streets represent 3% of all streets
Pavement Management Plan
Page 12
Percent of total
Street Rank
Pavement Area
Central Business District
5%
Arterial
23%
Collector
14%
Local
58%
Pavement
Asphalt Pavement 45%
Overlaid Asphalt Pavement 42%
Concrete Pavement 1%
Concrete Pavement overlaid with Asphalt 9%
1 Un -paved streets represent 3% of all streets
Pavement Management Plan
Page 12
Total replacement value of the pavement alone is estimated to be $60 million. The value
of the street system curbs, gutters, sidewalks, drainage systems, street trees, street lights,
traffic signs and controls should be added to this figure to obtain a true overall street
system valuation.
Street Condition Analysis
The existin cit street Condition Distribution Graph (% Area): 1997
g y
30
pavement system was
25
inspected and the data
20
_ --
input into MicroPaver.
Percent 15
A total of 187 centerline
10
kilometers of pavement
5
were inspected. The
0
% Failed % Poor % Good % Excellent
current condition can be % very Poor % Fair % very Good
seen on the bar chart. Condition
Over 70% of the area of
pavement inspected was
good or better. Unfortunately some of the pavement was of lesser quality.
Pavement Condition Ctuve
•: 11111111 '•: :• • 11
January 1998
JW 1997 Jill 1989 Jul 1983 Jill 1993 JW 1995 Jul 1987 Jul 1999 JW 2001
Years
This graph shows how the pavement
has been aging over the past 10
years and where it might be in five
years. Using current data and
projecting back to 1987,
MicroPaver indicates that a PCI of
80 was most likely the City average
at that time. The graph shows that
the City has not sufficiently funded
its road surface maintenance
program to stop the system from
further deterioration. A decision
will be necessary to either provide
more funding or adopt a policy
acknowledging a lesser street system if the City continues to follow the current
maintenance program.
Pavement Management Plan
Page 13
This bar chart shows how the
pavement will appear in 10
years, if no further
maintenance is done. As
seen, the only 50 %of the area
remains in the good and very
good categories.
Cbn&ticn ElLsb2ibution Graph (0/oAr*: 20137
MI
Wi f
%Fa>Zed %Fbor %Good %E wellent
%very Fbx %Fair %very Good
A 9a
The charts below show the current average PCI for various pavement types in San Luis
Obispo and the percentage of total street area of each material.
Pavement Type
Ave. PCI
Ave. Age
% Area
Asphalt (AC)
80
22
45
Overlaid Asphalt(AAC)
67
18
42
Overlaid Concrete(APC)
47
22
9
Concrete(PCC)
33
63
1
Street Classification
Ave. PCI
Ave. Age
% Area
All Streets -- Average
70
20
100
Downtown
48
23
5
Arterial
59
17
23
Collector
63
19
14
Local
77
22
58
The concrete streets in the city are old. They are either in the downtown area and its
environs or are former state highways. Many were overlaid with asphalt around 1970.
These streets have an average PCI rating of 47. The overlaid streets are now only in
slightly better condition than those streets which were not overlaid. Downtown streets
Pavement Management Plan
Page 14
I
rate just below the critical PCI level, primarily due to the fact that Marsh Street was
recently overlaid and has a much higher rating which helps to raise the overall average.
The local streets are in the best average condition. One reason for this high rating is that
these streets are among the newest. Recently constructed streets, those built since the
70's, were built to an adopted city standard based on engineering design standards. Older
streets were also built to a standard but not as high a standard as that used today.
One of the key indicators of the adequacy of the pavement maintenance budget is an
estimate of what it would cost to address all of the deficiencies found during the
inspection. The current deficiency at this time is $16.6 million or about 28% of its total
value. If the entire deficiency was addressed in the first year of a maintenance program (a
big undertaking!), the ongoing expenditure needed for global maintenance to maintain the
street system in excellent condition would be $500,000 per year.
Effects of Good Design Standards
As discussed above, newer
streets designed and built to
engineered standards have Asphalt Pavement Constructed in
proven to last longer. This Last 20 Years
graph shows the relationship of
pavement age to pavement 100 _ _ _ • ■ ®- - ®® ■ N
condition for asphalt pavement v 50--
constructed during the past 20 a
plus years. This pavement was 0
designed to current standards 0 5 10 15 20
and much of it was maintained Years
with the various seal programs.
The obvious thing to note is that the pavement average condition is good. The
exceptions, which fall well below the critical point, are generally paveouts along major
streets that also serve as bus routes.
Effects of inadequate design standards i.e. bus route impacts
Bus routes impact pavement life. The information on bus routes is illuminating, and until
this study was conducted, the effects of buses were only known subjectively. When
looked at separately, the streets that are used for bus routes have a 20 year rating of 45.
Those that are not used for bus routes have a 20 year rating of 61.
Pavement Management Plan
Page 15
The two charts below show the difference in the aging of streets on and off the bus routes.
From looking at these charts, it is evident that bus traffic does result in pavement wearing
out faster.
't i:,
100
Pa 40
0 r .
0 10 20 30 40 50
feats
The Street Sealing Program
Observation of the charts to the right shows the
condition of various pavements sealed over the
last eight years and those that have not. The
sealing program was established as a part of the
1987 pavement management plan and its
success is evident by comparing the two charts.
The original goal was to seal 80% of the entire
street surface area within a ten year period (or
8% /year), choosing very large areas within the
City to yearly receive the seal coat maintenance.
The assumed that 2% of the streets would
P&muI cnBusPQte
Stets
FaXw
100
db
3b
x� •■ x
M 40 60 80 100
Yeats
m last 8 yeam PC =62
30
s
15
10
5
0
%Faiw %Pb %Gxid R FxMUM
%Vayp= %F= %VOyGnd
P
be overlaid or reconstructed each year and therefore not require sealing.
For the first five years, the City performed a "chip s
last three years, the City has employed the use of
a "cape seal" for one and "Micro- Surface seals"
for the latest two. Several construction problems,
risk management issues and public frustration
issues were eliminated with the Micro Surface
seal.
While the current program (FY 97 -99) is funded
to seal 8% of the street per year, the average
actually accomplished over the last nine years has
been 7.2% of the street area The program has
ear project on selectea streets. in the
Condition of Streets Sealed in
last 8 years. Ave PCI= 7
30
u --
Percent 2
Area 15
10
5
° %Failed %Poor %Gwd %Fxcellerc
%Vey Poor %Fair %Very Goad
b
fallen short of its ten year goal for two reasons: a) the total street system has grown in the
Pavement Management Plan
Page 16
last nine years and this growth has not been factored into the program; and b) the original
goal should have been 12% per year because the effective "life" of a seal coat is eight
years.
Summary of Current Condition arko
Total Value of Deficiency. In summary, the $la==
analysis from MicroPaver shows that the $1a=OM
pavement system is still in good condition but $14.=ON
that it is and has been deteriorating. $1Z==
Continuing on the present course will lead to a $10'00°'000
the need for expensive repairs in the future. m $ROOO'000
M=OM
The 1987 plan showed the need for $2:5 $4,==
million ($3.2 million in 1997 dollars) in SZOM O
rehabilitation. The current plan shows the s0
need for $16.6 million. However, these two 07 88 84 80 n 71 A
numbers cannot be directly compared because ftwnnQnMwhiftQq
the 1987 plan was intended to return the pavement condition to 1980 -81 levels; an
unknown PCI level. (As mentioned earlier, MicroPaver projected a 1987 PCI level of 80
but there are too many variables to likewise project a 1980 PCI level.) The number
generated by the current plan, in essence, returns all streets to as near a PCI of 100 as is
practical, and then assumes that only ongoing global maintenance would be necessary.
The accompanying chart describes the deficiency level against desired PCI level. The
higher the desired level of PCI, the greater the deficiency and the greater funding
necessary to achieve that desire. For example, an expenditure of $4 million dollars today
would raise the overall condition of the pavement to 80.
Funding levels for Pavement Management
As previously discussed, past funding levels have not been sufficient to stop a slow
overall degradation of the City's street system. Various funding levels were analyzed for
their effect on street system quality.
The following three charts model the relationship between overall pavement value and
age. Value is used rather than PCI because, like a junk car, the value may go to zero but
the roadway (or car) is still barely usable. The charts assume that the pavement will
depreciate to little or no value over 20 years following a straight line. The initial value
was determined by MicroPaver to be approximately $60 million. At the point where the
model shows a depreciation of $16 million (our current condition) an application of a.
global maintenance and a capital improvement effort is applied (i.e. the beginning of a
new pavement management program). Applying an increased global maintenance effort
does not improve the value of the system but does stop system depreciation. Capital
improvement (i.e. major maintenance) is required to add value to the overall system. All
funding levels analyzed are based on a program of street sealing (global maintenance) and
overlay /reconstruction (major maintenance).
Pavement Management Plan
Page 17
Figure No. 1 shows that a funding level of $1.3 Million (an increase of $200,000 over
current program) is necessary to stop further degradation. This, in essence, would
maintain the current level of citizen complaints and public perception of the City's road
system condition. Funding level: $500,000 sealing and $800,000 overlay /reconstruction.
$60,000,000
$50,000,000
$40,000,000
$30,000,000
$20,000,000
$10,000,000
$0
r CO lA r� (n r CO LO r� M r
T T T T T N
Years
Straight Line depreciation at %5 Value without Capital Expenditures
®Current Value with Capital Expenditures
Figure 1
$1.3 Million Program
Figure No. 2 shows that a program with $1.5 Million (an increase of about $400,000) will
very slowly rehabilitate the system with a major improvement in overall conditions far
into the future. Funding level: $500,000 sealing and $1,000,000 overlay /reconstruction.
$60,000,000
$50,000,000
$40,000,000
$30,000,000
$20,000,000
$10,000,000
$0
r r) LO rl- CD r m LO r, rn r
r I r r r N
Years
—Straight Line depreciation at %5 Value without Capital Expenditures
®Current Value with Capital Expenditures
Figure 2
$1.5 Million Program
Pavement Management Plan
Page 18
Figure No. 3, with a funding level of $2 Million (an increase of about $900,000 over
current program), shows a fairly significant improvement in overall quality of the City's
system within a relatively short period of ten years and is the basis for recommendations
made in the following section. However, even with this level of funding, the overall
value of the street system will only rise to 80% of its total potential value (approximately
equivalent to a PCI of 80). It is unrealistic, given current funding levels for cities in the
State of California, to propose pavement management programs which will achieve full
potential value. A good pavement management program, recognizes realities and sets a
policy for attaining a reasonable street system that will reduce the number of citizen
complaints and increase the perception that the City has and maintains a good and smooth
street system. Funding level: $458,000 sealing and $1,500,000 overlay /reconstruction.
$60,000,000
$50,000,000
$40,000,000
$30,000,000
$20,000,000
$10,000,000
$0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10111213141'5 16 17 18 19 20 21
Years
®Straight Line depreciation at %5
Value without Capital Expenditures
Current Value with Capital Expenditures
Figure 3
$2.0 Million Program
Pavement Management Plan
Page 19
PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT PLAN RECOMMENDATIONS
This Plan recommends an enlarged street sealing program, significant additional funding
major maintenance, and a new program focusing on maintenance in the downtown in
addition to enhancing other existing maintenance programs such as crack sealing and
concrete repair. In order to assure successful implementation, a new staff position to
provide the necessary engineering and project management is also recommended.
What happens in ten years if we pursue the recommended program and expend $2.3
million per year on pavement maintenance? Given all constraints remain constant, the
City's overall PCI will rise to 80 from 70. However, constraints do not always remain
constant and as such this Plan requires a City Council biannual reevaluation. If that
evaluation finds that the pavement condition is meeting expectations and predicts a lessor
level of needed expenditures the budget could be reduced. Considering all of the
variables involved with pavement aging and emerging pavement maintenance
technologies there is no assurance that the recommended program levels of funding will
remain constant and is in fact the best reason to perform the periodic review
recommended in this Plan. Following are recommended Policies, and where appropriate,
associated Programs to allow implementation.
Policy Recommendations
Pavement Condition Level
Policy 1.1 Achieve and maintain a.PCI of 80 for all City streets.
Currently all streets have an average PCI of 70. The public, staff and the Council
feel this level to be unacceptable. Staff reviewed PCI levels of 80, 90 and 100.
Staff chose a PCI level of 80 due to budget considerations, and the fact that newer
asphalt streets have an average of 80. Examples of streets with a PCI =80 include:
Tank Farm Road from Poinsettia to the Railroad, Grand Avenue from McCollum
to CalPoly, and Chorro Street from Palm to Monterey. This level of service will
be better than the current, but there will still be streets in poor condition. There
will be fewer complaints from citizens and likewise fewer streets below the
critical point than there are today.
Policy 1.2 Review and re- evaluate PCI level every ten years.
It takes time to make significant changes in pavement condition. The changes
proposed in this document are intended to gradually raise the overall PCI level
over a period of 8 - 10 years. It is important that this program be reviewed by the
policy body for its success, and to determine if it is time to set a higher standard.
The higher PCI could be achieved much quicker; for example with a one year
expenditure of $4 million the overall PCI could be raised by 10 points to an
overall average of 80. The type of expenditure: major maintenance versus global
maintenance can be seen in Appendix H. With this level of capital funding an
ongoing maintenance level of approximately $1.3 million is required to maintain
that PCI level.
Pavement Management Plan
Page 20
Roadway Design Criteria
Policy 2.1 Set roadway design life expectancy at 20 years for all streets, other than
new local streets in subdivisions which should be designed for 50 years.
The design of major underground infrastructure (sewer, water and storm drain)
assumes a 50 year life. Therefore, it is likely that a pavement designed for 50
years could provide good service life. The predominant cause of early structural
failure is trench cuts for utilities. In older streets, with older infrastructure
systems, many street cuts are necessary in order to provide reliable utility service.
In these areas, maintaining a design life of 20 years is appropriate. Requiring
subdivisions to design streets for a 50 year life would have an effect on the cost of
housing. While the cost of the pavement would increase about 25 %, the overall
cost of the subdivision infrastructure improvements would increase by about 4 %.
The exact impact on housing costs probably would not be noticed.
Policy 2.2 Set the Traffic Index (TI) at 8.5 for arterial and collector streets; at 7 for
bus routes on local streets; 6.5 for local streets with a life expectancy of 50 years; and 5.5
for all remaining local streets.
The design of pavement is based on a TI. This number is based on the expected
number of heavy vehicles to travel the street in the design life. Due to the damage
caused by buses, staff recommends a TI =8.5 for areas of arterials and collectors
and TI =7 for areas of local streets used by buses. Pavement inspections, as well as
the graphs of bus impacts, have documented that the current design standard is not
adequate to withstand the extra loads created by bus traffic. Without bus traffic, a
review of what this number should be indicates that a TI =8 should be used for
arterial and collector streets. However, since bus routes are always subject to
change, and arterials and collectors are the primary streets used by buses, it is fair
to assume that eventually the street may be used by the bus system and a little
extra design effort will pay off in the future.
Local streets are also affected by bus traffic, but the need to design every street for
that need is unrealistic. Therefore a TI =5.5 is recommended for local streets. All
referenced values are based on a life of 20 years. For local streets designed for a
50 year life, the TI will be increased to TI =6.5. This will yield a 150% increase in
useful life with only a construction cost increase of 25 %.
Policy 2.2 Soil Strength (R ) will be assumed to be 5 unless documented otherwise.
Soil strength is measured in the lab and a number ( the R value) that represents the
soil strength is established. In San Luis Obispo, where poor soils are common,
this number can be as low as 5 ( the lowest possible). Staff recommends that all
pavement be designed based on an assumed value of 5. The roadway designer
may have soil samples tested for actual value and the measured R value may then
be used in the calculation of the pavement design.
Pavement Management Plan
Page 21
r
Policy 2.3 Encourage the use of new technologies and materials in pavement design
Most likely pavement materials will continue to be asphalt. However, there are
many new designs of asphalt mixes being developed with the goal to reduce cost
and increase life. "Superpave and other similar alternatives should be examined.
In addition the cost and benefit of concrete pavement should be monitored,
particularly where longer life is desired. Various methods of preparing the subsoil
and ways of placing the pavement are being explored, and the staff should be
encouraged to investigate and recommend new systems where they are cost
effective.
Implementation Plan
Policy 3.1 Provide a comprehensive street maintenance program that is least
disruptive to business, residents and industry
Program 3. 1.1 Divide the City (except the Downtown) into eight
designated "areas "; each of which will receive all City maintenance efforts no
more than two years within an eight year period.
The city will be divided into eight areas (see Appendix 1), following the pattern of
the past eight years of surface sealing. Maintenance of all facilities in the area
will be coordinated and carried out within a one or two year time period. This
Plan will involve utility agencies and the City's Utilities and Public Works
Departments. The goal of this program will be to identify and provide complete
maintenance of the area, budget allowing. The process will be programmed in a
two -year budget, with planning in the first 6 months and implementation of each
of the parts over the following 18 months. Utility work and major maintenance of
streets would occur during year one, and global street maintenance (the sealing
program) would occur during year two. During any one -year budget, two
different areas will be in process so that the entire city can be covered in an eight
year time period.
Program 3.1.2 Create a specific action plan for the Downtown area to
assure quality streets and minimal disruption of activities.
The downtown, a ninth specific maintenance area, is a unique area that should
have a regular program of maintenance. A series of small projects may have
much less impact than a few large ones. Projects should be designed and planned
to minimize the time they take. Projects should be scheduled to work in the
downtown during hours which least impact the majority of the businesses and
residents. The timing and planning of all projects needs to be closely coordinated
with the BIA.
The design of projects in the downtown should be open to new concepts and
materials. Pavers, stamped asphalt and/or concrete, and other materials should be
investigated for use in the Downtown. Pavement maintenance should be
coordinated with major projects proposed by utilities and others. The Utilities
Department Infrastructure Plan should be considered as projects are planned.
Pavement Management Plan
Page 22
In order to be least disruptive these projects would be performed by City staff.
For example one morning the City street paving crew may grind the existing
asphalt off the street in one block.. The following morning the same crew would
return, prepare and seal any cracks and lay a thin layer of asphalt. The next
morning the crew would adjust manholes and valve box covers and by the end of
the week re -stripe the street. The projects would be designed to be accomplished
in the morning hours, prior to noon. Visitors and adjacent businesses would for
the most part of the day not be impacted. It would be visible but would have
minimal impact on parking and access.
This proposed program is much more pro - active than the "downtown" program
associated with the current pavement management program. The current program
urges restraint in all projects to avoid disrupting business in the Downtown.
Unfortunately, this appears to have been taken too literally: except for the Marsh
Street Reconstruction Project, little has been done in the Downtown as the current
street conditions attest. This program assumes a close relationship with the BIA
for well coordinated, quick, "in and out" projects that will keep the downtown
streets smooth and attractive.
Policy 3.2 Give priority to a) arterial streets; b) collector streets; and finally, c) local
streets in areas scheduled for program implementation.
Program 3.2.1 Identify the streets by classification and schedule
rehabilitation work appropriately.
The City's MicroPaver program will identify streets of higher usage and therefore
those that will benefit the greatest from rehabilitation efforts.
Program Components
Policy 4.1 Create a comprehensive Global Maintenance component which
emphasizes extending pavement life and maintaining a safe riding surface.
Program 4. 1.1 Provide every street within the eight major areas a seal
treatment once every eight years
The street sealing program provides the best cost/benefit for increasing pavement
life, and the new micro- surfacing treatment has eliminated past problems with
citizen acceptance. The beneficial life of a good sealing process is eight years,
after which it has little affect on pavement quality. In order to receive maximum
beneficial use of the seal coat, it must be reapplied at the end of its useful life or
every eight years.
This program continues the successful sealing program started in the 1987
pavement management program, which also divided the city into eight
geographical divisions, with a plan to seal the streets in one of these areas each
year. There were two reasons for this policy: one, the City had a goal of sealing
every street every eight years to extend pavement life; and two, it was much more
efficient for both the contractor and City staff to work in one area thus keeping
Pavement Management Plan
Page 23
� 1
cost down. The concept has proven to be successful. The contract costs have been
reasonable and the work has been relatively easy to manage.
Although the concept was good, actual implementation (i.e. only returning once
every eight years) has been problematic. The amount of funding was insufficient
to provide the once every eight year cycle; twenty six additional kilometers (16
miles) of streets to be sealed were discovered when all data was returned from
MicroPaver; and staff turnover made program coordination and implementation
difficult. Cross training and consistent use of the software package should
eliminate these problems.
Program 4.1.2 Implement an effective pothole response program
This is considered a "stop gap" or preventive maintenance procedure. Pothole
repair prevents water intrusion into the supporting soil, and assures that the
roadway surface remains in as safe a condition as possible until such time as the
road can receive major maintenance. Potholes are the result of unique failures of
the pavement resulting in a hole. The life of the pavement is only marginally
extended and the condition of the pavement is only slightly improved. The City
staff will repair "potholes" in normal working situations and on normal working
days within 24 hours of notice.
Program 4.1.3 Implement a Grind and Paveout repair program
This is a process of removing irregularities in the pavement's profile using a
grinding machine. After the surface is smoothed, a thin coat of asphalt is applied
to hide the grind marks, make the surface uniform and provide some small
extension of the pavement's life. This is a life extending process that results in a
good finished pavement appearance. Recent applications have been to address
bicycle and pedestrian safety issues, although larger projects are equally possible
as evidenced by the recent Orcutt Road and Tank Farm Road paving project
performed by City staff.
This process is also appropriate for concrete streets that have been overlaid with
asphalt. The crew grinds off the old asphalt and lays a new layer on the concrete.
This process should be repeated as soon as it becomes apparent that the old
asphalt has begun to de- laminate from the concrete. Seal coating the asphalt
surface may delay this but it will normally be necessary every 20 years. The City
of San Francisco has been following this kind of program and found it successful.
Many pavements display a failure called "alligator pavement" prior to forming
potholes. The name reflects the appearance that is similar to the design of an
alligator's hide. Removing the alligatored pavement, prior to complete failure via
grinding or the more traditional dig -out methods, and replacing the failed asphalt
with new asphalt material is a proactive procedure that will extend the life of the
pavement.
Pavement Management Plan
Page 24
I
Program 4.1.4 Implement a crack sealing program
Older pavements become brittle and crack and, if not addressed, allow water
through the pavement to the supporting soil. Cracks should be sealed in the fall
prior to rain and prior to any seal program. Cracks to be sealed are those too large
to be sealed by the global sealing program. Ideally, the City should have a
program that inspects and seals cracks every three years. The inspection program
used by MicroPaver is an appropriate tool to use to identify streets needing to be
crack sealed. If streets are inspected every three years, the data can be used to
prepare a work plan to first address those streets that will be sealed in the area of
the seal coat program and then those streets that are outside of that area.
Program 4.1.5 Provide a comprehensive curb and gutter repair and
replacement program.
This continues and expands the current successful program. The edge of City
street pavements are protected by a containment system of concrete curbs and
gutters. Where drainage is concentrated, and must cross the surface of the street,
cross gutters are installed. These features are important to the life of the
pavement. They carry water away from the pavement and protect the edges from
raveling. They are maintained by City crews and by adjacent property owners.
Well maintained concrete curbs, gutters, and cross gutters will extend the life of
the pavement.
Policy 4.2 Create a comprehensive Major Maintenance component to rehabilitate
poor quality streets to an excellent condition.
Program 4.2.1 Implement engineered design solutions to all streets
possible within the selected area for rehabilitation.
This work will be engineered and inspected by staff or consultants, depending on
overall workload, and will be contracted to the private sector for construction.
Engineered design means a design based upon data collected about the existing
structural section, such that an individual solution is created which most cost
effectively applies to what funding is available. By focusing all work in one
specific area, the City should be able to receive somewhat better contract prices.
This program allocates approximately 2/3`d of funding for major maintenance for
use in the scheduled maintenance area. Major maintenance is much more
expensive than Global Maintenance, because the roadway is in much worse
condition. Upon completion of this effort, the pavement should return to a PCI
level of 100.
Program 4.2.2 Implement engineered design solutions to major arterials,
which are not part of the scheduled area for improvements, if deemed necessary.
This program allocates approximately 1 /3`d of funding for major maintenance to
be used to rehabilitate the major arterial streets in the city as long as needed.
These streets are just too important to the well being of the city to be forced to
Pavement Management Plan
Page 25
await treatment for eight years. All design, inspection and contracting features of
program 4.2.1 apply to this program also.
Policy 4.3 Implement a pavement management administration component to
guarantee the preservation an enhancement of the quality and life of the City's roadway
system.
Program 4.3.1 Inspect the street system annually and input data to
MicroPaver.
Annually the staff will conduct inspections of pavement and provide the Council
with a summary report of the condition. The inspections will be conducted
following MicroPaver procedures, and - the condition report will be made
available through the program. Streets inspected during the annual inspection will
be those streets within the next year's area for maintenance. Also included will be
any downtown, arterial, or collector street that had not been inspected in the last
three year or had received a PCI of less than 60 at its last inspection. Streets
overlaid, reconstructed or newly constructed in the last 6 years would not be
inspected until they were 6 years old.
The Pavement Management Plan shall be linked to the City's GIS. The data file
shall be updated annually, so that others wishing to use it as a part of a GIS
application may do so.
The condition of the pavement shall be reported every two years at the time of the
preparation of the two year budget.
Program 4.3.2 Continually update MicroPaver with data from City staff
global maintenance efforts.
Monthly the staff should update the database to reflect the maintenance work
conducted.
Program 4.3.3 Inspect and update signs and delineation in each scheduled
work area.
The same crews that are responsible for maintaining the pavement must also
maintain the signs and delineation. These features shall be reviewed annually and
appropriately maintained. During the area maintenance program, all signs that do
not meet standards for reflectivity or standard design shall be removed and
replaced. Delineation shall be restored on all streets surfaced. Material for
striping, such as thermo - plastic, shall meet longevity standards. Delineation in the
downtown may need to meet other needs. With the increased vehicle and
pedestrian activity, and more frequent sealing program, painted stripes may be
more economical. Staff should investigate which is the appropriate material.
Program 4.3.4 Prepare and enforce regulations on trench cuts in City
streets to preserve pavement design life.
Trenches in any street have the effect of severely reducing its life expectancy.
Trenches are made in streets to allow the installation of utilities. Water, sewer,
gas, and many wire utilities use underground systems within the street. These
Pavement Management Plan
Page 26
utilities are normally installed at the time of original development of subdivisions
and street extensions.
Unfortunately additional utility structures must be installed and existing ones must
be repaired or replaced. When this happens, the pavement of the street is cut and
repaired after the installation. Repairs are done carefully but due to the nature of
the material used, the pavement is never as competent as was the original
structure. Eventually the fill in the trench settles, causing the pavement to drop
and cracks open up along the edge of the trench. The street becomes rough and the
surface is opened to water penetration, which aggravates the problem by reducing
the strength of the supporting soil.
Studies done by other agencies indicate that trenches reduce the effective life of
the pavement. At least two agencies in California, Sacramento and Los Angeles,
have adopted policies and regulations implementing an aggressive program
consisting of fees, standards and inspections, to protect their streets from damage
caused by utility cuts. This program will research these programs and their
success, if any, and formulate new regulations for enforcement in San Luis Obispo
as appropriate.
Existing regulations should remain in place which limit the ability to trench City
streets which have been overlaid/reconstructed within the last five years or which
have been sealed within the last three years. These regulations are waived in the
case of an emergency but act to force utilities to do long range planning or design
their infrastructure in a differing way (such as a bore and jack project as opposed
to open trench). All trench projects which occur before the year designated for
major maintenance should be required to seal one half the street width (or 4m
width whichever is less) for the length of the trenching project. This will add
expense to the utility performing the trench operation but will relieve the taxpayer
from the extra expense of underwriting the cost to repair a failed roadway later on.
Pavement Management Plan
Page 27
RECOMMENDED PROGRAM FUNDING LEVELS
Due to various factors, the funding originally set aside for the 1987 pavement
management program is insufficient to meet today's needs. Each of the policies and their
respective programs are tailored to improve the quality of the City's street system and
none are inexpensive. The recommendations made herein were made with the full
comprehension that unlimited funding is not an option. Therefore, program costs were
analyzed to optimize what was felt to be a reasonable pavement management program.
Recommended Funding for Global Maintenance
Street Sealing Program: Proposed Budget $458,000
Existing Budget $270,000
Increase in Budget $188,000
This program should be considered the foundation of a good pavement
management system. If funding becomes critical, the Global Maintenance - Street
Sealing Program should be the City's highest priority.. Surface sealing all the
streets in 1 /8`s (95% / 8 = 11.875 %) of the city in each year will cost an estimated
$500,000 per year. This number includes both the seal coat and the preparation for
the seal coat. The seal coat is of limited benefit if placed on pavement that has
structural and base problems. These need to be fixed first.
The current program level is insufficient to meet this program objective.
Currently city staff are employed to prepare the surface area designated for the
sealing program. This will no longer be possible due to other priorities set by this
pavement management program and the size of area anticipated herein.
Therefore, additional resources (i.e. contract services) will be needed to
adequately prepare the streets for surface sealing. This may result in increased
scope of work for the sealing contractor or may be bid as a separate contract.
The last street sealing program (FY 96 -97) sealed 8.0% of the street surface area
with a budget of $270,000. In order to seal the needed 12% area a total of
$405,000 is required ($270,000 x 12 / 8). The remaining $95,000 consists of
surface preparation services ($70,000) and contingencies ($25,000). If the full
funding recommended for major maintenance is implemented, the area for sealing
can be reduced to 10.8% (from 11.875 %) or roughly 11% because roads newly
overlaid or reconstructed do not need to be sealed. Thus the appropriate funding
for sealing would be reduced to $458,000.
Downtown Street Program: Proposed Budget $150,000
Existing Budget $0
Increase in Budget $150,000
An annual budget of $150,000 is proposed to allow staff to perform regular
maintenance of pavement in the City's downtown area of the city. This work
would be primarily to grind and pave at this time because the existing pavement is
Pavement Management Plan
Page 28
in such poor condition. The amount of funding is based upon analysis by
MicroPaver to maintain the streets in this area without further deterioration (see
appendix P). This is a new program that places an emphasis on maintaining the
quality of the streets in the Downtown area. With time no longer spent preparing
street surface areas for the sealing program, City staff will perform this program.
Pothole Response Program: Proposed Budget $20,000
Existing Budget $10,000
Increase in Budget $10,000
This is an expansion of the current program whereby City staff will take a more
aggressive and pro- active approach to finding and filling potholes.
Grind and Paveout Program: Proposed Budget $90,000
Existing Budget $50,000
Increase in Budget $40,000
This program currently exists as simply the asphalt line item in the streets budget.
This program represents a new emphasis on how to accomplish maintenance in a
timely and effective manner. The program will be used to repair poor pavement
problems that cannot be included in the current Major Maintenance Program.
City staff will perform this program.
Crack Sealing Program: Proposed Budget $10,000
Existing Budget $0
Increase in Budget $10,000
This is in essence a new program, as very little crack sealing currently takes place.
City staff will perform this task in the fall of each year - just prior to the rainy
season. This work extends pavement life by preventing water from penetrating
cracks. Workload issues will need to be addressed as this program is
implemented.
Curb and Gutter Repair Program:
Proposed Budget $20,000
Existing Budget $16,500
Increase in Budget $ 3,500
This program, performed by City staff, represents an expanded curb and gutter
program, due to the need to repair and replace as much curb, gutter and sidewalk
as possible in the identified street seal area each year. Current funding: $16,500
($12,000 base + $4,500 mid -year adjustment).
Pavement Management Plan
Page 29
Recommended Funding for Major Maintenance.
A substantial increase in funding for this type of maintenance is needed in order to have
an effect on the City's overall average pavement condition.
Major Maintenance for all streets in designated "area" (Program 4.2.1):
Proposed Budget $1,000,000
Existing Budget $ 825,000
Increase in Budget $ 175,000
This recommended spending level, when combined with the recommendation for
non - designated area, represents a near two -fold increase in the allocation for
major maintenance. This type of maintenance is needed if streets in poor
condition are ever to become acceptable to the public again.
Major Maintenance for Arterials in non - designated area (Program 4.2.2):
Proposed Budget $500,000
Existing Budget $0
Increase in Budget $500,000
Because the City cannot ignore the major arterial streets that serve the public on a
daily basis, funds are required to repair and rehabilitate streets. Should the
occasion arise when no such streets are identified, the funding should be
transferred to the area program for that year.
Major Maintenance - testing and evaluation:
Proposed Budget $10,000
Existing Budget $0
Increase in Budget $10,000
To make the most cost effective use of City funds, structural testing of existing
pavements should be done by consultants who specialize in this field.
Recommended Funding for Program Management
Inspect and input data: Proposed Budget $10,000
Existing Budget $10,000
Increase in Budget $0
This represents no change to the existing capital improvement program budget
and will allow Cal Poly interns to continue to be used to gather and input the
necessary data.
Update Data of City operations: No budget change
City staff will be trained on how to input data from the daily work that they
perform. Data will most likely be input weekly.
Pavement Management Plan
Page 30
Inspect and update signs, etc.: No budget change
City staff will simply concentrate their current city -wide efforts into the design
area when needed.
Trench cut regulations: No budget change
City staff will research the effectiveness of other cities regulations and prepare for
Council adoption an effective regulation.
Recommended Staffing for Program Management
Add one new staff position: Proposed Budget $62,000
Existing Budget ' $0
Increase in Budget 562,000
From a staffing perspective, the existing pavement management program has
floundered due to a combination of budget and staffing cut backs. The preparation
of this Plan took over two years to prepare, simply because there were too many
competing demands on existing staff resources. The recommended program
substantially expands the width and breadth over the existing program.
Traditionally paving projects receive the lowest of priority; not due to a disdain
for this type of project, but rather competing projects which demand higher
priority. Significant workload analysis of current staff output shows that each
engineer is able to design and produce for construction bidding approximately
$1,000,000 worth of projects per year. Currently there is no staff person available
to either design existing paving projects, nor keep the existing pavement
management plan current.
A new staff (Civil Engineer) position is therefore recommended. Since this
program recommends a new emphasis on preservation of the City's most valuable
asset, some staffing must be made available for that purpose. The increase
recommended in Major Maintenance justifies a new engineer position for design
purposes (about .6 position). This person could also provide the staffing to keep
existing funding levels of Major Maintenance on schedule by being assigned to
the pavement management program. Given the tasks of additionally managing the
hiring of student interns for data collection and input, running yearly program
recommendations and hiring consultants for pavement testing, yields the need for
an additional 500 hours per year or about a '/a position. Thus to fully implement
the recommended pavement management program, a new full time engineering
position is recommended at a cost of approximately $ 62,000 per year.
Pavement Management Plan
Page 31
Funding Summary
Pavement Management Plan
Page 32
Current
Proposed
Funding
Funding
Increase
Global Maintenance (Excludes Staffing Costs)
Street Resealing
270,000
458,000
188,000
Downtown Street Repair
150,000
150,000
Pothole response
10,000
20,000
10,000
Grind and Pave -out
50,000
90,000
40,000
Crack Sealing
10,000
10,000
Curb and Gutter Repair
16,500
20,000
3,500
Total Global Maintenance
346,500
748,000
401,500
Major Maintenance
Designated "Area'
825,000
1,000,000
175,000
Arterials not in "Area"
500,000
500,000
Testing and evaluation
10,000
10,000
Total Major Maintenance
825,000
1,510,000
685,000
Program Management
Inspection and data entry
10,000
10,000
Staffing for Program Management
62,000
62,000
Total Program Management
10,000
72,000
61,000
TOTAL
$ 1,181,500
$2;330,000
$1,148,500
Pavement Management Plan
Page 32
FINANCING THE PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT PLAN
This Plan includes recommendations for a comprehensive Program which includes a
significant increase in funding levels in order to achieve a street system that is no longer
in a state of decline and in fact a state of gradual betterment that the City can be proud of.
The City of San Luis Obispo has traditionally funded all streets' program from the
General Fund and no change is recommended or anticipated as a part of this document.
The General Fund is comprised of many elements, one of which is the state gas tax, a tax
collected in order to fund local road programs. However, the amount of state gas tax
available to the City is substantially less than the City is currently spending on pavement
management and should, .therefore, not be looked upon to help serve the additional needs
created by this program's recommendations.
There are many demands on a City to fund various programs. Unfortunately, street
maintenance is not able to be supported by an "enterprise" fund (such as water systems
are supported by a water fund, etc.) and therefore must compete with all other needs for
valuable general fund resources. It therefore becomes the province of the governing body
to determine what programs get prioritization and therefore funding.
As described earlier, the street system represents the City's single largest capital
investment with a potential value of $60 million. Through deterioration, this asset has
depreciated to about $43 million and unless additional resources are allocated this
deterioration and accompanying citizen complaints will continue. As seen earlier, a
$200,000 increase in program funding is necessary just to keep the system at its current
level. Any funding beyond that will make incremental improvements to the overall street
condition. This program recommends program funding levels that will make a significant
improvement to the street condition over a ten year period.
Is there any help on the horizon for additional funding for pavement management? The
answer is probably not. Currently, due to a good economy, the general fund has
additional resources that should be allocated toward increased levels of funding support
for pavement management. However, the cumulative effects of Proposition 13, 62 and
218 have made it virtually impossible to raise taxes or form special road improvement
districts to raise funds for the specific purpose of better road maintenance.
Additionally, the State of California, in order to balance its own budget a few years ago,
took funds traditionally designated for cities and diverted them to the State's General
Fund. When that General Fund was once again in good fiscal health, the State did not
return those funds to the cities but either gave extra funds to other State programs or
provided a tax cut to the citizens of the State.
Currently, SLOCOG, the regional council of governments is researching the possibility of
asking the citizens to vote for a sales tax increase which would be designated for road
projects and maintenance. This may offer a ray of hope for additional pavement
management funding and that effort should be encouraged and supported.
Street cut fees are another potential source of revenue for pavement management; but
would be so insignificant that they should not be considered as contributing help to the
City's general fund. For example, the City of Sacramento, which recently became the
Pavement Management Plan
Page 33
first city to implement a comprehensive street cut fee, expects to receive yearly fee
revenues of between $40,000 and $60,000. For a city the size of San Luis Obispo the
yearly fees would probably be in the $3,000 to $4,000 range. The emphasis on a
comprehensive street cut program is street preservation and not necessarily fee collection.
What's the bottom line? Preserving the street system at its current level will require
additional resources from the City's General Fund. Improving the street system will
require yet more resources from the City's General Fund. This Plan recommends that the
City begin immediately with a substantial increase in funding and therefore a significant
beginning in roadway improvement. During periods of tight financial times, full funding
may not be possible. With biannual reviews of the program, and knowledge of the effects
of funding levels, financial decisions -in the future will made on firm ground - knowing
the impacts to the street system of each funding decision.
I/CAR/PMP Pavement Report
Pavement Management Plan
Page 34
Appendix A
Procedures followed to create the 1997 pavement inventory
I. The City purchased the Micro Paver program from the University of Illinois. Two
employees attended a week long class to learn how to implement the program.
H. Following the directions in the manuals staff prepared forms for inventorying the
streets and recording pavement inspections.
III. Parameters were established regarding how the street system would be segmented
and ranked:
A. Streets would be divided into segments based on the age of pavement and
the volume of traffic.
Portions of a street built in different years would be in different
segments.
2. Portions of a street with differing traffic volumes would be in
different segments.
B. Streets would be assigned a rank based on common usage. This was to
recognize two things, streets with a higher rank generally have higher
traffic volumes, and streets with a higher rank receive more scrutiny from
the public. Rankings were as follows:
A- Downtown streets,
2. B- Arterial streets,
3. C- collector streets,
4. D- industrial local streets, and
5. E -local streets.
IV. Mapping parameters:
A. Streets that run in an easterly direction are mapped through intersections
with streets of equal rank that go in a northerly direction.
B. Streets that were a higher rank are mapped through the intersection of a
street of a lower rank.
V. Naming parameters.
A. Streets are named using their given name shortened to 4 characters.
Names beginning with Spanish prefixes such as Santa and La had the
prefix shortened to `S', `L', or as appropriate.
B. Street segments are labeled by naming the cross street at the westerly or
northerly end of the segment first and the other end second. Again the
Appendix Pavement Management Plan
Page A 1
t J
cross street names were shortened to 4 characters. Where possible the
names that were repetitive were reviewed so that the reader would
recognize the street by the abbreviated name. Example High Street is
`High" and Highland is `Hlan'.
VI. The inventory created in 1987 was reviewed and was used as the basis for a new
inventory.
VII. The history of each street was researched by a student intern. The data sheets
from 1987 were reviewed and the construction plans viewed. In addition the
index was searched to identify whether the street had been worked on since the
last inventory was completed.
VIII: The student intern reviewed the data and determined where the street should be
segmented based on the parameters listed above.
IX. The inventory sheet was sent to the Auto Cad operator who mapped the pavement
of the street based on the information given on the inventory sheet. The AutoCad
operator calculated the length and area of the pavement. Sample units, sized at
232 Sq. Meters, were mapped and a copy of the map for each street printed. The
printed map was provided to a team of two students to perform field inspections.
X. Field inspections were carried out by a two person team. The inspections followed
the criteria defined in the inspection manuals provided for MicroPaver. Inspectors
recorded the condition of the pavement and verified the dimensional information
that had been gathered in the office.
XI. A student entered the Inventory and Inspection data in the computer data base.
XII. The data base was exported to the 955 Morro file service using the MicroPaver
Import and Export program. The export file was named using the date and initials
of the person exporting the file. This was done to provide the data for others to
use while the files were being updated and to provide a method of data protection
because the data files in the export file could not be corrupted by anyone using the
data base and they were backed up daily on that file server.
Anyone wishing to enter data or to use the file was instructed to import to their "C" drive
the most recent export file. Only one person could be adding information to the file at any
given time.
Appendix Pavement Management Plan
Page A 2
Appendix B
Project - 1997 -98 Program
Estimated cost
0 0
California, NCL to Taft
$220,000
Chorro, Marsh to Pismo
$40,000
Johnson, Laurel to Southwood
$135,000
Laurel, Johnson to Southwood
$135,000
Southwood, Sinsheimer to Laurel
$55,000
Santa Barbara, leff to Broad
$110,000
Santa Rosa, Peach to Palm
$90,000
_road, Murray to 10.1_
$110,000
Total
$895,000
These projects were submitted to CalTrans last June for Cycle 9 of the State
Partnership program. The project list may be amended and changed prior to
June 1998 or the beginning of construction which ever occurs first.
Appendix Pavement Management Plan
Page A 3
Appendix C
5 Year Work Program -$1.5 Million
per Year
Appendix Pavement. Management Plan
Page A 4
Plan
Year
Branch
Section
Maintenance
7/1/98
7/1/99
7/1/00
7/1/01
7/1/02
A1Hi
FeIMNEND
Major M &R >= Critical
0
0
15,850
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Almd
CentMiss
Major M &R >= Critical
0
0
16,196
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Alri
F16-rEEnd
Major M&R >= Critical
0
0
14,725
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Alta
NEndCazz
MajorM &R >= Critical
0
0
8,414
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Andr
MontEEnd
Major M&R > = Critical
0
0
4,002
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
SLDC6ne
Major M &R >= Critical
0
0
12,477
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Atas
GallOcea
Major M &R >= Critical
0
0
26,213
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Augu
BishGerd
Major M &R >= Critical
26,131
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Gerdaur
Major M &R < Critical
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
45,684
0
0
W /oLaur
Major M &R < Critical
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
24,063
Auto
LOVREnd
Major M&R > = Critical
0
0
0
0
20,139
0
0
0
0
0
Aval
OceaOcea
Major M&R >= Critical
0
0
20,111
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Bahi
AlriSEnd
Major M&R >= Critical
0
0
0
0
4,304
0
0
0
0
0
BBee
HighSand
Major M &R >= Critical
0
0
7,463
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
SandSout
Major M &R >= Critical
0
0
13,492
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Bent
MeinMurr
Major M &R >= Critical
0
0
12,352
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
BiA
John264E
Major M &R >= Critical
5,629
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
B1Ct
EndBlue
Major M &R < Critical
0
0
0
0
0
3,516
0
0
0
0
Bond
HathKent
Major M &R >= Critical
0
0
12,015
0
0
0
0
0
. 0
0
BoxW
WEndWave
Major M&R >= Critical
0
0
0
0
6,158
0
0
0
0
0
Bran
BeebBroa
Major M &R >= Critical
0
0
62,985
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Appendix Pavement. Management Plan
Page A 4
Bres
WEndSerD
Major M &R >= Critical
1,560
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Bria
WoodEEnd
Major M &R >= Critical
12,229
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Broa
l0lMont
Major M&R < Critical
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
68,165
0
0
HighSout
Major M &R < Critical
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
46,919
0
0
MarsHigh
Major M &R < Critical
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
179,687
0
0
MeinMurr
Major M &R < Critical
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
14,721
MontMars
Major M &R < Critical
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
75,367
0
0
Murrl0l
Major M &R >= Critical
52,916
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Buch
JohnSPRR
Major M &R >= Critical
0
0
3,725
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
OsosSRos
Major M &R >= Critical
10,333
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Bull
467S686S
Major M&R >= Critical
7,148
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
686S847S
Major M &R >= Critical
0
0
3,168
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
847SWill
Major M &R >= Critical
0
0
6,066
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
BVis
NEndLoom
Major M&R >= Critical
22,561
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Cali
FootTaft
Major M &R >= Critical
66,841
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Caput
ISacrEnd
Major M &R >= Critical
0
0
12,377
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Cartn
HiguMars
Major M &R < Critical
0
0
0
0
0
8,871
0
0
0
0
Cata
LaEnEnd
Major M &R >= Critical
0
0
5,844
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Caud
BroaVict
Major M &R >= Critical
0
0
5,984
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Caza
SanLAlis
Major M &R >= Critical
23,536
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Cent
BroaLinc
Major M &R x Critical
24,889
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Cerr
jCuesFerr
Major M &R >= Critical
0
0
18,936
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
JeffCues
Major M &R >= Critical
0
0
15,300
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
PatrJeff
MajorM &R >= Critical
0
0
10,655
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Chan
MitcLawr
Major M &R >= Critical
1 0
0
4,288
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Chor lHiguMars
IMajor M &R < Critical
1 0
0
0
0
0
Appendix Pavement Management Plan
Page A 5
Appendix Pavement Management Plan
Page A 6
0
0
0
40,086
0
MarsPism
Major M &R < Critical
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
29,769
0
0
MontHigu
Major M &R < Critical
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8,396
Chur
BroaSBar
Major M &R >= Critical
0
0
23,926
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
NipoBroa
Major M &R >= Critical
10,659
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
CJoa
LOVRNend
Major M &R >= Critical
21,182
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
CIo6
PfiRanc
Major M &R >= Critical
0
0
3,985
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Cone
CazaEEnd
Major M &R >= Critical
0
0
12,288
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Coup
WestDah
Major M &R >= Critical
22,718
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Crai
NendPatr
Major M &R >= Critical
0
0
5,267
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
PatrJeff
Major M &R >= Critical
0
0
11,112
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Cypr
BranHigh
Major M &R >= Critical
0
0
17,173
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Daly
AIHiPatr
Major M &R >= Critical
0
0
4,045
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Dese
WEndCdsa
Major M &R >= Critical
8,381
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
DNor
Ramo145w
Major M &R x Critical
0
0
8,722
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Donn
IWEndJeff
Major M &R >= Critical
0
0
4,537
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
DSur
RamoLEnt
Major M &R >= Critical
21,841
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Edge
HannSotw
Major M &R >= Critical
0
0
4,059
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
SotwSEnd
Major M &R >= Critical
0
0
10,287
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
EICe
SanLCorr
Major M &R >= Critical
0
0
5,675
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Elle
NendMban
Major M &R >= Critical
0
0
9,788
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
E1mC
RamoEEnd
Major M &R >= Critical
0
0
0
0
1,501
0
0
0
0
0
Fe1M
HlanPatr
Major M &R >= Critical
0
0
17,432
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Felt
CuesFetr
Major M &R >= Critical
0
0
11,682
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Feri
CRomFoot
Major M &R < Critical
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
12,856
Nlan IMaJorM&R
< Critical
0
0
0
0
0
3,697
0
0
0
0
Appendix Pavement Management Plan
Page A 6
Fizl
Wend J7z
Major M &R >= Critical
4,188
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Flet
BoulLeon
Major M &R >= Critical
0
0
5,659
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Flor
EIPaLaur
Major M &R < Critical
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
121,587
KnolCarl
Major M &R < Critical
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
24,904
SpriKnol
Major M &R < Critical
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
23,484
0
0
SydfiMPa
Major M &R >= Critical
12,062
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Foot
FenrSRos
Major M &R < Critical
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
343,781
LCerPatr
Major M&R < Critical
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
40,386
Fran
BroaVict
Major M&R >= Critical
0
0
6,055
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Fred
LongGmn
Major M &R >= Critical
41,320
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Gall
OceaAtas
Major M &R >= Critical
0
0
0
0
26,507
0
0
0
0
0
Gard
HiguPism
Major M &R < Critical
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
31,949
0
0
Geld
NEndAugu
Major M &R >= Critical
0
0
6,716
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Gran
LoomMinS
Major M &R < Critical
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
46,880
LoomMonN
Major M &R < Critical
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
44,710
SlacMcCo
Major M &R < Critical
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
38,098
Greg
JohnEEnd
Major M &R >= Critical
0
0
4,693
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Grov
PhilMont
Major M &R >= Critical
21,799
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
WilsPhil
Major M &R >= Critical
0
0
18,833
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Hath
CarpCali
Major M &R >= Critical
0
0
28,534
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Hays
Gran70Hc
Major M &R >= Critical
0
0
22,798
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Hend
LooraSlac
Major M &R >= Critical
35,683
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Hear
GeorElla
Major M &R >= Critical
0
0
2,301
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
IrisGeor
Major M &R >= Critical
5,529
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Herm
LEntLune
Major M &R >= Critical
0
0
13,767
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
High
CyprSBar JlAajor
M &R < Critical 1
0
0
0
0
0
Appendix Pavement Management Plan
Page A 7
Appendix Pavement Management Plan
Page A 8
0
0
0
0
122.931
Higu
HindMeiE
Major M &R < Critical
0
0
0
0
0
7.370
0
0
0
0
MarsNipo
Major M &R < Critical
0
0
0 0
0 287.561
0
0
0
0
MeisPraE
Major M &R < Critical
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
32.142
0
0
NipoSRos
Major M &R < Critical
0
0
0
0
0 0
0 361,847
0
0
SC/LVacE
Major M &R < Critical
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
12,174
VachSubr
Major M&R < Critical
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8,444
Hi1S
NEndLinc
Major M &R >= Critical
0
0
11,363
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Hlan
FerrSRos
Major M &R < Critical
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10,617
NChoFerr
Major M &R < Critical
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
68.348
PatrEPat
Major M &R < Critical
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
12,135
0
0
WEndPatr
Major M &R >= Critical
0
0
38,219
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Hutt
SandHigh
Major M &R >= Critical
0
0
6,315
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Iris
JohnFixl
Major M&R >= Critical
0
0
6,558
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Isla
BroaToro
Major M&R >= Critical
62,521
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Ja`yC
WEndCrai
Major M &R >= Critical
0
0
9,653
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Jeff
DalyMarl
Major M &R >= Critical
0
0
5,430
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Jenn
SWazRach
Major M &R >= Critical
0
0
4,482
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
John
Bishlaur
Major M &R < Critical
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
182,132
Kent
HathBond
Major M &R >= Critical
0
0
13,822
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
King
SandBran
Major M &R >= Critical
0
0
6,175
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Kntw
SouwSEnd
Major M &R >= Critical
0
0
16,447
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Lake
BalbOcea
Major M &R >= Critical
0
0
8,269
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Laur
JohnSout
Major M&R x Critical
50,281
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
LawD
TangOrcu
Major M &R >= Critical
0
0
8,571
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
LeeA
NEndTanD
Major M &R >= Critical
0
0
6,447
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Appendix Pavement Management Plan
Page A 8
Leff
NipoOsos
Major M &R >= Critical
0
0
32,642
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
OsosSRos
Major M &R >= Critical
12,026
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
LEnt
SEndCata
Major M &R >= Critical
0
0
11,466
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Lima
MadFHuas
Major M &R >= Critical
0
0
20,402
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Linc
BroaChor
Major M &Rx Critical
6,955
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
ChorWes
Major M &R >= Critical
48,490
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
HillBroa
Major M &R >= Critical
0
0
5,364
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Lizz
JohnWild
Major M&R < Critical
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
18,339
LLom
EndLCerr
Major M &R >= Critical
0
0
4,403
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Long
HathSlac
MajorM &R >= Critical
12,014
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Loom
BVisSMig
Major M&R < Critical
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
11,978
0
0
SMigSYne
Major M &R >= Critical
11,685
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
LOVR
101LVerd
Major M&R < Critical
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
16,667
LRob
OakrEepd
Major M &R >= Critical
0
0
6,012
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Lune
LaEnVerd
Major M &R >= Critical
0
0
30,800
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
WEndLaEn
Major M &R >= Critical
5,269
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Mado
LOVRPere
Major M &R >= Critical
13,720
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Oc aPO
Major M &R < Critical
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
66,152
PODali
Major M &R < Critical
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
32,844
MarC
NEndOcea
Major M &R >= Critical
0
0
4,127
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Marg
SMgEnd
Major M &R >= Critical
0
0
40,101
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Marl
PatrJeff
Major M &R >= Critical
0
0
14,070
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Mars
JohnCali
Major M &R >= Critical
25,954
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
SLCKNipo
Major M &R < Critical
0
0
0
0
0
62,501
0
0
0
0
MCCI
GranBVis
Major M &R >= Critical
36,151
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
McMi
NEndMori
Major M &Rx Critical
0
0
4,172
0
0
Appendix Pavement Management Plan
Page A 9
Appendix Pavement Management Plan
Page A 10
0
0
0
0
0
Mein
BroaCha
Major M &R >= Critical
0
0
14,749
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Mill
CaliGrov
Major M &R < Cri tical
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
62,363
OsosSRos
Major M &R < Critical
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
78,027
Mitc
MeadBroa
Major M &R >= Critical
32,554
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Mn[a
LeinoElle
Major M &R >= Critical
10,382
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
LincSCrk
Major M &R >= Critical
0
0
3,941
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
SRosLemo
Major M&R >= Critical
12,693
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Mont
NipoBroa
Major M &R < Critical
0
0
0
0
0
16,115
0
0
0
0
Pepp101
Major M&R < Critical
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
143,902
0
0
SRosTCro
Major M &R < Critical
0
0
0
0
0
19,905
0
0
0
0
MOtttr
Pass kyl
Major M &R >= Critical.
0
0
24,645
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Morn
Marspism
Major M &R >= Critical
6,673
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
MontMars
Major M &R < Critical
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
61,201
0
0
PalntMont
Major M &R < Critical
0
0
0
0
0
18,258
0
0
0
0
PismUpha
Major M &R >= Critical
0
0
29,028
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Mouv
HillUnc
Major M &R >= Critical
0
0
25,624
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Murr
BroaSRos
Major M&R >= Critical
27,537
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Nipo
HiguMars
Major M &R < Critical
0
0
0
0
0
47,289
0
0
0
0
MarsBuch
Major M &R < Critical
0
0
0
0
0
34,685
0
0
0
0
PalmHigu
Major M &R < Critical
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
91,470
-0
0
Oal&
HlanNend
Major M&R >= Critical
0
0
13,681
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Ocea
MadoPioC
MajorM &R >= Critical
0
0
18,911
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Olen
NEndtron
Major M &R >= Critical
0
0
3,503
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Oran
HathBond
Major M &R >= Critical
0
0
9,850
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Osos
I01 Waln
Major M &R >= Critical
2,528
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Appendix Pavement Management Plan
Page A 10
Appendix Pavement Management Plan
Page A 11
Clt-irirSPRR
Major M &R < Critical
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
19,913
MillHigu
Major M &R < Critical
0
0
0
0
0
39,309
0
0
0
0
Paci
BroaSRos
Major M &R < Critical
0
0
0
0
0
57,684
0
0
0
0
JotmPepp
Major M &R >= Critical
0
0
9,769
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Palm
NipoSRos
Major M &R < Critical
0
0
0 0
0 453,565
0
0
0
0
Pasa
MiraSkyl
Major M &R >= Critical
0
0
14,276
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Peac
NipoBio
Major M &R >= Critical
20,637
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
ToroPepp
Major M&R >= Critical
20,479
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Penn
BpchEEnd
Major M &R >= Critical
4,842
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Pepp
MarssPaci
Major M &R >= Critical
0
0
4,500
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Pere
MadoGarc
Major M &R >= Critical
0
0
14,806
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Phil
CaliPark
Major M &R >= Critical
0
0
23,654
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Pism
HiguNipo
Major M &R >= Critical
50,445
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
NipoOsos
Major M &R < Critical
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
59,751
Pratt
SLCkHigC
Major M &R < Critical
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
14,037
SLCkHigN
Major M &R 2 Critical
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4,822
Pric
HighBran
Major M &R >= Critical
16,669
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
RacC
RachEEnd
Major M &R >= Critical
0
0
5,983
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Rafa
RamoSEnd
Major M &R >= Critical
0
0
12,172
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Ramo
LEntTass
Major M &R >= Critical
243,274
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Ranc -
ClovWest
Major M&.R >= Critical
0
0
9,250
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
NEiidCI&
Major M &R >= Critical
0
0
3,258
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Rock
PerkB[oa
Major M&R >= Critical
45,089
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Rose
LaurSEnd
Major M &R >= Critical
16,512
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Rosi
FootCROm
Major M&R >= Critical 1
0
0
3,142
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
SaCa
De1CHele
Major M &R >= Critical
0
6,624
0
0
0
Appendix Pavement Management Plan
Page A 11
Appendix Pavement Management Plan
Page A 12
0
0
0
0
0
Sacr
CapiIndu
Major M &R >= Critical
0
0
32,721
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Sand
BecbBroa
Major M &R >= Critical
0
0
60,853
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
SBar
LeffBroa
Major M &R >= Critical
60,187
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
SJos
WEndLEnt
Major M &R >= Critical
0
0
10,751
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Sklk
WoodSEnd
Major M &R >= Critical
1 1,712
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Skyl
MiraPasa
Major M &R >= Critical
0
0
9,869
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
MontMiia
Major M &R >= Critical
0
0
15,878
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Slac
LongGran
Major M&R >= Critical
42,496
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Smit
WEndlohn
Major M &R x Critical
0
0
7,231
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
SnDr
HeIcAugu
Major M &R >= Critical
0
0
0
0
10,390
0
0
0
0
0
Sout
FemKent
Major M &R >= Critical
4,758
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
KentJohn
Major M &R >= Critical
7,817
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
SinsLaur
Major M &R >= Critical
22,783
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
WoodFem
Major M &R >= Critical
4,493
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
SRos
HiguMas
Major M &R < Critical
0
0
0
0
0
87,773
0
0
0
0
PalmHigu
Major M &R < Critical
0
0
0
0
0
156,691
0
0
0
0
PeacPalin
Major M &R < Critical
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
89,102
0
0
PismSPRR
Major M &R >= Critical
0
0
33,610
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
WalnPeac
Major M &R < Critical
0
0
0
0
0
86,469
0
0
0
0
Staf
CaliKent
Major M&R >= Critical
0
0
12,664
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
KentEEnd
Major M &R >= Critical
0
0
16,752
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Swee
RockBroa
Major M &R >= Critical
0
0
0
0
11,854
0
0
0
0
0
TanD
JohnSyca
Major M &R >= Critical
0
0
10,189
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
KentJohn
Major M &R >= Critical
0
0
12,159
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
SycaEdge
Major M &R >= Critical
0
0
.34,418
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Appendix Pavement Management Plan
Page A 12
i
1
TFRd
HiguEC/L
Major M &R < Critical
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
31,843 0
PoinSPRR
Major M &R>= Critical
48,957
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
0 0
TngC
NEndTanD
Major M &R >= Critical
0
0
3,467
0
0
0
0 0
0 0
Toro
MontSLCK
Major M &R < Critical
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
106,075 0
PhilWaln
Major M &R < Critical
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
15,158 0
TwiR
WEndEEnd
Major M&R>= Critical
0
0
0
0
23,341
0
0 0
0 0
Upha
HighChor
Major M&R >= Critical
22,134
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
0 0
Vena
ChorLinc
Major M &R >= Critical
0
0
14,737
0
0
0
0 0
0 0
Verd
LuneEEnd
Major M &R >= Critical
0
0
10,650
0
0
0
0 0
0 0
Vice
PeriCayu
Major M &R >= Critical
0
0
27,954
0
0
0
0 0
0 0
Wild
LizzSEnd
Major M &R >= Critical
19,655
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
0 0
Wils
GrovPark
Major M &R >= Critical
0
0
13,925
0
0
0
0 0
0 0
Wmon
PatrWJef
Major M&R >= Critical
0
0
16,694
0
0
0
0 0
0 0
Whew
NewpCora
Major M&R >= Critical
0
0
13,330
0
0
0
0 0
0 0
Wodb
BroaVict
Major M &R >= Critical
0
0
7,364
0
0
0
0 0
0 0
Total Sum of Major Above Critical Funded
1,499,50 1,499,78
8 6
108,365
0 0
Total Sum of Major Under Critical Funded
0
0 1,391,25 1,497,96 1,497,943
8 2
Appendix C
Five year work plan
Appendix Pavement Management Plan
Page A 13
Appendix D
Bus Route Impacts to Surface Condition
Bus Routes
Asphalt Pavement.
AAC
Surface Material
Rank
Concrete Pavement.
AAC
AC
APC
PCC
Downtown
% of Area Used by
66.6%
0.0%
86.1
0.0%
Streets
Buses
%
% of Length used by
55.4 %
0.0%92.2
0.0%
Buses
%
Arterial Streets
% of Area Used by
77.7%
15.3%
100.
1100.0
Buses
0%
%
% of Length used by
75.60/6
97.0%100.
100.0
Buses
0%
Collector Streets
% of Area Used by
22.6%
45.1%51.7
0.0%
Buses
%
% of Length used by
27.9%145.4%
53.8
0.0%
Buses
%
Local Streets
% of Area Used by
1.9%
3.9 %
17.9
0.0%
Buses
%
% of Length used by
1.8 %
3.4%
17.9
0.0 %
Buses
%
AC
Asphalt Pavement.
AAC
Asphalt Pavement that has been overlaid.
PCC
Concrete Pavement.
APC
Concrete Pavement that has been overlaid with asphalt.
Appendix Pavement Management Plan
Page A 14
Appendix E
Existing Pavement Deficiency
Family
Existing PCI
PCI in 10 years
Current Deficiency
Central Business
48
35
$1,900,000
District Streets
Arterial and
60
44
$7,700,000
Collector Streets
Local Streets (Not
80
64
$3,600,000
resurfaced)
Local Streets
68
52
$3,400,000
(Already resurfaced)
Streets used for Bus
56
43
$7,600,000
Routes (Included in
above families)
Total Deficiency
70
55
$16,600,000
Appendix Pavement Management Plan
Page A 15
Appendix F
100
so
so
Avg
Condition
40
20
Condition - Central Business
District - $150,000 per year
01 i i
0 1 2 s a
Year
Appendix Pavement Management Plan
Page A 16
Appendix G
Annual Work Plan
Imerwyarlding3ecbm L
PLTrUgAuga,
Rw3h RansfahftDwruW
Ralf RasfcrWRogan
RepmT Ras far Madlifaoe
Rpu rg DVWJEd trtrouckie
CamMmm d KW Rogam
QrstrUchrg Macadam RCIW
UWRVeadasM
Uk ROW arch=
This sdiedle reWres strong oontinuas
over ytlblitylrgedsfrayneedrrm
lead tirre to be aoocrrpliIWe Wthn this
sdsrile
Red BoDcsir>dcEtevorkproga nforan3md
thedty. UtilledBoasimiclevorkprogam
activities omning in a xlfw vrork area at the
sarretine
Appendix Pavement Management Plan
Page A 17
i
Appendix H
Budgets required in one year to raise overall pavement condition.
18000000
16000000
14000000
12000000
10000000
m
rn
3
m 8000000
6000000
4000000
2000000
0
97 86 84 80 72 71 70
PCI
Appendix Pavement Management Plan
Page A 18
a Major above Critical
El Major below Critical
p Seal
C3 Preventive
a Stop Gap
Appendix I
Appendix Pavement Management Plan
Page A 19
F
`I
Appendix J
One Year - $4 Million Program
Sum of Funded
Work
Street
Limits
Major M&R >= Critical Micro Surface
Abbo
GranHend
0 5,738
AM
FeIMNEND
0 6,891
Alic
MargNEnd
0 1,316
Alis
NEndCaza
0 1,692
Almd
CentMiss
0 5,026
Alph
BroaEEnd
7,070 0
AM
FlorEEnd
0 6,402
Alts
NEndCaza
0 3,230
Anac
WEadPatr
0 4,184
Andr
ConeEEnd
MontEEnd
SL.DCone
0 2,717
0 1,740
0 3,872
Aral
EEndBroo
0 3,243
Ashm
WEndWave
0 3,699
Atas
GallOcea
0 10,471
Augu
BishGerd
GerdLaur
26,131 0
28,264 0
Auto
LOVREnd
0 8,756
Aval
OceaOcea
0 5,792
Bahi
AlriSEnd
0 1,871
Balb
OceaCora
0 10,722
Band
CoirSEnd
0 1,633
Bara
NEndSout
0 3,936
BBee
HighSand
SandSout
0 2,660
0 4,187
Bent
MeinMutr
0 5,071
Bien
EIIaSEnd
0 1,487
Bish
Augulohn
BushAugu
1ohn264E
0 4,142
0 7,264
5,295 0
BICt
EndBlue
0 1,012
Blue
WBCtRock
0 4,041
Bond
HathKent
KentLong
0 4,866
0 2,430
Bone
EmplSuel
0 5,447
Boro
AtasMado
0 1,531
Boug
PoinHoll
0 7,032
Boul
SylvSEnd
0 11,900
BoxW
WEndWave
0 2,975
Boys
ChorSRos
0 9,304
Appendix Pavement Management Plan
Page A 20
r�
U
Bran
BeebBroa
0 20,066
Bres
WEndSerD
0 525
Bria
WoodEEnd
12,229 0
Brid
BeeBEEnd
0 5,687
Broa
MeinMurr
Murr 101
0 3,729
52;916 0
Brok
SouSWEnd
0 2,119
Broo
TankSawl
0 5,297
Buch
JohnSPRR
OsosSRos
SRosJohn
0 1,488
10,333 0
0 6,820
Bull
467S686S
686S847S
847SWill
Wi114455
7,148 0
0 1,288
0 2,637
0 2,760
Bush
FlorSEnd
0 4,875
B Vis
NEndLoom
22,561 0
CaJa
NEndSend
0 3,980
Cali
FootTaft
MontSLDr
TaftPhil
66,841 0
0 5,550
0 12,915
CaLu
MargCaJa
0 6,417
CaMa
NEndSend
0 3,784
Came
MargNEnd
0 1,533
Capi
CastEEnd
0 8,039
Caput
SacrEnd
0 5,381
Cari
NEndMari
0 1,640
Carl
F1orEEnd
0 1,928
Carp
FootHath
0 2,116
Casi
DiabEnd
0 2,223
Cast
NEndPref
0 5;546
Cata
LaEnEnd
0 1,862
Caud
BroaVict
WEndMead
0 2,602
0 755
Cava
GallGall
0 9,471
Caza
SanLAlis
0 6,778
Ceci
AuguEnd
0 3,467
Cent
BroaLinc
24,889 0
CerC
CetrEnd
0 1,293
Cerr
CuesFerr
JeffCucS
LosCRosi
PatrJeff
RosiPatr
0 5,877
0 6,652
0 4,872
0 4,633
0 1,866
Chan
Mitclawr
0 1,690
Chor
FootWest
MondEgu
0 9,064
0 2,418
Appendix Pavement Management Plan
Page A 21
Appendix Pavement Management Plan
Page A 22
PaImMont
PismBuch
WestLinc
0 2.165
0 3,463
0 16,560
Chri
CraiWarr
0 3,202
Chup
WEndLPra
0 7,842
Chur
BroaSBar
NipoBroa
OsosEEnd
0 8,050
10,659 0
0 2,243
Cima
WoodEEnd
0 1,671
CJoa
LOVRNend
22,520 0
Clov
Pfriltanc
RancSkyl
0 1,732
0 5,061
Coli
NEndFlor
0 3,433
Colo
PoinEEnd
0 3,220
Cone
CazaEEnd
0 4,254
Cord
FmrnEnd
0 7,831
Corl
GallGulf
0 8,618
Coro
FlorEnd
0 2,552
Cod
Corr
SendWood
0 4,347
0 5,639
Con
PrefNEnd
0 3,314
Coup
WestDart
22,718 0
Crai
NendPatr
PatrJeff
0 2,290
0 4,831
Cres
TanDTanD
0 7,344
Cuca
NEndRoya
0 3,294
Cues
FootFDan
0 9,070
Cumb
WoodEEnd
0 1,603
Cycl
WEndHoll
0 3,602
Cypr
BranHigh
0 5,195
Dahl
PoiuEEnd
0 2,619
Dali
MadoErid
0 3,614
Daly
AMP=
0 1,533
Dart
CuesCoup
0 2,593
DeAn
DeIRSEnd
0 2,695
DeIR
CordDiab
DescPref
DiabPort
PortDesc
0 3,906
0 4,414
0 6,853
0 985
Desc
DeIRLOVR
LOVRVist
0 5,444
0 7,164
Dese
WEndCasa
8,381 0
Diab
CityDelR
DeIRLOVR
LOVRVist
0 3,079
0 5,633
0 4,405
DMar
WEndRamo
0 6,701
DNor
145WLEnt
0 2,976
Appendix Pavement Management Plan
Page A 22
Appendix Pavement Management Plan
Page A 23
RamoI45w
0 3,792
Donn
WEndJeff
0 1,973
Drak
OceaBalb
0 6,997
DSur
Ramol.Ent
21,841 0
Dunc
NEndOrcu
0 4,494
ECeC
NEndE1Ce
0 3,178
Edge
HarmSotw
SotwSEnd
0 1,198
0 3,192
EICa
NEndFlor
0 2,630
E1Ce
Sanl.Corr
5,535 0
E1Cr
E1CeEnd
0 7,432
Elk
MlimSEnd
NendMban
0 1,451
0 3,118
E1mC
RamoEEnd
0 653
EIPa
EICeEnd
0 2,499
EITi
NEndMado
0 4,836
EMer
MadoSEnd
0 11,408
Empl
BoneGran
0 3,909
Eriipr
BonePrad
0 4,239
Enci
NEndE1Ce
0 1,905
Escu
VistSEnd
0 1,846
Este
NEndMarg
0 2;238
Expo
SOaSCOIT
0 8,766
FaiW
NEndRoya
RoyaPart
0 .3,375
0 1,591
FeIM
HlanPatr
0 7,579
Felt
CuesFerr
TassCues
0 5,079
0 1,372
Fern
SoutOrcu
38,654 0
Fixl
WendLizz
4,188 0
Flet
BoulLeon
0 2,461
F16A
BishSanC
BushBish
0 2,188
0 2,750
Flor
CarlElCa
SydnElPa
0 2,785
12,779 0
Foot
WCILLCer
0 6,080
Fram
MiraEnd
0 6,376
Fran
BroaVict
0 2,294
Fred
Hathl.ong
LongGran
0 7,537
41,320 0
Fullr
EndSd -nf
0 7,546
Gail
CaudSEnd
0 1,538
Gall
OceaAtas
0 11,525
Gana
CorrSEnd
0 1,633
Gard
BuchUpha
0 11,200
Gerd
NEndAugu
0 2,260
Gold
IPoinSEnd
0 2,258
Appendix Pavement Management Plan
Page A 23
Grav
GarfAbbo
0 2,526
Greg
JohnEEnd
0 1,385
Gret
AuguSydn
10,451 0
Gma
EmplSuel
SHigEmpl
0 7,084
0 4,965
Grov
PhilMont
WilsPhil
21,799 0
0 5,424
Gulf
LakeAtas
0 6,115
Harm
SequEdge
0 5,529
Hath
CarpCali
LongCarp
0 8,632
0 8,889
Hays
Gran70He
0 6,897
Hend
GarfAbbo
LoomSlac
0 2,541
0 10,277
Henr
GeorElla
hisGeor
0 774
5,529 0
Hetm
L.EntLune
0 5,355
HigF
HiguGran
0 4,631
High
HiguCypr
SPRRSBar
0 7,696
0 1,776
Hip
SC/LVacE
VachSubr
0 2.265
0 2,139
MIS
LIncSEnd
NEndLinc
0 7,939
0 4,940
Hlan
PatrEPat
PatrPatr
WEndPatr
7,840 0
0 4,620
0 12,508
HoIW
BougTaFa
0 8,868
Howa
WEndPhil
0 2,134
Huas
MadFCayu
0 9,242
Humb
BroaVict
0 2,888
Hun
BranSand
SandHigh
0 2,407
0 2,393
Iris
JohnFixl
0 2,409
Iron
BrooWave
0 6,408
Isla
BroaToro
0 18,006
Jali
DeIRSEnd
0 2,695
Jami
NEndTanW
0 1,690
JayC
WEndCrai
0 4,197
Jeff
CRomHlan
DalyMarl
FootCRom
MarlWmon
0 8,194
0 1,880
0 1,047
0 1,846
Jenn
SwazRach
0 1,322
John
BishLaur
LaurSout
SoutOrcu
0 41,175
64,093 0
0 14,640
Appendix Pavement Management Plan
Page A 24
Kent
HathBond
0 3,981
King
BranSouS
HighSand
SandBran
SouSSEnd
0 1,304
0 2,361
0 2,434
0 4,873
Kntw
SouwSEnd
0 4,737
LaCi
NEndJohn
0 3,078
Lade
WoodSEnd
0 2,752
Lagu
LOVRVist
0 8,593
Lake
BaIbOcea
0 3,037
LaLu
DeIREnd
0 2,695
Laur
FlorJohn
JohnSout
0 2,145
50,281 0
LaVi
IaguVisL
0 1,700
LawC
LawnEEnd
0 1,606
LaWD
TangOrcu
0 3,672
Lawr
WEndMead
0 1,913
LCan
CRomTolo
0 5,077
LCerr
NEndFoot
0 8.215
LeeA
NEndTanD
0 2,443
Leff
OsosSRos
12,026 0
LEnt
CataFoot
SEndCata
0 7,692
0 4,842
Leon
SanCFlel
SanCSEnd
0 1,817
0 2,693
Lily
PoinEnd
0 2,227
Lima
MadFHuas
0 8,041
Linc
BroaChor
ChorWes
HiIIBroa
7,347 0
48,490 0
0 1,970
L:ih
MargNEnd
0 1,328
Lizz
JohnWild
0 4,381
LLom
EndLCerr
0 1,808
Lobe
WEndHoll
0 4,222
Long
HathSlac
13,152 0
Loom
SMigsYne
11,404 0
L.OVR
101LVerd
DescPerf
LosVerdes
MadoECIL
OceaRoya
PerfOcea
RoyaMado
WC/LDesc
0 4,800
0 10,260
0 3,660
0 2,406
0 9,880
0 28,318
0 14,625
0 28,490
LPie
EndExpo
0 1,010
LPm
MariSHig
0 6,431
LRob
OakrEend
0 2,209
Appendix Pavement Management Plan
Page A 25
Lune
LaEnVerd
VerdEEnd
WEndLaEn
0 13,391
0 3,901
5.269 0
LVin
JohnEEnd
0 3,292
Mado
C/LLOVR
DaIiEIMe
EIMe101
LOVRPere
OceaPO
PereOcea
PODaIi
0 7,520
0 10,970
0 27,720
13,300 0
51,928 0
0 17,500
0 6,704
Madr
CorrSEnd
0 1,572
MarC
NEndOcea
0 1,794
Marg
SftEnd
0 17,435
Mari
LPraLPra
0 10,233
Marl
Patrieff
0 5,332
Mars
JohnCali
SLCKNipo
SRosJohn
31,273 0
0 18,000
0 20,064
MarW
NEndLVin
0 1,586
McCI
GranBVis
36,151 0
McMi
NEndMori
0 1,814
Mead
SouMitc
0 10,358
Mein
BroaChor
ChorSRos
0 4,352
0 4,398
Migu
NOENViEs
0 2,585
Mira
PasoSkyl
0 4,028
MiiD
FramEnd
0 7,300
Mist,
BroaSErid
0 2,756
Miss
BroaChor
ChorLinc
0 5,112
0 4,985
Mitc
MeadBroa
32,554 0
Mnta
LemoElle
LincSCrk
SRosLemo
10,382 0
0 1,714
12,693 0
Mont
ChorSRos
ToroPepp
0 16,560
0 9,225
Montr
PasaSkyl
0 7,098
Mort
PismMars
UphaPism
7,828 0
0 11,000
MouV
HiIILInc
0 7,752
MrGI
TaFaFull
0 6,857
Murr
BroaSRos
27,537 0
Newp
WNewEEnd
0 8,476
Oaks
HlanNend
0 5,465
Oakw
KentEEnd
0 1,340
Ocea
MadoPinc
0 8,222
Appendix Pavement Management Plan
Page A 26
Olea
NEndlron
0 1,523
Oliv
SRosLemo
0 3,430
Oran
HathBond
0 3,511
Osos
I0I Waln
ChurSPRR
PaciChur
2,397 0
0 3,705
0 15,216
Paci
JohnPepp
0 3,956
Palo
Ramoserr
0 5,711
Pan
QuaiQuai
0 9,417
Pasa
MiraSkyl
MrosMim
0 6,117
0 5,075
PatC
PatrEEnd
0 2,595
Pate
DalyHigh
HighFoot
TwinPatr
0 4,191
32,184 0
0 4,877
Peac
ChorOsos
SRosToro
ToroPepp
18,743 0
0 3,442
20,479 0
Penn
BuchEEnd
4,842 0
Pepp
MarsPaci
PhilMars
0 1.328
0 13.141
Pere
MadoGarc
0 6.437
Perk
RockBroa
0 1,763
Phil
CaliPark
JohnPepp
0 7,156
0 2,531
Pine
MadFOCea
0 6,309
Pism
HiguNipo
OsosSRos
SRosJohn
50,445 0
0 3,485
0 7,709
Poin
BougTaFa
LilySnap
TaFaLily
0 6,825
0 13,658
0 17,411
Popp
MtGIEAEN
0 2,678
Pon
211EDeIR
Capi21 I E
0 3,428
0 1;392
Prad
HiguEC/L
0 18,817
Pref
HedILOVR
WEndHedl
0 16,116
0 15,261
Pric
HighBran
16,669 0
Prkr
HighSouS
0 5.733
QudC
NEndQuai
0 1,396
Quai
PartRoyW
0 6,154
Rafa
RainoSEnd
0 5,292
Ramo
DSurLEnt
ElmVerd
LEntTass
PaIOBroa
0 5,702
0 1,670
246,568 0
0 5.712
Appendix. Pavement Management Plan
Page A 27
Appendix Pavement Management Plan
Page A 28
TassElm
VerdPalo
0 1,771
0 4,565
Ranc
ClovWest
NEndClov
0 3,798
0 1,376
Reba
WEENAugu
0 1,902
Rica
NOENSacr
0 5,044
Robe
NOENViEs
0 2,335
Rock
PerkBroa
StonPerk
45,089 0
0 1,843
RosC
PoinEnd
0 2,780
Rose
LaurSEnd
0 4,755
Rosi
CRomNend
FootCRom
0 1,388
0 1,366
Roug
WEndEEnd
0 3,515
RoyC
NEndRoya
0 1,998
RoyW
FairLOVR
LOVRGaII
RubiFair
0 20.000
0 5,415
0 2,323
Rubi
NEndRoya
0 4,030
SaCa
De1CHele
F1orL.eon
HeleAugu
L.eonDelC
WEndFIor
0 2,880
0 2,223
0 4,271
0 2.255
0 1,561
Sacr
Capilndu
NEndCapi
0 12.897
0 5,680
SanA
DescPref
0 4,293
SanC
DescEEnd
0 4,171
Sand
BeebBroa
0 22,354
Sant
HeIcSaCa
0 4,372
SawC
BrooEEnd
0 1,794
SBar
L.effBroa
46,867 0
Seaw
PineOcea
0 4,162
Send
WoodEEnd
0 1,603
Sequ
HarmSouW
0 762
SerD
SerHBroa
0 10,180
SerH
WEndSerD
0 3,542
SieW
EIIaNBis
NBisBish
0 4,463
0 4,043
SJos
WEndLEnt
0 3,425
Sklk
WoodSEnd
11,712 0
Sky]
MiraPasa
MontMira
0 3,890
0 4,573
Slac
LongGran
41,476 0
SI.Dr
Calilohn
0 20,130
SLuc
CRonTolo
0 4,833
Smit
WEndJohn
0 2,850
Appendix Pavement Management Plan
Page A 28
Snde
CarrSEnd
0 2,597
Sonr
V istWEnd
0 1,781
Sous
WEndHigu
0 4,119
sout
FemKent
JohnSyca
KenUohn
LaurWood
SinsLaur
WoodFem
5,023 0
0 4,275
8,029 0
0 3,907
22,783 0
4,891 0
SRos
PismSPRR
35,304 0
Staf
CaliKent
KentEEnd
0 4,799
0 4,943
Sten
NendMurr
0 4,761
Ston
WRocBroa
0 6,719
Stor
HighBran
0 4,802
Suel
BaneGran
0 5,096
Sunf
FullPoin
0 7,895
Swee
RockBroa
0 3,679
Sydn
FlorEEnd
GretAugu
HeleGret
JohnFlor
0 2,306
0 1,203
0 4,023
0 4,471
TanD
JohnSyca
Kentlohn
SycaEdge
0 3;428
0 4,091
0 13,749
Tass
FootRamo
RamoSEnd
ToloFoot
0 3,029
0 6,565
0 7,068
TFRd
BroadPoins
PoinSPRR
SPRROrcutt
0 9,614
50,301 0
0 23,112
TngC
NEndTanD
0 1,423
Tolo
SLucTass
0 4,185
Toro
PhilWaln
SLCKLeff
0 2,701
50,870 0
Tuli
EndSunf
0 3,317
Tum
WIINEnd
0 946
TwiR
WEndEEnd
0 10,148
Upha
ChorMarr
HighChor
0 2,969
22.134 0
Vall
MiraEnd
0 2,471
Vega
VisBVisA
0 2,497
Vena
ChorUnc
0 4,244
Verd
LuneEEnd
0 4,373
Vice
PeriCayu
0 9,676
Vict
WoodFran
0 4,798
VMS
NOENSacr
0 6,025
Appendix Pavement Management Plan
Page A 29
�! J
VisA
VisCDesc
0 4,050
VisB
DescSEnd
DiabDcsc
0 1,479
0 8,456
VisC
DescSEnd
VisBDesc
0 2,519
0 7,366
VisL
LaViWEnd
0 12,627
Vist
VistSEnd
0 1,530
Waln
SRosToro
0 3,626
Ward
SandHigh
0 2,464
Warr
JeffPatr
0 4,656
Wave
TankSAsh
0 8,617
Wild
LizzSEnd
19,655 0
Will
BullEnd
0 2,939
Wils
GrovPark
0 4,321
Wist -
SunfEnd
0 2,889
Wmon
PatrWJef-
0 6,854
WNew
NewpCora
0 5,712
Wodb
BroaVict
CorrLade
Ladelawt
0 3,202
0 11,752
0 7,342
WoSd
NEndSend
43,902 0
Yarr
PoinEnd
0 2,428
Zaca
WEndSHig
0 7,239
Grand Total
1,733,961 2,265,806
Appendix Pavement Management Plan
Page A 30
RESOLUTION NO. 8786
SUPPORTING AND ENCOURAGING CALIFORNIA POLYTECHNIC STATE
UNIVERSITY'S LEADERSHIP ROLE IN DEVELOPING A LOCAL RESEARCH
INITIATIVE TO ENHANCE AND ATTRACT RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGICAL
INCUBATOR INTERESTS TO THE CITY
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo has long recognized the
increasing contribution of knowledge -based and technological -based businesses in our
community; and
WHEREAS, consistent with the adopted plans and policies, the expansion of such
businesses is desired by the City in order to create improved employment opportunities for local
residents; and
WHEREAS, the City has established goals encouraging the development of strong
linkages between such businesses and California.Polytechnic State University (Cal Poly) in order
to provide these business with greater access to University-based research, technology,
instruction, talent and facilities, and
WHEREAS, a not - for -profit organization known as "Technology R & D, Inc. ",
comprised of volunteers in the community, is serving as a catalyst for establishing a Cal Poly
research initiative; and
WHEREAS, Cal Poly has unique strengths in applied research and scholarship that
cannot be found elsewhere in the community, making Cal Poly's leadership essential to the
success of the endeavor; and
WHEREAS, the potential of the community to prosper is enhanced by cooperative efforts
among its various constituencies.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo:
1. Supports and encourages a Cal Poly leadership role in developing a research initiative
for the purpose of enhancing research and technological incubator activity in the City of San Luis
Obispo; and
2. Commits to assisting the University in this role by encouraging Technology R & D to
include a strong community outreach effort in the further study and development of the research
initiative, whether that initiative takes the form of strategic alliances between businesses and Cal
Poly resources and/or the eventual development of an appropriately located research facility.
R8786
Page 2
On motion of Council Member Romero, seconded by Council Member Smith
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Council Members Smith, Roalman, Romero, Mayor Settle
NOES: None
ABSENT: Council Member Williams
the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted this 7
ATTEST:
nnie Gawf, ty Cl
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
OWN,/),
i wrywamemp),
g:research park/resoludon
day of April
Mayor Allen K. Setffd`�'-
I
n
` l
,D
RESOLUTION NO. 8785 (1998 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF SAN LUIS OBISPO ADJUSTING COMPENSATION
FOR THE CITY ATTORNEY
WHEREAS, by Resolution No. 6689 (1989 Series), the City Council appointed
Jeffrey Jorgensen as City Attorney; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has evaluated compensation factors for the City
Attorney under Section 3 of the Managerial Compensation Plan for Appointed Officials
et.al. (Resolution No. 8756 - 1998 Series); and
WHEREAS, by Resolution No. 8662 (1997 Series), the City Council established
compensation for City Attorney Jeffrey Jorgensen,
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Effective April 2, 1998, the City Attorney's salary shall increase
from $7,368 per month to $7,736 per month.
SECTION 2. Effective April 2, 1998, the City Attorney shall receive a car
allowance of $250 per month.
SECTION 3. Effective October 1, 1998, the City Attorney's salary shall increase
from $7,736 per month to $7,968 per month.
SECTION 4. All other compensation and benefits afforded the City Attorney
under the Appointed Officials Compensation Plan (Resolution No. 8756 - 1998 Series),
and the City Attorney Employment Agreement (Resolution No. 6689 - 1989 Series) not
superseded by the above, shall remain in full force and effect:
SECTION 5. The City Council shall evaluate the performance of the City
Attorney annually.
On motion of Council Member Smith , seconded by Council
Member Romero , and on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Council Members Smith, Roalman, Romero, Mayor Settle,
NOES: None
ABSENT- Council Member Williams
P•,,
R8785
Resolution No. 87811998 Series)
Page 2.
The foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted this 7 day of April , 1998.
MAYOR ALLEN SETTLE
ATTEST:
�• NNIE _ '
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
A�s� JEFFREV 6. JORGENSEN, CITY ATTORNEY
'J
r
RESOLUTION NO. 8784 (1998 SERIES)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF SAN LUIS OBISPO ADJUSTING COMPENSATION
FOR THE CITY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER
WHEREAS, by Resolution No. 6198 (1987 Series), the City Council appointed
John Dunn as City Administrative Officer; and
WHEREAS, by Resolution No. 8661 (1997 Series), the City Council established
compensation for City Administrative Officer John Dunn.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Effective April 2, 1998, the City Administrative Officer's salary
shall increase from $8,578 ($8,296 base salary plus conversion of administrative leave
hours to salary as authorized in Section 3 of Resolution 8661 [1997 Series]) per month to
$9,050 per month.
SECTION 2. All other compensation and benefits afforded the City
Administrative Officer under the Appointed Officials Compensation Plan (Resolution
No. 8756 - 1998 Series), and the City Administrative Officer Employment Agreement
(Resolution No. 6198 - 1987 Series), not superseded by the above, shall remain in full
force and effect.
SECTION 3. The City Council shall evaluate the performance of the City
Administrative Officer annually.
On motion of Council Member Smith , seconded by Council
Member Romero , and on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Council Members Smith, Roalman, Romero, Mayor Settle
NOES: None
ABSENT: Council Member Williams
R8784
Resolution No. 8784 (1998 Series)
Page 2.
The foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted this 7 day of April 1998.
ATTEST:
:•
du
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
IMMIRdOm! M-000
�;r� •
ENptk CITY ATTORNEY
rill
�-// k �
8783
RESOLUTION NO. (1998 Series)
AMENDMENT OF COUNCIL POLICIES AND PROCEDURES
CONCERNING USE OF THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS
WHEREAS, the City of San Luis Obispo Council Policies and Procedures allow other
governmental agencies and non -profit organizations to use the Council Chambers; and
WHEREAS, the use of the Council Chambers by such organizations during non - business
hours creates administrative difficulties and the potential of overtime for City staff,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo amends the Council Policies and Procedures, Section 1.1.5, "Use of Council Chambers" as
shown in Attachment A.
Upon motion of cn,,,,r; i Member Smi rh seconded by Council Member Romero
and upon the following roll call vote:
AYES: Council Members Smith, Roalman, Romero, Mayor Settle
NOES: None
ABSENT: Council Member Dodie Williams
the foregoing resolution was adopted this 7 day of April 1998
�7
MAYOR ALLEN SETTLE
ATTEST:
ITY CLERK
Bonnie L. Gawf
APPROVED:
R8783
R8783
Page 2
ATTACHMENT A
i
Council Policies & Procedures __Chapter 1: Meeting Guidelines & Procedures
1.1.3.2 Study Sessions will be held at a time and place convenient to
Council and advantageous for public participation.
1.1.3.3 Participation of the public shall be at the discretion of the Presiding
Officer, upon consensus of the Council. (Prior Res. 6505)
1.1.4 SPECIAL MEETINGS
1.1.4.1 Special meetings may be called by the Mayor or three members of the
City Council. (GC $ 54956) Written notice of each special meeting must
be given not less than twenty -four (24) hours before such meeting to each
member of the City Council not joining the call. (Ord. 677)
1.1.4.2 Written notice must be given to the City Council and to the media 24
hours prior to each meeting. (GC § 54956)
1.1.4.3 A supplemental telephone call shall be made if necessary to notify each
Council Member: (Prior Res. 6505)
1.1.4.4 No business other than that announced shall be discussed. (Prior Res.
6505)
1.1.4.5 Any special meeting held at a place other than City Hall shall be open to
the public. Notice requirements of the Brown Act shall be complied with
for any such meetings; regular minutes shall be taken by the City Clerk
and shall be available for public inspection. (Prior Res. 6505)
1.1.5 USE OF COUNCIL CHAMBERS
1.1.5.1 The City Administrative Officer, or designee, is responsible for
maintaining a calendar on the use of the Council Chamber and all requests
for reservations shall be cleared through the administrative office. (Prior
CP &P § 9.08)
1.1.5.2 When a question arises regarding permission for any group to use the
facility, the City Administrative Officer shall have authority to make the
final decision.. (Prior CP &P $ 9.08)
1.1.5.3 The following rules are established as a guide:
1.1.5.4 Use of the Council Chamber by City commissions, committees, and other
advisory bodies shall take precedence over any other group or agency.
page 6
R8783
Page 3 \�
Council Policies & Procedures Chapter 1: Meeting Guidelines &- Procedures
1.1.5.5 Favorable consideration shall be given to other governmental agencies
and non -profit groups during regular business hours only. These groups
will be charged for the use of the Council Chamber at the same rate as is
charged governmental agencies and non -profit groups for use of the
Community Room at the City / County Library. No events of a
commercial nature shall be allowed. The Council Chambers will not be
available for use by any non -City organizations during non - business
hours.
1.1.5.6 No admission shall be charged. No events featuring the service of food or
drink shall be allowed.
1.1.5.7 Regularly scheduled meetings by other agencies and groups shall be
discouraged. (Prior CP &P ' 9.08)
1.1.5.8 Meetings being held to advocate the election or re- election of a particular
candidate for political office shall not be allowed. However, the Council
Chamber may be used for a Candidates' Forum where the public and all
the candidates for a particular public office have been invited. (Res.
8496)
1.2 AGENDA
1.2.1 PLACING AN ITEM ON THE AGENDA (COUNCIL MEMBER)
Any Council Member may request an item be placed on a future agenda during
Communications, and upon consensus of a majority of Council, staff will prepare a.staff report
if formal Council action is required. An individual Council Member may place an urgency
item on an agenda with a minimum of 72 hours legal notice and a memorandum from the
Council Member to the Council and staff setting forth the substantive issues of the item. For
the purpose of this paragraph, urgency shall arise in those limited situations where an item
requires immediate action, and the need to take immediate action came to the attention of the
Council Member subsequent to the distribution of the agenda. (Res. 8473)
1.2.2 PLACING AN ITEM ON THE AGENDA (THE PUBLIC)
A member of the public may request an item be placed on a future agenda during Public
Comment or via other communication with Council Members, and upon consensus of a
majority of Council, a staff report will be prepared and approved by the C.A.O. or his
designee. (Prior Res. 6505)
1.23 EMERGENCY ITEMS
Emergency items may be placed on the agenda only in accordance with state law. Generally,
only those matters affecting public health or safety may be considered emergency in nature. A
four -fifths vote of Council is necessary to add an emergency item. (Prior Res. 6505)
1.2.4 RECONSIDERATION
page 7
W�u�,/v ,
����
,�f� C���
8782
RESOLUTION NO. (1998 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SAN LUIS OBISPO APPROVING A PROPOSAL FOR SUBMITTION TO
THE COUNTY AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT AS PART OF THE
MOTOR VEHICLE EMISSION REDUCTION FUND (MOVER) PROGRAM
WHEREAS, on February 9, 1998, the County Air Pollution Control District (APCD) made
available to the public a Request for Proposals (RFP) for projects and programs that help reduce air
pollution; and
WHEREAS, the City of San Luis Obispo has long supported programs that maintain clean air in
the San Luis Obispo region and has adopted plans, policies and standards that support the County's Clean
Air Plan (CAP); and
WHEREAS, as part of its transportation planning and management program, the City of San Luis
Obispo is prepared to undertake programs, using MOVER funds, which will further the cause of
preserving the regions clean air resources..
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by Council of the City of San Luis Obispo the
following:
SECTION 1. Approves the "Zero Fare" Transit Program proposal ($40,000), attached as Exhibit
A, and authorizes its submittal to the San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District:
SECTION 2. Appoints the City Administrative Officer, or his designee, as agent of the City, to
conduct all negotiations, execute and submit all documents, including, but not limited to, applications,
agreements, amendments, payment requests and so on., which may be necessary for the completion of
the aforementioned project.
Upon motion of Council Member Smith ,seconded by Council Member Romero and
on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Council Members Smith, Roalman, Romero, Mayor Settle
NOES: None
ABSENT: Council Member Dodie Williams
the foregoing resolution was adopted this _7 day of AP,.;1 ,1998
R8782
�1\
I i
8%82
Page 2: Resolution (1998 Series)
ATTEST:
ity Clerk
'APPROVED AS TO FORM:
:4 i
/�, .I ��.. %.
WA
f �i
city O
Project Description
1 >48 Motor Vehicle EmissI %.
Reduction Program
Funding Proposal - --
SAn l.Ul S 0131 SPO
Project Title: "Zero Fare" Transit Program
Proposed. Service:. The City will use $40,000 of MOVER funds, in combination with funds provided.by Cal. Poly
University, to maintain the "Zero Fare" transitprogram. This program lets Cal Poly students and employees ride
SLO Transit buses at no cost by simply showing their student or employment identification cards.
Geographic Area Served: The City of San Luis Obispo.
Program Benefits: Without the Zero -Fare program, many university students and employees will not ride the bus
and will use private vehicles. Increased vehicle use will degrade air quality by increasing the numbers of cars on
the road and traffic congestion during peak travel.periods.. Using a MOVER grant to help-maintain the Zero.Fare
program will avoid these impacts.
_ Existing Conditions: Since 1985 . Cal Poly University has paid for the Zero Fare program. Today it costs about
$165,000 per year to provide this service. In 1997 Cal Poly University reduced itsfunding support. Cal Poly will
contribute $125,000 per, year and proposes to sell discounted transit passes to ,make up the estimated $40,000
needed to fully pay for the service. In 1997, the Cal Poly Foundation provided funding which allowed the sale of
transit passes to be deferred.. The Foundation felt that disruption caused by the recent on= campus utility project
warranted its support of bus service during the 1997 -98 school year. However, the utility project is now complete
and Foundation funding is scheduled to end June 30, 1998. Unless, additional funding is found, the Zero Fare
program will have to be terminated.
Avoiding Future Problems: Replacing the Zero Fare program with a discounted transit pass program will result
in fewer Cal Poly students and staff riding the bus. To illustrate this point, in 1984 Cal Poly students and
employees could purchase transit passes at discounted prices; during that year 102,184 students and employees
rode the bus. The following year, the Zero Fare program was instituted and 255,859 students and employees rode
the bus — a 150% increase. If Cal Poly institutes a discounted transit pass program as proposed, the City believes
that the decline in transit riders will equal the extent of the increase experienced in the early 1980's — a ridership
decline of 60 percent. Avoiding ridership declines— and the associated air quality and traffic congestion impacts
— is the objective of this MOVER grant proposal.
Maintaining the Program After Initial MOVER Funding: The City intends to use MOVER funds to support
the Zero Fare program during the Fall, Winter, and Spring quarters of the 1998 -99 school year. In the future,
funding may be pursued from the following sources:
• Federal Government • Cal Poly Foundation
• Cal Poly Student Body • City General Fund
City of San Luis Obispo MOVER Program Funding Proposal: April 1998 Page 1
Project Organization
The City's transportation staff and Mass Transportation Committee oversee the operation of the SLO Transit
system. SLO Transit service is provided through a contract with Laidlaw Inc. and includes once -an-hour and half-
hour-service on four. routes.. extending -throughout .San Luis Obispo..__.APCD'.s _ provision.of MOVER program
funding will not require any change to the contract between the City and Laidlaw Inc. MOVER funds will simply
enable Cal Poly ridership to be maintained at or near current levels.
Work Statement
Upon receiving approval of this proposal from the APCD Board (targeted for July 1998), the City will:
• By August 1, 1998 (or sooner if possible), inform Cal Poly University a grant has been secured to fully support
the zero -fare program and to defer the advertising and sale of transit passes.
• Continue publicity for the Zero Fare program as part of new student orientation programs for the 1998 -99
school year.
• By.April.l, 1999, establish a funding strategy for continuing the zero fare program.(or discontinuing or scaling
back the service if funding is not available).
Funding Request Breakdown: Zero Fare Transit Program
Cal Poly University Annual Contribution: $125,000
Requested MOVER Program Funding: $ 40,000
Total Annual Cost of Service: $165,000
The cost of the service is based on fees, mileage and hourly charges specified in the contract between the City of
San Luis Obispo and its transit service provider— Laidlaw Inc.
Schedule of Deliverables
It is the goal of the City to maintain the Zero Fare program throughout the 1998 -99 school year. To achieve this
goal, the City will use Cal Poly's contribution ($125,000) to cover the cost of the service until the agreement with
the District can be executed and MOVER program funds are available (targeted for December 9'h, 1998) to
supplement Cal Poly's contribution.
Emission Calculations - Cost Effectiveness
In developing the emission reduction and cost effectiveness data shown below, the City used the methodology for
providing "New Bus Service" presented in Attachment 5 of APCD's MOVER program guidelines.
City of San Luis. Obispo MOVER Program Funding Proposal: April 1998 Page 2
Calculation of Additional Annual Cal Poly Trips Using Motor VehicWs
After Recision of Free Rides
Cal Poly Transit Trips in 1984 -85 Before Free Rides
Cal Poly Transit Trips in 1985 -86 After Free Rides
Percentage Increase
Cal Poly Transit Trips in 1996 -97 with Free Rides
Estimated Percentage Decrease in Transit Trips After Recision of Free Rides
Estimated Annual Cal Poly Transit Trips After Recision of Free Rides
Estimated Additional Annual Cal Poly Trips Using Other Modes After Recision of Free
Rides
Estimated Percentage of Additional Cal Poly Trips Using Autos
Estimated Additional Annual Cal Poly Trips Using Autos After Recision of Free Rides
(Auto Trips)
Estimated Miles per Additional Cal Poly Auto Trip
Estimated Additional Annual Cal Poly Auto Trip Miles (Auto VMT)
Calculation of Emissions Reductions and Cost - Effectiveness
If Free Rides are Continued
Auto Trips
Auto Trip End Factor for ROG (grams/trip)
Grams Reduction in ROG Emissions from Auto Trips
Auto Trips
Auto Trip End Factor for NOx (grams/trip)
Grams Reduction in NOx Emissions from Auto Trips
Auto Trips
Auto Trip End Factor for PM 10 (grams/trip)
Grams Reduction in PM 10 Emissions from Auto Trips
Grams Reduction in ROG +NOx +PM 10 Emissions from Auto Trips
Conversion Factor for Grams to Pounds
Pounds Reduction in ROG +NOx +PM 10 Emission from Auto Trips
Auto VMT
Auto VMT Factor for ROG (grams/mile)
Grams Reduction in ROG Emissions from Auto VMT
Auto VMT
Auto VMT Factor for NOx (grams/mile)
Grams Reduction in NOx Emissions from Auto VMT
Auto VMT
Auto VMT Factor for PM 10 (grams/mile)
Grams Reduction in PM 10 Emissions from Auto VMT
Grams Reduction in ROG +NOx +PM 10 Emissions from Auto VMT
Conversion Factor for Grams to Pounds
Pounds Reduction in ROG +NOx +PM 10 Emission from Auto VMT
Total Pounds Reduction in ROG +NOx +PM10 Emissions
Project Life in Years
Total Pounds Reduction in ROG +NOx +PM10 Emissions over Project Life
Total Project Costs
Cost-Effectiveness (Dollars per Pound of Emissions Reduced) (Project
Costs/Pounds Reduction)
255,859
150%
569,846
-60%
227,583
342,263
66%
225,894
3
677,681
225,894
4.98
1,124,950
225,894
2.05
463,082
225,894
0.00
0
1,588,032
454
3,498
677,681
0.55
372,724
677,681
1.02
691,234
677,681
0.45
304,956
1,368,915
454
3,015
6,513
l
6,513
$40,000
$6.14
City of San Luis Obispo MOVER Program Funding Proposal: April 1998 Page 3
G:\Transpor\TransponationProjects\MOVER213usSubsidy
Pt
RESOLUTION NO. 8781 (1998 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS
OBISPO DENYING AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S
ACTION DENYING A GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT TEXT
AMENDMENT TO EXPAND THE SOCIAL SERVICE AREA, GPA 145 -97
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on February 11,
1998, and denied the proposed General. Plan Land Use Element text amendment to expand the
boundaries of the social services area, GPA 145 -97; and
WHEREAS, the applicants filed an appeal of the Planning Commission's action on
February 19, 1998; and
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on March 17, 1998, and has
considered testimony of interested parties including the appellants, the records of the Planning
Commission hearings, and the evaluation and recommendation of staff; and
BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Action. The appeal is hereby denied with the following finding:
1. Because of the unique program provided by the Private Industry Council (P.I.C.), the City
Council determines that the proposed use of a one -stop career center in conjunction with
the State of California Employment Development Department (provided it does not
exceed a ratio of 60% P.I.C. employees and 40% other agency employees), is a minor,
incidental, ancillary function of P,l.0 in carrying out its primary mission, and is therefore
consistent with the tri-polar policy, and is a permitted use in the zone upon approval of a
use permit.
R8781
i C
Resolution No. 8781 (1998 Series)
Page 2
On motion of Council Member Roalman , seconded by
vice Mayor Smith , and on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Council Members Roalman, Romero, Smith, Williams, Mayor Settle
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this i r day of March, 1998.
Mayor Allen Settle
ATTEST:
ity Clerk Bo e GaVf
APPROVED:
/,/6�e� '3�0' ► 0 Jorgensen
tiow
RESOLUTION NO. 8780 (1998 Series)
A'T'TACHMEN'T 4
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
DENYING A REQUEST FOR A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND REZONING
FOR PROPERTY AT 2238 BROAD STREET
(GP/R/ER 32 -96)
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission was unable to conduct a public hearing on the
project on February 11, 1998, and therefore referred the matter to the City Council without a
recommendation; and
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on March 17, 1998 and has
considered testimony of interested persons and the project evaluation and recornmendations of
staff;
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Findin s. That this Council, after consideration of a request to amend the
General Plan Land Use Element Map and the official zoning map, thereby designating and zoning
the project site Neighborhood- Commercial(C -N), makes the following findings:
1. It is not desirable to have Neighborhood- Commercialuses occupy the entire site because of
the estimated volume of traffic these uses would add to a major intersection where long
traffic delays are already experienced.
2. The proposed project is not consistent with Land Use Element Policy 3.2.2.B which states
that new or expanded neighborhood commercial centers should provide uses to serve
nearby residents and not the whole City, and should have safe and pleasant pedestrian
access from the surrounding service area.
SECTION 2. Denial. The request for approval of the general plan map amendment and
rezoning described above is hereby denied.
Onmotionof Council Member Roalm condedbyvice Mayor Smith and on
the following roll call vote:
AYES: Council Members Roalman, Smith, Mayor Settle
NOES: Council Members Romero, Williams
ABSENT: None
i
R8780
GP/R 32 -96 - Albertsons
Page 2
the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 17 day of 1997.
ATTEST:
i
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
/ ���3� ;�
� ���
��� �2�
������'
�-
C��
�, ��
��,
RESOLUTION NO. 8779 (1998 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
DENYING AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S
ACTION, THEREBY APPROVING THE USE PERMIT
TO ESTABLISH A HOSTEL ON PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 1617 SANTA ROSA STREET (U 178 -97)
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on February 11,
1998, and approved the request to establish a hostel for property located at 1617 Santa Rosa
Street, and
WHEREAS, Wolfgang and Susanne Gartner, neighbors who live at 1635 Santa Rosa
Street, filed an appeal of the Planning Commission's action on February 17, 1998; and
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on March 17, 1998, and has
considered testimony of the appellants, interested parties, the records of the Planning
Commission hearings and action, and the evaluation and recommendation of staff; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the project is categorically exemptunder
Section 15301, Class 1 of the California Environmental Quality Act, because it is the use of an
existing facility with no significant expansion of that use.
BE IT RESOLVED; by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings. That this Council, after consideration of the proposed project
(U 178 -97), the appellants' statement, staff recommendations and' reports thereof, makes the
following findings:
The proposed use will not adversely affect the health, safety and welfare of persons living
or working at the site or in the vicinity, because hostel restrictions limit adverse impacts.
2. The proposed use is appropriate at the proposed location and will be compatible with
surrounding land uses because it is similar in nature to a residential use.
3. The proposed use conforms to the general plan and meets zoning ordinance requirements.
n0770
Resolution No .8779 (1998 Series)
Page 2
4. The proposed use is exempt from environmental review under Section 15301, Class 1
(Existing Facilities) of the CEQA Guidelines.
SECTION 2. Appeal Denied. The appeal of the Planning Commission's action is hereby
denied. Therefore, the Commission's action to approve the use permit is upheld, subject to the
following conditions:
1. Parking: A minimum of six spaces shall be provided.
2. A list of rules must be made available to all guests. Such rules must include the following:
* Alcohol and tobacco use is not permitted at the site.
* Bus schedules must be available for review by guests at all times.
* Recycling containers, appropriately labeled, must be available to guests.
3. A manager must be on -site at all times the hostel is open, to supervise the guests and
enforce the rules.
4. Secure parking for at least six bicycles shall be provided.
5. This approval allows a maximum occupancy of 22, including guests, staff and residents.
Any increase in occupancy levels will require approval of a new use permit.
6. At any time the Planning Commission may review the use permit if written complaints
from citizens or the Police Department are received by the Community Development
Department. At such review hearing, the Planning Commission may add, delete or modify
conditions of approval or may revoke the use permit.
7. The applicant shall submit a revised site plan to the Community Development Director that
clearly shows where trash and recycling will be stored and provisions for screening it.
8. The City has the right to make periodic inspections during regular business hours to verify
occupancy.
Resolution No.
Page 3
r
8779 (1998 Series)
On motion of Council Member Roalmnn ,seconded by. Council Member Williams
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Council Members Roalman, Romero, Smith, Williams, Mayor Settle
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 17 day of March 1998.
Mayor Allen Settle
ATTEST:
s.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
O
CO
a�
RESOLUTION NO. 8778 (1998 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
UPHOLDING AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S
ACTION, THEREBY APPROVING THE USE PERMIT
TO ESTABLISH A FRATERNITY, AND TO ALLOW A REDUCED
STREET YARD SETBACK FROM 15' TO 10' TO ACCOMMODATE
ON -SI'rE PARKING, FOR PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 1292 FOOTHILL BLVD. (U 174 -97)
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on February 11,
1998, and denied the request to establish a fraternity, and allow a reduced street yard setback
from 15 feet to 10 feet to accommodate on -site parking, for property located at 1292 Foothill
Boulevard; and
WHEREAS, the applicant filed an appeal of the Planning Commission's action on
February 12, 1998; and
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on March 17, 1998, and has
considered testimony of the applicant/appellant,, interested parties, the records of the Planning
Commission hearings and action, and the evaluation and recommendation of staff, and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the project is categorically exempt under
Section 15301, Class 1 of the California Environmental Quality Acts because it is the use of an
existing facility with no significant expansion of that use.
BE IT RESOLVED, by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings. That this Council, after consideration of the proposed project
(U 174 -97), the appellant's statement, staff recommendations and reports thereof, makes the
following findings:
R8778
I
Resolution No. 87.78 (1998 Series)
Page 2
1. The proposed use, as conditioned, will not be detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of
persons living or working in the area, because limits on hours for events and numbers of
persons allowed on site will.restrict activities and limit disturbances to neighbors.
2. The subject use is appropriate at the proposed location, and will be compatible with
surrounding land uses provided that the fraternity complies with all conditions at all times.
3. The proposed .use conforms to the general plan because it is a group housing use, which the
general plan says is appropriate for Medium -High Density Residential areas.
4. The proposed use meets zoning ordinance requirements because it is a fraternity in a
Medium -High Density Residential (R -3) zone, where fraternities are allowed with approval
of a Planning Commission use permit.
5. The requested street yard exception will not adversely impact the streetscape appearance of
the site or the prevalent pattern of yards in the neighborhood with appropriate screening of
the parking space.
6. The proposed use is exempt from environmental review requirements because it is a
residential use similar to the previous hostel use (Class 1, Existing Facilities, Section 15301
of the CEQA Guidelines).
SECTION 2. Appeal approval. The appeal of the Planning Commission's action is
upheld, and therefore the use permit is approved, subject to the following conditions and code
requirements:
Conditions
1. No more than thirteen (13) persons shall reside at the house at any time. Additions to
structures or additional occupancy shall require a use permit amendment. The applicant shall
allow the city to verify occupancy of the house by allowing an inspection of the records or by
a visual inspection of the premises. Any inspection shall be at a reasonable time and shall be
preceded by a 24 -hour notice to the residents.
2. A minimum of twelve (12) on -site parking spaces to city standards shall be provided and
maintained at all times for the intended-use..
3. The request for a street yard setback exception from 15 feet to 10 feet is hereby approved,
based on the finding cited above and subject to the architectural review requirements for
screening included in Condition No. 10.
Resolution No. 8778 (1998 Series)
Page 3
4. Applicant. shall install an enclosed trash and recycling area to the approval of the Community
Development Director.
5. The property shall be maintained in a clean and orderly manner. All plant materials shall be
maintained and replaced as necessary.
6. The maximum number of persons allowed on the site for: routine meetings an gatherings is
20, except as specifically approved by the Community Development Director for special
events. For such special events, the applicant shall also submit a parking and transportation
plan.
7. No meetings, parties, or other types of similar activities involving persons other than
residents are allowed between the hours of 10 pm. and 9 a.m., except as approved by the
Community Development Director.
8. The applicant shall institute and maintain a neighborhood relations program. This plan shall
include at. least the following elements:
*Annual training of all members in community relations.
•A program to inform neighbors of upcoming events at the house.
°Submission of names and telephone numbers of responsible persons, including the
alumni president and chief financial officer, to the Community Development Director and
to the neighbors within two blocks of the house. Responsible persons shall be available
during all events and.at reasonable hours otherwise, to receive and handle complaints.
Evidence of implementation of said plan shall be submitted to the Director for review each
year. Failure to exercise reasonable efforts to implement said plan may be grounds for
revocation of this permit.
9. Events, including meetings or parties, on site, shall be limited to those listed on a meeting
and activities schedule, submitted to and approved by the Community Development Director
in the fall of each year. Exceptions to this schedule must be approved by the Community
Development Director. If the Director determines the chan ge is significant and may have an
adverse impact on the neighborhood, then it will be referred to the Planning Commission for
consideration.
10. There shall be no freestanding signs on the premises. Signs shall be limited to signs located
on building faces or fences. .
11. The applicant shall submit an application for architectural review of site changes including a
landscaping plan showing planting in the street yard area, as well as other areas of the site.
Resolution No. 8778 (1998 Series)
Page 4
The landscaping plan shall specifically address the need to adequately screen proposed
parking spaces visible from the street. Plans, prepared to a standard architect's or engineer's
scale, and with accurate dimensions for parking spaces and driveway widths, shall be
submitted to confirm full compliance with City standards, including the need for a
turnaround area.
12. Use permit shall be reviewed if any reasonable written citizen, or Police or Fire Department,
complaints are received by the Community Development Department. In review of the use
permit, the Planning Commission may add, delete or modify conditions of approval, or
revoke the use permit. The Planning Commission may consider adding a condition requiring
fraternity officers to perform a community service project in the neighborhood.
13. Failure to comply with any of the above conditions or the following code requirements, or
the conduct of the use so as to constitute a violation of Federal, State, or local law, or so as to
constitute a public nuisance or so as to cause adverse impacts on the health, safety, or welfare
of persons in the vicinity of this use is prohibited and may constitute grounds for revocation
of this permit.
Code Requirements
1. An approved fire sprinkler system; smoke detectors and fire extinguishers shall be installed
and maintained to the approval of the Fire Department.
2. The two parking spaces shown as garage spaces shall be available at all times for parking.
Any physical obstructions existing in the space shall be corrected to allow for their continued
use as complying parking spaces.
On motion of vice Mayor Smith
and on the following roll call vote:
,seconded by
Council Member Romero
AYES:. Council Members Smith, Roalman, Romero, Williams, Mayor Settle
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 17 day of . March , 1998.
Resolution No. 8778 (1998 Series)
Page 5
ATTEST:
FIAI I l l -
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
We 70/, 1 1 2A wrw, A40 W * W,
i
Y i
Mayor Allen Settle
C�
8777
RESOLUTION NO. (1998 Series)
RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
DECLARING THAT THE PROPERTY AT 663 CHURCH STREET
CONSTITUTES A PUBLIC NUISANCE, AND ORDERS ABATEMENT OF SAME
WHEREAS, the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo held a public hearing in the
Council Chambers of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California and determined a
public nuisance exists upon certain premises situated in said City known and designated as 663
Church Street and more particularly described as Lot 8, Block 124, Murray and Church's
addition, and shown as Assessor's Parcel No. 003 - 641 -003 in the County of San Luis Obispo,
.FTi
WHEREAS, the nuisance consists of the following: boxes, debris, wood, cut vegetation,
and any other combustible material deemed a hazard by the authority having jurisdiction.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, the Council finds upon the evidence
presented at the hearing that a public nuisance exits, and if the same is not promptly abated by
the owner of said premises, within 30 days from this date, said nuisance may be abated by
municipal authorities by removal or other appropriate action, the cost of which will constitute a
lien upon such premises until paid.
Upon motion of Council Member Smith , seconded by Council Member
Romero and on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Council Members Smith, Romero, Roalman, Williams and Mayor Settle
NOES: None
R -8777
��\
I �
Resolution No. 8777 (�3 Series) ~
Page Two
ABSENT: None
the foregoing resolution was adopted this 17th day of March , 1998.
Mayor Allen S-ettre
ATTEST:
C C eilt, - BonZe L awf
APPROVED:
I'd i. -
/� r. ,*I
Poll,
�w�
n
i
RESOLUTION NO. 8776(1998 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO_
REVISING THE MAYOR AND COUNCILMEMBER COMPENSATION PLAN AND
RESCINDING PREVIOUS RESOLUTION NO. 8517
WHEREAS, it is the practice of cities to compensate and reimburse for business expenses
their Mayors and Council Members for official duties; and
WHEREAS, Charter Section 410 provides for compensation and reimbursement of
expenses for the Mayor and Council Members and establishes a procedures for a biannual review
by a five - member Council Compensation Committee; and
WHEREAS, a five- member Council Compensation Committee was appointed and has
met and reviewed Mayor and Council Member compensation in accordance with the procedure
provided by the Charter; and,
WHEREAS, the Council Compensation Committee has determined that the present
criteria for compensation remain valid; however the current levels of compensation have
remained unadjusted since 1989, and that adjustment is now appropriate in light of inflation,
increases in the cost of living and the significant demands associated with the official duties of
the Mayor and Council Members;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo
as follows:
SECTION 1. BASIC COMPENSATION
Effective January 1, 1999, the basic compensation for services rendered in an official capacity
shall be provided as follows:
A. Council Member $ 800 monthly
B. Mayor $ 1,000 monthly
R -8776
C "C
Resolution No. 8776 (1998 Series)
Page 2
SECTION 2. OTHER BENEFITS; RETIREMENT AND HEALTH INSURANCE
The Mayor and Council Members shall be entitled to City- funded participation in P.E.R.S.
retirement. The City shall contribute $420 per month toward the Mayor and Council Members
participation in PEMCHA, dental, vision, and life insurance. Any unexpended amount shall not
be distributed to the Mayor and Council Members in cash.
SECTION 3. PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND EDUCATION
Allowances shall be budgeted for the Mayor and each Council Member as follows:
A. Professional Development. For costs of professional development and
educational conferences designed to improve understanding of and proficiency in
municipal affairs. Said allowance shall be reimbursed in accordance with
accepted City Travel Guidelines.
Annual Allowance:
Council Member $1500
Mayor $1800
B. League of California Cities Conference. For the cost of participating in the
Annual Conference of the League of California Cities. The City shall also
reimburse the following costs for spousal participation, which is encouraged:
e Double room instead of single room.
• Spousal registration fees to attend Conference seminars (this does not include
reimbursement for recreational activities that may be offered by the League
during meeting activities).
• Travel expenses only if a bus, train, or plane must be used rather than a City
vehicle. (See adopted City Travel Guidelines for approved uses.) If the
public official uses his/her personal vehicle, travel reimbursement shall be
provided only the employee.
• Meals that spouses are expected to attend as part of directly- related
Conference activities will be reimbursed at the same per diem as the public
official.
C. Channel Counties Division Meetings. When the spouse of an official or employee
is expected to attend a quarterly meeting of the Channel Counties Division of the
League, the meal expense will be paid by the City with the authorization of the
City Administrative Officer.
1 � \
Resolution No. 8776(1998 Series)
Page 3
D. Start-up Allowance. An additional professional development allowance up to
$1,000 shall be budgeted to each new Mayor and Council Member to help
accelerate his/her comprehension of municipal and legislative operations during
the first 12 months following the taking of office.
SECTION 4. CITY BUSINESS AND MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT
Quarterly allowances shall be budgeted for the Mayor and each Council Member as follows:
A. City Business. For costs incurred in connection with official City business. Said
allowance shall be used for expenses and shall include all meals, tickets,
periodicals, dues, subscriptions, and similar miscellaneous expenses.
Quarterly Expense Allowance
Council Member $300
Mayor $450
B. Mileage. For official travel, reimbursement shall be made upon submittal of an
official mileage expense form:
Ouarterly Mileage Allowance
Council Member $300
Mayor $450
SECTION 5. GENERAL PROCEDURES AND LIMITATIONS
Appropriate budgetary practices and accounting controls shall be established to ensure that
expenditures and reimbursements are in compliance with approved budget allocations. The
Mayor and each Council-Member is expected to plan business activities so as to stay within
his/her budget. When exceptional circumstances require that additional amounts be allocated to
accounts, formal Council action shall be required..
A. Accounting. An account shall be established in the name of each Council
Member with all expenditures charged to the individual Council Member or
Mayor. If any account is depleted prior to the end of the fiscal year, additional
allocations shall require a specific action of the City Council. Claims for
reimbursement as specified in Section 4 above, may be submitted monthly but the
aggregate of three monthly claims may not exceed the quarterly maximum.
Receipts shall be submitted within the fiscal year. The Council budget shall be
n
Resolution No. 8776(1998 Series)
Page 4
available for review in the City Clerk's Office and the Mayor and Council
Members shall receive quarterly statements.
B. Reimbursement. Limitation. The City's adopted Travel Guidelines shall govern
all expenditures for professional development and conferences. These guidelines
include all official meals, tuition or fees, transportation to meeting sites, materials,
and telephone usage.
C. Special Expenses. For occasions when the Mayor and/or a Council Member is
designated by the City Council to represent the City at special meetings,
reimbursement shall be made from an unallocated Travel Expense Account.
D. Honorarium. If the Mayor or a Council Member receives an honorarium as a
result of his/her participation in a meeting or conference, the amount of the
honorarium shall be deducted from the amount normally provided by the City for
that meeting or conference if the City paid for the Council Member's attendance
at such meeting or conference.
E. Other Guidelines. Any other travel - related issue not specifically governed in this
resolution shall be adjudicated in accordance with the City of San Luis Obispo
adopted Travel Guidelines..
SECTION 6. COUNCIL COMPENSATION COMMITTEE
A five- member review committee shall be appointed by January 31, in even - numbered years and
shall bring its proposed recommendations in resolution form to the City Council within 90 days,
or no later than May 1'
A. Membership. The committee membership shall have as broad a representation as
possible, including but not limited to, one previously elected official, one
Personnel Board member, and one citizen -at- large.
B. Review Responsibility. The committee shall review the full Council
compensation package including salary, benefits, expense reimbursement,
professional development allowances and any other compensation provided the
City Council. Review should include, but shall not be limited to: 1)
compensation of Council and Mayors of cities of similar population/budget size;
2) compensation practices of both Charter and General Law cities; 3) Government
Code provisions for General Law cities; 4) Council and Mayor responsibilities in
San Luis Obispo at the time of the committee's review; and 5) any structural
changes that may have occurred in municipal government either as a result of
State legislation or by actions of the local electorate which may have added to or
deducted from the duties and responsibilities of the Council Members and/or
Mayor.
I
Resolution No. 8776(1998 Series)
Page 5
Upon motion ofcouncil Member Williams, seconded by CouncilMember Roalman
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Council Members Williams, Roalman, Romero, Smith and Mayor Settle
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
the foregoing resolution was adopted this 17th day of March 1998.
Mayor Allen Settle
ATTEST:
,Annie Gawf, i1iy QKerk /
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
za:ir� -
r1114. Arg r 3 �Iy Attorney
J ✓`���
Ind
l� VUW
��
RESOLUTION NO. 8775(1998 Series)
A.RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
APPROVING A.MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR PROPERTY
ACQUISITION AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE MULTI -MODAL TRANSIT TRANSFER
CENTER AND PUBLIC PARIONGFACILITY, LOCATED AT 1940 SANTA BARBARA
STREET (ER 52 -97).
WHEREAS, the Public Works Department staff has developed design alternatives for the
development of a public parking and transit transfer facility located at 1940 Santa Barbara Street in
the railroad district; and
WHEREAS; consistent with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, the
Community Development Department has prepared an initial environmental study that evaluates the
potential environmental effects of acquiring said property, developing and operating the Multi -Modal
Transit Transfer Center and public parking facility as shown in the design alternatives; and
WHEREAS, the Community Development Director issued a mitigated negative declaration
for the Multi -Modal Transit Transfer Center design alternatives (ER 52 -91) that was noticed and
made available for public review and comment pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act
(Public Resources Code Section 21091); and
WHEREAS, the City Council, has considered the draft Negative Declaration of
environmental impact and recommended mitigation measures and monitoring programs as prepared
by staff,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo
as follows:
SECTION 1. Environmental Determination ER 52 -97: The City Council finds and determines
that the project's Negative Declaration adequately addresses the potential significant
environmental impacts of the proposed Multi -Modal Transit Transfer Center and Parking
Facility, and reflects the independent judgment of the City Council. The Council hereby
adopts said Negative Declaration including the mitigation measures listed in Exhibit A.
Attachment 1
R -8775
Council Resolution No. 8775 (1998 Series)
Page 2
On motion of Council Member Williams seconded by Council Member Smith and
on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Council Members Williams, Smith, Roalman, Romero and Mayor Settle
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
the foregoing resolution was adopted on this 17thday of starch 1998.
Mayor Allen K. ettle
ATTEST
/City Clerks nie 6e Ga
APPROVED
FF-
nsen
Attachment: Exhibit A - Mitigation Measures, ER 52 -97
._i
Council Resolution No. 8775 (1998 Series)
Page 3
Exhibit A
MITIGATION MEASURES'AND,MONITORING PROGRAM FOR THE
SAN LUIS OBISPO MULTI -MODAL TRANSIT TRANSFER AND PARKING FACILITY
LOCATED AT 1940 SANTA BARBARA STREET
(ER 52 -97)
1.,
Mitigation Traffic mitigation measures listed. under A, B, C, and D; page
Measure: 11 (of the initial study), including various street improvements
along Santa Barbara Street, High Street, and the MMTC project
entrances; including restriping,. frontage improvements, special
traffic signage and controls, and new street lighting.
Monitoring_ Street improvements and traffic controls will be incorporated
Program: into the MMTC project design by City Public Works staff. and
shall be included in final. project construction drawings to be
approved by the City Council.
2.
Mitigation Noise mitigation measure #1, page 15,. requiring a .landscaped
Measure: earth berm along the west edge of the upper parking lot.
Monitoring Project plans shall include a landscape /grading plan showing the
Program: 3 -4 -ft. tall landscaped earth berm, to the approval of the
Community Development Director.
3.
Mitigation Noise mitigatio_ on measure #2, limiting hours of the public transit
Measure: operations at the MMTC to the hours between 7 am and 10
p.m. to minimize impacts to noise - sensitive uses adjacent to
the MMTC.
Monitoring Operating hours shall be limited as specified and incorporated
Program: into procedural guidelines for both City and Regional transit
-programs and verified in writing by the City's Transit Manager._
4.
Mitigation Noise mitigation measure #3, offer to provide dual glazed
Measure: windows and /or insulation and repair for windows facing the
MMTC site, to owners of noise - sensitive uses within the 65 dB
contour in the Noise Element, as determined necessary by the
Community Development Director to meet city noise standards.
Monitoring The Community Development Director will notify owners of
Program:_ affected properties, verify need for improvements, and review
plans and cost estimates. The Public Works Director shall be
.responsible for approving property owners' requests and
authorizing reimbursement for property improvements.-
Attachment 2
Council Resolution No. 8775 (1998 Series)
Page 4
5.
Mitigation
Noise mitigation measure #4, primary bus park - ing areas shall be
Measure: . r - e:
located at least st 100 feet away from noise sensitive residential
uses along Santa Barbara Street.
Monitoring
Public Works -staff shall verify the location of primary bus
.Progra I :
parking areas in construction drawings, to comply with this
measure.
6.
Mitigation
Historic' mitigation measure a) . the historic SP Freight
Measure:
Warehouse shall remain on site.
Monitoring
in its review of project plans, the Cultural Heritage Committee
Program:
and the Architectural Review Commission shall ensure that the
project -retains the historic warehouse on site and retains its
contextual relationship-to the railroad.
7.
Mitigation
His - -- e - -_ — - -
sioric mitigation measure b) As part of the project, the City
Measure :. r—e-:
shal I stabilize and preserve the Warehouse to protect it from
weathering, vandalism, decay, fire and structural failure.
Monitoring
Public Works shall prepare . and implement a warehouse
Program:
stabilization and preservation plan, With the advise of the
Cultural Heritage Committee and to the Community
DevelopmentDirector's approval.
8.
Mitigation
Historic mitigation measure c) As funding and development
Measure:
opportunities allow, the City shall rehabilitate the historic
warehouse to preserve its original architectural character,
consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the
Treatment of Historic Buildings.
Monitoring
The Public Works Director shall develop a rehabilitation strategy
Program:
for City Council consideration, including public/private
partnerships for adaptive reuse, grant funding, City general
funding, and other measures leading to rehabilitation of the
historic warehouse.
9.
Mitigation
Historic mitigation measure d) the warehouse- shall be 'fully
Measure:
documented with drawings, photographs, and Written history
prior to moving or rehabilitating the building.
Monitoring
Public Works shall, with the assistance of Community
Program:
Development Department staff and the advise of the Cultural
Heritage Committee, provide the historic documentation prior to
moving or construction activities.
Council Resolution No. 8775 (1998 Series)
Page 5
10.
Mitigation Historic mitigation measure e) archaeological and architectural
Measure: information and materials shall be salvaged during project
construction and monitoring, and artifacts properly catalogued
and displayed or archived.
Monitoring Public Works shall ensure that construction contracts,
Program: specifications and inspection procedures address this
requirement and shall retain appropriate professionals to
catalogue and display historic materials, with the advise of the
Cultural Heritage Committee and to the approval of the
Community Development Director.
11.
Mitigation Historic mitigation measure f) The project design should
Measure: protect and enhance the site's historic character through
architectural detailing, site elements, and interpretive displays.
Monitoring The Cultural .Heritage Committee and the Architectural Review
Program: Committee shall .review project plans for compliance with this
requirement.
r ��
���� '��
���
�� .
'�',�`
��' � � �