HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/18/2003, PH1 - APPEAL OF THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF A PROPOSED APARTMENT COMPLEX FOR SENIOR councilMeatigDde
j ac,Enda nEpoizt
C I TY OF SAN L U IS 0 B 1 S P 0
FROM: John Mandeville,Community Development Direct
Prepared By: Michael Codron,Associate,Planner
SUBJECT:. APPEAL OF THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION'S
APPROVAL OF A PROPOSED APARTMENT COMPLEX FOR
SENIORS ON 2005 JOHNSON AVENUE; ARC 147-02.
CAO RECOMMENDATION
1. Deny the appeal and uphold the action of the Architectural Review Commission.
2. Direct the applicant to install necessary underground facilities on the southeast corner of
Ella/Johnson for a future traffic signal installation.
3. Direct staff to implement miscellaneous traffic improvements along Ella Street and
surrounding area.
4. Direct staff to continue to monitor the intersection as part of the Annual Traffic Safety
Report process and make recommendations for traffic control improvements when
warranted.
DISCUSSION
Situation/Previous Review
On January 7, 2003, the City Council approved a density bonus for a 40-unit apartment complex
for seniors on 2005 Johnson Avenue (see Vicinity Map, Attachment 1, and Project Plans,
Attachment 2). During the review of the density bonus request, the Council heard from several
neighbors of the project concerned about traffic safety at the intersection of Ella Street and
Johnson Avenue. The Council requested that staff look into their concerns as part of our review
of the project. On January 23, 2003, staff forwarded a memo to the Council explaining that the
intersection did not meet the safety criteria to warrant installation of a traffic signal, and that a
signal would not be recommended to the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) as a
condition of approval of the project(see Attachment 3).
On February 3, 2003, the ARC granted final approval to the project (see ARC Action Letter,
Attachment 4). A traffic signal was not required as a condition of approval, but the ARC did
recommend that the Council consider installing the signal as part of a future CIP project. The
ARC's recommendation is based on three findings:
1) The age of the project occupants heightens concerns for safety at the Johnson/Ella
Street intersection.
2) The speed of oncoming traffic on Johnson Avenue makes collisions that do occur in
the intersection more dramatic.
I�
Council Agenda Report
2005 Johnson Avenue (Carpenter/Canepa Appeal)
Page 2
3) The need for safety at this intersection outweighs concerns that a signal would
reduce the Level of Service.
An appeal of the ARC approval has been filed by Dan Carpenter and Bob Canepa who expressed
concerns regarding the safety of the intersection to the ARC and asks the Council to require the
signal as a condition of approval of the project (Attachment 5). The appeal also asks the Council
to address Mr. Canepa's concerns with the approved building height and potential on-street
parking impacts.
Data Summary
Address: 2005 Johnson Avenue
Applicant/Property Owner: San Luis Obispo Non-Profit Housing Corporation
Appellants: Dan Carpenter and Bob Canepa
Representative: George Moylan -Jeff Dillon, AIA
Zoning: R-2 (Medium Density Residential)
General Plan: Medium Density Residential
Site Description and Proiect Description
See the attached ARC Agenda Report (Attachment 6) for a complete site description and project
description.
Evaluation
Traffic Signal at the Johnson Avenue/Ella Street Intersection
City staff has determined that the traffic generated by the project will not significantly reduce the
safety or Level of Service at the Johnson/Ella intersection. The intersection does not meet
warrants for a new signal and a City imposed requirement to install a traffic signal at the
intersection would not meet the legal test of"rough proportionality," which requires exactions on
projects to be commensurate with the project related impacts. While the project may ultimately
contribute to the need for a change in traffic control at this intersection, there is no factual basis
for the City to require a traffic signal at this intersection and no legal basis for requiring the
applicant to install one. Although a traffic signal at this location may be desirable, there are
many other intersections. in the City that have higher accident rates than the Johnson/Ella
intersection and should receive equal or greater consideration if limited available funds are to be
used on such projects. This issue is discussed in depth in an analysis provided by the Deputy
Public Works Director, which is attached to this report (Attachment 7). It is very important that
this analysis be reviewed in considering this item.
The developer, San Luis Non-Profit Housing Corporation, has agreed to pay its fair share to
install a signal at this intersection. However, the project will generate little traffic relative to all
of the users of the intersection and the project's fair share would amount to a small percentage of
the overall cost, which is estimated to be between $120,000 and $140,000. If the signal were
installed as part of the project, the City would end up paying for the vast majority of the required A
Ir Vl
Council Agenda Report
2005 Johnson Avenue (Carpenter/Canepa Appeal)
Page 3
improvements. As a result, the decision to fund installation of the signal would be more
appropriately considered during the process to adopt the 2003-2005 budget. If directed by the
City Council, the signal could be added to the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for future
consideration. However, in order to close what is presently estimated as a $6.4 million budget
"gap"over the next two years, funds available for the CIP will be severely constrained.
Because the applicant is agreeable to contributing towards the installation of a signal, two
alternatives have been discussed by staff. Under the first alternative, the applicant could install
the underground infrastructure necessary for a signal. This would facilitate installation of the
signal at a future time when traffic conditions warrant the additional control. Under the second
alternative, the signal would be installed as part of the project under a reimbursement agreement
with the City. This alternative is discussed in more detail in Attachment 7.
Building Height and Parking Concerns
The appeal letter submitted by Bob Canepa asks the Council to reconsider the approved building
heights and argues that the on-site parking provided is inadequate. Public testimony was
provided during the ARC meeting expressing concerns with the proposed building heights. The
maximum building height approved by the ARC is 35-feet, which is the maximum height
permitted in the R-2 zone and is lower than other buildings along Johnson Avenue, such as the
First Baptist Church, General Hospital and French Hospital. Building heights in the adjacent
residential neighborhood are typically less than 25 feet and the ARC was sensitive to the
concerns of the neighbors, spending a great deal of time addressing concerns with the scale and
massing of the buildings. Condition No. 34 of the ARC Action Letter requires changes to reduce
the "verticality" of buildings 2 and 3, which will add character and visual interest to the Sierra
Way building elevation.
The parking requirement for the project is one-half space per dwelling unit, or 21 spaces. 31
parking spaces are provided, exceeding the City's parking requirement by 10 spaces. The
developer has indicated a desire to provide the extra parking to insure that there are enough
parking spaces on-site to prevent overflow into the neighborhood. In this respect, the applicant
has done more than its share to prevent excessive on-street parking around the project site.
FISCAL IlVWACT
When the General Plan was prepared, it was accompanied by a fiscal impact analysis, which
found that overall the General Plan was fiscally balanced. Accordingly, since the proposed
project is consistent with the General Plan, it has a neutral fiscal impact.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Continue consideration of the appeal, if more information is needed, and provide direction
to staff and to the applicant on issues that need to be resolved before the Council can make a
final decision on the project.
2. Deny the appeal and provide direction to staff to pursue a reimbursement agreement with the
Council Agenda Report
2005 Johnson Avenue (Carpenter/Canepa Appeal)
Page 4
developer for installation of the signal as part of the project.
3. Uphold the appeal and require significant changes to the project design.
Attachments:
Attachment 1: Vicinity map
Attachment 2: Project Plans
Attachment 3: 1-23-03 Council Memo providing an update on project related traffic issues
Attachment 4: 2-3-03 ARC Action Letter
Attachment 5: Appeals filed by Dan Carpenter and Bob Canepa
Attachment 6: 2-3-03 ARC Agenda Report and Meeting Minutes
Attachment 7: Comparative Analysis of Intersection Safety
Attachment 8: Resolution"A"denying the appeal
Attachment 9: Resolution `B" upholding the appeal
Council Reading File: Neighborhood Photographs provided by Bob Canepa, appellant
L:/mcodron/co=dVdel rio appeal.doc
1 - 4
Attachment 1
-2
O-S
-2
R-1
-2 PF
1
PF
vicinity Map ARC 147-02
® 20 0 20 40 Feet 2005 Johnson
r-S
me ni2
rQ OUW Q�
,� � �W � 1 >
l
X � { WRQ 3 WILI
CL
F-
0 !
• y '• ,,, —
W ; � � E E rc It.
33 P :
I 1 z
ppfS P . in
8e9
kaaMa&V Nosimor
6 R4�
hd—
ma $a
c
P a I
_ m
N
M
� ka`=
y
i
i y y i
i
E
---
r i
vw
SIERw' VAY
i
�I
1 I�11 �I
- cllllllll
^: y "
r .fit .� `�.. ���•��.'
sior
An
-FiRP
• �i. Ipso.+a... <,�(^ , ,��
I `
Ic • 1
I ■ �r�az..anas>e� �w ,�
•avrx/cnw;eF
N•
= E
ISI_.■ . �
IP4CiR!•�P�-
1 Y
�1� I
� I
IIIA �� - �.
;:r-
v+- :�+ ,q+�,,• •ttjY t v .■i5c�•u,l'W�L la!t
! I oul um
/ ■ k / \ n 2
IL
| I k� � (L � |
; m a.�. . !
!
�
!
# � |
. l |
__ __
� f Q
w` ■ �
�000
LLI �
<
/
,�
! |
� !
� !|�
�^�
t` OUz O
—►- s
uj
CL
a too 0-w - t
W Attachment 2
� W
r w O
=W 2
u! OWO
r arc -+
rl
O > >
w`
gl� I 1
11 II II
g Z
O -j o
CL
o 0
Z r III,
� � � full VIII �.- 11 III II I 1 I
U� W,(�
E 5 II 'I IIII
I Q
� ' 9
� O ( 0
z-9
Ge
931 UJI� � �
[O IOL ltl
B
Sri
4
E 1 1111 1
I! = II II II II III I I
� o b
a I p �gIIIII— IIII IIIIIIII � o
= f— li�!I!IUI I@ 11911111! IIII III!'II i Q w
N
W �;
I I I B
�
9 v �Eo
d
Y.
d '
d
i
1 1113 113111111
J E G2
d LL @sa
e L
�J N
'IIs
(- lC
•• � . . cllllllll
!
L •
t
�'uiUll : UUQU I�WI 116ll1�i '- /t-7�
IIII ISI■ �m��a�lal� -s / " III ` ��� .�id� ■i �
■ ■ � ',I I��I��II I�D�C��I ���� ;._ � /! mnn�l h IIIII!�i p II ,
- I�� lll�,-_�,_ .��= ■! ■ Ise I ■■ si ii '�i
II— o� e � ®.tel =� � �: , �u� ■■ ■■ \e■
■�I ■■ � � p�[u�� �n �p �IIIIIII IIIIIIII� I��IIII '
€. ■■ ■■ ■■
� 8 ■, ■! ■■WIN on
NEI: so
mono �,tmmm unil
=, .! ■■,
110
m■U � �, �_ ■■ [ ■■ �n � IIS
— \.!lUUU1 E IiUlll
LLI
LLI
CL
to Iz a_LLI
Attachm nt 2
7�P
It'
$ Zq
J m
z .1111 illcli
, m
_ mil
aQ II w
J �
Rik
a �4
wQgL�
bD
f
• I O O
3E Yi A
E� m lili m
a
° f wLILI 3 $
Z
06 '< = "I III t` p § #
a 3 w
b :5a .. .1�. N ! ! 1
Attachmer t 2
a
21
E
IN II i "I 111 IN
�I
I
a
o H11 IEBI o
I� 1 I Il I..iftl s I
I I Y
II IiJ b b
WZ
OJ `O
wx I Uo0 �G
<J
W� o ,lu Q iS LU
J
111
O r
-I �II�U I W�
U wo N
(J LY
� J
i o 111
n I �
i
I I I I
e
w
1-13
& � `
r j ���
' « ou3Lu
' o
e
\ § { A & r % ■ § § }-/_� _! | | °
low ■ . pal \ ƒ § / 2
| § m
&#aChme it 2
LO
z
z
,! B.
\ |
0
u
� � t
. �
. � . . .
E (I .
. §
j
} Ul
Ul
LU �
_/ � \} LU .
� - ■■ -
. ! §z
( ~
� ® /
` e { k
. U .
§ / e
I
w � g
�
. e
� ! -
\�
119
1-04
. . . . X44
I� IIII
� 'Y7'od5 .fn Nvs a...+..�•'�r..K�oa. �
J '15 y-m aw 3i.- .4OSHHOr wrc.r� are,
91G1b,u "22ybm uMAI 136 v,ommamaw�,w'w�smw� NV1i fNI1N'Y�J e
w wanes g
'tao.0
WWWvIP'JH3A315 1 J
s .94
o �g
a u
g it,
Q d
of
y 2 KY N06NM01'
I
Jill
+ '
d g
'jti44�i�i f4 � fEs
Uf
[oil
y g }
wj
va
m
< e�
:i
-_ � �� ��dr's's3➢.trt9
LR'RR.'r1AY .
l
� 7
e
i
Y YY
lab
1 -1s
Attachment 3
�►����counat memojzanoum
city of san Luis owspo, community bevelopmentbepautmEnt
DATE: January 23, 2003
TO: City Council
VIA: Ken Hampian, CAO
FROM: John Mandeville, Community Development Direct�}y►
BY: Michael Codron, Associate Planner U
SUBJECT: Traffic Issues at the Johnson/Ella Street Intersection
During the Council's review of the Housing Authority density bonus request, staff was directed
to investigate the proposed driveway location for the upper parking lot to insure that the
driveway will not be built too close to the intersection. Staff was also directed to provide
feedback on the potential for providing a traffic signal at the Johnson/Ella intersection, in
conjunction with the project. This memo is intended to provide the Council with responses to
both items of direction since the project will not require further Council review, except in the
case of an appeal of a future ARC decision. The project is presently scheduled to be reviewed by
the ARC on February P 2002.
As part of the development review process for the project, the City's Traffic Engineer identified
a conflict with the proximity of the upper parking lot driveway to the Johnson/Ella intersection.
Mayor Romero noted the same concern during the review of the density bonus. An unsafe
situation would occur if a queue develops on Johnson Avenue while vehicles wait to turn left
into the upper parking lot. In response to this concern, the applicant has submitted a revised plan
that relocates one of the apartment buildings to the corner of Johnson and Ella, and moves the
parking lot entrance more than 80 feet down Ella Street. This revised site plan is acceptable
from a traffic engineering standpoint because it will eliminate the potential for a bottleneck to
occur on Johnson Avenue. However, the revised plan introduces a parking lot into the middle of
the site, which detracts from the courtyard setting created in the original plan.
As an alternative solution, Community Development Department staff met with the applicant
and the City's Traffic Engineer at the project site to determine the feasibility of installing a
median barrier that would prohibit left turns into the upper parking lot. Staff determined that a
median in this location would not conflict with adjacent parking lots and would eliminate the
potential queue on Johnson Avenue. With the median in place, the upper lot would truly
function as a secondary lot because it is smaller (10 spaces versus 20 spaces) and more difficult
to access. As a result, it will be used primarily by residents of the two buildings closest to
Johnson Avenue. This configuration will not have impacts on the adjacent neighborhood in
terms of noise and traffic because the parking lot is small and will serve a senior population that
makes fewer vehicle trips per day than the general population.
Since both approaches are acceptable from a traffic engineering standpoint, staff intends to
present the alternatives to the Architectural Review Commission for a determination on the best
approach. The Commission will decide whether the courtyard design originally proposed by the
applicant and approved by the CHC should be retained (with the barrier to prevent left turns into
the upper lot),or whether the parking lot should be relocated farther from the intersection. � �cJ
Attachment 3
Council Memorandum
January 23, 2003
Page 2
F LLA li l RY"T I
m NEW NEDVIN
C
ice. 1
AtiC EALpuATE
CURB
WAC
RANP
RE eW ACCE95
LNDBCP.
W I A.
2' 15"
Sr0 YI OAX" 20
_ NI
BUILOMG I OAK I
ONE
13
STORY,
• �{(4 Lam• �on _
j Yom. rti rw, � Zi
.,• G. t11DSCP ''
a IV
z
40" P L. O
0
6 WE G Y,W'v IRC4b`12"
i ME
LND UNRS OAKIS
In the revised plan,a median prevents vehicles from turning left into the upper
parking lot, which will eliminate the potential for turning vehicles to back-up
traffic on Johnson Avenue. Staff evaluated the adjacent driveway locations in
the field to determine that the proposed alignment is feasible.
It should be noted that a traffic signal at this intersection would not eliminate the need for the
median. In fact, with a traffic signal, the level of service at the intersection would drop and the
queue on Ella Street would further delay left turn movements into the parking lot.
The attached memo provided by the City's Traffic Engineer includes a detailed analysis of
signalization, as requested by the Council. In summary, the project proposal will not generate
enough vehicle trips to negatively impact the level of service at the intersection, or meet warrants
for a new signal. The Ella/Johnson intersection was evaluated as part of the 2002 Annual Traffic
Safety Report because three or more collisions were reported during 2001. However, out of 42
intersections evaluated, the Johnson/Ella intersection is considered 37`" in terms of priority for
signalization. Therefore, a traffic signal is not being recommended to the ARC as a condition of
approval of this project. The Public Works Department does recommend continued monitoring
of the intersection as part of the Annual Traffic Safety Report and Traffic Signal Master Plan
processes.
11500Attached: Memo from Jim Hanson, Associate Traffic Engineer,dated 1/13/02
Attachment 3
Ak
memomnoum
To: Michael Codron
From: Jim Hanson
CC: Terry Sanville
Date: 1/13/02
Re: INSTALLING A TRAFFIC SIGNAL AT THE JOHNSON/ELLA INTERSECTION
Scope of Analysis and Conclusions
As part of our review of the proposed senior housing at 2005 Johnson Avenue,the transportation staff
evaluated the need for a traffic signal at the Johnson / Ella intersection. The scope of this analysis,
findings and conclusions are summarized below:
I. Review of the Traffic Impact Study(TIS) prepared in 1993 for the French Hospital Master Plan.
Findings and Conclusions: this study concluded that installing a traffic signal at the Johnson/Ella
intersection would not improve its overall level of service(LOS).
2. Analyze traffic volumes during the A.M. peak period at the intersection under "existing" and
"existing+project traffic"conditions.
Findings and Conclusions: The number of trips generated by the project will not significantly
change existing traffic conditions. Under both scenarios, the intersection meets the Peak Hour
Volume warrant for the A.M. peak. This condition means there is significant delay on Ella
during the morning peak period. While a traffic signal may decrease delay on Ella during that
period, further analysis indicates that a signal would increase overall delay at the intersection
(including the Ella Street approach) during the remainder of the day. This conclusion is
reaffirmed by the intersection evaluation completed for the French Hospital Campus Master Plan
TIS.
3. Consider potential traffic that might be added in the near future to this intersection from other
nearby development projects.
Findings and Conclusions: staff has discussed potential residential development on vacant land
on the east side of Johnson Avenue,just north of General Hospital. Some of the traffic from this
potential project (totaling 20-25 dwellings) would contribute to the Ella-Johnson Avenue
intersection. However, given the extremely low volume of existing traffic on the eastern leg of
Ella Street, A.M. warrants would not be met.
1 159
(- � g
Attachment 3
January 23, 2003
4. Count the number of vehicles that currently use the French Hospital parking lot as a shortcut
access from Ella Street to the Lizzie Street signalized intersection.
Findings and Conclusion: a small number of motorists (8 were observed) drive through the
parking lot in the A.M. period to access the signalized intersection at Lizzie Street, thereby
avoiding the Ella-Johnson intersection. However, even if this volume were added to the traffic
volume using the Ella-Johnson intersection,the"warrants analysis"for the intersection would not
change.
5. Review the 2002 Annual Traffic Report to determine if the incidence of traffic collisions suggests
that action should be taken.
Findings and Conclusion: the Annual Traffic Safety Report compiles information about
intersections of various street classifications where three or more traffic collisions were reported
in 2001. Of the 42 arterial street — local street intersections evaluated, the Ella/Johnson
intersection ranked 37th. The report recommends mitigation for the top five intersections in each
category. Given its low ranking, there are many other intersections that deserve improvement
before this particular one is improved.
6. Consider funding priorities and overall community needs.
Findings and Conclusion: the transportation staff is currently preparing a request for proposals
(RFP) for a traffic signal master plan (TSMP). One of the many topics the TSMP will address is
potential new signal locations and their priority in relation to other locations citywide. Potential
future signalization of the Johnson/Ella intersection will be addressed in the TSMP.
Through the Annual Safety Report and the TSMP, transportation staff will continually monitor
the Johnson / Ella to determine if signalization becomes necessary. As the proposed senior
housing project does not generate the need for a traffic signal, installation of one cannot be
required of the applicant. While the City could pay for the installation of a traffic signal at the
Johnson / Ella intersection ($120,000 to $150,000), there are other locations in the City where
existing conditions suggest that they be signalized now. With forecast budget shortfalls, money
spent on traffic mitigation should be for locations where improvements have been specifically
identified and are most needed.
Recommendation
• Do not install a traffic signal at the Ella-Johnson Avenue at this time.
• Continue to monitor the intersection's operation as part of the Annual Traffic Report and Traffic
Signal Master Plan(TSMP)processes.
• Install a traffic signal when it will improve overall level of service or when collision levels
exceed warrant thresholds.
GATransportation ProjectsUmd Development\Current Projects\2005 JohnsonUohnson-Ella Intersection Memo 011303(v2).doc
2
I� f9
1
Attachment 4
�i���@InIIIfl811111�I ��IIIII�IIII
Cl0.1111. VO sAn luis oBi '
S
990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249
February 4, 2003
San Luis Non-Profit Housing Co.
P.O. Box 13657
San Luis Obispo, CA 93406
SUBJECT: ARC 147-02: 2005 Johnson Avenue
Review of a 40-unit senior housing project with reduced street yards
from 20-feet to 15-feet
Dear Applicant:
The Architectural Review Commission, at its meeting of February 3, 2003, granted final
approval to your project, based on the following findings and subject to the following
conditions and code requirements:
Findings
1. As conditioned, the project is architecturally compatible with the site and with
buildings on adjacent properties.
2. The Cultural Heritage Committee has determined that the project is consistent with
the Secretary of the Interior's Guidelines for the Treatment of Historic Properties.
3. The proposed setback exceptions will not harm the general health, safety and
welfare of people working or living on the site or in the vicinity because the
proposed parking lots will be screened with landscaping and the reduced setback
for buildings along Ella Street will provide for a better courtyard environment at the
interior of the project site.
4. The project is statutorily exempt from CEQA because it is an affordable housing
project that meets the requirements of CEQA Guidelines Section 15280 (Low-
Income Housing Projects).
5. The project is consistent with the General Plan and policies that protect scenic
resources because the proposed buildings will have a relative height from Johnson
Avenue that is equivalent to a single-family home and the buildings are set back
between 55 and 70 feet from the roadway.
6. The project is consistent with the ARC Guidelines because the design meets the
standards for multi-family residential architecture.
The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services. programs and activities.
Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(8os)781-7470.
( � Ov
ARC 147-02 ^ ' Attachment 4
Page 2
Conditions
1. At least 4 of the proposed Bradford pear trees shall be eliminated from the patio
area behind the Miller/Hathway House and the remaining trees should be located
along the perimeter of the patio. Additional landscaping shall be provided in the
form of potted plants and trees adjacent to retaining walls to soften their
appearance. The patios shall include movable tables with umbrellas and benches
to provide flexibility for the use of the space, which is anticipated to change over
time with the preferences of the residents of the apartments and the manager's of
the property. This condition shall be implemented to the approval of the
Community Development Director as part of the building permit plan check
process.
2. Two of the three Bradford pear trees shall be eliminated from the patio between
Building Three and Building Four and the area shall be treated similarly to the
adjacent patio, to the approval of the Community Development Director.
3. Coast Live Oak shall be used as a street tree along Ella Street, instead of Bradford
pear because of the power lines that are located along this street frontage, to the
approval of the City Arborist and the Community Development Director.
4. The landscape plan shall be revised to provide a greater focus on native, drought-
tolerant plant species, to the approval of the Community Development Director.
5. All underlying lots shall be merged or otherwise adjusted prior to permit issuance.
Contact the Planning Department to initiate the Lot Merger or Lot Line Adjustment
process.
6. New curb, gutter, 6' wide integral sidewalk, driveway approach and street.paveout
are required along the Ella St. frontage and must be constructed in accordance
with City Standards, Specifications and Policies. A detached sidewalk shall be
installed if it can be designed to meet City standards. The street pavement section
design shall be based on the Traffic Index (TI) established by the City's
Engineering Standards and Standard Specifications.
7. Curb ramps shall be provided or upgraded per city standards. Pedestrian access
easements shall be provided along the back of the curb ramps as necessary if the
required landings and sidewalk connection will extend onto private property.
8. Note on the site plan that "A separate encroachment permit is required for any work
in the public right-of-way. Work requiring an encroachment permit includes but is
not limited to utilities, curb, gutter, and sidewalk, driveway approaches, sidewalk
underdrains, street tree planting, curb ramps, street paving, and pedestrian
protection or construction staging in the right-of-way."
9. Note on the plans to "Contact the Public Works inspector at 781-7196 with at least
a 48 hour notice for any required City of San Luis Obispo encroachment permit
inspections."
ARC 147-02 Attachment 4
Page 3
10. Two new street lights shall be installed to City standards and specifications; one
along Ella St. and one along Johnson Avenue, to the satisfaction of the Public
Works Director.
11. Any new or existing driveway approach shall be replaced or upgraded to the
current city and ADA standard. The current standard includes a 4' wide ADA
disabled access sidewalk extension behind the driveway ramp.
12. The demolition/relocation of the existing building triggers the Utilities Department
Sewer Lateral Abandonment Policy. This policy states that the sewer lateral must
be abandoned at the main prior to demolition or relocation unless the lateral is
intended for reuse and it passes a video inspection. If the sewer lateral is intended
for reuse, the owner shall submit a VHS videotape documenting the internal
condition of the pipe to the Utilities Department for approval.
13. Add a note to the site plan that"One 15-gallon street tree shall be required for each
35 lineal feet of frontage. Contact the city arborist at 781-7023 for questions or
requirements and to evaluate any existing street trees."
14. Tree protection measures shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City
Arborist. Any required tree protection measures shall be included on the building
plans. The City Arborist shall review and approve the proposed tree protection
measures prior to permit issuance and prior to commencing with any demolition,
grading, or construction. Any safety pruning or cutting of substantial roots shall be
approved by the city arborist and work completed by a "city-approved° arborist.
15. The site, grading, demolition, and landscape plans submitted for building permits
shall clearly show the location, diameter, and disposition of all trees. Tree
removals and tree preservation measures shall be approved prior to permit
issuance for any grading, demolition, house moving, and new construction. The
tree removals and tree preservation proposal shall consider construction
requirements for the proposed house move and for the new development.
16. The Walnut, Pepper, and Acacia trees along Ella are approved for removal. The
various non-native trees along Johnson Ave. are approved for removal. The
shrubs and plantings at the corner of Ella and Johnson shall be removed to
improve line-of-sight distances through the comer. Replacement landscaping shall
be designed with consideration for line-of-sight distances at the comers and
driveway approaches. Unless otherwise approved, street trees along Ella shall not
exceed a mature height of 35' where located beneath utility lines in accordance
with P.G.&E. standards.
17. 1" throw single cylinder deadbolt locks shall be provided on all exterior doors.
18. Any window glass near doors should be resistant material or glass coated with
security film.
19. All windows that open shall have secondary locking devices.
ARC 147-02 Attachment 4
Page 4
20. Any common area rooms (laundry, recreation, etc.) should include sufficient glass
area to provide a clear view into the rooms from outside.
21. Provide and maintain a space within the community room that displays maps and
schedule information for the SLO Transit system, the CCAT system, and other
para-transit providers that typically serve senior households. The applicant shall
work with the SLO Transit manager to establish and maintain a program for on-site
sale of senior transit passes to project patrons. Given the potential needs of the
project's clientele, retaining an on-site transportation coordinator should be
considered.
22. Parking lot lighting shall not exceed 20 feet in height, measured from the adjacent
ground to the top of the fixture, and shall have lighting levels between 3 and 10
footcandles maximum. The fixtures shall be designed to eliminate spill light on
adjacent properties or City right-of-way and shall be shielded to reduce glare to the
greatest extent possible.
23. Motion sensing security lighting shall be provided in the parking lot and along
pathways to the approval of the Community Development Director and the
Neighborhood Services Manager.
24. The Ella Street median shall be design to the approval of the Public Works Director
and shall be installed to the satisfaction of the Public Works inspector under an
approved encroachment permit.
25. Knee braces shall have a minimum dimension of 4" x 4".
26. A mitered comer trim detail shall be used on the buildings if a product compatible
with the proposed siding is available.
27. The solid railing at the second level of the three-story buildings shall be lowered to
30" and an open railing shall be used for the remaining height required by the
building code.
28. The exterior trim at all windows and doors shall match the existing house.
29. Revise the openings in the stairwells with details such as decorative corner braces
at the top and mullions at the bottom or consider a more vertical orientation for the
openings.
30. Consider increasing the slope of the shed dormers if possible.
31. Cover the exposed portions of the building stem walls above 30" with siding.
32. Develop a brighter color palette for review and approval by the Community
Development Director.
33. Use bollard lighting in the parking lots instead of overhead lighting to reduce
potential lighting impacts on neighbors of the project.
I � �3
ARC 147-02 - Attachment 4
Page 5
34. Add detail to the west elevation of buildings 2 and 3 to reduce the verticality of the 3
story portion by including a shed roof element across the recessed portion of the
building and a new gable element at.the second story, as discussed during the ARC
meeting.
35. Trees along the northern property line should be a species that will not grow taller
than the buildings. Street trees along Sierra Way shall be planted one per 35 feet
of lineal footage, per City standards, with a lower growing flowering tree to be
located between the street trees.
36. Use higher growing plants, such as ceanothus, manzanita or toyon along Johnson
Avenue to insure screening of the parking lot. Use heirloom planting in the plaza to
provide a historical connection to the Miller/Hathway House.
Code Requirements
The following code requirements are included for information purposes only. They
serve to give the applicant a general idea of other City requirements that will apply to
the project. This is not intended to be an exhaustive list as other requirements may be
identified during the plan check process.
1. A water allocation is required, due to the additional demand on the City's water
supplies. The City currently has water to allocate, and does so on a "first-come,
first-served" basis. Water is allocated at the time building permits are issued and
the Water Impact Fee is paid. Both the Water and the Wastewater Impact Fees
are based on a per residential basis. Water and Wastewater Impact Fees shall be
paid at the time building permits are issued.
2. A separate connection shall be required for automatic fire sprinklers. The fire
service lateral shall include a USC approved backflow preventer appropriate for the
proposed use. The backflow preventer shall be located as close to the public right-
of-way as possible, in direct alignment with the connection to the public water main.
The backflow preventer can be located no further than 25 feet from the right-of-way
line without prior written approval of the Utilities Engineer. If the fire service
supports one or more fire hydrants, the USC approved backflow preventer shall
also include detector capabilities (double detector check assembly). The FDC may
be located behind the backflow prevention assembly, in accordance with
manufacturer's recommendations. The location and orientation of the FDC shall be
approved by the Fire Department.
3. By ordinance, the applicant is required to prepare a recycling plan for approval by
the City to address the recycling of construction waste for projects valued at over
$50,000 or demolition of structures over 1000 square feet. The recycling plan shall
be submitted to the Building Department with the building plans. The City's Solid
Waste Coordinator can provide some guidance in the preparation of an appropriate
recycling plan.
Attachment 4
ARC 147-02
Page 6
4. All fire protection equipment and building utilities, including gas shut-off valves, and
electrical service disconnects shall be located in a centralized location. In new
construction, equipment shall be located within an interior room having an exterior
access door or in an exterior enclosure attached to the building, specifically for the
purpose of housing such equipment.
5. There are two existing street hydrants that will service this project. Required fire
flow shall be determined using Appendix III-A of the Fire Code.
6. An automatic fire-extinguishing system in compliance with appropriate Uniform
Building Code.Standards, National Fire Protection Association (NEPA) Standards,
and the municipal code shall be installed throughout the buildings.Systems
containing more than 100 sprinkler heads shall be monitored by a UL listed Central
Station alarm company.
7. An approved fire-alarm system shall be designed and installed as specified in the
California Fire Code, California Building Code, NFPA 72, and the National Electrical
Code as amended by the State of California and local ordinances.
The decision of the Commission is final unless appealed to the City Council within 10
days of the action.
While the City's water allocation regulations are in effect, the Architectural Review
Commission's approval expires after three years :if construction has not started, unless
the Commission designated a different time period. On request, the Community
Development Director may grant a single one-year extension.
If you have questions, please contact Michael Codron at 781-7175.
Sincerely,
Ron- Whise nd
De uty Community Development Director
Development Review
cc: County of SLO Assessor's Office
Jeff Dillon
P.O. Box 15339
San Luis Obispo, CA 93406
SLO City Housing Authority
P.O. Box 1289
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Attachment 5
RECEIVERte Received
rFEB 10 2003
city 0
b SAn LUIS OBISPO SLO CITY CLERK
APPEAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL
SECTION 1. APPELLANT INFORMATION
TOL, fe.,r U 3o o 6 soh Ave , a Lo , q 3 qo I
Name Mailing Address and Tp Code
�'
3L-!5
2 / /1 p �a�w r - c�aH c�nos'� h•�k.
Phone Fax
Representative's Name Mailing Address and Zip Code
Title Phone Fax
SECTION 2 SUBJECT OFAPPEAL
1. In accordance with the procedures set forth in Title 1, Chapter 1.20 of the San Luis Obispo
Municipal Code (copy attached), I hereby appeal the decision of the:
f RC, - zoo57 JO fro soY. _ A-ve
(Name of Officer, Committee or Commission decision being appealed)
2. The date the decision being appealed was rendered: , ZDo a
3. The application or project was entitled: Z-00,5— do (nn sm 6 4(1'& -
4. 1 discussed the matter with the following City staff member.
M ('ct ,Q/ Codroh on 7'2 b 4 ' Z-003
(Staff Member's Name and Department) (Date)
SECTION 3. REASON FOR APPEAL
Explain specifically what action/s you are appealing and why you believe the Council should consider your
appeal. Include what evidence you have that supports your appeal. You may attach additional pages, if
necessary. This form continues on the other side.
Page 1 of 3.
Attachment 5
Reason for Appeal continued
Co rill 4-,'to er: nmr'o ve 1 rin rSPc4%tlr,
t�f �l �ra G�Vr)c�9 t`nnSOh o The in �erSPc_-1- " Cit I.Pwadc/
fb tm CL C r eld-qv�ts 60 PC4- i S acla II . J
�n ��r)r�imc� I �.�lor'lV rPS ;�IPNf� �il� lu �l� 6P VS�'�4 T�jrS'
V.
r f— A
CJrre cus 2 Qed f
} .-•"3r it s+-- ,F r.. l � � >ar m� e � _ r .3 5�xys �' (, � �.d'Za.
SECTION �A�P CLANTSBESPONS1B11lT3'>; .,� � . . � ,, �, �
, '` e San Lws Obispo{qty Counc�Isvalyes publicpartlapatron,{nxloeal;government and°r ''
- encourages all forms of cdrzen jnvolvemenf T14
he,Cri�r, unbke most rn Calrfomra;does not t' ,:'
ha�rgeza fee for frtrnn app eal However, pacng`an peak before they ,k
9 a Grtj+Councitrequrresr, »i
considerleFuvork and dost,iriclur�ing;agenda report,pr paraUon and pUbtic�tiotrficatron
Therefore;yournght�to exercise.=an appeal co.'mes with certain responsibilrtres If you filetan;
appal, please understand that it must 6eheard within 45ays from fdrrig this form1fou will be
rno rfiedin wrrt<ng'QfNthe exact;date your appeal v�nll be"'schedutedA be heardhef ft- _ n
Council You or yourrepresentatNe will be exsected-to attendFttie pubhcheanng,and to be
prepared to makeyour�ase Your te'sUmony rs Irmded fo,a 0 mmrrtes r = Y K
�. yb
A"S- ._x'iY °j,, y1 obi y(">
A confinuance maybe grante vnder�certarn and<unusual c n mstartCesTf aibu fe"el'jrou
17eedtb r .quest,a connuapce, you must submit yo5rxrequest inf wnt ng oYthe`Crty lerlc Please be
Advised that�rfyyour equest fior corittnrrance as,receiv6d after f tie appeal rs nofice i to pe public,xhe
h
tCouracil}maymotUe a�le�o�granthe request or Foianuanceubmrttmga regesio�coi�t�nuar�ce
w
aloes notguarantee fat nwillT�e grenea,that actron's,at the;�rscretion of�the Grryourlcd
- r z e
here%yragree".poWear,and/orasend;a representafrve'to appearon�myPtiehalf when
' said appeal rs scheduledfor.a public hearing before tite.Crfy Co"unci/ - X
h . v
n
5
LZ
5rgnature ellant}`
(Date)
This item is hereby catendared for tJ W
c: City Attorney
City Administrative Officer
Department Head
City Clerk(originI�) ,
Page 2 of 3
10/01
1 � �
t v Attachment 5
Date Received
TONnoo uio ops
i city o f
AN. 000 II 833
san tins OBlspo
APPEAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL
SECTION 1. APPELLANT INFORMATION
i' olo _ 12AO e l 1 a c - • g =.:40
Name Mailing Address and Zip Code
Phone Fax
Representative's Name Mailing Address and Trp Code
Title Phone Fax
SECTION2. SUBJECTOFAPPEAL
1. In accordance with the procedures set forth in Title 1, Chapter 1.20 of the San Luis Obispo
Municipal Code (cap attac dI here y apeal thi cis the:
(Name of Officei, Committee or Commission decision being appealed)
2. The date the decision being appealed was rendered: z 3 6 3
3. The application or oiect was entitled:
r900 6f,*L
4. 1 discussed the matter with the following City staff member:
on
(Staff Member's arae and Department) (Date)
SECTION 3. REASON FOR APPEAL
Explain specifically what actions you are appealing and why you believe the Council should consider your
appeal. Include what evidence you have that supports your appeal. You may attach additional pages, if
necessary. This form continues on the other side.
Page 1 of 3
t
Attachment 5
Reason for Appeal continued
r
.'" t til u � -. �. .,4 ..,,.� .« :'-kt ,,! j' 'f y .. ,l T-� � S'd'f S� ♦t
'SECT/ON�4 '4PPELLANT'S'RESPONSIBILITY
t3",
?.�1t �v f y�.`'- - C ✓ l 4 .� 5 '.r _ � ! ., _ t a y�=. y r "t. '.
? � The�4 'Lu"is Db'-"'City Council values pu61ic parGc�pat16n in local government ander y
TRhcourrages all foams of citizen involvement, The City Unlike most in Ca�ifomia,doesnot,
charge a�fee,for filing an appeal However',plae ng an appeal before,the City,Council,,requires"�$= P"-_
conSiderablework and cost, �ncludmg;agen7afireport preparation and;public notification ;
Therefore, your nght o exercise an appeal comes with cera am responst6�l�ties If you file an �y
appea1-�please understand that d must be beard�nnthin 45 days from filing this form You will'be
notified ni wrrring of the exact date goa6appeal vnll becheduled,tole heardbefore theti
�Council lou oryour,rep esetaUve wilibe eimected to aftend the public hearing;and to be ,
M 1
prepared to make your case ;Your testimony is iimitetl to,at O;.minutes = n
t
A con#inuance'may be granted;under,certam and unusual c�rcamstances elf you feel you a`
'. r d 4 i 'T.. int S `c:f( si
need-to request a continuance, you must submd your r equestrm writing to the'C Gler�k� Please be
advised that rf your%request#or�cont�muance s r ceivedfafter,Uie ppeal L�srnoticed to the pzub1ic;the
Council may not be atile'to°grant thetequest gr,�=conttlnuance �Submrtti g,a�rgquest orcontrrivance,
does not guarantee that d�wil!be granted, that-Aj6ddI as at,the.'d►scretion of tfie"Crty Couneil y z
r Almy., 1^ K ssa' ''i4 LrS Y JW bt 4h. r 4'n
+G
1
!'hereby agree to appear and/or send a represeritafwe,to appearion my"behalf waren
said appeal is scheduled fora pub! hearinig before the City Council y ,` , , _
�A:L tLr•`2 1 ri x .� 1 1y Si
3
ignature ofAp ellari
This Item is aeby calendared for ��f �v 3" V__
�. �f
c: City Attorney L/���.�-64
City Administrative Officer /„
Department Head � �'!
City Clerk(original) V)/; C�d�
w� Page 2 of 3 //
iaol
Attachment 5
February 10,2003
Bob Canepa
1290 Ella Street
San Luis Obispo
93401
544-3719
San Luis Obispo City Council
Re: Appeal of traffic light at Johnson Ave.and Ella Street
City Council Members,
On Monday,February and,my wife and I attended an A.R.C. Meeting concerning the final
plans for the assisted living housing for elderly individuals to be located on the
Johnson/Ella/Sierra Way property.
I have two issues with the design and its' final approval.
The first has to do with the height of the residence to be constructed. It appears to me,
and my neighbors,that the height is not consistent with the current properties and
therefore does change significantly the scenic value. It seems the variance allowed for
impacted housing for the elderly is not in the best interest of current residents,as well as
for the coming residents and assistance employees.Are 31 parking places for how many
residents,their guests and caregivers,really adequate without expecting many to park on
the streets?This brings me to my second issue.
The neighborhood is already impacted almost beyond its' capacity now.The Eye Center
and French Hospital employees have been told to park on the street and not in their
respective parking lots.Who designs these structures and who takes responsibility to
enforce the promises made during the design and licensing of these businesses. Included
I have taken pictures from Sunday,2/9 and Monday,2/10. Please note that the Sunday
photos are from the most impacted time in which the church parking lot is completely
filled,which causes a spill-off onto Sierra Way and Ella Street between the hours of 9:00
am and noon. I would advise the Council to visit this Sunday and watch as cars speed
from church to cross Johnson Ave.or those who cut through French Hospital to exit at
the light entering French Hospital.
During the week the exodus is not in a short frame of time, but rather throughout the day,
increasing around 5:00 pm.Throughout the day individuals contemplate,as they turn
from Johnson Ave. onto Ella Street,where they will park.Many,many times I have seen
individuals stop to turn into or exit from the Hearing Center or pull out from the front of
the Surgery Center without looking. What about the school bus which stops at the corner
of Ella and Sierra Way twice a day?Is it reasonable to add additional vehicles driven by
R
Attachment 5
elderly individuals whose reaction time has diminished without having additional
safeguards?
I heard at the meeting that a request for a traffic signal on Johnson and Ella was denied
because it was 37'on a list of 43 priority intersections,determined by the city engineer.
Well,I teach mathematics and it is quite easy to explain that there is a high degree of
probability that accidents will continue to occur there, and that the probability will
increase without a doubt.
I ask that the San Luis Obispo City Council please reconsider their decision not to place a
light at Johnson and Ella. Come view daily traffic and Sunday church hours,see French
Hospital parking and the impact on the adjacent streets, and reanalyze the factors
contributing to a traffic light being warranted.
Thank you,
Attachment 6
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT ITEM# 1
FROM: Ron Whisenand, Deputy Director MEETING DATE: February 3, 2003
BY: Michael Codron, Associate Planner(781-7175f-�eQJ
FILE NUMBER: ARC 147-02
PROJECT ADDRESS: 2005 Johnson Avenue
SUBJECT: Architectural review of a 40-unit apartment complex for senior citizens, with
exceptions requested for 15-foot street yards on Johnson, Ella, and Sierra where 20400t street
yards are normally required.
SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION:
Grant final approval to the project,based on findings and subject to conditions of approval.
BACKGROUND:
Situation/Previous Review
The San Luis Obispo Non-Profit Housing Corporation is proposing to build 40 one-bedroom
apartments in 5 separate buildings to be developed in a courtyard arrangement. The project
includes the rehabilitation and relocation of the Miller/Hathway House, a historic resource
presently located at the comer of Johnson and Ella. The building would be moved west toward
the center of the site where it will function as a community room and manager's apartment.
The Cultural Heritage Committee reviewed the project on October 28, 2002, and determined that
the proposal is consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of
Historic Resources, based on the findings detailed in the action letter (Attachment 3). The CHC
did not recommend any specific changes to the project.
The City Council considered a density bonus for the project on January 7, 2003. At the meeting,
the Council approved Resolution No. 9405, granting an 83% density bonus to the project, subject
to review and approval of the proposed design by the ARC (Attachment 4). During the review of
the density bonus, the Council asked staff to provide feedback on the potential for signalization
of the Johnson/Ella intersection. Council also asked staff to investigate alternatives to the
proposed location for the upper driveway, which is too close to the intersection to allow left turn
movements into the lot (see Attachment 5 for the staff response to these items of direction). The
Council also directed the ARC to look at the flat roof components of the building design to
insure that they are architecturally compatible with the rest of the project.
As indicated in the attached Council memo, the original site plan for the project has been revised
to include a median in Ella Street, which will prevent left turns into the upper parking lot. The
applicant has also prepared an alternative site plan for the ARC's consideration.. The alternative
plan relocates the driveway further away from Johnson Avenue. Both plans are acceptable from
a traffic engineering perspective because they will both prevent traffic from backing up on
Johnson Avenue and the ARC is being asked to determine which plan results in a better project
design.
' � 1 I - 3=
i
ARC 147-02 (Del Rio TerrTe impartments) Attachment 6
Page 2
Data Summary
Address: 2005 Johnson Avenue
Applicant/Property Owner:San Luis Obispo Non-Profit Housing Corporation
Representatives: George Moylan
Jeff Dillon, AIA
Zoning: R-2 (Medium Density Residential)
General Plan: Medium Density Residential
Environmental Review: Statutorily Exempt under CEQA Guidelines Section 15280 (Low-
Income Housing Projects)
Proiect Description
The project includes the development of 40 1-bedroom dwellings with full living facilities. The
proposed occupants are independent living senior citizens who are eligible to rent in a low-
income project. Five separate buildings are proposed, with two or three stories and a maximum
height of M feet. All units are accessible and elevated walkways connect the buildings with
elevators to those buildings that don't have elevators. Two parking lots are proposed with a total
of 31 parking spaces. A median barrier is proposed to prevent left turns into the upper parking
lot. The project includes the rehabilitation and relocation of the Murray/Hathway House, which
will be used as a community room and manager's apartment.
Site Description
The project site is bordered by Ella Street, Johnson Avenue and Sierra Way (Attachment 1). To
the south is the First Baptist Church parking lot and undeveloped land that is part of the church's
property. The site slopes down from Johnson to Sierra, with an average cross slope of
approximately 8%. The property is presently developed with a single-family home, at the corner
of Johnson and Ella. Trees on the property include oaks, palms, walnuts, peppers and cedars, as
noted with their proposed status on the site plan.
EVALUATION
The proposed building design borrows heavily from elements of.the Miller/Hathway House,
which is described by Bob Vessely as "Carpenter Craftsmen." Some of the primary features of
the proposed design include 7" lap siding, shingle siding at the gable ends, knee braces at the
gable ends, clerestory windows, single-hung vinyl windows, and columns and decorative
brackets at the exterior corridors. The proposed knee braces appear a bit thin on the elevations
and the ARC may wish to specify a minimum thickness for braces and a minimum width for the
fascia boards.
The City Council asked the ARC to look at the flat-roofed elements of the building design to
insure architectural compatibility with the rest of the project. The flat-roofed elements occur at
the elevator towers and are intended to complement the historic water tower that is part of the
Miller/Hathway House. The water tower pre-dates the house and is considered a valuable
historic resource. At the time, staff did not have an opportunity to address the Council's concern
with this design feature, but does support its use as proposed. Building Two and Building Four
have the elevator towers and connect via an elevated walkway to Building One and Building
Three for accessibility. The second story of Building Five is not accessible.
Ila 1 .33
ARC 147-02 (Del Rio Te: Apartments)
Page 4 Attachment s
Site Design and Retaining Walls
The preliminary grading plan includes finished grade and top of wall elevations, which can be
used to deduce the proposed retaining wall heights. In general, walls are limited to four feet in
height, but two larger walls measuring 5 feet and 8 feet border Building Four. The plan
integrates retaining walls,ramps and stairs to create level building pads and outdoor spaces.
The parking lots are located at the perimeter of the site, which helps to create a peaceful space
for residents at the interior. A large courtyard is proposed behind the Miller/Hathway House,
which will be used as a community room. The buildings are positioned around the courtyard,
which has the potential to be useful for outdoor gatherings and informal meetings, facilitating
interaction among project occupants. Staff is making recommendations to encourage a more
thoughtful design of this area to insure that they serve their intended purpose.
The crux of the staff recommendation is to eliminate permanent planting from the center of the
courtyard so that its use can remain flexible. A design that provides flexibility will allow the
space to be adapted to the particular needs of the future residents of the site. Staff recommends
eliminating four of the five Bradford pear trees from the patio area behind the Miller/Hathway
.house, and two of the three Bradfords between Building Three and Building Four. In place of
the trees, staff is recommending tables and benches that can be relocated as necessary. The
tables should accommodate umbrellas to provide shade at mid-day. The staff recommendation
includes using an assortment of potted plants and small potted trees at the perimeter of the patios
to soften the adjacent ramps and retaining walls. The revised design would be subject to review
and approval of the Community Development Director.
Landscaning
The landscape plan for the project seems to focus on ornamental plants and staff is
recommending that the plan be revised to include heavier use of native, drought-tolerant species.
The existing Coast Live oak trees on the property are an asset and new oak trees should be
planted, particularly because at least two oak trees will be removed during construction. One
ideal place for new oak trees is along Ella Street. Power lines on this frontage require a lower
growing tree than the proposed Bradford pear. The proposed street trees on Sierra Way are
Melaleuca quinquenervia, which is considered a good street tree. The proposed parking lots
include landscape planters and are screened by continuous hedges, as required by the City's
Parking and Driveway Standards.
CONCURRENCES
The project plans were routed to all City Departments and comments have been incorporated into
project conditions of approval and code requirements as appropriate.
The Police Department has made specific comments regarding the proposed solid balcony
railings at the second level of the three story buildings. The Police Department would prefer an
open rail design at the second level, to match the third level design, to prevent trespassers from
hiding on the balconies. The City does not have a specific policy with respect to defensible
space, but the comment should be considered by the ARC as a valid law enforcement concern.
The preference of the Police Department should be implemented if it does not have a negative
effect on the building design. If an open railing at the second level is acceptable, the ARC
ll � n, I
ARC 147-02 (Del Rio Te .:Apartments) Attachment 6
Page 5
should add a condition of approval regarding this issue.
The City has also received input from the public regarding the project. Testimony was provided
during the CHC hearing on the project (Attachment 3, CHC Minutes) and letters were provided
to the City Council from First Baptist Church and Hazel McHitt, a neighbor of the project
(Attachment 6).
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Grant schematic approval to the project and provide specific direction to the applicant and
staff regarding additional information necessary to make a final decision on the project.
2. Continue consideration of the project if additional information is necessary and provide
direction to the applicant and staff.
RECOMMENDATION:
Grant final approval to the project,based on findings and subject to conditions of approval.
Findings:
1. As conditioned, the project is architecturally compatible with the site and with buildings on
adjacent properties.
2. The Cultural Heritage Committee has determined that the project is consistent with the
Secretary of the Interior's Guidelines for the Treatment of Historic Properties.
3. The proposed setback exceptions will not harm the general health, safety and welfare of
people working or living on the site or in the vicinity because the proposed parking lots will
be screened with landscaping and the reduced setback for buildings along Ella Street will
provide for a better courtyard environment at the interior of the project site.
4. The project is statutorily exempt from CEQA because it is an affordable housing project that
meets the requirements of CEQA Guidelines Section 15280 (Low-Income Housing Projects).
Conditions:
1. At least 4 of the proposed Bradford pear trees shall be eliminated from the patio area
behind the Miller/Hathway House and the remaining trees should be located along the
perimeter of the patio. Additional landscaping shall be provided in the form of potted
plants and trees adjacent to retaining walls to soften their appearance. The patios shall
include movable tables with umbrellas and benches to provide flexibility for the use of
the space, which is anticipated to change over time with the preferences of the residents
of the apartments and the manager's of the property. This condition shall be
implemented to the approval of the Community Development Director as part of the
building permit plan check process.
115
ARC 147-02 (Del Rio T6 :z Apartments) Attachment 6
Page 6
2. Two of the three Bradford pear trees shall be eliminated from the patio between Building
Three and Building Four and the area shall be treated similarly to the adjacent patio, to
the approval of the Community Development Director.
3. Coast Live Oak shall be used as a street tree along Ella Street, instead of Bradford pear
because of the power lines that are located along this street frontage.
4. The landscape plan shall be revised to provide a greater focus on native, drought-tolerant
plant species, to the approval of the Community Development Director.
5. All underlying lots shall be merged or otherwise adjusted prior to permit issuance.
Contact the Planning Department to initiate the Lot. Merger or Lot Line Adjustment
process.
6. New curb, gutter, 6' wide integral sidewalk, driveway approach and street paveout are
required along the Ella St. frontage and must be constructed in accordance with City
Standards, Specifications and Policies. The street pavement section design shall be
based on the Traffic Index (TI) established by the City's Engineering Standards and
Standard Specifications.
7. Curb ramps shall be provided or upgraded per city standards. Pedestrian access
easements shall be provided along the back of the curb ramps as necessary if the required
landings and sidewalk connection will extend onto private property.
8. Note on the site plan that "A separate encroachment permit is required for any work in
the public right-of-way. Work requiring an encroachment permit includes but is not
limited to utilities, curb, gutter, and sidewalk, driveway approaches, sidewalk
underdrains, street tree planting, curb ramps, street paving, and pedestrian protection or
construction staging in the right-of-way."
9. Note on the plans to "Contact the Public Works inspector at 781-7196 with at least a 48
hour notice for any required City of San Luis Obispo encroachment permit inspections."
10. Two new street lights shall be installed to City standards and specifications; one along
Ella St. and one along Johnson Avenue,to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director.
11. Any new or existing driveway approach shall be replaced or upgraded to the current city
and ADA standard. The current standard includes a 4' wide ADA disabled access
sidewalk extension behind the driveway ramp.
12. The demolition/relocation of the existing building triggers the Utilities Department
Sewer Lateral Abandonment Policy. This policy states that the sewer lateral must be
abandoned at the main prior to demolition or relocation unless the lateral is intended for
reuse and it passes a video inspection. If the sewer lateral is intended for reuse, the
owner shall submit a VHS videotape documenting the internal condition of the pipe to
the Utilities Department for approval.
ARC 147-02 (Del Rio Tem. Apartments) / ` Attachment 6
Page 7
13. Add a note to the site plan that "One 15-gallon street tree shall be required for each 35
lineal feet of frontage. Contact the city arborist at 781-7023 for questions or
requirements and to evaluate any existing street trees."
14. Tree protection measures shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City Arborist.
Any required tree protection measures shall be included on the building plans. The City
Arborist shall review and approve the proposed tree protection measures prior to permit
issuance and prior to commencing with any demolition, grading, or construction. Any
safety pruning or cutting of substantial roots shall be approved by the city arborist and
work completed by a"city-approved" arborist.
15. The site, grading, demolition, and landscape plans submitted for building permits shall
clearly show the location, diameter, and disposition of all trees. Tree removals and tree
preservation measures shall be approved prior to permit issuance for any grading,
demolition, house moving, and new construction. The tree removals and tree
preservation proposal shall consider construction requirements for the proposed house
move and for the new development.
16. The Walnut, Pepper, and Acacia trees along Ella are approved for removal. The various
non-native trees along Johnson Ave. are approved for removal. The shrubs and plantings
at the comer of Ella and Johnson shall be removed to improve line-of-sight distances
through the corner. Replacement landscaping shall be designed with consideration for
line-of-sight distances at the comers and driveway approaches. Unless otherwise
approved, street trees along Ella shall not exceed a mature height of 35' where located
beneath utility lines in accordance with P.G.&E. standards.
17. 1"throw single cylinder deadbolt locks shall be provided on all exterior doors.
18. Any window glass near doors should be resistant material or glass coated with security
film.
19. All windows that open shall have secondary locking devices.
20. Any common area rooms (laundry,recreation, etc.) should include sufficient glass area to
provide a clear view into the rooms from outside.
21. Provide and maintain a space within the community room that displays maps and
schedule information for the SLO Transit system, the CCAT system, and other para-
transit providers that typically serve senior households. The applicant shall work with the
SLO Transit manager to establish and maintain a program for on-site sale of senior transit
passes to project patrons. Given the potential needs of the project's clientele, retaining an
on-site transportation coordinator should be considered.
22. Parking lot lighting shall not exceed 20 feet in height, measured from the adjacent ground
to the top of the fixture, and shall have lighting levels between 3 and 10 footcandles
maximum. The fixtures shall be designed to eliminate spill light on adjacent properties
or City right-of-way and shall be shielded to reduce glare to the greatest extent possible.
tl1
r-3f1
ARC 147-02 (Del Rio Tt w Apartments) Attachment 6
Page 8 \
23. Motion sensing security lighting shall be provided in the parking lot and along pathways
to the approval of the Community Development Director and the Neighborhood Services
Manager.
24. The Ella Street median shall be design to the approval of the Public Works Director and
shall be installed to the satisfaction of the Public Works inspector under an approved
encroachment permit.
Code Requirements:
1. A water allocation is required, due to the additional demand on the City's water supplies.
The City currently has water to allocate, and does so on a"first-come, first-served"basis.
Water is allocated at the time building permits are issued and the Water Impact Fee is
paid. Both the Water and the Wastewater Impact Fees are based on a per residential
basis. Water and Wastewater Impact Fees shall be paid at the time building permits are
issued.
2. A separate connection shall be required for automatic fire sprinklers. The fire service
lateral shall include a USC approved backflow preventer appropriate for the proposed
use. The backflow preventer shall be located as close to the public right-of-way as
possible, in direct alignment with the connection to the public water main. The backflow
preventer can be located no further than 25 feet from the right-of-way line without prior
written approval of the Utilities Engineer. If the fire service supports one or more fire
hydrants, the USC approved backflow preventer shall also include detector capabilities
(double detector check assembly). The FDC may be located behind the backflow
prevention assembly, in accordance with manufacturer's recommendations. The location
and orientation of the FDC shall be approved by the Fire Department.
3. By ordinance, the applicant is required to prepare a recycling plan for approval by the
City to address the recycling of construction waste for projects valued at over$50,000 or
demolition of structures over 1000 square feet. The recycling plan shall be submitted to
the Building Department with the building plans. The City's Solid Waste Coordinator
can provide some guidance in the preparation of an appropriate recycling plan.
4. All fire protection equipment and building utilities, including gas shut-off valves,and
electrical service disconnects shall be located in a centralized location. In new
construction, equipment shall be located within an interior room having an exterior
access door or in an exterior enclosure attached to the building,specifically for the
purpose of housing such equipment.
5. There are two existing street hydrants that will service this project. Required fire flow
shall be determined using Appendix III-A of the Fire Code.
6. An automatic fire-extinguishing system in compliance with appropriate Uniform
Building Code Standards,National Fire Protection Association(NFPA) Standards, and
the municipal code shall be installed throughout the buildings. Systems containing more
than 100 sprinkler heads shall be monitored by a UL listed Central Station alarm
company.
ARC 147-02 (Del Rio Te. a Apartments) Attachment- 6
Page 9
7. An approved fire-alarm system shall be designed and installed as specified in the
California Fire Code, California Building Code, NFPA 72, and the National Electrical
Code as amended by the State of California and local ordinances.
Attached:
Attachment 1: Vicinity map
Attachment 2: Project Plans
Attachment 3: CHC Report, Minutes and Action Letter from 10-28-02
Attachment 4: Council Resolution No. 9405
Attachment 5`. Council Memo regarding traffic issues
Attachment 6: Letters from the public regarding the project
' I�
Attachment- 6
First Baptist Church
-" of San Luis Obispo
RECEIVED
CITY COUNCIL AN 0 7 2001
PUBLIC FEARING SLO CITY CLERK .
JANUARY 7, 2003
Dear Friends,
First Baptist Church leadership enthusiastically welcomes the Del Rio Terrace Apartments senior
housing to the community. First Baptist Church has a heritage of caring for SLO seniors. We are
anticipating opportunity to offer free services to these seniors, as we have offered services by
founding the Judson Terrace Senior homes on Augusta Avenue. We hope to be the best of
neighbors for the Del Rio residents.
We feel that the zoned density restrictions for our area are well-advised, and have some concern for
the visual impact of 40+units in closely compacted three story buildings. But primarily we are
focused on being good neighbors, and anticipate future opportunities to serve the occupants.
In this planning stage,we would also like to suggest that building the Del Rio Apartments (even
within the density codes)will strain the traffic concerns on Johnson Avenue. A traffic light at the
comer of Johnson and Ella would add to the safety of the community, likely saving lives. We have
witnessed several serious accidents near that intersection.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely, >w.� �t� ,• � -
0 COUNC L 7 CDD DIR
vld M..Silberber a Cao Z FIN DIR
i/ (a AGAO 2 FIRE CHIEF
d 2T A TOFIN EY ET PW DIR
ai an of Dea oard IZCLER KloRIG GT POLICE CHF
❑ p HEADS VRECOIR
0 U'iIL DIR
B'HR DlR
Thoma , Mom,J
Senior Pastor
RED FILE
MEETING AGENDA
D ITEM#'I�N3
"Rooted and Growing in Christ"
2075 Johnson Avenue San Luis Obispo,Callfornia 93401 (805) 543.0945 Fax(805) 543-5091 I I
Attachment 6
DI
�7w �--�� �y✓ -E S -fit" �j'� �%� ,
C-'/'`//fa
`LL ��T.���C��-J �"� cwt �-- �cn�i �:•-R„/4� ,.1�tr_c.� • �1� tiJ C2
-erg-c fn ok x
`7 -1� C� ��..� y� ✓� `�� ?
-H
�� C� C"ov✓ Gti�-•ira. J �(i(c lC , �2 �i;Tty2< `L, �'ics-uc;'
'-4-iJ ��C< /"•�-cit/✓• �'v,�C.c � •�hRrr�C� -�Gw/`-• GUt.^�J �<r�/!%
�- �'�►'�'�` �� Canter �,w� .�%+� , t.�J �.�-u.G�
/�.�,�v / ,,,� �-� J�'L G✓� ar c G' G _Le
Attachment 6
DRAFT
SAN LUIS OBISPO
ARCHITECTUAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES
FEBRUARY 3, 2003
ROLL CALL:.
Present: Commissioners Allen Root, Michael Boudreau, Rob Schultz, Zeljka
Howard, Jim Lopes, David Smith, and Chairperson Charles Stevenson.
Absent: None.
Staff: Associate Planner Michael Codron and Recording Secretary Irene Pierce.
ACCEPTANCE.OF THE AGENDA
The agenda was accepted as presented.
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS:
MaryBeth Schroeder, 2085 Wilding Lane, SLO, expressed her appreciation of a letter
that was written in the local paper under the caption "Voices".
There were no further comments made from the public.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
1. 2005 Johnson Avenue. ARC 147-02; Review of a 40-unit senior housing project
with reduced street yards from 20-feet; R-2 zone; San Luis Non-Profit Housing Co.,
applicant.
Associate Planner Michael Codron presented the staff report recommending final
approval to the project, based on findings and subject to conditions of approval.
Commr. Lopes questioned if Johnson Avenue is listed in the City's Open Space Plan as
a scenic street.
Planner Codron responded it is listed as a scenic street in the Circulation Element.
George Moylan, San Luis Obispo Housing Authority, presented some history and
information on the project. He noted this is a historic house that needs to be dealt with
and felt the site is unique and appropriate. He noted he has asked for a density bonus
in keeping with the City's desire to have more compact urban area. He explained they
have deleted one unit out because of issues involving the parking lot and views.
Jeff Dillon, project architect, explained briefly the layout of the project and noted the
parking and landscaping serves as spatial buffers to the outer areas of the project. He
stated if they decided not to have the 15-foot setback, they could move the buildings
forward, but they would become a three-story element at the 20-foot setback at Ella
Street.
r- �2
Attachment 6
Draft Planning Commission _.,iutes
February 3, 2003
Page 2
In response to a question, Mr. Dillon explained he is requesting reduced setbacks from
20-feet to 15-feet. He commented the composition on the dormer roof would be purely
cosmetic on top of the regular old roof. He explained that he is proposing a variation of
a standard theme so all the buildings are not exactly the same color.
Chairperson Stevenson asked if any other treatment choice has been considered on the
split face block that exposes the lower foundation areas.
Mr. Dillon replied they could use different colors, but he prefers the split face block.
Chairperson Stevenson questioned the window treatment.
Mr. Dillon replied they are proposing a 1 x 3 trim to match the window trim on the
existing house.
Chairperson Stevenson asked ,if they had considered faux window grids to the towers
that face the homes to get the proportion correct.
Mr. Dillon replied that could be done.
There was much discussion on the architecture of the project.
Chairperson Stevenson asked what the intent is for the landscaping to screen the
parking.
Mr. Dillon explained they were hoping to soften the mass.
Commr. Root questioned the proposed use of the water tower.
Mr. Dillon replied it would be a storage room.
Commr. Howard suggested the colors be more cheerful rather than sad colors on the
color pallet.
Chairperson Stevenson concurred with more cheerful colors and expressed concern on
the elevation of building 2.
Commr. Lopes asked if the applicant would object. to an alternative streetlight to the
standard City streetlight.
Mr. Dillon replied a colonial post light might be a good
alternative.
Commr. Lopes questioned the kind of parking lot lighting that would be used.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:.
- 43
Draft Planning Commission i..mutes ' ' Attachment 6
February 3, 2003
Page 3
Bob Canepa, 1290 Ella Street, said he would appreciate anything that keeps the height
of these buildings down to preserve the view of the mountains. He expressed concern
about the area where people pull out, and the spill over where people park at the
church. He suggested some other parking considerations should be considered.
Dan Carpenter, 2030 Johnson Avenue, commented that he did not support the Hathway
house being moved, and also expressed concern with the traffic on the corner of Ella
Street and Johnson Avenue. He noted the speed of traffic is fast along Johnson
Avenue and without a signal light, there it is a great potential for accidents.
Mary Beth Schroeder, 2085 Wilding Lane, concurred with Mr. Carpenter and expressed
concern with any traffic feeding over to Sierra Way. She felt the project has a good
design.
Linda Gerber, Ella Street asked if the white house on the corner would remain.
Chairperson Stevenson explained that it is going to be left on the site, but the plans are
to move it to the center of the property.
Ms. Gerber felt the buildings are too high and inappropriate for this neighborhood of
single-family residences. She expressed concern about the proposed median turning
onto Ella Street and suggested the lack of parking be addressed.
Cathy Spencer Canepa, 1290 Ella Street, had concerns with parking on Ella Street and
felt this should be addressed. She also felt the height of the building would block the
view of the mountains.
Daryl Grover, 1225 Christi Court, concurred with the comments that were made. He felt
the meeting for this project was not well advertised.
Planner Codron explained that the City mailed out notification cards, and there was a
model of this project for all the neighbors to review. He explained there was a meeting
before the City Council on this project regarding the density bonus. He addressed
some concerns about the lighting and the intersection.
There were no further public comments made from the public.
COMMISSION COMMENTS:
Commr. Lopes questioned if the City Council had the benefit of seeing the policies that
affect the site at Johnson Avenue.
Planner Codron replied no, and explained there was no specific discussion of scenic
corridors or policies from the Circulation Element, but noted the City Council approved
the density bonus on the condition that ARC approve the design of the project with the
understanding that changes required by the ARC might affect that ultimate density.
Commr. Boudreau asked if the same would apply for the traffic study.
Draft Planning Commission i. . utes Attachment 6
February 3, 2003
Page 4
Planner Codron responded that the ARC has a decision to make concerning the median
and site plan.
Chairperson Stevenson asked why the project was exempt from CEQA.
Planner Codron explained that it is an affordable housing project and is getting a
statutory exemption. He also explained that Council had questions with respect to
traffic, the location to the upper driveway and a signal at the intersection. Staff provided
the Council with a response in a memo on these issues.
Chairperson Stevenson commented on the speed of traffic in this area. He felt it
incredulous that they are not dealing with this as a signalized light and expressed
concern since this is a senior housing project.
Planner Codron interjected that staff is trying to frame these decisions in terms of the
design impacts on the project. He mentioned that there are larger issues that are
affecting the neighborhood and Council has asked for feedback on these larger issues.
Chairperson Stevenson noted that the traffic issues are out of the ARC's purview..
There was much discussion about a traffic signal..
Commr. Smith noted he is opposed to condition 1 which eliminates the Bradford Pears
from the patio area, and questioned whether the parking lot should be lit at all (condition
22). He said he would like to see the walk lit up and recommended that the shed
dormers be taken out. He commented that the house tower be eliminated and the
house be restored to what it originally was.
Commr. Lopes suggested the whole project be brought down so there is a view from
Johnson Avenue, and the building should be orientated to that view. He recommended
that the grading elevation be brought down starting at the parking lot through building 1
and suggested a floor be brought down so it is over the parking instead of being above
it. He expressed concern with turning left over the proposed median. He expressed
support for a parkway on Ella Street and Sierra Way that should be a six-foot parkway
with a five-foot sidewalk, which leaves room for the setback.
Planner Codron explained an easement would be required for the sidewalk which
would be a problem because the applicant may not want to use their property for that
use.
Commr. Lopes suggested a more standard affect of the horizontal/vertical windows on
the towers. He recommended a 4 x 4 brace for the fascia and suggested a different
color pallet.
Commr. Howard expressed appreciation of the project and the effort that has been
made on a difficult site. She expressed support for the patios and felt it is a good
project. She commented that three stories is not high - it just depends where it is
located. She felt they could make it look less imposing by extending one story and
i -�S
Attachment 6
Draft Planning Comm ission"Minutes
February 3, 2003
Page 5
recessing the other, which could be done on the Johnson Avenue side also. She noted
she would support railing or a treatment to the balcony. She expressed support for the
median.
Chairperson Stevenson expressed a concern that this project is interfaced with the
single-family residences, and would like to see this quiet street respected. He
suggested putting the taller building in the middle of the property and surround the
property with reduced building heights. He also suggested moving the parking area
where building 2 and building 3 might be, and bringing access from that point. He
expressed concern with where the handicap parking spaces are located and felt it is not
adequate separation of parking area to the building. He supported the suggestion of
dropping the grading elevation to lower the heights of the buildings.
Chairperson Stevenson then commented that the split face block is historically incorrect
and suggested a precision block that has the hardy plank siding attached so it is
consistent with the building. He expressed concerns on the west elevations to Sierra
Way and felt it should be addressed because it is not an attractive view from that side
and is incompatible with the character of the neighborhood.
Commr. Boudreau complimented the applicant for all the work on this complicated
project. He expressed his support for the architecture and felt the massing is
interesting. He expressed a concern on the Sierra Way view, and felt the height is
significant from Sierra Way. He supported the towers and the island on Ella Street and
also supported the landscape plan. Instead of a continuous wall he suggested a few
slots through it adjacent to buildings 2 & 3 with plants that could grow up against it.
Vice-Chair Schultz concurred with Commissioner Boudreau's comments.
Commr. Root expressed support for the median on Ella Street but would like it designed
differently than other medians. He suggested the colors be brightened. He stated that
he is sensitive to the issues around the neighborhood in preserving the integrity of the
street, but the project.should be viewed in terms of what the City is trying to do and felt
the architecture is going to work. He noted he is not concerned with the views from
Johnson Avenue, but expressed concern for the views from Sierra Way. He suggested
a little more articulation on the comer brace of the stairwell, and commented that he
supports the flat roof.
Chairperson Stevenson commented that the parking lot area could be made safer if
they had bollard lighting which is not intrusive on the neighborhood. He felt the shed
dormer looks flat and recommended not approving it. He felt the braces need more
dimension because of their height and suggested they be 4 x 6. He commented that
the existing house does not have corner trim and recommended that these buildings
have that same kind of corner. He felt the towers need a treatment to reduce the scale.
Planner Codron reiterated staff's recommendation and noted they are not
recommending removing all of the trees.
Attachment 6
Draft Planning Commission iv.,.Butes `J
February 3, 2003
Page 6
Commr. Boudreau commented about the height from Sierra Way and asked if the
roofline could come along on the west elevation.
Mr. Dillon responded to the comment and referred to the site plan map to explain what
could be done.
Commr. Lopes commented on the sidewalk and offered some ideas on how to
implement the sidewalk and retaining wall.
There was discussion on the retaining wall and elevation.
Comms. Boudreau moved to grant final approval to the project based on findings and
subiect to conditions as listed in the staff report, with the addition of conditions as listed
in.the ARC action letter. Seconded by Commr. Howard.
Commr. Lopes requested an amendment to condition 6, to consider a parkway on Ella
Street that would divide the 10-feet that is available to accommodate a five-foot
sidewalk and five-foot parkway.
Planner Codron asked if the street trees would be planted in the parkway.
Commr. Lopes replied yes.
There was discussion about where the trees would be planted in the parkway.
Commr. Lopes commented on the landscaping choices on Sierra Way and suggested
the density of trees be lowered to accommodate their mature fruit trees.
Planner Codron reiterated what the City standard is for planting street trees.
Commr. Lopes suggested a condition that there be a screen landscaping on Johnson
Avenue between the parking lot with the types that were shown.
Planner Codron noted that would be condition 36.
There was much discussion on the landscaping of the parking lot and what kinds of
trees and shrubs could be planted.
AYES: Commrs. Boudreau, Howard, Root, Schultz, Lopes, Smith, and Stevenson
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
The motion carried 7-0.
A recommendation to the City Council was discussed for a traffic light at the corner of
Johnson and Ella Street.
1 "`Y�
Attachment 6
Draft Planning Commission`minutes
February 3, 2003
Page 7
Commr. Smith made a recommendation to City Council that there be a traffic light at the
comer of Ella Street and Johnson Avenue, and recommended a finding that relates to
the residents age and in this case the desire of safety outweighs the level of service
concerns. Seconded by Commr. Root.
AYES: Commrs. Smith, Root, Lopes, Howard, and Stevenson
NOES: Commrs. Boudreau and Schultz
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
The motion carried 5-2.
COMMENT AND DISCUSSION:
2. Staff:
A. Agenda Forecast:
February 18, 2003: ARC Guidelines update; Olizola update; Bolduan subdivision.
March 3, 2003: Downtown lighting.
Planner Codron responded to a request made from the ARC on what the signage is for
the Baja Fresh Restaurant and noted they are over on their signage area.
There was discussion on the design of Baja Fresh signs.
Planner Codron commented on the Cannon Project and explained they are looking for
tenants and noted there might be some revisions done.
Chairperson Stevenson commented that he would like to add one item to their Lesson
Learned Review.
ADJOURNMENT:
With no further business before the Commission, the meeting adjourned at 8:10 p.m. to
the next regular meeting scheduled for February 18, 2003, in Council Hearing Room.
Respectfully submitted by
Irene E. Pierce
Recording Secretary
-' Attachment T
Comparative Analysis of Intersection Safety
Prepared by Tim Bochum, Deputy Public Works Director
Johnson Avenue/Ella Street—Comparison with other Intersections
In considering this issue Council should keep in mind overall City goals and objectives
when dealing with traffic safety. Traffic safety requests are often on a personal level -
focused upon a single location sometimes under trying circumstances that may have
come after an unfortunate incident. These types of requests often place staff and the
Council in the position of rationalizing public expenditures at a certain location that may
not necessarily be the most appropriate location for the use of limited public funds.
In order to assist Council in making these difficult decisions, the Public Works
Department has created the annual Traffic Safety Report that analyzes and compares
problematic locations citywide in order to make maximum use of our public resources.
On September 10, 2002, Council reviewed and approved the 2001 Annual Traffic Safety
Report. As part of that report the intersection of Johnson/Ella was reviewed and
compared with other similar intersections that demonstrated more than three accidents in
calendar year 2001 (see Figure 1).
The intersection ranked 37`s when compared to other similar intersections when
considering accident rates. In addition, there were twenty six (26) intersections with
higher accident rates that do not have traffic signal control. While some of these locations
are not candidate locations for traffic signal installation, they do have higher rates which
should dictate that public moneys may be more appropriately spent at these locations
prior to use at lower ranked locations.
As part of this staff report, staff further refined the analysis of the 2001 Annual Traffic
Safety report to consider actual crash numbers (as opposed to accident rate) to determine
if the intersection merited additional consideration using that indicator. As seen in
Exhibit 1 at the end of this attachment, the intersection ranked tied for 30th with twenty
nine other intersections rated.above it.
Comparative Analysis of Ir', .action Safety /fi $C, TCLZ9L
Page 2
Figure 1: Arterial / Local Intersections Prioritized by Accident.Rate
Total Entering Accident
Rank Intersection Accidents in lRate per Traffic Control
2001 Voume MEV
1 Monterey/Morro 6 7204 2.270 SIG
2 Broad/Pacific 11 13,489 2.234 2 WAY
3 South/BeeBee 10 14,800 Est 1.850 2 WAY
4 South/Parker 8 14,300 Est. 1,533 2 WAY
5 Higuera/Garden 6 10,850 1.515 2 WAY
6 Marsh/Morro 9 16,435 1.500 SIG
7 South/Lawton 5 14,146 0.968 2 WAY
8 Marsh/Carmel 5 14,305 Est 0.958 2 WAY
9 Broad/Branch 3 8,700 Est 0.945 2 WAY
10 Higuera/Morro 4 12,352 0.887 SIG
11 Higuera/Granada 5 16,701 Est. 0.820 2 WAY
12 Santa Rosa/Walnut 9 30,389 0.811 SIG
13 Santa Rosa/Oak 10 34,200 Est. 0.801 2 WAY
14 Foothill/Ferrini 5 17,959 Est 0.763 2 WAY
15 Santa Rosa/Murray 10 37,844 0.724 SIG
16 Santa Rosa/Boysen 8 31,000 Est. 0.707 2 WAY
17 Osos/Pacific 4 15,714 Est. 0.697 2 WAY
18 Santa Rosa/Montalban 9 35,593 Est. 0.693 2 WAY
19 Foothill/Casa 5 20,783 Est 0.659 2 WAY
20 Johnson/iris 5 21,000 Est. 0.652 2 WAY
21 Johnson/Lizzie 5 21,768 0.629 SIG
22 Santa Rosa/Meinecke 8 35,077 Est. 0.625 2 WAY
23 Madonna/Pereira 4 17,905 0.612 2 WAY
24 Marsh/Garden 3 14,133 Est. 0.582 2 WAY
25 Higuera/Vachell 4 19,043 0.575 2 WAY
26 Los Osos Valley/Garcia 4 20,154 0.544 2 WAY
27 Santa Rosa/Peach 4 21,098 Est. 0.519 2 WAY
28 Higuera/Bridge 3 16,104 Est. 0.51 2 WAY
29 Los Osos Valley/Royal 5 27,314 0.502 SIG
30 Higuera/Suburban 4 22,482 0.487 SIG
31 Los Osos Valley/Descanso 4 22,897 0.479 SIG
32 Santa Barbara/Upham 3 17,430 Est. 0.472 2 WAY
33 Foothill/Cuesta 3 17,459 Est. 0.471 2 WAY
34 Santa Rosa/Olive 6 36,786 Est. 0.447 2 WAY
35 California/Higuera 3 20,154 Est. 0.408 2 WAY
36 Los Osos Valley/Calle Joaquin 3 20,916 Est. 0.393 SIG/2 WAY
37 Johnson/Ella 3 20,983 Est 0.392 2 WAY
38 Higuera/Pacific 3 24,422 Est. 0.337 2 WAY
39 Osos/Leff 3 24,803 Est. 0.331 2 WAY
40 Grand/Loomis 3 25,913 Est. 0.317 2 WAY
41 Grand/Abbott 3 27,513 Est. 0.299 2 WAY
42 Broad/Francis 3 30500 Est. 0.269 2 WAY
Figure I —Arterial/Local Intersection Rankings by Rate
Source:2001 Annual Trac Safety Report
f�SD
Comparative Analysis of It. ection Safety Attachmerd 7
Page 3
T - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Broad&Pacc .
I I Accidents(rate2.23) 01/01/01 -12/31/01
— Ella&Johnson
4 Accidents 01/01701 - 12i3li01
Note the lack
of number of
right angle
r}"f collisions.
LL
Note the O
number of right O 4"
angle
collisions. 1
PACff1C
Straight Parked pedetmon Poxd abJecb k,d _.-.. w.-.e,�c„•
—Stopped « F=dc X Bicycle o Gmvtl v PMe -Snaigtr .r-1'ck[Y • ~Y.vl.-.aun 1��•e
Unknown +-.r out orcontrol Injury • SMO
c�ah S:oprrd .. t"xmic �(Bi.lrk _
1 7 •Tive C ,�� « I'ninuun .--�la�vl enninl In,�v} "M
.--Boekirlg L Right tum ± Fatality f..M,n L r. RilN tun kali:.
—Orvrmking TLeft tun Nighttime 3rd vehicle .._Cwirak�ng Irum.., R-._hwnu S:E catick
I Sidesvipe �U-turn .a DUI Extra doW SiJnw�Ta „- ('-wrn rrl;l r"atn Ja:a
Figure 2.Broad/Pacific Collisions 2001 Figure 3.Johnson/Ella Collisions 2001
Ella&Johnson
6 Accidents 01/01/02 - 12/11102
Note the lack
of number of
right angle —
collisions.
0
O
O
I
I
It
a4
— ...w'nmY'tar.. •n4C'IY '.—
..- S•rel�t •Pa.krd Y Pvd"t.r. Fixed object,:
+—S:epped •.-,Lna:tc Bic)cic
Lak:wwi; w,-!4t;,fconl:ol Imury
.-�U:ckiryy R.gl;t t.:m F;J.tlrt.
.+thereak.12 f Lett tma Mi hvlmc 3rd KhMe
DU Gatrn vat,,
Figure 4. Johnson/Ella Collisions 2002
1-SI
Comparative Analysis of Ir. .ection Safety Attachment 7
Page 4
Why are these comparisons important? They illustrate how an intersection can be
problematic and of community concern, and yet not be as problematic as other
intersections that are not under public scrutiny at the time. Figures 2 through 4 show
accident patterns for Johnson/Ella for 2001 and 2002 along with the intersection of
Broad/Pacific, which received a signal installation recommendation as part of the 2001
Annual Traffic Safety Report.
State of California traffic signal warrants recommend that an intersection have a
demonstrated history of a minimum of five accidents in a twelve month period, the type
of which could be corrected by a traffic signal installation, prior to signalization. This
safety threshold has been established to trade off the negative consequences of
signalization such as increase to overall delay, increased rear end accidents and increased
air pollution. As can be seen in the accident diagrams, the intersection of Johnson/Ella
has not met that criterion for either of the last two calendar years. In comparison, the
Broad Street/Pacific intersection that has received the recommendation for signalization,
experienced eight right angle accidents in calendar 2001. Does this mean that
Johnson/Ella will only be signalized when we see an increase in accidents at that
location?No,the signal warrants also take into consideration other indicators such as side
street delay or heavy demand by pedestrians and bicycles in order to justify signal
installation. Unfortunately, none of these conditions exist in sufficient quantities at this
location to make the signalization recommendation at this time.
Figure 5 shows the project location and its proximity to adjacent traffic signal locations.
As can be seen, signals exist on Johnson within close walking distance to assist
pedestrian and bicyclists to cross Johnson to access major destinations such as SLO
Transit bus stops and the adjacent hospitals.
Lizzi Bus Stop Ella Johnson
Bus SMP
Bish n
6601+ Project 1250'
Locatio
Figure 5—Project's Proxinog to adjacent Traffic Signals
While an additional traffic signal at Ella would be doable from a strictly signal spacing
point of view, the additional signal would not provide any additional measured access for
the city/community beyond ingress/egress for the small number of residences in the
immediate neighboring area. Most of the larger areas' neighborhood can access the
signals at Lizzie and Johnson (including the hospitals) and as such, there is not a
"trapped"population of residents that are forced to use this location. So if a traffic signal
is not the solution at this intersection, what can be done to improve the current
conditions?
Attachment 7
Comparative Analysis of In,_ ection Safety --
Page 5
First, additional signage could be located in the adjacent neighborhoods to direct people
towards the signal locations to cut down on drivers committing themselves to the
intersection at Ella without knowing that alternatives exist. These signs might be placed
near the hospital driveway accessing Ella and on Ella near Sierra to inform motorists that
a signal exists at Bishop. Secondly, if left turns out of Ella continue to be the major
accident pattern, the City could restrict left turns out from Ella to remove the conflict.
Staff is not currently recommending this option because the accident rate at the
intersection is low and this type of restriction would be in place at all times even when
left turns are not so problematic, such as overnight or off-peak times.
Finally, a long term solution to this issue would be to work with French Hospital to
finally connect Iris Street to the signal at Lizzie. Currently, Iris cul-de-sacs at the hospital
property but is controlled by.a gate for emergency access purposes. Because the number
of residential units in this area of the neighborhood is small, potentially opening this
access up to the public would probably not create a significant number of additional
vehicles across this area and would allow a portion of the neighborhood easier access to a
signalized intersection.
\ Potential '
new access
2
�= route. u
a ;
�. J.
Figure 6—Potential Long Term Access Route
Housing Authority's Latest Offer—Long Term Reimbursement agreement
Subsequent to the ARC meeting, the Housing Authority agreed in concept that they
would be willing to front the cost for the signal installation subject to a reimbursement
agreement with the City. While at face value this option has merit it does not satisfy the
larger question of spending limited City resources for a non-warranted improvement. The
key issue here is should community wide funding be used at isolated locations where
community benefits may not make such good sense. Staff believes that answer to that is
no. However, one alternative that we could support would be that the Housing Authority
post a letter of credit (or other security) that could be used eventually when a signal
becomes warranted. The Authority would continue to earn interest on the credit and only
t -53
/1-1 1 1 Attachment 7
Comparative Analysis of In, .ection Safety
Page 6
draw down on the money when needed. A new proposed housing project west of this
project and across from Johnson could cause the warrants for a traffic signal to be met.
If the Council is interested in this option,then direction should be given to staff to pursue
it as part of an implementation of this project. This strategy would allow flexibility in
determining reimbursement arrangement at the time the signal is necessary and whether it
is warranted upon general roadway characteristics (City responsibility) or new
development(such as a new tract or hospital redevelopment).
Attachment 7
Comparative Analysis of In, action Safety
Page 7
Exhibit 1: Arterial / Local Intersections Prioritized by Total Accidents
Total Entering Accident
Rank Intersection Accidents Volume Rate per Control
in 2001 MEV
1 Broad / Pack 11 13,489 2.234 2 WAY
2 South / BeeBee 10 14,800 Est. 1.850 2 WAY
2 Santa Rosa / Oak 10 34,200 Est. 0.801 2 WAY
2 Santa Rosa / Murray 10 37,844 0.724 SIG
5 Marsh / Morro 9 16,435 1.500 SIG
5 Santa Rosa /Walnut 9 30,389 0.811 SIG
5 Santa Rosa / Montalban 9 35,593 Est. 0.693 2 WAY
8 South / Parker 8 14,300 Est. 1.533 2 WAY
8 Santa Rosa / Boysen 8 31,000 Est. 0.707 2 WAY
8 Santa Rosa/ Meinecke 8 35,077 Est. 0.625 2 WAY
11 Monterey/ Morro 6 7,204 2.270 SIG
11 Higuera / Garden 6 10,850 1.515 2 WAY
11 Santa Rosa / Olive 6 36,786 Est. 0.447 2 WAY
14 South / Lawton 5 14,146 0.968 2 WAY
14 Marsh / Carmel 5 14,305 Est. 0.958 2 WAY
14 Higuera / Granada 5 16,701 Est. 0.820 2 WAY
14 Foothill / Ferrini 5 17,959 Est. 0.763 2 WAY
14 Foothill /Casa 5 20,783 Est. 0.659 2 WAY
14 Johnson / Ids 5 21,000 Est. 0.652 2 WAY
14 Johnson / Lizzie 5 21,768 0.629 SIG
14 Los Osos Valley/ Royal 5 27,314 0.502 SIG
22 Higuera / Morro 4 12,352 0.887 SIG
22 Osos / Pacific 4 15,714 Est. 0.697 2 WAY
22 Madonna / Pereira 4 17,905 0.612 2 WAY
22 Higuera /Vachell 4 19,043 0.575 2 WAY
22 Los Osos Valley/Garcia 4 20,154 0.544 2 WAY
22 Santa Rosa / Peach 4 21,098 Est. 0.519 2 WAY
22 Higuera / Suburban 4 22,482 0.487 SIG
22 Los Osos Valley/ Descanso 4 22,897 0.479 SIG
30 Broad / Branch 3 8,700 Est. 0.945 2 WAY
30 Marsh / Garden 3 14,133 Est. 0.582 2 WAY
30 Higuera /Bridge 3 16,104 Est. 0.51 2 WAY
30 Santa Barbara / Upham 3 17,430 Est. 0,472 2 WAY
30 Foothill / Cuesta 3 17,459 Est. 0.471 2 WAY
30 California / Higuera 3 20,154 Est. 0.408 2 WAY
30 Los Osos Valley/ Calle Joaquin 3 20,916 Est. 0.393 SIG /2 WA
30 Johnson / Ella 3 20,983 Est. 0.392 2 WAY
30 Higuera / Pacific 3 24,422 Est. 0.337 2 WAY
30 Osos / Leff 3 24,803 Est. 0.331 2 WAY
30 Grand / Loomis 3 25,913 Est. 0.317 2 WAY
30 Grand /Abbott 3 27,513 Est. 0.299 2 WAY
30 Broad / Francis 3 30500 Est. 0.269 2 WAY
Resolution "A"
Attachment 8
RESOLUTION NO. (2003 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS
OBISPO DENYING AN APPEAL OF THE ARCHITECTURAL
REVIEW COMMISSION'S ACTION TO APPROVE A LOW-
INCOME SENIOR HOUSING PROJECT PROPOSED FOR 2005
JOHNSON AVENUE; APPLICATION NO.ARC 147-02
WHEREAS, the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing on
March 18, 2003, in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo,
California, for the purpose of considering an appeal of the Architectural Review Commission's
decision to approve a low-income senior housing project proposed for 2005 Johnson Avenue,
Application No. ARC 147-02; and
WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Commission reviewed the proposed project on
February 3, 2003, and approved the project because they determined that it was consistent with
the City's Community Design Guidelines; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has duly considered all evidence, including the testimony
of the appellants, interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations by staff, presented
at said hearing.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo
as follows:
Section 1. Findings. Based upon all the evidence,. the Council makes the following
findings:
1. As conditioned, the project is architecturally compatible with the site and with buildings
on adjacent properties.
2. The Cultural Heritage Committee has determined that the project is consistent with the
Secretary of the Interior's Guidelines for the Treatment of Historic Properties.
3. The proposed setback exceptions will not harm the general health, safety and welfare of
people working or living on the site or in the vicinity because the proposed parking lots
will be screened with landscaping and the reduced setback for buildings along Ella Street
will provide for a better courtyard environment at the interior of the project site.
4. The project is statutorily exempt from CEQA because it is an affordable housing project
that meets the requirements of CEQA Guidelines Section 15280 (Low-Income Housing
Projects).
5. The project is consistent with the General Plan and policies that protect scenic resources
because the proposed buildings will have a relative height from Johnson Avenue that is
equivalent to a single-family home and the buildings are set back between 55 and 70 feet
from the roadway.
6. The project is consistent with the ARC Guidelines because the design meets the standards
for multi-family residential architecture.
7. A traffic signal is not warranted at this location since traffic generated by the project will
Attachment 8
Resolution No. (2003 Series)
Page 2
not significantly reduce the level of service at the Johnson/Ella Street intersection.
8. The proposed building height is consistent (or lower than) similar structures in the
vicinity that are within the same zoning district. The height of the buildings will not
result in overlook or limit-solar access to adjacent residences.
9. The proposed on-site parking supply exceeds city requirements by 10 spaces and
therefore will provide adequate parking without impacting adjacent neighborhood and
street parking.
Section 2. Approval. The Council does hereby deny the appeal and approve the
proposed project, subject to the following conditions of approval and code requirements.
1. At least 4 of the proposed Bradford pear trees shall be eliminated from the patio area
behind the Miller/Hathway House and the remaining trees should be located along the
perimeter of the patio. Additional landscaping shall be provided in the form of potted
plants and trees adjacent to retaining walls to soften their appearance. The patios shall
include movable tables with umbrellas and benches to provide flexibility for the use of
the space, which is anticipated to change over time with the preferences of the residents
of the apartments and the manager's of the property. This condition shall be
implemented to the approval of the Community Development Director as part of the
building permit plan check process.
2. Two of the three Bradford pear trees shall be eliminated from the patio between Building
Three and Building Four and the area shall be treated similarly to the adjacent patio, to
the approval of the Community Development Director.
3. Coast Live Oak shall be used as a street tree along Ella Street, instead of Bradford pear
because of the power lines that are located along this street frontage, to the approval of
the City Arborist and the Community Development Director.
4. The landscape plan shall be revised to provide a greater focus on native, drought-tolerant
plant species, to the approval of the Community Development Director.
5. All underlying lots shall be merged or otherwise adjusted prior to permit issuance.
Contact the Planning Department to initiate the Lot Merger or Lot Line Adjustment
process.
6. New curb, gutter, 6' wide integral sidewalk, driveway approach and street paveout are
required along the Ella St. frontage and must be constructed in accordance with City
Standards, Specifications and Policies. A detached sidewalk shall be installed if it can be
designed to meet City standards. The street pavement section design shall be based on
the Traffic Index (TI) established by the City's Engineering Standards and Standard
Specifications.
7. Curb ramps shall be provided or upgraded per city standards. Pedestrian access
easements shall be provided along the back of the curb ramps as necessary if the required
Attachment 8
Resolution No. (2003 Series)
Page 3
landings and sidewalk connection will extend onto private property.
8. Note on the site plan that "A separate encroachment permit is required for any work in
the public right-of=way. Work requiring an encroachment permit includes but is not
limited to utilities, curb, gutter, and sidewalk, driveway approaches, sidewalk
underdrains, street tree planting, curb ramps, street paving, and pedestrian protection or
construction staging in the right-of-way."
9. Note on the plans to "Contact the Public Works inspector at 781-7196 with at least.a 48
hour notice for any required City of San Luis Obispo encroachment permit inspections."
10. Two new street lights shall be installed to City standards and specifications; one along
Ella St. and one along Johnson Avenue, to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director.
11. Any new or existing driveway approach shall be replaced or upgraded to the current city
and ADA standard. The current standard includes a 4' wide ADA disabled access
sidewalk extension behind the driveway ramp.
12. The demolition/relocation of the existing building triggers the Utilities Department Sewer
Lateral Abandonment Policy. This policy states that the sewer lateral must be abandoned
at the main prior to demolition or relocation unless the lateral is intended for reuse and it
passes a video inspection. If the sewer lateral is intended for reuse, the owner shall
submit a VHS videotape documenting the internal condition of the pipe to the Utilities
Department for approval.
13. Add a note to the site plan that "One 15-gallon street tree shall be required for each 35
lineal feet of frontage. Contact the city arborist at 781-7023 for questions or
requirements and to evaluate any existing street trees."
14. Tree protection measures shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City Arborist.
Any required tree protection measures shall be included on the building plans. The City
Arborist shall review and approve the proposed tree protection measures prior to permit
issuance and prior to commencing with any demolition, grading, or construction. Any
safety pruning or cutting of substantial roots shall be approved by the city arborist and
work completed by a"city-approved" arborist.
15. The site, grading, demolition, and landscape plans submitted for building permits shall
clearly show the location, diameter, and disposition of all trees. Tree removals and tree
preservation measures shall be approved prior to permit issuance for any grading,
demolition, house moving, and new construction. The tree removals and tree
preservation proposal shall consider construction requirements for the proposed house
move and for the new development.
16. The Walnut, Pepper, and Acacia trees along Ella are approved for removal. The various
non-native trees along Johnson Ave. are approved for removal. The shrubs and plantings
at the corner of Ella and Johnson shall be removed to improve line-of-sight distances
through the corner. Replacement landscaping shall be designed with consideration for
t,W
1
Attachment 8
Resolution No. (2003 Series)
Page 4
line-of-sight distances at the corners and driveway approaches. Unless otherwise
approved, street trees along Ella shall not exceed a mature height of 35' where located
beneath utility lines in accordance with P.G.&E. standards.
17. 1"throw single cylinder deadbolt locks shall be provided on all exterior doors.
18. Any window glass near doors should be resistant material or glass coated with security
film.
19. All windows that open shall have secondary locking devices.
20. Any common area rooms (laundry, recreation, etc.) should include sufficient glass area to
provide a clear view into the rooms from outside.
21. Provide and maintain a space within the community room that displays maps and
schedule information for the SLO Transit system, the CCAT system, and other para-
transit providers that typically serve senior households. The applicant shall work with the
SLO Transit manager to establish and maintain a program for on-site sale of senior transit
passes to project patrons. Given the potential needs of the project's clientele, retaining an
on-site transportation coordinator should be considered.
22. Parking lot lighting shall not exceed 20 feet in height, measured from the adjacent ground
to the top of the fixture, and shall have lighting levels between 3 and 10 footcandles
maximum. The fixtures shall be designed to eliminate spill light on adjacent properties
or City right-of-way and shall be shielded to reduce glare to the greatest extent possible.
23. Motion sensing security lighting shall be provided in the parking lot and along pathways
to the approval of the Community Development Director and the Neighborhood Services
Manager.
24. The Ella Street median shall be design to the approval of the Public Works Director and
shall be installed to the satisfaction of the Public Works inspector under an approved
encroachment permit.
25. Knee braces shall have a minimum dimension of 4" x 4".
26. A mitered comer trim detail shall be used on the buildings if a product compatible with
the proposed siding is available.
27. The solid railing at the second level of the three-story buildings shall be lowered to 30"
and an open railing shall be used for the remaining height required by the building code.
28. The exterior trim at all windows and doors shall match the existing house.
29. Revise the openings in the stairwells with details such as decorative corner braces at the
top and mullions at the bottom or consider a more vertical orientation for the openings.
30. Consider increasing the slope of the shed dormers if possible.
Attachment 8
Resolution No. (2003 Series)
Page 5
31. Cover the exposed portions of the building stem walls above 30" with siding.
32. Develop a brighter color palette for review and approval by the Community Development
Director.
33. Use bollard lighting in the parking lots instead of overhead lighting to reduce potential
lighting impacts on neighbors of the project.
34. Add detail to the west elevation of buildings 2 and 3 to reduce the verticality of the 3
story portion by including a shed roof element across the recessed portion of the building
and a new gable element at the second story, as discussed during the ARC meeting.
35. Trees along the northern property line should be a species that will not grow taller than
the buildings. Street trees along Sierra Way shall be planted one per 35 feet of lineal
footage, per City standards, with a lower growing flowering tree to be located between
the street trees.
36. Use higher growing plants, such as ceanothus, manzanita or toyon along Johnson Avenue
to insure screening of the parking lot. Use heirloom planting in the plaza to provide a
historical connection to the NMer/Hathway House.
Code Requirements:
1. A water allocation is required, due to the additional demand on the City's water supplies.
The City currently has water to allocate, and does so on a"first-come, first-served" basis.
Water is allocated at the time building permits are issued and the Water Impact Fee is
paid. Both the Water and the Wastewater Impact Fees are based on a per residential
basis. Water and Wastewater Impact Fees shall be paid at the time building permits are
issued.
2. A separate connection shall be required for automatic fire sprinklers. The fire service
lateral shall include a USC approved backflow preventer appropriate for the proposed
use. The backflow preventer shall be located as close to the public right-of-way as
possible, in direct alignment with the connection to the public water main. The backflow
preventer can be located no further than 25 feet from the right-of-way line without prior
written approval of the Utilities Engineer. If the fire service supports one or more fire
hydrants, the USC approved backflow preventer shall also include detector capabilities
(double detector check assembly). The FDC may be located behind the backflow
prevention assembly, in accordance with manufacturer's recommendations. The location
and orientation of the FDC shall be approved by the Fire Department.
3. By ordinance, the applicant is required to prepare a recycling plan for approval by the
City to address the recycling of construction waste for projects valued at over$50,000 or
demolition of structures over 1000 square feet. The recycling plan shall be submitted to
the Building Department with the building plans. The City's Solid Waste Coordinator
can provide some guidance in the preparation of an appropriate recycling plan.
tato ,
- Attachment 8
Resolution No. (2003 Series)
Page 6
4. All fire protection equipment and.building utilities, including gas shut-off valves, and
electrical service disconnects shall be located in a centralized location. In new
construction, equipment shall be located within an interior room having an exterior
access door or in an exterior enclosure attached to the building, specifically for the
purpose of housing such equipment.
5. There are two existing street hydrants that will service this project. Required fire flow
shall be determined using Appendix III-A of the Fire Code.
6. An automatic fire-extinguishing system in compliance with appropriate Uniform
Building Code Standards, National Fire Protection Association (NEPA) Standards, and
the municipal code shall be installed throughout the buildings. Systems containing more
than 100 sprinkler heads shall be monitored by a UL listed Central Station alarm
company.
7. An approved fire-alarm system shall be designed and installed as specified in the
California Fire Code, California Building Code, NFPA 72, and the National Electrical
Code as amended by the State of California and local ordinances.
On motion of , seconded by
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 18th day of March, 2003.
Mayor David F. Romero
ATTEST:
Lee Price, City Clerk
AP OVED AS TO FORM:
Gil Trujillo, Acting City Attorney
Attachment 9
Resolution `B"
RESOLUTION NO. (2003 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS
OBISPO UPHOLDING AN APPEAL OF THE ARCHITECTURAL
REVIEW COMMISSION'S ACTION TO APPROVE A LOW-INCOME
SENIOR HOUSING PROJECT PROPOSED FOR 2005 JOHNSON
AVENUE,THEREBY REQUIRING SUBSTANTIAL CHANGES TO THE
PROJECT DESIGN; APPLICATION NO.ARC 147-02
WHEREAS, the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing on
March 18, 2003, in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo,
California, for the purpose of considering an appeal of the Architectural Review Commission's
decision to approve a low-income senior housing project proposed for 2005 Johnson Avenue,
Application No. ARC 147-02; and
WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Commission reviewed the proposed project on
February 3, 2003, and approved the project because they determined that it was consistent with
the City's Community Design Guidelines; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has duly considered all evidence, including the testimony
of the appellants, interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations by staff, presented
at said hearing.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo
as follows:
Section 1. Findings. Based upon all the evidence, the Council makes the following
findings:
1. A traffic signal is necessary at the Johnson/Ella Street intersection since the level of
service will be reduced following occupancy of the proposed project. The speed of
oncoming traffic on Johnson Avenue further warrants the necessity to install a traffic
signal at this location.
2. The height of the proposed building is not consistent with the neighborhood and may
create overlook and or solar impacts to adjacent neighbors.
3. The project may not be determined to be architecturally compatible with the site and with
buildings on adjacent properties unless substantial changes are made to the design to
reduce the proposed building heights.
Section 2. Appeal. The Council does hereby uphold the appeal and refers the project
back to the Architectural Review Commission with the following items of direction for the
applicant:
1. (Council to provide a list of revisions to the proposed building design for the applicant to
consider as part of a revised project to be reviewed by the ARC.)
Attachment 9
Resolution No. (2003 Series)
Page 2
On motion of , seconded by
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 18th day of March, 2003.
Mayor David F. Romero
ATTEST:
Lee Price, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Gil Trujillo, Acting Citytomey
�"to
(Diane Reync ds Johnson Avenue Senior citizens Project Page 1 i
From: <ANCARTER@aol.com> RED FILE
To: <asettle@slocity.org>, <cmulholland@slocity.org>, <kschwarizq& '",AGENDA
<jewan@slocity.org>, <dromero@slocity.org>
Date: 3/14/03 12:45PM DATEgLo ITEM #P#1
Subject. Johnson Avenue Senior Citizens Project
Dear Council Members:
Regretfully, I have to recommend Option 1, continuation of the appeal on the
Johnson Avenue Senior Citizens Project. The issue I have is the siting of
the parking lot; I cannot support the proposal to keep the front lot next to
Johnson Avenue and add a median on Ella to prevent left-hand turns into the
lot. Neither can I support the alternative of moving the front lot as
designed to the middle of the block.
Here are the issues I have with the median alternative:
On page 1-16, Mr. Codron argues that the front parking lot with a median will
be a"secondary lot' because it is smaller in size than the back parking lot.
I disagree with this assessment. The front lot, under any circumstance,
will be the primary lot for Buildings One& Five due to proximity..
Because of the short length of the Ella Street median, I am concerned traffic
will attempt a U-turn around it to access the front parking lot.
If the median is lengthened down Ella to prevent U-turns, the median will
impact the Hearing Aid Center driveway.
Even if U-tums don't take place at the end of the median, U-tums are liable
to take place where Sierra Way and the Hospital driveway meet Ella.
The only way for traffic to avoid U-turns to access the front parking lot is
to drive to Bishop and come down Sierra Way. Given the tight zigzag in the
middle of Sierra, I'm not sure we want to encourage this.
The issue I have with moving the front parking lot as designed to the middle
of Ella is the negative impact it will have on the project courtyard.
Unfortunately, the only way to address both concerns is to redesign the FIC"IrIC-
aL
layout of the project =TCDD DIR
i3'FIN DIRWhat might work is to rotate Building One ninety-degrees and move it tower 'GFIRE CHIEF
Building Five. A one-way linear lot with slanted spaces could then beaddedNEY GRW DIRbetween Ella and Building One. The entrance would be at mid-block. Thee /0RlG =nIOIJCE CHF
near Johnson. This alternative might also require some movement of theFADS EC.DIRrelocated farmhouse toward Building Four to gain enough parking spaces. I IL'L)IR
would be possible to have slanted parking spaces on one side of the one-way —° n DIP
driveway behind the farmhouse and then on both sides of the driveway behind
Building One.
Other than the issue of the driveway, I do not have any other concerns about RECEIVED
the project. I am not concerned with the height of the project, nor do I
believe that installation of a light at Johnson & Ella should be a condition MAR 14 2003
for this project: I still feel a light.is needed, but the project does not
create that need. SLO CIN CLERK
Diane Reyn�-Johnson.Avenue Senior�'itizens�Prgject __ _____ __ � _.� _ _.Page 2
Although it is not mentioned in the staff summary, the ARC did vote 5-2 in
favor of a light. Having the applicant install the necessary underground
facilities for this light is fair compensation for the project's.impact on
the intersection.
I would like to comment specifically on the traffic analysis.
I agree we need to make objective comparisons between intersections in town
to determine where to add lights. Reliance only on the one-year observed
frequency of accidents, however, strikes me as simplistic.
First,we should be taking a multiyear approach with our accident data. From
Mr. Bochum's report it is clear that there were six accidents at this
intersection in 2002 vs. three or four in 2001. (1 write"three or four"
because the comparison chart says there were three in 2001, but the
intersection diagram says there were four.) A multiyear approach is
important given the low frequency of reported accidents at all intersections
in the City and the need to account.for their true distribution over time.
(Think of the bell-curve.)
Second, not all accidents are the same. We need to account for this. One
fender-bender does not equal an injury accident. Five fender-benders does
not equal a fatality accident. And there has been a fatality accident at
this intersection in the past few years.
Third, we need to take into account other safety issues which might make a
serious accident likely even if a serious accident hasn't occurred in the
past. This would include slopes (an issue here on both Johnson and Ella),
traffic speed (an issue on Johnson), blind spots (not an issue here), and who
uses the intersection. With respect to users, pedestrians and bicyclists are
not an issue at this intersection, but usage by seniors and people unfamiliar
with the intersection is. (That would be people going to the Hospital and
the doctors' offices.)
Finally, we should consider the need for using a light as a traffic calming
device. The speed limit on Johnson Avenue is 35 mph at the top of the hill.
The speed limit changes to 25 mph at Iris. In general, people drive faster
than 35 mph on Johnson. As long as the light is green at Lizzie, few drivers
slow to 25 or even 35 until they reach the curve and light at San Luis Drive.
I would be interested to know how the Johnson &Ella intersection compare to
other intersections in town if a more comprehensive safety analysis were
performed..
Andrew Carter
CC: <Iprice@slocity.org>, <khampian@slocity.org>, <gmoylan@haslo.org>
Barbara Ehrbar-Public Hearing to Discus 'oproval of Proposed Senior Complex — Page 1
From: Vern Pascal <lazuli777@webtv.net> RECEIVED
To: <behrbar@ci.san-luis-obispo.ca.us>
Date: 3/18/03 4:17PM MAR 16 2003
Subject: Public Hearing to Discuss Approval of Proposed Senior Complex
Re: ARC 147-02. SLO CIT( CLERK
To all members;
I am a homeowner on Sierra Way, once a very quiet, short, and narrow
street, with very little traffic. Now there is a much increased traffic
flow, with many who speed up and down the street. My concern to the
Council is that a traffic
light has to be part of the proposed project at the corner of Ella and
Johnson, a very risky intersection at almost any time.
Many people live, work or transit the area adjacent to and behind the
French Hospital complex, and many of those who use the recently opened
rear exit of the parking lot of the First Baptist Church drive onto
Sierra Way. These motorists do not want to risk their lives at the above
intersection, so they utilize Sierra Way.
Sierra Way is only a two-block street with a severe zig-zag midway to
Bishop, and then either left to the light at Bishop and Johnson, or to
the right to Augusta.
Also, the County Ag. bldg, etc. is at the corner of Bishop and Sierra
Way, the parking lot of which on certain days overflows onto street
parking on Sierra Way. Likewise, many people from the southern portion
of town travel down Augusta and onto Sierra Way, as a shortcut to French
Hospital complex and Ella Street area.
In closing, I request that serious consideration be given to the RED FILE
installation of a traffic signal at the comer of Ella and Johnson, and MEETING AGENDA
that without such a signal light no approval be granted for the Senior
complex. I believe that all the residents in this immediate area would DATE I ITEM #'2hL L
agree.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Grace Pascal
2091 Sierra Way
San Luis Obispo, Ca, 93401
805 541 4208 I 0cL'rv011 :7-- CDD DIR
CAO Z/--IN DIR
ACRO 2,-::IRE CHIEF
,Z'ATTORNEY Z PW DIR
jYCLERKORIG �e_ POLICE CHF.
aEPT H DS �i REC DIR
T STc UTIL DIR
]({lj f HR DIR �i
4n COUNCIL CDD DIR RECEIVED
Z CAO ZFIN DIR
JdZACAO ei FIRE CHIEF MAR i 2003
( rATTORNEY 2r PW DIR
CLERK/ORIG Z`i POLICE CHF
MDEPT H DS REC DIR SL0 CITY CLERK
UTIL DIR
Q(HR DIR
Smooth Traffic and Public Safety:
An Analysis of the Ella Street and Johnson Avenue Intersection
San Luis Obispo, California
RED FILE
MWnNG AGENDA
DA ITEM #_'j�tL
y .
t
N
F
.-vr.
dv-8 App L,,-\6 ic-vs BSC
Michael Isensee K rl° wavy d 1 ��
CRP 518, Public Policy Analysis, Dr. V
March 17, 2003
a oC\R vvv,- l
v�jc�oeJ � �e��hlJnk.�n+v�
i
An Analysis of the Ella Street and Johnson Avenue Intersection
San Luis Obispo, California
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The enclosed analysis addresses potential solutions to the Johnson Avenue and Ella Street
intersection, an intersection that is perceived to be unsafe by a majority of the neighborhood that uses it.
Three interrelated goals are considered:
1) improving the safety of the Ella—Johnson intersection while
2) minimizing traffic inefficiency on Johnson Avenue and
3) enabling the San Luis Obispo Housing Authority's lower-income senior housing project
located at the intersection to move forward in a timely manner.
The three options for accomplishing these goals are:
• a reduction in the speed limit on Johnson Avenue
• the implementation of traffic calming measures on Johnson, including a raised median and
intersection modifications
• the installation of traffic signal at the intersection
A neighborhood survey was conducted in February of 2003 to determine the current perceptions
about the intersection,the impact the proposed development will have on traffic and pedestrian safety at
the intersection, and the preferred solutions. One-hundred-twenty-one surveys were completed.Traffic
quantity and speed of traffic are identified as significant issues.The majority of residents feels unsafe
both in vehicles and as pedestrians at the intersection and nearly all believe the proposed development
will worsen traffic safety. Ninety-two percent believe a traffic signal will improve intersection safety,
compared to 33 percent believing a reduced speed limit and 22 percent believing a landscaped median (a
traffic calming measure)will improve safety .
Further analysis shows the research literature contradicts neighborhood perceptions about the
safety of traffic lights.Traffic signals that do not meet warrants, as this one would not, do not lead to a
decrease in accidents, mostly due to increased levels of red light running and rear-end collisions.
Traffic calming measures have proven successful in multiple contexts, including on highly traveled
arterials. The proposed traffic calming measures of a raised median on Johnson between Iris and Ella,
combined with a right turn slip from lower Ella to Johnson and the elimination of left turns from
Southbound Johnson, would have little detrimental effect on traffic flow, costs less than a traffic signal,
and may provide better protection for both motorists and pedestrians. An analysis of the direct installation
and maintenance costs compared to the estimated change in accident frequency and type show a
benefit-cost ratio of 24.6 for traffic calming measures, compared to 6.8 or a traffic signal and 0 for
reduced speed limits.Traffic calming is the preferred alternative for traffic safety improvements at
the Johnson-Ella intersection.
However,for the long-term safety and benefit of residents along Johnson Avenue, additional
improvements will need to be taken. A comprehensive study of the corridors'transportation needs and
alternatives should be conducted.
INTRODUCTION
Purpose
The purpose of this analysis is to determine potential solutions to the Johnson Avenue and Ella
Street intersection,an intersection that is perceived to be unsafe by a majority of the neighborhood that
uses it. In order to accomplish this, the report's overall goal is to relate three issues—safety, efficiency
and development—in a way that provides adequate rationale to improve the safety at the intersection with
minimal disruption of the current efficiency of the intersection and to do this in a way that allows the senior
housing project to move forward in a timely basis.The specific goals are:
1) To assist the neighborhood in its articulation of its need for a safe intersection. This goal entails
two equally important measures, improving actual safety and meeting neighborhood goals. A safe
intersection is the primary goal to be considered throughout this analysis, but must be weighed
with the goals of improving safety in a way that is acceptable to the neighborhood. In order to
understand the neighborhood perceptions and goals,.a survey was conducted to collected
information about neighborhood perceptions of traffic and intersection safety at Johnson and Ella
Street(Appendix A, p. 22).
2) To connect the specific safety concerns articulated by the neighborhood with the need to maintain
efficient community-wide traffic flow on Johnson Avenue, a major city arterial.
3) To provide a better understanding of the competing issues at stake, and the role the San Luis
Obispo Housing Authority, as the senior housing project proponent, could perform in addressing
these issues while also enabling its lower-income housing project for seniors to move
forward in a timely manner.
Methodology
The analysis is divided into three major sections.The first, Background, provides information on the costs
of accidents and intersection safety both nationally and in San Luis Obispo. It then defines the study area
and location of the Johnson-Ella intersection and some of the transportation-related issues in the
neighborhood, including infill development, the history of traffic issues in the area, recent traffic safety
reports, and current traffic loads. The second section, Policy Alternatives, provides a policy framework
with which to determine potential solutions for the intersection and outlines the results of the
neighborhood survey. The final section, Policy analysis, outlines the costs and benefits of different
alternatives and provides a roadmap to address all three goals and move safety, efficiency, and the
housing project, forward.
BACKGROUND
The Johnson Avenue—Ella Street intersection does not rank as a high crash location and current traffic
flows do not technically warrant improvements to the intersection. However,the intersection is the source
of ongoing traffic collisions, including serious injury accidents and fatalities. Additionally, the intersection
1
is located adjacent to proposed developments that will increase congestion and the likelihood of
additional accidents.
A survey was utilized to determine neighborhood demographics, perceptions about the intersection
and preferred solutions.This information is incorporated into the analysis and contextualizes the
framework utilized in a comparison of potential solutions.
The Costs of Accidents& Intersection Safety
In the year 2000, more than 2.8 million intersection-related crashed occurred in the United States,
representing 44 percent of all reported crashed.Approximately 8,800 fatalities-23 percent of the total
fatalities—and almost 1,000,000 injury crashes-48 percent of all injury crashes—occurred at or within an
intersection environment(Stollof&Kalla, 2002; State Farm Insurance Co., n.d.).The Insurance Institute
for Highway Safety reported 3,956 traffic deaths in California in 2001. In fact,there was only one day in
the 1990's without a traffic fatality: May 1, 1991 (California Highway Patrol, 2000).
In San Luis Obispo, 1,139 collisions occurred in 2001.These included 1 fatality and 265 injury
crashes-23 percent of all collisions. Forty-five bicycles and 19 pedestrians were involved in traffic
accidents. Forty-nine collisions were reported by the San Luis Obispo Police Department on Johnson
Avenue between Orcutt and Monterey Streets, the fourth highest rate along a commuter corridor in the
City(Miller, 2002).' Collisions in the City have increased nearly 11.8 percent each year between 1999
and 2001 (San Luis Obispo Department of Public Works [SLOPW], 2002, p. 11).
Despite this increase,the City of San Luis Obispo compares favorably with the county, state and
nation in both fatalities and injuries, with a fatality rate only 17 percent of the county's rate and an injury
rate 95 percent of the county's (SLOPW, 2002, p. 12). Of course; at least part of the reason for this lower
rate is related to the fact that the City's records do not include accidents that occur on highways or
freeways. A better comparison would be with accident rates in a similarly-sized community. For instance,
Novato, CA, a city in Marin County with over 48,000 residents, reported only 671 traffic collisions,
including 122 injuries and 1 fatality in 2000. On a per resident basis, Novato's accident rate is 46 percent
less than San Luis Obispo's rate, and their injury rate is 58 percent less (City of Novato Police
Department, 2001).
San Luis Obispo estimates the total dollar loss of accidents in the City to be$11.9 million in 2001
(SLOPW,2002, p. 14)? However, the City also notes that this is merely the direct economic losses
caused by accidents in the City. The full, or comprehensive, cost is much higher and includes the value of
lost quality of life associated with the deaths and injuries.The report will further detail the costs of
accidents in the policy analysis section and in Appendix B(p.28).
Most injury collisions in San Luis Obispo fall into seven categories. Of these,three are clearly
related to intersections:failure to yield, improper turns,and stop signs/lights.These three categories
accounted for 111 of the 265 injury accidents in San Luis Obispo in 2001, while an additional 70
The Miller report counts 38 accidents occurring in this corridor,but does not include the intersections of Johnson with Higuera
and Monterey Streets,with Monterey St.being the logical conclusion of this commuter corridor.The additional 11 accidents
occurred at these intersections:Higuera(3)and Monterey Streets(8).
Z Based on 2000 cost estimates.
2
,J
accidents were directly related to unsafe speed (SLOPW,2002, p. 11; Miller, 2002, p. 8). Pedestrians in
urban areas are most likely to be injured in crashes at intersections. An examination of fatal pedestrian
crashes in four US cities found 40 percent involving vehicles other than large trucks occurred at
intersections(Insurance Institute for Highway Safety[IIHS], 2002b). One out of three pedestrian fatalities
of people 65 and over occurs at intersections and older pedestrians are disproportionately represented in
crashes involving turning vehicles (ibid).
Location
Johnson Avenue is a major arterial located on the eastern side of San Luis Obispo. It is the only
arterial located east of the railroad and carries traffic from rural areas south of San Luis Obispo, newer
neighborhoods located on San Luis Obispo's south end, and the established neighborhoods located on
the hills on the City's east side(Figure 1, p. 19). It is one of only three roads that connect the east part of
San Luis Obispo with the rest of the community.3 The area is predominately a residential area, but also
contains medical facilities, government offices, and other community centers(Appendix C, p.29).
Johnson Avenue crosses Ella Street between the existing signalized intersections of Bishop Way
and Lizzie Street° Ella Street is a local collector street serving small neighborhoods to the east and west
of Johnson Avenue, an area of approximately 250 residences, with a diversity of housing types.5
Residences on the east side of Johnson have three alternative intersections to enter and depart their
neighborhood, Ella, Iris, and Lizzie, all located within 650'on each other. Ella Street is the primary
intersection for the area west of Johnson, as it is bound by French Hospital, the railroad tracks, and
Terrace Hill. Three alternative routes of ingress and egress exist for vehicles in this neighborhood. All
three connect to Johnson Avenue at an intersection with a traffic light; however, each has safety or
convenience issues related to them. Below is a list of alternative points of entrance and exit to the
neighborhood and issues related to them. Figure 2(p. 20)shows the study area and identifies these
streets and alternate access points.
1) Sierra Way to Bishop Avenue, which then connects to Johnson Avenue. Sierra Way is a narrow
street with an"S"curve on a steep portion of the road and adds over one-half mile to a
northbound trip for the majority of the residents in the study area[except those who live on Sierra].
2) Jennifer Street to Bishop Avenue.This route travels around the south side of Terrace Hill on
several narrow streets before connecting to Bishop Avenue.This route also adds a minimum of
one mile for trips from the study area and includes a difficult intersection at Rachel, Ella and
Jennifer Streets.
3) Ella Street through the French Hospital parking lot and to the intersection of Lizzie and
Johnson.There is no road but numerous(>10) surveyed individuals mentioned this as a
preferred alternate route for safe access to Johnson Avenue. It increases the likelihood of
accidents in the hospital parking lot, which is not currently designed for through traffic.
3 The other two north-south routes are Broad and South Higuera,and the other two connections between east San Luis Obispo
and the rest of town are Orcutt and Tank Farm Roads,both located in the City's southern end
°Lizzie is located approximately 660'to the north and Bishop 1,250' to the south
3 There were 118 single family residences,41 duplexes and multifamily units,and 84 apartments&condominiums identified in
the study area
3
r
l
The Ella Street intersection is a dangerous intersection for the local neighborhood, especially for
people attempting to enter Johnson from the west. Numerous collisions have occurred at..the intersection
in recent years, and due to the high rates of speed on Johnson,these accidents are often serious and
cause injury. According to one resident who has lived on the intersection for 23 years,there have been
three fatalities at the intersection in that time period (Hooley, personal communication, March 16, 2003).
In 2001 four accidents were reported at the intersection and six accidents were reported in 2002.Of these
accidents,four involved vehicles as they were attempting to make a left turn from Ella onto Johnson
(Codron, 2003, memo from: Bochum,T., Deputy Director of Public Works, City of San Luis Obispo, n.d., .
Comparative analysis of intersection safety).
There is currently a proposed new development at the intersection of Johnson and Ella, an
affordable, senior housing project with 40 one-bedroom apartments at 2005 Johnson Avenue, called the
Del Rio Terrace Apartments.The project proponent, San Luis Obispo Non-Profit Housing Corporation,
have successfully received approval for the project from the San Luis Obispo Cultural Heritage
Committee on October 28, 2002 and Architectural Review Committee on February 3, 2003. It has also
received approval fora 58 percent density bonus in addition to the automatic affordable housing bonus of
25 percent from the City Council on January 7, 2003, allowing 40 units to be built on 1.2 acres(Codron,
2003).
The project has been planned to ensure the preservation of a historic farmhouse on site, which will
be reused as a community room and facility manager apartment. It will be moved from its current location
adjacent to the Ella-Johnson intersection, where a parking lot will be constructed with ten spaces. An
attempt has been made to address public concems regarding traffic impacts by proposing a median strip
on Ella Street.This median would prevent left turns from Ella into a proposed upper parking lot.
Most of the neighborhood has not been opposed to the idea of locating the project on the site. The
City mailed notices to 162 units adjacent to the site, and six comment letters or public comments were
received(Codron, 2003).Of these, three dealt with moving the historic house, one with the need for a
traffic light, and one two with the size and scale of the project. Moving the house has been finalized, and
measures have been taken which appear to address size and scale concerns. However,two neighbors
have appealed the Architectural Review Commission's decision based primarily on traffic concerns and a
City Council hearing to address these appeals will occur March 18, 2003.
A second development project has recently been proposed on the east side of the 2000 block of
Johnson Avenue. Access to this project would.be on Fixlini Street via Ella Street.The project is in its early
stages and could potentially consist of 13 luxury homes or 26 condominiums. It has the potential of
adding up to 170 additional vehicles turning at the Ella-Johnson intersection daily.6
History of Johnson Avenue Traffic Issues
Johnson Avenue started to become a major arterial after the Union Pacific Railroad replaced a one-
lane bridge in 1956. Before this time, all traffic had to stop before proceeding under the railroad tracks
(City of San Luis Obispo Department of Community Development, 1998). At that time,the railroad
6 Based upon a standard rate of 6.59 trips per unit of market rate housing.
4
eliminated an alternative traffic route under the railroad that connected Fairview and Penny Streets. A few
years earlier, in 1950, the City of San Luis Obispo relinquished its rights to a surface vehicle crossing
between Osos and Jennifer Streets at the western border of the study area.This decision eliminated an
alternative route into the Ella Street neighborhood and effectively sealed off neighborhood pedestrians
from the rest of downtown until the City constructed a pedestrian overpass at this same location in 1998.
As early as 1972, Johnson Avenue below Ella Street was identified as a significant traffic safety
problem area(Lampman &Associates, 1972). Four blocks north of Ella, the intersection of Johnson
Avenue and San Luis Drive was identified as having the highest incidence of traffic accidents in the City
(ibid, p. 32).The incidence of accidents was 1.87 per million vehicles entering (MEV)the intersection, a
average of 7.5 accidents per year. A traffic light was proposed for the intersection, at a cost of$30,000.7
The intersection was eventually reconfigured through the use of a triangular raised median and a traffic
light. This configuration allowed for a separate signal for right runs from northbound Johnson onto San
Luis.The 2001 accident rate at the intersection is 0.361 MEV, which translated to 3 accidents (SLOPW,
2002, p. 38).
A traffic light had been installed at Sierra Way and Johnson Avenue prior to 1972, an intersection
with serious sight-line issues and high traffic loads due to the presence of numerous public buildings and
private medical centers in the area(Lampman &Associates, 1972).8 A third light was installed at the
Lizzie Street intersection upon completion of the hospital at this location. Today,this intersection serves
French Hospital, the current administrative building for the City school district, and a neighborhood of
approximately 65 residences.9
While the traffic lights at these intersections have not eliminated traffic accidents,the rate of
accidents at these intersections has been reduced through the use of traffic lights, pedestrian crossings,
and other traffic control mechanisms. For instance,the Johnson-San Luis intersection had an average of
five accidents a year between 1977 and 1979, when the traffic count was 18,317 on Johnson and 5,540
on San Luis (Hawkins, 1981). In 2001 there were three accidents at the intersection, while the average
daily traffic count on Johnson had reached 21,091 and 11,431 on San Luis, an increase of 15 percent on
Johnson and 106%on San Luis (SLOPW, 2001).
Traffic and Accidents in the City of San Luis Obispo
In June 2002 the City of San Luis Obispo's Public Works Department issued its inaugural Traffic
Safety Report. It details current traffic conditions throughout the City and includes a detailed review of
accidents at the most accident-prone intersections in the City. As detailed in the report and shown in
Table i (p.16), traffic collisions have increased in the City over the last three years and injury collisions
have also been increasing(pp. 10-11).
Some of the worst traffic safety areas in the City are at intersections along Johnson Avenue.The
2001 Traffic Report(SLOPW, 2002) identified ninety-nine intersections in the City where three or more
collisions occurred during 2001. Ten of these were along Johnson Avenue, including the Ella Street
7$128.250 in current 2003 dollars
s See Appendix C for list of buildings in the area
This is the former junior high school campus.
5
intersection and the following five intersections below it along Johnson Avenue—Iris, Lizzie, San Luis,
Buchon and Pismo. Forty collisions were reported at these ten intersections, including three at Ella Street
(Table 2, p.16).10 Half of these intersections currently have traffic controls at them,while the other five are
all two-way traffic stops,where only cross traffic stops. Of the ten intersections on Johnson with three or
more accidents,the Ella St. intersection ranks seventh on a basis of accidents per million vehicles
entering the intersection. In terms of total vehicles traveling through the intersection, Ella ranks sixth.
However,as shown on Table 2,thirteen accidents occurred within two blocks of the Ella intersection,
indicating traffic problems in this general area."
The intersection of Johnson and Ella is one of many intersections in San Luis Obispo that does not
have traffic lights to regulate the flow of traffic. However, the Ella Street intersection is special due to
several factors:
1) A high number of injury accidents and at least three fatalities have occurred at the intersection.12
2) The average traffic speed at the intersection is high for a residential neighborhood.
3) The sight lines for vehicles attempting to turn from Ella onto Johnson are difficult due to the angle
of both streets,vegetation, and, from the right lane, by cars in the left tum lane.
4) Ella Street is one of only a few streets serving a neighborhood of nearly 250 residences that must
turn onto a major arterial with average daily traffic counts over 20,000. Based on the traffic
entering from Ella Street,the level of accidents is high.13
5) There are two proposed developments that will impact the intersection. One consists of a forty-
unit low-income senior housing units located at the intersection.The second is located less than
one block south on Johnson, but will also utilize the Ella intersection as an access point.
6) Thousands of vehicles from other parts of the City pass through the intersection daily, placing
those that.live near and use this intersection at a higher risk.
Current Traffic
The City of San Luis Obispo most recently collected traffic data in this part of the City in October,
2001.The traffic count data showed that approximately 21,000 vehicle trips are made through the
intersection of Ella and Johnson every day(Table 3, p. 16). By comparison, 1972 data reported
13,000 daily trips in the area and 1979 estimates were 18,317 daily trips(Lampman &Associates,
1972; Hawkins, 1981).Traffic in the area meets current level of service(LOS) standards, but it has
been predicted that based on a build-out plan for the City, the Johnson Avenue corridor would
10 Unpublished accident data for 2002 reports six accidents at the Ella St.intersection,twice as many accidents occurring at the
Ella Street intersection as in 2001 (Codron.2003,memo from:Bochum,T.,Deputy Director of Public Works.City of San Luis
Obispo,n.d.,Comparative analysis of intersection safety).
"Information about the cause of these accidents and whether they involved injuries was not available. However,as stated
elsewhere in the report,determining the cause and the severity of the accidents is critical for determining the best possible
solutions and for allocating City resources most effectively.
�2 Hooley,personal communication,March 16,2003.
13 The peak number of vehicles that enter the Ella intersection.is 131 (A.M.)and 122(P.M.)per hour,based on October 2001
intersection counts.By comparison, 1525(A.M.)and 1297(P.M.)vehicles per hour pass through the intersection at peak times
(City of San Luis Obispo Public Works Department,2001).
6
operate at a LOS"F"during peak periods (DKS Associates, 1989, P. 15).14 A significant increase in
overall traffic can be predicted as San Luis Obispo continues to grow south of Johnson Avenue in the
Orcutt Avenue area, an area where 1,000 new residences have been proposed(Lyons, 2002).
POLICY ALTERNATIVES
This report considers several alternatives to alleviate safety concerns at the intersection of Johnson
and Ella, while promoting efficient traffic flow and allowing development of the lower-income senior
housing project to move forward.The policy alternatives considered include the following options.
1) Reducing the speed limit on Johnson Avenue. Johnson Avenue at the intersection of Ella
Street is designated a 35 mile per hour(mph) speed zone. However,the speed limit is reduced
approximately 350' north of the intersection at the Iris intersection to 25 mph. Moving this
reduction in speed so that it is located south of the Ella intersection, approximately 700', may
make access from Ella to Johnson safer and simpler.
2) Developing traffic calming measures on Johnson Avenue that would reduce traffic speed and
provide some protection for pedestrians as well as vehicles turning from Ella. Traffic calming
measures have gained increasing levels of public support in recent years, and include such
practices as roundabouts,traffic humps, medians, landscaping, lane narrowing, and forced turn
islands.The option to be considered is the use of raised medians on Johnson between Iris and
Ella and the elimination of the left tum lane from southbound Johnson which would provide
merging space for Ella traffic. This would be combined with a right turn slip lane on westbound
Ella to provide pedestrians with a safer crossing on Ella.
3) Installing a traffic signal at the intersection. A traffic signal has the potential to greatly reduce
intersection collisions and allow shorter wait times for vehicles turning at the Ella Street
intersection. A traffic signal is the preferred alternative according to the results of the
neighborhood survey.
POLICY ANALYSIS
Neighborhood Survey
The first goal of this project was accomplished through a seven-day survey of the neighborhood.15
The survey collected 121 separate responses representing 94 distinct households.'6 The survey
13 Level of service(LOS)is a measurement utilized by traffic engineers to determine whether roadways are meeting certain levels
of efficiency in traffic flow.LOS for arterials are based on average travel speeds in an area and are ranked A-F,with A
representing the best operating conditions and F the worst.Each level of service represents a range of operating conditions and is
defined by quantifiable measures known as measures of effectiveness.LOS F is considered to represent stop and go traffic while
Level E represents the maximum flow rate for a travel corridor.LOS can vary at different time periods and many other factors,
from roadway width,grade,intersections,and curb parking all affect levels of service.It is important to note that Los typically
does not take into account safety and perceptions about the service a road provides and the engineering measurements can vary
(Kyte&Teply, 1999).
15 Details about the methods used in the survey are found in Appendix B
16 Twenty-five households had multiple respondents
7
l
respondents believe that the proposed development at the intersection of Ella and Johnson will negatively
impact the safety of the intersection (Table 4,p. 17). Eighty-five percent(n = 103) stated the development
will make the intersection less safe while 4 percent(n=:5)believe it will make it safer. Of the five that
think it will be safer,two believe it will be safer because the new development will create the momentum
necessary for the installation of a traffic signal at the intersection. Another believes the improvements to
the proposed development site, including new sidewalks on the south side of Ella will improve safety for
pedestrians and improve overall site visibility at the intersection. A fourth appeared to check the wrong
box,as the open-ended response immediately following states: "The increased traffic from the complex
would no doubt result in an accident at the Johnson-Ella intersection. Due to the fact that the entrance will
most likely be put in the worst.possible place, getting in and out of the lot will be dangerous."
Intersection safe for vehicles?
A majority of the neighborhood did not feel safe using the intersection in a vehicle (Table 5,p. 17).
Sixty-eight percent(n=78)do not currently feel safe using the intersection in a car, and nearly 20 percent
(n=7) of those who felt safe qualified feeling safe in their open responses, stating such things as
"depends on time of day", "Only when traffic is not heavy...at time[s] I use the hospital route", "I am
extremely cautious when making the turn. It is a risky business, though."The most commonly identified
reason why respondents did not feel safe was because of the high speed of traffic on Johnson. Common
responses were"traffic is usually going past the legal limit"and "Traffic coming down Johnson (both ways)
go to FAST!"
Intersection safety is relative, as evidenced by this response(from a respondent who had recently
moved from Los Angeles): "Fairly low traffic level-good visibility-most people drive at reasonable speeds"
However,this was the only comment that stated traffic speeds on Johnson were reasonable or
appropriate. Most who felt safe at the intersection trusted their driving skills, said they were patient and
safe drivers. In conversation, several people noted that when traffic backs up at the intersection there is
peer pressure from those behind you to turn even if you do not feel safe. Some also noted that people will
honk and try to pressure the front car to turn. A number of respondents believed this would be
exacerbated with more elderly drivers at the intersection, drivers who are often more cautious. National
statistics show that older drivers are six times as likely as younger drivers to be involved in a collision
when turning left at an intersection (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration [NHTSA], 2000a).
A number of comments noted that the safety at the intersection depended upon the time of day, and
the morning was specifically noted as a problem time, especially with traffic heading to San Luis Obispo
High School. One resident noted a neighborhood problem caused by delayed traffic at Lizzie Street
conversationally: parents dropping students off will tum right at Ella and then take Fixlini through the
School District parking lotto the rear of the High School in order to bypass congestion on Johnson.
Intersection safe for pedestrian?
Seventy-one percent of respondents (n=57) who use the intersection as a pedestrian do not feel safe,
while twenty-nine percent(n=23)felt safe (Table 6, p.18). Forty-one respondents did not use the.
intersection as a pedestrian.The most commonly identified issues for pedestrians were the same as for
vehicles:the speed of traffic and too much traffic. However, a significant number of respondents also
8
believe that a lack of safety measures, such as crosswalks or sidewalks (n =7) and a lack of awareness
by drivers(n=8) are reasons why the intersection is not safe for pedestrians..
Several people noted that turning right from Johnson (southbound) onto Ella (westbound) was
hazardous for pedestrians because sight lines were limited. It was also noted that people are searching
for space to turn from Ella onto Johnson and do not pay attention to pedestrians.One person also noted
that people traveling north on Johnson often are changing lanes (to get in the proper lane for the
intersection will San Luis)and thus do not pay attention to pedestrians.Of those that felt safe as
pedestrians,four noted that they only cross Johnson at a signal/crosswalk.
Comparing alternatives
It is clear that leaving the intersection in its current state is not the preferred alternative for a majority
of the neighborhoods' residents.This is based upon concerns expressed by many about the speed and
quantity of current traffic combined with the belief that traffic will become worse in the vicinity of the
intersection with the construction of the new senior housing project. In the neighborhood survey, ten
options for improving the Johnson-Ella intersection were presented to the neighborhood for consideration
and ranking. Respondents could rank each as making the intersection 1) more hazardous, 2) having no
effect, 3) having some effect or safety improvement and 4) making the intersection safest. Table 7(p.18)
presents the results.
A traffic signal was supported by the largest majority of respondents (n=91)who thought it would be
either the safest or have some effect on the safety of the intersection. Using stop signs was also
supported by a majority of respondents, although over one-quarter believed their use would worsen traffic
safety. Despite speed being identified as the primary problem on Johnson, only a slight majority of
respondents believed enforcement would lead to improved safety, and a majority believed that a
reduction in speed limits would have no difference or make the intersection less safe.
The use of some relatively low-cost safety improvements, such as a sidewalk along the south side of
Ella, was supported by over 60 percent of respondents. Surprisingly, 11 percent believe this would
worsen safety at the intersection, possibly by promoting pedestrian activity. Sidewalks in this area will be
a required part of a development plan for the senior housing project. Painting crosswalks at the
intersection was viewed by over half as an improvement, but over a quarter believed it would worsen
intersection safety, possibly because it would promote the appearance of pedestrian safety at an unsafe
intersection.
The use of traffic calming measures such as a landscaped median or roundabout was also rejected
as having no effect or actually worsening the safety of the intersection.This may be due to a lack of
understanding about the success similar traffic calming measures have had in other municipalities, or it
may relate to some other factor(O'Brien& Brindle, 1999; Fehr& Peers Associates, 2002, Ewing, 1999).
While a traffic circle may or may not be appropriate, properly designed medians, including the median on
Ella the City is proposing would reduce traffic conflict points, reduce speeds, and may promote overall
safety at the intersection. (Koepke, 1999; City of Eugene Public Works Department, 2001).
9
How Much to Spend?
Based on limited information on the costs of various alternative treatments for the Johnson-Ella
intersection, survey respondents chose an amount the City should spend on traffic safety improvements
at the intersection. Fifty-eight percent(n=63) of those who believed money should be spent on improving
the intersection thought over$100,000 should be spent on intersection improvements, compared with 13
percent(n=14) who did not think money needed to be spent."The remainder, 42 percent; believed
between $1000 and$99,999 should be spent. Since 92 percent of those surveyed believe a traffic light
would improve safety at the intersection and nearly 60 percent believe the City should spend the money
to implement such a safety measure, it would be difficult not to promote a traffic light at the Ella-Johnson
intersection.
Funding Sources
The neighborhood also rated where the money to fund such improvements should come from (Table
8,p. 18).This assists in measuring the understanding of how traffic improvements are funded. Eighty-five
percent of survey respondents answered the question (n=103)..Among the"other"answers given were
using federal funds,""existing tax revenues,"and"increased ticketing of speeders and reckless drivers."
There appears to be a belief that most of current City funding comes from property taxes and that this
current revenue stream ought to be sufficient to fund improvements to the intersection.The residents of
the City do not appear, based on these results, to be aware that property taxes only account for 31
percent of funds for the City's General Fund (City of San Luis Obispo, n.d.).There was also no
acknowledged awareness that the City is facing a decrease in revenue in the coming years of
approximately$5.5 million per year(City of San Luis Obispo, 2002).
Nearly a quarter of respondents appear aware that new development pays significant impact fees,
including money to fund transportation improvements in the City.While low, 12 percent were willing to
state that the neighborhood should pay to improve the intersection serving their neighborhood. At least
person noted that many other community residents, including those that use the medical offices on Ella
Street, also use the intersection and thus the community as a whole benefits from improving safety at this
intersection
Speed Identified as.Maior Issue
The current speed limit at the Johnson-Ella intersection is 35 miles per hour(mph), which reduces to
25 mph approximately 325' north of the intersection, at Iris Street. However,the current speed of drivers
on Johnson at the intersection is typically above 40 miles per hour.18 The Insurance Institute for Highway
Traffic Safety has identified speeding as a significant issue related to collisions.On its website it details
extensive national statistics relating to traffic safety. In relation to speeding, it states:
Speeding reduces the time drivers have to avoid crashes and lengthens stopping
distances, increasing both the likelihood of crashing and the severity of the crashes that
�7 In additional, 12 people-10 percent—did not respond to this question
18 Speed is typically reported as the 85th percentile speed,with 15 percent traveling faster than the reported speed.The City was
unable to provide this information.The estimate of speed on Johnson is based on a personal evaluation of the speed of cars while
driving through the Ella intersection.
10
do occur. According to the National Highway Traffic.Safety Administration (NHTSA),
speeding is one of the most prevalent reported factors associated with crashes. Speed is
a factor in 29 percent of all fatal crashes, killing an average of 1,000 Americans every
month. In 2000, more than 12,000 people died in speed-related crashes. NHTSA
estimates the economic cost to society of speed-related crashes to be more than $27
billion each year....The greater the energy that must be dissipated[in a collision], the
greater the chances of severe injury or death.The laws of physics tell us that crash
severity increases disproportionately with vehicle speed. A frontal impact at 35 mph,for
example, is one-third more violent than one at 30(2000a).
If speed is as great a concern as residents believe, it is important to focus on mitigation measures
that address the concerns of the neighborhood for their own safety and for the safety of the future senior
residents who will add additional pedestrians and cross-traffic to the intersection. It becomes especially
important since, as was identified by a number of respondents and by others, seniors are slower to
respond, move more slowly and are more likely to be injured or killed in an accident either as a pedestrian
or while in a vehicle (Evans, 1991, p. 40; Insurance Institute, 2000b).
Option 1: Reducing the speed limit on Johnson Avenue.
Reducing the speed limit is often considered a simple and effective method for improving the safety
of an intersection and is intuitively a good idea. Successfully reducing speed limits reduces impacts of
collisions and would reduce the damage to property, reduce injury accidents, and also reduce accidents
at other intersections near Ella, specifically Iris and Lizzie (Kloeden, McLean, Moore,& Ponte, 1997).
While a legal reduction in the speed limit would appear to reduce the speed of traffic; but research has
shown otherwise(Parker, 1992). As stated by Fitzpatrick and Ulman in the Traffic Engineering Handbook:
"if a majority of road users view speed limits as unrealistic for prevailing conditions,the posted speed will
be violated unless strictly enforced"(1999, p. 250). Reducing the speed limit without physically changing
the characteristics of Johnson Avenue will not be effective unless coupled with a significant increase in
police enforcement.
The cost of implementing a speed limit change would be placed on the City police department's
traffic enforcement officers and would effectively reduce the time and money spent on enforcement in
other areas of the City.While the initial cost of approximately$1,000 is inexpensive,the ongoing costs
are significant, especially in the form of opportunity costs in the form of reduced City-wide policing and
traffic enforcement. Feasible levels of policing are not typically considered to have significant or enduring
effects on speeds (O'Brien&Brindle, 1999, p. 289). If lowered speed limits are implemented it may lead
to an unreasonable sense of security by pedestrians, increase the disparity of speeds vehicles travel on
travel, and actually increase the number of accidents.
Reducing the speed limit without taking additional measures to physically reduce the design speed
on Johnson Avenue would fail to meet the major goals of improving intersection safety while not
addressing the other goals of balancing intersection safety with overall traffic efficiency and
understanding the role the proposed senior housing development project performs in promoting
intersection efficiency and safety. The intersection would not be safer and maybe less safe. Vehicle
11
speeds will not decrease simply by changing the legal speed limit on this segment of road.The average
speed will likely continue to be near 40 mph at the Ella intersection. Efficiency for drivers would probably
not be seriously impacted by a reduction in the speed limit, as most would continue to drive the same
speed. In effect, reducing the speed limit is the same as doing nothing.
OOntion 2:Traffic calming:Johnson median and turn restrictions
Traffic calming is defined as"the process of reducing the physical and social impacts of traffic on
urban life, principally through the reduction of traffic speeds..:'(O'Brien&Brindle, 1999, p.262).Traffic
calming can take many forms, often broken down into several broad categories: horizontal treatments,
vertical treatments, and intersection treatments. The first are horizontal treatments and includes
measures that narrow the actual or perceived width of the roadway. These treatments include center
medians, roundabouts, or"choke points"where the road narrows. Narrower roadways lead to reduced
speeds (Swift, 1998).Vertical treatments are most commonly known as speed bumps, but include many
variations including humps,tables, and tumblers. Vertical treatments reduce traffic speeds by physically
changing the engineered standard of the road. Intersection treatments include eliminating turn options
through the use of diverters, extending curbs to reduce the intersection width,the use of traffic circles or
the design of special turn lanes. Intersection treatments may reduce speed but primarily reduce the
number of potential conflict points in an intersection.19 Research has shown that traffic calming
adjustments result in up to a 30 to 80 percent reduction in collisions (Ewing, 1999; Geddes et al, 1996)
and can reduce traffic speeds 20 percent(Mertz, as cited in O'Brien& Brindle, 1999, p. 289). Costs vary
widely depending on the measure used, ranging from $2,500 to over$85,000. Extending the traffic
calming practices over a larger area raises the price considerably. For instance, a raised traffic median is
estimated to cost$15-30,000 per 100' (Litman, 1999).
Eliminating left turns from southbound Johnson onto Ella, adding a median to Johnson Avenue
between Iris and Ella and creating a turn lane slip lane on lower Ella onto Johnson is the proposed traffic
calming method. By placing a raised median in Johnson between Iris and Ella, drivers will perceive a
narrower roadway and reduce their speeds accordingly 20 A right turn slip lane would significantly reduce
the crossing distance for the new elderly residents 21 Reducing the speed from 35 to 30 mph could reduce
the safe stopping distance 248'to 191', a 23%reduction in distance(Neuman &Stafford, 1999, p. 373).
Modifications at the intersection will reduce conflict points, add physical space for cars to safely merge
"Conflict points can be defined as the locations in an intersection where traffic is diverging,merging,weaving or crossing
(Koepke, 1999,p.322).
20 Raised medians are raised barriers in the center portion of the roadway which can provide a space for landscaping
and trees,changing the character of the street and reducing traffic speeds(Pedestrian and Bicycle Information
Center,n.d.).The following web sites provide list and descriptions of various traffic calming measures:
httD7//www.fhwa.dot.p-ov/environment/tr-alm/t)art2.htm htty://www.ite.org/traffic/tedevices.htm
2'The 500i percentile walkingspeed for people over 60 is repotted to be 4.1 ft/sec(Dewar, 1999). A 40 ft.
intersection would take 9.7 seconds to cross. Eliminating the right turn lane and the extra distance caused by the
curb return radii(the setback to facilitate turns by vehicles)could reduce the distance to 25',which would take 37
percent less time to cross and likely reduce the potential for vehicle-pedestrian conflicts.
12
with traffic on Johnson, and better protect pedestrians crossing Ella. A reconfigured Johnson Avenue and
Ella Street intersection is portrayed in Figure 3(p. 21),with longer range intersections shown in blue.
. The estimated cost of 200' of vegetated raised median on Johnson is$60,000, including the
elimination of the left turn lane from Johnson to Ella and replacement with a semi-protected merge lane
for traffic turning left from lower Ella onto Johnson.The creation of a raised diverter between right and left
turning traffic from lower Ella would cost an additional$40,000.Total costs would be approximately
$100,000.
Additionally,the plan would be able to be expanded when future development occurs near the
intersection to further limit the traffic conflict points by eliminating through traffic on Ella and right turns
from Northbound Johnson onto upper Ella. In this longer-range plan, the overall number of potential
conflict points at the intersection from 41 to 17 and the problem of parents using upper Ella and Fixlini as
an alternative route for dropping off high school students would be eliminated. Other traffic calming
measures could be taken on Johnson between Ella and Bishop to reduce the speed of vehicles, provide
safer entry and exit points for public facilities in the area, and create a traffic corridor that promotes
walking, biking, and community.
Implementing traffic calming measures on Johnson Avenue and in the Ella intersection only partially
meets the goal of assisting the neighborhood in its articulation of safety improvements at the intersection.
The measures could meet the goal of improving the safety at the intersection through a reduction in
vehicle speed, a reduction in vehicle conflict points, and a narrower intersection for pedestrians to cross.
However, the neighborhood does not currently believe these measures will be adequate and prefers a
traffic light.Traffic calming in the area would enable the continued efficient use of the intersection, adding
an additional four seconds to most trips through the area. It would eliminate left turns onto upper Ella,
adding additional travel time for residents in this area and additional traffic on neighboring streets.Traffic
calming would enable the senior housing project to move forward while contributing meaningful traffic
improvements in the form of a right turn slip that narrows an intersection that will be frequently utilized by
residents of the project.
Option-3:Traffic light
A traffic light controlling access through the Johnson-Ella intersection for all vehicles is the preferred
alternative for a majority of the neighborhood (83 percent, see Table 7,p. 18).The people in the
neighborhood perceive it to be the best option for improving the safety at the intersection.Traffic lights
are well understood and considered to be effective at reducing intersection collisions. Research is less
conclusive.Traffic signals reduce accidents involving cross traffic, which has accounted for 50 percent of
recent accidents at this intersection,and can also improve the safety at intersections for pedestrians.
However, signals typically increase rear-end accidents and can sometimes, almost inexplicably, lead to
an overall-increase in accidents(University of Massachusetts, 1997; Federal Highway Administration,
2001). An increase in accidents is often related to reduced compliance and red-light running, especially in
corridors with multiple lights. Noncompliance with red lights places pedestrians at extra risk of injury. As
the University of Massachusetts stated in an article about traffic signals, "Where[traffic standards for
signals are] not met, compliance is generally reduced resulting in additional hazards" (ibid).
13
J
A traffic signal at Ella would be the fourth in one-half mile. The optimal design for traffic signals on a
25 mph roadway is at least 1,100', and 1,540'for 35 mph (Koeptke, 1999, p. 338). The distance between
the light at Bishop and Ella, 1650', meets this design standard but the distance between Ella and Lizzie,
660',does not, and the current distance between the light at Lizzie and San Luis, approximately 650',
also does not.A light at Ella would result in a decrease from optimal travel conditions or else would
significantly limit the time allowed for vehicles to turn left from Ella to Johnson. City staff state that a light
will add travel time to all vehicles except for during the AM peak period (Codron, 2003, p. 18).While the
signal at Ella would not add more than a minute to the travel time for Johnson Avenue travelers; it is
possible that stopping for multiple red lights could add several minutes to overall travel time.
Installing a traffic signal at the intersection will cost a minimum of$120,000. Coordinating the signals
at the three adjacent intersections to work more efficiently together will add an additional$30,000 to the
cost. In addition, operation and maintenance costs are approximately$3,000 each year(Wallwork, 2001).
A traffic signal would meet the first goal by both meeting the neighborhood's desire for a traffic light and
would likely reduce the number of left turn accidents at the intersection, even though a signal would likely
increase the total number of accidents. It would not meet the second goal of maintaining efficiency,
although it can be argued that the safety benefits outweigh the overall efficiency goal. A signal would
allow the development project to move forward and provide additional safety for elderly drivers and
potentially for pedestrians at the intersection.
Conclusion
Although there was not broad support in the community,the benefits of utilizing traffic calming
mechanisms, specifically a raised median, restricted intersection movements at Ella, a right tum slip, and
a reduction in the traffic speed to 30 mph are the preferred alternative to address traffic safety concerns
at the Johnson-Ella intersection.The calculated benefit-cost ratio for option 2-traffic calming is 24.6,
compared to 6.8 for a traffic signal(Appendix D, p. 30).
However, in order to better accomplish the primary goal of the analysis, a community meeting, or
series of meetings, should be held during which the traffic calming measures can be explained and the
likelihood of additional accidents caused by an unwarranted traffic signal can be presented. In order for
traffic calming to be successful, the neighborhood needs to support it and understand the goals behind it.
Residents also need to better understand the tradeoffs of efficiency and safety at the intersection. If the
neighborhood remains opposed to traffic calming as a preferred alternative, the option should be
presented to allow the neighborhood to pay for the difference in the costs of installation, $50,000.
The total cost of implementing this alternative is less than the cost of a traffic light, has fewer
ongoing operation and maintenance costs associated with it, and is more likely to reduce overall
accidents at and near the intersection.Traffic calming will accomplish this by adding design elements to
the roadway that better segregates traffic, reduces conflict points at the Johnson-Ella intersection,
providing a safer environment for all pedestrians to cross Ella, and reduces average speeds on Johnson.
Traffic calming will add an additional 4 seconds to most trips through this area, but will not lead to the
14
I �
occasional extended delays and overall reduction in traffic flow throughout the day caused by a traffic
light.
Although traffic calming costs significantly more than simply reducing the speed limit, evidence from
around the world shows that it works while speed reductions do not. Reducing legal speed limits without
changing the design of a roadway simply places more drivers in conflict with the law. In order to create a
more livable neighborhood for residents that promote interaction and pedestrian activity while allowing the
efficient flow of through traffic on a major City arterial, the specified traffic calming measures are the most
effective method. In order to be effective and to be accepted by the neighborhood, a traffic safety
committee should be formed that will act as a liaison between the neighborhood,the Council, and the
transportation engineer and transportation planner.The committee should be involved in neighborhood
outreach and education about the costs and benefits of different alternatives to intersection safety.
In the future, additional steps need to be taken to ensure the continued improvement in safety for
the neighborhood around Johnson and Ella Streets. Some steps have already been outlined by the City
are are discussed in Appendbc E(p.33). If San Luis Obispo continues to grow on its southern periphery,
measures need to be taken to reduce the impacts of additional traffic on the established neighborhoods of
the City. A traffic study should be conducted in the area that considers the effects of"build-out"on the
Johnson Avenue corridor and plans should be developed proactively to mitigate for additional volume,
noise, pollution, and accidents.
For the neighborhood below Johnson,the City should plan to develop a traffic route on the west
and north side of French Hospital that will connect the neighborhood to the intersection at Lizzie that
already has a signal.This idea was identified recently by the City and should be pursued to provide a safe
access point for residents (Codron, 2003, p. 53). Additional medians and"bulbouts"on Johnson should
be utilized to reduce noise and speed impacts and to create a boulevard that the neighborhood can be
proud to live near rather than feel as though they must live along a speed corridor that moves other
people through their neighborhood.22Maximizing motorists'speeds will occur at the expense of the
current and future residents of these neighborhoods and will only contribute to a decline in the quality of
life in a part of the City that could contribute to trip reduction if safe and adequate measures are
implemented to slow through vehicular traffic on Johnson Avenue.
22 Bulbouts refer to curb extensions at intersections that reduce curb-to-curb roadway travel lane widths.
15
TABLES
Tab-e 1,'_Crty r de` -Ili syon;:lnjury and;Fat Clra he T a WT�TotalCrashes Reported InjuryCrashes "
? At % % % '
Intersections Change Total Change Total Change 'Total '
1999' 587 - 910 - 240 - 2_
2000 646 +10.05 1025 +12.57 269 +12.08 2f
2001 '- 766 +18.58 1139 +11.12 265 -1.5 A
4 Source San Luis Obispo Public Woks f)e�5artment`2001 Anrivafiraffic safety report
:Table 2=2001 Accident Indidence,Accidents periMilhon.Entenng.Vehlicles'(MEV)& ~-
Intersection Volume at Johnson-Avenue Intersections' rr
.'rr t r:.:. �iiFC>l�i"' E'v ._u"'4 - 41hi•F+1 ''Y r.,?`'1 S�ryt't7T, t, �=t �f n�J— �r"cy 't`e1 y, I'.._,G .v
r;�•,r> �� "%t`�' �""u��'��'�trr"�t�'.r�s��" �a'�,a� �' ,`�. t.�ln)ury.��,`.� Dlstance.from
- Atxidents Accidents per �,Entenng Accidents Ella Intersection
;intersection r e # s` t" ��rkMEV `, '� Volume ?2001 1 y'z T 2 rn es '� taw
_- Monterey ,N';r� 8 ,; t��• ,�1,:354 `',, �.�''`H16 184 r,�:�;� �` sti�;z-�`.,�' ,p�w,0 67;-�^�.i
Higuera�, 3 Lti0508 k'' ''4. 16�173 �a`� ' =`0.6 'i
�
Pismo 3 0.359 22,926 0.41
Buchon 4' c °0:432 =°'.° 25,394
..:San Luis 3 :� ,_.;_0.361 ? ;E^22;782.x":' x" . ;� 6,_'0,26
Lizzie 5 0.629 21,768 - 0.13
Iris 5 0.652 21,000 est. - 0.08
Ella 32 0.392 20,983 est. - -
a,?,�, ,
,
:,0r66tt
Source San L Us Obispo.Public Works Department 2001 Annual traffic safety report&
//maps slocitJ ora/website/trafficcounts/viewer htm? ; ? f:, y w
.Data not available ?Six ecciderits were reported in 2002 Data.for_other,intersections not yet available
Table 3—Traffic Count Data from Johnson Avenue near the Ella Street Intersection
Nearest intersection Average Average Notch- South- Peak Peak
Daily Trips Daily Trips bound bound Traffic Traffic
(Online Traffic (Annual ADT ADT AM (per PM (per
count) Traffic Safety
Report) hour) hour)
Johnson south of Bishop 15,631 - _ -
Johnson& Ella 19,260' 20,983 9,843 9,777 1,766' .1,542•
Johnson& Lizzie 20,048' 21,768 10,048 9,696 -
Johnson &San Luis 22,782 - - _-
Johnson below San Luis 21,091' - 14,179 6,913 2,084' 1,342'
San Luis north of 11,431• 5,914 5,517
Johnson
Source:City of San Luis Obispo Public Works,2001 Annual Traffic Safety Report& httpj/mapsslc)city.org/Wi rhtm
Note:Some numbers do not add up between columns because information was collected from multiple sources and is likely based on traffic
counts conducted at different times
'Figures collected in Oct 2001
16
Table 4 ;Res p onses to`"Will anew deVelo ment
make`the EIIa;Johnson intersection less safe; >'��
safer;or have rio effect?" ' ' ' `, y
`�`° k,�, r� � :responses J,:responses
More traffic/congestion/busier 70 48%
Older people slower/less 24 16%
aware/physically challenged
More pedestrians 18 12%
Needs traffic light 12 8%
Seniors are poor drives 9 6%
Entrance/exit from 7 5%
development
Other responses:"Poor visibility(3),safer-seniors drive
less, improved visibility'(2 each)'
Total responses: 147
Responses total more than number of survey respondents due to_
multiple answers to question.'
Source:Neighborhood survey,February 2003
liable 5 Responses"to ,To you feel safe m a vehiycyle�Why's"
r+ k. , �f�\Y. ,S�'h 7 ,�.. r i �.yif'f' +,C»t�m'N^"off •f-"S-=~ .+' ,� .+e. - _
Fs n:.vaz a. •F' .i, _t`'�' 4 .` ,, ;:' S..� t.. ;ty AO ej � . '.
total;�es onses NO
Speed too high 39 25%
Too much traffic 38 24%
Depends in time of day 16 10%
Poor visibility 15 10%
Use alternative light when busy 8 5%
Needs traffic light 6 4%
YES
I'm a safe driver 11 7%
Not too busy/visibility fine 7 4%
Other responses Young drivers(5);elderly vers&pedestrians�4), Grade of
street(3),tallgaters (2�,Uming;ofallghts, congestion at doctors office (each 1)
Total:•r-te. st ponses..nT156(due to multiple responses)
.,-,.. .Y.-b.-. - W x> ^�- "• r 'ts: „ •fir r� . -r
Source:Nei hborhbbd&urve `•Febiva 2003 ' ' t.
17
Table 6,�R,esponse o �Do 'ou�feel5afe as: pedestrtan?Why?r,;�.;
Res _ ns._�# .,,,, ftotal'res onses
NO
Speed too high °:`'s, 31
Too much traffic 12 13%
Use Lizzie as an afternative/cross at light 10 ` 11%
Drivers unaware of pedestrians 8 9%
Needs crosswalk/sidewalk 7 t 8%
Needs a light 6 7916
Poor visibility = 4 ;" 5%
', �,' 4 c`"moi 3^S w `v r•�i ��.'� Gc - 'I -
Otherresponses �k!I,f Jrun/move fast(3),II'm safe/�nnlhng^;to wait,�not too busy/good
Filr. enn nrq c cam. H{a a sn
v�sibl6ty, timing of ights`Sgll 2)�youn'g4peopli§,iig ddiaq of streett }tailgating/cars too�close -
(all �c,_ tie , ,Aw
;�
.} {moi U a� � ^.n •rp]t �m '`.Total responses 90 ((da to mulnpie espons ' "�
-r i f��.f¢�;;��S`y•^{'T�W� f.6�t•r M�cont 'y..'k�9t••'�'Y `� b.
' .+' � n IS�,�G�kSe}4 'C�
Source:Nei hborhood Surve )Februa 2003 `�r .r, * i N§t , �`
_xi'� , rs mrtn-.s" 4 t •rC�'t Ty> 4u�t� n 3'„ �,rt ,„•..�' „+a r r
Table 7 Options to Improve intersection.Safety? , w ,
` ' c�
�yy.. +' +wi`w\ yye,�•d3f� .+t. t t�'n - mac-.. c c _
t r'S' O K '"s�lt
t ti yF •-yih`&a1 .D] f i •P i ,{ �v O. C ', k} .$ r
O
's `�'•3 ] ,� .a 1 tj, �� •; O uy�;,}O l°,.Scai7U.:C 10`a'yiYl'-'����y�"i�.^.J,U �� 40J � �•�k3,•�m pZr`.�.r� C'O r�'y ���N `} A'O
•... 'N Y <4 ��} 7'>'a�,0. �Lm��•W. ,, tO�,N 4Q) '4N'� i?O�.ts,ms="`Y�' ,F,Ja.O^N C F-.;,{x'00 N Ol' r}•O 7;.
�a• , r.. x -x, n ?ti}.. �O.f r 1�� C'.'y"" 'fC 9X .O:i„ i•O� O•hO1�C..0 t m.: '^Oi4�'t0 C mL '-x`.(`_1:0
'�
..Y'..i- 1{��..,,. -wi.^.. 4�z'rY.:ti.:•�e� :)P!'M C!?L �Ta .Li?.aL'"..A'F�i/.-.,,:.it_K?.'S�4T'�2r+f; � �,l � � �.
O• 1 'S' ° ) af/ :O� ° sl' *2 /6
Y^ti cy+ tart.i r,K t ^34) Safest ti 83 k C� 29 fo 3 28/o•s° w 7r/o� ;�Y �' 11,0r2WY,�t11 14% ' T 2'/0Some safety r rtt� ' 1, 1I - w , ,,.ixs4j i!~' �r,v ,,."r.rSoo'e'.2., t7' � .tY IRtpr)vement 1,9% ,#34'/0; 3%i s33°y��� "h%� X31`%} ” 89% '4"7, 5 ° i :'yt� �' �� 'y I
2) NO GY dt RiY�n:'tr?3 yy�n ���� Qa4 � y�y� 1 rjy� 1✓3/0yi als/0.
0�• s+c"C •kIl ",'�}•° �. ,v"tc'o'i"Yi3� 37% 4 K� FsaX a?+` .c o ._
difference a itno sv 2e•% § u 32/o 37%( :7- -1729. y /o=_
1 Less safe •4%'�"s26%'rte :+nil%�G" 8% `� i27% �:?r`�1. 16%0 14%��u ' 17% .. " 41% .. 53%
Res 9 ndents # '99 m 92 ? 88 CA---i; 390 ' :? ? 87� x'85 4`' r 89 i=` <' 84
Note:Some columns do not add up to;t00%due to rounding f-The number of respondents vanes as some respondents did not reply to every '
option:_Generally the hiimber of responses relates to the level of support an option had,among respondents�Ani$her cause was an inability to
decide what effect some_options would have on ihtersecUon"_safety `= .��,fix , * rte°
Source:Nei q h b o r h o 6 d surve�,'Februa 2003 x TIF v x
Table B Sourice of,funds for�„ntersection safety Improvements
xN Yv r -
UJ ,.J�.
Rf "' �Y tuber
arc n
Neighborhood pro PKKIWassessm6rit
Citywide property tax 54 41%
-
Othe(,mti�
r � r-Lx'i.�e'X'"R'v
No answer/don't think r
Im
,?,'k p
:needed
c.n-+Tr`�N w� z -tr w s `7 ��' k �° s•" � =-�-^�`� �'x%-6's k� z s :, r`:'
}Totals do not.add up to 1.00%due to rounding Total number>a12t due to multiple`responses 1
Uf6
e4!'i+ �, �,ls�vi^,r mow.?,'=.'^.�.}LI'a,��l Craws rl.Jj 1,C.}mY40i%r"V^9..,Sn•,�y'r,C 1' Y}t c iJ. y
SO :Nel htio�Fiood Surve =Fetirua 2!)03,r� :{.hc.,�..3_:_��. ;i�!�.t��+•+'_,i °. :SIJ .,,tia::� z,,aR. .,,.y:�
18
Figure 2: Study area
0
San Luis Obispo
High School
�+ San Luis Obispo School
District Admin.Bldgs
h
French
Hospi
•
® opowd ho
� roiect 4
O
General Hospital
a o�
m
0
�e . tree
Terrace Hill
N 440 220 0 440 Feet
+ = = = = =
Study area outlined in yellow
Johnson - Ella intersection noted with red
Railroad noted in green
20
Figure 3: Intersection with Traffic Calming Option 2
Ella
N
Northbound Johnson (toward downtown)
Raised median
suture
opportunities w
traffic calming
Southbound Johnson Ave. .................. -........lsiands and
.. ..'.:outs
Elimination of left turn Right turn slip and
from Johnson to Ella raised pedestrian
island
City-proposed
median
blocking left
turns into
senior housing I Proposed Low
upper parking
lot income senior
Lower r housing project
Flla
Proposal
1) install a raised traffic median for approximately 200 feet between Ella and Iris
Streets, including a curb extension that eliminates left turns from Southbound Johnson
to Ella St.:while creating a formal merging area for traffic from lower Ella
2) install a right tum slip and pedestrian island on lower Ella St.
3) install signs prohibiting through traffic on Ella
Conflict Points:'
Eliminating left_turns from southbound Johnson, segregating the right.turn from lower
Ella, providing.a merge area for traffic.from lower Ella, and,eliminating through
traffic on Ella reduces the number of potential conflict points at the intersection from
40 to 18:
Future:
If in the future lower Ella is connected to Johnson via Lizzie the left:turn-option could
be-removed and the median extended across Ella, allowing only left'turh movements
from northbound Johnson to Ella.
21
Appendix A: Neighborhood Survey
A surrey of the neighborhood immediately surrounding the intersection was conducted between
February 22nd and the 28"', 2003, in order to obtain the following information.
■ neighborhood demographics
■ information about the current use of the Johnson—Ella intersection
■ perceptions regarding the safety or lack of safety the neighborhood feels when using the
intersection either as a pedestrian or in a vehicle
the level of support for various options to improve traffic safety at the intersection
■ a sense of the amount of money people believe should be spent on the safety improvements at
the intersection
• the perceived impacts if new development occurs there
The neighborhood surveyed is a mixed neighborhood, containing some of the City's earliest housing
and housing representing nearly every decade since.The neighborhood consists of 243 housing units,
including:
C 133 single family residences (58)
C 15 additional units on a single lot (thus 14 of the 138 single family residences include a 2nd unit)
(1)
■ 20 condominiums (12)
• 64 apartment units (15)
■ 11 duplex or triplex units (4)
Immediately beyond the study area on the west end of Ella Street there are an additional 39 housing
units that likely use the Ella intersection for some or all vehicle trips. However, residents along these two
streets were not included in the survey.
I determined the approximate population of the study area through the use of census data(Census
2000).The study area falls into nine different block and four block groups. Five of these blocks are
entirely within the study area, while the other four are only partially contained within the study area. Thus,
it was necessary to do some extrapolation from the census data.The average household size for all nine
census tracts is 2.33 and the study area should therefore contain approximately 566 persons. Again,
based upon census data for the nine blocks, there would be approximately 62 would be children under
the age of 16 and therefore 504 potential survey respondents.
I attempted to collect a random sample of the neighborhood by dividing the area into two sections.
Within the section closest to the intersection I visited every household. I either left a survey directly with
an individual and a set pickup time, left a survey with an attached note, or revisited the residence on a
later date. From this area I collected 71 surveys.This included 9 surveys from employees at medical
offices near the intersection. For the section of the neighborhood further from the intersection, 1 followed
the same format but stopped at every other household. From this section I collected 50 surveys, for a
total of 121 surveys.
The best survey response came when I spoke directly with a resident and was able to have the
survey filled out while I waited.Of those I spoke to directly, only three residents were completely unwilling
to take and agree to fill out a survey. For people who agreed to fill out a survey at the time of my visit on
within one hour, my response rate was 95 percent(n = 72). If a person was unable/unwilling to fill out the
survey at the time, the response rate dropped somewhat, but was still over 60 percent(n=32). At
residences where I left a survey and a note, the survey response rate was approximately 50 percent(n =
17). There was no clear bias toward respondents with whom 1 spoke directly. It is possible that people
who did not respond do not think the intersection is unsafe and thus were unwilling to spend the time to fill
out the survey.
Of the total surveys collected, 25 were from households with multiple respondents. These included
single family houses where as many as three related adults each responded with a survey.This also
included households of students where as many as three unrelated students responded. All households
were free to have all adults respond to the survey, but many did not choose to do so. Several times a
respondent stated that their views would be the same as their spouse or partner and they did not need
two surveys. In cases where multiple surveys from the same household were collected, responses would
typically be similar but not identical.
Confidence intervals
Based upon 504 potential respondents,the results of my study should be accurate within 8 percent
at a 95%confidence interval.Thus, if a result in the study states 62 percent of respondents believed an
22
intersection was safe, this should be interpreted to mean that there is a 95 percent level of confidence
that between 54 and 70 percent of the total population in the study area would believe the intersection
was safe. In order to have an accuracy of 5 percent I would have needed to collect an additional 98
surveys, and time and finances did not allow this level of accuracy. Due to the small sample size relative
to the population, it was not possible to carry out a statistical analysis of the results.
Coding open-ended answers
Instead of using independent coders, I coded the open-ended responses to the survey.This was
done due to a lack of both time and money. Thus there is no test of intercoder reliability on the open-
ended questions. However, most responses easily fit into seven categories for vehicles (speed, traffic,
poor visibility, personally safe, not too busy, traffic light, and Lizzie as alternative)six for those who
identified themselves as pedestrians (speed, traffic, Lizzie as alternative, drivers unaware, needs
crosswalk/sidewalk, traffic light) and five when asked why new development will make the intersection
safer or less safe(traffic, elderly are slower, more pedestrians,traffic light, and elderly are bad drivers).
In each case these categories captured a significant portion of the total responses to the open-ended
questions(94%, 82%, and 95% respectively).
Comparing survey respondents to census data
The age of the survey respondents was similar to the census blocks groups that encompass the
study area. It is difficult to make a direct comparison between census tract data and the study area, as
the study area includes parts of four different census block groups and these groups include area that are
different from the study area in housing type.The entire study area is included in census tract 110, which
was used to compare ages.
A comparison of ages in the study area and the census tract is in Table B1. As the table show,there
are more young and old people in the census tract than among those surveyed from the study area. I do
not believe this represents a sampling error, but represents a difference in the study area compared to
the census tract.The larger census tract includes a large number of apartments, large single family
houses, and condominiums.The study area is comprised of a large number of smaller homes that
appeared to be owned by younger families who have moved into San Luis Obispo in recent years and
cannot afford larger homes.This may also account for the larger percentage of families with children,
26%in the study area compared to the census tract where 21%of households had children. Another
reason why the survey results do not reflect the older population in the census tract may be an
unwillingness of seniors to answer their doors or to reply to the survey. Finally, only three survey
respondents were between the age of 15 and 19, as most respondents were primary householders and
not the children of householders.
Table B1: Percentage of Each Age Group, In addition, it is not possible to directly
study area vs. census tract compare the mean age between the survey
respondents(sixteen and older, mean age
Study o /o Census o Difference 42.7 years)and the census tract(all ages,
/o
area tract 110 /o mean age 34.3 years). However the
Age(years) frequency between sexes is comparable.The
15-24 20 30 -10 survey respondents were 50.4 percent male,
25-34 17 13 4 while the census tract as a whole is 48.9
percent male.This 1.5 percent difference is
35-44 14 14 0 within a margin of error.
45-54 24 14 10
55-64 17 8 9 Measurements of association
65-74 5 7 -2 A cross-tabulation was conducted on the
75-84 2 8 -6 independent variables and responses to
85+ 1 2 5 -3 whether the respondent felt safe or unsafe at
Totals do not add up to 100%due to rounding the intersection in a vehicle (Table 62)and
Source:'Survey and Census 2000 as a pedestrian (Table B3). Older people who
have lived in the neighborhood a longer time
and live closer to the intersection feel less safe using the intersection in a vehicle. For pedestrians, the
results are more mixed. The middle age bracket, 33-50 years,feels the least safe. Those that have lived
in the neighborhood a short(<2 years) and a long (>12 years) period of time feel less safe as a
pedestrian.There is little difference between the distance from the intersection and whether a respondent
23
feels safe as a pedestrian. Overall there is little difference between men and women and how they feel
either in a car or as a pedestrian about the intersection's safety. None of the measures of association
were found to be significant using a chi-square analysis.
Table B2: Cross-tabulation on respondents and vehicle safet
Age-years(1) Sex(2) Years in current residence(5) Intersection
Safe in a 0-1 2-3 4-11 12-60 Close to Far from
vehicle (9b) 16-32 33-50 51-90 Female Male year years years years intersection intersection
Yes 45% 28% 24a/a 30% 34% 43% 38% 23% 27% 31% 40%
No 55% 72% 76% 70% 66% 57% 62% 77% 73% 69% 60%
n=38 n=39 n=38 n=56 n=58 n=28 n=26 n=22 n=30 n=88 n=25
Chis uare:.117 Chi-square: .638 Chi-square:.365 Chi-s uare:.381
Source:Neighborhood survey,February 2003
Table 133: Cross-tabulation on respondents and pedestrian safe
Age-years(1) Sex (2) Years in current residence(5) Intersection
Safe as a
pedestrian 0-1 2-3 4-11 12-60 Close to Far from
(11d) 16-32.33-50 51-90 Female Male year years years years intersection intersection
Yes 35% 21% 31% 68% 27% 24% 39% 33% 23% 30% 29%
No 65% 79% 69% 32% 73% 76% 61% 67% 770/6 70% 71%
n=23 n=28 n=29 n=41 n=38 n=17 n=18 n=15 n=26 n=61 n=17
Chi-s uare:.545 Chi-square:.642 Chi-s uare:.641 Chi-square:.994
Source:Neighborhood survey,February 2003
Respondents included only those who reported being a pedestrian on Johnson and/or Ella
24