Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-17-2018 Item 08 SB1 2018-19 Project List Meeting Date: 4/17/2018 FROM: Daryl Grigsby, Public Works Director Prepared By: Matt Horn, Deputy Director Public Works / City Engineer SUBJECT: RESOLUTION CONFIRMING THE 2018-19 LIST OF PROJECTS FUNDED BY SB-1: THE ROAD REPAIR AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT RECOMMENDATION Adopt a Resolution defining a list of projects funded by SB-1 (The Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017) for Fiscal Year FY 2018-19. DISCUSSION On April 28, 2017, the Governor signed Senate Bill (SB) 1 (Beall, Chapter 5, Statutes of 2017), which is known as the Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017 (RMRA). RMRA addresses basic road maintenance, rehabilitation and critical safety needs on both the state highway and local roadway systems. RMRA provides funding by charging: 1. An additional 12 cents per gallon increase on the gasoline excise tax effective November 1, 2017. 2. An additional 20 cents per gallon increase on the diesel fuel excise tax effective November 2, 2017. 3. An additional vehicle registration tax called the “Transportation Improvement Fee” with rates based on the value of the motor vehicle effective January 1, 2018. 4. An additional $100 vehicle registration tax on zero emissions vehicles model year 2020 or later effective July 1, 2020. The City is estimated to receive approximately $834,400 RMRA funding over the 2018-19 Fiscal Year and over $1,000,000 per year at full implementation. RMRA funds will be programmed and prioritized with each future 2-year financial plan along with other Capital Improvement Plan projects. In March 2018, the California Transportation Commission (CTC) published draft guidelines for programming and reporting on the use of RMRA funds. Each May 1st the City must submit a project list to the CTC and each October 1st the City must submit a project expenditure report. Recommended Project List Concrete Paver Sidewalk Portions of the sidewalk on Santa Barbara Street from Broad to Leff are constructed of wood planks which was the City’s standard installation for sidewalk in the Railroad District. The boardwalk sidewalk does not have the required lifespan for municipal operations. On May 16, 2017, the City Council approved a new concrete paver style sidewalk to replace the boardwalk sidewalks (See attachment A). This project will replace all the boardwalks with the new concrete paver style sidewalk. The estimated cost of this work is $400,000. The recommended Packet Page 43 8 funding level from RMRA is $350,000 leveraging $50,000 of sidewalk replacement funding budgeted in the 2018-19 fiscal year. The project is anticipated to start construction in late summer 2018 pending Council approval. El Capitan Bridge The El Capitan Bridge connects El Capitan Way neighborhood to the Fuller Road / Poinsettia Street / French Park neighborhood via a trail. Several years ago, a large tree fell on the El Capitan Bridge catastrophically damaging the bridge. On October 24, 2017, the City Council reviewed the current condition of the private El Capitan Bridge and determined that this facility should be publicly owned and maintained as well as authorized funding to commence the design work for bridge replacement (See attachment B). This project will replace the existing bridge with a new bridge. The estimated cost of this work is $100,000, matching the recommended funding level from RMRA funds. The project is anticipated to start construction in fall 2018. Broad Street Bike Boulevard Phase I The Broad Street Bike Boulevard Phase I connects Pacheco Elementary School to the neighborhood south of Foothill Boulevard by constructing a Class I bike path between Foothill and Ramona and installing a bicycle and pedestrian crossing at Foothill and Ferrini (See attachment C). This project is the first phase of a larger effort to provide a safe, low-stress route for bicyclists and pedestrians connecting the downtown core to the school, neighborhoods and shopping north of Foothill Boulevard. The estimated cost of this Phase I work is $900,000, including right-of-way acquisition. The recommended funding level from RMRA funds for FY 2018-19 is $384,400. The City has additionally submitted a grant request to SLOCOG to assist with the Safe Route to School component of the project. The project is anticipated to start construction in early 2019. Project Location 2018-19 Anticipated Start of Construction 1. Concrete Paver Sidewalk Santa Barbara – Broad to Leff $350,000 Summer 2018 2. El Capitan Bridge El Capitan Way $100,000 Fall 2018 3. Broad Street Bike Boulevard Phase I Foothill Blvd at Ferrini $384,400 Summer 2019 Total: $834,400 Estimated SB-1 Funding (subject to change) $834,400 The recommendation of this report establishes a project list for the Fiscal Year 2018-19. The establishment of this project list does not commit these RMRA funds to these projects. Council could, at any point prior to expenditure, change funding priorities based upon newer or better information. Any project list changes would be communicated to the CTC via the annual expenditure report in October each year. Council will again have an opportunity to determine whether to use these funds for this work prior to advertising each project for construction bids. Packet Page 44 8 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW There is no environmental impact resulting from approval of this item. Individual projects funded under this revenue source will be required to satisfy environmental review, if required, as part of project development and approval. FISCAL IMPACT There is no new fiscal impact to this request, however, the initiative to repeal RMRA is currently circulating for petition, and if enough signatures are achieved the ini tiative would appear on the November 6th, 2018 ballot. Staff is aware of the potential for repeal and if that occurs staff will reassess options and return to Council with recommendations for budget amendments as necessary. ALTERNATIVE The City Council could deny adoption of the resolution to fund these three capital improvement projects using RMRA funds. This is not recommended as the projects are eligible for RMRA funding. Each of the projects improves critical safety needs on the City’s local streets and road system. Attachments: a - Concrete Paver Sidewalk b - El Capitan Bridge c - Broad Street Bike Blvd d - Draft Resolution Packet Page 45 8 Meeting Date: 5/16/2017 FROM: Daryl Grigsby, Public Works Director Prepared By: David Athey, Supervising Civil Engineer SUBJECT: RAILROAD DISTRICT SIDEWALK ENGINEERING STANDARD MODIFICATION RECOMMENDATION 1. Approve modifications to the Railroad District Sidewalk Engineering Standard 4150; and 2. Approve a new Railroad District Tree Well Engineering Standard 8135. DISCUSSION This staff report requests the approval of modifications to Engineering Standard 4150 and approval of new Engineering Standard 8135. Engineering Standard 4150 provides construction details for Railroad District boardwalk sidewalk. The proposed Engineering Standard 4150 modifications substitute colored concrete pavers for the current wood boardwalk sidewalk. This change was initiated to reduce ongoing maintenance requirements and risk of people tripping and falling. The establishment of Engineering Standard 8135 is being proposed to establish a new tree well standard for the board walk sidewalk. The new standard will bring railroad tree well construction in line with the rest of the City. The proposed Engineering Standards are a result of a year-long public review input process. Background The Railroad District sidewalk is one of three standard sidewalk designs within the City of San Luis Obispo. The other two standard designs include the downtown mission style sidewalk and regular sidewalk used throughout the City. The Railroad District Sidewalk Standard was established in 1998 along with the Railroad District Design Plan. The boardwalk sidewalk design is used to honor the historic and cultural roots that San Luis Obispo has with the railroad. Once installed, the boardwalk sidewalk works well for a couple of years but then starts to require excessive maintenance. Examples of required maintenance include protruding screws and warped, rotted, and splintered boards. A picture showing typical boardwalk sidewalk maintenance needs is shown to the right. Therefore, staff initiated a public process to change the sidewalk standard to eliminate the trip and fall hazards, provide a context appropriate sidewalk, and reduce long-term maintenance costs. City staff started the public input process by soliciting boardwalk sidewalk replacement ideas Picture 1 – Existing Boardwalk Sidewalk Packet Page 46 8 from local design firms. A total of five different designs were submitted by local firms. The ideas ranged from stamped concrete to concrete pavers. Each of the designs included elements that would mimic boards or railroad track type elements. In addition, staff researched boardwalk replacement ideas including using recycled plastic decking, stamped concrete that mimics the look of wood, and hard woods such as Ipe as replacements. Staff visited Morro Bay to view both recycled plastic boardwalk and stamped concrete sidewalk. With this information, staff submitted a planning application to start the Boardwalk Standard Modification process. Public Works and Community Development staff worked together to present several design options to the Cultural Heritage Commission. Staff met with the Cultural Heritage Commission on August 24, 2015, to present options for boardwalk replacement. The replacement options included ideas ranging from brick and concrete pavers, stamped concrete, and wood replacements. A matrix comparing the benefits and disadvantages of each was presented to the Cultural Heritage Commission. Staff recommended the use of stamped concrete to maintain the appearance of wood planking. Other interested parties including Railroad Museum representatives spoke on the subject and supported the use of an alternative material. The Cultural Heritage Commission ultimately recommended that staff investigate the use of pavers rather than stamped concrete. In addition, the Cultural Heritage Commission requested that staff meet with the San Luis Obispo Railroad Museum group to gather input on the proposed substitute design. Public Works staff met with the San Luis Obispo Railroad Museum Board on December 8, 2015, to discuss the various options previously outlined at the Cultural Heritage Commission meeting. The Museum Board was not in favor of stamped concrete solution as it was perceived as too artificial for the historic district. The Railroad Museum Board also let staff know that while the boardwalk was meant to mimic the historic sidewalk in the area, no record of a wood boardwalk exists. After the Railroad Museum Board discussed the options, unanimous feedback was given for providing an option that included using pavers rather than stamped concrete or a wood substitute. In addition, the Railroad Museum Board also requested that the final paver design not include elements that mimic train tracks (rails and ties) since they have plans to include those elements in a sidewalk near the museum. Staff subsequently prepared a supplement to the planning application that outlined Public Works recommendation to substitute and investigate the use of pavers in lieu of the wood boardwalk. Since pavers were being recommended to be the substitute material, staff explored paver options that could be locally sourced, aesthetically pleasing, easily installed, and available in the long- term. Staff contacted local vendors to explore options for paver materials. Three pavers were ultimately chosen based on the four criteria. The selected material included one brick paver, and two concrete pavers with different colors. Three colors were chosen and a test installation of the three paver types was installed fronting 2098 Santa Barbara Avenue (Miner’s Hardware). A sign was erected explaining the test and asked the public for input. In addition, pictures of the three options were posted on Open City Government to solicit feedback from the public. The test and request for input was also announced on Public Works’ Facebook, Twitter, and Nextdoor websites. Pictures of the three options are shown below. Packet Page 47 8 Staff received approximately 45 direct email responses related to the test installation. Staff also received nine statements from Open City Hall and had 45 separate visitors. The input from open City Hall is equivalent to 27 minutes of public comment. The comments from both the test installation and open City hall were just about evenly split between the wire cut red brick (Picture 3) and railroad blend concrete paver (Picture 4), with the Railroad blend paver getting more positive comments. Each of the surfaces have similar roughness when installed per the manufacturer’s recommendation and compliant with Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements. Based on Cultural Heritage Commission and public input the Boardwalk Engineering Standard 4150 (see Attachment A) was modified to include concrete pavers as in-lieu of a wood boardwalk. Concrete pavers provide easy installation, low long-term maintenance cost, and local availability. The concrete paver is proposed to be tumbled and installed flat side up in order to provide a smooth, flat surface. The tumbled paver gives an aged appearance. Based on public popularity the standard is proposed to use the “railroad blend” color (Picture 4, above). Included with the revised boardwalk standard, a new Tree Well Standard for the boardwalk area was developed. Currently, the City does not have an Engineering Standard for railroad district tree wells, as trees can grow through an opening in the boardwalk that is periodically cut wider to provide an area for the tree. The new standard includes the same tree grates that are currently installed around the city. Staff decided to develop a new standard to show how the frame and grate are integrated into the concrete pan under the pavers. The new Railroad District Tree Well Engineering Standard 8135 is included as Attachment B. CONCURRENCES Staff sent the final draft standards to all known Railroad District landowners as a final follow-up. Staff wanted to ensure that the landowners are aware of the proposed boardwalk change and new tree well standard. Staff notified the landowners that comments were being sought on the new standard and could be submitted by April 3rd. Staff has not received any comments as of April 10th. Community Development Department staff have reviewed and concur that the proposed Boardwalk Sidewalk standard changes are in conformance with the Cultural Heritage Packet Page 48 8 Commission direction. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW This action is exempt from environmental review per CEQA Guidelines under the General Rule (Section 15061(b)(3)). It can be seen with certainty that adoption of Engineering Standards 4150 and 8135 could not have a significant effect on the environment. Specific projects that utilize Engineering Standards 4150 and 8135 will be subject to CEQA at the time the project is filed. FISCAL IMPACT There is no immediate public or private fiscal impact that will result from this change. This change does not require any landowner to install new or replace existing sidewalk. This change will guide future development and allow the replacement of the existing wood boardwalk with concrete pavers. The installation of this new sidewalk standard cost is roughly $125 per linear foot more than the wood boardwalk; however, the extra cost will pay for itself over time from reduced maintenance and public risk of tripping and falling. The current wood boardwalk lifespan is five to ten years. The new sidewalk lifespan is estimated to last more than 50-years. ALTERNATIVES 1. Choose a different paver material or color. Direct staff to investigate using a different paver material or color. While it is possible to find other colors and paver materials, the options provided are readily available from vendors within the City. 2. Reject staff’s proposed changes and keep the current wood boardwalk standard. Staff does not recommend this course of action based on the high maintenance costs and potential for trip and fall claims. Attachments: a - 4150 Rail Road Sidewalk Draft 04-13-2017 b - 8135 Rail Road Tree Well Draft 03-16-2017 Packet Page 49 8 4"5' - 3 3 8" (VERIFY 16 PAVERS PER ROW PRIOR TO POURING FORMS) BRICK SIDEWALK RAILROAD DISTRICT 4150 New (Replaces former Boardwalk)JDL DA 3-17 January 2016 (addendum) REVISIONS BY APP DATE STANDARD CURRENT AS OF: SECTION A-A PLAN SECTION B-B A A 4" B 1 5 4" R = 14" SIDEWALK AND BASE PER ENG. STD. 4110 1 6 SEE ENG. STD. 4030 1 2 3 4 5 4 1 1"2 21 3 3 GENERAL NOTES: A. For use in Railroad District only. B. See Engineering Standard 8135 for Tree Well in Railroad District. INSTALLATION NOTES: DRAINAGE: Trowel a 3 4" wide x 1" deep weep slot at 10' O.C. sloping toward the drain outlet. Install a 3 4" diameter PVC drain pipe through curb face, aligned to bottom of troweled weep slots. Cover paver side of pipe with plastic window screen mesh and attach with zip tie. Cover mesh with tape during installation and remove tape after forms are removed. Pipe shall be cut flush with concrete. BEDDING SAND: 1" min. (2" at weep slots) concrete bedding sand in compliance with ASTM C33 specifications. PAVERS: Air Vol Block "Railroad Blend" tumbled concrete pavers or approved equal. Pavers shall be Type 1 and meet ASTM C902 specifications. Brick is not an approved equal. PATTERN: Pavers shall be installed in a standard "Running Bond" pattern. Cut pavers shall be no less than 2" long or wide. Surface of paver shall be set flush with curbs. COMPACTION: After pavers have been laid, sweep surface clean of any debris. ASTM C33 sand shall be swept into joints. Tamp the pavers into bedding sand with a plate compactor and vibrate sand up into joints. Adjust speed of compactor to run with high vibration, low amplitude, to avoid a jumping motion. Start at one edge of the sidewalk and compact the perimeter. Compact remaining area in 4" - 6" overlapping passes. Repeat process, compacting in opposite direction. Tamp pavers with at least two passes of the compactor at 90° angles to each other. Inspect and replace any broken pavers. PAVEMENT REMOVAL & REPAIR: See Engineering Standard 4110.6 1.5% SLOPE (1% MIN., 2% MAX.) 6" Packet Page 50 8 Packet Page 51 8 Meeting Date: 10/24/2017 FROM: Daryl Grigsby, Public Works Director Christine Dietrick, City Attorney Prepared By: Matt Horn, City Engineer Jon Ansolabehere, Assistant City Attorney SUBJECT: EL CAPITAN BRIDGE RECOMMENDATION 1. Authorize the Mayor to execute Easement Agreements between the City and the owners of Lot 7 of Tract 2294 (the Ackermans) and Lot 15 of Tract 2372 (Stonecreek HOA) in a form approved by the City Attorney; and 2. Authorize the inclusion of the El Capitan Bridge as a City asset, City maintenance responsibility, and prioritize the repair or replacement within the City’s 2017-19 Bridge Maintenance Capital Improvement Plan Project upon Easement Agreement execution; and 3. Accelerate Bridge Maintenance Funds from Fiscal Year 2018 -19 to 2017-18 to support this immediate need. DISCUSSION The El Capitan Bridge (“Bridge”) is a pedestrian bridge located at the end of El Capitan Way. An aerial photo of the bridge and its location is included as Attachment A. In January of 2015, a large eucalyptus tree fell on the Bridge causing substantial damage. A picture of the present condition of the Bridge is included as Attachment B. The City immediately closed the Bridge and investigated ownership since it was not listed as a City asset. Based on this investigation, City staff discovered that the Bridge spans three different properties – the City’s Open Space lot on Tract 2248 (the “Open Space Lot”), Lot 7 of Tract 2294 (“Lot 7”) and Lot 15 of Tract 2372 (the “HOA Lot”) – and that the ownership and responsibility to repair the Bridge was convoluted. History of the Bridge: Installation of the Bridge was part of the development of Tract 2294 which was a seven-unit residential subdivision along El Capitan Way. As part of that development, the City imposed conditions which required the developer to prepare a “creek preservation and maintenance agreement…” To satisfy these conditions, the developer recorded a “Creek Preservation and Maintenance Agreement” (the “Agreement”). Among other things, the Agreement required each of the seven owners to “…maintain the subject property (open space, creek and bridge) in a professional manner in perpetuity to the satisfaction of the City’s Public Works Director .” It appears this document requires the seven owners to perform major repairs of the Bridge. This arrangement has proven to be impractical. First, only a small portion of the Bridge is constructed within the tract’s boundaries and the Bridge clearly serves a much larger community. Second, from a practical perspective, no funding mechanism or insurance was established or otherwise required by the Agreement to fund maintenance responsibilities or protect these seven owners Packet Page 52 8 from public liability from Bridge users. As a result, when repairs or maintenance work needs to be done, the property owners would need to generate the funding and determine the appropriate share for each of the seven owners. For these reasons, staff is recommending that the City accept responsibility for the Bridge and take on the repair costs and future maintenance responsibilities. In order for the City to assume responsibility of the Bridge, the City needs an easement over Lot 7 and the HOA Lot. At first, this seemed like a straightforward issue. However, after looking at title to each of the properties, staff realized that the HOA Lot was still owned by the original developer, Bergantz Development Corporation, which dissolved in 2013. Pursuant to Section 2.1.3 of the Stonecreek Development’s CC&Rs, the HOA Lot was supposed to be transferred to the HOA prior to the sale of the first property within the development. Evidently, that never occurred. Staff reached out to the former Officers and Directors of the company and eventually received confirmation that the HOA Lot would be transferred to the Stonecreek HOA. Once the HOA has title to the property, the HOA will grant the City an easement over a portion of the HOA Property to allow the City to maintain and repair the Bridge. Likewise, the owners of Lot 7 will grant the City an easement over a small portion of that property to allow maintenance and repair of the Bridge. Draft Easement Agreements are attached as Attachment D. Funding and Timing of Repair To support this immediate and unfunded need, staff is proposing to include the Bridge in the City’s 2017-19 Bridge Maintenance Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) Project, accelerating the funding one fiscal year, and prioritize this Bridge over others. Currently this CIP Project is planned to complete preventative maintenance on seven bridges. This maintenance is to prevent deterioration before it occurs and can be delayed for a short time without significant negative impact. Repair of the El Capitan bridge is a higher priority due to the pedestrian and bicycle accessibility and safety issues. If Council approves of this reprioritization of bridge repairs and acceleration of funding, staff will engage a structural engineering firm to evaluate the Bridge. They will determine whether repair or replacement is the most prudent action and will develop plans to publicly bid the project. When the project is ready to bid, staff will return to Council with a funding plan for construction costs. Based on preliminary estimates, staff is anticipating the cost of structural assessment and construction document preparation to be from $35,000 to $45,000. In addition, construction is anticipated between $75,000 to $100,000. Staff will be diligent to look at lower cost options that assure pedestrian safety and bridge structural integrity. These estimates are based on currently available information and are provided to Council as a cost range to consider when reviewing the project benefits. It should be noted that staff typically does not recommend assuming responsibility for a new asset not currently in the inventory or in Long Range plans. This recommendation is based on findings that indicate the City is the only answer to long-term maintenance and the structure is a community and public asset. ENVIRONMENTAL The City’s approval of the easement agreements is not a project under CEQA. Depending on the scope of the ultimate repair or replacement work, the project may be exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (Existing Facilities). Packet Page 53 8 FISCAL IMPACT The Bridge Maintenance Capital Improvement Plan Project is listed in the 2017-19 Financial Plan pages E2-120 through E2-121 with funding in the amount of $50,000 which is available in the fiscal year 2018-19. In order to expedite this repair, staff is recommending accelerating these funds to the current fiscal. Based on known financial limitations, the most likely funding source for this construction work is the Road Repair and Accountability Act (SB1) funding. Once the scope of the bridge work is known and construction costs have been refined, staff will return to Council with a construction funding plan. This construction funding plan may be included in the 2019-21 Financial Plan process or by separate Council action. ALTERNATIVES The City Council could choose not to assume maintenance of the Bridge. This is not recommended because the Bridge is in poor repair and the original arrangement to maintain this improvement is impractical. Attachments: a - Bridge El Capitan Map b - Current Condition of El Capitan Bridge c - Easement Agreement - Stonecreek - Draft d - Easement Agreement - Ackerman - Draft Packet Page 54 8 Packet Page 558 Current Condition of El Capitan Bridge Packet Page 56 8 Packet Page 57 8 Meeting Date: 2/6/2018 FROM: Daryl R. Grigsby, Director of Public Works Prepared By: Jake Hudson, Transportation Manager Luke Schwartz, Transportation Planner-Engineer SUBJECT: BROAD STREET BICYCLE BOULEVARD (ANHOLM BIKEWAY) PLAN RECOMMENDATION As recommended by the Bicycle Advisory Committee, adopt a resolution approving the Anholm Bikeway Plan Preferred Alternative, as defined in Attachment B. REPORT-IN-BRIEF Planning efforts for the Broad Street Bicycle Boulevard project have progressed with the goal of developing a safe, low-stress priority route for bicyclists and pedestrians connecting the City’s Downtown Core to Foothill Boulevard. The corridor also serves as a key safe route to school corridor for Pacheco and Bishop’s Peak elementary schools. The intent of this effort is to provide a route that is attractive to not only experienced cyclists, but users of all ages and ability levels. Based on a two-year process of community engagement and extensive technical analysis, staff has developed final recommendations for the plan. As directed by the City Council at its August 15, 2017 Study Session, two distinct alternatives have been developed for the most challenging portion of this route–the segment between Lincoln Street and Foothill Boulevard. Each of the two proposed alternatives include unique benefits and trade-offs, and varying levels of support and opposition from the community. At its August 15, 2017 Study Session, Council directed staff to develop a primary alternative that provided additional separation for bicyclists by looking at partial on-street parking space removal. This primary alternative—referred to as the Preferred Alternative—includes installation of protected/buffered bike lanes along the majority of the route connecting Downtown and Foothill Boulevard, with the tradeoff of removal of 73 on-street parking spaces. The Lincoln Street Alternative, a secondary option presented for consideration at the request of the Council, includes a shared route with pavement markings, route signage and minor traffic calming to convey the bikeway route. Minimal parking loss is required for the Lincoln Alternative, with the tradeoff of a less desirable route with lower potential to attract new cyclists and increase bicycle mode share. The Bicycle Advisory Committee reviewed the Anholm Bikeway Plan alternatives on January 18, 2018 and has recommended the Preferred Alternative to the City Council for approval. Council will receive full presentation of each plan along with the pros and cons of each alternative. Council is asked to consider the technical analysis presented in each plan, and community input for each alternative, and adopt a final plan to carry forward into design and implementation. This project supports several key City programs and policies, including the Packet Page 58 8 Multimodal Transportation Major City Goal, the General Plan objective to achieve 20 percent bicycle mode share citywide, Climate Action Plan recommendation to increase bicycle use for transportation, and Vision Zero initiative to eliminate traffic-related deaths and severe injuries for all the city’s road users by 2030. DISCUSSION Background The Broad Street Bicycle Boulevard has been a component of the City’s Bicycle Transportation plans since 2007, with the goal of providing a low-stress, priority route for bicyclists and pedestrians connecting the Downtown Core to Foothill Boulevard. For bicyclists, a “low-stress” route minimizes stressful factors such as difficult terrain, gaps in connectivity, and most importantly, perceived safety concerns about conflicts with high-speed/volume motor vehicle traffic. Simply put, a low-stress route is a connection that is attractive to users of all ages and ability levels, from families with young children to less-experienced adult cyclists who may be intimidated sharing the street with vehicular traffic under current conditions. Additionally, the proposed multimodal corridor serves a dual purpose as a safe routes to school connection for Pacheco and Bishop’s Peak elementary schools. This project is established as a “first priority” bike project in the 2013 Bicycle Transportation Plan and supports several City programs and policies, including the Multimodal Transportation Major City Goal, the General Plan objective to achieve 20 percent bicycle mode share citywide, Climate Action Plan, and Vision Zero initiative to eliminate traffic-related deaths and severe injuries for all the city’s road users by 2030. Development of this plan began approximately two years ago as part of the 2015 -17 Financial Plan, and progress has accelerated after adoption of the 2017-19 Financial Plan when the Broad Street Boulevard project was identified as one of the top priorities in Multimodal Major City Goal. Over this time, numerous iterations of plan concepts evolved and were focused into a series of alternatives through several public workshops, community design charrettes, online forums, and community surveys. Through this public feedback, four themes emerged which were reflected in the various alternatives. Those four themes, in no particular order, are: 1. The desire for physical separation from motor vehicle traffic—protected lanes; 2. The desire to have the improvements follow the route most cyclists are currently using, avoiding difficult topography and circuitous routing (i.e. follow existing Desire Lines1); 3. The request to not disrupt or substantially change vehicle flows; and 4. The wish to avoid removal of on-street parking. In August of 2017, Staff presented preliminary design options to the Bicycle Advisory Committee (BAC) and City Council to receive direction on narrowing the range of options and focusing further plan development on one or two alternatives to be brought back before the BAC and City Council for final action. Council directed staff to continue development of an 1 In transportation planning, desire lines refer to paths created by pedestrians or bicyclists to follow the shortest or most easily navigated route between origin and destination—often as a shortcut to a more circuitous, or inefficient designated route. An example would be a dirt footpath worn across a field, created over time by pedestrians or bicyclists, bypassing a more circuitous paved trail in lieu of a shorter path. Packet Page 59 8 alternative that included protected bike lanes in exchange for on-street parking on one-side of the street, with a more in-depth analysis of the associated on-street parking loss. Council also directed staff to continue development of a secondary alternative following Lincoln Street, which required minimal parking loss. Staff has completed this work and is now prepared for Council consideration of final adoption. Although this planning effort continues to be called the “Broad Street Bicycle Boulevard Plan”, City staff is recommending that the actual plan document be titled “Anholm Bikeway Plan” because neither option is technically a bicycle boulevard, nor is it established exclusively on Broad Street. “Anholm Bikeway Plan” is a working title and will be used herein to refer to the project; however, staff welcomes any recommendations of alternative titles to the plan. Other common terms used to describe streets that are intended to provide equal priority for bikes, pedestrians, transit, automobiles and neighborhood livability are sometimes call “neighborhood greenways”. Whatever the term that is being used, the intent is to promote all modes and provide equal access and use. The Plan Consistent with Council direction, two alternative plans are being presented for the Northern Segment of the proposed corridor (Lincoln Street to Foothill Boulevard). These alternatives are: 1. Preferred Alternative (Protected Bike Lanes) – Converts one side of on-street parking to protected or buffered bike lanes, with a route alignment following Chorro, Mission, Broad, and Ramona. 2. Lincoln Street Alternative (Minimal Parking Loss) – Retains a shared street configuration where bicyclists and drivers share travel lanes, with a route alignment following Lincoln, Mission, Broad and Ramona. Two stand-alone Anholm Bikeway Plan documents have been prepared —one for the Preferred Alternative, and one for the Lincoln Street Alternative. These documents, which include detailed project descriptions, conceptual design drawings, analysis of benefits and trade-offs, proposed costs and implementation strategies, are provided for review as Attachment B and Attachment E. Each Northern Segment alternative, as well as recommendations for the Southern Segment (Downtown to Lincoln Street) are summarized below. Northern Segment – Preferred Alternative (Protected Bike Lanes) The Preferred Alternative is described in detail in Attachment B. The Preferred Alternative, as requested by the City Council for further refinement and study during the August 2017 Council Study Session, proposes conversion of one side of on-street parking to dedicated protected/buffered bike lanes along Chorro Street, Broad Street and Ramona Drive. The proposed corridor includes a two-way protected bikeway on the west side of Chorro (Lincoln to Mission), shared mixed-flow lanes along the low-traffic portion of Mission (Chorro to Broad), a southbound buffered/protected bike lane and northbound shared lane on Broad (Mission to Ramona), a two-way protected bikeway on the north side of Ramona (Broad to Safe Routes to School Path), and construction of the planned Safe Routes to School Bicycle/Pedestrian Path connecting Ramona to the planned bicycle/pedestrian crossing at the Packet Page 60 8 Foothill/Ferrini intersection. Enhanced route signage and pavement markings are proposed throughout the corridor for wayfinding purposes and to increase the visibility of the corridor as a priority multimodal route. The Preferred Alternative makes over 80 percent of the 1.3-mile trip between Downtown and Foothill Boulevard possible via physically protected or buffered bike lanes —the type of facilities that are attractive to cyclists of all ages and ability levels. For this reason, this alternative is expected to have the greatest potential to increase bicycle mode share. The primary tradeoff with this alternative is the loss of 73 on-street parking spaces along the route, which is the chief shared concern of neighborhood residents. To better understand the potential effects of this parking loss on the neighborhood, parking data was collected throughout the vicinity of the proposed bikeway during fall of 2017. Findings of the parking study are summarized in Table 1. Table 1: Peak Period On-Street Parking Conditions with and without Project It should be noted that this parking analysis does not reflect the recently approved, but not yet occupied, multifamily residential developments at 22 Chorro and 41 Palomar. As approved, these projects were found to include on-site parking consistent with City requirements, including an allowed parking reduction for mixed-use development and for incorporating auto trip reduction measures, such as increased bicycle parking and other amenities to encourage use of alternative transportation modes. The proposed implementation and monitoring plan for the Anholm Bikeway strategically delays removal of street parking fronting residential properties along Broad and Chorro Streets until a later project phase to allow for monitoring of parking conditions after occupancy of these development projects. As discussed further below, formation of a residential permit parking district would be an appropriate strategy to address concerns of potential parking spillover from these developments into nearby neighborhood streets— particularly considering that multifamily residential properties are not eligible to receive permits for street parking within parking districts. With the reduction in on-street parking supply associated with the proposed bikeway project, street parking is anticipated to be scarce during peak periods along certain segments of Chorro, Broad and Ramona. For segments where peak parking demand nears or exceeds available supply, there is generally available street parking within one-to-two blocks (about a 1- to 3- minute walk). Some residents who favor parking on street out of convenience may simply park in their garage or driveway more frequently if parking on street becomes difficult to find. (Informal observations during parking data collection found that 30-40 percent of residential driveways were vacant along Chorro and Broad Streets during peak periods). Other residents living in homes with high auto ownership and/or with limited off-street garage/driveway parking Packet Page 61 8 will likely continue to rely on street parking and may need to walk 1 -2 blocks at times of peak demand to find available parking nearby. It’s important to acknowledge that under either circumstance, some residents consider the lack of readily-available on-street parking fronting their home as an unacceptable hardship in exchange for improved bicycle facilities. While there are no adopted plans or policies that obligate the City to provide street parking for private vehicles, staff is sensitive to the concerns of the neighborhood and have outlined the following potential strategies in the Anholm Bikeway Plan to address parking concerns: • Residential Parking District – If the Council moves forward with the Preferred Alternative, it is recommended that the City initiate the process to form a parking district(s) in the Anholm neighborhood. Actual boundaries of the district will be determined as part of this process and will require a 60% vote of support from households and Council Approval. There is a limit of two permits per residents at a cost of $15 per permit. The initial $15 permit fee for all is proposed to be funded by the project at no cost to the neighborhood, any subsequent permit fees would be subject to the standard provisions of the parking residential parking district program. • Accessible On-Street Parking – The plan retains on-street parking on at least one side of the street for the length of the route. On a case-by-case basis, residents can request installation of designated ADA accessible on-street parking stalls along segments of the proposed bike route where parking removal is proposed. • Phasing/Monitoring Strategies – The project is proposed to be constructed in three phases with a one-year monitoring period and a subsequent performance report that will be presented to Council. The phasing plan allows for parking removal to occur incrementally and provides time for initiation a parking district prior to removal of street parking along Broad and Chorro, if supported by residents. In addition, the initial installation of protected bike lanes will be made with temporary devices that could easily be modified/removed and parking restored if the Council Directed staff to do so. Lastly, the phased approach allows for monitoring and adjustments to project designs and the possibility of spillover parking from the 71 Palomar and 22 Chorro projects. Although the Anholm Bikeway Plan is primarily a bicycle project, several other features are proposed along the Northern Segment to improve safety and mobility for pedestrians, including: • Installation of speed cushions along Broad between Mission and Ramona to calm traffic and reduce auto speeds to a level conducive to a walkable, bikeable environment. • Construction of a raised intersection at Broad/Murray to calm traffic and improve the intersection crossing environment for pedestrians and bicycles. • Installation of additional street lighting along the proposed bikeway route. • Construction of corner bulbouts at Broad/Ramona/Meinecke, new sidewalks along west side of Broad, installation of accessible curb ramps and higher-visibility crosswalk markings at several intersections to improve pedestrian accessibility and safety along the proposed route. The primary elements of the Preferred Alternative are illustrated in Figure 1. Packet Page 62 8 Figure 1: Northern Segment Summary Map – Preferred Alternative (Protected Bike Lanes) Packet Page 63 8 Northern Segment – Lincoln Street Alternative (Minimal Parking Loss) The Lincoln Street Alternative is described in detail in Attachment E. The Lincoln Street Alternative was requested by the City Council for consideration as a secondary option if the parking loss proposed in the Preferred Alternative is determined to be too impactful to the neighborhood. This alternative retains a shared street environment throughout the Northern Segment, where bicyclists and motorists share travel lanes, albeit with the addition of guide signage, bikeway pavement markings and minor traffic calming measures. The proposed route alignment follows Lincoln Street (Chorro to Mission), Mission (Lincoln to Broad), Broad (Mission to Ramona), Ramona (Broad to Safe Routes to School Path), and construction of the planned Safe Routes to School Bicycle/Pedestrian Path connecting Ramona to the planned bicycle/pedestrian crossing at the Foothill/Ferrini intersection. This alternative requires elimination of less than 10 on-street parking spaces—strictly at corners where bulbouts are proposed to improve pedestrian crossings, and on Ramona at the entry to the planned Safe Routes to School Path. While the Lincoln Alternative requires minimal loss of on-street parking, it has the tradeoff of having less potential to increase bicycle mode share. Lincoln Street is already a superior cycling environment over Chorro & Broad Street; however, only 12 percent of the approximately 300 daily cyclists that travel between Downtown and Foothill currently choose Lincoln over Broad & Chorro Streets—mainly due to the route being longer and more circuitous. Pedestrians and bicyclists using the streets for transportation as opposed to leisure will most commonly choose the shortest and most intuitive path over a path with an improved environment, even when the distance or time difference is minor. In addition to this, the Broad Street and Ramona Drive portions of the proposed bikeway route will continue to carry traffic volumes that exceed the thresholds generally recommended for shared bicycle streets. Implementation of additional traffic calming will provide some benefits to cycling along these streets, but the frequent conflicts with passing autos will likely continue to deter many less experienced riders. The Lincoln Street Alternative includes the same pedestrian improvements for the Northern Segment as the Preferred Alternative, which are listed in the previous section of this report. The primary elements of the Lincoln Street Alternative are illustrated in Figure 2. Packet Page 64 8 Figure 2: Northern Segment Summary Map – Lincoln St. Alternative (Minimal Parking Loss) Packet Page 65 8 Southern Segment One set of recommendations is proposed for the Southern Segment of the Anholm Bikeway Plan, extending from Downtown (Monterey Street) to Lincoln Street. The plan recommendations for this segment are summarized as follows: • Install safety lighting and streetscape enhancements at Highway 101/Chorro Street undercrossing. Staff will explore opportunities through grants and other City programs to include community artwork and/or other aesthetic features to enhance this location as a key gateway to the downtown. • Extend existing buffered bike lanes on Chorro between Lincoln and Palm, and add physical separation within buffers to create protected bike lanes. • Provide enhanced pavement markings and route signage on Chorro between Palm and Monterey to convey the priority bikeway link into Downtown. • Construct corner bulbouts at Chorro/Walnut to shorter pedestrian crossing exposure. • Install accessible curb ramps and enhanced crossing markings for bicycles and pedestrians at the Chorro/Peach and Chorro/Walnut intersections. Potential Highway 101/Broad Street Ramp Closure In the 2013 Bicycle Transportation Plan, the Broad Street Bicycle Boulevard identifies a potential future grade-separated bicycle/pedestrian crossing of Highway 101 at Broad Street . This project has been considered as part of this planning process however the scope of the project is significant and requires the ultimate closure of the Broad Street 101 on- and off-ramps by Caltrans. Recent studies of the potential closure of the Broad Street ramps by both the City and Caltrans, including consideration for closure of the southbound ramps only, have concluded that closure of the ramps is not feasible at this time without significant, and costly improvements to the adjacent Highway 101/Santa Rosa Street (Highway 1) interchange. A separate project would need to be created to consider the system implications of such a closure that is beyond the scope of the bicycle boulevard project. In addition to the high-cost improvements required simply to facilitate closure of the ramps, construction of the grade-separated pedestrian/bicycle crossing would involve substantial costs and funding challenges on its own. For these reasons, these improvements are not included as part of the Anholm Bikeway Plan at this time; however, staff will continue to work with Caltrans to pursue closure of the ramps and will reevaluate the potential for a pedestrian/bicycle crossing at this location in future years if closure of the ramps becomes feasible. Making the recommended improvements along Chorro south of Lincoln Street improves the bicycle separation objectives of bike plan without significant operation impacts or capital cost outlay. Community Input To supplement the input already received at previous community meetings and via the project’s web forum, staff conducted additional informal surveys of residents to gauge support for the two proposed project alternatives for the Northern Segment. An online survey was made available for citywide participation via the project webpage, while a mail-in survey was distributed to approximately 1,200 residents in the Broad and Chorro neighborhood. In total, 697 survey responses have been received as of January 16, 2018. The results of this survey are summarized below. Packet Page 66 8 As shown in the survey results, there is a clear differentiation of the support for either alternative between the community-wide sample and residents of the Anholm neighborhood. This would be expected as it mirrors concerns of the residents regarding potential parking removal. Where survey participants selected “Other” as a preferred option, comments generally supported no change at all, many citing the limited benefit of the Lincoln alternative, or prioritization of other improvements in the city over this project. All comments received during the community survey process are included as a Council Reading File in Attachment G. Implementation Strategy The proposed implementation strategy is similar for either alternative and includes the two elements of the recently adopted Safe Routes to School (SRTS) plan for Bishop’s Peak and Pacheco Elementary Schools: the bike and pedestrian crossing at Foothill/Ferrini and the Class I Path between Foothill & Ramona. Proposed project phasing is summarized as follows: Phase I (2018-19) 1. Right of Way Acquisition from Church of Latter Day Saints Property 2. Processing of Residential Parking District 3. Construction of Bicycle & Pedestrian Crossing at Foothill & Ferrini 4. Construction of SRTS Class I Path between Foothill & Ramona 5. Installation of Measures along Ramona (Depending on Adopted Plan) - 12 Month Performance Monitoring and Status Report to Council - Continued coordination with Caltrans on Highway 1 & 101 Improvements & Following Broad Ramp Closure. Packet Page 67 8 Phase II (2019-20) 1. Installation of Temporary Measures South of Ramona (Depending on Adopted Plan) 2. Installation of Lighting and Streetscape Enhancements at Chorro & 101 Undercrossing. - 12 Month Performance Monitoring and Status Report to Council - Continued coordination with Caltrans on Hwy 1 & 101 Improvements & Following Broad Ramp Closure. Phase III (2020 & Beyond) 1. Incremental conversion of Temporary Measures to Permanent installations 2. Installation of ancillary spot improvements, such as raised intersection at Broad/Murray, installation of sidewalks along west side of Broad, curb ramps and additional street lights. - Continued coordination with Caltrans on Hwy 1 & 101 Improvements & Following Broad Ramp Closure. CONCURRENCES The Bicycle Advisory Committee reviewed the Anholm Bikeway Plan alternatives on January 18, 2018, and recommended approval of the Preferred Alternative to the City Council. Due to the limited time between the Bicycle Advisory Committee Meeting and City Council Meeting, draft minutes will be provided as part of Council Correspondence. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The findings of the CEQA environmental analysis conducted for each project alternative is included as Attachment C and Attachment F. Per Section 15304 of the State California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, the project is categorically exempt from CEQA under Class 1, Existing Facilities; Section 15301 and Class 4, Minor Alterations to Land, because the project would be constructed on existing city streets within the public right of way. The project will be constructed in an area that has no value as habitat for biological resources and would not be located in agricultural areas. The proposed street lights would be located in an urban area and would not significantly increase light or glare beyond existing conditions. The project has been reviewed by the City Public Works Department (Transportation Division) and Community Development Department, and no significant traffic impacts were identified, based on the description and location of the project. The project is consistent with General Plan policies that promote an integrated system of bikeways, walkways, and traffic calming measures that promote a safe, multimodal transportation network. FISCAL IMPACT Staff is proposing to implement elements of the Bishop’s Peak and Pacheco Safe Routes to School Plan in conjunction with the Broad Street Bicycle Boulevard (Anholm Bikeway) Plan— both projects are included in the adopted FY2017-19 Financial Plan. There is currently $610,000 approved through FY2018/19 in the FY2017-19 Financial Plan for project implementation. At Packet Page 68 8 the time the current financial plan was adopted, the scope was yet to be defined and the cost estimates were speculative for the Broad Street Bicycle Boulevard (Anholm Bikeway) Plan. For example, a final plan had yet to be adopted and potential costs could range significantly, depending on the type of features to be approved. The cost for Phase I of the Anholm Bikeway (Preferred Alternative) improvements is estimated at $900,000, leaving a budget shortfall of $290,000 for Phase I. To address this shortfall, staff will be requesting $290,000 as part of the FY2017-19 Budget Supplement through SB-1 State funding. Phase II of Anholm Bikeway Plan implementation is included in the five-year Capital Improvement Program (CIP), with $270,000 identified for FY2019/20. Again, at the time the current Financial Plan was adopted, the scope of these improvements was yet to be defined. Under the recommended plan, the estimated cost for Phase II implementation is $475,000. Staff will be requesting these funds as part of the FY2019-21 Financial Plan. Due to the incremental nature of Phase III implementation, it’s anticipated that these improvements can be scaled and phased in as future budgets permit. Broad Street Bicycle Boulevard (Anholm Bikeway Plan) improvements are under consideration for inclusion in the Citywide Transportation Impact Fee Program update, which is expected to be finalized in 2018 and could provide additional funding opportunities. In addition, staff will pursue any available grant funding for unfunded portions of the project. ALTERNATIVES 1. Council could adopt a resolution adopting the Anholm Bikeway plan under a hybrid of features from the Preferred Alternative (protected bike lanes) and the Lincoln Alternative (shared streets). An example hybrid plan could include the Preferred Alternative’s protected lanes on Chorro & Ramona, with the Lincoln Alternative’s class III shared lanes, traffic calming, and no parking removal on Broad where parking is most limited. This example is a supportable alternative by staff. 2. Council could adopt a resolution adopting the Anholm Bikeway Plan under the Lincoln Street Alternative, as defined in Attachment E. Staff does not recommend this alternative because this option is expected to have limited effect on achieving the bicycle mode share goals, as adopted in the City General Plan. 3. Council could either defer adoption of any plan to some future point uncertain or decide to adopt no plan and direct staff to return with an amendment to the Bicycle Transportation plan removing the planned facility augmentation. Packet Page 69 8 Attachments: a - Council Resolution Adopting the Anholm Bikeway Plan (Preferred Alt) b - Council Reading File - Final Report (Preferred Alt) c - CEQA Notice of Exemption (Preferred Alternative) d - Council Resolution Adopting the Anholm Bikeway Plan (Lincoln Alt) e - Council Reading File - Final Report (Lincoln Alt) f - CEQA Notice of Exemption (Lincoln Alternative) g - Council Reading File - Final Survey Summary Packet Page 70 8 R ______ RESOLUTION NO. (2018 SERIES) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, CONFIRMING THE 2018-19 LIST OF PROJECTS FUNDED BY SB 1: THE ROAD REPAIR AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT WHEREAS, Senate Bill 1 (SB 1), the Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017 (Chapter 5, Statutes of 2017) was passed by the California legislature and signed into law by the Governor in April 2017 to address the significant multi-modal transportation funding shortfalls statewide; and WHEREAS, SB 1 includes accountability and transparency provisions that will ensure the residents of the City are aware of the projects proposed for funding in our community and which projects have been completed each fiscal year; and WHEREAS, the City must include a list of all projects proposed to receive funding from the Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account (RMRA), created by SB 1, in the City budget, which must include a description and the location of each proposed project, a proposed schedule for the project’s completion, and the estimated useful life of the improvement; and WHEREAS, the City, will receive an estimated $834,400 in RMRA funding in Fiscal Year 2018-19; and WHEREAS, the City has undergone a robust public process to ensure public input into our community’s transportation priorities, and budgeting process that has been adopted by City Council that includes a full listing of Capital Improvements Projects and funding sources including SB-1; and WHEREAS, the City used a Pavement Management System and other goals such as the complete streets elements and bicycle and pedestrian safety to develop the SB 1 project list to ensure revenues are being used on the most high-priority and cost-effective projects that also meet the community’s priorities for transportation investment; and WHEREAS, the funding from SB 1 will help the City maintain and rehabilitate streets/roads, sidewalks, and add active transportation infrastructure throughout the City this year and similar projects into the future; and WHEREAS, the 2016 California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment found that the County of San Luis Obispo’s streets and roads are in an “at-risk” condition but the City of San Luis Obispo’s streets and roads are in a “good” condition, regardless this revenue will help us increase the overall quality of our road system and over the next decade and make critical improvements to transportation that will assist in greenhouse gas emission reductions and active transportation safety; and WHEREAS, if the Legislature and Governor failed to act, continued reductions in the State gas tax as well as lack of indexing of the Federal and State gas tax to key indicators such as inflation has reduced available revenue to the City for these purposes; and Packet Page 71 8 Resolution No. _____ (2018 Series) Page 2 R ______ WHEREAS, cities and counties own and operate more than 81 percent of streets and roads in California, and people are dependent upon a safe, reliable local transportation network; and WHEREAS, modernizing the local street and road system, incorporating complete street elements and improving active transportation facilities provides well-paying construction jobs and boosts local economies; and WHEREAS, the local street and road and active transportation system is critical for farm to market needs, interconnectivity, multimodal needs, greenhouse gas emission reductions and commerce; and WHEREAS, maintaining and preserving the local street and road system in good condition will reduce drive times and traffic congestion, improve bicycle safety, and make the pedestrian experience safer and more appealing, which leads to reduce vehicle emissions helping the State achieve its air quality and greenhouse gas emissions reductions goals; and WHEREAS, the SB 1 project list and overall investment in our local streets and roads infrastructure with a focus on basic maintenance and safety, investing in complete streets infrastructure and active transportation projects, and using cutting-edge technology, materials and practices, will have significant positive co-benefits statewide. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo that as follows: 1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct. 2. That any City projects utilizing SB-1 funding will adhere to SB-1 program requirements, including but not limited to: incorporating, as feasible, complete streets components into basic infrastructure maintenance projects and a minimum useful life of 20 years; and, 3. The $834,400 for fiscal year 2018-19 project list and useful life criteria for the three projects planned to be funded with Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account (SB-1) revenues: Packet Page 72 8 Resolution No. _____ (2018 Series) Page 3 R ______ Project Location 2018-19 Funding Anticipated Year of Completion Estimated Useful Life (min) 1. Concrete Paver Sidewalk Santa Barbara – Broad to Leff $350,000 2018 50 Years 2. El Capitan Bridge El Capitan Way $100,000 2019 100 Years 3. Broad Street Bike Boulevard Phase I Foothill Blvd at Ferrini $384,400 2019 20 Years Total SB1 Funding $834,400 - Upon motion of , seconded by , and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: The foregoing resolution was adopted this _______________________, 2018. Mayor Heidi Harmon ATTEST: ____________________________ Teresa Purrington City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: _____________________ J. Christine Dietrick City Attorney IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, this ______ day of ______________, _________. ____________________________________ Teresa Purrington City Clerk Packet Page 73 8 Page intentionally left blank. Packet Page 74 8