HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-20-2020 ATC Agenda Packet - Special MeetingCity of San Luis Obispo, Agenda, Planning Commission
Agenda
ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE
Tuesday, October 20, 2020
6:00 p.m. SPECIAL MEETING Teleconference
Based on the threat of COVID-19 as reflected in the Proclamations of Emergency issued by both the Governor
of the State of California, the San Luis Obispo County Emergency Services Director and the City Council of the
City of San Luis Obispo as well as the Governor’s Executive Order N-29-20 issued on March 17, 2020, relating
to the convening of public meetings in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the City of San Luis Obispo will
be holding all public meetings via teleconference. There will be no physical location for the Public to view
the meeting. Below are instructions on how to view the meeting remotely and how to leave public comment.
Additionally, members of the Active Transportation Committee are allowed to attend the meeting via
teleconference and to participate in the meeting to the same extent as if they were present.
Using the most rapid means of communication available at this time, members of the public are
encouraged to participate in Council meetings in the following ways:
1. Remote Viewing - Members of the public who wish to watch the meeting can view:
➢ View the Webinar:
➢ Registration URL: https://attendee.gotowebinar.com/register/50705445 16854614796
➢ Webinar ID: 666-271-899
2. Public Comment - The Active Transportation Committee will still be accepting public comment. Public
comment can be submitted in the following ways:
• Mail or Email Public Comment
➢ Received by 3:00 PM on the day of meeting - Can be submitted via email to emailcouncil@slocity.org or
U.S. Mail to City Clerk at 990 Palm St. San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
➢ Emails sent after 3:00 PM and up until public comment is opened on the item – Limited to one page
emailed to cityclerk@slocity.org, which will then be read aloud during the public comment period on the
item specified.
• Verbal Public Comment
o Received by 3:00 PM on the day of the meeting - Call (805) 781-7164; state and spell your name, the
agenda item number you are calling about and leave your comment. The verbal comments must be limited
to 3 minutes. All voicemails will be forwarded to the Committee Members and saved as Agenda
Correspondence.
Active Transportation Committee Agenda October 20, 2020 Page 2
o During the meeting – Comments can be submitted up until the Public Comment period is opened for the
item when joining via the webinar (instructions above). Please contact the City Clerk’s office at
cityclerk@slocity.org to more information.
All comments submitted will be placed into the administrative record of the meeting.
MISSION: The purpose of the Active Transportation Committee (ATC) is to provide oversight
and policy direction on matters related to bicycle and pedestrian transportation in San Luis Obispo
and its relationship to bicycling and walking outside the City.
CALL TO ORDER: Chair Jonathan Roberts
ROLL CALL : Committee Members Thomas Arndt, Lea Brooks (vice chair), Donette
Dunaway, Timothy Jouet, Briana Martenies, Russell Mills, Jonathan Roberts
(chair)
PUBLIC COMMENT: At this time, people may address the Committee about items not on the
agenda. Persons wishing to speak should come forward and state their name and address.
Comments are limited to three minutes per person. Items raised at this time are generally referred
to staff and, if action by the Committee is necessary, may be scheduled for a future meeting.
CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES
1. Minutes of the August 20, 2020 Special Meeting
(Committee Member Comments 8/20/20 ATC Meeting, Item 2 in Attachment 2)
INFORMATION ITEM
2. ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE
(FUKUSHIMA – 10 MINUTES)
An update will be provided on the current status of the Active Transportation Plan.
ACTION ITEM
3. ATC RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FY 2021-23 CITY BUDGET GOALS
(FUKUSHIMA – 100 MINUTES)
Every two years the City Council adopts a Financial Plan (sometimes called a two -year budget).
This Plan spells out how the City will spend money on programs and projects for the next two
years. As part of this process, all advisory groups are invited to submit budget goals for Council
Active Transportation Committee Agenda October 20, 2020 Page 3
consideration. In the past, this has been a two-step process where in the first step each advisory
body provided preliminary goals and in the second step the advisory body reviewed the
preliminary recommendations of the other advisory bodies and finalized its recommendations.
However, the Finance Department has determined that this approach made little difference in
the final recommendations yet was challenging for advisory bodies to schedule two meetings to
accomplish this task amid other advisory body priorities. Therefore, for this reason and the added
challenge of holding meetings during the COVID-19 pandemic, the Finance Department is making
it simpler this year and only one meeting will now be held for this exercise. However, the Finance
Department will go through the goals and highlight any that can be consolidated due to the
similarity in the objective.
Council goals, by their nature, usually tend to be broader in scope than the work programs
developed by advisory bodies. The City Council is seeking advisory body input on:
• What are the most important goals the City should pursue in the next two years?
• Why is each goal important as a community priority?
• How might the goal be accomplished (creative funding or implementation ideas)?
Given the projected fiscal constraints for the next budget, the Finance Department is emphasizing
goals the advisory bodies would like to continue or completing projects already committed to over
brand new projects.
To help guide the Committee in identifying the most important projects or programs to pursue,
members should review the following:
• Advisory Bodies 2021-23 Financial Plan Goal Setting Parameters (Attachment 3)
• Final Active Transportation Committee Budget Goal Recommendations for FY 2019-21
(Attachment 4)
• Five Year Capital Improvement Plan excerpt of active transportation related projects from the
2019-21 Financial Plan. (Attachment 5). Note that any costs identified beyond 2021 have not
yet received funding approvals but are included for planning and forecasting purposes. The
complete CIP is available online at:
https://www.slocity.org/Home/ShowDocument?id=23630
• “2019-21 Financial Plan at a Glance” outlines the “Major City Goals” in the City’s current
budget. (Attachment 6)
• Tier 1 projects from the proposed Active Transportation Plan. As recommended by the ATC,
the Tier 1 list contains the top projects the committee recommends the City pursue for funding
which have the highest likelihood to increase bicycling and walking in the City. The Tier 1
projects list can be found on the ATC webpage at:
https://www.slocity.org/Home/ShowDocument?id=25628
• Bicycle Friendly Community Report Card 2019, which provides specific suggestions for
improvements by the League of American Bicyclists for SLO (Appendix 7)
Based on the ATC recommended goals and project prioritization for the upcoming Active
Transportation Plan, the committee should consider the following projects that correspond to
upcoming paving schedule in the years 2021-23 and beyond:
1) Anholm Neighborhood Greenway, Phase 2 (Ramona - Downtown)
2) Active Transportation Plan – Tier 1 Project Deployment
Active Transportation Committee Agenda October 20, 2020 Page 4
a) Conduct a more detailed feasibility analysis and preliminary design of the Tier 1 network
b) Identify a few top Tier 1 corridors that are best candidates for quickbuild installation
including community outreach and complete design
c) Construct one to two of the corridors in FY 2022-23
3) 2021 Sealing Project
a) Higuera Street (Marsh – Pepper) Protected Bike Lanes or Buffered Bike Lane (or
combination where feasible). Engineering analysis, planning, and outreach resources will
be required due to conflicts with on-street parking.
b) Marsh Street (Higuera – California) Protected Bike Lanes
4) 2022 Sealing Project
a) Chorro St (Mission – Meinecke) Northbound Bike Lane
b) Cerro Romauldo Neighborhood Greenway
5) 2023 Sealing Project
a) Monterey Street (Santa Rosa – Buena Vista) Protected Bike Lanes. Detailed engineering
analysis, planning, and outreach resources would be required due to conflicts with on-
street parking.
For the above sealing projects, curb ramp, sidewalk upgrades and other required ADA upgrades
will be included with each project.
Next Steps: The ATC’s recommended goals will be transmitted to the Finance Department and a
master list of all advisory body goal recommendations will be published ahead of the Council Goal
Setting Workshop in February 2021.
Staff Recommendation: The ATC should formulate budget goals based off of the pending Active
Transportation Plan goals and priority projects. The ATC may wish to utilize the previous format
(Attachment 4) to organize its recommendations.
Attachment 3: Advisory Bodies 2021-23 Financial Plan Goal Setting Parameters
Attachment 4: Final Active Transportation Committee Budget Goal Recommendations for FY
2019-21
Attachment 5: Capital Improvement Plan Projects, FY 2019-21 Financial Plan
Attachment 6: 2019-21 Financial Plan at a Glance
Attachment 7: Bicycle Friendly Community Report Card 2019
ADJOURNMENT
The next Regular Meeting of the Active Transportation Commi ttee is scheduled for
Thursday , Nove mber 19 , 20 20, at 6:00 p.m., by teleconference.
ATTACHMENTS
Active Transportation Committee Agenda October 20, 2020 Page 5
1. Minutes of the August 20, 2020 Special Meeting
2. Combined ATC Comments 8-20-20, Item 2
3. Advisory Bodies 2021-23 Financial Plan Goal Setting Parameters
4. Final Active Transportation Committee Budget Goal Recommendations for FY 2019-21
5. Capital Improvement Plan Projects, FY 2019-21 Financial Plan
6. 2019-21 Financial Plan at a Glance
7. Bicycle Friendly Community Report Card 2019
The City of San Luis Obispo wishes to make all of its public meetings accessible to the
public. Upon request, this agenda will be made available in appropriate alternative formats to
persons with disabilities. Any person with a disability who requires a modification or
accommodation in order to participate in a meeting should direct such request to the City Clerk’s
Office at (805) 781-7100 at least 48 hours before the meeting, if possible. Telecommunications
Device for the Deaf (805) 781-7107.
Agenda related writings and documents are available online or for public inspection at the Public
Works Department, 919 Palm Street, SLO. Meeting audio recordings can be found at the following
web address:
http://opengov.slocity.org/WebLink/1/fol/60965/Row1.aspx
DRAFT Minutes – Active Transportation Committee Meeting of August 20, 2020 Page 1
Minutes - DRAFT
ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE
Thursday, August 20, 2020 1
SPECIAL Meeting of the Active Transportation Committee 2
3
CALL TO ORDER 4
5
A Special Meeting of the San Luis Obispo Active Transportation Committee was called to order 6
on Thursday, August 20, 2020 at 6:05 p.m. via teleconference by Chair Roberts. 7
8
ROLL CALL 9
10
Present: Committee Members Thomas Arndt, Lea Brooks (vice chair), Donette Dunaway 11
(joined at 6:08 p.m.), Timothy Jouet, Russell Mills, and Jonathan Roberts (chair) 12
13
Absent: Briana Martenies 14
15
Staff: Active Transportation Manager Adam Fukushima, and Recording Secretary Lareina 16
Gamboa 17
18
PUBLIC COMMENT ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA 19
None. 20
21
--End of Public Comment-- 22
23
APPROVAL OF MINUTES 24
25
1.Review Minutes of the Active Transportation Committee Meeting of July 16, 2020:26
27
ACTION: UPON MOTION BY COMMITTEE MEMBER JOUET, SECONDED BY 28
COMMITTEE MEMBER BROOKS, CARRIED 6-0-1 (COMMITTEE MEMBER BRIANA 29
MARTENIES ABSENT), to approve the Minutes of the Active Transportation Committee 30
Meeting of July 16, 2020, as amended. 31
32
Public Comment 33
None. 34
35
--End of Public Comment-- 36
37
ACTION ITEM 38
39
1.Active Transportation Plan Implementation40
41
Active Transportation Manager Fukushima provided a PowerPoint presentation and 42
responded to Committee inquiries. 43
Attachment 1, Page 1 of 2
DRAFT Minutes – Active Transportation Committee Meeting of August 20, 2020 Page 2
44
Public Comment 45
Garrett Otto 46
47
--End of Public Comment-- 48
49
ACTION: UPON MOTION BY COMMITTEE MEMBER BROOKS, SECONDED BY 50
COMMITTEE MEMBER MILLS, CARRIED 6-0-1 (COMMITTEE MEMBER 51
MARTENIES ABSENT), to recommend that committee comments be included for 52
consideration in anticipation of the draft public draft of the Active Transportation Plan. 53
54
ADJOURNMENT 55
56
The meeting was adjourned at 10:02 p.m. The next Regular Active Transportation Committee 57
meeting is scheduled for Thursday, September 17, 2020 at 6:00 p.m., in the Council Hearing 58
Room, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California. 59
60
61
APPROVED BY THE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE: XX/XX/2020 62
63
64
Attachment 1, Page 2 of 2
Committee Member Comments: 8/20/20 ATC Meeting, Item 2
Donette Dunaway
1) Attachment 2, page 1, Equity Principles: Suggest changing language to “for all including
vulnerable populations…”
2) change questions to statements on goals section
3) change “measure progress” to “milestones” in goal 2
4)attachment 3, page 6, number 8: add “secure” to bike parking
5) attach 3, page 9 fix questions to statements
Thomas Arndt
1) Attach 2, page 1: build in flexibility for SLOCOG’s update to local def of disadvan taged
communities
2) attach 2, page 10, def “LS” in crossing signals
3) is LTS buildout map complete?
4)attach 2, page 15: annual not bi-annual reporting on mode shift.
5) better way to track changes between versions of drafts
6) remove requirement for lips on curb ramps (and remove Lea’s comment on lip requirement)
7) attach 2, page 12, remove “consider” and replace with “shall build a toolbox”
Timothy Jouet
1)attach 2, page 7, hard to tell tier 1 corridors in list. Only LOVR to Broad Street Corridor.
2) buildout LTS map: looks incomplete
3) support changing 2035 to 2030
4) make sure facility terms are consistent
5) attach 3, page 10, item 2: is this making the planning process too long?
Attachment 2, Page 1 of 13
To: Adam Fukushima, Active Transportation Manager
San Luis Obispo
From: Lea Brooks, Vice Chair
Active Transportation Committee
Re: Aug. 20, 2020, Special Meeting, Item 2
Active Transportation Plan Implementation
-Attachment 2, Page 11 of 16
Proposed Bikeway Level of Traffic Stress: This graph is inaccurate because it
designates the least comfortable roads like Tank Farm Road, South Higuera Street and
Los Osos Valley Road as “most comfortable.”
-Attachment 2, Page 12 of 16
I agree with Garrett Otto’s submitted comments that the list of ongoing or planned
projects to build active transportation projects should include protected bike lanes that
utilize existing vehicle travel lanes, on-street parking or existing collector or arterial
streets.
-Attachment 2, Page 13 of 16
Regarding the fair-share contribution by developers toward the costs of active
transportation facilities and programs. What happens if the contributions are never
enough to actually pay for the improvements? What happens if the project is never
built? For example, what if the Prado Road extension to Broad Street is never built?
What happens if Chevron never develops its property on Tank Farm Road? Who covers
the balance if the contributions don’t cover the full cost? We need a bac k-up plan.
Regarding projects that do not meet mode share or Climate Action Plan goals, including
the Froom Ranch project that has been recommended for approval by the Planning
Commission and is headed to City Council for consideration. The Project Person Trips
by Mode of Travel estimates 88.2 percent of overall trips associated with Froom Ranch
will be by passenger vehicle, 4.6 percent by bicycle, 5 percent by pedestrian and 2.2
percent by transit. And, under existing plus project conditions, the Final EIR finds that
the addition of project traffic would exacerbate existing queuing and peak hour traffic for
automobiles, and poor levels of service for pedestrians and bicycle modes of
transportation, causing transportation deficiencies in the project vicinity. The Planning
Commission found these significant and unavoidable environmental impacts to
pedestrians and bicycle modes of travel acceptable. I support a policy that new
developments and projects that increase vehicle miles traveled and/or are not
consistent with mode split and other Climate Plan objectives shall provide fair share
funding for citywide bicycle, pedestrian and transit facilities or programs to offset the
development’s negative impacts and to help the City achieve its green goals.
-Attachment 2, Page 14 of 16
I agree with Garrett’s comment that 2030 should be the target for securing and
earmarking sufficient funds to implement Tier 1 projects, mode split and Active
Transportation goals.
Attachment 2, Page 2 of 13
Regarding funding: Measure G’s expiration date should be included because it will no
longer be a funding source. Should the proposed 1 percent sales tax increase on the
November ballot be mentioned if it includes funding for active transportation?
I also support an annual report that shows transportation project expenditures by mode
to verify how much is spent annually on active transportation projects and show
progress toward mode share goals.
-Attachment 2, Page 16 of 16: I agree with Garrett’s comment that parking fees shall be
amended to include impact fees to be earmarked for ATP projects.
-Attachment 3, Page 3 of 35
I would prefer that the What will the Plan do for SLO be statements rather than
questions.
Action 2: What is a high-injury network? And, is the prioritization of street parking in
response to my request to address diagonal parking?
-Attachment 3, Page 4 of 35
6. Regarding traffic speeds: I support Garrett’s comment for 20 mph maximum and
exploring car-free areas during school start and end times
-Attachment 3, Pages 5 of 35
I would prefer that the What will be Plan do for SLO be statements rather than
questions.
-Attachment 3, Page 6 of 35
2. Support changing 2035 to 2030.
8. Increase the supply of add “secure” bicycle parking…
9.Expand on exploring expanded use for personally owned skateboards, scooters and
other personal mobility devices to address what’s legally allowed on sidewalks and in
bike lanes. I often have encounters with motorcycles and scooters in bike lanes
speeding and passing recklessly and skateboarders and people on one-wheel
skatboard-like devices going against traffic and/or weaving. I encourage active
transportation, but safety must be the priority.
(I also support Garrett’s suggestions, but am confused on where to include them;
correspendence is so difficult to read!) (more clarification on what devices are legal)
-Attachment 3, Page 8 of 35
6. Add Chorro Valley Trail and Edna-Price Canyon Trail because SLOCOG has
prepared feasibility studies and their inclusion highlights regional routes.
-Attachment 3, Page 9 of 35
Wordsmithing suggestion: … particularly residents of low-income and otherwise
disadvantaged neighborhoods, who …
And, I would prefer that questions under Understanding the Community be statements
rather than questions.
Attachment 2, Page 3 of 13
-Attachment 3, Page 10 of 35
C. 1. My concern is that we have a segment of the Bob Jones Trail between Prado
Road and Los Osos Valley Road that meets this definition of a neighborhood that needs
and craves safe places to bicycle and walk. Yet for the most part residents are afraid to
use it because of personal safety concerns. In contrast, the Bob Jones Trail segment
between Ontario Road and Avila Beach has experienced a 44 percent incrase in use
since the pandemic, underescoring the need for places perceived as safe to exercise.
Government entities are under legal constraints to move homeless folks unless they
have someplace else to stay, but is there some language we can add that addresses
this issue?
And, I support Garrett’s comments that bike storage accommodate cargo bikes and e-
bike charging.
-Attachment 3, Page 15 of 35
Under recommended programs, add education for motorists . An excellent model is
program developed by Fort Collins, Colo.
-Attachment 3, Page 17 of 35
41: Equity Principles: I would like to see a role for the ATC rather than only staff working
with diverse stakeholders. And, specially include County Public Health as a major
stakeholder because its staff is dedicated to improving the health of the disadvantaged
and supports safe and convenient bike/ped facilities for this population.
-Attachment 3, Page 18 of 35
Add to 66-70: Garrett’s comments regarding protected bike lanes that utilize existing
vehicle travel lanes or on-street or existing collector or arterial streets.
-Attachment 3, Page 19 or 35
Second bullet that starts: City requires that a development contribute its share toward
the costs of active transportation…As previously raised, what happens if there’s never
enough funding to actually build the project?
-Attachment 3, Page 23 of 35
204. Annexations to the City such as the recent annexa tions of the business parks on
Fiero Lane and on South Broad/Highway 227 built under less-stringent county
standards were not routed to the ATC for review. We lost an opportunity to look for
bicyclist/pedestrian options to busy Highway 227, especially to a void making left turns in
and out of the business parks that have no traffic controls. At the very least, staff should
be required to report to the ATC what annexations are being processed and what
mitigations are being proposed by staff so ATC members are aware. I agree with
Garrett’s comment that annexations and other planning documents developed after ATP
adoption shall be subject to additional infrastructure not specifically in the plan.
207. This is crucial given the recent decision by the new owners o f the Avila Ranch
development to delay the Buckley Road extension to South Higuera from Phase 1 to
prior to Phase 2. This is an example of a promise made by a developer during the public
hearing process to appease opponents and then renegging because it wa sn’t required.
Attachment 2, Page 4 of 13
What are the implications to bicyclists of this and other decisions to delay improvements
that include bicycle safety projects?
211. Include a joint responsibility between the ATC and City Parks and Recreation
Commission to develop an Adopt-a-Trail program. I submitted this comment to Parks
and Recreation staff for its parks plan update. What’s the status of the parks plan
update?
214: ½ inch is too high and poses risks to bicyclists with 20 -25 mm tire width. Shall be
3/8 inch.
218.Proper signage/consistency is a major safety concern and needs teeth since plans
are regularly ignored. “Bike Lane Closed” signs should be prohibited because they
reinforce to motorists that bicyclists should not be there during construction.
Construction zones signs should say “Bikes Can Take the Lane” and speed limits
strictly enforced.
226. Violations should have teeth because signage is consistently placed in the middle
of bikes lanes and sidewalks even when there is space to place it without blocking the
entire bike lane and sidewalk.
-Attachment 3, Page 24 of 35
237. Roundabouts should be fully constructed rather than in phases such as the
roundabout on Tank Farm Road at Righetti Ranch. I received numerous complaints
from bicyclists during the early phases of the roundabout before it was fully built out
over a period of time.
252. This is a weak revision of the language first used by Sacramento City/County in
2009: All new freeway over-crossings and under-crossings or interchange projects will
incorporate the needs of pedestrian and bicyclists as part of the project design and
construction or else alternate separate pedestrian and bicycle facilities are to be
developed and constructed concurrently with the project for motor vehicles. I support
the stronger version. Before this policy was adopted, Caltrans and local entities blamed
each other for inaction on addressing the needs of bicyclist/pedestrian safety.
-Attachment 3, Page 25 of 35
253. Include diagonal parking, and support the wording in Attachment 3, page 3 of 35:
Prioritize public safety and active transportation mobility over motor vehicle throughput
ahd street parking when considering tradeoffs of transportation safety improvements.
265. No three-legged crosswalk intersections. The priority should be pedestrian safety,
not moving left turning motorists. Disabled, elders and people with young children
should not be forced to cross an intersection three times to accommodate motorists.
Attachment 3, page 27 of 35
305. Pavement smoothness should not be subjective. Caltrans established a pavement
smoothness standard after the Highway 1 chip seal debaucle north of Cambria. There
Attachment 2, Page 5 of 13
should also be a standard for construction trenches. Some of the trenches are so poorly
filled that they sink within a few days, posing safety risks for bicyclists and/or damage to
rims.
Attachment 3, Page 28 of 35
343. Post educational signage about the agricultural operation. Identify who is
responsible for sign and sign maintenance.
351. Although this policy is specific to Laguna Lake, there may be other situations
where shared use paths are flooded. The responsible party for posting trail closed signs
should be identified, time lines established and the signs should be posted at the
nearest access so bicyclists/pedestrians don’t have to turnaround or be tempted to
cross a flooded area because they don’t want to backtrack.
Attachment 3, Page 30 of 35
403. Not strong enough. The City shall encourage electric bicycle use by installing
charging equipment and providing recharge stations.
Attachment 2, Page 6 of 13
R. Mills Comments
1
ATC Meeting 8/20/2020
R. Mills Comments
Minutes of July 16
Mills missing from the list of those “Present”
ATP Implementation
Look for the following general policies and standards (as contrasted with specific projects).
These are desirable to provide best practices and consistency in bike -ped facilities throughout
the City. If not addressed in the Implementation, suggest they should be. Or, as an alternative,
many of these issues could be addressed in appendices where they may be more readily
changed and developed,
•Standards for construction of Class IV Protected Bike Lanes, particularly regarding
separation and means of protection
•Standards for construction of roundabouts, specifically regarding accommodating
cyclists and peds, including justification thereof and cyclists’ use of crosswalks
•Standards for layout of temporary bike/ped facilities in construction areas
•Policy for use and design of pedestrian scrambles at intersections
•Standards for use of multi-lane roadways, including justification thereof
•Potential policy changes regarding allowing bike riding on sidewalks outside of the
central business district – this is particularly important in areas lacking needed bike
facilities and in promoting “transgenerational equity”
•Policy regarding bike/ped facilities in areas undergoing development & phasing of such
bike-ped improvements: i.e., do bike/ped facilities have to wait for development
buildout before completion?
•Policies for periodic inspection of existing bike/ped facilities in order to identify needed
cleaning and maintenance
•Policy for constructing missing sidewalks in areas where Class II and IV bikeways exist or
are planned (NB, in instances where a parallel ped facility does not exist, peds may
legally walk in the bikeway, which is not very desirable for either the peds or the
cyclists)
•Policy for periodic review and updating of the Implementation – this portion of the ATP
should be a “living document”
Specific Comments to Attachment 2
p. 1, heading “Tier 3”
“Projects … funded mostly by development projects.”
This seems overly constrictive. What about grants and other sources of revenue? This seems to
suggest projects will only be identified in areas of active development. Since many projects are
needed outside these zones to help complete the network this is likely not a correct perception.
Attachment 2, Page 7 of 13
R. Mills Comments
2
But perhaps “Tier 3” projects are only intended in areas of new development, but that doe sn’t
seem the case (i.e., p. 9 map). Please clarify in the text with more precise wording.
pp. 3 and 4
There appear to be some projects on both the Tier 1 and Tier 2 & 3 maps, e.g., California Blvd
south of Foothill
Consider adding another map that overlays existing facilities with planned facilities (all Tiers) to
help illustrate gaps in the network and interrelationship between all facilities
pp. 7-9
For someone not familiar with the names of things, it is difficult to identify which projects list ed
correspond to which lines on the maps
Various terms appear to be used for the same thing, e.g., cycle track, protected bike lanes, Class
IV bike lanes – this can be particularly confusing; suggest consistency in use of terminology (not
sure if this also is an issue with “neighborhood greenway,” which I have more commonly seen
referred to as “bicycle boulevards” – not stating a preference, just a raising a question)
p. 10
Why is an RRFB so much more expensive than a HAWK signal – these seem very similar?
p. 12
I particularly like the paragraph about updating the Neighborhood Traffic Management
Program
Specific Comments to Attachment 3
p. 5, right-hand column
“commuters to match percentage of all commuters” – what does this mean?
p. 16 Line 30
Suggested change, alternatives possible
“Tier 3: Projects that help complete the bicycling and walking network. These will be funded
mostly by development projects augmented by other sources as funding opportunities arise.”
p. 22 Lines 195-198
I support these very important concepts (perforation of cul-de-sacs and design of facilities for
all ages and abilities)
p. 23, Lines 211-216
Need another line calling for regular inspection of bikeways to identify frequency of cleaning
and needed maintenance of pavement (found this concept addressed later, on p. 24, Lines 228-
229; move this up to around Line 210)
Special precautions should also be taken regarding linear cracks and uneven surfaces, not just
potholes
Attachment 2, Page 8 of 13
R. Mills Comments
3
p. 23, Lines 217-227
This is very good (Construction Work Zone Safety)
p. 24, Lines 236-241
Regarding roundabouts, consider adding a statement calling for providing dual means for a
cyclist to transit a roundabout at their choice – either through use of a separated facility or by
actually riding through the roundabout (in low traffic situations, the latter alternative may be
the most convenient and safest)
p. 25 Line 256
Consider the following
“When used, push button for bicycles should be accessible so that bicyclists do not have to
dismount or deviate from the bikeway too actuate”
p. 25, Lines 276-277
Consider adding for bulbouts that they should not extend into the area where cyclists would
normally ride, regardless of whether it is a designated bikeway or not.
p. 26, Lines 289-290
It is unclear to me what an “advisory bike lane” is. How are these lanes designated on the
pavement and how are they distinguished from standard lanes? Narrow striping is often used at
the edges of roadways to give the appearance of narrowing to help reduce speed s – could
these type of striping be misinterpreted by a cyclist as an advisory bike lane.
p. 26, Lines 292-298
Bicycle ramps should avoid vertical lips where the ramp meets the gutter pan.
pp. 26-27
Bike Lanes & Protected Bike Lanes
Consider adding a statement that protected bike lanes shall be separated from the motor traffic
lane wherever feasible.
p. 29, Lines 374-386
I appreciate the avoidance of gates and rigid bollards. Very good.
p. 30, Lines 388-392
Woonerfs are a great idea. Roads were used by people for walking long before there were cars,
but this was an impediment to the early sale of cars. Let’s empower people to take back their
roads (in specific cases, of course)
p. 34 Line 498
Consider the following
Attachment 2, Page 9 of 13
R. Mills Comments
4
Parklets must be closed off on 3 sides with motor vehicle resistant barriers, and open to
sidewalk
Attachment 2, Page 10 of 13
Attachment 2, Pg 11 of 16: High Street on the graphic is still showing as "least comfortable" after
buildout. Traffic should be shifted to South Street as intended.
Attachment 2, Pg 12 of 16: Quick-Build - "Quick-Build, Opportunistic and Pilot Projects" - INCLUDE:
Utilize vehicle travel or parking lanes for protected bike lanes.
Omit: Attachment 2, Pg 14 of 16: First paragraph states that 20% is a lot of funding "The City of SLO
provides significant funding to bicycle and pedestrian projects." I would argue that 20% is not nearly as
much as we need to be spending on infrastructure improvements to meet our climate action goals. As of
2018 in San Luis Obispo over 50% of Green House Gas Emissions come from cars. We must be quick
to implement our Tier 1 projects to meet our City's goals.
Attachment 2, Pg 14 of 16: Also in the first paragraph, I would like to include a yearly report indicating
projected and actual mode type percentage of transportation projects expenditures. This will verify how
much is spent per year on bike/ped projects as we move towards our 2035 goals.
Attachment 2, Pg 14 of 16: We also need to include that at least 80% of Tier 1 projects shall be
completed by 2030 not 2035. {80% should cover all Tier 1 projects except for Prado and Tank Farm as
those will potentially have huge hurdles}.
The City must secure funding to build out Tier 1 projects by 2030 (NOT 2035) to meet our city's
climate action goals.
Building out Tier 1 projects will: Eliminate transportation related fatalities and severe injuries for both
bicyclists and pedestrians by 2030. This is consistent with the adopted Vision Zero and Climate Action
Plan to achieve the General Plan mode share 2035 target.
Attachment 2, Pg 15 of 16: Under "The City Shall explore available funding options paragraph" - Add
Parking fees to included impact fees to be reserved for ATP projects.
{The City Council has the option to adjust the municipal code to include parking impact fees. This is
not dissimilar to London and their congestion fees. This is 100% policy driven and can be created by
City Council}.
Omit: Attachment 3, Pg 4 of 35:
- #6 - All new recommendations for residential and local streets suggested 20mph max
should be changed to 15-20mph.
AND design collector arterial streets for maximum speed of 30mph.
AND school zones with a maximum speed of 15mph.
AND explore implementing car free areas during school drop off and pick up times.
- #7 - ".....limits on collector and arterial streets using (INSERT: *new* default city wide
speed limits should replace the 85% speed studies) guidelines.
{The state has to adopt new laws about speed limit changes. There is a lot of talk at the state and
national level to lower speed limits. NACTO just released a guide that recommends new laws with
lower speed limits. This will allow us to legally change our City's limits once these speed limits are
changed Statewide}.
Attachment 3, Pg 4 of 35: Under "how do we measure progress" include that we will need to have most
of our Tier 1 projects built by 2030 to achieve our 2035 goals.
Jonathan Roberts Comments Attachment 2, Page 11 of 13
Attachment 3, Pg 6 of 35:
- #2 - We need 80% of our Tier 1 projects completed by 2030.
- #5 - Pavement resurfacing projects SHALL implement ATP projects within the existing
right of way.
- #8 - Implement additional hi-visibility mid-span, mid-block crossing on collector and
arterial streets with longer spans between controlled crossing devices. And Utilize median, rapic
flashing beacons, protective devices and longer sight distances at mid-span crossings.
Attachment 3, Pg 10 of 35:
- #6 - Ensure long term bike storage is designed to accommodate cargo bikes and ebike
charging.
Attachment 3, Pg 19 of 35:
- Line #98 - New developments and projects which increase Vehicle Miles Traveled and
are not consistent with mode split objectives SHALL provide fair share funding for city-wide bicycle,
pedestrian and transit facilities in proportion to the City's circulation elements mode share goals.
{If a development is going to negatively affect SLO mode shift goals, then the fair share funds should
be used in ANY part of the city to help offset the developments negative impact. Traffic impact fees are
generally used for car-centric development; it would be better if those fees went to projects in the ATP
plan}
- Line #112 - Amend parking fees to include impact fees to be reserved to ATP projects.
AND parking reduction in-lieu fees shall help fund ATP projects.
{not to just fund more parking in other areas}.
Attachment 3, Pg 19 of 35:
- Line # 115 - The ATP should be reviewed by the ATC for latests guidelines and project
recommendations to be updated (2 year cycle) on a more consistent basis.
Attachment 3, Page 20 of 35: City SHALL fund projects in Tier I by 2035.
2035 is the end goal. The projects need to be funded MUCH sooner than 2035.
Omit: Attachment 3, Page 21 of 35: There is very little emphasis being places on our City's 20% mode
share goal (only a little at the end of Attachment 3, Page 21 of 35). There is a need for a systematic way
of measuring where we are on a yearly basis in order to reach our 2035 goal. A timeline as well as a
specific strategy (with project suggestions and specific project completion dates) needs to be outlined
in the ATP. Otherwise the goal is not going to be met.
Omit: Our City's 20% mode share goal should be a driving force in the ATP plan.
Attachment 3, Pg 23 of 35:
- Line # 204 - Annexations and other planning documents developed after ATP adoption
SHALL be subject to additional infrastructure not specifically called out in the ATP.
{This will allow the ATP to be amended when new projects that we aren't currently aware of to be
evaluated by the ATC}.
Omit: Attachment 3, Page 23 of 35:
- Line # 226 - Construction - No more "Bike Lane Closed" signs. The signs reinforce to
Attachment 2, Page 12 of 13
drivers that cyclists should not be using the road during construction.
Attachment 3, Page 24 of 35:
- Line # 237 - Roundabouts are not always the preferred intersection control device.
{I am concerned with children trying to manipulate certain roundabout intersections where they will
have to rely on cars to give way for them to safely cross}
Attachment 3, Page 24 of 35:
- Line # 238 - Protected Intersections - On many higher volume arterials signalized
protected intersections are less stressful.
Attachment 3, Page 30 of 35: Bike Parking -
- #450 - What type of rack? (Peak Racks style , or similar as the only option would be great).
And please remove Inverted U Racks as these are terrible for bikes that do not have kickstands.
- #454 - Lockable Rooms - Please mention doors in the design that allow all types of
bikes to be wheeled in and out.
- #471 - explore other sized bike parking requirements in the zoning regulations update.
The current bike locker design does not work for cargo bikes, extra large frames, and bikes with
panniers.
Attachment 2, Page 13 of 13
Advisory Bodies
2021-23 Financial Plan Goal
Setting Parameters
1
Attachment 3, Page 1 of 10
2019-21 Financial Plan
Guided by the Fiscal Health Response Plan–the purpose of the Plan is to establish a
framework to respond to the long-term fiscal impacts of the significant increases in
required pension contributions to the CalPERS retirement system over three years.
2
Year 1
2018-19
Year 2
2019-20
Year 3
2020-21
Three-Year Plan
Attachment 3, Page 2 of 10
San Luis Obispo is committed to…
Good Fiscal
Management
Public
Engagement
Quality
Services
Attachment 3, Page 3 of 10
4Considerations when setting goals:
Changes in
Economic
Conditions
Pending Diablo
Closure
Further CalPERS
Adjustments
Long-term
Environmental &
Fiscal
Sustainability
COVID19 Diversity, Equity,
Inclusion (DEI)
Attachment 3, Page 4 of 10
Assumptions
Phased reopening
Schools return in Fall 2020
Impact on most industries
Recessionary trends
“U” Shaped recovery
“How much of a guessing game is a wild guessing game right now as there is no historical precedent for the current crisis and little good data
as of yet.”
–Beacon Economics
General Fund Long Term Forecast 5
*Based on unaudited actuals
Based on 2020-21 Supplemental Budget forecast
Attachment 3, Page 5 of 10
Fiscal Health Contingency Plan Activated –Hiring, purchasing, and travel chills
to mitigate revenue shortfalls.
Healthy Reserve Levels –The City has multiple reserves in preparation for future
unknowns and cash flow preservation.
Where are we now?
6
2019-20 Results: Realized savings from additional employee contributions to
CalPERS and hiring new staff under the PEPRA retirement plan limiting the impact
of revenue shortfall.
Fiscal Health Response Plan: in effect through 2020-21
Unfunded Liability Payments as part of
FHRP
FY 18-19 FY 19-20 FY 20-21
CalPERS Downpayments $4.2 mil -Paid $4.2 mil* -Unpaid –in
Undesignated Fund Balance
$3.0 mil –payment to
be determined
115 Pension Trust Fund $1.4 mil –In Reserve $2.0 –allocation to be
determined
*From 2018-19 Fund Balance
Attachment 3, Page 6 of 10
7City Council Adoption of ONE Unified City Goal (June 2, 2020):
Economic Stability, Recovery, and Resiliency
Link to 20-21
Supplemental Budget
with goal details (pg. 17)
July 2020
Council approved creation of a Diversity,
Equity, and Inclusion Task Force to provide
guidance and a foundation for creating a
potential 21-23 DE&I focused Major City
Goal
Attachment 3, Page 7 of 10
Goal Setting Parameters
1.Consider uncertainty regarding the long-term impacts from COVID19
2.Consider increased pressure to fund infrastructure maintenance
3.Advancing Fiscal Health Response Plan objectives
4.New projects and services will require trade-offs with current core
services (Revenue generating new services excluded.)
5.Goal setting through the lenses of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusivity
8Attachment 3, Page 8 of 10
Goal-Setting & the Budget Process
February 2021
*November 17, 2020 “Setting the Stage” Workshop
**Date TBD “Budget Foundation” Workshop
2021-23 Financial Plan
April 2021
June 2021
June 2021
Community
Involvement
(format TBD due
to COVID)
The proposed Financial Plan Calendar will be presented to Council on 10/20/20
Attachment 3, Page 9 of 10
QUESTIONS?
10
We are available to talk to you and your advisory body and respond to
questions.
Natalie Harnett Principal Budget Analyst nharnett@slocity.org
Brigitte Elke Finance Director belke@slocity.org
Attachment 3, Page 10 of 10
Page 1 of 3
DATE: November 30, 2018
TO: Brigitte Elke, Director of Finance
FROM: Adam Fukushima, Staff Liaison to the Active Transportation Committee
SUBJECT: FY 2019-21 Active Transportation Committee Recommended Goals
On November 29, 2018 the Active Transportation Committee recommended its final FY 2019-21
goals for Council consideration which are represented in the following table. The projects are
ranked in order of importance from most to least desired to fund.
Recommended Goal Why Goal is Important Candidate Funding
PROJECTS
Anholm Bikeway Plan-
1)Support implementation
of Phase 2 of the
Anholm Bikeway Plan
from Ramona to
Downtown including
installation of art and
lighting on US 101
underpass
Railroad Safety Trail-
Design and construct:
1)Pepper St to the train
station
2)Jennifer St. bridge to Iris
(connecting to French
Hospital Trail)
Broad Street Crossing
Improvement-
Design and construct HAWK
beacon at Woodbridge Street
Bob Jones Trail-
1)Design and construct
bike path extension from
LOVR to the Octagon
Barn
2)Design grade separated
crossing of LOVR at
Highway 101
This project will provide a primary low
traffic north/south through route for
bicyclists and pedestrians serving the
downtown core and neighborhoods north
of Foothill Blvd; complements projects in
the Bishop Peak and Pacheco
Elementary School Safe Routes to
School Plan
This goal provides a huge safety
enhancement for a large volume of
bicyclists and pedestrians to the
University, schools & parks; implements
General Plan goals to increase bicycling
& walking and supports Grand Jury
recommendations to close gaps.
This goal improves pedestrian
transportation and complements the
South Broad Street Area Plan
The City-to-Sea trail is a key connection
to the City for the Avila Ranch
development and connection to the
County portion of the trail leading to
south county
Project Funding Sources:
State funds
Federal funds
General fund
City debt financing
Fundraising efforts
Measure G
Active Transportation Committee
Attachment 4, Page 1 of 3
Page 2 of 3
Misc. Bicycle Facility
Improvements-
Provide $100,000 in annual
funding for misc. projects
such as safe routes to
school, signing & striping
projects ideally incorporated
into other construction
projects.
Pacheco and Bishop Peak-
Safe Routes to School
Design and construct
enhanced bicycle/pedestrian
crossing of Foothill Blvd at
Patricia and La Entrada
Prado Road Class I-
Design and construct a Class
I bikeway from the current
terminus of Prado Road to
Broad Street.
Penny Lane Bridge-
Design a bicycle/pedestrian
bridge over the railroad tracks
at Penny Lane
Sinsheimer Park Pathway-
Construct a paved path
through Sinsheimer Park
from Helena Street to the
Railroad Safety Trail
Islay Bicycle Boulevard-
Design and construct the
City’s third bicycle boulevard.
Broad Street Class I-
Design and construct a Class
I bikeway from Damon
Garcia sports fields to
Rockview Place
Completing these projects as part of
other construction projects results in
substantial cost savings.
This project has been requested by
neighborhood families that have difficulty
crossing Foothill as they walk and
bicycle their kids to school.
Constructing this bikeway connection
ahead of development will provide an
important east/west bikeway connection
and alternative to Tank Farm Road
during the Chevron remediation efforts.
This bridge will provide a connection
from downtown to the Johnson Avenue
and Ella Street neighborhoods via the
bicycle facilities recently constructed at
French Hospital.
This project has been requested by
residents from throughout the community
and provides connectivity from the trail to
Sinsheimer Park
Bicycle boulevards are facilities that
bicyclists of all abilities feel comfortable
using and therefore increase ridership.
In conjunction with the Prado Road
Class I bikeway, this segment provides
an alternative route to the busy Broad
Street corridor.
Support for Other Advisory
Body/Committee Goals
Planning Commission:
--Sustainability
--Multi-modal Circulation
Promotional Coordinating
Committee:
--Climate Action Plan
Attachment 4, Page 2 of 3
Page 3 of 3
PROGRAMS
Traffic Safety Education:
Increase annual funding for
bicycle, motorist, and scooter
education
Ped/Bikeway Maintenance:
Maintain $60,000 annually
for bicycle and pedestrian
facilities
Educating the public on cycling
awareness and safety reduces
collisions. Goal supports Grand Jury
goal of promoting safe cycling.
Performing pavement maintenance and
weed control on pedestrian and bicycle
paths will increase the life of these
facilities and reduce the risk of
accidents.
Program Funding Sources:
State and Federal grants
Transportation Development
Act funds
General fund
Measure G
STAFFING
Active Transportation
Manager:
Maintain position.
The Active Transportation Manager
implements the Bicycle Transportation
Plan policies and programs, is
developing the forthcoming Active
Transportation Plan, prepares grant
applications, and helps manage capital
projects.
Staffing Funding Sources:
General fund
Measure G
Attachment 4, Page 3 of 3
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
2019-20 Adopted Budget
2019-21
Financial Plan
Attachment 5, Page 1 of 7
Project Details
Project Details FY 2019-20 FY 2020-21 FY 2021-22 FY 2022-23 FY 2023-24 FY 5 Year Total
Active Transportation Plan $ 100,000 $- $- $ - $ - $ 100,000
Air Compressor Replacement $- $ 80,000 $- $ - $ - $ 80,000
Anholm Neighborhood Greenway Plan Implementation $ 250,000 $ 800,000 $- $ - $ - $ 1,050,000
Bicycle Facility Improvements $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $ 500,000
Bridge Maintenance $- $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $75,000 $75,000 $ 350,000
Community Safety Emergency Response
Communication Equipment $ 380,000 $ 250,000 $- $ - $ - $ 630,000
KVEC Tower $- $ 250,000 $- $ - $ - $ 250,000
South Hill Radio Tower $ 380,000 $- $- $ - $ - $ 380,000
Council Hearing Room TI $ 100,000 $- $- $ - $ - $ 100,000
Development Agreement $ 832,750 $ 700,000 $ 370,000 $250,000 $ - $ 2,152,750
Avila Ranch - Buckley Extension Class I $- $ 200,000 $ 120,000 $ - $ - $ 320,000
Avila Ranch - South Higuera Sidewalk $ 112,750 $- $- $ - $ - $ 112,750
Avila Ranch - Vachell Class 2 Lanes $ 260,000 $- $- $ - $ - $ 260,000
SL Ranch - Bob Jones (Calle Joaquin to Froom) $- $ 500,000 $ 250,000 $ - $ - $ 750,000
SL Ranch - LOVR IC $- $- $- $250,000 $ - $ 250,000
SL Ranch - Madonna & Oceanaire Intersection $ 120,000 $- $- $ - $ - $ 120,000
SL Ranch - Madonna Class I $ 340,000 $- $- $ - $ - $ 340,000
Downtown Renewal $ 400,000 $ 640,000 $- $ - $ - $ 1,040,000
858 Higuera Street $ 190,000 $- $- $ - $ - $ 190,000
Broad Street - West Side - Higuera to Marsh $ 210,000 $ 640,000 $- $ - $ - $ 850,000
Electric Vehicle Charging Station at City Hall Parking Lot $5,000 $ 45,000 $- $ - $ - $ 50,000
Fleet Replacement $ 515,000 $ 380,000 $ 696,000 $705,500 $670,000 $ 2,966,500
Building & Safety SUV $- $- $- $70,000 $ - $ 70,000
Engineering Compact Pickup $- $- $- $35,000 $ - $ 35,000
Facilities Maintenance 3/4 ton Pickup $- $- $- $45,000 $35,000 $ 80,000
Facilities Maintenance 3/4 ton Pickup with Utility Bed $- $- $- $45,000 $ - $ 45,000
Fire 1/2 ton Truck $- $- $ 65,000 $ - $50,000 $ 115,000
Fire Compact Truck $- $- $- $50,000 $ - $ 50,000 324Attachment 5, Page 2 of 7
Project Details FY 2019-20 FY 2020-21 FY 2021-22 FY 2022-23 FY 2023-24 FY 5 Year Total
Fire Heavy Duty Truck $- $- $- $120,000 $120,000 $ 240,000
Fire Medium Duty Truck with Utility Bed $- $- $ 110,000 $ - $150,000 $ 260,000
Fleet Maintenance Stationary Generator $- $- $ 100,000 $ - $ - $ 100,000
Golf Course Mower $- $- $ 65,000 $ - $ - $ 65,000
Park Maintenance Mower $- $- $ 75,000 $ - $ - $ 75,000
Park Maintenance Tractor $- $- $ 75,000 $ - $ - $ 75,000
Parks and Recreation Minivan $- $- $- $48,000 $ - $ 48,000
Parks Maintenance 3/4 ton Pickup $- $- $- $35,000 $ - $ 35,000
Parks Maintenance ATV for Field Prep $- $- $ 30,000 $ - $ - $ 30,000
Parks Maintenance Trailer $- $- $- $ 7,500 $ - $ 7,500
Police Patrol SUV (6 Vehicles Total) $ 130,000 $- $ 126,000 $130,000 $ - $ 386,000
Police Patrol SUV (3 Vehicles Total) $- $- $- $ - $195,000 $ 195,000
Police Patrol SUV (4 Vehicles Total) $- $ 260,000 $- $ - $ - $ 260,000
Police Patrol Truck $ 75,000 $- $- $ - $ - $ 75,000
Police SNAP SUV Hybrid $ 55,000 $- $- $ - $ - $ 55,000
Stormwater Hydrocleaner $- $ 120,000 $ 50,000 $120,000 $120,000 $ 410,000
Streets Maintenance Medium Duty Truck $ 135,000 $- $- $ - $ - $ 135,000
Streets Maintenance Medium Duty Truck $ 120,000 $- $- $ - $ - $ 120,000
IT Replacement $ 884,703 $ 904,250 $ 502,473 $510,777 $520,864 $ 3,323,067
911 Phone System $- $ 20,000 $- $ - $ - $ 20,000
Access Control (Automatic Gate Card System) $- $ 125,000 $- $ - $ - $ 125,000
Audio Recording System Replacement $- $ 10,000 $- $ - $ - $ 10,000
Body Worn Cameras and Video Storage $- $- $- $ - $396,000 $ 396,000
City SAN $- $- $- $178,136 $ - $ 178,136
ECC Equipment Replacement $ 35,000 $- $- $ - $ - $ 35,000
Fire Radio Receive Site at Fire Station #4 $- $ 89,000 $- $ - $ - $ 89,000
Firewall Replacement $ 154,863 $- $- $ - $ - $ 154,863
Network Security Upgrade $ 100,664 $- $- $ - $ - $ 100,664
Network Switching Infrastructure Equipment $ 90,000 $- $- $ - $ - $ 90,000
PD SAN $- $- $- $145,000 $ - $ 145,000 325Attachment 5, Page 3 of 7
Project Details FY 2019-20 FY 2020-21 FY 2021-22 FY 2022-23 FY 2023-24 FY 5 Year Total
Police CAD Hardware (Servers and Storage) $- $- $ 233,000 $117,000 $ - $ 350,000
Public Safety MDC and In-Car Video Replacement $ 80,000 $ 500,000 $- $ - $ - $ 580,000
Radio Handhelds & Mobiles $ 143,123 $- $ 116,758 $ - $69,364 $ 329,245
Security Video System Replacement $- $- $- $ - $55,500 $ 55,500
Shoremicro (Radio System Redundant Bypass Link) $- $ 50,000 $- $ - $ - $ 50,000
Uninterruptible Power Supplies $- $- $ 42,465 $ - $ - $ 42,465
Virtual Private Network Replace $ 78,500 $- $- $ - $ - $ 78,500
VMware Infrastructure Upgrade $ 202,553 $ 110,250 $ 110,250 $ - $ - $ 423,053
Wireless System Citywide $- $- $- $70,641 $ - $ 70,641
Laguna Lake Dredging and Sediment Management
Project Implementation $ 150,000 $ 350,000 $ 350,000 $400,000 $400,000 $ 1,650,000
Laguna Lake Golf Course Maintenance $ 10,000 $ 20,000 $ 20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $ 90,000
Major Facility Maintenance $ 516,210 $ 524,243 $ 532,727 $541,532 $552,226 $ 2,666,938
ADA Transition Plan Implementation $9,920 $9,743 $ 10,727 $10,332 $10,226 $ 50,948
City Hall Fire Department Connection $ 58,000 $- $- $ - $ - $ 58,000
Corp Yard - Fuel Island Coating and Dispensers $- $- $- $115,000 $ - $ 115,000
Corp Yard Fuel Island Siding $- $- $- $178,000 $ - $ 178,000
Energy Management System $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $- $ - $ - $ 200,000
Facility Roll Up Door Replacements - Various Locations $5,290 $ 10,000 $ 17,000 $10,000 $15,000 $ 57,290
Fire Station #1- HVAC $ 140,000 $- $- $ - $ - $ 140,000
Fire Station #1 Administration Building Roof $- $ 81,500 $- $ - $ - $ 81,500
Fire Station #1 Fleet Maintenance Building Roof $- $ 20,000 $- $ - $ - $ 20,000
Fire Station #2 Roof $- $ 50,000 $- $ - $ - $ 50,000
Fire Station #3 Roof $- $ 50,000 $- $ - $ - $ 50,000
Fire Station #4 Exterior Paint $- $ 27,500 $- $ - $ - $ 27,500
Hydration Stations $- $3,000 $ 15,000 $11,000 $15,000 $ 44,000
Jack House Widows Walk Railing $- $- $- $85,000 $ - $ 85,000
Ludwick and Senior Center Paint and Shell Rehab $- $- $- $30,000 $260,000 $ 290,000
Ludwick Community Center Roof $- $- $- $35,000 $252,000 $ 287,000
Fleet Maintenance Lifts $- $- $ 490,000 $ - $ - $ 490,000 326Attachment 5, Page 4 of 7
Project Details FY 2019-20 FY 2020-21 FY 2021-22 FY 2022-23 FY 2023-24 FY 5 Year Total
Police Department Roof Repair $ 20,000 $- $- $ - $ - $ 20,000
Police Evidence Storage Building Roof $- $ 37,000 $- $ - $ - $ 37,000
Police Range Roof $- $4,500 $- $22,200 $ - $ 26,700
Swim Center Bath House Ceiling $- $ 30,000 $- $ - $ - $ 30,000
Swim Center Bath House Roof $ 70,000 $- $- $ - $ - $ 70,000
Swim Center Olympic Pool Thermal Blankets $- $ 30,000 $- $ - $ - $ 30,000
Swim Center Re-Plaster Therapy Pool $ 90,000 $- $- $ - $ - $ 90,000
Swim Center Shower System Repair $ 15,000 $ 56,000 $- $ - $ - $ 71,000
Swim Center Therapy Pool Boiler $- $ 15,000 $- $45,000 $ - $ 60,000
Swim Center Therapy Pool Chemical Pumps $8,000 $- $- $ - $ - $ 8,000
Mission Plaza Restroom Replacements and
Enhancements $ 45,000 $ 150,000 $- $ 1,000,000 $ - $ 1,195,000
Neighborhood Traffic Improvements $- $- $ 75,000 $75,000 $75,000 $ 225,000
New Street Lights $ 75,000 $ 75,000 $ 25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $ 225,000
Open Space $ 140,000 $ 190,000 $ 260,000 $280,000 $280,000 $ 1,150,000
Ongoing Open Space Maintenance $ 40,000 $ 40,000 $ 60,000 $80,000 $80,000 $ 300,000
Open Space Acquisition $ 100,000 $ 150,000 $ 200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $ 850,000
Park Major Maintenance & Repairs $ 70,000 $ 555,000 $ 615,000 $560,000 $490,000 $ 2,290,000
Cheng Park Revitalization $- $ 50,000 $ 150,000 $ - $ - $ 200,000
Meadow and Santa Rosa Park Bleachers $- $- $ 10,000 $200,000 $200,000 $ 410,000
Mission Plaza Arbor $- $- $ 15,000 $70,000 $ - $ 85,000
Mission Plaza Pedestrian Bridge Replacement $- $- $- $50,000 $200,000 $ 250,000
Mission Plaza Railing Upgrade $ 35,000 $- $ 35,000 $35,000 $35,000 $ 140,000
Parks Play Surfacing $ 20,000 $ 30,000 $ 30,000 $30,000 $30,000 $ 140,000
Poinsettia Creek Walk $- $- $ 200,000 $ - $ - $ 200,000
Railroad Bike path fencing $- $- $ 150,000 $150,000 $ - $ 300,000
Sinsheimer Irrigation $- $ 225,000 $- $ - $ - $ 225,000
Sinsheimer Stadium Drainage $- $ 225,000 $- $ - $ - $ 225,000
Water Stations and Supply Lines $ 15,000 $ 25,000 $ 25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $ 115,000
Parking Lot Maintenance $- $ 20,000 $ 300,000 $405,000 $370,000 $ 1,095,000 327Attachment 5, Page 5 of 7
Project Details FY 2019-20 FY 2020-21 FY 2021-22 FY 2022-23 FY 2023-24 FY 5 Year Total
1016 Walnut Street $- $- $ 100,000 $ - $ - $ 100,000
Emerson Park $- $ 10,000 $ 45,000 $ - $ - $ 55,000
Fire Station 2 $- $- $ 45,000 $ - $ - $ 45,000
French Park $- $ 10,000 $ 70,000 $ - $ - $ 80,000
Islay Park $- $- $ 10,000 $80,000 $ - $ 90,000
Laguna Lake $- $- $ 10,000 $135,000 $ - $ 145,000
Ludwick Community Center $- $- $ 10,000 $100,000 $ - $ 110,000
Meadow Park $- $- $ 10,000 $70,000 $ - $ 80,000
Santa Rosa Park $- $- $- $20,000 $370,000 $ 390,000
Parks and Recreation Interior Office Rehabilitation $ 400,000 $- $- $ - $ - $ 400,000
Pedestrian and Bicycle Pathway Maintenance $- $ 79,000 $ 80,000 $50,000 $100,000 $ 309,000
Bob Jones City to Sea Trail near WRRF $- $ 79,000 $ 80,000 $ - $ - $ 159,000
Railroad Safety Trail from Cal Poly to Taft Street $- $- $- $50,000 $100,000 $ 150,000
Pedestrian Crossing Improvements $ 40,000 $- $- $ - $ - $ 40,000
Johnson at Sydney $ 20,000 $- $- $ - $ - $ 20,000
Tank Farm at Poinsettia $ 20,000 $- $- $ - $ - $ 20,000
Pismo/Johnson/SL Creek Bank Stabilization $- $ 10,000 $ 10,000 $125,000 $ - $ 145,000
Playground Equipment Replacement $ 500,000 $ 160,000 $ 275,000 $450,000 $795,000 $ 2,180,000
DeVaul Ranch Playground $- $- $ 50,000 $350,000 $ - $ 400,000
Emerson Park Fitness Equipment $- $ 100,000 $- $ - $ - $ 100,000
Islay Hill Park Playground $ 500,000 $- $- $ - $ - $ 500,000
Laguna Hills Playground $- $- $- $ - $45,000 $ 45,000
Meadow Park Par Course $- $ 20,000 $- $ - $ - $ 20,000
Mitchell Park Playground $- $- $- $100,000 $750,000 $ 850,000
Vista Lago Mini Park Playground $- $ 40,000 $ 225,000 $ - $ - $ 265,000
Police Station Replacement $ 50,000 $- $ 465,000 $ 41,000,000 $ 9,000,000 $ 50,515,000
Sidewalk Replacement and Installation $ 46,000 $ 89,000 $ 100,000 $250,000 $250,000 $ 735,000
Solar Installations $- $- $- $ - $ - $-
Fire Station 1 $- $- $- $ - $ - $-
Swim Center $- $- $- $ - $ - $- 328Attachment 5, Page 6 of 7
Project Details FY 2019-20 FY 2020-21 FY 2021-22 FY 2022-23 FY 2023-24 FY 5 Year Total
South Street Median Landscaping $- $ 15,000 $ 110,000 $ - $ - $ 125,000
Specific Plan Implementation $ 280,000 $- $ 18,000 $80,000 $ - $ 378,000
Broad Street Corridor Access Improvements $ 80,000 $- $ 18,000 $80,000 $ - $ 178,000
Sueldo Street Improvements $ 200,000 $- $- $ - $ - $ 200,000
Storm Drain System Replacement $ 205,000 $ 300,000 $ 550,000 $550,000 $550,000 $ 2,155,000
Drainage Infrastructure Replacement $ 180,000 $ 250,000 $ 500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $ 1,930,000
Trash Capture $ 25,000 $ 50,000 $ 50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $ 225,000
Street Reconstruction & Resurfacing $2,368,000 $1,600,054 $2,895,000 $ 2,098,902 $ 3,085,000 $ 12,253,956
Traffic Safety Implementation $ 10,000 $ 221,000 $- $ - $ - $ 231,000
Marsh at Broad Signal and Crossing Improvements $ 10,000 $ 221,000 $- $ - $ - $ 231,000
Traffic Signs & Striping Maintenance $- $ 25,000 $ 25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $ 100,000
Transportation Safety & Operations $- $ 55,000 $ 30,000 $30,000 $30,000 $ 145,000
Urban Forest Maintenance $ 175,797 $ 175,000 $ 175,224 $175,000 $172,314 $ 873,335
Grand Total $8,498,460 $8,612,547 $8,679,424 $ 49,781,711 $ 17,585,404 $ 93,514,546
329Attachment 5, Page 7 of 7
2019–2021 Financial Plan at a Glance
COMMUNITY FUNDING
www.slocity.org/budget
The fundamental purpose of the City’s Financial Plan is to link what we want to accomplish for the community
with the resources necessary to do so. Through the Financial Plan process, the City Council establishes major
city goals, tasks, and the necessary resources for community programs and projects.
MAJOR CITY GOALS | $130.3M TOTAL INVESTMENT
TWO-YEAR GENERAL FUND BUDGET: $151 MILLION
HOUSING
Facilitate the production of housing with an update of the Housing Element, including an emphasis on affordable housing
(including unhoused people) and workforce housing through the lens of climate action and regionalism.
$1.4M TOTAL | $1.4M OB | $0 CB
CLIMATE ACTION
In response to the climate crisis, continue to update and implement the Climate Action Plan for carbon neutrality,
including preservation and enhancement of our open space and urban forest and planning for resilience.
$17.3M TOTAL | $1.4M OB | $15.9M CB
FISCAL SUSTAINABILITY & RESPONSIBILITY
Continue to implement the City’s Fiscal Responsibility Philosophy with a focus on efficiencies,
strategic economic development, unfunded liabilities, and infrastructure financing.
$14M TOTAL | $14M OB | $0 CB
SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORTATION
Enhance accessible regional transit, bicycle, and pedestrian mobility to promote a transition to a car-free or
shared-car lifestyle and to reduce greenhouse gases.
$55.6M TOTAL | $54.3M OB | $1.3M CB
DOWNTOWN VITALITY
In response to the climate crisis, continue to update and implement the Climate Action Plan for carbon neutrality,
including preservation and enhancement of our open space and urban forest and planning for resilience.
$41.9M TOTAL | $1.3M OB | $40.6M CB
OB=Operating Budget CB=Capital Budget
Attachment 6, Page 1 of 2
ENTERPRISE FUNDS
The City’s four largest enterprise funds are:
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS
Capital Improvement Projects account for a major
portion of the City’s budget. Capital Projects help
maintain or improve a City asset, often called
infrastructure (roads, bridges, community facilities, etc.)
The Local Revenue Measure—also known as Measure G—is a one-half percent local sales tax.
It protects and maintains essential services and facilities, such as open space preservation,
bike lanes and sidewalks, public safety, neighborhood street paving and code enforcement,
flood protection, senior programs, and other vital services and capital improvement projects.
The budget continues to build upon the City’s Fiscal Health Response Plan (FHRP) by
addressing the increased costs for participation in the CalPERS retirement system. Pre-
paying the City’s unfunded liability will result in saving approximately $19M in interest.
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS | $231M
DEPARTMENT BUDGETS | $132M
LOCAL REVENUE MEASURE | $15.7M | $7.8M ANNUALLY
UNFUNDED LIABILITY
Sewer | $98 Million*
Water | $22 Million
Parking | $31 Million**
Transit | $8.5 Million$17M
CIP Expenditures
General Fund
$32M 10 Year Extra Payments
$19M
Interest Payments
Saved
$181.5M
CIP Expenditures by
Enterprise Fund
$4.6M Established a 115 Trust
$36.3M
Police
$26.4M
Fire
$26.4M
Public Works
$14.5M
City Administration/
Information Technology
$9.7M
Community Development
$8.7M
Parks & Recreation
$6.1M
Finance
$2.8M
Human Resources
$1.3M
City Attorney
*Includes water resource reclamation improvements
**Includes Palm/Nipomo parking garage
Attachment 6, Page 2 of 2
»Continue to expand and improve San Luis Obispo's low-stress
bike network and ensure that your community follows a bicycle
facility selection criteria that increases separation and protection
of bicyclists based on levels of motor vehicle speed and volume,
to maximize safety and comfort for bicyclists of all ages and
abilities.
»Install a bicycle wayfinding system with distance and
destination information at strategic locations around the
community, integrating preferred on-street and off-street
facilities. Wayfinding may be particularly useful at intersections
and along routes that may be likely to attract non-regular bicycle
riders.
»Continue to increase the amount of high quality bicycle
parking throughout the community, particularly near transit
stops and urban activity centers. Increase investments to ensure
that transit stops are easily accessible by bike to enable more
multi-modal trips with bicycles and transit.
»Consider launching a bike share system that is open to the
public. Bike sharing is a convenient, cost effective, and healthy
way of encouraging locals and visitors to make short trips by
bike, make bicycling more accessible to all, and to bridge the
'last mile' between public transit and destinations.
»Work with local League Cycling Instructors (LCIs) to offer
Bicycle Friendly Driver training to motorists in San Luis Obispo,
particularly to professional drivers and transit/fleet operators.
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA
37%
41%
VERY GOOD
20%
EXCELLENT
YES
MEETS EVERY
TWO MONTHS
VERY GOOD
YES
1 PER 14K
10 BUILDING BLOCKS OF
A BICYCLE FRIENDLY COMMUNITY San Luis ObispoAverage Platinum
High Speed Roads with Bike Facilities
Total Bicycle Network Mileage
to Total Road Network Mileage
Bicycle Education in Schools
Share of Transportation Budget
Spent on Bicycling
Bike Month and
Bike to Work Events
Active Bicycle Advocacy Group
Active Bicycle Advisory Committee
Bicycle–Friendly Laws & Ordinances
Bike Plan is Current and is Being
Implemented
Bike Program Staff to Population
36%
80%
GOOD
14%
VERY GOOD
YES
MEETS AT LEAST
MONTHLY
VERY GOOD
YES
1 PER 21K
LEARN MORE » WWW.BIKELEAGUE.ORG/COMMUNITIES
CATEGORY SCORES
ENGINEERING
Bicycle network and connectivity
EDUCATION
Motorist awareness and bicycling skills
ENCOURAGEMENT
Mainstreaming bicycling culture
ENFORCEMENT
Promoting safety and protecting bicyclists' rights
EVALUATION & PLANNING
Setting targets and having a plan
KEY OUTCOMES
RIDERSHIP
Percentage of commuters who bike
SAFETY MEASURESCRASHES
Crashes per 10k bicycle commuters
SAFETY MEASURESFATALITIES
Fatalities per 10k bicycle commuters
KEY STEPS TO PLATINUM
POPULATION DENSITY
3,70047,446
TOTAL POPULATION
TOTAL AREA (sq. miles)
12.93
# OF LOCAL BICYCLE
FRIENDLY BUSINESSES
# OF LOCAL BICYCLE
FRIENDLY UNIVERSITIES
5.4/10
6.0/10
7.8 /10
4.1 /10
7.4 /10
San Luis
Obispo
8.3%
215
1.02
Average Platinum
13.6%
100
0.4
4
1
Fall 2019
SUPPORTED BY AND LEAGUE MEMBERS
Attachment 7, Page 1 of 1