HomeMy WebLinkAbout6-DoubleDecker_EmailSearchRecordsFrom:Ferguson, Julie
To:Combs, Ron; Forrest, Doug
Subject:FW: Tree Committee Meeting Minutes 10.23.17 sent
Date:Monday, December 18, 2017 11:20:49 AM
Attachments:image001.png
10-23-2017 TC Draft Minutes.pdf
image003.png
I took care of this for Kyle.
Julie Ferguson @ Corp Yard
Main 781.7220 VM 781.7002
From: Ferguson, Julie
Sent: Monday, December 18, 2017 11:19 AM
To: Bell, Kyle <KBell@slocity.org>
Subject: FW: Tree Committee Meeting Minutes 10.23.17
Hi Kyle,
Here are the draft minutes for that meeting. Still waiting for the approved one.
Julie Ferguson @ Corp Yard
Main 781.7220 VM 781.7002
From: Bell, Kyle
Sent: Monday, December 18, 2017 9:44 AM
To: Combs, Ron <rcombs@slocity.org>; Ferguson, Julie <JFerguson@slocity.org>; Forrest, Doug
dforrest@slocity.org>
Subject: Tree Committee Meeting Minutes 10.23.17
Good morning,
Could someone point me in the direction to locate the meeting minutes for the Tree
Committee hearing on October 23, 2017? A draft version will suffice, I need this as soon as
possible to assist in writing the report for Council.
Kyle Bell
CDD Associate Planner
Community Development
919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218
E KBell@slocity.org
T 805.781.7524
slocity.org
From:Ferguson, Julie
To:Bell, Kyle
Subject:FW: Tree Committee Meeting Minutes 10.23.17
Date:Monday, December 18, 2017 11:19:00 AM
Attachments:image001.png
10-23-2017 TC Draft Minutes.pdf
image002.png
Hi Kyle,
Here are the draft minutes for that meeting. Still waiting for the approved one.
Julie Ferguson @ Corp Yard
Main 781.7220 VM 781.7002
From: Bell, Kyle
Sent: Monday, December 18, 2017 9:44 AM
To: Combs, Ron <rcombs@slocity.org>; Ferguson, Julie <JFerguson@slocity.org>; Forrest, Doug
dforrest@slocity.org>
Subject: Tree Committee Meeting Minutes 10.23.17
Good morning,
Could someone point me in the direction to locate the meeting minutes for the Tree
Committee hearing on October 23, 2017? A draft version will suffice, I need this as soon as
possible to assist in writing the report for Council.
Kyle Bell
CDD Associate Planner
Community Development
919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218
E KBell@slocity.org
T 805.781.7524
slocity.org
From:Sims, Shannon
To:jtosumi@gmail.com
Cc:Lawson, Dee
Subject:1/11 Mayor/Adv. Body Chair Quarterly Mtg.
Date:Tuesday, December 12, 2017 1:13:00 PM
Attachments:image001.png
4 - MTC.doc
Greetings!
Our next Mayor/Advisory Body Chair Quarterly Meeting will be held on Thursday, January
11th, 2018, from 11:30am – 2:00pm.
Attached is your report from the last meeting. Please confirm your attendance, update your
report and return it to me in Word format no later than Friday, January 5th.
Thank you!
Shannon Sims
Administration Executive Assistant
City Administration
990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249
E ssims@slocity.org
T 805.781.7123
slocity.org
From:Claxton, Christina
To:Chang, Danny
Subject:FW: City Council Special Session Dec 12
Date:Thursday, December 7, 2017 9:15:00 AM
Attachments:12122017CityCouncilSpecial.pdf
12122017CityCouncilSpecial with attachments.pdf
image001.png
Hi Danny, please see attached. I’ll try to find the attachment Pam sent us from her PERS
conference, too.
From: Ouellette, Pam
Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2017 3:35 PM
To: Burnett, Cori <CBurnett@slocity.org>; Claxton, Christina <cclaxton@slocity.org>; Brewen,
Howard <hbrewen@slocity.org>
Subject: City Council Special Session Dec 12
It looks like the Fiscal Piece is the last item (#16), however, the items preceding it may not
take that much time (6 of them take 35 minutes total)
So, the idea is we meet at Guiseppe’s at 5:00PM for happy hour and dinner, then head to
city hall around 7:00PM.
Pam Ouellette
WRRF Chief Operator
Public Utilities
35 Prado Road, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-7314
E pouellette@slocity.org
T 805.781.7241
C 805.431.2595
slocity.org
From:Ouellette, Pam
To:Burnett, Cori; Claxton, Christina; Brewen, Howard
Subject:City Council Special Session Dec 12
Date:Wednesday, December 6, 2017 3:35:45 PM
Attachments:12122017CityCouncilSpecial.pdf
12122017CityCouncilSpecial with attachments.pdf
image001.png
It looks like the Fiscal Piece is the last item (#16), however, the items preceding it may not
take that much time (6 of them take 35 minutes total)
So, the idea is we meet at Guiseppe’s at 5:00PM for happy hour and dinner, then head to
city hall around 7:00PM.
Pam Ouellette
WRRF Chief Operator
Public Utilities
35 Prado Road, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-7314
E pouellette@slocity.org
T 805.781.7241
C 805.431.2595
slocity.org
From:Stanley, Jesse
To:Hannula, Hal
Subject:Draft TC Minutes 10/23/2017
Date:Wednesday, November 29, 2017 10:42:53 AM
Attachments:10-23-2017 TC Draft Minutes.pdf
image001.png
Jesse Stanley
Administrative Assistant
Public Works
919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218
E jstanley@slocity.org
T 805.781.7012
slocity.org
From:Grigsby, Daryl
To:John Logan
Cc:DANA LEE; Anguiano, Gamaliel
Subject:RE: Phillips/Pepper Loop
Date:Friday, November 3, 2017 11:53:53 AM
Logan - thanks for your patience while we looked into this issue further. So - here's my thoughts on the concerns
you raised relative to the Phillips/Pepper loop.
So - you are correct about the options being Monterey instead of Mill st - my reference to Mill only was incorrect.
Regarding taking the existing routes off that Phillips/Pepper - we will not be able to make that change now. And - to
be honest - its difficult to determine when that change could occur - and I'd hate to make a promise about timing we
cannot keep. I do want to assure you that Gamaliel's discussions with you were done with the best intent on his part -
that is - he fully intended to move the routes onto straighter alignments as they work best for service and timing.
However - the presence of valuable trees on Mills is a significant deterrent. Gamaliel consulted with the City
Arborist - whose determination was the pruning required for occasional double decker service could modify the tree
canopy. As you know - the city residents and regulations value the tree scape and canopy - and - I can definitely say
the some of the most intense public hearings in the last year have involved changes to existing treescape.
We also looked at removing the stops on Philllips/Pepper as you noted - and we determined there is enough use of
those stops to warrant maintaining them.
Finally - we also completed the traffic review of the route. Our traffic staff will be applying red curb paint on a
corner where currently sometimes parking occurs and visibility is limited - where people shouldn’t be parking but
sometimes people park there. Also - its not unusual for vehicles to cross over single yellow lines on neighborhood
streets. Those lines are applied only on corners as a guide to let you know to proceed as though vehicles could be
approaching - its not illegal to cross over and is not a safety issue as long as drivers in both directions are aware of
and drive as though there are approaching vehicles. It is often the case - whether lines are present or not - that on
smaller streets vehicles must use caution or even pull over if larger vehicles like busses, trucks, RVs and other
vehicles approach in the opposite direction.
I'm aware that none of the above is probably satisfactory. Let me know if you want to discuss further
Original Message-----
From: John Logan [mailto:jloganh5@hotmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2017 10:57 PM
To: Grigsby, Daryl <dgrigsby@slocity.org>
Cc: DANA LEE <dana1021lee@gmail.com>; Anguiano, Gamaliel <GAnguiano@slocity.org>
Subject: Re: Phillips/Pepper Loop
Daryl -
Thank you for getting back to us. Some items need clarification.
Allow me to explain, addressing your numerical points:
2. The Short Range Transit Plan, as it was explained to me, presented to the Mass Transportation Committee, the
Planning Commission, and the City Council never involved moving bus service to Mill St. It was going to move
service to Monterey St. The Mill St. option was brought to Gamaliel’s attention when I attended an MTC meeting
following his failure to implement the SRTP and uphold his word to our neighborhood. On this note, it was never a
representation that bus service may be removed from Phillips/Pepper. It was a commitment that bus service will be
removed from Phillips/Pepper.
3. Again, the proposed route was not for Mill St. It was for Monterey St. The study to confirm that bus service could
in fact function on Monterey St. was not completed prior to the implementation of the SRTP. Following a meeting
with Gamaliel in June 2017, when I asked why he had failed to uphold his commitment to us, he scheduled the
necessary study. This study was completed after the bus service changes were already implemented. This timeline is
detailed in the letter I wrote to City Council, which I sent to you via e-mail and hard copy.
4. Would the necessary tree trimmings really “Dramatically modify the treesscape?” Has it been identified which
trees would need to be cut, and by how much? On this note, I saw that this topic is on the agenda for the next tree
committee meeting. Is this still the case? Will Gamaliel be there to advocate for his interest in running SLO Transit
more effectively?
5. Please have this study completed. What is the process, when will it be scheduled, and when can we expect to see
the results?
6. What specific changes would allow for this topic to be revisited? What changes are you willing to pursue so that
you can meet the commitments to our neighborhood and the design of the SRTP?
7. The “olive branch” given to our neighborhood in the form of less bus service has been revoked, a few short weeks
after a student survey asking for expanded bus service. Bus service will soon be effectively what it was prior to the
SRTP. So, whatever concession was given is no longer relevant.
At our meeting we briefly discussed some alternative options. We discussed the prospect of removing the bus stops
on Phillips, even if the buses need to travel on the route. Did you, Tim, and Gamaliel discuss this option? Given the
unmet commitment to remove bus service from the loop, and now the expansion of service on that same loop, this
seems like a reasonable concession to our neighborhood. This would remove the same two bus stops as if Gamaliel
had been able to move service onto Mill St, as he said was his preference. I hope you will consider this option.
Thank you, I look forward to hearing from you soon.
Logan
626) 664-4412
On Oct 19, 2017, at 8:33 PM, Grigsby, Daryl <dgrigsby@slocity.org> wrote:
Logan and Dana - thanks for sharing the information both in writing and in our meeting. I was able to get with our
transit staff and discuss this issue. So - here's my thoughts:
1) as you pointed out - operationally Gamaliel and transit staff would prefer to keep service on Mill for obvious
reasons - its better for the transit system and ridership for simplicity, clarity etc.
2) early on the in Short Range Transit plan it was our desire to move the service onto Mill - hence the
representations to you and others that we may be moving off the Phillips/Pepper loop.
3) as our contractor reviewed the proposed routes and alignments for the short range transit plan - they informed
us that given the possibility of the Doubledecker using that route - they could not move off the Phillips/Pepper loop.
4) the challenge with the double decker is that given ridership on that route - we do need to occasionally keep the
option to run the double decker along that route. And - as I noted - we are really reluctant to dramatically modify the
treescape along Mills St given its importance both the residents and the overall Urban Forest - to accommodate the
double decker
5) I watched your videos about how busses navigate the street. We can have our traffic folks look at that and see if
there are any safety issues created by this arrangement. My 1st thought is given the traffic volumes it may not be a
significant issue - but we can have someone take a look at that issue.
6) the short range transit plan is not fully implemented - and - it may be that in the future this issue of moving off
phillips/pepper could be revisited.
7) I know this does not respond completely to your request - but Gamaliel did look seriously at moving off that
street - and - with the plan there are - as I recall - fewer busses on that route now than before implementation of the
plan.
Those are my thoughts for now - if you have any questions or concerns let me know.
Original Message-----
From: John Logan [mailto:jloganh5@hotmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2017 2:38 PM
To: Grigsby, Daryl <dgrigsby@slocity.org>
Cc: DANA LEE <dana1021lee@gmail.com>
Subject: Phillips/Pepper Loop
Daryl -
Thank you for meeting with Dana and I this morning.
Attached are the correspondances we spoke about this morning and a couple of videos showing a regular bus
navigating the Phillips/Pepper corner.
I also dropped a folder with hard copies to Jessica at the front desk.
I look forward to speaking with you soon.
Logan Hunter
626) 664-4412
From:Christian, Kevin
To:Purrington, Teresa
Cc:Gallagher, Carrie
Subject:Fw: Nov 8th MTC Agenda Packet
Date:Friday, November 3, 2017 11:53:29 AM
Attachments:11-08-17 - MTC Agenda - Final Packet.pdf
image001.png
Teresa,
Please calendar, post, and archive the attached MTC agenda.
Kevin Christian
Administrative Assistant
City of San Luis Obispo
City Administration
City Clerk's Office
990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218
E kchristian@slocity.org
T 805.781.7104
slocity.org
From: Anguiano, Gamaliel
Sent: Friday, November 3, 2017 10:26 AM
Cc: Lawson, Dee; Cutler, Megan; Dash, Damon; Christian, Kevin; Eliane Guillot; gstraw@slorta.org;
Grigsby, Daryl
Subject: Nov 8th MTC Agenda Packet
MTC,
Attached is a copy of the Nov 8th MTC Agenda. Look forward to seeing you then.
Gamaliel Anguiano
Transit Manager
Public Works
Transit Services
919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218
E GAnguiano@slocity.org
T 805.781.7121
C 805.431.0001
slocity.org
From:Anguiano, Gamaliel
Subject:Nov 8th MTC Agenda Packet
Date:Friday, November 3, 2017 10:46:52 AM
Attachments:11-08-17 - MTC Agenda - Final Packet.pdf
image001.png
MTC,
Attached is a copy of the Nov 8th MTC Agenda. Look forward to seeing you then.
Gamaliel Anguiano
Transit Manager
Public Works
Transit Services
919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218
E GAnguiano@slocity.org
T 805.781.7121
C 805.431.0001
slocity.org
From:Anguiano, Gamaliel
Cc:Lawson, Dee; Cutler, Megan; Dash, Damon; Christian, Kevin; Eliane Guillot; gstraw@slorta.org; Grigsby, Daryl
Subject:Nov 8th MTC Agenda Packet
Date:Friday, November 3, 2017 10:26:23 AM
Attachments:11-08-17 - MTC Agenda - Final Packet.pdf
image001.png
MTC,
Attached is a copy of the Nov 8th MTC Agenda. Look forward to seeing you then.
Gamaliel Anguiano
Transit Manager
Public Works
Transit Services
919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218
E GAnguiano@slocity.org
T 805.781.7121
C 805.431.0001
slocity.org
From:Lisa A. Woske
To:Ferguson, Julie; Combs, Ron
Subject:Here you go!
Date:Thursday, November 2, 2017 2:44:48 PM
Attachments:10 23 17 Tree Minutes.doc
Happy Turkey Day waaaaaay early!!!!
LISA WOSKE
Marketing/Public Relations
Cal Poly Arts
One Grand Avenue
San Luis Obispo, CA
93407-0334
ph: 805/756-7110
fax: 805/756-6558
Find out what's new! http://www.calpolyarts.org
From:John Logan
To:Grigsby, Daryl
Subject:Re: Phillips/Pepper Loop
Date:Thursday, October 26, 2017 10:48:37 AM
No problem, I’ll talk to you soon.
Sent from my iPhone
On Oct 26, 2017, at 10:42 AM, Grigsby, Daryl <dgrigsby@slocity.org> wrote:
I haven’t forgotten about this - I haven’t sat down in my desk for 5 minutes this
week due to meetings, budget items, etc. I hope to have something next week
Original Message-----
From: John Logan [mailto:jloganh5@hotmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2017 10:07 AM
To: Grigsby, Daryl <dgrigsby@slocity.org>
Cc: DANA LEE <dana1021lee@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Phillips/Pepper Loop
Good morning, Daryl.
I sent you this e-mail one week ago. I hope to hear a response to the questions
therein. Please let us know when you have a chance to look at it.
Logan
On Oct 19, 2017, at 10:56 PM, Logan Hunter
jloganh5@hotmail.com> wrote:
Daryl -
Thank you for getting back to us. Some items need clarification.
Allow me to explain, addressing your numerical points:
2. The Short Range Transit Plan, as it was explained to me, presented
to the Mass Transportation Committee, the Planning Commission,
and the City Council never involved moving bus service to Mill St. It
was going to move service to Monterey St. The Mill St. option was
brought to Gamaliel’s attention when I attended an MTC meeting
following his failure to implement the SRTP and uphold his word to
our neighborhood. On this note, it was never a representation that bus
service may be removed from Phillips/Pepper. It was a commitment
that bus service will be removed from Phillips/Pepper.
3. Again, the proposed route was not for Mill St. It was for Monterey
St. The study to confirm that bus service could in fact function on
Monterey St. was not completed prior to the implementation of the
SRTP. Following a meeting with Gamaliel in June 2017, when I
asked why he had failed to uphold his commitment to us, he
scheduled the necessary study. This study was completed after the
bus service changes were already implemented. This timeline is
detailed in the letter I wrote to City Council, which I sent to you via
e-mail and hard copy.
4. Would the necessary tree trimmings really “Dramatically modify
the treesscape?” Has it been identified which trees would need to be
cut, and by how much? On this note, I saw that this topic is on the
agenda for the next tree committee meeting. Is this still the case? Will
Gamaliel be there to advocate for his interest in running SLO Transit
more effectively?
5. Please have this study completed. What is the process, when will it
be scheduled, and when can we expect to see the results?
6. What specific changes would allow for this topic to be revisited?
What changes are you willing to pursue so that you can meet the
commitments to our neighborhood and the design of the SRTP?
7. The “olive branch” given to our neighborhood in the form of less
bus service has been revoked, a few short weeks after a student
survey asking for expanded bus service. Bus service will soon be
effectively what it was prior to the SRTP. So, whatever concession
was given is no longer relevant.
At our meeting we briefly discussed some alternative options. We
discussed the prospect of removing the bus stops on Phillips, even if
the buses need to travel on the route. Did you, Tim, and Gamaliel
discuss this option? Given the unmet commitment to remove bus
service from the loop, and now the expansion of service on that same
loop, this seems like a reasonable concession to our neighborhood.
This would remove the same two bus stops as if Gamaliel had been
able to move service onto Mill St, as he said was his preference. I
hope you will consider this option.
Thank you, I look forward to hearing from you soon.
Logan
626) 664-4412
On Oct 19, 2017, at 8:33 PM, Grigsby, Daryl
dgrigsby@slocity.org> wrote:
Logan and Dana - thanks for sharing the information
both in writing and in our meeting. I was able to get with
our transit staff and discuss this issue. So - here's my
thoughts:
1) as you pointed out - operationally Gamaliel and transit
staff would prefer to keep service on Mill for obvious
reasons - its better for the transit system and ridership for
simplicity, clarity etc.
2) early on the in Short Range Transit plan it was our
desire to move the service onto Mill - hence the
representations to you and others that we may be moving
off the Phillips/Pepper loop.
3) as our contractor reviewed the proposed routes and
alignments for the short range transit plan - they
informed us that given the possibility of the
Doubledecker using that route - they could not move off
the Phillips/Pepper loop.
4) the challenge with the double decker is that given
ridership on that route - we do need to occasionally keep
the option to run the double decker along that route. And
as I noted - we are really reluctant to dramatically
modify the treescape along Mills St given its importance
both the residents and the overall Urban Forest - to
accommodate the double decker
5) I watched your videos about how busses navigate the
street. We can have our traffic folks look at that and see
if there are any safety issues created by this arrangement.
My 1st thought is given the traffic volumes it may not be
a significant issue - but we can have someone take a look
at that issue.
6) the short range transit plan is not fully implemented -
and - it may be that in the future this issue of moving off
phillips/pepper could be revisited.
7) I know this does not respond completely to your
request - but Gamaliel did look seriously at moving off
that street - and - with the plan there are - as I recall -
fewer busses on that route now than before
implementation of the plan.
Those are my thoughts for now - if you have any
questions or concerns let me know.
Original Message-----
From: John Logan [mailto:jloganh5@hotmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2017 2:38 PM
To: Grigsby, Daryl <dgrigsby@slocity.org>
Cc: DANA LEE <dana1021lee@gmail.com>
Subject: Phillips/Pepper Loop
Daryl -
Thank you for meeting with Dana and I this morning.
Attached are the correspondances we spoke about this
morning and a couple of videos showing a regular bus
navigating the Phillips/Pepper corner.
I also dropped a folder with hard copies to Jessica at the
front desk.
I look forward to speaking with you soon.
Logan Hunter
626) 664-4412
From:Grigsby, Daryl
To:John Logan
Cc:DANA LEE
Subject:RE: Phillips/Pepper Loop
Date:Thursday, October 26, 2017 10:41:53 AM
I haven’t forgotten about this - I haven’t sat down in my desk for 5 minutes this week due to meetings, budget items,
etc. I hope to have something next week
Original Message-----
From: John Logan [mailto:jloganh5@hotmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2017 10:07 AM
To: Grigsby, Daryl <dgrigsby@slocity.org>
Cc: DANA LEE <dana1021lee@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Phillips/Pepper Loop
Good morning, Daryl.
I sent you this e-mail one week ago. I hope to hear a response to the questions therein. Please let us know when you
have a chance to look at it.
Logan
On Oct 19, 2017, at 10:56 PM, Logan Hunter <jloganh5@hotmail.com> wrote:
Daryl -
Thank you for getting back to us. Some items need clarification.
Allow me to explain, addressing your numerical points:
2. The Short Range Transit Plan, as it was explained to me, presented to the Mass Transportation Committee, the
Planning Commission, and the City Council never involved moving bus service to Mill St. It was going to move
service to Monterey St. The Mill St. option was brought to Gamaliel’s attention when I attended an MTC meeting
following his failure to implement the SRTP and uphold his word to our neighborhood. On this note, it was never a
representation that bus service may be removed from Phillips/Pepper. It was a commitment that bus service will be
removed from Phillips/Pepper.
3. Again, the proposed route was not for Mill St. It was for Monterey St. The study to confirm that bus service
could in fact function on Monterey St. was not completed prior to the implementation of the SRTP. Following a
meeting with Gamaliel in June 2017, when I asked why he had failed to uphold his commitment to us, he scheduled
the necessary study. This study was completed after the bus service changes were already implemented. This
timeline is detailed in the letter I wrote to City Council, which I sent to you via e-mail and hard copy.
4. Would the necessary tree trimmings really “Dramatically modify the treesscape?” Has it been identified which
trees would need to be cut, and by how much? On this note, I saw that this topic is on the agenda for the next tree
committee meeting. Is this still the case? Will Gamaliel be there to advocate for his interest in running SLO Transit
more effectively?
5. Please have this study completed. What is the process, when will it be scheduled, and when can we expect to
see the results?
6. What specific changes would allow for this topic to be revisited? What changes are you willing to pursue so
that you can meet the commitments to our neighborhood and the design of the SRTP?
7. The “olive branch” given to our neighborhood in the form of less bus service has been revoked, a few short
weeks after a student survey asking for expanded bus service. Bus service will soon be effectively what it was prior
to the SRTP. So, whatever concession was given is no longer relevant.
At our meeting we briefly discussed some alternative options. We discussed the prospect of removing the bus
stops on Phillips, even if the buses need to travel on the route. Did you, Tim, and Gamaliel discuss this option?
Given the unmet commitment to remove bus service from the loop, and now the expansion of service on that same
loop, this seems like a reasonable concession to our neighborhood. This would remove the same two bus stops as if
Gamaliel had been able to move service onto Mill St, as he said was his preference. I hope you will consider this
option.
Thank you, I look forward to hearing from you soon.
Logan
626) 664-4412
On Oct 19, 2017, at 8:33 PM, Grigsby, Daryl <dgrigsby@slocity.org> wrote:
Logan and Dana - thanks for sharing the information both in writing and in our meeting. I was able to get with
our transit staff and discuss this issue. So - here's my thoughts:
1) as you pointed out - operationally Gamaliel and transit staff would prefer to keep service on Mill for obvious
reasons - its better for the transit system and ridership for simplicity, clarity etc.
2) early on the in Short Range Transit plan it was our desire to move the service onto Mill - hence the
representations to you and others that we may be moving off the Phillips/Pepper loop.
3) as our contractor reviewed the proposed routes and alignments for the short range transit plan - they informed
us that given the possibility of the Doubledecker using that route - they could not move off the Phillips/Pepper loop.
4) the challenge with the double decker is that given ridership on that route - we do need to occasionally keep the
option to run the double decker along that route. And - as I noted - we are really reluctant to dramatically modify the
treescape along Mills St given its importance both the residents and the overall Urban Forest - to accommodate the
double decker
5) I watched your videos about how busses navigate the street. We can have our traffic folks look at that and see
if there are any safety issues created by this arrangement. My 1st thought is given the traffic volumes it may not be a
significant issue - but we can have someone take a look at that issue.
6) the short range transit plan is not fully implemented - and - it may be that in the future this issue of moving off
phillips/pepper could be revisited.
7) I know this does not respond completely to your request - but Gamaliel did look seriously at moving off that
street - and - with the plan there are - as I recall - fewer busses on that route now than before implementation of the
plan.
Those are my thoughts for now - if you have any questions or concerns let me know.
Original Message-----
From: John Logan [mailto:jloganh5@hotmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2017 2:38 PM
To: Grigsby, Daryl <dgrigsby@slocity.org>
Cc: DANA LEE <dana1021lee@gmail.com>
Subject: Phillips/Pepper Loop
Daryl -
Thank you for meeting with Dana and I this morning.
Attached are the correspondances we spoke about this morning and a couple of videos showing a regular bus
navigating the Phillips/Pepper corner.
I also dropped a folder with hard copies to Jessica at the front desk.
I look forward to speaking with you soon.
Logan Hunter
626) 664-4412
From:John Logan
To:Grigsby, Daryl
Cc:DANA LEE
Subject:Re: Phillips/Pepper Loop
Date:Thursday, October 26, 2017 10:07:10 AM
Good morning, Daryl.
I sent you this e-mail one week ago. I hope to hear a response to the questions therein. Please let us know when you
have a chance to look at it.
Logan
On Oct 19, 2017, at 10:56 PM, Logan Hunter <jloganh5@hotmail.com> wrote:
Daryl -
Thank you for getting back to us. Some items need clarification.
Allow me to explain, addressing your numerical points:
2. The Short Range Transit Plan, as it was explained to me, presented to the Mass Transportation Committee, the
Planning Commission, and the City Council never involved moving bus service to Mill St. It was going to move
service to Monterey St. The Mill St. option was brought to Gamaliel’s attention when I attended an MTC meeting
following his failure to implement the SRTP and uphold his word to our neighborhood. On this note, it was never a
representation that bus service may be removed from Phillips/Pepper. It was a commitment that bus service will be
removed from Phillips/Pepper.
3. Again, the proposed route was not for Mill St. It was for Monterey St. The study to confirm that bus service
could in fact function on Monterey St. was not completed prior to the implementation of the SRTP. Following a
meeting with Gamaliel in June 2017, when I asked why he had failed to uphold his commitment to us, he scheduled
the necessary study. This study was completed after the bus service changes were already implemented. This
timeline is detailed in the letter I wrote to City Council, which I sent to you via e-mail and hard copy.
4. Would the necessary tree trimmings really “Dramatically modify the treesscape?” Has it been identified which
trees would need to be cut, and by how much? On this note, I saw that this topic is on the agenda for the next tree
committee meeting. Is this still the case? Will Gamaliel be there to advocate for his interest in running SLO Transit
more effectively?
5. Please have this study completed. What is the process, when will it be scheduled, and when can we expect to
see the results?
6. What specific changes would allow for this topic to be revisited? What changes are you willing to pursue so
that you can meet the commitments to our neighborhood and the design of the SRTP?
7. The “olive branch” given to our neighborhood in the form of less bus service has been revoked, a few short
weeks after a student survey asking for expanded bus service. Bus service will soon be effectively what it was prior
to the SRTP. So, whatever concession was given is no longer relevant.
At our meeting we briefly discussed some alternative options. We discussed the prospect of removing the bus
stops on Phillips, even if the buses need to travel on the route. Did you, Tim, and Gamaliel discuss this option?
Given the unmet commitment to remove bus service from the loop, and now the expansion of service on that same
loop, this seems like a reasonable concession to our neighborhood. This would remove the same two bus stops as if
Gamaliel had been able to move service onto Mill St, as he said was his preference. I hope you will consider this
option.
Thank you, I look forward to hearing from you soon.
Logan
626) 664-4412
On Oct 19, 2017, at 8:33 PM, Grigsby, Daryl <dgrigsby@slocity.org> wrote:
Logan and Dana - thanks for sharing the information both in writing and in our meeting. I was able to get with
our transit staff and discuss this issue. So - here's my thoughts:
1) as you pointed out - operationally Gamaliel and transit staff would prefer to keep service on Mill for obvious
reasons - its better for the transit system and ridership for simplicity, clarity etc.
2) early on the in Short Range Transit plan it was our desire to move the service onto Mill - hence the
representations to you and others that we may be moving off the Phillips/Pepper loop.
3) as our contractor reviewed the proposed routes and alignments for the short range transit plan - they informed
us that given the possibility of the Doubledecker using that route - they could not move off the Phillips/Pepper loop.
4) the challenge with the double decker is that given ridership on that route - we do need to occasionally keep the
option to run the double decker along that route. And - as I noted - we are really reluctant to dramatically modify the
treescape along Mills St given its importance both the residents and the overall Urban Forest - to accommodate the
double decker
5) I watched your videos about how busses navigate the street. We can have our traffic folks look at that and see
if there are any safety issues created by this arrangement. My 1st thought is given the traffic volumes it may not be a
significant issue - but we can have someone take a look at that issue.
6) the short range transit plan is not fully implemented - and - it may be that in the future this issue of moving off
phillips/pepper could be revisited.
7) I know this does not respond completely to your request - but Gamaliel did look seriously at moving off that
street - and - with the plan there are - as I recall - fewer busses on that route now than before implementation of the
plan.
Those are my thoughts for now - if you have any questions or concerns let me know.
Original Message-----
From: John Logan [mailto:jloganh5@hotmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2017 2:38 PM
To: Grigsby, Daryl <dgrigsby@slocity.org>
Cc: DANA LEE <dana1021lee@gmail.com>
Subject: Phillips/Pepper Loop
Daryl -
Thank you for meeting with Dana and I this morning.
Attached are the correspondances we spoke about this morning and a couple of videos showing a regular bus
navigating the Phillips/Pepper corner.
I also dropped a folder with hard copies to Jessica at the front desk.
I look forward to speaking with you soon.
Logan Hunter
626) 664-4412
From:Grigsby, Daryl
To:Anguiano, Gamaliel
Subject:FW: Phillips/Pepper Loop
Date:Tuesday, October 24, 2017 9:43:26 PM
Drop by and chat about mr logan's points here for my response back
Original Message-----
From: John Logan [mailto:jloganh5@hotmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2017 10:57 PM
To: Grigsby, Daryl <dgrigsby@slocity.org>
Cc: DANA LEE <dana1021lee@gmail.com>; Anguiano, Gamaliel <GAnguiano@slocity.org>
Subject: Re: Phillips/Pepper Loop
Daryl -
Thank you for getting back to us. Some items need clarification.
Allow me to explain, addressing your numerical points:
2. The Short Range Transit Plan, as it was explained to me, presented to the Mass Transportation Committee, the
Planning Commission, and the City Council never involved moving bus service to Mill St. It was going to move
service to Monterey St. The Mill St. option was brought to Gamaliel’s attention when I attended an MTC meeting
following his failure to implement the SRTP and uphold his word to our neighborhood. On this note, it was never a
representation that bus service may be removed from Phillips/Pepper. It was a commitment that bus service will be
removed from Phillips/Pepper.
3. Again, the proposed route was not for Mill St. It was for Monterey St. The study to confirm that bus service could
in fact function on Monterey St. was not completed prior to the implementation of the SRTP. Following a meeting
with Gamaliel in June 2017, when I asked why he had failed to uphold his commitment to us, he scheduled the
necessary study. This study was completed after the bus service changes were already implemented. This timeline is
detailed in the letter I wrote to City Council, which I sent to you via e-mail and hard copy.
4. Would the necessary tree trimmings really “Dramatically modify the treesscape?” Has it been identified which
trees would need to be cut, and by how much? On this note, I saw that this topic is on the agenda for the next tree
committee meeting. Is this still the case? Will Gamaliel be there to advocate for his interest in running SLO Transit
more effectively?
5. Please have this study completed. What is the process, when will it be scheduled, and when can we expect to see
the results?
6. What specific changes would allow for this topic to be revisited? What changes are you willing to pursue so that
you can meet the commitments to our neighborhood and the design of the SRTP?
7. The “olive branch” given to our neighborhood in the form of less bus service has been revoked, a few short weeks
after a student survey asking for expanded bus service. Bus service will soon be effectively what it was prior to the
SRTP. So, whatever concession was given is no longer relevant.
At our meeting we briefly discussed some alternative options. We discussed the prospect of removing the bus stops
on Phillips, even if the buses need to travel on the route. Did you, Tim, and Gamaliel discuss this option? Given the
unmet commitment to remove bus service from the loop, and now the expansion of service on that same loop, this
seems like a reasonable concession to our neighborhood. This would remove the same two bus stops as if Gamaliel
had been able to move service onto Mill St, as he said was his preference. I hope you will consider this option.
Thank you, I look forward to hearing from you soon.
Logan
626) 664-4412
On Oct 19, 2017, at 8:33 PM, Grigsby, Daryl <dgrigsby@slocity.org> wrote:
Logan and Dana - thanks for sharing the information both in writing and in our meeting. I was able to get with our
transit staff and discuss this issue. So - here's my thoughts:
1) as you pointed out - operationally Gamaliel and transit staff would prefer to keep service on Mill for obvious
reasons - its better for the transit system and ridership for simplicity, clarity etc.
2) early on the in Short Range Transit plan it was our desire to move the service onto Mill - hence the
representations to you and others that we may be moving off the Phillips/Pepper loop.
3) as our contractor reviewed the proposed routes and alignments for the short range transit plan - they informed
us that given the possibility of the Doubledecker using that route - they could not move off the Phillips/Pepper loop.
4) the challenge with the double decker is that given ridership on that route - we do need to occasionally keep the
option to run the double decker along that route. And - as I noted - we are really reluctant to dramatically modify the
treescape along Mills St given its importance both the residents and the overall Urban Forest - to accommodate the
double decker
5) I watched your videos about how busses navigate the street. We can have our traffic folks look at that and see if
there are any safety issues created by this arrangement. My 1st thought is given the traffic volumes it may not be a
significant issue - but we can have someone take a look at that issue.
6) the short range transit plan is not fully implemented - and - it may be that in the future this issue of moving off
phillips/pepper could be revisited.
7) I know this does not respond completely to your request - but Gamaliel did look seriously at moving off that
street - and - with the plan there are - as I recall - fewer busses on that route now than before implementation of the
plan.
Those are my thoughts for now - if you have any questions or concerns let me know.
Original Message-----
From: John Logan [mailto:jloganh5@hotmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2017 2:38 PM
To: Grigsby, Daryl <dgrigsby@slocity.org>
Cc: DANA LEE <dana1021lee@gmail.com>
Subject: Phillips/Pepper Loop
Daryl -
Thank you for meeting with Dana and I this morning.
Attached are the correspondances we spoke about this morning and a couple of videos showing a regular bus
navigating the Phillips/Pepper corner.
I also dropped a folder with hard copies to Jessica at the front desk.
I look forward to speaking with you soon.
Logan Hunter
626) 664-4412
From:John Logan
To:Grigsby, Daryl
Cc:DANA LEE; Anguiano, Gamaliel
Subject:Re: Phillips/Pepper Loop
Date:Thursday, October 19, 2017 10:57:09 PM
Daryl -
Thank you for getting back to us. Some items need clarification.
Allow me to explain, addressing your numerical points:
2. The Short Range Transit Plan, as it was explained to me, presented to the Mass Transportation Committee, the
Planning Commission, and the City Council never involved moving bus service to Mill St. It was going to move
service to Monterey St. The Mill St. option was brought to Gamaliel’s attention when I attended an MTC meeting
following his failure to implement the SRTP and uphold his word to our neighborhood. On this note, it was never a
representation that bus service may be removed from Phillips/Pepper. It was a commitment that bus service will be
removed from Phillips/Pepper.
3. Again, the proposed route was not for Mill St. It was for Monterey St. The study to confirm that bus service could
in fact function on Monterey St. was not completed prior to the implementation of the SRTP. Following a meeting
with Gamaliel in June 2017, when I asked why he had failed to uphold his commitment to us, he scheduled the
necessary study. This study was completed after the bus service changes were already implemented. This timeline is
detailed in the letter I wrote to City Council, which I sent to you via e-mail and hard copy.
4. Would the necessary tree trimmings really “Dramatically modify the treesscape?” Has it been identified which
trees would need to be cut, and by how much? On this note, I saw that this topic is on the agenda for the next tree
committee meeting. Is this still the case? Will Gamaliel be there to advocate for his interest in running SLO Transit
more effectively?
5. Please have this study completed. What is the process, when will it be scheduled, and when can we expect to see
the results?
6. What specific changes would allow for this topic to be revisited? What changes are you willing to pursue so that
you can meet the commitments to our neighborhood and the design of the SRTP?
7. The “olive branch” given to our neighborhood in the form of less bus service has been revoked, a few short weeks
after a student survey asking for expanded bus service. Bus service will soon be effectively what it was prior to the
SRTP. So, whatever concession was given is no longer relevant.
At our meeting we briefly discussed some alternative options. We discussed the prospect of removing the bus stops
on Phillips, even if the buses need to travel on the route. Did you, Tim, and Gamaliel discuss this option? Given the
unmet commitment to remove bus service from the loop, and now the expansion of service on that same loop, this
seems like a reasonable concession to our neighborhood. This would remove the same two bus stops as if Gamaliel
had been able to move service onto Mill St, as he said was his preference. I hope you will consider this option.
Thank you, I look forward to hearing from you soon.
Logan
626) 664-4412
On Oct 19, 2017, at 8:33 PM, Grigsby, Daryl <dgrigsby@slocity.org> wrote:
Logan and Dana - thanks for sharing the information both in writing and in our meeting. I was able to get with our
transit staff and discuss this issue. So - here's my thoughts:
1) as you pointed out - operationally Gamaliel and transit staff would prefer to keep service on Mill for obvious
reasons - its better for the transit system and ridership for simplicity, clarity etc.
2) early on the in Short Range Transit plan it was our desire to move the service onto Mill - hence the
representations to you and others that we may be moving off the Phillips/Pepper loop.
3) as our contractor reviewed the proposed routes and alignments for the short range transit plan - they informed
us that given the possibility of the Doubledecker using that route - they could not move off the Phillips/Pepper loop.
4) the challenge with the double decker is that given ridership on that route - we do need to occasionally keep the
option to run the double decker along that route. And - as I noted - we are really reluctant to dramatically modify the
treescape along Mills St given its importance both the residents and the overall Urban Forest - to accommodate the
double decker
5) I watched your videos about how busses navigate the street. We can have our traffic folks look at that and see if
there are any safety issues created by this arrangement. My 1st thought is given the traffic volumes it may not be a
significant issue - but we can have someone take a look at that issue.
6) the short range transit plan is not fully implemented - and - it may be that in the future this issue of moving off
phillips/pepper could be revisited.
7) I know this does not respond completely to your request - but Gamaliel did look seriously at moving off that
street - and - with the plan there are - as I recall - fewer busses on that route now than before implementation of the
plan.
Those are my thoughts for now - if you have any questions or concerns let me know.
Original Message-----
From: John Logan [mailto:jloganh5@hotmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2017 2:38 PM
To: Grigsby, Daryl <dgrigsby@slocity.org>
Cc: DANA LEE <dana1021lee@gmail.com>
Subject: Phillips/Pepper Loop
Daryl -
Thank you for meeting with Dana and I this morning.
Attached are the correspondances we spoke about this morning and a couple of videos showing a regular bus
navigating the Phillips/Pepper corner.
I also dropped a folder with hard copies to Jessica at the front desk.
I look forward to speaking with you soon.
Logan Hunter
626) 664-4412
From:Sims, Shannon
Bcc:Michelle Tasseff (matasseff@gmail.com); "greg@gregwynn.com"; Angela Soll; Lea2skip@aol.com;
nieldilwortharchitect@gmail.com; James Papp; "ssmith@haslo.org"; Robert Clayton; "kathi.settle@gmail.com";
jtosumi@gmail.com; Greg Avakian; "chiefguyton@aol.com"; "chsdesign1@yahoo.com"; "del@fix.net"; Daniel
Levi; gm@sandssuites.com; Michael Multari; Scott Loosley; Area Agency on Aging
Subject:10/12 Mayor/Adv. Body Chair Mtg. Agenda Packet
Date:Monday, October 16, 2017 3:59:00 PM
Attachments:10-12-17 - Mayor-Adv. Body Chair Agenda Packet.pdf
image001.png
Greetings,
For your information, attached is the agenda packet from last week’s Mayor/Advisory
Body Chair Quarterly Meeting.
As always, thank you for your time and participation. Look forward to seeing you at the
next meeting, on January 11, 2018.
Shannon
Shannon Sims
Administration Executive Assistant
City Administration
990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249
E ssims@slocity.org
T 805.781.7123
slocity.org
From:Sims, Shannon
Subject:10/12 Mayor/Adv. Body Chair Mtg. Agenda Packet
Date:Monday, October 16, 2017 3:46:33 PM
Attachments:10-12-17 - Mayor-Adv. Body Chair Agenda Packet.pdf
image001.png
Mayor and Council,
For your information, attached is the agenda packet from last week’s Mayor/Advisory
Body Chair Quarterly Meeting.
Bcc: Council - All
Shannon Sims
Administration Executive Assistant
City Administration
990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249
E ssims@slocity.org
T 805.781.7123
slocity.org
From:John Logan
To:Grigsby, Daryl
Cc:DANA LEE
Subject:Phillips/Pepper Loop
Date:Wednesday, October 11, 2017 2:38:52 PM
Attachments:D. Grigsby Submittal.pdf
East.mov
IMG_1145.MOV
Daryl -
Thank you for meeting with Dana and I this morning.
Attached are the correspondances we spoke about this morning and a couple of videos showing a regular bus
navigating the Phillips/Pepper corner.
I also dropped a folder with hard copies to Jessica at the front desk.
I look forward to speaking with you soon.
Logan Hunter
626) 664-4412
From:Sims, Shannon
To:John Osumi
Subject:RE: 10/12 Mayor/Adv. Body Chair Meeting
Date:Wednesday, October 11, 2017 1:24:00 PM
Attachments:10-12-17 - Mayor-Adv. Body Chair Agenda.pdf
4 - MTC.pdf
Hi John,
Attached is the agenda as well as the final version of your report.
See you tomorrow!
Shannon
From: John Osumi [mailto:john@bishoppeak.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2017 3:24 PM
To: Sims, Shannon <ssims@slocity.org>
Cc: Lawson, Dee <dlawson@slocity.org>
Subject: Re: 10/12 Mayor/Adv. Body Chair Meeting
Importance: High
Hi Shannon,
Updated report attached.
Thanks,
John Osumi | Chief Executive Officer | Bishop Peak Technology, Inc.
office: 805.394.8626 | direct: 805.394.8636 | fax: 805.856.1574
Need to send an encrypted message? Here's my public key: https://keybase.io/jtosumi
Confidentiality Notice:
This message and any included attachments are covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521 and are legally
privileged. They are intended for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain information that is privileged, confidential, and exempt from
disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient or a person responsible for delivering this message to an intended recipient, you
are hereby instructed to contact the sender immediately by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message. Any review,
dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited.
From:Sims, Shannon
To:Johnson, Derek
Subject:Mayor/Adv. Body Chair Meeting Docs
Date:Monday, October 9, 2017 4:32:36 PM
Attachments:10-12-17 - Mayor-Adv. Body Chair Agenda Packet.pdf
10-12-17 - Checklist.xlsx
image001.png
I wasn’t sure if you had access to the Clerk drive so I’ve attached the Mayor/Adv. Body
Chair packet. We are waiting for one more report (Jack House from Dave Setterlund).
Reports were due last week and I’m still trying to collect from him.
Also, I am going to proof this over tomorrow…………I glanced and compiled it so I could
send it to you so you could get a feel for what the reports will contain. Reports are put in
the order in which they are received.
Also attached is my tracking information…….thought it might be of interest to you.
Highlighted I’m still wrapping up.
Shannon Sims
Administration Executive Assistant
City Administration
990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249
E ssims@slocity.org
T 805.781.7123
slocity.org
From:John Osumi
To:Sims, Shannon
Cc:Lawson, Dee
Subject:Re: 10/12 Mayor/Adv. Body Chair Meeting
Date:Thursday, September 28, 2017 3:24:01 PM
Attachments:ATT00001.htm
17 - MTC Report.doc
signature.asc
Hi Shannon,
Updated report attached.
Thanks,
John Osumi | Chief Executive Officer | Bishop Peak Technology, Inc.
office: 805.394.8626 | direct: 805.394.8636 | fax: 805.856.1574
Need to send an encrypted message? Here's my public key: https://keybase.io/jtosumi
Confidentiality Notice:
This message and any included attachments are covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521 and are legally
privileged. They are intended for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain information that is privileged, confidential, and exemptfromdisclosureunderapplicablelaw. If you are not the intended recipient or a person responsible for delivering this message to an intended recipient, you
are hereby instructed to contact the sender immediately by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message. Any review, dissemination,
distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited.
From:Cutler, Megan
To:John Osumi
Subject:RE: Draft MTC Meeting Minutes
Date:Tuesday, September 26, 2017 4:24:00 PM
Attachments:09-13-2017 MTC Minutes DRAFT.docx
image001.png
Hey John,
Per your request, see attached draft MTC Minutes from September 13.
Thanks,
Megan Cutler
Transit Assistant
Public Works
919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218
E mcutler@slocity.org
T 805.783.7818
C 805.540.8988
slotransit.org
From: John Osumi [mailto:john@bishoppeak.com]
Sent: Friday, September 22, 2017 12:09 PM
To: Anguiano, Gamaliel <GAnguiano@slocity.org>
Cc: Lawson, Dee <dlawson@slocity.org>; Cutler, Megan <mcutler@slocity.org>
Subject: Re: Draft MTC Meeting Minutes
Great! I’ll see if I can incorporate some of these into my report.
Anything in particular you would like highlighted?
John Osumi | Chief Executive Officer | Bishop Peak Technology, Inc.
office: 805.394.8626 | direct: 805.394.8636 | fax: 805.856.1574
Need to send an encrypted message? Here's my public key: https://keybase.io/jtosumi
On Sep 22, 2017, at 12:07 PM, Anguiano, Gamaliel <GAnguiano@slocity.org>
wrote:
Not sure if it helps or not but considering that Transit is a hot topic right now
here is a summary of some of the changes over the course of the last year
From: John Osumi [mailto:john@bishoppeak.com]
Sent: Friday, September 22, 2017 12:03 PM
To: Anguiano, Gamaliel <GAnguiano@slocity.org>
Cc: Lawson, Dee <dlawson@slocity.org>; Cutler, Megan <mcutler@slocity.org>
Subject: Draft MTC Meeting Minutes
As I’m writing the MTC quarterly report, can you send me a rough copy of our
recent MTC meeting minutes? It would be very helpful.
Thanks,
John Osumi | Chief Executive Officer | Bishop Peak Technology, Inc.
office: 805.394.8626 | direct: 805.394.8636 | fax: 805.856.1574
Need to send an encrypted message? Here's my public key: https://keybase.io/jtosumi
Confidentiality Notice:
This message and any included attachments are covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521 and
are legally privileged. They are intended for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain information that is privileged,
confidential, and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient or a personresponsiblefordeliveringthismessagetoanintendedrecipient, you are hereby instructed to contact the sender immediately by reply email and
destroy all copies of the original message. Any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is
strictly prohibited.
The City of San Luis Obispo - Recap of Changes & Improvements.docx>
Confidentiality Notice:
This message and any included attachments are covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521 and are legally
privileged. They are intended for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain information that is privileged, confidential, and exempt from
disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient or a person responsible for delivering this message to an intended recipient, you
are hereby instructed to contact the sender immediately by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message. Any review,
dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited.
From:Anguiano, Gamaliel
To:John Logan
Subject:RE: Meeting
Date:Tuesday, September 19, 2017 4:13:46 PM
The DD is 14.2’ but we recommend for trees 15’ to allow for growth and wind.
From: John Logan [mailto:jloganh5@hotmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2017 3:31 PM
To: Anguiano, Gamaliel <GAnguiano@slocity.org>
Subject: Re: Meeting
Thanks, let me know what he says.
The Fire Department needs 13’-6” of vertical clearance on the roads. How much more
clearance does the double decker need?
On Sep 19, 2017, at 2:03 PM, Anguiano, Gamaliel <GAnguiano@slocity.org>
wrote:
Got his voicemail and left a message.
From: John Logan [mailto:jloganh5@hotmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2017 7:57 AM
To: Anguiano, Gamaliel <GAnguiano@slocity.org>
Cc: Bochum, Tim <tbochum@slocity.org>
Subject: Re: Meeting
I understand and appreciate the City’s goal regarding the trees. However, I went
through some Tree Committee minutes and found some notable exceptions. These
should be of interest to you, particularly the first one. Note, these applications
and approvals) were to REMOVE trees. I don’t think anyone is suggesting that
the trees on Mill St. be removed.
1. 976 Osos St. - RTA requested to remove a tree to assist with bus offloading
issues. Ron Combs “Could not make his necessary findings for approval.”
Regardless, the application was granted under the condition that a new, more
suitable tree be planted.
2. 701 Highland St - This was a City request to remove 3 trees to accommodate
the Welcome Sign at Highland and Santa Rosa. Combs noted that these
were healthy trees, but still recommended their removal.
As far as I know (correct me if I am wrong), there has not been a study showing
which trees would need to be cut and how much. Without this information, you
cannot make a comprehensive request to Mr. Combs, and he cannot arrive at an
informed decision. Further, it appears that the Tree Committee has standing to
approve requests even when Ron cannot support the application with his findings.
Combs, and the Tree Committee, have shown through their approvals that the
City goal regarding trees is more of a guideline than a rule.
On some of the approved applications, the committee decided to: “Approve the
removal request based on doing so would not harm the character of the
neighborhood.” If this reasoning is acceptable for the removal of trees, certainly it
should be acceptable to approve trimming them. In the case of Mill Street, it does
not appear that the trees will need trimming so significant as to “harm the
character of the neighborhood.” But, again, without your insistence that this is
necessary and thorough documentation of what needs to be trimmed and how
much, how is Ron or the Tree Committee to know?
I do not believe that I have standing to apply to the Tree Committee to trim these
trees. This is for SLO Transit, and should come from you. If you are serious about
removing the bus from Phillips Lane, and you have repeatedly said that you are,
you will pursue this more formally. Ron’s opinion, though expert, is only a part of
the decision making process in this matter. Without taking your request to the
Tree Committee, you have left stones unturned.
On Sep 13, 2017, at 11:01 AM, Anguiano, Gamaliel
GAnguiano@slocity.org> wrote:
John,
FYI, I am Cc'ing the Chair of our Mass Transit Committee (John
Osumi) in my response. Further, I will still bring up these concerns at
today's meeting. I met with Ron Combs from the City's Urban
Forestry Division. He points out that trimming the trees on Mill St
was strictly tied to maintaining tree health by cutting back ONLY
dead wood. Any further trimming would be removing productive
limbs vital to an aging tree(s). Any further trimming is essentially in
conflict with the City's goal of maintaining a healthy urban (tree
filled) environment to mitigate adverse environmental impacts. Well
I might be adding some words to his mouth in that last sentence but
that is essentially part of the issue.
He did however offer two ideas that could be worth pursuing. 1) he
often collaborates with PG&E on low hanging wires (E.g. Monterey
St.) and could point us in starting a dialogue with them. Granted not
all the low hanging wires might be theirs. 2) the City's Urban Tree
committee takes interest and comments about City trees and their
impacts." A dialogue could also be started with them.
Original Message-----
From: John Logan [mailto:jloganh5@hotmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2017 10:51 AM
To: Anguiano, Gamaliel <GAnguiano@slocity.org>; Cutler, Megan
mcutler@slocity.org>
Subject: Meeting
Hi guys, I'm stuck at work today and won't be able to make the MTC
meeting. Sorry to miss it, I'll look forward to the minutes.
Talk to you soon, G.
Logan
Sent from my iPhone
From:John Logan
To:Anguiano, Gamaliel
Subject:Re: Meeting
Date:Tuesday, September 19, 2017 3:31:32 PM
Thanks, let me know what he says.
The Fire Department needs 13’-6” of vertical clearance on the roads. How much more
clearance does the double decker need?
On Sep 19, 2017, at 2:03 PM, Anguiano, Gamaliel <GAnguiano@slocity.org>
wrote:
Got his voicemail and left a message.
From:John Logan mailto:jloganh5@hotmail.com]
Sent:Thursday,September 14,2017 7:57 AM
To:Anguiano,Gamaliel GAnguiano@slocity.org>
Cc:Bochum,Tim tbochum@slocity.org>
Subject:Re:Meeting
I understand and appreciate the City’s goal regarding the trees. However, I went
through some Tree Committee minutes and found some notable exceptions. These
should be of interest to you, particularly the first one. Note, these applications
and approvals) were to REMOVE trees. I don’t think anyone is suggesting that
the trees on Mill St. be removed.
1. 976 Osos St. - RTA requested to remove a tree to assist with bus offloading
issues. Ron Combs “Could not make his necessary findings for approval.”
Regardless, the application was granted under the condition that a new, more
suitable tree be planted.
2. 701 Highland St - This was a City request to remove 3 trees to accommodate
the Welcome Sign at Highland and Santa Rosa. Combs noted that these were
healthy trees, but still recommended their removal.
As far as I know (correct me if I am wrong), there has not been a study showing
which trees would need to be cut and how much. Without this information, you
cannot make a comprehensive request to Mr. Combs, and he cannot arrive at an
informed decision. Further, it appears that the Tree Committee has standing to
approve requests even when Ron cannot support the application with his findings.
Combs, and the Tree Committee, have shown through their approvals that the
City goal regarding trees is more of a guideline than a rule.
On some of the approved applications, the committee decided to: “Approve the
removal request based on doing so would not harm the character of the
neighborhood.” If this reasoning is acceptable for the removal of trees, certainly it
should be acceptable to approve trimming them. In the case of Mill Street, it does
not appear that the trees will need trimming so significant as to “harm the
character of the neighborhood.” But, again, without your insistence that this is
necessary and thorough documentation of what needs to be trimmed and how
much, how is Ron or the Tree Committee to know?
I do not believe that I have standing to apply to the Tree Committee to trim these
trees. This is for SLO Transit, and should come from you. If you are serious about
removing the bus from Phillips Lane, and you have repeatedly said that you are,
you will pursue this more formally. Ron’s opinion, though expert, is only a part of
the decision making process in this matter. Without taking your request to the
Tree Committee, you have left stones unturned.
On Sep 13, 2017, at 11:01 AM, Anguiano, Gamaliel
GAnguiano@slocity.org> wrote:
John,
FYI, I am Cc'ing the Chair of our Mass Transit Committee (John
Osumi) in my response. Further, I will still bring up these concerns at
today's meeting. I met with Ron Combs from the City's Urban
Forestry Division. He points out that trimming the trees on Mill St
was strictly tied to maintaining tree health by cutting back ONLY
dead wood. Any further trimming would be removing productive
limbs vital to an aging tree(s). Any further trimming is essentially in
conflict with the City's goal of maintaining a healthy urban (tree
filled) environment to mitigate adverse environmental impacts. Well
I might be adding some words to his mouth in that last sentence but
that is essentially part of the issue.
He did however offer two ideas that could be worth pursuing. 1) he
often collaborates with PG&E on low hanging wires (E.g. Monterey
St.) and could point us in starting a dialogue with them. Granted not
all the low hanging wires might be theirs. 2) the City's Urban Tree
committee takes interest and comments about City trees and their
impacts." A dialogue could also be started with them.
Original Message-----
From: John Logan [mailto:jloganh5@hotmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2017 10:51 AM
To: Anguiano, Gamaliel <GAnguiano@slocity.org>; Cutler, Megan
mcutler@slocity.org>
Subject: Meeting
Hi guys, I'm stuck at work today and won't be able to make the MTC
meeting. Sorry to miss it, I'll look forward to the minutes.
Talk to you soon, G.
Logan
Sent from my iPhone
From:Schwartz, Luke
To:Kevin Mc Reynolds
Bcc:Christian, Kevin; Hudson, Jake
Subject:RE: Public Records Request
Date:Tuesday, August 1, 2017 10:34:00 AM
Attachments:PRR (20170731) Broad BB - Staff Reports & Minutes.zip
image001.png
Mr. Mc Reynolds,
Per your Public Records Request dated 7/31/17, I’ve attached the archived Council Reports
and Minutes for the traffic calming project initiated in the Anholm Neighborhood back in
1995-96. The attached folder includes the Council meeting materials for before installation
and after removal of several traffic calming devices. The documents are pretty detailed, so
hopefully you can find the information you are searching for.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Regards,
Luke Schwartz
Transportation Planner/Engineer III
Public Works
Transportation Planning/Engineering
919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218
E LSchwartz@slocity.org
T 805.781.7190
slocity.org
From: Kevin Mc Reynolds [mailto:kevlawslo@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, July 31, 2017 4:35 PM
To: Schwartz, Luke <LSchwartz@slocity.org>
Subject: Public Records Request
Good Afternoon, Mr. Schwartz:
I believe that I have located a "file number" which may be helpful in locating the requested
documents: File No. 534 appears on some of the council minutes between 2/20/96 and
12/10/96. I will let you know if I find anything else to assist.
Thanks,
Kevin Mc Reynolds
From:Johnson, Derek
To:Bochum, Tim; Grigsby, Daryl; Anguiano, Gamaliel
Subject:FW: SLO Transit service on Phillips Lane
Date:Wednesday, July 19, 2017 12:30:00 PM
Attachments:Letter to Council.pdf
East.mov
IMG_1145.MOV
Hi Team,
Please see attached email per the email that was just sent back to Mr. Logan. Thank you for your help!
Derek
Original Message-----
From: John Logan [mailto:jloganh5@hotmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2017 9:07 AM
To: E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.org>
Subject: SLO Transit service on Phillips Lane
Mayor Harmon & Council-members,
Please see the following letter and videos regarding bus service on Phillips Lane. Feel free to contact me for further
discussion any time.
Logan
From:Anguiano, Gamaliel
To:Bochum, Tim
Subject:FW: Trees On Mill
Date:Wednesday, July 19, 2017 9:48:19 AM
Attachments:Bicycle Advisory Committee.pdf
Letter to Council.pdf
Re Trees On Mill.msg
FYI, this is the Phillips Lane resident that I spoke about that has taken issue with the buses
not yet completely coming off of Phillips & Pepper St as suggested in the SRTP. You can
also see from the other attached email that he has started to record the buses performance
in front of his home on video.
From: John Logan [mailto:jloganh5@hotmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2017 9:00 AM
To: Anguiano, Gamaliel <GAnguiano@slocity.org>
Subject: Re: Trees On Mill
Given the discussion of additional public comment, both at the last MTC Meeting and through
this e-mail, I have written the following letters to the City Council and the Bicycle Advisory
Committee. This has been a long-standing discussion, its important that Council and other
citizens hear the back story prior to whatever opposition is sure to come.
I know you’re working hard on a solution, and I told them as much. I appreciate it. I look
forward to hearing whatever the next step will be.
On Jul 18, 2017, at 10:34 AM, Anguiano, Gamaliel <GAnguiano@slocity.org>
wrote:
Yeah, Ron was just sharing his two-cents and a small heads up. That insight
will actually be pretty helpful to me, but you are right and he would admit; he
isn’t the one to make that call.
Well we are still working on a few logistical issue before we inniate the request
to Ron for tree trimming. I meet with my higher ups today and will bring this
matter before them. Ill keep you posted as always.
From: John Logan [mailto:jloganh5@hotmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 18, 2017 10:27 AM
To: Anguiano, Gamaliel <GAnguiano@slocity.org>
Cc: DANA LEE <dana1021lee@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Trees On Mill
Importance: High
Thank you for following up on this.
Public sentiment about where the bus does or doesn’t run is clearly outside of
Ron’s purview. It should have no bearing on his decision whether the trees can be
cut back enough or not.
Take a look at these videos, taken a couple of days ago. Look at the double yellow
line. These videos are not cherry picked. Each bus does this every day. Maybe I
should have taken these videos and sent them to you sooner, but as far as I knew,
this issue was resolved.
Crossing a double yellow line is a violation of the CVC - would there be any
violation should the bus go straight through Mill?
When will Ron make his determination whether he can cut the trees enough to
accommodate the double decker?
Logan
On Jul 18, 2017, at 8:29 AM, Anguiano, Gamaliel
GAnguiano@slocity.org> wrote:
John,
Just got a callback, and subsequent voicemail, from Ron Combs
yesterday around the end of the day. We still need to talk about if
trimming the trees is at all possible so that the Double Decker could
go by, but his immediate thoughts were that we would get just as
much opposition, if not more, from the residents on Mill St., about
the double decker (or any bus for that matter) going straight
through. This doesn’t mean that we don’t still pursue this option,
but I just wanted to give you the heads up.
From: Anguiano, Gamaliel
Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2017 10:47 AM
To: Combs, Ron <rcombs@slocity.org>
Subject: Trees On Mill
Importance: High
Ron,
We have a long-standing request/petition from residents along
Pepper and Phillips for us to travel on Mill St instead of their
neighborhood streets. We have been unable to do so because of
the tree canopy along Mill st and our double decker not having
enough height clearance. But I just heard yesterday that you folks
are doing some work on those trees. Can we use this opportunity
to create height clearance for the double decker? There is much
desire for this both internally and externally.
Gamaliel Anguiano
Transit Manager
image001.png>
Public Works
Transit Services
919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218
E GAnguiano@slocity.org
T 805.781.7121
C 805.431.0001
slocity.org
From:Anguiano, Gamaliel
To:Fukushima, Adam
Subject:FW: Trees On Mill
Date:Wednesday, July 19, 2017 9:35:08 AM
Attachments:Bicycle Advisory Committee.pdf
Letter to Council.pdf
From: John Logan [mailto:jloganh5@hotmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2017 9:00 AM
To: Anguiano, Gamaliel <GAnguiano@slocity.org>
Subject: Re: Trees On Mill
Given the discussion of additional public comment, both at the last MTC Meeting and through
this e-mail, I have written the following letters to the City Council and the Bicycle Advisory
Committee. This has been a long-standing discussion, its important that Council and other
citizens hear the back story prior to whatever opposition is sure to come.
I know you’re working hard on a solution, and I told them as much. I appreciate it. I look
forward to hearing whatever the next step will be.
On Jul 18, 2017, at 10:34 AM, Anguiano, Gamaliel <GAnguiano@slocity.org>
wrote:
Yeah, Ron was just sharing his two-cents and a small heads up. That insight
will actually be pretty helpful to me, but you are right and he would admit; he
isn’t the one to make that call.
Well we are still working on a few logistical issue before we inniate the request
to Ron for tree trimming. I meet with my higher ups today and will bring this
matter before them. Ill keep you posted as always.
From: John Logan [mailto:jloganh5@hotmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 18, 2017 10:27 AM
To: Anguiano, Gamaliel <GAnguiano@slocity.org>
Cc: DANA LEE <dana1021lee@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Trees On Mill
Importance: High
Thank you for following up on this.
Public sentiment about where the bus does or doesn’t run is clearly outside of
Ron’s purview. It should have no bearing on his decision whether the trees can be
cut back enough or not.
Take a look at these videos, taken a couple of days ago. Look at the double yellow
line. These videos are not cherry picked. Each bus does this every day. Maybe I
should have taken these videos and sent them to you sooner, but as far as I knew,
this issue was resolved.
Crossing a double yellow line is a violation of the CVC - would there be any
violation should the bus go straight through Mill?
When will Ron make his determination whether he can cut the trees enough to
accommodate the double decker?
Logan
On Jul 18, 2017, at 8:29 AM, Anguiano, Gamaliel
GAnguiano@slocity.org> wrote:
John,
Just got a callback, and subsequent voicemail, from Ron Combs
yesterday around the end of the day. We still need to talk about if
trimming the trees is at all possible so that the Double Decker could
go by, but his immediate thoughts were that we would get just as
much opposition, if not more, from the residents on Mill St., about
the double decker (or any bus for that matter) going straight
through. This doesn’t mean that we don’t still pursue this option,
but I just wanted to give you the heads up.
From: Anguiano, Gamaliel
Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2017 10:47 AM
To: Combs, Ron <rcombs@slocity.org>
Subject: Trees On Mill
Importance: High
Ron,
We have a long-standing request/petition from residents along
Pepper and Phillips for us to travel on Mill St instead of their
neighborhood streets. We have been unable to do so because of
the tree canopy along Mill st and our double decker not having
enough height clearance. But I just heard yesterday that you folks
are doing some work on those trees. Can we use this opportunity
to create height clearance for the double decker? There is much
desire for this both internally and externally.
Gamaliel Anguiano
Transit Manager
image001.png>
Public Works
Transit Services
919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218
E GAnguiano@slocity.org
T 805.781.7121
C 805.431.0001
slocity.org
From:John Logan
To:E-mail Council Website
Subject:SLO Transit service on Phillips Lane
Date:Wednesday, July 19, 2017 9:13:24 AM
Attachments:Letter to Council.pdf
East.mov
IMG_1145.MOV
Mayor Harmon & Council-members,
Please see the following letter and videos regarding bus service on Phillips Lane. Feel free to contact me for further
discussion any time.
Logan
From:John Logan
To:Anguiano, Gamaliel
Subject:Re: Trees On Mill
Date:Wednesday, July 19, 2017 9:00:35 AM
Attachments:Bicycle Advisory Committee.pdf
Letter to Council.pdf
Given the discussion of additional public comment, both at the last MTC Meeting and through
this e-mail, I have written the following letters to the City Council and the Bicycle Advisory
Committee. This has been a long-standing discussion, its important that Council and other
citizens hear the back story prior to whatever opposition is sure to come.
I know you’re working hard on a solution, and I told them as much. I appreciate it. I look
forward to hearing whatever the next step will be.
On Jul 18, 2017, at 10:34 AM, Anguiano, Gamaliel <GAnguiano@slocity.org>
wrote:
Yeah, Ron was just sharing his two-cents and a small heads up. That insight
will actually be pretty helpful to me, but you are right and he would admit; he
isn’t the one to make that call.
Well we are still working on a few logistical issue before we inniate the request
to Ron for tree trimming. I meet with my higher ups today and will bring this
matter before them. Ill keep you posted as always.
From:John Logan mailto:jloganh5@hotmail.com]
Sent:Tuesday,July 18,2017 10:27 AM
To:Anguiano,Gamaliel GAnguiano@slocity.org>
Cc:DANA LEE dana1021lee@gmail.com>
Subject:Re:Trees On Mill
Importance:High
Thank you for following up on this.
Public sentiment about where the bus does or doesn’t run is clearly outside of
Ron’s purview. It should have no bearing on his decision whether the trees can be
cut back enough or not.
Take a look at these videos, taken a couple of days ago. Look at the double yellow
line. These videos are not cherry picked. Each bus does this every day. Maybe I
should have taken these videos and sent them to you sooner, but as far as I knew,
this issue was resolved.
Crossing a double yellow line is a violation of the CVC - would there be any
violation should the bus go straight through Mill?
When will Ron make his determination whether he can cut the trees enough to
accommodate the double decker?
Logan
On Jul 18, 2017, at 8:29 AM, Anguiano, Gamaliel
GAnguiano@slocity.org> wrote:
John,
Just got a callback, and subsequent voicemail, from Ron Combs
yesterday around the end of the day. We still need to talk about if
trimming the trees is at all possible so that the Double Decker could
go by, but his immediate thoughts were that we would get just as
much opposition, if not more, from the residents on Mill St., about
the double decker (or any bus for that matter) going straight
through. This doesn’t mean that we don’t still pursue this option,
but I just wanted to give you the heads up.
From:Anguiano,Gamaliel
Sent:Thursday,July 13,2017 10:47 AM
To:Combs,Ron rcombs@slocity.org>
Subject:Trees On Mill
Importance:High
Ron,
We have a long-standing request/petition from residents along
Pepper and Phillips for us to travel on Mill St instead of their
neighborhood streets. We have been unable to do so because of
the tree canopy along Mill st and our double decker not having
enough height clearance. But I just heard yesterday that you folks
are doing some work on those trees. Can we use this opportunity
to create height clearance for the double decker? There is much
desire for this both internally and externally.
Gamaliel Anguiano
Transit Manager
image001.png>
Public Works
Transit Services
919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218
E GAnguiano@slocity.org
T 805.781.7121
C 805.431.0001
slocity.org
From:Anguiano, Gamaliel
To:Jim Hofman
Subject:RE: We would like to ride the double decker bus once for fun....
Date:Tuesday, July 11, 2017 8:23:50 AM
Attachments:SLO Transit Schedules - Effective June 18 2017 (003).pdf
The route the Double Decker is on is the Route 3A and 3B which serves: Santa Rosa,
Santa Barbara, Madonna, LOVR, Foothill, CalPoly, Mill St and the reverse (see attached
schedules). In addition to needing the extra capacity along here, these are also the
approved roadways with the sufficient height clearances for the Double Decker to travel
on. Other routes have low hanging wires, branches or other obstruction so there is no
interchangeability with other routes. But I would like to emphasize that although this route
does go to CalPoly, ALL routes are open to the public for use. I’ll try to keep you posted
once I know it is back in service.
From: Jim Hofman [mailto:sjhofman@att.net]
Sent: Monday, July 10, 2017 8:53 AM
To: Anguiano, Gamaliel <GAnguiano@slocity.org>
Subject: Re: We would like to ride the double decker bus once for fun....
Thanks. Appreciate the feedback. When it is back on line will it serve any routes other than
Poly?
Again, thanks.
Jim
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPad
On Monday, July 10, 2017, 7:52 AM, Anguiano, Gamaliel <GAnguiano@slocity.org> wrote:
Hello Susan. Sorry but I just got this message from our contractors maintenance dept;
The DD is in for summer maintenance. We don’t anticipate it being on route until
closer to Cal Poly start up.
Nathan Ray
Maintenance Manager
First Transit Loc# 55575
29 Prado Rd
San Luis Obispo, Ca 93401
805-440-6339 cell
805-544-2730 x14 shop
Get Outlook for iOS
From: Susan-Jim Hofman <sjhofman@att.net>
Sent: Friday, July 7, 2017 5:08:56 PM
To: Anguiano, Gamaliel
Subject: We would like to ride the double decker bus once for fun....
How can we find it this summer?
Tx,
Jim
From:Lawson, Dee
To:Anguiano, Gamaliel
Subject:RE: Height Clearance Check On Monterey St For Double Decker
Date:Monday, July 3, 2017 7:43:42 AM
Attachments:image001.png
Having utilities lines is not too difficult. We have had utilities lift them before for the DD.
Hal can assist with that. As for the trees, we can discuss with Ron Combs and get his
thoughts on the health of the trees based on what needs to be trimmed. The only major
cost for us would be the trimming of the trees.
Dee Lawson
Transit Coordinator
Public Works
Transit Services
919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218
E dlawson@slocity.org
T 805.781.7531
C 805.431.0981
slocity.org
From: Anguiano, Gamaliel
Sent: Friday, June 30, 2017 2:31 PM
To: John Logan <jloganh5@hotmail.com>
Cc: Rusco, Al <al.rusco@firstgroup.com>
Subject: RE: Height Clearance Check On Monterey St For Double Decker
I was just about to write you on this very thing. Yes, the First Transit General Manager
Cc’d) and I went out with a measuring pole along Monterey St. to check for height
clearance yesterday. Headed northbound on Monterey, from Santa Rosa, looked
promising as it was only some minor branches that could use some trimming.
Unfortunately, once you get past California there are at least three instances were, either
electrical, telephone, or both, wires drape too low for the Double Decker to eek underneath
them. Then on the reverse, traveling southbound on Monterey from California you start to
get into to some trees with major limbs.
Moving telephone/electrical wires would require some major coordination with utility
providers, road detours, and property owners. There isn't really any opportunity to raise
them up any higher as they are already mounted to the top peak of the roof line of homes;
and going underground, well IDK where to start on projecting those costs and scope of
work.
The major limbs are also a problem as minor trims have little bearing on the health or
aesthetics of the tree but removing major limbs could.
From: John Logan [mailto:jloganh5@hotmail.com]
Sent: Friday, June 30, 2017 9:48 AM
To: Anguiano, Gamaliel <GAnguiano@slocity.org>
Subject: Re: Height Clearance Check On Monterey St For Double Decker
Good morning, G.
Just checking in on the height study. Did it happen yesterday? How did it go?
Enjoy your weekend, I look forward to talking to you soon.
Logan
On Jun 7, 2017, at 11:49 AM, Logan Hunter <jloganh5@hotmail.com> wrote:
Thanks for taking the time to meet with me this morning. I know you’re a busy
man, I appreciate that you set a few minutes aside.
Thank you also for informing me about the height clearance study. I’ll follow up
after the study.
Have a good afternoon, I’ll talk to you soon.
Logan
On Jun 7, 2017, at 10:49 AM, Anguiano, Gamaliel
GAnguiano@slocity.org> wrote:
First Transit: We will need a vehicle, driver and a measuring pole to check
the height clearance along Monterey St. to see if it is possible for the
Double Decker to travel down. Thanks.
Mail Attachment.ics>
From:John Logan
To:Anguiano, Gamaliel
Subject:Re: Height Clearance Check On Monterey St For Double Decker
Date:Sunday, July 2, 2017 4:34:51 PM
Thank you for the update.
So, what is the plan moving forward? Does that part of the route plan just get scrapped, or are
you looking for other solutions? Using a nearby collector road, or using the double deckers on
a different route? What would the timeline be?
Also, I’m sure you’re aware of the plans for a pedestrian and bicycle bridge at the corner of
Phillips and Pepper, and the connecting Class II bike path along Pepper. Is bus service along
this already tight corner on a local road compatible with the planned Class II bike path on
Pepper?
Enjoy the Fourth of July, I hope you and your family enjoy the long weekend.
Logan
On Jun 30, 2017, at 2:31 PM, Anguiano, Gamaliel <GAnguiano@slocity.org>
wrote:
I was just about to write you on this very thing. Yes, the First Transit General
Manager (Cc’d) and I went out with a measuring pole along Monterey St. to
check for height clearance yesterday. Headed northbound on Monterey, from
Santa Rosa, looked promising as it was only some minor branches that could
use some trimming. Unfortunately, once you get past California there are at
least three instances were, either electrical, telephone, or both, wires drape too
low for the Double Decker to eek underneath them. Then on the reverse,
traveling southbound on Monterey from California you start to get into to some
trees with major limbs.
Moving telephone/electrical wires would require some major coordination with
utility providers, road detours, and property owners. There isn't really any
opportunity to raise them up any higher as they are already mounted to the top
peak of the roof line of homes; and going underground, well IDK where to start
on projecting those costs and scope of work.
The major limbs are also a problem as minor trims have little bearing on the
health or aesthetics of the tree but removing major limbs could.
From:John Logan mailto:jloganh5@hotmail.com]
Sent:Friday,June 30,2017 9:48 AM
To:Anguiano,Gamaliel GAnguiano@slocity.org>
Subject:Re:Height Clearance Check On Monterey St For Double Decker
Good morning, G.
Just checking in on the height study. Did it happen yesterday? How did it go?
Enjoy your weekend, I look forward to talking to you soon.
Logan
On Jun 7, 2017, at 11:49 AM, Logan Hunter
jloganh5@hotmail.com> wrote:
Thanks for taking the time to meet with me this morning. I know
you’re a busy man, I appreciate that you set a few minutes aside.
Thank you also for informing me about the height clearance study.
I’ll follow up after the study.
Have a good afternoon, I’ll talk to you soon.
Logan
On Jun 7, 2017, at 10:49 AM, Anguiano, Gamaliel
GAnguiano@slocity.org> wrote:
First Transit:We will need a vehicle,driver and a measuring
pole to check the height clearance along Monterey St.to see
if it is possible for the Double Decker to travel down.Thanks.
Mail Attachment.ics>
From:Anguiano, Gamaliel
To:John Logan
Cc:Rusco, Al
Subject:RE: Height Clearance Check On Monterey St For Double Decker
Date:Friday, June 30, 2017 2:31:19 PM
I was just about to write you on this very thing. Yes, the First Transit General Manager
Cc’d) and I went out with a measuring pole along Monterey St. to check for height
clearance yesterday. Headed northbound on Monterey, from Santa Rosa, looked
promising as it was only some minor branches that could use some trimming.
Unfortunately, once you get past California there are at least three instances were, either
electrical, telephone, or both, wires drape too low for the Double Decker to eek underneath
them. Then on the reverse, traveling southbound on Monterey from California you start to
get into to some trees with major limbs.
Moving telephone/electrical wires would require some major coordination with utility
providers, road detours, and property owners. There isn't really any opportunity to raise
them up any higher as they are already mounted to the top peak of the roof line of homes;
and going underground, well IDK where to start on projecting those costs and scope of
work.
The major limbs are also a problem as minor trims have little bearing on the health or
aesthetics of the tree but removing major limbs could.
From: John Logan [mailto:jloganh5@hotmail.com]
Sent: Friday, June 30, 2017 9:48 AM
To: Anguiano, Gamaliel <GAnguiano@slocity.org>
Subject: Re: Height Clearance Check On Monterey St For Double Decker
Good morning, G.
Just checking in on the height study. Did it happen yesterday? How did it go?
Enjoy your weekend, I look forward to talking to you soon.
Logan
On Jun 7, 2017, at 11:49 AM, Logan Hunter <jloganh5@hotmail.com> wrote:
Thanks for taking the time to meet with me this morning. I know you’re a busy
man, I appreciate that you set a few minutes aside.
Thank you also for informing me about the height clearance study. I’ll follow up
after the study.
Have a good afternoon, I’ll talk to you soon.
Logan
On Jun 7, 2017, at 10:49 AM, Anguiano, Gamaliel
GAnguiano@slocity.org> wrote:
First Transit: We will need a vehicle, driver and a measuring pole to check
the height clearance along Monterey St. to see if it is possible for the
Double Decker to travel down. Thanks.
Mail Attachment.ics>
From:John Logan
To:Anguiano, Gamaliel
Subject:Re: Height Clearance Check On Monterey St For Double Decker
Date:Friday, June 30, 2017 9:48:07 AM
Good morning, G.
Just checking in on the height study. Did it happen yesterday? How did it go?
Enjoy your weekend, I look forward to talking to you soon.
Logan
On Jun 7, 2017, at 11:49 AM, Logan Hunter <jloganh5@hotmail.com> wrote:
Thanks for taking the time to meet with me this morning. I know you’re a busy
man, I appreciate that you set a few minutes aside.
Thank you also for informing me about the height clearance study. I’ll follow up
after the study.
Have a good afternoon, I’ll talk to you soon.
Logan
On Jun 7, 2017, at 10:49 AM, Anguiano, Gamaliel
GAnguiano@slocity.org> wrote:
First Transit: We will need a vehicle, driver and a measuring pole to check
the height clearance along Monterey St. to see if it is possible for the
Double Decker to travel down. Thanks.
Mail Attachment.ics>
From:John Logan
To:Anguiano, Gamaliel
Subject:Re: Height Clearance Check On Monterey St For Double Decker
Date:Wednesday, June 7, 2017 11:50:24 AM
Thanks for taking the time to meet with me this morning. I know you’re a busy man, I
appreciate that you set a few minutes aside.
Thank you also for informing me about the height clearance study. I’ll follow up after the
study.
Have a good afternoon, I’ll talk to you soon.
Logan
On Jun 7, 2017, at 10:49 AM, Anguiano, Gamaliel <GAnguiano@slocity.org>
wrote:
First Transit: We will need a vehicle, driver and a measuring pole to check the height
clearance along Monterey St. to see if it is possible for the Double Decker to travel
down. Thanks.
Mail Attachment.ics>
From:bwheeler03@gmail.com on behalf of Bryan Wheeler
To:Wheeler, Bryan
Subject:Fwd: Height Clearance Check On Monterey St For Double Decker
Date:Wednesday, June 7, 2017 10:53:55 AM
Forwarded message ----------
From: Anguiano, Gamaliel <GAnguiano@slocity.org>
Date: Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 10:49 AM
Subject: Height Clearance Check On Monterey St For Double Decker
To: "Bryan Wheeler (wheeler.bryan@gmail.com)" <wheeler.bryan@gmail.com>, "Rusco, Al"
al.rusco@firstgroup.com>, "Guyton, John" <John.Guyton@firstgroup.com>, "John Logan
Hunter (jloganh5@hotmail.com)" <jloganh5@hotmail.com>, "Lawson, Dee"
dlawson@slocity.org>
First Transit: We will need a vehicle, driver and a measuring pole to check the height
clearance along Monterey St. to see if it is possible for the Double Decker to travel
down. Thanks.
From:Fukushima, Adam
To:Wheeler, Bryan
Subject:agenda draft
Date:Friday, May 12, 2017 11:19:00 AM
Attachments:May 18 2017 BAC Agenda Packet.pdf
image001.png
Adam Fukushima
Active Transportation Manager
Public Works
919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218
E AFukushima@slocity.org
T 805.781.7590
slocity.org
From:Cutler, Megan
To:Eliane Guillot
Subject:RE: Resolution 10775 MOU
Date:Wednesday, May 10, 2017 9:15:00 AM
Attachments:May 10 - MTC Agenda - Compiled Packet.pdf
image001.png
Of course, full agenda attached.
Megan Cutler
Transit Assistant
Public Works
919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218
E mcutler@slocity.org
T 805.783.7818
C 805.540.8988
slotransit.org
From: Eliane Guillot [mailto:EGuillot@slocog.org]
Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2017 9:14 AM
To: Cutler, Megan <mcutler@slocity.org>
Subject: RE: Resolution 10775 MOU
Megan,
Thanks for completing this adm task; still working with Paso Robles to do same with theirs
I will come to your offices 15 min before MTC and pick up the originals
I am not sure why, but I do not have an agenda package? If you can send it to me this morning,
that will help!
See you this afternoon
Eliane
From: Cutler, Megan [mailto:mcutler@slocity.org]
Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2017 8:19 AM
To: Eliane Guillot <EGuillot@slocog.org>
Subject: Resolution 10775 MOU
Hi Eliane,
Resolution 10775 MOU is fully signed by the City (Heidi Harmon, Katie Lichtig, and Christin Dietrick)
and is ready for pick up at the 919 Palm front counter.
See attached for reference.
See you at MTC this afternoon?
Thanks so much,
Megan Cutler
Transit Assistant
Public Works
919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218
E mcutler@slocity.org
T 805.783.7818
C 805.540.8988
slotransit.org
From:Cutler, Megan
To:al.rusco@firstgroup.com; Cheryl Andrus; Christopher-Diego Lopez; David Figueroa; Denise Martinez;
eguillot@slocog.org; "Elizabeth Thyne"; gstraw@slorta.org; John Osumi; Justin Frentzel; Lareina Gamboa
lareinagamboa@gmail.com); Louise Justice; rayjay744@gmail.com; thompson@newmex.com
Cc:Anguiano, Gamaliel
Subject:RE: May 10th | MTC Agenda Packet
Date:Friday, May 5, 2017 3:09:00 PM
Attachments:May 10 - MTC Agenda - Compiled Packet.pdf
image001.png
Full agenda attached.
Thanks!
Megan Cutler
Transit Assistant
Public Works
919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218
E mcutler@slocity.org
T 805.783.7818
C 805.540.8988
slotransit.org
From: Cutler, Megan
Sent: Friday, May 05, 2017 3:09 PM
To: 'al.rusco@firstgroup.com' <al.rusco@firstgroup.com>; 'Cheryl Andrus' <candrus@calpoly.edu>;
Christopher-Diego Lopez' <dlopez30@calpoly.edu>; David Figueroa <d.olav.figueroa@gmail.com>;
Denise Martinez' <Missd500@yahoo.com>; 'eguillot@slocog.org' <eguillot@slocog.org>; 'Elizabeth
Thyne' <ethyne@sbcglobal.net>; 'gstraw@slorta.org' <gstraw@slorta.org>; 'John Osumi'
john@bishoppeaktech.com>; Justin Frentzel <jmfrentzel@gmail.com>; Lareina Gamboa
lareinagamboa@gmail.com) <lareinagamboa@gmail.com>; Louise Justice <gramlbj@gmail.com>;
rayjay744@gmail.com; 'thompson@newmex.com' <thompson@newmex.com>
Cc: Anguiano, Gamaliel <GAnguiano@slocity.org>
Subject: May 10th | MTC Agenda Packet
Good Afternoon,
Attached is the MTC Agenda Packet for our May 10th meeting.
Our meeting will be held at 2:30 PM in the City Hall Council Hearing Room at 990 Palm Street.
Thank you,
Megan
Megan Cutler
Transit Assistant
Public Works
919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218
E mcutler@slocity.org
T 805.783.7818
C 805.540.8988
slotransit.org
From:Sims, Shannon
Subject:4/13 Mayor/Advisory Body Meeting Agenda Packet
Date:Thursday, April 13, 2017 4:39:16 PM
Attachments:04-13-17 - Agenda Packet.pdf
image001.png
Advisory Body Chairs and Meeting Attendees,
Thank you all for your contributions and attendance at today’s Mayor/Advisory Body Chair
Quarterly Meeting.
Attached is the full agenda packet with all of the reports.
Also provided is the link to the 2016 General Plan Annual Report (Business Item #1) that
was presented to the Planning Commission on March 8th. Chairperson Chuck Stevenson
spoke about this asked that this document be distributed.
Again, we sincerely thank you for your time and commitment. See you at the next meeting
on Thursday, July 13, 2017.
Best regards,
Shannon Sims
Administration Executive Assistant
City Administration
990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249
E ssims@slocity.org
T 805.781.7123
slocity.org
From:Sims, Shannon
Subject:4/13 Mayor/Advisory Body Chair Mtg.
Date:Thursday, April 13, 2017 3:15:38 PM
Attachments:04-13-17 - Agenda Packet.pdf
image001.png
Mayor and Council,
For your information, attached is the agenda packet from today’s quarterly Mayor/Advisory
Body Chair Meeting.
Bcc: Council - All
Shannon Sims
Administration Executive Assistant
City Administration
990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249
E ssims@slocity.org
T 805.781.7123
slocity.org
From:Combs, Ron
To:Betz, Ryan
Cc:Grigsby, Daryl; Horn, Matt
Subject:RE: I need your help - PW Workload Measures for 2017-19 FP
Date:Wednesday, April 12, 2017 8:46:17 AM
Attachments:Copy of Search Results for City works preventitive WO 2016.xls
cityworks reactive WO 2016.xls
cityworks service request 2016.xls
Betz! Hope this is not too late but you may not want to use the UF #’s anyway as it may
bring the % way down.
Items completed in 2016. 867 total. 38 Preventive. 829 request and work orders were
reactionary. Now that may be slightly misleading as when we do “Preventive or
Predetermined and Scheduled “ work, it is usually a block or a hole grouping of trees such
as all the palms on Palm at mission prep over spring or summer break and reactionary
work is usually a single tree, well or site but the evidence speaks for itself. We are primarily
a reactionary crew.
Hope this helps,
Ron
From: Betz, Ryan
Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2017 12:21 PM
To: Anguiano, Gamaliel <GAnguiano@slocity.org>; Athey, David <DAthey@slocity.org>; Bochum, Tim
tbochum@slocity.org>; Collins, Andrew <acollins@slocity.org>; Combs, Ron <rcombs@slocity.org>;
Grigsby, Daryl <dgrigsby@slocity.org>; Hendricks, Jeff <jhendricks@slocity.org>; Horn, Matt
mhorn@slocity.org>; Hudson, Jake <jhudson@slocity.org>; Lee, Scott <SLee@slocity.org>; Ruelas,
Carlos <cruelas@slocity.org>; Shuck, Isaac <IShuck@slocity.org>; Simpson, Phyllis
psimpson@slocity.org>; Fuchs, Alexander <afuchs@slocity.org>
Subject: I need your help - PW Workload Measures for 2017-19 FP
Importance: High
Good afternoon everyone,
I need your help filling out our Top 10 Workload Measures for the 2017-19 Financial Plan.
Please open the following link, under the PW Tab, review Daryl’s suggestion for the Top 10
Workload Measures and if it pertains to you…fill out the amounts for 2015-16 thru 2018-19.
If you have an alternative that you would like him to consider, please add it to a line below
and fill out the amounts.
This is due to Finance later this week, so if you could have them completed by Thursday
morning, that would very much appreciated!
T:\Budget Folders\2017-19 Financial Plan\Performance Measures\Performance Measures
Template.xlsx
Ryan Betz
Administrative Analyst
Public Works
919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218
E rbetz@slocity.org
T 805.781.7589
slocity.org
From:Whipple, Anthony
To:Combs, Ron
Cc:Whipple, Anthony
Subject:RE: city works and performance measures
Date:Wednesday, April 12, 2017 7:49:10 AM
Attachments:Copy of Search Results for City works preventitive WO 2016.xls
cityworks reactive WO 2016.xls
cityworks service request 2016.xls
I have attached a spreadsheet of what I could find on tight parameters of submitted to tree
crew, 2016 preventative work. Remember as we work on a tree like the one next to the car
wash on marsh.
that was not preventative only because it did not fit the criteria that Barbara set.
that was a corrective prune and tree girdled by lids. we might as a crew be mislabeling due
to it can be subjective weather its corrective, predictive, preventive, or reactive.
From: Combs, Ron
Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2017 11:38 AM
To: Whipple, Anthony <awhipple@slocity.org>; Ferguson, Julie <JFerguson@slocity.org>; Johnson,
Mike <MJohnson@slocity.org>; Williams, Steve <swilliams@slocity.org>
Subject: FW: city works and performance measures
Any ideas to quickly easily find the number derail is requesting>
From: Grigsby, Daryl
Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2017 11:31 AM
To: Collins, Andrew <acollins@slocity.org>; Combs, Ron <rcombs@slocity.org>; Ruelas, Carlos
cruelas@slocity.org>; Hendricks, Jeff <jhendricks@slocity.org>; Betz, Ryan <rbetz@slocity.org>
Cc: Horn, Matt <mhorn@slocity.org>; Bochum, Tim <tbochum@slocity.org>
Subject: city works and performance measures
As followup to what we discussed about performance measures – for all you that use city
works – do u know –
The total # of work orders you did last year
The % of them that are categorized as preventative
Daryl Grigsby
Director of Public Works
Public Works
919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218
E dgrigsby@slocity.org
T 805.781.7207
C 805.431.2733
slocity.org
From:Sims, Shannon
Bcc:"matthewlafon@gmail.com"; "greg@gregwynn.com"; Paula Huddleston (pau1ah@hotmail.com)
pau1ah@hotmail.com); nieldilwortharchitect@gmail.com; "jaime.hill@yahoo.com"; "ssmith@haslo.org";
mtasseff@charter.net"; "kathi.settle@gmail.com"; "ethyne@sbcglobal.net"; "jeffwhitener@sbcglobal.net";
chiefguyton@aol.com"; chdesign1@yahoo.com; "bradrudd@gmail.com"; "del@fix.net"; Stephanie Ann
Roberson; mjmultari@aol.com; nipool@gmail.com; gm@sandssuites.com; "mritter@calpoly.edu"
Subject:1/12 Mayor/Adv. Body Chair Mtg.
Date:Thursday, January 19, 2017 4:22:00 PM
Attachments:image001.png
Area Plan 1718 drft December 2016.pdf
Highlights 4 hearings Jan 2017.pdf
Press release 4 hearings 12 22 16.pdf
ListeningSessions2017_SLO.PDF
01-12-17 - Agenda Packet.pdf
Chairs/Attendees,
For your information, attached is the agenda packet from last week’s Mayor/Advisory Body
Chair Quarterly Meeting, as well as some additional information that was requested at the
meeting on the Area Agency on Aging.
Thank you!
Shannon
Shannon Sims
Administration Executive Assistant
City Administration
990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249
E ssims@slocity.org
T 805.781.7123
slocity.org
From:Sims, Shannon
Subject:1/12 Mayor/Adv. Body Chair Mtg.
Date:Thursday, January 12, 2017 2:26:43 PM
Attachments:01-12-17 - Agenda Packet.pdf
image001.png
Mayor and Council,
For your information, attached is the agenda packet from today’s Mayor/Advisory Body
Chair Quarterly Meeting.
Bcc: Council - All
Shannon Sims
Administration Executive Assistant
City Administration
990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249
E ssims@slocity.org
T 805.781.7123
slocity.org
From:Rusco, Al
To:John Osumi
Cc:Anguiano, Gamaliel; Guyton, John; Lawson, Dee; Jeffrey Brown
Subject:RE: Geofences - Locations
Date:Wednesday, January 4, 2017 4:23:04 PM
Very good. Thanks.
From: John Osumi [mailto:john@bishoppeak.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2017 4:13 PM
To: Rusco, Al <al.rusco@firstgroup.com>
Cc: Gamaliel Anguiano <GAnguiano@slocity.org>; Guyton, John <John.Guyton@firstgroup.com>;
Lawson, Dee <dlawson@slocity.org>; Jeffrey Brown <jeff@bishoppeaktech.com>
Subject: Re: Geofences - Locations
Good point. It’s adjustable from the web administration portal, so we can test it once it’s
installed and make corrections as needed (simple as either adjusting the radius or moving the
trigger point down the street a little).
John Osumi | Chief Executive Officer | Bishop Peak Technology, Inc
office: 805.394.8626 | mobile: 805.394.8636
Confidentiality Notice:
This message and any included attachments are covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521 and are legally
privileged. They are intended for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain information that is privileged, confidential, and exempt from
disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient or a person responsible for delivering this message to an intended recipient, you
are hereby instructed to contact the sender immediately by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message. Any review,
dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited.
Need to send an encrypted message? Here's my public key: https://keybase.io/jtosumi
On Jan 4, 2017, at 4:10 PM, Rusco, Al <al.rusco@firstgroup.com> wrote:
That’s good as long as it doesn’t alert each time the bus gets in the intersection before
it starts to make the turn. I wouldn’t want the drivers to get used to it going off. They
could start to ignore it if was a common occurance.
From: John Osumi [mailto:john@bishoppeak.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2017 4:06 PM
To: Rusco, Al <al.rusco@firstgroup.com>
Cc: Gamaliel Anguiano <GAnguiano@slocity.org>; Guyton, John
John.Guyton@firstgroup.com>; Lawson, Dee <dlawson@slocity.org>; Jeffrey Brown
jeff@bishoppeaktech.com>
Subject: Re: Geofences - Locations
The alert precision is completely adjustable - we suggest a minimum circular
radius of 15m to account for GPS “jitter". A On the Geofence map, you can see
the area for each trigger point.
John Osumi | Chief Executive Officer | Bishop Peak Technology, Inc
office: 805.394.8626 | mobile: 805.394.8636
Confidentiality Notice:
This message and any included attachments are covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521 and
are legally privileged. They are intended for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain information that is privileged,
confidential, and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient or a person responsible
for delivering this message to an intended recipient, you are hereby instructed to contact the sender immediately by reply email and
destroy all copies of the original message. Any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is
strictly prohibited.
Need to send an encrypted message? Here's my public key: https://keybase.io/jtosumi
On Jan 4, 2017, at 3:34 PM, Rusco, Al <al.rusco@firstgroup.com>
wrote:
Gamaliel
We should alert on Grand past Mill ST. to eliminate Monterey. And also
from Santa Rosa turning onto Monterey.
How precise are the alerts? My concern would be if the alert will be set
off before starting either end of the Pepper loop.
I’ll poll staff more tomorrow.
Al Rusco
General Manager
Office: 805 544 2730 Ext 11| 29 Prado Rd. San Luis Obispo, Ca. 93401
Mobile: 805 458 9557 | al.rusco@firstgroup.com
www.firstgroup.com
image003.gif>
From: Anguiano, Gamaliel [mailto:GAnguiano@slocity.org]
Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2017 1:28 PM
To: Rusco, Al <al.rusco@firstgroup.com>; Guyton, John
John.Guyton@firstgroup.com>
Cc: Lawson, Dee <dlawson@slocity.org>; John Osumi
john@bishoppeak.com>
Subject: Geofences - Locations
Team,
We are setting up the geofence alert areas for the double decker
bus. Please let us know of other areas of the City that should be
identified
image001.png>
Gamaliel Anguiano
Transit Manager
image002.png>
Public Works
Transit Services
919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218
E GAnguiano@slocity.org
T 805.781.7121
C 805.431.0001
slocity.org
From:John Osumi
To:Al Rusco
Cc:Anguiano, Gamaliel; Guyton, John; Lawson, Dee; Jeffrey Brown
Subject:Re: Geofences - Locations
Date:Wednesday, January 4, 2017 4:13:07 PM
Good point. It’s adjustable from the web administration portal, so we can test it once it’s
installed and make corrections as needed (simple as either adjusting the radius or moving the
trigger point down the street a little).
John Osumi | Chief Executive Officer | Bishop Peak Technology, Inc
office: 805.394.8626 | mobile: 805.394.8636
Confidentiality Notice:
This message and any included attachments are covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521 and are legally
privileged. They are intended for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain information that is privileged, confidential, and exempt from
disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient or a person responsible for delivering this message to an intended recipient, you
are hereby instructed to contact the sender immediately by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message. Any review, dissemination,
distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited.
Need to send an encrypted message? Here's my public key: https://keybase.io/jtosumi
On Jan 4, 2017, at 4:10 PM, Rusco, Al <al.rusco@firstgroup.com> wrote:
That’s good as long as it doesn’t alert each time the bus gets in the intersection before
it starts to make the turn. I wouldn’t want the drivers to get used to it going off. They
could start to ignore it if was a common occurance.
From: John Osumi [mailto:john@bishoppeak.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2017 4:06 PM
To: Rusco, Al <al.rusco@firstgroup.com>
Cc: Gamaliel Anguiano <GAnguiano@slocity.org>; Guyton, John
John.Guyton@firstgroup.com>; Lawson, Dee <dlawson@slocity.org>; Jeffrey Brown
jeff@bishoppeaktech.com>
Subject: Re: Geofences - Locations
The alert precision is completely adjustable - we suggest a minimum circular
radius of 15m to account for GPS “jitter". A On the Geofence map, you can see
the area for each trigger point.
John Osumi | Chief Executive Officer | Bishop Peak Technology, Inc
office: 805.394.8626 | mobile: 805.394.8636
Confidentiality Notice:
This message and any included attachments are covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521 and
are legally privileged. They are intended for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain information that is privileged,
confidential, and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient or a person responsible for
delivering this message to an intended recipient, you are hereby instructed to contact the sender immediately by reply email and
destroy all copies of the original message. Any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly
prohibited.
Need to send an encrypted message? Here's my public key: https://keybase.io/jtosumi
On Jan 4, 2017, at 3:34 PM, Rusco, Al <al.rusco@firstgroup.com>
wrote:
Gamaliel
We should alert on Grand past Mill ST. to eliminate Monterey. And also
from Santa Rosa turning onto Monterey.
How precise are the alerts? My concern would be if the alert will be set
off before starting either end of the Pepper loop.
I’ll poll staff more tomorrow.
Al Rusco
General Manager
Office: 805 544 2730 Ext 11| 29 Prado Rd. San Luis Obispo, Ca. 93401
Mobile: 805 458 9557 | al.rusco@firstgroup.com
www.firstgroup.com
image003.gif>
From: Anguiano, Gamaliel [mailto:GAnguiano@slocity.org]
Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2017 1:28 PM
To: Rusco, Al <al.rusco@firstgroup.com>; Guyton, John
John.Guyton@firstgroup.com>
Cc: Lawson, Dee <dlawson@slocity.org>; John Osumi
john@bishoppeak.com>
Subject: Geofences - Locations
Team,
We are setting up the geofence alert areas for the double decker
bus. Please let us know of other areas of the City that should be
identified
image001.png>
Gamaliel Anguiano
Transit Manager
image002.png>
Public Works
Transit Services
919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218
E GAnguiano@slocity.org
T 805.781.7121
C 805.431.0001
slocity.org
From:Rusco, Al
To:John Osumi
Cc:Anguiano, Gamaliel; Guyton, John; Lawson, Dee; Jeffrey Brown
Subject:RE: Geofences - Locations
Date:Wednesday, January 4, 2017 4:10:32 PM
That’s good as long as it doesn’t alert each time the bus gets in the intersection before it starts to
make the turn. I wouldn’t want the drivers to get used to it going off. They could start to ignore it if
was a common occurance.
From: John Osumi [mailto:john@bishoppeak.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2017 4:06 PM
To: Rusco, Al <al.rusco@firstgroup.com>
Cc: Gamaliel Anguiano <GAnguiano@slocity.org>; Guyton, John <John.Guyton@firstgroup.com>;
Lawson, Dee <dlawson@slocity.org>; Jeffrey Brown <jeff@bishoppeaktech.com>
Subject: Re: Geofences - Locations
The alert precision is completely adjustable - we suggest a minimum circular radius of 15m to
account for GPS “jitter". A On the Geofence map, you can see the area for each trigger point.
John Osumi | Chief Executive Officer | Bishop Peak Technology, Inc
office: 805.394.8626 | mobile: 805.394.8636
Confidentiality Notice:
This message and any included attachments are covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521 and are legally
privileged. They are intended for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain information that is privileged, confidential, and exempt from
disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient or a person responsible for delivering this message to an intended recipient, you
are hereby instructed to contact the sender immediately by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message. Any review,
dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited.
Need to send an encrypted message? Here's my public key: https://keybase.io/jtosumi
On Jan 4, 2017, at 3:34 PM, Rusco, Al <al.rusco@firstgroup.com> wrote:
Gamaliel
We should alert on Grand past Mill ST. to eliminate Monterey. And also from Santa
Rosa turning onto Monterey.
How precise are the alerts? My concern would be if the alert will be set off before
starting either end of the Pepper loop.
I’ll poll staff more tomorrow.
Al Rusco
General Manager
Office: 805 544 2730 Ext 11| 29 Prado Rd. San Luis Obispo, Ca. 93401
Mobile: 805 458 9557 | al.rusco@firstgroup.com
www.firstgroup.com
image003.gif>
From: Anguiano, Gamaliel [mailto:GAnguiano@slocity.org]
Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2017 1:28 PM
To: Rusco, Al <al.rusco@firstgroup.com>; Guyton, John
John.Guyton@firstgroup.com>
Cc: Lawson, Dee <dlawson@slocity.org>; John Osumi <john@bishoppeak.com>
Subject: Geofences - Locations
Team,
We are setting up the geofence alert areas for the double decker bus. Please
let us know of other areas of the City that should be identified
image001.png>
Gamaliel Anguiano
Transit Manager
image002.png>
Public Works
Transit Services
919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218
E GAnguiano@slocity.org
T 805.781.7121
C 805.431.0001
slocity.org
From:John Osumi
To:Al Rusco
Cc:Anguiano, Gamaliel; Guyton, John; Lawson, Dee; Jeffrey Brown
Subject:Re: Geofences - Locations
Date:Wednesday, January 4, 2017 4:06:35 PM
The alert precision is completely adjustable - we suggest a minimum circular radius of 15m to
account for GPS “jitter". A On the Geofence map, you can see the area for each trigger point.
John Osumi | Chief Executive Officer | Bishop Peak Technology, Inc
office: 805.394.8626 | mobile: 805.394.8636
Confidentiality Notice:
This message and any included attachments are covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521 and are legally
privileged. They are intended for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain information that is privileged, confidential, and exempt from
disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient or a person responsible for delivering this message to an intended recipient, you
are hereby instructed to contact the sender immediately by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message. Any review, dissemination,
distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited.
Need to send an encrypted message? Here's my public key: https://keybase.io/jtosumi
On Jan 4, 2017, at 3:34 PM, Rusco, Al <al.rusco@firstgroup.com> wrote:
Gamaliel
We should alert on Grand past Mill ST. to eliminate Monterey. And also from Santa
Rosa turning onto Monterey.
How precise are the alerts? My concern would be if the alert will be set off before
starting either end of the Pepper loop.
I’ll poll staff more tomorrow.
Al Rusco
General Manager
Office: 805 544 2730 Ext 11| 29 Prado Rd. San Luis Obispo, Ca. 93401
Mobile: 805 458 9557 | al.rusco@firstgroup.com
www.firstgroup.com
image003.gif>
From: Anguiano, Gamaliel [mailto:GAnguiano@slocity.org]
Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2017 1:28 PM
To: Rusco, Al <al.rusco@firstgroup.com>; Guyton, John
John.Guyton@firstgroup.com>
Cc: Lawson, Dee <dlawson@slocity.org>; John Osumi <john@bishoppeak.com>
Subject: Geofences - Locations
Team,
We are setting up the geofence alert areas for the double decker bus. Please
let us know of other areas of the City that should be identified
image001.png>
Gamaliel Anguiano
Transit Manager
image002.png>
Public Works
Transit Services
919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218
E GAnguiano@slocity.org
T 805.781.7121
C 805.431.0001
slocity.org
From:Rusco, Al
To:Anguiano, Gamaliel; Guyton, John
Cc:Lawson, Dee; John Osumi
Subject:RE: Geofences - Locations
Date:Wednesday, January 4, 2017 3:34:16 PM
Attachments:image001.png
image002.png
Gamaliel
We should alert on Grand past Mill ST. to eliminate Monterey. And also from Santa Rosa turning onto Monterey.
How precise are the alerts? My concern would be if the alert will be set off before starting either end of the Pepper loop.
I’ll poll staff more tomorrow.
Al Rusco
General Manager
Office: 805 544 2730 Ext 11| 29 Prado Rd. San Luis Obispo, Ca. 93401
Mobile: 805 458 9557 | al.rusco@firstgroup.com
www.firstgroup.com
From: Anguiano, Gamaliel [mailto:GAnguiano@slocity.org]
Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2017 1:28 PM
To: Rusco, Al <al.rusco@firstgroup.com>; Guyton, John <John.Guyton@firstgroup.com>
Cc: Lawson, Dee <dlawson@slocity.org>; John Osumi <john@bishoppeak.com>
Subject: Geofences - Locations
Team,
We are setting up the geofence alert areas for the double decker bus. Please let us know of other areas of the City that should be identified
Gamaliel Anguiano
Transit Manager
Public Works
Transit Services
919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218
E GAnguiano@slocity.org
T 805.781.7121
C 805.431.0001
slocity.org
From:Scholfield, Brian
To:Anguiano, Gamaliel
Cc:Rusco, Al; Guyton, John
Subject:SRTP Possible route 3B departure from TC changes
Date:Friday, December 2, 2016 10:24:17 AM
Attachments:Proposed 3B TC Departures.docx
Gamaliel,
John asked me to put together some possible departures from TC for the 3B. There are three
possibilities in the attached document.
Best Regards,
Brian Scholfield
Dispatcher
SLO Transit
From:Cutler, Megan
To:Eliane Guillot
Subject:RE: SLO Transit press release | Veterans Day
Date:Wednesday, November 9, 2016 8:22:00 AM
Attachments:SLO Transit Final SRTP.pdf
image001.png
Morning Eliane,
The attached PDF is the plan adopted by City Council on 9/20/16. I hope this works for you.
Also, can we connect briefly before the MTC meeting? I will return your recorder to you and show
you what I’ve learned about it.
Megan Cutler
Transit Assistant
Public Works
919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218
E mcutler@slocity.org
T 805.783.7818
C 805.540.8988
slotransit.org
From: Eliane Guillot [mailto:EGuillot@slocog.org]
Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2016 8:11 AM
To: Cutler, Megan <mcutler@slocity.org>
Subject: RE: SLO Transit press release | Veterans Day
Megan,
When time permits, could you send the PDF of the final SLO Transit SRTP.
Am not sure what type of products the consultants delivered to the City and/or the RTA
But under the grant terms, we owe such document to Caltrans, since they were the funding agency
At your convenience
If you send us a PDF, we can download into a disc for our administrator to attach to the Quarterly
report, which covers the entire agency
Thanks!
Eliane
From: Cutler, Megan [mailto:mcutler@slocity.org]
Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2016 8:05 AM
To: Cutler, Megan <mcutler@slocity.org>
Subject: SLO Transit press release | Veterans Day
Hello All,
Please see the attached press release. SLO Transit is offering free bus rides to U.S. military veterans
on Veterans Day.
Visit slotransit.org for more details.
Thank you for promoting,
Megan
Megan Cutler
Transit Assistant
Public Works
919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218
E mcutler@slocity.org
T 805.783.7818
C 805.540.8988
slotransit.org
From:Shelby Walker
To:Adam Hill; AGP Video; Aida Nicklin; Bruce Gibson; Christianson, Carlyn; Cherie McKee; David Roessler; Dawn
Patterson (dpatterson@atascadero.org); Debbie Arnold; Dianne Thompson; Eliane Wilson; Eric Greening; Frank
Mecham; Fred Strong; Fred Strong; Geoff Straw; Hannah Miller; Jamie Irons; Marx, Jan; Jennifer Caffee;
jguthrie@arroyogrande.org; Jim Hill (jhill@arroyogrande.org); Jocelyn Brennan; John Diodati
jdiodati@co.slo.ca.us); John Shoals (gbadmin@grover.org); John Shoals (jshoals@grover.org); John Shoals
JTSU@pge.com); JWalter@slocity.org; Karen Bright; Kitty Norton (knorton@arroyogrande.org); Lisa Cava; Lynn
Compton (lcompton@co.slo.ca.us); Mary Gardner; Michael Seden-Hansen; Michele Kubel; Micki Olinger; Omar
McPherson; Patricia Grimes; Pene McCullough (PMCCULLOUGH@SLOCOG.org); Pete Rodgers
PRODGERS@SLOCOG.org); Phil Moores; Shelly Higginbotham (shigginbotham@pismobeach.org);
shoffman@co.slo.ca.us; Steve Martin (smartin@prcity.com); Tania Arnold; Tessa Cornejo; Bochum, Tim; Tim
Gillham (tgillham@slocog.org); Tim McNulty (tmcnulty@co.slo.ca.us); Tom O"Malley
TOmalley@Atascadero.org); Trena Wilson; Vicki Shelby (vshelby@co.slo.ca.us)
Subject:AGENDA for RTA Board Meeting November 2, 2016
Date:Thursday, October 27, 2016 4:20:36 PM
Attachments:RTABoardAgenda_11.2.16.pdf
Good afternoon Board members, et.al,
Attached please find a copy of the RTA Board meeting on Wednesday, November 2, 2016 at 8:30
a.m. in the Board of Supervisors Chamber.
For your convenience, you may also view the agenda online visiting
http://www.slorta.org/board/rta-board-meetings .
Hard copies of this agenda will be distributed. Please let me know if you have any questions or
concerns.
This will also serve as a quorum check for the meeting.
Sincerely,
Shelby Walker
Administrative Assistant
San Luis Obispo Regional Transit Authority
179 Cross Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
805.781.4833 Fax 805.781.1291
slorta.org
From:Shelby Walker
To:ANICKLIN@SLOCOG.org; David Roessler; Debbie Arnold (darnold@co.slo.ca.us); Eliane Wilson; Eric Greening;
Geoff Straw; Marx, Jan; Jennifer Caffee (jcaffee@co.slo.ca.us); Jocelyn Brennan; Leslie Sanchez; Lynn Compton;
Mary Gardner; Michele Kubel; Omar McPherson; Patricia Grimes; Pete Rodgers (PRODGERS@SLOCOG.org); Phil
Moores; RDECARLI@SLOCOG.org; Sims, Shannon; Tania Arnold; Tim McNulty; Blake Fixler; Micki Olinger
Subject:RTA Executive Committee Agenda for October 12, 2016
Date:Thursday, October 6, 2016 8:57:11 AM
Attachments:RTAEExecMeeting_10.12.16.pdf
Good morning,
Attached please find a copy of the agenda for the RTA Executive Committee meeting on Wednesday,
October 12th immediately following the SLOCOG Board meeting in the Board of Supervisors’
Chambers.
Hard copies of this agenda will be distributed. Please let me know if you have any questions or
concerns.
Thank you,
Shelby Walker
Administrative Assistant
San Luis Obispo Regional Transit Authority
179 Cross Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
805.781.4833 Fax 805.781.1291
slorta.org
From:Combs, Ron
To:Bassler, Brian
Subject:FW: Corp Yard Painting Project 91423
Date:Wednesday, September 28, 2016 12:04:05 PM
Attachments:50220 Tree Removal & Replanting.docx
History of the Tree Program 1983.pdf
From: Combs, Ron
Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2016 8:55 AM
To: Nelms, Douglas <dnelms@slocity.org>
Cc: McGuire, Michael <mmcguire@slocity.org>; Collins, Andrew <acollins@slocity.org>; Basden,
Adam <abasden@slocity.org>; Horn, Matt <mhorn@slocity.org>
Subject: RE: Corp Yard Painting Project 91423
The City is to trim all vegetation within 18” of the buildings to be painted” Who is
responsible?
Looks like Mike and You are responsible! Or the contractor who bid the job? Were the
trees there when they bid the job or when it was looked at? And if you guys told them the
City would trim all vegetation and volunteered us, should we have been informed back then
instead of last minute... I’m giving you a “hard time “guys to bring attention to this ongoing
problem city wide. I don’t think this is much work and we probably can at this time
rearrange our predetermined schedule and priority work orders to accommodate yet
another last minute request and habit of city personal asking us to do work just before
some kind of contract is to begin.
As you may or may not know putting off our work to accommodate others is detrimental to
our workloads. I have mentioned the load with maintenance, enforcement, development
review and all of our Urban Forest services and programs so many times I think staff,
Admin and Council must think I’m crying wolf or maybe they just don’t understand. We are
setting ourselves up for increasing liabilities. If I could do a quick 2 hour tour with council in
a Ride-on-Van to show and explain to them some of the hot spots I think thy would wake up
and take notice. Similar to the parks tour with Council and Parks Commission.
Attached) The most recent CIP request that only addressed some of the hot spots around
town that need immediate attention regardless if El Nino hits, but especially with it on the
radar. However It was completely rejected. I received an email from Michael a couple
months later that said something like admin and council want to know what you are doing to
get ready for El Nino. Not getting my CIP request funded is what I’m doing!! Maybe I didn’t
sell it hard enough or it’s not as sexy as Open Space, another of the many growing
divisions that increase our workloads.
A couple years ago I allowed Lauren Schwartzman, UC San Diego Environmental Studies
Grad and Cuesta College film student to interview and film us. She did a pretty good job
with the short film titled: The Urban Forest. T:\PACE\2012-13\Programs\Urban Forest
Movie After winning an award for short environmental films at the SLO Film Festival the
field crew quoted a Council person stating that it’s a propaganda film for Ron to get more
money for his division. Maybe so but it didn’t work.
We are five I say “5” years behind on our pruning schedule. Sorry for this rant but I’m on a
roll. I want you to know the cards we have been dealt and how we cannot keep up with all
the added work when we cannot even take care of our core duties. over the years with all
the development and the new parks coming on line with trees, center medians with trees,
the tall double-decker bus, annexes with large mature trees added to our inventory, CIP
projects, NR in creeks and open spaces that require our assistance and equipment to help
those guys on trees not in our inventory and not historically worked on by my division has
resulted in incrementally causing us to fall behind.
As these items increase over the last 20 years and other divisions have been created and
grown much larger than our 4 person division they all have increasingly requested our
services. Myself and 3 crew members with 45 k in contract services shrunk over this time
from a 6 man crew and 60 k in historic contracts shrunk over the last say 10 + years of
recession cuts. Also the annual 20 k Downtown CIP for trees and tree wells was eliminated
during that time but the trees keep growing. These cuts were described as being made as a
convenience of circumstances”. At the same time more demand from the above growing
divisions for our services has increased to the point where we are many years behind with
our own pruning schedules in fact the truth is that we have gone from a 5 yr. rotation to a
10 yr. Rotation. Lately it seems we are only able to keep up with emergency’s and high
priority work orders let alone do any preventative area pruning.
The intention and conclusion of the “Matrix study” a few years back was to eliminate Keith’s
Pelemeier,s management position and swap his position for Mike Johnson a part timer with
full time hours to a full time position to care for young trees and to increase contract
services to be able to do block by block area pruning in a preventative maintenance
direction. I picked up Keith’s management duties under my new title. After eliminating
Keith’s position it took a couple years to hire mike and when it got down to the wire we
ended up having to give up two part-time full time hours positions and Keith’s management
position to hire Mike. I still don’t know how that happened?? 3 for 1.? Also the increase to
our contract pruning was only a few thousand dollars witch is a drop in the bucket as you
know. Yes the drought has had a big effect increasing our loads and liabilities and where
we are spending our limited contract services on it but even without that item all the other
increases combined and ongoing increases have a far greater long term effect.
So the simple math is… way more folks in-house and out asking for our services, way more
areas either annexes, open spaces and development, more parks have come on line and
CIP projects expecting us to just pick up the slack. All of the above mentioned have
increased tree maintenance needs and this camel’s back is broken and vertebra crushed
into powder. It’s not any one item it’s the accumulation of all items mentioned adding up
and reductions in resources at the same time other division have many fold increases like
CDD. Last time I pointed this out it was squelched by some kind of number counting for
lack of a better term. Siting that the tree maintenance budget actual increased over the last
20 years. Maybe so due to inflation, salaries, tools contract services costing more etc.
However it’s not in keeping with the rest of the city and our increasing workloads.
Okay this is the simple math. 6 staff reduced to 4. 60 k in contract services reduced to 45
k and 20 k for Downtown work reduced or eliminated. 6 staff - 2 = 4. 60 k – 15 k = 45 k.
and 20 k for Downtown - 20 k = 0.
Example: The citizens of SLO pay more annually not mentioning CIPs and other expenses
just to maintain Sinsheimer Pool. Just the regular annual budget is more than the Urban
Forest Services budget yet we are expected to keep up. See PDF for size of crew from 30
years ago and scroll down to “Tree Program is Staffed” I thank we have grown in those 30
years and the trees have too in size and numbers>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
From: Nelms, Douglas
Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2016 3:14 PM
To: Combs, Ron <rcombs@slocity.org>
Cc: McGuire, Michael <mmcguire@slocity.org>; Collins, Andrew <acollins@slocity.org>; Basden,
Adam <abasden@slocity.org>
Subject: Corp Yard Painting Project 91423
Ron
Per this project’s specifications, the The City is to trim all vegetation within 18” of the
buildings to be painted.
There is still a bit of vegetation that could still use some trimming.
Can your staff take care of this? If your staff not responsible please refer me to proper
party.
Project starts this Monday October 3.
Thanks
Douglas Nelms
Engineering Inspector IV
Public Works
Engineering
919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218
E dnelms@slocity.org
T 805.783.7710
C 805.431.5469
slocity.org
From:Combs, Ron
To:Nelms, Douglas
Cc:McGuire, Michael; Collins, Andrew; Basden, Adam; Horn, Matt
Subject:RE: Corp Yard Painting Project 91423
Date:Wednesday, September 28, 2016 8:55:04 AM
Attachments:50220 Tree Removal & Replanting.docx
History of the Tree Program 1983.pdf
The City is to trim all vegetation within 18” of the buildings to be painted” Who is
responsible?
Looks like Mike and You are responsible! Or the contractor who bid the job? Were the
trees there when they bid the job or when it was looked at? And if you guys told them the
City would trim all vegetation and volunteered us, should we have been informed back then
instead of last minute... I’m giving you a “hard time “guys to bring attention to this ongoing
problem city wide. I don’t think this is much work and we probably can at this time
rearrange our predetermined schedule and priority work orders to accommodate yet
another last minute request and habit of city personal asking us to do work just before
some kind of contract is to begin.
As you may or may not know putting off our work to accommodate others is detrimental to
our workloads. I have mentioned the load with maintenance, enforcement, development
review and all of our Urban Forest services and programs so many times I think staff,
Admin and Council must think I’m crying wolf or maybe they just don’t understand. We are
setting ourselves up for increasing liabilities. If I could do a quick 2 hour tour with council in
a Ride-on-Van to show and explain to them some of the hot spots I think thy would wake up
and take notice. Similar to the parks tour with Council and Parks Commission.
Attached) The most recent CIP request that only addressed some of the hot spots around
town that need immediate attention regardless if El Nino hits, but especially with it on the
radar. However It was completely rejected. I received an email from Michael a couple
months later that said something like admin and council want to know what you are doing to
get ready for El Nino. Not getting my CIP request funded is what I’m doing!! Maybe I didn’t
sell it hard enough or it’s not as sexy as Open Space, another of the many growing
divisions that increase our workloads.
A couple years ago I allowed Lauren Schwartzman, UC San Diego Environmental Studies
Grad and Cuesta College film student to interview and film us. She did a pretty good job
with the short film titled: The Urban Forest. T:\PACE\2012-13\Programs\Urban Forest
Movie After winning an award for short environmental films at the SLO Film Festival the
field crew quoted a Council person stating that it’s a propaganda film for Ron to get more
money for his division. Maybe so but it didn’t work.
We are five I say “5” years behind on our pruning schedule. Sorry for this rant but I’m on a
roll. I want you to know the cards we have been dealt and how we cannot keep up with all
the added work when we cannot even take care of our core duties. over the years with all
the development and the new parks coming on line with trees, center medians with trees,
the tall double-decker bus, annexes with large mature trees added to our inventory, CIP
projects, NR in creeks and open spaces that require our assistance and equipment to help
those guys on trees not in our inventory and not historically worked on by my division has
resulted in incrementally causing us to fall behind.
As these items increase over the last 20 years and other divisions have been created and
grown much larger than our 4 person division they all have increasingly requested our
services. Myself and 3 crew members with 45 k in contract services shrunk over this time
from a 6 man crew and 60 k in historic contracts shrunk over the last say 10 + years of
recession cuts. Also the annual 20 k Downtown CIP for trees and tree wells was eliminated
during that time but the trees keep growing. These cuts were described as being made as a
convenience of circumstances”. At the same time more demand from the above growing
divisions for our services has increased to the point where we are many years behind with
our own pruning schedules in fact the truth is that we have gone from a 5 yr. rotation to a
10 yr. Rotation. Lately it seems we are only able to keep up with emergency’s and high
priority work orders let alone do any preventative area pruning.
The intention and conclusion of the “Matrix study” a few years back was to eliminate Keith’s
Pelemeier,s management position and swap his position for Mike Johnson a part timer with
full time hours to a full time position to care for young trees and to increase contract
services to be able to do block by block area pruning in a preventative maintenance
direction. I picked up Keith’s management duties under my new title. After eliminating
Keith’s position it took a couple years to hire mike and when it got down to the wire we
ended up having to give up two part-time full time hours positions and Keith’s management
position to hire Mike. I still don’t know how that happened?? 3 for 1.? Also the increase to
our contract pruning was only a few thousand dollars witch is a drop in the bucket as you
know. Yes the drought has had a big effect increasing our loads and liabilities and where
we are spending our limited contract services on it but even without that item all the other
increases combined and ongoing increases have a far greater long term effect.
So the simple math is… way more folks in-house and out asking for our services, way more
areas either annexes, open spaces and development, more parks have come on line and
CIP projects expecting us to just pick up the slack. All of the above mentioned have
increased tree maintenance needs and this camel’s back is broken and vertebra crushed
into powder. It’s not any one item it’s the accumulation of all items mentioned adding up
and reductions in resources at the same time other division have many fold increases like
CDD. Last time I pointed this out it was squelched by some kind of number counting for
lack of a better term. Siting that the tree maintenance budget actual increased over the last
20 years. Maybe so due to inflation, salaries, tools contract services costing more etc.
However it’s not in keeping with the rest of the city and our increasing workloads.
Okay this is the simple math. 6 staff reduced to 4. 60 k in contract services reduced to 45
k and 20 k for Downtown work reduced or eliminated. 6 staff - 2 = 4. 60 k – 15 k = 45 k.
and 20 k for Downtown - 20 k = 0.
Example: The citizens of SLO pay more annually not mentioning CIPs and other expenses
just to maintain Sinsheimer Pool. Just the regular annual budget is more than the Urban
Forest Services budget yet we are expected to keep up. See PDF for size of crew from 30
years ago and scroll down to “Tree Program is Staffed” I thank we have grown in those 30
years and the trees have too in size and numbers>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
From: Nelms, Douglas
Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2016 3:14 PM
To: Combs, Ron <rcombs@slocity.org>
Cc: McGuire, Michael <mmcguire@slocity.org>; Collins, Andrew <acollins@slocity.org>; Basden,
Adam <abasden@slocity.org>
Subject: Corp Yard Painting Project 91423
Ron
Per this project’s specifications, the The City is to trim all vegetation within 18” of the
buildings to be painted.
There is still a bit of vegetation that could still use some trimming.
Can your staff take care of this? If your staff not responsible please refer me to proper
party.
Project starts this Monday October 3.
Thanks
Douglas Nelms
Engineering Inspector IV
Public Works
Engineering
919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218
E dnelms@slocity.org
T 805.783.7710
C 805.431.5469
slocity.org
From:Cutler, Megan
To:al.rusco@firstgroup.com; Cheryl Andrus; Christopher-Diego Lopez; Denise Martinez; eguillot@slocog.org;
Elizabeth Thyne"; gstraw@slorta.org; John Osumi; Louis Justice - MTC; thompson@newmex.com
Cc:Anguiano, Gamaliel; Lawson, Dee (dlawson@slocity.org)
Subject:Sept 7th | MTC Agenda Packet
Date:Thursday, September 1, 2016 11:16:36 AM
Attachments:Sept 7 - MTC Agenda - Combined Final Packet.pdf
image001.png
Good Morning,
Attached is the MTC Agenda Packet for our September 7th meeting to be held at 2:30 PM in the
City Hall Council Hearing Room at 990 Palm Street.
Please let me know if you have any questions – hope to see you Wednesday!
Thank you,
Megan
Megan Cutler
Transit Assistant
Public Works
919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218
E mcutler@slocity.org
T 805.783.7818
C 805.540.8988
slotransit.org
From:Combs, Ron
To:Kregness, Logan
Subject:FW: Follow up info.
Date:Friday, July 22, 2016 12:19:39 PM
Attachments:50220 Tree Removal & Replanting.docx
image001.png
History of the Tree Program 1983.pdf
FYI,
From: Combs, Ron
Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2016 10:01 AM
To: Hermann, Greg
Subject: Follow up info.
Hi Greg,
I have mentioned the load with maintenance, enforcement, development review and all of
our Urban Forest services and programs so many times I think staff, Admin and Council
must think I’m crying wolf or maybe they just don’t understand. We are setting ourselves
up for increasing liabilities. If I could do a quick 2 hour tour with council in a Ride-on-Van to
show and explain to them some of the hot spots I think thy would wake up and take notice.
Attached) The most recent CIP request that only addressed some of the hot spots around
town that need immediate attention regardless if El Nino hits, but especially with it on the
radar. However It was completely rejected. I received an email from Michael a couple
months later that said something like admin and council want to know what you are doing to
get ready for El Nino. Not getting my CIP request funded is what I’m doing. Maybe I didn’t
sell it hard enough or it’s not as sexy as Open Space, another of the many growing
divisions that increase our workloads.
A couple years ago I allowed Lauren Schwartzman, UC San Diego Environmental Studies
Grad and Cuesta College film student to interview and film us. She did a pretty good job
with the short film titled: The Urban Forest. T:\PACE\2012-13\Programs\Urban Forest
Movie After winning an award for short environmental films at the SLO Film Festival the
field crew quoted a Council person stating that it’s a propaganda film for Ron to get more
money for his division. Maybe so but it didn’t work.
We are five I say “5” years behind on our pruning schedule. Sorry for this rant but I’m on a
rolling. I want you to know the cards we have been dealt and how we cannot keep up with
all the added work when we cannot even take care of our core duties. over the years with
all the development and the new parks coming on line with trees, center medians with
trees, the tall double-decker bus, annexes with large mature trees added to our inventory,
CIP projects, NR in creeks and open spaces that require our assistance and equipment to
help those guys on trees not in our inventory and not historically worked on by my division
has resulted in incrementally causing us to fall behind.
As these items increase over the last 20 years and other divisions have been created and
grown much larger than our 4 person division they all have increasingly requested our
services. Myself and 3 crew members with 40 k in contract services shrunk over this time
from a 6 man crew and 60 k in historic contracts shrunk over the last say 10 + years of
recession cuts. Also the annual 20 k Downtown CIP for trees and tree wells was eliminated
during that time but the trees keep growing. These cuts were described as being made as a
convenience of circumstances”. At the same time more demand from the above growing
divisions for our services has increased to the point where we are many years behind with
our own pruning schedules in fact the truth is that we have gone from a 5 yr. rotation to a
10 yr. Rotation. Lately it seems we are only able to keep up with emergency’s and high
priority work orders let alone do any preventative area pruning.
The intention and conclusion of the “Matrix study” a few years back was to eliminate Keith’s
Pelemeier,s management position and swap his position for Mike Johnson a part timer with
full time hours to a full time position to care for young trees and to increase contract
services to be able to do block by block area pruning in a preventative maintenance
direction. I picked up keiths management duties under my new title. After eliminating Keith’s
position it took a couple years to hire mike and when it got down to the wire we ended up
having to give up two part-time full time hours positions and Keith’s management position to
hire Mike. I still don’t know how that happened?? 3 for 1.? Also the increase to our contract
pruning was only a few thousand dollars witch is a drop in the bucket as you know. Yes the
drought has had a big effect increasing our loads and liabilities and where we are spending
our limited contract services on it but even without that item all the other increases
combined and ongoing increases have a far greater long term effect.
So the simple math is… way more folks in-house and out asking for our services, way more
areas either annexes, open spaces and development, more parks have come on line and
CIP projects expecting us to just pick up the slack. All of the above mentioned have
increased tree maintenance needs and this camel’s back is broken and vertebra crushed
into powder. It’s not any one item it’s the accumulation of all items mentioned adding up
and reductions in resources at the same time other division have many fold increases. Last
time I pointed this out it was squelched by some kind of number counting for lack of a better
term. Siting that the tree maintenance budget actual increased over the last 20 years.
Maybe so due to inflation of salaries, tools contract services costing more etc. However it’s
not in keeping with the rest of the city and our increasing workloads.
Okay this is the simple math. 6 staff reduced to 4. 60 k in contract services reduced to 40
k and 20 k for Downtown work reduced or eliminated. 6 staff - 2 = 4. 60 k – 20 k = 40 k.
and 20 k for Downtown - 20 k = 0.
Example: The citizens of SLO pay more annually not mentioning CIPs and other expenses
just to maintain Sinsheimer Pool. Just the regular annual budget is more than the Urban
Forest Services budget yet we are expected to keep up. See PDF for size of crew from 30
years ago and scroll down to “Tree Program is Staffed” I thank we have grown in those 30
years and the trees have too in size and numbers>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Again Greg, thanks for listening,
Ron
Ron Combs
Urban Forest Supervisor - City Arborist
Public Works
Urban Forest Services
25 Prado Road, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-7314
E rcombs@slocity.org
T 805.781.7023
slocity.org
From:Combs, Ron
To:Kregness, Logan
Subject:FW: Follow up info.
Date:Friday, July 22, 2016 12:19:37 PM
Attachments:50220 Tree Removal & Replanting.docx
image001.png
History of the Tree Program 1983.pdf
FYI,
From: Combs, Ron
Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2016 10:01 AM
To: Hermann, Greg
Subject: Follow up info.
Hi Greg,
I have mentioned the load with maintenance, enforcement, development review and all of
our Urban Forest services and programs so many times I think staff, Admin and Council
must think I’m crying wolf or maybe they just don’t understand. We are setting ourselves
up for increasing liabilities. If I could do a quick 2 hour tour with council in a Ride-on-Van to
show and explain to them some of the hot spots I think thy would wake up and take notice.
Attached) The most recent CIP request that only addressed some of the hot spots around
town that need immediate attention regardless if El Nino hits, but especially with it on the
radar. However It was completely rejected. I received an email from Michael a couple
months later that said something like admin and council want to know what you are doing to
get ready for El Nino. Not getting my CIP request funded is what I’m doing. Maybe I didn’t
sell it hard enough or it’s not as sexy as Open Space, another of the many growing
divisions that increase our workloads.
A couple years ago I allowed Lauren Schwartzman, UC San Diego Environmental Studies
Grad and Cuesta College film student to interview and film us. She did a pretty good job
with the short film titled: The Urban Forest. T:\PACE\2012-13\Programs\Urban Forest
Movie After winning an award for short environmental films at the SLO Film Festival the
field crew quoted a Council person stating that it’s a propaganda film for Ron to get more
money for his division. Maybe so but it didn’t work.
We are five I say “5” years behind on our pruning schedule. Sorry for this rant but I’m on a
rolling. I want you to know the cards we have been dealt and how we cannot keep up with
all the added work when we cannot even take care of our core duties. over the years with
all the development and the new parks coming on line with trees, center medians with
trees, the tall double-decker bus, annexes with large mature trees added to our inventory,
CIP projects, NR in creeks and open spaces that require our assistance and equipment to
help those guys on trees not in our inventory and not historically worked on by my division
has resulted in incrementally causing us to fall behind.
As these items increase over the last 20 years and other divisions have been created and
grown much larger than our 4 person division they all have increasingly requested our
services. Myself and 3 crew members with 40 k in contract services shrunk over this time
from a 6 man crew and 60 k in historic contracts shrunk over the last say 10 + years of
recession cuts. Also the annual 20 k Downtown CIP for trees and tree wells was eliminated
during that time but the trees keep growing. These cuts were described as being made as a
convenience of circumstances”. At the same time more demand from the above growing
divisions for our services has increased to the point where we are many years behind with
our own pruning schedules in fact the truth is that we have gone from a 5 yr. rotation to a
10 yr. Rotation. Lately it seems we are only able to keep up with emergency’s and high
priority work orders let alone do any preventative area pruning.
The intention and conclusion of the “Matrix study” a few years back was to eliminate Keith’s
Pelemeier,s management position and swap his position for Mike Johnson a part timer with
full time hours to a full time position to care for young trees and to increase contract
services to be able to do block by block area pruning in a preventative maintenance
direction. I picked up keiths management duties under my new title. After eliminating Keith’s
position it took a couple years to hire mike and when it got down to the wire we ended up
having to give up two part-time full time hours positions and Keith’s management position to
hire Mike. I still don’t know how that happened?? 3 for 1.? Also the increase to our contract
pruning was only a few thousand dollars witch is a drop in the bucket as you know. Yes the
drought has had a big effect increasing our loads and liabilities and where we are spending
our limited contract services on it but even without that item all the other increases
combined and ongoing increases have a far greater long term effect.
So the simple math is… way more folks in-house and out asking for our services, way more
areas either annexes, open spaces and development, more parks have come on line and
CIP projects expecting us to just pick up the slack. All of the above mentioned have
increased tree maintenance needs and this camel’s back is broken and vertebra crushed
into powder. It’s not any one item it’s the accumulation of all items mentioned adding up
and reductions in resources at the same time other division have many fold increases. Last
time I pointed this out it was squelched by some kind of number counting for lack of a better
term. Siting that the tree maintenance budget actual increased over the last 20 years.
Maybe so due to inflation of salaries, tools contract services costing more etc. However it’s
not in keeping with the rest of the city and our increasing workloads.
Okay this is the simple math. 6 staff reduced to 4. 60 k in contract services reduced to 40
k and 20 k for Downtown work reduced or eliminated. 6 staff - 2 = 4. 60 k – 20 k = 40 k.
and 20 k for Downtown - 20 k = 0.
Example: The citizens of SLO pay more annually not mentioning CIPs and other expenses
just to maintain Sinsheimer Pool. Just the regular annual budget is more than the Urban
Forest Services budget yet we are expected to keep up. See PDF for size of crew from 30
years ago and scroll down to “Tree Program is Staffed” I thank we have grown in those 30
years and the trees have too in size and numbers>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Again Greg, thanks for listening,
Ron
Ron Combs
Urban Forest Supervisor - City Arborist
Public Works
Urban Forest Services
25 Prado Road, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-7314
E rcombs@slocity.org
T 805.781.7023
slocity.org
From:Shelby Walker
To:Adam Hill; AGP Video; Aida Nicklin; Ehrbar, Barbara; Bruce Gibson; Christianson, Carlyn; Cherie McKee; David
Roessler; Dawn Patterson (dpatterson@atascadero.org); Debbie Arnold; Dianne Thompson; Eliane Wilson; Eric
Greening; Frank Mecham; Fred Strong; Fred Strong; Geoff Straw; Hannah Miller; Jamie Irons; Marx, Jan;
Jennifer Caffee; jguthrie@arroyogrande.org; JIM LEWIS (JLewis@PismoBeach.org); Jocelyn Brennan; Joe
Costello; John Diodati (jdiodati@co.slo.ca.us); John Shoals (gbadmin@grover.org); John Shoals
jshoals@grover.org); John Shoals (JTSU@pge.com); JWalter@slocity.org; Karen Bright; Katie Robinson
krobinson@co.slo.ca.us); Kitty Norton (knorton@arroyogrande.org); Lisa Cava; Lynn Compton
lcompton@co.slo.ca.us); Mary Gardner; Michael Seden-Hansen; Michele Kubel; Mike Harmon
MHARMON@SLOCOG.org); Omar McPherson; Patricia Grimes; Pene McCullough
PMCCULLOUGH@SLOCOG.org); Pete Rodgers (PRODGERS@SLOCOG.org); Phil Moores; Ron DeCarli
RDECARLI@SLOCOG.org); Shelly Higginbotham (shigginbotham@pismobeach.org); shoffman@co.slo.ca.us;
Steve Devencenzi (SDEVENCENZI@SLOCOG.org); Steve Martin (smartin@prcity.com); Tania Arnold; Tessa
Cornejo; Bochum, Tim; Tim Gillham (tgillham@slocog.org); Tim McNulty (tmcnulty@co.slo.ca.us); Tom O"Malley
TOmalley@Atascadero.org); Trena Wilson
Subject:AGENDA for RTA Board Meeting July 13, 2016
Date:Friday, July 8, 2016 3:49:42 PM
Attachments:RTABoardAgenda_7.13.16.pdf
Good afternoon Board members, et.al,
Attached please find a copy of the RTA Board meeting on Wednesday, July 13, 2016 at 8:30 a.m. in
the Board of Supervisors Chamber.
For your convenience, you may also view the agenda online visiting
http://www.slorta.org/board/rta-board-meetings .
Hard copies of this agenda will be distributed. Please let me know if you have any questions or
concerns.
This will also serve as a quorum check for the meeting.
Thank you,
Shelby Walker
Administrative Assistant
San Luis Obispo Regional Transit Authority
179 Cross Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
805.781.4833 Fax 805.781.1291
slorta.org
From:Cutler, Megan
To:Cheryl Andrus; Christopher-Diego Lopez; Denise Martinez; "Elizabeth Thyne"; gstraw@slorta.org; Heidi Harmon;
John Osumi; Louis Justice - MTC; mwong84@calpoly.edu; thompson@newmex.com
Cc:Al Rusco (al.rusco@firstgroup.com); Eliane Guillot; gstraw@slorta.org; Stephanie Hicks (SHicks@slocog.org);
Fukushima, Adam; Gordon Shaw (gordonshaw@lsctahoe.com); Anguiano, Gamaliel; Lawson, Dee
Subject:July 13th | MTC Agenda Packet
Date:Friday, July 8, 2016 11:18:26 AM
Attachments:image001.png
July 13 - MTC Agenda - Combined Final Packet.pdf
Good Morning,
Attached is the MTC Agenda Packet for our July 13th meeting to be held at 2:30 PM in the City Hall
Council Hearing Room at 990 Palm Street.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Thank you,
Megan
Megan Cutler
Transit Assistant
Public Works
919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218
E mcutler@slocity.org
T 805.783.7818
C 805.540.8988
slotransit.org
From:Anguiano, Gamaliel
To:Cutler, Megan
Cc:Lawson, Dee
Subject:July 13 MTC Agenda
Date:Friday, July 8, 2016 10:15:55 AM
Attachments:July 13 - MTC Agenda - Combined Final Packet.pdf
Alright, I believe this is ready for both print and electronic distribution.
From:Cutler, Megan
To:Anguiano, Gamaliel
Subject:RE: July 13 - MTC Agenda
Date:Friday, July 8, 2016 9:32:56 AM
Attachments:July 13 - MTC Agenda - Combined Final Packet.pdf
Looks great, does the attached look good for the final packet?
I’ll generate the ridership report separately for the actual meeting.
From: Anguiano, Gamaliel
Sent: Friday, July 08, 2016 9:21 AM
To: Cutler, Megan
Subject: July 13 - MTC Agenda
I welcome you quick review. Thanks.
From:Lomeli, Monique
To:"usa5150@fedex.com"
Subject:City of SLO Community Development Dept.
Date:Wednesday, July 6, 2016 3:30:50 PM
Attachments:image001.png
Item 1.pdf
Good afternoon,
Please print 17 copies of the attached file.
Double sided pages in full color)
Please deliver to 919 Palm Street on Thursday, July 7th.
Monique Lomeli
Administrative Assistant
Community Development
919 Palm, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249
E MLomeli@slocity.org
slocity.org
From:Anguiano, Gamaliel
To:Gordon Shaw
Subject:RE: SRTP - MTC Member Comments
Date:Tuesday, May 31, 2016 1:15:39 PM
Attachments:image005.png
image007.png
From: Gordon Shaw [mailto:gordonshaw@lsctahoe.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2016 1:08 PM
To: Anguiano, Gamaliel
Cc: Lawson, Dee; Cutler, Megan
Subject: RE: SRTP - MTC Member Comments
Gamaliel – See some comments on my part below in blue.
Gordon Shaw, PE, AICP
Principal
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
PO Box 5875
2690 Lake Forest Road, Suite C
Tahoe City, California 96145
530-583-4053
gordonshaw@lsctahoe.com
lsctrans.com
From: Anguiano, Gamaliel [mailto:GAnguiano@slocity.org]
Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2016 11:25 AM
To: 'Gordon Shaw' (gordonshaw@lsctahoe.com) <gordonshaw@lsctahoe.com>
Cc: Lawson, Dee <dlawson@slocity.org>; Cutler, Megan <mcutler@slocity.org>
Subject: RE: SRTP - MTC Member Comments
Gordon,
Here I have completed my feedback. Let’s chat over the phone so that we can refine the first round of recommendations to reflect the public comments.
From: Anguiano, Gamaliel
Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2016 5:09PMTo: 'Gordon Shaw' (gordonshaw@lsctahoe.com)
Subject: FW: SRTP - MTC Member Comments
Gordon,
Below are comments from one of our more volcal MTC members. However, again, I think it’s just a matter of clarification. I am inserting my comments in red ink within.
Our goal is to encourage not discourage ridership; thus, the following are my initial comments regarding the Draft Plan
GA: Complete agree with this statement. …
1A & B - No longer serves Augusta Street. This will eliminate the stops in front of Judson Terrace and also at Gerda. Inasmuch as residents of Judson Terrace as a whole are either on
walkers, motor scooter type chairs, or canes, this will create a physical problem for those in particular. In addition to residents of Judson Terrace, there are also students and mothers with
children who utilize the stop.
The new routing will only be serviced on Laurel Lane in both directions. Again, crossing Laurel Lane will create some problems for those Judson Terrace residents because of the "hilly"
street. And, the crossing guards when the elementary school lets out, will be subject to more traffic on Laurel Lane. There is no "shelter" for the Laurel Lane stops - only benches.
It will also take longer on 1A (and this is where the map is confusing) as it will continue down to Fuller before hitting Laurel Lane on the opposite side of the street in front of the small
strip mall (elderly crossing).
Please check with Planning as there a proposal to enlarge the small strip mall and a commerical building may inhibit the bus stop.
The Broad/Rockview stop as proposed has no safe way to cross the street.
Take a look at the Google Streetview of Augusta for a good reason while fixed route buses shouldn’t be there.
GA: there are a number of practical, Operational, Financial and Safety reasons for recommending this change:
1. Augusta is a two lane residential street with parking on both sides which considerably creates challenges for even our 30’ vehicles to squeeze by.
2. Compounding the issue is the congestion created around bell times and inherent dangers of parents or children walking in and around parked vehicles and crossing streets.
First Transit has attested to this concern and safety issue.
3. Stop on Gerda (black star) is minimal (if any) but will confirm with APC data
4. Augusta/ Laurel stop (black star) will also be further analyzed with APC data. Anticipated to be moderate to low.
5. Slope and proximity issues can be address by simply moving a sheltered stop around the corner on Laurel lane with one directly across the street and near the cross walk
gold stars). Exact placement is pending but will be in proximity to Judson Terrace/neighborhood homes.
6. Johnson St. is an Arterial designed for larger volume and sized vehicles, (safer to operate on). Speed on Johnson and Laurel will also have a benefit on schedules and for
maintaining on-time performance (Operational benefit).
7. Bi-direction service is considered superior and more attractive then “split leg” service (practical)
8. There is also the potential for a huge capital cost savings of around $900K. Because of the narrowness of this segment of the route, we can ONLY OPERATE 30’ vehicles on
this route. Therefore, continuing to operate on August will require us to replace these vehicles in 2017,18 at a cost of around $900K. However, if we move this route to
Johnson, we no longer need to keep 30’ in our fleet and so we can dispense and save by not incurring this cost. This is critical because in 2019,20 we are scheduled to
replace 8 vehicles at a cost of around $4.5 million. No longer needing 30’ could bring the countdown to only 6 (financial benefit) and lower cost to around $3.5 million.
2A & B - map is unclear on LOVR - as 3A & B run in the same direction from South Street down Madonna, out LOVR, where 2A & B enter/exit residential area - and that's a total of 4
buses.
GA: not sure I understand this. No, 3A and 3B run in opposite directions. I think the map is clear.
3A & B - Why is Grand/Mill stop at the Vets Hall being eliminated? There are several students boarding at that stop and people attending events/meetings at the Vets Hall as well. What is
the purpose for using California instead? And, why is everything being moved from Mill to Monterey when the buses will have to go under the railroad bridge?
Additional consideration should be given to the Pepper Street problem as presented by a Mother with small children who lives in that area - even though we've been told only one bus will
go through this area now.
GA: I believe she is speaking about Route 4 and not Route 3. Route 4 has some revisions based on Contractor feedback that will address the first part of this concern. Hmm, under
the draft SRTP, existing routes 4/5 get renumbered as 3A/3B serving the western portions of the city, and Route 4 replaces existing Route 6A/6B serving NE SLO/Cal Poly.
Note Changes:
Use of 101 On Ramp to Grand Ave preserves Grand ave and Mill St. service (vet Hall at intersection of Mill and Grand) What about the counterclockwise direction? Use
ramps on N side of 101?
New Route 4 no longer recommended heading south on Santa Rosa all the way to Amtrak station but rather right on Buchon and right onto Oso st. So not serving the
Amtrak station?
Also, putting Route 3 (old 4/5) onto Oso/Santa Barbara/South means only 1 bus per hour in each direction. Not sure what you intend on new Route 2, but flipping it off of South and
onto Higuera/Marsh north of South St. means less service on South Street than is currently shown in the draft SRTP
4A & B - It is noted that "during the school year" and at peak hours, two buses will be operated in each direction providing 20 minute service in each direction and one bus (4A) in the
evening every 30 minutes.
Unfortunately, I don't see this accommodating residents/homeless in like.
GA: not fully understanding this concern… Nor do I
Pg. 143: Summary: * Focus on areas with greatest ridership potential - but leave out others. *Increase frequency...near Cal Poly campus, to/from downtown - but leave out others.
Extend Hours during School Year - but leave out others at other times.
Provide Evening Service - but only during the weekday evenings in the summer from June 10 to Labor Day weekend. What about weekends for residents? Would cost substantial $, and
would not generate substantial ridership
What of PAC access for residents? Will be on SRTP Route 4
Pg 147: Given the current...... It is noted that three double decker buses are being suggested based upon factors such as expansion of Cal Poly student levels. Replacing and updating our
current fleet should be a priority.
Also, note that in the second paragraph "The additional capacity... Secondly, the lesser should be fewer.]
General - Red curbs need repainting. This is included in the capital plan Weeds near bus stops need cutting down. Would be happy to put it in the plan, but seems like typical ongoing
maintenance issue.
That's it for now. If I have additional comments, I'll get them to you ASAP.
Regards, Louise Justice
From:Gordon Shaw
To:Anguiano, Gamaliel
Cc:Lawson, Dee; Cutler, Megan
Subject:RE: SRTP - MTC Member Comments
Date:Tuesday, May 31, 2016 1:07:43 PM
Attachments:image003.png
Gamaliel – See some comments on my part below in blue.
Gordon Shaw, PE, AICP
Principal
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
PO Box 5875
2690 Lake Forest Road, Suite C
Tahoe City, California 96145
530-583-4053
gordonshaw@lsctahoe.com
lsctrans.com
From: Anguiano, Gamaliel [mailto:GAnguiano@slocity.org]
Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2016 11:25 AM
To: 'Gordon Shaw' (gordonshaw@lsctahoe.com) <gordonshaw@lsctahoe.com>
Cc: Lawson, Dee <dlawson@slocity.org>; Cutler, Megan <mcutler@slocity.org>
Subject: RE: SRTP - MTC Member Comments
Gordon,
Here I have completed my feedback. Let’s chat over the phone so that we can refine the first round of recommendations to
reflect the public comments.
From: Anguiano, Gamaliel
Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2016 5:09 PM
To: 'Gordon Shaw' (gordonshaw@lsctahoe.com)
Subject: FW: SRTP - MTC Member Comments
Gordon,
Below are comments from one of our more volcal MTC members. However, again, I think it’s just a matter of clarification. I am
inserting my comments in red ink within.
Our goal is to encourage not discourage ridership; thus, the following are my initial comments regarding the Draft Plan
GA: Complete agree with this statement. …
1A & B - No longer serves Augusta Street. This will eliminate the stops in front of Judson Terrace and also at Gerda. Inasmuch as
residents of Judson Terrace as a whole are either on walkers, motor scooter type chairs, or canes, this will create a physical problem
for those in particular. In addition to residents of Judson Terrace, there are also students and mothers with children who utilize the
stop.
The new routing will only be serviced on Laurel Lane in both directions. Again, crossing Laurel Lane will create some problems for
those Judson Terrace residents because of the "hilly" street. And, the crossing guards when the elementary school lets out, will be
subject to more traffic on Laurel Lane. There is no "shelter" for the Laurel Lane stops - only benches.
It will also take longer on 1A (and this is where the map is confusing) as it will continue down to Fuller before hitting Laurel Lane on
the opposite side of the street in front of the small strip mall (elderly crossing).
Please check with Planning as there a proposal to enlarge the small strip mall and a commerical building may inhibit the bus stop.
The Broad/Rockview stop as proposed has no safe way to cross the street.
Take a look at the Google Streetview of Augusta for a good reason while fixed route buses shouldn’t be there.
GA: there are a number of practical, Operational, Financial and Safety reasons for recommending this change:
1. Augusta is a two lane residential street with parking on both sides which considerably creates challenges for even our 30’
vehicles to squeeze by.
2. Compounding the issue is the congestion created around bell times and inherent dangers of parents or children walking in
and around parked vehicles and crossing streets. First Transit has attested to this concern and safety issue.
3. Stop on Gerda (black star) is minimal (if any) but will confirm with APC data
4. Augusta/ Laurel stop (black star) will also be further analyzed with APC data. Anticipated to be moderate to low.
5. Slope and proximity issues can be address by simply moving a sheltered stop around the corner on Laurel lane with one
directly across the street and near the cross walk (gold stars). Exact placement is pending but will be in proximity to
Judson Terrace/neighborhood homes.
6. Johnson St. is an Arterial designed for larger volume and sized vehicles, (safer to operate on). Speed on Johnson and
Laurel will also have a benefit on schedules and for maintaining on-time performance (Operational benefit).
7. Bi-direction service is considered superior and more attractive then “split leg” service (practical)
8. There is also the potential for a huge capital cost savings of around $900K. Because of the narrowness of this segment of
the route, we can ONLY OPERATE 30’ vehicles on this route. Therefore, continuing to operate on August will require us
to replace these vehicles in 2017,18 at a cost of around $900K. However, if we move this route to Johnson, we no longer
need to keep 30’ in our fleet and so we can dispense and save by not incurring this cost. This is critical because in
2019,20 we are scheduled to replace 8 vehicles at a cost of around $4.5 million. No longer needing 30’ could bring the
countdown to only 6 (financial benefit) and lower cost to around $3.5 million.
2A & B - map is unclear on LOVR - as 3A & B run in the same direction from South Street down Madonna, out LOVR, where 2A &
B enter/exit residential area - and that's a total of 4 buses.
GA: not sure I understand this. No, 3A and 3B run in opposite directions. I think the map is clear.
3A & B - Why is Grand/Mill stop at the Vets Hall being eliminated? There are several students boarding at that stop and people
attending events/meetings at the Vets Hall as well. What is the purpose for using California instead? And, why is everything being
moved from Mill to Monterey when the buses will have to go under the railroad bridge?
Additional consideration should be given to the Pepper Street problem as presented by a Mother with small children who lives in that
area - even though we've been told only one bus will go through this area now.
GA: I believe she is speaking about Route 4 and not Route 3. Route 4 has some revisions based on Contractor feedback that
will address the first part of this concern. Hmm, under the draft SRTP, existing routes 4/5 get renumbered as 3A/3B serving the
western portions of the city, and Route 4 replaces existing Route 6A/6B serving NE SLO/Cal Poly.
Note Changes:
Use of 101 On Ramp to Grand Ave preserves Grand ave and Mill St. service (vet Hall at intersection of Mill and Grand)
What about the counterclockwise direction? Use ramps on N side of 101?
New Route 4 no longer recommended heading south on Santa Rosa all the way to Amtrak station but rather right on
Buchon and right onto Oso st. So not serving the Amtrak station?
Also, putting Route 3 (old 4/5) onto Oso/Santa Barbara/South means only 1 bus per hour in each direction. Not sure what you
intend on new Route 2, but flipping it off of South and onto Higuera/Marsh north of South St. means less service on South Street
than is currently shown in the draft SRTP
4A & B - It is noted that "during the school year" and at peak hours, two buses will be operated in each direction providing 20 minute
service in each direction and one bus (4A) in the evening every 30 minutes.
Unfortunately, I don't see this accommodating residents/homeless in like.
GA: not fully understanding this concern… Nor do I
Pg. 143: Summary: * Focus on areas with greatest ridership potential - but leave out others. *Increase frequency...near Cal Poly
campus, to/from downtown - but leave out others.
Extend Hours during School Year - but leave out others at other times.
Provide Evening Service - but only during the weekday evenings in the summer from June 10 to Labor Day weekend. What about
weekends for residents? Would cost substantial $, and would not generate substantial ridership
What of PAC access for residents? Will be on SRTP Route 4
Pg 147: Given the current...... It is noted that three double decker buses are being suggested based upon factors such as expansion of
Cal Poly student levels. Replacing and updating our current fleet should be a priority.
Also, note that in the second paragraph "The additional capacity... Secondly, the lesser should be fewer.]
General - Red curbs need repainting. This is included in the capital plan Weeds near bus stops need cutting down. Would be happy to
put it in the plan, but seems like typical ongoing maintenance issue.
That's it for now. If I have additional comments, I'll get them to you ASAP.
Regards, Louise Justice
From:Anguiano, Gamaliel
To:"Rusco, Al"
Subject:RE: SRTP
Date:Monday, May 16, 2016 10:50:54 AM
Ok let's discuss. Nothing is set in stone
Original Message-----
From: Rusco, Al [al.rusco@firstgroup.com]
Sent: Monday, May 16, 2016 10:23 AM Pacific Standard Time
To: Anguiano, Gamaliel
Subject: RE: SRTP
Gamaliel
The staff now say that the proposed new RT4 has a difficult right turn from California to Monterey. I
believe that I got the opinion that it was doable when I suggested it but now it is a concern. Have a
look I thing they have a point.
From: Anguiano, Gamaliel [mailto:GAnguiano@slocity.org]
Sent: Friday, May 13, 2016 3:47 PM
To: Rusco, Al <al.rusco@firstgroup.com>
Subject: RE: SRTP
Thanks
Original Message-----
From: Rusco, Al [al.rusco@firstgroup.com]
Sent: Friday, May 13, 2016 01:37 PM Pacific Standard Time
To: Anguiano, Gamaliel
Subject: RE: SRTP
Gamaliel
Augusta is a narrow street with on street parking. In many places a bus cannot safely pass an
oncoming car. The stop at Justin Terrace is not adequate. Servicing the stop is difficult to do safely
due to poles and other obstructions. We use a 30’ bus for this route mostly due to the conditions on
Augusta.
If we have stops on both sides of Laurel the safety issues should be minimal.
From: Anguiano, Gamaliel [mailto:GAnguiano@slocity.org]
Sent: Friday, May 13, 2016 11:43 AM
To: Rusco, Al <al.rusco@firstgroup.com>; Guyton, John <John.Guyton@firstgroup.com>
Subject: FW: SRTP
Can you folks get me a recommendation from First Transits perspective on any safety issues
related to operating on Augusta. Just documents t what the concerns might be. The same for
moving the tour to Luarel.
Original Message-----
From: Louise Justice [gramlbj@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, May 13, 2016 09:15 AM Pacific Standard Time
To: Anguiano, Gamaliel
Cc: Lawson, Dee
Subject: SRTP
Our goal is to encourage not discourage ridership; thus, the following are my initial comments
regarding the Draft Plan:
1A & B - No longer serves Augusta Street. This will eliminate the stops in front of Judson
Terrace and also at Gerda. Inasmuch as residents of Judson Terrace as a whole are either on
walkers, motor scooter type chairs, or canes, this will create a physical problem for those in
particular. In addition to residents of Judson Terrace, there are also students and mothers with
children who utilize the stop.
The new routing will only be serviced on Laurel Lane in both directions. Again, crossing
Laurel Lane will create some problems for those Judson Terrace residents because of the
hilly" street. And, the crossing guards when the elementary school lets out, will be subject to
more traffic on Laurel Lane. There is no "shelter" for the Laurel Lane stops - only benches.
It will also take longer on 1A (and this is where the map is confusing) as it will continue down
to Fuller before hitting Laurel Lane on the opposite side of the street in front of the small strip
mall (elderly crossing).
Please check with Planning as there a proposal to enlarge the small strip mall and a
commerical building may inhibit the bus stop.
The Broad/Rockview stop as proposed has no safe way to cross the street.
2A & B - map is unclear on LOVR - as 3A & B run in the same direction from South Street
down Madonna, out LOVR, where 2A & B enter/exit residential area - and that's a total of 4
buses.
3A & B - Why is Grand/Mill stop at the Vets Hall being eliminated? There are several
students boarding at that stop and people attending events/meetings at the Vets Hall as well.
What is the purpose for using California instead? And, why is everything being moved from
Mill to Monterey when the buses will have to go under the railroad bridge?
Additional consideration should be given to the Pepper Street problem as presented by a
Mother with small children who lives in that area - even though we've been told only one bus
will go through this area now.
4A & B - It is noted that "during the school year" and at peak hours, two buses will be
operated in each direction providing 20 minute service in each direction and one bus (4A) in
the evening every 30 minutes.
Unfortunately, I don't see this accommodating residents/homeless in like.
Pg. 143: Summary: * Focus on areas with greatest ridership potential - but leave out others.
Increase frequency...near Cal Poly campus, to/from downtown - but leave out others.
Extend Hours during School Year - but leave out others at other times.
Provide Evening Service - but only during the weekday evenings in the summer from June 10
to Labor Day weekend. What about weekends for residents?
What of PAC access for residents?
Pg 147: Given the current...... It is noted that three double decker buses are being suggested
based upon factors such as expansion of Cal Poly student levels. Replacing and updating our
current fleet should be a priority.
Also, note that in the second paragraph "The additional capacity... Secondly, the lesser
should be fewer.]
General - Red curbs need repainting. Weeds near bus stops need cutting down.
That's it for now. If I have additional comments, I'll get them to you ASAP.
Regards, Louise Justice
From:Anguiano, Gamaliel
To:Christian, Kevin
Cc:Cutler, Megan
Subject:RE: MTC May 11 Agenda Packet
Date:Monday, May 9, 2016 11:40:33 AM
Attachments:5-11-16- MTC Agenda Packet (amended).pdf
image001.png
Megan put out and amended one. Thanks to the both of you for catching that.
From: Christian, Kevin
Sent: Friday, May 06, 2016 4:14 PM
To: Anguiano, Gamaliel
Cc: Cutler, Megan
Subject: RE: MTC May 11 Agenda Packet
Gamaliel,
I just went to upload the agenda to the web site and noticed that the date on the agenda
says, “Wednesday May 12”.
Kevin
From: Anguiano, Gamaliel
Sent: Friday, May 06, 2016 3:28 PM
To: Cutler, Megan; Cheryl L. Andrus; Christopher-Diego Lopez (dlopez30@calpoly.edu); Denise Martinez
Missd500@yahoo.com); 'Elizabeth Thyne'; Heidi Harmon (sacredheart9395@yahoo.com); John Osumi;
Lisa Woske; Louis Justice - MTC (gramlbj@gmail.com); 'Michelle L. Wong' (mwong84@calpoly.edu)
mwong84@calpoly.edu); 'thompson@newmex.com'
Cc: Lawson, Dee; Rusco, Al; gstraw@slorta.org; 'Gordon Shaw' (gordonshaw@lsctahoe.com); Maier,
John Paul; Christian, Kevin; Eliane Guillot
Subject: MTC May 11 Agenda Packet
MTC,
Attached is the agenda packet for next week’s MTC meeting.As a reminder,I will be away but the
meeting will be supported by Dee and Megan.Hard copies are being mailed out I type.
Gamaliel Anguiano
Transit Manager
Public Works
Transit Services
919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218
E GAnguiano@slocity.org
T 805.781.7121
C 805.431.0001
slocity.org
From:Cutler, Megan
To:Anguiano, Gamaliel; Cheryl L. Andrus; Christopher-Diego Lopez (dlopez30@calpoly.edu); Denise Martinez
Missd500@yahoo.com); "Elizabeth Thyne"; Heidi Harmon (sacredheart9395@yahoo.com); John Osumi; Lisa
Woske; Louis Justice - MTC (gramlbj@gmail.com); "Michelle L. Wong" (mwong84@calpoly.edu)
mwong84@calpoly.edu); "thompson@newmex.com"
Cc:Lawson, Dee; Rusco, Al; gstraw@slorta.org; "Gordon Shaw" (gordonshaw@lsctahoe.com); Maier, John Paul;
Christian, Kevin; Eliane Guillot
Subject:RE: MTC May 11 Agenda Packet
Date:Friday, May 6, 2016 4:36:49 PM
Attachments:5-11-16- MTC Agenda Packet (amended).pdf
image001.png
Hi All,
Attached is the agenda packet amended with the Wednesday, May 11, 2016 date.
Thank you,
Megan Cutler
Transit Assistant
Public Works
919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218
E mcutler@slocity.org
T 805.783.7818
C 805.540.8988
slotransit.org
From: Anguiano, Gamaliel
Sent: Friday, May 06, 2016 3:28 PM
To: Cutler, Megan; Cheryl L. Andrus; Christopher-Diego Lopez (dlopez30@calpoly.edu); Denise Martinez
Missd500@yahoo.com); 'Elizabeth Thyne'; Heidi Harmon (sacredheart9395@yahoo.com); John Osumi;
Lisa Woske; Louis Justice - MTC (gramlbj@gmail.com); 'Michelle L. Wong' (mwong84@calpoly.edu)
mwong84@calpoly.edu); 'thompson@newmex.com'
Cc: Lawson, Dee; Rusco, Al; gstraw@slorta.org; 'Gordon Shaw' (gordonshaw@lsctahoe.com); Maier,
John Paul; Christian, Kevin; Eliane Guillot
Subject: MTC May 11 Agenda Packet
MTC,
Attached is the agenda packet for next week’s MTC meeting. As a reminder, I will be away but the
meeting will be supported by Dee and Megan. Hard copies are being mailed out I type.
Gamaliel Anguiano
Transit Manager
Public Works
Transit Services
919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218
E GAnguiano@slocity.org
T 805.781.7121
C 805.431.0001
slocity.org
From:Anguiano, Gamaliel
To:Cutler, Megan; Cheryl L. Andrus; Christopher-Diego Lopez (dlopez30@calpoly.edu); Denise Martinez
Missd500@yahoo.com); "Elizabeth Thyne"; Heidi Harmon (sacredheart9395@yahoo.com); John Osumi; Lisa
Woske; Louis Justice - MTC (gramlbj@gmail.com); "Michelle L. Wong" (mwong84@calpoly.edu)
mwong84@calpoly.edu); "thompson@newmex.com"
Cc:Lawson, Dee; Rusco, Al; gstraw@slorta.org; "Gordon Shaw" (gordonshaw@lsctahoe.com); Maier, John Paul;
Christian, Kevin; Eliane Guillot
Subject:MTC May 11 Agenda Packet
Date:Friday, May 6, 2016 3:28:00 PM
Attachments:5-11-16- MTC Agenda Packet.pdf
image001.png
MTC,
Attached is the agenda packet for next week’s MTC meeting.As a reminder,I will be away but the
meeting will be supported by Dee and Megan.Hard copies are being mailed out I type.
Gamaliel Anguiano
Transit Manager
Public Works
Transit Services
919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218
E GAnguiano@slocity.org
T 805.781.7121
C 805.431.0001
slocity.org
From:Anguiano, Gamaliel
To:Cutler, Megan; Cheryl L. Andrus; Christopher-Diego Lopez (dlopez30@calpoly.edu); Denise Martinez
Missd500@yahoo.com); "Elizabeth Thyne"; Heidi Harmon (sacredheart9395@yahoo.com); John Osumi; Lisa
Woske; Louis Justice - MTC (gramlbj@gmail.com); "Michelle L. Wong" (mwong84@calpoly.edu)
mwong84@calpoly.edu); "thompson@newmex.com"
Cc:Lawson, Dee; Rusco, Al; gstraw@slorta.org; "Gordon Shaw" (gordonshaw@lsctahoe.com); Maier, John Paul
JMaier@slocity.org); Christian, Kevin (kchristian@slocity.org); Eliane Guillot
Subject:MTC May 11 Agenda Packet
Date:Friday, May 6, 2016 3:27:58 PM
Attachments:5-11-16- MTC Agenda Packet.pdf
image001.png
MTC,
Attached is the agenda packet for next week’s MTC meeting.As a reminder,I will be away but the
meeting will be supported by Dee and Megan.Hard copies are being mailed out I type.
Gamaliel Anguiano
Transit Manager
Public Works
Transit Services
919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218
E GAnguiano@slocity.org
T 805.781.7121
C 805.431.0001
slocity.org
From:Anguiano, Gamaliel
To:Jim
Cc:Cutler, Megan
Subject:RE: Agenda Item
Date:Friday, May 6, 2016 2:29:04 PM
Attachments:5-11-16- MTC Agenda Packet.pdf
Jim.
I have seen no other requests from the committee for additional items. Due to time
constraints we will need to officially post the final agenda before 4 p.m. today. Attached is
a draft of what it looks like as of now.
From: Jim [mailto:thompson@newmex.com]
Sent: Friday, May 06, 2016 11:18 AM
To: Anguiano, Gamaliel; Elizabeth Thyne
Subject: Re: Agenda Item
Gamaliel:
Thanks for looking at this, and Liz thank for remembering this. Jim
On 5/6/2016 9:35 AM, Anguiano, Gamaliel wrote:
Here is the link to our bylaws. This would be the meeting for addressing both
these items
http://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=1940
From: Jim [mailto:thompson@newmex.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2016 9:16 PM
To: Elizabeth Thyne; Anguiano, Gamaliel
Subject: Re: Agenda Item
Liz:
That is a good idea. Lets have it on the agenda. Does the by-laws say anything
about when the new officers are to be elected? If there is something then we
should follow that set of rules. Anyway, if it is appropriate then lets do it. Jim
On 5/5/2016 4:00 PM, Elizabeth Thyne wrote:
Jim and Gee – I suggest that the election of Chair and Vice-Chair, plus the
meeting schedule for the coming year should be the first items on the agenda
for next week – this being the last meeting of the fiscal year.
Liz Thyne