PC 09.a. East Branch Streetscape Project
MEMORANDUM
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: TERESA MCCLISH, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
BY: MATTHEW DOWNING, PLANNING MANAGER
MATT HORN, CITY ENGINEER
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF STAFF PROJECT NO. 16-003; EAST BRANCH
STREET STREETSCAPING ALTERNATIVES; LOCATION – EAST
BRANCH STREET BETWEEN MASON STREET AND PAULDING
CIRCLE; APPLICANT – CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
DATE: JULY 19, 2016
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the Planning Commission review the project alternatives for the
East Branch Streetscaping project and advise the City Council on a preferred
alternative.
IMPACT ON FINANCIAL AND PERSONNEL RESOURCES:
The East Branch Streetscaping project is funded by a Regional State Highway Account
Congestion (RSHA) grant and some City Sales Tax Funds as follows:
East Branch Streetscaping Project Funding Table
FY 15-16 FY 16-17 FY 17-18 FY 18-19 FY 19-20 Total
Sales Tax Fund $ 70,000 $ 97,600 - - - $ 167,600
RSHA - $ 390,400 - - - $ 390,400
Total $ 70,000 $ 488,000 - - - $ 558,000
BACKGROUND:
This segment of the East Branch Streetscaping project is considered “Phase 2” of the
previous Village streetscaping work that was completed on East Branch Street between
Bridge Street and Mason Street. This project will continue the Village amenities
installed by “Phase 1” on East Branch Street between North Mason Street and Paulding
Circle.
The City successfully competed and obtained grants f unds administered by the San
Luis Council of Governments (SLOCOG) with some grant matching funds provided by
the Sales Tax Fund.
PLANNING COMMISSION
CONSIDERATION OF STAFF PROJECT NO. 16-003
JULY 19, 2016
PAGE 2
On August 13, 2015 the City solicited proposals from the on-call civil engineering
consultants for the design and construction document preparation of the project. Omni-
Means was selected to complete this work and on September 14, 2015, the City
entered into a Contract with Omni-Means to complete the work.
A stakeholder group was established consisting of local business owners and a member
from each of the City’s advisory Boards and Commissions. Commissioner Fowler-
Payne is the Planning Commission’s member in the stakeholder group. Several
Stakeholder meetings were held to review and advise on th e project development,
including meetings held on:
November 19, 2015;
January 14, 2016;
April 5, 2016; and
May 13, 2016
Two conceptual plans were developed based upon project area observations and
feedback from the stakeholders, with Alternative 1 (See Attachment 1 - Figure A-1)
representing maximizing Class II bicycle lanes and Alternative 2 (See Attachment 1 -
Figure A-2) which retains as much existing on-street parking as is practical. Both
alternatives include lane narrowing, bulb outs, street trees, and implementation of an
enhanced marked pedestrian crosswalk on East Branch Street at Le Point Terrace.
After review and consideration, the stakeholders group recommended Alternative 2 for
approval, as it provides a better balance of competing needs.
Staff Advisory Committee
The Staff Advisory Committee (SAC) was consulted during development and refinement
of the alternatives. The SAC made suggestions regarding the use of bulbouts as
drainage features, making the pedestrian crosswalk an area of refuge but not an area of
congregation, and limiting the eastern extension of the crosswalk to not limit westbound
left turns by emergency vehicles from the Paulding Circle exit. The SAC voted to
recommend approval of Alternative 2.
Architectural Review Committee
The Architectural Review Committee (ARC) reviewed the project on May 2, 2016
(Attachment 2). Members of the ARC discussed on street parking for both alternatives,
fence design, and sidewalk pavers. The ARC made a recommendation to approve
Alternative 2 with some specific design considerations and landscape modifications for
landscaped areas.
Traffic Commission
The Traffic Commission (TC) reviewed the project on May 23, 2016 and June 20, 2016.
Members of the TC discussed the competing needs of bicycle s and vehicles and
compliance of the project with the Bicycle and Trails Master Plan. The TC
PLANNING COMMISSION
CONSIDERATION OF STAFF PROJECT NO. 16-003
JULY 19, 2016
PAGE 3
recommended approval of Alternative 2 with modifications to the number of bulb outs
included in the plan (Attachment 3).
ANALYSIS OF ISSUES:
Existing Conditions
East Branch Street, from Mason Street to approximately Crown Hill Street, is part of the
City’s core Village area, but does not contain many of the streetscape elements that
exist in the western portion of the Village.
East Branch Street between Mason Street and Le Point Terrace is comprised of two
travel lanes, one lane traveling eastbound and one lane traveling westbound, with one
two way left hand turn lane. Parking is generally provided on both sides of the road.
Sidewalk is available on both sides of the road. Shared bicycle facilities are generally
provided without any roadway markings.
Display Showing Area of Work
General Plan
The General Plan is the foundation development policy document of the City of Arroyo
Grande. It defines the framework by which the physical, economic and human
resources of the City are to be managed and utilized over time. The General Plan
designates the subject corridor for Village Core and Village Mixed Use land uses. The
two (2) alternatives for the project have been developed while striving to provide
consistency with the General Plan. The project meets and is consistent with a number
of Goals, Policies, and Implementation Measures of the General Plan, including LU5 -3,
LU5-11, LU5-11.5, LU12-7, LU12-7.1, LU12-7.6, LU12-7.6 and LU12-8 of the Land Use
PLANNING COMMISSION
CONSIDERATION OF STAFF PROJECT NO. 16-003
JULY 19, 2016
PAGE 4
Element, ED5-4 and ED5-1.2 of the Economic Development Element, and CT3-3, CT3-
3.2, CT4, CT4-2, and CT5 of the Circulation Element, which state:
LU5-3: Ensure that all projects developed in the MU areas include app ropriate site
planning and urban design amenities to encourage travel by walking, bicycling and
public transit.
LU5-11: Promote a mixture of residential and commercial uses along Mixed Use
corridors including substantial landscaping and streetscape improvements.
LU5-11.5: Develop phased implementation programs for streetscape improvement
along Mixed Use Corridors, including financing strategies, which provide for elements
such as landscape, street furniture, signage and pedestrian-scaled lighting.
LU12-7: Enhance pedestrian level activity within residential and commercial areas.
LU12-7.1: Utilize “street furniture” (planters, benches, drinking fountains, newspaper
racks, bike racks, trash receptacles) to create and enhance urban open spaces within
commercial areas and to emphasize historical and rural architectural themes.
LU12-7.6: Refine the Circulation Element to include an integrated pedestrian circulation
network linking the Village Core and Mixed-Use areas, schools, shopping, community
facilities, and multiple family residential areas.
LU12-8: Emphasize the incorporation of landscape themes and extensive landscaped
areas into new development; provide landscaping and open space as an integral part of
project design to enhance building design, public views, and interior spaces; provide
buffers and transitions as needed; and facilitate energy conservation.
ED5-4: Expand and enhance the Village Core as a focal point for civic and tourist
activities.
ED5-1.2: Implement comprehensive design guidelines pertaining to both public and
private improvements, including, but not limited to, building façade restoration,
landscaping, street furniture installation, undergrounding of utilities, historic district
character, and the development of parking facilities.
CT3-3: Promote non-motorized bike and pedestrian circulation facilities to serve all
areas of the City and linking with regional systems, with priority coordination with
school, park, transit and major public facilities.
CT3-3.2: Plan and prioritize Village Core and E. Grand Avenue Mixed Use corridor
improvements.
PLANNING COMMISSION
CONSIDERATION OF STAFF PROJECT NO. 16-003
JULY 19, 2016
PAGE 5
CT4: Ensure compatibility and complementary relationships between the
circulation/transportation system and existing and planned land uses, promoting
environmental objectives such as safe and un-congested neighborhoods, energy
conservation, reduction of air and noise pollut ion, transit, bike and pedestrian friendly
characteristics.
CT4-2: Utilize the circulation system as a positive element of community design,
including street trees and landscaped parkways and medians, special streetscape
features in Mixed Use corridors and Village Core, undergrounding of utilities, particularly
along major streets.
CT5: Coordinate circulation and transportation planning and funding of collector and
arterial street and highway improvements with other local, County, SLOCOG, State and
federal agencies. Request County contribution to major street improvement projects.
Benefits of Streetscaping
Streetscaping improvements help local business and enhance the area’s economic
viability, attractiveness, and environmental health. Streetscaping imp rovements provide
for tangible benefits and include:
Reduced energy costs for consumers;
Increased property value of homes and businesses;
Reduced traffic congestion by providing access to alternative modes of
transportation;
Increased water quality by facilitating natural storm water filtration;
Encourage healthier, active lifestyles; and
Reduced air pollution by sequestering harmful carbon emissions.
Attractive and inviting streetscapes provide a safe built environment for pedestrians and
helps spur local economic activity. Increased walkability can help revitalize a downtown,
increase private investment, and support the development of a good business climate.
Examples of this revitalization can be observed within the Phase 1 work area that was
completed. The extension of streetscape and Village amenities will help enhance the
communities downtown district.
Complete Streets
A decade ago the term Complete Streets was created. The term defines an approach
that requires streets to be planned, designed, operated, and maintained to enable safe,
convenient and comfortable travel and access for users of all ages and abilities
regardless of their mode of transportation. Complete Streets allow for safe travel by
those walking, bicycling, driving automobiles an d riding public transportation. Complete
Streets are promoted as offering improved safety, health, economic, and environmental
outcomes. Complete Streets emphasizes the importance of safe access for all users,
not just automobiles.
PLANNING COMMISSION
CONSIDERATION OF STAFF PROJECT NO. 16-003
JULY 19, 2016
PAGE 6
Currently, United States Code, Title 23, Chapter 2, Section 217 (23 USC 217),
mandates that:
"bicycle transportation facilities and pedestrian walkways shall be considered,
where appropriate, in conjunction with all new construction and reconstruction of
transportation facilities, except where bicycle and pedestrian use are not
permitted."
Additionally, the Highway Design Manual Section 1000.1 states:
“The needs of non motorized transportation are an essential part of all highway
projects. Mobility for all travel modes is recognized as an integral element of the
transportation system.”
California Assembly Bill 1358 (Chapter 657, Statutes 2008) is known as the Complete
Streets Bill. Effective in 2011, the bill requires revisions to a County or City’s Circulation
Element to include provisions for the accommodation of all roadway users including
bicyclists and pedestrians. Accommodations include bikeways, sidewalks, crosswalks,
and curb extensions.
In response to bicycle needs, the City completed the Bicycle and Trails Master Plan in
2012. Bicycle facilities are classified as either:
a. Class 1: Provides a completely separated right-of-way designated for
the exclusive use of bicycles and pedestrians with minimized cross -
flows by motorists. Class 1 shown below.
PLANNING COMMISSION
CONSIDERATION OF STAFF PROJECT NO. 16-003
JULY 19, 2016
PAGE 7
b. Class 2: Provides a restricted right-of-way designated for the exclusive
or semi- exclusive use of bicycles with through travel by motor vehicles
or pedestrians prohibited, but with vehicle parking and cross -flows by
pedestrians and motorists permitted. For example, a marked lane for
one-way bicycle travel on a street or highway. Class 2 shown below.
PLANNING COMMISSION
CONSIDERATION OF STAFF PROJECT NO. 16-003
JULY 19, 2016
PAGE 8
c. Class 3: Provides a right-of-way designated by signs or permanent
markings and shared with pedestrians or motorists. Non-motorized
Traffic – Bicycle and pedestrian components of traffic. Class 3 shown
below.
d. Class 4: Assembly Bill 1193 (Chapter 495, Statutes 2014), approved by
the Governor on September 20, 2014, introduced the Class 4 bicycle
facility. These facilities are on-street two-way bicycle facilities that are
separated from vehicles by a physical barrier. These facilities are
commonly referred to as cycle tracks and the Assembly Bill requires
Caltrans to release new design guidelines by January 1, 2016. Class 4
shown below.
PLANNING COMMISSION
CONSIDERATION OF STAFF PROJECT NO. 16-003
JULY 19, 2016
PAGE 9
e. Shared: A roadway that permits bicycle use but is not officially
designated as a bikeway. Shared roadway shown below.
As shown in the 2012 adopted Bicycle and Trails Master Plan, the City has many
opportunities to install new bicycle facilities on existing roadways.
Area Left Intentionally Blank
PLANNING COMMISSION
CONSIDERATION OF STAFF PROJECT NO. 16-003
JULY 19, 2016
PAGE 10
PLANNING COMMISSION
CONSIDERATION OF STAFF PROJECT NO. 16-003
JULY 19, 2016
PAGE 11
Bicycle and Trails Master Plan
The Bicycle and Trails Master Plan identifies this area for future improvement. This
plan shows that East Branch Street from Le Point Terrace to Traffic Wa y is planned for
Class 3 bicycle facilities. Based on the approval of this document, the City has
determined that Class 3 bike lanes should be installed in the future at a policy level.
Page from Bicycle and Trails Master Plan
PLANNING COMMISSION
CONSIDERATION OF STAFF PROJECT NO. 16-003
JULY 19, 2016
PAGE 12
Parking
Within the project area 55 on-street parking spaces are currently available. Some of
these parking spaces are considered non-standard since they interfere with driveway
vision triangles. Alternative 1 has the largest impact to on-street parking spaces
reducing the available number of spaces to 28. Alternative 2 retains more of the
existing on-street parking spaces with a total proposed at 48. Below is a summary of
parking space distribution in the project site.
E. Branch St.
Segment Type
Existing Alternative 1 Alternative 2
#
Spaces
#
Spaces Difference #
Spaces Difference
Mason Street to
Crown Hill Street
Std
Non-Std
20
2
13
0
(7)
(2)
19
0
(1)
(2)
Crown Hill Street
to Le Point Terrace
Std
Non-Std
9
1
0
0
(9)
(1)
7
0
(2)
(1)
Le Point Terrace to
Garden Street
Std
Non-Std
22
1
15
0
(7)
(1)
22
0
(0)
(1)
Total
Std
Non-Std
Total:
51
4
55
28
0
28
(23)
(4)
(27)
48
0
48
(3)
(4)
(7)
Marked Pedestrian Crosswalks at Le Point Terrace
Both alternatives propose the installation of a marked crosswalk with protected,
landscaped median and rectangular rapid flashing signs on East Branch Street at Le
Point Terrace. The original concept plan included three (3) landscaped medians along
the project segment of Branch Street. However, due to vehicle queuing issues , the only
remaining median is located at Le Point Terrace. This provides an opportunity to
include a pedestrian connection east of Mason Street and reduces the distance of
roadway necessary for pedestrians to cross. The median will be planted with severa l
drought tolerant plants (see Sheet LA2 of Attachment 1). The median is also intended
to slow traffic in the area by providing reduced road width striping.
PLANNING COMMISSION
CONSIDERATION OF STAFF PROJECT NO. 16-003
JULY 19, 2016
PAGE 13
Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons
Proposed Enhanced Marked Pedestrian Crossing
Bulb Outs and Vegetation
Bulb outs extend the sidewalk into the parking lane s to narrow the roadway and provide
additional pedestrian space or landscaping in key locations. Bulb outs may be used at
roadway intersections or at mid-block locations. Bulb outs enhance pedestrian safety by
increasing pedestrian visibility, shortening crossing distances, slowing turning vehicles,
and visually narrowing the roadway. Vegetated bulb outs can focus driver’s attention to
the roadway prism by limiting vision of peripheral distractions outside the roadway.
PLANNING COMMISSION
CONSIDERATION OF STAFF PROJECT NO. 16-003
JULY 19, 2016
PAGE 14
Bulb out have the following benefits:
Increased pedestrian visibility at intersections;
Decreased pedestrian exposure to vehicles by shortening the crossing distance;
Reduced vehicle turn speeds by physically and visually narrowing the roadway;
Increased pedestrian waiting space;
Decreased vehicle 85th percentile vehicle speeds;
Additional space for street furnishings, plantings and other amenities; and
Reduced unlawful parking at corners crosswalks and bus stops.
The following bulb outs are proposed for the East Branch Streetscaping project.
Bulb Out Vicinity Map 1
PLANNING COMMISSION
CONSIDERATION OF STAFF PROJECT NO. 16-003
JULY 19, 2016
PAGE 15
Bulb Out 1
Bulb Out 1 is proposed in both Alternative 1 and 2. The intent of this bulb out is to
provide lower vehicle speeds as they enter the Village core, provide for increased
aesthetics, and provide for increased separation between the adjacent local business
and vehicle traffic.
Proposed Location of Bulb Out 1
Bulb Out 2
Bulb Out 2 is proposed in both Alternative 1 and 2. The intent of this bulb out is to
provide for increased public space for pedestrians as well as street furnishings.
Proposed Location of Bulb Out 2
PLANNING COMMISSION
CONSIDERATION OF STAFF PROJECT NO. 16-003
JULY 19, 2016
PAGE 16
Bulb Out 3
Bulb Out 3 is proposed in both Alternative 1 and 2. The intent of this bulb out is to
provide for increased public space and implementation of a landscaped biofiltration
facility to increase water quality prior to deposition into Corbett Canyon Creek.
Proposed Location of Bulb Out 3
Bulb Out 4
Bulb Out 4 is proposed in Alternative 2 only. The intent of this bulb out is to move the
existing street tree out of the sidewalk and provide for necessary space for pedestrians
as well as slow vehicles and encourage them not to cut through the parking area of the
roadway.
Proposed Location of Bulb Out 4
PLANNING COMMISSION
CONSIDERATION OF STAFF PROJECT NO. 16-003
JULY 19, 2016
PAGE 17
Bulb Out 5
Bulb Out 5 is proposed in Alternative 2 only. The intent of this bulb out is to move the
existing street tree out of the sidewalk and provide for necessary space for pedestrians
as well as slow vehicles and encourage them not to cut through the parking area of the
roadway.
Proposed Location of Bulb Out 5
Bulb Out Vicinity Map 2
PLANNING COMMISSION
CONSIDERATION OF STAFF PROJECT NO. 16-003
JULY 19, 2016
PAGE 18
Bulb Out 6
Bulb Out 6 is proposed in Alternative 2 only. The intent of this bulb out is to increase
sight distance for vehicles exiting Paulding Circle.
Proposed Location of Bulb Out 6
Bulb Out 7
Bulb Out 7 is proposed in Alternative 2 only. The intent of this bulb out is to increase
visibility of pedestrians prior to entering the roadway and decrease the crossing
distance for pedestrians before leaving the roadway.
Proposed Location of Bulb Out 7
PLANNING COMMISSION
CONSIDERATION OF STAFF PROJECT NO. 16-003
JULY 19, 2016
PAGE 19
Tile Sidewalk Bands
Sidewalks in the Village currently include terra cotta tile bands and plantar boxes.
These bands cause maintenance issues due to cracking and chipping, present slipping
hazards when wet, and result in color differentiation when replaced. As part of this
phase of the streetscape project, it is proposed to begin using colored concrete pavers
instead of tiles. This will result in sturdy, non-slip surfaces that can provide more
consistent coloring throughout the Village area.
ALTERNATIVES:
The following alternatives are provided for the Commission's consideration:
Review both project Alternatives and make a selection as to the Planning
Commission preferred alternative;
Review both project Alternatives and make a selection as to the Planning
Commission preferred alternative with recommended modifications;
Select “No Project” as the Planning Commission preferred alternative; or
Provide alternate direction
ADVANTAGES:
Selection of either alternative will result in several aesthetic improvements in the
project’s segment of Branch Street. Alternative 1 would implement several Priorities of
the Bicycle and Trails Master Plan by providing Class II bike lanes within the project
area. Alternative 2 will maintain on street parking in an area identified by residents and
businesses as being impacted.
DISADVANTAGES:
Implementation of the project will necessitate the loss of some existing on street parking
in the project area due to spaces not meeting safety and visibility standards. Alternative
1 results in the greatest loss of on street parking within the project area in exchange for
dedicated bike lanes. Alternative 2 retains the most on street parking in exchange for
not dedicating area to bike lanes.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA
Guidelines, and the Arroyo Grande Procedures for the Implementation of CEQA, the
project has been determined to be categorically exempt per Section 15301(c) of the
CEQA Guidelines regarding projects within existing streets, sidewalks, gutters, bicycle
and pedestrian trails and similar features.
PUBLIC NOTICE AND COMMENT:
The agenda and staff report were posted at City Hall and on the City’s website on
Thursday, July 14, 2016. Comments received on the project have centered on the need
to retain street parking as much as possible,
PLANNING COMMISSION
CONSIDERATION OF STAFF PROJECT NO. 16-003
JULY 19, 2016
PAGE 20
Attachments:
1. Streetscape design plans
2. Minutes of the May 2, 2016 Architectural Review Committee meeting
3. DRAFT Minutes of the June 20, 2016 Traffic Commission meeting
EAST BRANCH STREETSCAPE DESIGNAlternative 1Arroyo Grande, CaliforniaMay 17, 201665-1275-35 2085RA001.dwgNORTH0100Scale: 1"= 100 ft.omni meansA1ATTACHMENT 1
EAST BRANCH STREETSCAPE DESIGNAlternative 2Arroyo Grande, CaliforniaMay 17, 201665-1275-35 2085RA002.dwgNORTHomni meansA2
Minutes: ARC
Monday, May 2, 2016
ATTACHMENT 2
1. The applicant shall add a dimensional border to the Medium-density Overlay (MDO.L_ .. --"""
sign on the eastern wall. --------·------------·
~~~,~~
-= ~--~--"" .. -~--"--"",., .... ,~-~"'
-,..., ~·~--~~-~
The motion carried on a 5-0-~~£e_.wffi·:·--~---·-·
~~~--~-,..,~-"'"""~' ~,_., .
.... ---Chai~_!::foag<S'aTl~d for a break at 4:27 p.m. The Committee reconvened at 4:31 p.m.
--=--'""'-~.,,.-·.,,
6.a. CONTINUED CONSIDERATION OF STAFF PROJECT NO. 16-003; EAST BRANCH
STREETSCAPING PRELIMINARY Al TERNATIVES; LOCATION -EAST BRANCH
STREET BETWEEN MASON STREET AND PAULDING CIRCLE; APPLICANT -CITY OF
ARROYO GRANDE (Downing)
Planning Manager Downing presented the project.
Planning Manager Downing responded to questions from the Committee regarding the
potential number of parking spaces that would be lost under each alternative.
Chair Hoag opened the meeting to public comment.
Duane DeBlauw spoke about the parking situation in the Village and the need to keep as
many on-street parking spaces as possible.
Hearing no further public comments, Chair Hoag closed the public comment period.
The Committee provided comments in support of the project regarding fence design, tree
wells, and sidewalk pavers.
Mary Hertel made a motion, seconded by Bruce Berlin, to allow the meeting to continue past
5:00 p.m. per the ARC bylaws. The motion carried on a 5-0 voice vote.
Mary Hertel made a motion, seconded by Bruce Berlin, to recommend approval of the
project to the City Council with the following considerations:
1. Recommend Alternative 2 in order to maximize on-street parking.
2. Shorten the eastern end of the median to allow for left-handed turns from Paulding
Circle.
3. Eliminate the bike lane east of the crosswalk to support on-street parking.
4. Recommend the use of the proposed sidewalk pavers.
5. Recommend alternatives to Kangaroo Paw and Day Lilies.
6. Encourage rainwater capture in bulb out.
The motion carried on 5-0 voice vote.
7. DISCUSSION ITEMS-----~-----------~-~
7 .a. ELECJ:JGN-Ot=.OFFICERS ___ ,,.,,,,,.~-""-~,_.,,~,.,.,.·-'""···~
ACTION MINUTES
MEETING OF THE TRAFFIC COMMISSION
MONDAY, JUNE 20, 2016
COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 215 E. BRANCH STREET
ARROYO GRANDE, CA
1. CALL TO ORDER
Chair Ross called the meeting to order at
2. ROLL CALL
Traffic Commissioners: Commis~idher Susan Henslin;
Commissioner Kenneth Price;
Commissioner Ken Sage;
Vice Chair Jim
Chair Steven
Commissioners absent: None
Staff present: Matt.Horn, City Engineer;
ATTACHMENT 3
Matt Downing 1 Planpipg Manager;
Teresa McClish, Directorqf Community Development;
. Beau Pryor>Police Comrrrander; and
.. Jane Covert-Lannon, Office Assistant II
':::-:.,·>·: .. ·<::>::,,··.--'..-:-. ::,,._-_:'.:';_;_'.::
Con~ult~ptPresent: Nate Stong, Omni Means
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Chair'Ross led the pleclge of allegiance.
4. COMMUNITYCOMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS
Chair Ross opened.the Community Comments and Suggestions.
Hearing no public comment, Chair Ross closed the Community Comments and
Suggestions.
5. CONSENT AGENDA
None
TRAFFIC COMMISSION MEETING
MINUTES
JUNE 20, 2016
6. BUSINESS ITEMS
PAGE 2of4
6.a CONSIDERATION OF EAST BRANCH STREET STREETSCAPING
PRELIMINARY ALTERNATIVES.
Recommended Action: It is recommended that the Traffic Commission review the
project alternatives for the East Branch Streetscaping Project and advise the City
Council on the preferred alternative and recommended modifications.
Matt Horn, City Engineer gave the presentation to the Commissioners along with Matt
Downing, Planning Manager and Nate Stong, Consultant, Omni Means.
Chair Ross opened the public comment on this>iternandthe following people spoke:
1) Ann Dreizler -Cyclist -Sunset Drive -Is in favor of alternative 1. She feels it is
safer for students and cyclists. Sh~. said that not all children.are driven to school and
they need a safe option to ride theifbikes to school.
2) Bob Lund -Linda Drive -President C>fthe Village lmprovemept.Association and
Arroyo Grande in Bloom-. He has lived in "Arroyo Grande for 22 years. He said the
Village has improved sigriifica:ntly since he moved here and he would like to see the
Village improved and expa?d@d.> 1-te likes alternative 2 and says that parking is
critical in the Village for both businesses and tourists,
3) Susan Flores '-'-E Branch Street-There is a speed sign at Huasna and 227 that is
covered qy branches of a tree. ·.. She saw thatthe stakeholders group had four
meetings. She looked .on line to see if there were minutes to see what they
discussed, bufno minutes were available. Additionally, there were no invitations to
thesemeetings to .any ofthe residents affected by these decisions.
,. ,', ', ·,
, ',' ,' ',' ··'·>.·: --.·.·
· She said she is okaywith alternative 2 if the traffic can be slowed down prior to the
crosswalk. She said sheJs concerned about the speed of traffic and that something
needs to be donefo mitigatethe speed if the crosswalk is installed.
4) Mike McConville -E Branch Street -He said that speed is a concern and drivers
gain speed on the cur\fe. He suggested installing "Hill ahead" sign or "watch speed."
Or perhaps an electronic speed sign could be utilized to make drivers pay more
attention to their speed. He said he would like to see a lighted crosswalk installed at
Crown Hill and East Branch.
He said that Paulding Circle needs street lighting for after dark.
He said he has a problem with not being notified or invited by the stakeholders group
and that residents should be notified.
5) Noreen Vance -Launa Lane -She said she bikes to school with her son and they
often bike in the Village. She supports alternative 1 because it improves safety for
cyclists.
TRAFFIC COMMISSION MEETING
MINUTES
JUNE 20, 2016
PAGE 3of4
6) Ron Holt -He supports alternative 1. He said he occasionally commutes as a driver
and a cyclist through the Village to work. He says that we need better signage and
traffic slowing prior to installing a crosswalk.
7) Marsha Papich -Owns two homes that comes out on Le Point Terrace. She wants
a safe route for the kids, but there is no sidewalk and when they cut through Le Point
Terrace they walk in the middle of the street. She doesn't want the kids and cars to
mix. It is a very dangerous crossing.
Hearing no further public comment, Chair Ross closed the public comment.
Commissioner Sage said he took the opportunity to walk the area and watch the traffic
flow. He said he agrees with the residents regarding speed and has concerned about
the crosswalk. He says something has to be done on the east side to slow traffic before
the crosswalk. He said he supports alternative 2 with modification to eliminate bulb out
1 and implement traffic calming before th~ crosswalk. ·
Commissioner Price -He said that the most important aspect of this decision is sending
parents the message that safety is numbel"one. He said alternative·2would work, but
alternative 1 would be better and would make if much safer for cyclists. He said he
would for alternative 1 and grudgingly for alternative 2. He said the message should be
sent for safety.
Vice Chair Carson -He said thathe has concerns abOutlane widths and bulbouts. He
said we are asking the small streefthat was; built 100 years ago to do more that it was
designed to do. He said this is not the plc:lce to mak~ these changes. He said that he
supports alternative 2 and suggests taking eliminating the crosswalk and bu I bouts 5,6, 7
and making Pauling Circle a one way street
Comrtlissioner •• Henslih -She. saidthat Arrq~o Grande has grown and the Village has
b~en impacted.> She saidttie road is narrow and the topography is an issue. She said
there is no room for alternative 1 in this area, it reduces too much parking. She said that
she.supports alternative 2 because it balances needs but is not a perfect solution. She
saidshe agrees thafgood signage is needed near Huasna regarding the crosswalk and
speed.
Chair Rosssaidthat narrowing lanes in this area would have a negative impact on the
area. He said bulb outs help to slow the traffic. He said he supports alternative 2 with
some modification,
ACTION: Commissioner Price moved to choose alternative 1 as presented with some
modifications. There was no second and the motion died.
ACTION: Vice Chair Carson moved to approve alternative 2 as presented. The motion
was seconded by Commissioner Sage and the motion passed on the following vote:
AYES: Carson, Sage, Henslin, Ross
NOES: Price
TRAFFIC COMMISSION MEETING
MINUTES
JUNE 20, 2016
ABSENT:
PAGE 4of4
ACTION: Commissioner Sage made a motion to removed bulbout 1 from alternative 2.
Commissioner Henslin seconded the motion and the vote passed with a voice vote.
ACTION: Commissioner Sage made a motion to retain bulbout 2 as outlined in alternative 2.
Commissioner Price seconded the motion and the motion passed with a voice vote, with one no.
ACTION: Commissioner Price made a motion to remove bulbout 4 and Vice Chair Carson
seconded the motion and the vote passed with a voice vote with two nos.
ACTION: Vice Chair Carson made a motion to remove bulbout 5 and Commissioner Price
seconded the motion and the vote passed with a voice vote with two nos.
ACTION: Commissioner Price made a motion to retain bulbout 7, the crosswalk and the
median and Commissioner Sage seconded the motion and the vote passed with a voice vote
with one no.
7. DISCUSSION ITEMS
None
8. COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS
None
9. ADJOURNMENT
Chair Ross adjourned the meeting at 8:10 p.m.
Steven Ross .• Chair
ATTEST:
Jane Covert-Lannon
Office Assistant II
(Approved at TC Mtg: