CC 2017-08-08_12a East Branch Streetscape
MEMORANDUM
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: TERESA MCCLISH, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
BY: MATTHEW DOWNING, PLANNING MANAGER
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: AUGUST 8, 2017
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended by the Staff Advisory Committee, the Architectural Review
Committee, the Traffic Commission, and the Planning Commission that the City Council
review the project alternatives for the East Branch Streetscaping project, select
Alternative 2 as the preferred alternative, and direct staff to begin streetscape
improvement project plans and specifications.
SUMMARY OF ACTION:
Choose a preferred streetscape design for Phase 2 of improvements to East Branch
Street.
IMPACT ON FINANCIAL AND PERSONNEL RESOURCES:
The East Branch Streetscaping project is funded by a Regional State Highway Account
(RSHA) grant and Local 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
Local Sales Tax
Fund
$ 70,000 $ 97,600 - - - $ 167,600
Regional State
Highway Account
- $ 390,400 - - - $ 390,400
Total $ 70,000 $ 488,000 - - - $ 558,000
Item 12.a. - Page 1
CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION OF STAFF PROJECT NO. 16-003
AUGUST 8, 2017
PAGE 2
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 Mason Street and Paulding
Circle.
The City successfully competed for and obtained grant funds administered by the San
Luis Obispo Council of Governments (SLOCOG) with some grant matching funds
provided by the Local Sales Tax Fund.
A stakeholder group was established consisting of local business owners and a member
from each of the City’s Advisory Boards and Commissions. The stakeholder group was
heavily relied upon to help identify deficiencies and opportunities along the roadway
segment that could be addressed by a streetscape project.
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, as some
non-standard parking is removed in both alternatives. 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 they
believed it provides a better balance of competing needs.
The project has been reviewed by the Staff Advisory Committee, the Architectural
Review Committee, the Traffic Commission, and the Planning Commission. A summary
of the recommendations from these groups and any associated meeting minutes are
included as Attachments 2-5.
In response to the concerns expressed during review of the project by the different
review groups, a third alternative was sought as a middle ground between Alternative 1
and Alternative 2. “Alternative 1.5” included bike lanes on the south side of Branch
Street for eastbound riders, included “sharrows” for westbound riders, and retained
parking as much as possible along the road segment. However, the design was not
supported by the consultant due to the design of the roadway meeting only the
minimum thresholds available for width. Thus, Alternative 1.5 was not recommended by
the stakeholder group and is not recommended for additional consideration.
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.
Item 12.a. - Page 2
CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION OF STAFF PROJECT NO. 16-003
AUGUST 8, 2017
PAGE 3
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 (VC) and Village Mixed Use (VMU) land
uses. The two (2) alternatives for the project have been developed with the aim of
providing 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 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 (Attachment 6)
Benefits of Streetscaping
Streetscaping improvements help local business and enhance the area’s economic
viability, attractiveness, and environmental health. Streetscaping improvements provide
for tangible benefits and include:
Reduced energy costs for consumers;
Increased property value of homes and businesses;
Item 12.a. - Page 3
CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION OF STAFF PROJECT NO. 16-003
AUGUST 8, 2017
PAGE 4
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 enhance the
community’s 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 and 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.
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 in several categories, which are discussed in
Attachment 7.
Item 12.a. - Page 4
CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION OF STAFF PROJECT NO. 16-003
AUGUST 8, 2017
PAGE 5
Bicycle and Trails Master Plan
The Bicycle and Trails Master Plan identifies the project area for future improvement.
Priority project #2 of the Bicycle and Trails Master Plan shows that East Branch Street
from Le Point Terrace to Traffic Way is planned for Class 3 bicycle facilities (Attachment
8). Based on the approval of this document, the City has determined that Class 3 bike
lanes should be installed in the future.
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 several
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.
Item 12.a. - Page 5
CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION OF STAFF PROJECT NO. 16-003
AUGUST 8, 2017
PAGE 6
Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons
Proposed Enhanced Marked Pedestrian Crossing
Bulb Outs and Vegetation
Bulb outs extend the sidewalk into the parking lanes 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.
Item 12.a. - Page 6
CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION OF STAFF PROJECT NO. 16-003
AUGUST 8, 2017
PAGE 7
Bulb outs 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.
Additional information on each bulb out is provided in Attachment 9.
Bulb Out Vicinity Map 1
Item 12.a. - Page 7
CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION OF STAFF PROJECT NO. 16-003
AUGUST 8, 2017
PAGE 8
Bulb Out Vicinity Map 2
Tile Sidewalk Bands
Sidewalks in the Village currently include terra cotta tile bands and planter 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 Council’s consideration:
Review both project alternatives, select Alternative 2 as the preferred alternative,
and direct staff to begin streetscape improvement project plans and
specifications;
Review both project alternatives, select Alternative 1 as the preferred alternative,
and direct staff to begin streetscape improvement project plans and
specifications;
Review both project alternatives, select a modified alternative as the preferred
alternative, and direct staff to begin streetscape improvement project plans and
specifications;
Direct staff to work with the consultant to develop additional alternatives for the
streetscape project; 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
Item 12.a. - Page 8
CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION OF STAFF PROJECT NO. 16-003
AUGUST 8, 2017
PAGE 9
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. The streetscape improvement project plans
and specifications, if directed to proceed by the Council, will be reviewed to ensure the
appropriate level of environmental review is conducted.
PUBLIC NOTICE AND COMMENT:
The Agenda was posted at City Hall and on the City’s website in accordance with
Government Code 54954.2. Verbal comments received on the project have centered
on the need to retain street parking as much as possible.
Attachments:
1. Streetscape design plans
2. Summary of review body recommendations
3. Minutes of the May 2, 2016 Architectural Review Committee meeting
4. Minutes of the June 20, 2016 Traffic Commission meeting
5. Minutes of the July 19, 2016 Planning Commission meeting
6. List of General Plan Policies in support of the East Branch Street Streetscape
Project
7. Bike lane classifications
8. Bicycle and Trails Master Plan Priority Project #2
9. Additional information on proposed bulb outs
Item 12.a. - Page 9
EAST BRANCH STREETSCAPE DESIGNAlternative 1Arroyo Grande, CaliforniaMay 17, 201665-1275-35 2085RA001.dwgNORTH0100Scale: 1"= 100 ft.omni meansA1ATTACHMENT 1Item 12.a. - Page 10
EAST BRANCH STREETSCAPE DESIGNAlternative 2Arroyo Grande, CaliforniaMay 17, 201665-1275-35 2085RA002.dwgNORTHomni meansA2Item 12.a. - Page 11
Item 12.a. - Page 12
Item 12.a. - Page 13
Item 12.a. - Page 14
ATTACHMENT 2
Summary of Review Body Recommendations
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 bulb outs 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.
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 bicycles and vehicles and
compliance of the project with the Bicycle and Trails Master Plan. The TC
recommended approval of Alternative 2 with modifications to the number of bulb outs
included in the plan.
Planning Commission
The Planning Commission (PC) reviewed the project on July 19, 2016. Members of the
PC discussed the merits of both alternatives, including safety of schoolchildren in the
vicinity of Paulding Middle School, the need for parking to be available for business
along the corridor, and different preferences for fence designs. The PC recommended
approval of Alternative 2 and recommended efforts be made to develop guidelines for
fence designs in the Village.
Item 12.a. - Page 15
Minutes: ARC PAGE 3
Monday, May 2, 2016
1.The applicant shall add a dimensional border to the Medium-density Overlay (MDO)
sign on the eastern wall.
The motion carried on a 5-0 voice vote.
Chair Hoag called 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 ALTERNATIVES; 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. ELECTION OF OFFICERS
ATTACHMENT 3
Item 12.a. - Page 16
TRAFFIC COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING PAGE 2 of 6
MINUTES
MAY 23, 2016
meeting as amended. Commissioner Price seconded the motion and the minutes were
approved on the following vote.
AYES: Carson, Price, Henslin, Sage, Ross
NOES:
ABSENT:
6.BUSINESS ITEMS
6.a CONSIDERATION OF EAST BRANCH STREET STREETSCAPING
PRELIMINARY ALTERNATIVE.
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.
Matt Horn, City Engineer gave the presentation to the Commissioners.
Chair Ross opened the public comment on this item and the following people spoke:
1)Jeff Brubaker – SLOCOG Transportation Planner – SLOCOG supports amenities
and prefers Alternative 1. In December 2013, SLOCOG programmed $390,000 of
the state highway project funds for the East Branch Streetscaping project. In April,
2014, funding was solidified when the board approved a capital improvement plan.
SLOCOG’S 2014 regional transportation policy states “work wit member agencies to
get local street standards and circulation to get complete streets for all users.”
SLOCOG prefers Alternative 1 due to the greater implementation of complete streets
and closer adherence to SLOCOG policies.
If an alternative emerges that substantially removes the existing Class II bike lanes
and/or, the curb extensions and crosswalk enhancements, or if either of the two
alternatives are modified in such fashion, SLOCOG staff expect to take to the board
an agenda item that recommends shifting regional dollars to another project that
better meets SLOCOG’s policies and recommendations. Comments are preliminary
and may be modified at future decision points.
2)Dave Aubrecht- V.P. SLO Bicycle Club – The village of Arroyo Grande is a cycling
hub in South County. The city applied for a Bronze level bicyclist community
recognition and received it. Tourist dollars come from bicycle clubs.
Arroyo Grande is a cycle friendly community which encourages biking. Alternative 1
encourages cycling within the community.
3)Dan Raf – Executive Director – Bike SLO County – Organization has 4500
members. They are asking for Alternative 1 because it presents the greatest
possible safety impacts for cyclists.
ATTACHMENT 4
Item 12.a. - Page 17
TRAFFIC COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING PAGE 3 of 6
MINUTES
MAY 23, 2016
4) Patty – As someone who drives a car, she would appreciate it if cyclists would learn
to ride properly. Anything taking away parking is not good. It would be nice to see a
sidewalk up by Paulding.
5) Lucia Mar School District – The district supports Alternative 1. They have a number
of students who bike to school and it would be nice to have a bike lane. When they
have Bike to school day, students are afraid to ride their bikes to school because the
facilities aren’t there.
6) Dale Liscomb – May Street – He has lived here for thirty years and wonders if these
are the only choices we have. He said the problem is the pedestrians not the car
volume. He suggests putting up a stairway and pedestrian overpass.
Hearing no further public comment, Chair Ross closed the public comment.
Vice Chair Carson said he was leaning toward Alternative 2 but after hearing the
speakers, said he would like another alternative. He said he would have liked to have
the Traffic Commission have more input.
Commissioner Sage said that he too was leaning toward Alternative 1, but after hearing
the speakers, he feels that the safety for students is paramount. He agrees with Vice
Chair Carson and says an additional alternative is needed.
Commissioner Price feels that safe routes to school is the number one issue. He says
he is not ready to vote, would like more alternatives.
Chair Ross said that he is the Traffic Commission representative to the Stakeholder’s
committee. He said that there have been four stakeholder’s meetings and perhaps more
public outreach should be considered. He said he feels that parking is a major concern.
ACTION: .Vice Chair Carson made a motion to advise the City Council that the Traffic
Commission finds neither alternative acceptable, and would like to re-consider bulb outs,
vegetation, lane narrowing and crosswalks. The need for parking and the movement of
large commercial vehicles may override the need for dedicated bike lanes. Lane
construction is inherently dangerous. We must support our local businesses. The
motion was seconded by Commissioner Henslin, and the motion passed on the following
vote:
AYES: Carson, Henslin, Price, Sage
NOES: Ross
ABSENT:
6.b CONSIDERATION OF THE LE POINT AND CROWN HILL NEIGHBORHOOD
CIRCULATION.
Recommended Action: It is recommended that the Traffic Commission:
1. Receive the Le Point and Crown Hill Neighborhood Circulation information;
Item 12.a. - Page 18
TRAFFIC COMMISSION MEETING PAGE 2 of 4
MINUTES
JUNE 20, 2016
6. BUSINESS ITEMS
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 item and the following people spoke:
1) Ann Dreizler – Cyclist – Sunset Drive – Is in favor of alternative 1. She feels it is
safer for students and cyclists. She said that not all children are driven to school and
they need a safe option to ride their bikes to school.
2) Bob Lund – Linda Drive – President of the Village Improvement Association and
Arroyo Grande in Bloom – He has lived in Arroyo Grande for 22 years. He said the
Village has improved significantly since he moved here and he would like to see the
Village improved and expanded. He 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 by branches of a tree. She saw that the stakeholders group had four
meetings. She looked on line to see if there were minutes to see what they
discussed, but no minutes were available. Additionally, there were no invitations to
these meetings to any of the residents affected by these decisions.
She said she is okay with alternative 2 if the traffic can be slowed down prior to the
crosswalk. She said she is concerned about the speed of traffic and that something
needs to be done to mitigate the 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 curve. 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.
Item 12.a. - Page 19
TRAFFIC COMMISSION MEETING PAGE 3 of 4
MINUTES
JUNE 20, 2016
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
1and implement traffic calming before the crosswalk.
Commissioner Price – He said that the most important aspect of this decision is sending
parents the message that safety is number one. He said alternative 2 would work, but
alternative 1 would be better and would make it 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 that he has concerns about lane widths and bulbouts. He
said we are asking the small street that was built 100 years ago to do more that it was
designed to do. He said this is not the place to make these changes. He said that he
supports alternative 2 and suggests taking eliminating the crosswalk and bulbouts 5,6,7
and making Pauling Circle a one way street.
Commissioner Henslin – She said that Arroyo Grande has grown and the Village has
been impacted. She said the 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
said she agrees that good signage is needed near Huasna regarding the crosswalk and
speed.
Chair Ross said that 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
Item 12.a. - Page 20
TRAFFIC COMMISSION MEETING PAGE 4 of 4
MINUTES
JUNE 20, 2016
ABSENT:
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: )
Item 12.a. - Page 21
PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 3
MINUTES
JULY 19, 2016
9.a.CONSIDERATION OF STAFF PROJECT 16-003; EAST BRANCH STREET
STREETSCAPING ALTERNATIVES;LOCATION ±EAST BRANCH STREET BETWEEN
MASON STREET AND PAULDING CIRCLE; APPLICANT ± CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Planning Manager Downing presented the staff report recommending that the Commission
review the project alternatives for the East Branch Streetscaping project and advise the City
Council on a preferred alternative.Mr.Downing introduced Nate Stong, Consultant, Omni-
Means. Mr. Stong introduced Todd Tregenza, Consultant, Omni-Means.
Consultants Tregenza,Stong, City Engineer Horn and Planning Manager Downing gave a
presentation to the Commission regarding the East Branch Street Streetscaping Alternative
1 and Alternative 2 and responded to questions from the Commission.
Commissioner Fowler-Payne stated she is a member of the Stakeholders Group for the
East Branch Streetscaping project and they were in support of Alternative 2,as they thought
the need for parking was greater, the bulb outs were placed in an area to be safe for
existing driveways, were in favor of Option A for the fencing due to lack of maintenance and
could have information engraved on the panels.
Chair George invited public comment.
Jeffrey Kime, Corbett Canyon, Lea Brooks representing Bikes SLO County,and Myron
Amerine spoke in support of Alternative 1 as it is the safest for bicyclists.
Commissioner Fowler-Payne said the Stakeholders Group considered bicyclists along with
children bicycling to Paulding School.
Commissioner Mack said parking and bike and pedestrian safety is important, spoke in
support of Alternative 1,spoke in support of Option Bforthe fencing,and suggested that
fencing be standardized for the Village.
Commissioner Keen spoke in support of Alternative 2 and provided the following comments:
that coming from the north the bulb outs do not restrict the site distance;left turns should be
permitted out of Paulding Circle, does not support the flashing lights in the ground,and
spoke in support of raised flashing lights for the crosswalk.
Commissioner Fowler-Payne stated that the stakeholders were in support of fence Option A
as it was less maintenance,did not support Option B due to concerns regarding climbing,
Option C resembled a jail, and the bulb outs were to keep visibility.
Commissioner Martin spoke in support of Alternative 1 and stated it is a long range solution
that should be closely considered as the City decides how much to support alternate forms
of transportation.
Chair George supports Option A for fencing, suggested coming up with guidelines for
fencing in the Village, likes the idea of different colored pavers instead of a single color,
would like the bulb outs not to be cluttered so people can stand, likes the new crosswalk,
speed reduction needs to be a big consideration and is support of Alternative 2.
ATTACHMENT 5
Item 12.a. - Page 22
PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 4
MINUTES
JULY 19, 2016
City Engineer Horn stated that staff started with Alternative 1 and then came up with the
additional Alternative 2.
Action:Commissioner Martin moved that the Planning Commission recommend to the City
Council Alternative 2.Commissioner George seconded, and the motion passed on the following
roll call vote:
AYES:George, Fowler-Payne, Keen
NOES:Martin,Mack
ABSENT:None
Action:Commissioner Mack moved that the Planning Commission recommend to the City
Council fence Option B with the change of the material from wood to metal to coincide with the
Bridge Street Bridge project or develop guidelines for fencing to be used in the Village.
Commissioner Martin seconded.
Chair George suggested eliminating the first part of the motion. The Commission discussed
different options. Community Development Director McClish suggested staff investigate fencing
guidelines to be used for various projects in the Village.
Action:Commissioner Mack modified his motion that the Planning Commission recommend to
the City Council to develop guidelines for fencing to be used in the Village. Commissioner
Martin seconded and the motion carried by a unanimous voice vote.
In answer to Commissioner Fowler-Payne,Planning Manager Downing stated that the
Architectural Review Committee preferred fence Options A and B.
10. NOTICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS SINCE JULY 5, 2015
This is a notice of administrative decision for Minor Use Permits, including any approvals,
denials or referrals by the Community Development Director.An administrative decision must
be appealed or called up for review by the Planning Commission by a majority vote.
Case No.Applicant Address Description Action Planner
TUP 16-011 Steven Wood 400 Traffic Way Honey sales through
December 31, 2016
A P. Holub
In answer to Commissioner Martin, Planning Manager Downing stated that the Municipal Code
allows a TUP for sales for six months with the discretion of the Director. The permit will expire in
December.
11. COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS
Commissioner Mack, referencing speaker¶s concerns under public comment,stated that this is
something the City should be concerned about and that cut through traffic and speed is an
issue. Community Development Director McClish stated staff will provide an update to the
Commission on the concerns.
In answer to Chair George¶s question, Community Development Director McClish suggested if a
citizen speaks under public comment, the Commission can let them know their concern may be
placed on a future agenda.
Item 12.a. - Page 23
ATTACHMENT 6
General Plan Policies in Support of the East Branch Street Streetscape Project
LU5-3: Ensure that all projects developed in the mixed-use areas include appropriate
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.
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
Item 12.a. - Page 24
Page 2
conservation, reduction of air and noise pollution, 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.
Item 12.a. - Page 25
ATTACHMENT 7
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.
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.
Item 12.a. - Page 26
PAGE 2
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 required
Caltrans to release new design guidelines by January 1, 2016. Class 4
shown below.
Item 12.a. - Page 27
PAGE 3
e. Shared: A roadway that permits bicycle use but is not officially
designated as a bikeway. Shared roadway shown below.
Item 12.a. - Page 28
45 City of Arroyo Grande Bicycle & Trails Master Plan - 2012
4.0 Implementation
Existing Condition Overview / Need
East Branch Street is a main thoroughfare through the Village Area and it is on the main
east - west connector (SR 227). The roadway is narrow through the Village Area with a
section that consists of two traffic lanes, a central turn / loading lane and parking on both
sides. Delivery trucks often “double park” in the street to unload goods. This route is heavily
traveled by motor vehicles, bicyclists (including club rides) and pedestrians. There are
currently no markings or signage identifying this as a bike route.
Proposed Bikeway Type: Class III Bicycle Boulevard
Given the restricted pavement opportunity, this route can not be formalized as a Class II
Bike Lane. In an effort to provide better awareness to motorists that bicycles may be
present, special markings and signage are proposed to remind motorists to share the road.
Improvements
•Bicycle Boulevard signs
•Share the Road signs
•Sharrow markings on roadway
Cost Estimate
$3,000
PRIORITY 2: East Branch St. from Traffic Way to Le Point Terrace Road
Existing Condition
Sharrow Example
ATTACHMENT 8
Item 12.a. - Page 29
ATTACHMENT 9
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
Item 12.a. - Page 30
PAGE 2
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
Item 12.a. - Page 31
PAGE 3
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 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
Item 12.a. - Page 32
PAGE 4
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
Item 12.a. - Page 33
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Item 12.a. - Page 34