Loading...
CC 2022-01-25 Agenda PackageCITY COUNCIL MEETING REVISED AGENDA SUMMARY Tuesday, January 25, 2022, 6:00 p.m. Please click the link below to join the Zoom Meeting: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/83255848846 Webinar ID: 832 5584 8846 Or by Telephone: 1-669-900-6833; 1-346-248-7799 Given the recent increase in COVID-19 cases in San Luis Obispo County, and in compliance with Assembly Bill (AB) 361, which allows for a deviation of teleconference rules required by the Ralph M. Brown Act, City Council meetings will be conducted by video/teleconferencing through Zoom Webinar until further notice. Meetings will be broadcast live on Channel 20 and streamed on the City’s website and www.slo-span.org. Members of the public may participate and provide public comment on agenda items during the meeting by joining the Zoom meeting or by submitting written public comments to the Clerk of the Council at publiccomment@arroyogrande.org. 1.CALL TO ORDER 2.ROLL CALL 3.MOMENT OF REFLECTION 4.FLAG SALUTE 5.AGENDA REVIEW 5.a.Closed Session Announcements None. 5.b.Ordinances read in title only None. 6.SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS 6.a.Update Regarding Countywide COVID-19 Efforts (McDONALD) Recommended Action: Receive update, accept public comments, discuss, and provide direction as necessary. 6.b.City Manager Communications (McDONALD) Recommended Action: Receive correspondence/comments as presented by the City Manager and Provide direction, as necessary. 6.c.Honorary Proclamation Declaring February 2022 Black History Month 7.COMMUNITY COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS This public comment period is an invitation to members of the community to present issues, thoughts, or suggestions on matters not scheduled on this agenda. Comments should be limited to those matters that are within the jurisdiction of the City Council. Members of the public may provide public comment in-person or remotely by joining the Zoom meeting utilizing one of the methods provided below. Please use the “raise hand” feature to indicate your desire to provide public comment. Click the link below to join the webinar: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/83255848846; Webinar ID: 832 5584 8846 • Or by Telephone: 1-669-900-6833; 1-346-248-7799 Press * 9 to “raise hand” for public comment • The Brown Act restricts the Council from taking formal action on matters not published on the agenda. In response to your comments, the Mayor or presiding Council Member may: • Direct City staff to assist or coordinate with you. • A Council Member may state a desire to meet with you. • It may be the desire of the Council to place your issue or matter on a future Council agenda. Please adhere to the following procedures when addressing the Council: • Comments should be limited to 3 minutes or less. • Your comments should be directed to the Council as a whole and not directed to individual Council members. • Slanderous, profane or personal remarks against any Council Member or member of the audience shall not be permitted. 8.CONSENT AGENDA The following routine items listed below are scheduled for consideration as a group. The recommendations for each item are noted. Any member of the public who wishes to comment on any Consent Agenda item may do so at this time. Any Council Member may request that any item be withdrawn from the Consent Agenda to permit discussion or change the recommended course of action. The City Council may approve the remainder of the Consent Agenda on one motion. 8.a.Consideration of Cash Disbursement Ratification (VALENTINE) Recommended Action: Ratify the attached listing of cash disbursements for the period of December 16 through December 31, 2021. 8.b.Consideration of Approval of Annual Adjustment of Development Impact Fees (VALENTINE) Recommended Action: Adopt a Resolution approving the annual adjustment to the City’s Development Impact Page 2 of 310 Fees based on changes in the Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index. 8.c.Consideration of Adjustment of Sewer Connection Fees (VALENTINE) Recommended Action: Adopt a Resolution approving the annual adjustment to the City’s Sewer Connection Fees based on changes in the Engineering News Record (ENR) Construction Cost Index (CCI). 8.d.Adoption of a Resolution Declaring a Continued Local Emergency Related to the Coronavirus (COVID-19) Pandemic (McDONALD) Recommended Action: Adopt a Resolution declaring a continued local emergency related to the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. 8.e.Consideration of a Resolution Authorizing the Continuance of Remote Teleconference Meetings of the Legislative Bodies of the City of Arroyo Grande Pursuant to Government Code Section 54953(e)(3) (MATSON/CARMEL) Recommended Action: Adopt a Resolution authorizing the continuance of remote teleconference meetings pursuant to Government Code Section 54953(e)(3). 8.f.Consideration of Approval of Minutes (MATSON) Recommended Action: Approve the minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meetings of January 11, 2022, as submitted. 8.g.Consideration of Adoption of a Resolution Pursuant to Public Contract Code Section 22050 Determining to Continue Work Under Emergency Contracts for the Storm Drain System at 251 East Grand Avenue Project, PW 2021-12 (ROBESON) Recommended Action: Adopt a Resolution finding that there is a need to continue the emergency action for the storm drain system repairs at 251 East Grand Avenue in accordance with Public Contract Code Section 22050. *8.h.Consideration of a Resolution Authorizing the Public Works Director to Submit an Application for the CalRecycle/SB 1383 Local Assistance Grant Program (ROBESON) Recommended Action: 1) Adopt a Resolution authorizing the Public Works Director to submit an application for the CalRecycle/SB 1383 Local Assistance Grant Program in the event that the IWMA is unsuccessful with its application; and 2) Authorize the City Manager to execute a grant agreement with the IWMA, subject to the review and approval of the City Attorney, enabling the City to obtain from the IWMA its non-competitive share of Grant Program funds currently estimated at $24,046 for projects authorized under the Grant Program. Page 3 of 310 8.i.Calendar Year 2021 Water Supply and Demand Update (ROBESON) Recommended Action: Receive and file the Calendar Year 2021 Water Supply and Demand Report. 9.PUBLIC HEARINGS 9.a.Appeal Case 21-006; Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Minor Use Permit-Plot Plan Review 21-033 for the Establishment of a Vacation Rental; Location; 263 Spruce St, Unit D; Appellant – Sharon Valienzi (PEDROTTI) Recommended Action: Adopt a Resolution denying Appeal Case No. 21-006 and approving Plot Plan Review 21- 033. 10.OLD BUSINESS 10.a.Consideration of Approval of a Cost Sharing Agreement with the Cities of Grover Beach and Pismo Beach for the CCB Project and Resolution Authorizing an Application to the State Water Resources Control Board for a State Revolving Fund Loan for the Project Recommended Action: 1) Consider and authorize the City Manager to execute a Cost Sharing Agreement for the Central Coast Blue project; and 2) Consider and approve the proposed Resolution authorizing the City Manager to apply for financial assistance from CWSRF administered by the State Water Board for the City’s share of anticipated construction costs for the Project. 11.NEW BUSINESS 11.a.Consideration of Project Update and Approval of the Local Road Safety Plan (LRSP) (PEDROTTI) Recommended Action: Receive the project update and adopt the Resolution approving the LRSP. 12.CITY COUNCIL REPORTS 12.a.MAYOR RAY RUSSOM: American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) Funds Allocation Subcommittee1. California Joint Powers Insurance Authority (CJPIA)2. Central Coast Community Energy (CCCE)3. City Selection Committee4. South San Luis Obispo Sanitation District5. Tourism Business Improvement District Board6. Other7. 12.b.MAYOR PRO TEM GEORGE: Page 4 of 310 Community Action Partnership (CAPSLO)1. County Water Resource Advisory Committee2. Regional Water Initiatives3. Visit SLO CAL Advisory Board4. Other 5. 12.c.COUNCIL MEMBER BARNEICH: Audit Committee1. Homeless Services Oversight Council (HSOC)2. Zone 3 Water Advisory Board3. Other4. 12.d.COUNCIL MEMBER STORTON: Brisco/Halcyon Interchange Subcommittee1. Five Cities Fire Authority (FCFA)2. Integrated Waste Management Authority Board (IWMA)3. Other4. 12.e.COUNCIL MEMBER PAULDING: American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) Funds Allocation Subcommittee1. Air Pollution Control District2. Brisco/Halcyon Interchange Subcommittee3. SLOCOG/RTA4. REACH SLO Advisory Commission5. Other6. 13.COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS Any Council Member may ask a question for clarification, make an announcement, or report briefly on his or her activities. In addition, subject to Council policies and procedures, Council Members may request staff to report back to the Council at a subsequent meeting concerning any matter or request that staff place a matter of business on a future agenda. Any request to place a matter of business for original consideration on a future agenda requires the concurrence of at least one other Council Member. 14.CLOSED SESSION None. 15.ADJOURNMENT All staff reports or other written documentation, including any supplemental material distributed to a Page 5 of 310 majority of the City Council within 72 hours of a regular meeting, relating to each item of business on the agenda are available for public inspection during regular business hours in the City Clerk’s office, 300 E. Branch Street, Arroyo Grande. If requested, the agenda shall be made available in appropriate alternative formats to persons with a disability, as required by the Americans with Disabilities Act. To make a request for disability-related modification or accommodation, contact the Legislative and Information Services Department at 805-473-5400 as soon as possible and at least 48 hours prior to the meeting date. This agenda was prepared and posted pursuant to Government Code Section 54954.2 Agenda reports can be accessed and downloaded from the City’s website at www.arroyogrande.org If you would like to subscribe to receive email or text message notifications when agendas are posted, you can sign up online through the “Notify Me” feature. City Council Meetings are cablecast live and videotaped for replay on Arroyo Grande’s Government Access Channel 20. The rebroadcast schedule is published at www.slo-span.org. Page 6 of 310 Page 7 of 310 Item 8.a. MEMORANDUM TO: City Council FROM: Nicole Valentine, Administrative Services Director BY: Lynda Horejsi, Accounting Manager SUBJECT: Consideration of Cash Disbursement Ratification DATE: January 25, 2022 SUMMARY OF ACTION: Review and ratify cash disbursements. IMPACT ON FINANCIAL AND PERSONNEL RESOURCES: There is a $1,970,428.83 fiscal impact that includes the following items:  Accounts Payable Checks $1,246,550.49  Payroll & Benefit Checks $723,878.34 RECOMMENDATION: Ratify the attached listing of cash disbursements for the period of December 16 through December 31, 2021. BACKGROUND: Cash disbursements are made weekly based on the submission of all required documents supporting the invoices submitted for payment. Prior to payment, Administrative Services staff reviews all disbursement documents to ensure that they meet the approval requirements adopted in the Municipal Code and the City’s Purchasing P olicies and Procedures Manual. ANALYSIS OF ISSUES: The attached listing represents the cash disbursements required of normal and usual operations during the period. The disbursements are accounted for in the FY 2021 -22 budget. ALTERNATIVES: The following alternatives are provided for the Council’s consideration: Page 8 of 310 Item 8.a. City Council Consideration of Cash Disbursement Ratification January 25, 2022 Page 2 1. Approve staff’s recommendation; 2. Do not approve staff’s recommendation; or 3. Provide other direction to staff. ADVANTAGES:  The Administrative Services Department monitors payments of invoices for accountability, accuracy, and completeness using standards approved by the City Council.  Invoices are paid in a timely manner to establish goodwill with merchants.  Discounts are taken where applicable. DISADVANTAGES: There are no disadvantages identified in this recommendation. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: No environmental review is required for this item. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND COMMENTS: The Agenda was posted at City Hall and on the City’s website in accordance with Government Code Section 54954.2. Attachments: 1. December 16 – December 31, 2021 – Accounts Payable Check Register 2. December 17, 2021 – Payroll and Benefit Check Registers 3. December 30, 2021 – Payroll and Benefit Check Registers Page 9 of 310 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDECHECK LISTINGDECEMBER 16 - DECEMBER 31, 2021ATTACHMENT 1Line Check Date Check # Amount Description Acct # Vendor Last Name1 12/17/2021 292426 $ 709.52 PURCHASE WATER METERS FOR FY 21/22640.4712.5207 AQUA-METRIC SALES CO(DBA)2 12/17/2021 292427 194.65 ACCT#238451-01839190 RADIO 010.4145.5403 AT & T3 12/17/2021 292427 33.34 ACCT#235841-39568063 ALARM 220.4303.5303 AT & T4 12/17/2021 292428 145.00 12/21 UST INSPECTION 010.4305.5303 B & T SVC STN CONTRACTORS, INC5 12/17/2021 292429 358.77 PD-4606 BATTERY 010.4203.5601 BATTERY SYSTEMS6 12/17/2021 292430 4.23 LOCK NUTS, WASHERSM HEX BOLTS 010.4420.5605 BRISCO MILL & LUMBER YARD7 12/17/2021 292431 32.00 LIVESCAN/FINGERPRINT-NEW EMPLOYEE 612.4610.5316 CA ST DEPT OF JUSTICE8 12/17/2021 292431 32.00 LIVESCAN/FINGERPRINT-NEW EMPLOYEE 220.4303.5316 CA ST DEPT OF JUSTICE9 12/17/2021 292431 32.00 LIVESCAN/FINGERPRINT-NEW EMPLOYEE 010.4130.5316 CA ST DEPT OF JUSTICE10 12/17/2021 292431 125.00 LIVESCAN-IN/OUT 010.4204.5329 CA ST DEPT OF JUSTICE11 12/17/2021 292432 25,290.12 EMERGENCY STORM DRAIN REPLACEMENT 350.5797.7001 CALPORTLAND CONSTRUCTION12 12/17/2021 292433 119.75 CHEVRON STATION CMP REPAIRS 350.5797.7001 CELL-CRETE CORPORATION13 12/17/2021 292433 500.00 CHEVRON STATION CMP REPAIRS 350.5797.7001 CELL-CRETE CORPORATION14 12/17/2021 292434 4,768.00 12/21 STRATEGIC SUPPORT 010.4140.5303 CIO SOLUTIONS LP15 12/17/2021 292434 1,460.00 12/21 CROWDSTRIKE CYBERSECURITY010.4140.5303 CIO SOLUTIONS LP16 12/17/2021 292434 5,516.00 JUNIPER J-CARE SUPPORT 010.4140.5303 CIO SOLUTIONS LP17 12/17/2021 292435 125.63 PW-1 DOOR BRACKET, STRAP 220.4303.5603 COASTLINE EQUIPMENT(DBA)18 12/17/2021 292436 32.99 PLANS FOR 2021 STREET REPAIRS 350.5638.7301 CRISP IMAGING19 12/17/2021 292436 6.69 ENG PLANS FOR 5 CITIES CTR 010.4301.5201 CRISP IMAGING20 12/17/2021 292436 6.69 ENG PLANS FOR 5 CITIES CTR 010.4301.5201 CRISP IMAGING21 12/17/2021 292436 15.30 ENG PLANS FOR 5 CITIES CTR 010.4301.5201 CRISP IMAGING22 12/17/2021 292436 22.63 PLANS/SPECS-SWINGING BRIDGE 350.5620.7301 CRISP IMAGING23 12/17/2021 292437 168.00 11/21 SR FITNESS 010.4424.5351 GAYLE CUDDY24 12/17/2021 292437 523.60 WRITING FOR LIFE FALL SESSION 010.4424.5351 GAYLE CUDDY25 12/17/2021 292438 438.18 WELL#9 FILTER SVC, PARTS 640.4711.5603 CULLIGAN INDUST.WATER SYSTEMS26 12/17/2021 292439 882.00 CASH FOR GRASS 882 SQFT 226.4306.5554 DONELLE DIZNEY27 12/17/2021 292440 282.77 SCALE, SNAP, HITCH PIN, PVC CUTTER 640.4712.5610 FARM SUPPLY CO28 12/17/2021 292440 92.12 SCALE, SNAP, HITCH PIN, PVC CUTTER 640.4712.5273 FARM SUPPLY CO29 12/17/2021 292441 2,236.00 TEMPORARY FENCING FOR CHEVRON STATION 350.5797.7201 FENCE FACTORY ATASCADERO30 12/17/2021 292442 910.00 FALL SESSION 2 SERGER SEWING 010.4424.5351 MARY JO GABEL31 12/17/2021 292443 6,108.75 ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR STORM DRAIN SYSTEM 350.5797.7501 GARING TAYLOR & ASSOCIATES INC32 12/17/2021 292444 18.40 RUBBER BOOTS-GARRITY 612.4610.5255 GRAINGER, INC33 12/17/2021 292445 86.08 PORTABLE TOILET RENTAL 11/15-12/12 220.4303.5552 HARVEY'S HONEY HUTS34 12/17/2021 292446 65.19 PW-33 DROP SHANK, HITCH PIN RECEIVER 220.4303.5603 HEACOCK TRAILERS & TRUCK35 12/17/2021 292447 284.46 6" REPAIR CLAMP 640.4712.5610 ICONIX WATERWORKS (US) INC36 12/17/2021 292447 644.23 (6) PE ANGLE STOP W/LINERS 640.4712.5610 ICONIX WATERWORKS (US) INC37 12/17/2021 292448 34.70 OFFICE SUPPLIES 220.4303.5201 INDOFF, INC38 12/17/2021 292448 34.71 OFFICE SUPPLIES 612.4610.5201 INDOFF, INCPage 10 of 310 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDECHECK LISTINGDECEMBER 16 - DECEMBER 31, 2021ATTACHMENT 1Line Check Date Check # Amount Description Acct # Vendor Last Name39 12/17/2021 292448 $ 90.27 OFFICE SUPPLIES 010.4307.5201 INDOFF, INC40 12/17/2021 292449 44.43 (3) PRESSURE GAUGES 640.4712.5610 IRRIGATION WEST (DBA)41 12/17/2021 292450 689.75 CASTILLO DEL MAR ROADWAY EXTENSION 350.5678.7201 JJ FISHER CONSTRUCTION, INC.42 12/17/2021 292451 200.00 WASHING MACHINE REBATE 226.4306.5554 ROBERT G KELLY43 12/17/2021 292452 500.00 CASH FOR GRASS-500 SQFT 226.4306.5554 LEONARD KOONTZ44 12/17/2021 292453 175.00 PW-50 AIR TEST 640.4712.5601 L. DIESEL MOBILE SERVICE(DBA)45 12/17/2021 292453 175.00 PW-50 AIR TEST 220.4303.5601 L. DIESEL MOBILE SERVICE(DBA)46 12/17/2021 292454 50.00 PARK DEPOSIT REFUND-STROTHER 010.0000.2206 BARBARA LANG47 12/17/2021 292454 103.00 PARK RENTAL REFUND-STROTHER 010.0000.4354 BARBARA LANG48 12/17/2021 292455 22.61 BUCKET & BROOM- PAVING 640.4712.5610 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE, INC49 12/17/2021 292455 42.12 TARP, WIRE BRUSH, BATTERIES 010.4305.5255 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE, INC50 12/17/2021 292456 34.40 10/21 YOGA IN THE PARK 010.4424.5351 NICCOLA NELSON51 12/17/2021 292456 168.00 11/21 YOGA IN THE PARK 010.4424.5351 NICCOLA NELSON52 12/17/2021 292457 200.00 WASHING MACHINE REBATE 226.4306.5554 JOSHUA ORY53 12/17/2021 292458 33.73 ELECTRIC-WELL #11 352 LA CANADA 640.4711.5402 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC CO54 12/17/2021 292459 4,172.37 REPAIR PUMP FOR LIFT STATION 612.4610.5610 PERRY'S ELECTRIC MOTORS55 12/17/2021 292460 450.74 PW-50 VACUUM TUBE612.4610.5610 PLUMBERS DEPOT INC.56 12/17/2021 292461 3,622.50 QUILTING FALL SESSION 2 010.4424.5351 BARBARA ANN PORTER57 12/17/2021 292462 1,850.00 ANNUAL SOFTWARE SUPPORT-2022 010.4140.5303QUADRANT SYSTEMS, INC58 12/17/2021 292463 660.00 FLEET TRANSPORT-NEW ADMIN FLEET 010.4203.5608 RIVERA CAR HAULING59 12/17/2021 292463 660.00 FLEET TRANSPORT-NEW ADMIN FLEET 010.4203.5608 RIVERA CAR HAULING60 12/17/2021 292464 50.00 PARK DEPOSIT REFUND-STROTHER010.0000.2206 GINA ROTONDO61 12/17/2021 292465 45.00 ADULT SOFTBALL SCORER- 3 GAMES 010.4424.5352MAIA SANCHEZ62 12/17/2021 292466 87.53 GAS SERVICES-200 N HALCYON 010.4145.5401 SOCALGAS63 12/17/2021 292466 16.27 GAS SERVICES-350 S ELM 010.4145.5401 SOCALGAS64 12/17/2021 292466 153.83 GAS SERVICES-1375 ASH 010.4145.5401 SOCALGAS65 12/17/2021 292467 3,326.00 SEWER CONNECTION ANNUAL PERMIT 612.4610.5303 SWRCB66 12/17/2021 292468 42.35 CHARTER BUSINESS TV-300 E BRANCH 010.4145.5401 TIME WARNER CABLE67 12/17/2021 292469 546.32 FORMS- W-2, 1099, ENVELOPES 010.4120.5201 TYLER BUSINESS FORMS68 12/17/2021 292470 208.00 11/21 ART FOR KIDS 010.4424.5351 PEGGY VALKO69 12/17/2021 292471 2,250.00 STREET SWEEPING SERVICES 010.4307.5303 VENCO POWER SWEEPING INC70 12/17/2021 292471 6,750.00 STREET SWEEPING SERVICES 220.4303.5303 VENCO POWER SWEEPING INC71 12/17/2021 292472 50.00 PARK DEPOSIT REFUND-ELM BBQ 010.0000.2206 CRISTINA VIDAURRI72 12/17/2021 292473 60.00 ADULT SOFTBALL SCORER-4 GAMES 010.4424.5352 SHIRLEY WILLMOTT73 12/17/2021 292474 1,440.00 10/21 SIGNAL MAINT 12 INTERSECTIONS 010.4307.5303 LEE WILSON ELECTRIC COMPANY INC74 12/17/2021 292474 60.00 OAK PARK & JAMES WAY 010.4307.5303 LEE WILSON ELECTRIC COMPANY INC75 12/17/2021 292474 60.00 OAK PARK & EL CAMINO REAL 010.4307.5303 LEE WILSON ELECTRIC COMPANY INC76 12/17/2021 292474 75.00 OAK PARK & W BRANCH 010.4307.5303 LEE WILSON ELECTRIC COMPANY INCPage 11 of 310 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDECHECK LISTINGDECEMBER 16 - DECEMBER 31, 2021ATTACHMENT 1Line Check Date Check # Amount Description Acct # Vendor Last Name77 12/17/2021 292474 $ 2,712.50 10/23 TM ELM/GRAND ACCIDENT DAMAGE 220.4303.5303 LEE WILSON ELECTRIC COMPANY INC78 12/17/2021 292474 493.87 10/27 TM ELM/GRAND ACCIDENT DAMAGE 220.4303.5303 LEE WILSON ELECTRIC COMPANY INC79 12/17/2021 292474 137.50 10/27 OP/WB PED BUTTON 220.4303.5303 LEE WILSON ELECTRIC COMPANY INC80 12/17/2021 292475 3,850.00 FALL SESSION 2/THANKSGIVING 010.4424.5351 YOUTH EVOLUTION BASKETBALL81 12/17/2021 292475 5,523.70 SESSION 2, THANKSGIVING, SAT. PWR 010.4424.5351 YOUTH EVOLUTION BASKETBALL82 12/17/2021 292476 62.88 UB REFUND CST #00027116 640.0000.2301 DOLORES DURAN83 12/17/2021 292477 150.89 UB REFUND CST #00026872 640.0000.2301 BENJAMIN PHAM84 12/17/2021 292478 331.58 UB REFUND CST #00027943 640.0000.2301 COSIMO ROSSI85 12/17/2021 292479 32,628.54 SOCIAL SECURITY 011.0000.2105 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE86 12/17/2021 292479 11,707.85 MEDICARE 011.0000.2105 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE87 12/17/2021 292479 39,196.89 FEDERAL WITHHOLDING 011.0000.2104 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE88 12/17/2021 292480 15,100.09 STATE PIT W/H 011.0000.2108 CA ST EMPLOYMENT DEVEL DEPT89 12/17/2021 292480 1,312.31 STATE SDI CONTRIBUTION 011.0000.2111 CA ST EMPLOYMENT DEVEL DEPT90 12/17/2021 292481 133.38 CHILD SUPPORT-PAYDATE 12/17/21 011.0000.2114 CA STATE DISBURSEMENT UNIT91 12/17/2021 292481 298.84 CHILD SUPPORT-PAYDATE 12/17/21 011.0000.2114 CA STATE DISBURSEMENT UNIT92 12/17/2021 292482 275.00 EE ROTH CONTRIBUTION 011.0000.2117 ICMA RETIREMENT CORP93 12/17/2021 292482 81.83 EE ROTH % CONTRIBUTION 011.0000.2117 ICMA RETIREMENT CORP94 12/17/2021 292482 1,563.03 EE DEFERRED COMP % 011.0000.2117 ICMA RETIREMENT CORP95 12/17/2021 292482 9,482.48 EE DEFERRED COMP FLAT 011.0000.2117 ICMA RETIREMENT CORP96 12/17/2021 292482 866.66 ER DEFERRED COMP FLAT 011.0000.2117 ICMA RETIREMENT CORP97 12/17/2021 292483 8,544.54 MISC TIER I PPE 12/09/21 011.0000.2106 PERS - RETIREMENT98 12/17/2021 292483 20,739.98 FIRE TIER I PPE 12/09/21 011.0000.2106 PERS - RETIREMENT99 12/17/2021 292483 11,935.77 POLICE TIER I PPE 12/09/21 011.0000.2106 PERS - RETIREMENT100 12/17/2021 292483 6,967.56 FIRE PEPRA PPE 12/09/21 011.0000.2106 PERS - RETIREMENT101 12/17/2021 292483 12,021.31 POLICE PEPRA PPE 12/09/21 011.0000.2106 PERS - RETIREMENT102 12/17/2021 292483 9,595.12 MISC PEPRA PPE 12/09/21 011.0000.2106 PERS - RETIREMENT103 12/17/2021 292483 3,955.20 MISC TIER II PPE 12/09/21 011.0000.2106 PERS - RETIREMENT104 12/17/2021 292483 6,366.53 POLICE TIER II PPE 12/09/21 011.0000.2106 PERS - RETIREMENT105 12/17/2021 292484 1,159.60 EE PARS CONTRIBUTION PAYDATE 12/16/21 011.0000.2107 US BANK OF CALIFORNIA106 12/17/2021 292484 289.92 ER PARS CONTRIBUTION PAYDATE 12/16/21 011.0000.2107 US BANK OF CALIFORNIA107 12/17/2021 292485 474.03 01/22 RETIREE MEDICAL 010.0000.1111 ICMA RETIREMENT CORP108 12/17/2021 292485 5,127.23 01/22 RETIREE MEDICAL 010.4099.5136 ICMA RETIREMENT CORP109 12/17/2021 292485 398.87 01/22 RETIREE MEDICAL 220.4303.5136 ICMA RETIREMENT CORP110 12/24/2021 292486 852.00 TAI CHI FALL SESSION 010.4424.5351 DIXIE D ADENIRAN111 12/24/2021 292487 1,202.50 UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK INSURANCE 010.4145.5578 ALLIANT INSURANCE SERVICES INC112 12/24/2021 292487 1,202.50 UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK INSURANCE 640.4710.5578 ALLIANT INSURANCE SERVICES INC113 12/24/2021 292488 100.00 LESS LETHAL INSTRUCTORS COURSE 010.4203.5501 REGGIE BIO114 12/24/2021 292489 29,145.85 BPR BUILDING DEPT 010.4212.5303 BPR CONSULTING GROUP LLCPage 12 of 310 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDECHECK LISTINGDECEMBER 16 - DECEMBER 31, 2021ATTACHMENT 1Line Check Date Check # Amount Description Acct # Vendor Last Name115 12/24/2021 292490 $ 59.26 RETIREMENT SIGN FOR GLENDA BONER 220.4303.5255 BRAND CREATIVE116 12/24/2021 292490 59.26 RETIREMENT SIGN FOR GLENDA BONER 612.4610.5255 BRAND CREATIVE117 12/24/2021 292490 59.27 RETIREMENT SIGN FOR GLENDA BONER 640.4712.5255 BRAND CREATIVE118 12/24/2021 292491 191.36 EVENT POSTERS010.4424.5353 BURDINE PRINTING (DBA)119 12/24/2021 292492 17.85 (2) 2X4 LUMBER 220.4303.5613 BURKE AND PACE OF AG, INC120 12/24/2021 292492 173.52 (2) 2X6, 6X6 LUMBER, SCREWS 220.4303.5613 BURKE AND PACE OF AG, INC121 12/24/2021 292492 96.99 (2) 4X4, (2) 2X6 LUMBER, SAWZALL 220.4303.5613 BURKE AND PACE OF AG, INC122 12/24/2021 292492 11.04 1X4 LUMBER 220.4303.5613 BURKE AND PACE OF AG, INC123 12/24/2021 292492 293.35 (6) 10' METAL POST, (1) 8' METAL POST 220.4303.5613 BURKE AND PACE OF AG, INC124 12/24/2021 292492 54.99 1X4 LUMBER, BUNDLE FLAT STAKES 220.4303.5613 BURKE AND PACE OF AG, INC125 12/24/2021 292492 12.57 (2) 2X4 LUMBER 220.4303.5613 BURKE AND PACE OF AG, INC126 12/24/2021 292492 51.38 (2) 4X4 COLUMN BASE 220.4303.5613 BURKE AND PACE OF AG, INC127 12/24/2021 292492 37.79 (2) REBAR, SAWZALL BLADES 220.4303.5613 BURKE AND PACE OF AG, INC128 12/24/2021 292492 10.67 (4) HEX BOLTS, WASHERS, NUTS 220.4303.5613 BURKE AND PACE OF AG, INC129 12/24/2021 292492 84.40 1X8 PVC TRIM, LAG BOLT 220.4303.5613 BURKE AND PACE OF AG, INC130 12/24/2021 292492 7.29 1 2X6 LUMBER 220.4303.5613 BURKE AND PACE OF AG, INC131 12/24/2021 292492 117.36 (2) 6X6 LUMBER, 2X6 LUMBER 220.4303.5613 BURKE AND PACE OF AG, INC132 12/24/2021 292492 107.95 (2) COLUMN BASE 220.4303.5613 BURKE AND PACE OF AG, INC133 12/24/2021 292492 57.34 (2) 6X6 STANDOFF BASE 220.4303.5613 BURKE AND PACE OF AG, INC134 12/24/2021 292492 19.20 (4) 60# QUIKCRETE 220.4303.5613 BURKE AND PACE OF AG, INC135 12/24/2021 292492 14.55 (4) 50# FASTSET CONCRETE, RETURN (4)QUIKCRETE 220.4303.5613 BURKE AND PACE OF AG, INC136 12/24/2021 292492 72.67 4X8 LUMBER, SCREWS, MASONRY BIT 220.4303.5613 BURKE AND PACE OF AG, INC137 12/24/2021 292492 16.87 (2) 50# FASTSET QUIKCRETE 220.4303.5613 BURKE AND PACE OF AG, INC138 12/24/2021 292493 50.00 PARK DEPOSIT REFUND-STROTHER010.0000.2206 SARAH CANTRELL139 12/24/2021 292493 48.00 PARK RENTAL REFUND-LESS ADMIN FEE 010.0000.4354 SARAH CANTRELL140 12/24/2021 292493 26.00 REFUND BOUNCE HOUSE FEE 010.0000.4354 SARAH CANTRELL141 12/24/2021 292494 18,122.90 11/21 PROF LEGAL SVCS 010.4003.5304 CARMEL & NACCASHA, LLP142 12/24/2021 292494 2,691.00 11/21 LITIGATION & RELATED MATTERS 010.4003.5327 CARMEL & NACCASHA, LLP143 12/24/2021 292495 14.00 REFUND-TAI CHI 010.0000.4605 BETTY CARY144 12/24/2021 292496 1,349.00 ACCT#8245100960302509 IT BROADBAND 010.4140.5303 CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS145 12/24/2021 292496 82.50 ACCT#8245100960246169 -FINAL PYMT ONBUSINESS INTERNET ACCT010.4140.5303 CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS146 12/24/2021 292496 987.20 ACCT#8245100960223598 -PD DARK 010.4145.5401 CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS147 12/24/2021 292497 40.00 11/21-CLOGGING 010.4424.5351 KATHLEEN J CINOWALT148 12/24/2021 292498 872.00 11/21 WATER SAMPLES 640.4710.5310 CLINICAL LABORATORY OF149 12/24/2021 292499 6,237.56 WELL NO. 9 FILTER 640.4712.5610 CULLIGAN SAN PASO CO.150 12/24/2021 292499 2,537.48 WELL NO. 9 FILTER FREIGHT 640.4712.5610 CULLIGAN SAN PASO CO.151 12/24/2021 292499 483.41 WELL NO. 9 FILTER SALES TAX 640.4712.5610 CULLIGAN SAN PASO CO.152 12/24/2021 292500 338.45 KYOCERA COPIER LEASE PYMT 010.4421.5602 DE LAGE LANDEN FINANCIAL SVCSPage 13 of 310 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDECHECK LISTINGDECEMBER 16 - DECEMBER 31, 2021ATTACHMENT 1Line Check Date Check # Amount Description Acct # Vendor Last Name153 12/24/2021 292500 $ 338.45 KYOCERA COPIER LEASE PYMT 010.4421.5602 DE LAGE LANDEN FINANCIAL SVCS154 12/24/2021 292501 550.00 DRE CLASSROOM COURSE-POST PER 010.4203.5501 STEPHEN DOHERTY155 12/24/2021 292502 513,015.25 10/21-12/21 CITY'S SHARE OF FCFA COSTS 010.4145.5313 FIVE CITIES FIRE AUTHORITY156 12/24/2021 292502 132,223.50 10/21-12/21 CITY'S SHARE OF FCFA COSTS 218.4101.5313 FIVE CITIES FIRE AUTHORITY157 12/24/2021 292503 50.00 PARK DEPOSIT REFUND-HERITAGE SQUARE 010.0000.2206 SAM FLEMING158 12/24/2021 292504 50.00 PARK DEPOSIT REFUND-STROTHER010.0000.2206 ASHLEY GAINES159 12/24/2021 292505 1,450.00 ANNUAL CATHODIC SYSTEM SVC 640.4712.5609GMC ELECTRICAL, INC160 12/24/2021 292506 9.70 CITY NAME BADGE-BOHLKEN 010.4421.5201 GRAND AWARDS, INC161 12/24/2021 292506 72.19 RETIREMENT PLAQUE-BONER 010.4307.5201 GRAND AWARDS, INC162 12/24/2021 292506 461.17 EMPLOYEE OF THE YEAR PLAQUES 010.4001.5504 GRAND AWARDS, INC163 12/24/2021 292506 72.19 PLAQUE FOR J JOLLY 010.4101.5319 GRAND AWARDS, INC164 12/24/2021 292507 50.00 PARK DEPOSIT REFUND- RANCHO GRANDE 010.0000.2206 ASHLEY GRAY165 12/24/2021 292508 50.00 PARK DEPOSIT REFUND-STROTHER PARK 010.0000.2206 ALEXA HERNANDEZ166 12/24/2021 292509 404.07 AIR/VAC ENCLOSURE 640.4712.5610 ICONIX WATERWORKS (US) INC167 12/24/2021 292510 214.42 VIEWSONIC LED MONITOR 010.4002.5602 ITSAVVY LLC168 12/24/2021 292511 109.20 11/21 PROF FEES-HOTEL RFQ 010.0000.2563 KOSMONT & ASSOCIATES INC169 12/24/2021 292512 50.00 PARK DEPOSIT REFUND-RANCHO GRANDE 010.0000.2206 ALISA MCMULLEN170 12/24/2021 292513 2,415.00 SCIENCE IN MOTION THANKSGIVING 010.4424.5351 MINDS IN MOTION OF NJ LLC171 12/24/2021 292514 18.29 CHAIN COIL FG ANCHOR 010.4420.5605 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE, INC172 12/24/2021 292514 10.76 NITRILE GLOVES 220.4303.5613 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE, INC173 12/24/2021 292514 7.60 CABLE TIES 010.4430.5605 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE, INC174 12/24/2021 292514 13.03 PAINT PEN, NUMBER KIT 640.4712.5255 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE, INC175 12/24/2021 292514 40.93 TIE DOWN STRAPS 612.4610.5273 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE, INC176 12/24/2021 292514 22.60 CABLETIES, TERRY CLOTH 6PK 010.4213.5604 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE, INC177 12/24/2021 292514 39.37 LEGAL PADS, TAPE, LIGHTER 010.4213.5604 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE, INC178 12/24/2021 292514 124.95 (3) PROPANE TANK EXCHANGE, 1 SPARE 220.4303.5613 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE, INC179 12/24/2021 292514 119.60 (2) AQUAPHALT ASPHALT PATCH 220.4303.5613 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE, INC180 12/24/2021 292514 7.74 CLEANER 010.4213.5604 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE, INC181 12/24/2021 292514 118.50 (2) AQUAPHALT ASPHALT PATCH 220.4303.5613 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE, INC182 12/24/2021 292514 4.30 DUPLICATE KEYS 640.4712.5255 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE, INC183 12/24/2021 292514 0.71 FASTENERS 010.4430.5605 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE, INC184 12/24/2021 292514 71.90 PAINT, ROLLER KIT 010.4213.5604 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE, INC185 12/24/2021 292514 42.81 BATTERIES, CABLE TIES, CLEANSER 010.4213.5604 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE, INC186 12/24/2021 292515 16.91 OFFICE SUPPLIES 010.4421.5201 OFFICE DEPOT187 12/24/2021 292515 23.47 OFFICE SUPPLIES 010.4421.5201 OFFICE DEPOT188 12/24/2021 292515 25.61 OFFICE SUPPLIES 010.4421.5201 OFFICE DEPOT189 12/24/2021 292515 45.58 OFFICE SUPPLIES 010.4421.5201 OFFICE DEPOT190 12/24/2021 292515 29.16 OFFICE SUPPLIES 010.4421.5201 OFFICE DEPOTPage 14 of 310 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDECHECK LISTINGDECEMBER 16 - DECEMBER 31, 2021ATTACHMENT 1Line Check Date Check # Amount Description Acct # Vendor Last Name191 12/24/2021 292516 $ 221.92 PRINT CARTRIDGES 010.4421.5602 OFFICE1192 12/24/2021 292516 162.76 YELLOW PRINT CARTRIDGE 010.4421.5602 OFFICE1193 12/24/2021 292517 4,417.75 (2) 511 COMPARTMENT TRASH/ RECYCLE RECEPTACLES 350.5563.7001 OUTDOOR CREATIONS, INC194 12/24/2021 292518 13.73 ELECTRIC-484 BAKEMAN 219.4460.5304 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC195 12/24/2021 292519 3,806.90 CHEVRON OWNER EXPENSES-STORM DRAIN 350.5797.7701 PFG ARROYO GRANDE INC196 12/24/2021 292520 274.52 NOZZLE REPAIR KIT 612.4610.5610 PLUMBERS DEPOT INC.197 12/24/2021 292521 50.00 PARK DEPOSIT REFUND-ELM 010.0000.2206 AMANDA POLOWY198 12/24/2021 292522 200.00 WASHING MACHINE REBATE 226.4306.5554 SEAN PRINGLE199 12/24/2021 292523 358.53 QUINCY SWINGING BRIDGE CO 350.5620.7501 QUINCY ENGINEERING INC200 12/24/2021 292524 5.38 COUNCIL CHAMBERS WATER 010.4213.5303 READYREFRESH BY NESTLE201 12/24/2021 292525 50.00 PARK DEPOSIT REFUND-STROTHER010.0000.2206 JULIE SEMENYUK202 12/24/2021 292526 1,805.00 CASH FOR GRASS -1805 SQFT 226.4306.5554 DEENA SILVA203 12/24/2021 292527 50.00 PARK DEPOSIT REFUND-ELM010.0000.2206 DAVID SKAMFER204 12/24/2021 292528 3,500.00 12/21 TBID ADMIN FEE 240.4150.5303 SOUTH COUNTY CHAMBERS205 12/24/2021 292529 56.03 (2) CUTTING BLADES 640.4712.5273 STREATOR PIPE & SUPPLY206 12/24/2021 292530 30.00 ABM PLAZA PARKING-CITY MGR CONFERENCE 010.4101.5503 U.S. BANK207 12/24/2021 292530 500.00 MOBILE OPS LASER TAG-HALLOWEEN 010.4424.5353 U.S. BANK208 12/24/2021 292530 220.00 CSMFO MEMBERSHIP DUES-VALENTINE/HOREJSI 010.4120.5503 U.S. BANK209 12/24/2021 292530 516.62 CSMFO CONFERENCE LODGING-VALENTINE/HOREJSI 010.4120.5501 U.S. BANK210 12/24/2021 292530 23.00 DREAMSTIME-STOCK PHOTO SUBSCRIPTION 010.4421.5504 U.S. BANK211 12/24/2021 292530 41.98 BRANCH ST DELI-INTERVIEW PANEL 010.4421.5201 U.S. BANK212 12/24/2021 292530 89.00 AMAZON-HALLOWEEN AUDIO SUPPLIES 010.4424.5252 U.S. BANK213 12/24/2021 292530 58.59 FACEBOOK ADV-MULTIPLE EVENTS 010.4424.5353 U.S. BANK214 12/24/2021 292530 29.51 WEBSTAURANT-HALLOWEEN 010.4424.5252 U.S. BANK215 12/24/2021 292530 8.59 TRADER JOES- THANK YOU CARDS 010.4421.5303 U.S. BANK216 12/24/2021 292530 156.15 HALLOWEEN SUPPLIES-CVS, SMART&FINAL 010.4424.5252 U.S. BANK217 12/24/2021 292530 2.16 DOLLAR TREE-B'FAST W/SANTA 010.4424.5252 U.S. BANK218 12/24/2021 292530 226.24 PICKLEBALL TOURNAMENT PRIZES 010.4424.5251 U.S. BANK219 12/24/2021 292530 475.59 TURKEY TROT SUPPLIES-WALMART 010.4424.5252 U.S. BANK220 12/24/2021 292530 134.24 TRAINING, TUITION-DRONE ADMIN 010.4204.5501 U.S. BANK221 12/24/2021 292530 14.00 UNIFORMS-NAME STRIPS 010.4203.5272 U.S. BANK222 12/24/2021 292530 150.00 INVESTIGATIVE SVCS-TRANSUNION 010.4204.5303 U.S. BANK223 12/24/2021 292530 228.91 PROPERTY & EVIDENCE 010.4204.5255 U.S. BANK224 12/24/2021 292530 700.36 PRINTER-WATCH COMMANDER OFFICE 010.4201.5701 U.S. BANK225 12/24/2021 292530 56.05 FUN EXPRESS-TURKEY TROT SUPPLI 010.4424.5252 U.S. BANK226 12/24/2021 292530 296.59 SMART & FINAL -HALLOWEEN SUPPL 010.4424.5252 U.S. BANK227 12/24/2021 292530 60.28 MINERS-HALLOWEEN SUPPLIES 010.4424.5252 U.S. BANK228 12/24/2021 292530 38.98 TRAINING-DRONE REGISTRATION COR 010.4204.5501 U.S. BANKPage 15 of 310 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDECHECK LISTINGDECEMBER 16 - DECEMBER 31, 2021ATTACHMENT 1Line Check Date Check # Amount Description Acct # Vendor Last Name229 12/24/2021 292530 $ 375.00 TRAINING, TUITION-TASER INSTRUCTION010.4203.5501 U.S. BANK230 12/24/2021 292530 326.99 TRAINING-TUITION REGISTRATION 010.4203.5501 U.S. BANK231 12/24/2021 292530 139.77 FUEL 010.4203.5608 U.S. BANK232 12/24/2021 292530 2,227.97 TRAINING-TUITION LODGING 010.4203.5501 U.S. BANK233 12/24/2021 292530 49.24 FUEL 010.4204.5608 U.S. BANK234 12/24/2021 292530 307.84 RANGE MAINT-SHEET METAL, REBAR 010.4201.5605 U.S. BANK235 12/24/2021 292530 160.08 FUEL 010.4203.5608 U.S. BANK236 12/24/2021 292530 216.97 TRAINING-LODGING 010.4203.5501 U.S. BANK237 12/24/2021 292530 28.60 OFFICE MAX-HALLOWEEN SUPPLIES 010.4424.5252 U.S. BANK238 12/24/2021 292530 28.67 OFFICE MAX-TURKEY TROT SUPPLIE 010.4424.5252 U.S. BANK239 12/24/2021 292530 275.00 PEACHJAR-HALLOWEEN CARNIVAL 010.4424.5252 U.S. BANK240 12/24/2021 292530 116.43 SMART & FINAL-TURKEY TROT SUPP 010.4424.5252 U.S. BANK241 12/24/2021 292530 80.65 PRESCHOOL SUPPLIES 010.4423.5253 U.S. BANK242 12/24/2021 292530 59.80 SPECIAL EVENTS-HALLOWEEN CARNI 010.4424.5252 U.S. BANK243 12/24/2021 292530 51.80 AUTHORIZE.NET CC FEE 010.4145.5555 U.S. BANK244 12/24/2021 292530 300.00 WEBINAR- ASSOC OF ENVIRO PROFS 010.4130.5501 U.S. BANK245 12/24/2021 292530 99.00 SURVEYMONKEY SUBSCRIPTION 010.4130.5503 U.S. BANK246 12/24/2021 292530 528.85 ZOOM-MEETINGS 010.4140.5303 U.S. BANK247 12/24/2021 292530 1.76 SECURE CONFERENCE CALL 010.4140.5303 U.S. BANK248 12/24/2021 292530 254.29 IT SAVVY-COMPIUTER RAM 010.4140.5602 U.S. BANK249 12/24/2021 292530 82.90 IT SAVVY-LABELER TAPE 010.4140.5602 U.S. BANK250 12/24/2021 292530 111.01 ROADLINE PODUCTS-CORO CHEK FOR PAINTSPRAYER 010.4430.5605 U.S. BANK251 12/24/2021 292530 244.79 TRASSIG PIP REPAIR KIT 010.4420.5605 U.S. BANK252 12/24/2021 292530 280.00 ISA ARBORIST RENEWAL-SIMPSON 010.4420.5503 U.S. BANK253 12/24/2021 292530 65.00 BACKFLOW SUPPLY PARTS 010.4420.5605 U.S. BANK254 12/24/2021 292530 222.00 APWA RENEWAL-SIMPSON 220.4303.5503 U.S. BANK255 12/24/2021 292530 9.26 FREIGHT 010.4420.5605 U.S. BANK256 12/24/2021 292530 222.00 APWA ANNUAL MEMBERSHIP-MCPEEK 010.4307.5503 U.S. BANK257 12/24/2021 292530 10.99 EASEMENT DEED-251 E GRAND 350.5797.7301 U.S. BANK258 12/24/2021 292530 64.64 MOTORCYCLE HELMET 640.4712.5255 U.S. BANK259 12/24/2021 292530 46.44 PROPANE FOR PATCH TRUCK 640.4712.5608 U.S. BANK260 12/24/2021 292530 14.00 AMAZON PRIME CHARGE-CANCELLED, DISPUTEDCHRG640.4712.5303 U.S. BANK261 12/24/2021 292530 118.53 IT SAVVY-MONITOR MOUNT 010.4140.5602 U.S. BANK262 12/24/2021 292530 192.87 PRIME BUSINESS ACCT ANNUAL FEE 010.4145.5555 U.S. BANK263 12/24/2021 292530 10.00 FACEBOOK ADV-CITY REDISTRICTIN 010.4002.5301 U.S. BANK264 12/24/2021 292530 724.84 PROMOTIONAL PRODUCTS 010.4201.5504 U.S. BANK265 12/24/2021 292530 22.65 FREIGHT 010.4201.5504 U.S. BANK266 12/24/2021 292530 336.18 RANGE MAINT-HYD FLUID, KEY, BATTERY 010.4201.5605 U.S. BANKPage 16 of 310 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDECHECK LISTINGDECEMBER 16 - DECEMBER 31, 2021ATTACHMENT 1Line Check Date Check # Amount Description Acct # Vendor Last Name267 12/24/2021 292530 $ (1.99) CREDIT ON SHIPPING 010.0000.2025 U.S. BANK268 12/24/2021 292530 150.00 BOARD DIVERSITY CONFERENCE 010.4001.5501 U.S. BANK269 12/24/2021 292530 154.67 SCHOOL YEAR SUPPLIES 010.4425.5255 U.S. BANK270 12/24/2021 292530 476.18 SNACK SUPPLIES 010.4425.5259 U.S. BANK271 12/24/2021 292530 78.60 GRAND BOUQUET FLORIST-FLOWERS 010.4001.5504 U.S. BANK272 12/24/2021 292530 59.44 TRIBE COFFEE-VOLUNTEER APPRECIATION 010.4424.5250 U.S. BANK273 12/24/2021 292530 811.72 OFFICE SUPPLIES-TONER 010.4201.5201 U.S. BANK274 12/24/2021 292531 10,358.05 11/21 TBID SOCIAL MEDIA MARKET 240.4150.5301 VERDIN MARKETING INK275 12/24/2021 292532 71.39 ACCT#808089883-00003, REC CELL 010.4425.5255 VERIZON WIRELESS276 12/24/2021 292533 1,439.42 FATS, OILS & GREASE PROGRAM 612.4610.5303 WALLACE GROUP A CALIF CORP277 12/24/2021 292534 266.00 RETROFIT-243 OAKWOOD CT 226.4306.5303 WATERBOYS PLUMBING278 12/24/2021 292535 50.00 PARK DEPOSIT REFUND-RANCHO GRANDE 010.0000.2206 MEGAN YPARREA279 12/24/2021 292536 70.00 REFUND-QUILTING010.0000.4605PENNY ZENGLEIN280 12/30/2021 292537 838.96 12/21 SUPPLEMENTAL INSURANCE 011.0000.2126 AFLAC INSURANCE281 12/30/2021 292538 3,153.50 12/21 AGPD ASSN DUES 011.0000.2116 ARROYO GRANDE POLICE ASSN282 12/30/2021 292539 43,253.90 FEDERAL WITHHOLDING 011.0000.2104 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE283 12/30/2021 292539 11,651.73 MEDICARE 011.0000.2105 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE284 12/30/2021 292539 30,328.98 SOCIAL SECURITY 011.0000.2105 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE285 12/30/2021 292540 1,251.45 STATE SDI CONTRIBUTION 011.0000.2111 CA ST EMPLOYMENT DEVEL DEPT286 12/30/2021 292540 16,817.78 STATE PIT W/H 011.0000.2108 CA ST EMPLOYMENT DEVEL DEPT287 12/30/2021 292541 298.84 CHILD SUPPORT PAYDATE 12/30/21 011.0000.2114 CA STATE DISBURSEMENT UNIT288 12/30/2021 292541 133.38 CHILD SUPPORT PAYDATE 12/30/21 011.0000.2114 CA STATE DISBURSEMENT UNIT289 12/30/2021 292542 15.00 12/21 AG FIRE ASSN DUES 011.0000.2115 FIVE CITIES FIREFIGHTERS ASSOC290 12/30/2021 292543 3,360.00 12/21 CAREER FF ASSN DUES 011.0000.2115 FIVE CITIES PROF. FIREFIGHTERS291 12/30/2021 292544 77.75 12/21 LEGAL SVCS 011.0000.2125 LEGALSHIELD292 12/30/2021 292545 20,149.25 FIRE TIER I PPE 12/23/21 011.0000.2106 PERS - RETIREMENT293 12/30/2021 292545 11,330.89 POLICE TIER I PPE 12/23/21 011.0000.2106 PERS - RETIREMENT294 12/30/2021 292545 10,226.42 POLICE PEPRA PPE 12/23/21 011.0000.2106 PERS - RETIREMENT295 12/30/2021 292545 9,593.30 MISC PEPRA PPE 12/23/21 011.0000.2106 PERS - RETIREMENT296 12/30/2021 292545 8,539.49 MISC TIER I PPE 12/23/21 011.0000.2106 PERS - RETIREMENT297 12/30/2021 292545 6,583.24 FIRE PEPRA PPE 12/23/21 011.0000.2106 PERS - RETIREMENT298 12/30/2021 292545 5,652.77 POLICE TIER II PPE 12/23/21 011.0000.2106 PERS - RETIREMENT299 12/30/2021 292545 3,955.20 MISC TIER II PPE 12/23/21 011.0000.2106 PERS - RETIREMENT300 12/30/2021 292546 1,195.60 12/21 SEIU DUES 011.0000.2118 S.E.I.U. LOCAL 620301 12/30/2021 292547 1,084.76 EE PARS CONTRIBUTION PAYDATE 12/30/21 011.0000.2107 US BANK OF CALIFORNIA302 12/30/2021 292547 271.21 ER PARS CONTRIBUTION PAYDATE 12/30/21 011.0000.2107 US BANK OF CALIFORNIA $ 1,246,550.49 Page 17 of 310 ATTACHMENT 2 . General Fund 359,237.31$ 5101 Salaries Full time 201,452.56$ Streets Fund 18,463.76 5101 Volunteer Employee Retirement - Sewer Fund 8,034.18 5102 Salaries Part-Time - PPT 4,264.27 Water Fund 21,066.86 5103 Salaries Part-Time - TPT 14,414.39 406,802.11$ 5105 Salaries OverTime 9,936.92 5106 Salaries Strike Team OT - 5107 Salaries Standby 1,725.80 5108 Holiday Pay 26,048.87 5109 Sick Pay 5,450.48 Administrative Services -$ 5110 Annual Leave Buyback 9,752.92 Information Services - 5111 Vacation Buyback - Community Development - 5112 Sick Leave Buyback 12,674.06 Police 7,840.04 5113 Vacation Pay 8,799.16 Public Works - Maintenance 925.32 5114 Comp Pay 1,921.61 Public Works - Enterprise 1,171.56 5115 Annual Leave Pay 2,963.30 Recreation - Administration - 5116 Salaries - Police FTO 101.91 Recreation - Special Events - 5121 PERS Retirement 29,756.73 Children In Motion - 5122 Social Security 19,288.37 9,936.92$ 5123 PARS Retirement 289.92 5126 State Disability Ins. 3,919.29 5127 Deferred Compensation 741.66 5131 Health Insurance 46,661.95 5132 Dental Insurance 2,864.14 5133 Vision Insurance 733.41 5134 Life Insurance 377.17 5135 Long Term Disability 649.12 5137 Leave Payouts - 5143 Uniform Allowance - 5144 Car Allowance 837.50 5146 Council Expense - 5147 Employee Assistance - 5148 Boot Allowance - 5149 Motor Pay 64.10 5150 Bi-Lingual Pay 150.00 5151 Cell Phone Allowance 962.50 406,802.11$ OVERTIME BY DEPARTMENT: Total FCFA payroll cost for this period is $170,565.45. FCFA payroll and accounts payable expenditures are processed as part of the JPA financial services agreement between Arroyo Grande, Grover Beach and Oceano Community Services District. Arroyo Grande's portion of the FCFA annual budget is identified in the contractual services budget. CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE DEPARTMENTAL LABOR DISTRIBUTION PAY PERIOD 11/25/2021 - 12/09/2021 12/17/2021 BY FUND BY ACCOUNT Page 18 of 310 ATTACHMENT 3 . General Fund 279,595.03$ 5101 Salaries Full time 204,670.47$ Streets Fund 13,318.40 5101 Volunteer Employee Retirement - American Rescue Plan Act 2,062.04 5102 Salaries Part-Time - PPT 4,055.93 Sewer Fund 5,848.89 5103 Salaries Part-Time - TPT 13,215.26 Water Fund 16,251.87 5105 Salaries OverTime 14,517.33 317,076.23$ 5106 Salaries Strike Team OT - 5107 Salaries Standby 1,569.80 5108 Holiday Pay 289.77 5109 Sick Pay 5,793.64 5110 Annual Leave Buyback - Administrative Services -$ 5111 Vacation Buyback - Information Services - 5112 Sick Leave Buyback - Community Development - 5113 Vacation Pay 10,155.32 Police 12,916.42 5114 Comp Pay 2,811.50 Public Works - Maintenance 751.73 5115 Annual Leave Pay 10,440.81 Public Works - Enterprise 849.18 5116 Salaries - Police FTO - Recreation - Administration - 5121 PERS Retirement 28,079.05 Recreation - Special Events - 5122 Social Security 16,920.23 Children In Motion - 5123 PARS Retirement 276.34 14,517.33$ 5126 State Disability Ins. 998.25 5127 Deferred Compensation - 5131 Health Insurance - 5132 Dental Insurance - 5133 Vision Insurance - 5134 Life Insurance 2.35 5135 Long Term Disability - 5137 Leave Payouts 1,138.94 5142 Unemployment Insurance 2,062.04 5143 Uniform Allowance - 5144 Car Allowance - 5146 Council Expense - 5147 Employee Assistance - 5148 Boot Allowance - 5149 Motor Pay 79.20 5150 Bi-Lingual Pay - 5151 Cell Phone Allowance - 317,076.23$ OVERTIME BY DEPARTMENT: Total FCFA payroll cost for this period is $151,873.22. FCFA payroll and accounts payable expenditures are processed as part of the JPA financial services agreement between Arroyo Grande, Grover Beach and Oceano Community Services District. Arroyo Grande's portion of the FCFA annual budget is identified in the contractual services budget. CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE DEPARTMENTAL LABOR DISTRIBUTION PAY PERIOD 12/10/2021 - 12/23/2021 12/30/2021 BY FUND BY ACCOUNT Page 19 of 310 Item 8.b. MEMORANDUM TO: City Council FROM: Nicole Valentine, Administrative Services Director BY: Lynda Horejsi, Accounting Manager SUBJECT: Consideration of Approval of Annual Adjustment of Development Impact Fees DATE: January 25, 2022 SUMMARY OF ACTION: Adoption of a Resolution approving the annual adjustment of Development Impact Fees consistent with the Engineering News Record (ENR) Construction Cost Index (CCI) to increase fees by 5.92%. IMPACT ON FINANCIAL AND PERSONNEL RESOURCES: Adoption of the Resolution will increase the Development Impact Fees charged for new development projects for most of 2022. The revenue generated from this increase is dependent on the amount of new development in the community during the coming year. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt a Resolution approving the annual adjustment to the City’s Development Impact Fees based on changes in the Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index. BACKGROUND: Section 3.36.040 of the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code states that Development Impact Fees shall be adopted by resolution and shall be adjusted each year in accordance with the percentage increase based on changes in the annual average Engineer ing News Record (ENR) Construction Cost Index (CCI). The following is a list of the Development Impact Fees that are included in the annual adjustment:  Traffic Signalization Fee: This fee is restricted for funding the construction of traffic signal systems, signing, and other traffic control devices.  Transportation Facility Fee: This fee is paid to protect the public health, safety, and welfare by maintaining the existing level of public services for existing and future residents within the City. Page 20 of 310 Item 8.b. City Council Consideration of Approval of Annual Adjustment of Development Impact Fees January 25, 2022 Page 2  Drainage Facility Fee: This fee is collected from developers to acquire and construct drainage facilities with a designated drainage zone attributable to new development.  Water Neutralization Fee: This fee is collected from developers to neutralize projected water demand of development projects above historical usage amounts.  Fire Protection Fee: This fee is to be used for facilities to house fire fighting personnel and equipment serving future development.  Police Facilities Fee: This fee provides funding for the expansion of police facilities.  Park Improvement Fee: This fee is to be used to improve parklands in order to maintain 4.0 acres of neighborhood and community parks per thousand residents.  Community Center Fee: The fee was enacted to ensure community center facilities are maintained at 542 square feet per thousand residents. The previous rate increase of 1.54% was approved by Council on November 24, 2020, and became effective on January 25, 2021. Any rate increase becomes effective 60 days after the City Council has approved the adjustment pursuant to State law. ANALYSIS OF ISSUES: The calculation shown below provides documentation that the ENR CCI warrants a 5.92% increase in the City’s Development Impact Fees. The calculation adjusts the fees as follows: 1 + Current Index – Base Index for Date of Adoption = Factor Base Index for Date of Adoption For the current year, the calculation is as follows: 1 + 12,133 – 11,455 = 1.0592 = 5.92% 11,455 The existing and proposed fees implementing a 5.92% ENR CCI increase are set forth in Exhibit A to the attached Resolution. The effective date of the new fees is March 28, 2022. ALTERNATIVES: The following alternatives are provided for City Council consideration: 1. Adopt the Resolution; 2. Do not adopt the Resolution and request further information; or 3. Provide other direction to staff. ADVANTAGES: By approving the recommended fees, the City will be able to recover the estimated cost of providing infrastructure and services to new development. Page 21 of 310 Item 8.b. City Council Consideration of Approval of Annual Adjustment of Development Impact Fees January 25, 2022 Page 3 DISADVANTAGES: Implementing the recommended fees will result in an increased cost to new development. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: No environmental review is required for this item. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND COMMENTS: The Agenda was posted at City Hall and on the City’s website in accordance with Government Code Section 54954.2. Attachments: 1. Proposed Resolution 2. Exhibit A – Development Impact Fees Effective 03/28/2022 Page 22 of 310 ATTACHMENT 1 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ADJUSTING DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES BY THE CHANGE IN THE ENGINEERING NEWS RECORD CONSTRUCTION COST INDEX WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 3.36.040 of the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code, Development Impact Fees are to be adjusted annually by modifying the fee amounts up or down in conformance with the Engineering News Record (ENR) Construction Cost Index (CCI). WHEREAS, an increase of 5.92% of the ENR CCI has been calculated to warrant an adjustment to the City Development Impact Fees, effective March 28, 2022. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande hereby adopts the fees and fee schedules set forth in Exhibit “A” attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. This Resolution shall take effect sixty (60) days after its adoption, per Government Code Section 66017. On motion of Council Member __________________ seconded by Council Member __________________ and on the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: The foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted this 25th day of January, 2022. Page 23 of 310 RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 2 _____________________________________ CAREN RAY RUSSOM, MAYOR ATTEST: JESSICA MATSON, CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: _____________________________________ WHITNEY MCDONALD, CITY MANAGER APPROVED AS TO FORM: _____________________________________ TIMOTHY J. CARMEL, CITY ATTORNEY Page 24 of 310 Definitions: Development Types –Residential and commercial development divided into sub- categories. Units of Development – A standard measure of the cost to provide services. The acre is the fundamental unit measure, which is divided into a smaller component, the dwelling unit (DU). Asset Cost Per Acre – The calculated cost to provide additional services/facilities to new development. Calls Per Unit – The number of yearly additional police calls generated by new development. Facility Cost Per Call – The cost per call to expand current police facilities to accommodate new development. Persons Per Unit – The number of persons expected to reside in the unit of development. Costs Per Capita – The cost of new or additions to the current community center, on a per person basis, to maintain the current level of service of recreation facilities. Impact Fee Per Unit – The fee to be levied per unit of development in order to recover future cost of new or expanded facilities. Fees: A person seeking to construct a residential or non-residential development project shall pay Development Impact Fees for fire protection, police facilities, traffic signalization, transportation facilities, community centers, park improvements, and water facilities based upon the following schedule: To note the City has not collected any low income or very low income residential dwelling unit Development Impact Fees in FY 2017-18, FY 2018-19, FY 2019-20 or FY 2020-21 for low income and very low income residential dwelling units. EXHIBIT A ATTACHMENT 2 Page 25 of 310 Exhibit A Development Fee per Acres Fee Type Units Acre Per Unit Per Unit Residential - Estate Dwelling Unit 2,167.00$ 2.500 5,418.00$ Residential Rural Dwelling Unit 2,167.00$ 1.000 2,167.00$ Residential - Single-Family Dwelling Unit 2,167.00$ 1.000 2,167.00$ Low- income Dwelling Unit 542.00$ 1.000 542.00$ Very Low-income Dwelling Unit - 1.000 Residential - Multi-Family Dwelling Unit 2,167.00$ 0.090 195.00$ Low- income Dwelling Unit 542.00$ 0.090 49.00$ Very Low-income Dwelling Unit - 0.090 Residential Mobile Home Dwelling Unit 2,167.00$ 0.120 260.00$ Low- income Dwelling Unit 542.00$ 0.120 65.00$ Very Low-income Dwelling Unit - 0.120 Commercial - General Thousand Square Feet 2,167.00$ 0.091 197.00$ Commercial - Service Thousand Square Feet 2,167.00$ 0.091 197.00$ Hotel/Motel Thousand Square Feet 2,167.00$ 0.050 108.00$ Professional Office Thousand Square Feet 2,167.00$ 0.077 167.00$ Industrial Thousand Square Feet 2,167.00$ 0.067 145.00$ Development Fee per Calls Fee Type Units Call Per Unit Per Unit Residential - Estate Dwelling Unit 181.00$ 0.250 45.00$ Residential Rural Dwelling Unit 181.00$ 0.250 45.00$ Residential - Single-Family Dwelling Unit 181.00$ 0.750 136.00$ Low- income Dwelling Unit 45.00$ 0.750 34.00$ Very Low-income Dwelling Unit - 0.750 Residential - Multi-Family Dwelling Unit 181.00$ 1.320 239.00$ Low- income Dwelling Unit 45.00$ 1.320 59.00$ Very Low-income Dwelling Unit - 1.320 Residential Mobile Home Dwelling Unit 181.00$ 0.750 136.00$ Low- income Dwelling Unit 45.00$ 0.750 34.00$ Very Low-income Dwelling Unit - 0.750 Commercial - General Thousand Square Feet 181.00$ 3.909 708.00$ Commercial - Service Thousand Square Feet 181.00$ 2.273 411.00$ Hotel/Motel Thousand Square Feet 181.00$ 1.195 216.00$ Professional Office Thousand Square Feet 181.00$ 0.095 17.00$ Industrial Thousand Square Feet 181.00$ 0.045 8.00$ CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES EFFECTIVE 03/28/2022 Fire Protection Police Facilities Page 26 of 310 Exhibit A CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES EFFECTIVE 03/28/2022 Development Fee per PeakTrips Fee Type Units Trip Per Unit Per Unit Residential - Estate Dwelling Unit 797.00$ 1.2 956.00$ Residential Rural Dwelling Unit 797.00$ 1.2 956.00$ Residential - Single-Family Dwelling Unit 797.00$ 1.0 797.00$ Low- income Dwelling Unit 199.00$ 1.0 199.00$ Very Low-income Dwelling Unit - 1.0 Residential - Multi-Family Dwelling Unit 797.00$ 0.7 558.00$ Low- income Dwelling Unit 199.00$ 0.7 139.00$ Very Low-income Dwelling Unit - 0.7 Residential Mobile Home Dwelling Unit 797.00$ 0.5 399.00$ Low- income Dwelling Unit 199.00$ 0.5 100.00$ Very Low-income Dwelling Unit - 0.5 Commercial - General Thousand Square Feet 797.00$ 7.0 5,579.00$ Commercial - Service Thousand Square Feet 797.00$ 4.0 3,188.00$ Hotel/Motel Thousand Square Feet 797.00$ 1.8 1,435.00$ Professional Office Thousand Square Feet 797.00$ 2.8 2,232.00$ Industrial Thousand Square Feet 797.00$ 0.8 638.00$ Development Fee per PeakTrips Fee Type Units Trip Per Unit Per Unit Residential - Estate Dwelling Unit 2,175.00$ 1.2 2,610.00$ Residential Rural Dwelling Unit 2,175.00$ 1.2 2,610.00$ Residential - Single-Family Dwelling Unit 2,175.00$ 1.0 2,175.00$ Low- income Dwelling Unit 544.00$ 1.0 544.00$ Very Low-income Dwelling Unit - 1.0 Residential - Multi-Family Dwelling Unit 2,175.00$ 0.7 1,523.00$ Low- income Dwelling Unit 544.00$ 0.7 381.00$ Very Low-income Dwelling Unit - 0.7 Residential Mobile Home Dwelling Unit 2,175.00$ 0.5 1,088.00$ Low- income Dwelling Unit 544.00$ 0.5 272.00$ Very Low-income Dwelling Unit - 0.5 Commercial - General Thousand Square Feet 2,175.00$ 7.0 15,225.00$ Commercial - Service Thousand Square Feet 2,175.00$ 4.0 8,700.00$ Hotel/Motel Thousand Square Feet 2,175.00$ 1.8 3,915.00$ Professional Office Thousand Square Feet 2,175.00$ 2.8 6,090.00$ Industrial Thousand Square Feet 2,175.00$ 0.8 1,740.00$ Traffic Signalization Transportation Facilities Page 27 of 310 Exhibit A CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES EFFECTIVE 03/28/2022 Development Fee per Persons Fee Type Units Capita Per Unit Per Unit Residential - Estate Dwelling Unit 59.00$ 2.7 159.00$ Residential Rural Dwelling Unit 59.00$ 2.7 159.00$ Residential - Single-Family Dwelling Unit 59.00$ 2.7 159.00$ Low- income Dwelling Unit 15.00$ 2.7 41.00$ Very Low-income Dwelling Unit - 2.7 Residential - Multi-Family Dwelling Unit 59.00$ 2.0 118.00$ Low- income Dwelling Unit 15.00$ 2.0 30.00$ Very Low-income Dwelling Unit - 2.0 Residential Mobile Home Dwelling Unit 59.00$ 1.5 89.00$ Low- income Dwelling Unit 15.00$ 1.5 23.00$ Very Low-income Dwelling Unit - 1.5 - Development Fee per Persons Fee Type Units Capita Per Unit Per Unit Residential - Estate Dwelling Unit 1,025.00$ 2.7 2,768.00$ Residential Rural Dwelling Unit 1,025.00$ 2.7 2,768.00$ Residential - Single-Family Dwelling Unit 1,025.00$ 2.7 2,768.00$ Low- income Dwelling Unit 256.00$ 2.7 691.00$ Very Low-income Dwelling Unit - 2.7 - Residential - Multi-Family Dwelling Unit 1,025.00$ 2.0 2,050.00$ Low- income Dwelling Unit 256.00$ 2.0 512.00$ Very Low-income Dwelling Unit - 2.0 Residential Mobile Home Dwelling Unit 1,025.00$ 1.5 1,538.00$ Low- income Dwelling Unit 256.00$ 1.5 384.00$ Very Low-income Dwelling Unit - 1.5 - Meter Size Fee 5/8 inch - 3/4 inch 1,126.00$ 1 inch 1,878.00$ 1 1/2 inch 3,756.00$ 2 inch 6,007.00$ 3 inch 11,267.00$ 4 inch 18,777.00$ 6 inch 37,572.00$ 8 inch 75,143.00$ Community Centers Park Improvements Water Facilities Page 28 of 310 Item 8.c. MEMORANDUM TO: City Council FROM: Nicole Valentine, Administrative Services Director BY: Lynda Horejsi, Accounting Manager SUBJECT: Consideration of Adjustment of Sewer Connection Fees DATE: January 25, 2022 SUMMARY OF ACTION: Adoption of a Resolution approving the annual adjustment of Sewer Connection Fees to increase fees by 5.92%, consistent with the Engineering News Record (ENR) Construction Cost Index (CCI). IMPACT ON FINANCIAL AND PERSONNEL RESOURCES: Adoption of the Resolution will increase the Sewer Connection Fees charged for new development projects for most of 2022. The revenue generated from this adjustment is dependent on the amount of new development in the community during the coming year. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt a Resolution approving the annual adjustment to the City’s Sewer Connection Fees based on changes in the Engineering News Record (ENR) Construction Cost Index (CCI). BACKGROUND: Ordinance 528 C.S. amended Section 13.12.190 of the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code to provide that, for each connection of a building to a public sewer, a connection fee will be charged and that the amount of the fee shall be set by resolution. Resolution No. 4507 set sewer connection fees for 2013 and authorized that the sewer connection fee s be adjusted each year in accordance with the percentage increase based on changes in the annual average Engineering News Record (ENR) Construction Cost Index (CCI). ANALYSIS OF ISSUES: Sewer Connection Fees, enacted pursuant to Section 13.12.190 of the City Municipal Code, are collected to help pay for improvements and future sewer system capacity as necessary to meet the needs of the City resulting from growth and expansion. Page 29 of 310 Item 8.c. City Council Consideration of Adjustment of Sewer Connection Fees January 25, 2022 Page 2 The calculation shown below provides documentation that the ENR CCI warrants a 5.92% increase in the City’s Sewer Connection Fees. The calculation adjusts the fees as follows: 1 + Current Index – Base Index for Date of Adoption = Factor Base Index for Date of Adoption For the current year, the calculation is as follows: 1 + 12,133 – 11,455 = 1.0592 = 5.92% 11,455 The existing and proposed fees implementing a 5.92% ENR CCI increase are set forth in Exhibit A to the attached Resolution. The effective date of the new fees is March 28, 2022. ALTERNATIVES: The following alternatives are provided for City Council consideration: 1. Adopt the Resolution; 2. Do not adopt the Resolution and request further information; or 3. Provide other direction to staff. ADVANTAGES: By approving the recommended fees, the City will be able to recover the estimated cost of providing infrastructure and services to new development. DISADVANTAGES: The only disadvantage identified in relation to this recommendation is an increased cost to new development. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: No environmental review is required for this item. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND COMMENTS: The Agenda was posted at City Hall and on the City’s website in accordance with Government Code Section 54954.2. Attachments: 1. Proposed Resolution 2. Exhibit A – Sewer Connection Fees Effective 03/28/2022 Page 30 of 310 ATTACHMENT 1 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ADJUSTING SEWER CONNECTION FEES BY THE CHANGE IN THE ENGINEERING NEWS RECORD CONSTRUCTION COST INDEX WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 528 C.S. amending Section 13.12.190 of the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code regarding sewer connection fees; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 13.12.190, the City Council may by resolution establish the amount of the sewer connection fees; and WHEREAS, Resolution No. 4507 authorizes an annual adjustment in the sewer connection fees based on the changes in the annual average Engineering News Record (ENR) Construction Cost Index (CCI); and WHEREAS, an increase of 5.92% of the ENR CCI has been calculated to warrant an adjustment to the City Sewer Connection Fees, effective March 28, 2022. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande hereby adopts the sewer connection fees set forth in Exhibit “A” attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as though set forth in full. In accordance with Government Code Section 66017, this Resolution shall take effect sixty (60) days after its adoption. On motion of Council Member , seconded by Council Member , and on the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: The foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted this 25th day of January, 2022. Page 31 of 310 RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 2 CAREN RAY RUSSOM, MAYOR ATTEST: JESSICA MATSON, CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: WHITNEY MCDONALD, CITY MANAGER APPROVED AS TO FORM: TIMOTHY J. CARMEL, CITY ATTORNEY Page 32 of 310 2013-2019 2019 2020 2021 2022 ENR Index 9308 11062 11281 11455 12133 Residential - per dwelling unit Single Family 1,084$ 1,288$ 1,364$ 1,445$ 1,530$ Multifamily (a)804 955 1,011 1,071 1,135 Trailer Park/Mobile Home 889 1,056 1,119 1,185 1,255 Non-Residential - per water meter size (b) 5/8 inch 1,084$ 1,288$ 1,364$ 1,445$ 1,530$ 3/4 inch 1,625 1,931 2,045 2,166 2,295 1 inch 2,712 3,223 3,413 3,615 3,829 1 1/2 inch 5,423 6,445 6,827 7,231 7,659 2 inch 8,677 10,312 10,923 11,569 12,254 3 inch 16,271 19,337 20,481 21,694 22,978 4 inch 27,119 32,228 34,136 36,157 38,298 6 inch 54,237 64,455 68,271 72,313 76,594 8 inch 108,475 128,912 136,544 144,627 153,189 10 inch 162,712 193,367 204,815 216,940 229,783 12 inch 238,644 283,605 300,394 318,177 337,014 (a) Multifamily includes duplex, triplex, apartments, and condominiums Adjustment Formula: Adjusted Fee = (Current Fee) x (Current Year ENR index) / (Prior Year ENR index) Adjusted Fee = (Current Fee) x (12,133) / (11,455) EXHIBIT A (b) F or meter sizes larger than shown, connection fee determined based on the ratio of the maximum safe operating capacity of the meter to that of a 5/8 inch meter. The connection fees shall be increased each year with the annual percentage increase of the annual average ENR Construction Cost Index as established in the Engineering News Record publication. For each connection of a building sewer to a public sewer, a connection fee shall be collected by the City before the permit for the connection work is issued. The amount of the fee collected is as follows: EFFECTIVE 03/28/2022 SEWER CONNECTION FEES Connection Fee ATTACHMENT 2 Page 33 of 310 Item 8.d. MEMORANDUM TO: City Council FROM: Whitney McDonald, City Manager Timothy J. Carmel, City Attorney SUBJECT: Adoption of a Resolution Declaring a Continued Local Emergency Related to the Coronavirus (COVID-19) Pandemic DATE: January 25, 2022 SUMMARY OF ACTION: Adoption of the Resolution will continue the declared local emergency related to the COVID-19 pandemic. IMPACT ON FINANCIAL AND PERSONNEL RESOURCES: There are no direct fiscal impacts related to the proposed ac tion; however, adoption of the Resolution will facilitate the ability for the City to request resources including financial support and reimbursement from the State Office of Emergency Services and the Federal Emergency Management Agency for costs incurred in preparation and/or response to the COVID-19 pandemic. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt a Resolution declaring a continued local emergency related to the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. BACKGROUND: As the City Council is aware, in accordance with Section 8.12.060 of the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code, the former City Manager, in his capacity as the Director of Emergency Services, proclaimed a local emergency on March 16, 2020, regarding the COVID -19 pandemic. The City Council ratified the proclamation at its regular meeting on March 24, 2020. ANALYSIS OF ISSUES: Arroyo Grande Municipal Code Section 8.12.065(C) provides that the City Council is to “Review the need for a continuing emergency declaration at regularly scheduled meetings at least every twenty-one (21) days until the emergency is terminated.” Accordingly, the City Council has adopted the appropriate Resolutions declaring a continued local Page 34 of 310 Item 8.d. City Council Adoption of a Resolution Declaring a Continued Local Emergency Related to the Coronavirus (COVID-19) Pandemic January 25, 2022 Page 2 emergency related to the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic within the required 21-day time period since the ratification of the proclamation at its March 24, 2020 meeting. This item is being presented to the City Council to satisfy the requirements of Section 8.12.065(C). Given the ongoing state of emergency proclaimed by the Governor, the ongoing public health orders issued by the State and local public health officers, and the ongoing work required of City staff to respond to the pandemic and these proclamations and orders, it is recommended that the City Council adopt the Resolution declaring the need to continue the emergency declaration. ALTERNATIVES: The following alternatives are provided for the Council’s consideration: 1. Adopt the Resolution declaring the need to continue the declared local emergency; or 2. Provide other direction to staff. ADVANTAGES: Adoption of the Resolution will satisfy the requirement of the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code regarding the periodic review of the declared local emergency related to the COVID- 19 pandemic. DISADVANTAGES: No disadvantages have been identified to adopting the Resolution. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: Not required. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND COMMENTS: The Agenda was posted at City Hall and on the City’s website in accordance with Government Code Section 54954.2. Attachment: 1. Proposed Resolution Page 35 of 310 ATTACHMENT 1 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE DECLARING A CONTINUED LOCAL EMERGENCY RELATED TO THE CORONAVIRUS (COVID- 19) PANDEMIC WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 8.12.060 of the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code the former City Manager, in his capacity as the Director of Emergency Services proclaimed a local emergency on March 17, 2020, regarding the COVID-19 pandemic; and WHEREAS, the City Council ratified the emergency proclamation through adoption of Resolution No. 4974 at its regular meeting on March 24, 2020; and WHEREAS, Arroyo Grande Municipal Code Section 8.12.065(C) provides that the City Council is to review the need for a continuing emergency declaration at regularly scheduled meetings at least every twenty-one (21) days until the emergency is terminated; and WHEREAS, the City Council has adopted Resolutions declaring a continued local emergency related to the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic on April 14, April 28, May 12, May 26, June 9, June 23, July 14, August 11, August 25, September 8, September 22, October 13, October 27, November 10, November 24, December 8, 2020, January 12, January 26, February 9; February 23; March 9, March 23, April 13, April 27, May 11, May 25, June 8, June 22, July 27, August 10, August 24, September 14, September 28, October 12, October 26, November 9, November 23, December 14, 2021, and January 11, 2022; and WHEREAS, the Secretary of Health and Human Services Director issued a Determination that a Public Health Emergency Exists and has existed as of January 27, 2020; and WHEREAS, the President of the United States declared a State of National Emergency; the Governor of the State of California has proclaimed a State of Emergency for the State of California and issued Executive Orders and direction regarding measures to mitigate the spread of cases of COVID-19 within the State of California; the San Luis Obispo County Emergency Services Director has proclaimed a local emergency; and the San Luis Obispo County Public Health Director has declared a public health emergency related to the spread of cases of COVID-19 within the State of California and all recitals set forth therein, are included as though fully set forth herein; and WHEREAS, the COVID-19 pandemic continues to spread rapidly worldwide and in the U.S., continuing to present an immediate and significant risk to public health and safety, and resulting in serious illness or death to vulnerable populations, including the elderly and those with underlying health conditions. Page 36 of 310 RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 2 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande that: 1. All recitals set forth above, are true, correct and incorporated herein. 2. A local emergency is declared to continue to exist throughout the City of Arroyo Grande, and the City has been undertaking, and will continue through termination of this emergency to undertake necessary measures and incur necessary costs, which are directly related to the prevention of the spread of COVID -19 and are taken in furtherance of: the Secretary of Health and Human Services’ determination that a public health emergency has existed since January 27, 2020; the Governor’s Proclamation of a State of Emergency on March 4, 2020 ; the President of the United States’ Declaration of a National Emergency on March 13, 2020; the County Emergency Services Director’s Proclamation of Local Emergency and the County Public Health Director’s Declaration of a Public Health Emergency on March 13, 2020; and the City Director of Emergency Services’ Proclamation of Local Emergency on March 17, 2020; and related orders and directives. On motion of Council Member _______________________, seconded by Council Member _______________________, and by the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: The foregoing Resolution was approved this 25th day of January, 2022. Page 37 of 310 RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 3 ______________________________________ CAREN RAY RUSSOM, MAYOR ATTEST: _______________________________________ JESSICA MATSON, CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: ______________________________________ WHITNEY MCDONALD, CITY MANAGER APPROVED AS TO FORM: _____________________________________ TIMOTHY J. CARMEL, CITY ATTORNEY Page 38 of 310 Item 8.e. MEMORANDUM TO: City Council FROM: Jessica Matson, Legislative & Information Services Director/City Clerk Timothy J. Carmel, City Attorney SUBJECT: Consideration of a Resolution Authorizing the Continuance of Remote Teleconference Meetings of the Legislative Bodies of the City of Arroyo Grande Pursuant to Government Code Section 54953(e)(3) DATE: January 25, 2022 SUMMARY OF ACTION: Adoption of the Resolution will enable the City to continue to comply with the requirements of legislation, AB 361, and authorize the continued use of teleconferencing for meetings of the City’s legislative bodies. IMPACT ON FINANCIAL AND PERSONNEL RESOURCES: There are no direct fiscal impacts related to the proposed action. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt a Resolution authorizing the continuance of remote teleconference meetings pursuant to Government Code Section 54953(e)(3). BACKGROUND: Describe the history of the item, including history of the issue, how, when, why and/or who the item was generated by, past discussions or consideration of the item, and other review board recommendations and comments. ANALYSIS OF ISSUES: AB 361 amended Government Code Section 54953, adding a new subsection (e) that permits legislative bodies, when there is a proclaimed State of Emergency declared by the Governor pursuant to Government Code Section 8625, to make a determ ination to authorize meeting remotely via teleconferencing as a result of the emergency. To do so, a resolution would need to be adopted in which the legislative body finds that meeting in person would present imminent risks to the health or safety of atte ndees, or that State or local officials have imposed or recommended measures to promote social distancing. Page 39 of 310 Item 8.e. City Council Consideration of a Resolution Authorizing the Continuance of Remote Teleconference Meetings of the Legislative Bodies of the City of Arroyo Grande Pursuant to Government Code Section 54953(e)(3) January 25, 2022 Page 2 The City Council first adopted a Resolution making findings in accordance with AB 361 and Government Code Section 54953(e) at its September 28, 202 1 meeting. The Resolution is valid for thirty (30) days after teleconferencing for the first time under the new regulations. If the State of Emergency remains active after that 30 day period, the local agency may act to renew its resolution authorizing remote teleconferenced meetings by passing another resolution which includes findings that the State of Emergency declaration remains active, the local agency has reconsidered the circumstances of the State of Emergency, and the local agency has either identified: A) ongoing, direct impacts to the ability to meet safely in-person, or B) active social distancing measures as directed by relevant State or local officials. A draft Resolution has been prepared for Council consideration. It includes continued findings based upon a determination that, as a result of the proclaimed State of Emergency in California due to the COVID-19 pandemic and its continued spread in San Luis Obispo County and Arroyo Grande through the Omicron variant of SARS-CoV-2, which is far more transmissible than prior variants of the virus and, as even fully vaccinated individuals can spread the virus to others, holding meetings in person would present imminent risks to the health or safety of attendees. ALTERNATIVES: The following alternatives are provided for the Council’s consideration: 1. Adopt the Resolution authorizing the continuance of remote teleconference meetings pursuant to Government Code Section 54953(e)(3); or 2. Provide other direction to staff. ADVANTAGES: Adoption of the Resolution will satisfy the requirements of Government Code Section 54953(e)(3) and allow the City to safely continue carrying out its business in a manner that will minimize the risk of contracting COVID-19 for everyone involved. DISADVANTAGES: No disadvantages have been identified to adopting the Resolution. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: Not required. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND COMMENTS: The Agenda was posted at City Hall and on the City’s website in accordance with Government Code Section 54954.2. Page 40 of 310 Item 8.e. City Council Consideration of a Resolution Authorizing the Continuance of Remote Teleconference Meetings of the Legislative Bodies of the City of Arroyo Grande Pursuant to Government Code Section 54953(e)(3) January 25, 2022 Page 3 Attachment: 1. Proposed Resolution Page 41 of 310 ATTACHMENT 1 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE AUTHORIZING THE CONTINUANCE OF REMOTE TELECONFERENCE MEETINGS OF THE LEGISLATIVE BODIES OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE PURSUANT GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54953(e) WHEREAS, on March 4, 2020 Governor Newsom declared a State of Emergency in the State of California pursuant to Government Code Section 8625 as a result of the threat of the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic; and WHEREAS, subsequently, in March 2020, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, Governor Newsom issued Executive Orders N-25-20 and N-29-20. These orders suspended certain elements of the Brown Act and specifically allowed for legislative bodies as defined by the Brown Act to hold their meetings entirely electronically with no physical meeting place. On June 11, 2021, Governor Newsom issued Executive Order N- 08-21 which provided that the provisions in Executive Order N-29-20 suspending certain elements of the Brown Act would continue to apply through September 30, 2021; and WHEREAS, on September 16, 2021 Governor Newsom signed AB 361, which added subsection (e) to Government Code section 54953 of the Brown Act, and makes provision for remote teleconferencing participation in meetings by members of a legislative body, without compliance with the requirements of Government Code section 54953(b)(3), subject to the existence of certain conditions; and WHEREAS, a required condition of AB 361 is that a state of emergency is declared by the Governor pursuant to Government Code section 8625, proclaiming the existence of conditions of disaster or of extreme peril to the safety of persons and property within the State caused by conditions as described in Government Code section 8558; and WHEREAS, in addition to the Governor’s proclamation of a State of Emergency, on March 16, 2020 the former City Manager, in his capacity as the Director of Emergency Services, proclaimed a local State of Emergency as a result of the Coronavirus pandemic. The City Council ratified the proclamation at its regular meeting on March 24, 2020, and has continued to make determinations since that time that a local State of Emergency continues to exist in Arroyo Grande as a result of the Coronavirus pandemic; and WHEREAS, the City Council has adopted a Resolution making findings in accordance with AB 361 and Government Code Section 54953(e) authorizing remote teleconference meetings on September 28, October 26, November 23, and December 14, 2021; and WHEREAS, COVID-19 cases in San Luis Obispo County continue to be a threat to public health. Evidence clearly indicates that the Omicron variant is far more transmissible than Page 42 of 310 RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 2 prior variants of the virus and that even fully vaccinated individuals can spread the virus to others; and WHEREAS, as a condition of extending the use of the provisions found in Government Code section 54953(e), the City Council must reconsider the circumstances of the State of Emergency that exists in the City, and the City Council has done so; and WHEREAS, the City Council now desires to adopt a Resolution finding that the requisite conditions exist for the legislative bodies of the City of Arroyo Grande, as defined in the Brown Act, to conduct remote teleconference meetings without compliance with paragraph (3) of subdivision (b) of Government Code section 54953. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande as follows: 1. The above recitals are true, correct and are incorporated herein by this reference. 2. In accordance with the requirements of Government Code Section 54953(e)(3), the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande hereby finds and determines that it has reconsidered the circumstances of the State of Emergency and that the State of Emergency continues to exist and to directly impact the ability to meet safely in person due to the COVID-19 pandemic, and its continued spread in San Luis Obispo County and Arroyo Grande through the Omicron variant of SARS-CoV- 2, which is far more transmissible than prior variants of the virus, and can be spread to others even by fully vaccinated individuals, and therefore holding meetings in person would present imminent risks to the health or safety of attendees. 3. The City Manager and legislative bodies of the City of Arroyo Grande are hereby authorized and directed to take all actions necessary to carry out the intent and purpose of this Resolution including, continuing to conduct open and public remote teleconferencing meetings in accordance with the requirements of Government Code section 54953(e) and other applicable provisions of the Brown Act. 4. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption and shall be effective for thirty (30) days after its adoption, subject to being extended for an additional 30 day period by the City Council’s adoption of a subsequent resolution in accordance with Government Code section 54953(e)(3) to further extend the time during which the legislative bodies of the City of Arroyo may continue to teleconference without compliance with paragraph (3) of subdivision (b) of Government Code section 54953. Page 43 of 310 RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 3 On motion of Council Member _______________________, seconded by Council Member _______________________, and by the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: The foregoing Resolution was approved this 25th day of January, 2022. Page 44 of 310 RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 4 ______________________________________ CAREN RAY RUSSOM, MAYOR ATTEST: _______________________________________ JESSICA MATSON, CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: ______________________________________ WHITNEY MCDONALD, CITY MANAGER APPROVED AS TO FORM: _____________________________________ TIMOTHY J. CARMEL, CITY ATTORNEY Page 45 of 310 1 Item 8.f. ACTION MINUTES SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL January 11, 2022, 5:00 p.m. Zoom Virtual Meeting Webinar ID: 832 5584 8846 ByTelephone: 1-669-900-6833; 1-346-248-7799 Council Members Present: Mayor Ray Russom, Mayor Pro Tem George, Council Member Barneich, Council Member Storton, Council Member Paulding Staff Present: City Clerk Jessica Matson, City Attorney Timothy Carmel, City Manager Whitney McDonald, Assistant City Manager/Public Works Director Bill Robeson Given the recent increase in COVID-19 cases in San Luis Obispo County, and in compliance with Assembly Bill (AB) 361, which allows for a deviation of teleconference rules required by the Ralph M. Brown Act, this meeting was held by teleconference. _____________________________________________________________________ 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL City Clerk Matson performed roll call. 3. FLAG SALUTE Mayor Ray Russom led the flag salute. 4. PUBLIC COMMENT ON CLOSED SESSION ITEMS Mayor Ray Russom opened Public Comment. Hearing none, Mayor Ray Russom closed Public Comment. 5. CLOSED SESSION The City Council recessed to a closed session for the following: a) CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8: Page 46 of 310 2 Item 8.f. Property: Harden Street at North Mason Street Agency negotiators: Whitney McDonald, City Manager; Bill Robeson, Assistant City Manager/Public Works Director Negotiating parties: Ty Green, on behalf of Alex Carapeti and Kristiane Schmidt Under negotiation: Price and terms of payment b) CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8: Property: 202 Le Point Street Agency negotiators: Whitney McDonald, City Manager; Bill Robeson, Assistant City Manager/Public Works Director Negotiating parties: Jena Simmons and Chad Jackson Under negotiation: Lease Renewal City Attorney Carmel announced that the City Council discussed negotiations with real property negotiators, and that there was no reportable action. RECONVENE The City Council reconvened to open session at 6:00 p.m. in conjunction with the Regular City Council Meeting and announcement(s) of any reportable action(s) taken in closed session were made under Item 5.a. 6. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 5:54 p.m. _________________________ Caren Ray Russom, Mayor ATTEST: _________________________ Jessica Matson, City Clerk Page 47 of 310 1 Item 8.f. ACTION MINUTES REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL January 11, 2022, 6:00 p.m. Zoom Virtual Meeting Webinar ID: 832 5584 8846 ByTelephone: 1-669-900-6833; 1-346-248-7799 Council Members Present: Mayor Ray Russom, Mayor Pro Tem George, Council Member Barneich, Council Member Storton, Council Member Paulding Staff Present: City Clerk Jessica Matson, City Attorney Timothy Carmel, City Manager Whitney McDonald, Assistant City Manager/Public Works Director Bill Robeson, Administrative Services Director Nicole Valentine Given the recent increase in COVID-19 cases in San Luis Obispo County, and in compliance with Assembly Bill (AB) 361, which allows for a deviation of teleconference rules required by the Ralph M. Brown Act, this meeting was held by teleconference. _____________________________________________________________________ 1. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Ray Russom called the Regular City Council Meeting to order at 6:01 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL City Clerk Matson performed roll call. 3. MOMENT OF REFLECTION 4. FLAG SALUTE John Durant, Arroyo Grande Knights of Columbus Council 1375, led the flag salute. 5. AGENDA REVIEW 5.a Closed Session Announcements The City Attorney will announce reportable actions taken, if any, from the Special Meeting of January 11, 2022: Page 48 of 310 2 Item 8.f. a) CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8: Property: Harden Street at North Mason Street Agency negotiators: Whitney McDonald, City Manager; Bill Robeson, Assistant City Manager/Public Works Director Negotiating parties: Ty Green, on behalf of Alex Carapeti and Kristiane Schmidt Under negotiation: Price and terms of payment b) CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8: Property: 202 Le Point Street Agency negotiators: Whitney McDonald, City Manager; Bill Robeson, Assistant City Manager/Public Works Director Negotiating parties: Jena Simmons and Chad Jackson Under negotiation: Lease Renewal City Attorney Carmel announced that the City Council discussed negotiations with real property negotiators, and that there was no reportable action. 5.b Ordinances read in title only None. 6. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS 6.a Update Regarding Countywide COVID-19 Efforts City Manager McDonald provided a brief update on new COVID-19 health guidelines and how the current surge is impacting City staffing and services provided to the public. Mayor Ray Russom invited public comment. No public comments were received. No action was taken on this item. 6.b City Manager Communications City Manager McDonald provided information on water supply due to the recent storms, baseline letters regarding the Water Shortage Emergency, and discussed upcoming items for Council consideration. Mayor Ray Russom invited public comment. No public comments were received. No action was taken on this item. 7. COMMUNITY COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS Mayor Ray Russom invited public comment. No public comments were received. Page 49 of 310 3 Item 8.f. 8. CONSENT AGENDA Mayor Ray Russom asked the Council if there were any questions or any items to be pulled from the consent agenda for further discussion. There were none. Mayor Ray Russom invited public comment. No public comments were received. Moved by Council Member Storton Seconded by Council Member Paulding Approve Consent Agenda Items 8.a. through 8.e., with the recommended courses of action. AYES (5): Mayor Ray Russom, Mayor Pro Tem George, Council Member Barneich, Council Member Storton, and Council Member Paulding Passed (5 to 0) 8.a Consideration of Cash Disbursement Ratification Ratified the listing of cash disbursements for the period of December 1 through December 15, 2021. 8.b Consideration of Statement of Investment Deposits Received and filed the attached report listing investment deposits of the City of Arroyo Grande as of November 30, 2021, as required by Government Code Section 53646(b). 8.c Adoption of a Resolution Declaring a Continued Local Emergency Related to the Coronavirus (COVID-19) Pandemic Adopted a Resolution entitled: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE DECLARING A CONTINUED LOCAL EMERGENCY RELATED TO THE CORONAVIRUS (COVID-19) PANDEMIC". 8.d Consideration of Approval of Minutes Approved the minutes of the Regular City Council Meeting of December 14, 2021, as submitted. 8.e Consideration of Adoption of a Resolution Pursuant to Public Contract Code Section 22050 Determining to Continue Work Under Emergency Contracts for the Storm Drain System at 251 East Grand Avenue Project, PW 2021-12 Adopted a Resolution entitled: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE DETERMINING A NEED TO CONTINUE WORK UNDER EMERGENCY CONTRACTS TO REPAIR THE STORM DRAIN SYSTEM AT 251 EAST GRAND AVENUE". 9. PUBLIC HEARINGS None. Page 50 of 310 4 Item 8.f. 10. OLD BUSINESS 10.a Consideration of Approval of Water and Wastewater Rate Study and Setting Public Hearing in Compliance with Proposition 218 Administrative Services Director Valentine introduced the item and recommended that Council adopt a resolution adopting the Water and Wastewater Rate Study, directing staff to issue Proposition 218 Notifications, and directing staff to schedule a public hearing on March 8, 2022 to consider amending the Water and Wastewater Rate Schedules. Clayton Tuckfield, Tuckfield & Associates, presented the Water and Wastewater Rate Study. Staff responded to questions from Council. Mayor Ray Russom invited public comment. No public comments were received. Moved by Council Member Storton Seconded by Mayor Pro Tem George 1) Adopt a Resolution entitled: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ADOPTING CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE WATER AND WASTEWATER RATE STUDY; DIRECTING STAFF TO ISSUE PROPOSITION 218 NOTIFICATIONS; AND DIRECTING STAFF TO SCHEDULE A PUBLIC HEARING ON MARCH 8, 2022 TO CONSIDER AMENDING THE WATER AND WASTEWATER RATE SCHEDULES"; 2) Set a public hearing for March 8, 2022, to consider adjusting the water and wastewater rates for Fiscal Years 2021 through 2026; and 3) Direct staff to prepare and distribute a Proposition 218 notice for the proposed water and wastewater rate increases. AYES (5): Mayor Ray Russom, Mayor Pro Tem George, Council Member Barneich, Council Member Storton, and Council Member Paulding Passed (5 to 0) 11. NEW BUSINESS 11.a Consider and Adopt a Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Justice Policy City Manager McDonald presented the staff report and recommended that Council adopt a resolution approving the proposed Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Justice Policy and responded to questions from Council. Council discussed and recommended bringing back a request for funds during budget time for a consultant to evaluate the City's needs as it relates to the policy. Mayor Ray Russom invited public comment. City Clerk Matson read into the record written correspondence received from Jami Fordyce. No further public comments were received. Moved by Council Member Storton Seconded by Council Member Paulding Page 51 of 310 5 Item 8.f. Adopted a Resolution entitled: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ADOPTING A DIVERSITY, EQUITY, INCLUSION, AND JUSTICE POLICY". AYES (5): Mayor Ray Russom, Mayor Pro Tem George, Council Member Barneich, Council Member Storton, and Council Member Paulding Passed (5 to 0) 12. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS Council Member Storton requested a review of the fireworks Ordinance to be brought back to Council on a future agenda. Council Member Barneich concurred. Mayor Ray Russom stated that the Strother Park public art project is postponed until spring due to weather; commented on the potential designation of the Northern Chumash Marine Sanctuary; and regional efforts being made for a broadband consortium acquisition. 13. CLOSED SESSION None. 14. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the City Council, Mayor Ray Russom adjourned the meeting at 7:41 p.m. _________________________ Caren Ray Russom, Mayor ATTEST: _________________________ Jessica Matson, City Clerk Page 52 of 310 Item 8.g. MEMORANDUM TO: City Council FROM: Bill Robeson, Assistant City Manager/Public Works Director BY: Jill McPeek, Capital Improvement Project Manager SUBJECT: Consideration of Adoption of a Resolution Pursuant to Public Contract Code Section 22050 Determining to Continue Work Under Emergency Contracts for the Storm Drain System at 251 East Grand Avenue Project, PW 2021-12 DATE: January 25, 2022 SUMMARY OF ACTION: Adoption of a Resolution by the required four-fifths vote will allow for the continuance of emergency repairs to the storm drain system at 251 East Grand Avenue . IMPACT ON FINANCIAL AND PERSONNEL RESOURCES: The FY 2021-22 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) budget includes $410,000 of American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funds for repair of the Storm Drain System at 251 East Grand Avenue Project. Staff time has been and will continue to be necessary to coordinate construction activities with the property owners, consultant engineer, and contractors. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt a Resolution finding that there is a need to continue the emergency action for the storm drain system repairs at 251 East Grand Avenue in accordance with Public Contract Code Section 22050. BACKGROUND: Public Contract Code (PCC) Section 22050 allows a public agency, in the case of an emergency, to repair or replace a public facility, take any directly related and immediate action required by that emergency, and procure the necessary equipment, services, and supplies for those purposes without going through a formal bid process. On November 9, 2021, the Council adopted Resolution No. 5124 declaring an emergency and authorizing the immediate expenditure of funds to repair the storm drain system located at 251 East Grand Avenue, which had failed following a storm that occurred in October 2021 . The urgency for the repairs is to prevent storm water from entering the deteriorating Page 53 of 310 Item 8.g. City Council Consideration of Adoption of a Resolution Pursuant to Public Contract Code Section 22050 Determining to Continue Work Under Emergency Contracts for the Storm Drain System at 251 East Grand Avenue Project, PW 2021-12 January 25, 2022 Page 2 corrugated metal pipe (CMP) which undermines the soil surrounding the CMP and causes voids under the pavement leading to surface depressions and eventually sink holes. PCC Section 22050 requires that after proceeding with an emergency project, the City Council shall review the emergency action at its next regularly scheduled meeting and at every regularly scheduled meeting thereafter until the emergency action is terminated, and if it is determined that there is a need to continue the action, authorize continuation of the emergency action by a four-fifths vote. On January 11, 2022, the Council adopted Resolution No. 5140 determining a need to continue work under emergency contracts to repair the storm drain system at 251 East Grand Avenue. ANALYSIS OF ISSUES: Since the January 11, 2021 Council meeting, the status of the project as of January 19, 2022, is as follows:  CalPortland completed the bore pit excavation, placed the base rock and trench boxes, and removed the existing outlet headwall.  California Auger Boring began the installation of the new 36” storm drain pipe and completed approximately 70 of the 181 feet when an unknown obstruction was encountered. California Auger Boring pulled the augers from the casing to visualize the obstruction. The information was forwarded to the design engineer for evaluation who was able to provide direction on how to proceed. The additional work required to move through the obstruction will be at the standby/extra work rate contained in California Auger Boring’s contract  Staff continued research regarding costs and timing of pipe liners. As of January 19, 2022, the known project costs are estimated as follows: Plug and fill existing CMP storm drain $ 47,200 Install new storm drain pipe 281,200 Site restoration, fencing & barricade rental 13,800 Before/after testing of fuel lines 2,800 Consultant services – design & construction 25,000 Total $ 370,000 With the failed CMP being filled, the potential for directed storm water flow into the failed CMP and surrounding voids no longer exists and storm water will enter the new permanent storm drain pipe. Prompt actions required to complete the project and ensure protection of the new pipe include lining of the new pipe, construction of headwalls at the inlet and outlet, and site restoration. For these reasons, staff recommends continuing the emergency action. Page 54 of 310 Item 8.g. City Council Consideration of Adoption of a Resolution Pursuant to Public Contract Code Section 22050 Determining to Continue Work Under Emergency Contracts for the Storm Drain System at 251 East Grand Avenue Project, PW 2021-12 January 25, 2022 Page 3 As required by statute, staff will continue to bring a similar item to the Council on all subsequent regular meeting agendas until all repairs have been completed or until the emergency action is terminated. Staff will continue to work with the contractors and design engineer to complete the permanent repairs. ALTERNATIVES: The following alternatives are provided for the Council’s consideration: 1. Adopt a Resolution determining a need to continue work under emergency action; 2. Do not adopt the proposed Resolution and direct staff to prepare a Resolution to terminate the need to continue work under emergency action; or 3. Provide other direction to staff. ADVANTAGES: Adoption of the Resolution will allow for the continuance of emergency repairs to the storm drain system at 251 East Grand Avenue and will eliminate a serious threat to public health and safety and minimize disruptions to the Chevron station’s operations. DISADVANTAGES: None identified at this time. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: No environmental review is required for this item. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND COMMENTS: The Agenda was posted at City Hall and on the City’s website in accordance with Government Code Section 54954.2. ATTACHMENT: 1. Proposed Resolution Page 55 of 310 ATTACHMENT 1 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE DETERMINING A NEED TO CONTINUE WORK UNDER EMERGENCY CONTRACTS TO REPAIR THE STORM DRAIN SYSTEM AT 251 EAST GRAND AVENUE WHEREAS, on November 9, 2021, pursuant to Public Contract Code (PCC) Sections 20168 and 22050, the City Council deemed it was in the public interest to immediately authorize the expenditure of City funds needed to safeguard the health, safety and welfare and to proceed immediately with emergency repairs of the storm drain system at 251 East Grand Avenue; and WHEREAS, on November 9, 2021, the City Council deemed that the emergency repairs would not permit a delay resulting from a competitive solicitation for bids and that prompt action, including authorization to expend all funds required for such repairs without competitive bidding, was necessary to respond to the emergency; and WHEREAS, on November 9, 2021, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 5124 declaring an emergency and authorizing the immediate expenditure of funds to repair the storm drain system at 251 East Grand Avenue; and WHEREAS, PCC Section 22050 requires that after proceeding with an emergency project, the City Council shall review the emergency action at its next regularly scheduled meeting and at every regularly scheduled meeting thereafter until the emergency action is terminated; and WHEREAS, on November 23, 2021, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 5130; on December 14, 2021, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 5137; and on January 11, 2022, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 5124 determining a need to continue work under emergency contracts to repair the storm drain system at 251 East Grand Avenue; and WHEREAS, if it is determined that there is a need to continue the action , PCC Section 22050 requires a four-fifths vote to authorize the continuation of the emergency action. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande that the storm drain system emergency declared by the City Council on November 9, 2021, shall be deemed to continue. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the storm drain system emergency shall be deemed to continue to exist until its termination is proclaimed by the City Council. Page 56 of 310 RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 2 On motion by Council Member _________, seconded by Council Member _______, and on the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: The foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted this 25th day of January, 2022. Page 57 of 310 RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 3 CAREN RAY RUSSOM, MAYOR ATTEST: JESSICA MATSON, CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: WHITNEY McDONALD, CITY MANAGER APPROVED AS TO FORM: TIMOTHY J. CARMEL, CITY ATTORNEY Page 58 of 310 Item 8.h. MEMORANDUM TO: City Council FROM: Bill Robeson, Assistant City Manager/Public Works Director SUBJECT: Consideration of a Resolution Authorizing the Public Works Director to Submit an Application for the CalRecycle/SB 1383 Local Assistance Grant Program DATE: January 25, 2022 SUMMARY OF ACTION: Authorizing the submittal of a grant application that allows the City the opportunity to apply for a one-time grant funding from CalRecycle meant to provide aid in the implementation of regulations adopted by CalRecycle pursuant to SB 1383, Chapter 395, Statutes of 2016. This non-competitive grant program will provide funding to local jurisdictions to assist with the implementation of regulation requirements associated with SB 1383. IMPACT ON FINANCIAL AND PERSONNEL RESOURCES: According to the current funding estimates provided by CalRecycle, the City is eligible for $24,046 to be spent by April 2, 2024. RECOMMENDATION: 1) Adopt a Resolution authorizing the Public Works Director to submit an application for the CalRecycle/SB 1383 Local Assistance Grant Program in the event that the IWMA is unsuccessful with its application; and 2) Authorize the City Manager to execute a grant agreement with the IWMA, subject to the review and approval of the City Attorney, enabling the City to obtain from the IWMA its non -competitive share of Grant Program funds currently estimated at $24,046 for projects authorized under the Grant Program. BACKGROUND: In September 2016, Governor Edmund Brown, Jr. set methane emissions reduction targets for California (SB 1383 Lara, Chapter 395, Statutes of 2016) in a statewide effort to reduce emissions of short-lived climate pollutants (SLCP). The targets must reduce organic waste disposal 50 percent by 2020 and 75 percent by 2025 and recover at least 20 percent of the edible food currently disposed of in landfills by 2025. The Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) is administering a one-time grant program to provide aid to local jurisdictions for the implementation of regulations adopted by CalRecycle pursuant to Chapter 395, Statutes of 2016 and SB170 Page 59 of 310 Item 8.h. City Council Consideration of a Resolution Authorizing the Public Works Director to Submit an Application for the CalRecycle/SB 1383 Local Assistance Grant Program January 25, 2022 Page 2 Budget Act of 2021. This non-competitive grant program provides $57,000,000 of funding to local jurisdictions to assist with the implementation of regulation requirements associated with SB 1383, including but not limited to:  Capacity Planning  Collection  Edible Food Recovery  Education and outreach (includes organic waste & edible food recovery)  Enforcement and Inspection  Program Evaluation/Gap Analysis  Procurement Requirements  Record Keeping The CalRecycle/SB 1383 Application requires a signed resolution (Attachment 1) from the local jurisdiction’s governing body authorizing the submittal of funding applications to CalRecycle to receive funds. ANALYSIS OF ISSUES: Eligible applicants include cities, counties, a combination of a city and county, regional or joint powers authorities, and special districts that provide solid waste collection services. February 1, 2022, is the application due date. Arroyo Grande is eligible to file an individual application to receive direct funding from CalRecycle under the SB 1383 Local Assistance Grant Program . The estimated non- competitive amount available to the City is $24,046. The applicant in an individual application will be responsible for the performance of the grant and all related documentation. One critical component for grant eligibility is that applicants must identify the status of adopting an enforceable ordinance(s), or similarly enforceable mechanism, pursuant to section 18981.2 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations. On November 9, 2021, the City Council adopted an Ordinance adding Chapter 8.33, Mandatory Organic Waste Disposal Reduction, and Chapter 15.06, SB 1383 CalGreen Recycling and Model Water Efficient Landscaping Ordinance Requirements, to the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code in order to comply with the requirements of Senate Bill 1383 (SB 1383). Applicants who certify adoption of an ordinance to CalRecycle by April 1, 2022, will be eligible to receive first round funding (Spring 2022). In addition, the first round of awardees may be eligible to receive additional remaining funds from entities who did not apply. Staff recommends that the City submit an individual application for funding from the SB 1383 Local Assistance Grant Program to enable the City to fund efforts to implement CalRecycle’s SB 1383 regulations. Grant funding may be particularly helpful to offset the costs of the following areas covered by the grant program: enforcement and inspection efforts, record keeping, and compliance with new procurement requirements. Page 60 of 310 Item 8.h. City Council Consideration of a Resolution Authorizing the Public Works Director to Submit an Application for the CalRecycle/SB 1383 Local Assistance Grant Program January 25, 2022 Page 3 Additionally, staff is evaluating the potential to combine some or all of this grant funding with neighboring jurisdictions in the event that doing so will provide cost saving opportunities and greater benefits to the City and its customers. For example, the cities may wish to use their respective shares of grant funding to hire a shared consultant to establish a record keeping system or provide direct services to customers to assist in the implementation of edible food recovery programs or new organic waste diversion requirements. ALTERNATIVES: The following alternatives are provided for the Council’s consideration: 1. Adopt the attached Resolution authorizing the Public Works Director to submit an application for CalRecycle/SB 1383 grant funds; 2. Modify and adopt the attached Resolution authorizing the Public Works Director to submit an application for CalRecycle/SB 1383 grant funds; or 3. Provide other direction to staff. ADVANTAGES: Submittal of the grant application could result in the award of one-time funds estimated at $24,046 to offset the cost of initial administration and implementation of requirements associated with SB 1383. DISADVANTAGES: If the grant is approved, staff time will be necessary to administer the grant. However, if no application is made, or if the grant is not awarded, all initial costs for administration and implementation of regulation requirements associated with SB 1383 will be paid through the City’s General Fund budget. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: Environmental review is not required for submittal of grant applications. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND COMMENTS: The Agenda was posted at City Hall and on the City’s website in accordance with Government Code Section 54954.2. Attachments: 1. Proposed Resolution Page 61 of 310 ATTACHMENT 1 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE AUTHORIZING SUBMITTAL OF APPLICATION FOR FUNDING FROM THE CALRECYCLE SB 1383 LOCAL ASSISTANCE GRANT PROGRAM WHEREAS, Public Resources Code sections 48000 et seq. authorize the Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) to administer various grant programs (grants) in furtherance of the State of California’s (State) efforts to reduce, recycle and reuse solid waste generated in the State, thereby preserving landfill capacity and protecting public health and safety and the environment; and WHEREAS, in furtherance of this authority CalRecycle is required to establish procedures governing the application, awarding, and management of the grants; and WHEREAS, CalRecycle grant application procedures require, among other things, an applicant’s governing body to declare by resolution certain authorizations related to the administration of CalRecycle grants; and WHEREAS, CalRecycle is administering the SB 1383 Local Assistance Grant Program , which will provide funding to cities, counties, cities and counties, regional or joint powers authorities, and special districts directly responsible for solid waste collection services to assist with the implementation of regulation requirements associated with SB 1383; and WHEREAS, the City of Arroyo Grande (City) is eligible for and desires to obtain funding under this non-competitive grant program for eligible projects, such as but not limited to procurement requirements, education and outreach, record keeping, and enforcement and inspection efforts. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande authorizes the submittal of an application to CalRecycle for the SB 1383 Local Assistance Grant Program; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Public Works Director, or his/her designee is hereby authorized and empowered to execute in the name of the City of Arroyo Grande all grant documents, including but not limited to, applications, agreements, amendments and requests for payment, necessary to secure grant funds and implement the appr oved grant project; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that these authorizations are effective for five (5) years from the date of adoption of this resolution. Page 62 of 310 RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 2 On motion of Council Member _______________________, seconded by Council Member _______________________, and by the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: The foregoing Resolution was approved this 25th day of January, 2022. Page 63 of 310 RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 3 ______________________________________ CAREN RAY RUSSOM, MAYOR ATTEST: _______________________________________ JESSICA MATSON, CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: ______________________________________ WHITNEY MCDONALD, CITY MANAGER APPROVED AS TO FORM: _____________________________________ TIMOTHY J. CARMEL, CITY ATTORNEY Page 64 of 310 MEMORANDUM TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: SARAH LANSBURGH, DEPUTY CITY CLERK/COMMUNICATIONS COORDINATOR BY: WHITNEY McDONALD, CITY MANAGER BILL ROBESON, ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER/PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR SUBJECT: SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION AGENDA ITEM 8.h. – CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR TO SUBMIT AN APPLICATION FOR THE CALRECYCLE/SB 1383 LOCAL ASSISTANCE GRANT PROGRAM DATE: JANUARY 24, 2022 Revised Recommended Action Required Item 8.h. on the January 25, 2022 City Council Meeting Agenda seeks approval of a Resolution authorizing the Public Works Director to submit an application on behalf of the City to CalRecycle for funding from the SB 1383 Local Assistance Grant Program (Grant Program). Funding would be used to support the City’s efforts to comply with SB 1383, including enforcement, inspection, procurement, education, and outreach programs as authorized under the Grant Program. Following publication of the January 25, 2022 Agenda, City staff received a request from staff for the Integrated Waste Management Authority (IWMA) that the City refrain from submitting an individual application under the Grant Program. Prior to publication of the Agenda, IWMA staff had indicated that both the IWMA and its member agencies may obtain direct funding through the Grant Program. This recommendation was based on an assumption that the IWMA could apply for funding through a “Regional Application,” as described in the Grant Program Applications Guidelines and Instructions (Guidelines). IWMA staff has now explained, based on clarifications provided by CalRecycle staff, that the IWMA’s application will be treated as a “Joint Powers Authority Application” under the Guidelines. As a result, if the IWMA applies for funding from the Grant Program, the IWMA’s member agencies will not be eligible to receive funding directly from CalRecycle. Page 65 of 310 As stated in the Guidelines, “Joint Powers Authorities (JPA) may submit a grant application as an individual applicant. An entity may not submit an individual application if that entity is also a member of an applicant JPA.” Because the IWMA does intend to seek funding through the Grant Program, the City may not obtain its non-competitive share of funding directly from CalRecycle. Therefore, the proposed Resolution included in Item 8.h. will be unnecessary if the IWMA successfully completes its Grant Program application. IWMA staff has also stated that the City may obtain its non-competitive allocation of Grant Program funds from the IWMA as a sub-recipient for projects that it anticipated funding through the Grant Program. In order to accomplish this process, it is recommended that the City and the IWMA enter into a grant agreement stating the terms governing administration of the City’s portion of the Grant Program funds. Staff is now recommending that the City Council authorize the City Manager to execute a grant agreement with the IWMA, subject to the review and approval of the City Attorney, to enable the City to receive its portion of Grant Program funds currently estimated at $24,046. Alternatively, the City Council may wish to direct staff to return with the proposed grant agreement for approval at a future regular meeting. Additionally, staff recommends approving the proposed Resolution to be submitted by City staff to CalRecycle in the event that the IWMA does not successfully complete its application for Grant Program funding. Revised Recommended Action: 1) Adopt a Resolution authorizing the Public Works Director to submit an application for the CalRecycle/SB 1383 Local Assistance Grant Program in the event that the IWMA is unsuccessful with its application; and 2) Authorize the City Manager to execute a grant agreement with the IWMA, subject to the review and approval of the City Attorney, enabling the City to obtain from the IWMA its non-competitive share of Grant Program funds currently estimated at $24,046 for projects authorized under the Grant Program. cc: City Manager Assistant City Manager/Public Works Director City Attorney City Clerk City Website (or public review binder) Page 66 of 310 Item 8.i. MEMORANDUM TO: City Council FROM: Bill Robeson, Assistant City Manager/Public Works Director BY: Shane Taylor, Utilities Manager SUBJECT: Calendar Year 2021 Water Supply and Demand Update DATE: January 25, 2022 SUMMARY OF ACTION: The update reports the City’s total water supply and demand for Calendar Year 2021. Current Lopez Reservoir level and projected levels are provided in the attachments. IMPACT ON FINANCIAL AND PERSONNEL RESOURCES: Approximately two (2) hours of staff time is required to prepare the report. RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file the Calendar Year 2021 Water Supply and Demand Report. BACKGROUND: On October 21, 2021, the City Council adopted a Resolution declaring a Stage 1 Water Shortage Emergency, and implementing emergency water conservation measures and restrictions as a result of the extreme drought conditions. In 2021, the City’s water use was 2,310.5 acre-feet with a per capita use of 117 gallons per day/per person. There was a total of 14.4 inches of rainfall in the City in 2021. ANALYSIS OF ISSUES: The United States Drought Monitor, as of January 1 2, 2021, shows San Luis Obispo County in a moderate drought. Rainfall to date fo r the period July 1, 2021, through December 31, 2021, is 7.23 inches at the Corporation Yard rain gauge. Lopez Lake, as of January 12, 2022, is at 30.2% capacity (14,939 acre-feet of storage). The new water year began on April 1, 2021, and the City’s annual Lopez contract supply was 2,290 acre-feet. On August 24, 2021, the San Luis Obi spo County Board of Supervisors (Board) enacted the Low Reservoir Response Plan (LRRP) for Lopez Lake. On September 8, 2021, the Zone III Technical Advisory Committee endorsed the action Page 67 of 310 Item 8.i. City Council Calendar Year 2021 Water Supply and Demand Update January 25, 2022 Page 2 of reducing contract deliveries by 10%. The City began reducing the flow of Lopez Lake deliveries on September 15, 2021, to 1.9 million gallons per day, compared to the normal flow of 2.2 million gallons per day. Currently, the deliveries from the Water Treatment Plant are at 1.5 million gallons per day. In addition, the City has 1,323 acre-feet of ground water entitlement from the Santa Maria Basin, and wells within the Pismo Formation that produce approximately 160 acre-feet per year. The first quarter monitoring for the Santa Maria Basin sentry wells was completed on January 4, 2022. The deep well index was 9.36 feet above sea level, which is 1.86 feet higher than the deep well index threshold value of 7.5 feet and 0.08 feet higher than t he index value one year ago. The recent rainfall in December did raise Lopez Lake from 28% to 30% full, however the LRRP remains in effect, along with Stage 1 water shortage emergency mandatory reductions. The projected water use for the City of Arroyo Grande for water year 2021/22 is 2,450 acre-feet based on current rainfall. ALTERNATIVES: Not applicable at this time. ADVANTAGES: This report provides the City Council and the public with the current and projected conditions of our water supply and demand. DISADVANTAGES: No disadvantages noted at this time. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: No environmental review is required for this item. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND COMMENTS: The Agenda was posted at City Hall and on the Ci ty’s website in accordance with Government Code Section 54954.2. Attachments: 1. Lopez Monthly Operations Report for December 202 1 2. Lopez Reservoir Storage Projection 3. Yearly Water Use Comparison Page 68 of 310 San Luis Obispo County Flood Control and Water DistrictZone 3 - Lopez Project - Monthly Operations ReportDecember, 20210.00Note: Deliveries are in acre feet. One acre foot = 325, 850 gallons or 43, 560 cubic feet. Safe yield is 8,730 acre feet."Year to Date" is January to present for State water, April to present for Lopez deliveries, and July to present for rainfall.1670.81April to Present11.01Arroyo Grande2061Lopez Dam OperationsLake Elevation (full at 522.37 feet)468.71Storage (full at 49200 acre feet)14905Rainfall8.02Downstream Release (4200 acre feet/year)284.79Spillage (acre feet)0This MonthYear to Date2517.780.00807.00148.51Entl.Surplus Water DeclaredUsage2868Total Available WaterLopez Water Deliveries0.00Oceano CSD272.7107.000.00380599.04Grover Beach720282.0071.02100246.13Pismo Beach802.8314.000.00111759.91CSA 12220.586.003.983071301.781260117.0593.44966.61469.9064051.59State Water Deliveries2375.8940771596.00223.5156731992.332116180.39Total ContractorDifference (feet)-53.66% Full30.3%Comments:1) Oceano supplied water to Canyon Crest via Arroyo Grande's Edna turn out. A total of 1.33 AF delivered to Canyon Crest was added to Oceano's water usage this month and 1.33 AF was subtracted from Arroyo Grande's usage this month.2) On May 12, 2021 Pismo requested to take all SW for April 2021. On May 18th, PB's SW Delivery Request was changed to 1260 AF.3) Lopez Water Deliveries are now operated under the Low Reservoir Response Plan (LRRP). In August 2021 TAC requested a 10%entitlement reduction (retroactive to April 2021) in anticipation of reaching the 15,000 AF trigger of the LRRP. Entitlements shown represent a 10% reduction.Surplus water shown is actually "Carry Over" water as designated in the LRRP.April to Present Lopez Entitlement+Surplus Water Usage050100150200250Jan '21 Feb '21 Mar '21 Apr '21 May '21 Jun '21 Jul '21 Aug '21 Sep '21 Oct '21 Nov '21 Dec '21Acre FeetAGGBOCSDPBCSA12January to Present State Water Usage020406080100120140160180200Jan '21 Feb '21 Mar '21 Apr '21 May '21 Jun '21 Jul '21 Aug '21 Sep '21 Oct '21 Nov '21 Dec '21Acre FeetOCSDPBCSA12SanMigSan Miguelito127.211205.14This Month%TotalJanuary to PresentUsageThis Month% of Annual RequestUsage% of Annual Request148.51Total Water Deliveries This Month51.5971.02117.0510.595.14403.90Annual Request0.00Usage0.000.000.000.00%0.000.000.000.000.001670.810.00599.0446.1359.912375.890.001713.00SWP DeliveriesSWP DeliveriesChange in Storage157-23.39986.83This Month Stored State Water0.0%7.2%58.3%0.0%0.0%9.9%59.8%0.0%4.1%1.8%19.5%9.3%103.3%6.9%97.3%8.1%73.4%5.5%41.9%8.5%94.2%4.3%106.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%81.1%0.0%83.2%5.7%27.2%58.3%0.0%EntitlementSurplusUsage%Usage%EntitlementSurplusUsage%1010.22Last Month Stored State WaterSurplus Requested807.00107.00282.00314.0086.001596.00Monday, January 10, 2022Page 1 of 1Report printed by:AdminData entered by:D. SpiegelATTACHMENT 1Page 69 of 310 5.440.54 4.70 2.14 0.24 0.52 1.42 5.16 0.22 0.94 2.38 0.30 7.33 2.873.10 2.77 0.900.330.06 0.030.020.320.62 1.34 2.03 3.023.252.91 1.13 0.410.07 0.030.02 0.320.62 1.70 2.24 3.12 2.98 2.84 0.98 0.36 0.320.62 1.70 8/31/2022, 10000 9/28/2022, 10000 0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00 0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000 40000 1/1/20202/1/20203/1/20204/1/20205/1/20206/1/20207/1/20208/1/20209/1/202010/1/202011/1/202012/1/20201/1/20212/1/20213/1/20214/1/20215/1/20216/1/20217/1/20218/1/20219/1/202110/1/202111/1/202112/1/20211/1/20222/1/20223/1/20224/1/20225/1/20226/1/20227/1/20228/1/20229/1/202210/1/202211/1/202212/1/20221/1/2023Storage (AF)Date LOPEZ RESERVOIR STORAGE PROJECTION Actual Precipitation Predicted Precipitation Actual Storage 20,000 AF Storage Projection Storage Projection (No Rain) 10,000 AF 1. Storage projection is based on predicted rainfall from longrangeweather.com, inflow based on predicted rainfall, 20-21 downstream release requests, and municipal usage. 2.Municipal Usage is based on Jan 2010-Dec 2020 average monthly deliveries. 3. Predicted inflow is based off of historical precipitation and storage data. Antecedant moisture conditions are factored into the model.The first rainstorms after months without rain will cause less inflow than rainstorms during the rainy season. If the average daily rainfall for the previous three months is below 1 inch the model will multiply the predicted inflow by 0.1, if the average is above 1 inch the inflow is multiplied by 1.25. ATTACHMENT 2 Page 70 of 310 2,194 2,213 2,138 2,319 2,311 111 112 108 117 117  ‐ 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,5002017 2018 2019 2020 2021Yearly Water Use ComparisonAcre FeetUsage (gpcd)ATTACHMENT 3Page 71 of 310 Item 9.a. MEMORANDUM TO: City Council FROM: Brian Pedrotti, Community Development Director BY: Patrick Holub, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: Appeal Case 21-006; Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Minor Use Permit-Plot Plan Review 21-033 for the Establishment of a Vacation Rental; Location; 263 Spruce St, Unit D; Appellant – Sharon Valienzi DATE: January 25, 2022 SUMMARY OF ACTION: Adoption of the proposed Resolution (Attachment 1) would deny the appeal and approve the proposed vacation rental project in accordance with the approval granted by the Community Development Director on October 28, 2021, and upheld on appeal by the Planning Commission on December 7, 2021. IMPACT ON FINANCIAL AND PERSONNEL RESOURCES: In accordance with Chapter 3.24 of the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code (AGMC), vacation rentals are required to pay the City transient occupancy tax (TOT) in the amount of ten percent (10%) of the rent charged by the operator. To cover the costs of staff’s time to prepare the appeal hearing documents, the appellant paid a fee of $491 to appeal the Community Development Director’s decision to the Planning Commission and a fee of $1,163 to appeal the Planning Commission’s decision to the City Council. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt a Resolution denying Appeal Case No. 21-006 and approving Plot Plan Review 21-033. BACKGROUND: Vacation Rental Ordinance On June 10, 2014, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 663, establishing vacation rentals and homestays as permitted land uses in the City’s residential zoning districts, subject to the approval of a Minor Use Permit-Plot Plan Review (Attachment 2). During the development of Ordinance 663, both the Planning Commission and City Council considered potential issues associated with short term rentals, including noise, parking, Page 72 of 310 Item 9.a. City Council Appeal Case 21-006; Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Minor Use Permit-Plot Plan Review 21-033 for the Establishment of a Vacation Rental; Location; 263 Spruce St, Unit D; Appellant – Sharon Valienzi January 25, 2022 Page 2 and other general problems that could be associated with vacation rentals. Ultimately, both bodies concluded that these concerns could be addressed by compliance with the performance standards and abiding by conditions of approval. For example, an applicant is required to provide a local contact to address noise and general disturba nce issues that may arise from operation of a short term rental. Additionally, a 300-foot buffer between short term rentals on the same street is required to prevent the overconcentration of short term rentals in a neighborhood. The Ordinance went into effect on July 10, 2014. Since that time, the City has permitted seventy-four (74) vacation rentals and forty-one (41) homestays, not including the subject application. In addition to this application, staff is currently processing applications for seven (7) vacation rentals and three (3) homestays. Since the adoption of Ordinance No. 663, nine (9) permits that were approved by the Community Development Director for the establishment of a vacation rental have been appealed to the Planning Commission. All nine (9) of the appeals were denied by the Commission and the Community Development Director’s decision was upheld. Each of the previous appeals were denied due to the Planning Commission affirming the required findings for the Plot Plan Review. Plot Plan Review 21-033 The applicants for Minor Use Permit-Plot Plan Review 21-033 submitted their application on August 30, 2021, for the establishment of a vacation rental at 263 Spruce Street, Unit D. The subject property is a detached residential unit within a four-unit planned development in the neighborhood west of Elm Street and north of Ash Street, approximately 300 feet north of the Soto Sports Complex. Additional materials necessary to provide a complete application were received by the City on September 28, 2021. Afte r reviewing the materials provided, the Community Development Director approved Minor Use Permit-Plot Plan Review 21-033 on October 28, 2021 (Attachment 3). At the time of approval, notice of the Director’s approval were sent to all property owners within 300 feet of the subject property. The notice included the name and phone number of the applicant’s local contact person in accordance with Arroyo Grande Municipal Code Subsection 16.52.230.C.5, appeal information, and information about how to contact Community Development staff should there be questions about the project. Planning Commission Review An appeal of the Community Development Director’s approval of the Minor Use Permit- Plot Plan Review was filed on November 8, 2021. The Planning Commission hear d the appeal at its meeting on December 7, 2021 (Attachment 4). Issues raised in the appeal included obstruction of the fire lane, inadequate parking for guests due to an unpermitted storage room in the garage, and disruptive guests from short term rentals when the residence was rented before obtaining a vacation rental approval. Although the Planning Commission agreed that the subject property is a poor location for a vacation rental, the appeal was denied due to a determination that the Commission was unable to make Page 73 of 310 Item 9.a. City Council Appeal Case 21-006; Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Minor Use Permit-Plot Plan Review 21-033 for the Establishment of a Vacation Rental; Location; 263 Spruce St, Unit D; Appellant – Sharon Valienzi January 25, 2022 Page 3 sufficient findings to uphold the appeal. Furthermore, the Commission discussed the alleged obstruction of the fire lane and access easement. It was determined that multiple vehicles parked outside of the garage could cause access issues for adjacent units. Therefore, the Commission added a condition of approval requiring the operators to demolish the unpermitted storage room and require short term renters to park in the garage to alleviate concerns regarding obstruction of emergency access. The appellant submitted a timely appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision on December 16, 2021. ANALYSIS OF ISSUES: Vacation Rental Performance Standards Arroyo Grande Municipal Code (AGMC) Section 16.52.230 sets forth performance standards and conditions required for the operation of vacation rentals within the City. These performance standards and conditions are intended to ensure vacation rentals conform to the existing character of the neighborhood and do not create an adverse impact on adjacent properties. Applicable performance standards are included as conditions of approval to allow an upfront understanding by the applicant of what the City requires for the operation of the vacation rental. Conditions include items such as having a structure consistent with the neighborhood, meeting applicable Codes, maintaining a local contact person, and limiting the number of guests allowed to occupy the rental. Basis of the Appeal The subject appeal indicated concerns about (1) availability of parking and guest parking within a fire lane, (2) disruptive behavior from guests, (3) violation of private covenants, conditions, and restrictions (CC&Rs) for the development in which the property is located, (4) inconsistency with the vacation rental ordinance , and 5) that the Planning Commission’s review of the appeal was flawed due to a conflict of interest by one of three Commissioners who voted on the appeal (Attachment 5). (1) Parking & Emergency Access The residential complex at 263 Spruce Street consists of four separate units. Each unit has two parking spaces in their respective garage, as well as two (2) uncovered guest parking spaces to share. One of the shared spaces is for use by units A and B and is located west of unit B, while the second shared parking space is reserved for guests of units C and D and is located between the units. The appeal states concerns regarding the use of the guest parking space between units C and D by short term renters, as well as concerns regarding vehicles parked in the driveway in a manner that blocks access to unit C’s driveway. Additionally, there exists a twenty-one foot (21’) access easement to provide ingress and egress to all four units. The easement terminates ten feet (10’) into the western end of unit D’s parcel, leaving approximately twelve feet (12’) of driveway for parking outside of the easement. (See Figure 1 – Project Site below). Page 74 of 310 Item 9.a. City Council Appeal Case 21-006; Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Minor Use Permit-Plot Plan Review 21-033 for the Establishment of a Vacation Rental; Location; 263 Spruce St, Unit D; Appellant – Sharon Valienzi January 25, 2022 Page 4 Figure 1 – Project Site The City’s vacation rental ordinance does not establish a parking requirement for short term rentals. The Planning Commission discussed the parking issue during its consideration of the appeal and conditioned its approval to include a requirement that vacation rental guests park in the unit’s garage. The appeal argues that, because the ordinance does not require parking to be provided, a condition to require parking in the garage should not be a viable solution to mitigate adverse impacts from the rental. Because the City’s vacation rental ordinance does not impose specific parking standards, and in light of the condition of approval requiring the use of the unit’s garage for vacation rental parking, staff does not recommend upholding this appeal issue. Furthermore, the availability of parking within the garage will mitigate the need for guests of t he residence to park outside of the garage and will eliminate issues of blocked access and parking within the easement. (2) Disruptive Behavior The appeal raises concerns regarding disruptive behavior from short term renters as a reason to deny the requested permit. Disruptive behavior from guests was considered during the development of the vacation rental ordinance and each approval is condition ed to maintain a local contact person or entity, within a fifteen (15) minute drive of the property, to be available to resolve any issues resulting from the use of the residence as a vacation rental. The contact person or entity must be available via telephone twenty- four (24) hours a day, seven days a week, to respond to complaints regarding the use of the vacation rental. The contact person or entity shall respond, either in person or by return telephone call, with a proposed resolution to the complaint within three hours between seven a.m. and nine p.m., and within thirty (30) minutes between nine p.m. and seven a.m. As part of their application, the applicant identified a primary emergency contact, Michelle Gust and her telephone number was provided on the approved permit. Page 75 of 310 Item 9.a. City Council Appeal Case 21-006; Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Minor Use Permit-Plot Plan Review 21-033 for the Establishment of a Vacation Rental; Location; 263 Spruce St, Unit D; Appellant – Sharon Valienzi January 25, 2022 Page 5 The name and phone number of the local contact is also mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the vacation rental upon approval of the application. Identifying a local contact is intended to serve as the primary means of addressing issues with the rental instead of relying solely on City services, such as Police, Neighborhood Services, and Community Development. In the event that the local contact repeatedly fails to respond to complaints, the permit may be revoked. If the local contact changes, the applicants are required to notify staff and property owners within 300 feet, who must be mailed a postcard with the new contact information. Because the vacation rental performance standards require the applicant to maintain an emergency contact person within a fifteen-minute response time, which helps address any concerns regarding disruptive behavior from future guests, staff does not believe this concern is sufficient to uphold this appeal issue. (3) Private CC&Rs The appeal states that CC&Rs prohibit any business being operated from a residence in this development. While staff encourages applicants to abide by private CC&Rs, the City is not a party to CC&Rs and does not enforce them as a general rule. As a result, the terms of CC&Rs do not provide grounds for denial of a land use application such as a vacation rental permit. Enforcement of the private CC&Rs is the responsibility of the homeowner’s association or property owners whose properties are regulated by the CC&Rs using the legal mechanisms built into that document. Because the City does not enforce these types of documents, staff does not believe that this concern is sufficient to uphold this appeal issue. (4) Inconsistency with Ordinance 663 The appeal contends that the Planning Commission’s addition of a condition requiring guests to park within the garage was done so improperly based upon the fact that vacation rentals are not required to provide on-site parking per Ordinance 663 (Attachment 6). While this Ordinance does not specify a parking requirement for short term rentals, the Planning Commission has the authority to add conditions of approval to help address any concerns regarding the land use. Because of this, staff does not believe t hat this concern is sufficient to uphold this appeal issue. (5) Conflict of Interest The appeal of the Community Development Director’s approval of the application to the Planning Commission was considered by three Commissioners. One Commissioner was absent, and one Commissioner recused herself due to the proximity of her residence to the subject property. During the hearing, the applicant, speaking in favor of vacation rentals, noted renters spend money at local shops and restaurants to bolster tax revenue. During deliberations, one Commissioner noted that he was in favor of vacation rentals, in part, because they benefit his business as a restauranteur. The appe al contends that, Page 76 of 310 Item 9.a. City Council Appeal Case 21-006; Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Minor Use Permit-Plot Plan Review 21-033 for the Establishment of a Vacation Rental; Location; 263 Spruce St, Unit D; Appellant – Sharon Valienzi January 25, 2022 Page 6 because the Commissioner’s business benefits from vacation rentals, he should recuse himself from all matters pertaining to short term rentals. The City Attorney has reviewed the appeal and the facts and circumstances surrounding the alleged conflict of interest and has opined that the Commissioner’s participation in the appeal hearing does not violate the law, as it is not reasonably foreseeable that the decision would have a material effect on the Commissioner’s financial interest. Any potential effect on the Commissioner’s financial interest is hypothetical and speculative given that there are many restaurants in the City that someone in a vacation rental could decide to patronize. Staff does not believe that this concern is sufficient to uphold this appeal issue. Recommended Action Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached Resolution denying Appeal Case No. 21-006 and approving Plot Plan Review Case No. 21-033 due to the fact that the appeal issues raised are not sufficient to uphold the appeal. In order for the City Council to uphold this appeal and deny the vacation rental permit, a majority of the quorum would need to identify substantial evidence supporting findings that the requirements of the Ordinance for approval of a vacation rental have not been met, as follows: 1. The proposed project is consistent with the goals, objectives, policies and programs of the Arroyo Grande general plan 2. The proposed project conforms to applicable performance standards and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare 3. The physical location or placement of the use on the site is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. In accordance with finding #2, the vacation rental must conform to the following performance standards and conditions listed in the Municipal Code: 1. Operators of vacation rentals are required to obtain a minor use permit -plot plan review (Section 16.16.080) and a business license. 2. Any proposed vacation rental shall be compatible with the neighborhood in which it is located in terms of landscaping, scale and architectural character. The use shall be harmonious and compatible with the existing uses with the neighborhood. 3. All Building Code and Fire Code requirements for the level of occupancy of the vacation rental shall be met. 4. All environmental health regulations shall be met. 5. The operator of the vacation rental shall, at all times while the property is being used as a vacation rental, maintain a contact person/entity within a fifteen -minute drive of the property. The contact person or entity must be available via telephone twenty-four (24) hours a day, seven days a week, to respond to complaints regarding the use of the vacation rental. The contact person or entity shall respond, either in person or by return telephone call, with a proposed resolution to the Page 77 of 310 Item 9.a. City Council Appeal Case 21-006; Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Minor Use Permit-Plot Plan Review 21-033 for the Establishment of a Vacation Rental; Location; 263 Spruce St, Unit D; Appellant – Sharon Valienzi January 25, 2022 Page 7 complaint within three hours between seven a.m. and nine p.m., and within thirty (30) minutes between nine p.m. and seven a.m. 6. The operator of the vacation rental shall annually, at the time of renewal of the business license, notify the community development department of the name, address and telephone number of the contact person required in subsection (C)(6). 7. A written notice shall be conspicuously posted inside each vacation rental unit setting forth the name, address and telephone number of the contact person required in subsection (C)(6). The notice shall also set forth the address of the vacation rental, the maximum number of occupants permitted to stay overnight in the unit, the maximum number of vehicles allowed to be parked on-site, and the day(s) established for garbage collection. The notice shall also provide the non - emergency number of the Arroyo Grande Police Department. 8. On-site advertising of the vacation rental is prohibited. 9. The number of overnight occupants shall be limited to two persons per bedroom and two additional persons. A bedroom shall meet the minimum size requirements as defined in the Building Code. 10. All refuse shall be stored in appropriate containers and placed at the curb for collection every week. 11. The operator of the vacation rental shall pay transient occupancy tax as required by Arroyo Grande Municipal Code Section 3.24.030. 12. Establishment of a vacation rental within three hundred (300) feet of an existing vacation rental on the same street shall not be permitted. 13. Violations. Violation of these requirements shall constitute grounds for revocation of the minor use permit pursuant to Section 16.16.220. ALTERNATIVES: The following alternatives are provided for the Council’s consideration: 1. Adopt the attached Resolution denying Appeal Case No. 21 -006 and approving Plot Plan Review Case No. 21-033; 2. Modify and adopt the attached Resolution denying Appeal Case No. 21 -006 and approving Plot Plan Review Case No. 21-033; 3. Do not adopt the attached Resolution, take tentative action to uphold Appeal Case No. 21-006, and provide direction for staff to return with an appropriate supporting resolution including findings for denial of Plot Plan Review Case No. 21 -033; or 4. Provide other direction to staff. ADVANTAGES: Denial of the appeal and approval of the Minor Use Permit - Plot Plan Review would allow the applicants to establish a vacation rental in accordance with City regulations and provide the applicants flexibility to use the home to generate supplemental income. The Page 78 of 310 Item 9.a. City Council Appeal Case 21-006; Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Minor Use Permit-Plot Plan Review 21-033 for the Establishment of a Vacation Rental; Location; 263 Spruce St, Unit D; Appellant – Sharon Valienzi January 25, 2022 Page 8 applicant would also collect and remit TOT from rentals , which would be used to help maintain City services and infrastructure. DISADVANTAGES: The establishment of a number of vacation rentals in a residential neighborhood could impact the atmosphere developed in the neighborhood through time. Impacts to noise, traffic, property values, and neighborhood composition could be observed. However, concentration limitations and performance standards developed specifically for vacation rentals were intended to reduce this potential, including the designation of a local contact person to address negative impacts to neighbors and prevent overburdening City services. Additionally, Citywide performance standards, including the Noise Ordinance, also apply to vacation rentals. If the vacation rental begins operating outside of any of these standards or the conditions of the permit, remedies are made available through the AGMC. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: Staff has reviewed the project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and determined that it is categorically exempt per Section 15301 of the CEQA Guidelines regarding existing facilities. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND COMMENTS: A notice of public hearing was mailed to all property owners within 300 feet of the project site, published in the Tribune, and posted on the City’s website and at City Hall on Friday, January 14, 2021. The Agenda was posted at City Hall and on the City’s website in accordance with Government Code Section 54954.2. At the time of report publication, no comments have been received. Attachments: 1. Proposed Resolution 2. Ordinance 663 3. Approval Letter dated October 28, 2021 4. Minutes from the December 7, 2021 Planning Commission Meeting 5. Appeal Form Page 79 of 310 ATTACHMENT 1 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE DENYING APPEAL CASE NO. 21-006 AND APPROVING PLOT PLAN REVIEW CASE NO. 21-033; LOCATED AT 263-D SPRUCE STREET; APPLIED FOR BY KEN STEITZ; APPEALED BY SHARON VALIENZI WHEREAS, on June 10, 2014, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 663, establishing vacation rentals and homestays as permitted land uses in the City’s residential zoning districts, subject to the approval of a Minor Use Permit-Plot Plan Review in order to ensure conformance with performance standards developed to protect the adjacent residential neighborhoods in which these uses would be located; and WHEREAS, on September 28, 2021, the applicant submitted an application for Plot Plan Review No. 21-033 for the establishment of a vacation rental in an existing, three-bedroom residence located at 263-D Spruce Street; and WHEREAS, on October 28, 2021, the Community Development Director approved Plot Plan Review No. 21-033 based upon the findings for approval of the permit; and WHEREAS, notice of the Community Development Director’s determination were mailed to all property owners within 300’ of the project site to alert them of the approved application to establish the vacation rental; and WHEREAS, on November 8, 2021, an appeal of the Community Development Director’s approval was filed with the Community Development Secretary by Sharon Valienzi, et al. in accordance with Arroyo Grande Municipal Code Section 16.12.150; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered the appeal at a duly notice public hearing on December 7, 2021 and adopted a Resolution denying the appeal and approving the project; and WHEREAS, on December 16, 2021, an appeal of the Planning Commission’s approval was filed with the City Clerk by Sharon Valienzi in accordance with Arroyo Grande Municipal Code Section 16.12.150; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande considered the appeal at a duly noticed public hearing on January 25, 2022; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the project in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the Arroyo Grande Rules and Procedures for Implementation of CEQA and has found and determined that the project is exempt pursuant to Section 15301 of the CEQA Guidelines for existing facilities; and Page 80 of 310 RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 2 WHEREAS, the City Council finds, after due study, deliberation and public hearing, the following circumstances exist: Plot Plan Review Findings: 1. The proposed project is consistent with the goals, objectives, policies and programs of the Arroyo Grande General Plan; Vacation rentals are allowed in the City’s residential zoning districts with approval of a Minor Use Permit-Plot Plan Review. Approval of a Minor Use Permit-Plot Plan Review certifies that the land use or development will satisfy all applicable provisions of the Municipal Code and allows the approving body to develop reasonable conditions to ensure compliance. Approval of a Minor Use Permit-Plot Plan Review enables issuance of a business license for use of the property as a commercial business. 2. The proposed project conforms to applicable performance standards and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare; The Municipal Code mandates performance standards to ensure the public health, safety or general welfare. The existing residence meets the requirements of the Municipal Code and conditions of approval developed for this project ensure compliance with the Municipal Code and the protection of public health, safety or general welfare. The proposed vacation rental is compatible with the neighborhood in which it is located in terms of landscaping, scale and architectural character. The use, as conditioned, is harmonious and compatible with the existing uses within the neighborhood. 3. The physical location or placement of the use on the site is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. The subject property is located within an established residential neighborhood in the Multi-Family zoning district, in which a vacation rental is a conditionally allowed use. The vacation rental will be located in an existing residential structure that is of sufficient size to accommodate the intended use. The subject property where the vacation rental is located is greater than 300 feet from an existing vacation rental on the same street. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande hereby denies Appeal Case No. 21-006 and approves Plot Plan Review Case No. 21-033 based on the above findings and subject to the conditions as set forth in Exhibit “A”, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Page 81 of 310 RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 3 On motion by Council Member , seconded by Council Member , and by the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 25th day of January, 2022. Page 82 of 310 RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 4 _______________________________ CAREN RAY RUSSOM, MAYOR ATTEST: _______________________________ JESSICA MATSON, CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: ___________________________________ WHITNEY McDONALD, CITY MANAGER APPROVED AS TO FORM: ___________________________________ TIMOTHY J. CARMEL, CITY ATTORNEY Page 83 of 310 RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 5 EXHIBIT “A” CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL PLOT PLAN REVIEW 21-033 263-D SPRUCE STREET CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: GENERAL CONDITIONS 1. This approval authorizes the establishment of a vacation rental in the three - bedroom residence on property located at 263-D Spruce Street. 2. The applicant shall ascertain and comply with all State, County and City requirements as are applicable to this project. 3. The project shall occur in substantial conformance with the application and plans on file in the Community Development Department dated September 28, 2021. 4. This permit shall automatically expire on January 25, 2024 unless a business license is issued. Thirty (30) days prior to the expiration of the approval, the applicant may apply to the Community Development Director for an extension of one (1) year from the original date of expiration. 5. The applicant shall apply and be approved for a busines s license prior to conducting any business transactions on the premises. 6. The applicant shall agree to indemnify and defend at his/her sole expense any action brought against the City, its agents, officers, or employees because of the issuance of said approval, or in the alternative, to relinquish such approval. The applicant shall reimburse the City, its agents, officers, or employees, for any court costs and attorney’s fees which the City, its agents, officers, or employees may be required by a court to pay as a result of such action. The City may, at its sole discretion, participate at its own expense in the defense of any such action but such participation shall not relieve the applicant of his/her obligations under this condition. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS 7. The operator shall maintain a contact person/entity within a fifteen (15) minute drive of the property to be responsible for responding to complaints regarding the use of the vacation rental in accordance with Municipal Code Subsection 16.52.230.C.5. The identified primary contact person is Michelle Gust and she can be reached at 559-213-9117. 8. The operator shall annually notify the Community Development Department of the name, address, and phone number of the contact person, at time of business license renewal. 9. The operator shall conspicuously post a written notice inside the vacation rental with the name, address, and telephone number of the required contact person. Page 84 of 310 RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 6 The notice shall also include the address of the vacation rental, the maximum number of occupants permitted to stay overnight in the unit, the maximum number of vehicles allowed to park on-site, the day(s) established for garbage collection, and the non-emergency number of the Arroyo Grande Police Department. 10. Based upon the size of the three (3) bedrooms in the main dwelling unit, a maximum of eight (8) guests may stay in the vacation rental at any one time (2 per bedroom and 2 additional guests). 11. No on-site advertising is permitted in conjunction with the vacation rental. 12. Payment of Transient Occupancy Tax is required per Municipal Code Section 3.24.030. Payment of Tourism Business Improvement District assessments is required per Municipal Code Chapter 3.46. 13. Renters shall be instructed to park in the garage of the residence and maintain an unimpeded fire lane for emergency access. BUILDING AND LIFE SAFETY DIVISION CONDITIONS: 14. The applicant shall comply with the current California Codes including the specifically adopted City of Arroyo Grande provisions. 15. A safety inspection will be required prior to business license approval. Contact (805) 473-5454 for inspections. Page 85 of 310 ORDINANCE NO. 663 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE AMENDING TITLE 16 OF THE ARROYO GRANDE MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING VACATION RENTALS AND HOMESTAYS WHEREAS, the City of Arroyo Grande ("City") currently does not regulate vacation rentals or homestays; and WHEREAS, the City does regulate similar transient uses with similar impacts such as bed and breakfast inns; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that, unless properly regulated, vacation rentals and homestays can result in adverse impacts to adjacent properties; and WHEREAS, the purpose of these regulations is to ensure that vacation rentals and homestays conform to the existing character of the neighborhood in which they are located and do not create an adverse impact on adjacent properties; and WHEREAS, the increasing popularity of vacation rentals and homestays in the City the implementation of appropriate regulations to ensure that impacts are addressed and the character of existing neighborhoods is maintained, while providing an expanded type of lodging facility available within the City; and WHEREAS, it is the purpose of this Ordinance to protect the public health, safety, and welfare within the City by establishing rules and requirements for vacation rentals and homestays; and WHEREAS, after consideration of all testimony and all relevant evidence, the City Council has determined that the following Development Code Amendment findings can be made in an affirmative manner: A. The proposed revisions to Title 16 are required to ensure consistency with the objectives, policies and implementation measures of the General Plan, particularly the Land Use Element, and is therefore desirable to implement the provisions of the General Plan. B. The proposed revisions to Title 16 will not adversely affect the public health, safety, and welfare or result in an illogical land use pattern. C. The proposed revisions are consistent with the purpose and intent of Title 16 and satisfy the intent of Chapter 16.08 of the Municipal Code and provide for internal consistency. D. The proposed revisions to Title 16 are exempt under per Sections 15061(b)( 3) and 15308 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. ATTACHMENT 2 Page 86 of 310 ORDINANCE NO. 663 PAGE 2 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande as follows: SECTION 1: The above recitals and findings are true and correct and incorporated herein by this reference. SECTION 2: Arroyo Grande Municipal Code Section 16.52.230 is hereby added as follows: SECTION 16.52.230 —VACATION RENTALS A. Purpose and intent. The purpose of these regulations is to ensure that vacation rentals located in the city conform to the existing character of the neighborhood in which they are located and do not create an adverse impact on adjacent properties. B. Applicability. Vacation rentals may be permitted only with approval of a minor use permit. Vacation rentals shall comply with the property development standards of the underlying district and the performance standards and special conditions listed in Section 16.52.230.C. C. Performance standards and conditions for vacation rentals. 1. Operators of vacation rentals are required to obtain a minor use permit- plot plan review (Section 16.16.080) and a business license. 2. Any proposed vacation rental shall be compatible with the neighborhood in which it is located in terms of landscaping, scale and architectural character. The use shall be harmonious and compatible with the existing uses with the neighborhood 3. All Building Code and Fire Code requirements for the level of occupancy of the vacation rental shall be met. 4. All environmental health regulations shall be met. 5. The operator of the vacation rental shall, at all times while the property is being used as a vacation rental, maintain a contact person/entity within a fifteen (15) minute drive of the property. The contact person or entity must be available via telephone twenty-four (24) hours a day, seven (7) days a week, to respond to complaints regarding the use of the vacation rental. The contact person or entity shall respond, -either in person or by return telephone call, with a proposed resolution to the complaint within three (3) hours between 7:00 am and 9:00 pm, and within thirty (30) minutes between 9:00 pm and 7:00 am. Page 87 of 310 ORDINANCE NO. 663 PAGE 3 6. The operator of the vacation rental shall annually, at the time of renewal of the business license, notify the Community Development Department of the name, address and telephone number of the contact person required in subsection 16.52.230.C.6. 7. A written notice shall be conspicuously posted inside each vacation rental unit setting forth the name, address and telephone number of the contact person required in subsection 16.52.230.C.6. The notice shall also set forth the address of the vacation rental, the maximum number of occupants permitted to stay overnight in the unit, the maximum number of vehicles allowed to be parked on-site, and the day(s) established for garbage collection. The notice shall also provide the non-emergency number of the Arroyo Grande Police Department. 8. On-site advertising of the vacation rental is prohibited. 9. The number of overnight occupants shall be limited to two persons per bedroom and two additional persons. A bedroom shall meet the minimum size requirements as defined in the Building Code. 10. All refuse shall be stored in appropriate containers and placed at the curb for collection every week. 11. The operator of the vacation rental shall pay Transient Occupancy Tax as required by Arroyo Grande Municipal Code Section 3.24.030. 12. Establishment of a vacation rental within 300 feet of an existing vacation rental on the same street shall not be permitted. 13. Violations — violation of these requirements shall constitute grounds for revocation of the minor use permit pursuant to Section 16.16.220. SECTION 3: Arroyo Grande Municipal Code Section 16.52.240 is hereby added as follows: SECTION 16.52.240 — HOMESTAYS A. Purpose and intent. The purpose of these regulations is to ensure that homestays located in the city conform to the existing character of the neighborhood in which they are located and do not create an adverse impact on adjacent properties. B. Applicability. Homestays may be permitted only with approval of a minor use permit. Homestays shall comply with the property development standards of the Page 88 of 310 ORDINANCE NO. 663 PAGE 4 underlying district and the performance standards and special conditions listed in Section 16.52.240.0. C. Performance standards and conditions for homestays. 1. Operators of homestays are required to obtain a minor use permit-plot plan review (Section 16.16.080) and a business license. 2. Any proposed homestay shall be compatible with the neighborhood in which it is located in terms of landscaping, scale and architectural character. The use shall be harmonious and compatible with the existing uses with the neighborhood 3. All Building Code and Fire Code requirements far the level of occupancy of the homestay shall be met. 4. All environmental health regulations shall be met. 5. The operator shall reside on the premises. 6. Individual guest stays shall be limited to fourteen (14) days, with a seven- day period between stays. 7. On-site advertising of the homestay is prohibited. 8. A bedroom shall meet the minimum size requirements as defined in the L Building Code. 9. The operator of the homestay shall pay Transient Occupancy Tax as required by Arroyo Grande Municipal Code Section 3.24.030. 10. Establishment of a homestay within 300 feet of an existing homestay on the same street shall not be permitted. 11. Violations — violation of these requirements shall constitute grounds for revocation of the minor use permit pursuant to Section 16.16.220. SECTION 4: The following definitions in Arroyo Grande Municipal Code Subsection 16.04.070.C. are hereby amended or added as follows: 16.04.070.C. Definitions Bed and breakfast inn" means an owner-occupied dwelling unit where three (3) or more short-term lodging rooms and meals are provided for compensation or onsite signage is desired. r Page 89 of 310 ORDINANCE NO. 663 PAGE 5 Homestay" means an owner-occupied dwelling unit where a maximum of two (2) short- term lodging rooms are provided for compensation. Vacation rental" means a structure being rented for less than thirty (30) days without concurrently being occupied by the owner/operator where the short-term lodging is provided for compensation. SECTION 5: Arroyo Grande Municipal Code Section 16.16.080 is hereby amended to add Subsection B.10 and Subsection C.6 as follows: 16.16.080.B.10. Establishment of vacation rentals or homestays in applicable zoning districts identified in Table 16.32.040-A and Table 16.36.030(A). 16.16.080.C.6. For plot plan reviews establishing the use of property for vacation rental purposes, the decision of the community development director shall also be mailed to all property owners of parcels within three hundred (300) feet of the property for which the plot plan review has been requested, in addition to the requirements of Section 16.16.080.C.5. The notice shall indicate the appeal provisions of Section 16.12.150. SECTION 6: Arroyo Grande Municipal Code Table 16.32.040-A, entitled "Uses Permitted Within Residential Districts", Section A. Residential Uses is hereby amended to add Subsection A.17. as follows: USE RE RH RR RS SF VR D-2.4 MF MFA MFVH MHP A. Residential Uses 17.Vacation Rentals MUP MUP MUP MUP MUP MUP MUP MUP NP NP and Homestays SECTION 7: Arroyo Grande Municipal Code Table 16.36.030(A), entitled "Uses Permitted Within Mixed Use and Commercial Districts", Section B. Services -General is hereby amended to add the following use: USE VCD VMU HCO D-2.11 OMU1 TMU D- HCO D=Specific IMU D-2.11 2.4 D-2.4 GMU FOMU HMU 2.20 RC2 Use Stds B.Services -General Vacation Rentals and NP MUP MUP MUP MUP MUP MUP MUP NP 16.52.230 Homestays 16.52.240 SECTION 8: If any section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, or clause of this Ordinance or any part thereof is for any reason'held to be unlawful, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this Ordinance or any part thereof. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed each section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, or clause thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, or clause be declared unconstitutional. Page 90 of 310 ORDINANCE NO. 663 PAGE 6 SECTION 9: Upon adoption of this Ordinance, the City Clerk shall file a Notice of Exemption pursuant to 14 CCR § 15062. SECTION 10: A summary of this Ordinance shall be published in a newspaper published and circulated in the City of Arroyo Grande at least five (5) days prior to the City Council meeting at which the proposed Ordinance is to be adopted. A certified copy of the full text of the proposed Ordinance shall be posted in the office of the City Clerk. Within fifteen (15) days after adoption of the Ordinance, the summary with the names of those City Council Members voting for and against the Ordinance shall be published again, and the City Clerk shall post a certified copy of the full text of such adopted Ordinance. SECTION 11: This Ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days from the date of adoption. On motion of Council Member Barneich, seconded by Council Member Brown, and on the following roll call vote to wit: AYES: Council Members Barneich, Brown, Costello, Guthrie, and Mayor Ferrara NOES: None ABSENT: None the foregoing Ordinance was adopted this 10th day of June, 2014. Page 91 of 310 ORDINANCE NO. (0493 PAGE 7 TONY F MAYOR ATTEST: Wgkitet'L-- KELLY ET j RE, CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: S E ADAMS, CITY MANAGER APPROVED AS TO FORM: 7n/V- TIMVIO111Y J. CARME"C, CITY ATTORNEY 1 Page 92 of 310 OFFICIAL CERTIFICATION I, KELLY WETMORE, City Clerk of the City of Arroyo Grande, County of San Luis Obispo, State of California, do hereby certify under penalty of perjury, that the attached is a true, full, and correct copy of Ordinance No. 663 which was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council on May 27, 2014; was passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council on the 10th day of June 2014; and was duly published in accordance with State law (G.C. 40806). WITNESS my hand and the Seal of the City of Arroyo Grande affixed this 12th day of June 2014. i 1 I KELL WE/ ORE, CITY CLERK Page 93 of 310 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT  300 E. Branch Street  Arroyo Grande, California 93420 Phone: (805) 473-5420  Fax: (805) 473-0386  E-mail: agcity@arroyogrande.org  Website: www.arroyogrande.org October 28, 2021 Ken Steitz 263-D Spruce Street Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 SUBJECT: PLOT PLAN REVIEW 21-033; ESTABLISHMENT OF A VACATION RENTAL IN THE MULTI-FAMILY ZONING DISTRICT; LOCATION – 263-D SPRUCE STREET; APPLICANT – KEN STEITZ Dear Mr. Steitz: On October 28, 2021, the Community Development Director approved the above-referenced project for the establishment of a vacation rental in an existing single family home in the Multi-Family (MF) zoning district. This approval is based upon the following findings for approval: FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL – PLOT PLAN REVIEW 1.The proposed project is consistent with the goals, objectives, policies and programs of the Arroyo Grande General Plan; a.Vacation rentals are allowed in the City’s MF zoning district with approval of a Minor Use Permit - Plot Plan Review. b.Approval of a Minor Use Permit - Plot Plan Review certifies that the land use or development will satisfy all applicable provisions of the Municipal Code and allows the Community Development Director to develop reasonable conditions to ensure compliance. c.Approval of a Minor Use Permit - Plot Plan Review enables issuance of a business license for use of the property as a commercial business. 2.The proposed project conforms to applicable performance standards and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare; a.The Municipal Code mandates performance standards to ensure the public health, safety or general welfare. b.The existing dwelling unit on site meets the requirements of Section 16.52.230 of the Municipal Code. c.Conditions of approval developed for this project ensure compliance with Section 16.52.230 of the Municipal Code and the protection of public health, safety or general welfare. 3.The physical location or placement of the use on the site is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. a.The subject property is located within an established residential neighborhood in the MF zoning district, which is available for use as a vacation rental. b.The existing single family residence is available for vacation rentals, and is of sufficient size to accommodate the intended use. c.The subject property where the vacation rental is located is greater than three hundred feet (300’) of an existing vacation rental on the same street. In approving a Minor Use Permit-Plot Plan Review, the Community Development Director may impose reasonable conditions to ensure compliance with the Municipal Code. This approval is subject to the following conditions of ATTACHMENT 3 Page 94 of 310 PLOT PLAN REVIEW 21-033 OCTOBER 28, 2021 PAGE 2 approval. Please review the conditions carefully. As the applicant, you are responsible to see that the conditions are implemented. This will involve working with the various departments that conditioned the project. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL GENERAL CONDITIONS 1.The applicant shall ascertain and comply with all State, County and City requirements as are applicable to this project. 2.The applicant shall apply and be approved for a business license before conducting any business transactions on the premises. 3.The applicant shall agree to indemnify and defend at his/her sole expense any action brought against the City, its agents, officers, or employees because of the issuance of said approval, or in the alternative, to relinquish such approval. The applicant shall reimburse the City, its agents, officers, or employees, for any court costs and attorney’s fees which the City, its agents, officers, or employees may be required by a court to pay as a result of such action. The City may, at its sole discretion, participate at its own expense in the defense of any such action but such participation shall not relieve the applicant of his/her obligations under this condition. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 4.The project shall substantially conform to the plans and descriptions on file in the Community Development Department dated September 28, 2021. 5.This permit shall expire on October 28, 2023, unless a business license is issued for the project. 6.The operator shall maintain a contact person/entity within a fifteen (15) minute drive of the property to be responsible for responding to complaints regarding the use of the vacation rental in accordance with Municipal Code Subsection 16.52.230.C.5. The identified primary contact person is Michelle Gust and she can be reached at 559-213-9117. 7.The operator shall annually notify the Community Development Department of the name, address, and phone number of the contact person, at time of business license renewal. 8.The operator shall conspicuously post a written notice inside the vacation rental with the name, address, and telephone number of the required contact person. The notice shall also include the address of the vacation rental, the maximum number of occupants permitted to stay overnight in the unit, the maximum number of vehicles allowed to park on-site, the day(s) established for garbage collection, and the non- emergency number of the Arroyo Grande Police Department. 9.Based upon the size and location of the three (3) bedrooms in the single family residence and the character of the neighborhood, a maximum of eight (8) guests may stay in the single family residence as a vacation rental at any one time in accordance with Municipal Subsection 16.52.230.C.9 (2 occupants per bedroom and 2 additional occupants). 10.No on-site advertising is permitted in conjunction with the vacation rental. 11.Payment of Transient Occupancy Tax is required per Municipal Code Section 3.24.030. Payment of Tourism Business Improvement District assessments is required per Municipal Code Chapter 3.46. BUILDING AND LIFE SAFETY DIVISION Page 95 of 310 PLOT PLAN REVIEW 21-033 OCTOBER 28, 2021 PAGE 3 12.The applicant shall comply with the current California Codes including the specifically adopted City of Arroyo Grande provisions. 13.A safety inspection will be required prior to business license approval. Contact (805) 473-5454 for inspections. The decision will be reported to the Planning Commission on November 2, 2021. Per Municipal Code Subsection 16.16.080.C.6, a notice of the decision will also be mailed to all property owners of parcels within three hundred feet (300’) of the vacation rental. If you disagree with the Community Development Director’s decision, you may file an appeal to the Planning Commission no later than November 8, 2021 at 5:00 pm. If you have any questions, please contact the Community Development Department at (805) 473-5420. Sincerely, Brian Pedrotti Community Development Director Patrick Holub Assistant Planner cc: Building Official Accounting Manager Page 96 of 310 1 ACTION MINUTES MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION December 7, 2021, 6:00 p.m. Zoom Virtual Meeting Webinar ID: 832 5584 8846 ByTelephone: 1-669-900-6833; 1-346-248-7799 Commission Members Present: Chair Glenn Martin, Vice Chair Frank Schiro, Commissioner Jamie Maraviglia, Commissioner Jim Guthrie Staff Present: Associate Planner Andrew Perez, Assistant Planner Patrick Holub, Community Development Director Brian Pedrotti Given the recent increase in COVID-19 cases in San Luis Obispo County, and in compliance with Assembly Bill (AB) 361, which allows for a deviation of teleconference rules required by the Ralph M. Brown Act, this meeting was held by teleconference. _____________________________________________________________________ 1.CALL TO ORDER Chair Martin called the Planning Commission meeting to order at 6:00 PM. 2.ROLL CALL Commissioner Buchanan absent. 3.FLAG SALUTE Chair Martin led the flag salute. 4.AGENDA REVIEW None. 5.COMMUNITY COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS Chair Martin invited public comment. No public comments were received. 6.WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS One supplemental memorandum received for items 8.a. and 8.b. ATTACHMENT 4 Page 97 of 310 2 7. CONSENT AGENDA Moved by Chair Martin Seconded by Commissioner Guthrie Approve the minutes of the October 19, 2021 Regular Planning Commission meeting. Passed 8. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS 8.a APPEAL TO PLANNING COMMISSION CASE 21-004; APPEAL OF PLOT PLAN REVIEW 21-029 AT 1562 STRAWBERRY AVENUE Assistant Planner Holub presented the staff report, which included information about the vacation rental ordinance, processing of vacation rental applications, and performance standards for vacation rentals. He also addressed objections raised by the appellant, including completeness of the application, the structure’s adherence to Building and other Code requirements, availability of parking and perceived impacts on circulation, noticing procedures and the ability of the listed emergency contact to perform the required functions. Stew and Francine Errico, appellants, spoke in favor of the appeal stating that the vacation rental permit should be denied because the project application was incomplete, the approval was not notified according to the Municipal Code, and the emergency contact was incapable of performing the necessary duties required by the Municipal Code. Patrick and Brenda Goroski, project applicants, spoke in opposition of the appeal and stated that they followed the city process. Kathleen Kelly, project representative, spoke in opposition to the appeal and explained the roles of the emergency contact and how they satisfy the Municipal Code requirements. Chair Martin opened public comment and the following comments were received: Michelle Chariton, stated that an application cannot be changed after submittal, spoke about police activity responding to the vacation rental at 1170 Linda Drive, and inquired about the noticing for the short term rental at 1150 Linda Drive. Jami Fordyce, inquired about the status of their refund for the appeal of the vacation rental approval at 1170 Linda Drive. Chair Martin closed public comment. The Commission discussed the staff process for reviewing vacation rental applications. The Commission recognized that vacation rentals are in important issue and urged staff to agendize a discussion about the ordinance with City Council as soon as possible. Moved by Chair Martin Seconded by Vice Chair Schiro Page 98 of 310 3 Adopted a Resolution denying Appeal Case No. 21-004 and approving Plot Plan Review 21- 029. AYES (4): Chair Martin, Vice Chair Schiro, Commissioner Maraviglia, and Commissioner Guthrie Passed (4 to 0) 8.b APPEAL TO PLANNING COMMISSION CASE 21-005; APPEAL OF PLOT PLAN REVIEW 21-033 AT 263 SPRUCE ST, UNIT D Commissioner Maraviglia recused herself. Assistant Planner Holub presented the staff report, which included information about the vacation rental ordinance, processing of vacation rental applications, and performance standards for vacation rentals. He also addressed objections raised by the appellant including concerns about availability of parking, an unpermitted structure in the garage of the residence where the rental is proposed, and parking within a fire lane. Sharon Valienzi, appellant, spoke in favor of the appeal stating parking issues, emergency access, failure to comply with private covenants, conditions, and restrictions for the subdivision, and neighborhood disturbances are grounds for upholding the appeal. Ms. Valienzi expressed her disappointment with the permitting process because she feels that the neighbors should be notified with the submittal of an application, not after a decision has been rendered. Chair Martin opened public comment and the following comments were received: Alex Hughson, spoke about parking issues created by the short term rental. Jason Motter, spoke about concerns about traffic, guests speeding on the private driveway, and disturbances caused by short term renters. Laura spoke about parking issues caused by short term renters that were not problems with long term renters. She spoke about noise issues and safety issues due to lack of adequate lighting at the subject property. Francine Errico, stated her disappointment with the permitting process and worried about the vacation rental permitted near her home. Jami Fordyce, spoke about the differences between short term and long term renters and disappointment with the permitting process. Stew Errico, spoke about concerns with the permitting process. Alex Hughson read comments prepared by Paul Erb, stating parking issues and disturbance of the neighbors caused by short term renters are reasons to uphold the appeal. Chair Martin closed public comment. Ken Steitz, project applicant, stated that the appellants presented information that was not true and that his property is ideal for a vacation rental. He spoke about the parking situation and how the storage room in the garage was used for personal storage. He stated that the guests do not Page 99 of 310 4 block the fire lane when parked in the driveway and that his guests do not use the guest parking spaces on a full-time basis. Elaine Steitz, project applicant, spoke about the unpermitted storage room and how it was constructed by the previous owner. They stated that the pictures presented by the appellants are inaccurate and do not accurately portray the parking situation. The Commission agreed that the appellants bring valid concerns about vacation rentals in general, and that this is a poor location for a vacation rental, however they could not make the findings for denial. The Commission discussed the idea of conditioning the project to require guests to park in the garage to alleviate concerns regarding obstruction of the fire lane. Moved by Commissioner Guthrie Seconded by Vice Chair Schiro Adopted a Resolution denying Appeal Case No. 21-005 and approving Plot Plan Review 21- 033. AYES (2): Vice Chair Schiro, and Commissioner Guthrie NOES (1): Chair Martin ABSENT (1): Commissioner Maraviglia Passed (2 to 1) 9. NON-PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS None. Commissioner Maraviglia rejoined the meeting. 10. NOTICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS SINCE NOVEMBER 16, 2021 11. COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS Commissioner Guthrie inquired if there were any more appeals that needed to be heard by the Commission. Vice Chair Schiro thanked the public for the fundraising efforts that allowed for the installation of the holiday lights in the Village. 12. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS None. 13. ADJOURNMENT The Meeting adjourned at 8:56 p.m. Page 100 of 310 5 _________________________ Patrick Holub Assistant Planner _________________________ Glenn Martin, Chair Page 101 of 310 ATTACHMENT 5 Page 102 of 310 Page 103 of 310 Page 104 of 310 Page 105 of 310 Page 106 of 310 Page 107 of 310 Page 108 of 310 Page 109 of 310 Page 110 of 310 Page 111 of 310 Page 112 of 310 Page 113 of 310 Page 114 of 310 Page 115 of 310 Page 116 of 310 Page 117 of 310 Page 118 of 310 Page 119 of 310 Page 120 of 310 Page 121 of 310 Page 122 of 310 Page 123 of 310 Page 124 of 310 Page 125 of 310 Page 126 of 310 Page 127 of 310 Item 10.a. MEMORANDUM TO: City Council FROM: Whitney McDonald, City Manager SUBJECT: Consideration of Approval of a Cost Sharing Agreement with the Cities of Grover Beach and Pismo Beach for the CCB Project and Resolution Authorizing an Application to the State Water Resources Control Board for a State Revolving Fund Loan for the Project DATE: January 25, 2022 SUMMARY OF ACTION: Consideration and approval of the proposed Cost Sharing Agreement (Agreement) (Attachment 1) with the cities of Grover Beach and Pismo Beach for the Central Coast Blue Project, Phase 1 (Project), as well as consideration and approval of a Resolution (Attachment 2) authorizing the City Manager to apply for financial assistance from Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) administered by the State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board) for the City’s share of anticipated construction costs for the Project. IMPACT ON FINANCIAL AND PERSONNEL RESOURCES: The City’s Biennial Budget for Fiscal Years 2021-23 includes a total of $1,420,000 in the Water Availability Fund for the Project, $720,000 for Fiscal Year 2021-22 and $700,000 for Fiscal Year 2022-23. The Agreement obligates the City to pay for 25% of the total costs of the Project. The City of Pismo Beach will pay 39% of the costs and the City of Grover Beach will pay 36% of the costs. Total costs for the Project are currently estimated to be $56,681,853. To date, $4,496,094 in federal and State grants have been awarded to fund the Project. The City’s portion of the remaining $51,696,183 in Project costs is $12,924,045., $10,851,894 of which is for construction. It is anticipated that the Project will receive additional federal and State grants, which will reduce these costs. The Water and Sewer Rate Study approved by Council on January 11, 2022, provides recommended water rates necessary to fund the City’s share of costs for the Project. RECOMMENDATION: 1) Consider and authorize the City Manager to execute a Cost Sharing Agreement for the Central Coast Blue project; and 2) Consider and approve the proposed Resolution authorizing the City Manager to apply for financial assistance from CWSRF administered Page 128 of 310 Item 10.a. City Council Consideration of Approval of a Cost Sharing Agreement with the Cities of Grover Beach and Pismo Beach for the CCB Project and Resolution Authorizing an Application to the State Water Resources Control Board for a State Revolving Fund Loan for the Project January 25, 2022 Page 2 by the State Water Board for the City’s share of anticipated construction costs for the Project. BACKGROUND: The City of Pismo Beach is the lead agency for the Central Coast Blue Project. The Project has been a multi-agency effort between three of the four Northern Cities Management Area agencies (the Cities of Arroyo Grande, Grover Beach, and Pismo Beach) and the South San Luis Obispo County Sanitation District to construct a regional recycled water project that will enhance supply reliability by injecting advanced purified water into the Santa Maria Groundwater Basin (SMGB). The Project will reduce vulnerability to drought and seawater intrusion by creating a seawater intrusion barrier and supplementing the naturally occurring groundwater. Phase 1 of the Project proposes to treat wastewater from the City of Pismo Beach to an advanced purification level to create between 900-1,000 acre-feet of additional water per year. On March 23, 2021, Council considered a proposed Central Coast Blue Operating Agreement and its associated environmental determination in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act. After receiving public comment and conducting discussion and deliberation, Council approved the Operating Agreement and adopted Statements of Overriding Considerations and a Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program, subject to the condition that the cities of Pismo Beach and Grover Beach separately agree to enter into a Community Workforce Agreement for construction of the Project. Following Council’s action on March 23, 2021, the cities of Pismo Beach and Grover Beach indicated that they would not agree to the Community Workforce Agreement condition. Additionally, certain questions and concerns emerged during discussions with the cities regarding the proposed Operating Agreement terms. At its April 13, 2021 regular meeting, Council considered a staff report o utlining these questions and concerns and, after deliberations, took action to rescind its conditional approval of the Operating Agreement and directed the City Manager to draft a letter to the City Councils of Pismo Beach and Grover Beach requesting that certain items be address in the proposed Operating Agreement. In addition, Council approved a letter of support for the Project to the Bureau of Reclamation in consideration of the WaterSMART Title XVI Water Reclamation and Reuse Grant application. Through the application prepared and submitted by the City of Pismo Beach, the Project was awarded an additional $1.7 million in grant funding on August 5, 2021. To date, $4,496,094 in federal and State grants have been awarded to fund the Project. Page 129 of 310 Item 10.a. City Council Consideration of Approval of a Cost Sharing Agreement with the Cities of Grover Beach and Pismo Beach for the CCB Project and Resolution Authorizing an Application to the State Water Resources Control Board for a State Revolving Fund Loan for the Project January 25, 2022 Page 3 Letters to the City Councils of the cities of Grover Beach and Pismo Beach were sent on April 16, 2021, consistent with Council’s April 13th direction. On May 24, 2021, letters were received from the City Managers of Grover Beach and Pismo Beach responding to the City’s April 16, 2021 letter. Council considered the two letters at its regular meeting held on June 8, 2021. After deliberation, Council directed the City Manager to negotiate terms for a revised operating agreement that addresses the City’s concerns. Following this action, the city managers for Arroyo Grande, Grover Beach, and Pismo Beach worked to develop a new framework for cost -sharing and operating agreements for the Project. This framework was presented to the City Council on September 14, 2021, and was approved in concept, including a reduction of the City’s share in the Project from 39% to 25%. The Grover Beach City Council likewise approved the revised framework on September 27, 2021, as did the Pismo Beach City Council on October 19, 2021. In addition, on November 15, 2021, the Pismo Beach City Council provided direction to obtain the remaining unsubscribed portion of the Project and increase its total share to 39%, with Arroyo Grande’s share at 25% and Grover Beach’s share at 36%. Since September 14, 2021, staff for the three cities prepared and negotiated a draft Cost Sharing Agreement based on the revised framework, wh ich is being presented for consideration and approval by the City Council at this time. The parties anticipate receiving financial assistance from the CWSRF, administered by the State Water Board, for the Project construction costs. The CWSRF provides funding to public agencies and Native American tribal governments for the construction of clean water projects, typically in the form of low interest loans. In December 2021, City staff was informed that General Applications for financial assistance from the CWSRF were due by the end of the year for funding anticipated to be received in 2023, when Project construction is planned to begin. After close coordination with State Water Board staff, city staff from Pismo Beach and Grover Beach, and advice from Wat er Systems Consulting (WSC), the Project design consultant, it was determined that, in order to preserve the best possible opportunities for the Project to receive financial assistance from the CWSRF for all construction costs, each city should submit a General Application to the State Water Board for its respective share of construction costs. In addition, Pismo Beach submitted an application on behalf of the Joint Powers Authority that is anticipated to be formed to own and operate the Project. ANALYSIS OF ISSUES: The Project will help address the threat of seawater intrusion by injecting recycled water into the basin at key locations near the seawater interface. Phase 1 of the Project proposes to treat wastewater from the City of Pismo Beach to an advan ced purification level to create between 900-1,000 acre-feet additional water per year. This new Page 130 of 310 Item 10.a. City Council Consideration of Approval of a Cost Sharing Agreement with the Cities of Grover Beach and Pismo Beach for the CCB Project and Resolution Authorizing an Application to the State Water Resources Control Board for a State Revolving Fund Loan for the Project January 25, 2022 Page 4 developed water will help to ensure that a sufficient barrier exists within the basin to keep sea water from flooding into the aquifer and contaminating the we lls used by the NCMA parties. As a result, the Project will support the City’s ability to rely on groundwater to supply water to its residents and businesses into the future. Approval of the Agreement and completion of the Project will secure an estimated 225-250 acre-feet per year of reliable groundwater for the City. Proposed Agreement Consistent with the revised framework, the proposed Cost Sharing Agreement includes the following key terms:  The City of Pismo Beach remains lead agency and acts as project developer through final completion of Phase 1 of the Project.  Costs will be shared by the three cities in proportion to their share of the benefits (water) allocated to the jurisdiction. Grover Beach and Arroyo Grande will reimburse Pismo Beach for their respective shares of the costs of the Project, including all pre-construction and construction costs. Ongoing pre-construction costs will be split between Arroyo Grande and Grover Beach until each party reaches its total contribution amount for its share of pre-construction costs.  The allocation of costs/shares are as follows: o Pismo Beach: 39% o Grover Beach: 36% o Arroyo Grande: 25%  The cities will form a Joint Powers Authority (JPA) that will own and operate the Project, as well as obtain financing for construction of the Project.* o The JPA Board of Directors will consist of one representative of each city with each member retaining an equal vote on the Board. o The JPA will own all Project assets and will employ or contract for the Project’s operations and administrative staff. o * The revised framework indicated that the JPA would become effective upon completion of construction and commissioning of the Project. However, the Agreement calls for the JPA to be formed earlier in order to ensure that the JPA is able to obtain financing for the Project. The Agreement also acknowledges the intent for the JPA to apply for and obtain financing from CWSRF and, if financing is not available to the JPA through the CWSRF, that the parties may independently seek financing from the CWSRF.  Joint meetings of the three City Councils will be held at least once annually until the Project is constructed to provide a venue for discussion and transparency for the public on the project progress, to receive Project updates, and discuss policy Page 131 of 310 Item 10.a. City Council Consideration of Approval of a Cost Sharing Agreement with the Cities of Grover Beach and Pismo Beach for the CCB Project and Resolution Authorizing an Application to the State Water Resources Control Board for a State Revolving Fund Loan for the Project January 25, 2022 Page 5 issues as needed (e.g., unexpected timeline extensions, approvals of expenditures beyond the Project budget, etc.).  A Technical Advisory Committee made up of staff from the three cities may be formed and meet monthly to evaluate pre-construction and construction costs, provide input into formation and operations of the JPA, and present reports at the joint City Council meetings.  Each City Council will review and approve the scope, budget, contingency and procurement for the remainder of pre-construction and construction phases of the Project. Costs in excess of the agreed-upon budget, plus a 20% contingency, will require approval of all three City Councils. If all three City Councils do not approve any such change order, the parties will meet and confer to arrive at an agreement on the requested change. If this process is unsuccessful, costs will be reduced to below the 20% contingency.  The Agreement does not impose groundwater pumping limitations on participating parties and recognizes the participants’ contribution of new developed water for their exclusive use. The Agreement also acknowledges that Project water will not be transported out of the Northern Cities Management Area (NCMA) without the prior written approval of the parties.  An opt-out clause is included to allow exit of a party prior to award of a construction contract as long as the identified share of costs incurred to date are paid by that party. In addition to clarifications regarding formation of the JPA and the intent for the JPA to obtain financing for construction, the Agreement states that a financing plan may be prepared by the parties to describe the intended mechanisms for funding the Proj ect. It is anticipated that such a plan would be flexible and general in nature to account for the various opportunities for grants and other financing arrangements that may be awarded to the Project over time. Finally, the Agreement also states the intent for the JPA to obtain title to the Project site from Pismo Beach. The prior proposed Operating Agreement included provisions allowing the City of Grover Beach to take title to the site in order to reduce potent ial property tax liability due to the sites’ location within Grover Beach’s jurisdiction. The Arroyo Grande City Attorney’s research has concluded that, if the JPA owns the Project site, it will receive the same property tax benefits as the City of Grover Beach, thereby eliminating the potential desire by the parties for Grover Beach to hold title to the property. CWSRF Application In order to meet the deadline required to keep options open for financing for the Project, City staff submitted a General Application to the State Water Board for CWSRF funding for the City’s share of construction costs for the Project on December 30, 2021. The cities Page 132 of 310 Item 10.a. City Council Consideration of Approval of a Cost Sharing Agreement with the Cities of Grover Beach and Pismo Beach for the CCB Project and Resolution Authorizing an Application to the State Water Resources Control Board for a State Revolving Fund Loan for the Project January 25, 2022 Page 6 of Grover Beach and Pismo Beach submitted similar applications during the last week of December 2021 as well. The General Application is the first step in a long process with the State Water Board for CWSRF funding. Applications are scored based on an established set of criteria and, in the summer of 2022, the State Water Board will determine the qualifying score that applications must receive in order to obtain financial assistance in 2022-2023. Applications for financial assistance from the CWSRF require an authorizing resolution from the governing body of the applying agency. As no authorizing resolution had bee n approved by the City Council, the City’s application was submitted along with a letter stating that the resolution would be sought in January or February 2022 and that the application would be withdrawn if the resolution is not approved (Attachment 3). Approval of the proposed Resolution authorizing the City Manager to submit and process the application for financial assistance from the CWSRF does not obligate the City to enter into a financing agreement or otherwise incur debt from the State Water Board at this time. Any such steps will come much later, at which time the parties will know whether the JPA will receive financial assistance for the Project’s construction costs. Next Steps: It is anticipated that the City Councils for the cities of Grover Beach and Pismo Beach will both consider approval of the Agreement at their meetings scheduled for February 15, 2022. The Agreement will become effective upon approval by all three City Councils. This will operate as approval of the Project, and the parties will plan the first joint City Council meeting contemplated in the Agreement. In addition, staff for the three cities will immediately begin preparation of the Joint Powers Agreement for future review and approval by the City Councils. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Approve staff’s recommendation to authorize the City Manager to execute the proposed Cost Sharing Agreement and adopt the Resolution authorizing the City Manager to submit and process an application for financial assistance from the CWSRF for the City’s share of Project construction costs. 2. Approve staff’s recommendation to authorize the City Manager to execute the proposed Cost Sharing Agreement, do not adopt the proposed Resolution, and provide direction further direction to staff, such as direction to withdraw the General Application for financial assistance submitted to the State Water Board for CWSRF funding. 3. Direct staff to make any necessary changes to the proposed Cost Sharing Agreement and authorize the City Manager to execute the revised Agreement. 4. Do not authorize the City Manager to execute the Agreement or the proposed Resolution and provide further direction to staff. Page 133 of 310 Item 10.a. City Council Consideration of Approval of a Cost Sharing Agreement with the Cities of Grover Beach and Pismo Beach for the CCB Project and Resolution Authorizing an Application to the State Water Resources Control Board for a State Revolving Fund Loan for the Project January 25, 2022 Page 7 5. Provide other direction to staff. ADVANTAGES: Approving staff’s recommendation will approve the City’s participation in the Central Coast Blue Project. The Project is important for the ongoing resiliency of groundwater resources relied upon by the City, as well as all residents, businesses, agricultural operations, and visitors to the Five Cities area. Approval of the Resolution authorizing the application to the State Water Board for CWSRF funding will enable the City to retain the ability to receive low-cost financial assistance from the CWSRF for its share of Project construction costs. DISADVANTAGES: The City’s share of Project costs, anticipated to be approximately $13 million if the Project does not receive any additional federal or State grants, will be paid by the City’s water customers. The Water and Wastewater Rate Study approved by the City Council on January 11, 2022, indicates that an estimated 6.4% rate increase is necessary each year over the course of the next five years to support general increased costs of service and participation in the Project. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The City of Pismo Beach is the Lead Agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for the Project and previously prepared, circulated, and approved an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), and adopted findings and a Statement of Overriding Considerations on February 16, 2021. The City of Arroyo Grande is a Responsible Agency for the Project under CEQA. On March 23, 2021, the City Council adopted findings and a Statement of Overriding Considerations for the Project relying on the EIR in compliance with CEQA. No additional CEQA findings are required at this time. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND COMMENTS: The Agenda was posted at City Hall and on the City’s website in accordance with Government Code Section 54954.2. Attachments: 1. Proposed Cost Sharing Agreement 2. Proposed Resolution Authorizing the CWSRF Application 3. The City’s December 30, 2021 General Application Page 134 of 310 {CW108993.18} COST SHARING AGREEMENT City of Arroyo Grande, City of Pismo Beach, and City of Grover Beach Page 1 of 13 COST SHARING AGREEMENT FOR PARTIES PARTICIPATION IN THE CENTRAL COAST BLUE PROJECT THIS COST SHARING AGREEMENT (hereinafter “Agreement”), is effective as of __________, 2022 (the “Effective Date”) by and between the City of Arroyo Grande, a California municipal corporation (“Arroyo Grande”), City of Grover Beach, a California municipal corporation (“Grover Beach”) and City of Pismo Beach, a California municipal corporation (“Pismo Beach”). The cities may be individually referred to herein as a “Party” or collectively as the “Parties.” RECITALS: WHEREAS, in 1983, the Parties hereto entered into a voluntary groundwater management plan to manage the safe yield of the Arroyo Grande Groundwater Basin, which agreement was updated by the Parties through approval of the 2002 Agreement Regarding Management of the Arroyo Grande Groundwater Basin (the “Management Agreement”); and WHEREAS, on April 30, 2002, the Parties hereto, among others, entered into a settlement agreement (the “Settlement Agreement”) related to a 1997 groundwater adjudication litigation filed by the Santa Maria Valley Water Conservation District, which reaffirmed the Management Agreement, established separate water management areas (the “Original Management Areas”) to be independently managed by the Parties and others, and requiring the Parties and others to develop an equitable cost sharing agreement for any newly constructed water resource and water production facilities within the Original Management Areas; and WHEREAS, on June 30, 2005, the Parties hereto entered into a stipulation imposing a physical solution for ensuring the Arroyo Grande Groundwater Basin’s long-term stability (the “Stipulation”). The Stipulation adopted a local management approach, establishing three management areas (the “Current Management Areas”) and requiring a monitoring program to be established in each of the Current Management Areas; and WHEREAS, on January 25, 2008, the Santa Clara Superior Court entered Judgment in the Santa Maria Groundwater Adjudication litigation approving the Stipulation, without qualification (the “Adjudication Decree”); and WHEREAS, the Parties intend to participate in the Central Coast Blue Project to construct a regional recycled water project that will enhance supply reliability by injecting advanced purified water into the Northern Cities Management Area of the Santa Maria Groundwater Basin (“Project”). The Project will reduce vulnerability to drought and seawater intrusion by creating a seawater intrusion barrier and supplementing the naturally occurring groundwater; and WHEREAS, the Project must comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), and the lead agency pursuant to CEQA is Pismo Beach. Both Arroyo Grande and Grover Beach are considered responsible agencies for the Project and are required to make findings ATTACHMENT 1 Page 135 of 310 {CW108993.18} COST SHARING AGREEMENT City of Arroyo Grande, City of Pismo Beach, and City of Grover Beach Page 2 of 13 for each significant effect of the Project and adopt a mitigation monitoring and reporting program; and WHEREAS, Phase 1 of the Project includes construction of an Advanced Treatment Facility (“ATF”), treatment of all secondary treated flows from Pismo Beach’s Wastewater Treatment Plant (“WWTP”), construction of five injection wells and associated transmission lines, and injection of flows from the WWTP (“Phase 1”). Phase 1 proposes to treat wastewater from Pismo Beach to an advanced purification level to create between nine hundred (900) and one thousand (1,000) acre-feet of additional water per year; and WHEREAS, Phase 2 will include upgrades to the ATF to increase capacity, construction of two additional injection wells and associated transmission lines, and injection of flows from the South San Luis Obispo County Sanitation District Wastewater Treatment Plant (“Phase 2”); and WHEREAS, the Parties desire to enter into this Agreement to set forth the mechanism for establishing the fair share allotment of the Phase 1 costs in proportion to each Party’s share of the benefits of the Project. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements set forth herein and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby expressly acknowledged, the Parties hereby agrees as follows: ARTICLE I General Provisions 1. Recitals. The Recitals set forth above are expressly incorporated as terms of this Agreement. In the event of a conflict between the Recitals above and Articles I through V of this Agreement, Articles I through V shall prevail. 2. Term. This Agreement shall be effective from the last date of execution by all Parties until the date of issuance of a Notice of Completion of Phase 1 to all other Parties by Pismo Beach (the “Term”). 3. Management Agreement. In the event of a conflict between this Agreement and the Management Agreement, the Management Agreement shall prevail. 4. Adjudication Decree. In the event of a conflict between this Agreement and the Adjudication Decree, the Adjudication Decree shall prevail. 5. Developed Water. The Parties hereto acknowledge and agree that the recycled water injected into the ground pursuant to this Agreement, as well as all new developed water subsequently extracted, is New Developed Water as defined in the Adjudication Decree. 6. Municipal Pumping Entitlement. Each Party’s annual allocation of groundwater, as provided in the Management Agreement including agricultural conversion credits, shall remain as follows: Page 136 of 310 {CW108993.18} COST SHARING AGREEMENT City of Arroyo Grande, City of Pismo Beach, and City of Grover Beach Page 3 of 13 Arroyo Grande: 1,323 acre-feet per year. Grover Beach: 1,407 acre-feet per year. Pismo Beach: 700 acre-feet per year. This Agreement in no way limits any Party’s right to pump their respective annual allocation of groundwater under the Adjudication Decree and in no way limits any Party’s right to transfer, sell, or lease their allocation of water consistent with the Adjudication Decree. Further, this Agreement in no way limits any Party’s right to pump their respective share of the recycled water injected into the ground pursuant to this Agreement, as well as all other dependent agreements described herein, for subsequent extraction. ARTICLE II Definitions 1. Construction Cost. Means the cost incurred as of the effective date of the first construction contract for Phase 1 of the Project through the determination by the Parties that construction of Phase 1 is complete, including the cost of the purchase of the Facility site for the Project. Construction Cost does not include legal expenses attributable to each Party’s City Attorney, retained counsel or their associates. 2. Enterprise. Means, for purposes of application to the Cities of Arroyo Grande and Grover Beach, the Party’s water system, including all facilities, works, properties and structures of the Party for the treatment, transmission and distribution of potable and non-potable water, including all contractual rights to water supplies, transmission capacity supply, easements, rights- of-way and other works, property or structures necessary or convenient for such facilities, together with all additions, betterments, extensions and improvements to such facilities or any part thereof hereafter acquired or constructed. For purposes of City of Pismo Beach, the above definition shall include both the Party’s water and wastewater system. 3. Facility or Facilities. Means the advanced water treatment facility that will receive and further treat wastewater influent from Pismo Beach’s WWTP, in Phase 1, which as of the date of this Agreement is proposed to be constructed on Assessor’s Parcel Number 060-543-016 in the City of Grover Beach, including the Facility’s equalization basin, injection wells, storage tanks, pump station and associated piping and equipment from the Pismo Beach WWTP. 4. Gross Revenues. Means all gross income and revenue received or receivable by the Party from the ownership and operation of its Enterprise, calculated in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles, including all rates, fees and charges (including fees for connecting to the Enterprise and any water stand-by or water availability charges or assessments) received by the Party for water service made available or provided by the Enterprise and all other income and revenue howsoever derived by the Party from the Enterprise or arising from the Enterprise; provided, however, that (i) any specific charges levied for the express purpose of reimbursing others for all or a portion of the cost of the acquisition or construction of specific facilities, or (ii) customers’ deposits or any other deposits subject to refund until such deposits have become the property of the Party, are not Gross Revenues and are not subject to the lien of Page 137 of 310 {CW108993.18} COST SHARING AGREEMENT City of Arroyo Grande, City of Pismo Beach, and City of Grover Beach Page 4 of 13 the Agreement. For purposes of Pismo Beach, this definition will include all income and revenue received as defined by this provision for both the water and wastewater system. 5. Lead Agency. Means the public agency that has the principal responsibility for carrying out or approving a project. The lead agency for this Project is Pismo Beach. 6. Net Revenues. “Net Revenues” means, for any period, all of the Gross Revenues during such period less all of the Maintenance and Operation Costs during such period. For purposes of this provision, Maintenance and Operation Expense means all reasonable expenses incurred by the Party in causing the Enterprise to be operated and maintained in good repair, working order and condition, including payments made to any other municipal corporation or private entity for water service (or other utility service if the Party combines such service in the Enterprise and enters into a contract for such services), but not including any depreciation or taxes levied or imposed by the Party or payments to the Party in lieu of taxes, or capital additions to or capital replacements of any portion of the Enterprise. Net Revenues for the City of Pismo shall mean the above definition as it applies to both the water and wastewater systems. 7. Pre-Construction Cost. Includes the cost of planning, designing and procuring of contracts for professional services required to obtain and perfect any necessary permits, leases, licenses, or other requirements for Phase 1 of the Project, beginning with the 2017 Regional Groundwater Sustainability Program Contract through, but not including award of the first construction contract for Phase 1 of the Project. Pre-Construction Cost does not include legal expenses attributable to each Party’s City Attorney, retained counsel or their associates. ARTICLE III Project Delivery and Governance Framework 1. Lead Agency Duties. Pismo Beach will remain Lead Agency and act as project developer through final completion of Phase 1 of the Project. As the Lead Agency, Pismo Beach will act as the construction manager for Phase 1 and will provide administration of Phase 1 on all Parties' behalf. Pismo Beach is hereby authorized and empowered to represent the Parties in construction supervisory and coordination activities, including the authority to issue field work directives and/or change orders on behalf of the Parties, pursuant to the terms of this Agreement. As Lead Agency, Pismo Beach will contract for professional services and is responsible for obtaining and perfecting any necessary permits, leases, licenses or other approvals for Phase 1 of the Project, consistent with its own contracting policies. The Parties shall pay their pro rata shares of Pre-Construction costs for any professional service expenses incurred by Pismo Beach in connection with obtaining such Phase 1 approvals, in accordance with Article IV below. a. Contract Awards. Pismo Beach shall adhere to all federal, State, and local laws in awarding contracts for Phase 1 and, to the extent any federal grant funds are used to finance contracts for Phase 1, specifically in compliance with Title 2 of the Federal Code of Regulations, part 200 et seq. b. Local Hire. Subject to Section 1.a., above, every contractor submitting a bid to Pismo Beach for a public works contract for Phase 1 of the Project shall agree to make a good faith effort to hire individuals who are local residents. A “good faith effort” means a contractor Page 138 of 310 {CW108993.18} COST SHARING AGREEMENT City of Arroyo Grande, City of Pismo Beach, and City of Grover Beach Page 5 of 13 will take the following or similar actions to recruit and maintain residents of San Luis Obispo County and Santa Barbara County as part of the construction workforce: i. Contact local recruitment sources to identify individuals who are local residents; ii. Advertise for individuals who are local residents in trade papers and newspapers of general circulation within San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara Counties; and iii. With respect to any portion of a public works contract to be performed by a subcontractor, identify subcontractors whose workforce includes individuals who are local residents. c. Grant Funding and Financing. As Lead Agency, Pismo Beach will apply for available grant funding for Pre-Construction and Construction Costs of Phase 1 of the Project, including but not limited to Proposition 1 Groundwater Grant Program Grant Funding from the State Water Resources Control Board and Title XVI WaterSMART Water Reclamation and Reuse Grant Funding from the United States Bureau of Reclamation. The Parties may jointly develop a financing plan describing the anticipated mechanisms for obtaining the necessary funding to construct Phase 1 of the Project. 2. Phase 1 Accounting. Pismo Beach will maintain Phase 1 accounting and will invoice the other Parties consistent with the Water Purveyor Contributions identified in Article IV of this Agreement. Pismo Beach shall, on a monthly basis, invoice each Party for its pro rata percentage of the Pre-Construction Costs and Construction Costs incurred by Pismo Beach during such preceding, if not reimbursed by other funding sources, as established in the annual operating budget, and further detailed in Article IV of this Agreement. All Parties agree to pay Pismo Beach’s invoices within thirty (30) days of the date of the invoice subject to and consistent with Article IV, Section 4 of this Agreement. 3. Joint Powers Authority. Contemporaneously with preparation of this Agreement, the Parties are negotiating a Joint Powers Agreement to establish a Joint Powers Authority (“JPA”), pursuant to Government Code section 6500 et seq., that will own and operate the Project and have the power to issue debt and enter into loans or financing agreements to finance the Construction Costs for Phase 1. The Joint Powers Agreement will contain provisions addressing, without limitation, acquisition of the Facility site from Pismo Beach, ownership of the Facility, and financing of Construction Costs, including repayment obligations of the Parties consistent with the Water Purveyor Contribution percentages identified in Article IV, Section 2.a of this Agreement. It is the intent of the Parties that the JPA shall apply for and obtain financing through the State Water Resources Control Board’s Clean Water State Revolving Fund for Construction Costs or other financing mechanisms not otherwise covered by grant funding awarded to the Project and for the JPA to comply with all requirements to obtain such financing. The potential loans could be separate installment sale agreements based on the respective share of each Party, and repayment would be paid either directly to the JPA by each Party consistent with the Water Purveyor Contribution percentages identified in Article IV, Section 2.a of this Agreement or directly to the State Water Resources Control Board or bond trustee, depending on the funding Page 139 of 310 {CW108993.18} COST SHARING AGREEMENT City of Arroyo Grande, City of Pismo Beach, and City of Grover Beach Page 6 of 13 mechanism. In the event that the JPA is not able to finance the Construction Costs, the Parties will seek financing consistent with the financing plan described in Article III, Section 1.c above, which may include applications by each Party to the State Water Resources Control Board’s Clean Water State Revolving Fund for its respective share of Construction Costs. Any financing mechanism for construction of Phase 1 of the Project, ownership, and operation of the Facility will be addressed in the Joint Powers Agreement. The Joint Powers Agreement will also contain provisions regarding governance of the JPA that will include, at a minimum, the following requirements: the JPA will be governed by a three-member Board of Directors consisting of one elected official from each Party; each JPA Director will retain equal voting rights on the JPA Board of Directors; and the JPA Board of Directors will meet bi-monthly or quarterly. 4. Parties Review of Construction Scope, Schedule and Budget. Prior to initiating construction, the City Council for each Party shall have a reasonable opportunity to review and approve the scope, schedule, and budget of Phase 1 of the Project. The approved budget for Phase 1 shall include a twenty percent (20%) contingency to allow for appropriate flexibility for contract management by the Lead Agency. Change orders and amendments that exceed twenty percent (20%) of the most recently-approved contract value shall require approval by the City Council for each Party. If a Party does not grant such approval, the Parties will immediately confer in an attempt to reconcile the disagreement. Should the Parties be unable to reach agreement, measures shall be taken to reduce the additional costs below 20% of the current contract value and in no such event shall the Parties be liable for Construction Costs in excess of this amount absent a written amendment to this Agreement. 5. Technical Advisory Committee. The City Managers of the Parties may create a temporary Technical Advisory Committee (“TAC”) to assist the Parties in reviewing the technical aspects of Phase 1 and the Phase 1 budget. The TAC will consist of nine (9) members with three members appointed by each Party’s City Manager. If created, the TAC will be established within one (1) month of the Effective Date and will meet monthly until completion of Phase I of the Project. The TAC will provide technical input on the following: (1) review and suggest any modifications to the pre-construction and construction plans and agreements for Phase 1; (2) assist the Parties in deliberating on technical matters that could be of issue in the development of Phase 1, and make recommendations to be presented to the City Council s of the Parties on all major technical aspects of Phase 1 of the Project; and (3) develop, for consideration by the Parties’ City Councils, joint operational protocols for the JPA to ensure the continued operation of the facilities and viability of the Project in the future. The TAC will be disbanded upon completion of Phase I of the Project. 6. Joint Agency Meetings. During design and construction of Phase 1, the City Councils for each Party will meet jointly at least once but no more than twice per year to provide a venue for discussion and transparency for the public on the progress of Phase 1, to receive Phase 1 updates, and discuss policy issues as needed. The TAC will present a summary of their work and analysis of Phase 1 at all the joint meetings. Page 140 of 310 {CW108993.18} COST SHARING AGREEMENT City of Arroyo Grande, City of Pismo Beach, and City of Grover Beach Page 7 of 13 ARTICLE IV Pre-Construction and Construction Costs 1. Facility Purchase. Pismo Beach has previously purchased the site for the Facility at a total cost of $1,815,373 (the “Purchase Price”). The Purchase Price shall be included as a Construction Cost of Phase 1 of the Project. The Parties acknowledge that pursuant to Article XIII, Section 11, subdivision (a), of the California Constitution, the Facility site may be considered taxable real property. As such, the Parties shall cooperate to minimize the property tax implications of Pismo Beach’s current ownership of the Facility site by either allocating such property tax costs among the Parties according to the Water Purveyor Contribution percentages, as defined in Article IV below, by transferring title of the Facility site to the JPA, or by such other action upon which the Parties may agree. 2. Water Purveyor Contributions. The Parties shall pay their pro rata share of all Pre- Construction and Construction Costs incurred by Pismo Beach in connection with Phase 1 of the Project. a. The Parties agree to the following cost allocation of the total Pre - Construction and Construction costs for Phase 1 for each Party: i. Arroyo Grande shall contribute 25%. ii. Grover Beach shall contribute 36%. iii. Pismo Beach shall contribute 39%. b. Pursuant to Section VII.3(c) of the Stipulation, as adopted by the Adjudication Decree, the Parties may engage in contractual transfers, leases, licenses, or sales of any of their water rights, including voluntary fallowing programs, for drought protection, conservation, or other management purposes; however, no groundwater produced within the Current Management Areas, including water produced by Phase 1 of the Project, may be transported outside of the Current Management Areas without the written agreement of each Party. 3. Pre-Construction Cost Review and Adjustment. Following approval of this Agreement, the City Council for each Party shall have a reasonable opportunity to review and approve the scope, schedule, and budget of the remaining Pre-Construction Costs for Phase 1 of the Project, which will include a twenty percent (20%) contingency to allow for appropriate flexibility for contract management by the Lead Agency. Change orders and amendments that exceed twenty percent (20%) of the current Pre-Construction Cost contract value shall require approval by the City Council for each Party. If a Party does not grant such approval, the Parties will immediately confer in an attempt to reconcile the disagreement. Should the Parties be unable to reach agreement, measures shall be taken to reduce the additional costs below 20% of the current contract value and in no such event shall the Parties be liable for Pre-Construction Costs in excess of these amounts absent a written amendment to this Agreement. Cost share percentages for Pre‐ Construction Costs may be temporarily adjusted to help reconcile remaining Pre‐Construction Cost contributions for each of the Parties, if funding is available, until the cumulative contributions by each Party approximately match the Water Purveyor Contribution percentages set forth in Page 141 of 310 {CW108993.18} COST SHARING AGREEMENT City of Arroyo Grande, City of Pismo Beach, and City of Grover Beach Page 8 of 13 Section 2, above, taking into account the payments already made by Pismo Beach, and the contributions already made by Grover Beach and Arroyo Grande, for Phase 1. Once Pre‐ Construction Cost contributions approximate the Water Purveyor Contribution percentages, the remaining Pre-Construction Costs will be split according to the Water Purveyor Contribution percentages. In the event that the costs funded by Pismo Beach, Arroyo Grande, and Grover Beach do not match the cumulative contributions in the Water Purveyor Contribution percentages set forth in Section 2, above, prior to construction, the Parties shall structure the construction financing to achieve the contributions in the Water Purveyor Contribution percentages. 4. Invoicing. Pismo Beach shall, on a monthly basis, invoice each other Party for its pro rata percentage of the expenses incurred, as established in the budget approved by the Party’s City Councils for all Pre-Construction and Construction Costs. Payment shall be made within thirty (30) days of receipt of each invoice as to all non‐disputed charges. If a Party disputes any of the charges, it shall give written notice to Pismo Beach within thirty (30) days of receipt of an invoice of any disputed charges set forth on the invoice. In the event that payment is not made as to all non‐disputed charges consistent with this Section, interest may apply at the maximum rate allowed by law. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Construction Costs financed by the JPA shall be invoiced to and paid by the JPA consistent with any financing agreements entered into by the JPA, including the time frames and other requirements included in the financing agreements. In the event that the JPA does not obtain financing for the Construction Costs and each Party obtains financing for its respective share of Construction Costs, invoices will be paid consistent with the financing agreements entered into by the Parties, including the time frames and other requirements included in the financing agreements. Pismo Beach agrees to provide all documentation necessary for the JPA, or for a Party individually financing its share of the Construction Costs, to receive reimbursements for Construction Costs consistent with the financing agreement entered into by the JPA or the Party. 5. Payment Limitations. The respective obligation of each Party to make payments herein with respect to the Pre-Construction and Construction Costs of Phase 1 or in furtherance of the objective and purpose of this Agreement, is a special, limited obligation payable solely from net revenues of each party’s respective Enterprise fund(s), and does not constitute a debt or pledge of the faith and credit of each Party or of the State of California or of any political subdivision thereof within the meaning of any constitutional or statutory debt limitation or restriction. The payments made under this Agreement are payable from net revenues of each party’s respective Enterprise fund(s) on such a basis as is dictated by each Party’s existing debt instruments. The respective obligation of each Party to make payments hereunder or in furtherance of the objective and purpose of this Agreement is further subject to the Parties establishing sufficient net revenues to fund the obligations of this Agreement, which includes, but is not limited to, approval by the Party’s City Councils for an increase in Enterprise user fees sufficient to meet the above obligations of this Agreement, the successful implementation of a Proposition 218 protest hearing wherein the Parties are authorized to proceed with approval of a fee increase, and the attainment of Proposition 1 Groundwater Grant Program Grant Funding by the State Water Resources Control Board. Page 142 of 310 {CW108993.18} COST SHARING AGREEMENT City of Arroyo Grande, City of Pismo Beach, and City of Grover Beach Page 9 of 13 6. Grant Funding. Any grant funding obtained for Pre-Construction or Construction Costs will be applied to reduce the total cost of Phase 1. The Parties’ obligations for such costs shall be reduced according to the contribution percentages set forth in Section 2, above. ARTICLE V Miscellaneous 1. Indemnification. a. Each Party hereto agrees to protect, indemnify, defend, and hold harmless each of the other Parties and their elected officials, officers, employees, agents, successors, and assigns from and against any and all actual or potential claims, liabilities, damages, losses, fines, penalties, judgments, awards, costs, and expenses (including without limitation reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs and all foreseeable, unforeseeable and consequential damages) asserted against, resulting in, imposed upon, or incurred by said other Party by reason of the first Party’s breach of any provisions of this Agreement, the Adjudication Decree, the Management Agreement, or applicable federal or State law. This indemnification shall survive the termination of this Agreement. b. Notwithstanding the above indemnity provision, costs and expenses arising from an action challenging the preparation, approval, or certification of the Facility Environmental Impact Report (Facility EIR) or any other document related to certification under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) used by Pismo Beach for the approval of the Project, shall be considered a Pre-Construction Cost subject to pro-rata division. However, if the challenge is successful, Pismo Beach shall pay any award of attorney’s fees. 2. Records. Pismo Beach shall maintain identifiable records regarding any and all costs and expenses subject to this Agreement, including records of billing, payment, and other documents related to the execution of its obligations under this Agreement. The Parties and their designated agents shall have the right to inspect all records maintained by Pismo Beach associated with this Agreement at any time during normal business hours, with fifteen (15) business days’ advanced written notice to Pismo Beach. 3. Assignability. This Agreement shall not be assignable by any Party hereto to any other Party or non-party. 4. No Third Party Beneficiary. This Agreement shall not be construed or deemed to be an agreement for the benefit of any third party or parties and no third party or parties shall have any claim or right of action hereunder for any cause whatsoever. 5. Notice. Any notice or communication required hereunder between the Parties must be in writing and may be given either personally, by registered or certified mail (return receipt requested), or by Federal Express, UPS, or other similar couriers providing overnight delivery. If personally delivered, a notice or communication shall be deemed to have been given when delivered to the Party whom it is addressed. If given by registered or certified mail, such notice or communication shall be deemed to have been given and received on the first to occur of (i) actual receipt by any of the addressees designated below as the Party to whom notices are to be sent; or Page 143 of 310 {CW108993.18} COST SHARING AGREEMENT City of Arroyo Grande, City of Pismo Beach, and City of Grover Beach Page 10 of 13 (ii) five (5) calendar days after a registered or certified letter containing such notice, properly addressed, with postage prepaid, is deposited in the United States mail. If given by Federal Express or similar overnight courier, a notice or communication shall be deemed to have been given and received on the date delivered as shown on a receipt issued by the courier. Any Party hereto may at any time, by giving ten (10) calendar days’ written notice to the other Party hereto, designate any other address in substitution of the address to which such notice or communication shall be given. Such notices or communications shall be given to the Parties at their addresses set forth below: To City of Arroyo Grande: Whitney McDonald City Manager for City of Arroyo Grande 1375 Ash Street Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 With copy to: White Brenner LLP Attn: Barbara A. Brenner, Esq. 1414 K Street, 3rd Floor Sacramento, CA 95814 To City of Grover Beach: Matthew Bronson City Manager for City of Grover Beach 154 S. Eighth Street Grover Beach, CA 93433 With copy to: David Hale, City Attorney 1233 W. Shaw Ave. Ste. 106 Fresno, CA 93711 To City of Pismo Beach James R. Lewis City Manager for City of Pismo Beach 760 Mattie Road Pismo Beach, CA 93449 With copy to: Richards, Watson & Gershon Attn: Dave Fleishman, Esq. 847 Monterey Street, Suite 206 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 6. Amendments. No alteration of the terms of this Agreement shall be valid unless made in writing and signed by the Parties and incorporated into this Agreement. 7. Severability Clause. In case any one or more of the provisions contained herein shall, for any reason, be held invalid, illegal, or unenforceable in any respect, it shall not affect the validity of the other provisions, which shall remain in full force and effect. Page 144 of 310 {CW108993.18} COST SHARING AGREEMENT City of Arroyo Grande, City of Pismo Beach, and City of Grover Beach Page 11 of 13 8. Captions. The captions of the various sections, paragraphs and subparagraphs of this Agreement are for convenience only and shall not be considered nor referred to for resolving questions of interpretation of this Agreement. 9. Opt-out Clause. Any Party may opt-out of this Agreement prior to the award of the first Phase 1 construction contract. Any Party exercising this opt-out clause shall be responsible for their pro rata share of the Pre-Construction Costs as set forth in Article IV up to the date of opting-out. 10. Dispute Resolution. In the event of any dispute arising from or relating to this Agreement, the disputing Party shall, within thirty (30) calendar days of discovery of the event(s) giving rise to the dispute, notify all Parties to this Agreement in writing of the basis for the dispute. Within thirty (30) calendar days of receipt of said notice, the Parties shall meet and confer in good faith to informally resolve the dispute. Except as provided in Article III, Section 4, and Article IV, Section 3, all disputes that are not resolved informally shall be settled by non-binding mediation. Within ten (10) calendar days following the failed informal proceedings, each Party shall nominate and circulate to all other Parties the name of two (2) mediators. Within ten (10) calendar days following the nominations, the Parties shall rank their top three among all nominated mediators, awarding 3 points to the top choice, 2 points to the second choice, and 1 point to the third choice, and zero points to all others. Each Party shall forward its tally to Pismo Beach, who shall tabulate the points and notify the Parties of the name of the mediator with the highest cumulative score, who shall be the selected mediator. In the event of a tie vote, or in the event the selected mediator declines or ceases to act, Pismo Beach may develop a procedure for approval by the Parties for selecting a mediator. Upon completion of mediation, if the controversy has not been resolved, any Party may exercise all rights to bring a legal action relating to the controversy in state or federal court, as applicable. 11. Statutes and Law Governing Contract. This Agreement shall be governed and construed in accordance with the statutes and laws of the State of California. 12. Venue. Venue for all legal proceedings shall be in the Superior Court of California in and for the County of San Luis Obispo. 13. Waiver. The Parties’ waiver of any term, condition or covenant, or breach of any term, condition or covenant shall not be construed as a waiver of any other term, condition or covenant or breach of any other term, condition, or covenant. 14. Attorney’s Fees and Costs. If any action at law or in equity, including action for declaratory relief, is brought to enforce or interpret the provisions of this Agreement, the prevailing Party shall be entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees and costs, which may be set by the court in the same action or in a separate action brought for that purpose, in addition to any other relief to which such Party may be entitled. 15. Entire Agreement. This Agreement contains the entire Agreement between Arroyo Grande, Grover Beach and Pismo Beach relating to Phase 1 of the Project. Any prior agreements, promises, negotiations, or representations not expressly set forth in this Agreement are of no force or effect. Page 145 of 310 {CW108993.18} COST SHARING AGREEMENT City of Arroyo Grande, City of Pismo Beach, and City of Grover Beach Page 12 of 13 16. Good Faith. To the extent reasonably required, each Party to this Agreement shall, in good faith, cooperate and assist the other Party in meeting its obligations under this Agreement. 17. Authority. The Parties to this Agreement warrant and represent that they have the power and authority to enter into this Agreement and the names, titles, and capacities herein stated on behalf of any entities, persons, states, counties or cities represented, or purported to be represented, by such entities, persons, states, counties or cities and that all former requirements necessary or required by state or federal law in order to enter into the Agreement have been fully complied with. Further, by entering into this Agreement no Party hereto shall have breached the terms or conditions of any other contract or agreement to which such Party is obligated, which such breach would have a material effect hereon. 18. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, and all such executed counterparts shall constitute the same agreement. It shall be necessary to account for only one such counterpart from and executed by each Party hereto in proving this Agreement. 19. Other Agreements. This Agreement shall not prevent any Party from entering into similar agreements with others. The Parties acknowledge and accept the terms and conditions of this Agreement as evidenced by the following signatures of their duly authorized representatives. It is the intent of the Parties that this Agreement shall become operative on the Effective Date. 20. Drafting and Ambiguities. Each Party acknowledges that it has reviewed this Agreement with its own legal counsel, and based upon the advice of that counsel, freely entered into this Agreement. Each Party has participated fully in the review and revision of this Agreement. Any rule of construction that ambiguities are to be resolved against the drafting Party, does not apply in interpreting this Agreement. [Signatures on Following Page] Page 146 of 310 {CW108993.18} COST SHARING AGREEMENT City of Arroyo Grande, City of Pismo Beach, and City of Grover Beach Page 13 of 13 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of the day and year first written above. CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE a municipal Corporation By: ________________________________ _______________________, City Manager APPROVED AS TO FORM: By: ________________________________ _______________________, City Attorney ATTEST: By: ________________________________ __________________________, City Clerk CITY OF GROVER BEACH A municipal Corporation By: ________________________________ ________________________, City Manger APPROVED AS TO FORM: By: ________________________________ _______________________, City Attorney ATTEST: By: ________________________________ __________________________, City Clerk CITY OF PISMO BEACH a municipal Corporation By: ________________________________ _______________________, City Manager APPROVED AS TO FORM: By: ________________________________ _______________________, City Attorney ATTEST: By: ________________________________ __________________________, City Clerk Page 147 of 310 ATTACHMENT 2 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE AUTHORIZING THE APPLICATION FOR FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE FROM THE STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD FOR CLEAN WATER STATE REVOLVING FUND ASSISTANCE FOR THE CENTRAL COAST BLUE PROJECT AND DESIGNATING THE CITY’S AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE WHEREAS, the City of Arroyo Grande (“City”) intends to participate in the Central Coast Blue Project (“Project”), a regional recycled water project that, during Phase 1, will produce new developed water for the participating cities of Arroyo Grande, Grover Beach, and Pismo Beach; and WHEREAS, the Arroyo Grande City Council approved a Cost Sharing Memorandum of Agreement Framework on August 11, 2020, and adopted findings as a responsible agency under the California Environmental Quality Act in support of th e Project on March 23, 2021; and WHEREAS, Phase 1 the Project will be constructed by the City of Pismo Beach as lead agency, and it is anticipated that Arroyo Grande will fund 25% of the Project costs incurred by the City of Pismo Beach in exchange for 25% of the water produced by the Project; and WHEREAS, it is anticipated that the Arroyo Grande City Council will consider approval of a Cost Sharing Agreement with the Cities of Pismo Beach and Grover Beach that will require formation of a Joint Powers Authority, with the Cities of Arroyo Grande, Grover Beach, and Pismo Beach as its members, that will own and operate the facilities following completion of construction by Pismo Beach; and WHEREAS, the State Water Resources Control Board (“State Water Board”) administers California’s Clean Water State Revolving Fund (“CWSRF”), which provides low-cost financial assistance to public agencies and Native American tribal governments for the construction of clean water projects in California , and it is the intent of the Project participants to seek funding from the CWSRF for construction of Phase 1 of the Project ; and WHEREAS, in order to increase the potential for Phase 1 of the Project to receive sufficient financial assistance from the CWSRF by the anticipated construction start date in 2023, General Applications for financial assistance were required to be submitt ed to the State Water Board by December 31, 2021; and Page 148 of 310 RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 2 WHEREAS, on December 30, 2021, the City Manager submitted a General Application to the State Water Board on behalf of the City seeking financial assistance from the CWSRF for the City’s anticipated share of construction costs for Phase 1 of the Project, with the qualification that authorization had not yet been provided by the Arroyo Grande City Council and that the application would be withdrawn if such authorization is not provided; and WHEREAS, the City Council intends to authorize the application for financial assistance from the CWSRF for its share of construction costs for Phase 1 of the Project to enable the City to continue working toward securing the lowest-cost financing available for the Project. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande as follows: 1. The recitals stated above are true, correct, and incorporated herein by this reference. 2. The Arroyo Grande City Manager (the “Authorized Representative”) or her designee is hereby authorized and directed to sign and file, for and on behalf of the City of Arroyo Grande (“City”), a Financial Assistance Application for a financing agreement from the State Water Resources Control Board for the planning, design, and construction of the Central Coast Blue Project, Phase 1 (the “Project”). 3. This Authorized Representative, or her designee, is designated to provide the assurances, certifications, and commitments required for the financial assistance application, including executing a financial assistance agreement from the State Water Resources Control Board and any amendments or changes thereto. 4. The Authorized Representative, or her designee, is designated to represent the City in carrying out the City’s responsibilities under the financing agreement, including certifying disbursement requests on behalf of the City and compliance with applicable State and federal laws. On motion of Council Member __________, seconded by Council Member ____________ , and on the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted this 25th day of January, 2022. Page 149 of 310 RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 3 CAREN RAY RUSSOM, MAYOR ATTEST: JESSICA MATSON, CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: WHITNEY MCDONALD, CITY MANAGER APPROVED AS TO FORM: TIMOTHY J. CARMEL, CITY ATTORNEY Page 150 of 310 General Application Form I.APPLICANT INFORMATIONAoolicant Name: City of Arroyo Grande Street Address: 300 East Branch Street I City: Arroyo Grande State: CA Zip+4 Code: APPiicant Type: [@"Public CI!' Indian Tribe l][fNonprofit [[[Other: Specify: County: San Luis Obispo Charter City/County: IITYes !BNo Mailing Address: 300 East Branch Street I City: Arroyo Grande State: CA Zip+4 Code: Applicant Total Population: 17,555 Current year median household income (MHI): 80,833 Conqressional District(s): 24th District of California State Senate District(s): 17th Senate District State Assembly District(s): 35th Assembly District Data Universal Numberinq System (DUNS) No.: 077-252575 I Federal Tax ID No.: 95-6000668 Regional Water Board where the project will take place: . [('.t1 (North Coast) �2 (San Francisco Bay) ! (Central Coal Ct4 (Los Angeles) [p:"5 (Central Valley) lp'"6 (Lahontan) Jtt7 (Colorado River)(Santa Ana) ··--9 (San Diego) Authorized Representative Name: Title: Phone No.: Email Address: Contact Person Name: Rob Morrow Phone No.: (805) 457-8833 I Email Address:rmorrow@wsc-inc.com Local Counsel Name: Timothy J, Carmel Phone No.: Email Address: tcarmel@carnaclaw.com }l. PRQJ.e<nlNFOR�ATIOH AND PRQPOS�D SCHEDULE Project Title: Central Coast Blue -Phase 1 Project Description and Objectives: (Enter a brief description of the project and its objectives) -, -··· 93420-2706 93420-2706 Central Coast Blue involves treatment, conveyance, and well facilities for advanced treatment of secondary effluent from the Pismo Beach Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) for groundwater injection lo act as a seawater intrusion barrie. Current Status of Plans & Specifications: Percent(%): 50% Amount of Assistance Requested: 10,851,894 Total Project Cost (If More Than the Amount of Assistance Requested): $43,400,000 Project Location I City: Grover Beach I State: CA Zip+4 Code: 93433 -3023 Street Address: 972 Huber Street Project Location -Latitude: 35°06'39,71" I Project Location -Longitude: 120 °37'20,78" NPDES Permit or WDR Order No.: CA0048151/R3-2015-0016 Population Served by Project: 200,000 Currently Estimated Project Schedule: Financial Assistance Application (Rev, 11 /2019) Adopt Environmental Documents 100% Plans & Specifications Start of Construction/Implementation Complete Construction/Implementation Page 5 of 6 Estimated or Actual Date February 2021 September 2022 October 2022 March 2024 General Information Package Clean Water State Revolving Fund ATTACHMENT 3 Page 151 of 310 Page 152 of 310 Page 153 of 310 Item 11.a. MEMORANDUM TO: City Council FROM: Brian Pedrotti, Community Development Director BY: Robin Dickerson, PE, City Engineer SUBJECT: Consideration of Project Update and Approval of the Local Road Safety Plan (LRSP) DATE: January 25, 2022 SUMMARY OF ACTION: Consideration of a project update and adoption of a Resolution approving the Local Road Safety Plan (LRSP) to allow the City to continue to be eligible for Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) Funding, which requires an approved LRSP starting with Cycle 11 in 2022. The LRSP also identifies the intersections and road segments with the highest relative severity of collisions and provides a list of improvement projects (which qualify for HSIP funding) and strategies to meet the listed goals of the Plan. IMPACT ON FINANCIAL AND PERSONNEL RESOURCES: The approval of the LRSP does not require any additional funding at this time. Projects identified in the LRSP will be incorporated into the City’s Capital Improvement Program and submitted to Council for funding approval in the future as HSIP funding becomes available. RECOMMENDATION: Receive the project update and adopt the Resolution approving the LRSP. BACKGROUND: In 2019, Caltrans announced that starting in April 2022, applications for Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) Cycle 11 funds will require a LRSP. In October 2019 , the City Council authorized GHD, one of the City’s on-call engineering consultants, to prepare the City’s LRSP. The LRSP is a traffic safety planning document for local agencies to address unique roadway needs in their jurisdictions, including key safety activities and projects to ensure a safe public transportation system for all modes. The comprehensive document will help to guide the City’s implementation of safety countermeasures and allow eligibility for funding in future HSIP grant applications. In November 2019, a Stakeholders Working Group was established as part of the LRSP process. From Page 154 of 310 Item 11.a. City Council Consideration of Project Update and Approval of the Local Road Safety Plan (LRSP) January 25, 2022 Page 2 December 2019 to April 2021, four meetings were held with the Stakeholders Working Group to formulate and finalize the LRSP. In May 2021, the City completed a Systemic Safety Analysis Report (SSAR), Attachment 2, with the assistance of a specialized consultant (GHD). The SSAR is a proactive safety report that focuses on evaluating an entire roadway network using a defined set of criteria. The SSAR analyzes crash history on an aggregate basis to identify high -risk roadway characteristics, rather than looking at high-collision concentration locations through site analysis. The goal of the SSAR is to assist local agencies to identify safety projects to submit for HSIP funding consideration. The LRSP was completed in September 2021, and was presented to the Planning Commission on October 19, 2021 for review and comment to the City Council. Several comments were received from the Planning Commission focusing on the following areas, summarized below:  The Commission expressed a desire for more public comment and engagement opportunities in the future;  Questions were discussed regarding bike and pedestrian improvements, with a focus on the safety of pedestrians and bicyclists, particularly around schools; and  The Commission recognized the importance of Police enforcement of safety requirements. During the discussion, staff explained that many of the concerns regarding pedestrian and bicycle safety and improvements will be addressed in a future Active Transportation Plan (ATP), rather than the LRSP which is not a design document, and that the ATP will include a robust public outreach program. In addition, staff hosted a meeting between a Planning Commissioner and GHD to facilitate the receipt of additional input, which resulted in revisions to the organization and readability of the document. ANALYSIS OF ISSUES: The HSIP is a Federal-aid program that incorporates a data-driven, strategic approach to improving highway safety that focuses on performance. California’s Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) provides a strategic direction for the State's safety investment decisions, and the HSIP supports and finances projects that implement countermeasures to improve the safety of targeted roadways and intersections. As mentioned above, in 2019, Caltrans notified local agencies that the starting in 2022 (Cycle 11), an approved LRSP will be required with all future HSIP applications. A LRSP provides a framework for organizing stakeholders to identify, analyze, and prioritize roadway safety improvements on local and rural roads. The process of developing an LRSP can be tailored to local protocols, needs, and issues. However, Page 155 of 310 Item 11.a. City Council Consideration of Project Update and Approval of the Local Road Safety Plan (LRSP) January 25, 2022 Page 3 safety projects stemming from the plan need to be consistent with Federal and State project funding requirements if those funds will be used for project implementation. The plan should be viewed as a living document that can be continually reviewed and updated to reflect changing local needs and priorities, at a minimum it should be reviewed and updated every five years. While the SHSP is used as a statewide approach for improving roadway safety, an LRSP can be a means for providing local and rural road owners with an opportunity to address unique highway safety needs in their jurisdictions while contributing to the success of the SHSP. The LRSP utilizes a Vision Zero approach which strives to eliminate all traffic fatalities and severe injuries while increasing safe, healthy, and equitable mobility for all. Traditionally, traffic fatalities and severe injuries have been considered inevitable side effects of modern life. The reality is that these tragedies can be addressed over time by taking a proactive, preventative approach that prioritizes traffic safety as a public health issue. The LRSP development process is broken down into six steps. The 6 steps are 1) establishment of a Stakeholders Working Group, 2) analysis of safety data, 3) determine challenge/emphasis areas, 4) identify strategies, 5) prioritize and incorporate strategies, and 6) evaluate and update the plan. These strategies are discussed further below. Stakeholders Working Group The LRSP is a data-driven process similar to the SSAR, except the LRSP includes a local stakeholders working group that represents the 5E’s (Engineering, Enforcement, Education, Emergency Response and Emerging Technologies) to guide and develop the LRSP. The Stakeholders Working Group included staff representatives from the City’s Community Development, Police, and Public Works Departments, the Five Cities Fire Authority, San Luis Obispo County, the City of Grover Beach, the City of Pismo Beach, Caltrans District 5, the Lucia Mar Unified School District, the San Luis Obispo Bike Club, and Bike SLO County. Preparing the LRSP facilitates local agency partnerships and collaboration, resulting in a prioritized list of improvements that contribute to the SHSP ’s overall vision and goals. The SHSP focuses on reducing fatal and severe injury collisions in certain “challenge and emphasis areas.” The LRSP is a collaborative process that builds on the collision analysis from the SSAR through the local Stakeholders Working Group and guides the formation of the plan. The holistic approach of engaging stakeholders and the community in the development of the LRSP allows certain areas of concern to be analyzed that may not have otherwise appeared through crash pattern data. It also fosters, local, State, and agency partnerships to advance local road safety. Page 156 of 310 Item 11.a. City Council Consideration of Project Update and Approval of the Local Road Safety Plan (LRSP) January 25, 2022 Page 4 The LRSP, through collaboration with the stakeholders working group, has developed 12 goals and established a process for measuring the success of each goal. The 12 goals are as follows: 1. Reduce the potential for fatal and severe injury collisions Citywide. 2. Reduce the potential for rear-end collisions Citywide. 3. Reduce the potential for bicycle and pedestrian collisions Citywide. 4. Improve the health and vitality of the community with a safety plan that encourages safety for pedestrians and bicyclists that is targeted to Arroyo Grande’s local roadway needs. 5. Improve safety around schools with a connected multimodal system and improved crossings. 6. Increase walking, biking, and rolling (wheelchairs, skateboards, scooters, etc.) to the downtown district, to work, and to school. 7. Improve safety at uncontrolled intersection. 8. Increase driver and pedestrian education. 9. Reduce distracted driving. 10. Improve bicycle safety with additional bikeways and green bike lanes for vehicle to bicycle conflict areas. 11. Increase traffic enforcement. 12. Receive grant funding for LRSP identified projects. Analysis of Safety Data Focusing on roadway safety needs, the stakeholders working group evaluated collision data Citywide from the SSAR from 2014 to 2020. From 2014 to 2020, there were total of 276 collisions identified on City streets, which included 5 fatalities and 18 severe injuries. Broadside collisions were the most common type of collision and accounted for 84 incidents, followed by rear-end collisions at 76. The top violation category was unsafe speed, which accounted for 59 collisions, followed by automobile right-of-way violations resulting in 51 collisions. Based on this collision data, the top locations and segments in the City for collisions were identified as part of the LRSP. Challenges/Emphasis Areas The next step in the LRSP process was to determine the challenge or emphasis areas. The California SHSP identifies 16 challenge/emphasis areas for development of the LRSP. Based on the LRSP stakeholders working group recommendations, the LRSP focused on multiple challenge areas, including but not limited to bicyclists, intersections, pedestrians, distracted driving, aggressive driving/speeding, emerging technologies, and emergency response. Due to the challenges of COVID over the past two years, public outreach included the use of a Social Pinpoint website hosted and managed by the City’s consultant, GHD. Comments pertaining to speeding, pedestrian improvements, and bicycle improvements Page 157 of 310 Item 11.a. City Council Consideration of Project Update and Approval of the Local Road Safety Plan (LRSP) January 25, 2022 Page 5 were received from the interactive map provided through the website, and detailed results can be found in Appendix A of the LRSP (provided in Exhibit A - Attachment 2). Strategies, Prioritization and Incorporation Based on the collision data, input from the stakeholders working group, and public input from the Social Pinpoint website, a list of improvement projects was developed, prioritized and incorporated into the LRSP. The Engineering Strategies for the plan include pedestrian improvements at signalized intersections, non-pedestrian improvements at signalized intersections, pedestrian improvements at uncontrolled locations, bike lane improvements along identified segments, road diets, signage improvements, curve- related improvements, striping and pavement marking improvements , and speed management. A full list of improvements and locations can be found in the LRSP. (See Exhibit A - Attachment 2.) To complete the remaining 4 E’s, the following strategies are also incorporated into the plan. Education Strategies include various education campaigns targeting pedestrians, drivers, bicyclists, and students. Emerging technologies include bicycle and video detection, use of changeable message signs, the use of a data collectors for speed and traffic volumes, and updating older technologies. Enforcement measures include the addition of full time and part-time motorcycle officers planned in the City’s current biennial budget, targeted speed enforcement, and DUI saturation patrols. The final strategy, Emergency Response, includes continuing to provide administrative staff, continued dissemination of emergency preparedness information and the continued use of the Save a Life- PulsePoint Responder smart phone app designed to empower Five Cities Fire personnel and everyday citizens to save a life. Letters of support from both Caltrans’ District 5 office and the Lucia Mar Unified School District have been received and are incorporated into Appendix A of the LRSP (Exhibit A - Attachment 2). Implementation, Evaluation, and Updates to the LRSP In evaluating how to implement safety projects, a prioritized list of projects has been developed and can be found in Appendix C of the LRSP (Exhibit A - Attachment 2). Staff will look for opportunities to incorporate safety enhancements with the City’s Capital Improvement Program. Obtaining funding for these projects will be critical. Additional funding opportunities are anticipated through grant funding, including HSIP, Active Transportation Program (ATP), Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ), Sa fe Routes to Schools, Sustainable Transportation Planning Grants, also known as Sustainable Communities, and Senate Bill 1 (SB1) grant and funding programs. To evaluate the success of the plan, yearly collision analysis and an annual reconvening of the stakeholders group should take place over the next five years. In addition, staff continues to receive public feedback through individual citizens and ad -hoc groups that Page 158 of 310 Item 11.a. City Council Consideration of Project Update and Approval of the Local Road Safety Plan (LRSP) January 25, 2022 Page 6 coalesce around neighborhood-specific traffic safety issues. Staff will continue to communicate and respond to these neighborhood or advisory groups as they organize. The information provided during this process would then be compared to the established goals in the LRSP. The goals will be updated and modified based on future data and feedback. The LRSP is a living document and will guide the City’s roadway safety needs for the next five years. Applications for State and Federal funding to implement projects and strategies as identified in the plan will come back to the Council for approval. In addition, future modifications and updates to the plan itself are anticipated to come back to the City Council for review and adoption. ALTERNATIVES: The following alternatives are provided for the Council’s consideration: 1. Receive the project update and adopt the Resolution approving the LRSP; 2. Receive the project update and do not approve the LRSP and provide further direction to staff regarding necessary changes to the LRSP ; or 3. Provide other direction to staff. ADVANTAGES: The LRSP creates a framework to systematically identify and analyze local safety problems and recommended safety improvements for future HSIP funding and other available funding sources. The LRSP also provides the City with a prioritized list of improvements, strategies, and actions that contribute to California’s SHSP overall visions and goals. Implementing the improvement projects and strategies identified in the LRSP will allow the City to meet the goals set forth in the plan. DISADVANTAGES: Future funding will be needed to implement the improvements and actions identified in the LRSP. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: This action does not constitute a “project” within the meaning of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15378 and is also exempt under CEQA Guidelines Section 15306 (information collection) and 15262 (planning or feasibility studies). Therefore, no environmental review is required. Each future project completed will evaluate environmental impacts on a project-by-project basis. The individual projects developed from the LRSP will include the necessary environmental reviews and studies. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND COMMENTS: The Agenda was posted at City Hall and on the City’s website in accord ance with Government Code Section 54954.2. Comments received through the public input process assisted in identifying some of the projects identified in the LRSP. Additional comments from the Planning Commission review have transformed the LRSP into the current document. At the time of report publication, no additional comments have been received. Page 159 of 310 Item 11.a. City Council Consideration of Project Update and Approval of the Local Road Safety Plan (LRSP) January 25, 2022 Page 7 Attachments: 1. Proposed Resolution 2. Exhibit A to the Proposed Resolution (LRSP with appendices) 3. Systemic Safety Analysis Report (SSAR) Page 160 of 310 ATTACHMENT 1 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING THE LOCAL ROADS SAFETY PLAN (LRSP) WHEREAS, the City Council authorized a Consultant Services Agreement with GHD to assist with preparing a Local Roads Safety Plan (Plan); and WHEREAS, the Plan is being created for the purpose of complying with new State and federal requirements related to the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP); and WHEREAS, the Local Road Safety Plan is a requirement for future HSIP grant applications; and WHEREAS, the Plan has been developed through the coordinated efforts of City staff, consultants and a stakeholders working group and input from the public through an on - line engagement; and WHEREAS, a review session was held by the Planning Commission on October 19, 2021, to discuss and receive comments on the City’s draft Local Roads Safety Plan; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed and considered the information and the Local Road Safety Plan presented at the meeting on January 25, 2022, and the information contained in the Local Roads Safety Plan, staff report, and the administrative record. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande hereby approves the Local Roads Safety Plan; as set forth in “Exhibit A,” attached hereto. On motion by Council Member ________, seconded by Council Member_______, and by the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 25th day of January, 2022. Page 161 of 310 RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 2 _______________________________ CAREN RAY RUSSOM, MAYOR ATTEST: _______________________________________ JESSICA MATSON, CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: __________________________________ WHITNEY McDONALD, CITY MANAGER APPROVED AS TO FROM: __________________________________ TIMOTHY J. CARMEL, CITY ATTORNEY Page 162 of 310 1. Local Road Safety Plan (LRSP) City of Arroyo Grande Final Draft Report ATTACHMENT 2 Page 163 of 310 GHD | Arroyo Grande LRSP | R1989RPT003 LRSP | Page i This page was intentionally left blank. Page 164 of 310 GHD | Arroyo Grande LRSP | R1989RPT003 LRSP | Page ii Acknowledgements A special thanks to all the Safety Partners that contributed to this plan. City of Arroyo Grande Mayor and Council Members Community Development Department Police Department Public Works Department Five Cities Fire Authority San Luis Obispo County City of Grover Beach City of Pismo Beach Caltrans, District 5 Lucia Mar Unified School District Safe Routes to School Coordinator San Luis Obispo Bike Club Bike SLO County Page 165 of 310 GHD | Arroyo Grande LRSP | R1989RPT003 LRSP | Page iii Executive Summary The Local Road Safety Plan (LRSP) is a traffic safety planning document for local agencies to address unique roadway safety needs in their jurisdictions. This comprehensive document will both help to guide the City’s implementation of safety countermeasures and allow eligibility for funding in future HSIP grant applications. Preparing an LRSP facilitates local agency partnerships and collaboration, resulting in a prioritized list of improvements and actions that contribute to California’s Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) overall vision and goals. This SHSP focuses on reducing fatal and severe injury collisions with focused challenge/emphasis areas. The LRSP is a collaborative process that will build on the collision analysis from the Systemic Safety Analysis Report (SSAR) with a local leadership stakeholder group that represents the 5 E’s (shown below) and guides the formation of the plan. The LRSP helps to address the 5Es of traffic safety: Engineering, Enforcement, Education, Emergency Services, and Emerging Technologies. In 2016, Arroyo Grande was awarded funding from Caltrans for the Systemic Safety Analysis Report Program (SSARP) for analysis of the City’s entire roadway system. Per the upcoming HSIP Cycle 11 requirements, the City of Arroyo Grande added a Local Road Safety Plan to the process to be eligible for future funding. This holistic approach of engaging stakeholders and the community in the development, allows certain areas of concern not showing a crash pattern to be analyzed. Also, it fosters local, state, and agency partnerships to advance local road safety. In following the overall LRSP process, a Stakeholder Working Group (Working Group) was formed with the City as the lead with participation from local organizations from the 5 E’s and anyone with an interest in improving the City’s roadway safety. This group gathered for meetings to discuss the overall collision analysis, goals, priorities, safety recommendations, and overall development of the safety plan. In addition, after completion of the plan, support letters were provided by Caltrans and Lucia Del Mar Unified School District (see Appendix A). Based on the Working Group Meetings, this LRSP will address multiple SHSP Challenge Areas including but not limited to: 1. Bicyclists 2. Intersections Page 166 of 310 GHD | Arroyo Grande LRSP | R1989RPT003 LRSP | Page iv 3. Pedestrians 4. Distracted Driving 5. Aggressive Driving/Speeding In addition, the vision, mission statement, and goals were established in guiding the development of the LRSP. It was also decided that the LRSP for the City of Arroyo Grande would be a living document with official updates every five (5) years. Based on the input from the Working Group, this LRSP recommends the following strategies for the focused study locations and Citywide systemic applications for the 5 E’s of Traffic Safety. 1. Engineering: Apply low-cost safety countermeasures at current locations experiencing collisions and systemically at locations with similar risks (comprehensive approach). 2. Enforcement: Enforce actions that reduce high-risk behaviors to include speeding, distracted roadway usage, and Driving Under the Influence (DUI). 3. Education: Educate all road users on safe behaviors. 4. Emergency Response: Improve emergency response times and actions. 5. Emerging Technologies: Utilize emerging technologies in conveying and collecting information from the roadway users in an effort to improve safety and operations. In addition, it is important to understand the upcoming funding opportunities in the successful implementation of these safety projects. Funding opportunities include but not limited to: 1. Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) – Call typically every 2 years. Last call (cycle 10) started in April 2020 and ended November 2, 2020 (extended due to COVID-19) a. Next call HSIP Cycle 11 is schedule to start in April 2022 2. Active Transportation Program (ATP) a. Next call for funding projects is scheduled to start in March 2022 3. Safe Routes to School grants 4. Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) program 5. Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant (Sustainable Communities) 6. Other funding sources are Senate Bill 1 (SB 1) and Federal Highway Administration Page 167 of 310 GHD | Arroyo Grande LRSP | R1989RPT003 LRSP | Page v Table of Contents 1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 1 2. Background .................................................................................................................................. 2 2.1 Purpose and Need ............................................................................................................. 2 2.2 Guiding Documents ........................................................................................................... 3 2.3 Methodology ...................................................................................................................... 3 3. Safety Partners and Stakeholders ............................................................................................... 5 3.1 LRSP Stakeholder Working Group Meetings .................................................................... 5 3.2 SHSP Challenge Areas...................................................................................................... 6 3.3 Guiding Principles .............................................................................................................. 6 3.3.1 Vision ................................................................................................................ 7 3.3.2 Mission Statement ............................................................................................ 7 3.3.3 Goals ................................................................................................................ 7 3.3.4 Vision Zero ........................................................................................................ 8 3.3.5 Safe Systems Approach ................................................................................... 9 3.3.5.1 Assembly Bill (AB) 43 ....................................................................................... 9 4. Analyze Safety Data ................................................................................................................... 10 4.1 Recent/Planned Safety Projects ...................................................................................... 10 4.2 Collision Data ................................................................................................................... 11 4.3 Top Collision Locations .................................................................................................... 13 4.3.1 Top Collision Locations – Based on Collision Severity .................................. 13 4.3.2 Top Additional Collision Locations – Based on Crash Rates ......................... 15 4.4 Bicycle Collisions ............................................................................................................. 15 4.5 Pedestrian Collisions ....................................................................................................... 16 4.6 Fatal and Severe Injury Collisions ................................................................................... 17 5. Emphasis Areas ......................................................................................................................... 19 6. Public Outreach .......................................................................................................................... 20 6.1 Project Website ................................................................................................................ 20 6.1.1 Interactive Map ............................................................................................... 21 7. Identify Strategies ....................................................................................................................... 23 7.1 Engineering Strategies ..................................................................................................... 23 Page 168 of 310 GHD | Arroyo Grande LRSP | R1989RPT003 LRSP | Page vi 7.1.1 Other Recommended City Projects ................................................................ 24 7.2 Non-Engineering Strategies ............................................................................................. 25 7.2.1 Education ........................................................................................................ 25 7.2.2 Emerging Technologies .................................................................................. 25 7.2.3 Enforcement ................................................................................................... 26 7.2.4 Emergency Response .................................................................................... 26 8. Implementation Process ............................................................................................................. 27 8.1 Implemented/Planned Projects ........................................................................................ 27 9. Evaluation Process ..................................................................................................................... 27 10. Next Steps .................................................................................................................................. 29 11. References ................................................................................................................................. 30 Figure Index Figure 1 The LRSP Development Process ..................................................................................... 1 Figure 2 FHWA’s LRSP Development Map ..................................................................................... 4 Figure 3 SHSP Challenge Areas ..................................................................................................... 6 Figure 4 Traditional Approach vs. Vision Zero ................................................................................ 8 Figure 5 Collision Density Heat Map (2014-2018) ......................................................................... 11 Figure 6 Bicycle Collisions (2014-2020) ........................................................................................ 16 Figure 7 Pedestrian Collisions (2014-2020) .................................................................................. 17 Figure 8 Fatal and Severe Injury Collisions (2014-2020) .............................................................. 18 Figure 9 Social Pinpoint Website Homepage ................................................................................ 20 Figure 10 Public Website Interactive Map ...................................................................................... 21 Table Index Table 1 Fatal and Severe Injury Collisions on City Roads (2014 – 2020) ...................................... 2 Table 2 Recent Safety Projects .................................................................................................... 10 Table 3 Collision Severity for Fatal and Injury Collisions per Year .............................................. 12 Table 4 Collision Type for Fatal and Injury Collisions per Year ................................................... 12 Table 5 PCF Violation Category for Fatal and Injury Collisions per Year .................................... 13 Table 6 Top Intersection Locations by Collision Severity ............................................................. 14 Page 169 of 310 GHD | Arroyo Grande LRSP | R1989RPT003 LRSP | Page vii Table 7 Top Segment Locations by Collision Severity ................................................................. 14 Table 8 Top Intersection Locations by Crash Rates .................................................................... 15 Table 9 Top Segment Locations by Crash Rates ......................................................................... 15 Table 10 Engineering Countermeasures ........................................................................................ 24 Appendix Appendix A Stakeholder and Public Input Appendix B SSAR Crash Analysis Appendix C SSAR Priority Projects Appendix D Circulation Element Figures Page 170 of 310 GHD | Arroyo Grande LRSP | R1989RPT003 LRSP | Page viii List of Abbreviations AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials APS Accessible Pedestrian Signal ATP Active Transportation Program or Plan AWSC All Way Stop Control BCR Benefit to Cost Ratio BUI Biking Under the Influence CA MUTCD California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices CIP Capital Improvement Program CMAQ Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality DUI Driving Under the Influence EPDO Equivalent Property Damage Only FHWA Federal Highway Administration FSI Fatal or Severe Injury HSIP Highway Safety Improvement Program HSM Highway Safety Manual LRSM Local Roadway Safety Manual LRSP Local Road Safety Plan RRFB Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon SHSP Strategic Highway Safety Plan SSAR Systemic Safety Analysis Report SWITRS Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System TIMS Transportation Injury Mapping System TWLTL Two-Way Left Turn Lane TWSC Two Way Stop Control Page 171 of 310 GHD | Arroyo Grande LRSP | R1989RPT003 LRSP | Page 1 1. Introduction In 2016, the City of Arroyo Grande was successful in receiving a Systemic Safety Analysis Report Program (SSARP) grant from Caltrans’ Local Assistance. Per the City’s leadership direction and upcoming requirements for HSIP grant funding, a Local Road Safety Plan was appended to this effort. The LRSP builds off the safety analysis and engineering performed in the Systemic Safety Analysis Report (SSAR) to create a comprehensive and holistic Citywide safety plan. The LRSP is a data-driven process similar to the process for the SSAR except a LRSP has a local leadership group that represents the 5 E’s (Engineering, Enforcement, Education, Emergency Response, and Emerging Technologies) to guide the development of the plan. The LRSP included a Citywide analysis of the roadway system in Arroyo Grande comprising the current collisions patterns and high-risk roadway characteristics (systemic analysis), and recommended safety improvements for the other E’s. Furthermore, the City of Arroyo Grande’s goal is to identify safety countermeasures to help mitigate the City’s primary crash trends, reduce the overall collision severity, and identify locations with higher safety risks that do not currently experience a collision issue but could benefit from safety improvements. The Federal Highway Administration’s LRSP development process is shown in Figure 1. At the kick-off meeting the leadership team was established to guide the development of the Local Road Safety Plan. Figure 1 The LRSP Development Process Robin Dickerson, City Engineer, was identified as the Safety Champion/Lead for this project, working with a stakeholder working group that represented the other E’s (enforcement, education, emergency response, and emerging technologies) and other important safety partners. This stakeholder working group was paramount in creating a comprehensive safety plan that is tailored to address local needs and issues. Page 172 of 310 GHD | Arroyo Grande LRSP | R1989RPT003 LRSP | Page 2 2. Background 2.1 Purpose and Need The City of Arroyo Grande has a current population of approximately 18,000 and is part of the 5 Cities region in San Luis Obispo County. The 5 Cities region is made up of Arroyo Grande, Pismo Beach, Grover Beach, Oceano, and Shell Beach with a total population of approximately 48,000. Arroyo Grande has a mix of local, commuter, and recreational traffic with a variety of different road users including passenger cars, heavy vehicles (buses, large trucks, and farming equipment related to the agricultural industry), bicyclists, pedestrians, and transit. In addition, this LRSP document will compliment the recently adopted Circulation Element’s core value “to provide safe and easy travel within and through the City for pedestrians, bicyclists, and motor vehicles correlated with the Land Use Element.” Focusing on the roadway safety needs, the stakeholder group evaluated five (5) years of collision data from the SSAR (2014-2018) and an additional two (2) years (2019-2020) of data. From 2014 to 2020, there were 5 fatal and 18 severe injury collisions on City streets. Collision severity for fatal and severe injury (FSI) collisions in years 2014-2020 is shown in Table 1. During the study period, year 2019 had the most FSI collision (2 fatal and 6 severe injuries, 8 total FSI). Followed by, 2017 with the second highest FSI collisions (1 fatal and 5 severe injuries, 6 total FSI). All other years during the study period had three (3) or less FSI collisions. Table 1 Fatal and Severe Injury Collisions on City Roads (2014 – 2020) Year Severity Location Type Violation Category Other Information 2015 Sev. Inj N Oak Park Blvd and El Camino Real Broadside Traffic Signals and Signs - 2015 Sev. Inj E Branch St, 11 ft east of Garden St Broadside Other Hazardous Violation Bike collision 2016 Sev. Inj James Way and N Oak Park Blvd Broadside Traffic Signals and Signs - 2017 Sev. Inj E Grand Ave and Courtland St Broadside Traffic Signals and Signs - 2017 Sev. Inj 100 E Branch St Vehicle-Pedestrian Pedestrian Violation Pedestrian was crossing not in a crosswalk 2017 Sev. Inj E Branch St and Le Point Terrace Head On Wrong Side of Road - 2017 Sev. Inj S Halcyon Rd and The Pike Broadside Automobile Right of Way - 2017 Fatal E Branch St and Short St Vehicle-Pedestrian Pedestrian Right of Way Pedestrian was crossing in a crosswalk at the intersection 2017 Sev. Inj 1105 El Camino Real Head On Improper Turning - 2018 Sev. Inj E Branch St, 298 ft east of Garden St Head On Unsafe Lane Change - 2018 Fatal El Camino Real, 770 ft east of Oak Park Blvd Hit Object Improper Turning Single Vehicle - Driver was intoxicated 2018 Fatal E Grand Ave and Bell St Vehicle-Pedestrian Pedestrian Violation Pedestrian was crossing not in a crosswalk 2019 Sev. Inj E Grand Ave and N Courtland Rd Vehicle-Pedestrian Unknown Pedesrian was in the road, including the shoulder 2019 Fatal El Camino Real, 319 ft south of Bennett Ave Hit Object DUI Motorcycle collision 2019 Sev. Inj 300 E Grand Ave Broadside Automobile Right of Way - 2019 Sev. Inj E Grand Ave and Elm St Vehicle-Pedestrian Pedestrian Right of Way Pedestrian was crossing in a crosswalk at the intersection 2019 Sev. Inj Valley Rd, 530 ft south of Fair Oaks Ave Sideswipe Unknown Motorcycle collision 2019 Sev. Inj S Traffic Way, 21 ft south of Poole St Other Unknown Bike collision 2019 Fatal 495 Valley Rd Hit Object DUI Single Vehicle 2019 Sev. Inj Corbett Canyon Rd, 52 ft south of Corral Pl Rear End Unsafe Speed Motorcycle collision 2020 Sev. Inj Ash St and Courtland St Hit Object DUI - 2020 Sev. Inj E Grand Ave and El Camino Real Vehicle-Pedestrian Unknown Pedestrian was crossing not in a crosswalk 2020 Sev. Inj Huasna Rd and Stagecoach Rd Sideswipe Improper Passing Motorcycle collision Page 173 of 310 GHD | Arroyo Grande LRSP | R1989RPT003 LRSP | Page 3 The collision type and violation category are presented in Table 1 above. The primary collision types for FSI collisions are broadside and vehicle-pedestrian collisions. The primary violation categories for FSI collisions are DUI/BUI, Traffic Signal/Signs violations, and Unknown. 2.2 Guiding Documents In developing the City of Arroyo Grande LRSP, the following standards and guidelines were followed:  “Local Roadway Safety, A Manual for California’s Local Road Owners”, Caltrans, Version 1.5, April 2020.  2020-2024 California’s Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP), “California Safe Roads: 2020- 2024 Strategic Highway Safety Plan”, Caltrans.  “Developing Safety Plans, A Manual for Local Rural Road Owners”, Federal Highway Administration, March 2012.  “Highway Safety Manual”, American Association of State Highway Officials (AASHTO), 1st Edition, 2014 supplement.  “California Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD)”, Revision 5, 2014. 2.3 Methodology The LRSP methodology followed the FHWA’s LRSP development process as shown in Figure 2. Below is a roadmap created by the Federal Highway Administration to show the primary steps used to create the Local Road Safety Plan: 1. Identify Stakeholders a. Working Group was formed, incorporating members representing the 5 E’s and other interested representatives. 2. Use Safety Data a. Past 7 years (2014-2020) of collisions were analyzed with discussion of other high- risk locations. 3. Choose Proven Solutions a. FHWA Proven Countermeasures and Caltrans safety countermeasures were used in mitigation collision trends and risk characteristics. 4. Implement Solutions a. Projects were identified for specific locations and systemically. Page 174 of 310 GHD | Arroyo Grande LRSP | R1989RPT003 LRSP | Page 4 Figure 2 FHWA’s LRSP Development Map Source: Federal Highway Administration Page 175 of 310 GHD | Arroyo Grande LRSP | R1989RPT003 LRSP | Page 5 3. Safety Partners and Stakeholders At the project kick off meeting, the different safety partners to engage in the LRSP Stakeholder Working Group were discussed. These stakeholders included City representatives from various departments (Community Development, Public Works, and Police), fire, school district, bicycle and pedestrian groups, and roadway jurisdictional partners. Based on the City’s connections and current working relationship with the identified stakeholders, the working group formation was led by the City. The LRSP Stakeholder Working Group included the following representatives:  City of Arroyo Grande  Caltrans, District 5  County of San Luis Obispo  City of Pismo Beach  City of Grover Beach  Arroyo Grande Police Department  Five Cities Fire Authority  Lucia Mar Unified School District  San Luis Obispo Bike Club  Bike SLO County GHD worked with the City staff and the LRSP working group to come up with a vision, mission statement, and goals that support California’s State Highway Strategic Plan (SHSP). The goals developed through this process aim for results consistent with the City’s vision for safety and are realistic, achievable, and measurable. Identified future projects will aim to meet these goals. In addition, Caltrans and Lucia Mar Unified School District provided support letters for the LRSP. These letters are in Appendix A: Stakeholder and Public Input. 3.1 LRSP Stakeholder Working Group Meetings Four meetings were held with the stakeholder working group. Two meetings were held in person pre-COVID and two meetings were held virtually, post-COVID. The meeting dates and summaries were as follows: 1. December 13, 2019 – In person meeting a. Discussed the overall LRSP process, working group member’s safety priorities, past 5 years of collisions (City and Caltrans roadways), vision, goals, and priorities. 2. January 30, 2020 – In person meeting a. Reviewed summary of first meeting, discussed further collision analysis with priority locations, recent developments, safety countermeasures and projects, refined LRSP’s guiding principles, and coordinated next steps. 3. February 9, 2021 – Virtual Meeting Page 176 of 310 GHD | Arroyo Grande LRSP | R1989RPT003 LRSP | Page 6 a. Summarized first two meetings and process status, safety countermeasures and priority locations, finalized Mission Statement, Vision, and Goals, and discussed public outreach. 4. April 9, 2021 – Virtual Meeting a. Discussed next steps with the Draft LRSP plan, public outreach comments, and 2019-2020 fatal and severe injury collisions, current and planned safety projects, and overall recommendations for safety countermeasures. 3.2 SHSP Challenge Areas The LRSP will complement California’s SHSP 2020-2024. The California SHSP identifies 16 challenge areas as shown in Figure 3 below. These challenge areas are recommended emphasis areas in the development of the plan. Figure 3 SHSP Challenge Areas Based on the LRSP Stakeholder Working Group Meetings, this LRSP will address multiple Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) Challenge Areas including: 1. Bicyclists 2. Intersections 3. Pedestrians 4. Distracted Driving 5. Aggressive Driving/Speeding 6. Emerging Technologies 7. Emergency Response 3.3 Guiding Principles The members of the stakeholder working group established the vision, mission statement, and goals that guided the development of the document. Ideally, this document will help the City move toward Vision Zero. Vison Zero is a strategy which strives to eliminate all traffic fatalities and severe Page 177 of 310 GHD | Arroyo Grande LRSP | R1989RPT003 LRSP | Page 7 injuries, while increasing safe, healthy, and equitable mobility for all. Traditionally traffic fatalities and severe injuries have been considered inevitable side effects of modern life. The reality is that these tragedies can be addressed over time by taking a proactive, preventative approach that prioritizes traffic safety as a public health issue. To do so, bicycle and pedestrian safety will be prioritized by focusing on uncontrolled crossing improvements and public education. 3.3.1 Vision The vision statement describes what the Local Road Safety Plan is trying to achieve. 3.3.2 Mission Statement The mission statement defines the purpose of the plan, what it does, and what it is about. The mission statement was developed in collaboration with the stakeholder working group. 3.3.3 Goals Safety goals were development for the Local Road Safety Plan. It is important to capture realistic goals that can evolve over time. The LRSP’s goals were created based on the City’s needs. Plan Goals  Reduce the potential for fatal and severe injury collisions Citywide  Reduce the potential for rear end collisions Citywide  Reduce the potential for bicycle and pedestrian collisions Citywide  Improve the health and vitality of our community with a safety plan that encourages safety for pedestrians and bicyclists targeted to Arroyo Grande’s local roadway needs  Improve safety around schools with a connected multimodal system and improved crossings  Increase walking, biking, rolling (stroller, walker, wheelchair, skateboard, scooter, etc.) to the downtown district, to work, and to school Arroyo Grande will strive toward the elimination of all traffic fatalities and severe injuries, while increasing safe, healthy, and equitable mobility for all. To reduce the number of fatalities and serious injuries occurring on Arroyo Grande’s roadway system for all modes of travel in facilitating a safe, sustainable, and efficient movement of people and goods while promoting walking, encouraging bicycling, and supporting transit. Page 178 of 310 GHD | Arroyo Grande LRSP | R1989RPT003 LRSP | Page 8  Improve safety at uncontrolled crossings  Increase driver and pedestrian education  Reduce distracted driving  Improve bike safety with additional bikeways and green bike lanes for vehicle to bicycle conflict areas  Increase traffic enforcement  Receive grant funding for LRSP identified projects 3.3.4 Vision Zero Vision Zero is a significant departure from the status quo in two major ways:  Vision Zero recognizes that people will sometimes make mistakes, so the road system and related policies should be designed to minimize those inevitable mistakes and reduce their likeliness to result in severe injuries or fatalities. This means that system designers and policymakers are expected to improve the roadway environment, policies (such as speed management), and other related systems to lessen the severity of crashes. Roadway users are however still responsible for their mistakes and should follow all applicable laws and use reasonable judgement when conducting themselves within the public right of way.  Vision Zero is a multidisciplinary approach, bringing together diverse and necessary stakeholders to address this complex problem. In the past, meaningful, cross-disciplinary collaboration among local traffic planners and engineers, policymakers, and public health professionals has not occurred consistently. Vision Zero acknowledges that many factors contribute to safe mobility -- roadway design, speeds, behaviors, technology, and policies -- and sets clear goals to achieve the shared goal of zero fatalities and severe injuries. Figure 4 provides a comparison of the traditional approach versus the Vision Zero approach. Figure 4 Traditional Approach vs. Vision Zero TRADITIONAL APPROACH Traffic deaths are INEVITABLE PERFECT human behavior Prevent COLLISIONS INDIVIDUAL Responsibility Saving lives is EXPENSIVE VISION ZERO Traffic deaths are PREVENTABLE Integrate HUMAN FAILING in approach Prevent FATAL AND SEVERE COLLISIONS SYSTEMS approach Saving lives is NOT EXPENSIVE VS Page 179 of 310 GHD | Arroyo Grande LRSP | R1989RPT003 LRSP | Page 9 3.3.5 Safe Systems Approach In providing a comprehensive approach to safety, the Safe System approach is to design our vehicles and infrastructure in a manner that anticipates human error and accommodates human tolerances with a goal of reducing fatal and serious injuries. The following framework is intended to assist the vehicle and infrastructure communities in making decisions in alignment with Safe System principles. Implementing and selecting safe system practices and design will incrementally improve safety over time. The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) defines the safe systems approach and framework as the following: “The Safe System approach differs from conventional safety practice by being human-centered, i.e. seeking safety through a more aggressive use of vehicle or roadway design and operational changes rather than relying primarily on behavioral changes – and by fully integrating the needs of all users (pedestrians, bicyclists, older, younger, disabled, etc.) of the transportation system. Safe Systems provide a safety-net for the user by: 1. Anticipating Human Error – A Safe System is designed to anticipate and accommodate errors by drivers and other road users. 2. Accommodating Human Injury Tolerance – A Safe System is designed to reduce or eliminate opportunities for crashes resulting in forces beyond human endurance.” Adopting a Safe System approach does not absolve users of their responsibility. Other safety practices such as speed management strategies, driver education, enforcement, and effective emergency response will remain essential to improving road safety. With the passing of Assembly Bill (AB) 43, there will be flexibility in setting speed limits. 3.3.5.1 Assembly Bill (AB) 43 AB 43 was signed into law by Governor Newsom on October 8, 2021. The City is reviewing AB 43 and how it will be applied locally to address traffic safety. This bill will change several aspects of speed setting and enforcement in California with a goal to make roadways safer for all road users. The new law is set to go into effect by June 30, 2024 with certain parts coming into law as soon as January 2022. AB 43 allows agencies more flexibility with keeping the previous speed limit, allows business and residential districts to have 15 and 20 mph speed limits, and allows the agency to round down the proposed speed limit based on an engineering study that finds the roadway is similar (no additional lanes added) or if there is a high presence of bicycles or pedestrians. Page 180 of 310 GHD | Arroyo Grande LRSP | R1989RPT003 LRSP | Page 10 4. Analyze Safety Data 4.1 Recent/Planned Safety Projects During the development of the plan, various safety projects were already implemented or planned in the City of Arroyo Grande. Table 2 displays the safety projects and status. A letter of support from Caltrans for the Halcyon Road Complete Streets Plan is also included in Appendix A: Stakeholder and Public Input. In addition, the City is looking at opportunities to move this project forward. In addition, the City is currently evaluating improvements on Tally Ho Road from James Way to SR 227. This roadway segment of Tally Ho Road was identified as the top 10 segment for crash rates (traffic volumes in comparison to crashes) per the SSAR analysis. Table 2 Recent Safety Projects Page 181 of 310 GHD | Arroyo Grande LRSP | R1989RPT003 LRSP | Page 11 4.2 Collision Data GHD collected and reviewed five years of complete collision data (2014-2018) from the California Highway Patrol’s Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS), Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS), and the City of Arroyo Grande collision data. After rectifying the data, a comprehensive data set was used for the safety analysis. Due to the City also having to deliver a Systemic Safety Analysis Report (SSAR), the collision analysis will reference that report. In addition, the LRSP will capture other safety concerns from the LRSP working group and citizens including places where there are near-miss collisions as well as fatal and severe injury collisions that occurred in 2019 and 2020. Collision analysis was performed for all roadways in the City of Arroyo Grande excluding the US 101 mainline collisions. The collisions for the US 101 interchanges in Arroyo Grande were evaluated separately. As presented in Figure 5, Citywide collisions for the past 5 years (2014-2018) excluding the US 101 interchange collisions were mapped, identifying the high-risk segments and intersections. Per the collision density map, the roadway segments and intersections with higher collision frequency fall along E. Grand Avenue, E Branch Street, W Branch Street, Fair Oaks Avenue, Halcyon Road, and El Camino Real. Additional collision analysis and maps are located in Appendix B: SSAR Crash Analysis. Figure 5 Collision Density Heat Map (2014-2018) Page 182 of 310 GHD | Arroyo Grande LRSP | R1989RPT003 LRSP | Page 12 In evaluating the past five (5) years in the SSAR with the recent 2019 and 2020 collision data, the severity for fatal and injury collisions was assessed. It is noted that in 2020 there were COVID shelter-in-place orders, and the traffic patterns were not representative of a typical year. However, it is important to still assess 2020 for context in understanding the collision patterns and safety issues. As shown in Table 3, there were fatal collisions in 2017, 2018, and 2019, with 2014, 2017, and 2019 having the highest total fatal and injury collisions per year. Table 3 Collision Severity for Fatal and Injury Collisions per Year As presented in Table 4, collision type is shown for the fatal and injury collisions each year. Broadside collisions were the most common and they typically occur at intersections due to vehicles not yielding the right of way or violating the traffic signal/stop sign. The second most common collision type was rear-ends. Rear-end collisions typically occur due to speed differential, congestion, and vehicles following too closing or inattention. There were also 32 vehicle/pedestrian collisions in the past 7 years. Table 4 Collision Type for Fatal and Injury Collisions per Year Page 183 of 310 GHD | Arroyo Grande LRSP | R1989RPT003 LRSP | Page 13 Table 5 shows the primary collision factor (PCF) violation category for the fatal and injury collisions. The top violation category was unsafe speed followed by automobile right of way (Auto R/W). Table 5 PCF Violation Category for Fatal and Injury Collisions per Year 4.3 Top Collision Locations A figure summarizing the locations that ranked in the highest ten for relative severity (Equivalent Property Damage Only (EPDO) methodology) and crash rates for the five-year collision analysis is included in the SSAR. For further information, please reference Appendix C: SSAR Priority Projects priority locations. Since the completion of the SSAR, multiple safety projects have been implemented at many of the top collision locations, and additional improvements are being evaluated. These improvements are listed below as sub-bullets. 4.3.1 Top Collision Locations – Based on Collision Severity As determined in the SSAR, the top intersection collision locations were identified based on relative severity (highest collision severity ranks highest). Per the SSAR recommendations, many locations have been improved. Tables 6 and 7 below show the completed, planned, and identified projects for these locations. Identified projects are based on the recommendations from the SSAR and LRSP. These projects priority and subsequent implementation will be driven by the City and available grant funding. DUI/BUIImpending TrafficUnsafe SpeedFollowing Too CloselyWrong WayImproper PassingUnsafe Lane ChangeImproper TurningAuto R/WPedestrian R/WPedestrian ViolationSignals/SignsBrake FailureOther HazardOther than DriverUnsafe Starting/BackingOther Improper DrivingUnknown201440130201711404142 1 0357 20155012020015313021 0 0136 2016109010047312000 0 2131 2017605040169612030 2 0247 2018205010276211001 0 0331 2019619100029412010 1 0441 2020406001184101012 0 1333 Total281591101 53551235151116 4 317276 Year Total(Fatal and Injury)Type (Fatal and Injury Collisions) Page 184 of 310 GHD | Arroyo Grande LRSP | R1989RPT003 LRSP | Page 14 Table 6 Top Intersection Locations by Collision Severity Table 7 Top Segment Locations by Collision Severity Intersection Completed Projects Planned Projects Identified Projects E Branch Street and Short Street Crossing improvements made in 2019 to include pedestrian-activated flashing LED lights on the pedestrian warning signs and refreshed crosswalk markings. -- E Grand Avenue and Bell Street Evaluated for mid-block crossing with a pedestrian hybrid beacon (HAWK) in last HSIP cycle 10. An additional engineering study needs to be performed to see if this location will meet CA MUTCD warrants for installation of a pedestrian hybrid beacon. - In the interim, a two-stage pedestrian crossing (median island in the center two- way left turn lane) is recommended on the east leg with a high visibility crosswalk, yield lines, and a pedestrian-activated Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB). E Grand Avenue and Courtland Street - Striping and pavement marking improvements are identified in the Capital Improvement Program (CIP). Additional safety improvements can include adding an additional signal head per lane, retroreflective back plates, and ADA improvements with accessible pedestrian signal (APS) push buttons and countdown timers. With the completion of the commercial center on the southwest corner expected in 2022, City staff recommends that the traffic movements and signal phasing (might need to add a left turn phase for the northbound approach) and timing be reviewed for this intersection. El Camino Real and N Oak Park Boulevard -- Evaluate future traffic signal improvements to include a signal head per lane, flashing yellow left turn arrow for permissive/protected phasing, and update pedestrian push buttons to APS and provide countdown timers. The Pike and S Halcyon Road (City/County controlled intersection) This location was converted to an all-way stop control (AWSC) in 2019. Evaluate future crossing improvements to include ADA ramps and crosswalks on the north and south legs. - Segment Completed Projects Planned Projects Identified Projects El Camino Real – Oak Park Boulevard to Brisco Road - Operational improvements are included with the Brisco Road/ US 101 interchange project. Evaluate as needed for additional safety improvements. E. Grand Avenue – Courtland Street to Elm Street - Striping and pavement marking improvements with CIP project. - It is recommended to remove botts dots and install thermoplastic striping and pavement markings. - Provide continuous bike lanes as feasible. - Halcyon Road – Fair Oaks Avenue to Grand Avenue - Per the Halcyon Complete Streets Plan - A road diet is recommended in providing a center two-way left turn lane for left turns and buffered bike lanes adjacent to parking. - A roundabout is recommended at Halc yon Road and Fair Oaks Avenue Pursue grant funding and evaluate project phasing to prioritize this area. Fair Oaks Avenue – Halcyon Road to Valley Road -- Provide continuous bike lanes (bike lanes end around the hospital) and green conflict marking in vehicle and bicycle conflict zones. Provide horizontal curve warning signs and/or chevrons. Provide high friction surface treatment for the downhill grade on the southbound approach to the Brisco Road intersection. W. Branch Street – Brisco Road to Camino Mercado/US 101 Ramps -- Provide green bike conflict marking for vehicle/bicycle mixing zones. Improve visibility of signalized intersections with retroreflective back plates and an additional signal head per lane. Provide a signal warning sign with flashing beacon at the top of the grade to the southbound approach to Brisco Road intersection. In the interim evaluate adding a blank out sign “NO RIGHT TURN ON RED” for the southbound right turn conflicts with the NB left protected left turn phase. Page 185 of 310 GHD | Arroyo Grande LRSP | R1989RPT003 LRSP | Page 15 4.3.2 Top Additional Collision Locations – Based on Crash Rates In addition to the top five intersections and top five segments based on relative severity, five additional intersections and segments were identified in the SSAR based on their crash rates. Tables 8 and 9 show the completed, planned and identified projects for these additional locations. Table 8 Top Intersection Locations by Crash Rates Table 9 Top Segment Locations by Crash Rates 4.4 Bicycle Collisions In evaluating the bicycle to vehicle collisions in the City, seven years of data (2014-2020) was mapped by severity. There were no fatal bicycle collisions and all collisions occurred in the day except for two complaint of pain bicycle injury collisions. As shown in Figure 6, the bicycle collisions were focused on the E Grand Avenue, E Branch Street, and Fair Oaks Avenue corridors. In addition, a level of traffic stress (LTS) was performed on arterial and collector roadway in the 2021 Circulation Element. For reference, the LTS map is included in Appendix D: Circulation Element Figures. Many roadway segments have LTS 4 (highest stress network) due to the lack of bicycle facilities, high vehicle speeds, and roadway configuration. These high stress roadways include Oak Intersection Completed Projects Planned Projects Identified Projects Traffic Way and Allen Street Recent improvements along Allen Street with the new Chevrolet Dealership. Recent installation of traffic signal at Traffic Way and Fair Oaks Boulevards. -- Valley Road and Castillo Del Mar/AGHS parking lot Construction is underway for the realignment of Castillo Del Mar at Valley Road into a traditional perpendicular intersection. -- W. Branch Street and Brisco Road - Brisco Road and US 101 interchange improvements will redesign this intersection. - E. Branch Street and Bridge Street -- Evaluate pedestrian improvements (possibly move crosswalk on E. Branch Street to the west leg) so there are less conflicts with the turning vehicles (removes right turns from Nevada Street and Bridge Street and left turns from westbound E Branch). E. Grand Avenue and S. Elm Street -- Evaluate future traffic signal improvements to include a signal head per lane and update pedestrian push buttons to APS and provide countdown timers. Segment Completed Projects Planned Projects Identified Projects Bridge Street – Traffic Way to E. Branch Street - Evaluate removal of the post office mailboxes and conversion of the segment from Bridge Street to Nelson Street to one- way. Also recommended in Circulation Element. - Camino Mercado – W. Branch Street to Rancho Parkway Recent striping improvements added a center yellow line.- Evaluate adding bike lanes. Allen Street – Traffic Way to Pacific Coast Railway Place -- Add a white edgeline to define parallel parking. Add high visibility crosswalks and ADA ramps to the all-way stop control intersection of Allen Street at Mason Street. City Staff to begin working with residents to identify additional solutions. W. Branch Street – Brisco Road to E. Branch Street - Brisco Road at Branch and Rodeo Drive will be redesigned with the Brisco Road and US 101 Interchange Project. - Rancho Parkway – W. Branch Street to Via Vaquero --Provide pedestrian mid-block crossing improvements south the Via Vaquero. Page 186 of 310 GHD | Arroyo Grande LRSP | R1989RPT003 LRSP | Page 16 Park Boulevard, James Way, Rancho Parkway, Tally Ho Road, E Branch Street, Branch Mill Road, W Branch Street, El Camino Real, Brisco Road, Grand Avenue, Elm Street, Halcyon Road, Fair Oak Avenue, Valley Road, and The Pike. Figure 6 Bicycle Collisions (2014-2020) 4.5 Pedestrian Collisions As shown in Figure 7, the pedestrian to vehicle collisions in the City were mapped for the past seven years (2014-2020) by collisions severity. There were two (2) fatal pedestrian collisions with one occurring at night (pedestrian was crossing Grand Avenue at Bell Street) and one occurred during the day (pedestrian was crossing E Branch Street at Short Street). There were also five (5) severe injury pedestrian collisions with three (3) at night and two (2) during the day. The sidewalk gaps were quantified in the Circulation Element, Background Report, and for reference the figure is included in Appendix D: Circulation Element Figures. Page 187 of 310 GHD | Arroyo Grande LRSP | R1989RPT003 LRSP | Page 17 Figure 7 Pedestrian Collisions (2014-2020) 4.6 Fatal and Severe Injury Collisions From 2014 to 2020, there were 5 fatal and 18 severe injury collisions recorded. As shown in Figure 8, the five fatal collisions are as follows:  2017 – Pedestrian to vehicle collision at E. Branch Street and Short Street  2018 – Pedestrian to vehicle collision at Grand Avenue at Bell Street (crossing mid-block)  2018 – A single vehicle collision, hit object collision due to improper turning on El Camino Real, 770 ft east of Oak Park Blvd.  2019 – A single vehicle, hit object collision due to DUI on El Camino Real 319 ft South of Bennett Ave  2019 – A single vehicle, hit object collision due to DUI on Valley Road at Castillo Del Mar (Arroyo Grande High School Back Driveway) Page 188 of 310 GHD | Arroyo Grande LRSP | R1989RPT003 LRSP | Page 18 Figure 8 Fatal and Severe Injury Collisions (2014-2020) Page 189 of 310 GHD | Arroyo Grande LRSP | R1989RPT003 LRSP | Page 19 5. Emphasis Areas The emphasis areas determined by the working group are as follows:  Bicycles  Intersections  Pedestrians  Distracted Driving  Aggressive Driving/Speeding  Emerging Technologies  Emergency Response These emphasis areas were used in prioritizing safety projects in the SSAR and LRSP. Reference Appendix C for the SSAR prioritized list of projects. Page 190 of 310 GHD | Arroyo Grande LRSP | R1989RPT003 LRSP | Page 20 6. Public Outreach 6.1 Project Website A project website was created on the Social Pinpoint platform to inform the public about the LRSP and provide a platform for input. Figure 9 displays the homepage for the website found at lrsp.mysocialpinpoint.com/arroyogrande. Visitors to the page were invited to provide comments on an interactive project map and share their thoughts through a project survey. Comments from the interactive map and detailed results from the survey are included in Appendix A: Stakeholder and Public Input. The interactive map had comments for both the Circulation Element and Local Road Safety Plan as they were active for public comments at the same time. Figure 9 Social Pinpoint Website Homepage Page 191 of 310 GHD | Arroyo Grande LRSP | R1989RPT003 LRSP | Page 21 6.1.1 Interactive Map The interactive map feature on the website allowed the public to drag icons to a location within the City and leave a comment regarding driving, pedestrian, or bicycle suggestions at that location. Figure 10 shows the interactive map feature from the website. Some of the public concerns collected from the interactive map are as follows: Figure 10 Public Website Interactive Map Speeding • Tally Ho – Want traffic calming measures similar to Rodeo Drive (especially for WB) • Grace Lane – Recent speeds in excess of 60 mph • Sunset Drive – Cut through route • E Branch St between Nevada St and Short St – Public comment about vehicles speeding through segment and need for traffic calming • E Grand Avenue, west of Courtland St – Public comment about reducing speed to increase pedestrian and bicyclist safety • S Mason St and Allen St – Public comments about reducing speed (implementing traffic calming) to increase pedestrian and bicycle safety Pedestrian • Wayfinding for pedestrian bridge between Best Western Hotel and Oak Park Plaza • Preferences for increased accessibility on S Mason Street • Improve pavement markings for crosswalk at West Branch Street and Traffic Way Page 192 of 310 GHD | Arroyo Grande LRSP | R1989RPT003 LRSP | Page 22 Biking • Valley Road – Complete the bike lanes by Arroyo Grande High School to Fair Oaks • Grand Avenue – Discontinuous bike lanes (East of Brisco, El Camino Real, around Halcyon) • Fair Oaks Avenue – No bike lanes at intersection with Halcyon (westbound), consider bike box for left turn at Traffic Way • Halcyon Road – Discontinuous bike lanes and changing typical section with travel lanes • El Camino Real between Brisco Road and N Halcyon Road – Suggestion for a separated pedestrian/bicycle path • Brisco Road Interchange – Public concern about US 101 crossing • E Branch Street – Concern about safety east of Garden Street and lack of infrastructure at Crown Hill Street • E Branch St between Crown Hill St and Huasna Rd - Public comments about providing protected bicycle infrastructure and removing parking to provide safer bicycle routes for students in both directions Page 193 of 310 GHD | Arroyo Grande LRSP | R1989RPT003 LRSP | Page 23 7. Identify Strategies Through coordination and feedback from the City of Arroyo Grande, LRSP working group, and public outreach, the Local Road Safety Plan identifies safety projects and strategies. The LRSP will discuss engineering strategies and projects as well as the other E’s to include Enforcement, Education, Emergency Response, and Emerging Technologies. Engineering strategies will include both a reactive approach (based on the past collision history) and a proactive approach (systemic application to locations with similar risk factors for future collisions but not currently experiencing a collision issue). 7.1 Engineering Strategies Engineering strategies and projects are presented in Table 10 based on feedback from the City, Stakeholder Working Group, public outreach, and engineering analysis. Some countermeasures identified in the SSAR were already implemented or are part of upcoming planned projects. The countermeasures listed below represents projects that were not yet implemented, and other projects identified since the SSAR process. Page 194 of 310 GHD | Arroyo Grande LRSP | R1989RPT003 LRSP | Page 24 Table 10 Engineering Countermeasures 7.1.1 Other Recommended City Projects Pedestrian crossing improvements are recommended at the existing mid-block crossing at Nelson Street and Traffic Way, at the proposed mid-block crossing at Grand Avenue at Bell Street (closest crossing is at Halcyon Road and Traffic Way on Grand Avenue), and at a proposed midblock Countermeasure Location LRSM ID S17PB S18PB S21PB S02 S03 S07 NS19PB NS20PB NS21PB R32PB - Road diet Halcyon Rd from Fair Oaks Ave to E Grand Ave Oak Park Boulevard from E Grand Ave to Atlantic City Ave R14 Signage improvements Locations determined through a citywide sign audit R22 R23 R24 R28 - R24 -Additional Enforcement - Non-pedestrian improvements at signalized intersections Intersections of: E Grand Ave at Courtland St E Grand Ave at S Elm St E Grand Ave at S Halcyon Rd El Camino Real at Brisco Rd and/or Systemically at other City signalized intersections Provide left turn phase (left turn lane already exists) Pedestrian improvements at uncontrolled locations Evaluate Traffic calming measures to include speed cushions, travel width narrowing, parking delination and/or separate bikeway, etc. (traffic calming needs to adhere to City policy) Traffic Way at US 101 NB Off-Ramp Grace Lane North or Rodeo Drive Tally Ho from SR 227 to James Way Sunset Drive from Elm St to Alder St Speed management Bike lane improvements along segments Install Dynamic/variable speed warning signs Striping and pavement marking improvements N Oak Park Blvd from Atlantic City Ave to Chilton St Fair Oaks Ave from Halcyon Rd to Valley RdCurve related Improvements Description Pedestrian improvements at signalized intersections Install pedestrian countdown signal heads Install pedestrian crossing Modify signal phasing to implement a Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI) Improve signal hardware: lenses, back-plates with retroreflective border, mounting, size and number Install green marking for bicycle lane conflict zones / install bike boxes where appropriate Install bike lanes Intersections of: E Grand Ave at Courtland St E Grand Ave at S Elm St E Grand Ave at S Halcyon Rd El Camino Real at Brisco Rd and/or Systemically at other City signalized intersections Evaluate Road Diet (Reduce travel lanes from 4 to 3 and add two way left-turn and buffered bike lanes) Install pedestrian crossing at uncontrolled locations (signs and markings only) Install pedestrian crossing at uncontrolled location with enhanced safety feature (RRFB, Curb Extensions) (where applicable) Install raised medians/refuge islands Install chevron signs on horizontal curves (where applicable) Install curve advance warning signs Install/Upgrade signs with new fluorescent sheeting (regulatory and waring signs) Improve signal timing (coordination, phases, red, yellow, or operation) E Grand Avenue from El Camino Real to Courtland St Install thermoplastic edgelines and centerlines and pavement markings Remove botts dots and provide guide marks for offset lanes through intersection (e.g. Halcyon Road, Elm St) El Camino Real from N Oak Park Blvd to Grand Ave W Branch St from N Oak Park Blvd to Camino Mercado Valley Road -Approx. 600 ft S of Fair Oaks Ave Fair Oaks Ave - 650 ft E of Halcyon Rd Grand Avenue -Provide continuous bike lanes Intersections of: E Grand Ave at Bell St - East leg crossing E Grand Ave Nelson St at Traffic Way Rancho Pkwy at Via Vaquero The Pike at Garfield Pl and/or Systemically at other City uncontrolled locations Page 195 of 310 GHD | Arroyo Grande LRSP | R1989RPT003 LRSP | Page 25 crossing at Rancho Parkway at Via Vaquero based on the high risk characteristics associated with uncontrolled pedestrian crossings. With these improvements, it is recommended to provide or evaluate the lighting for the pedestrians crossing at night. 7.2 Non-Engineering Strategies 7.2.1 Education Education strategies are listed below.  Pedestrian education campaigns – street crossing “dos and don’ts”, wear bright clothing and have a light at night  Driver and bicyclist education and resources  Safe route to school maps and outreach at schools  Social media blasts with quick education tool for all users  Pop up campaigns o April is distracted driving month, City should aim to have an outreach campaign (can be funded by Office of Traffic Safety grants)  School safety campaigns 7.2.2 Emerging Technologies Possible emerging technologies strategies are listed below.  Bicycle detection at traffic signals Page 196 of 310 GHD | Arroyo Grande LRSP | R1989RPT003 LRSP | Page 26 o Bicycle detection is obtainable at traffic signal with video detection technology. Currently, the City of Arroyo Grande only has one signal with this technology (Traffic Way and Fair Oaks Avenue)  Changeable message signs o Police Department currently has two portable changeable message signs. The second sign was recently purchased through a grant  City recently purchased a data collector for speed and volumes  Update older technology (traffic signals, speed feedback signs, etc.) 7.2.3 Enforcement Enforcement strategies are listed below.  During the development of the LRSP the City added a full-time motor office, supplemented by a part time motor office.  Targeted speed enforcement  DUI saturation patrols 7.2.4 Emergency Response Emergency response strategies are suggested below.  Provide Administrative Staff  Continue Save a Life – PulsePoint Responder (smartphone app designed to empower everyday citizens to save a life)  Continue Emergency Preparedness Information Page 197 of 310 GHD | Arroyo Grande LRSP | R1989RPT003 LRSP | Page 27 8. Implementation Process In evaluating how to implement safety projects, a prioritized list of projects with additional systemic projects is included in Appendix C: SSAR Priority Projects. The City of Arroyo Grande will look for opportunities to incorporate safety enhancements with the Capital Improvement Program. However, funding is very limited and typically used for roadway paving and maintenance. Additional funding opportunities can come through grant funding to include HSIP, ATP, and CMAQ. 8.1 Implemented/Planned Projects Since the completion of the SSAR, multiple safety projects have been implemented throughout the City. Some improvements are as follows:  At the intersection of E. Branch Street and Short Street crossing improvements were made to provide pedestrian activated flashing warning signs on E. Branch Street.  The intersection of The Pike and S. Halcyon Road was converted from a two-way stop to an all-way stop in 2019 and is no longer a high priority intersection.  Due to the improvements made at the intersection of Fair Oaks Avenue and Traffic Way, the intersection of Traffic Way and Allen Street has seen operational improvements. A signal was installed in July 2019 that improved signage and pavement markings near Allen Street and has helped create gaps in traffic for those turning from Allen Street.  Coordination is underway for the relocation of the bus loading zone on Valley Road adjacent to Arroyo Grande High School. The bus loading zone is planned to be relocated to the back parking lot which will allow continuous bike lanes on Valley Road adjacent to the high school through a roadway restriping project. 9. Evaluation Process To evaluate the success of this plan, yearly collision analysis, along with requests for public feedback, can take place and be compared to the established goals and measure of success. For the LRSP goals the measure of success should be SMART: Specific – clear action item description Measurable – identified performance measures Achievable – committed resources by responsible organization Relevant – statewide significance and data-driven issue and countermeasure Time Constrained – achievable within the LRSP time frame In following this methodology the LRSP goals and measure of success are defined below: Page 198 of 310 GHD | Arroyo Grande LRSP | R1989RPT003 LRSP | Page 28 Goal: Reduce the potential for fatal and severe injury collisions Citywide o Measure of Success: A downward trend with fatal or severe injury (FSI) collisions over the next five (5) years. Goal: Reduce the potential for rear-end collisions Citywide o Measure of Success: A decrease in “rear-end” type collisions by 5% over 5 years. Goal: Reduce the potential for bicycle and pedestrian collisions Citywide. o Measure of Success: A decrease in pedestrian and bicycle involved collisions in the next five (5) years. This could be attributed to an increase in multimodal facilities and connected systems. Goal: Improve the health and vitality of our community with a safety plan that encourages safety for pedestrians and bicyclists that is targeted to Arroyo Grande’s local roadway needs o Measure of Success: If this goal is successful, residents will express an increased feeling of safety while using Arroyo Grande’s transportation systems. Additionally, the number and severity of collisions each year will trend downward in the next five (5) years. Goal: Improve safety around schools with a connected multimodal system and improved crossings o Measure of Success: An evaluation of improvements to the multimodal transportation infrastructure around schools will capture the effectiveness of this goal. o A downward trend in the number of collisions within five hundred feet of schools over the next five (5) years.  Goal: Increase walking, biking, rolling (wheelchair, skateboard, scooter, etc.) to the downtown district, to work, and to school. o Measure of Success: Increase in multimodal infrastructure and improvements and subsequent pedestrian and bicycle counts.  Goal: Improve safety at uncontrolled crossings o Measure of Success: Increase safety improvements at uncontrolled crossing locations (2 per year) with a reduction of collisions occurring at these locations will determine if this goal is met.  Goal: Increase driver and pedestrian education o Measure of Success: An increase to the number of public education and information campaigns initiated by the City in the next five (5) years will determine if this goal has been met.  Goal: Reduce distracted driving o Measure of Success: A decrease in “Distracted Driving” violations after implementing engineering, enforcement, education, and emerging technologies will determine if this goal is met. Page 199 of 310 GHD | Arroyo Grande LRSP | R1989RPT003 LRSP | Page 29  Goal: Improve bike safety with additional bikeways and green bike lanes for vehicle to bicycle conflict areas o Measure of Success: An increase to the amount of bikeways and green bike lanes at conflict areas in next five (5) years will determine if this goal is met.  Goal: Increase traffic enforcement o Measure of Success: A reduction in community reports and complaints and an additional motorcycle police officer.  Goal: Receive grant funding for LRSP identified projects o Measure of Success: Successful grant applications for federal and state funding for the Local Road Safety Plan identified projects and other applicable safety projects/plans (grant application for an Active Transportation Plan was recently submitted in 2021) in the next five (5) years. 10. Next Steps The City of Arroyo Grande’s Local Road Safety Plan is scheduled to go to City Council in January 2022. This safety plan will be a living document and will guide the City’s roadway safety needs for the next five years. It will be updated as needed and the goals will be evaluated every two (2) years. Page 200 of 310 GHD | Arroyo Grande LRSP | R1989RPT003 LRSP | Page 30 11. References Traffic Data  Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System, 2014-2018.  Transportation Injury Mapping System, 2014-2018.  Collision Data, City of Arroyo Grande, 2014-2020. Manuals  “Developing Safety Plans, A Manual for Local Rural Road Owners”, Federal Highway Administration, March 2012, http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/local_rural/training/fhwasa12017/.  2020-2024 California’s Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP), “California Safe Roads: 2020- 2024 Strategic Highway Safety Plan”, Caltrans.  “Local Roadway Safety, A Manual for California’s Local Road Owners”, Caltrans, Version 1.5, April 2020  “Highway Safety Manual”, American Association of State Highway Officials (AASHTO), 1st Edition, 2014 supplement.  “California Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD)”, Revision 5, 2014. Websites  California Department of Transportation, “Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP)”, https://dot.ca.gov/programs/safety-programs/shsp.  California Department of Transportation, “Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) and Systemic Safety Analysis Report Program (SSARP)”, https://dot.ca.gov/programs/local-assistance/fed- and-state-programs/highway-safety-improvement-program/local-roadway-safety-plans.  California Department of Transportation, “HSIP Cycle 10”, https://dot.ca.gov/programs/local- assistance/fed-and-state-programs/highway-safety-improvement-program/apply-now.  City of Arroyo Grande Local Road Safety Plan, https://lrsp.mysocialpinpoint.com/arroyogrande.  Institute of Transportation Engineers, https://www.ite.org/technical-resources/topics/safe- systems/. Page 201 of 310 GHD | Arroyo Grande LRSP | R1989RPT003 LRSP | Page 31 Page 202 of 310 Arroyo Grande LRSP | R1989RPT003 | Jay Walter Jay.Walter@ghd.com 805.858.3141 Kathryn Kleinschmidt Kathryn.Kleinschmidt@ghd.com 805.858.3147 Page 203 of 310 Appendix A – Stakeholder and Public Input Page 204 of 310 Public Comments collected via Interactive Map – December 15, 2020 to February 25, 2021 Driving Comments Biking Comments ID Comment Marker Location Latitude Longitude D-1 Often drivers will wait to the last minute and then go straight. Many already turned right back at the USPS drop. Just make this a bike / bus only segment that allows right turns if needed, instead of a Right Turn only lane that people misuse. Make the right turn at the USPS boxes "Right Turn Only" instead.Traffic Way and Nelson St 35.121364 -120.578048 D-2 Cars turning left here must navigate traffic coming from 2 different lights, 2 different driveways, and pedestrians in the crosswalk. It's dangerous for everyone involved.E Grand Ave and W Branch St 35.122131 -120.581979 ID Comment Marker Location Latitude Longitude B-1 Possibly an isolated pedestrian path on the north side of el camino that would funnel cyclist and pedestrian onto a shared path under the 101 towards Branch street. It would allow cyclist to cross Brisco, west bound, easier as well. I constantly ride on this short stretch of el camino west bound past Brisco and have to fight for space in traffic as cars race to turn right on Brisco towards 101 north bound. The light is a no turn on red, so cars urgently try to make the turn. El Camino Real btwn Brisco Rd and N Halcyon Rd 35.123708 -120.592804 B-2 This area is a major concern for cyclist to pass to branch street. choosing between the sidewalk and the busy road. Updating the sidewalk to allow cyclist easily flow into a safe space to cross the 101.Brisco Rd north of El Camino Real 35.123906 -120.593387 Page 205 of 310 ID Comment Marker Location Latitude Longitude B-3 adding the class 2 bike lane would be a big plus, but reducing speed limit would make bikers feel more comfortable. S Halcyon Rd btwn Park Way and Dodson Way 35.116255 -120.591598 B-4 At around 44' across, this could also fit an uphill bike lane. 2x7.5' parking, 2x 11' travel lanes, and a 7' bike lane uphill with sharrows downhill.Stagecoach Rd south of Platino Ln 35.129907 -120.564587 B-5 This is a designated "bike boulevard" in the city's bike master plan. Cars don't know that, so merging into 1 lane here for the sake of on-street parking becomes pretty dangerous. There are 10 on street parking spaces on each side of this block. Usually at least half unused. Not sure that justifies the use of road space.W Branch St east of Traffic Way 35.122661 -120.58067 B-6 Might be Pismo, but a bike lane to the right of a right turn only lane only works if you slow down traffic and make the right of way more obvious.Intx of Oak Park Blvd and James Way 35.133879 -120.605292 B-7 Just get rid of the overly long merging lane and use the space for better bike lanes on both sides. The buses will be able to handle it.Huasna Rd east of SR 227 35.12715 -120.56918 B-8 Bike lane ends as road expands to three lanes. "Good luck cyclists!"Valley Rd south of Fair Oaks Way 35.114617 -120.581296 B-9 Some sections here are wide enough for a full-fat bike lane, instead of a bike boulevard, as long as you simply count how much parking is needed for the church days. Would also reduce speeding in addition to the speed bumps. Newport Ave btwn Courtland St and Montego St 35.124265 -120.604391 B-10 People can (and should) use bike lanes to turn right, so just make a wide bike lane eastbound instead of a disappearing bike lane into a right turn only lane.E Grand Ave and Halcyon Rd 35.11854 -120.591953 B-11 Northbound bike lane starts far from the intersection. Conflict point at the McDonald's entrance.El Camino Real and Cornwall Ave 35.121393 -120.586282 B-12 You could fit bike lanes and discouraging speeding by adding them, for just the cost of paint. Further up Orchard there is no parking and you should definitely reduce the width there also. Orchard Ave btwn Pilgram Way and W Cherry Ave 35.116124 -120.576563 B-13 As with a number of bike lanes in the city, the bike lane here is half gutter. The gutter is not part of the road and can lead to some dangerous conditions for cyclists. James Way btwn Mesquite Ln and Village Glen Dr 35.132638 -120.578771 B-14 Ash St should absolutely have a safe bike lane. No reason every trip to the sports complex needs to be by car.Ash St west of S Elm St 35.114538 -120.601172 B-15 No bike lane westbound, just sharrows for a long time. El Camino Real btwn Brisco Rd and N Halcyon Rd 35.123506 -120.592486 B-16 Protect this bike lane with XLP channelizers to reduce offramp speeding. Traffic Way btwn E Cherry Ave and S Traffic Way 35.11792 -120.57491 B-17 A Bike Boulevard may be insufficient to get elementary school kids to bike. You'll need to make it very high quality, and the Ocean View drop off areas would need to be monitored.Montego St and Linda Dr 35.124466 -120.599843 B-18 Farroll is the same width here as it is to the west, so there's no reason for the bike lane to just disappear. Farroll Ave btwn Walnut St and Pecan St 35.110795 -120.59646 Page 206 of 310 ID Comment Marker Location Latitude Longitude B-19 There's also a magically appearing bike lane on this side of the intersection (Westbound). The parking should be removed directly next to the intersection and the bike lane made continuous.S Halcyon Rd and Fair Oaks Ave 35.112757 -120.591785 B-20 The bike lanes are so faded that Chevy customers think they can park here instead of just around the corner.Traffic Way and Poole St 35.120375 -120.576871 B-21 You could probably fit an uphill bike lane and a downhill sharrow on Brisco without removing parking. Brisco Rd btwn Linda Dr and El Camino Real 35.122543 -120.595191 B-22 The outer travel lanes are 15+ ft while the bike lane is substandard. Do not let CalTrans get in the way of fixing that. Oak Park Blvd bridge south of W Branch St 35.130087 -120.606707 B-23 No bike lane uphill is brutal. I use the sidewalk.Oak Park Blvd south of James Way 35.132762 -120.605618 B-24 Bike lane frequently gets sandy here. Provide regular sweeping.W Branch St west of Rodeo Dr 35.124238 -120.591494 B-25 The parking demand here is low on the north side. Consider removing north side parking for a bike buffer, especially for fast moving cyclists downhill where a dooring could be fatal. James Way btwn Colina St and Village Glen Dr 35.131717 -120.577268 B-26 There is parking allowed here, and therefore this isn't even a bike lane on the south side. One parked car and you have to merge with fast traffic uphill.Branch St and Sterling Dr 35.125078 -120.5739 B-27 Turning left onto Fair Oaks is tricky. Consider a bike box or two stage turn configuration to facilitate.Fair Oaks Ave and Traffic Way 35.119686 -120.576221 B-28 Make this an actual bike lane and maintain it like one. Calling it a shoulder implies you don't have to maintain it like a bike lane, when we know kids are using the shoulder to bike to school. Valley Rd btwn Fair Oaks Ave and Los Berros Rd 35.109234 -120.58072 B-29 These bike lanes are better than the previous 35mph no- bike-lane condition, but the addition of parked cars on one side detracts from it. The bike lane is a door zone near the parked cars and should be wider. The city standard details should have all-ages-and-abilities bikeways as standard following NACTO. E Cherry Ave btwn Pacific Coast Railway Pl and Leedham Pl 35.120452 -120.571616 B-30 While this has improved since my time at Paulding, it's still nowhere near acceptable. The door zone bike lanes going uphill are dangerous, and the substandard width bike lane going downhill combined with high pedestrians at release time are also dangerous.E Branch St east of Garden St 35.125351 -120.571196 B-31 Lack of protected infrastructure here makes this an unsafe route to school, should kids want to bike to school. Students should have a safe route to school.E Branch St and Crown Hill St 35.125038 -120.574737 B-32 The bike lane approaching and at the intersection here is faded, basically gone, at this point. It's also hard to navigate a left turn from the bike lane here when cars in the rightmost lane can turn left or go straight. These conditions make this intersection unsafe and unusable for most on bike.Traffic Way south of W Branch St 35.122278 -120.581002 B-33 The bike lane here is not marked.W Branch St east of Camino Mercado 35.128968 -120.601333 B-34 Ending the bike lane here and dropping cyclists into fast moving traffic makes this route unsafe and unusable.S Oak Park Blvd and Manhattan Ave 35.117855 -120.609283 B-35 Traffic on Fair Oaks moves at 40mph. The unprotected lane here is not safe. A protected lane should be provided in order to make this a feasible and safe route to school. Fair Oaks Ave btwn California St and Orchard Ave 35.118192 -120.578985 Page 207 of 310 Pedestrian Comments ID Comment Marker Location Latitude Longitude B-36 There is no dedicated space for bikes approaching this intersection when going west on Fair Oaks. The bike lane has been removed for a right turn lane. This makes drivers impatient and creates unsafe conditions for cyclists. As this is a route to school, safety for cyclists here should be a priority.Fair Oaks ave and S Halycon Rd 35.11268 -120.591023 B-37 The bike lane heading west from Halcyon on Grand isn't marked, which makes this route unsafe and unusable.E Grand Ave and Halcyon Rd 35.118561 -120.591602 B-38 Lack of a bike lane here makes this route unsafe and unusable. The proposed improvements mark this as a proposed sharrow. That is not safe given that cars are moving at 35mph here. A bike lane (preferably protected) is needed here.E Grand Ave east of El Camino Real 35.120597 -120.585573 B-39 The break in the bike lane here makes this route unsafe and unusable.E Grand Ave east of Brisco Rd 35.119978 -120.598469 ID Comment Marker Location Latitude Longitude P-1 Pedestrians cross here, and will continue to cross here whether or not there is a marked crosswalk. There should be a marked crosswalk to make it safer. W Branch St btwn Traffic Way and Bridge St 35.122769 -120.579967 P-2 No reason for a beg button here. Are we surprised by pedestrian traffic at this intersection? Leading interval is also necessary. Lots of eager drivers aggressively trying to make the turn in front of pedestrians.E Branch St and S Mason St 35.124281 -120.576582 P-3 No reason for a beg button here. There is plenty of pedestrian traffic at this intersection. Making pedestrians wait a full light cycle because they pushed the button 2 seconds late is really disrespectful.Fair Oaks Ave and Traffic Way 35.119708 -120.5764 P-4 There is no marked crosswalk on the north side of this intersection and the curb cutout is misaligned with where the marked crosswalk should be, creating unsafe conditions for pedestrians and cyclists traveling to and from the park.S Elm St and Fair Oaks Ave 35.112662 -120.600357 P-5 This bus stop serving the library has no bench, no shade, and no sidewalk. W Branch St and Library driveway 35.12377 -120.590272 P-6 Extremely dangerous, and we make it worse by not having a north side crosswalk at Fair Oaks. Add an RRFB, remove adjacent parking, push the bike lane towards the curb and provide refuge islands between the bike lanes and travel lanes.Traffic Way and Nelson St 35.121296 -120.578148 P-7 This bridge is nice and should be better marked so people use it. Ped Bridge btwn Best Western and Oak Park Plaza 35.131213 -120.604949 P-8 The cars get yield teeth merging onto traffic way. The crosswalk should also get Yield Teeth.W Branch St and Traffic Way 35.122293 -120.581404 P-9 Hope you're not ADA because this sidewalk has been taken over by Ford. And there's no sidewalk on the other side of the street either. Station Way north of Fair Oaks Ave 35.119398 -120.577543 P-10 Could use a "Yield HERE to Peds" sign to make the stop bar more useful. Also RRFB, bulbouts, etc.E Grand Ave and Alder St 35.118602 -120.593195 Page 208 of 310 ID Comment Marker Location Latitude Longitude P-11 The dual lane capture point for the onramp just serves to widen the pedestrian crossing, and serves little purpose. Plus, longer light cycles due to long pedestrian crossing times. E Grand Ave and US 101 SB On Ramp 35.120837 -120.584244 P-12 Where even IS the pedestrian crosswalk supposed to be? 20 feet behind the stop lines? It's silly.Traffic Way and Station Way 35.121827 -120.579449 P-13 There's no reason to have a 50 foot corner radius if semis can just use the outer lane during a turn. E Grand Ave and US 101 SB Off Ramp 35.120884 -120.585004 P-14 No marked crosswalk to actually get to this sidewalk up to the houses and shopping center.N Oak Park Blvd and Branch St 35.131316 -120.606024 P-15 This crosswalk was improved, but it should be made even better with concrete to reduce the street width.Crown Hill St at E Branch St 35.12514 -120.574973 P-16 Create bulb outs (and set the stop bars back so trucks can still turn)E Branch St and S Mason St 35.124499 -120.576464 P-17 Stop bar at intersection is literally in the direct walking path between curb ramps.Nelson St and S Mason St 35.122867 -120.575316 P-18 Narrow sidewalk is often blocked by cars, posing an accessibility blocker for wheelchair users who then have to use the street.S Mason St and Poole St 35.121887 -120.574615 P-19 Leading pedestrian interval for safer crossing.Fair Oaks Ave and Traffic Way 35.119646 -120.576314 P-20 Consider enabling all pedestrian crossings without the need for the beg button. Wide curb cutouts to facilitate and encourage fast moving traffic, like at this intersection, make it unsafe to cross if I approach this crossing during a green light, with time to cross, but after having the opportunity to use the beg button. This creates a delay for pedestrians since they then need to wait another full light cycle. E Grand Ave and US 101 NB On Ramp 35.121734 -120.582848 P-21 Mason and Allen are commonly used as routes for traffic to cut through from E Branch to Branch Mill. Most traffic through here is speeding above 25mph, which creates unsafe conditions for pedestrians and cyclists (many children) in the neighborhood. Consider traffic calming measures here.S Mason St and Allen St 35.120633 -120.573492 Page 209 of 310 Transit Suggestion City of Arroyo Grande LRSP Public Survey Results Q1. What are the main roadway safety issues in Arroyo Grande? Check all that apply. Q2. If other, Please list - No response – ID Comment Marker Location Latitude Longitude T-1 the speed limit needs to be reduced here. It would cause pedestrians to feel safer when crossing. And slowing transit would cause more recognition of store fronts and businesses. E Branch St btwn Nevada St and Short St 35.123688 -120.578125 T-2 Reduce speed limit on Grand to provide more recognition of store fronts and allow pedestrians and cyclist to feel safer and more inclined to take this route. E Grand Ave west of Courtland St 35.120646 -120.605893 T-3 It's a little unfortunate that the library can only be reached by a bus that runs one direction. A traffic light at Branch and Grand would probably allow the buses to continue down Branch instead of getting onto the freeway.W Branch St at Library driveway 35.123567 -120.589606 T-4 Specifically we could do level boarding for both east and westbound stops. Would be more equitable for ADA school kids as well.Fair Oaks Ave east of Valley Rd 35.117185 -120.581508 T-5 We can engineer a westbound bus stop that makes sense.Fair Oaks Ave east of Valley Rd 35.11692 -120.581805 T-6 Instead of exposed bike racks, use bike lockers that can be locked with a personal lock like a U-lock on the door. El Camino Real btwn N Halcyon Rd and Feah Ave 35.122767 -120.590205 Page 210 of 310 Q3. Are you familiar with how Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons (PHB) work? Q4. Would you be interested in an educational component for PHBs (e.g. a video or infographic)? Page 211 of 310 Q5. Do you have any concerns about speeding on local roads? Q6. *Please list specific locations and any recommendations you may have. 1. The village!!!! Make the speed limit 15 mph, put a bike lane, and have cars park on one side of the street or behind businesses so that people and families have space to comfortably ride their bikes and walk around without cars speeding by. 2. The village. Speed is 25 mph but people rush through anyways. It is difficult to leisurely ride a bike through that area due to this , and biking on the side walk is not a good option due to the busy store fronts. Also in the Halcyon/grande area the speed limit is 40 mph in some places with no area for bikes. These suggestions have also been added to the interactive map. * Q7. What roadway improvements would you like to see in and around school zones? - No Responses - Q8. What other improvements would you like to see? 1. Isolated pedestrian/bike paths. The proposed plans for the lanes and path are wonderful and I hope all of them can be completed soon! These paths are a great opportunities that prompt people to be outside. I hope the Grand 101 overpass can be improved for bike crossing. Biking and even walking that section feels very exposed to the cars getting on the 101. I am a professional cyclist and avoid this area of grand because of this and the lack of a bike lane. 2. More bike lanes!!!!!!! Page 212 of 310 Q9. Additional Comments - No Responses - Page 213 of 310 Page 214 of 310 Page 215 of 310 Page 216 of 310 Page 217 of 310 . . ~ LUCIA MAR UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT Engage. Challenge.Inspire August 16, 2021 Arroyo Grande City Council 300 E Branch Street Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 Subject: Local Road Safety Plan Dear Arroyo Grande City Council: BUSINESS SERVICES DEPARTMENT Jim Empey Assistant Superintendent, Business Services 602 Orchard Street, Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 Tel 805.474.3000 xl070 I Fax 805.473.1593 RECEIVED ,\ AUG 19 2021 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE Over the last year and a half Lucia Mar Unified School District has collaborated with City of Arroyo Grande officials and other organizations to finalize the Local Road Safety Plan (LRSP). During this time, Lucia Mar has had a district representative working closely with the committee to identify safety issues that we feel affect our students and families. Lucia Mar USD is serious about ensuring the safety of its students. Safety starts with students walking, biking, or driving to-and-from school, and we believe that all forms of transportation are of equal importance. As every family has its own unique situation, a variety of forms of transportation are required. We attended in-person and virtual meetings, and we met with Robin Dickerson onsite to review potential changes to Valley Road. This positive collaboration is reflected in the final version of the LRSP. During our meetings, several safety issues were identified and studied: (1) Fair Oaks Road encompasses two of our biggest campuses: Arroyo Grande High School (AGHS) and Harloe Elementary School. The LRSP addresses the needs of both schools through the Halcyon Complete Streets Project and the redesign of Valley Road. (2) Identifying a potential problem on Nelson Street and Traffic Way was also important because we have many students traveling to-and-from -AGHS using that intersection. Lucia Mar Unified School District strongly supports the final version of LRSP. We hope that it will be adopted and implemented. It is very important that the City of Arroyo Grande continues to collaborate with the "School District" to ensure that our streets are safe for all of our road users. Thank you for giving us the opportunity to help make the City of Arroyo Grande a better place to live and work. Assistant Superintendent, Business Services Page 218 of 310 Appendix B – SSAR Crash Analysis Page 219 of 310 £¤101US EPDO RANK 2 EPDO RAN K 8 EPDO RANK 3EPDO RANK 4 CRASH RATE RANK 6EPDO RANK 6 CRASH RATE RANK 10EPDO RANK 7 E P D O R A N K 1 0 C R A S H R A T E R A N K 1 CRASH RATE RANK 3CRASH RATE RANK 2 CRA S H R A T E R A N K 8 CRASH RA T E R A N K 9 CRASH RATE RANK 5 CRASH RATE RANK 7 CRASH R A T E R A N K 4 EPD O R A N K 1 EPD O R A N K 5 EPDO RANK 92 1 8 4 9 5 6 3 7 10 2 1 8 3 10 FIGURE C1 0 0.09 0.18 0.27 0.36 Miles Project No.Revision No.-Date 04/17/2020 City of Arroyo Grande Map Projection: Mercator Auxiliary SphereHorizontal Datum: WGS 1984Grid: WGS 1984 Web Mercator Auxiliary Sphere Paper Size ANSI B o O:\PRJ\1989\G1989\MXD\Top 10.mxdPrint date: 16 Apr 2020 - 12:23 Top 10 Ranked Segment & Intersections ·|}þ1 E Grand Ave Source: Esri, HERE, Garmin, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user community.Source: US Census Bureau, Geography Division. Created by: frahmanN Oak Park BlvdS Halcyon RdFair Oaks Ave Tr a f f i c W a y W Bra n c h S t Corbett Canyon RdJames W a y Valley RdE Branch StTop 10 Intersectionby EPDO Top 10 Intersectionby Crash Rate Top 10 Segmentby EPDO Top 10 Segmentby Crash Rate S Elm StAsh St Systamatic Safety Analysis Report(SSAR) 11144936 7 4 6 # # 59 Page 220 of 310 Intersection IDRanked Intersection by EPDO EPDOIntersection IDRanked Intersection by Overall Crash Rates Overall Crash RatesIntersection IDRanked intersection by Total Crashes Toal Crashes9 E BRANCH ST & SHORT ST 581 1 51 TRAFFIC WAY & ALLEN ST 1.48 1 2 E GRAND AVE & S ELM ST 44 46 E GRAND AVE & BELL ST 557 2 64 VALLEY RD & AGHS STAFF PARKING / BACK ROAD 1.22 2 1 E GRAND AVE & COURTLAND ST 34 1 E GRAND AVE & COURTLAND ST 133 3 15 W BRANCH ST & BRISCO RD 0.94 3 13 EL CAMINO REAL & N OAK PARK BLVD 32 13 EL CAMINO REAL & N OAK PARK BLVD 91 4 8 W BRNACH ST & BRIDGE ST 0.93 4 6 E GRAND AVE & W BRANCH ST 30 20 THE PIKE & S HALCYON RD 82 5 2 E GRAND AVE & S ELM ST 0.91 5 4 E GRAND AVE & S HALCYON RD 30 6 E GRAND AVE & W BRANCH ST 70 6 20 THE PIKE & S HALCYON RD 0.83 6 8 W BRNACH ST & BRIDGE ST 26 2 E GRAND AVE & S ELM ST 54 7 6 E GRAND AVE & W BRANCH ST 0.79 7 15 W BRANCH ST & BRISCO RD 25 12 JAMES WAY & OAK PARK BLVD 52 8 43 THE PIKE & GARFIELD PL 0.78 8 27 E GRAND AVE & US 101 SB RAMP 23 8 W BRNACH ST & BRIDGE ST 51 9 1 E GRAND AVE & COURTLAND ST 0.76 9 3 E GRAND AVE & BRISCO RD 23 19 FARROLL AVE & S HALCYON RD 48 10 67 CORBETT CANYON RD & GULARTE RD 0.76 10 16 EL CAMINO REAL & BRISCO RD 22 16 EL CAMINO REAL & BRISCO RD 47 11 16 EL CAMINO REAL & BRISCO RD 0.67 11 7 W BRANCH ST & TRAFFIC WAY 21 4 E GRAND AVE & S HALCYON RD 45 12 28 W BRANCH ST & CAMINO MERCADO / US 101 NB RAMPS 0.66 12 29 W BRANCH ST / US 101 NB RAMP & N OAK PARK BLVD 21 14 W BRANCH ST & RANCHO PKWY 43 13 14 W BRANCH ST & RANCHO PKWY 0.65 13 28 W BRANCH ST & CAMINO MERCADO / US 101 NB RAMPS 19 5 E GRAND AVE & EL CAMINO REAL 39 14 17 EL CAMINO REAL & N HALCYON RD 0.65 14 17 EL CAMINO REAL & N HALCYON RD 19 17 EL CAMINO REAL & N HALCYON RD 39 15 65 FAIR OAKS AVE & TODD LN 0.63 15 5 E GRAND AVE & EL CAMINO REAL 19 27 E GRAND AVE & US 101 SB RAMP 38 16 13 EL CAMINO REAL & N OAK PARK BLVD 0.56 16 20 THE PIKE & S HALCYON RD 18 29 W BRANCH ST / US 101 NB RAMP & N OAK PARK BLVD 36 17 27 E GRAND AVE & US 101 SB RAMP 0.56 17 14 W BRANCH ST & RANCHO PKWY 18 58 FAIR OAKS AVE & STATION WAY 36 18 23 FAIR OAKS AVE & US 101 SB OFF RAMP & ORCHARD ST 0.56 18 64 VALLEY RD & AGHS STAFF PARKING / BACK ROAD 17 40 E GRAND AVE & JUNIPER ST 32 19 52 NELSON ST & S MASON ST 0.55 19 23 FAIR OAKS AVE & US 101 SB OFF RAMP & ORCHARD ST 16 15 W BRANCH ST & BRISCO RD 30 20 11 E BRANCH ST & HUSANA RD 0.54 20 10 E BRANCH ST & S MASON ST 14 63 FAIR OAKS AVE & AGHS EAST ENTRANCE 30 21 7 W BRANCH ST & TRAFFIC WAY 0.54 21 46 E GRAND AVE & BELL ST 14 28 W BRANCH ST & CAMINO MERCADO / US 101 NB RAMPS 29 22 19 FARROLL AVE & S HALCYON RD 0.54 22 19 FARROLL AVE & S HALCYON RD 13 31 N OAK PARK BLVD & E GRAND AVE 29 23 4 E GRAND AVE & S HALCYON RD 0.54 23 18 FAIR OAKS AVE & S HALCYON RD 13 3 E GRAND AVE & BRISCO RD 28 24 35 ASH ST & COURTLAND ST 0.53 24 11 E BRANCH ST & HUSANA RD 12 11 E BRANCH ST & HUSANA RD 27 25 3 E GRAND AVE & BRISCO RD 0.53 25 22 FAIR OAKS AVE & TRAFFIC WAY 12 64 VALLEY RD & AGHS STAFF PARKING / BACK ROAD 27 26 5 E GRAND AVE & EL CAMINO REAL 0.52 26 40 E GRAND AVE & JUNIPER ST 12 7 W BRANCH ST & TRAFFIC WAY 26 27 59 CHERRY AVE & TRAFFIC WAY 0.51 27 44 E GRAND AVE & RENA ST 12 42 THE PIKE & S ELM ST 26 28 47 EL CAMINO REAL & BELL ST 0.47 28 42 THE PIKE & S ELM ST 11 69 E GRAND AVE & ALDER ST 26 29 74 W BRANCH ST & TOWN CENTER DR 0.44 29 24 FAIR OAKS AVE & VALLEY RD 11 37 FARROLL AVE & S ELM ST 25 30 10 E BRANCH ST & S MASON ST 0.43 30 65 FAIR OAKS AVE & TODD LN 10 65 FAIR OAKS AVE & TODD LN 25 31 49 TRAFFIC WAY & NELSON ST 0.41 31 59 CHERRY AVE & TRAFFIC WAY 10 74 W BRANCH ST & TOWN CENTER DR 24 32 42 THE PIKE & S ELM ST 0.39 32 36 FAIR OAKSAVE & S ELM ST 10 18 FAIR OAKS AVE & S HALCYON RD 23 33 62 FAIR OAKS AVE & AGHS MIDDLE ENTRANCE 0.39 33 74 W BRANCH ST & TOWN CENTER DR 9 22 FAIR OAKS AVE & TRAFFIC WAY 22 34 22 FAIR OAKS AVE & TRAFFIC WAY 0.39 34 49 TRAFFIC WAY & NELSON ST 8 45 E GRAND AVE N ALPINE ST 22 35 46 E GRAND AVE & BELL ST 0.39 35 62 FAIR OAKS AVE & AGHS MIDDLE ENTRANCE 8 10 E BRANCH ST & S MASON ST 19 36 24 FAIR OAKS AVE & VALLEY RD 0.39 36 9 E BRANCH ST & SHORT ST 8 49 TRAFFIC WAY & NELSON ST 18 37 18 FAIR OAKS AVE & S HALCYON RD 0.37 37 12 JAMES WAY & OAK PARK BLVD 8 62 FAIR OAKS AVE & AGHS MIDDLE ENTRANCE 18 38 66 S ELM ST & MAPLE ST 0.37 38 43 THE PIKE & GARFIELD PL 7 44 E GRAND AVE & RENA ST 17 39 53 CORBETT CANYON RD & SR 227 / PRINTZ RD 0.37 39 66 S ELM ST & MAPLE ST 7 66 S ELM ST & MAPLE ST 17 40 36 FAIR OAKSAVE & S ELM ST 0.36 40 45 E GRAND AVE N ALPINE ST 7 23 FAIR OAKS AVE & US 101 SB OFF RAMP & ORCHARD ST 16 41 29 W BRANCH ST / US 101 NB RAMP & N OAK PARK BLVD 0.36 41 35 ASH ST & COURTLAND ST 6 35 ASH ST & COURTLAND ST 16 42 70 JAMES WAY & MEADOW WAY 0.36 42 58 FAIR OAKS AVE & STATION WAY 6 36 FAIR OAKSAVE & S ELM ST 15 43 9 E BRANCH ST & SHORT ST 0.35 43 69 E GRAND AVE & ALDER ST 6 59 CHERRY AVE & TRAFFIC WAY 15 44 40 E GRAND AVE & JUNIPER ST 0.34 44 41 E GRAND AVE & FAIR VIEW DR 6 54 HUSANA RD & CLARENCE AVE 14 45 44 E GRAND AVE & RENA ST 0.33 45 67 CORBETT CANYON RD & GULARTE RD 5 55 HUSANA RD & ORO DR 13 46 21 LEANNA DR & VALLEY RD 0.29 46 52 NELSON ST & S MASON ST 5 56 HUSANA RD & STAGECOACH RD 12 47 58 FAIR OAKS AVE & STATION WAY 0.29 47 53 CORBETT CANYON RD & SR 227 / PRINTZ RD 5 24 FAIR OAKS AVE & VALLEY RD 11 48 54 HUSANA RD & CLARENCE AVE 0.27 48 63 FAIR OAKS AVE & AGHS EAST ENTRANCE 5 41 E GRAND AVE & FAIR VIEW DR 11 49 71 OAK PARK BLVD & MEADOWLARK DR 0.26 49 37 FARROLL AVE & S ELM ST 5 52 NELSON ST & S MASON ST 10 50 68 MASON & LE POINT ST 0.26 50 51 TRAFFIC WAY & ALLEN ST 4 21 LEANNA DR & VALLEY RD 9 51 57 PRINTZ RD & TALLY HO RD 0.25 51 70 JAMES WAY & MEADOW WAY 4 61 FAIR OAKS AVE & AGHS WEST ENTRANCE 8 52 63 FAIR OAKS AVE & AGHS EAST ENTRANCE 0.23 52 21 LEANNA DR & VALLEY RD 4 43 THE PIKE & GARFIELD PL 7 53 12 JAMES WAY & OAK PARK BLVD 0.22 53 54 HUSANA RD & CLARENCE AVE 4 50 TRAFFIC WAY & POOLE ST 7 54 72 BRISCO & LINDA DR 0.21 54 38 DODSON WAY & HALCYON RD 4 53 CORBETT CANYON RD & SR 227 / PRINTZ RD 5 55 69 E GRAND AVE & ALDER ST 0.21 55 31 N OAK PARK BLVD & E GRAND AVE 4 67 CORBETT CANYON RD & GULARTE RD 5 56 37 FARROLL AVE & S ELM ST 0.20 56 71 OAK PARK BLVD & MEADOWLARK DR 3 38 DODSON WAY & HALCYON RD 4 57 55 HUSANA RD & ORO DR 0.20 57 68 MASON & LE POINT ST 3 51 TRAFFIC WAY & ALLEN ST 4 58 45 E GRAND AVE N ALPINE ST 0.19 58 57 PRINTZ RD & TALLY HO RD 3 70 JAMES WAY & MEADOW WAY 4 59 25 TRAFFIC WAY & US 101 NB RAMP 0.19 59 72 BRISCO & LINDA DR 3 25 TRAFFIC WAY & US 101 NB RAMP 3 60 39 ASH ST & WALNUT ST 0.18 60 55 HUSANA RD & ORO DR 3 26 E GRAND AVE & US 101 NB RAMP 3 61 32 W BRANCH ST & RODEO DR 0.18 61 25 TRAFFIC WAY & US 101 NB RAMP 3 57 PRINTZ RD & TALLY HO RD 3 62 48 W BRANCH ST & VERNON ST 0.17 62 61 FAIR OAKS AVE & AGHS WEST ENTRANCE 3 68 MASON & LE POINT ST 3 63 41 E GRAND AVE & FAIR VIEW DR 0.17 63 26 E GRAND AVE & US 101 NB RAMP 3 71 OAK PARK BLVD & MEADOWLARK DR 3 64 61 FAIR OAKS AVE & AGHS WEST ENTRANCE 0.14 64 60 CHERRY AVE & CALIFORNIA ST 2 72 BRISCO & LINDA DR 3 65 38 DODSON WAY & HALCYON RD 0.14 65 47 EL CAMINO REAL & BELL ST 2 30 BRISCO RD & US 101 NB RAMPS 2 66 56 HUSANA RD & STAGECOACH RD 0.13 66 39 ASH ST & WALNUT ST 2 32 W BRANCH ST & RODEO DR 2 67 33 JAMES WAY & RODEO DR 0.12 67 32 W BRANCH ST & RODEO DR 2 39 ASH ST & WALNUT ST 2 68 34 JAMES WAY & TALLY HO RD 0.11 68 56 HUSANA RD & STAGECOACH RD 2 47 EL CAMINO REAL & BELL ST 2 69 50 TRAFFIC WAY & POOLE ST 0.10 69 50 TRAFFIC WAY & POOLE ST 2 60 CHERRY AVE & CALIFORNIA ST 2 70 30 BRISCO RD & US 101 NB RAMPS 0.07 70 30 BRISCO RD & US 101 NB RAMPS 2 33 JAMES WAY & RODEO DR 1 71 26 E GRAND AVE & US 101 NB RAMP 0.07 71 48 W BRANCH ST & VERNON ST 1 34 JAMES WAY & TALLY HO RD 1 72 31 N OAK PARK BLVD & E GRAND AVE 0.07 72 33 JAMES WAY & RODEO DR 1 48 W BRANCH ST & VERNON ST 1 73 73 FAIR OAKS AVE & CALIFORNIA ST 0.04 73 34 JAMES WAY & TALLY HO RD 1 73 FAIR OAKS AVE & CALIFORNIA ST 1 74 60 CHERRY AVE & CALIFORNIA ST ‐74 73 FAIR OAKS AVE & CALIFORNIA ST 1 Page 221 of 310 Collisions at Selected IntersectionFatalInjury (Severe)Injury (Other Visible)Injury (Complaint of Pain)Property Damage OnlyHead-onSideswipeRear EndBroadsideHit ObjectOverturnedVehicle/ PedestrianOther/Not Listed20142015201620172018EPDO24-HOUR ENTERING VOLUMEFatal + InjuryOverall Crash RateFatal Crash RateFatal + Injury Crash rate1E GRAND AVE & COURTLAND ST1 5 4 24 610122 222211595413324,387 10 0.764 ‐ 0.225 342E GRAND AVE & S ELM ST2 4249206327128895426,394 2 0.913 ‐ 0.042 443E GRAND AVE & BRISCO RD12213573 131834532823,960 1 0.526 ‐ 0.023 234E GRAND AVE & S HALCYON RD1 1281784281975634530,603 2 0.537 ‐ 0.036 305E GRAND AVE & EL CAMINO REAL1 216 25822736213919,883 3 0.524 ‐ 0.083 196E GRAND AVE & W BRANCH ST3 2 25242202121073647020,709 5 0.794 ‐ 0.132 307W BRANCH ST & TRAFFIC WAY1202285133 5672621,343 1 0.539 ‐ 0.026 218W BRNACH ST & BRIDGE ST1 3 22 96 2 273 185485115,249 4 0.934 ‐ 0.144 269E BRANCH ST & SHORT ST1 3 41112321131258112,602 4 0.348 0.043 0.174 810E BRANCH ST & S MASON ST11321611 121323241917,799 1 0.431 ‐ 0.031 1411E BRANCH ST & HUSANA RD1 1 10 13 71221162712,172 2 0.540 ‐ 0.090 1212JAMES WAY & OAK PARK BLVD1 1 1 533112 425220,040 3 0.219 ‐ 0.082 813EL CAMINO REAL & N OAK PARK BLVD1 2 227277812 51839669131,197 5 0.562 ‐ 0.088 3214W BRANCH ST & RANCHO PKWY2 115115236534244315,096 3 0.653 ‐ 0.109 1815W BRANCH ST & BRISCO RD1 24161314763633014,590 1 0.939 ‐ 0.038 2516EL CAMINO REAL & BRISCO RD1 3184673111323774717,901 4 0.673 ‐ 0.122 2217EL CAMINO REAL & N HALCYON RD1 2 161113130244183916,038 3 0.649 ‐ 0.102 1918FAIR OAKS AVE & S HALCYON RD211 1622 1111541122319,018 2 0.375 ‐ 0.058 1319FARROLL AVE & S HALCYON RD3 1 9 12811235124813,213 4 0.539 ‐ 0.166 1320THE PIKE & S HALCYON RD1 2 31211592422648211,952 6 0.825 ‐ 0.275 1821LEANNA DR & VALLEY RD131 21 12197,619 1 0.288 ‐ ‐ 422FAIR OAKS AVE & TRAFFIC WAY210223415 2232216,827 2 0.391 ‐ 0.065 1223FAIR OAKS AVE & US 101 SB OFF RAMP & ORCHARD ST16221632354221615,787 0 0.555 ‐ ‐ 1624FAIR OAKS AVE & VALLEY RD11 4321132151115,563 0 0.387 ‐ ‐ 1125TRAFFIC WAY & US 101 NB RAMP311111138,675 0 0.189 ‐ ‐ 326E GRAND AVE & US 101 NB RAMP3111 0 12324,252 0 0.068 ‐ ‐ 327E GRAND AVE & US 101 SB RAMP1 121 5752 1311293363822,479 2 0.561 ‐ 0.049 2328W BRANCH ST & CAMINO MERCADO / US 101 NB RAMPS217136180623442915,761 2 0.661 ‐ 0.070 1929W BRANCH ST / US 101 NB RAMP & N OAK PARK BLVD1 119133914753153631,872 2 0.361 ‐ 0.034 2130BRISCO RD & US 101 NB RAMPS2110 11215,055 0 0.073 ‐ ‐ 231N OAK PARK BLVD & E GRAND AVE2 1 1 112021 12932,613 3 0.067 ‐ ‐ 432W BRANCH ST & RODEO DR221126,173 0 0.178 ‐ ‐ 233JAMES WAY & RODEO DR110114,667 0 0.117 ‐ ‐ 134JAMES WAY & TALLY HO RD110 114,821 0 0.114 ‐ ‐ 135ASH ST & COURTLAND ST2411 402 22166,202 2 0.530 ‐ 0.177 636FAIR OAKSAVE & S ELM ST1 9 2322 10112521515,120 1 0.362 ‐ 0.036 1037FARROLL AVE & S ELM ST2 3 1 2 11111122513,534 2 0.202 ‐ 0.081 538DODSON WAY & HALCYON RD41 111121415,352 0 0.143 ‐ ‐ 439ASH ST & WALNUT ST220 1126,017 0 0.182 ‐ ‐ 240E GRAND AVE & JUNIPER ST2 10 3314 101222513219,216 2 0.342 ‐ 0.057 1241E GRAND AVE & FAIR VIEW DR15 1 411 321119,216 1 0.171 ‐ 0.029 642THE PIKE & S ELM ST1 1 9 21152324112615,348 2 0.393 ‐ 0.071 1143THE PIKE & GARFIELD PL7 113223274,901 0 0.783 ‐ ‐ 744E GRAND AVE & RENA ST111 44112212521719,714 1 0.334 ‐ 0.028 1245E GRAND AVE N ALPINE ST1 1 5 32110213 12219,714 2 0.195 ‐ 0.056 746E GRAND AVE & BELL ST11311523 1111334355719,714 1 0.389 0.028 0.028 1447EL CAMINO REAL & BELL ST2110 1122,312 0 0.474 ‐ 0.000 248W BRANCH ST & VERNON ST110113,175 0 0.173 ‐ 0.000 149TRAFFIC WAY & NELSON ST2 611111 121 213 21810,681 2 0.410 ‐ 0.103 850TRAFFIC WAY & POOLE ST1120111710,681 1 0.103 ‐ 0.051 251TRAFFIC WAY & ALLEN ST4 111111 1141,483 0 1.478 ‐ ‐ 452NELSON ST & S MASON ST1 4 1220212104,970 1 0.551 ‐ 0.110 553CORBETT CANYON RD & SR 227 / PRINTZ RD5311 3 257,462 0 0.367 ‐ ‐ 554HUSANA RD & CLARENCE AVE1 3 12 10 1112148,187 1 0.268 ‐ 0.067 455HUSANA RD & ORO DR21 1 110111138,187 2 0.201 ‐ 0.134 356HUSANA RD & STAGECOACH RD11 11 0 11128,187 1 0.134 ‐ 0.067 257PRINTZ RD & TALLY HO RD3212136,703 0 0.245 ‐ ‐ 358FAIR OAKS AVE & STATION WAY3 3 11 31021 2223611,447 3 0.287 ‐ 0.144 659CHERRY AVE & TRAFFIC WAY1 9 1 2322511211510,780 1 0.508 ‐ 0.051 1060CHERRY AVE & CALIFORNIA ST220112No Volume Data0‐ ‐ ‐ 261FAIR OAKS AVE & AGHS WEST ENTRANCE12 1 2021811,354 1 0.145 ‐ 0.048 362FAIR OAKS AVE & AGHS MIDDLE ENTRANCE1 7 411221411811,187 1 0.392 ‐ ‐ 863FAIR OAKS AVE & AGHS EAST ENTRANCE1 3 1 140 1 1223011,822 4 0.232 ‐ 0.185 564VALLEY RD & AGHS STAFF PARKING / BACK ROAD1 16 36 31 415542277,619 1 1.223 ‐ 0.072 1765FAIR OAKS AVE & TODD LN1 1 8 352032212258,724 2 0.628 ‐ 0.126 1066S ELM ST & MAPLE ST2 5 241011231710,252 2 0.374 ‐ 0.107 767CORBETT CANYON RD & GULARTE RD5411 12153,605 0 0.760 ‐ ‐ 568MASON & LE POINT ST311111136,363 0 0.258 ‐ ‐ 369E GRAND AVE & ALDER ST1 2 311121112222615,707 3 0.209 ‐ 0.105 670JAMES WAY & MEADOW WAY413012146,114 0 0.358 ‐ ‐ 471OAK PARK BLVD & MEADOWLARK DR312011136,277 0 0.262 ‐ ‐ 372BRISCO & LINDA DR31 1102137,674 0 0.214 ‐ ‐ 373FAIR OAKS AVE & CALIFORNIA ST111112,644 0 0.043 ‐ ‐ 174W BRANCH ST & TOWN CENTER DR3 611511211232411,264 3 0.438 ‐ ‐ 92 4 47 68 667 40 148 207 181 92 4 19 97 21 13 177 144 161 153 153 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 788* Data provide by the City of Arroyo Grande do not identify bicycle related collisionsYearTotalTotalIntersection #NameSeverityTypePedestrianBicycle*Page 222 of 310 Segment IDRanked Segment by EPDO From ToEPDOSegment IDRanked Segment by Overall Crash Rate From ToOverall Crash RateSegment IDRanked Segment by Total Crashes From ToOverall Crashes15AEL CAMINO REAL EAST OF OAK PARK TO WEST OF BRISCO EAST OF OAK PARK WEST OF BRISCO59426ABRIDGE ST NORTH OF TRAFFIC TO SOUTH OF W BRANCH NORTH OF TRAFFIC WAY SOUTH OF W BRANCH2.921BGRAND COURTLAND TO ELM EAST OF COURTLAND EAST OF S ELM501BGRAND COURTLAND TO ELM EAST OF COURTLAND EAST OF S ELM1109ACAMINO MERCADO NO. OF BRANCH TO SO. OF RANCHO PKWY NORTH OF BRANCH SOUTH OF RANCHO PKWY2.536BHALCYON NORTH OF FAIR OAKS TO SOUTH OF GRAND NORTH OF FAIR OAKS SOUTH OF GRAND306BHALCYON NORTH OF FAIR OAKS TO SOUTH OF GRAND NORTH OF FAIR OAKS SOUTH OF GRAND6531AALLEN ST EAST OF TRAFFIC WAY TO WEST OF PCR PL EAST OF TRAFFIC WAY WEST OF PACIFIC COAST RAILWAY PLACE2.165BBRANCH WEST OF CAMINO MERCADO TO WEST OF BRISCO WEST OF CAMINO MERCADO WEST OF BRISCO274BFAIR OAKS EAST OF HALCYON TO WEST OF VALLEY EAST OF HALCYON WEST OF VALLEY605CBRANCH WEST OF BRISCO TO NORTH OF W BRANCH WEST OF BRISCO NORTH OF W BRANCH2.075ABRANCH EAST OF OAK PARK TO WEST OF CAMINO MERCADO EAST OF OAK PARK WEST OF CAMINO MERCADO275BBRANCH WEST OF CAMINO MERCADO TO WEST OF BRISCO WEST OF CAMINO MERCADO WEST OF BRISCO5710ARANCHO PKWY NORTH OF BRANCH TO NO. OF VIA VAQUERO NORTH OF BRANCH NORHT OF VIA VAQUERO1.6310ARANCHO PKWY NORTH OF BRANCH TO NO. OF VIA VAQUERO NORTH OF BRANCH NORHT OF VIA VAQUERO254CFAIR OAKS WEST OF VALLEY TO EAST OF CALIFORNIA WEST OF VALLEY EAST OF CALIFORNIA5632ABRANCH MILL RD SO. OF HUEBNER LN TO CITY LIMIT SOUTH OF HUEBNER LN CITY LIMIT1.621CGRAND EAST OF ELM TO WEST OF HALCYON EAST OF ELM WEST OF HALCYON193CW BRANCH EAST OF MASON TO EAST OF HUSANA/227 EAST OF MASON ST EAST OF HUSANA/227451BGRAND COURTLAND TO ELM EAST OF COURTLAND EAST OF S ELM1.434CFAIR OAKS WEST OF VALLEY TO EAST OF CALIFORNIA WEST OF VALLEY EAST OF CALIFORNIA161CGRAND EAST OF ELM TO WEST OF HALCYON EAST OF ELM WEST OF HALCYON3915AEL CAMINO REAL EAST OF OAK PARK TO WEST OF BRISCO EAST OF OAK PARK WEST OF BRISCO1.4314ABRISCO NORTH OF GRAND TO SOUTH OF ECR NORTH OF GRAND SOUTH OF EL CAMINO REAL1510ARANCHO PKWY NORTH OF BRANCH TO NO. OF VIA VAQUERO NORTH OF BRANCH NORHT OF VIA VAQUERO3515CEL CAMINO REAL EAST OF HALCYON TO SOUTH OF GRAND EAST OF HALCYONSOUTH OF GRAND1.424BFAIR OAKS EAST OF HALCYON TO WEST OF VALLEY EAST OF HALCYON WEST OF VALLEY1526ABRIDGE ST NORTH OF TRAFFIC TO SOUTH OF W BRANCH NORTH OF TRAFFIC WAY SOUTH OF W BRANCH3223ATALLY HO RD EAST OF MASON TO WEST OF 227 EAST OF MASON WEST OF 2271.2926ABRIDGE ST NORTH OF TRAFFIC TO SOUTH OF W BRANCH NORTH OF TRAFFIC WAY SOUTH OF W BRANCH125ABRANCH EAST OF OAK PARK TO WEST OF CAMINO MERCADO EAST OF OAK PARK WEST OF CAMINO MERCADO275BBRANCH WEST OF CAMINO MERCADO TO WEST OF BRISCO WEST OF CAMINO MERCADO WEST OF BRISCO1.155CBRANCH WEST OF BRISCO TO NORTH OF W BRANCH WEST OF BRISCO NORTH OF W BRANCH1214ABRISCO NORTH OF GRAND TO SOUTH OF ECR NORTH OF GRAND SOUTH OF EL CAMINO REAL2514ABRISCO NORTH OF GRAND TO SOUTH OF ECR NORTH OF GRAND SOUTH OF EL CAMINO REAL1.1515AEL CAMINO REAL EAST OF OAK PARK TO WEST OF BRISCO EAST OF OAK PARK WEST OF BRISCO122AGRAND WEST OF HALCYON TO EAST OF EL CAMINO REAL WEST OF HALCYON EAST OF EL CAMINO REAL226BHALCYON NORTH OF FAIR OAKS TO SOUTH OF GRAND NORTH OF FAIR OAKS SOUTH OF GRAND1.143CW BRANCH EAST OF MASON TO EAST OF HUSANA/227 EAST OF MASON ST EAST OF HUSANA/227113DHUSANA EAST OF 227 TO CITY LIMIT EAST OF 227 CITY LIMITS225ABRANCH EAST OF OAK PARK TO WEST OF CAMINO MERCADO EAST OF OAK PARK WEST OF CAMINO MERCADO1.0911BELM SOUTH OF FARROLL TO NORTH OF ASH SOUTH OF FARROLL NORTH OF ASH1032ABRANCH MILL RD SO. OF HUEBNER LN TO CITY LIMIT SOUTH OF HUEBNER LN CITY LIMIT204BFAIR OAKS EAST OF HALCYON TO WEST OF VALLEY EAST OF HALCYON WEST OF VALLEY0.937BOAK PARK SOUTH OF BRANCH TO CITY LIMIT NORTH OF BRANCH CITY LIMIT102BGRAND/BRANCH EAST OF ECR TO EAST OF W BRANCH EAST OF EL CAMINO REAL EAST OF W BRANCH188AJAMES WAY EAST OF OAK PARK WEST OF TALLY HO EAST OF OAK PARK WEST OF TALLY HO0.818AJAMES WAY EAST OF OAK PARK WEST OF TALLY HO EAST OF OAK PARK WEST OF TALLY HO923ATALLY HO RD EAST OF MASON TO WEST OF 227 EAST OF MASON WEST OF 2271817AFARROLL EAST OF OAK PARK TO WEST OF HALCYON EAST OF OAK PARK WEST OF ELM0.7912ASPRUCE ASH TO POPLAR ASH SOUTH OF POPLAR87BOAK PARK SOUTH OF BRANCH TO CITY LIMIT NORTH OF BRANCH CITY LIMIT1518BASH EAST OF ELM TO EAST OF ALDER EAST OF ELM WEST OF ALDER0.789ACAMINO MERCADO NO. OF BRANCH TO SO. OF RANCHO PKWY NORTH OF BRANCH SOUTH OF RANCHO PKWY89ACAMINO MERCADO NO. OF BRANCH TO SO. OF RANCHO PKWY NORTH OF BRANCH SOUTH OF RANCHO PKWY134CFAIR OAKS WEST OF VALLEY TO EAST OF CALIFORNIA WEST OF VALLEY EAST OF CALIFORNIA0.7723ATALLY HO RD EAST OF MASON TO WEST OF 227 EAST OF MASON WEST OF 227812ASPRUCE ASH TO POPLAR ASH SOUTH OF POPLAR131CGRAND EAST OF ELM TO WEST OF HALCYON EAST OF ELM WEST OF HALCYON0.663BW BRANCH WEST OF BRIDGE TO EAST OF MASON WEST OF BRIDGE ST EAST OF MASON ST824ALE POINTE RD FROM CROWN TER TO 227 CROWN TER SOUTH OF 2271318AASH WEST OF COURTLAND TO WEST OF ELM WEST OF COURTLAND WEST OF ELM0.652BGRAND/BRANCH EAST OF ECR TO EAST OF W BRANCH EAST OF EL CAMINO REAL EAST OF W BRANCH83AW BRANCH EAST OF W BRANCH TO WEST OF BRIDGE EAST OF W BRANCH ST WEST OF BRIDGE ST123CW BRANCH EAST OF MASON TO EAST OF HUSANA/227 EAST OF MASON ST EAST OF HUSANA/2270.5517AFARROLL EAST OF OAK PARK TO WEST OF HALCYON EAST OF OAK PARK WEST OF ELM75CBRANCH WEST OF BRISCO TO NORTH OF W BRANCH WEST OF BRISCO NORTH OF W BRANCH1211BELM SOUTH OF FARROLL TO NORTH OF ASH SOUTH OF FARROLL NORTH OF ASH0.532AGRAND WEST OF HALCYON TO EAST OF EL CAMINO REAL WEST OF HALCYON EAST OF EL CAMINO REAL715CEL CAMINO REAL EAST OF HALCYON TO SOUTH OF GRAND EAST OF HALCYONSOUTH OF GRAND1113ACOURTLAND NORTH OF GRAND TO NORHT OF BRIGHTON NORTH OF GRAND NORTH OF BRIGHTON0.4915CEL CAMINO REAL EAST OF HALCYON TO SOUTH OF GRAND EAST OF HALCYONSOUTH OF GRAND611BELM SOUTH OF FARROLL TO NORTH OF ASH SOUTH OF FARROLL NORTH OF ASH104AFAIR OAKS EAST OF ELM TO EAST OF HALCYON EAST OF ELM EAST OF HALCYON0.4118BASH EAST OF ELM TO EAST OF ALDER EAST OF ELM WEST OF ALDER615BEL CAMINO REAL EAST OF BRISCO TO WEST OF HALCYON EAST OF BRISCO WEST OF HALCYON1030ANELSON ST EAST OF TRAFFIC WAY TO WEST OF MASON ST EAST OF TRAFFIC WAY EAST OF MASON ST0.3432ABRANCH MILL RD SO. OF HUEBNER LN TO CITY LIMIT SOUTH OF HUEBNER LN CITY LIMIT518AASH WEST OF COURTLAND TO WEST OF ELM WEST OF COURTLAND WEST OF ELM1016BTHE PIKE EAST OF ELM TO WEST OF HALCYON EAST OF ELM WEST OF HALCYON0.3418AASH WEST OF COURTLAND TO WEST OF ELM WEST OF COURTLAND WEST OF ELM56CHALCYON NORTH OF GRAND NORTH OF ECR TO NORTH OF GRAND NORTH OF ECR97BOAK PARK SOUTH OF BRANCH TO CITY LIMIT NORTH OF BRANCH CITY LIMIT0.3313ACOURTLAND NORTH OF GRAND TO NORHT OF BRIGHTON NORTH OF GRAND NORTH OF BRIGHTON58AJAMES WAY EAST OF OAK PARK WEST OF TALLY HO EAST OF OAK PARK WEST OF TALLY HO93BW BRANCH WEST OF BRIDGE TO EAST OF MASON WEST OF BRIDGE ST EAST OF MASON ST0.3211CELM NORTH OF ASH TO SOUTH OF GRAND NORTH OF ASH SOUTH OF GRAND53BW BRANCH WEST OF BRIDGE TO EAST OF MASON WEST OF BRIDGE ST EAST OF MASON ST811CELM NORTH OF ASH TO SOUTH OF GRAND NORTH OF ASH SOUTH OF GRAND0.2715BEL CAMINO REAL EAST OF BRISCO TO WEST OF HALCYON EAST OF BRISCO WEST OF HALCYON517AFARROLL EAST OF OAK PARK TO WEST OF HALCYON EAST OF OAK PARK WEST OF ELM733AORCHARD SO. OF CASTILLO DEL MAR TO SO. OF CHERRY SOUTH OF CASTILLO DEL MAR SOUTH OF CHERRY AVER0.261AGRAND OAK PARK TO EAST OF COURTLAND OAK PARK EAST OF COURTLAND518BASH EAST OF ELM TO EAST OF ALDER EAST OF ELM WEST OF ALDER611DELM NORTH OF GRAND TO LIMIT NORTH OF GRAND TERMINUS0.2621AALDER ST NORTH OF ASH TO SOUTH OF GRAND NORTH OF ASH SOUTH OF GRAND41AGRAND OAK PARK TO EAST OF COURTLAND OAK PARK EAST OF COURTLAND515BEL CAMINO REAL EAST OF BRISCO TO WEST OF HALCYON EAST OF BRISCO WEST OF HALCYON0.2328ASTATION NORTH OF FAIR OAKS SOTUH OF TRAFFIC NORTH OF FAIR OAKS SOUTH OF TRAFFIC411CELM NORTH OF ASH TO SOUTH OF GRAND NORTH OF ASH SOUTH OF GRAND52BGRAND/BRANCH EAST OF ECR TO EAST OF W BRANCH EAST OF EL CAMINO REAL EAST OF W BRANCH0.2229AOLOHAN ALLY EAST OF TRAFFIC WAY EAST OF MASON ST EAST OF TRAFFIC WAY EAST OF MASON ST413ACOURTLAND NORTH OF GRAND TO NORHT OF BRIGHTON NORTH OF GRAND NORTH OF BRIGHTON52AGRAND WEST OF HALCYON TO EAST OF EL CAMINO REAL WEST OF HALCYON EAST OF EL CAMINO REAL0.226CHALCYON NORTH OF GRAND NORTH OF ECR TO NORTH OF GRAND NORTH OF ECR421AALDER ST NORTH OF ASH TO SOUTH OF GRAND NORTH OF ASH SOUTH OF GRAND420AVALLEY RD SOUTH OF CASTILLO DEL MAR CITY LIMIT SOUTH OF CASTILLO DEL MAR0.2227CTRAFFCI WAY NORTH OF POOLE TO SOUTH OF BRANCH NORTH OF POOLE SOUTH OF BRANCH427CTRAFFCI WAY NORTH OF POOLE TO SOUTH OF BRANCH NORTH OF POOLE SOUTH OF BRANCH46CHALCYON NORTH OF GRAND NORTH OF ECR TO NORTH OF GRAND NORTH OF ECR0.2124ALE POINTE RD FROM CROWN TER TO 227 CROWN TER SOUTH OF 227328ASTATION NORTH OF FAIR OAKS SOTUH OF TRAFFIC NORTH OF FAIR OAKS SOUTH OF TRAFFIC427CTRAFFCI WAY NORTH OF POOLE TO SOUTH OF BRANCH NORTH OF POOLE SOUTH OF BRANCH0.2025ACROWN HILL FROM NORTH OF BRANCH TO 227 NORTH OF BRANCH SOUTH OF 227329AOLOHAN ALLY EAST OF TRAFFIC WAY EAST OF MASON ST EAST OF TRAFFIC WAY EAST OF MASON ST417BFARROLL EAST OF ELM TO WEST OF HALCYON EAST OF ELM WEST OF HALCYON0.1931AALLEN ST EAST OF TRAFFIC WAY TO WEST OF PCR PL EAST OF TRAFFIC WAY WEST OF PACIFIC COAST RAILWAY PLACE34AFAIR OAKS EAST OF ELM TO EAST OF HALCYON EAST OF ELM EAST OF HALCYON320BVALLEY RD CASTRILLO SOUTH OF DEL MAR TO FAIR OAKS NORTH OF CASTILLO DEL MAR SOTH OF FAIR OAKS AVE0.144AFAIR OAKS EAST OF ELM TO EAST OF HALCYON EAST OF ELM EAST OF HALCYON316BTHE PIKE EAST OF ELM TO WEST OF HALCYON EAST OF ELM WEST OF HALCYON31AGRAND OAK PARK TO EAST OF COURTLAND OAK PARK EAST OF COURTLAND0.1416BTHE PIKE EAST OF ELM TO WEST OF HALCYON EAST OF ELM WEST OF HALCYON320AVALLEY RD SOUTH OF CASTILLO DEL MAR CITY LIMIT SOUTH OF CASTILLO DEL MAR33DHUSANA EAST OF 227 TO CITY LIMIT EAST OF 227 CITY LIMITS0.1320AVALLEY RD SOUTH OF CASTILLO DEL MAR CITY LIMIT SOUTH OF CASTILLO DEL MAR325ACROWN HILL FROM NORTH OF BRANCH TO 227 NORTH OF BRANCH SOUTH OF 227327ATRAFFIC WAY NORTH OF RAMP TO SOUTH OF FAIR OAKS NORHT OF 101 RAMP SOUTH OF FAIR OAKS0.1322ARENA ST NORTH OF DODSON TO SOUTH OF GRAND NORTH OF DODSON SOUTH OF GRAND231AALLEN ST EAST OF TRAFFIC WAY TO WEST OF PCR PL EAST OF TRAFFIC WAY WEST OF PACIFIC COAST RAILWAY PLACE311AELM SOUTH OF PIKE TO SOUTH OF FARROLL SOUTH OF PIKE SOUTH OF FARROLL0.1134AWHITELEY ST EXTENT EXTENT211AELM SOUTH OF PIKE TO SOUTH OF FARROLL SOUTH OF PIKE SOUTH OF FARROLL227BTRAFFIC WAY SOUTH OF FAIR OAKS TO NORTH OF POOLE SOUTH OF FAIR OAKS NORTH OF POOLE0.0930ANELSON ST EAST OF TRAFFIC WAY TO WEST OF MASON ST EAST OF TRAFFIC WAY EAST OF MASON ST220BVALLEY RD CASTRILLO SOUTH OF DEL MAR TO FAIR OAKS NORTH OF CASTILLO DEL MAR SOTH OF FAIR OAKS AVE23AW BRANCH EAST OF W BRANCH TO WEST OF BRIDGE EAST OF W BRANCH ST WEST OF BRIDGE ST0.0833AORCHARD SO. OF CASTILLO DEL MAR TO SO. OF CHERRY SOUTH OF CASTILLO DEL MAR SOUTH OF CHERRY AVER222ARENA ST NORTH OF DODSON TO SOUTH OF GRAND NORTH OF DODSON SOUTH OF GRAND24DFAIR OAKS EAST OF CALIFORNIA TO WEST OF TRAFFIC EAST OF CALIFORNIA WEST OF TRAFFIC WAY0.0020BVALLEY RD CASTRILLO SOUTH OF DEL MAR TO FAIR OAKS NORTH OF CASTILLO DEL MAR SOTH OF FAIR OAKS AVE227ATRAFFIC WAY NORTH OF RAMP TO SOUTH OF FAIR OAKS NORHT OF 101 RAMP SOUTH OF FAIR OAKS26AHALCYON SOUTH OF PIKE TO SOUTH OF FAIR OAKS SOUTH OF PIKE SOUTH OF FAIR OAKS0.003DHUSANA EAST OF 227 TO CITY LIMIT EAST OF 227 CITY LIMITS227BTRAFFIC WAY SOUTH OF FAIR OAKS TO NORTH OF POOLE SOUTH OF FAIR OAKS NORTH OF POOLE27AOAK PARK SOUTH OF CHITTON NORTH OF BRANCH SOUTH OF CHITTON NORTH OF BRANCH0.0027ATRAFFIC WAY NORTH OF RAMP TO SOUTH OF FAIR OAKS NORHT OF 101 RAMP SOUTH OF FAIR OAKS230ANELSON ST EAST OF TRAFFIC WAY TO WEST OF MASON ST EAST OF TRAFFIC WAY EAST OF MASON ST214BBRISCO SOUTH OF ECR TO NORTH OF NB RAMPS SOUTH OF ECR NORTH OF NB RAMPS0.0011AELM SOUTH OF PIKE TO SOUTH OF FARROLL SOUTH OF PIKE SOUTH OF FARROLL233AORCHARD SO. OF CASTILLO DEL MAR TO SO. OF CHERRY SOUTH OF CASTILLO DEL MAR SOUTH OF CHERRY AVER216APIKE CITH LIMIT TO WEST OF ELM CITY LIMIT (DEL SOL ST) WEST OF ELM0.0027BTRAFFIC WAY SOUTH OF FAIR OAKS TO NORTH OF POOLE SOUTH OF FAIR OAKS NORTH OF POOLE234AWHITELEY ST EXTENT EXTENT212ASPRUCE ASH TO POPLAR ASH SOUTH OF POPLAR‐3AW BRANCH EAST OF W BRANCH TO WEST OF BRIDGE EAST OF W BRANCH ST WEST OF BRIDGE ST211DELM NORTH OF GRAND TO LIMIT NORTH OF GRAND TERMINUS124ALE POINTE RD FROM CROWN TER TO 227 CROWN TER SOUTH OF 227‐19AMAPLE EAST OF ELM TO WEST OF ALDER EAST OF ELM WEST OF ALDER117BFARROLL EAST OF ELM TO WEST OF HALCYON EAST OF ELM WEST OF HALCYON121AALDER ST NORTH OF ASH TO SOUTH OF GRAND NORTH OF ASH SOUTH OF GRAND‐11DELM NORTH OF GRAND TO LIMIT NORTH OF GRAND TERMINUS119AMAPLE EAST OF ELM TO WEST OF ALDER EAST OF ELM WEST OF ALDER128ASTATION NORTH OF FAIR OAKS SOTUH OF TRAFFIC NORTH OF FAIR OAKS SOUTH OF TRAFFIC‐17BFARROLL EAST OF ELM TO WEST OF HALCYON EAST OF ELM WEST OF HALCYON14DFAIR OAKS EAST OF CALIFORNIA TO WEST OF TRAFFIC EAST OF CALIFORNIA WEST OF TRAFFIC WAY029AOLOHAN ALLY EAST OF TRAFFIC WAY EAST OF MASON ST EAST OF TRAFFIC WAY EAST OF MASON ST‐4DFAIR OAKS EAST OF CALIFORNIA TO WEST OF TRAFFIC EAST OF CALIFORNIA WEST OF TRAFFIC WAY06AHALCYON SOUTH OF PIKE TO SOUTH OF FAIR OAKS SOUTH OF PIKE SOUTH OF FAIR OAKS025ACROWN HILL FROM NORTH OF BRANCH TO 227 NORTH OF BRANCH SOUTH OF 227‐6AHALCYON SOUTH OF PIKE TO SOUTH OF FAIR OAKS SOUTH OF PIKE SOUTH OF FAIR OAKS07AOAK PARK SOUTH OF CHITTON NORTH OF BRANCH SOUTH OF CHITTON NORTH OF BRANCH022ARENA ST NORTH OF DODSON TO SOUTH OF GRAND NORTH OF DODSON SOUTH OF GRAND‐7AOAK PARK SOUTH OF CHITTON NORTH OF BRANCH SOUTH OF CHITTON NORTH OF BRANCH014BBRISCO SOUTH OF ECR TO NORTH OF NB RAMPS SOUTH OF ECR NORTH OF NB RAMPS034AWHITELEY ST EXTENT EXTENT‐14BBRISCO SOUTH OF ECR TO NORTH OF NB RAMPS SOUTH OF ECR NORTH OF NB RAMPS016APIKE CITH LIMIT TO WEST OF ELM CITY LIMIT (DEL SOL ST) WEST OF ELM019AMAPLE EAST OF ELM TO WEST OF ALDER EAST OF ELM WEST OF ALDER‐16APIKE CITH LIMIT TO WEST OF ELM CITY LIMIT (DEL SOL ST) WEST OF ELM0Page 223 of 310 Collisions at Segments (no Intersections)FatalInjury (Severe)Injury (Other Visible)Injury (Complaint of Pain)Property Damage OnlyHead-onSideswipeRear EndBroadsideHit ObjectOverturnedVehicle/ PedestrianOther/Not Listed20142015201620172018EPDO24-HOUR ENTERING VOLUMEFatal + InjuryOverall Crash RateFatal Crash RateFatal + Injury Crash rate1AGRAND OAK PARK TO EAST OF COURTLAND OAK PARK EAST OF COURTLAND0 0 0 0 51021100200021025 19,216  0 0.143 ‐ ‐ 51BGRAND COURTLAND TO ELM EAST OF COURTLAND EAST OF S ELM0 0 6 0442915840216217129 418110 19,216  6 1.426 ‐ 0.171 501CGRAND EAST OF ELM TO WEST OF HALCYON EAST OF ELM WEST OF HALCYON0 0 1 216106220012027334239 15,707  3 0.663 ‐ 0.105 192AGRAND WEST OF HALCYON TO EAST OF EL CAMINO REAL WEST OF HALCYON EAST OF EL CAMINO REAL0 0 1 1 5110210018001111322 17,402  2 0.220 ‐ 0.063 72BGRAND/BRANCH EAST OF ECR TO EAST OF W BRANCH EAST OF EL CAMINO REAL EAST OF W BRANCH0 0 1 0 701220009000332018 19,646  1 0.223 ‐ 0.028 83AW BRANCH EAST OF W BRANCH TO WEST OF BRIDGE EAST OF W BRANCH ST WEST OF BRIDGE ST0 0 1 0 100020003001010012 13,699  1 0.080 ‐ 0.040 23BW BRANCH WEST OF BRIDGE TO EAST OF MASON WEST OF BRIDGE ST EAST OF MASON ST0 0 0 0 801302001600040048 13,699  0 0.320 ‐ ‐ 83CW BRANCH EAST OF MASON TO EAST OF HUSANA/227 EAST OF MASON ST EAST OF HUSANA/2270 1 0 1 913401003002322245 10,980  2 0.549 ‐ 0.100 113DHUSANA EAST OF 227 TO CITY LIMIT EAST OF 227 CITY LIMITS0 0 2 0 000002000000001122 8,187  2 0.134‐ 0.13424AFAIR OAKS EAST OF ELM TO EAST OF HALCYON EAST OF ELM EAST OF HALCYON0 0 0 0 30210000200201003 4,046  0 0.406 ‐ 0.000 34BFAIR OAKS EAST OF HALCYON TO WEST OF VALLEY EAST OF HALCYON WEST OF VALLEY0 0 2 5 814710101014333260 8,805  7 0.933 ‐ 0.436 154CFAIR OAKS WEST OF VALLEY TO EAST OF CALIFORNIA WEST OF VALLEY EAST OF CALIFORNIA0 0 2 41015170003012473056 11,348  6 0.773 ‐ 0.290 164DFAIR OAKS EAST OF CALIFORNIA TO WEST OF TRAFFIC EAST OF CALIFORNIAWEST OF TRAFFIC WAY0 0 0 0 00000000200000000 13,091  0 0.000 ‐ ‐ 05ABRANCH EAST OF OAK PARK TO WEST OF CAMINO MERCADO EAST OF OAK PARKWEST OF CAMINO MERCADO0 0 0 02726911008009445527 13,536  0 1.093 ‐ ‐ 275BBRANCH WEST OF CAMINO MERCADO TO WEST OF BRISCO WEST OF CAMINO MERCADO WEST OF BRISCO0 0 1 4222112420012003538857 12,810  5 1.155 ‐ 0.214275CBRANCH WEST OF BRISCO TO NORTH OF W BRANCH WEST OF BRISCO NORTH OF W BRANCH0 0 0 01204201009003422112 3,175  0 2.071 ‐ ‐ 126AHALCYON SOUTH OF PIKE TO SOUTH OF FAIR OAKS SOUTH OF PIKE SOUTH OF FAIR OAKS0 0 0 0 00000000300000000 13,643  0 0.000 ‐ ‐ 06BHALCYON NORTH OF FAIR OAKS TO SOUTH OF GRAND NORTH OF FAIR OAKS SOUTH OF GRAND0 0 1 524058350010009655565 14,363  6 1.144‐ 0.229 306CHALCYON NORTH OF GRAND NORTH OF ECR TO NORTH OF GRAND NORTH OF ECR0 0 0 1 30120000100211009 10,625  1 0.206 ‐ 0.052 47AOAK PARK SOUTH OF CHITTON NORTH OF BRANCH SOUTH OF CHITTON NORTH OF BRANCH0 0 0 0 000000001000000000 16,065  0 0.000 ‐ ‐ 07BOAK PARK SOUTH OF BRANCH TO CITY LIMIT NORTH OF BRANCH CITY LIMIT0 0 0 1 901120105004321015 16,645  1 0.329 ‐ 0.033 108AJAMES WAY EAST OF OAK PARK WEST OF TALLY HO EAST OF OAK PARK WEST OF TALLY HO0 0 0 0 92121101100023139 6,114  0 0.807 ‐ ‐ 99ACAMINO MERCADO NO. OF BRANCH TO SO. OF RANCHO PKWY NORTH OF BRANCHSOUTH OF RANCHO PKWY0 0 0 1 701013003003212013 1,736  1 2.525 ‐ 0.316 810ARANCHO PKWY NORTH OF BRANCH TO NO. OF VIA VAQUERO NORTH OF BRANCHNORHT OF VIA VAQUERO0 0 0 223141530012003764535 8,391  2 1.633 ‐ 0.131 2511AELM SOUTH OF PIKE TO SOUTH OF FARROLL SOUTH OF PIKE SOUTH OF FARROLL0 0 0 0 20011000200020002 10,252  0 0.107 ‐ ‐ 211BELM SOUTH OF FARROLL TO NORTH OF ASH SOUTH OF FARROLL NORTH OF ASH0 0 0 01003150002000314210 10,252  0 0.534‐‐1011CELM NORTH OF ASH TO SOUTH OF GRAND NORTH OF ASH SOUTH OF GRAND0 0 0 0 50310000100012205 10,252  0 0.267 ‐ ‐ 511DELM NORTH OF GRAND TO LIMIT NORTH OF GRAND TERMINUS0 0 0 0 10001000100010001 2,145  0 0.255 ‐ ‐ 112ASPRUCE ASH TO POPLAR ASH SOUTH OF POPLAR0 0 0 1 703011013101212213 ‐ 1 ‐ ‐ ‐ 813ACOURTLAND NORTH OF GRAND TO NORHT OF BRIGHTON NORTH OF GRAND NORTH OF BRIGHTON0 0 0 0 50002100201003025 5,596  0 0.490 ‐ ‐ 514ABRISCO NORTH OF GRAND TO SOUTH OF ECR NORTH OF GRAND SOUTH OF EL CAMINO REAL0 0 1 01405414001002311825 7,135  1 1.152 ‐ 0.077 1514BBRISCO SOUTH OF ECR TO NORTH OF NB RAMPS SOUTH OF ECR NORTH OF NB RAMPS0 0 0 0 00000000100000000 13,990  0 0.000 ‐ ‐ 015AEL CAMINO REAL EAST OF OAK PARK TO WEST OF BRISCO EAST OF OAK PARKWEST OF BRISCO1 1 0 2 8213150000013125594 4,613  4 1.425 0.119 0.475 1215BEL CAMINO REAL EAST OF BRISCO TO WEST OF HALCYON EAST OF BRISCO WEST OF HALCYON0 0 0 1 402101001003011010 11,962  1 0.229 ‐ 0.046 515CEL CAMINO REAL EAST OF HALCYON TO SOUTH OF GRAND EAST OF HALCYONSOUTH OF GRAND0 0 0 1 510202002003111011 2,312  1 1.422 ‐ 0.237 616APIKE CITH LIMIT TO WEST OF ELM CITY LIMIT (DEL SOL ST) WEST OF ELM0 0 0 0 00000000000000000 4,901  0 0.000 ‐ 0.000 016BTHE PIKE EAST OF ELM TO WEST OF HALCYON EAST OF ELM WEST OF HALCYON0 0 0 0 30111000200100023 4,901  0 0.335 ‐ ‐ 317AFARROLL EAST OF OAK PARK TO WEST OF HALCYON EAST OF OAK PARK WEST OF ELM0 0 0 0 70131000300123107 4,849  0 0.791 ‐ ‐ 717BFARROLL EAST OF ELM TO WEST OF HALCYON EAST OF ELM WEST OF HALCYON0 0 0 0 10100000100001001 2,915  0 0.188 ‐ ‐ 118AASH WEST OF COURTLAND TO WEST OF ELM WEST OF COURTLAND WEST OF ELM0 0 0 1 401110011102101110 4,210  1 0.651 ‐ 0.130 518BASH EAST OF ELM TO EAST OF ALDER EAST OF ELM WEST OF ALDER0 0 0 0 60210000300111126 4,210  0 0.781 ‐ ‐ 619AMAPLE EAST OF ELM TO WEST OF ALDER EAST OF ELM WEST OF ALDER0 0 0 0 10000000200010001‐0‐‐‐120AVALLEY RD SOUTH OF CASTILLO DEL MAR CITY LIMIT SOUTH OF CASTILLO DEL MAR0 0 0 0 30000200200100023 7,619  0 0.216 ‐ ‐ 320BVALLEY RD CASTRILLO SOUTH OF DEL MAR TO FAIR OAKS NORTH OF CASTILLO DEL MAR SOTH OF FAIR OAKS AVE0 0 0 0 20001100400011002 7,619  0 0.144‐‐221AALDER ST NORTH OF ASH TO SOUTH OF GRAND NORTH OF ASH SOUTH OF GRAND0 0 0 0 40000200300011024‐0‐‐‐422ARENA ST NORTH OF DODSON TO SOUTH OF GRAND NORTH OF DODSON SOUTH OF GRAND0 0 0 0 20010000100020002‐0‐‐‐223ATALLY HO RD EAST OF MASON TO WEST OF 227 EAST OF MASON WEST OF 2270 0 1 0 711104002003012218 3,407  1 1.287 ‐ 0.161 824ALE POINTE RD FROM CROWN TER TO 227 CROWN TER SOUTH OF 2270 0 1 0 200111000001011013 ‐ 1 ‐ ‐ ‐ 325ACROWN HILL FROM NORTH OF BRANCH TO 227 NORTH OF BRANCH SOUTH OF 2270 0 0 0 30111000000020013‐0‐‐‐326ABRIDGE ST NORTH OF TRAFFIC TO SOUTH OF W BRANCH NORTH OF TRAFFIC WAY SOUTH OF W BRANCH0 0 2 01005220005013211532 2,250  2 2.922 ‐ 0.487 1227ATRAFFIC WAY NORTH OF RAMP TO SOUTH OF FAIR OAKS NORHT OF 101 RAMPSOUTH OF FAIR OAKS0 0 0 0 20001100400011002 8,487  0 0.129 ‐ ‐ 227BTRAFFIC WAY SOUTH OF FAIR OAKS TO NORTH OF POOLE SOUTH OF FAIR OAKSNORTH OF POOLE0 0 0 0 21010000100100102 12,640  0 0.087 ‐ ‐ 227CTRAFFCI WAY NORTH OF POOLE TO SOUTH OF BRANCH NORTH OF POOLE SOUTH OF BRANCH0 0 0 0 40001200200001034 10,768  0 0.204‐‐428ASTATION NORTH OF FAIR OAKS SOTUH OF TRAFFIC NORTH OF FAIR OAKS SOUTH OF TRAFFIC0 0 0 0 40110000200111014‐0‐‐‐429AOLOHAN ALLY EAST OF TRAFFIC WAY EAST OF MASON ST EAST OF TRAFFIC WAY EAST OF MASON ST0 0 0 0 40021000100111014‐0‐‐‐430ANELSON ST EAST OF TRAFFIC WAY TO WEST OF MASON ST EAST OF TRAFFIC WAY EAST OF MASON ST0 0 0 0 20010000100002002 3,238  0 0.338 ‐ ‐ 231AALLEN ST EAST OF TRAFFIC WAY TO WEST OF PCR PL EAST OF TRAFFIC WAY WEST OF PACIFIC COAST RAILWAY PLACE0 0 0 0 30100100200000123 761  0 2.161 ‐ ‐ 332ABRANCH MILL RD SO. OF HUEBNER LN TO CITY LIMIT SOUTH OF HUEBNER LN CITY LIMIT0 0 1 1 301001201003001120 1,691  2 1.620 ‐ 0.648 533AORCHARD SO. OF CASTILLO DEL MAR TO SO. OF CHERRY SOUTH OF CASTILLO DEL MAR SOUTH OF CHERRY AVER0 0 0 0 20100100100001012 4,173  0 0.263 ‐ ‐ 234AWHITELEY ST EXTENT EXTENT0 0 0 0 20100100000001012‐0‐‐‐21 2 24 34 396 20 85 108 65 60 4 5 221 4 7 91 101 87 71 107 ‐‐‐‐‐‐457YearTotalTotalIntersection #NameFromToSeverityTypePedestrianBicycle*Page 224 of 310 Appendix C – SSAR Priority Projects Page 225 of 310 GHD | Arroyo Grande SSAR Final Report | R1989RPT001 | Page ii Exhibit 1 Recommended HSIP Projects Page 226 of 310 Appendix D – Circulation Element Figures Page 227 of 310 Sidewalk GapsSource: City of Arroyo Grande Circulation Element, Background ReportBicycle Level of Traffic Stress on Arterials and CollectorsSource: City of Arroyo Grande Circulation Element, Background ReportPage 228 of 310 Arroyo Grande | 11144936 | 2205 | R19890001| March 2021 Systemic Safety Analysis Report (SSAR) City of Arroyo Grande Final Report ATTACHMENT 3 Page 229 of 310 REPORT SIGNATURE SHEET This Systemic Safety Analysis Report has been prepared under the direction of the following Professional Engineer. The Registered Civil Engineer attests to the technical information contained herein and the engineering data upon which recommendations, conclusions, and decisions are based. Jay D. Walter, PE Registered Civil Engineer March 24, 2021 Date Prepared by Kathryn Savoy Kleinschmidt, Professional Traffic Operations Engineer (PTOE), Certificate # 3871. 03/31/23 C41227 Jay D. Walter Page 230 of 310 GHD | Arroyo Grande SSAR Final Report | R1989RPT001 | Page i Executive Summary Arroyo Grande was awarded funding from Caltrans for the Systemic Safety Analysis Report Program (SSARP) in 2016 for analysis of the entire roadway system for high-risk roadway characteristics. Furthermore, the City of Arroyo Grande’s goal was to identify infrastructure improvement countermeasures that mitigate the City’s primary crash type trend which includes rear-ends, sideswipes, pedestrian/bicycle, and broadsides. Based on the City’s SSARP application, this SSAR addresses three (3) Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) Challenge Areas including: 1. Intersections, Interchanges, and Other Roadway Access 2. Pedestrians 3. Bicycling Based on our analysis, the following projects (Exhibit 1) are recommended for the focused study locations. All have a benefit to cost ratio of 4 or higher and would be competitive for the next Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) Cycle 10 call for projects that is tentatively set for the end of April 2020. In addition, all countermeasures are low cost and could be applied systemically. Page 231 of 310 GHD | Arroyo Grande SSAR Final Report | R1989RPT001 | Page ii Exhibit 1 Recommended HSIP Projects Page 232 of 310 GHD | Arroyo Grande SSAR Final Report | R1989RPT001 | Page iii Table of Contents 1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 1  1.1 Study Locations ................................................................................................................. 2  2. Safety Assessment ....................................................................................................................... 2  2.1 Collision Analysis ............................................................................................................... 2  2.1.1 Roadway Segments ......................................................................................... 5  2.1.2 Intersections ..................................................................................................... 7  2.2 Pedestrian and Bicycle Collisions with Vehicles ................................................................ 8  3. Prioritization ................................................................................................................................ 12  3.1 EPDO Crash Methodology............................................................................................... 12  3.2 EPDO Ranking Results .................................................................................................... 12  3.1 Crash Rate Methodology ................................................................................................. 13  3.2 Crash Rate Ranking ......................................................................................................... 13  3.3 Focused Analysis – Identify Locations ............................................................................. 16  4. Safety Data Analysis .................................................................................................................. 16  4.1 Collision Diagnosis ........................................................................................................... 16  4.2 Quantitative Analysis ....................................................................................................... 17  4.3 Qualitative Analysis .......................................................................................................... 20  5. Safety Countermeasures ........................................................................................................... 22  5.1 Roadway Segments – Safety Countermeasures ............................................................. 24  5.1.1 Recommended Roadway Countermeasures ................................................. 24  5.1 Intersections – Safety Countermeasures ......................................................................... 26  6. HSIP Application ........................................................................................................................ 28  7. Next Steps – Local Road Safety Plan ........................................................................................ 29  8. Conclusions ................................................................................................................................ 31  Figure Index Figure 2.1 Citywide Collisions Density Map (2014-2018) ................................................................... 3  Figure 2.2 Fatal and Injury Collision Density Map (2014-2018) ......................................................... 4  Figure 2.3 Roadway Segments – Overall Collision Severity .............................................................. 5  Page 233 of 310 GHD | Arroyo Grande SSAR Final Report | R1989RPT001 | Page iv Figure 2.4 Roadway Segments – Overall Collision Type ................................................................... 6  Figure 2.5 Intersections – Overall Collision Severity .......................................................................... 7  Figure 2.6 Intersections – Overall Collision Type ............................................................................... 8  Figure 2.7 Pedestrian Collisions ....................................................................................................... 10  Figure 2.8 Bicycle Collisions ............................................................................................................. 11  Figure 3.1 Top 10 Ranking Locations – EPDO and Crash Rate ...................................................... 15  Figure 5.1 FHWA Proven Safety Countermeasures ......................................................................... 24  Figure 7.1 Traffic Safety E’s ............................................................................................................. 30  Table Index Table 3.1 Comprehensive Costs and EPDO Weights (2018 dollars) .............................................. 12  Table 4.1 Selected Roadway Locations for Further Analysis .......................................................... 18  Table 4.2 Selected Intersection Locations for Further Analysis ...................................................... 19  Table 5.1 Roadway Segments Safety Countermeasures ............................................................... 25  Table 5.2 Intersection Safety Countermeasures ............................................................................. 27  Table 6.1 Recommended HSIP Projects ......................................................................................... 31  Table 6.2 Recommended Systematic HSIP Projects ...................................................................... 32  Appendix Index Appendix A Collision Maps Appendix B Traffic Analysis and Collision Analysis Appendix C Field Reconnaissance Appendix D HSIP Analyzer Worksheets Appendix E HSIP Cycle 10 Plans Page 234 of 310 GHD | Arroyo Grande SSAR Final Report | R1989RPT001 | Page 1 1. Introduction The Systemic Safety Analysis Report Program’s (SSARP) objective is to perform a collision analysis based on a focused approach in identifying safety issues and develop a possible list of low-cost countermeasures that can be competitive for future Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) funding. Since the focus was citywide, specific study locations were not identified. The four objectives in performing the systemic safety analysis were as follows: 1. Identify Focus Crash Types and Risk Factors; 2. Screen and Prioritize Candidate Locations; 3. Select Potential Low-Cost Countermeasures; and 4. Prioritize Projects per Benefit-Cost Ratios This analysis included the evaluation of the past 5 years (2014-2018) of collisions for the study locations in identifying fatal and severe injury collisions (F+SI), high-risk roadway characteristics, and high crash rate locations. In addition, the SSARP application included the expected scope of work and focused challenge areas desired to accomplish this task. Per the SSARP application, the scope of work was as follows:  Perform an analysis of the entire roadway system to identify high-risk roadway characteristics as opposed to analyzing high collision area. It was further stated that the City of Arroyo Grande was not experiencing high collision concentrations at specific locations due to having lower volumes on the roadway network.  Use crash data obtained by Arroyo Grande Police Department and map to identify high risk locations and characteristics.  Identify infrastructure improvement countermeasures that mitigate the City’s primary crash type trends which include rear-ends, sideswipes, pedestrian/bicycle, and broadsides. In addition, the identified three focus challenge areas were as follows: 1. Intersections, Interchanges, and Other Roadway Access 2. Pedestrians 3. Bicycling The focused challenge areas were used to further analyze the collisions in evaluating possible systemic low-cost countermeasures. Page 235 of 310 GHD | Arroyo Grande SSAR Final Report | R1989RPT001 | Page 2 1.1 Study Locations The SSAR evaluated the roadway network citywide in identifying roadway segments and intersections for a focused analysis. The roadway segments and intersections are further defined below. Due to it being a citywide analysis, there were too many segments and intersections to list. The roadway segments between intersections with collisions were evaluated and then ranked. Intersection were defined as 150’ on each leg. Even though at some locations the influence area might be more or less, the 150’ appeared to be the average length for the majority of intersections. Collision density maps were first created in identifying the high frequency locations within the city and then further collision maps were made to include the collision severity and type. 2. Safety Assessment The past five complete years of collision data (2014-2018) was downloaded from the Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS) database for the study locations. This data was then cross checked with the injury collisions in the Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS) and the City of Arroyo Grande’s collision database. The collisions were then all cross-check and reconciled in completing the most complete set of collision data. In addition, supplemental reports were examined to see if any collisions were upgraded to a fatality after the initial collision record (per California’s Collision Investigation Manual a fatal injury is “death as a result of injuries sustained in a collision, or an injury resulting in death within 30 days of a collision”). After completing this process; the collisions were assessed based on high risk, crash frequency, and focused challenge areas. 2.1 Collision Analysis Collision analysis was performed for all roadways in the City of Arroyo Grande without including the US 101 mainline collisions. In addition, the collisions for the US 101 interchanges were evaluated separately. As presented in Figure 2.1, the collision density for the citywide collisions for the past 5 years (2014-2018) without the US 101 interchange collisions were mapped in identifying the high risk segments and intersections. Per the collision density map you start to identify roadway segments and intersections with higher collision frequency along: E. Grand Avenue, E. Branch Street, W. Branch Street, Fair Oaks Avenue, Halcyon Road, and El Camino Real. In delving into the fatal and injury collisions, another crash density map was created with only the fatal and injury collision. As presented in Figure 2.2 is the density map for the fatal and injury collisions. There were three (3) fatal collisions. Two fatalities involved pedestrians crossing at a mid- block location (across E. Branch Street at Short Street in 2017 and across Grand Avenue at Bell Street in 2018) and one fatality was a single vehicle collision on El Camino Real (the collision notes cited DUI) in 2018. Page 236 of 310 £¤101US £¤101US FIGURE 2.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 Miles Project No.Revision No.-11144936 Date 04/17/2020 City of Arroyo Grande Map Projection: Mercator Auxiliary SphereHorizontal Datum: WGS 1984Grid: WGS 1984 Web Mercator Auxiliary Sphere Paper Size ANSI B o O:\PRJ\1989\G1989\MXD\ALL_Density.mxdPrint date: 16 Apr 2020 - 12:13 Collision Density ·|}þ1 E Grand Ave Data Disclaimer:Location of crashes are for visual representation only.Kernel density representation shows density of points within150 square feet (radius) of 10 unit raster cell.Collisions on US 101 are not visualized Data source: transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS) 2014-2018, Statewide Intergrated traffic Records System (SWIRTS), The California Highway Patrol, 2014-2018Source: Esri, HERE, Garmin, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user community.Source: US Census Bureau, Geography Division. Created by: frahmanN Oak Park BlvdS Halcyon RdFair Oaks Ave Tr a f f i c W a y W Bra n c h S t Corbett Canyon RdJames W a y Valley RdE Branch StCollisionDensity Low High City of ArroyoGrande Limit Systamatic Safety Analysis Report(SSAR) Page 237 of 310 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !# # # £¤101US £¤101US FIGURE 2.2 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 Miles Project No.Revision No.-11144936 Date 04/17/2020 City of Arroyo Grande Map Projection: Mercator Auxiliary SphereHorizontal Datum: WGS 1984Grid: WGS 1984 Web Mercator Auxiliary Sphere Paper Size ANSI B o O:\PRJ\1989\G1989\MXD\ALL_FSI.mxdPrint date: 16 Apr 2020 - 11:58 Fatal and Injury Collisions ·|}þ1 E Grand Ave Data Disclaimer:Location of crashes are for visual representation only.Kernel density representation shows density of points within250 square feet (radius) of 10 unit raster cell.Collisions on US 101 are not visulaized. Data source: transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS) 2014-2018, Statewide Intergrated traffic Records System (SWIRTS), The California Highway Patrol, 2014-2018Source: Esri, HERE, Garmin, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user community.Source: US Census Bureau, Geography Division. Created by: frahmanN Oak Park BlvdS Halcyon RdFair Oaks Ave Tr a f f i c W a y W Bra n c h S t Corbett Canyon RdJames W a y Valley RdE Branch St#Fatal !Injury City of ArroyoGrande Limit Systamatic Safety Analysis Report(SSAR) Page 238 of 310 GHD | Arroyo Grande SSAR Final Report | R1989RPT001 | Page 5 In the further diagnosis of the overall citywide collisions, refined analysis was performed on the roadway segments, intersections, pedestrian collisions, and bicycle collisions. The quantification of these collisions is shown by section below. In addition, further visual representation of the collisions via ArcGIS maps are located in Appendix A: Collision Maps. 2.1.1 Roadway Segments In evaluating the citywide roadway segments, the past 5 years of collision data was evaluated on roadways with the intersection related collisions removed. As presented in Figure 2.3, the majority of collisions are property damage only (PDO) at 87.4%. With injury related collisions, comprising of the remaining 12.7%. There was one single vehicle fatal collision and four severe injury (SI) collisions. Figure 2.3 Roadway Segments – Overall Collision Severity As presented in Figure 2.4, the overall collision types for all roadway segments is shown as a percentage of the total. Rear end and other/unknown collisions were the most common collisions at 24% each, followed by sideswipe collisions at 17%. Rear end collisions are typical when there is speed differential, congestion, and vehicles turning in the through lanes. The other/unknown collisions can be collisions where the type was not recorded or the type of collision didn’t fit the categories per the California Highway Patrol reporting manual. Sideswipe collisions can be due to improper lane change, lane departure, or insufficient lane delineation. 0.2%0.7% 5.3% 6.4% 87.4% Fatal Severe Injury Other Visibile InjuryComplaint of Pain PDO Page 239 of 310 GHD | Arroyo Grande SSAR Final Report | R1989RPT001 | Page 6 Figure 2.4 Roadway Segments – Overall Collision Type In evaluating the top five (5) roadway segment violation categories they were as follows: 1. Unknown (58%) 2. Unsafe Speed (10%) 3. Improper Turning (8%) 4. Auto Right of Way (7%) 5. Driving Under the Influence (DUI)/ Biking Under the Influence (BUI) (5%) The majority of “unknown” violation category is due to the City collisions that didn’t have overlap with SWITRS. These additional collisions received from the City’s Collision Database had limited fields and information and were mostly PDO collisions. The next top roadway violation categories were close in percentage with unsafe speed (10%), improper turning (8%), and auto right of way violations (7%). DUI/BUI violations comprised on 5% of the overall roadway collisions. 4% 17% 24% 13% 16% 1% 1% 24% Head On Sideswipe Rear End Broadside Hit Object Overturned Vehicle/ Pedestrian Other/ Unknown Page 240 of 310 GHD | Arroyo Grande SSAR Final Report | R1989RPT001 | Page 7 2.1.2 Intersections Figure 2.5 presents the overall collision severity for the intersections, citywide. There were 2 fatalities (pedestrian and vehicle collisions) and 7 severe injury collisions. In evaluating the collisions for the past 5 years, the majority of collisions comprised of PDOs at 84.8% with 15.2% injury collisions. Figure 2.5 Intersections – Overall Collision Severity Figure 2.6 displays the citywide collision types for the intersections as a percentage of the total. The top five collision types and overall percentage are as follows: 1. Rear End (26%) 2. Sideswipe (20%) 3. Broadside (21%) 4. Hit Object (13%) 5. Other (13%) Read end collisions are typically caused with the speed differential and traffic control changes. Sideswipe collisions at an intersection can be due to intersection lane changes or offset lanes through an intersection. Broadside are typically caused by turning vehicles not yielding the right of way and hit object collision can be due to objects within the clear zone. 0.2%0.7% 5.5% 8.8% 84.8% Fatal Severe Injury Other Visibile Injury Complaint of Pain PDO Page 241 of 310 GHD | Arroyo Grande SSAR Final Report | R1989RPT001 | Page 8 Figure 2.6 Intersections – Overall Collision Type In evaluating the top five violation categories for intersection collisions, the following percentages were derived as follows: 1. Unknown (31%) 2. Improper Turning (14%) 3. Auto R/W (14%) 4. Unsafe Speed (13%) 5. DUI/ BUI (6%) In comparing the roadway segments and intersection violation categories, they both have the same top five categories with similar percentages. For the citywide intersections, unknown was the majority with 31%, followed by improper turning and auto R/W collisions at 14% each, unsafe speed 13%, and DUI/ BUI at 6 %. 2.2 Pedestrian and Bicycle Collisions with Vehicles Per the SSARP grant, pedestrian and bicycle collisions with vehicles were a focus challenge area. In evaluating these collisions types, the severity of collisions was quantified by roadway segment collisions and intersection relation collisions. As presented in Tables 2.1 and 2.2, the pedestrian and bicycle collisions are quantified by severity for roadway segments and intersections, respectively. There were significantly more pedestrian and bicycle collisions at the intersections 5% 20% 26%21% 13% 1% 2%13% Head On Sideswipe Rear End Broadside Hit Object Overturned Vehicle/ Pedestrian Other/ Unknown Page 242 of 310 GHD | Arroyo Grande SSAR Final Report | R1989RPT001 | Page 9 than the segments. This most likely due to the increase in pedestrian and bicycle conflict points with vehicles at intersections. Table 2.1 Pedestrian and Bicycle Collision at Roadway Segments Pedestrian Involved Bicycle Involved Fatal 0 0  Severe Injury 0 0  Other Visible Injury 2 4  Complaint of Pain 2 2  PDO 1 1  Total Collisions 5 7  Table 2.2 Pedestrian and Bicycle Collisions at Intersections Pedestrian Involved Bicycle Involved Fatal 2 0  Severe Injury 1 1  Other Visible Injury 10 11  Complaint of Pain 7 5  PDO 5 4  Total Collisions 25 21  To provide a visual representation of the location of pedestrian and bicycle collision in the City, figures are presented below. Figure 2.7 and 2.8 show the pedestrian and bicycles collisions, respectively, with the severity and time of day (day or night). Page 243 of 310 ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬¬ ù ù ù ù ù ùù ¬ù ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ù ù ù ù ù ù ¬ù ¬ ¬ ù ù ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ù ù ù ù ù ùù ù ù ù ¬¬ù ù ¬ù¬ù ¬ù £¤101US £¤101US FIGURE 2.7 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 Miles Project No.Revision No.-11144936 Date 04/17/2020 City of Arroyo Grande Map Projection: Mercator Auxiliary SphereHorizontal Datum: WGS 1984Grid: WGS 1984 Web Mercator Auxiliary Sphere Paper Size ANSI B o O:\PRJ\1989\G1989\MXD\ALL_ped1 - Copy.mxdPrint date: 17 Apr 2020 - 10:23 Pedestrian Collision ù Day ù Night Severity ¾Fatal ¾Injury (Severe) ¾Injury (Other Visible) ¾Injury (Complaint of Pain) ¾Property Damage Only City of Arroyo Grande Limit Pedestrian Collisions ·|}þ1 E Branch StAsh St Systamatic Safety Analysis Report(SSAR) Data source: transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS) 2014-2018, Statewide Intergrated traffic Records System (SWIRTS), The California Highway Patrol, 2014-2018Source: Esri, HERE, Garmin, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user community.Source: US Census Bureau, Geography Division. Created by: frahman Data Disclaimer:Location of crashes are for visual representation only.Collisions on US 101 are not visualized Page 244 of 310 ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ l l l l ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ l l l l l l l ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l ¬l £¤101US £¤101US FIGURE 2.8 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 Miles Project No.Revision No.-11144936 Date 04/17/2020 City of Arroyo Grande Map Projection: Mercator Auxiliary SphereHorizontal Datum: WGS 1984Grid: WGS 1984 Web Mercator Auxiliary Sphere Paper Size ANSI B o O:\PRJ\1989\G1989\MXD\ALL_bike.mxdPrint date: 17 Apr 2020 - 10:32 Bike Collision ¬l Day l Night Severity ¾Fatal ¾Injury (Severe) ¾Injury (Other Visible) ¾Injury (Complaint of Pain) ¾Property Damage Only City of Arroyo Grande Limit Bicycle Collisions ·|}þ1 E Grand Ave N Oak Park BlvdS Halcyon RdFair Oaks Ave Tr a f f i c W a y W Bra n c h S t Corbett Canyon RdJames W a y Valley RdS Elm StAsh St E Branch StSystamatic Safety Analysis Report(SSAR) Data Disclaimer:Location of crashes are for visual representation only.Collisions on US 101 are not visualized.Data source: transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS) 2014-2018, Statewide Intergrated traffic Records System (SWIRTS), The California Highway Patrol, 2014-2018Source: Esri, HERE, Garmin, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user community.Source: US Census Bureau, Geography Division. Created by: frahman Page 245 of 310 GHD | Arroyo Grande SSAR Final Report | R1989RPT001 | Page 12 3. Prioritization Per the past five years of collision analysis, the overall ranking and prioritization of collision locations was quantified by recommended methodologies in AASHTO’s, Highway Safety Manual 2010 with 2014 Supplement (HSM). These methodologies included Equivalent Property Damage Only (EPDO) method and crash rates. Per the ranking methodologies, the top roadway segments and intersections were identified by EPDO and crash rate ranking. 3.1 EPDO Crash Methodology The Equivalent Property Damage Only (EPDO) average crash ranking methodology was used for this study. The EPDO method assigns weighting factors to collisions by severity to develop a combined frequency and severity score per site. The weighting factors are calculated relative to Property Damage Only (PDO) collision cost. Collision costs include both direct and indirect costs. Direct crash costs include ambulance service, police and fire s ervices, property damage, insurance, and other costs directly related to the crashes. Indirect collision costs account for the value society would place on pain and suffering or loss of life associated with the crash. Table 3.1 provides a summary of the comprehensive costs and weighting assigned to collisions by severity. Table 3.1 Comprehensive Costs and EPDO Weights (2018 dollars) Severity Comprehensive Costs EPDO Weight Fatal (K) $6,418,400 544 Severe Injury (A) $345,800 30 Minor Injury (B) $126,500 11 Non-Visible Injury (C) $71,900 6 PDO (O) $11,800 1 Based on Table 7-1, Highway Safety Manual, 2010, Adjusted to 2018 dollars. In evaluating the citywide locations with collisions, EPDO Ranking was performed for roadway segments and intersections. Section 3.2 presents the top five locations for roadway segments and intersections and corresponding collisions. El Camino Real from Oak Park Boulevard to Brisco Road was the top ranked segment and E. Branch Street at Short Street was the top ranked intersection. 3.2 EPDO Ranking Results Top 5 Roadway Segment Locations: 1. El Camino Real – Oak Park Boulevard to Brisco Road (EPDO 594) • 12 total, 1 fatal single vehicle collision and 1-severe injury (SI) collision 2. E. Grand Avenue – Courtland to Elm (EPDO 110) Page 246 of 310 GHD | Arroyo Grande SSAR Final Report | R1989RPT001 | Page 13 • 50 total, 6 injury and 44 PDOs (2 pedestrian collisions and 1 bicycle collision) 3. Halcyon – Fair Oaks to Grand Avenue (EPDO 65) • 30 total, 6 injury and 24 PDOs 4. Fair Oaks – Halcyon to Valley Road (EPDO 60) • 15 total, 7 injury collisions and 8 PDOs, 1 bicycle collision 5. W. Branch – Brisco to Camino Mercado / US 101 ramps (EPDO 57) • 27 total, 5 injury collisions and 22 PDOs Top 5 Intersection Locations: 1. E. Branch Street at Short Street (EPDO 581) • 8 total, 2 pedestrians collisions (one fatal) and 3 visible injury collisions 2. E. Grand Avenue and Bell Street (EPDO 557) • 14 total, one fatal pedestrian collision and 13 PDO 3. E. Grand Avenue and Courtland Street (EPDO 133) • 34 total,10 injury collisions (1-SI), 2 pedestrian and 2 bicycle collisions 4. El Camino Real and N. Oak Park Boulevard (EPDO 91) • 32 total, 5 injury (1-SI), 1 bicycle collision 5. The Pike and S. Halcyon Road (EPDO 82) • 18 total, 6 injury collisions (1-SI), 12 PDO 3.1 Crash Rate Methodology In further ranking of the citywide locations, crash rates were calculated for the roadway segments and the intersections. In calculating the crash rates, Average Daily Traffic (ADT) data was collected in the field by a subcontractor on the week of November 11, 2019 on a typical weekday, when schools were in session. Further information on traffic counts and crash rate calculations are located in Appendix B: Traffic Analysis and Collision Analysis. Segment crash rates are calculated as the number of crashes that occur at on a given segment during a specified time period, divided by a measure of exposure for that same period. This accounts for the segment length and the Average Daily Traffic (AADT) on the segment normalized to one million miles of travel, commonly referred to as Million Vehicle Miles (MVM) of travel. Intersection crash rates are calculated by the total crashes at the intersection during a specific time period, divided by a measure of exposure for that same period. Intersections make use of a similar scaling factor, Million Entering Vehicles (MEV), which accounts for the total number of vehicles entering the intersection and is also normalized to one million vehicles. Per the crash rate ranking, Section 3.2 show the top five locations for roadway segments and intersections. Bridge Street from Traffic Way to E. Branch Street was the ranked top segment and Traffic Way at Allen Street was the top ranked intersection. 3.2 Crash Rate Ranking Per the crash rate methodology, the top five segments and intersections were ranked. Page 247 of 310 GHD | Arroyo Grande SSAR Final Report | R1989RPT001 | Page 14 Top 5 Segment Locations: 1. Bridge Street – Traffic Way to E. Branch Street 2. Camino Mercado – W. Branch Street to Rancho Parkway 3. Allen Street – Traffic Way to Pacific Coast Railway Place 4. W. Branch Street – Brisco to E. Branch Street 5. Rancho Parkway – W. Branch to Via Vaquero Top 5 Intersection Locations: 1. Traffic Way and Allen Street 2. Valley Road and AGHS Parking/ Castillo Del Mar 3. W. Branch Street and Brisco Road 4. E. Branch Street and Bridge Street 5. E. Grand Avenue and S. Elm Street For ease, Figure 3.1, is a visual representation of the top ten ranking EPDO and crash rate locations. Page 248 of 310 £¤101US EPDO RANK 2 EPDO RANK 8 EPDO RANK 3EPDO RANK 4 CRASH RATE RANK 6EPDO RANK 6 CRASH RATE RANK 10E P D O R A N K 7 E P D O R A N K 1 0 C R A S H R A T E R A N K 1 CRASH RATE RANK 3CRASH RATE RANK 2 CRASH RATE RANK 8 CRASH RATE RANK 9 CRASH RATE RANK 5 CRASH RATE RANK 7 CRASH RATE RANK 4 EPDO RANK 1 EPDO RANK 5 EPDO RANK 92 1 8 4 9 5 6 3 7 10 2 1 8 3 10 FIGURE 3.1 0 0.09 0.18 0.27 0.36 Miles Project No.Revision No.-Date 04/17/2020 City of Arroy o Grande Map Projection: Mercator Auxiliary SphereHorizontal Datum: WGS 1984Grid: WGS 1984 Web Mercator Auxiliary Sphere Paper Size ANSI B o O:\PRJ\1989\G1989\MX D\Top 10.mxdPrint date: 16 Apr 2020 - 12:23 Top 10 Ranked Segment & Intersections ·|}þ1 E Grand Ave Source: Esri, HE RE, Garmin, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user community.Source: US Census Bureau, Geography Division. Created by: frahmanN Oak Park BlvdS Halcyon RdFair Oaks Ave Traffic W ay W Branch St Corbett Canyon RdJames Way Valley RdE Branch StTo p 1 0 Intersectionby EPDO To p 1 0 Intersectionby Crash Rate To p 1 0 Seg me ntby EPDO To p 1 0 Seg me ntby Crash Rate S Elm StAsh St Systamatic Safety Analysis Report(SSAR) 11144936 7 4 6 # # 59 Page 249 of 310 GHD | Arroyo Grande SSAR Final Report | R1989RPT001 | Page 16 3.3 Focused Analysis – Identify Locations After assessing the collision data and through coordination with the City of Arroyo Grande and the Local Road Safety Plan Working Group, the roadways segments and intersections were identified for further analysis due to recent improvements or future improvements. These locations are as follows:  Traffic Way and Allen Street (Ranked 1 Crash Rate) was quantified before the traffic signal at Traffic Way and Fair Oaks was installed in 2019. Further analysis will be conducted in the Local Road Safety Plan.  Valley Road and Castillo Del Mar (Ranked 2 Crash Rate) will have new perpendicular alignment with Valley Road. This improvement will remove the current skewed intersection and requires additional land which is already purchased. Construction tentatively starts in in late spring 2021.  The Pike and Halcyon Road (Ranked 5 EPDO, Ranked 6 Crash Rate) is now an all way stop control (AWSC). It was converted to an AWSC in 2019 and therefore this change is not reflected in the collision analysis. A before and after study will need to be conducted to see if the safety issues were remediated with AWSC. Bridge Street from Traffic Way to E. Branch Street – (Ranked 10 EPDO) does have an improvement project from the bridge but due to the two access points on Traffic Way (one for two- way traffic and one access for the mailboxes) this segment was left in for analysis since the improvement project will not reconfigure the roadways near Traffic Way that are experiencing a trend in sideswipe collisions. In addition, there is an interchange project planned at US 101 and Brisco Road. Since this project is a few years off from being designed and constructed, the closely spaced City intersections in proximity to the interchange were left in for evaluation of low-cost systemic safety countermeasures. 4. Safety Data Analysis Safety data analysis was performed to further diagnosis the cause of collisions and any collision trends in selecting safety countermeasure to mitigate those trends. This methodology followed the HSM and Caltrans’ Local Road Safety Manual, Version 1.4, April 2018 and involved roadway assessment and a quantitative analysis. 4.1 Collision Diagnosis GHD conducted a field reconnaissance of top ranked City intersection and roadway segments in November, December 2019 and January and February 2020. Google Maps was also initially used in quantifying some of the intersection and segment characteristics. Prior to the field assessment, GHD worked to understand the collision history by reviewing the corridor collision summaries, intersection collision summaries, and all locations where fatalities and severe injuries occurred within the study period. Identifying collision patterns within the data helped our team gain perspective and look for potential deficiencies at each location. Various heat maps Page 250 of 310 GHD | Arroyo Grande SSAR Final Report | R1989RPT001 | Page 17 were created and used to locate areas with a high density of specific collision types to further narrow down areas of concern. Furthermore, our team also looked at existing traffic control devices present (signals, signs, flashing beacons, etc.) and potential countermeasures already implemented. Additional information and notes from the field reconnaissance are located in Appendix B: Traffic Analysis and Collision Analysis. 4.2 Quantitative Analysis After the citywide roadway segments and intersections were identified, three locations were screened out due to new traffic control or future improvements. Tables 4.1 and 4.2 show the selected locations for roadway and intersection locations with a summary of the quantitative analysis performed to include collision severity, collision frequency, EPDO ranking, and crash rate ranking. Page 251 of 310 GHD | Arroyo Grande SSAR Final Report | R1989RPT001 | Page 18 Table 4.1 Selected Roadway Locations for Further Analysis FatalSevere InjuryOther Visible InjuryComplaint of PainProperty Dam age Only (PDO)Total Collisions15AEL CAMINO REAL EAST OF OAK PARK TO WEST OF BRISCO 1 1 0 2 8 12594 1.431BGRAND COURTLAND TO ELM 0 0 6 0 44 50110 1.436BHALCYON NORTH OF FAIR OAKS TO SOUTH OF GRAND 0 0 1 5 24 3065 1.144BFAIR OAKS EAST OF HALCYON TO WEST OF VALLEY 0 0 2 5 8 1560 0.935BBRANCH EAST OF CAMINO MERCADO TO WEST OF BRISCO 0 0 1 4 22 2757 1.154CFAIR OAKS WEST OF VALLEY TO EAST OF CALIFORNIA 0 0 2 4 10 1656 0.773CW BRANCH EAST OF MASON TO EAST OF HUSANA/227 0 1 0 1 9 1145 0.551CGRAND EAST OF ELM TO WEST OF HALCYON 0 0 1 2 16 1939 0.6610ARANCHO PKWY NORTH OF BRANCH TO N. OF VIA VAQUERO 0 0 0 2 23 2535 1.6326ABRIDGE ST NORTH OF TRAFFIC TO SOUTH OF W BRANCH 0 0 2 0 10 1232 2.929ACAMINO MERCADO NO. OF BRANCH TO SO. OF RANCHO PKWY 0 0 0 1 7 813 2.5331AALLEN ST EAST OF TRAFFIC WAY TO WEST OF PACIFIC COAST RAILWAY PLACE00 0 0 3332.165CBRANCH EAST OF BRISCO TO NORTH OF W BRANCH 0 0 0 0 12 1212 2.0732ABRANCH MILL RD SO. OF HUEBNER LN TO CITY LIMIT 0 0 1 1 3 520 1.6215CEL CAMINO REAL EAST OF HALCYON TO NORTH OF GRAND 0 0 0 1 5 611 1.4223ATALLY HO RD EAST OF MASON TO WEST OF 227 0 0 1 0 7 818 1.295ABRANCH EAST OF OAK PARK TO WEST OF CAMINO MERCADO00 0 0 272727 1.0914ABRISCO NORTH OF GRAND TO SOUTH OF EL CAMINO REAL00 1 0 141525 1.15Segments Chosen due to High  Crash RatesSegments Chosen due to High Total Crashes2014 ‐2018 CollisionsCrash RateEPDOSegmentSegment IDSegments Chosen due to High EPDOPage 252 of 310 GHD | Arroyo Grande SSAR Final Report | R1989RPT001 | Page 19 Table 4.2 Selected Intersection Locations for Further Analysis FatalSevere InjuryOther Visible InjuryComplaint of PainProperty Damage Only (PDO)Total Collisions9E BRANCH ST & SHORT ST 1 0 3 0 4 8581 0.3546E GRAND AVE & BELL ST 1 0 0 0 13 14557 0.391E GRAND AVE & COURTLAND ST 0 1 5 4 24 34133 0.7613EL CAMINO REAL & N OAK PARK BLVD 0 1 2 2 27 3291 0.566E GRAND AVE & W BRANCH ST 0 0 3 2 25 3070 0.792E GRAND AVE & S ELM ST 0 0 0 2 42 4454 0.9112JAMES WAY & OAK PARK BLVD 0 1 1 1 5 852 0.228W BRANCH ST & BRIDGE ST 0 0 1 3 22 2651 0.9319FARROLL AVE & S HALCYON RD 0 0 3 1 9 1348 0.5415W BRANCH ST & BRISCO RD 0 0 0 1 24 2530 0.9443THE PIKE & GARFIELD PL 0 0 0 0 7 770.7867CORBETT CANYON RD & GULARTE RD 0 0 0 0 5 550.764E GRAND AVE & S HALCYON RD 0 0 1 1 28 3045 0.5427E GRAND AVE & US 101 SB RAMP 0 0 1 1 21 2338 0.563E GRAND AVE & BRISCO RD 0 0 0 1 22 2328 0.5316EL CAMINO REAL & BRISCO RD00 1 3 182247 0.67EPDOCrash RateIntersections Chosen due to High EPDOIntersections Chosen due to High  Total CrashesIntersections Chosen due to High  Crash RatesIntersection IDSegment2014 ‐2018 CollisionsPage 253 of 310 GHD | Arroyo Grande SSAR Final Report | R1989RPT001 | Page 20 4.3 Qualitative Analysis During the field assessments, our team made observations along the top five ranking roadway segments and intersections to compile data on the current characteristics. Data was collected regarding the roadway/intersection characteristics, roadside environment, traffic control, and signing and pavement marking. These summarized field notes may be found in Tables 4.3 and 4.4 for roadway segments and intersections, respectively. Table 4.3 Field Observations for Roadway Segments 15A EL CAMINO REAL EAST OF OAK PARK TO WEST OF BRISCO Frequent Crash Type: Hit Object, Sideswipe.  Frequent PCF Violation Category: Improper  Turning, Improper Speed Two way frontage road to US 101 with  interchanges at Oak Park and Brisco. Direct  driveway access points and horizontal curves  that limit sight distance. 1B GRAND AVE COURTLAND TO ELM Frequent Crash Type: Rear Ends, Sideswipe,  Broadside  Frequent PCF Violation Category: Auto Right  of Way Violation, Improper Speed Bot dot pavement markings on Grand  Avenue with limited to no striping. Lanes  don’t always align across intersection and  along segment.  6B HALCYON NORTH OF FAIR OAKS TO SOUTH OF GRAND Frequent Crash Type: Rear Ends, Sideswipe,  Hit Object Frequent PCF Violation Category:  Improper  Speed Hospital along this segment and signal at  Halcyon has split phasing due to the offset  lanes across the intersection. Halycon  widens out in this section. 4B FAIR OAKS EAST OF HALCYON TO WEST OF VALLEY Frequent Crash Type: Rear Ends, Sideswipe.  Frequent PCF Violation Category:  Improper  Speed Horizontal curves, bike lanes, and a lane  drop for WB traffic. Hospital access, large  church, and high school at Valley Road and  elementary school at Halcyon. 5B BRANCH EAST OF CAMINO MERCADO TO WEST OF BRISCO Frequent Crash Type: Rear Ends, Broadside Frequent PCF Violation Category:  Improper  Speed Vertical curves and limited stopping sight  distance to the signal at Brisco. Major  shopping centers and access points. 9A CAMINO MERCADO N. OF BRANCH TO S OF RANCHO PKWY Frequent Crash Type: Hit Object Frequent PCF Violation Category:  None  Apparent This is a local collector that serves  commerical and residential land uses. The  Walmart and Food for Less truck deliveries  are per this roadway. Horizontal curves and  wide roadway with limited to no striping. 31A ALLEN ST E OF TRAFFIC WAY TO W OF PACIFIC COAST RAILWAY PL Frequent Crash Type: Hit Object, Sideswipe Frequent PCF Violation Category:  None  Apparent Roadway in very narrow (approx. 34 feet)  with parking allowed on both sides of  roadway and no striping. 5C BRANCH EAST OF BRISCO TO NORTH OF W BRANCH Frequent Crash Type: Sideswipe, Rear End, Hit  object Frequent PCF Violation Category:  Improper  Turning Two lane roadway and bike route (bike lane  and sharrows). Horizontal and vertical curves  limit sight distance and AWSC at Vernon  Street. 32A BRANCH MILL RD S. OF HUEBNER LN TO CITY LIMIT Frequent Crash Type: Overturned, Hit object Frequent PCF Violation Category:  None  Apparent Curvy two lane rural roadway along  agriculture land uses. Limited shoulder and  recovery areas along the roadway. 15C EL CAMINO REAL EAST OF HALCYON TO N OF GRAND AVE Frequent Crash Type: Hit Object, Rear End Frequent PCF Violation Category:  Improper  Speed Two lane roadway and bike route with  diagonal parking along road, east of Halcyon. 23A TALLY HO RD EAST OF MASON TO WEST OF 227 Frequent Crash Type: Hit Object, Rear End Frequent PCF Violation Category:  None  Apparent Currently has some speed feedback signs  but they aren't showing speeds. AWSC at  James Way. Horizontal and vertical curves  and bike route. 5A BRANCH EAST OF OAK PARK TO WEST OF CAMINO MERCAD Frequent Crash Type: Rear End, Sideswipe Frequent PCF Violation Category:  Unsafe  Speed, Improper Turning  A lot of commercical developmnet with  driveways and vertical and horizontal curves  that limit sight distance. 14A BRISCO NORTH OF GRAND TO SOUTH OF EL CAMINO REAL Frequent Crash Type: Sideswipe, Rear End Frequent PCF Violation Category:  Unsafe  Speed, Improper Turning  Two lane roadway with parking along  roadway. School crosswalks at Linda Drive  and El Camino Real. Qualititve Review Segments Chosen due to High EPDOSegments Chosen due to High Overall Crash RatesSegments Chosen due to High Overall Total CrashSegment ID Segment Frequesnt Collision Type Page 254 of 310 GHD | Arroyo Grande SSAR Final Report | R1989RPT001 | Page 21 Table 4.4 Field Observations for Intersections 9 E BRANCH ST & SHORT ST Frequent Crash Type: Vehicle/ Pedestrian Frequent PCF Violation Category: Pedestrian Right of Way Violation Offset north and south legs of intersection with Nevada on north leg. Crosswalks on east and south/north legs. Right turn only for NB approach. Crosswalk on the east leg could benefit from being moved, west of the intersection due to less vehicle conflict points. 46 E GRAND AVE & BELL ST Frequent Crash Type: Rear Ends, Hit Object, Vehicle/ Pedestrian Frequent PCF Violation Category: Improper Turning Residential land uses on north side and commerical land uses on south side. Nearest controlled crossing at Halcyon. 1 E GRAND AVE & COURTLAND ST Frequent Crash Type: Rear Ends, Broadside, Sideswipe Frequent PCF Violation Category: Traffic Signal & Sign Violation, Unsafe Speed, Auto Right of Way Violation Permissive left turn for N/S approaches would benefit from a protected only phase. Residential and commercial land uses. 13 EL CAMINO REAL & N OAK PARK BLVD Frequent Crash Type: Broadside, Rear Ends, Sideswipe. Frequent PCF Violation Category: Improper Speed, Traffic Signal & Sign Significant downhill grade on the northbound approach. Also, traffic wanting to access the shopping on Branch Street needs to favor the outside left or have to make a quick lane change on the bridge over US 101. Busy interection with queuing typically on the NB and EB approaches. 6 E GRAND AVE & W BRANCH ST Frequent Crash Type: Broadside, Sideswipe Frequent PCF Violation Category: Auto Right of Way Violation Closely spaced interection with Traffic Way and E. Branch St and US 101 ramps. "Keep Clear" marking on Grand. Due to the majority of traffic headed to Branch or the US 101 on-ramp lane utilization is not balanced (queuing typical in the outside lane during peak hours). 4 E GRAND AVE & S HALCYON RD Frequent Crash Type: Rear End, Sideswipe, Broadside Frequent PCF Violation Category: Improper Speed, Improper Turning Signalized interesection has split phase for north and south traffic due to the offset alignment of lane through the intersection. Also, alignment through intersection east-west has a bit of a kind. Lane guide marks would be beneficial. 27 E GRAND AVE & US 101 SB RAMP Frequent Crash Type: Rear End, Sideswipe, Broadside Frequent PCF Violation Category: Traffic Signal & Sign, Improper Turning Short ramp length that doesn't allow much deceleration distance. Signalized interection closely spaced to NB on ramp signal. The signals appear to be running on separate controllers or not coordinated. 3 E GRAND AVE & BRISCO RD Frequent Crash Type: Broadside, Rear End, Sideswipe Frequent PCF Violation Category: DUI/BUI, Unsafe Speed, Improper Turning, Auto Right of Way Violation Raised median island that channels the lefts on Grand Avenue. Close proximity to Elm Street creates speed differential for the right turn and left turn movements on Grand. Also, sometimes there is spillback for the EB left turn. 16 EL CAMINO REAL & BRISCO RD Frequent Crash Type: Broadside, Rear End, Sideswipe Frequent PCF Violation Category: Unsafe Speed, Auto Right of Way Violation, Improper Turning School crosswalks on the south and east legs. Delay and queuing present due to the signal timing and phasing with the closely spaced interections along this corridor.Intersections Chosen due to High Overall Total CrashQualititve ReviewIntersection ID Intersection Frequesnt Collision Type Intersections Chosen due to High EPDOPage 255 of 310 GHD | Arroyo Grande SSAR Final Report | R1989RPT001 | Page 22 5. Safety Countermeasures Per Caltrans, Division of Local Assistance, Systemic Safety Analysis Report Program (SSARP) Guidelines, February 2016, the following low-cost systemic safety countermeasures were identified for roadway segments and intersections in the City. These countermeasures and their overall crash reduction percentages are as follows: Roadway Segment Countermeasures:  Install/Upgrade signs with new fluorescent sheeting (regulatory or warning (R26) o 15% crash reduction to all crash types  Install chevron signs on horizontal curves (R27) o 40% crash reduction to all crash types  Install curve advance warning signs (R28) o 25% crash reduction to all crash types  Install dynamic speed feedback signs (R30) o 30% crash reduction to all crash types  Install delineators, reflectors and other object markers (R31) o 15% crash reduction to all crash types  Install edge lines and centerlines (R32) o 25% crash reduction to all crash types  Install bike lanes (R36) o 35% crash reduction to bicycle and pedestrian crash types Non-Signalized Intersections:  Install Raised medians/refuge islands (NS16) o 45% crash reduction to bicycle and pedestrian crash types  Install Pedestrian crossing at uncontrolled locations (signs and markings only) (NS17) o 25% crash reduction to bicycle and pedestrian crash types  Install Pedestrian crossing at uncontrolled locations with enhanced safety features (RFFB, curb extensions, etc.) (NS18) o 35% crash reduction to bicycle and pedestrian crash types  Install Pedestrian signal or HAWK (NS19) o 55% crash reduction to bicycle and pedestrian crash types Page 256 of 310 GHD | Arroyo Grande SSAR Final Report | R1989RPT001 | Page 23 Signalized Intersections:  Improve signal hardware: lenses, back-plates, mounting, size, and number (S2) o 15% crash reduction to all crash types  Improve signal timing (coordination, phase, red, yellow, or operation) (S3) o 15% crash reduction to all crash types  Provide protected left turn phase (left turn lane already exists) (S6) o 30% crash reduction to all crash types  Install raised pavement markers and striping (through intersections ) (S8) o 10% crash reduction to all crash types  Install pedestrian countdown signal heads (S19) o 25% crash reduction to bicycle and pedestrian crash types  Install leading pedestrian interval (S22) o 60% crash reduction to bicycle and pedestrian crash types In addition, Federal Highways Administration (FHWA) has proven safety countermeasures for mitigating collision trends. These countermeasures are presented in Figure 5.1. Page 257 of 310 GHD | Arroyo Grande SSAR Final Report | R1989RPT001 | Page 24 Figure 5.1 FHWA Proven Safety Countermeasures 5.1 Roadway Segments – Safety Countermeasures In selecting the appropriate safety countermeasure for the roadway segments, countermeasures that were successful in mitigating the majority of collisions and reduce overall collision severity were recommended for each roadway segment and intersection that identified in Section 4. 5.1.1 Recommended Roadway Countermeasures As presented in Table 5.1, the identified top ranking roadway segments and the recommended safety countermeasure were quantified. This could be a combination of countermeasures. Page 258 of 310 GHD | Arroyo Grande SSAR Final Report | R1989RPT001 | Page 25 Table 5.1 Roadway Segments Safety Countermeasures It is recommended that some of these countermeasures, such as striping, be incorporated with pavement rehabilitation projects. Also, even more countermeasures could be added, but with the HSIP analyzer tool, we are limited to only being able to quantify three countermeasures. 15A EL CAMINO REAL EAST OF OAK PARK TO WEST OF BRISCO R30. Dynamic speed feedback signs R26. Install/Upgrade signs with new fluorescent sheeting (regulatory or warning) R27. Install chevron signs on horizontal curves Not Listed. Install green paint for bicycle lane conflict zones. 1B GRAND AVE COURTLAND TO ELM R32. Install edge lines and centerlines R3. Install Delineators, reflectors and other object markers. R36. Install Bike Lanes and install green paint for bicycle lane conflict zones. 6B HALCYON NORTH OF FAIR OAKS TO SOUTH OF GRAND R30. Dynamic speed feedback signs R26. Install/Upgrade signs with new fluorescent sheeting (regulatory or warning) R36. Install Bike Lanes and install green paint for bicycle lane conflict zones. 4B FAIR OAKS EAST OF HALCYON TO WEST OF VALLEY R30. Dynamic speed feedback signs R26. Install/Upgrade signs with new fluorescent sheeting (regulatory or warning) R27. Install chevron signs on horizontal curves 5B BRANCH EAST OF CAMINO MERCADO TO WEST OF BRISCO R30. Dynamic speed feedback signs R26. Install/Upgrade signs with new fluorescent sheeting (regulatory or warning) 4C FAIR OAKS WEST OF VALLEY TO EAST OF CALIFORNIA R30. Dynamic speed feedback signs R26. Install/Upgrade signs with new fluorescent sheeting (regulatory or warning) 3C W BRANCH EAST OF MASON TO EAST OF HUSANA/227 R26. Install/Upgrade signs with new fluorescent sheeting (regulatory or warning) R30. Dynamic speed feedback signs R27. Install chevron signs on horizontal curves 1C GRAND EAST OF ELM TO WEST OF HALCYON R32. Install edge lines and centerlines R3. Install Delineators, reflectors and other object markers. R36. Install Bike Lanes and install green paint for bicycle lane conflict zones. 10A RANCHO PKWY NORTH OF BRANCH TO NO. OF VIA VAQUERO Sight distance at driveways and driveway configuration should be evaluated. Install green paint for bicycle lane conflict zones. 26A BRIDGE ST NORTH OF TRAFFIC TO SOUTH OF W BRANCH Bridge Street will have improved design with Bridge Street widening project currently under development. Re-evaluate when complete. 9A CAMINO MERCADO NO. OF BRANCH TO SO. OF RANCHO PKWY R28. Install curve advanced warning signs R30. Dynamic speed feedback signs 31A ALLEN ST EAST OF TRAFFIC WAY TO WEST OF PACIFIC COAST RAILWAY PLACE Parking should be limited to one side only. Roadway striping would help delineate vehicle travel way. 5C BRANCH EAST OF BRISCO TO NORTH OF W BRANCH R26. Install/Upgrade signs with new fluorescent sheeting (regulatory or warning) Not Listed. Install green paint for bicycle lane conflict zones. 32A BRANCH MILL RD SO. OF HUEBNER LN TO CITY LIMIT Adding shoulder where possible. Install edge and centerline rumble stripes at selective locations. 15C EL CAMINO REAL EAST OF HALCYON TO N OF GRAND R30. Dynamic speed feedback signs R26. Install/Upgrade signs with new fluorescent sheeting (regulatory or warning) R27. Install chevron signs on horizontal curves Not Listed. Install green paint for bicycle lane conflict zones. 23A TALLY HO RD EAST OF MASON TO WEST OF 227 R30. Dynamic speed feedback signs R26. Install/Upgrade signs with new fluorescent sheeting (regulatory or warning) 5A BRANCH EAST OF OAK PARK TO WEST OF CAMINO MERCADO R36. Install Bike Lanes and install green paint for bicycle lane conflict zones. 14A BRISCO NORTH OF GRAND TO SOUTH OF ECR R30. Dynamic speed feedback signs R26. Install/Upgrade signs with new fluorescent sheeting (regulatory or warning)Segments Chosen due to High Overall Crash RatesSegments Chosen due to High Overall Total CrashSegment ID Segment Countermeasures Segments Chosen due to High EPDOPage 259 of 310 GHD | Arroyo Grande SSAR Final Report | R1989RPT001 | Page 26 5.1 Intersections – Safety Countermeasures In evaluating the focused intersection locations, low-cost systemic safety countermeasures were recommended in Table 5.2. These recommended low-cost countermeasures include traffic signal improvements, bicycle and pedestrian improvements, and striping, pavement markings, and signage improvements. The majority of the identified intersections were signalized and needed additional crossing improvements for pedestrians and bicycles. Page 260 of 310 GHD | Arroyo Grande SSAR Final Report | R1989RPT001 | Page 27 Table 5.2 Intersection Safety Countermeasures 9 E BRANCH ST & SHORT ST NS16. Install raised medians/refuge islands NS18. Pedestrian crossing at uncontrolled locations with  enchanced safety features (RRFB, curb extensions, etc.) 46 E GRAND AVE & BELL ST NS19. Install pedestrian hybrid beacon (HAWK) 1 E GRAND AVE & COURTLAND ST S19. Install pedestrian countdown heads S20. Provide pedestrian Crossing S22. Leading pedestrian interval (LPI) S2. Improve signal Hardware: Lenses, back plates mounting,  size and number of heads S3. Improve Signal Timing 13 EL CAMINO REAL & N OAK PARK BLVD Intersection is in joined jurisdiction; mitigation can not be  proposed by city only.  6 E GRAND AVE & W BRANCH ST Install luminaire for the crosswalk on the north leg (Branch St  leg). Evaluated signage and pavement markings for trap right  turn lane (Right Lane Must Turn Right is installed).Consider  roundabout with consolidation of closely spaced intersections 2 E GRAND AVE & S ELM ST S19. Install pedestrian countdown heads S20. Provide Pedestrian Crossing S22. Leading pedestrian interval (LPI) S2. Improve signal Hardware: Lenses, back plates mounting,  size and number of heads S3. Improve Signal Timing S6. Provide protected left turn phasing.  12 JAMES WAY & OAK PARK BLVD Joint jurisdiction with Pismo Beach; mitigation can not be  proposed by city only.  8 W BRANCH ST & BRIDGE ST NS16. Install raised medians/refuge isnlands NS18. Pedestrian crossing at uncontrolled locations with  enchanced safety features (RRFB, curb extensions, etc.) 19 FARROLL AVE & S HALCYON RD NS19. Install pedestrian hybrid beacon (HAWK) 15 W BRANCH ST & BRISCO RD S19. Install pedestrian countdown heads S20. Provide Pedestrian Crossing S22. Leading pedestrian interval (LPI) S2. Improve signal Hardware: Lenses, back plates mounting,  size and number of heads S3. Improve Signal Timing This intersection will be reconfigured in the future as part of  the Brisco Road Interchange Improvement Project 43 THE PIKE & GARFIELD PL NS17. Install crossing at uncontrolled locations 67 CORBETT CANYON RD & GULARTE RD Sight distance triangle at this intersection should be cleared. 4 E GRAND AVE & S HALCYON RD S19. Install pedestrian countdown heads S20. Provide Pedestrian Crossing S22. Leading pedestrian interval (LPI) S2. Improve signal Hardware: Lenses, back plates mounting,  size and number of heads S3. Improve Signal Timing 27 E GRAND AVE & US 101 SB RAMP Caltrans jurisdiction; mitigation can not be proposed by city  only.  3 E GRAND AVE & BRISCO RD Crosswalk should be upgraded to high visibility crosswalks.  intersection lighting should be improved on crosswalks.  16 EL CAMINO REAL & BRISCO RD S19. Install pedestrian countdown heads S20. Provide Pedestrian Crossing S22. Leading pedestrian interval (LPI) S2. Improve signal Hardware: Lenses, back plates mounting,  size and number of heads S3. Improve Signal Timing This intersection will be reconfigured in the future as part of  the Brisco Road Interchange Improvement ProjectIntersections Chosen due to High Overall Crash RatesIntersections Chosen due to High Overall Total CrashIntersection ID Intersection Countermeasures Intersections Chosen due to High EPDOPage 261 of 310 GHD | Arroyo Grande SSAR Final Report | R1989RPT001 | Page 28 6. HSIP Application The City of Arroyo Grande submitted a Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) grant application for Cycle 10. The application was for set-aside funding for pedestrian crossing enhancements at the following three locations: 1. Uncontrolled pedestrian crosswalk on the west leg of E. Grand Avenue and Alder Street 2. School crosswalk across Farroll Avenue at S. Halcyon Road 3. School crosswalk on the south leg of S. Halcyon Road at Sandalwood Avenue Overall, the project descriptions are to generally improve the three existing crosswalks with ADA curb ramps, a Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon for the uncontrolled crossing on E. Grand Avenue, curb extensions for the existing crossing on S. Halcyon Road, yield lines, high-visibility crosswalks, and striping and pavement markings. The preliminary design plans for the HSIP application are in Appendix E: HSIP Cycle 10 Plans. These locations were identified based on SSAR and Local Road Safety Plan (LRSP) that is currently in the public outreach process. Based on the LRSP stakeholder group comprised of City staff, Arroyo Grande Police Department, Five Cities Fire Authority, San Luis Obispo Bike Club, Lucia Mar Unified School District, SLO County, Caltrans, Pismo Beach, and Grover Beach, uncontrolled pedestrian crossings are one of the main safety issues in the City (where fatal and severe injury pedestrian to vehicle collisions were occurring). Therefore, the LRSP working group made it a priority to have a greater focus on uncontrolled crosswalks within the City. The locations in the application were identified based on their deficiencies and use, priority corridors, and collision analysis. The City has also received several messages or testimonies from concerned citizens who use the crossings on a regular basis. In addition, the two crosswalks on Halcyon Road have been identified for these improvements per the Halcyon Complete Streets Plan, April 2018. This complete street plan had significant outreach but has no current funding so getting some identified improvements implemented in the field will help to bring momentum to the ultimate project. The award for HSIP Cycle 10 funding should be announced March 31st but was not known when the SSAR was finalized. Page 262 of 310 GHD | Arroyo Grande SSAR Final Report | R1989RPT001 | Page 29 7. Next Steps – Local Road Safety Plan The City of Arroyo Grande is currently conducting a Local Road Safety Plan in building on the SSAR collision analysis and systemic safety countermeasures. A Stakeholder Working group was formed and consists of the following agencies and organizations: 1. City of Arroyo Grande  Engineering  Public Works  Planning  Community Development  Maintenance 2. Police Department 3. Five Cities Fire Authority 4. Lucia Mar Unified School District 5. Bike SLO County 6. San Luis Obispo Bike Club 7. Safe Routes to School Coordinator 8. City of Pismo Beach 9. City of Grover Beach 10. San Luis Obispo County 11. Caltrans Three stakeholder meetings have been held in guiding the development of the LRSP and we are currently in the public outreach process. A website has been developed in soliciting public feedback and this website has an interactive map where the public can pinpoint their concerns and a survey in gathering City specific safety information. After the public outreach process, another Stakeholder meeting with be held in April 2021. A discussion of the public comments and recommended countermeasures/safety projects will be the focus of this meeting. After this meeting, the Draft LRSP will be prepared for Stakeholder comments. A LRSP builds on the data driven process with an agency specific stakeholder group that guides the development of the plan and recommends other ways to improve safety beyond engineering countermeasures to include enforcement, emergency response, education, and emerging technologies. In complimenting the SHSP, the LRSP is focused on identifying countermeasures for the 5 Traffic Safety E’s (see Figure 7.1). This collaborative and holistic process also engages the public through outreach, which is key to capturing the near misses or safety concerns before they have documented collision issues. This overall framework provides a proactive systemic approach in improving safety citywide and positions the City for future grant funding with the prioritized safety projects and goals adopted by City Council. Page 263 of 310 GHD | Arroyo Grande SSAR Final Report | R1989RPT001 | Page 30 Figure 7.1 Traffic Safety E’s Page 264 of 310 GHD | Arroyo Grande SSAR Final Report | R1989RPT001 | Page 31 8. Conclusions GHD has prepared this Systemic Safety Analysis Report (SSAR) for the City of Arroyo Grande. The report consists of detailed historical collision analysis and field observations. These safety issues were then matched to a set of low-cost systemic safety countermeasures and quantified per the HSIP calculator. This calculator quantifies the overall benefit in quantifying the reduction of crashes through Crash Modification Factors (CMF) for the safety countermeasures. In addition, based on recent project costs and Caltrans District 5 unit costs, each project had a preliminary planning cost estimate completed. For HSIP applications, further engineering is needed to include preliminary design and 30% cost estimating will need to be performed. More details into the cost estimate and overall benefit and cost are included in the HSIP analyzer worksheets located in Appendix D: HSIP Analyzer Worksheet. With a systemic approach that makes use of high impact, low-cost countermeasures, GHD submits the following focused list as presented in Table 6.1. These projects are intended to be competitive for the next cycle (Cycle 10) in the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP). Table 8.1 Recommended HSIP Projects Page 265 of 310 GHD | Arroyo Grande SSAR Final Report | R1989RPT001 | Page 32 In addition, to the focused projects above you can apply the recommended countermeasures systemically to the roadways and intersections with similar risk characteristics and collisions. Table 6.2 presents the suggested lists of low-cost engineering countermeasures that could be applied systemically throughout the City of Arroyo Grande. Table 8.2 Recommended Systematic HSIP Projects 8.1 Next Steps The City of Arroyo Grande is currently conducting a Local Road Safety Plan. This plan is being guided by a Stakeholder Working Group consisting of City staff, Arroyo Grande Police Department, Five Cities Fire Authority, San Luis Obispo Bike Club, Lucia Mar Unified School District, SLO County, Caltrans, Pismo Beach, and Grover Beach. The LRSP is currently in the public outreach process and a Draft LRSP is anticipated to be completed in June 2021. Page 266 of 310 Arroyo Grande SSAR | R1989RPT001 | Page 1 Jay Walter Jay.Walter@ghd.com 805.858.3141 Kathryn Kleinschmidt Kathryn.Kleinschmidt@ghd.com 805.858.3147 Page 267 of 310 Page 268 of 310 Page 269 of 310 Page 270 of 310 Page 271 of 310 Page 272 of 310 Page 273 of 310 Page 274 of 310 Page 275 of 310 Page 276 of 310 Page 277 of 310 Page 278 of 310 Page 279 of 310 Page 280 of 310 Page 281 of 310 Page 282 of 310 Page 283 of 310 Page 284 of 310 Page 285 of 310 Page 286 of 310 Page 287 of 310 Page 288 of 310 Page 289 of 310 Page 290 of 310 Page 291 of 310 Page 292 of 310 Page 293 of 310 Page 294 of 310 Page 295 of 310 Page 296 of 310 Page 297 of 310 Page 298 of 310 Page 299 of 310 Page 300 of 310 Page 301 of 310 Page 302 of 310 Page 303 of 310 Page 304 of 310 Page 305 of 310 Page 306 of 310 Page 307 of 310 Page 308 of 310 Page 309 of 310 Page 310 of 310