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