Guadalupe City Council
February 22, 2022

February 22, 2022 City of Guadalupe Council Meeting Agenda Page 1 of 5 City of Guadalupe
AGENDA
Regular Meeting of the Guadalupe City Council
Tuesday, February 22, 2022, at 6:00 pm
City Hall, 918 Obispo Street, Council Chambers
This meeting will also be held virtually via Zoom
https://us06web.zoom.us/j/87546515304
Meeting ID: 875 4651 5304
1(408) 638-0968, 87546515304# US (San Jose)
1(669) 900-6833,87546515304# US (San Jose)
The City Council meeting will broadcast live on Charter Spectrum Cable Channel 20.

If you choose not to attend the City Council meeting but wish to make a comment during oral communications or on a specific agenda item, please submit via email to [email protected] no later than 1:00 pm on Tuesday, February 22, 2022. Alternatively, you may provide public comment through the Zoom application either:
(1) by clicking on the link above at the appointed time. Members of the public wishing to be called on for public comment should click on the “Raise Hand” button on Zoom when the item they wish to speak on has begun. When the chair calls for public comment, you will be announced and your microphone will be unmuted. Comments from the public are limited to 3 minutes per speaker. The public will not be able to share their video or screen; or (2) by calling either of the two phone numbers listed above at least 10 minutes prior to the start of the meeting. PLEASE MUTE YOUR PHONE UNTIL YOU ARE CALLED TO SPEAK. If you do not have a mute button, you may mute by pressing the star key followed by the number six (*6). You can unmute by pressing the same keys (*6). To “raise your hand” on the phone, dial *9 when the item you wish to speak on has begun. When the chair calls for public comment, you will be announced when it is your turn to speak, and your microphone will be unmuted. Comments from the public are limited to 3 minutes per speaker.

February 22, 2022 City of Guadalupe Council Meeting Agenda Page 2 of 5 Please be advised that, pursuant to State Law, any member of the public may address the City Council concerning any item on the Agenda, before or during Council consideration of that item. If you wish to speak on any item on the agenda, including any item on the Consent Calendar or the Ceremonial Calendar, please submit a speaker request form for that item. If you wish to speak on a matter that is not on the agenda, please do so during the Community Participation Forum.

The Agenda and related Staff reports are available on the City’s website: www.ci.guadalupe.ca.us Friday before Council meeting.

Any documents produced by the City and distributed to a majority of the City Council regarding any item on this agenda will be made available the Friday before Council meetings at the Administration Office at City Hall 918 Obispo Street, Monday through Friday between 8:00 am and 4:30 pm, and also posted 72 hours prior to the meeting. The City may charge customary photocopying charges for copies of such documents. Any documents distributed to a majority of the City Council regarding any item on this agenda less than 72 hours before the meeting will be made available for inspection at the meeting and will be posted on the City’s website and made available for inspection the day after the meeting at the Administrator Office at City Hall 918 Obispo Street, Monday through Friday between 8:00 am and 4:30 pm.

In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, including review of the Agenda and related documents, please contact the Administration Office at (805) 356.3891 at least 72 hours prior to the meeting. This will allow time for the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting.

1. ROLL CALL:

Council Member Liliana Cardenas
Council Member Gilbert Robles
Council Member Eugene Costa Jr.

Mayor Pro Tempore Tony Ramirez
Mayor Ariston Julian

2. MOMENT OF SILENCE

3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

4. AGENDA REVIEW
At this time the City Council will review the order of business to be conducted and receive requests for, or make announcements regarding, any change(s) in the order of business.

5. PRESENTATION
• Central Coast Community Energy – Annual Member Agency Update

6. COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION FORUM
Each person will be limited to a discussion of three (3) minutes or as directed by the Mayor.

Pursuant to provisions of the Brown Act, no action may be taken on these matters unless they are listed on the agenda, or unless certain emergency or special circumstances exist. City Council may direct staff to investigate and/or schedule certain matters for consideration at a future City Council meeting.

February 22, 2022 City of Guadalupe Council Meeting Agenda Page 3 of 5

7. CONSENT CALENDAR
The following items are presented for City Council approval without discussion as a single agenda items in order to expedite the meeting. Should a Council Member wish to discuss or disapprove an item, it must be dropped from the blanket motion of approval and considered as a separate item.

A. Waive the reading in full of all Ordinances and Resolutions. Ordinances on the Consent Calendar will be adopted by the same vote cast as the first meeting, unless City Council indicates otherwise.

B. Approve payment of warrants for the period ending February 15, 2022.

C. Approve the Minutes of the City Council Regular Meeting of February 8, 2022, to be ordered filed.

D. Receive the January 2022 Financial Report.

E. Adopt Resolution No. 2022-14 approving the City of Guadalupe 2021 Local Road Safety Plan.

F. Adopt Resolution No. 2022-15 to petition LAFCo to initiate annexation proceedings for the Almaguer Annexation, 2020-060-PA, to also include annexation into the Guadalupe Lighting District.

G. Adopt Resolution No. 2022-16 approval of Classification and Job Description for Facility Rental Coordinator.

H. Adopt Resolution No. 2022-17 appointing Amelia M. Villegas as the Interim Facility Rental Coordinator.

I. Approve a one-year time extension for Escalante Meadows, 2019-063DR (TE) and 2019-064- CUP (TE).

J. MONTHLY REPORTS FROM DEPARTMENT HEADS

1. Public Safety Department:
a. Police Department report for January 2022
b. Fire Department report for January 2022
c. Code Compliance report for January 2022

2. City Treasurer’s report for January 2022

3. Human Resources report for January 2022

4. Los Amigos de Guadalupe report

8. CITY ADMINISTRATOR REPORT: (Information Only)

9. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC SAFETY REPORT: (Information Only) February 22, 2022 City of Guadalupe Council Meeting Agenda Page 4 of 5

10. MAYOR’S REPORT- UPDATES

11. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS

12. ANNOUNCEMENTS – COUNCIL ACTIVITY/COMMITTEE REPORTS

13. ADJOURNMENT TO CLOSED SESSION MEETING

CLOSED SESSION

14. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS
(Subdivision (a) of Government Code Section 54957.6)
Agency designated representatives: City Administrator, Human Resources Manager and Che Johnson, Partner, Liebert, Cassidy & Whitmore; Employee Organizations: International Association of Firefighters (IAFF)

15. ADJOURNMENT TO OPEN SESSION MEETING

16. CLOSED SESSION ANNOUNCEMENT

17. ADJOURNMENT
I hereby certify under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing agenda was posted on the City Hall display case and website not less than 72 hours prior to the meeting. Dated this 18th day of February 2022.
________________________________
Todd Bodem, City Administrator
Todd Bodem
February 22, 2022 City of Guadalupe Council Meeting Agenda Page 5 of 5

PROPOSED FUTURE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEMS
Council Meeting: Date and Subject Department Agenda Category Tuesday, March 8, 2022, at 6:00 pm / Regular Meeting
SEIU Job Description Approval Human Resources Consent Calendar SEIU Side Letter Human Resources Consent Calendar
Rent Control Pros and Cons – Presentation Presentation
Vietnam Veterans Presentation Presentation
Benefit for Unrepresented Employees Human Resources Consent Calendar TDA and Transit Financial Statement FY2021 Finance Dept. Consent Calendar Audited Financial Statement FY2021 Finance Dept. Regular Business Oath of Office – Police Officer Jennifer Bahena Ceremonial Food Trucks and Sales Carts Planning Dept. Regular Business Tuesday, March 22, 2022, at 6:00 pm / Regular Meeting
February Financial Report Finance Dept. Consent Calendar Notice of Award – West Main St. Water Line Project Public Works Dept. Consent Calendar Spring Programs Recreation Dept. Consent Calendar
Tuesday, April 12, 2022, at 6:00 pm / Regular Meeting
Child Abuse Awareness & Prevention Month -
Proclamation
Ceremonial Calendar
Budget Workshop Finance Dept. Workshop
Other Unscheduled Items Proposed
Date of
Item
Department Agenda Category
Tree Ordinance Public Works New Business
Sidewalk Vending Ordinance Planning Department New Business Vacant Property Ordinance Administration Dept New Business Sign Ordinance Planning Dept New Business
Pasadera Public Infrastructure Dedication Public Works Dept New Business Food Truck and Special Event Ordinance Planning Dept New Business Gift Policy City Attorney New Business
Master Fee Schedule Update Finance Department Workshop
Pasquini Lease Agreement April 2022 Public Works Dept. Consent Calendar Recognizing Food Distribution Volunteers Ceremonial Calendar Terry Bauer – Proclamation Ceremonial Calendar
Goal Setting FY 21-22 Approval Administration Regular Business Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) March 2022 New Business
Facility & Parks Use Fee Schedule Changes Recreation & Parks Annual Member Agency
Update
City of Guadalupe
February 22, 2022
Agenda Item No. 5
How Does CCA Work?
“A Partnership to support shared customers”
WHO WE ARE?

CCCE GOVERNANCE
Policy Board: Meets 4 Times Annually including Annual Meeting Operations Board: Meets 10 Times Annually including Annual Meeting Community Advisory Council: Meets 7 Times Annually including Annual Meeting County of
Santa Cruz
City of
Santa Cruz
City of
Watsonville
County of
Monterey
City of
Salinas
County of
San Benito
County of
Santa
Barbara
City of
Santa Maria
Coastal
Cities
Marina
Sand City*
Seaside
Del Rey
Oaks
Peninsula
Cities
Carmel
Monterey
Pacific*
Grove
Salinas
Cities
Greenfield
Gonzales
Soledad*
San Benito
Cities
Hollister
San Juan
Bautista*
Santa Cruz
Cities
Capitola*
Scotts
Valley
San Luis
Obispo
Cities
San Luis
Obispo*
Morro Bay
Paso Robles
South
County
Cities
Arroyo
Grande
Grover
Beach
Pismo*
Beach
SB County
Cities
Guadalupe
Solvang*
Buellton
SB County
Cities
Goleta
Carpinteria*
*City representative currently serving in a shared seat.

CCCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS
Local
Choice
Economic
Vitality
Local
Support
Financial
Stability
Clean
Energy
• 3Cchoice – clean &
renewable offering
• 3Cprime – 100%
renewable offering
• 94% enrollment
• Contracts with Local
Vendors Over
$1,000,000
• 38 full time
employees
• 2 offices – Monterey
& San Luis Obispo
• Received an A rating
with S&P
• Over $140 Million in
Rate Stabilization
Fund
• Service and Loans
Paid Off
• 889 MWs of
Renewables – solar,
wind, geothermal
• 261 MWs of battery
storage
• Pathway to 100%
clean & renewable
• $50+ million –
Customer benefits
• Over $14 million
set aside for FY
21/22 Energy
Programs
Photo Credit: 2020 Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey

FAST TRACKING NEW ENERGY DEVELOPMENT
Cost of Service (COS) Rate Design
These projects will serve about 61% of CCCE’s retail load when all are online, expected in 2025.
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030
CCCE Long-term (LT) Contracting Status as a % of Retail Load 3CE Executed PPA % State RPS Requirement %
State RPS LT Contracting Requirement % 3CE's Procurement Policy % CCCE's Executed Contract Summary
Project Type Count Gen Capacity (MW) Storage Capacity
(MW)
Solar + Storage PPAs 9 633 201
Solar Only PPAs 1 150
Wind PPAs 1 33
Geothermal PPAs 2 73
RA Only Agreement 1 60
14 889 261

CCCE COMMITMENT TO RENEWABLE PROCUREMENT
• contracted for approximately $1 billion in long term solar plus storage contracts since 2018
• shortlisted 7 local projects through its local renewables RFP • Joined other CCAs to advance long duration storage RFP to support grid reliability through existing and new technologies
• issued an RFQ for up to 100MW of front of the meter battery storage, with the potential to island projects for increased resiliency • We invite the City of Seaside to join this project and identify key sites CCCE HISTORIC RATES & COVID-19

RESPONSE
2018
3% rebate
2019
5% rebate
Jan – April
2020
7% monthly
discount
May & June
2020
50% Bill
Reduction
July 2020 –
Feb 2022
2% discount
Long-term rate adoption increases predictability and rate stability Customer choices and transparency improve with simplified customer classes
New rates increase customer rate equity throughout customer segments
New rate structure maintains competitive rates across all customer segments
https://3cenergy.org/2022-energy-choices/
GOALS OF 2022 CCCE SERVICE OFFERINGS

APPROVED APPROACH TO RATE DESIGN
Cost of Service (COS) Rate Design

1. Estimate the total cost necessary to serve all 3CE customers • Power procurement
• Energy Programs
• Rate stabilization fund
• Administrative costs

2. Create simple, easily understood customer classes based on size and usage profile

3. Allocate total cost across customer classes

4. Adjust allocations so each class will save a minimum of 1% relative to PG&E

5. Design rates for each customer class to recover costs allocated to that class

6. Rates will go live effective March 1, 2022 for customers within PG&E’s service territory Overview:
• $1.3 million in FY 18/19
• $5.4 million in FY 19/20
• $6.2 million in FY 20/21
• Estimated $14.1 million in FY 21/22
• 4% of operating revenue in FY 21/22
Electrification in building and
transportation sectors could
result in $3 billion of untapped
revenue market wide
CCCE Energy Programs
12 FY 21/22 Energy Programs
Electrify Your Ride - $2.8 million – NOVEMBER 2021
School Bus Electrification - $1 million - OCTOBER 2021
Agriculture Electrification - $600k - OCTOBER 2021
Residential Electrification - $1.6 million
New Construction Electrification - $1.5 million – OCYOBER 2021 Reach Code - $60k
Battery Energy Storage Pilot - $350k
Summer Readiness - $400k
Energy Education, Workforce Development and Innovation Grants - $1 million
Greenhouse Gas Inventory - $64k
Planning and Implementation
• Funding for planning and implementation projects related to electrification • Intended for member agencies to electrify their vehicle fleets, municipal properties, and the community infrastructure that serves households and businesses.

Innovation
• Funding to deploy new and innovative electrification or other clean energyrelated technology for municipal or community buildings and/or fleets. • Intended to foster market transformation, demonstrate scalable and replicable solutions, and identify potential future CCCE energy program concepts.

Electrification and Innovation Grant Program
Locally Sited Front of the Meter
Distributed Energy Storage Projects
Benefits
• Rate Stability reduced energy cost & reduced RA cost
• Grid Stability local power supply, critical period imports reduced => fewer outages • Grid services balance power flows
• Reduced GHGs evening dispatch of day-time “solar” electrons • Local jobs building and maintaining facilities
• Potential “microgrid” islanding => resiliency
Medium and Heavy-Duty Vehicle Electrification Program
• Intended to support the electrification of Member Agency medium and heavyduty fleet vehicles • Potential applications include street sweepers, refuse trucks, dump trucks, and first response vehicles
• CCCE will reserve funds for qualifying projects and funds will be dispersed once purchases and/or projects are completed
• Intended to work in coordination with city/county purchasing schedules and policies
• Incentives likely to be tied to increased cost of electric models from standard internal combustion options
September 30, 2021
COMING MID-NOVEMBER 2021
New and expanded Electrify Your Ride program will incentivize EV's, EV Chargers AND Electric Bikes with our largest energy program budget to date!
City of Guadalupe
by The Numbers
(98.6% Enrollment)
• 2,543 total enrolled customers
• 2,158 Residential
• 211 Commercial
• 14 Agricultural

ENERGY PROGRAM FUNDS
• Electrify Your Ride $3.67k
• School Bus Electrification $200k
Salinas & San Luis Obispo
Provided lunch & PPE to almost 500
workers and counting
FIELD PROMOTION 2021
Customer Resources & Tools
Phase 1
- Creating resources to help
customers get access to data and
make informed rate decisions
- Customer Energy Portal
- Rate Comparison Tool for Cost of
Service
Phase 2
- Harnessing customer data to
integrate energy programs and
opportunities for electrification
Vendor Registry
A Unified Central Coast CCA
Key Updates:
• Adopted Cost of Service rate structure to achieve
agency goals
• Working with CCCE member agencies on
regulatory and legislative matters that ensure
customer fairness and equal access to resources
• Pathway to achieve 100% clean and renewable
energy by 2030
• Leveraging Community Advisory Council for
outreach and non-voting seat participation on Operations & Policy Boards • Engaging with the community around
development of future programs
• Enrollment of over 140k customers in 2021 & 2022
across 12 communities
Stay Connected with CCCE
Follow us online, join our newsletter and board agenda notification list, and check our extensive FAQ section on the website.
www.3Cenergy.org
[email protected]

1.888.909.6227
@3CEnergy
@3CEnergy
@3CEnergyEnEspanol
Agenda Item No. 7B

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GUADALUPE
Agenda of February 22, 2022
Prepa,:d�.

Veronica Fabian
Finance Account Clerk
�/&it Reviewed le
by:

Zt1rak,,
Lorena Zarate
Finance Director
Approved by:

Todd Bodem
City Administrator
SUBJECT:

RECOMMENDATION:

Payment of warrants for the period ending February 15, 2022 to be approved for payment by the City Council. Subject to having been certified as being in conformity with the budget by the Finance Department staff.

That the City Council review and approve the listing of hand checks and warrants to be paid on February 23, 2022.

BACKGROUND:

Submittal of the listing of warrants issued by the City to vendors for the period and explanations for disbursement of these warrants. An exception, such as an emergency hand check may be required to be issued and paid prior to submittal of the warrant listing, however, this warrant will be identified as "Ratify" on the warrant listing.
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
29 30
31 32
33 34
35 36
37 38
39 40
41 42
43 44
45 46
February 8, 2022 City of Guadalupe Council Meeting Minutes Page 1 of 16

MINUTES
City of Guadalupe
Regular Meeting of the Guadalupe City Council
Tuesday, February 8, 2022, at 6:00 pm
City Hall, 918 Obispo Street, Council Chambers

1. ROLL CALL:

Council Member Liliana Cardenas
Council Member Gilbert Robles
Council Member Eugene Costa Jr.

Mayor Pro Tempore Tony Ramirez
Mayor Ariston Julian
The meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m. All were present. (The abbreviation “CM” is being used for “Council Member” in these minutes.)

2. MOMENT OF SILENCE
Mayor Julian mentioned that Michael Armenta, a long-time Guadalupe resident, recently passed away. He offered condolences to Mr. Armenta’s family.

3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

4. AGENDA REVIEW
At this time the City Council will review the order of business to be conducted and receive requests for, or make announcements regarding, any change(s) in the order of business.

There were no requests to change the agenda.

5. COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION FORUM
Each person will be limited to a discussion of three (3) minutes or as directed by the Mayor.

Pursuant to provisions of the Brown Act, no action may be taken on these matters unless they are listed on the agenda, or unless certain emergency or special circumstances exist. City Council may direct staff to investigate and/or schedule certain matters for consideration at a future City Council meeting.

Deek Segovia: Mr. Segovia was representing the Vietnam Veterans of America, Chapter 982 (to be referred to as “VVA”). He said, “I brought the Board of Directors and officers here tonight to talk about the Veterans’ Memorial Building.” Mr. Segovia then gave some history on the building as it related to his organization. In 2006, the VVA was established. Since that time, the VVA has relocated Agenda Item No. 7C
February 8, 2022 City of Guadalupe Council Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 16 four (4) timesto be able to hold meetings, including back in the building in November last year. Since 2012, they left the Veterans Building due to certain circumstances. We couldn’t survive there. We weren’t welcome there and are still not fully housed there. Mr. Segovia said, “As veterans, we’re different than the general public renting the building. That building was dedicated to veterans, not a veteran’s organization as it is right now. Tonight, we all brought our DD214s, as proof of service in the military. It’s kinda silly but we brought them because we’re veterans.” He continued saying, “The City and the community has always supported us, been there for us, done thing with us and we with the City. We want to continue that. But with what’s going on with the building now…we paid in advance for one (1) year. Because of the situation the City’s in now, we wanted to lock in the dates now. We weren’t asked to pay…we wanted to pay. We wanted to guarantee our Saturdays for our meetings because our meetings were disrupted before. We didn’t want to put up with that. We need other things beside a meeting place. We need a break-out room for our board meetings. Now in the Veterans Hall, there’s a locked room there which would be great for our board meetings and elections. That’s a little bit of the differences between us and the general public. Also, we have other needs that the City may or may not be able to provide but we don’t seem to have a voice in what’s going on. We’ve never been asked what we need. We still have stuff at the Senior Center. Even our sign is still up there. We dare not take it down until we know for sure we have a place. We’re just urging the City to take ownership of your building. Meet with us, the organizations that are going to use it and not the general public and see what our needs are. See if the City can provide for us. We’re all veterans…American Legion, Vietnam Veterans, etc. We don’t want to be above anyone, but we don’t want to be below anyone either. As veteran organizations, we should be equals, but we have no voice. And we want a voice because we want to make the Veterans Memorial Building our home. Thank you.”
Mayor Julian then said, “For over two (2) years, we’ve been moving to transition that building. It’s like pushing a big rock over a hill, but it’s going downhill now in a positive way to make this happen.

In the Mayor’s Report, on item #9, Post 371/Legion, there’s information on just this topic. The American Legion has counsel, and the City is negotiating with them. We’re moving as hard as we can, but it’s a moving target. When I heard that second room was locked, which is the room with all the memorabilia, and I guess the lock was changed…I don’t know…that’s for another day. We’re moving as fast as we can with that.” The mayor then emphasized, “Your organization and another Vietnam organization submitted a letter requesting the memorial that’s on private property next to the Veterans Memorial Parking Lot be relocated to the Legion. What I wanted to point out is that request came from two (2) Vietnam organizations that wanted access to that building. So, that pointed to me and others that there’s a consensus that that building belongs to veterans. And I appreciate your steadfast support for us in moving forward on this because it needs to go forward.” Mr. Segovia added, “I would think that some of the hold back for you and the City have probably been mentions of military codes saying who can use the building, etc. Those same military codes are used to violate our freedoms in that building. Those codes are used against us so we couldn’t meet there. There are a lot of issues going on. We’re all equals. We’re veterans. We aren’t going to go in there and damage and steal and that kind of stuff. If we can’t be trusted by veterans, that tells me something. Why? Why can’t we be trusted by other veterans. I don’t believe it’s other veterans.

I believe it’s one veteran. And that complicates things because it makes the American Legion look bad. I belong to the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the American Legion, Vietnam Veterans of America.

February 8, 2022 City of Guadalupe Council Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 16 Some of our members are that and, also DAVs. We belong to multiple organizations of veterans.

Yet we can’t be part of this organization that’s here in town. And I don’t know why.

The mayor then addressed those individuals in the audience. He said, “Please stand up, all the local veterans with the group here. (Deek Segovia also asked Mike Roberts to stand with the group as he is also a veteran.) We all appreciate your service and we’re moving on this. Thank you.” CM Ramirez recommended, “This item should be discussed with the Recreation & Parks Commission, too, and have this item put on their agenda for discussion of facilities at that level and have those recommendations as it seems to be a facility issue. Hannah (Fuentes) sits in that group and there could actually be some movement on it. It would also allow others who may attend the meeting know about the issue.”
Michael Roberts: “I’m a member of Narcotics Anonymous. I appreciate all that the City has done to accommodate our meetings. I’m here to ask for community involvement. Our group meets every Wednesday, except the last Wednesday of each month, at the Senior Center here in Guadalupe. In 2019 I moved here from Grover Beach and saw a need for Narcotics Anonymous group meetings. I did the footwork to make it happen. I was told that when I moved from Los Angeles to the Central Coast that there was a drug problem here in Guadalupe. I know I’m not surprising anyone. I was told that there is a need here, hang in there, and keep the door open. People will find us. I appreciate your time. I have some flyers I’d like to leave here in the back with information about our meetings.” The mayor asked what the hours were for these meetings. Mr. Roberts said, “From 7pm to 8pm.

We rent from the City from 6:30pm to 8:30pm. I generally get there around 6:30pm. I’m there every week even if it’s just me.” Can this flyer be sent with the water bill?” Mayor Julian said, “We won’t be able to do that, but we will post it on our City website. By the way, your use of the building has been very positive. You take care of the building better than a lot of people. So, we appreciate you folks being there.”

6. CONSENT CALENDAR
The following items are presented for City Council approval without discussion as a single agenda item in order to expedite the meeting. Should a Council Member wish to discuss or disapprove an item, it must be dropped from the blanket motion of approval and considered as a separate item.

A. Waive the reading in full of all Ordinances and Resolutions. Ordinances on the Consent Calendar will be adopted by the same vote cast as the first meeting, unless City Council indicates otherwise.

B. Approve payment of warrants for the period ending February 2, 2022 and ratify payment of warrants for the period ending January 25, 2022.

C. Approve the Minutes of the City Council Regular Meeting of January 25, 2022, to be ordered filed.

D. Adopt Resolution No. 2022-10 filing the Notice of Completion with the County Recorder, and to approve the five percent retention payment to CalPortland Construction for the 2021 Pavement Rehabilitation Project.

February 8, 2022 City of Guadalupe Council Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 16 E. Adopt Resolution No. 2022-11 approving the final response to the Santa Barbara County Grand Jury report entitled “Pensions in Santa Barbara County Require Vigilance”.

F. Adopt Resolution No. 2022-12 to create a new classification for the position of Police Lieutenant, and authorizing staff to initiate recruitment for this position.

G. MONTHLY REPORTS FROM DEPARTMENT HEADS

1. Planning Department report for January 2022

2. Building Department report for December 2021 and January 2022

3. Public Works/City Engineer’s report for January 2022

4. Recreation & Parks report for January 2022
Items #6.B. and #6.F. were pulled. Motion was made by Council Member Ramirez and seconded by Council Member Robles. 5-0 Passed.

Item #6.B. - Warrants
CM Costa, Jr. asked about the item on page 25 of the 1/27/2022 warrants for “tasers, one unit for $25,000”. Chief Cash said, “Those are tasers for the whole department. There are 20 tasers, cartridges and holsters.” CM Costa, Jr. also asked about the item on page 26 of the 1/27/2022 warrants for “window glass for $1,548”. Ms. Shannon Sweeney said, “That was for window replacements in the City auditorium. The actual windows were cheap. It was the labor that cost the most.”
CM Cardenas questioned the item on page 23 of the 1/27/2022 warrants for “PD-New Vehicle for $37,000”. She asked, “Is this new vehicle for the patrol unit or what is this to be used for?” Chief Cash, “Yes, that’s a new police vehicle that was approved last fiscal year for eventual rotation.” CM Cardenas then said, “Oh, okay, so it’s part of that rotation.” The mayor asked if this vehicle was purchased through another group, a consortium of government groups. Chief Cash added, “Yes, to get the best price, we piggybacked with LAPD because they order such a large volume of vehicles, and we could get a cheaper price. This thing has been sitting for about a year because of the supply chain. That’s why it’s taken so long. We also have another vehicle in the pipeline. We were told that they probably won’t start building it until September, so there’s another delay.” Item #6.F. – Police Lieutenant Position
CM Cardenas asked, “Are there any specific or additional training or certifications required besides the qualifications listed in the job description?” Chief Cash said, “A Police Lieutenant must obtain a Management Certificate with P.O.S.T. within one year of the new assignment.” CM Cardenas then asked, “This is not a P.O.S.T. certificate for any officer but one specific for lieutenant?” Chief Cash then explained the various levels of P.O.S.T. certifications. He said, “First, there’s the Supervisory P.O.S.T. for Sargeant which is held in Sacramento for about a week’s training. Then for Lieutenant, you need the Management P.O.S.T. certification which takes about 2-3 weeks training. For Captain, it’s a Management Certification. For Chief, you need to be in that position for at least two (2) years before you can go for the Executive certification which is a two-week course.” CM Cardenas then asked, “So, that’s what the possession of the P.O.S.T. Advanced Certificate means?” Chief replied, February 8, 2022 City of Guadalupe Council Meeting Minutes Page 5 of 16 “No, the minimum to apply for this position, though, is the Advanced P.O.S.T. certification. To get that Advance Certification, you have to be a Police Officer for at least 6-10 years. As a minimum qualification to apply for the Police Lieutenant, you need the Advanced Certification. Then once the person is selected, they have one year to get their Management Certificate.” CM Cardenas asked, “Okay, but we don’t have that written in the job description here. Maybe for HR, do we need to put that in the job description?” Ms. Emiko Gerber, HR Manager, said that that language would be put in the job description.

CM Cardenas further asked, “There are two (2) Sergeant positions. Are we looking to eliminate one?” Chief Cash said, “If we do an internal promotion, we’ll still have that Sergeant position. If I look at our current personnel, I don’t look at filling it for a year to two years. I’d like to groom internally. I look at the span of control to see as far as supervision and our personnel. If we can manage and we’re doing well, we’ll look at future budget, also. We also have a Senior Police Officer position.

We’ve put one of our senior officers in that position. He’s one of our tenured officers, so it’s like an acting sergeant. There’s that kind of supervision, also.” Another question was asked by CM Cardenas. She asked, “The promotional process. What are the steps that are followed?” Chief Cash responded, “The promotional process is either internal or external. It’s up to the Chief to decide which one will be followed. If it’s internal, the announcement goes internally and whoever is qualified can apply. There’s an interview and background. If they can make it, the person is promoted. For external, there’s an announcement (posting), applications are reviewed, and then an interview with panel. A candidate who passes the interview panel then goes for a Chief interview. The selection process is made after that.” Mayor Julian asked if this was a management position, exempt? Chief said, “Yes, exempt.” The mayor asked further if this was an internal process, could the Chief say now? Chief Cash said, “It is internal. For the time I’ve been here, I’ve been able to survey the entire department. I’ve evaluated skills and what is needed. I knew what I was looking for having been in that position before. Both Sergeants have more than 10 years’ experience. I started grooming doing management-type issues.

The biggest concern that we did not have is a skilled force doing internal investigations on personnel.

That was really lacking. And that is one of the real core aspects of management is being able to do those investigations. So, I’ve sent them to certain schools for that training and have been able to groom and prepare them for a succession plan just in case I’m not here. They’ll be capable of making sure public safety runs very smoothly. I wanted to make sure that our internal candidates were prepared, and we had people ready to take that next step and the community would be supportive that we would look at our internal people first.”
Motion was made by Council Member Costa, Jr. and seconded by Council Member Robles to approve Items #6.B. and #6.F. 5-0 Passed.

7. CITY ADMINISTRATOR REPORT: (Information Only)
Mr. Todd Bodem read a letter from the California Department of Housing and Community Development (Department) and the Strategic Growth Council saying, in part…“Escalante Meadows February 8, 2022 City of Guadalupe Council Meeting Minutes Page 6 of 16 has been awarded an Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities (‘AHSC’) program. The award amount is $19,375,180. This is very positive, and I’ll turn it over to Shannon now.” Ms. Sweeney added, “Yes, we’re very excited. We call it the AHSC Grant. The amount of $12M is related to the Escalante Meadows housing project itself, and the remaining $7M is associated with public transit and transportation. We’ve worked closely with the Housing Authority and Santa Barbara County on this. Some of that will go to CalVans. $2M will go to creating safe, multi-purpose path on the southside of 11th Street, from People’s Self-Help to Mary Buren School. Just under $500,000 is allocated to the Amtrak station for restrooms and electrical vehicle chargers. I’ve submitted a grant application to Clean California Local Program Grant program to leverage the train station funding as a match, requesting an additional $1.6M to rehabilitate the entire Amtrak station site. We’ll find out on March 1st whether we are able to leverage the monies from the AHSC grant to get the Clean California grant.”

8. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC SAFETY REPORT: (Information Only) Chief Cash reported the following:
“Santa Barbara County is providing home (Covid) test kits to different communities who request them. There are 900 home test kits, two (2) uses per kit (1,800 uses). Kits had already been given to the Housing Authority, Senior Center, Catholic Charities (The Beatitude House) and Escalante Meadows. There are 900 kits now. The County asked if there’s a public distribution point to post countywide to say that kits are available for free. We want to give these kits to Guadalupe residents before we go outside to come here and pick them up. I can pick up a supply weekly. I’d like to get rid of them as soon as possible to our residents. So, any help I can get would be great. Maybe I need to talk to Hannah (Fuentes) to maybe do something with Parks & Rec to get to people, but I’m open to any suggestions.

The Department of Justice is waiting for the Attorney General’s office to schedule the presentation on the results of the police shooting investigation. They will notify me of the date and time, but it may be as early as the week of 2/21 – 2/25. I want to get that as soon as possible.

Chief read a letter from a citizen. ‘To Whom It May Concern, my name is Adelita L. Diaz. I live at 1056 Guadalupe Street, Guadalupe, Ca 93434. I reside in front of Guadalupe Street. I was cited a parking violation on 02/04/2022 for a fine of $52.00. I’m 67 years old and I’m on social security, my only income. How am I supposed to live in Guadalupe in my residence knowing that I’ll be cited over and over again? I have no funds to pay my fine. I am asking to be given a window sticker to allow me to park in front of my residence and to have my fine waived. I’d appreciate it if you’d consider this for me. Sincerely, Adelita Diaz.’ This has to do with our just starting street sweeping on Guadalupe Street. There’s a ‘No Parking’ sign from 12:00 a.m. to 6:00 a.m. Right now, we’re only doing on Thursday night till Friday unless we get issues. She lives a couple doors down from the post office. I’ve visited her twice. When we found out she had a ticket, we’re trying to work with her. I told her that I can’t change the law but if you write in, this lets people know you have an issue.

Getting this letter says that citizens are engaging. They’re stepping up and saying something and February 8, 2022 City of Guadalupe Council Meeting Minutes Page 7 of 16 they want help. As it turned out, the police officer who issued the ticket wrote the wrong license plate. So, we voided that ticket, and she was happy. I told her voiding the ticket had nothing to do with me. I later went back to her house and said if she was handicapped, I’d have the authority to make a disability parking spot. I need to sit with the City Attorney to see what provisions can be made to maybe help her out.”
CM Costa, Jr. asked if there was parking for that unit in the back. Chief said, “No, the only parking is on Guadalupe Street. I spoke with Mr. Alvarez about that. Some of the people who got tickets said they could park there. We did give them a one-day permit as there was maintenance being done and the one-day permit was requested. So, yes, she doesn’t have off-street parking and has to park in front of her house.” CM Costa, Jr. then asked, “How many residents are there where there’s no off-street parking? We need to do a survey. At Orcutt around Righetti High School, they have signs that say, ‘parking permit’, so the kids aren’t parking there.” Chief said he’d review and do some research. Mayor Julian added, “There’s a 2-hour parking limit for all of Guadalupe Street that was issued before because some people park there all day long. There aren’t too many homes that don’t have parking. Look at the corner of Guadalupe & 11th Streets…don’t know if the issue is the same there.” The mayor suggested it’s worth it to talk to the property owners. CM Cardenas asked, “For buildings, isn’t there a code that there has to be parking available for every unit?” CM Costa, Jr. said, “Yes, but those are old apartments that were built before any code said there had to be parking.

They were grandfathered in.” Mayor Julian then suggested to Chief Cash to meet with the City Attorney and property owners on this issue.

9. MAYOR’S REPORT- UPDATES
The mayor emphasized that there’s a lot going on in the City. He encouraged all to read the report on the City’s website.

REGULAR BUSINESS

10. Second Quarter FY 2021-2022 Financial Report and Budget Review.

Written Staff Report: Lorena Zarate, Finance Director
Recommendation: That the City Council accept the Second Quarter Financial Report and Budget Review and adopt Resolution No. 2022-13 approving budget amendments to the FY 2021-2022 budget and ARPA distribution of funds.

Ms. Zarate gave an overview of the financial report and budget review. She said, “The purpose of the report is to provide a status of cash, fund balance and budgeted Revenue and Expenditures versus actual at 50 percent of the fiscal year expended…also, to provide a projection of revenue and expenditures for the remaining six months of the fiscal year and to propose budget revisions.” She emphasized that estimated figures for fiscal year 2021 were used in this analysis as the 2021 audit has not been finalized. The following is a summary of the report:

February 8, 2022 City of Guadalupe Council Meeting Minutes Page 8 of 16 For the General Fund, as of December 31, 2021, total cash was $188,428.05 versus December 2020 which showed a balance of $466,435.36. Property tax revenue in the amount of $649,636 was received in early January adding to the General Fund’s cash balance.

General Fund revenues are under budget or below target by 38.6 percent. Those areas that have fallen short as compared to the budget through December 2021 are: 1) Property Tax, 15.2%; 2) Sales Tax, 18.1%, and Franchise Fees, 33.5%. All other revenue categories were close to, if not exceeding, 50% of the budget.

For projected revenues through the remaining six (6) months of the fiscal year, those were as follows:
• Tax Revenues:

Sales Taxes - Through second quarter 2021, revenues were under budget. However, HDL has confirmed that the City is on target to receive the budgeted sales tax and local sales tax revenue, which includes Measures N and X, by the end of the fiscal year.

Franchise Fees – These appear under budget through December 2021 but are expected to be received by the end of the fiscal year.

Property Taxes – These were originally budgeted per a projection provided by the County.

The time of receipt for these taxes is not always consistent. (As stated above, the City has received $649,636 in property taxes with the remainder amounts expected between May and June 2022.)
• Building & Planning Revenue – Revenue through the end of this fiscal year is projected to be received as expected. 53 Pasadera lots were expected and shown in the original budget.

There actually were 57 Pasadera lots permitted this fiscal year with no additional permitting to occur. Escalante Meadows is on track to be permitted before the end of June 2022. The City still expects to receive $290,509 in LEAP/REAP grants for the general plan update and planning expenses. (This amount is less than budgeted as $12,765 was received in the prior fiscal year.) The OTC Plan Check revenue is at $14,172, more than the budgeted amount. • Public Safety Revenue – Mutual aid reimbursements in the amount of $224,678 are expected to be received for fire services provided. Airport services and the school resource officer are now included in the revenue projections. (The budget had the costs and revenue netted out resulting in the revenue and costs not explicitly reflected in the budget.) Per the City’s external auditor, reimbursement for these services should be reflected as general fund revenue, with corresponding costs. Therefore, revenue for the airport and SRO services are projected to be $370,851. Chief Cash added, “The $224,678 reimbursement for the Cedar Fire will be received soon. I signed paperwork and sent it back to State.” February 8, 2022 City of Guadalupe Council Meeting Minutes Page 9 of 16 • Other Revenue – It is expected that the other revenue line items will be received through the remainder of the fiscal year. Not previously budgeted was $63,000 that the City received in Cannabis application fees. Projections also includes revenues from ARPA funds transfer in the amount of $365,706 to the General Fund. (The auditors said that this amount should be shown as revenue, and costs should be shown in appropriate expenditure categories.) Overall, General Fund revenue is projected to be more than what was originally budgeted by about $1,023,642.

General Fund expenditures are slightly above budget at 52 percent expended. The City Attorney and Public Safety departments are currently shown as over budget. For the City Attorney, the overage is due to amounts paid for labor union negotiations. As for the Public Safety Department, that is split into two areas: 1) Fire’s overage is related to overtime. Although Fire is shown at 59% over budget for the first six (6) months of this fiscal year, it actually is 181% over budget. This relates to the mutual aid contract reimbursements for $224,678 (as explained in the Revenue section), and 2) Police shows an overage at 54%. This is due to the reclassification of the reimbursement for the airport and school resources officer services (as explained in the Revenue section). Otherwise, Police would be 48% within budget. Overall, expenditures for the General Fund are higher than revenues so far relating to the timing of funds for Sales and Property taxes.

Projected expenditures through the remaining six (6) months of the fiscal year are expected to be over by 16%. Those were as follows:
• Council – in line with the budget.
• Administration – over budget by $2,200 (updated payroll calculation which included a cash out of vacation time not previously in the budget).
• Attorney – over budget by $30,000 due to labor union negotiations, proposed to be funded by ARPA.
• Finance – under budget by about $26,260 (updated payroll calculation for family leave and overestimation of personnel costs during labor negotiations). • Non-Departmental – over budget by about $95,081 due to: 1) overage of $32,887 for IT costs, website design, and adobe licenses, 2) $2,098 for PPE masks, and $73,000 for new planning software, thru CIP transfer. Total of $107,985 proposed to be funded by ARPA. Interest expense from interfund loans are expected to be lower by $16,808. • Building Maintenance – over budget by about $161,000 due to: 1) $18,220 increase with October hire of a new maintenance worker, and projected hire of an engineering technician in April, and 2) $15,700 higher communication expense for fiber optic network. Other expenses in the amount of $129,000, such as auditorium upgrades, vegetation maintenance, February 8, 2022 City of Guadalupe Council Meeting Minutes Page 10 of 16 finance upgrades, etc. are proposed to be funded by ARPA. Communication expense is projected to be $15,700 for fiber optic network. Further research is needed on this expense. • Police – over budget by about $307,000 ($302,000 related to personnel costs) due to: 1) reclassification and reimbursement for the airport services and SRO officer, as previously explained; 2) 3% temporary incentive for two employees; 3) replacement of two police officers, with February and April hire dates; 4) $18,000 savings with internal promotion of lieutenant; 5) change from Coordinator to Manager for emergency services for an increase of $3,298 proposed to be funded by ARPA; 5) intern temporary positions for $10,000 proposed to be funded by ARPA, 6) projected overtime, and 7) fuel costs over by $4,900.

CM Cardenas asked, “How was the $18,000 calculated for Police savings for the Lieutenant position?” Ms. Zarate responded, “I estimated the Sergeant’ssalary through year-end with the trend of overtime through December versus the Lieutenant’s salary beginning in March. The difference is approximately $18,000.” CM Cardenas further asked for detailed figures on that calculation. Ms.

Zarate referred to the ‘Budget Review Exhibits’ showing listing of employees by department. She said, “The employee is listed twice. The Sergeant hours are 400 from January through end of February and the cost for that. The Lieutenant hours are 680 for the promotion in March through end of fiscal year. If this employee stayed in the Sergeant’s position, that would have been, with overtime projected, $239,000 which is total compensation (salary, benefits, and associated personnel costs) versus Lieutenant’s total compensation using Step A, which is $220,000, for a difference/savings of approximately $18,000.”
• Fire – over budget by about $192,000 due to: 1) projected overtime of about $190,000, and 2) fuel costs of about $2,000. As stated in the Revenue section, $222,000 reimbursement is expected for mutual aid services.
• Parks – over budget by about $114,000 due to updated personnel costs for: 1) new manager position; 2) maintenance lead position; 3) event/rental building attendants; 3) facility coordinator, and 4) new maintenance worker hired in October. This totals $107,800 of which $71,496 for manager and maintenance lead positions proposed to be funded by ARPA. Other proposals to be funded by ARPA for $10,744, are a drinking fountain, vegetation maintenance, and manager workstation.
• Building & Planning – over budget by about $25,000 due to updated personnel costs for: 1) new associate planner to be hired in April, and 2) temporary assignment to help scanning with new software, proposed to be funded by ARPA for $1,210. • Cannabis – projected $57,500 not previously in the budget. City has received $63,000 in cannabis application fees.

The fund balance is a measure of our financial resources or our reserves and represents the total accumulated from prior years at a point in time. General Fund balance as of December 31,2021 was February 8, 2022 City of Guadalupe Council Meeting Minutes Page 11 of 16 negative ($139,406.40), due to excessive expenditures over revenue, but property tax revenue in early January will help. By comparison, the fund balance as of 6/30/2021 was $518,375.93. (Full disclosure, the FY 20/21 is currently under audit and may change the fund balance, but it’s not likely to be much.) The General Fund Balance projection shows the City may receive revenues in the amount of $7,066,206, which is $1,023,642 more than was originally budgeted for by the end of the fiscal year. Projected expenditures are to be a total of $6,888,217, an increase of $957,736 more than budgeted, and results in a net of $177,993, a rather small cushion. The fund balance at the end of June 2022 is expected to be $667,346. With the total proposed increases to the budget of $983,996, the total of all departments would be at 45% through the second quarter. It remains a priority for the City to continue to increase the fund balance to establish a minimum reserve of 15% of the General Fund operating budget, which is about $804,117. The City has ARPA funds which must be used by 2024 and is hopeful that cannabis and additional housing developments will bring in added revenue.

Enterprise Funds: Generally speaking, these funds are healthy. For Water, revenue was 48 percent of budget; for Wastewater, 43 percent of budget. Operating expenses for Water was 32 percent and for Wastewater, 19 percent below budget. Projected revenue for all enterprise funds is in line with the budget with a recommendation for a budget amendment for additional expected revenues.

Projected expenses for all enterprise funds are expected to be under budget. City staff recommends budget amendment for additional expected expenditures relating to both the Water and Wastewater Operating Funds for $33,000 and $10,200 respectively, and Transit Fund for $133,729.

Street Funds: Projected revenue in line with budget. Recommendation for budget amendment for additional expected revenues in the amount of $40,000 for Measure A fund and $108,678 for the Gas Tax fund. Projected expenses expected to be under budget. Budget amendment recommended for additional expected expenditures for Measure A in the amount of $56,000.

Other Funds
Public Safety Funds – Budget amendment recommendation to reduce expected revenue by $35,000 (airport service-previously explained in ‘Public Safety Revenue’).

Lighting Funds – Budget amendment recommendation to increase revenue and expenditures in the amount of $2,787, funded by ARPA. Also, a recommended budget amendment for $16,500 for consultant services for documentation preparation.

Park Development Fund – Budget amendment recommendation to increase revenue and expenditures by $75,000 (T-Mobile grant, $50,000 and $25,000, ARPA funds).

CDBG Fund – Budget amendment recommendation to increase revenue and expenditures by $20,000 related to ARPA funds for Los Amigos de Guadalupe services and increase expected revenue by $300,000, donations from Santa Maria Valley Chamber for Le Roy Park.

February 8, 2022 City of Guadalupe Council Meeting Minutes Page 12 of 16 Capital Improvements Projects – The several updates made are: 1) $73,000, planning software; 2) $300,000 for construction of City Council chambers remodel, and $100,000 for the architectural designs, for a total of $400,000 to be funded by ARPA; 3) $75,000 for O’Connell Park ($50,000, TMobile and $25,000, ARPA funds); 4) $50,000 change from street rehabilitation to sidewalks from Measure A; 5) $131,729 for infrastructure improvements for transit ($100,000 for Amtrak station funded by a grant and $31,729 previously approved by Council).

ARPA – Total award is $1,860,000. Proposed allocation of $1,710,434, with $149,566 unallocated.

Based on the findings from the special October 5th ‘ARPA’ meeting, City staff proposes to use $846,743 of these funds in the current fiscal year. Ms. Zarate said, “We’ve only spoken about what we can achieve in the next six (6) months of the fiscal year. Staff would like to continue to come to the Council for decisions on future proposals for use of these ARPA funds for the next couple of years we have to spend these funds.” At this point, Ms. Zarate said that that was the end of her report and asked if the Council or staff had any questions.

Mayor Julian said, “On Parks and Recreation, the new Recreation Services Manager didn’t start until January. The position, though, was budgeted from July through December. Are those just extra funds?” Ms. Zarate said, “Yes, they’re still remaining.” Ms. Gerber, HR, said, “I believe what the mayor is asking is that we originally slated this position to start December 1st. The actual date was January 10th so there would be about one month’s savings.” The mayor then said, “Put in ‘Parks & Recreation Supplies and Equipment’ as there’s very little in there. Yes, ARPA is a moving target. This was a lot of work (referencing the entire 2Q staff report and financial review).” CM Cardenas asked, “Do we use zero-based budgeting?” Ms. Zarate said, “No, currently, we use traditional budgeting which is using prior budgets and work off of that and use actual costs that occurred in prior years as our starting point. Zero-based budgeting is starting from zero, from scratch justifying proposed expenses. You don’t look at the past, you look at the future, as every dollar is accounted for. You estimate what you’re actually going to spend with no cushion. It’s to limit your costs. It’s a very conservative way to approach a budget especially if a city is struggling to maintain or build reserves. In late April we’ll plan for a budget workshop and go from there. But I think it’s a good approach when we’re trying to build reserves.” Mr. Bodem added, “But with zerobased, you can still do the comparisons with prior years.” Ms. Zarate said, “Yes, we have to be realistic, but it’s a good approach to cost savings in various areas.” CM Cardenas further said, “This would be good for us to do. In the next two (2) years, if we continue this trend, we maybe can reach the 15% reserves. That zero-based budgeting could eliminate any inefficiencies that can be rolled over each year.”
There was one email sent in on this item from Shirley Boydstun. CM Cardenas read it. “To:

Guadalupe City Council meeting of February 07, 2022…”For several years the Council has been advised by the AUDITORS and the Financial Director and residents like me that spending by the various departments is out of hand and leaving the general fund, especially, in dire straits. Council shares the responsibility to reign in these expenditures to keep Guadalupe from being the subject of another County Grand Jury directive to perhaps disincorporate…something none of us want to February 8, 2022 City of Guadalupe Council Meeting Minutes Page 13 of 16 happen. It would appear that an unexpected number of people have been added to the payroll…although some may be mitigated through grant funds, yet that brings expenditures for offices, desks, chairs, computers and other items for those agencies. The Covid crisis will not go away soon, and more dependencies will become apparent needing more City assistance. Where will that funding come from? The suggested one percent increase in the utility surcharge, where every resident participates and is a known quantity, may have exceeded the sales tax receipts.” Signed, Shirley Boydstun.”
Mayor Julian added, “Back in 2013, we were $700,000 underwater. We slowly crept up to $37,000 in the black or red. Can’t remember but it’s slowing going towards there being money in the bank.

We can fend off the Grand Jury’s request to get disincorporated. With Pasadera coming online and they start building on the southside of the Santa Maria Railroad, I think without that development, we’d be hurting. With dispensaries, it’s paying for itself where we’re going. There’s a meeting on Wednesday, February 16th, a public hearing on cannabis. I’m in support of what Shirley Boydstun is saying – just because money’s there, don’t just start grabbing, saying I need this, and I need that.” The mayor then asked, “There are needs in this building. There were people roaming around here.

Who were they? Can you give us an update on that?” Ms. Sweeney said, “Representatives from Santa Barbara County and Spectrum. They were looking at the County’s cable feed. Spectrum is required to provide a public access feed. The equipment that we have is rather outdated. The County representative was here with Spectrum upgrading the equipment necessary to provide HD, rather than analog signal. One of the benefits of having work with them is sharing is some of our ideas, such as live streaming, Spanish translation, etc. So, by speaking with them, having all those folded in, also, so that as the County’s doing their upgrade, we can include those elements here in near future. We’re starting to consolidate our equipment in a centralized location to make it easier for maintenance staff.”
Mayor Julian said, “Somewhat related to that, there’s a group, along with Tom Martinez, architect, who did the initial building survey, about how we can integrate everything we’re trying to do, like getting the power, getting all that we need to do… so we’re not doing everything by piece meal. We need to get together.” Ms. Sweeney then said, “That’s one of the reasons we haven’t gone out for any architectural drawings for the Council chambers upgrades. We don’t wish for us to get ahead of ourselves. We need to fold in everyone’s thoughts from the meeting we’ll have on the 15th.” CM Ramirez said, “Hopefully, things will be positive at the end of this fiscal year. Shirley’s point is one that I share in that there are certain departments we tend to need to look over, such as MOUs and re-negotiations. Those, though, are out of our hands. If we’re adding anymore new positions, please have a critical eye on the Big Picture, not a ‘siloed’ picture of your departments. Look at the team aspect of it. I see additions of many management-type positions. We don’t want to get too top heavy and not enough people to actually carry out that work. Or need to rely on temporary help.

You need to have that critical eye to say that we do need that infrastructure, but we need to make things so we’re not dependent on a person but rather making it about a policy or procedure. If anyone of you were to leave, that that knowledge doesn’t go away with you. You’re all valuable February 8, 2022 City of Guadalupe Council Meeting Minutes Page 14 of 16 people and if you left, there’d be a huge void. You all already do the work of two or three people. I see things that we didn’t agree with as a Council but won’t argue the point because of this great financial report here. On grant funded positions, we need to hustle to make sure they don’t leave us.

That’s another one where we have these great people, and the money runs out and then it’s gone.” The mayor said, “In April, when we do the budget study for next year, we need to really look at where we are at that point. Especially with property tax money not coming in, and we see that we’re underbudget a lot. It’s kind of spooky to see that all the time. And we know that we’re going to get those taxes late. Hopefully, HdL is right in saying that that sales tax money will be coming in.” Motion was made by Council Member Costa, Jr. and seconded by Council Member Ramirez to adopt Resolution No. 2022-13. Roll Call Ayes: 5 Noes: 0 5-0 Passed.

11. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
Todd Bodem said to move the “Rent Control Pros and Cons-Presentation” from 2/22 to 3/8 meeting.

He also suggested putting the request to relocate the Vietnam Veterans flagpole. Mayor Julian said to wait for the issues between the City and the American Legion to be resolved. CM Ramirez said, “Isn’t this more an item for the Recreation & Parks Commission to handle since the Veterans Hall is a ‘facility’?” City Attorney Sinco said, “Right now we’re dealing with legal issues and the Post (American Legion) has representation, and I’m working through those issues. As the mayor indicated, we are kind of on the downward slope now. We’ve worked through quite a few of them but there are a few more. Once all legal issues are resolved, then the staff can handle the facility.

Right now, though, there’s not agreement on all issues.” Mayor Julian added, “You’re correct in the sense that that’s a facility, and Parks & Recreation should get a hold of but there are basically two (2) items. One is the flagpole which is on private property.

Before, there was a request to move it to Le Roy Park. Veterans said they wanted it visible to all.

They talked about moving that flagpole and the monument and plaque to the Veterans Building.

There’s not a lot of area there to put it there. The corner building (on Guadalupe & 9th Streets) is privately owned. That building may be sold, and the new owners may want the flagpole removed.

The veterans’ concern is that if the building is sold, a parking space will be put there. One thought is to move it to the actual Veterans Memorial Parking Lot. The Recreation & Parks Commission will handle after the MOU’s done. We’re getting there.”
CM Costa, Jr. said, “I’d like to see if we can get input on traffic on 10th & Peralta Streets. Maybe look at a temporary divide so people aren’t making u-turns. Put up some signs, etc. for the safety of the kids.” He also asked for a review of the ordinance prohibiting vehicles to be parked on the street beyond a 72-hour period. He said, “People have wrecked cars that are sitting on the street for weeks and that’s a safety issue. We have to come up with something to move that car to their driveway and cover or tow at the owner’s expense. There were two cars that were damaged and just sitting in residential areas. There was one on Obispo that was finally moved. There’s another on Campodonico.”
February 8, 2022 City of Guadalupe Council Meeting Minutes Page 15 of 16 Mayor Julian said, “The Chief has shared a lot of requests to have Code Compliance ticket all those people, especially the ones with expired licenses. What would the DMV say about expired licenses? I saw one car with a 2020 license sticker on it.” There was some discussion of cars having “tow” stickers on them. The mayor asked what happens if they don’t move the cars? Chief said, “They’re playing games. In the past, state law said just move it. You could move it a couple of feet and you’re fine. In the past, we could mark vehicles with a chalk mark so we could see. Through lawsuits we now are not allowed to leave anything on the vehicle. Now we’re taking photos. The biggest problem are the trailers, utility-type trailers on the streets. There’s no place to put them.

Unfortunately, they put them in other neighborhoods. People want zero tolerance. They want people put in jail but that’s unrealistic. It’s frustrating.”

12. ANNOUNCEMENTS – COUNCIL ACTIVITY/COMMITTEE REPORTS
Mayor Julian
There will be two (2) council members absent from the March 8th meeting. The most senior council member will chair that meeting.

CalVans has a meeting on Thursday, 2/10, at 10am which is the same time there is a County Park meeting regarding the master plan.

Food Bank: on 2/3, there were 300 families served, or approximately 1,200 individuals.

Baseball Field at O’Connell Park: On Saturday, 2/5, there were 18 volunteers weeding and helping to get the field in shape. The City will be getting a new weed sprayer. City staff, along with the Director of Boys & Girls Club and members, Terry Bauer, who is a teacher at McKenzie, and four (4) Rotary Club youth from Santa Maria were all out there helping to do what needed to be done. These youth go to Righetti High School and live in Orcutt.

Chief Cash
There were citizen complaints from Pasadera resident about the Police giving out tickets. He said that it’s easier if the complaints are called in. Mayor Julian asked, “What were the complaints about?” Chief said, “Speeding. When we did more in-depth investigations, we found out that they were mostly the workers at Pasadera. Craig Smith, the developer, brought it up to us, so we did some surveillance and then told Craig that they’re his employees. So, he’s helping put up signage in the area for speeding and no commercial trucks parking in residential areas” CM Robles
“There’s a new mural project beginning. Stephanie Krouse again will be doing the primary painting of the mural and I’ll be helping her. It will be on the wall next to the Simpatia Restaurant. The February 8, 2022 City of Guadalupe Council Meeting Minutes Page 16 of 16 sketch is done. I’ll let you guys be surprised when you see it. I’ve seen the sketch and it’s really nice. it encompasses what Guadalupe is and what our value is. It’ll be very cool.”

13. ADJOURNMENT
Motion was made by Council Member Cardenas and seconded by Council Member Costa, Jr. to adjourn the meeting. 5-0 Passed. Meeting adjourned at 7:48 p.m.

Prepared by: Approved by:
_________________________________ ______________________________________ Amelia M. Villegas, City Clerk Ariston Julian, Mayor

Agenda Item No. 7D

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GUADALUPE
Agenda of February 22, 2022

_______________________________ _________________________________ Prepared by: Approved by:

Lorena Zarate, Finance Director Todd Bodem, City Administrator SUBJECT: January 2022 Financial Report
RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council accept the January 2022 Financial Report.

DISCUSSION:

The Finance Department has prepared a Financial Report for the fiscal year 2021-2022 through January 2022 for the Council’s and the public’s information. Attached hereto as Attachment No. 1 is the Report.

Staff requests that the City Council accept this report for its information.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. January 2022 Financial Report
Lorena Zarate

City of Guadalupe
Financial Report
Fiscal Year 2021-22 through January 2022
Overview
The fiscal year 2021-22 financial report concentrates on the General Fund and Water/Wastewater Enterprise Funds through January 31st, 2022, or 58 percent of the year expended. The purpose of the report is to provide a status of cash, fund balance and budgeted Revenue and Expenditures versus actual at 58 percent of the fiscal year expended.

General Fund Cash
Total cash as of January 31st, 2022, was $579,695.10. For comparison, the cash balance for January 2021 was $852,061.05.

General Fund Revenue
Actual revenue received through January 31st, 2022 compared to the amended budgeted revenue shows the General Fund below target 49.6 percent of expected revenues.

The table and graph below show General Fund revenue by category. Highlighted in yellow are specific revenue categories that have fallen short as compared to the budget through January 2022. In regard to sales tax revenue, timing delays in payments cause the shortage. Based on the budget review analysis presented on February 8th, in which revenue was projected out for the remainder of the fiscal year based on financial data through December 2021, HDL confirmed that sales tax revenue is still on target as compared to the budget. In regards to franchise fees, currently through December 2021, these also appear underbudget related to the timings of the ATTACHMENT 1

funds, but are expected to be received by the end of the year. The Other Revenue category includes cannabis application fees received in the amount of $63,000, and airport and SRO revenue, among other miscellaneous revenue. The City is still awaiting the mutual aid agreement reimbursement in the amount of $222,678, Chevron grant of $90,000, and REAP/LEAP grants.

General Fund Expenditures
Expenditures are currently under budget at 54 percent expended as compared to the amended budget. The Table and Chart below shows all General Fund Departments and spending trends as of January 31st, 2022. All departments are within budget through January 2022. Overall, expenditures for the General Fund are higher than revenues so far related to the timing of receipt of funds.

Category Budget Actual %
Property Tax 1,575,000 900,706 57.2%
Transfers from other funds 1,216,106 514,746 42.3%
Sales Tax 1,311,345 527,940 40.3%
Utility Users Tax 450,000 256,769 57.1%
Building Permit & Planning 537,930 368,885 68.6%
Business License 272,000 255,525 93.9%
Franchise Fees 260,000 102,596 39.5%
COPS Grant 166,000 121,302 73.1%
Rental of Property 100,000 69,688 69.7%
Administrative Overhead 82,471 48,957 59.4%
Other 1,095,357 336,875 30.8%
Total Revenue 7,066,209 3,503,988 49.6%
Gen. Fund Revenue by Category
DEPARTMENT NAME Amended Budget Actual Spent as of
1/31/2022 58%
City Council 15,070 7,419 49%
Administration 487,530 269,731 55%
City Attorney 120,000 60,290 50%
Finance 548,475 274,995 50%
Non Departmental 667,587 392,214 59%
Building Maintenance 325,723 104,053 32%
Police 2,744,346 1,548,866 56%
Fire 1,338,000 770,653 58%
Parks & Rec 326,099 118,439 36%
Building and Safety 284,060 128,697 45%
Cannabis 57,587 25,032 43%
TOTAL ALL DEPARTMENTS: 6,914,477 3,700,388 54%
2021-22 GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES

General Fund Balance
The term fund balance is used to describe the net position of governmental funds calculated in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP). It is intended to serve as a measure of the financial resources available to the fund. Fund balance represents the total amount accumulated in the fund from prior years at a point in time. The fund balance in the General Fund as of January 31st, 2022 is a positive $241,839.60. As a disclosure, the FY2021 is currently under audit and may change the fund balance. The graph below shows the upward trend through the past several years. As shown in the visual below, the fund balance at the end of January 2021 was $355,862.22 for comparison. A priority for City is to continue to increase the fund balance enough to establish a reserve of a minimum of 15% of the General Fund operating budget, which is $1,037,171. The budget review projection shows the City may receive revenues in the amount of $7,066,206, which is $1,023,642 more than was originally budgeted for, by the end of the fiscal year. The budget review projection also shows total projected expeditures to be $6,888,217, which is $957,736 more than originally budgeted for. The net result is that revenues are projected to exceed and be enough to cover the expected expenses by $177,993.

Furthermore, the fund balance at the end of June 2022 is expected to be $667,346.

ENTERPRISE FUNDS – WATER AND WASTEWATER
The Statement of Revenues and Expenditures through January of fiscal year 2021-22 is shown in the Table below.

The following charts compare budget to actual Revenue and Expense:

The Enterprise funds experienced revenue at 54 percent of budget for Water. Wastewater was slightly below budget at 48 percent of revenue expected for the period.

Water Wastewater

REVENUES
Charges for Services 1,436,415 1,069,242
Interest 2,830 3,122
Other 29,548 99,806
Connection Fees 9,750 -
Developer Fees 46,410 146,250
Total 1,524,954 1,318,420

EXPENSES
Operating 675,697 700,282
Capital - 614,225
Depreciation - -
State Water 474,354 -
Debt Service 108,533 -
Total 1,258,584 1,314,506
Actuals Through Jan
31, 2022

Operating expenses for Water and Wastewater are below budget at 37 percent and 25 percent, respectively.

CONCLUSION
The funds analyzed in this report are generally in line with budget through January. The City needs to continue to look for cost cutting measures and additional revenue sources in order to continue to provide the services the residents expect and for these to be sustainable long-term.

Currently, the City has ARPA funds available, but these are limited. City Staff is hopeful that next year will bring in more revenue, including cannabis and additional housing developments.

Enterprise funds and other funds are general in line with budget and City Staff does not expect any further significant fluctuations in these funds. City Staff will continue to monitor closely and continue to provide a financial report to Council monthly.

Information in this report is unaudited.

Agenda Item No. 7E

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GUADALUPE
Agenda of February 22, 2022

_______________________________ _________________________________ Prepared by: Approved by:

Shannon Sweeney Todd Bodem, City Administrator
Public Works Director/City Engineer
SUBJECT: Local Road Safety Plan
RECOMMENDATION:

That City Council adopt the City of Guadalupe Local Road Safety Plan.

DISCUSSION:

A Local Road Safety Plan (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. Some future grant opportunities involving streets will require that the jurisdiction applying for the grant have an LRSP or equivalent, starting in 2022.

State funding was available to the City of Guadalupe to complete its LRSP. The City received funding for up to 90% of the cost of preparing an LRSP, up to $40,000, on December 14, 2020. $45,000 was included in the FY 21 – 22 budget for completion of this document On May 25, 2021, City Council approved a contract with Minagar and Associates Inc. (Minagar) in the amount of $39,560 to develop an LRSP. Minagar submitted a draft report on October 27, 2021 and held a stakeholders’ meeting on December 14, 2021. Stakeholders invited to that meeting included public safety, Caltrans, politicians, Guadalupe Unified School District, Pasadera development, Curation, and the Guadalupe Business Association. Minagar submitted a revised draft on January 4, 2022 incorporating the comments received by stakeholders.

Once the LRSP is adopted, the City has six months to implement the improvements recommended in the document. Some of the improvements are within the Caltrans right-of-way. The City has submitted an encroachment permit application to Caltrans requesting permission to implement these recommended improvements.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Local Road Safety Plan

2. Resolution No. 2022-14
Shannon Sweeney
December 30, 2021
Prepared for:

ATTACHMENT 1
Final Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)
City of Guadalupe, CA
T

PREPARED BY:

PREPARED FOR:

City of Guadalupe
Department of Public Works
918 Obispo Street
Guadalupe, CA 93434
MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.

Traffic/Civil/Electrical Engineering – ITS – Transportation Planning – CEM 23282 Mill Creek Drive, Suite 120
Laguna Hills, CA 92653
Tel: (949)707-1199
December 30, 2021
o
FINAL
Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) Project
for
City of Guadalupe
State Hwy 166/ W Main St
State Hwy 1/ Cabrillo Hwy/ Guadalupe St
Simas St
Hernandez Dr
4th St
Holly St
Fir St
Elm St
3rd St
Cedar St
Birch St
2nd St
Amber St
Pioneer St
Chapman Dr
Wong St
Sanchez Dr
Obispo St
San Luis Obispo
County
Santa Barbara
County
4 3
2 1
Santa Barbara
County
Santa Barbara
County
Santa Barbara
County
City of Guadalupe Concentration of Collisions by “Cluster” (2015-2020) State Hwy 166/ W Main St
State Hwy 1/ Cabrillo Hwy/ Guadalupe St
Final Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)
City of Guadalupe, CA
MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.
12/30/2021

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

CITY COUNCIL
Mayor: Ariston Julian
Mayor Pro Tem: Tony Ramirez
Council Member: Liliana Cardenas
Council Member: Gilbert Robles
Council Member: Eugene Costa Jr.

PARTNERS
City Departments: Public Works, Planning, Police & Fire Caltrans District 5
Guadalupe Union School District
Santa Barbara County Association of Governments (SBCAG) Guadalupe Chamber of Commerce
General Public of the City of Guadalupe

CITY STAFF
City Administrator: Todd Bodem
Director of Public Works/City Engineer: Shannon Sweeney Chief of Police: Michael Cash
Final Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)
City of Guadalupe, CA
MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.
12/30/2021
Executive Summary
The objective of the City of Guadalupe Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) is to establish a safe transportation environment that has safer roads, safer people, safer speeds, and safer vehicles. As part of this safety plan for the City of Guadalupe, Minagar & Associate’s, Inc. identified, prioritized, and analyzed roadway safety improvements on the City of Guadalupe’s intersections and roadway segments.

This safety plan also provides the proposed countermeasures that address collision patterns for both intersections and roadway segments, to ultimately reduce collisions in the City’s high collision locations.

From December 31, 2015 until December 31, 2020, there has been a total of 42 collisions that included 1 fatality and 47 injured victims. The most common types of collision were rear end, broadside, sideswipe, and vehicle/pedestrian. Primary Collision Factor (PCF) violations that caused the most collisions were Improper Turning, Driving or Bicycling Under the Influence of Alcohol or Drug, Automobile Right of Way, and Unsafe Speed. Victims were mostly drivers and passengers in addition to some pedestrians. There has been 5 collisions involved with pedestrians. The highest number of victims happened to be in the age range of 20 to 24 years old.

A Local Road Safety Plan is a major element to ameliorate transportation and traffic safety within a City.

This LRSP was prepared and developed in compliance with the State and Federal guidelines for eligibility to apply for the funding of Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP). In addition to the provided countermeasures for collision patterns, this Safety Plan also provides the corresponding cost estimates and benefit to cost ratios, to support applications for the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP).

Final Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)
City of Guadalupe, CA
MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.
12/30/2021
Statement of Protection of Data From Discovery and Admissions Per Section 148 of Title 23, United States Code [23 U.S.C. §148(h) (4)] REPORTS DISCOVERY AND ADMISSION INTO EVIDENCE OF CERTAIN REPORTS, SURVEYS, AND INFORMATION—Notwithstanding any other provision of law, reports, surveys, schedules, lists, or data compiled or collected for any purpose relating to this section, shall not be subject to discovery or admitted into evidence in a Federal or State court proceeding or considered for other purposes in any action for damages arising from any occurrence at a location identified or addressed in the reports, surveys, schedules, lists, or other data.

Final Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)
City of Guadalupe, CA
MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.
12/30/2021
Table of Contents

1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 1

2. Vision and Goals ...................................................................................................................................... 2

3. Safety Partners ........................................................................................................................................ 3

3.1 Safety Leadership .............................................................................................................................. 3

3.2 Stakeholders ...................................................................................................................................... 4

4. Process .................................................................................................................................................... 5

4.1 Systemic Approach ............................................................................................................................ 5

4.2 Public Outreach ................................................................................................................................. 6

5. Existing Efforts ......................................................................................................................................... 7

6. Data Analysis and Summary .................................................................................................................... 8

6.1 Overall Summary ............................................................................................................................... 8

6.2 Victim Summary ..............................................................................................................................15

6.3 Pedestrian Crash Summary .............................................................................................................18

6.4 Active Transportation Program (ATP) Summary Data & Maps .......................................................20

7. Emphasis Areas .....................................................................................................................................25

7.1 High Collision Intersections .............................................................................................................26

7.2 High Collision Roadway Segments ..................................................................................................27

7.3 Rear End Collisions Due to Driving or Bicycling Under the Influence of Alcohol or Drug and Unsafe Speed ......................................................................................................................................................28

7.4 Broadside Collisions Due to Improper Turning ...............................................................................29

8. High Collision Locations Identification, Pattern Analysis, and Recommended Improvements .............30

8.1 High Collision Intersections .............................................................................................................32

8.1.1 Intersection 1: State Hwy 166/ W Main St & Obispo St ...........................................................33

8.1.2 Intersection 2: State Hwy 166/ W Main St & State Hwy 1/ Cabrillo Hwy/ Guadalupe St ........34

8.1.3 Intersection 3: W Main St & Pacific Dunes Wy ........................................................................34

8.1.4 Intersection 4: Obispo St & Cedar St ........................................................................................35

8.1.5 Intersection 5: State Hwy 1/ Cabrillo Hwy/ Guadalupe St & 9th St ..........................................35

8.1.6 Intersection 6: Pioneer St & Wong St.......................................................................................35

8.1.7 Intersection 7: Pacific Dunes Wy & Surfbird Ln .......................................................................36

8.1.8 Intersection 8: Hernandez Dr & Mills Ln ..................................................................................36

8.2 High Collision Roadway Segments ..................................................................................................36

8.2.1 Roadway Segment 1: 11th St to Simas Rd .................................................................................37

8.2.2 Roadway Segment 2: State Hwy 1/ Cabrillo Hwy/ Guadalupe St from 8th St to 9th St.............37

9. Collision Diagrams, Preliminary Conceptual Plans for Recommended Improvements at High Collision Intersections and High Collision Roadway Segments, Cost Estimates, and Benefit Cost Ratios ................38

9.1 High Collision Intersections .............................................................................................................39

9.1.1 Intersection 1: State Hwy 166/ W Main St & Obispo St ...........................................................39

9.1.1.1 Intersection 1 Cost Estimate and Cost/Benefit Analysis ...................................................41

9.1.2 Intersection 2: State Hwy 166/ W Main St & State Hwy 1/ Cabrillo Hwy/ Guadalupe St ........42

9.1.2.1 Intersection 2 Cost Estimate and Cost/Benefit Analysis ...................................................44

9.1.3 Intersection 3: W Main St & Pacific Dunes Wy ........................................................................45

9.1.3.1 Intersection 3 Cost Estimate and Cost/Benefit Analysis ...................................................47

9.1.4 Intersection 4: Obispo St & Cedar St ........................................................................................47

9.1.4.1 Intersection 4 Cost Estimate and Cost/Benefit Analysis ...................................................49

9.1.5 Intersection 5: State Hwy 1/ Cabrillo Hwy/ Guadalupe St & 9th St ..........................................50

9.1.5.1 Intersection 5 Cost Estimate and Cost/Benefit Analysis ...................................................52 Final Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)
City of Guadalupe, CA
MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.
12/30/2021

9.1.6 Intersection 6: Pioneer St & Wong St.......................................................................................53

9.1.6.1 Intersection 6 Cost Estimate and Cost/Benefit Analysis ...................................................55

9.1.7 Intersection 7: Pacific Dunes Wy & Surfbird Ln .......................................................................55

9.1.7.1 Intersection 7 Cost Estimate and Cost/Benefit Analysis .......................................................57

9.1.8 Intersection 8: Hernandez Dr & Mills Ln ..................................................................................58

9.1.8.1 Intersection 8 Cost Estimate and Cost/Benefit Analysis ...................................................60

9.2 High Collision Roadway Segments ..................................................................................................61

9.2.1 Roadway Segment 1: 11th St to Simas Rd .................................................................................61

9.2.1.1 Roadway Segment 1 Cost Estimate and Cost/Benefit Analysis ........................................63

9.2.2 Roadway Segment 2: State Hwy 1/ Cabrillo Hwy/ Guadalupe St from 8th St to 9th St.............64

9.2.2.1 Roadway Segment 2 Cost Estimate and Cost/Benefit Analysis ........................................66 List of Tables
Table 1: Number of Collisions per Day of Week per Time ..........................................................................13 Table 2: City of Guadalupe ATP Number of Collisions per Day of Week per Time .....................................24 Table 3: City of Guadalupe Engineering Countermeasures Toolbox ..........................................................31 Table 4: List of High Collision Intersections ................................................................................................32 Table 5: Intersection Number of Collisions and Ranking in the City of Guadalupe ....................................32 Table 6: Intersection 1 Number of Collisions and Corresponding Primary Collision Factor .......................33 Table 7: Intersection 2 Number of Collisions and Corresponding Primary Collision Factor .......................34 Table 8: Intersection 3 Number of Collisions and Corresponding Primary Collision Factor .......................34 Table 9: Intersection 4 Number of Collisions and Corresponding Primary Collision Factor .......................35 Table 10: Intersection 5 Number of Collisions and Corresponding Primary Collision Factor .....................35 Table 11: Intersection 6 Number of Collisions and Corresponding Primary Collision Factor ..................... 35 Table 12: Intersection 7 Number of Collisions and Corresponding Primary Collision Factor .....................36 Table 13: Intersection 8 Number of Collisions and Corresponding Primary Collision Factor .....................36 Table 14: List of High Collision Roadway Segments ....................................................................................36 Table 15: Roadway Segment Number of Collisions and Ranking in the City of Guadalupe .......................37 Table 16: Roadway Segment 1 Number of Collisions and Corresponding Primary Collision Factor ..........37 Table 17: Roadway Segment 2 Number of Collisions and Corresponding Primary Collision Factor ..........37 Table 18: Intersection 1 Cost Estimate .......................................................................................................41 Table 19: Intersection 2 Cost Estimate .......................................................................................................44 Table 20: Intersection 3 Cost Estimate .......................................................................................................47 Table 21: Intersection 4 Cost Estimate .......................................................................................................49 Table 22: Intersection 5 Cost Estimate .......................................................................................................52 Table 23: Intersection 6 Cost Estimate .......................................................................................................55 Table 24: Intersection 7 Cost Estimate .......................................................................................................57 Table 25: Intersection 8 Cost Estimate .......................................................................................................60 Table 26: Roadway Segment 1 Cost Estimate .............................................................................................63 Table 27: Roadway Segment 2 Cost Estimate .............................................................................................66 Final Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)
City of Guadalupe, CA
MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.
12/30/2021
List of Figures
Figure 1: Local Road Safety Plan – Your Map to Safer Roadways ................................................................. 1 Figure 2: City of Guadalupe Display of Collisions by Point (December 31, 2015 - December 31, 2020) ...... 9 Figure 3: City of Guadalupe Display of Collisions by Cluster (December 31, 2015 - December 31, 2020) . 10 Figure 4: City of Guadalupe Number of Collisions by Collision Severity .....................................................11 Figure 5: Number of Collisions by Type of Collision....................................................................................12 Figure 6: Number of Collisions by (PCF) Primary Collision Factor Violation ...............................................14 Figure 7: Number of Victims by Victim Degree of Injury ............................................................................15 Figure 8: Number of Victims by Victim Role ...............................................................................................16 Figure 9: Number of Victims by Victim Safety Equipment ..........................................................................17 Figure 10: Number of Victims by Victim Gender and Age ..........................................................................17 Figure 11: City of Guadalupe Number of Collisions by Type of Violation ...................................................18 Figure 12: City of Guadalupe Number of Collisions by Pedestrian Action ..................................................18 Figure 13: City of Guadalupe Number of Collisions by Lighting..................................................................18 Figure 14: City of Guadalupe Number of Collisions by Weather ................................................................19 Figure 16: City of Guadalupe Active Transportation Program Heat Map ...................................................20 Figure 17: City of Guadalupe Active Transportation Program Hexagonal Grid Map ..................................21 Figure 18: City of Guadalupe Active Transportation Program Specific Collision Map ................................22 Figure 19: City of Guadalupe Number of Collisions by Collision Severity ...................................................23 Figure 20: City of Guadalupe Number of Collisions by Type of Collisions ..................................................23 Figure 21: City of Guadalupe Number of Collisions by PCF Violation .........................................................24 Figure 22: Intersection 1 Collision Diagram (4 Collisions)...........................................................................39 Figure 23: Intersection 2 Collision Diagram (3 Collisions)...........................................................................42 Figure 24: Intersection 3 Collision Diagram (3 Collisions)...........................................................................45 Figure 25: Intersection 5 Collision Diagram (2 Collisions)...........................................................................50 Figure 26: Intersection 6 Collision Diagram (1 Collision) ..........................................................................53 Figure 27: Intersection 8 Collision Diagram (1 Collision) ...........................................................................58 Figure 28: Roadway Segment 1 Collision Diagram (1 Collision)..................................................................61 Figure 29: Roadway Segment 2 Collision Diagram (1 Collision)..................................................................64 Final Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)
City of Guadalupe, CA
MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.
12/30/2021
List of Acronyms
AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials B/C Ratio Benefit-Cost Ratio
Caltrans California Department of Transportation
City City of Guadalupe
CMF Crash Modification Factor
CRF Crash Reduction Factor
DUI Driving Under the Influence
FHWA Federal Highway Administration
HSIP Highway Safety Improvement Program
HSM Highway Safety Manual
LRSM Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.5, April 2020) LRSP Local Roadway Safety Plan
MUTCD Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices
PCF Primary Collision Factor
SHSP Strategic Highway Safety Plan
SWITRS Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System
TIMS Transportation Injury Mapping System
5Es The 5Es of Traffic Safety: Education, Engineering, Enforcement, Emergency Medical Services, Emerging Technologies
Final Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)
City of Guadalupe, CA
1 MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.
12/30/2021

1. Introduction
The City of Guadalupe is taking the initiative to improve the City’s traffic safety by implementing a Local Roadway Safety Plan that aims to reduce traffic collisions by analyzing the factors that previously impacted prominent intersections and roadway segments in the City. This report documents the City of Guadalupe’s work to assess and improve transportation safety conditions.

In this Safety Plan, a systemic approach was utilized to identify and analyze collision patterns that had impacted high collision intersections and roadway segments. For each high collision location, whether it was an intersection or a roadway segment, a table of number of collisions with the corresponding primary collision factor has been provided to understand the prominent collision factors. As part of the collision analysis, collision diagrams have been provided for high collision intersections and roadway segments in the City of Guadalupe.

Following the understanding and acknowledgement of collision patterns, countermeasures for each of the identified high collision intersections and roadway segments, were developed to potentially reduce traffic collisions in the future and ameliorate active transportation within the City. Furthermore, this Local Roadway Safety Plan includes collision data for high collision locations between December 31, 2015 and December 31, 2020, the analysis of collision data, and the proposed countermeasures for collision patterns. Depicted below in Figure 1 is the Local Road Safety Plan process provided by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA).

Figure 1: Local Road Safety Plan – Your Map to Safer Roadways Source: Federal Highway Administration
Final Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)
City of Guadalupe, CA
2 MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.
12/30/2021

2. Vision and Goals
The objective of this plan is to strive towards a safer transportation environment by eliminating traffic fatalities and severe injuries while assuring efficient and equitable mobility for all road users. The City of Guadalupe plans to implement systemic countermeasures to target factors affecting citywide prominent intersections and roadways segments. This safety plan aims to reduce the risk of tragedies by taking a proactive, preventative approach that prioritizes traffic safety.

Vision Zero is an initiative approach to eliminate traffic fatalities and severe injuries. Road users will sometimes make mistakes however, the road system, traffic control devices, and traffic laws should be designed to minimize those unavoidable mistakes and reduce their probability to result in severe injuries or fatalities. Transportation and traffic engineers are expected to improve the general traffic environment by ameliorating existing traffic geometries and laws based on a good engineering judgement. However, the roadway users of the City of Guadalupe are still responsible for their mistakes and should follow all traffic laws.

Vision Zero unifies diverse stakeholders who
address the factors causing complexity when it
comes to traffic safety. It recognizes that many
factors contribute to safe mobility including
roadway design, speeds, behaviors, technology,
and enforced laws. As a result and as part of this
safety plan, it sets goals to achieve zero fatalities
and severe injuries.

One of the City’s visions is to collaborate with
local agencies to promote a culture of
continuous transportation safety improvement
by coordinating with the Guadalupe Police
Department, Santa Barbara Department of
Public Health, and Guadalupe Union School
District.

The aforementioned Vision shall eliminate traffic fatalities and severe injuries by achieving the following goals:
 Obtain accurate collision databases. Systematically identify and prioritize the City’s highest collision locations based on a 5-year collision history.  Engage with the local community, stakeholders, and City management to better understand factors that are affecting the traffic safety within the City of Guadalupe.  Analyze and implement countermeasures utilizing strategies across all traffic safety disciplines, engineering, enforcement, education, emergency medical services, and emerging technologies.  Strive to reduce the City’s primary contributing factors in traffic collisions by ensuring the automobile right of way, maintaining a safe speed, and clear traffic signals and signs.

Source: www.archive.kpcc.org
Source: www.visionzeronetwrok.org
Source: U.S. Department of Transportation
Final Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)
City of Guadalupe, CA
3 MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.
12/30/2021

3. Safety Partners
To promote and create a safe transportation environment, collaboration across agencies known as safety partners is a necessity. Safety partners are the agencies, departments, and organizations whose input and support are foundational to a successful Local Roadway Safety Plan.

The safety leadership team is primarily comprised of City Departments that have key roles in the development, implementation, and operation of safety projects, programs, and policies. The safety leadership team is ultimately responsible for developing, adopting, and implementing the safety plan and program. The stakeholder team is distinguished from the leadership team. It comprises partner agencies and organizations who collaborate with the City and contribute to and assist with developing and implementing the plan. These agencies and their roles in the plan’s development and implementation are provided below:

3.1 Safety Leadership
I. City Council
The legislative body which is ultimately responsible for approving and adopting the final plan, setting safety policies, and approving budget and funding levels.

II. Public Works Department
Public Works is the lead City Department in developing and producing the Safety Plan and its periodic updates. The Public Works Department is responsible for assembling other City Departments and collaborating with Stakeholders. Public Works is responsible for capital project implementation. The City’s Public Works staff may also lead or collaborate in education campaigns.

III. Guadalupe Police Department
The Police Department maintains collision records and is responsible for carrying out enforcement practices and activities. The City’s Police Department may also lead or collaborate in education campaigns.

IV. Guadalupe Fire Department
The City’s Fire Department serves in a support role in developing and producing the plan.

Final Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)
City of Guadalupe, CA
4 MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.
12/30/2021

3.2 Stakeholders
I. Guadalupe Union School District
Collaboration with the Guadalupe Union School District to maintain and promote safety for all students within the City of Guadalupe.

II. Guadalupe Police Department
Roadways and functional areas of intersections require communication and collaboration. Collaboration with the Guadalupe Police Department over the course of the safety plan is needed to ensure that local safety goals and policies are met.

III. Santa Barbara County Association of Governments (SBCAG) The Santa Barbara County Association of Governments is a regional planning agency comprised of Santa Barbara County and all eight incorporated cities within the county. SBCAG distributes local, state, and federal transportation funds and acts as a forum for addressing regional and multi-jurisdictional issues.

IV. Caltrans District 5
Caltrans District 5 has jurisdiction over State Highway 1 known as the Pacific Coast Highway and State Highway 166. Caltrans District 5 also has jurisdiction over many intersections and roadway segments in the City of Guadalupe. Caltrans provides feedback on developing this Local Roadway Safety Plan and its resulting program in context to regional planning and potential funding issuance.

V. Guadalupe Business Association
The Guadalupe Business Association coordinates engagement with City businesses. The Business Association provides feedback on recommended strategies and countermeasures to addressing traffic safety issues. Feedback from the Business community can provide valuable insight on the benefits and impacts of safety measures.

VI. General Public of the City of Guadalupe
The general public provides feedback and insight on recommended emphasis areas, high incident locations, collision factors, countermeasures, and implementation. Although collision records and statistics are foundational to this plan, public feedback is a critical supplement to that data. This feedback provides the safety plan with a holistic view of safety issues and a recommendation for what types of countermeasures are and are not desired by the community.

Final Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)
City of Guadalupe, CA
5 MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.
12/30/2021

4. Process
This section describes the steps involved in preparing the safety plan, including a systemic approach that involves the analysis of collision data to identify high crash locations and prioritize countermeasures.

4.1 Systemic Approach
The systemic approach in preparing the safety plan comprises the following steps:

I. Develop Plan Goals and Objectives
Review the City’s existing planning documents to ensure the LRSP visions and goals align with planning effort and that the potential 5Es: Engineering, Education, Enforcement, Emergency Medical Services, and Emerging Technologies are consistent with local traffic safety and policies.

II. Analyze Collision Data
Obtain the latest 5-year collision data and analyze the collision factors. Determine high-risk intersections and roadway segments and identify significant risk factors.

III. Determine Focus Areas and Identify Crash Reduction Measures Identify emphasis areas and recommend feasible countermeasures at high-risk locations. Evaluate Crash Reduction Factor (CRF) and the effectiveness of each countermeasure.

IV. Prioritize countermeasures/projects
Conduct Benefit-Cost Ratio (BCR) analysis on all countermeasures and projects. Prioritize projects that are most beneficial to the City’s roadway and intersection safety using BCR.

V. Prepare the Local Roadway Safety Plan
Prepare the LRSP that includes effective and efficient measures and implementation plan. Identify priority projects for state or federal programming, grant funding opportunities, and implementation.

Final Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)
City of Guadalupe, CA
6 MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.
12/30/2021

4.2 Public Outreach
The purpose of public outreach is to acquire the community’s concerns that are related to the safety of traffic. Such concerns include speeding, jay walking, traffic signs and signals, pedestrian and bicycle safety on collector roads, and arterial streets. Public outreach is an essential tool to identify and summarize high-risk locations and collision factors based on the community’s concerns in addition to the collision analysis.

The target audience for the public outreach of this safety plan is the residents of the City of Guadalupe which include the following:
 City Council
 Public Works
 Guadalupe Police Department
 Guadalupe Fire Department
 Guadalupe Union School District
 Santa Barbara County Association of Governments (SBCAG)  Guadalupe Business Association
 General Public of the City of Guadalupe
Final Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)
City of Guadalupe, CA
7 MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.
12/30/2021

5. Existing Efforts
This section summarizes the findings from various planning documents for the City of Guadalupe. The purpose of reviewing existing planning efforts is to ensure the LRSP goals and objectives along with recommended improvements are aligned with recent planning efforts for transportation safety.

The City of Guadalupe has identified several goals, policies from the following documents:
 2040 Draft General Plan (2018)
This General Plan document represents the official adopted goals, objectives, policies, and programs for the City of Guadalupe. This general plan is critical to the planning and local policy decision making process for the development of the Local Roadway Safety Plan as it utilizes community engagement, policy development, and field research to shape the future development of the City.
 Guadalupe Mobility + Revitalization Draft Plan (2019) This plan intends to enhance connectivity and mobility options within the City of Guadalupe taking into account the specific regional setting of Guadalupe in relation to the ocean and dunes to the west and the City of Santa Maria to the east. The key objective of this plan is to identify needs, gaps, opportunities, and community values to help inform decision makers on what type of conceptual improvements could enhance mobility for pedestrian and cyclists by creating a complete streets environment and an overall better active transportation system.  2040 Santa Barbara County Regional Transportation Plan and Sustainable Communities Strategy Final Environmental Impact Report (2013)
This Environmental Impact Report (EIR) identifies and describes potential environmental impacts associated with implementation of the 2040 Regional Transportation Plan-Sustainable Communities Strategy (2040 RTP-SCS) proposed by the Santa Barbara County Association of Governments (SBCAG).
 Guadalupe Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (2014)
This plan performed a full assessment of the existing bicycle conditions and pedestrian network.

It proposed improvements and support facilities and offered direction for education programs to increase public awareness and community support.

Final Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)
City of Guadalupe, CA
8 MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.
12/30/2021

6. Data Analysis and Summary
This section summarizes the results of a citywide collision analysis for the time period between December 31, 2015 and December 31, 2020. The purpose of studying the collision patterns and trends is to identify the factors that caused collisions to occur within the study timeframe. The focus is to identify high crash locations in the City in order to target the factors that are affecting these prominent locations.

6.1 Overall Summary
According to the Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS) map on the University of California, Berkeley Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS), during the period of December 31, 2015 to December 31, 2020, there were 42 collisions in total. 1 victim was killed, and 47 victims were injured. There were 7 pedestrian collisions (16.7% of total), 14 state highway collisions (33%), and no bike or motorcycle collisions. A map that displays collisions by point as well as a map that displays collisions by cluster is shown in Figures 2 and 3.

Final Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)
City of Guadalupe, CA
9 MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.
12/30/2021
Figure 2: City of Guadalupe Display of Collisions by Point (December 31, 2015 - December 31, 2020) Source: University of California, Berkeley Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS) San Luis
State Hwy 166/ W Main St
Pacific Dunes Wy
Santa
W Main St
State Hwy 1/ Cabrillo Hwy State Hwy 1/ Cabrillo Hwy/
Obispo St
Pioneer St
Wong St
Cedar St
Mills Ln
Hernandez Dr
Simas Rd
8th St
Final Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)
City of Guadalupe, CA
10 MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.
12/30/2021
Figure 3: City of Guadalupe Display of Collisions by Cluster (December 31, 2015 - December 31, 2020) Cluster of Collisions Scale
Source: University of California, Berkeley Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS) San Luis
Santa
State Hwy 1/ Cabrillo Hwy
W Main St State Hwy 166/ W Main St Simas Rd Obispo St Pioneer St Hernandez Dr
Mills Ln
Pacific Dunes Wy
Cedar St
Wong St
8th St
Final Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)
City of Guadalupe, CA
11 MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.
12/30/2021
Figure 4: City of Guadalupe Number of Collisions by Collision Severity Source: University of California, Berkeley Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS) University of California, Berkeley Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS) generated several graphs to detail City of Guadalupe’s collisions in the 5-year period. Figure 4 displays number of collisions by collision severity. From 2015 to 2020, there was 1 fatal collision, which was 2.38% of total collisions; 2 injury (severe) collisions, which was 4.76% of total collisions; 9 injury (other visible) collisions (21.43% of total collisions); and 30 injury (complaint of pain) collisions, which took the highest percentage of total collisions in the city (71.43%).

Total 42 100%
Final Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)
City of Guadalupe, CA
12 MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC. 12/30/2021
Figure 5: Number of Collisions by Type of Collision
Source: University of California, Berkeley Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS) From 2015 to 2020, City of Guadalupe’s types of collision were reported by University of California, Berkeley Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS). There were 12 rear end collisions during the selected period of time. This was the most common type of collision, which was 28.57% of total collisions in the City of Guadalupe. Broadside was the second common type, which was 26.19% of the total (11 collisions). There were 7 sideswipe collisions, making it the third common type of collision (16.67% of the total). Vehicle/pedestrian collisions took 14.29% of total collisions in the city. There were 3 collisions that were not stated (approximately 7.14% of the total). For head-on, overturned, and other types of collision, each category was approximately 2.38% of the total collisions in the City of Guadalupe.

Total 42 100%
Final Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)
City of Guadalupe, CA
13 MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC. 12/30/2021
Table 1: Number of Collisions per Day of Week per Time
Source: University of California, Berkeley Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS) Collisions in the City of Guadalupe were listed for different time periods for each day of the week. 2 collisions occurred on Mondays for each time period from 6:00 to 8:59 and from 15:00 to 17:59. 1 collision occurred for each time period from 0:00 to 2:59 and from 18:00 to 20:59.

Tuesdays from 15:00 to 17:59 was the time period that most collisions occurred in the City of Guadalupe. 5 collisions were recorded to happen during this 3-hour period. 1 collision occurred for each time period from 0:00 to 2:59 and from 6:00 to 8:59.

On Wednesdays, TIMS recorded 1 collision for each time period from 6:00 to 8:59, 0:00 to 11:59, and 21:00 to 23:59.
3 collisions occurred during the period from 18:00 to 20:59 on Thursdays. 1 collision occurred for each time period from 6:00 to 8:59, 9:00 to 11:59, 12:00 to 14:59, and 15:00 to 17:59.

There were 3 collisions from 6:00 to 8:59 on Fridays, and 1 collision for each time period from 0:00 to 2:59, 9:00 to 11:59, 12:00 to 14:59, 15:00 to 17:59, and 18:00 to 20:59.

On Saturdays, 2 collisions were recorded during the period from 21:00 to 23:59. 1 collision occurred for each time period from 6:00 to 8:89, 12:00 to 14:59, and 15:00 to 17:59. 3 collisions were recorded from 9:00 to 11:59 on Sundays. 2 collisions occurred from 18:00 to 20:59, and 1 collision occurred from 12:00 to 14:59.

Final Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)
City of Guadalupe, CA
14 MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC. 12/30/2021
Figure 6: Number of Collisions by (PCF) Primary Collision Factor Violation Source: University of California, Berkeley Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS) According to University of California, Berkeley Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS), the Primary Collision Factor (PCF) violation that caused the most collisions in the City of Guadalupe was improper turning, which resulted in 12 collisions (30% of total collisions). 7 collisions were reported with unknown PCF violation (17.5%). The third PCF violation in the ranking chart was driving or bicycling under the influence of alcohol or drug (DUI) with a total of 5 collisions (12.5%). Automobile right of way violation resulted in 4 collisions, or 10% of total collisions in the city. Unsafe speed caused 3 collisions, or

7.5% of the total. Pedestrian violation and unsafe starting or backing both resulted in 2 collisions (5%) each. Other PCF violations that caused 1 collision (2.5%) are traffic signals and signs, brakes, other equipment, other than driver (or pedestrian), and other improper turning.

Total 40 100%
Final Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)
City of Guadalupe, CA
15 MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC. 12/30/2021

6.2 Victim Summary
Figure 7: Number of Victims by Victim Degree of Injury
Source: University of California, Berkeley Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS) There were 48 victims of traffic collisions in the City of Guadalupe from 2015 to 2020. 1 victim was killed (2.08%), 2 victims were reported with suspected serious injury (4.17%), 10 were reported with suspected minor injury (20.83%), and 35 victims were reported with possible injury (72.92%).

Total 48 100%
Final Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)
City of Guadalupe, CA
16 MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC. 12/30/2021
Figure 8: Number of Victims by Victim Role
Source: University of California, Berkeley Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS) According to University of California, Berkeley Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS), of the collision victims, there were 30 drivers (62.50%), 11 passengers (22.92%), and 7 pedestrians (14.58%).

Total 48 100%
Final Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)
City of Guadalupe, CA
17 MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC. 12/30/2021
Figure 9: Number of Victims by Victim Safety Equipment
Figure 10: Number of Victims by Victim Gender and Age
Source: University of California, Berkeley Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS) For the total of 48 victims during the 5-year period, 54% of them were females, 40% were males, and 6% were not stated. 7 victims were in the category of unknown age, 6 were from 20-24 years old, 5 were from 15-19 years old, 4 victims for each of the following categories: 14 years old and younger, 25-29, 30- 34 and 35-39. From 65-69 years old, there were 3 victims. 2 victims were reported for each of the following categories: 40-44, 45-49, 50-54, and 60-64 years old. There was 1 victim for each of these following groups: 55-59, 70-74, and 75-79 years old.

Source: University of California, Berkeley Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS) Total 48 100%
Legend:

Females
Males
Not Stated
Final Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)
City of Guadalupe, CA
18 MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC. 12/30/2021

6.3 Pedestrian Crash Summary
Figure 12: City of Guadalupe Number of Collisions by Pedestrian Action Source: University of California, Berkeley Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS) Figure 13: City of Guadalupe Number of Collisions by Lighting Source: University of California, Berkeley Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS) Source: University of California, Berkeley Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS) Figure 11: City of Guadalupe Number of Collisions by Type of Violation Total 7 100%
Total 7 100%
Total 7 100%
Final Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)
City of Guadalupe, CA
19 MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC. 12/30/2021
Figure 14: City of Guadalupe Number of Collisions by Weather Source: University of California, Berkeley Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS) Final Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)
City of Guadalupe, CA
20 MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC. 12/30/2021

6.4 Active Transportation Program (ATP) Summary Data & Maps From 2015 to 2020 there has been 5 pedestrian collisions, 0 bicycle collisions, and 0 motorcycle collisions. Out of the 5 pedestrian collisions, 1 was identified as severe injury and 4 were identified as complaint of pain. The following figure displays the City’s ATP heat map.

Figure 15: City of Guadalupe Active Transportation Program Heat Map Source: University of California, Berkeley Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS) Final Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)
City of Guadalupe, CA
21 MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC. 12/30/2021
Figure 16: City of Guadalupe Active Transportation Program Hexagonal Grid Map Source: University of California, Berkeley Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS) Final Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)
City of Guadalupe, CA
22 MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC. 12/30/2021
Figure 17: City of Guadalupe Active Transportation Program Specific Collision Map Source: University of California, Berkeley Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS) Final Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)
City of Guadalupe, CA
23 MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC. 12/30/2021
Figure 18: City of Guadalupe Number of Collisions by Collision Severity Source: University of California, Berkeley Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS) According to University of California, Berkeley Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS), from 2015 to 2020, there was 1 Injury (Severe) collision, which counted for 20 % of total 5 collisions and 4 collisions were identified as Injury (Complaint of Pain) which counted for 80 % of the total collisions.

Figure 19: City of Guadalupe Number of Collisions by Type of Collisions Source: University of California, Berkeley Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS) Total 5 100%
Final Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)
City of Guadalupe, CA
24 MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC. 12/30/2021
Table 2: City of Guadalupe ATP Number of Collisions per Day of Week per Time Source: University of California, Berkeley Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS) Figure 20: City of Guadalupe Number of Collisions by PCF Violation Source: University of California, Berkeley Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS) According to University of California, Berkeley Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS) From 2015 to 2020, out of the 5 collisions, 2 collisions had (00-Unknown) as a PCF Violation, 2 collisions had (11- Pedestrian Violation) as a PCF Violation, and 1 collision had (16-Other Equipment) as a PCF Violation.

Total 5 100%
Number of Collision by Primary Collision Factor (PCF) Violation 5 Collisions
Final Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)
City of Guadalupe, CA
25 MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC. 12/30/2021

7. Emphasis Areas
The project team identified four major emphasis areas for the City by utilizing the aforementioned analysis that included primary collision factors. The Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) addresses the “5 Es” of traffic safety: Engineering, Enforcement, Education, Emergency Response, and Emerging Technologies. Each emphasis area utilizes the 5 Es addressed by SHSP, the following emphasis areas are discussed and analyzed in this section.

1. High Collision Intersections

2. High Collision Roadway Segments

3. Rear End Collisions Due to Driving or Bicycling Under the Influence of Alcohol and Unsafe Speeds

4. Broadside Collisions Due to Improper Turning.

Final Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)
City of Guadalupe, CA
26 MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC. 12/30/2021

7.1 High Collision Intersections
The most prominent emphasis area is high collision intersections since most of the collisions in the City of Guadalupe occurred on intersections.

Each intersection has its own unique geometry therefore, an analysis of each of the prominent eight (8) intersections in the City of Guadalupe was concluded to understand the factors leading to collisions.

Education
 Conduct public information and education
campaign for safety laws regarding a safe
approach to an intersection.
 Raise awareness of the necessity of abiding by
the traffic safety laws.

Engineering
 Identify and rank high collision intersections within the City every two to three years.

Consider information obtained from public input and feedback regarding unreported collisions to supplement crash data.
 Evaluate the primary factors leading to collisions at high collision roadway segments.  Develop and implement countermeasures to tackle those factors.  Assess and report collision patterns before and after implementation of countermeasures and adjust as necessary.
 Maintain roadway signing and striping.
 Consider improving night time lighting.

Enforcement
 Prioritize patrol patterns at high-risk intersections to monitor traffic law violations which include right of way violations, traffic signals and signs, unsafe speed, and DUI.  When laws are enforced and awareness of abiding by traffic safety laws is raised, intersection collisions will reduce abundantly.

Emergency Medical Services
 Consider targeted training for responding to specific high collision intersections and immediate treatment of predominant injuries at those locations.

Emerging Technologies
 Develop new methods to integrate multisource transportation data for developing different measurements of traffic safety for road users and identify safety issues associated with emerging electrical and automated vehicles.

Final Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)
City of Guadalupe, CA
27 MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC. 12/30/2021

7.2 High Collision Roadway Segments
Applying safety improvements to high collision roadway segments is also a necessity. Each roadway segment has its own unique geometry therefore, an analysis of each of the prominent two (2) roadway segments in the City of Guadalupe was concluded to understand the factors leading to collisions that occurred.

Education
 Conduct public information and education campaign for safety laws regarding safe speed, improper turning, unsafe lane change, and driving on the wrong side of the road
 Raise awareness of the necessity of abiding by the traffic safety laws.

Engineering
 Identify and rank high collision roadway segments within the City every two to three years. Consider information obtained from public input and feedback regarding unreported collisions to supplement crash data.
 Evaluate the primary factors leading to collisions at high collision roadway segments.  Develop and implement countermeasures to tackle those factors.  Assess and report collision patterns before and after implementation of countermeasures and adjust as necessary.
 Maintain roadway signing and striping.
 Consider improving night time lighting.

Enforcement
 Prioritize patrol patterns at high collision roadway segments to monitor traffic law violations which include unsafe speed and improper turning.  When laws are enforced and awareness of abiding by traffic safety laws is raised, roadway segment collisions will reduce abundantly.

Emergency Medical Services
 Consider targeted training for responding to specific high collision roadway segments and immediate treatment of predominant injuries at those locations.

Emerging Technologies
 Develop new methods to integrate multisource transportation data for developing different measurements of traffic safety for road users and identify safety issues associated with emerging electrical and automated vehicles.

Source: Beverly Samperio, The Arrow
Final Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)
City of Guadalupe, CA
28 MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC. 12/30/2021

7.3 Rear End Collisions Due to Driving or Bicycling
Under the Influence of Alcohol or Drug and
Unsafe Speed
Rear End collisions ranked the highest type of collisions with a total count of twelve (12) collisions. Fifty percent (50%) of rear end collisions occurred due to the primary collision factors, DUI and unsafe speed. Most rear end collisions occurred on intersections while some unsafe speed collisions occurred on roadway segments. Due to the sufficient correspondence between rear end collisions and unsafe speed and DUI collisions both were analyzed simultaneously.

Education
 Conduct public information and education campaign for safety laws regarding the undesired risks of drinking and driving and as well as maintaining a safe speed.
 Raise awareness of the necessity of not drinking while driving and maintaining a safe speed to avoid many
undesired tragic events such as rear end collisions.

Engineering
 Identify locations where rear end collisions due to DUI and unsafe speed are occurring within the City every two to three years.
 Consider information obtained from public input and feedback regarding unreported collisions to supplement crash data.
 Develop and implement countermeasures to tackle rear end collisions due to unsafe speed.
 Assess and report collision patterns before and after implementation of countermeasures and adjust as necessary.

Enforcement
 Prioritize patrol patterns at DUI and high speed locations to monitor traffic law violations which include DUI not maintaining a safe speed while operating a vehicle.  When laws are enforced and awareness of abiding by traffic safety laws and signs is raised, rear end collisions due to DUI and unsafe speed will reduce.

Emergency Medical Services
 Consider targeted training for responding to DUI and high speed locations and immediate treatment of predominant injuries at those locations.

Emerging Technologies
 Develop new methods to integrate multisource transportation data for developing different measurements of traffic safety for road users and identify safety issues associated with emerging electrical and automated vehicles.

Source: www.quoteinspector.com
Final Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)
City of Guadalupe, CA
29 MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC. 12/30/2021

7.4 Broadside Collisions Due to Improper Turning
Broadside collisions ranked the second highest type of collisions with a total count of eleven (11) collisions. Fifty-five percent (55%) of broadside collisions occurred due to the primary collision factor, improper turning. Most broadside and automobile right of way collisions occurred on intersections. Due to the sufficient correspondence between broadside and improper turning collisions both broadside and improper turning collisions were analyzed simultaneously.

Education
 Conduct public information and education campaign for safety laws regarding a proper turning by yielding to an automobile that has the right of way.
 Raise awareness of the necessity of abiding by the traffic safety laws to avoid broadside collisions that occur mostly due to improper turning by not give an automobile the right of way.

Engineering
 Identify locations where broadside collisions due to improper turning are occurring within the City every two to three years.
 Consider information obtained from public input and feedback regarding unreported collisions to supplement crash data.
 Develop and implement countermeasures to tackle broadside collisions due to improper turning.
 Assess and report collision patterns before and after implementation of countermeasures and adjust as necessary.
 Maintain roadway signing and striping.
 Consider improving night time lighting.

Enforcement
 Prioritize patrol patterns at high collision intersections where broadside collisions due to improper turning are occurring mostly to monitor traffic law violations which include the failure of stopping and waiting for a safe gap to approach the road.  When laws are enforced and awareness of abiding by traffic safety laws and signs is raised, broadside collisions due to improper turning will reduce abundantly.

Emergency Medical Services
 Consider targeted training for responding to high collision intersections where broadside collisions due to improper turning are occurring mostly and immediate treatment of predominant injuries at those locations.

Emerging Technologies
 Develop new methods to integrate multisource transportation data for developing different measurements of traffic safety for road users and identify safety issues associated with emerging electrical and automated vehicles.

Final Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)
City of Guadalupe, CA
30 MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC. 12/30/2021

8. High Collision Locations Identification, Pattern Analysis, and Recommended Improvements
As part of the quantitative analysis, high collision intersections and roadway segments were identified and prioritized using the Crash Frequency methodology as described in the Local Roadway Safety Manual. Crash Frequency is defined as the number of crashes occurring within a determined study area.

Minagar & Associates, Inc. took a further step and included the number of victims and their corresponding degree of injury for each intersection and roadway segment. As part of the qualitative analysis, Minagar & Associates, Inc. conducted a field assessment in the City of Guadalupe on October 20, 2021. The field visit mission, to study the characteristics and geometry of the existing roadway infrastructure, was accomplished successfully and conceptual plans were developed. For each of the identified high collision locations (intersections and roadway segments), prominent locations in the City were identified and ranked based on the following criteria:

1. Number of Collisions

2. Victim Degree of Injury

2.1. Killed

2.2. Suspected Serious Injury

2.3. Suspected Minor Injury

2.4. Possible Injury
Upon identifying and ranking prominent intersections and roadway segments, collisions were analyzed by identifying the Primary Collision Factor (PCF) that lead to the occurrence of each collision and the pattern. Upon completion of the analysis, recommendations were developed as safety mitigation measures to potentially mitigate similar collisions in the future. Countermeasures have been proposed in complaince with the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices.

It is important to utilize Crash Modification Factor (CMF) when identifying potential systemic safety improvements. The CMF method is found in Part D of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Highway Safety Manual (HSM). CMFs are defined as the ratio of Possible
Injury
Suspected
Minor
Injury
Suspected
Minor
Injury
Killed
Victim
Degree
of Injury
Number of Collisions
Final Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)
City of Guadalupe, CA
31 MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC. 12/30/2021
effectiveness of expected crashes with treatment in comparison to expected crashes without treatment.

Furthermore, A CMF is a multiplicative factor used to determine the expected number of crashes after implementing the proposed countermeasures to ensure efficiency of utilizing and implementing the proposed countermeasures. Countermeasures with CMFs less than one are expected to reduce crashes.

On the other hand, countermeasures with CMFs greater than one are expected to increase crashes.

CMFs are calculated as follows:

A Crash Reduction Factor (CRF) is similar and related to a CMF but stated in different terms. A CRF is defined as a percentage of crash reduction that might be expected after the implementation of a given countermeasure at a specific site. CRFs are calculated as follows:

Appropriate CMFs shall be used with caution. CMFs should be selected from the HSM Part D, the LRSM, or from the FHWA CMF Clearinghouse website (http://www.cmfclearinghouse.org).

Table 3: City of Guadalupe Engineering Countermeasures Toolbox LRSM
No. Countermeasure Name
Crash Type

CMF CRF
HSIP
Funding
Eligibility
All Night Ped
and
Bike
NS02 Convert to all-way STOP control X 0.5 50% 100%
NS06 Install/upgrade larger or additional stop
signs or other intersection
warning/regulatory signs
X

0.85 15% 100%
NS07 Upgrade intersection pavement marking X0.75 25% 100% R22 Install/upgrade signs with new fluorescent
sheeting (regulatory or warning)
X

0.85 15% 100%
R24 Install curve advance warning signs X0.75 25% 100%
[1] Local Roadway Safety Manual Countermeasure Identification Number  NS: Non-Signalized Intersection
 R: Roadway Segment
[2] Crash Modification Factor
[3] Crash Reduction Factor
[1]
[2] [3]
Final Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)
City of Guadalupe, CA
32 MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC. 12/30/2021

8.1 High Collision Intersections
High collision intersections are critical intersections that require the most analytical focus since it is anticipated that many collisions will occur within a high collision intersection based on its crash history.

Table 4 displays the eight (8) most prominent intersections in terms of number of collisions in the City of Guadalupe. Table 5 displays the eight (8) prominent intersections with their ranking methodology.

Table 4: List of High Collision Intersections
Intersection
Identification
Number*
Intersection
Ranking
Number**
Intersection Control Number of
Collisions***
1 1 State Hwy 166/W Main St & Obispo St Non-Signalized 4 2 2 State Hwy 166/ W Main St & State Hwy
1/Cabrillo Hwy/Guadalupe St
Non-Signalized 3
3 3 W Main St & Pacific Dunes Wy Non-Signalized 3
4 4 Obispo St & Cedar St Non-Signalized 2
5 5 State Hwy 1/Cabrillo Hwy/Guadalupe St & 9th
St
Non-Signalized 2
6 6 Pioneer St & Wong St Non-Signalized 1
7 6 Pacific Dunes Wy & Surf Bird Ln Non-Signalized 1
8 7 Hernandez Dr & Mills Ln Non-Signalized 1
* Intersection Identification Number is merely an identification method utilized to avoid confusion with the Intersection Ranking Number. ** Intersection Ranking Number is based on the number of contiguous collisions in each intersection within a distance of 250 feet. *** Total Number of Collisions during the 5-year period between December 31, 2015 and December 31, 2020.

Table 5: Intersection Number of Collisions and Ranking in the City of Guadalupe Intersection
Ranking
Number*
Intersection Number of
Collisions**
Victim Degree of Injury
Killed Suspected
Serious
Injury
Suspected
Minor
Injury
Possible
Injury
1 State Hwy 166/W Main St & Obispo
St
4 0 0 1 5
2 State Hwy 166/ W Main St & State
Hwy 1/ Cabrillo Hwy/ Guadalupe St
3 1 0 0 2
3 W Main St & Pacific Dunes Wy 3 0 0 3 1
4 Obispo St & Cedar St 2 0 0 1 1
5 State Hwy 1/Cabrillo
Hwy/Guadalupe St & 9
th St
2 0 0 0 3
6 Pioneer St & Wong St 1 0 0 1 0
6 Pacific Dunes Wy & Surfbird Ln 1 0 0 1 0
7 Hernandez Dr & Mills Ln 1 0 0 0 2
* Intersection Ranking Number is based on the number of contiguous collisions in each intersection within a distance of 250 feet. ** Total Number of Collisions during the 5-year period between December 31, 2015 and December 31, 2020.

Final Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)
City of Guadalupe, CA
33 MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC. 12/30/2021

8.1.1 Intersection 1: State Hwy 166/ W Main St & Obispo St Table 6: Intersection 1 Number of Collisions and Corresponding Primary Collision Factor Number of Collisions Primary Collision Factor
1 Automobile Right of Way
1 Improper Turning
1 Brakes
1 Other Improper Driving
Total 4
Pattern: Driver is not giving the automobile the right of way.

High Collision Recommendations:

This is a two-way stop control intersection. Warrant assessments were conducted for this intersection and it has been concluded that this intersection is warranted for both multi-way stop control and traffic signal control. The City of Guadalupe is going to install a traffic signal control. However, until the permanent installation of a traffic signal control, it is recommended for this intersection to be converted to a multi-way stop control as an interim measure. The following list of recommendations includes the consideration of converting the existing two-way stop control to a multi-way stop control.

1. Remove existing pavement & traffic striping.

2. Install stop bar.

3. Install stop legend.

4. Install stop sign (R1-1).

5. Install stop ahead sign (W3-1).

6. Install Type II (R) through-right arrow pavement.

7. Install Type III (L) left arrow pavement.

8. Install double yellow traffic striping.

9. Install yellow marker.

10. Repaint intersection pavement marking.

11. Restripe intersection traffic striping.

Final Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)
City of Guadalupe, CA
34 MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC. 12/30/2021

8.1.2 Intersection 2: State Hwy 166/ W Main St & State Hwy 1/ Cabrillo Hwy/ Guadalupe St
Table 7: Intersection 2 Number of Collisions and Corresponding Primary Collision Factor Number of Collisions Primary Collision Factor
1 Traffic Signals and Signs
1 Unsafe Speed
1 Unknown
Total 3
Pattern: Driver is not abiding by traffic signal and signs and is not maintaining a safe speed.

High Collision Recommendations:

This is a multi-way stop control intersection. A traffic signal warrant assessment has been conducted for this intersection and it has been concluded that this intersection is warranted for the installation of a traffic signal control. However, the following list of recommendations considers some interim measures to be developed until proceeding with the installation of a new traffic signal.

1. Install “Do Not Stop on Tracks” (R8-8) sign.

2. Install Grade Crossing and Intersection Advance Warning (W10-2 (R)) sign.

3. Install Grade Crossing and Intersection Advance Warning (W10-2 (L)) sign.

4. Repaint intersection pavement marking.

5. Restripe intersection traffic striping.

8.1.3 Intersection 3: W Main St & Pacific Dunes Wy
Table 8: Intersection 3 Number of Collisions and Corresponding Primary Collision Factor Number of Collisions Primary Collision Factor
2 Improper Turning
1 Automobile Right of Way
Total 17
Pattern: Pacific Dunes Way southbound drivers are not stopping as they approach the stop bar.

High Collision Recommendations:

1. Repaint intersection pavement marking.

2. Restripe intersection traffic striping.

Final Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)
City of Guadalupe, CA
35 MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC. 12/30/2021

8.1.4 Intersection 4: Obispo St & Cedar St
Table 9: Intersection 4 Number of Collisions and Corresponding Primary Collision Factor Number of Collisions Primary Collision Factor
1 Other Than Driver (or Pedestrian)
1 Driving or Bicycling Under the Influence of Alcohol or Drug Total 2
Pattern: A rear-end collision occurred as one driver was driving on Obispo St northbound and hit a parked vehicle.

High Collision Recommendations:

1. Repaint intersection pavement marking.

2. Restripe intersection traffic striping.

3. Install “Speed Limit 35” (R2-1).

8.1.5 Intersection 5: State Hwy 1/ Cabrillo Hwy/ Guadalupe St & 9th St Table 10: Intersection 5 Number of Collisions and Corresponding Primary Collision Factor Number of Collisions Primary Collision Factor
1 Automobile Right of Way
1 Improper Turning
Total 2
Pattern: A broadside collision occurred due to the driver not giving the automobile the right of way.

Another broadside collision occurred as a result of improper turning.

High Collision Recommendations:

1. Repaint intersection pavement marking.

2. Restripe intersection traffic striping.

3. Convert to multi-way stop control based on 8-hour turning movement counts.

8.1.6 Intersection 6: Pioneer St & Wong St
Table 11: Intersection 6 Number of Collisions and Corresponding Primary Collision Factor Number of Collisions Primary Collision Factor
1 Improper Turning
Total 1
Pattern: A broadside collision due to the driver that exited the house by making a left turn onto Wong St.

High Collision Recommendations:

1. Repaint intersection pavement marking.

2. Restripe intersection traffic striping.

3. Install R2-1 (25 MPH).

Final Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)
City of Guadalupe, CA
36 MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC. 12/30/2021

8.1.7 Intersection 7: Pacific Dunes Wy & Surfbird Ln
Table 12: Intersection 7 Number of Collisions and Corresponding Primary Collision Factor Number of Collisions Primary Collision Factor
1 Improper Turning
Total 1
Pattern: A broadside collision due to the Pacific Dunes Wy northbound driver making a left turn onto Surfbird Ln and not yielding to the oncoming Pacific Dunes Wy southbound driver.

High Collision Recommendations:

1. Repaint intersection pavement marking.

2. Restripe intersection traffic striping.

8.1.8 Intersection 8: Hernandez Dr & Mills Ln
Table 13: Intersection 8 Number of Collisions and Corresponding Primary Collision Factor Number of Collisions Primary Collision Factor
1 Unknown
Total 1
Pattern: A sideswipe collision due to a driver heading east on Hernandez Dr and colliding with a parked vehicle.

High Collision Recommendations:

1. Install R2-1 (25 MPH).

8.2 High Collision Roadway Segments
High collision roadway segments are critical segments that require focus since it is anticipated that collisions will occur within a high collision roadway segment based on its crash history. The following table displays the two (2) most prominent roadway segments in the City of Guadalupe. Table 15 displays the two (2) prominent roadway segments with their ranking methodology.

Table 14: List of High Collision Roadway Segments
Roadway
Segment
Identification
Number*
Roadway
Segment
Ranking
Number**
Roadway Segment*** Number of
Collisions****
1 1 11th St to Simas Rd 1
2 2 State Hwy 1/ Cabrillo Hwy/ Guadalupe St from 8
th St to 9th St 1
* Roadway Segment Identification Number is merely an identification method utilized to avoid confusion with the Roadway Segment Ranking Number.
** Roadway Segment Ranking Number is based on the number of collisions that occurred on a roadway segment. *** The average length of a roadway segment in the City of Guadalupe is approximately 1000 ft. **** Total Number of Collisions during the 5-year period between December 31, 2015 and December 31, 2020.

Final Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)
City of Guadalupe, CA
37 MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC. 12/30/2021
Table 15: Roadway Segment Number of Collisions and Ranking in the City of Guadalupe Roadway
Segment
Ranking
Number*
Roadway Segment Number of
Collisions**
Victim Degree of Injury
Killed Suspected
Serious
Injury
Suspected
Minor
Injury
Possible
Injury
1 11th St to Simas Rd 1 0 0 1 0
2 State Hwy 1/ Cabrillo Hwy/
Guadalupe St from 8
th St to 9th St
1 0 0 0 1
* Roadway Segment Ranking Number is based on the number of collisions that occurred on a roadway segment. ** Total Number of Collisions during the 5-year period between December 31, 2015 and December 31, 2020.

8.2.1 Roadway Segment 1: 11th St to Simas Rd
Table 16: Roadway Segment 1 Number of Collisions and Corresponding Primary Collision Factor Number of Collisions Primary Collision Factor
1 Driving or Bicycling Under the Influence of Alcohol or Drug Total 1
Pattern: The driver was driving under the influence of alcohol or drug and ran off the road.

High Collision Recommendations:

1. Install W1-2 (R) & W13-1P.

8.2.2 Roadway Segment 2: State Hwy 1/ Cabrillo Hwy/ Guadalupe St from 8 th St
to 9
th St
Table 17: Roadway Segment 2 Number of Collisions and Corresponding Primary Collision Factor Number of Collisions Primary Collision Factor
1 Pedestrian Violation
Total 1
Pattern: This collision occurred as a result of a pedestrian crossing west onto the oncoming northbound and southbound traffic when there is no crosswalk.

High Collision Recommendations:

1. Install “No Pedestrian Crossing” (R9-3A) & “Use Crosswalk” (R9-3BP (R)).

2. Install “No Pedestrian Crossing” (R9-3A) & “Use Crosswalk” (R9-3BP (L)).

3. Restripe all roadway segment traffic striping.

Final Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)
City of Guadalupe, CA
38 MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC. 12/30/2021

9. Collision Diagrams, Preliminary Conceptual Plans for Recommended Improvements at High Collision Intersections and High Collision Roadway Segments, Cost Estimates, and Benefit Cost Ratios
At each of the aforementioned high collision intersections and roadway segments, the collision patterns have been evaluated and countermeasures to those patterns have been developed through a preliminary conceptual plan and the preliminary cost of those measures has been estimated. This section of this report summarize those results.

This Local Safety Plan is funded through a Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) grant from the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). HSIP grant funding is prioritized and awarded based on the grant funding's economic effectiveness, which is established by a benefit to cost ratio. Under the current HSIP call for projects, the minimum Benefit to Cost Ratio is 3.5. A summary of the benefit to cost ratios is provided in this section. Project cost estimates are calculated on a line item basis using the Caltrans Contract Cost Database. In some cases, recent construction bids and benefit values are calculated based on Caltrans established countermeasure values.

Depending on the City’s priorities, it is highly recommended that multiple projects as provided below are grouped into one HSIP application to maximize potential funding allocations.

Final Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)
City of Guadalupe, CA
39 MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC. 12/30/2021

9.1 High Collision Intersections

9.1.1 Intersection 1: State Hwy 166/ W Main St & Obispo St Figure 21: Intersection 1 Collision Diagram (4 Collisions) State Hwy 166/ W Main St
Source: University of California, Berkeley Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS) Obispo St City of Guadalupe
Local Roadway Safety Plan
High Collision Locations
Date: 10/21/2021
MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.

ITS-TRAFFIC/CIVIL/ELECTRICAL/ ENGINEERING TRANSPORTATION PLANNING 23282 MILL CREEK DRIVE
SUITE 120
LAGUNA HILLS, CA 92653 TEL: (949) 707-1199 State Hwy 166/ W Main St & Obispo St N
E
S
W
Intersection 1
Recommended Improvements OBISPO ST
HIGH COLLISION RECOMMENDATIONS:

REMOVE EXISTING PAVEMENT & TRAFFIC STRIPING.

INSTALL STOP BAR.

INSTALL STOP LEGEND.

INSTALL STOP SIGN (R1-1).

INSTALL STOP AHEAD SIGN (W3-1).

INSTALL TYPE II (R) THROUGH-RIGHT ARROW PAVEMENT.

INSTALL TYPE III (L) LEFT ARROW PAVEMENT.

INSTALL DOUBLE YELLOW TRAFFIC STRIPING.

INSTALL YELLOW MARKER.

REPAINT INTERSECTION PAVEMENT MARKING.

RESTRIPE INTERSECTION TRAFFIC STRIPING.
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 STATE HWY 166/ W MAIN ST
9 9
6 7 1
3 5
4 2
3 3
1 7
6 8
6 4
5 2'
11 10
1 TRAFFIC SIGNS RECOMMENDATIONS:

R1-1 W3-1
EX. SIGN (R1-1)
EX. SIGN (R1-1)
EX. SIGN (W11-2) & (W16-7P)
EX. SIGN (W11-2) & (W16-7P)

EXISTING SIGNS
R1-1
W11-2
W16-7P
Photo Source: Minagar & Associates, Inc.

Footage captured with a 4K video resolution drone on Oct 20, 2021 Final Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)
City of Guadalupe, CA
41 MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC. 12/30/2021

9.1.1.1 Intersection 1 Cost Estimate and Cost/Benefit Analysis The following table represents the preliminary line-item cost for the proposed countermeasures. Lineitem costs are derived from the Caltrans contract cost database for District 5.

Table 18: Intersection 1 Cost Estimate
The project’s total cost is estimated at $10,368 which does not include the design and engineering costs.

The estimated benefit of these improvements is $575,424 based on the Highway Safety Benefit-Cost Analysis Model (Version 2.0). The resulting Benefit-Cost ratio is 55.50.

The current HSIP Cycle 10 program has a required minimum B/C ratio (BCR) of 3.5 for a BCR Application.

With a B/C ratio of 55.50, the proposed intersection improvement project is eligible for HSIP funding and is considered a competitive HSIP project.

Itemized Benefits
Safety $573,579
Travel Time $1,699
Vehicle Operating Cost $100
Emissions $45
Total Benefits $575,424
Summary of Total Cost & Benefit
Present Value Costs ($ Dollars) $10,368
Present Value Benefits ($ Dollars) $575,424
Net Present Value ($ Dollars) $565,056
Benefit / Cost Ratio 55.50
Construction Cost Estimate:

Total Cost & Benefit
Total Cost & Benefit
Final Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)
City of Guadalupe, CA
42 MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC. 12/30/2021

9.1.2 Intersection 2: State Hwy 166/ W Main St & State Hwy 1/ Cabrillo Hwy/ Guadalupe St
Figure 22: Intersection 2 Collision Diagram (3 Collisions) State Hwy 1/ Cabrillo Hwy/ Guadalupe St Source: University of California, Berkeley Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS) State Hwy 1/ Cabrillo Hwy State Hwy 166/ W Main St
W Main St
Union Pacific Railroad Track Union Pacific Railroad Track City of Guadalupe
Local Roadway Safety Plan
High Collision Locations
Date: 10/25/2021
MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.

ITS-TRAFFIC/CIVIL/ELECTRICAL/ ENGINEERING TRANSPORTATION PLANNING 23282 MILL CREEK DRIVE
SUITE 120
LAGUNA HILLS, CA 92653 TEL: (949) 707-1199 State Hwy 166/ W Main St & State Hwy 1/ Cabrillo Hwy/ Guadalupe St Intersection 2
Recommended Improvements
STATE HWY 166/ W MAIN ST
STATE HWY 1/ CABRILLO HWY
TRAFFIC SIGNS RECOMMENDATIONS:
3 R8-8 W10-2 (R)
N
E
S
W
4 HIGH COLLISION RECOMMENDATIONS:

INSTALL "DO NOT STOP ON TRACKS" (R8-8) SIGN.

INSTALL GRADE CROSSING AND INTERSECTION ADVANCE WARNING (W10-2 (R)) SIGN.

INSTALL GRADE CROSSING AND INTERSECTION ADVANCE WARNING (W10-2 (L)) SIGN.

REPAINT INTERSECTION PAVEMENT MARKING.

RESTRIPE INTERSECTION TRAFFIC STRIPING.
1 2
3 4
4 5
4 4
5 5
4 4
4 4
5 2
1 1
EX. SIGN (R1-1)
EX. SIGN (R1-1)
EX. SIGN (R1-1)
EX. SIGN (R1-1)
EX. SIGN W15-1 & W15-2P
EX. SIGN W15-1 & W15-2P
EX. SIGN W10-1 & W15-2P
EX. SIGN W15-1 & W15-2P
EX. SIGN S1-1 & S4-3P

W MAIN ST

UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD
STATE HWY 1/ CABRILLO HWY/ GUADALUPE ST
EXISTING SIGNS:

W10-1
3 TRACKS
W15-2P
R1-1
W15-1
3 TRACKS
W15-2P
S1-1
S4-3P
R2-1
R48-1
W10-2 (L)
5 Photo Source: Minagar & Associates, Inc.

Footage captured with a 4K video resolution drone on Oct 20, 2021 Final Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)
City of Guadalupe, CA
44 MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC. 12/30/2021

9.1.2.1 Intersection 2 Cost Estimate and Cost/Benefit Analysis The following table represents the preliminary line-item cost for the proposed countermeasures. Lineitem costs are derived from the Caltrans contract cost database for District 5.

Table 19: Intersection 2 Cost Estimate
The project’s total cost is estimated at $22,274 which does not include the design and engineering costs.

The estimated benefit of these improvements is $13,083,670 based on the Highway Safety Benefit-Cost Analysis Model (Version 2.0). The resulting Benefit-Cost ratio is 587.40.

The current HSIP Cycle 10 program has a required minimum B/C ratio (BCR) of 3.5 for a BCR Application.

With a B/C ratio of 587.40 the proposed intersection improvement project is eligible for HSIP funding and is considered a competitive HSIP project.

Itemized Benefits
Safety $13,079,897
Travel Time $3,637
Vehicle Operating Cost $125
Emissions $11
Total Benefits $13,083,670
Summary of Total Cost & Benefit
Present Value Costs ($ Dollars) $22,274
Present Value Benefits ($ Dollars) $13,083,670
Net Present Value ($ Dollars) $13,061,396
Benefit / Cost Ratio 587.40
Construction Cost Estimate:

Total Cost & Benefit
Total Cost & Benefit
Final Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)
City of Guadalupe, CA
45 MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC. 12/30/2021

9.1.3 Intersection 3: W Main St & Pacific Dunes Wy
Figure 23: Intersection 3 Collision Diagram (3 Collisions) Source: University of California, Berkeley Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS) W Main St
Pacific Dunes Wy
City of Guadalupe
Local Roadway Safety Plan
High Collision Locations
Date: 10/25/2021
MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.

ITS-TRAFFIC/CIVIL/ELECTRICAL/ ENGINEERING TRANSPORTATION PLANNING 23282 MILL CREEK DRIVE
SUITE 120
LAGUNA HILLS, CA 92653 TEL: (949) 707-1199 W Main St & Pacific Dunes Wy HIGH COLLISION RECOMMENDATIONS:

REPAINT INTERSECTION PAVEMENT MARKING.

RESTRIPE INTERSECTION TRAFFIC STRIPING.
1 N
E
S
W
Intersection 3
Recommended Improvements

W MAIN ST
1 2 PACIFIC DUNES WY
1 2
2 EX. SIGN (R1-1)
EXISTING SIGN:

R1-1
Final Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)
City of Guadalupe, CA
47 MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC. 12/30/2021

9.1.3.1 Intersection 3 Cost Estimate and Cost/Benefit Analysis The following table represents the preliminary line-item cost for the proposed countermeasures. Lineitem costs are derived from the Caltrans contract cost database for District 5.

Table 20: Intersection 3 Cost Estimate
The project’s total cost is estimated at $2,046 which does not include the design and engineering costs.

The estimated benefit of these improvements is $280,278 based on the Highway Safety Benefit-Cost Analysis Model (Version 2.0). The resulting Benefit-Cost ratio is 136.99.

The current HSIP Cycle 10 program has a required minimum B/C ratio (BCR) of 3.5 for a BCR Application.

With a B/C ratio of 136.99, the proposed intersection improvement project is eligible for HSIP funding and is considered a competitive HSIP project.

Itemized Benefits
Safety $279,548
Travel Time $680
Vehicle Operating Cost $40
Emissions $11
Total Benefits $280,278
Summary of Total Cost & Benefit
Present Value Costs ($ Dollars) $2,046
Present Value Benefits ($ Dollars) $280,278
Net Present Value ($ Dollars) $278,232
Benefit / Cost Ratio 136.99

9.1.4 Intersection 4: Obispo St & Cedar St
No sufficient collision inofrmation is recorded for this intersection therfore, TIMS does not provide a collision diagram for this intersection
Construction Cost Estimate:

Total Cost & Benefit
Total Cost & Benefit
City of Guadalupe
Local Roadway Safety Plan
High Collision Locations
Date: 10/25/2021
MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.

ITS-TRAFFIC/CIVIL/ELECTRICAL/ ENGINEERING TRANSPORTATION PLANNING 23282 MILL CREEK DRIVE
SUITE 120
LAGUNA HILLS, CA 92653 TEL: (949) 707-1199 Obispo St & Cedar St N
E
S
W
Intersection 4
Recommended Improvements

OBISPO ST
TRAFFIC SIGNS RECOMMENDATIONS:

R2-1
3 CEDAR ST
3 HIGH COLLISION RECOMMENDATIONS:

REPAINT INTERSECTION PAVEMENT MARKING.

RESTRIPE INTERSECTION TRAFFIC STRIPING.

INSTALL "SPEED LIMIT 35" (R2-1).
1 2
3 1
2 EXISTING SIGN:

R1-1
EX. SIGN (R1-1)
Final Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)
City of Guadalupe, CA
49 MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC. 12/30/2021

9.1.4.1 Intersection 4 Cost Estimate and Cost/Benefit Analysis The following table represents the preliminary line-item cost for the proposed countermeasures. Lineitem costs are derived from the Caltrans contract cost database for District 5.

Table 21: Intersection 4 Cost Estimate
The project’s total cost is estimated at $1,725 which does not include the design and engineering costs.

The estimated benefit of these improvements is $227,371 based on the Highway Safety Benefit-Cost Analysis Model (Version 2.0). The resulting Benefit-Cost ratio is 131.81.

The current HSIP Cycle 10 program has a required minimum B/C ratio (BCR) of 3.5 for a BCR Application.

With a B/C ratio of 131.81, the proposed intersection improvement project is eligible for HSIP funding and is considered a competitive HSIP project.

Itemized Benefits
Safety $226,921
Travel Time $425
Vehicle Operating Cost $25
Emissions $0
Total Benefits $227,371
Summary of Total Cost & Benefit
Present Value Costs ($ Dollars) $1,725
Present Value Benefits ($ Dollars) $227,371
Net Present Value ($ Dollars) $225,646
Benefit / Cost Ratio 131.81
Construction Cost Estimate:

Total Cost & Benefit
Total Cost & Benefit
Final Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)
City of Guadalupe, CA
50 MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC. 12/30/2021

9.1.5 Intersection 5: State Hwy 1/ Cabrillo Hwy/ Guadalupe St & 9 th St
Figure 24: Intersection 5 Collision Diagram (2 Collisions) Source: University of California, Berkeley Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS) City of Guadalupe
Local Roadway Safety Plan
High Collision Locations
Date: 12/14/2021
MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.

ITS-TRAFFIC/CIVIL/ELECTRICAL/ ENGINEERING TRANSPORTATION PLANNING 23282 MILL CREEK DRIVE
SUITE 120
LAGUNA HILLS, CA 92653 TEL: (949) 707-1199 State Hwy 1/ Cabrillo Hwy/ Guadalupe St & 9th St N
E
S
W
Intersection 5
Recommended Improvements
STATE HWY 1/ CABRILLO HWY/ GUADALUPE ST
HIGH COLLISION RECOMMENDATIONS:

REPAINT INTERSECTION PAVEMENT MARKING.

RESTRIPE TRAFFIC STRIPING.

CONVERT TO MULTI-WAY STOP CONTROL BASED ON 8-HOUR TURNING MOVEMENT COUNTS. 1 2
2 EX. SIGN (W11-2) & (W16-7P)
EX. SIGN (W11-2) & (W16-7P)
EX. SIGN (R1-5)
EX. SIGN (W11-2) & (W16-9P) 2
1 1
1 2
2 1 9TH ST
EX. SIGN (R1-1)
EX. SIGN (R1-1)
Photo Source: Minagar & Associates, Inc.

Footage captured with a 4K video resolution drone on Oct 20, 2021 3 EXISTING SIGNS:

W11-2
W16-7P
W11-2
W16-9P
R1-5 R1-1
Final Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)
City of Guadalupe, CA
52 MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC. 12/30/2021

9.1.5.1 Intersection 5 Cost Estimate and Cost/Benefit Analysis The following table represents the preliminary line-item cost for the proposed countermeasures. Lineitem costs are derived from the Caltrans contract cost database for District 5.

Table 22: Intersection 5 Cost Estimate
The project’s total cost is estimated at $3,545 which does not include the design and engineering costs.

The estimated benefit of these improvements is $287,712 based on the Highway Safety Benefit-Cost Analysis Model (Version 2.0). The resulting Benefit-Cost ratio is 81.16.

The current HSIP Cycle 10 program has a required minimum B/C ratio (BCR) of 3.5 for a BCR Application.

With a B/C ratio of 81.16 the proposed intersection improvement project is eligible for HSIP funding and is considered a competitive HSIP project.

Itemized Benefits
Safety $286,790
Travel Time $849
Vehicle Operating Cost $50
Emissions $23
Total Benefits $287,712
Summary of Total Cost & Benefit
Present Value Costs ($ Dollars) $3,545
Present Value Benefits ($ Dollars) $287,712
Net Present Value ($ Dollars) $284,167
Benefit / Cost Ratio 81.16
Construction Cost Estimate:

Total Cost & Benefit
Total Cost & Benefit
Final Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)
City of Guadalupe, CA
53 MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC. 12/30/2021

9.1.6 Intersection 6: Pioneer St & Wong St
Figure 25: Intersection 6 Collision Diagram (1 Collision) Source: University of California, Berkeley Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS) Wong St
Pioneer St
City of Guadalupe
Local Roadway Safety Plan
High Collision Locations
Date: 10/25/2021
MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.

ITS-TRAFFIC/CIVIL/ELECTRICAL/ ENGINEERING TRANSPORTATION PLANNING 23282 MILL CREEK DRIVE
SUITE 120
LAGUNA HILLS, CA 92653 TEL: (949) 707-1199 Pioneer St & Wong St N
E
S
W
Intersection 6
Recommended Improvements
TRAFFIC SIGNS RECOMMENDATIONS:

R2-1

WONG ST
3 PIONEER ST
3 HIGH COLLISION RECOMMENDATIONS:

REPAINT INTERSECTION PAVEMENT MARKING.

RESTRIPE INTERSECTION TRAFFIC STRIPING.

INSTALL "SPEED LIMIT 25" (R2-1).
1 2
3 2
1 EXISTING SIGN:

R1-1
EX. SIGN (R1-1)
Final Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)
City of Guadalupe, CA
55 MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC. 12/30/2021

9.1.6.1 Intersection 6 Cost Estimate and Cost/Benefit Analysis The following table represents the preliminary line-item cost for the proposed countermeasures. Lineitem costs are derived from the Caltrans contract cost database for District 5.

Table 23: Intersection 6 Cost Estimate
The project’s total cost is estimated at $1,813 which does not include the design and engineering costs.

The estimated benefit of these improvements is $227,371 based on the Highway Safety Benefit-Cost Analysis Model (Version 2.0). The resulting Benefit-Cost ratio is 125.41.

The current HSIP Cycle 10 program has a required minimum B/C ratio (BCR) of 3.5 for a BCR Application.

With a B/C ratio of 125.41 the proposed intersection improvement project is eligible for HSIP funding and is considered a competitive HSIP project.

Itemized Benefits
Safety $226,921
Travel Time $425
Vehicle Operating Cost $25
Emissions $0
Total Benefits $227,371
Summary of Total Cost & Benefit
Present Value Costs ($ Dollars) $1,813
Present Value Benefits ($ Dollars) $227,371
Net Present Value ($ Dollars) $225,558
Benefit / Cost Ratio 125.41

9.1.7 Intersection 7: Pacific Dunes Wy & Surfbird Ln
No sufficient collision inofrmation is recorded for this intersection therfore, TIMS does not provide a collision diagram for this intersection.

Construction Cost Estimate:

Total Cost & Benefit
Total Cost & Benefit
City of Guadalupe
Local Roadway Safety Plan
High Collision Locations
Date: 10/25/2021
MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.

ITS-TRAFFIC/CIVIL/ELECTRICAL/ ENGINEERING TRANSPORTATION PLANNING 23282 MILL CREEK DRIVE
SUITE 120
LAGUNA HILLS, CA 92653 TEL: (949) 707-1199 Pacific Dunes Wy & Surfbird Ln Intersection 7
Recommended Improvements

PACIFIC DUNES WAY
1 SURFBIRD LN
HIGH COLLISION RECOMMENDATIONS:

REPAINT INTERSECTION PAVEMENT MARKING.

RESTRIPE TRAFFIC STRIPING.
1 2
2 2
1 N
E
S
W
EXISTING SIGN:

R1-1
EX. SIGN (R1-1)
EX. SIGN (R1-1)
Final Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)
City of Guadalupe, CA
57 MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC. 12/30/2021

9.1.7.1 Intersection 7 Cost Estimate and Cost/Benefit Analysis The following table represents the preliminary line-item cost for the proposed countermeasures. Lineitem costs are derived from the Caltrans contract cost database for District 5.

Table 24: Intersection 7 Cost Estimate
The project’s total cost is estimated at $924 which does not include the design and engineering costs.

The estimated benefit of these improvements is $227,371 based on the Highway Safety Benefit-Cost Analysis Model (Version 2.0). The resulting Benefit-Cost ratio is 246.07 The current HSIP Cycle 10 program has a required minimum B/C ratio (BCR) of 3.5 for a BCR Application.

With a B/C ratio of 246.07 the proposed intersection improvement project is eligible for HSIP funding and is considered a competitive HSIP project.

Itemized Benefits
Safety $226,921
Travel Time $425
Vehicle Operating Cost $25
Emissions $0
Total Benefits $227,371
Summary of Total Cost & Benefit
Present Value Costs ($ Dollars) $924
Present Value Benefits ($ Dollars) $227,371
Net Present Value ($ Dollars) $226,447
Benefit / Cost Ratio 246.07
Construction Cost Estimate:

Total Cost & Benefit
Total Cost & Benefit
Final Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)
City of Guadalupe, CA
58 MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC. 12/30/2021

9.1.8 Intersection 8: Hernandez Dr & Mills Ln
Figure 26: Intersection 8 Collision Diagram (1 Collision) Source: University of California, Berkeley Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS) Hernandez Dr
Mills Ln
City of Guadalupe
Local Roadway Safety Plan
High Collision Locations
Date: 10/25/2021
MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.

ITS-TRAFFIC/CIVIL/ELECTRICAL/ ENGINEERING TRANSPORTATION PLANNING 23282 MILL CREEK DRIVE
SUITE 120
LAGUNA HILLS, CA 92653 TEL: (949) 707-1199 Hernandez Dr & Mills Ln HIGH COLLISION RECOMMENDATIONS:

REPAINT INTERSECTION PAVEMENT MARKING.

RESTRIPE TRAFFIC STRIPING.

INSTALL "SPEED LIMIT 25" (R2-1).
1 N
E
S
W
Intersection 8
Recommended Improvements
TRAFFIC SIGNS RECOMMENDATIONS:

R2-1

HERNANDEZ DR
3 MILLS LN
3 2
3 2
1 EXISTING SIGN:

R1-1
EX. SIGN (R1-1)
Final Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)
City of Guadalupe, CA
60 MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC. 12/30/2021

9.1.8.1 Intersection 8 Cost Estimate and Cost/Benefit Analysis The following table represents the preliminary line-item cost for the proposed countermeasures. Lineitem costs are derived from the Caltrans contract cost database for District 5.

Table 25: Intersection 8 Cost Estimate
The project’s total cost is estimated at $1,805 which does not include the design and engineering costs.

The estimated benefit of these improvements is $143,856 based on the Highway Safety Benefit-Cost Analysis Model (Version 2.0). The resulting Benefit-Cost ratio is 79.70.

The current HSIP Cycle 10 program has a required minimum B/C ratio (BCR) of 3.5 for a BCR Application.

With a B/C ratio of 79.70 the proposed intersection improvement project is eligible for HSIP funding and is considered a competitive HSIP project.

Itemized Benefits
Safety $143,395
Travel Time $425
Vehicle Operating Cost $25
Emissions $11
Total Benefits $143,856
Summary of Total Cost & Benefit
Present Value Costs ($ Dollars) $1,805
Present Value Benefits ($ Dollars) $143,856
Net Present Value ($ Dollars) $142,051
Benefit / Cost Ratio 79.70
Construction Cost Estimate:

Total Cost & Benefit
Total Cost & Benefit
Final Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)
City of Guadalupe, CA
61 MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC. 12/30/2021

9.2 High Collision Roadway Segments

9.2.1 Roadway Segment 1: 11th St to Simas Rd
Figure 27: Roadway Segment 1 Collision Diagram (1 Collision) Source: University of California, Berkeley Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS) Simas Rd City of Guadalupe
Local Roadway Safety Plan
High Collision Locations
Date: 10/25/2021
MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.

ITS-TRAFFIC/CIVIL/ELECTRICAL/ ENGINEERING TRANSPORTATION PLANNING 23282 MILL CREEK DRIVE
SUITE 120
LAGUNA HILLS, CA 92653 TEL: (949) 707-1199 11th St to Simas Rd N
E
S
W
Roadway Segment 1
Recommended Improvements
11TH ST HIGH COLLISION RECOMMENDATIONS:
1 INSTALL W1-2 (R) & W13-1P
1 SIMAS RD
City of Guadalupe
County of Santa Barbara
City of Guadalupe County of Santa Barbara
EX. SIGN (W1-2 (L)) & (W13-1P)
EXISTING SIGN:

W1-2 (L)
W13-1P
TRAFFIC SIGNS RECOMMENDATIONS:

W1-2 (R)
W13-1P
LEGEND:

CITY BOARDER
Final Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)
City of Guadalupe, CA
63 MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC. 12/30/2021

9.2.1.1 Roadway Segment 1 Cost Estimate and Cost/Benefit Analysis The following table represents the preliminary line-item cost for the proposed countermeasures. Lineitem costs are derived from the Caltrans contract cost database for District 5.

Table 26: Roadway Segment 1 Cost Estimate
The project’s total cost is estimated at $1,380 which does not include the design and engineering costs.

The estimated benefit of these improvements is $136,423 based on the Highway Safety Benefit-Cost Analysis Model (Version 2.0). The resulting Benefit-Cost ratio is 98.86.

The current HSIP Cycle 10 program has a required minimum B/C ratio (BCR) of 3.5 for a BCR Application.

With a B/C ratio of 98.86 the proposed roadway segment improvement project is eligible for HSIP funding and is considered a competitive HSIP project.

Itemized Benefits
Safety $136,153
Travel Time $255
Vehicle Operating Cost $15
Emissions $0
Total Benefits $136,423
Summary of Total Cost & Benefit
Present Value Costs ($ Dollars) $1,380
Present Value Benefits ($ Dollars) $136,423
Net Present Value ($ Dollars) $135,043
Benefit / Cost Ratio 98.86
Construction Cost Estimate:

Total Cost & Benefit
Total Cost & Benefit
Final Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)
City of Guadalupe, CA
64 MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC. 12/30/2021

9.2.2 Roadway Segment 2: State Hwy 1/ Cabrillo Hwy/ Guadalupe St from 8 th St
to 9
th St
Figure 28: Roadway Segment 2 Collision Diagram (1 Collision) Source: University of California, Berkeley Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS) City of Guadalupe
Local Roadway Safety Plan
High Collision Locations
Date: 10/25/2021

ITS-TRAFFIC/CIVIL/ELECTRICAL/ ENGINEERING TRANSPORTATION PLANNING 23282 MILL CREEK DRIVE
SUITE 120
LAGUNA HILLS, CA 92653 TEL: (949) 707-1199 State Hwy 1/ Cabrillo Hwy/ Guadalupe St from 8th St to 9th St Roadway Segment 2
Recommended Improvements
N
E
S
W
HIGH COLLISION RECOMMENDATIONS:

INSTALL "NO PEDESTRIAN CROSSING" (R9-3A) & "USE CROSSWALK" (R9-3BP (R)).

INSTALL "NO PEDESTRIAN CROSSING" (R9-3A) & "USE CROSSWALK" (R9-3BP (L)).

RESTRIPE TRAFFIC STRIPING BETWEEN THE "START" AND "END" LABELED POINTS 1 9TH ST
8TH ST
STATE HWY 1/ CABRILLO HWY/ GUADALUPE ST
EX. SIGN (R1-5) EX. SIGN (S1-1) & (S4-3P) EX. SIGN (W11-2) & (W16-9P) 1 2
2 W9-3A
R9-3BP (R)
TRAFFIC SIGNS RECOMMENDATIONS:

W9-3A
R9-3BP (L)
EX. SIGN (W11-2) & (W16-7P)
EX. SIGN (W11-2) & (W16-7P)
Photo Source: Minagar & Associates, Inc.

Footage captured with a 4K video resolution drone on Oct 20, 2021 3 3
EXISTING SIGNS:

S1-1
S4-3P
W11-2
W16-9P
R1-5
W11-2
W16-7P
START
END
3 3
Final Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)
City of Guadalupe, CA
66 MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC. 12/30/2021

9.2.2.1 Roadway Segment 2 Cost Estimate and Cost/Benefit Analysis The following table represents the preliminary line-item cost for the proposed countermeasures. Lineitem costs are derived from the Caltrans contract cost database for District 5.

Table 27: Roadway Segment 2 Cost Estimate
The project’s total cost is estimated at $23,723 which does not include the design and engineering costs.

The estimated benefit of these improvements is $143,856 based on the Highway Safety Benefit-Cost Analysis Model (Version 2.0). The resulting Benefit-Cost ratio is 6.06.

The current HSIP Cycle 10 program has a required minimum B/C ratio (BCR) of 3.5 for a BCR Application.

With a B/C ratio of 6.06 the proposed roadway segment improvement project is eligible for HSIP funding.

Itemized Benefits
Safety $143,395
Travel Time $425
Vehicle Operating Cost $25
Emissions $11
Total Benefits $143,856
Summary of Total Cost & Benefit
Present Value Costs ($ Dollars) $23,723
Present Value Benefits ($ Dollars) $143,856
Net Present Value ($ Dollars) $120,133
Benefit / Cost Ratio 6.06
Construction Cost Estimate:

Total Cost & Benefit
Total Cost & Benefit
MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.
23282 Mill Creek Drive, Suite 120
Laguna Hills, CA 92653
Tel: (949)707-1199
Web: www.minagarinc.com
2019 Winner of the Orange County Engineering Council’s Outstanding Service Award 2016 Winner of the ASCE’s Outstanding Civil Engineer in the Private Sector Award in the State of California 2016 Winner of the ASCE Los Angeles Section’s Outstanding Civil Engineer in the Private Sector Award 2016 Winner of the ASCE Orange County Chapter’s Outstanding Civil Engineer in the Private Sector Award 2016 Certificate of Recognition for Dedication to Support the ELTP Program by Los Angeles County MTA/Metro 2016 Winner of the Orange County Engineering Council’s Outstanding Engineering Service Award 2015 Orange County Business Journal’s 2015 Excellence in Entrepreneurship Award Nominee 2014 Orange County Business Journal’s 2014 Excellence in Entrepreneurship Award Nominee 2012 Winner of Cal-EPA/California Air Resources Board’s Cool California Climate Leader
2011 Award of Excellence in Service by Los Angeles County MTA/Metro in the County of Los Angeles
2011 Award of Excellence in Service by Los Angeles County MTA/Metro in the County of Los Angeles
2010 Award of Excellence in Service by Los Angeles County MTA/Metro in the County of Los Angeles
2009 Winner of the ASCE’s Outstanding Private Sector Civil Engineering Project in Metropolitan Los Angeles
2009 Winner of the Caltrans’ 2009 Excellence in Transportation Award in the State of California
2007 Winner of the ASCE’s Outstanding Public/Private Sector Civil Engineering Project in Metropolitan Los Angeles
2005 Winner of the APWA’s Best Traffic Congestion Mitigation Project of the Year in Southern California
2004 Top Nominee of Transportation Foundation’s Highway Management Program in the State of California
2003 Winner of the PTI’s Best Transportation Technology Solutions Award in the United States
2002 Winner of the ITS-CA’s Best Return on Investment Project Award in the State of California
2000 Award of Excellence in Service by Los Angeles County MTA/Metro in the County of Los Angeles
Celebrating 28 Years ofPlanning & EngineeringExcellence • Traffic Engineering
• Transportation Planning
• ITS (Intelligent Transportation Systems)
• Civil/Electrical Engineering
• Homeland Security
• Construction Engineering Management

RESOLUTION NO. 2022-14

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY GUADALUPE
ADOPTING THE “CITY OF GUADALUPE 2021 LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN” WHEREAS, The City of Guadalupe does not have a Local Road Safety Plan (LRSP), which will soon be required to remain eligible for some future streets-related grant opportunities; and WHEREAS, an LRSP identifies, analyzes, and prioritizes roadway safety improvements on City roads; and WHEREAS, the City received a grant for 90% of the preparation of this document, up to $40,000; and WHEREAS, Minagar & Associates, Inc. prepared a draft plan in October 2021, held a stakeholders’ meeting in December 2021, and submitted a final plan in January 2022 incorporating comments from the City and stakeholders.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Guadalupe as follows:

1. The City Council hereby adopts the report entitled, "City of Guadalupe 2021 Local Road Safety Plan.”

2. The City Clerk is hereby authorized to make minor changes herein to address clerical errors, so long as substantial conformance of the intent of this document is maintained. In doing so, the City Clerk shall consult with the City Administrator and City Attorney concerning any changes deemed necessary.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting on the 22nd day of February 2022 by the following vote:

MOTION:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

I, Amelia M. Villegas, City Clerk of the City of Guadalupe DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution, being Resolution No. 2022-14, has been duly signed by the Mayor and attested by the City Clerk, all at a regular meeting of the City Council, held February 22, 2022, and that same was approved and adopted.

ATTEST:
______________________________ ____________________________________ Amelia M. Villegas, City Clerk Ariston Julian, Mayor
ATTACHMENT 2

APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______________________________
Philip Sinco, City Attorney

Consent Agenda Item No. 7F

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GUADALUPE
Agenda of February 22, 2022
___________________________________ ________________________________________ Prepared by: Approved by:

Bill Scott, Contract City Planner Todd Bodem, City Administrator SUBJECT: Resolution to petition LAFCo to initiate annexation proceedings for the Almaguer Annexation, 2020-060-PA, to also include annexation into the Guadalupe Lighting District.

RECOMMENDATION:

It is recommended that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 2022-15 to petition the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) to include the 0.58-acre Almaguer annexation site within the Guadalupe Lighting District.

BACKGROUND:

On August 24, 2021, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2021-67 to initiate LAFCo proceedings to include a 0.58-acre portion of a 52.25-acre property within the City of Guadalupe’s Sphere of Influence (SOI) and annex the 0.58-acres into the Guadalupe City Limits. The intent of the annexation is to accommodate a subsequent lot line adjustment to combine the annexation site with a homeowner’s

2.0-acre property. The recorded lot line adjustment would remedy property boundary irregularities occurring on the south side of the homeowner’s property.

The applications for the annexation and SOI amendment are currently under review by LAFCo staff and the LAFCo Executive Officer is requesting inclusion into the Guadalupe Lighting District be a part of the project description in the resolution.

DISCUSSION:

Staff has prepared a revised resolution to recognize the annexation site will concurrently be included within the boundaries of the Guadalupe Lighting District. The change will have no effect on municipal service provision. LAFCo staff has stated that the amended language will reflect the full set of actions required by LAFCo, and will allow for LAFCo staff to correctly delineate local jurisdictional and service area boundaries.

Bill Scott

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:

The project has been found to be exempt from CEQA based on the Common Sense (General) Exemption, CEQA Section 15061(B)(3).

PUBLIC NOTICE:

Staff posted the agenda with a description of this item 72 hours prior to the meeting in order to meet Brown Act noticing requirements.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Resolution No. 2022-15 amending the project description to include the 0.58-acre annexation site within the Guadalupe Lighting District.

RESOLUTION NO. 2022-15

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GUADALUPE TO PETITION THE THE SANTA

BARBARA COUNTY LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION TO INITIATE PROCEEDINGS FOR THE

ALMAGUER ANNEXATION
WHEREAS, the City of Guadalupe desires to petition the Santa Barbara Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) to officially expand the Guadalupe City limits, the Sphere of Influence, and the boundaries the Guadalupe Lighting District, to include a 0.58-acre portion of a 52.25-acre property (the “Almaguer Annextion”) and the adjustment of the boundaries specified herein.

NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council does hereby resolve and order as follows:

Section 1. This proposal is made, and it is requested that proceedings be taken, pursuant to the Cortese/Knox/Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000, commencing with section 56000 of the California Government Code.

Section 2. This proposal is the annnexation of a 0.58 acre portion of a 52.25 acre propery to the City of Guadalupe; and inclusion of the 0.58-acres into the City of Guadalupe Sphere of Influence and the Guadalupe Lighting District.

Section 3. A map of the affected territory is set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto and by reference incorporated herein.

Section 4. It is desired that the proposal be subject to the following terms and conditions:

Within 60 days of certification of this annexation, the owner of the 2.0 acre property at 4146 Eleventh Street in the City of Guadalupe shall record a Lot Line Adjustment, to combine said 0.58 acre area with the property owner’s 2.0 acre lot, as shown on Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated.

Section 5. The reasons for the proposal are to: include a 0.58-acre portion of a 52.25 acre parcel into the Guadalupe City Limits and inclusion of the 0.58-acres into the Guadalupe Sphere of Influence and the Guadalupe Lighting District. The annexation and associated lot line adjustment will resolve certain property line irregularties occurring on the southerly boundary of the 2.0-acre property.

Section 6. The proposal is consistent with the Sphere of Influence of the City of Guadalupe, as amended.

Section 7. Consent is hereby given to the waiver of conducting authority proceedings.

Section 8. The City Clerk is hereby authorized to make minor changes herein to address clerical errors,so long as substantial conformamce of the intent of this document is maintained in doing so, the City Clerk shall consult with the City Attorey and City Administrator concerning any changes deemed necessary.

ATTACHMENT 1
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting on the 22nd day of February, 2022 by the following vote:

MOTION:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

I, Amelia M. Villegas, City Clerk of the City of Guadalupe DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution, being Resolution No. 2022-15, has been duly signed by the Mayor and attested by the City Clerk, all at a regular meeting of the City Council, held February 22, 2022, and that same was approved and adopted.

ATTEST:
______________________________ __________________________________ Amelia M. Villegas, City Clerk Ariston Julian, Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______________________________
Philip Sinco, City Attorney

ANNEXATION SITE

EXHIBIT
A
LECEND
crE E Existing Annex =\"q\ I ls-020-039
/
\
\
93-
lIr Proposed Annex
I4 & Detachment
o
Course in Legal
Description OR Official Record ,tra
8c @ t=, o't.u7,, R=s1 0,46, D='l 1o24'03"
tAlVDS OF ALMAG

2.}-AC.

UER \o*
I
LAFCO 93-14
Inst. 95-030210 OR
ElEsEl EEtt=tr1
@ s89'35',36"E 431.35'
\
\
N42" 17', 17',E 66.00'
\
44,eh,b
Viciniw Mao +-.-.--&
Not to Scale .^. rol"x
@raz" 13'5s'w4gz.oo,
-{
I
\l
Pt. of BeginningNE cor Lot E No.29
POB DJ Farms Annex (LAFCO 93-14)
I t3-040-004 @ss.41,20,,w66.

LANDS OF ALIUAGUER
ANNEX. SITE 0.58-ACRE
(PORT|ON OF 113-040-004)
\,
I' \l
\|\ t, \1\t'
\1
\
I
^"$-
Main St.

This Site
1 N50 03'51','\,\/45 .320 J SITE

Agenda Item No. 7G

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GUADALUPE
Agenda of February 22, 2022
_______________________________ _________________________________ Prepared by: Approved by:

Emiko Gerber, Human Resources Director Todd Bodem, City Administrator SUBJECT: Adoption of Classification and Job Description for Facility Rental Coordinator BACKGROUND:

The City Council previously adopted the classification of Recreation Services Manager, a full-time position, to enhance overall recreation and community program development. Previously, the Council had approved a part-time Recreation Coordinator position which duties included scheduling and coordinating facility rentals, outside and special events held on City properties. The Recreation Services Manager position’s duties have been significantly added to and modified from the duties of the former Recreation Coordinator position, and do not include the responsibility for scheduling and coordinating facility rentals and events held on City properties. For this reason, staff is recommending that the Council approve a new classification and job description for a part-time Facility Rental Coordinator position to perform these important duties for the City.

DISCUSSION:

The City Council approved the reclassification of a part-time Recreation Coordinator at the March 24, 2020, City Council meeting, but the classification and salary range had not been reviewed by the Service Employees International Union Local 620 (SEIU), as was discovered in 2021. During a “meet and confer” process, a job description for Facility Rental Coordinator was introduced, essentially parsing out the program development function and assigning it to Recreation Services Manager but leaving the coordination of facility rentals intact.

The Recreation Coordinator position was budgeted for 20 hours per week, and eligible for benefits on a pro-rate basis. The Facility Rental Coordinator position is proposed to work 18 hours per week, and is not eligible for healthcare or retirement benefits.

In order to develop a proposed salary range, staff performed a local market median salary survey of neighboring cities (see attachment). Listed below is the proposed salary range.

*Based upon 936 hours
The Recreation Coordinator position became vacant in October 2021, and with the Facility Rental Coordinator job description under review by SEIU, a temporary appointment was created. A Facility Specialist II was hired to carry the facility rental needs, but this posting expires on February 22, 2022. If the Facility Rental Coordinator classification and job description is adopted by City Council, an Interim Facility Rental Coordinator position may be filled until the position is permanently filled.

FISCAL IMPACT
The estimated cost for this position for the remainder of the current fiscal year is $3,338.75. The total annual amount projected this position is $23,958.55. Funding for the temporary appointment of Facility Specialist II is accounted for under existing funding and the recently approved mid-year budget review.

ATTACHMENT:

1. Resolution No. 2022-16

2. Facility Rental Coordinator Job Description

3. Facility Rental Coordinator Salary Study
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-16

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY GUADALUPE

ADOPTING A CLASSIFICATION FOR FACILITY RENTAL COORDINATOR POSITION WHEREAS, the City of Guadalupe currently does not have a systemic classification for Facility Rental Coordinator for its Recreation and Parks Department and a standardization of hourly wages for this part-time, non-exempt position; and
WHEREAS, this position will allow for continuous services and employment contingent upon adoption of the Facility Rental Coordinator job description, attached hereto as Exhibit No. 1; and WHEREAS, this classification will be assigned to a specific salary schedule and a specific range, rate, and effective date as follows:

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Guadalupe that the City of Guadalupe hereby adopts the classification and job description (attached hereto) for Facility Rental Coordinator position effective February 23, 2022, and approves the above-listed salary schedule for this classification for the purpose of salary administration.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting on the 22nd day of February by the following vote:

MOTION:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

I, Amelia Villegas, City Clerk of the City of Guadalupe DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution, being Resolution No. 2022-16, has been duly signed by the Mayor and attested by the City Clerk, all at a regular meeting of the City Council, held February 22, 2022, and that same was approved and adopted.

ATTACHMENT 1
ATTEST:
______________________________ ____________________________________ Amelia Villegas, City Clerk Ariston Julian, Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______________________________
Philip Sinco, City Attorney
This job description is not intended to be all-inclusive. The employee may also perform other reasonably related duties as assigned.

The City of Guadalupe provides equal employment opportunities to all employees and applicants for employment and prohibits discrimination and harassment of any type without regard to race, color, religion, age, sex, national origin, disability status, genetics, protected veteran status, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, or any other characteristic protected by federal, state, or local laws.

CITY OF GUADALUPE
Facility Rental Coordinator
SEIU Range 156/Non-Exempt

JOB DESCRIPTION
02/07/2022
DEFINITION:

Under direction of the Recreation Services Manager, this position coordinates the facility reservation program. The Facility Rental Coordinator performs responsible entry-level administrative, secretarial, and clerical support work for a department. Processes purchase orders and makes certain that the facility’s bills are processed in a timely fashion. This position is also responsible for the facility rental process and assists with other recreation program areas as necessary. Bilingual in English/Spanish is an essential function and requirement in communicating with our residents.

ESSENTIAL FUNCTIONS:
• Coordinates the facility rental and reservation program to include updating computer information, scheduling rooms and programs for rentals.
• Responds to rental inquiries in a timely, effective, and proactive manner and following up with interested renters to book rentals, providing one‐on‐one coordination meetings with renters prior to their rental; scheduling and providing venue tours with potential clients, in English or Spanish as necessary. • Responsible for renter contracts and document administration. • Coordinates and oversees logistical support for programs and special events for the rental and reservation sites to include interdepartmental support services,
• Arranging room and facility set-ups, providing additional equipment and electrical needs, • Ordering supplies, staffing, providing for outside facility needs; and • Ensuring vendors have been approved and have obtained necessary permits and liability insurance for special events.
• Receives and greets visitors; gives information concerning visitors’ needs; handles routine requests independently.
• Charged with growing and increasing the revenue stream for this area of the organization. • Secures information via telephone or personal contact; selects appropriate materials to answer questions; coordinates various schedules for persons and space; transmits information broadly in written and verbal form to coordinate program activities and events; coordinates program activity and meeting preparations. • Drafts and types correspondence, memoranda, notes, reports, or other materials using automated word processing systems; reviews work for compliance with instructions, spelling, punctuation and basic grammar; proofreads final proof of materials.
• Reviews and verifies records and reports for correct information; processes documents based on review and verification; files and retrieves materials based on limited information and performs periodic followup activities. • Requests information using standardized forms; create forms when needed; compiles information requiring the selection of data from established records or reports. • Screens and routes materials according to content of communications; may do research or pull related materials form files.
• Maintains and updates the calendar of events.

ATTACHMENT 2
This job description is not intended to be all-inclusive. The employee may also perform other reasonably related duties as assigned.

The City of Guadalupe provides equal employment opportunities to all employees and applicants for employment and prohibits discrimination and harassment of any type without regard to race, color, religion, age, sex, national origin, disability status, genetics, protected veteran status, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, or any other characteristic protected by federal, state, or local laws.

CITY OF GUADALUPE
Facility Rental Coordinator
SEIU Range 156/Non-Exempt

JOB DESCRIPTION
ESSENTIAL FUNCTIONS:
• Maintains data bases, activities records, budget line-item activities, and files; initiates appropriate followup or further action. • Accounts for funds received from various revenue producing activities; invoices billings; collects revenue; prepares receipts; generates deposits; completes and maintains detailed fund records and reports. • Performs other duties as requested.

PERFORMANCE STANDARD:

Employees at all levels are expected to effectively work together to meet the needs of the community and the organization through work behaviors demonstrating the City’s Values. Employees are also expected to lead by example and demonstrate the highest level of ethics.

KNOWLEDGE/SKILLS:
• Comprehensive knowledge of recreational programming and recreational facility operations and available resources of assigned areas to include professional recreational philosophies, principles, and practices. • Thorough knowledge of principles and processes for providing customer services. • Extensive knowledge of occupational hazards, safety precautions, and safety regulations related to recreational activities and other work-related precautions. • Extensive knowledge of leadership techniques, principles, and procedures to assign work, schedule, supervise, train, and evaluate the work of assigned Building Attendants, Volunteers, etc. • Utilizes a personal computer with word processing, spreadsheet, and related software to effectively complete a variety of administrative tasks with reasonable speed and accuracy. • Develops and maintains cooperative and professional relationships with employees at all levels, representatives from all departments, organizations, and the public. Effectively responds to and resolves complex inquiries and disputes.
• Ability to communicate complex ideas and proposals effectively so others will understand to include preparation of reports, agendas, and policies. Excellent ability to listen and understand information and ideas presented verbally or in writing. Ability to handle a variety of issues with tact and diplomacy and in a confidential manner.
• Ability to use logic and reasoning to understand, analyze, and evaluate situations and exercise good judgment to make appropriate decisions.

This job description is not intended to be all-inclusive. The employee may also perform other reasonably related duties as assigned.

The City of Guadalupe provides equal employment opportunities to all employees and applicants for employment and prohibits discrimination and harassment of any type without regard to race, color, religion, age, sex, national origin, disability status, genetics, protected veteran status, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, or any other characteristic protected by federal, state, or local laws.

CITY OF GUADALUPE
Facility Rental Coordinator
SEIU Range 156/Non-Exempt

JOB DESCRIPTION
KNOWLEDGE/SKILLS:
• Ability to establish and implement effective administrative programs and procedures. Ability to plan and organize daily work routine and establish priorities for the completion of work in accordance with sound time-management methodology. Performs a broad range of supervisory responsibilities over others. • Ability to perform arithmetic and statistical applications to perform purchasing and financial transactions.

Ability to employ accounting principles and practices in the analysis and reporting of budgeting data.

EDUCATION/EXPERIENCE:

Facility Rental Coordinator Minimum Qualifications, Training and Education (or a combination or):
• Working towards an Associate degree in recreation administration, or related field from an accredited community college; and 1-2 years of sales, hospitality, event/project management and administrative experience; or an equivalent combination of education and experience.

ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS
An acceptable general background check to include a local, state and sex offender registry check and a valid driver’s license with an acceptable driving record.

PHYSICAL REQUIREMENTS:

The physical demands described here are representative of those that must be met by an employee to successfully perform the essential functions of this job. Reasonable accommodations may be made to enable individuals with disabilities to perform the essential functions.
• Requires the ability to exert light physical effort in sedentary to light work. • Some lifting, carrying, pushing and/or pulling of objects and materials of light weight (5-10 pounds). • Tasks may involve extended periods of time at keyboard or workstation. • Some tasks require the ability to perceive and discriminate sounds and visual cues or signals. • Some tasks require the ability to communicate orally.

This job description is not intended to be all-inclusive. The employee may also perform other reasonably related duties as assigned.

The City of Guadalupe provides equal employment opportunities to all employees and applicants for employment and prohibits discrimination and harassment of any type without regard to race, color, religion, age, sex, national origin, disability status, genetics, protected veteran status, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, or any other characteristic protected by federal, state, or local laws.

CITY OF GUADALUPE
Facility Rental Coordinator
SEIU Range 156/Non-Exempt

JOB DESCRIPTION
WORK ENVIRONMENT:

The work environment characteristics described here are representative of those an employee encounters while performing the essential functions of this job. Reasonable accommodations may be made to enable individuals with disabilities to perform the essential functions.
• Essential functions are regularly performed without exposure to adverse environmental conditions.

The noise level in the work environment is usually quiet in the office and moderate to loud in field settings.

SALARY RANGE & BENEFITS:

HOURLY SALARY: $19.564 - $26.218
• Part-time 18-Hours Per Week
• Flexible 15-Hour Workweek Schedule
• 3-Hours on Saturdays
INCENTIVE PAY: Eligible for Bilingual Allowance
• $60 per pay period for verbal bilingual skills
• $125 per pay period for both written and verbal bilingual skills BENEFITS: Sick Leave; Not Eligible for Healthcare or Retirement Benefits.

City of Guadalupe
Facility Rental Coordinator Payscale
Facility Rental Coordinator
Part-time Staff (1); Non-Exempt/SEIU Range 156
Range A B C D E L1 L2
Hourly 19.564 20.542 21.569 22.648 23.781 24.970 26.219 Bi-Weekly 704.304 739.512 776.484 815.328 856.116 898.920 943.866 Annually* 18,311.904 19,227.312 20,188.584 21,198.528 22,259.016 23,371.920 24,540.516 *Based upon 936 hours
ATTACHMENT 3
City of Guadalupe
External Equity Study
Agency
Hourly Monthly Annual Hourly Monthly Annual Hourly Monthly Annual Hourly Monthly Annual Hourly Monthly Annual Job Classification
Facility Rental Coordinator 19.564 1,525.992 18,311.904 23.993 4,158.740 49,904.880 18.000 Part-Time N/A 19.580 Part-Time N/A 19.759 3,424.893 41,098.720 Hourly Monthly Annual Hourly Monthly Annual Hourly Monthly Annual Hourly Monthly Annual Hourly Monthly Annual Job Classification
Facility Rental Coordinator 15.000 2,513.333 30,160.000 20.398 3,535.667 42,428.000 18.170 Part-Time N/A 21.530 3,731.867 44,782.400 22.445 3,890.440 46,685.280 Notes:
*Based upon 936 annual hours
Solvang - Recreation Clerk noted for Facility Rental Coordinator SLO County - Receration Aide noted for Facility Rental Coordinator Grover Beach - Administrative Aide responds to Facility Rental Inquiries Guadalupe* Arroyo Grande/SLO County Buellton/SB County Grover Beach Lompoc Nipomo/SLO County Morro Bay Pismo Beach Solvang Santa Maria

Agenda Item No. 7H

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GUADALUPE
Agenda of February 22, 2022
_______________________________ _________________________________ Prepared by: Approved by:

Emiko Gerber, Human Resources Manager Todd Bodem, City Administrator SUBJECT: Appointment of Amelia Villegas as the Interim Facility Rental Coordinator RECOMMENDATION:

That City Council adopt Resolution No. 2022-17 appointing Amelia Villegas as the Interim Facility Rental Coordinator.

BACKGROUND:

In 2012, the Employees' Pension Reform Act of 2013 (PEPRA) was passed and went into effect January 1, 2013. One of the provisions of PEPRA governs post-retirement employment for retirees. Specifically, all CalPERS retirees working in any capacity for CalPERS employers are subject to several requirements, including:
• The work is of limited duration in a retired annuitant-designated position (not a permanent part time position);
• The time worked is 960 hours or less in a fiscal year (July 1 – June 30); • The compensation paid is an hourly pay rate that is within the salary schedule for the position; and
• No additional compensation or benefits are paid.

Amelia Villegas retired from the City of Guadalupe as its Human Resources Manager on October 1, 2019, and became a retired CalPers annuitant. She is currently the elected City Clerk for the City (elected in November 2020) and was also hired as a Facility Specialist II (a temporary employment classification) for a temporary period which ends on February 22, 2022. In this capacity, her duties are to schedule and coordinate rentals of all City facilities and events held on City properties. When she was hired the Recreation and Parks Department was fully staffed, yet additional services were required to meet the needs of the City concerning its facility rentals. State law and CalPers regulations allow retired annuitants to be hired as “extra help” when a City is fully staffed, and Ms. Villegas was hired in a temporary capacity as “extra help.”
The City Council previously approved a part-time Recreation Coordinator position (whose duties includes, but were not limited to, coordinating facility rentals) at the March 24, 2020, City Council

meeting, but the classification and salary range had not been reviewed by the Service Employees International Union Local 620 (SEIU), as was discovered in 2021. During a “meet and confer” process, a job description for Facility Rental Coordinator was introduced to replace the Recreation Coordinator position, essentially parsing out the program development function and assigning it to a Recreation Services Manager but leaving the coordination of facility rentals intact. The City Council approved a classification for the Recreation Services Manager position in October 2021, and this position was recently filled by the hiring of Hannah Fuentes.

On the Council’s meeting agenda for this meeting (February 22, 2022) is a request from staff that the City Council approve the classification and job description for a part-time, permanent Facility Rental Coordinator position. Should the City Council approve this classification and job description, the City’s Recreation and Parks Department will no longer be fully staffed, and a retired annuitant cannot be hired as “extra help.” However, if the Council creates the Facility Rentals Coordinator position, then it can make an interim appointment and fill it with a retired annuitant.

DISCUSSION:

As mentioned, Ms. Villegas’ temporary appointment ends on February 22, 2022, the date of this City Council meeting. If the Council approved the creation of the Facility Rentals Coordinator position, staff recommends that it also appoint Amelia Villegas as the Interim Facility Rentals Coordinator. If the Council does not create the Facility Rentals Coordinator position, Ms. Villegas’ temporary appointment will end and the duties that she has been performing will have to be performed by someone else at the City, and staff will have to consider additional options to bring to the City Council at a future meeting.

If the Council does create the Facility Rental Coordinator position, staff recommends that Council appoint Amelia Villegas as the Interim Facility Rental Coordinator pursuant to Government Code section 21221(h). This section permits the City Council to make an interim appointment to a vacant position during recruitment for a permanent appointment. Ms. Villegas has demonstrated that she has the skills necessary to effectively perform the duties required for the Facility Rental Coordinator position.

Government Code section 21221(h) requires that an interim appointment of a retired annuitant be subject to a maximum of 960 hours in a fiscal year, that the compensation paid cannot be less than the minimum nor exceed the maximum monthly base salary paid to other employees performing comparable duties, that the annuitant not receive any benefits, incentives, compensation in lieu of benefits, or any other forms of compensation in addition to the hourly rate, and may only be appointed once to a vacant position in an interim capacity. All of these requirements will be metshould the Council appoint Ms. Villegas.

Finally, Government Code section 21221(h) requires that an active recruitment be open at the time of an interim appointment. Since the Council’s appointment will not be effective until Wednesday, February 23, 2022, staff is not required to open the recruitment until that date. Staff has prepared a job flyer to recruit candidates for the Facility Rentals Coordinator position and will release it on February 23, 2022, if the Council decides to appoint Ms. Villegas as the interim Facility Rentals Coordinator.

FISCAL IMPACT:

Sufficient funds have already been budgeted for the Facility Rentals Coordinator position, for both an interim appointment and a permanent hire.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Job Flyer for Facility Rental Coordinator position

2. Resolution No. 2022-17

The City of Guadalupe provides equal employment opportunities to all employees and applicants for employment and prohibits discrimination and harassment of any type without regard to race, color, religion, age, sex, national origin, disability status, genetics, protected veteran status, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, or any other characteristic protected by federal, state or local laws. This policy applies to all terms and conditions of employment, including recruiting, hiring, placement, promotion, termination, layoff, recall, transfer, leaves of absence, compensation and training. 02/07/2022
POSITION SUMMARY:

Under direction of the Recreation Services Manager, this position coordinates the facility reservation program.

The Facility Rental Coordinator performs responsible entry-level administrative, secretarial, and clerical support work for a department. Processes purchase orders and makes certain that the facility’s bills are processed in a timely fashion. This position is also responsible for the facility rental process and assists with other recreation program areas as necessary. Bilingual in English/Spanish is an essential function and requirement in communicating with our residents.
• Coordinates the facility rental and reservation program to include updating computer information, scheduling rooms and programs for rentals. Responds to rental inquiries in a timely, effective, and proactive manner and following up with interested renters to book rentals, providing one‐on‐one coordination meetings with renters prior to their rental; scheduling and providing venue tours with potential clients. Responsible for renter contracts and document administration. • Coordinates and oversees logistical support for programs and special events for the rental and reservation sites to include interdepartmental support services. Arranging room and facility set-ups, providing additional equipment and electrical needs, ordering supplies, staffing, providing for outside facility needs; and ensuring vendors have been approved and have obtained necessary permits and liability insurance for special events.
• Receives and greets visitors; gives information concerning visitors’ needs; handles routine requests independently.
• Charged with growing and increasing the revenue stream for this area of the organization. • Maintains and updates the calendar of events.

HOURLY SALARY: $19.564 - $26.218
• Part-time 18-Hours Per Week
• Flexible 15-Hour Workweek Schedule
• 3-Hours on Saturdays
INCENTIVE PAY: Eligible for Bilingual Allowance
• $60 per pay period for verbal bilingual
skills
• $125 per pay period for both written and
verbal bilingual skills
BENEFITS: Sick Leave; Not Eligible for Healthcare or Retirement Benefits.

APPLICATION PROCESS: Go to our website at www.ci.guadalupe.ca.us to download an application and send to City of Guadalupe, Attn: HR/EG, 918 Obispo Street, P.O. Box 908, Guadalupe, CA 93434 or email to [email protected].

DEADLINE: Thursday, March 31, 2022 at 3:30pm

CITY OF GUADALUPE
Facility Rental Coordinator – Part-Time/Non-Exempt

JOB POSTING
ATTACHMENT 1

RESOLUTION NO. 2022-17

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GUADALUPE, CALIFORNIA APPROVING A RESOLUTION PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 21221(h) FOR APPOINTMENT OF

AMELIA VILLEGAS AS INTERIM FACILITY RENTALS COORDINATOR WHEREAS, Amelia Villegas retired from the City of Guadalupe as its Human Resources Manager on October 1, 2019, and became a retired CalPers annuitant; and WHEREAS, the City Council has created a classification and job description for a Facility Rental Coordinator position, a part-time, permanent position, and for which a recruitment will be opened on February 23, 2022; and
WHEREAS, Amelia Villegas has been serving as “extra help” in a part-time, temporary capacity as a Facility Specialist II since October 2021, a time when the City’s Recreation and Parks Department was fully staffed but in need of “extra help” to handle the scheduling and coordinating of rentals of City facilities and related duties; and
WHEREAS, Amelia Villegas’ temporary appointment was for a six-month period that ends on February 22, 2022; and
WHEREAS, with the Council’s creation and approval of a classification for a permanent, part-time, Facility Rental Coordinator position, the City’s Recreation and Parks Department is not fully staffed, and therefore, a retired CalPers annuitant cannot be hired as “extra help” at this time; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Government Code section 21221(h), the City Council may make an interim appointment to a vacant position during recruitment for a permanent appointment if the governing body deems that the appointment requires specialized skills, subject to a maximum of 960 hours in a fiscal year; and
WHEREAS, also pursuant to Government Code section 21221(h), a retired annuitant may only be appointed once to a vacant position in an interim capacity, and the compensation paid to a retiree cannot be less than the minimum nor exceed the maximum monthly base salary paid to other employees performing comparable duties, divided by 173.333 to equal the hourly rate; and WHEREAS, also pursuant to Government Code section 21221(h) a retired annuitant appointed to a vacant position shall not receive any benefits, incentives, compensation in lieu of benefits, or any other forms of compensation in addition to the hourly rate; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to appoint Amelia Villegas as the Interim Facility Rental Coordinator for the City of Guadalupe pursuant to Government Code section 21221(h), effective February 23, 2022, and finds that she has the specialized skills required to perform the duties of this position; and ATTACHMENT 2

WHEREAS, the minimum base salary for this position is $704.304 bi-weekly, and the hourly equivalent is $19.564 per hour, and the maximum base salary for this position is $943.866 bi-weekly and the hourly equivalent is $26.219 per hour; and
WHEREAS, the hourly rate that will be paid to Amelia Villegas will be $26.219 per hour, which is equal to the maximum base hourly rate for the position; and
WHEREAS, Amelia Villegas will not receive any other benefit, incentive, compensation in lieu of benefit or other form of compensation in addition to this hourly pay rate; and WHEREAS, an appointment under Government Code section 21221(h) requires an active, publicly posted recruitment for a permanent replacement; and
WHEREAS, the current status of this recruitment is open, and a job flyer has been prepared, a copy of which was attached to the staff report for this item, and will be released to the public on February 23, 2022; and
WHEREAS, this interim appointment of Amelia Villegas shall only be made once and will end after a permanent Facility Rental Coordinator has been hired; and WHEREAS, no matters, issues, terms, or conditions related to this employment and appointment have been or will be placed on a consent calendar.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Guadalupe as follows:

1. The City Council of the City of Guadalupe hereby certifies the nature of the appointment of Amelia Villegas as Interim Facility Rental Coordinator as described in the staff report, and that this appointment is necessary to fill this needed position for scheduling and coordinating of rentals of City facilities and related duties that requires immediate and continuing attention by someone with Ms. Villegas’s knowledge, experience, and specialized skills.

2. The City Council of the City of Guadalupe does hereby appoint Amelia Villegas as Interim Facility Rental Coordinator effective February 23, 2022, to perform specialized work for a limited duration until a permanent Facility Rentals Coordinator can be hired.

PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting on the 22nd day of February 2022, by the following vote:

MOTION:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

I, Todd Bodem, Deputy City Clerk of the City of Guadalupe DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution, being Resolution No. 2022-17, has been duly signed by the Mayor and attested by the City Clerk, all at a regular meeting of the City Council, held February 22, 2022, and that same was approved and adopted.

ATTEST:
___________________________________ ______________________________ Todd Bodem, Deputy City Clerk Ariston Julian, Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
___________________________________
Philip F. Sinco, City Attorney

Agenda Item No. 7I

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GUADALUPE
Agenda of February 22, 2022
________________________________ __________________________________ Prepared by: Approved by:

Larry Appel, Contract Planner Director Todd Bodem, City Administrator SUBJECT: Escalante Meadows, 2019-063-DR (TE) and 2019-064-CUP (TE), one-year time extension.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

The proposed project was submitted by the Housing Authority of the County of Santa Barbara (HACSB) in 2019 to replace their current low-income development of 52 duplex units. In addition to the new apartment buildings, HACSB has included a large Community Center that can be utilized by the onsite residents as well as the Guadalupe community in general. The Design Review is required for all multifamily development in Guadalupe and the Conditional Use Permit is required for the project signage, the large daycare center along with the wellness and educational aspects of the project. A Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared for the project in accordance with CEQA Guidelines including a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. The project was approved on February 25, 2020 and was valid for two years without approval of a time extension.

RECOMMENDATION:

It is recommended that the City Council:
1) Approve a one year time extension for 2019-063-DR (TE) and 2019-064-CUP (TE) BACKGROUND:

An application for time extension was submitted on February 9, 2022 requesting a one-year time extension for the Design Review and Conditional Use Permit. HACSB has been working diligently over the past two years as they secure funding that will allow construction of the project. The management team is confident that they will be breaking ground on the project within the one-year time extension.

Additionally, they plan to pay all building fees prior to the end of the current fiscal year. If necessary, there could be one more one-year time extension approved for the project. The original Resolution for the project which contains the Findings and Conditions of Approval remains in effect.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION:

The project will include a total of 192 parking spaces for the apartments and Community Center. Eighty of the parking spaces will be covered, one for each apartment. The project will have a large retention Larry Appel

basin doubling as a sport field, basketball court and 7,325 square foot community playground and picnic area. There will be a number of landscaped walkways connecting the various buildings to parking and the Community Center.

Project Statistics:

Coverage Type Area (sq. ft.) Percent of Total
Building Coverage 61,380 15.7%
Landscaping 135,192 34.6%
Children’s Playground 7,324 2.0%
Roadways 66,816 17.0%
Parking 35,040 9.0%
Flatwork (cement) 46,711 15.7%
Riparian Area 37,834 9.7%
TOTAL 390,297 (8.96 acres) 100%
Table 1: Site Information
Location Escalante Street
APNs 115-230-003, and -004
Zoning R-2, Multiple Dwelling (Medium Density)
Residential District
Land Use Designation Medium Density Residential
Project size 8.96 gross acres
Present Use 52-unit affordable housing
Surrounding Uses North: farmland (County)
South: farmland (County)
East: Residential single family home
West: Mary Buren Elementary School
The 8.96 gross acres contain two legal lots. As a separate action, the City is processing a ministerial permit that will allow the lots to be merged into a single lot. That will prevent issues if the new buildings were constructed over a property line, which is prohibited. The merger will be completed prior to issuance of the first building permit.

ATTACHMENT:

1. Site Plan
ATTACHMENT 1
Agenda Item No. 7J 1. a.

Rev: 06/17/2021

GUADALUPE FIRE DEPARTMENT
TO: PUBLIC SAFETY DIRECTOR, MICHAEL CASH
FROM: CAPTAIN PATRICK SCHMITZ
SUBJECT: MONTHLY SUMMARY OF CODE ENFORCEMENT CASES
January 1, 2022 – January 31, 2022
DATE: 02/01/2022
CALLS FOR SERVICE January 2022
INCIDENT TYPE This
Month
Last
Month
Year to Date
(2021-2022)
Year to date
(2020-2021)
Medical 52 21 244 241
Structure Fire 0 0 0 0
Cooking Fire 0 0 4 1
Trash or Rubbish Fire 2 0 6 3
Vehicle Fire 0 1 4 1
Grass/Vegetation Fire 0 0 1 4
Other Fire 0 1 1 1
Motor Vehicle Accidents with Injuries 3 1 15 16
Motor Vehicle Accidents No Injuries 2 2 13 10
Motor Vehicle/Pedestrian Accident 0 0 0 1
Hazardous Materials Spill/Release 1 1 3 7
Hazardous Condition Other 0 3 7 3
Water Problem/Leak 0 0 3 2
Animal Problem 0 1 1 1
Search / Rescue 0 0 0 0
Public Assistance 7 4 22 13
Police Matter/Assistance 1 1 7 5
Illegal Burn 0 0 0 0
Smoke Detector Activation 0 0 3 7
Dispatch and Canceled En-route 1 3 23 27
False Alarm 0 4 11 7
TOTAL 69 43 368 350
Additional Information
STAFFING: 1 Public Safety Director (Police/Fire Chief)
3 Fire Captains
3 Fire Engineers
3 Paid Call Firefighters 3 Position Vacant
Agenda Item No. 7J 1 b.

Rev: 06/17/2021

GUADALUPE FIRE DEPARTMENT
Special Assignments / Coverage:
- Food Distribution Senior Center 01/06/22
CODE COMPLIANCE CASES January 2022
INCIDENT TYPE This
Month
Last
Month
Year to Date
(2021-2022)
Year to date
(2020-2021)
Business License (GMC 5.04.040) 2 0 2 0
Litter Accumulation (GMC 8.12.020) 0 0 0 11
Abatement of Weeds and Rubbish (GMC 8.16.010) 0 0 0 9
Working Without Permits (GMC15.04.020) 0 0 0 1
Address Number (GMC 15.08.020 (505.1)) 0 0 0 2
Complaints (No Violation Found) 0 1 5 9
Apartment Inspections 0 0 0 84
Yearly Business Inspections 3 5 22 40
Other 3 0 11 24
TOTAL 8 6 40 180
Complaints Received 1 1 9 22
Miscellaneous This
Month
Last
Month
Year to Date
(2021-2022)
Year to date
(2020-2021)
Visitors 24 23 172 636
Public Relations 1 7 27 8
School Visits 0 0 1 1

GUADALUPE CODE COMPLIANCE
TO: PUBLIC SAFETY DIRECTOR, MICHAEL CASH
FROM: CODE COMPLIANCE OFFICER, JOSUE MERAZ
SUBJECT: MONTHLY SUMMARY OF CODE ENFORCEMENT CASES
JANUARY 1, 2022 – JANUARY 31, 2022
DATE: 2/01/2022

CODE ENFORCEMENT CASES
INCIDENT TYPE This
Month
Last
Month
Year to Date
(2020-2021)
Prohibition of illicit discharge (GMC 13.24.050) 0 0 0
Animal Nuisance (Odor, Noise) (GMC 6.04.100 (A,E)) 1 0 1 Fowl, Livestock and Wild Animals (GMC 6.04.210) 0 0 0
Litter Accumulation (GMC 8.12.020) 4 0 4
Abatement of Weeds and Rubbish (GMC 8.16.010) 0 0 0
Burning Garbage Prohibited (GMC 8.12.150) 0 0 0
Unlawful Property Nuisance (GMC 8.50.070) 0 0 0
Graffiti Abatement (GMC 9.07.060) 0 0 0
Abandoned Vehicles/ Vehicle Covers (GMC 10.36.010) 2 0 2 Portable/fixed basketball goals (GMC 10.48.050) 0 0 0
Parking of large vehicles/trailers (GMC 10.24.190) 1 0 1 Wall,Fence,or Hedge Requirements (GMC 18.52.121) 0 0 0
Working Without Permits (GMC15.04.020) 2 0 2
Address Number (GMC 15.08.020 (505.1)) 0 0 0
Illegal Garage Conversion (GMC 18.08.120, 18.08.160) 0 0 0 Damage Fence (GMC 18.52.125) 0 0 0
Parking on Front Yard Setback (GMC 18.60.035) 3 0 3
Trailers/Mobile homes as living space (GMC 18.56.030) 1 0 1 Residential Solid Waste Collection (GMC 8.08.070) 1 0 1 Landscape Maintenance Required (GMC 18.64.120) 0 0 0
Discharge of illegal fireworks (GMC 8.24.020) 0 0 0
72hr Parking 11 0 11
Code 60 Citations 4 0 4
TOTAL 30 0 30
Complaints Received 6 0 6
Miscellaneous This
Month
Last
Month
Year to Date
(2020-2021)
Visitors 0 0 0
Public Relations (Food distribution, Covid Vaccination) 1 0 1 School Visits () 0 0 0
Agenda Item No. 7J 1. c
Agenda Item No. 7J 2

1 | Page

HUMAN RESOURCES MONTHLY REPORT – January 2022

DEPARTMENT REPORT
Police Department
A potential candidate for Reserve Police Officer became a candidate for an open Police Officer position. A conditional offer was accepted on January 24, 2022. The background check is slated to be completed in early February. Existing funding for an additional Police Officer has been identified and would replace an officer that was deemed disabled under a long-standing worker’s compensation claim.

Staff is planning to present a job description and salary structure for a Police Lieutenant position during the February 8 Council Meeting. The Police Lieutenant would serve as a second-level supervisor in the police command structure and have clearance to act as Commander of Investigations and provide additional oversight for the entire Department of Public Safety; specifically supervising the Code Compliance program, and operational oversight of the Fire Department.

Fire Department
Negotiating teams have not met since December 20, 2021. This is contributed to understaffing due mostly in part to Covid-19 exposures and outbreaks. One (1) Paid-Call Firefighter Volunteer and three (3) Fire personnel were affected. One (1) staff member remains on family leave of absence.

Staff and attorney to provide a more detailed update in closed session Tuesday, February 22, 2022.

Emergency Services Management
Recruitment for Emergency Preparedness Coordinator is underway. Human Resources is reviewing the existing candidate pool before publicly reopening and would like to formally request Council to consider elevating the position to Emergency Services Manager in the near future. Additional responsibilities to include acting as internal Safety Manager for the City and making the position exempt from overtime.

Human Resources
918 Obispo Street
P.O. Box 908
Guadalupe, CA 93434
Ph: 805.356.3893
Fax: 805.343.5512
Email: [email protected]
Agenda Item No. 7J 3.
2 | Page
Planning/Building Department
Under the guidance of the Director of Public Works, the Planning/Building Department is preparing to migrate all records, hard copy plans on file to a PDF format that will be uploaded into the multi-department Tyler software system.

Staff is recommending an Administrative Aide/Temporary Appointment to complete this project and work closely with the Permit Technician.

With the announcement of Planning Director/Consultant Larry Appel’s retirement slated for December 2022, development for an in-house Associate Planner position is underway.

Public Works Department
In April 2020, the Maintenance and Operations Field Manager retired. Recruitment for a replacement was put on hold to evaluate the overall needs and structure of the department. During this time, the Public Works Department saw additional movement: a Maintenance Worker transferred to Code Compliance and another Maintenance Worker was promoted to Maintenance Lead. With the hiring of additional Maintenance Workers, this shored up street and facilities maintenance.

The Director of Public Works serves dual roles, as she is a licensed Professional Engineer and acts as the City Engineer, while overseeing four major construction projects at any given time. A vulnerable area is succession planning in these areas.

Staff would like to formally recommend the development of a new position, Engineering Technician in the near future. An Engineering Technician would be responsible for performing moderate to difficult engineering, produce technical documents, plans, drawings, cost estimates and project schedules, and provide support to the Director of Public Works/City Engineer.

Recreation Department
The Recreation Department welcomed Hannah Fuentes, Recreation Services Manager on January 10, 2022. Hannah previously served as Site Supervisor with Lompoc Family YMCA, and most recently as Director of Sports with SLO County YMCA. She also served as Assistant Coach for the Women’s Basketball Team at Allan Hancock College.

A Maintenance Worker I position was developed under the Public Works Department to address most janitorial and landscaping responsibilities at City parks and facilities. With the hiring of a Recreation Services Manager, the Maintenance Worker I position has been moved out of Public Works and is now under Hannah’s supervision. Council approved additional American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funding for an additional maintenance worker to focus on parks and facilities. Staff would like to formally request Council to further consider developing this maintenance worker position as a Facilities/Parks Maintenance Lead.
3 | Page
Recreation Department
Staff is presenting an updated job description and staff report for Facility Rental Coordinator and Interim Facility Rental Coordinator to replace the existing Recreation Coordinator job description on record.

COVID-19 STATISTICS
4 | Page
Source: https://covid19.ca.gov/state-dashboard/#location-santa_barbara 5 | Page
COVID-19 Updates
Santa Barbara County saw an uptick of Covid-19 infections from the start of January 2022.

With 687 new cases on January 1, the total equaled 2,527 active cases. By January 15, 1,414 new cases were reported, bringing the total of active cases to 5,984. The highest peak since the start of the pandemic occurred on January 16, bringing the total of active cases to 7,085.

The City of Guadalupe has 41 full-time employees, 2 interns, 2 paid-call firefighter volunteers, and 2 temporary appointments. Out of 47 personnel, 17 were affected in January alone, totaling over 680 loss of work hours. This supersedes the 2021 total of 570 loss of work hours.

Charting an Omicron Infection
Omicron moves fast. It spreads swiftly
through populations, and infections develop
quickly in individuals. Whether Omicron
follows the same pattern remains to be
confirmed. In one preliminary study,
researchers found that Omicron infections
were about a day shorter than Delta
infections and lower peak viral loads. Other
data suggest that Omicron may not act like
previous variants: It may not severely affect
the lungs as Delta, but that it replicates more
quickly in the upper respiratory tract.

Another study suggests that antibodies produced after an Omicron infection may protect against Delta, but Delta infections offer little to no protection against Omicron. If this finding holds up, Delta will have trouble finding hosts—and Omicron may soon replace Delta rather than co-exist with it.

Omicron appears to cause less severe disease than Delta. People with Omicron were less likely to be hospitalized or require ventilation than those with Delta infections. But Omicron’s apparent mildness may also stem from the fact that it is infecting far more vaccinated people than Delta did. Omicron is skilled at evading antibodies produced after vaccination, which is leading to more breakthrough infections, but vaccinated people are still protected from the most severe disease. Booster shots of mRNA vaccines are 90% effective against hospitalization with Omicron. Still, doctors cautioned, those who are unvaccinated or have compromised immune systems, may become severely ill from Omicron. And it’s too early to know whether breakthrough cases of Omicron might result in long Covid.

Because Omicron replicates so fast and the incubation period is so short, there is a narrower window in which to catch infections before people being to transmit the virus. 6 | Page
Charting an Omicron Infection
Earlier in the pandemic, people were advised to use a rapid test 5-7 days after a potential exposure to the virus. Given Omicron’s shorter incubation period, many experts now recommend taking a rapid test 2-4 days after a potential exposure. And now CalOSHA requires the workplace to test workers 5 days or later, preferring PCR laboratory testing for accuracy.

The new guidelines say that infected people can leave isolation after 5 days if they are asymptomatic or their symptoms are resolving and free from fever. People should wear well-fitting masks for an additional 5 days when around other people.

WORKERS COMPENSATION
Enclosed is summary report, Activity Period including 1/1/2022-1/31/2022.

City of Guadalupe - GU
Claims Medical ActivityIndemnity ActivityExpense Activity Total Activity Future Total Reserve Fiscal Year Open Closed Total Medical Paid Indemnity Paid Expense Paid Total Paid Medical Indemnity Expense Total Incurred 2007 - 2008 0 4 4 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2,405.80 47.89 10.00 2,463.69 2,463.69
Recovery: 0.00
2008 - 2009 0 5 5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 985.98 560.05 0.00 1,546.03 1,546.03
Recovery: 0.00
2009 - 2010 0 8 8 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 28,026.56 100,092.22 7,353.30 135,472.08 135,472.08
Recovery: 0.00
2010 - 2011 0 6 6 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 30,763.90 256,554.59 10,832.32 298,150.81 298,150.81
Recovery: 328.60
2011 - 2012 0 1 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3,090.05 299.80 15.56 3,405.41 3,405.41
Recovery: 0.00
2012 - 2013 0 6 6 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 131,267.83 180,981.33 82,271.87 394,521.03 394,521.03
Recovery: 0.00
2013 - 2014 0 4 4 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,519.98 4,125.50 299.92 5,945.40 5,945.40
Recovery: 0.00
2014 - 2015 0 6 6 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 41,837.95 35,446.10 3,770.60 81,054.65 81,054.65
Recovery: 0.00
2015 - 2016 0 21 21 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 12,964.62 26,560.49 2,073.71 41,598.82 41,598.82
Recovery: 0.00
2016 - 2017 0 10 10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 82,289.72 32,499.34 8,401.45 123,190.51 123,190.51
Recovery: 14,008.43
California JPIA
Workers' Compensation Summary Report
Activity Paid: 1/1/22 - 1/31/22 As Of 01/31/2022
Sedgwick Copyright © 2022 All rights reserved. This document is provided for informational purposes only.

City of Guadalupe - GU
Claims Medical ActivityIndemnity ActivityExpense Activity Total Activity Future Total Reserve Fiscal Year Open Closed Total Medical Paid Indemnity Paid Expense Paid Total Paid Medical Indemnity Expense Total Incurred 2017 - 2018 1 7 8 0.00 0.00 0.00 538.57 14,236.58 0.83 2,691.26 16,928.67 77,330.66 215,899.87 13,585.71 306,816.24 323,744.91
Recovery: 0.00
2018 - 2019 2 6 8 0.00 0.00 99.50 1,259.50 114,266.51 531,103.03 18,162.12 663,531.66 98,406.12 244,305.69 95,145.92 437,857.73 1,101,389.39
Recovery: 0.00
2019 - 2020 0 6 6 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3,088.72 4,409.73 597.70 8,096.15 8,096.15
Recovery: 0.00
2020 - 2021 1 5 6 1,405.17 0.00 200.54 1,605.71 1,045.95 0.00 400.51 1,446.46 3,114.33 4,891.92 811.64 8,817.89 10,264.35
Recovery: 0.00
2021 - 2022 0 2 2 0.00 0.00 91.30 91.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 91.30 91.30 91.30
Recovery: 0.00
Report Totals: 4 97 101 1,405.17 1,698.57 391.34 3,495.08 129,549.04 531,103.86 21,253.89 681,906.79 517,092.22 1,106,674.52 225,261.00 1,849,027.74 2,530,934.53 Indemnity Claims 51 Open Indemnity 4
Medical Claims 50 Open Medical 0
Total Claims 101 Open Claims 4
California JPIA
Workers' Compensation Summary Report
Activity Paid: 1/1/22 - 1/31/22 As Of 01/31/2022
Sedgwick Copyright © 2022 All rights reserved. This document is provided for informational purposes only.

Los Amigos de Guadalupe Report
February 2022
Staffing Updates:

Alejandra Enciso Medina Is LADG’s new Executive Director with her start date being February 22, 2022.

She will be in the audience at this Council Meeting.

Awards
LADG is excited to announce that it was successful in writing grant to CalFire. The application was for primality for creating an Urban Tree Masterplan for Guadalupe. The award announcement did show a reduce in the award from what the City requested, from $350,000 to $200,000. Shannon Sweeney and Tom Brandeberry will be meeting with CalFire staff to get an understanding of what this would mean for the City’s application’s scope of work.

Projects
17-CDBG-12099: LeRoy Park and Community Center
The City was awarded $4.5 million for the LeRoy Park renovation project and Resilience-Guadalupe Plan in October 2018. The LeRoy Park and Community Center renovation project started construction on August 14, 2020 and was set to end August 13, 2021. Due to unforeseen circumstances and increased funding allowing us to add more recreational features to the park.

The contractor’s delays have required the City to request a second extension to the CDBG contract’s expenditure deadline (which is February 28, 2020). As of this writing the letter requesting the extension was submitted February 4, 2022, and a verbal approval was given to LADG staff.

February 14, 2022 will be the date for a walk through to create a punch list for the project, with an expectation that the project will be fully complete by the end of April.

Due to contractor delays, staff will likely need to ask council to add funds into contracts that were meant to end in the January date. There are some potential additional costs for increases in materials. Staff and LADG are making determination if the present funds to the project can cover these extra costs to the project. If not, it is likely staff will need to come to Council with the issue.

Finally, LADG is working with staff on a potential date for a ribbon cutting celebration.

Agenda Item No. 7J 4.

17-CDBG-12099: Resilience-Guadalupe Plan
The Resilience-Guadalupe Plan is being written for draft review. We are consolidating all our information collected during the leadership, stakeholder and focus groups meeting. We are also reviewing all demographic data publicly available to ensure any significant impediments or assets seen in the data are included in the final Plan. With the staff shortage/training new staff the draft is not ready to be presented to the leadership team. We are expecting that the draft will be ready by the end of March. With a community outreach to come after the leadership review, we expect a final draft to be given to the City council by June, 2022.

WE will be putting all draft document on the LADG website and allowing community comments, to begin after a review by the leadership team.
20-CDBG-12089: Micro-Enterprise Assistance
The City was awarded $250,000 on March 16, 2021, to run a Micro-enterprise technical assistance and financial assistance program. This program was launched August 4th, 2021, and we have had 24 people express interest in the program and 18 applying and being eligible. The 18 continue to receive technical assistance through the EDC SBDC advisors, in one-on-one meetings.

There have been some delays on the EDC to begin cohort classes, to date there have not be organized. LADG is looking at alternatives and will discuss with staff for directions once alternative are options are fully developed, including discussion with the EDC.

Since the Council approved the Loan Advisory Committee (LAC) makeup, the committee every twoweek standing meeting. The LAC is determining if the program should be a grant or loan program and advising on the terms of any agreement with a beneficiary met. LADG staff are now development application form and promotional materials. Once the LAC has completed all the requirements, and approved the Financial Assistance documents, LADG will bring those recommended requirement to the City Council in the form of Microenterprise Financial Assistance Guidelines revisions for Council approval. This will then allow the City to begin making microenterprise loans or grants or both. 20-CDBG-CV1-00085: Foodbank Delivery Services
The City was awarded $84,676 on February 25, 2021 to start a food bank delivery service for those families who have COVID-19 high risk individuals in the home. Starting in June 2021, the City decided to reduce the weekly food bank distribution to once a month, because of this the weekly food bank delivery services also had to be reduced to once a month. In order to help our clients the rest of the month, the City and LADG partnered with the Santa Barbara County Foodbank and through outreach, encouraged and helped our clients apply for the Santa Barbara County Food Bank (SBCFB) Brown Bag delivery program. The brown bag delivery program takes place on the 2nd and 4th Wednesday of every month.

This program will continue, and be incorporated into the senior meals program, where we continue the above and add in daily meals delivered (Monday to Friday) to seniors eligible to have meals delivered.

C9801636: Prop 68 Per Capita (LeRoy Playground)
The City was awarded $177,952.00 on February 25, 2021 to help pay for the playground change order ($218,715). These funds will be expended once the CDBG funds are fully expended, due to the CDBG funds having an earlier expenditure dead to this per capita grant expenditure deadline. 20-CDBG-CV2-3-00015: Senior Meals CV 2&3
The City will be awarded $308,127 to help pay for a Senior meals program. The City is still waiting for a contract from the State CDBG program. In the meantime, LADG staff are working on getting a permit from the County’s Environmental Health Services (EHS). Since food has not been prepared in the center for several years, the County requires a new permit. LADG staff are correcting punch list items from both EHS and the Fie Department.

The Community Action Commission terminated their senior congregate meals service that was run out of the senior center effective July 1, 2021, although it got shut down starting March 2020 when COVID was declared a national emergency. The program was serving about 15 seniors a day with congregate meals. The funding source, Area Agency on Aging (AAA) was never able to fully fund this service and the gap (50%-75%) could no longer be filled. Their funding along with this CDBG grant will fund this program. Area Agency on Aging (AAA) has delayed releasing their RFP until February 7 and LADG staff are working on the proposal.

The City, with the implementation being completed by Los Amigos de Guadalupe (LADG), will take over both of the senior meals services (congregate and home deliveries). Meals will be cooked at the senior center and served to those seniors who can attend the congregate meals and delivered to those that qualify for the delivery service.

LADG, on behalf of the City, will hire one full time manager of the program and one part-time member (CV1 Staff person). Between the two they will.

Prop 68 Statewide Parks Program (Center Park)
The City will receive $4.9 million to develop Center Park into a multi-used, multi-generational park that greatly enhances the park, and the neighborhood. LADG will work with the Statewide Park Program staff to ensure the project follows their grant management guidelines. As of this reading LADG has developed an RFP for the procuring of a landscape architectural firm to complete the plans and specification for the project. Once a landscape architectural firm is contracted, LADG and staff will work scheduling a groundbreaking celebration.
2021-TREE-07: LADG LeRoy Tree Planting
LADG was awarded $30,508.00 on August 12, 2021 to buy and plant all 76 trees at LeRoy park. And to complete some education to the community on the benefits of trees. LADG has been working with the City Public Works Director and a local eagle scout to complete this planting project. The local eagles scout will recruit volunteers and procurement supplies for 56 trees. The tree planting days have been scheduled for March 11. 12, and possible 13, 2022.

Royal Theatre
A $10M application was submitted to the Economic Development Administration (EDA) on February 5, 2022. The application is considered competitive in all areas except two: matching funds and size of application request. LADG with an advisor has begun conversation with the community’s State Representative to potentially use state funds to support the project. The project design team is working with City staff on some revision needed to the submitted plans. Project should be considered shovel ready by the end of February.

February 22, 2022
Updates below:

1. Cannabis Meetings
On February 16, 2022, the city held a Community Public meeting and will archive the findings to be included as part of the scoring for the (Tentative) March 15, 2022, at 5 p.m. for commercial cannabis interviews. Over 60 people attended the meeting.

2. Building Committee
On February 15, 2022, the Building Committee met with Architect Tom Martinez about maintenance and improvements to the city hall building. It needs repairs! The Committee decided to obtain cost estimates to repair the roof tile, underlayment, and gutters along with assessing the floor beams. The Committee feels the roof is the most important section to ‘button up’ and would recommend a redirect of ARPA funds designated for the city council chamber remodel and use it for roof repairs/tiles/other. However, it was still recommended to continue with the upgrade the communication and sound system in the chambers. Council will eventually have to approve this proposal for the redirect of ARPA funds.

3. Broadband
Maria Kelly is working with SBCAG and the Broadband Consortium on developing a broadband strategy for SB County/Cities. City staff will connect with them in the next few weeks to discuss a few things:
• Timeline
• City asset discussion
• City survey for broadband readiness
• Set public meeting date for the community
• Best point of contact for the City
• General questions

4. Santa Barbara County Animal Services (SBCAS) Revenue Agreements – Full Cost Recovery Analysis
City Staff was on a zoom call with SBCAS about the MGT study that has been completed and it is currently undergoing an internal analysis. SBCAS expect that they will be able to share their analysis later this month as they understand this information is essential to our budget planning process. We hope to convene a Zoom meeting before the end of Agenda Item No. 10
February to share the MGT results and our analysis—more details will be forthcoming soon. City staff hopes that the animal control contract will not be significantly higher due to this new study.

5. Butcher Shop Ribbon Cutting Ceremony.

The Mayor attended the Lobos Butcher Shot Ribbon Cutting Ceremony on Saturday, February 12, 2022 located at 770 Guadalupe Street (Across from Masatani’s Market).

Evidently the first 75 customers got free tack plate by the Birria Boyz. Nice turn out and great food. Welcome!

6. Santa Barbara County Public Health Department (SBCPH) SBCPH rescinded Health Officer Order No. 2022 – 10 effective Wednesday, February 16, 2022, in alignment with the State’s Health Officer Order. Local guidance will defer to State guidance for use of face coverings. Universal masking will remain required in specified settings including, but not limited to, public transit, indoors in K-12 schools, childcare, shelters, healthcare settings, prisons, and other care facilities. Only unvaccinated persons will be required to mask in all indoor public settings.

According to the CalOSHA guidance, face coverings are required indoors and in vehicles for unvaccinated employees. Regardless of vaccination status, employees must wear a face covering if they are a passenger in employer-provided transportation.

Although masking requirements for indoor public settings are being rescinded, community members are highly encouraged to consider their personal risk in the months ahead as the virus continues to circulate, even at lower levels. A layered approach to protecting yourself and others is best. Consider masking in crowded areas where vaccination status is unknown. If you are immunocompromised or care for someone that is, weigh your risk in attending large gatherings.

7. Bike/Campground Site
Amigos de Guadalupe (LADA)/City is working with the Coastal Conservancy on a project.

The location is directly east of Le Roy Park, northern end. It is the same property where the Little House and Migrant Head Start. The land beyond, north of Head Start, is vacant.

We are looking to create a low cost overnight accommodation. It will be developed to include bathrooms/showers and a cooking area (Santa Maria BBQ), shared by the whole site, along with a sink and a shared water supply. There would be some electricity to the site for lights and charging options. The "campsites" could be just regular tent camping or Yurts or some version of a simple structure. The simple structure would be stand alone with no electricity to the structures. The site is maybe zoned open space. The Coastal Conservancy wants to see if the city would have any significant development requirements. Staff understands this is a planning phase knowing that the city needs to bring this forward to the City Council in the future.

8. Vets Hall Vietnam Use
The Mayor spoke to Deek Segovia VVA982 and he mentioned that they want their regular meeting at the Vets building. The door lock was changed with new keys to the middle between the main hall and the bar/lounge are now in equal use. This is the room where all veterans now have access for meeting purposes as this is where the armed forces memorabilia are located and seating for meeting purposes. This concern was brought up by Deek this past Tuesday.

The Vietnam Veterans of America, Post #982 now has access to this room as well as other common areas set aside for veterans’ use.

The City continues to be willing to negotiate on the terms of a mutually agreeable MOU, but the current Post leadership has made it clear that this path is not currently viable. If the Post is willing to "return to the bargaining table," then we can do that. In the meantime, the City is going to do what it needs to do to gain control of the building and ensure access to all veterans groups that wish to use it, including the Post.

9. Mayor and Recreation Services Manager are Teaming with Volunteers The Mayor, Recreation Services Manager and volunteers set the next stage in preparation of the ball field at O’Connell Park for safe play will be to remove the grass and weeds and rake up the pebbles in the infield. City crew sprayed weed killer on the grass area which will need removal so that the city can define the infield as per little league and softball league standards. There is a request to use the field for little league practice but before the city can approve this request, the removal of rocks from the infield and removing grass and weeds on the playing field, is critical. After that they can define the infield area, the next step would be to purchase infield material, mix with current material, minus the rocks, and prepare for practice.

Our insurance carrier, Joint Powers Insurance Authority, met with the City Administrator, Recreation Services Manager, and the Mayor on 2/16/22 to inspect city facilities. The JPIA Risk Manager likes the direction the City is heading and shared with us how to set up best practices and ideas to move the recreation and parks department into the next level.

The Mayor continues to work with volunteers on the fields, come one come all.

END OF REPORT