Morro Bay City Council
May 27, 2025

CITY OF MORRO BAY
City Council Regular Meeting Agenda

Tuesday, May 27, 2025, 5:30 p.m.

Veterans Memorial Hall
209 Surf St., Morro Bay, CA
Public Participation
Public participation is offered in the following ways:
• Community members may attend the meeting in person at the Morro Bay Veterans Hall.

Alternatively, members of the public may watch the meeting and speak during general Public Comment or on a specific agenda item by logging into the Zoom webinar using the information provided below. Please use the "raise hand" feature to indicate your desire to provide public comment.
•
Zoom webinar link:
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/82722747698?pwd=aWZpTzcwTHlRTk9xaTlmWVNWRWFU QT09
•
• Password: 135692
Or Telephone Attendee: 1 (408) 638-0968 or 1 (669) 900-6833 or 1 (346) 248-7799; Webinar ID: 827 2274 7698; Password: 135692: Press *9 to raise hand for public comment.
•
• Meetings are also broadcast on cable Channel 20 and streamed on the City's website.

Community Members are encouraged to submit agenda correspondence via email to the City Council at [email protected] prior to the meeting. Agenda correspondence received by 10:00 a.m. on the meeting day will be posted on the City website. •
Pages

1. ESTABLISH QUORUM AND CALL TO ORDER

2. MOMENT OF SILENCE

3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

4. REPORTS

4.a Closed Session Report

4.b Mayor and Councilmembers' Reports, Announcements and Presentations

4.c City Manager Reports, Announcements and Presentations

4.d Subcommittee Reports - Verbal Update of Current Subcommittee Activities

1. Water Reclamation Facility & Morro Bay / Cayucos Sanitary District JPA

2. Morro Bay Power Plant (Vistra)

3. Offshore Wind Energy

4. Morro Elementary School

5. RECOGNITION AND PRESENTATIONS

5.a Hunger Awareness Day Proclamation

6. PUBLIC COMMENT
Members of the audience wishing to address the Council on City business matters not on the agenda may do so at this time. For those desiring to speak on items on the agenda, but unable to stay for the item, may also address the Council at this time.

Public comment is an opportunity for members of the public to provide input to the governing body. To increase the effectiveness of the Public Comment Period, the City respectfully requests the following guidelines and expectations be followed:
•
Those desiring to speak are asked to complete a speaker slip, which are located at the entrance, and submit it to the City Clerk. However, speaker slips are not required to provide public comment. •
When recognized by the Mayor, please come forward to the podium to speak. Though not required, it is helpful if you state your name, city of residence and whether you represent a business or group. Unless otherwise established by the Mayor, comments are to be limited to three minutes.
•
All remarks should be addressed to Council, as a whole, and not to any individual member thereof.
•
The Council respectfully requests that you refrain from making slanderous, profane or personal remarks against any elected official, commission and/or staff.
•
Please refrain from public displays or outbursts such as unsolicited applause, comments or cheering.
•
Any disruptive activities that substantially interfere with the ability of the City Council to carry out its meeting will not be permitted and offenders will be requested to leave the meeting.
•
Your participation in City Council meetings is welcome and your courtesy will be appreciated.
•
The Council in turn agrees to abide by its best practices of civility and civil discourse according to Resolution No. 07-19.
•

7. CONSENT AGENDA
Unless an item is pulled for separate action by the City Council, the following actions are approved without discussion. The public will also be provided an opportunity to comment on consent agenda items.

Recommended Action
Approve Consent Agenda items 7.a through 7.c as submitted.

7.a Approval of Minutes
(City Clerk)
Recommended Action
Approve as submitted.

1. May 13, 2025 - Special Closed Session Meeting 6

7.b Proclamations
(City Clerk)

1. Proclamation declaring June 2025 as Pride Month 9

2. Proclamation declaring June 6, 2025 to be "Hunger Awareness Day"
10 7.c Presentation of Allocation of Water Equivalency Units (WEU) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2025/26
11 (Public Works Department)
Recommended Action
Adopt Resolution No. 29-25 to allocate 50 WEUs for residential development (30 single-family residential (SFR) and 20 multi-family residential (MFR)) and 65 for commercial development for a total of 115 WEUs for FY2025/26.

8. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS

8.a Approving the Incurring of a Tax Exempt Obligation by the Housing Authority of the City of San Luis Obispo (HASLO) for the Purpose of Providing Financing for the Development of Morro Bay Apartments (405 Atascadero Road)
15 (Community Development Department)
Recommended Action
Conduct a public hearing under the Tax and Equity Fiscal Responsibility Act ("TEFRA") of 1982 and pursuant to the requirements of the Internal Revenue Code of 1896, as
amended (the "Code"); and

1. Adopt Resolution No. 28-25 allowing the reissuance of a taxexempt obligation by the Housing Authority of the City of San Luis Obispo (HASLO), for the purpose of providing financing for

2.

the construction of multifamily affordable rental housing located in the City (the "Project") ; provide consent to the operation by HASLO within the boundaries of the City in connection with the financing, development, and operation of the affordable rental housing, such adoption of the resolution is solely for the purposes of satisfying the requirements of TEFRA, the Code and the California Government Code Section 6500 et seq.

8.b Ordinance No. 671, amending the Morro Bay Municipal Code Chapter

14.08.080 to adopt the California State Fire Marshal Fire Hazard Zone Map for Morro Bay
22 (Fire Department)
Recommended Action
Introduce for first reading by title only, with further reading waived, Ordinance No.671, “An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Morro Bay, California, Repealing and Replacing Chapter 14.08.080 of Title 14 (“Buildings and Construction”) of the Morro Bay Municipal Code relating to Fire Hazard Severity Zones” with adoption of the California State Fire Marshal Fire Hazard Severity Zone map for the City of Morro Bay as required by senate Bill 63 and Government Code 51178.5.

9. BUSINESS ITEMS

9.a Reconsideration of Vote on Roundabout Environmental Work and Consideration of Project Next Steps
60 (Public Works Department)
Recommended Action
Staff recommends the City Council:

Reaffirm the April 22, 2025, vote to discontinue environmental work on the roundabout, and:

Adopt Resolution No. 30-25 to request the San Luis Obispo Council of Governments to complete the roundabout project environmental documents; and

1. Transfer development impact fee funding to the SLOCOG for finalization of the roundabout project environmental phase at a not-to-exceed amount of $60,000 and authorize the City
Manager to develop and execute an agreement to effectuate such transfer.

2. 9.b Community Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover for the Morro Bay Fire Department
150
(Fire Department)
Recommended Action

Receive and file.

10. COUNCIL DECLARATION OF FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS

11. ADJOURNMENT
The next Regular Meeting will be held on June 10, 2025.

This agenda is subject to amendment up to 72 hours prior to the date and time set for the meeting. Please refer to the agenda posted at City Hall, 595 Harbor Street, Morro Bay, CA 93442 for any revisions or call the Clerk's office at (805) 772-6205 for further information.

Materials related to an item on this agenda submitted to the City Council after distribution of the agenda packet are available for public inspection upon request by calling the City Clerk's office at (805) 772-6205.

In compliance with the Americans Disability Act, if you need special assistance to participate in a City meeting, please contact the Clerk's office 24 hours prior to the meeting to insure reasonable arrangements can be made to provide accessibility to the meeting.

1 MINUTES - MORRO BAY CITY COUNCIL

CLOSED SESSION MEETING
May 13, 2025, 3:00 p.m.

City Hall Conference Room
595 Harbor Street, Morro Bay, CA
Members Present: Mayor Carla Wixom
Council Member Cyndee Edwards
Council Member Jeff Eckles
Council Member Zara Landrum
Council Member Bill Luffee
Staff Present: City Manager Yvonne Kimball
Interim City Attorney Robert Schultz
Community Development Director Airlin Singewald
Harbor Vitality Director Chris Munson
_____________________________________________________________________

1. ESTABLISH QUORUM AND CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Wixom called the meeting to order at 3:00 p.m. with all members present.

2. SUMMARY OF CLOSED SESSION ITEMS

3. CLOSED SESSION PUBLIC COMMENT
Mayor Wixom opened public comment for items on the agenda.  Jon Nowaczyk, Let's Get Tuned, expressed interest in negotiating a new lease for 781 Market Ave.
 Neal Maloney, Morro Bay Oyster Company, provided a business update and preliminary plans for expansion.
 Jeannie Kitzman, Monica King, Betty Winholtz, Emily Thoran, Judy Setting and Jody Peterson offered comments in support of preserving Morro Elementary.

End of public comment.

4. THE COUNCIL WILL CONVENE IN CLOSED SESSION

4.a CONFERENCE WITH REAL ROPERTY NEGOTIATOR - GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.8

2 Property: Lease Site 144/144W, 1287 Embarcadero, Morro Bay Oyster Co.

Property Negotiators: Neal Maloney, Morro Bay Oyster Co., LLC City Negotiators: Chris Munson, Harbor Vitality Director; Yvonne Kimball, City Manager; Rob Schultz, Interim City Attorney
Negotiations: Price and Terms of Payment

4.b CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR -
GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.8
Property: 781 Market Avenue
Property Negotiators: Jon Nowaczyk and Natalie Teichmann, Let's Get Tuned, LLC
Agency Negotiators: Airlin Singewald, Community Development Director; Yvonne Kimball, City Manager; Rob Schultz, Interim City Attorney Negotiations: Price and Terms of Payment

4.c CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR -
GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.8
Properties: APNs 066-280-045 and 066-044-011, 1130/1330 Napa Ave., Morro Elementary
Property Negotiators: San Luis Coastal Unified School District Agency Negotiators: Airlin Singewald, Community Development Director; Yvonne Kimball, City Manager; Rob Schultz, Interim City Attorney Negotiations: Price and Terms of Payment

4.d CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOATIATOR -
GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.8
Property: 695 Harbor Street
Property Negotiators: Morro Bay Chamber of Commerce
Agency Negoatiators: Yvonne Kimball, City Manager; Rob Schultz, Interim City Attorney
Negotiations: Price and Terms of Payment

4.e PUBLIC EMPLOYEE EMPLOYMENT
City Attorney pursuant to Government Code Section 54957

5. RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION
The City Council reconvened in Open Session. City Attorney Schultz announced that with regard to property negotiations for 1287 Embarcadero, 781 Market Ave.,

3 and 695 Harbor Street, no action was taken that requires preporting under the Brown Act. With regard to property negotiations with San Luis Coastal Unified School District for Morro Elementary, the Council authorized staff to continue to negotiate with the District for purchase of the property and to send a formal written notice to the District pursuant to Government Code section 54223. With regard to Public Employee Employment of a City Attorney, no action was taken that requires reporting under the Brown Act.

6. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 4:50 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Dana Swanson, City Clerk

A PROCLAMATION OF THE CITY COUNCIL

OF THE CITY OF MORRO BAY
DECLARING JUNE 2025 AS PRIDE MONTH

THE CITY COUNCIL
City of Morro Bay, California
WHEREAS, the City of Morro Bay supports the rights of all citizens to experience equality and freedom from discrimination; and
WHEREAS, the City of Morro Bay honors the history of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Queer (LGBTQ+) liberation movement and recognizes that LGBTQ+ individuals have had immeasurable impact to the cultural, civic, and economic successes of our city and nation; and WHEREAS, this nation was founded on the principle that every individual has infinite dignity, worth, and status, and the City Council calls upon community members to embrace this principle and work to eliminate prejudice everywhere it exists; and WHEREAS, Pride Month began as a protest against the profiling and violence of LBGTQ+ people, who continue to face intense struggles to this day; and WHEREAS, human beings deserve not only the tools for survival but also access to the pursuit of equitable health, liberation, and joy; and
WHEREAS, LGBTQ+ people have historically struggled to find others like themselves in media, community, and commerce, and Pride Month serves as a crucial time of visibility and community; and
WHEREAS, recognition from one’s government is crucial for feeling safe in one’s community and the City of Morro Bay is intent on ensuring everyone in the City feels welcome, safe, and a sense of belonging; and
WHEREAS, recognizing and celebrating Pride Month influences awareness and provides opportunities to engage in dialogue to strengthen alliances, build acceptance and advance equal rights for all; and
WHEREAS, Pride Month is a cornerstone of American culture that allows us to lift up our successes while working toward a better, more inclusive, equitable future.

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that City Council of the City of Morro Bay hereby proclaims the month of June 2025 as Pride Month in support of the LGBTQ+ community.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF I have hereunto
set my hand and caused the seal of the City
of Morro Bay to be affixed this 27
th day of
May 2025

CARLA WIXOM, MAYOR
City of Morro Bay, California

A PROCLAMATION OF THE CITY COUNCIL

OF THE CITY OF MORRO BAY
DECLARING JUNE 6, 2025 TO BE
“HUNGER AWARENESS DAY”

THE CITY COUNCIL
City of Morro Bay, California
WHEREAS, hunger profoundly undermines the health and well-being of both our community at large and individual neighbors; and
WHEREAS, approximately a third of households in San Luis Obispo County are struggling to afford the cost of living in our region; and
WHEREAS, more than 6,700 children in San Luis Obispo County are suffering from food insecurity, jeopardizing their growth, health, and academic success; and WHEREAS, nearly a quarter of local seniors are struggling to meet their basic needs; and WHEREAS, the SLO Food Bank provides food to over 150 organizations including nonprofits, education programs, and local government teams, thereby forming a critical network that distributes nutritious, life-sustaining food to those who face hunger; and WHEREAS, the SLO Food Bank serves over 39,000 neighbors in need each month across San Luis Obispo County from Nipomo to San Miguel, and from San Simeon to California Valley; and
WHEREAS, the SLO Food Bank distributes millions of nutritious meals to families, seniors, children, and people in need annually; and
WHEREAS, the steadfast commitment of our community on Hunger Awareness Day, June 6, 2025, will be instrumental in raising the funds and awareness required to alleviate hunger and build a healthier community in San Luis Obispo County.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Morro Bay City Council does hereby proclaim June 6, 2025 as Hunger Awareness Day in Morro Bay.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF I have hereunto
set my hand and caused the seal of the City
of Morro Bay to be affixed this 27
th day of
May 2025

CARLA WIXOM, MAYOR
City of Morro Bay, California

Prepared By: ___CC_ Dept Review: _GK_____
City Manager Review: __YK______ City Attorney Review: __RWS____ Staff Report
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council DATE: May 27, 2025 FROM: Cindy Cecil, City Engineer
SUBJECT: Presentation of Allocation of Water Equivalency Units (WEU) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2025/26

RECOMMENDED ACTION
Adopt Resolution No. 29-25 to allocate 50 WEUs for residential development (30 single-family residential (SFR) and 20 multi-family residential (MFR)) and 65 for commercial development for a total of 115 WEUs for FY2025/26.

WATER EQUIVALENCY UNITS (WEU)
Background
In 1984 the citizens of Morro Bay adopted Measure F, codified as Ordinance 266 in Morro Bay Municipal Code as Chapter 13.20, as a “Growth Management System”. This measure set a maximum population of 12,200 by the year 2000. Measure F set a limit of 70 new housing units per year with an annual maximum variation in the number of units not exceeding 10 percent or 77 WEUs for residential units. City Council acted on August 27, 2007, to reduce the number of allocated housing units to 50 new housing units. Ordinance No. 266 requires the WEU allocation mix to consist of 60% SFR dwellings and 40% MFR dwellings. Since housing and population growth has not increased to the Measure F projected population of 12,200, new housing units can still be issued. The population growth estimates in the General Plan predict reaching the Measure F established population in 2040.

A WEU is defined as a unit of measure for water use equal to the average amount of water used by a single-family residence over the period of one year. Based on calculations completed in 2016, a WEU is 8,732 cubic feet (0.2 AF) of water or 90 gallons per capita per day (GPCD). This amount was lowered in the 2016 calculation from previous years due to the historical trend of lower water use per capita compared to previous years. Prior to 2016, a WEU was calculated at 166 GPCD per year. The intent of the WEU allocations is to regulate the addition of new water users to the City’s water system and to ensure the demand for water shall not exceed available water supply.

Water Equivalency Unit Program
WEUs are issued to new projects based on projects’ potential water use. WEUs are issued with planning permit approvals; therefore, this water use is projected to be in the future demands, not within the current or even next fiscal year water demand.

Summary of WEU FY 2024-25 activity:

The City Council authorized 115 WEUs for FY 2024-25, including 30 WEUs to be used for singlefamily dwellings, 20 for multiple-family dwellings, and 65 allowed for commercial/industrial uses.

Those WEUs were allocated on a first-come, first-serve basis. The tracking of the WEUs utilized for FY 2024-25 indicates 22.32 of the 115 WEUs allocated were used:

AGENDA NO: 7.c
MEETING DATE: May 27, 2025

 Single-Family Residential: 14
 Multi-Family Residential: 4
 Commercial: 4.32
Previous five years’ WEU total allocations, for reference:

FY23/24 – 21.6 total (2.0 SF Res, 5 MF Res, 14.6 Commercial) FY22/23 - 1.0 total (1.0 SF Res, 0 MF Res, 0 Commercial) FY21/22 - 8.94 total (8.0 SF Res, 0.94 MF Res, 0 Commercial) FY20/21 - 84.8 total (8.0 SF Res, 21.7 MF Res, 55.11 Commercial) FY19/20 - 8.09 total (6.0 SF Res, 1.5 MF Res, 0.59 Commercial) This is not a comprehensive list of all building activity, but rather a list of those activities which required a WEU allocation in the past fiscal year. A WEU is only required for single family residential and multi-family residential when development is on an empty lot or when a change in use is proposed, i.e., changing from office building to apartment. Many of the projects for FY 2024/25 are Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) and per State Law these units are to be treated the same as the existing residence with no greater impact than the existing residence, and as such, ADUs do not require allocation of WEUs.

There is no significant change in water availability that would impact the City’s ability to issue WEUs. Looking ahead at the planning projects in the queue for remainder of FY 2024/25, staff sees no need to adjust the number of WEUs for next fiscal year. Looking forward to next fiscal year, the Community Development Department is expecting one larger scale development to potentially begin the planning process towards the end of the fiscal year. It is anticipated that the staff recommended WEUs will be sufficient to move that project and other projects forward. As such, staff recommends the FY 2025-26 WEU allocation include 50 WEUs for residential development and 65 WEUs for commercial development for a total of 115 WEUs.

Public Meetings
The Water Equivalency Allocation for FY2025/26 was presented to Planning Commission on May 20, 2025, and the Public Works Advisory Board on May 21, 2025. Both bodies unanimously voted to approve the staff recommended WEUs allocation.

CONCLUSION
Staff recommends the City Council adopt Resolution No. 29-25 to allocate 50 WEUs for residential development (30 SFR and 20 MFR) and 65 for commercial development for a total of 115 WEUs for FY 2025/26.

ATTACHMENT

1. Resolution No. 29-25 to Allocate Water Equivalency Units for FY 2025/26

1 RESOLUTION NO. 29-25

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL

OF THE CITY OF MORRO BAY, CALIFORNIA,
ALLOCATION OF WATER EQUIVALENCY UNITS FOR FY 2025/26

T H E C I T Y C O U N C I L
City of Morro Bay, California
WHEREAS, Chapter 13.20 of the Morro Bay Municipal Code calls for the City Council of the City of Morro Bay to adopt a yearly Water Allocation Program based on a report by the Public Works (Services) Director after review by the City of Morro Bay Planning Commission and Public Works Advisory Board; and WHEREAS, the Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan and Ordinance Number 266, require the City Council to set an annual limit on new residential units and to prescribe the mix of multi-family and single-family residences allowed within that limit; and WHEREAS, on May 21, 2025, the Public Works Advisory Board held a public meeting on the Annual Water Report and the proposed FY 2025/26 Water Allocation Program and recommended the City Council adopt the proposed allocation of Water Equivalency Units (WEUs); and
WHEREAS, on May 20, 2025, the Planning Commission held a public meeting on the Annual Water Report and the proposed FY 2025/26 Water Allocation Program and recommended the City Council adopt the proposed allocation of WEUs; and WHEREAS, on May 27, 2025, the City Council did hold a public meeting on the proposed FY 2025/26 Water Allocation Program; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Morro Bay, California, as follows:

SECTION 1: WEU Allocation:

Allocate 115 WEUs in FY 2025/26, 50 WEU for residential purposes (30 SFR and 20 MFR) and 65 for Commercial/Industrial purposes.
///
///
///
///
///

2 SECTION 2: Applicability:

Each development project that requires an allocation of new Water Equivalency Units shall be subject to this revised allocation program, unless a building permit has been issued prior to the date of adoption of this Resolution.

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Morro Bay at a regular meeting thereof held on this 27
th day of May 2025 on the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

RECUSED:

CARLA WIXOM, Mayor
ATTEST

DANA SWANSON, City Clerk

AGENDA NO: 8.a
MEETING DATE: May 27, 2025
Prepared By: AS Dept. Review:

City Manager Review: ___YK ____ City Attorney Review: __RWS _ Staff Report
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council DATE: April 28, 2025 FROM: Airlin Singewald, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Approving the Incurring of a Tax Exempt Obligation by the Housing Authority of the City of San Luis Obispo (HASLO) for the Purpose of Providing Financing for the Development of Morro Bay Apartments (405 Atascadero Road)

RECOMMENDED ACTION

1. Conduct a public hearing under the Tax and Equity Fiscal Responsibility Act ("TEFRA") of 1982 and pursuant to the requirements of the Internal Revenue Code of 1896, as amended (the "Code"); and

2. Adopt Resolution No. 28-25 allowing the reissuance of a tax-exempt obligation by the Housing Authority of the City of San Luis Obispo (HASLO), for the purpose of providing financing for the construction of multifamily affordable rental housing located in the City (the "Project") ; provide consent to the operation by HASLO within the boundaries of the City in connection with the financing, development, and operation of the affordable rental housing, such adoption of the resolution is solely for the purposes of satisfying the requirements of TEFRA, the Code and the California Government Code Section 6500 et seq.

ALTERNATIVES

1. Do not approve the reissuance of financing for the benefit of the multifamily residential facilities. Not approving the reissuance of financing could cause financial hardship to this affordable project. Due to the lack of liability for repayment of financing by the City, this option is not recommended.

2. Defer consideration of the request. Due to the critical need for tax exempt bond financing to complete the acquisition and rehabilitation of the Housing Facility, this option is not recommended.

FISCAL IMPACT
The Obligation to be issued for the Housing Facility will be the sole responsibility of the Borrower, and the City will have no financial, legal, moral obligation, liability or responsibility for the Housing Facility or the repayment of the Obligation for the financing of the Housing Facility. All financing documents with respect to the issuance of the Obligation will contain clear disclaimers that the Obligation are not obligations of the City or the State of California but are to be paid for solely from funds provided by the Borrower.

BACKGROUND
The Housing Authority of the City of San Luis Obispo (the "Authority") is requesting that the City Council of the City of Morro Bay (the "City") hold a public hearing regarding the reissuance of a tax-exempt governmental lender note issued by the Authority and referred to in the Notice as the "Obligation") in an aggregate amount of approximately $8,773,900. The proceeds of the Obligation will be used to: (a) finance the acquisition, construction, improvement and equipping of a multifamily rental housing project to be located at 405 Atascadero Frontage Road in the City currently identified as Morro Bay Apartments (the “Housing Facility”); and (b) pay certain expenses incurred in connection with the issuance of the Obligation. The facilities are owned by Morro Bay Apartments, L.P., a California limited partnership (the “Borrower”).

The Housing Authority is committed to providing much needed additional affordable housing in the City of Morro Bay. Morro Bay Apartments is completed and is located at 405 Atascadero Road, in the City of Morro Bay. The City Council previously approved the financing for the Housing Facility in February of 2021 with Resolution No. 09-21. The Housing Facility is a 100% affordable project and is now fully occupied. In connection with the conversion of the Housing Facility to the permanent phase of financing, the Borrower and the lender have proposed certain amendments which require the Obligation to be reissued for federal tax purposes.

Development of affordable housing is identified as a key implementation strategy in the City's affordable housing program. The primary funding source for this project is low income housing tax credits awarded by the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC). These tax credits are then purchased by investors who become a limited partner. California statue does not allow Housing Authorities to be a party in these partnerships, so the Housing Authority will hold its interest through its related entity San Luis Obispo Non-profit Housing Corporation (SLONP). The Housing Facility is owned by the Borrower with SLONP serving as the Managing General Partner.

The project is operated and managed by the Housing Authority. The Housing Facility features an affordability requirement for a minimum of 55 years. All of the rental units in the Housing Facility have been rented to persons and families of low or very low income.

No City Liability for the Financing
There is no City liability in approving this financing arrangement for the benefit of Housing Facility; a transaction generally referred to as "conduit financing." The Obligation is payable solely from the payments by the Borrower on a loan made to it (the "Borrower Loan") by the Authority from the proceeds of the Obligation. The rental payments by tenants in Housing Facility are the source of revenue used by the Borrower to repay the Borrower Loan. The City has no financial, legal, or moral obligation, liability or responsibility for the Housing Facility or for the repayment of the Obligation or the repayment of the Borrower Loan. The documents for the Obligation clearly provide that the Obligation are payable solely from payments on the Borrower Loan made by the Borrower. Outside of holding this hearing and adopting the required resolution, no other participation or activity of the City with respect to the Obligation will be required.

City’s Conduit Financing Policy
While the Council is not obligated to approve this request, it would be consistent the City’s commitment to affordable housing.

Under the City's debt financing and management policies, consideration of a request for conduit financing is generally a two-step process:

1. First asking the Council if they are interested in considering the request and establishing the ground rules for evaluating it.

2. And then returning with the results of this evaluation and recommending approval of appropriate financing documents if warranted.

HASLO’s Past Experience with Conduit Housing Bonds
HASLO has been a party to fourteen “conduit" housing bond issues in the past as reflected in the following summary. There have been no financial difficulties with any of these bond issues.

1. 1985. 168-unit apartment development on Southwood Drive ("Parkwood Village").

2. 1998. 30-unit development affordable for seniors and persons with disabilities located at 611 Brizzolara Street.

3. 1999. 122-unit apartment development by the De Vaul Ranch Company, consisting of 26 units will be affordable: 24 units for "very-low" and 2 units for "moderate" income households.

4. 2002. 19-unit senior apartment development at 433 Pacific Street ("Carmel Street Apartments").

5. 2005. 40 affordable one-bedroom units for seniors as well as one manager’s unit in an existing historic single-family residence at 2005 Johnson Avenue ("Del Rio Terrace").

6. 2009 and 2011. 8-unit housing project at 1468 East Foothill Boulevard for the University Board of the Santa Barbara Presbytery.

7. 2012. 120-unit apartment project affordable to low and very-low income households located at 1550 Madonna Road.

8. 2013. 19-unit apartment project affordable rental apartment facility for seniors located at 433 Pacific ("Carmel Street Apartments").

9. 2013. 40-unit affordable rental apartment facility for seniors located at 2005 Johnson Avenue ("Del Rio Terrace").

10. 2015. Rehabilitation of 55 affordable rental units located at 1092 Orcutt Road, 1102 Ironbark, and 1363 Pismo Street.

11. 2016. 46-unit affordable apartment development at 3680 Broad Street ("Iron Works").

12. 2018. 36-unit affordable apartment development at 3175 Violet Street ("Courtyard at the Meadows").

13. 2018. Rehabilitation of 107 affordable rental units for seniors located at 3000 Augusta Street ("Judson Terrace Homes").

14. 2019. 172-unit affordable apartment acquisition and rehabilitation (SLO Villages).

15. 2021. 35-unit affordable apartment development at 405 Atascadero Road, Morro Bay.

Next Steps
After the TEFRA public hearing, adoption of the Resolution of the Council approving the issuance of the Obligation. There will be no further actions required by the City.

Environmental Review
The project is exempt from environmental review per Section 15061 (b)(3) General Rule of the CEQA Guidelines. The project is an action to award funding.

CONCLUSION
City staff recommend that the City Council conduct a public hearing under the Tax and Equity Fiscal Responsibility Act ("TEFRA") of 1982 and pursuant to the requirements of the Internal Revenue Code of 1896, as amended. Staff also recommends the adoption of Resolution No. 28- 25, allowing the reissuance of a tax-exempt obligation by HASLO for the purpose of providing financing for the construction of multifamily affordable rental housing in the City of Morro Bay.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Resolution No. 28-25

4932-8836-0764v3/202084-0001
RESOLUTION NO. 28-25

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL

OF THE CITY OF MORRO BAY, CALIFORNIA,

APPROVING THE INCURRING OF A TAX EXEMPT OBLIGATION BY

THE HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO

FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROVIDING FINANCING FOR THE

DEVELOPMENT OF MORRO BAY APARTMENTS

T H E C I T Y C O U N C I L
City of Morro Bay, California
WHEREAS, the Housing Authority of the City of San Luis Obispo (the “Authority”) is authorized by Chapter 1 of Part 2 of Division 24 of the Health and Safety Code of the State of California, as amended (the “Act”), to incur indebtedness and to make loans for housing purposes specified in the Act; and
WHEREAS, after a duly noticed public hearing, on February 23, 2021, the City Council (the “City Council”) of the City of Morro Bay (the “City”) adopted Resolution 09- 21 (the “Original TEFRA Resolution”) approving a tax-exempt bond issue by the Authority to finance a 35 unit affordable housing project to be located at 405 Atascadero Frontage Road in the City known as “Morro Bay Apartments” (the “Housing Facility”), developed and owned by Morro Bay Apartments, L.P., a California limited partnership (the “Borrower”); and
WHEREAS, subsequent to the Original TEFRA Resolution, the Authority executed and delivered a its Housing Authority of the City of San Luis Obispo Housing Revenue Note, 2022 Note A (Morro Bay Apartments) in the aggregate principal amount of $8,773,900 (the “Obligation”); and
WHEREAS, the Obligation has been issued pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 1 of Part 2 of Division 24 of the Health and Safety Code of the State of California (the “Act”), and a Loan Agreement, dated as of February 1, 2022 (the “Bank Loan Agreement”), by and between the Housing Authority and Banc of California, formerly known as Pacific Western Bank, a California state-chartered bank (the “Bank”); and WHEREAS, a portion of the housing units in the Housing Facility are rented to persons and families of low or very low income as required by the Act and the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”); and
WHEREAS, in connection with the conversion of the Housing Facility to the permanent phase of financing under the Loan Agreement, the Borrower and the Bank have proposed certain amendments to the Loan Documents (as defined in the Loan Agreement) which would cause the Obligation to be reissued for purposes of the Code; and

4932-8836-0764v3/202084-0001
WHEREAS, the Obligation will be considered to be a “qualified exempt facility bond” under Section 142(a) of the Code, and Section 147(f) of the Code requires that the “applicable elected representative” with respect to the Authority approve the issuance by the Authority of the Obligation following the holding of a public hearing with respect thereto; and
WHEREAS, the Authority has determined that the City Council is the “applicable elected representative” to approve the issuance by the Authority of the Obligation because the Housing Facility is located within the City; and WHEREAS, notice of a public hearing by the City Council regarding the financing of the Housing Facility has been duly given as required by the Code, and the City Council has held the public hearing at which all interested persons were given an opportunity to be heard on all matters relative to the location, operation and financing of the Housing Facility, including the Authority's issuance of the Obligation and subsequent lending of the proceeds thereof to the Borrower to pay costs of the acquisition, construction and development by the Borrower of the Housing Facility; and WHEREAS, it is in the public interest, for the public benefit and in furtherance of the public purpose of the City that the City Council approve the issuance by the Authority of the Obligation for the aforesaid purposes.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Morro Bay, California, as follows:

1. The above recitals are true and correct.

2. The City Council hereby approves the reissuance of the Obligation by the Authority for the purpose of providing funds to make a loan to the Borrower to enable the Borrower to finance costs of the Housing Facility. It is the purpose and intent of the City Council that this Resolution constitute approval of the issuance of the Obligation by the Authority for the purposes of section 147(f) of the Code, by the governmental unit having jurisdiction over the area in which the Housing Facility is to be located, in accordance with said section 147(f).

3. The reissuance of the Obligation shall be subject to approval of the Authority of all financing documents relating thereto to which the Authority is a party. The City shall have no responsibility or liability whatsoever with respect to repayment or administration of the Obligation.

4. The City Council hereby consents to the operation by the Authority within the boundaries of the City in connection with the financing, development and operation of the Housing Facility, pursuant to Section 34208 of the Health and Safety Code.

5. The adoption of this Resolution shall not obligate the City or any department thereof to (a) provide any financing to acquire or construct the Housing Facility; (b)

4932-8836-0764v3/202084-0001
approve any application or request for or take any other action in connection with any planning approval, permit or other action necessary for the acquisition, construction or operation of the Housing Facility; (c) make any contribution or advance any funds whatsoever to the Authority; or (d) take any further action with respect to the Authority or its membership therein.

6. The City Manager, the City Clerk and all other officers and officials of the City are hereby authorized and directed to do any and all things and to execute and deliver any and all agreements, documents and certificates which they deem necessary or advisable in order to carry out, give effect to and comply with the terms and intent of this Resolution and the financing transaction approved hereby.

7. The City Clerk is hereby directed to forward a certified copy of this Resolution to the bond counsel for the Obligation, addressed as follows:

Bradley Neal, Esq.

Stradling Yocca Carlson & Rauth LLP
660 Newport Center Drive, Suite 1600
Newport Beach, CA 92660

8. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption.

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Morro Bay at a regular meeting thereof held on the 27th day of May, 2025 on the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

RECUSE:

Carla Wixom, Mayor
ATTEST:

Dana Swanson, City Clerk

Prepared By: ___DM_______ Dept Review: ________
City Manager Review: __YK______ City Attorney Review: ____RWS_____ Staff Report
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council DATE: May 16, 2025 FROM: Daniel McCrain, Fire Chief
SUBJECT: Ordinance No. 671 amending Morro Bay Municipal Code Chapter 14.08.080 to adopt the California State Fire Marshal Fire Hazard Severity Zone Map for Morro Bay

RECOMMENDED ACTION
Introduce for first reading by title only, with further reading waived, Ordinance No.671, “An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Morro Bay, California, Repealing and Replacing Chapter 14.08.080 of Title 14 (“Buildings and Construction”) of the Morro Bay Municipal Code relating to Fire Hazard Severity Zones” with adoption of the California State Fire Marshal Fire Hazard Severity Zone map for the City of Morro Bay as required by senate Bill 63 and Government Code 51178.5.

ALTERNATIVES
Provide alternate direction.

FISCAL IMPACT
No fiscal impact identified.

BACKGROUND
Per California Government Code Title 5, Division 1, Part 1, Chapter 6.8, Section 51178, the law states:
“The State Fire Marshal shall identify areas in the state as moderate, high, and very high fire hazard severity zones based on consistent statewide criteria and based on the severity of fire hazard that is expected to prevail in those areas. Moderate, high, and very high fire hazard severity zones shall be based on fuel loading, slope, fire weather, and other relevant factors including areas where winds have been identified by the Office of the State Fire Marshal as a major cause of wildfire spread.”
(Amended by Stats. 2021, Ch. 382, Sec. 2.5. (SB 63) Effective January 1, 2022.) In accordance with Section 51178.5:
“Within 30 days after receiving a transmittal from the State Fire Marshal that identifies fire hazard severity zones pursuant to Section 51178, a local agency shall make the information available for public review and comment. The information shall be presented in a format that is AGENDA NO: 8.b
MEETING DATE: May 27, 2025

understandable and accessible to the public, including, but not limited to, maps.” (Amended by Stats. 2021, Ch. 382, Sec. 3.5. (SB 63) Effective January 1, 2022.) Furthermore, California Government Code Section 51179(a) and California Fire Code Section 4904.3.1 require that a local agency shall designate, by ordinance, Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones within its jurisdiction within 120 days of receiving recommendations from the State Fire Marshal pursuant to Government Code Section 51178.

DISCUSSION
On Monday March 10, 2025, as part of a phased release, the California Office of the State Fire Marshal released updated Fire Hazard Severity Zone maps for Local Responsibility Areas (LRA). An interactive map with the proposed LRA fire hazard Severity Zone maps can be found at the following link https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/6a9cb66bb1824cd98756812af41292a0. PDF maps and other resources can be accesses at https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/what-we-do/community-wildfirepreparedness-and-mitigation/fire-hazard-severity-zones by looking under the tab for “Local Responsibility Area Fire Hazard Severity Zone Maps”. The maps for San Luis Obispo County and Morro Bay can be found under the Phase 3 Section. As per Government Code 51178, this information was made available to the public by a presentation at the regular meeting of the Morro Bay City Council on March 25, 2025. The supporting documents were made available on the City of Morro Bay’s website.

Prior to this update, Local Governments received recommendations from the State Fire Marshal’s office related to High Fire Hazard Severity Zones with the requirement to adopt within 120 days by the local governing bodies with certain exemptions. With this update, local governments are required to adopt areas identified as Moderate, High and Very High not just areas of Very High.

The modeling utilized to update these maps identified areas probability of burning and potential fire behavior in the area. This modeling used data related to fire history, vegetation, flame length, blowing embers, proximity to wildland, terrain and weather. The updated model will adjust fire intensity scores based on the most extreme fire weather at a given location, considering temperature, humidity, and wind speed. In addition, ember transport is being modeled based on local distributions of observed wind speed and direction values instead of using a generic buffer distance for urban areas adjacent to wildlands.

The map for Morro Bay identifies 1,114 acres of land as Moderate, 266 acres as High and 754 acres of Very High. The amount of Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone acres in Morro Bay will increase by 698 acres. One impact of this update will be the requirement to apply California’s WUI building codes (CBC Chapter 7A) apply to the design and construction of new buildings located in High and Very High FHSZs in Local Responsibility Areas. Per Government Code 51182, unless a local government has passed a more stringent requirement, the 100-foot defensible space clearance also applies.

Regarding the effects of these map updates on property insurance for residents and businesses, the state has released the following information:
“Insurance companies use risk models, which differ from hazard models, because they consider the susceptibility of a structure to damage from fire and other short-term factors that are not included in hazard modeling. It is unlikely that insurance risk models would utilize CAL FIR Fire Hazard Severity Zones as a factor, but much of the same data that is used in the Fire Hazard Severity Zone models are likely included in the insurance companies’ risk models. However,

insurance risk models incorporate many additional factors and that change more frequently than those that CAL FIRE includes in its hazard mapping, which is built to remain steady for the next 10+ years”.

To address the risks of wildfires in Morro Bay and the impacts of these increased severity zone designations, the Morro bay Fire Department has added a Type 3 wildland fire engine, we partnered with the San Luis Obispo Fire Safe Council to conduct a hazard fuel removal along Quintana Road, and we have a project scheduled for this fall on Cerrito Peak. We have partnered with State Parks on their 4-year fuels management program to conduct prescribed fire control burns to remove hazard fuels. The Fire Department will also be applying for the California Board of Forestry Fire Risk Reduction Community Certification list when the application period opens this summer. If we are successfully added to the FRRC list the city will receive priority for Cal Fire hazard mitigation grant opportunities and possible insurance benefits for the community.

CONCLUSION
The Fire Department is recommending a municipal code ordinance update of Chapter 14.08.080 of the Morro Bay Municipal Code to adopt the proposed Fire Hazard Severity Zone maps in compliance with Senate Bill 63 (Stern, 2021).

ATTACHMENTS

1. Proposed Ordinance No. 671 amending MBMC Chapter 14.08.080 relating to Fire Hazard Severity Zones

2. Proposed PDF map of LRA FHSZ Map for the City of Morro Bay.

3. Q&A California Department of insurance Question and Answer

4. Q&A California Department of insurance Question and Answer (Spanish)

5. LRA Legislation factsheet

6. Staff presentation

ORDINANCE NO. 671

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL

OF THE CITY OF MORRO BAY, CALIFORNIA
REPEALING AND REPLACING CHAPTER 14.08.080 OF TITLE 14 (“BUILDINGS AND CONSTRUCTION”) OF THE MORRO BAY MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO

FIRE HAZARD SEVERITY ZONES

T H E C I T Y C O U N C I L
City of Morro Bay, California
WHEREAS, the City of Morro Bay (“City”) is an incorporated city within the State of California; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the prevention of wildland fires is a matter of both local and statewide concern; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that wildfires are extremely costly to property owners, residents, and local and state agencies; and that wildfires pose a serious threat to the preservation of the public peace, health, and safety; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that, because fire does not honor municipal boundaries, it is necessary that cities, counties, and state agencies cooperate on fire prevention measures in order to preserve the public peace, health, and safety; and WHEREAS, The California State Fire Marshal updated Fire Hazard Severity Zone maps for local Responsibility Areas; and
WHEREAS, Local Responsibility Areas (LRA) are incorporated cities, urban regions, agriculture lands, and portions of the desert where the local government is responsible for wildfire protection; and
WHEREAS, the City of Morro Bay meets the definition of a Local Responsibility Area having Moderate, High or Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones within city limits; and WHEREAS, the State Fire Marshal has released updated Fire Hazard Severity Zone Maps, including a map for the City of Morro Bay, as of March 10, 2025.

WHEREAS, California Government Code Section 51179 and California Fire Code Section 4904.3.1 require a local agency to designate, by ordinance, Moderate, High, and Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones within its jurisdiction within 120 days of receiving recommendations from the State Fire Marshal pursuant to Government Code Section 51178; and WHEREAS, The City of Morro Bay hereby designates the Fire Hazard Severity Zones as recommended by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection pursuant to Government Code Section 51178, and Government Code 51179

NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MORRO BAY CALIFORNIA, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. The recitals set forth above are true and correct and are hereby adopted as findings in support of this Ordinance as if fully set forth herein.

SECTION 2. The City of Morro Bay hereby designates the Fire Hazard Severity Zones as recommended by the Office of the State Fire Marshal pursuant to Government Code Section 51178, dated March 10, 2025, as the Fire Hazard Severity Zones for the City of Morro Bay.

SECTION 3. Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, such a decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council declares that it would have passed this Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses, or phrases, be declared invalid.

SECTION 4. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with those sections amended or added herein are hereby repealed.

SECTION 5. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall not become effective and in full force and effect until 12:01 a.m. on the thirty-first day after its final passage. However, within fifteen (15) days after adoption by the City Council, the Ordinance shall be published once, together with the names of the Council Members voting thereon, in a newspaper of general circulation within the City.

SECTION 6. Chapter 14.08.080 of Title 14 of the Morro Bay Municipal Code is repealed and replaced to read in its entirety as follows:

14.08.080 Fire Hazard Severity Zones
A. Purpose and Intent. The purpose of this chapter is to provide authority for the identification of local fire hazard severity zones and provide authority for enforcement of state and local codes in these zones. The intent of this chapter is to reduce the potential for fire losses by providing minimum requirements for the protection of properties constructed in very high hazard severity zones and other wildland/urban interface areas designated by the fire chief and supported by substantial evidence.

B. Designation—Recommendation. The Fire Chief is hereby authorized to designate Moderate, High Very, and High Fire Hazard Severity Zones within one hundred twenty days of receiving recommendations from the California State Fire Marshal.

C. Designation—Not Identified. The Fire Chief may designate areas not identified as Moderate, High, or Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones by the California State Fire Marshal following a finding supported by substantial evidence in the record that the requirements for designation as Moderate, High, or Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones are necessary for effective fire protection within the area(s).

D. Supported by Substantial Evidence in the Record. "Supported by substantial evidence in the record" shall require the city council to hold a public hearing and make findings there is competent substantial evidence in the record to support the Fire Chief's designation as fire hazard areas.

E. Enforcement. The building official and or Fire Marshal shall enforce the provisions of Chapter 7A of the California Building Code and Chapter 49 of the California Fire Code in all High and Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones and other areas designated by the Fire Chief and supported by substantial evidence in the record.

F. Permits. All submittals for subdivision, entitlement, or building permits shall demonstrate that the proposed project allows for compliance with the provisions of Government Code Section 51182 and Public Resource Code Section 4291, except where otherwise allowed by law, to the satisfaction of the fire chief and the building official.

G. Defensible Space. Per Government Code 51182 properties located within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone are subject to a 100-foot defensible space requirement where applicable.

H. Maps. The adopted Local Responsibility Area Fire Hazard Severity Zone map for the City of Morro Bay will be kept on file with the City Clerk and available on the city website.

I. Parcels with two or more Zone designations. If a parcel is designated to have two or more Fire Hazard Severity Zones the requirements of the more restrictive zone shall apply. ///
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
///

J. DEFINITIONS. The following words and phrases, when used in this Chapter, shall have the meaning ascribed to them by this section unless it is apparent from the context that another meaning is intended.
(a) “Fire Hazard Severity Zones” means mapped area as defined by the Office of State Fire Marshal that designates zones (based on factors such as fuel, slope, fire behavior, ember cast) with varying degrees of fire hazard (i.e., moderate, high, and very high).

INTRODUCED at a regular meeting of the City Council of Morro Bay, held on the 27th day of May 2025 by motion of Councilmember ______ and seconded by Councilmember ______.

PASSED AND ADOPTED on the ____ day of June 2025, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

RECUSE:

____________________________
CARLA WIXOM, Mayor
ATTEST:
______________________________
DANA SWANSON, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_____________________________________
ROBERT W. SCHULTZ, City Attorney

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )

COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO )

CITY OF MORRO BAY )
I, Dana Swanson, CITY CLERK FOR THE CITY OF MORRO BAY, HEREBY CERTIFY the foregoing Ordinance Number 671 was duly adopted by the City Council of the City Council of the City Morro Bay at a regular meeting of said Council on the _____ day of _________ 2025 and that it was so adopted on by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

RECUSE:

IN WITNESS WHEREOF I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City of Morro Bay, California, this ______ day of _______________, 2025.

DANA SWANSON, City Clerk

City and County boundaries as of 10/22/24 (CA Board of Equalization) CAL FIRE State Responsibility Areas (SRA25_1)
CAL FIRE Fire Hazard Severity Zones (FHSZSRA23_3, FHSZLRA_25_1) Data Sources:

Daniel Berlant, State Fire Marshal, CA Department of Forestry and Fire Protection Joe Tyler, Director/Fire Chief, CA Department of Forestry and Fire Protection Wade Crowfoot, Secretary for Natural Resources, CA Natural Resources Agency The State of California and the Department of Forestry and Fire Gavin Newsom, Governor, State of California Protection make no representations or warranties regarding the accuracy of data or maps. Neither the State nor the Department shall be liable under any circumstances for any direct, special, incidental, or consequential damages with respect to any claim by any user or third party on account of, or arising from, the use of data or maps. and other relevant factors including areas where winds
have been identified by the Office of the State Fire Marshal as a major cause of wildfire spread.
statewide criteria and based on the severity of fire hazard that is expected to prevail in those areas. Moderate, high, and very high fire hazard severity zones shall be based on fuel loading, slope, fire weather, Government Code section 51178 requires the State Fire
Marshal to identify areas in the state as moderate, high, and very high fire hazard severity zones based on consistent Unzoned LRA
Incorporated City
Projection: NAD 83 California Teale Albers
Scale: 1:37,000 at 11" x 17"
Km 0 1 2 3
Mi 0 1
Very High High Moderate
Very High High Moderate
Fire Hazard Severity Zones (FHSZ) in Local Responsibility Area (LRA), as Identified by the State Fire Marshal
Morro Bay
1 41

UNINCORPORATED

SAN LUIS
OBISPO CO.

UNINCORPORATED

SAN LUIS
OBISPO CO.

S
A
N
L
U
I
S
O
B
I
S
P
O
C
O
.

March 10, 2025
As Identified by the
State Fire Marshal
Local Responsibility Area
Fire Hazard Severity Zones
CITY OF MORRO BAY – SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY
Fire Hazard Severity Zones in State Responsibility
Area (SRA), Effective April 1, 2024

1 insurance.ca.gov │800-927-4357
Q&A – Insurance and CAL FIRE Fire Hazard Severity Zone Maps

1. How will the updated CAL FIRE maps affect insurance availability and affordability? CAL FIRE’s maps are intended to drive local planning decisions, not insurance decisions. Under Commissioner Lara’s new regulation finalized in October 2022, insurance companies must provide discounts for wildfire safety actions such as community mitigation and home-hardening, which CAL FIRE’s maps do not assess. In addition, insurance companies are already using risk analysis tools and models that go beyond CAL FIRE’s proposed maps in determining what properties they will underwrite.

Commissioner Lara’s new wildfire safety regulation will help increase access to insurance by promoting wildfire safety across the state. Reducing wildfire risks throughout the state is the primary way we can make insurance more available and affordable, and our regulation is a major step towards that goal. CAL FIRE’s maps support that goal through improving public education about hazard and the need for safety preparation.

2. How will these maps benefit the public?
Public education about where current wildfire hazards exist is essential to reducing the threat to local communities and maintaining access to available and affordable insurance. When communities know and understand their risks, they can plan and prepare.

In addition, the Department’s first-ever report on climate insurance recommended updated wildfire hazard mapping to improve public safety.

3. If you are a homeowner and your zone changed from High Hazard to Very High Hazard, will this impact your insurance premiums or renewal ability? For many years, insurance companies have been using alternate wildfire risk tools for determining where they will write and renew policies, and how much premium to charge a policyholder, not the Fire Hazard Severity Zone maps. Therefore, a change in designation on the maps for a single homeowner is unlikely to affect their insurance. The reality is that more accurate risk information enables homeowners and communities to reduce their wildfire risks, and Commissioner Lara’s new wildfire mitigation regulation clarifies what actions you should take to reduce wildfire risks. Once that regulation is fully implemented, if a homeowner or business owner takes those risk mitigation actions, they will be able to see a discount in their insurance premium.

2 insurance.ca.gov │800-927-4357

4. How is the state addressing wildfire mitigation?
By design, CAL FIRE’s maps are focused on long-range wildfire hazard, which includes only certain variables, like wind, vegetation, ember production and movement, climate, topography, and fire history. CAL FIRE’s maps will give up to date information to communities about the level of wildfire hazard they face, which could help target resources at the state and local level. Expanded state grant programs and Commissioner Lara’s new wildfire safety regulation are aimed at reducing wildfire risks to communities through programs such as Firewise USA and the new Fire Risk Reduction Community designation from the California Board of Forestry and Fire Protection.

1 Preguntas y respuestas:

Aseguranzas y Mapas de Zonas de Gravedad de Peligro de Incendios de CAL FIRE

1. ¿Cómo afectarán los mapas actualizados de CAL FIRE la disponibilidad y el costo de los seguros?
Los mapas de CAL FIRE están hechos con la intención de impulsar las decisiones de planificación local, no las decisiones de aseguranza. Bajo la nueva regulación del Comisionado Lara finalizada en Octubre de 2022, las campañas de seguros deben ofrecer descuentos por acciones de protección contra incendios forestales, como la mitigación comunitaria y el fortalecimiento de viviendas, que los mapas de CAL FIRE no evalúan. Además, las compañías de seguros ya están utilizando herramientas y modelos de análisis de riesgos que van más allá de los mapas propuestos por CAL FIRE para determinar qué propiedades aseguraran.

La nueva regulación de seguridad contra incendios forestales del Comisionado Lara ayudará a aumentar el acceso a los seguros al promover la seguridad contra incendios forestales en todo el estado. Reducir los riesgos de incendios forestales en todo el estado es la forma principal en que podemos hacer que los seguros sean más disponibles y asequibles, y nuestra regulación es un paso importante hacia esa meta. Los mapas de CAL FIRE respaldan esa meta al mejorar la educación pública sobre los peligros y la necesidad de preparación para la seguridad.

2. ¿Cómo beneficiarán al público estos mapas?
La educación pública sobre dónde existen los peligros de incendios forestales actuales es esencial para reducir la amenaza a las comunidades locales y mantener el acceso a seguros disponibles y al alcance. Cuando las comunidades conocen y comprenden sus riesgos, pueden planificar y prepararse.

Además, el primer informe del Departamento sobre seguros climáticos recomendó la creación de mapas actualizados de peligros de incendios forestales para mejorar la seguridad pública

3. Si usted es propietario de una vivienda y su zona cambió de Alto Peligro a Muy Alto Peligro, ¿afectará esto sus primas de seguro o sus posibilidades de renovación? Por muchos años, las compañías de seguros han usado herramientas alternativas de riesgo de incendios forestales para determinar dónde asegurarán y renovarán las pólizas, y cuanto cobrarán de primas al titular de la póliza, no los Mapas de Zonas de Gravedad de Peligro de Incendios. Por lo tanto, es poco probable que un cambio en la designación de los mapas para un propietario afecte su seguro. La realidad es que la información de riesgos más precisa permite a los propietarios de viviendas y comunidades reducir sus riesgos de incendios forestales, y la nueva regulación de mitigación de incendios forestales del Comisionado Lara aclara qué acciones debe tomar para

reducir los riesgos de incendios forestales. Una vez que esa regulación se implemente por completo, si un dueño de casa o de negocio toma esas medidas de mitigación de riesgos, podrá ver un descuento en su prima de seguro.
insurance.ca.gov │800-927-4357
2 4. ¿Cómo aborda el estado la mitigación de incendios forestales? Por diseño, los mapas de CAL FIRE se enfocan en el peligro de los incendios forestales de largo alcance, que incluyen solo ciertas variables, como el viento, la vegetación, la producción y movimiento de brasas, el clima, la topografía y el historial de incendios. Los mapas de CAL FIRE presentarán información actualizada a las comunidades sobre el nivel de peligro de incendios forestales que enfrentan, lo que podría ayudar a dirigir los recursos a nivel estatal y local. Los programas expandidos de subvenciones estatales y la nueva regulación de seguridad contra incendios forestales del Comisionado Lara están diseñados para reducir los riesgos de incendios forestales a las comunidades a través de programas como Firewise USA y la nueva designación de Comunidad para la Reducción del Riesgo de Incendios de la Junta de Bosques y Protección Contra Incendios de California.
insurance.ca.gov │800-927-4357

FHSZ Frequently Asked Questions
What do Fire Hazard Severity Zones measure?
The Fire Hazard Severity Zone map reflects “hazard,” not “risk”. The map is like flood zone maps, where lands are described in terms of the probability level of a par琀椀cular area being inundated by floodwaters, and not specifically prescrip琀椀ve of impacts. “Hazard” is based on the physical condi琀椀ons that create a likelihood and expected fire behavior over a 30 to 50-year period without considering mi琀椀ga琀椀on measures such as home hardening, recent wildfire, or fuel reduc琀椀on efforts.
“Risk” is the poten琀椀al damage a fire can do to the area under exis琀椀ng condi琀椀ons, accoun琀椀ng for any modifica琀椀ons such as fuel reduc琀椀on projects, defensible space, and igni琀椀on resistant building construc琀椀on.

What is a Fire Hazard Severity Zone or FHSZ?
Public Resource Code 4202; The State Fire Marshal shall classify lands within State Responsibility Areas into Fire Hazard Severity Zones. Each zone shall embrace rela琀椀vely homogeneous lands and shall be based on fuel loading, slope, fire weather, and other relevant factors present, including areas where winds have been iden琀椀fied by the department as a major cause of wildfire spread.

Government Code 51178; The State Fire Marshal shall iden琀椀fy areas in the state as Moderate, High, and Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones based on consistent statewide criteria and based on the severity of fire hazard that is expected to prevail in those areas. Moderate, High, and Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones shall be based on fuel loading, slope, fire weather, and other relevant factors including areas where winds have been iden琀椀fied by the Office of the State Fire Marshal as a major cause of wildfire spread.

Will the new Fire Hazard Severity Zones affect my ability to get or maintain insurance? Insurance companies use risk models, which differ from hazard models, because they consider the suscep琀椀bility of a structure to damage from fire and other short-term factors that are not included in hazard modeling. It is unlikely that insurance risk models would u琀椀lize CAL FIRE Fire Hazard Severity Zones as a factor, but much of the same data that is used in the Fire Hazard Severity Zone model are likely included in the insurance companies’ risk models. However, insurance risk models incorporate many addi琀椀onal factors and that change more frequently than those that CAL FIRE includes in its hazard mapping, which is built to remain steady for the next 10+ years.

General

FHSZ Frequently Asked Questions
When were the maps last updated?
In 2007, CAL FIRE updated the FHSZs for the en琀椀re State Responsibility Area (SRA). Between 2008- 2011 the department worked with local governments to make recommenda琀椀ons of the Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones within Local Responsibility Area (LRA).

Why are fire hazard severity maps being updated?
The hazard maps are being updated to more accurately reflect the zones in California that are suscep琀椀ble to wildfire. The hazard mapping process will incorporate new science in local climate data and improved fire assessment modeling in determining hazard ra琀椀ngs.

Where do Fire Hazard Severity Zones apply?
Fire Hazard Severity Zones are found in areas where the state has financial responsibility for wildfire protec琀椀on and preven琀椀on, called the State Responsibility Area. More than 31 million acres are in this area. Under Senate Bill 63 (Stern, 2021) Government Code 51178 was amended to also iden琀椀fy the Moderate and High Fire Hazard Severity Zones with the Very High in Local Responsibility Area (LRA).

What are the uses of Fire Hazard Severity Zones?
The zones are used for several purposes including to designate areas where California’s defensible space standards and wildland urban interface building codes are required. They can be a factor in real estate disclosure, and local governments may consider them in their general plan.

What are the key elements of the Fire Hazard Severity Zone model? The fire hazard severity model for wildland fire has two key elements: probability of an area burning and expected fire behavior under extreme fuel and weather condi琀椀ons. The zones reflect areas that have similar burn probabili琀椀es and fire behavior characteris琀椀cs. The factors considered in determining fire hazard within wildland areas are fire history, flame length, terrain, local weather, and poten琀椀al fuel over a 50-year period. Outside of wildlands, the model considers factors that might lead to buildings being threatened, including terrain, weather, urban vegeta琀椀on cover, blowing embers, proximity to wildland, fire history, and fire hazard in nearby wildlands.

FHSZs are not a structure loss model, as key informa琀椀on regarding structure igni琀椀on (such as roof type, etc.) is not included.

General

FHSZ Frequently Asked Questions
How do the Fire Hazard Severity Zone Maps differ from California Public U琀椀li琀椀es Commission (CPUC) High Fire Threat District Maps?
The California Public U琀椀li琀椀es Commission (CPUC) sponsored map, known as "CPUC High Fire Threat District Map” (HFTD), includes similar factors as those in the FHSZ maps, however the CPUC HFTD Map is designed specifically for iden琀椀fying areas where there is an increased risk for u琀椀lity associated wildfires. As such, the CPUC map includes fire hazards associated with historical powerline-caused wildfires, current fuel condi琀椀ons, and scores areas based on where fires start, as opposed to where poten琀椀al fires may cause impacts.

Why is my property in a different zone than the adjacent area, which looks similar? In wildland areas, zone edges are a result of the way zones are delineated. Specifically, zones represent areas of similar slope and fuel poten琀椀al. Zone boundaries divide zones based on geographic and vegeta琀椀on features that align with fire hazard poten琀椀al; although, at a local scale, it may appear that the immediate area is similar on both sides of the edge. The class value within a zone is based on the average hazard score across the whole zone, so areas that are in the same zone but not immediately adjacent to a local area can have an influence on the final zone classifica琀椀on. Classifica琀椀on outside of wildland areas is based on the fire hazard of the adjacent wildland and the probability of flames and embers threatening buildings.

How are Fire Hazard Severity Zones determined?
CAL FIRE used the best available science and data to develop, and field test a model that served as the basis of zone assignments. The model evaluated the probability of the area burning and poten琀椀al fire behavior in the area. Many factors were included such as fire history, vegeta琀椀on, flame length, blowing embers, proximity to wildland, terrain, and weather.

What new data will be included in the new model, and how does this differ from the previous model?
A 2 km grid of climate data covering the years 2003-2018 is being used in the update. The previous model used stock weather inputs across the state to calculate wildland fire intensity scores. The updated model will adjust fire intensity scores based on the most extreme fire weather at a given loca琀椀on, considering temperature, humidity, and wind speed. In addi琀椀on, ember transport is being modeled based on local distribu琀椀ons of observed wind speed and direc琀椀on values instead of using a generic buffer distance for urban areas adjacent to wildlands.

General

FHSZ Frequently Asked Questions
How can I search the Fire Hazard Severity Zone of a property? You can search by address to find your current designa琀椀on on the web at: osfm.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ Why does the model place an emphasis on the spread of embers? Embers spread wildfire because they can travel long distances in the wind and ignite vegeta琀椀on, roofs, a琀cs (by ge琀ng into vents), and decks.

Why do waterbodies have a Fire Hazard Severity Zone Classifica琀椀on? All areas in State Responsibility Area, including water bodies, require a Fire Hazard Severity Zone designa琀椀on. The 2007 FHSZ maps zoned all water as Moderate by default. In the 2023 FHSZ model we added a buffer of FHSZ from the surrounding wildland into water bodies to account for poten琀椀al threat of embers to buildings on docks and house boats, as well as varia琀椀on in reservoir height that occurs with drought.

How does CAL FIRE assist Local Governments in Fire Hazard Severity Zones? CAL FIRE’s Land Use Planning Program is a specialized unit that provides support to local governments by providing fire safety exper琀椀se on the State’s wildland urban interface building codes, wildfire safety codes, as well as helping in the development of the safety elements in general plans.

General

FHSZ Frequently Asked Questions
What is State Responsibility Area or SRA?
SRA is a legal term defining the area where the state has financial responsibility for wildland fire protec琀椀on and preven琀椀on. Incorporated ci琀椀es and federal ownership are not included. Within the SRA, CAL FIRE is responsible for fire preven琀椀on and suppression. There are more than 31 million acres in SRA, with an es琀椀mated 1.7 million people and 800,000 exis琀椀ng homes.

How is State Responsibility Area determined?
The Board of Forestry and Fire Protec琀椀on (Board) classifies land as State Responsibility Area. The legal defini琀椀on of SRA is found in the Public Resources Code Sec琀椀on 4125. The Board has developed detailed procedures to classify lands as State Responsibility Area. Lands are removed from SRA when they become incorporated by a city, change in ownership to the federal government, become more densely populated, or are converted to intensive agriculture that minimizes the risk of wildfire. While some lands are removed from SRA automa琀椀cally, the Board typically reviews changes every five years.

What Fire Hazard Severity Zones are in State Responsibility Area? All of the State Responsibility Area is in a Fire Hazard Severity Zone. Lands are either ranked as Moderate, High or Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones.

What are the wildland urban interface (WUI) building codes in State Responsibility Area? The WUI building codes (California Building Code (CBC) Chapter 7A) reduce the risk of embers fanned by wind-blown wildfires from igni琀椀ng buildings. The codes for roofing, siding, decking, windows, and vents apply throughout all State Responsibility Area regardless of the fire hazard severity ranking. Ember-resistant building materials can be found at:
h琀琀ps://osfm.fire.ca.gov/divisions/fire-engineering-and-inves琀椀ga琀椀ons/building-materials-lis琀椀ng/ State Responsibility Area

FHSZ Frequently Asked Questions
What is the difference between the various Fire Hazard Severity Zones? Classifica琀椀on of a wildland zone as Moderate, High or Very High Fire Hazard is based on the average hazard across the area included in the zone, which have a minimum size of 200 acres. In wildlands, hazard is a func琀椀on of modeled flame length under the worst condi琀椀ons and annual burn probability. Both these factors generally increase with increasing hazard level, but there may be instances where one value is Very High and the other is low, pushing the overall hazard into a more intermediate ranking. On average, both modeled flame length and burn probability increase by roughly 40-60% between hazard classes.

Is the GIS data for Fire Hazard Severity Zones available for download? The data inputs used to develop the Fire Hazard Severity Zones are iden琀椀fied in the Ini琀椀al Statement of Reasons (ISOR) Title 19 Development (ca.gov). CAL FIRE has developed an addi琀椀onal data package which consists of sequen琀椀al modeling steps, including any data inputs that were not already publicly available and referenced in the ISOR. The data package encompasses 34 spa琀椀al datasets and 8 tables, provided in raster, polygon, and table format. These datasets are forma琀琀ed for Esri ArcGIS so昀琀ware, except for four tables provided in Excel. Ten of the datasets are updated versions used to produce an edited SRA FHSZ map following the public comment period that ended April 4, 2023. Upon formal adop琀椀on of the FHSZ map, the final SRA FHSZ geospa琀椀al data file will become available. The data package is available on the FHSZ website Fire Hazard Severity Zones (ca.gov) under the science and methods banner.

State Responsibility Area

FHSZ Frequently Asked Questions
What is Local Responsibility Area or LRA?
Local Responsibility Areas (LRA) are incorporated ci琀椀es, urban regions, agriculture lands, and por琀椀ons of the desert where the local government is responsible for wildfire protec琀椀on. This is typically provided by city fire departments, fire protec琀椀on districts, coun琀椀es, and by CAL FIRE under contract.

When did Fire Hazard Severity Zones begin in Local Responsibility Area? Assembly Bill 337 (Bates, 1992) prompted by the devasta琀椀ng Oakland Hills Fire of 1991, calls for CAL FIRE to evaluate fire hazard severity in Local Responsibility Area and to make a recommenda琀椀on to the local jurisdic琀椀on where Very High FHSZ exist. Government Code 51175 then provides direc琀椀on for the local jurisdic琀椀on to take appropriate ac琀椀on.

How are Fire Hazard Severity Zones determined in Local Responsibility Areas? CAL FIRE uses an extension of the State Responsibility Area Fire Hazard Severity Zone model as the basis for evalua琀椀ng fire hazard in Local Responsibility Area. The Local Responsibility Area hazard ra琀椀ng reflects flame and ember intrusion from adjacent wildlands and from flammable vegeta琀椀on in the urban area.

What are the requirements for landowners in Fire Hazard Severity Zones in Local Responsibility Areas?
California’s WUI building codes (CBC Chapter 7A) apply to the design and construc琀椀on of new buildings located in High and Very High FHSZs in Local Responsibility Areas. Local ordinances may require igni琀椀on resistant construc琀椀on for remodel projects. Check with your local building department to determine which igni琀椀on resistant building codes apply to your project. In addi琀椀on, Government Code Sec琀椀on 51182 calls for defensible space clearance and other wildland fire safety prac琀椀ces for buildings. Owners are also required to make a natural hazard disclosure as part of a real estate transfer. For informa琀椀on regarding home hardening and defensible space clearance, visit www.readyforwildfire.org.

Does the designa琀椀on of Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in the Local Responsibility Area trigger the 100-foot clearance requirement?
Yes, per Government Code 51182 unless a local government has passed a more stringent requirement, the 100-foot defensible space clearance applies. For informa琀椀on regarding home hardening and defensible space clearance, visit www.readyforwildfire.org.

Local Responsibility Area

FHSZ Frequently Asked Questions
Why is my property in a different zone than the adjacent area, which looks similar? In non-wildland areas, zone edges occur based on distance to the wildland edge. Because hazard in these areas is largely determined by incoming embers from adjacent wildland, urban areas that are similar in vegeta琀椀on type and housing density may have a change in FHSZ class as the distance to the wildland edge increases. Areas immediately adjacent to wildland receive the same FHSZ score as that wildland where fire originates, and the model then produces lower scores as the distance to wildland edge increases.

What is the process for developing Fire Hazard Severity Zones in the Local Responsibility Area? CAL FIRE uses the same modeling data that is used to map the State Responsibility Area. The map, along with a model ordinance, are then sent to the governing body for adop琀椀on.

How are the new Fire Hazard Severity Zones impac琀椀ng development? Many of the changes expanding Fire Hazard Severity Zones in Local Responsibility Areas have been supported by the building industry. CAL FIRE works closely with the building industry when se琀ng various building codes and defensible space requirements, so we are working together to not affect development itself but to make sure development matches the hazards of that area.

When will the Local Responsibility Area Map be released? The Local Responsibility Area map process will happen a昀琀er the State Responsibility Area process has been completed, which is es琀椀mated to occur in winter of 2025.

Why haven’t Moderate and High Fire Hazard Severity Zone classes been classified before in the Local Responsibility Area?
New legisla琀椀on, Senate Bill 63 (Stern, 2021), now requires the adop琀椀on of all three Fire Hazard Severity Zone classes in the Local Responsibility Area. Previously only Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones were required for adop琀椀on in Local Responsibility Areas.

Local Responsibility Area

LRA Legislation Factsheet
Assembly Bill No.337
An act to add Chapter 6.8 (commencing with Section 51175) to Part 1 of Division 1 of Title 5 of the Government Code, and to amend Section 13108.5 of the Health and Safety Code, relating to fire protection.
[Enrolled, January 28, 1991]
AB 337, Bates. Very high fire hazard severity zones.
(1) Under existing law, the State Board of Forestry is required to classify all lands within the state, in accordance with prescribed criteria, for the purpose of determining areas in which the financial responsibility of preventing and suppressing fires is primarily the responsibility of the state.

This bill would declare that the prevention of fires is not a municipal affair but is instead, a matter of statewide concern, and would make a finding and declaration of the Legislature that its provisions apply to all local agencies, including, but not limited to, charter cities, charter counties, and charter cities and counties. The bill would prohibit that finding from limiting the authority of a local agency, as defined, from imposing more restrictive fire and panic safety requirements, as otherwise authorized by law.

The bill would state that it is not the intent of the Legislature to limit or restrict the authority of a local agency to impose more restrictive fire and panic safety requirements, as otherwise authorized by law.

This bill would require the Director of Forestry and Fire Protection to identify areas in the state as very high fire hazard severity zones within all counties pursuant to a prescribed schedule. The bill would require local agencies, as defined, to designate, by ordinance, very high fire hazard severity zones in their jurisdiction after receiving recommendations from the director, except as prescribed. The bill would authorize local agencies to include or exclude areas following certain findings and would require changes made by local agencies to be final and not rebuttable by the director. By requiring local agencies to designate very high fire hazard severity zones within their jurisdictions, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would require the State Fire Marshal to prepare and adopt a model ordinance that provides for the establishment of any high fire hazard security zones.

LRA Legislation Factsheet
Assembly Bill No.337 (Continued)
(2) Under existing law, any person who owns, leases, controls, operates, or maintains any building or structure in, upon, or adjoining any mountainous area or forest-covered lands, brush-covered lands, or grass-covered lands, or any land that is covered with flammable material, is required to undertake specified fire protection measures, including the maintenance of specified firebreaks.

The bill would enact requirements of this nature for any person who owns, leases, controls, operates, or maintains, any occupied dwelling or occupied structure in, upon, or adjoining any mountainous area, forest-covered land, brush-covered land, grass-covered land, or land covered with flammable material, which area or land is within a very high fire hazard severity zone, as described in (1).

The bill would authorize local agencies to exempt certain structures and would exempt certain land or water areas.

The bill would make violation of these requirements an infraction or misdemeanor, as specified, thereby imposing a state-mandated local program by creating a new crime, and would specify related matters.

This bill would require local agencies to notify owners of property of violation and would authorize local agencies to correct the conditions and make a lien upon the property, as prescribed. By creating these requirements, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

The bill would permit a violation of these requirements to be considered a public nuisance, as specified.
(3) Existing law requires the State Fire Marshal to adopt, amend, and repeal regulations for roof coverings and openings into the attic areas of buildings in those fire hazard severity zones in state responsibility lands as designated by the director. Existing law requires the director to classify lands within state responsibility areas into fire hazard severity zones.

This bill would instead require the State Fire Marshal to propose, and would require the State Building Standards Commission to adopt, amend, and repeal those regulations. The bill would also require the State Fire Marshal to propose, and would require the State Building Standards Commission to adopt, amend, and repeal, those regulations for buildings in very high fire hazard severity zones in state responsibility lands, designated by the director, and in very high fire hazard severity zones as described in (1). The bill would require roofs on all new buildings and certain existing buildings in both of those zones to be at least a class B roof that complies with Standard 32-7 of the Uniform Building Code, as adopted in the California Building Standards Code. The bill would impose requirements on installers and roofing materials and make other related changes. The bill would exempt historic buildings, as defined, from these provisions.

LRA Legislation Factsheet
Senate Bill No.63
CHAPTER 382
An act to amend Sections 51177, 51178, 51178.5, 51182, and 51189 of the Government Code, to amend Section 13108.5 of the Health and Safety Code, and to amend Sections 4124.5 and 4291 of, and to add and repeal Sections 4123.8, 4291.5, and 4291.6 of, the Public Resources Code, relating to fire prevention.
[Approved by Governor September 28, 2021. Filed with Secretary of State September 28, 2021.] SB 63, Stern. Fire prevention: vegetation management: public education: grants: defensible space:
fire hazard severity zones.
(1) Existing law requires the Director of Forestry and Fire Protection to identify areas of the state as very high fire hazard severity zones based on specified criteria. Existing law requires a local agency, within 30 days after receiving a transmittal from the director that identifies very high fire hazard severity zones, to make the information available for public review, as provided.

This bill, among other things, would also require the director to identify areas of the state as moderate and high fire hazard severity zones. The bill would modify the factors the director is required to use to identify areas into fire hazard severity zones, as provided. The bill would require a local agency to make this information available for public review and comment, as provided. By expanding the responsibility of a local agency, the bill would impose a statemandated local program.

This bill would also make conforming changes.
(2) Existing law requires a person who owns, leases, controls, operates, or maintains an occupied dwelling or structure in, upon, or adjoining a mountainous area, forest-covered land, brushcovered land, grass-covered land, or land that is covered with flammable material that is within a very high fire hazard severity zone, as designated by a local agency, or a building or structure in, upon, or adjoining those areas or lands within a state responsibility area, to maintain a defensible space of 100 feet from each side and from the front and rear of the structure, as specified. Existing law authorizes a greater distance than specified above on the specified land in a very high fire hazard severity zone. Existing law specifies that clearance beyond the property line may only be required if state law, local ordinance, rule, or regulation includes certain findings and specifies that clearance on adjacent property shall only be conducted following written consent by the adjacent landowner.

LRA Legislation Factsheet
Amended by Senate Bill No.63
Government Code 51178
The State Fire Marshal shall identify areas in the state as moderate, high, and very high fire hazard severity zones based on consistent statewide criteria and based on the severity of fire hazard that is expected to prevail in those areas. Moderate, high, and very high fire hazard severity zones shall be based on fuel loading, slope, fire weather, and other relevant factors including areas where winds have been identified by the Office of the State Fire Marshal as a major cause of wildfire spread.
(Amended by Stats. 2021, Ch. 382, Sec. 2.5. (SB 63) Effective January 1, 2022.) Government Code 51178.5
Within 30 days after receiving a transmittal from the State Fire Marshal that identifies fire hazard severity zones pursuant to Section 51178, a local agency shall make the information available for public review and comment. The information shall be presented in a format that is understandable and accessible to the general public, including, but not limited to, maps. (Amended by Stats. 2021, Ch. 382, Sec. 3.5. (SB 63) Effective January 1, 2022.)

LRA Legislation Factsheet
Assembly Bill No. 211
CHAPTER 574
An act to amend Sections 11891, 11893, 12581, 12996, 12998, 12999.4, and 12999.5 of, and to add Sections 12999.6 and 13001 to, the Food and Agricultural Code, to amend Section 51179 of the Government Code, to amend Sections 44274.10, 44274.11, 44274.12, 44274.13, and 44274.14 of the Health and Safety Code, to amend Sections 3113, 4799.05, 14503.5.1, 14538, 14549.2, 14581, 42052, and 42060 of, to add Sections 14537.5, 14548, 14555, and 21166.3 to, to add Part 5 (commencing with Section 75250) to Division 44 of, and to repeal Section 75250.1 of, the Public Resources Code, to amend Section 43152.6 of, and to amend and repeal Section 43152.10 of, the Revenue and Taxation Code, to amend Section 13198 of the Water Code, to amend the Budget Act of 2021 (Chapters 21, 69, and 240 of the Statutes of 2021) by amending Item 8570-002-0001 of Section

2.00 of that act, and to amend the Budget Act of 2021 (Chapter 44 of the Statutes of 2022) by amending Items 3540-101-0001 of Section 2.00 of that act, relating to public resources, and making an appropriation therefor, to take effect immediately, bill related to the budget. [Approved by Governor September 27, 2022. Filed with Secretary of State September 27, 2022.] AB 211, Committee on Budget. Public resources trailer bill. (2) Existing law requires the State Fire Marshal to identify areas of the state as moderate, high, and very high fire hazard severity zones based on specified criteria. Existing law requires a local agency to designate, by ordinance, very high fire hazard severity zones in its jurisdiction within 120 days of receiving recommendations from the State Fire Marshal. Existing law authorizes a local agency, at its discretion, to include areas within the jurisdiction of the local agency, not identified as very high fire hazard severity zones by the State Fire Marshal, as very high fire hazard severity zones following a finding supported by substantial evidence, as provided.

This bill would additionally require a local agency to designate, by ordinance, moderate and high fire hazard severity zones within 120 days of receiving recommendations from the State Fire Marshal. By expanding the responsibility of a local agency, the bill would impose a statemandated local program. The bill would additionally authorize a local agency, at its discretion, to include areas within the jurisdiction of the local agency, not identified as moderate and high fire hazard severity zones by the State Fire Marshal, as moderate and high fire hazard severity zones, respectively. The bill would prohibit the local agency from decreasing the level of fire hazard severity zone as identified by the State Fire Marshal for any area within the jurisdiction of the local agency, as provided.

LRA Legislation Factsheet
Amended by Assembly Bill No. 211
Government Code 51179
(a) A local agency shall designate, by ordinance, moderate, high, and very high fire hazard severity zones in its jurisdiction within 120 days of receiving recommendations from the State Fire Marshal pursuant to Section 51178.
(b) (1) A local agency may, at its discretion, include areas within the jurisdiction of the local agency, not identified as very high fire hazard severity zones by the State Fire Marshal, as very high fire hazard severity zones following a finding supported by substantial evidence in the record that the requirements of Section 51182 are necessary for effective fire protection within the area.
(2) A local agency may, at its discretion, include areas within the jurisdiction of the local agency, not identified as moderate and high fire hazard severity zones by the State Fire Marshal, as moderate and high fire hazard severity zones, respectively. (3) A local agency shall not decrease the level of fire hazard severity zone as identified by the State Fire Marshal for any area within the jurisdiction of the local agency, and, in exercising its discretion pursuant to paragraph (2), may only increase the level of fire hazard severity zone as identified by the State Fire Marshal for any area within the jurisdiction of the local agency.
(c) The local agency shall transmit a copy of an ordinance adopted pursuant to subdivision (a) to the State Board of Forestry and Fire Protection within 30 days of adoption. (d) Changes made by a local agency to the recommendations made by the State Fire Marshal shall be final and shall not be rebuttable by the State Fire Marshal. (e) The State Fire Marshal shall prepare and adopt a model ordinance that provides for the establishment of very high fire hazard severity zones.

(f) Any ordinance adopted by a local agency pursuant to this section that substantially conforms to the model ordinance of the State Fire Marshal shall be presumed to be in compliance with the requirements of this section.
(g) A local agency shall post a notice at the office of the county recorder, county assessor, and county planning agency identifying the location of the map provided by the State Fire Marshal pursuant to Section 51178. If the agency amends the map, pursuant to subdivision (b) or (c) of this section, the notice shall instead identify the location of the amended map. (Amended by Stats. 2022, Ch. 574, Sec. 10. (AB 211) Effective September 27, 2022.)

LRA Legislation Factsheet
Increasing Fire Hazard Severity Zone (FHSZ)
Area and Designation
Government Code section 51179 requires a local agency to designate, by ordinance, moderate, high, and very high FHSZ within 120 days of receiving the identified FHSZ’s from the State Fire Marshal pursuant to Section 51178.

The law does not allow for a local jurisdiction to request changes or provide comments to the State Fire Marshal on the FHSZ designations. However, a local agency may choose to increase the designation of a FHSZ from the FHSZ identified by the State Fire Marshal, or designate areas as having a FHSZ that were not designated in a FHSZ by the State Fire Marshal. This may occur because FHSZ zone edges in the maps and data from the State Fire Marshal are not aligned with parcel boundaries or roads that some may consider for lines of convenance when adopting ordinances. A local agency is not allowed to reduce the designation of a FHSZ classification from the State Fire Marshal (i.e. a local agency cannot make an area designated as High by the State Fire Marshal, Moderate in its adopted ordinance).

However, a local jurisdiction can increase the designation from the one identified by the State Fire Marshal. If a local agency decides to increase the designation of a FHSZ, it may do so if it does the following:

1. If increasing the designation to Very High, a local agency must make a finding supported by substantial evidence in the record that the requirements of Government Code section 51182 are necessary for effective fire protection.

2. If increasing the designation to Moderate or High, a local agency may do this at its discretion.

If a local agency decides to include areas in its FHSZ adopted ordinance not identified as being in a FHSZ by the State Fire Marshal, it may include those areas if it does the following:

1. If including areas not identified as being in a FHSZ and designating it as Very High, a local agency must make a finding supported by substantial evidence in the record that the requirements of Government Code section 51182 are necessary for effective fire protection.

2. If including areas not identified as being in a FHSZ and designating it as Moderate or High, a local agency may do this at its discretion.

LRA Legislation Factsheet

5/22/2025
1 Fire Hazard
Severity
Zone map
update
What are Fire Hazard Severity Zones?
Areas throughout the state identified as Moderate, High, Very High.

These zones measure “Hazard” not “Risk”.

Hazard is based on physical conditions that create expected fire behavior over a 50-year period without considering short-term modifications.

Risk is potential damage a fire can do under existing conditions. 1 2

5/22/2025
2 Why the updates?
• Maps are being updated to better reflect the
zones susceptible to fire. • Utilizes new science, true local climate data, fire history, terrain, fire modeling and ember
cast. • This is a requirement per Government code
51178 and SB 63 (Stern, 2021) • Last updates for Local Responsibility Areas were between 2008 and 2011
3 4

5/22/2025
3 Moderate Severity
Zones in North
Morro Bay
• West side of city extends to
Sandalwood, Beachcomber,
Coral. • East Side from city limit to
Whidbey, tide, Greenwood,
Bayview
High Severity
Zones in North
Morro Bay
• North to South extends from
Morro Creek to city limit near
Elena St • East and west from city limit to
Ironwood, Juniper, Koa.
5 6

5/22/2025
4 South Morro Bay
Severity Zones
• South Morro Bay is the most
impacted area. • Very High extends from South
bay to approximately Arbutus. • High extends to roughly Bradley or Kern. • Moderate extends almost to
Piney Way.

Impacts of
these
changes
Application of CFC chapter7A in High and
Very High Severity Zones.

Stricter building requirements related to new
construction and renovation.

Application of defensible space
requirements for hazard fuel reduction.

The highest severity zone guidelines will
apply to properties that have more than 1
designation.
7 8

5/22/2025
5 How is Morro Bay
Fire addressing
wildfire concerns?
• Designated wildland fire
engine. • Coordinating fuels reduction
projects. • Seasonal Firefighters. • Completed Standards of cover to evaluate services. • Applying for certification as a fire risk reduction community
How to view the map?
• https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/what-we-do/community-wildfire-preparedness-andmitigation/fire-hazard-severity-zones • Under Local Responsibility Area Fire Hazard Severity Zone Maps tab • PDF maps
• FHSZ recommendations in LRA viewer • FHSZ Acres in LRA chart • Morro Bay is in phase 3 • Public comments may be directed to the Fire Chief via email through the city website or at [email protected]
9 10

Prepared By: GK, CC, ER Dept Review: GK
City Manager Review: YK City Attorney Review:

Staff Report
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council DATE: May 22, 2025 FROM: Cindy Cecil, PE – City Engineer
Greg Kwolek – Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Reconsideration of Vote on Roundabout Environmental Work and Consideration of Project Next Steps

INTRODUCTION
At their April 22, 2025, City Council meeting, the City Council received a status update and funding summary for the State Route 1, State Route 41, Main Street roundabout project, which was in the environmental phase. During this item the City Council voted 3-2 to direct staff to discontinue the project’s environmental work and retain $1.2 million of the Measure Q/E funds in the project fund (See Attachment 1). Per suggestion by the City Attorney, Council also directed staff to bring back the roundabout item to allow for formal action to reject the project and to take a position should SLOCOG choose to take up the roundabout project for completion of the environmental phase.

Since the meeting, the City Council has received significant input from members of the public both for and against the roundabout. Additionally, the release of the May 14, 2025, San Luis Obispo Council of Governments’ (SLOCOG) Executive Committee meeting staff report indicated SLOCOG staff’s intent to recommend to the SLOCOG Board to complete the remainder of the environmental phase (See Attachment 2).

At the May 13, 2025, City Council meeting, the City Council voted (4-1) pursuant to Council Policies and Procedures Section 1.2.6 to reconsider the April 22, 2025, decision to discontinue City staff work on the roundabout project environmental phase and withdraw $1.2 million in Measure Q/E funding from the roundabout project.

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the City Council:

Reaffirm the April 22, 2025, vote to discontinue environmental work on the roundabout, and:

1. Adopt Resolution No. 30-25 to request the San Luis Obispo Council of Governments to complete the roundabout project environmental documents; and

2. Transfer development impact fee funding to the SLOCOG for finalization of the roundabout project environmental phase at a not-to-exceed amount of $60,000 and authorize the City Manager to develop and execute an agreement to effectuate such transfer.

ALTERNATIVES
Alternatively, the City Council may:

1. Rescind its April 22, 2025, decision to discontinue City staff work on the roundabout project environmental phase and direct City staff to complete the roundabout project environmental phase; or

2. Reaffirm its April 22, 2025, decision to discontinue City staff work on the roundabout project AGENDA NO: 9.a
MEETING DATE: May 27, 2025

environmental phase and request SLOCOG not complete and finalize the roundabout project environmental phase; or

3. Provide other direction to staff.

FISCAL IMPACT
The fiscal impact of the recommended action is the transfer to the SLOCOG of up to $60,000 of development impact fee funding restricted to this project or capacity enhancements at this intersection.

ANALYSIS
Currently, the City has completed 96% of the roundabout project environmental phase. The purpose of this phase is to study any potential impacts of the roundabout project, not to develop final design plans for the roundabout. The environmental phase includes the following studies and reports, which were in final review by Caltrans until the City paused work after the City Council’s April 22, 2025 action to discontinue City staff work on the environmental phase:

1. Traffic Study (TOAR)

2. Noise and Vibration Technical Memorandum

3. Phase 1 ISA

4. Water Quality Assessment Memorandum

5. Location Hydraulic Study

6. Summary Floodplain Encroachment Report

7. NES-MI

8. Minor VIA

9. Land Use/CIA Memorandum

10. Paleontological Resources Memorandum
After completion of the environmental phase, Caltrans has stated they will take over design and construction of the roundabout project.

The City Council has the option of directing City staff to continue and complete the roundabout project environmental phase. Under this option, the other major procedural milestones related to the City are:
 Feb. 2026: City Council action on environmental determination  If environmental determination is approved, then
o May 2027: City Planning Commission - consideration of Caltrans coastal development permit application at 60% design
o Aug. 2027: City Council - consideration of Caltrans costal development permit at 60% design. It is assumed any Planning Commission decision will be appealed to the City Council.

The City Council also has the option, as recommended by City staff, of requesting SLOCOG take over as implementing agency of the roundabout project, which means SLOCOG would take over the remaining work for the environmental phase. Under this option, SLOCOG would complete the roundabout project environmental phase and the other major procedural milestones would be:
 Feb. 2026: SLOCOG Board action on environmental determination  If environmental determination is approved, then
o May 2027: City Planning Commission - consideration of Caltrans coastal development at 60% design
o Aug. 2027: City Council - consideration of Caltrans costal development permit at 60% design. It is assumed any Planning Commission decision will be appealed to the City Council.

It is important to note the environmental determination decision is limited to the acceptance of the environmental documents and process. It will not, however, include new information regarding major issues of community concern surrounding this project, such as potential pedestrian and bicycle safety improvements. Those issues will be addressed during the design phase of the project, which comes after the environmental phase is complete. No new information regarding design, pedestrian safety, etc., will be presented as part of the environmental determination.

After the environmental phase is finalized, the City Planning Commission will be afforded an opportunity to consider the 60% design plans when Caltrans submits them as part of a City coastal development permit application. It is very likely that any Planning Commission decision will be appealed to the City Council. Design plans at 60% will include the sorts of pedestrian and bicycle safety improvements the Morro Bay community has expressed interest in. In sum, the City in both scenarios has decision authority over the project through the coastal development permit process.

Under the Coastal Act, any local agency’s decision to approve or deny a coastal development permit for “major public works project” would be appealable to the Coastal Commission (assuming it meets the definition of a major public works project in the case of local agency approval). If this project were to be appealed to the California Coastal Commission (CCC), the CCC would first hold a Substantial Issue Hearing to determine whether a coastal resource issue is present. If CCC made this finding, the CCC would hear the appeal at a later meeting. In staff’s discussion with Caltrans, they have stated they would not proceed with an appeal to the California Coastal Commission should the City Council deny a coastal development permit for this project.

Given that the process trajectories in both scenarios bring the roundabout project back to City for consideration during the design phase, during which the City will hear Caltrans solutions to pedestrian and bicycle safety concerns at this intersection, the City staff recommendation is for the City Council to request SLOCOG to take over as implementing agency of the roundabout project. An additional supporting argument for this course of action as opposed to City implementation of the roundabout phase is the anticipated resource constraints in the Engineering Division expected over the next year.

Should the City make this request to SLOCOG, it will be up to the SLOCOG Board whether to take over the roundabout project environmental phase. Staff believes there is a great likelihood of this if the City Council endorses the transfer of the roundabout project environmental phase through a Council resolution. SLOCOG staff has already indicated in its May 14, 2025 SLOCOG Executive Committee meeting staff report that they would recommend SLOCOG take over the environmental phase of the project, and indicated the same in both the SLOCOG Technical Transportation Advisory Committee and SLOCOG Citizens Transportation Advisory Committee staff reports at their respective meetings on May 21, 2025. Finally, the project is included in SLOCOG’s Regional Transportation Plan, which offers SLOCOG a basis for taking over the environmental phase.

BACKGROUND FROM 2023 AND RECENT DEVELOPMENTS (2025)
The following information and analysis are added below to provide background and basis for the City Council’s selection of the roundabout alternative in June 2023. Recent project developments are included in the next section.

Development of the intersection improvements project at State Route 41, State Route 1, and Main Street (SR-41/SR-1/Main) intersection has been in process for several years and dates back to preliminary work conducted in the early 2000’s. Improvements to the SR41/SR1/Main intersection are necessary to resolve current and future concerns of traffic flow, congestion and associated delays, potential collisions, and enhancing safety of drivers, pedestrians and cyclists.

A challenge of the current intersection configuration is that SR41/Main intersection and the SR1/SR41 intersection are only about 75 feet apart. Due to the close intersection spacing and the existing 4-way “Stop” controls at SR41/Main, in addition to the stop sign at the SR1 offramp, the two intersections operate as one unsignalized intersection with five approaches and exits. The intersection’s shortcomings have been demonstrated through user experience and regular reports to the City through incident reports and resident complaints, with many potential conflict points. The SR-41/SR1/Main intersection experiences the highest rate of traffic collisions in all the City of Morro Bay. It also exhibits congested conditions, especially during peak commute hours, which are projected to worsen over time. The engineering analysis shows that improvements are needed to increase the overall operational level-of-service (LOS) and enhance conditions, while reducing congestion and potential collisions at the intersection. An improvement project would upgrade capacity and intersection control for the existing, closely spaced, intersections on SR41, SR1 NB ramps, and Main Street as well as provide better accommodations for pedestrians and cyclists.

The project was started by State of California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) in 2001 when

a Caltrans Project Study Report (PSR) was approved to review traffic signal and/or roundabout alternatives. A Caltrans Draft Project Report (Draft PR) was then published in September 2002 with a traffic signal and/or roundabout alternatives. A California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) was prepared in September 2002 to identify the potential impacts and any required mitigations specific to the two viable build alternatives. Neither the Draft PR nor the MND were processed through to final approvals. The process stopped in 2003.

The City picked up the project again in 2014. GHD, formerly Omni-Means, was contracted by the City in 2016 to begin the initial phase of the project called the Project Authorization and Environmental Determination (PA&ED) phase, or Task 1, including environmental work, planning, permitting, and preliminary engineering for a contract cost of $236,557. PA&ED is the process required by Caltrans to produce the Project Report (PR) for improvement projects by local jurisdictions on the State Highway System, which will ultimately be reviewed and approved by Caltrans prior to design authorization. The Caltrans required Intersection Control Evaluation (ICE) is a two-step process that was completed in 2016 and approved by Caltrans. The ICE presents and evaluates the two design alternatives, Double Signalization and Roundabout, in addition to a “No Build” option prior to environmental evaluation. The final conclusion of the ICE was that based upon the performance measures evaluated and engineering analysis, the Roundabout is the preferred alternative .

Public Outreach in 2016
Initial meetings with Morro Bay High School (MBHS) and San Luis Coastal Unified School District (SLCUSD) officials were conducted in 2016. At that time, both voiced strong support for the Roundabout alternative over the Double Signal alternative, consistent with the ICE recommendation. The Public Works Advisory Board (PWAB) reviewed the project at their July and August 2016 meetings and recommended that the City Council move forward with the Roundabout as the preferred alternative and continue with GHD in PA&ED with the project to improve the operational deficiencies at this critical gateway to the community. The City Council gave this approval at the regular meeting on August 17, 2016.

Description of Level of Services (LOS)
Level of Service (LOS) and Collision Data
With the project delays experienced in the last 6-7 years, it was necessary to update the traffic study with updated traffic counts and the new developments’ traffic data. The traffic study was updated in March 2023 with new traffic counts collected in September 2022 with the expected trips accounting for the recently constructed Hampton Inn and the multi-unit housing project at 405 Atascadero Road off Sunset Avenue. A reasonable traffic volume growth rate of 0.5% was used to determine the expected future volumes, which is recommended by the SLOCOG Regional Model. It concludes that only the Roundabout alternative operates acceptably in the 2045 Design Year. For LOS, the “No Build” alternative currently fails with a LOS F and will continue to fail in the AM Peak hour for the SR 1 northbound ramps intersection and in the PM Peak Hour for the Main Street intersection. The Double Signal alternative, even with the newly proposed signal timing, fails with a LOS E in the 2025 Opening Year which elevates to LOS F in 2045. The Roundabout alternative does not fail even after a 20-year design life with LOS B in 2045. Below are the specific results of this updated LOS analysis:

Double Signal Alternative
(current estimated opening year 2029)
Control Delay LOS
AM 65.4 E
PM 61.0 E
BOLD Indicate LOS of D or worse
1/2 Signal Main St / SR 1 NB Ramps &
SR 41
2025 Opening Year (Traffic
ID Intersection Signal) Peak
Hour

Roundabout Alternative
(current estimated opening year 2029)
No Build Alternative
(current estimated opening year 2029)
Control Delay LOS
AM 9.9 A
PM 10.6 B
BOLD Indicate LOS of D or w orse
Roundabout
ID Intersection Peak
Hour
2025 Opening Year
(Roundabout)
1/2 Main St / SR 1 NB Ramps
& SR 41
Control Delay LOS
AM 77.4 E
PM 83.3 F
BOLD Indicate LOS of D or worse
1/2 Main St / SR 1 NB Ramps &
SR 41
2045 Design Year (Traffic Signal) ID Intersection Peak
Hour
Signal
Control Delay LOS
AM 11.8 B
PM 13.4 B
BOLD Indicate LOS of D or w orse
2045 Design Year (Roundabout)
Roundabout
ID Intersection Peak
Hour
1/2 Main St / SR 1 NB Ramps
& SR 41

In addition to the updated LOS from the traffic study data, collision data was also summarized for this intersection. The SR-1/SR-41/Main intersection has the highest number of collisions in the City at 23 for the last 5 years. As a comparison, the existing roundabout at Morro Bay Boulevard and Quintana has 9 collisions recorded in the last 5 years.

Collisions 2017-2022 at SR41/SR1/Main and Morro Bay Blvd/Quintana Alternatives
Alternatives – Pros and Cons
There are two proposed “Build” alternatives of intersection improvements for consideration and a third alternative of a “No Build” option.

The first alternative is the Double Signalized Intersection. With the Double Signal alternative, the study intersection controls are converted from an all-way stop control to a coordinated signalized intersection system. One pro for this approach is lower up-front construction cost ($4-6 million estimate). SLOCOG staff have indicated to the City that they would support a recommendation to their board to fund a proportionate amount of a double-signal project as compared to their current funding of the roundabout alternative. This alternative’s smaller footprint of disturbance could also Control Delay LOS
AM 27.7 D
PM 34.9 D
AM 55.7 F
PM 11.9 B
BOLD Indicate LOS of D or w orse
2 SR 1 NB Ramps & SR 41 TWSC
2025 Opening Year (No Build)
ID Intersection Peak
Hour
1 Main St & SR 41 AWSC
Control Delay LOS
AM 40.6 E
PM 49.4 E
AM 105 F
PM 12.5 B
BOLD Indicate LOS of D or w orse
2 SR 1 NB Ramps & SR 41
ID Intersection Peak
Hour
1 Main St & SR 41
2045 Design Year (No Build)
AWSC
TWSC

lead to faster approval and right-of-way processes. Another pro is that traffic signals come with defined cycles, which are simple to understand for drivers and pedestrians.

One con of the double signal alternative is that the LOS is projected to be similar to the No Build alternative once built, and is projected to fail by the year 2045, which means longer wait times at the intersection. Another con is that this intersection configuration arguably has a greater potential for collisions due to the higher speeds at which vehicles are lawfully allowed to go through the intersection. There are also more traffic conflict points with a signalized intersection, and pedestrians must navigate three potential vehicular conflicts when crossing the road during a green light. Further, pedestrians must cross a relatively long width of road when crossing the road. Finally, another con is increased yearly maintenance costs due to electrified infrastructure.

Double Signal Alternative – Current LOS E, Projected (2045) LOS F The second alternative is the Roundabout Alternative. This alternative proposes the construction of a six-leg roundabout, where the general alignment of the intersection would remain the same. One of the pros of this alternative is its superior performance in the LOS modeling, with the least wait times for vehicles and a high grade over the first 20 years of its life. Another pro is fewer traffic conflict points than the other alternatives, including only one vehicular conflict for pedestrians in an intersection. This, combined with a shorter crosswalk width for pedestrians has been shown by data nationwide to result in a safer pedestrian experience and a lower chance of collisions with pedestrians. Another pro for the roundabout alternative is the overall safety benefits. Data compiled by the Federal Highway Administration and Insurance Institute for Highway Safety shows a 37% reduction in overall collisions, 75% reduction in injury collisions, 90% reduction in fatal collisions, and 40% reduction in pedestrian collisions when compared to intersections with traffic signals. Finally, staff believes the direction to move forward with the roundabout alternative will enable the City to be more competitive with County, State, and federal grants, which means the City could leverage its investments in this intersection to obtain outside funding for a safer, less congested, and longer lasting alternative.

The major con of the roundabout alternative is the higher initial construction cost ($8-12 million estimate). Another con is the increased footprint of disturbance required to build the roundabout, which will require more right-of-way acquisition and likely more time for review and approval. Another con is the timeline to construct a roundabout would be longer and would likely result in more disruption to the community, though the intersection would remain fully open during construction phasing built into the design. Finally, the roundabout alternative does not provide pedestrians with defined cycles to cross the road which requires drivers to stop and yield by law.

Roundabout Alternative – Current LOS B, Projected (2045) LOS B The third alternative, the No Build option, utilizes the existing lane geometrics and intersection control at the SR 1/SR 41/Main Street intersections. The pros of the No Build alternative is that there is no cost or impact to the community. The City Council could also direct staff to explore pedestrian safety enhancement projects as part of the upcoming Local Road Safety Plan process, which may have some small financial impact, but which could address some pedestrian safety concerns at this intersection without going through a larger construction project.

One con of the No Build alternative is it already has a failing LOS during peak periods, and it is expected to worsen over the next 20 years. Another con is there are reports of confusion between drivers and other drivers, as well as between drivers and pedestrians and cyclists as to who goes first. The intersection had 23 accidents in the last five years. Finally, the No Build alternative does not provide pedestrians with defined cycles to cross the road, and pedestrians are more at risk from the multiple points of conflict with vehicles.
“No Build” Alternative – Current LOS F, Projected (2045) LOS F Public Outreach 2023
Given that several years have passed since the intersection improvements were last reviewed by the City Council, the Public Works Department initiated a fresh public engagement process prior to this

item coming back to the City Council for direction. This began with a meeting with Morro Bay High students and staff which was conducted on May 2, 2023, at the MBHS Student Senate Meeting.

During this meeting, staff presented students with the three alternatives for the intersection and their pros and cons. The students strongly expressed a hope that the City would not leave the intersection as it is now. Several students shared their personal experiences trying to navigate the intersection safely in the context of distracted and careless drivers.

A community forum was then held at the Morro Bay Community Center on May 10, 2023, to review and discuss the alternatives and hear from the community on their vision for the intersection. Over 70 community members attended the event, and many spoke on their concerns with the existing intersection and ideas on implementation options. One key takeaway from the meeting was that community members are very concerned about pedestrian safety, specifically the safety of high school students coming and going to school in the morning, during the lunch period, and in the afternoon. Many speakers felt that high school students are not able to navigate the current intersection and were concerned that a roundabout alternative would be unsafe for student drivers and pedestrians. Others shared concerns about the higher cost of a roundabout. Several speakers spoke in favor of a roundabout as a solution to the complexity of the intersection as well as the safety and emissions benefits offered by a roundabout.

To round out public engagement efforts, MBHS parents, students and staff had the opportunity to respond to a survey about their perspective on the intersection throughout the month of May through a weekly newsletter circulated by SLCUSD and MBHS. Nearly 100 responses were received from the survey conducted by SLCUSD. Results of that survey were shared with the City by the SLCUSD.

City staff also released a community survey to reach out to the broader community to understand their usage and concerns for the intersection and its future. Over 300 responses were received from the community survey.

Of the participants in the survey, 75% identified as Morro Bay residents with at least 50% of the participants claiming that they use the intersection on a daily basis. In both the Community Survey and the MBHS Survey, 75% of users identified as drivers or passengers of motor vehicles with 12- 13% of the users being pedestrians. For both surveys, over 85% of respondents answered that they feel the intersection does not handle traffic flow of vehicles and pedestrians adequately.

With regards to improvements, traffic congestion and flow of traffic was the most common answer of respondents at 82% with safety (70%) and improvements to pedestrian facilities (64%) close behind.

In general, with regards to motorists’ safety and traffic flow and congestion relief, the Roundabout alternative was perceived to be the most favorable. With regards to perceived pedestrian and bicycle safety, the survey results showed that Double Signal alternative was more popular. The existing 4- way stop showed to be the least popular alternative in all cases.

This item was also presented to the PWAB at its last regular meeting on May 17, 2023. Many members of the community spoke against the roundabout, including two MBHS students. The PWAB also received many emails in the agenda correspondence to PWAB with most in support of the Roundabout. The agenda correspondence is contained in Attachment 1. After consideration of all of the information presented and public comment received the PWAB’s recommendation for the City Council was to proceed with design on the roundabout alternative.

Some community members have voiced concerns about other alternatives not being discussed such as pedestrian bridges over SR-1 or closure of ramps at the SR-1/SR-41 intersection. These alternatives are not up for consideration by Caltrans as dictated in the ICE study that was overseen by Caltrans.

Between 2016 and 2021, the project has continued in the PA&ED process with the Roundabout alternative in mind for determining environmental and right-of-way impacts. There have been various delays during PA&ED, including the need to add required additional archeological pre-construction investigations and mitigation services, an Extended Phase I (XPI) study of cultural resources, and additional preliminary design services which resulted in a contract amendment with GHD in April 2021 for $87,951. The current contracted cost to date with GHD is $356,193.13. Additional delays to the project schedule can be attributed to the COVID-19 pandemic between 2020-2021, where City staffing resources and funding for many capital projects were halted temporarily during the financial

turmoil that the City faced over those two years. In November 2021, the City’s main funding partner, SLOCOG, requested a funding plan for the City’s portion of the project. The City committed to pledging $2,500,000 of City funds over four years, or at an average investment of $633,333 per year.

Since then, the City allocated approximately $2,612,300 in project funding. On April 22, 2025, the City Council voted to withdraw $1.2 Million in Measure Q/E funding from the project, leaving only some grant and development impact fee funding in the project totaling approximately $700,000.

Because much time has passed since the initial ICE was completed, the ICE traffic counts and analyses were to be updated to reflect present day conditions with the addition of new development and account for reasonable traffic growth consistent with Caltrans and regional guidelines.

From 2023 to 2025, GHD and their consultants have updated the required technical studies required for the Environmental Report (ER). These studies are approximately 96% complete and were in final review by Caltrans, when the project was stopped by City Council on April 22, 2025.

Future Steps: Transfer of Project to Caltrans and CAPM
Upon the finalization and completion of the environmental phase, Caltrans would take over the design and construction phases of the Project. This uncommon opportunity because of the alignment and coincidence of the following:
 City or SLOCOG completion of the environmental phase of the Project in early 2026;  Availability of Caltrans SHOPP funding for the overlapping intersection of State Route 1 and State Route 41;
 Alignment of timing of the Project with the larger Caltrans Capital Maintenance program (CAPM), which will provide additional funding for the Project; and  Partnership with SLOCOG for $8 million of funding for the Project.

Caltrans’ CAPM in Morro Bay is expected to occur in 2028-29 and will run along State Route 1 from San Luisito Creek Road and Toro Creek Road. The CAPM will first assess the condition of all Caltrans highway assets along this stretch and will then make any necessary improvements. The City will also have an opportunity at a later date to propose improvements to be included as part of the CAPM, such as replacing the damaged fencing between Main Street and State Route 1 and/or modifications to the San Jacinto Street, Main Street and State Route 1 intersection. The Roundabout Project meets the criteria to be included in the CAPM project. The inclusion and alignment with the CAPM is a recent update that is favorable for project transfer considerations. The last CAPM along Morro Bay’s State Route 1 corridor occurred twenty-five years ago and likely will not occur again for another twenty-five years.

With the finalization and completion of the Project’s environmental phase and the transfer of the Project to Caltrans, the City would continue to provide input on the design of the Project. For example, pedestrian safety was heavily emphasized during prior City outreach given the proximity of the Project to Morro Bay High School. City staff would continue to advocate for a focused emphasis on pedestrian design features such as raised crosswalks, high visibility painted crosswalks, flashing beacons, and/or other implementable engineering solutions. Caltrans would work collaboratively with the City and SLOCOG during design and construction with public engagement so that stakeholder input is considered throughout the project up until completion.

Project Funding Summary
The planning/environmental phase of this Project has had several funding sources over the years.

Since July 1, 2021, the funding sources have been comprised of Measure Q/E funds, grant funds, and developer impact fees (DIFs). The table below contains these funding and expenditure details.

Funding Source Funding
Amount Spent Expired Remaining Notes
Measure
Q/E City $1,200,000 $59,400 - $1,140,600 Reimbursable
DIF Developers $864,500 $371,600 - $492,900
Restricted to
Intersection or
Project

RSTPRSHA State Grant $266,300 - - $266,300 Can reimburse Q/E $59,400
CMAQ State Grant $210,900 $25,100 $185,800 -
LTF State Grant $70,600 $70,600 - -
Totals $2,612,300 $526,700 $185,800 $1,899,800
Of these funds, only Measure Q/E funds are discretionary. For this reason, staff has avoided spending down funds from this source. Though $59,400 of Measure Q/E funds were spent, these monies are planned to be reimbursed through the RSTP-RSHA grant. The development impact fee funding, which includes development impact fees, traffic impact fees, and development project specific fees, are restricted to capacity improvements for this intersection, and in some cases, to this Project. These funds cannot be used for maintenance activities, such as paving or striping, unless they enhance the capacity of the intersection. The roundabout qualifies as a capacity enhancement.

The City estimates completion of the environmental phase of this Project to cost approximately $60,000. This cost can be fully covered by impact fees. Because of this, the Measure Q/E funding previously allocated towards this project are no longer required. Staff recommends withdrawing all available funding from the Project.

ATTACHMENTS

1. City Council Minutes 4/22/2025

2. SLOCOG Executive Committee Agenda 5/14/2025

3. Resolution No. 30-25

4. SR1-41-Main_Roundabout preliminary plan (for concept review only, details are subject to change).

5. Caltrans CAPM Vicinity Map

6. 2023 Community Survey Results

1 MINUTES - MORRO BAY CITY COUNCIL

REGULAR MEETING
April 22, 2025, 5:30 p.m.

Veterans Memorial Hall
209 Surf St., Morro Bay, CA
Members Present: Mayor Carla Wixom
Council Member Cyndee Edwards
Council Member Jeff Eckles
Council Member Zara Landrum
Council Member Bill Luffee
Staff Present: City Manager Yvonne Kimball
Interim City Attorney Robert Schultz
City Clerk Dana Swanson
Finance Director Emily Conrad
Public Works Director Greg Kwolek
Community Development Director Airlin Singewald
Police Chief Amy Watkins
Fire Chief Dan McCrain
Harbor Vitality Director Chris Munson
City Engineer Cindy Cecil
_____________________________________________________________________

1. ESTABLISH QUORUM AND CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Wixom called the meeting to order at 5:32 p.m. with all members present.

2. MOMENT OF SILENCE

3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

4. REPORTS

4.a Closed Session Report
https://youtu.be/UKe6NKfvljc?si=4ozY6kMvthMcG5qs&t=74
Interim City Attorney Schultz announced the Council held a Closed Session Meeting prior to the Regular Session with evaluation of the City Manager, (3) Property Negotiations, and Public Employment of the City Attorney. The only item discussed was evaluation of the City Manager and no reportable action was taken under the Brown Act. The remaining items will be continued to a future meeting.

2 4.b Mayor and Councilmembers' Reports, Announcements and Presentations
https://youtu.be/UKe6NKfvljc?si=Vp71di9TdWEPYnF8&t=116

4.c City Manager Reports, Announcements and Presentations https://youtu.be/UKe6NKfvljc?si=ttbqrD-3PkYHNTlN&t=795

4.d Subcommittee Reports - Verbal Update of Current Subcommittee Activities
https://youtu.be/UKe6NKfvljc?si=ZEMdvEvawMM5pW4O&t=1136 a. Water Reclamation Facility & Morro Bay / Cayucos Sanitary District JPA
b. Morro Bay Power Plant (Vistra)
c. Offshore Wind Energy

5. RECOGNITION AND PRESENTATIONS

5.a Morro Bay Chamber of Commerce Quarterly Update
https://youtu.be/UKe6NKfvljc?si=tpaXZ7x7h2xOOwb9&t=1204 Presented by Morro Bay Chamber of Commerce CEO, Dina Lundquist.

6. PUBLIC COMMENT
https://youtu.be/UKe6NKfvljc?si=nJ8C5J2nd4ExPviA&t=1702  Scott Schalde, Principal at Morro Bay High School, shared they previously polled students about the potential for a roundabout and found they were not concerned about pedestrian safety and would be supportive of a roundabout if it would improve traffic patterns. He offered seek further student input, if desired.
 Kiernan Cottle, Morro Bay, offered comments.
 Sugar Cliff, owner of Grandma's Mercantile on Main, expressed frustration about the impacts road construction was having on her business.  Joel Silano, Morro Bay, commented on Item 9b, urging the Council to cease work on the roundabout and redirect funds to revetment repairs and other waterfront needs.
 Linda Winters, Morro Bay, provided an activity update and announced Fitness Works will be accepting Men's Clothing Donations May 12 - 31.  Morro Bay High School students, John Holguin and Sands Dougherty, announced an upcoming Casino Night fundraiser to support Morro Bay Football on Saturday, April 26th, at the Morro Bay Community Center.

3  Morro Bay High School student, Ion Patel, requested signage limiting access to the Cloisters playground equpment to 2 - 5 year-olds be removed.
 Michelle Leicester-Cadaret, Morro Bay, requested consideration of pedestrian safety improvements at Yerba Buena and Main Streets.  Heide Bea, Morro Bay, registered opposition to the Highway 1 / 41 roundabout, expressing concern about pedestrian safety.  Judy Setting, Morro Bay, shared her appreciation for the students who attended tonight's meeting.
 Robert Dougherty, Morro Bay High School Football Coach and P.E. teacher, added the April 26th Casino Night fundraiser is to raise money for the football team's first out of state trip to Maui.
 Nattalia Merzoyan, Morro Bay, was concerned the proposed roundabout might displace the trailer park.

End of public comment.

7. CONSENT AGENDA
https://youtu.be/UKe6NKfvljc?si=MY-ywhr1qdlQ_8P-&t=3298 Unless an item is pulled for separate action by the City Council, the following actions are approved without discussion. The public will also be provided an opportunity to comment on consent agenda items.

Mayor Wixom sought Council consensus to pull Item 7.b. from the agenda and continue it to a future meeting.

The Mayor opened public comment for items on the agenda; seeing none, the public comment period was closed.

Motion by Council Member Landrum
Seconded by Council Member Luffee
Approve consent agenda item 7.a, as submitted.

Ayes (5): Mayor Wixom, Council Member Edwards, Council Member Eckles, Council Member Landrum, and Council Member Luffee
CARRIED (5 to 0)

7.a Approval of Minutes
Approve as submitted.
a. April 8, 2025 - Regular Council Meeting
b. April 8, 2025 - Special Closed Session Meeting

4 7.b Adoption Resolution No. 22-25 and Limited Duration Interim City Attorney Employment Agreement for Retired Annuitant
This item was pulled from the agenda and continued to a future meeting.

8. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS

8.a Introduce An Ordinance Repealing and Replacing Title 7 (Animals) of the Morro Bay Municipal Code
https://youtu.be/UKe6NKfvljc?si=Y6NA4JasFjApDxF8&t=3354 Police Chief Watkins presented the report and responded to Council inquiries.

Mayor Wixom opened the public hearing and public comment for Item 8.a. https://youtu.be/UKe6NKfvljc?si=kQGyIo5kQTcGGPDU&t=4288  Betty Winholtz, Morro Bay, commented in support of sending a letter to the Board of Supervisors urging the County to increase the holding period to seven days.

End of public comment.

Motion by Council Member Eckles
Seconded by Council Member Landrum
Introduce by title only with further reading waived, Ordinance No. 669 entitled, “An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Morro Bay, California, repealing and replacing Title 7 (Animals) of the Morro Bay Municipal Code to adopt and incorporate by reference San Luis Obispo County Code Title 9 (Animals) and to retain certain city requirements regarding animals, and finding the action not subject to CEQA.” Ayes (5): Mayor Wixom, Council Member Edwards, Council Member Eckles, Council Member Landrum, and Council Member Luffee CARRIED (5 to 0)
Motion by Council Member Eckles
Seconded by Council Member Landrum
Authorize the Mayor to sign a letter to the San Lus Obispo County Board of Supervisors expressing the City's desire for the review and changing of Title 9, Sections 9.04.002 and 9.04.006, requiring Animal Services to adopt a seven-day holding period of all impounded household pets.

Ayes (5): Mayor Wixom, Council Member Edwards, Council Member Eckles, Council Member Landrum, and Council Member Luffee CARRIED (5 to 0)

5 9. BUSINESS ITEMS

9.a City Attorney Recruitment
https://youtu.be/UKe6NKfvljc?si=3ppMKjsyavgCLG1U&t=4773 Interim City Attorney Schultz presented the report and responded to Council inquiries.

Mayor Wixom opened public comment for Item 9.a.
https://youtu.be/UKe6NKfvljc?si=m9Z4oJy3dQN2NV0j&t=5613  Betty Winholtz, Morro Bay, urged the Council to give as much respect to the City Attorney pursuit as a City Manager recruitment, using a hybrid approach that starts with professionals to get the broadest reach.

End of public comment.

Motion by Council Member Eckles
Seconded by Council Member Landrum
Direct staff to conduct the City Attorney search in-house, and concurrently seek proposals for professional recruitment firm and bring back proposals to Council to determine how to move forward.

Ayes (5): Mayor Wixom, Council Member Edwards, Council Member Eckles, Council Member Landrum, and Council Member Luffee CARRIED (5 to 0)
Motion by Council Member Luffee
Seconded by Council Member Landrum

1. Adopt Resolution No. 20-25 approving the new City Attorney Job Classification and Job Description; and

2. Adopt Resolution No. 21-25 approving updated FY 2024-25, 2025- 26, and 2026-27 Pay Schedules establishing the salary range for the City Attorney
Ayes (5): Mayor Wixom, Council Member Edwards, Council Member Eckles, Council Member Landrum, and Council Member Luffee CARRIED (5 to 0)

9.b Receive Status Update and Funding Summary of Roundabout Project and Provide Direction on Environmental Phase of Project The City Council took a brief recess at 7:21 p.m.; the meeting reconvened at 7:29 p.m. with all members present.

6 https://youtu.be/UKe6NKfvljc?si=BiFAtgrUvq9Kq91w&t=7046 Public Works Director Kwolek and Caltrans Project Manager, Paul Valadao, provided the report and responded to Council inquiries.

Mayor Wixom opened public comment for Item 9.b
https://youtu.be/UKe6NKfvljc?si=WsYmDUBZ8L0o_NNE&t=9103  Jane Heath, Morro Bay, encouraged the City to move forward with the roundabout.
 Walter Heath, Morro Bay, commented in support of the roundabout, noting it meets two of the three adopted City Goals.
 Cindi Cagle, Morro Bay, opposed the roundabout.
 Barry Branin, Morro Bay, opposed the project, suggesting a wider intersection was needed, similar to the Hwy 41 / 101 interchange in Atascadero.
 Courtney Shepler, Morro Bay, voiced her support for finishing the work that's underway on the environmental study.
 Judy Setting, Morro Bay, opposed the project, expressing concern for pedestrian safety.
 Ryan Pinkerton, Assistant Superintendent for San Luis Coastal Unified School District, offered student comments were less about pedestrian safety and more about opportunities for improved pathways and access. He restated the District's offer to get more student input and encouraged the City to move forward with the environmental work.
 Michelle Leicester-Cadaret, Morro Bay, opposed the roundabout project, suggesting a pedestrian bridge or lights and calming strips at the intersection to improve pedestrian safety would be sufficient.  Nattalia Merzoyan, Morro Bay, on the topic of appearance, observed one thing that makes things look better is plant life.  Margaret Carman, Morro Bay, opposed the project, voicing concerns about pedestrian safety and ability for large trucks and RV's to navigate the roundabout.
 Betty Winholtz, Morro Bay, urged the Council to take this project off the plate for staff and begin discussions about other potential intersection improvements.
 Brian O'Farrell, Morro Bay, opposed a roundabout at this location.

7  Betsy Gaudette-Cross, Morro Bay, did not feel a roundabout was appropriate at this location.
 Onan Champi offered no opinion on whether to continue the environmental work but suggested it may be an opportunity to extend the project to include flood mitigation.

End of public comment.

Following the motion and prior to Council vote, City Attorney Schultz explained, based on the motion, staff would discontinue the environmental work and replace $1.2 million of Measure Q/E funds, effectively stopping the project from moving forward, but the item will need to come back to Council to take steps necessary to reject the project and also take a formal position should SLOCOG choose to take up the project. Mayor Wixom clarified that discussion could include consideration and funding for alternative intersection improvements.

Motion by Council Member Landrum
Seconded by Council Member Eckles
Direct staff to discontinue work on the project and retain $1.2 million of the Measure Q/E funds in the project fund.

Ayes (3): Mayor Wixom, Council Member Eckles, and Council Member Landrum
Noes (2): Council Member Edwards, and Council Member Luffee CARRIED (3 to 2)

9.c Review and Discussion of the City of Morro Bay's Flagpole Policy as established by Resolution No. 103-22
https://youtu.be/UKe6NKfvljc?si=NAzqyIy109ml23Ba&t=12614 City Manager Kimball presented the report and responded to Council inquiries.

Mayor Wixom opened public comment on Item 9.c
https://youtu.be/UKe6NKfvljc?si=O2xCnOIOWPp4RtYv&t=12764  Barry Branin, Morro Bay, urged the City to change the policy to fly only the United States and State flags.
 Michelle Leicester-Cadaret, Morro Bay, quipped the City could fly the Canadian flag on occasion.
 Margaret Carman, Morro Bay, supported an ordinance allowing only the national and state flags.

8  Judy Setting, Morro Bay, supported honoring the national and state flags.
 Nic De Angelis, Morro Bay, agreed with previous speakers.

End of public comment.

Motion by Council Member Eckles
Seconded by Mayor Wixom
Direct staff to bring back a resolution rescinding Resolution No. 103-22 and come back with the flagpole policy that reflects language that allows for three flags to be flown officially over the city, which is the United States of America, State of California and City of Morro Bay.

Ayes (5): Mayor Wixom, Council Member Edwards, Council Member Eckles, Council Member Landrum, and Council Member Luffee CARRIED (5 to 0)

9.d Consideration of forming Council Sub-committee regarding El Morro Elementary School Property
https://youtu.be/UKe6NKfvljc?si=_m1qfYSyxBDHJcc3&t=13592 City Manager Kimball presented the report. Council Members Landrum and Luffee expressed interest in serving on the subcommittee.

Mayor Wixom opened public comment on Item 9.d.
https://youtu.be/UKe6NKfvljc?si=fvbggM4h-kPt9Aw2&t=13947  Betty Winholtz, Morro Bay, noted the citizens group has a lot of information to offer the City and believes a coordinated effort would be more efficient.
 Nic De Angelis, Morro Bay, shared he met with Council Members Landrum and Luffee and restated his financial commitment to the purchase of this property.

End of public comment.

Pursuant to City Council Policies Section 3.13, Council Member landrum presented the proposed purpose, parameters and anticipated duration of the subcommittee:
"The purpose of the Morro Elementary School Subcommittee is to unite the community and City efforts for the accomplishment of the City Council goal to acquire the Morro Elementary School site and/or work with a developer on this project. To this end, two council members are appointed to facilitate communication and cooperation between the citizen's group, Friends of Morro Elementary, and the Community

9 Development Department Director, regarding applicable State law, potential financial resources, and the San Luis Coastal Unified School District communications. The City Council as a whole will be kept up to date weekly, if not more frequently, as events unfold. This subcommittee's work is complete when an agreement is signed between the School District and the City, or it is determined that acquisition is beyond the City's reach. At either conclusion, the City Council will revisit whether the subcommittee has a related purpose or should be terminated." Motion by Council Member Landrum
Seconded by Mayor Wixom

1. Establish a Council sub-committee regarding the City’s goal of acquiring the Morro Elementary School site and/or assisting in the development of the property.

2. Discontinuing the Downtown Design District subcommittee as their task is complete.

Ayes (5): Mayor Wixom, Council Member Edwards, Council Member Eckles, Council Member Landrum, and Council Member Luffee CARRIED (5 to 0)
Motion by Council Member Landrum
Seconded by Mayor Wixom
Appoint Council Member Luffee and Council Member Landrum to the Council Sub-committee regarding Morro Elementary School.

Ayes (5): Mayor Wixom, Council Member Edwards, Council Member Eckles, Council Member Landrum, and Council Member Luffee CARRIED (5 to 0)

11. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 9:35 p.m.
/s/ Dana Swanson, City Clerk

SLOCOG Executive Committee May 14, 2025
1 Executive Committee Members:

President Jimmy Paulding, Vice President Carla Wixom, and Past President Fred Strong

1. Call to Order and Roll Call.

2. Public Comments. Any member of the public may address the Executive Committee for a period not to exceed three minutes on any item not on the agenda within the jurisdiction of the SLOCOG Board. In compliance with the Brown Act, the Committee will listen to all communication and will not take any action on items not on the agenda.

3. Executive Committee Meeting Minutes: March 12, 2025 meeting minutes (APPROVE)

4. June 4, 2025 Draft SLOCOG Board Agenda (Attached). The Executive Committee is asked to review and comment on the proposed agenda items (circled items on the board agenda are proposed items for advisory committees to consider/discuss):

Director Reports:
• SLOCOG Executive Director’s Report: SLOCOG Director will present this report. • Caltrans District 5 Director’s Report: Caltrans District 5 Director or staff will present this report.

Consent Agenda Items:

A-1 SLOCOG Board Meeting Minutes – April 2, 2025
A-2 Executive Committee Minutes – March 14, 2025

SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
WEDNESDAY, May 14, 2025
Starts at 10:00 a.m.

LOCATION: SLOCOG CONFERENCE ROOM
1114 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
SLOCOG, in accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), will accommodate persons who require a modification of accommodation to participate in this meeting. SLOCOG is also committed to helping people with limited proficiency in the English language, to access the agency’s essential public information and services in the Spanish language. You can request such assistance by calling (805) 781-4219. We require at least 48 hours notice to provide reasonable accommodations.

SLOCOG, de acuerdo con la Ley de Estadounidenses con Discapacidades (ADA), acomodará a las personas que requieran una modificación de la adaptación para participar en esta reunión. SLOCOG también se compromete a ayudar a las personas con dominio limitado del inglés a acceder a los servicios públicos esenciales de la agencia y a la información pública en español. Para solicitar una adaptación, por favor llame al (805) 781-4219. Requerimos al menos 48 horas de anticipación para proporcionar adaptaciones razonables.

SLOCOG Executive Committee May 14, 2025
2 A-3 Social Services Transportation Advisory Council (SSTAC) Minutes – May 21, 2025 A-4 Technical Transportation Advisory Committee (TTAC) Minutes – May 21, 2025 A-5 Citizens Transportation Advisory Committee (CTAC) Minutes – May 21, 2025 B-1 Year-to-date Financial Report
B-2 Conditional Approval of Transportation Development Act (TDA) Claims for FY 2025/2026 B-3 AGP Video Production of Board Meetings - Contract Extension B-4 Contract with Khouri Consulting LLC for Project Advocacy B-5 Federal Legislative Support Contract
B-6 Three-Year Contract Extension – Ridematching Software Vendor C-1 Hybrid Farebox Recovery Ratio for San Luis Obispo Regional Transit Authority (RTA) C-2 Amend Call Box Maintenance Contract with Knightscope, Inc.

C-3 Amend Call Box Private Call Answering Center Contract with AAMCOM, Limited Liability Company (LLC)
C-4 Contract with Ride-On Transportation
C-5 Volunteer Driver Program Contract
C-6 Update on Morro Bay Partnership Withdrawal – Route 1/41 Roundabout:

This informational Consent Agenda item will brief the SLOCOG Board and summarize City of Morro Bay’s current position. At its recent meeting, the Morro Bay City Council received a status update on the Route 1/41 Roundabout Project and voted to suspend its local partnership role.

Specifically, the Council directed city staff not to finalize the environmental document and project report—despite being 96% complete—and to withdraw its $1.2 million local funding commitment for construction. The Council expressed concerns that the proposed roundabout design does not adequately address pedestrian safety, particularly for high school students who frequently use the intersection at Route 1/41/North Main Street. Additional Council action may follow to formally notify SLOCOG of the City’s rejection of the project altogether.

SLOCOG staff recommends proceeding with one of two implementation options, both of which would ensure the environmental review and project report are completed and that the project is ultimately handed off to Caltrans for final design and construction, at no additional cost to the City of Morro Bay.

The first option is for the City of Morro Bay to retain control of the environmental review process and complete the project report by honoring their prior commitment. The second option is for SLOCOG to complete the environmental phase by covering the remaining cost (approx. $75k), thereby preserving alignment with Caltrans’ funding schedule. This is critical to maintain eligibility for Caltrans’ cost participation, as they are sequencing a capital maintenance project on Route 1 to coincide with roundabout construction.

Staff is actively coordinating with Caltrans to assess whether the project schedule can be maintained and to ensure full funding remains intact. This includes evaluating potential refinements to the design that incorporate best practices for pedestrian and bicycle safety, and determining how the public review process can guide the final design decisions.

While no formal action will be requested through this consent item, a final recommendation and associated policy language will be included under Agenda Item C-9, “2026 Fund Cycle Programming Policies | Surface Transportation Program,” to reflect SLOCOG’s continued commitment to completing the environmental phase and delivering this regionally significant project.

C-7 Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvement Study Findings
C-8 Senior Transportation Long term solutions
C-9 Final 2026 Fund Cycle Programming Policies | Surface Transportation Program: Staff has received input from member agencies and Technical Transportation Advisory Committee (TTAC) representatives on the draft programming policies. Revisions since the April presentation are shown in underline and strikeout format. Staff also held a focused work session with TTAC representatives to further refine the policy language and discuss the regional grants pursuit strategy presented by Mark Thomas Associates.

SLOCOG Executive Committee May 14, 2025
3 This item includes a proposed policy that aligns with the direction outlined in Agenda Item C-6 regarding the Route 1/41 Roundabout in Morro Bay. Specifically, staff will recommend the Board affirm its intent to complete the environmental assessment and project report and to circulate the document for public review (Conversations on-going).

Completion of the environmental phase is critical to maintaining project readiness and eligibility for Caltrans cost participation, as the agency plans to align a capital maintenance project on Route 1 with the potential roundabout construction. Once environmental clearance is secured and the public review process is complete, the project would be handed off to Caltrans for final design and construction—at no additional cost to the City of Morro Bay.

The proposed programming policies reflect SLOCOG’s continued commitment to deliver regionally significant projects while respecting local concerns and advancing best practices in pedestrian and bicycle safety.

D-1 Local Roads First Contract
D-2 Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) Progress – 2024 Annual Progress Reports E-1 Correspondence, Press Releases and News Articles
Public Hearing, Transportation and Presentation Items:

F-1 Presentation: Emergency Services: The SLOCOG Board will receive a presentation from the County of San Luis Obispo’s Office of Emergency Services on the Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan and evacuation procedures.

F-2 2060 Regional Growth Forecast: At the February 2025 SLOCOG Board Meeting, the SLOCOG Board voted to select the Baseline Growth Scenario for population, housing, and employment growth trajectories and use this scenario to disaggregate population, housing, and employment to the jurisdictional and subregional levels. Staff and Beth Jarosz, Population Reference Bureau, will present the DRAFT 2060 Regional Growth Forecast disaggregated to the jurisdictional and subregional levels.

F-3 2025 Federal Transportation Improvement Program (FTIP) Amendment No. 5: Staff will present the 2025 FTIP Amendment No. 5, a public hearing item for Board approval. The 2025 FTIP, adopted at the August 2024 Board meeting, is the region’s transportation programming document that contains a comprehensive listing of transportation projects based on programmed and committed federal, state, and local funding over the next four years.

FTIP Amendment No. 5 consists of the following changes: US 101 Five Cities Southbound TSM Components convert $61,294,000 SB-1 TCEP into $61,294,000 Federal National Highway Freight Program (NHFP) fund type; RTA Bus project – Replace Fixed-Route Electric Vehicles $4,406,400 Federal Funding; Shell Beach Road Shared Use Path Extension – Phase 2 from Avila Beach Drive to Spyglass Drive project will construct a Class I shared use path and include complete streets components. Increase funding $6,750,000 from FY25/26 $10,329,000 to FY25/26 $17,079,000; Prado Road Bridge Rehabilitation and Widening, move CON funding to future.

F-4 Mobility Wallet Pilot Program: The Mobility Wallet Pilot Program is being proposed as a revised approach to the previously Board-approved Region-Wide Reduced/Fare-Free Transit Pilot Program.

Mobility Wallets are electronic and/or card-based payment accounts that can be used to pay for transit services. The funding for the Pilot Program is derived from the Low Carbon Transit Operations Program (LCTOP). Staff will present the concept of a Mobility Wallet, goals of the program, and implementation next steps.

F-5 2027 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) Draft Vision and Goals: The staff report will include the draft vision, pillars, goals, and policy objectives necessary to develop the 2027 Regional Transportation Plan (2027 RTP). Staff will provide an update on the outreach completed over the last quarter, introduce the 2027 Steering Committee, and seek direction on the 2027 Vision and Goals.

F-6 Regional Road Safety Plan: Staff will present the final Regional Road Safety Action Plan for

SLOCOG Executive Committee May 14, 2025
4 approval, including newly identified Regional Priority Locations for addressing Bike, Pedestrian, Aggressive and Impaired Safety Corridors. The outcomes from the recent field walks will be included in the Appendix of the Action Plan and presented back to the communities over the summer and at the September 25th San Luis Obispo (SLO) Safe Streets forum at SLO Vets Hall. This year’s theme will be “Impaired Driving and the Wine Industry / Teen Driving.” The Forum will be open to the public.

The action plan is also a necessary step to apply for the coming 2025 Federal Safe Streets for All grant program. Staff will present opportunities, strategies and potential funding matches for the grant application due June 26th.

Area Wide Items:

G-1 State Legislative Update: Gus Khouri of Khouri Consulting, SLOCOG’s State Legislative Consultant, will provide an update. A summary of Governor Newsom’s May Revise will be presented, as well as bills of interest to the region.

5. Late Breaking News

6. Executive Committee Member Comments and Adjournment.

Next Meeting: Wednesday, June 4, 2025 (SLOCOG – tentative) H:\2024-25 OWP\0400 Agency Admin, Finance, Personnel 24-25\EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE_24-25\11-May 2025\Executive Committee Agenda - May 14, 2025.docx

SLOCOG Executive Committee March 12, 2025
3-1
***DRAFT***

SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
Meeting Minutes
Wednesday, March 12, 2025
SLOCOG Conference Room
1114 Marsh Street, San Luis Obispo, California
Members Present: Jimmy Paulding, President
Carla Wixom, Vice President (arrived @ 10:03 a.m.)
Fred Strong, Past President (left @ 10:32 a.m.)
Members Absent: None
Staff Present: Peter Rodgers, Executive Director (SLOCOG) James Worthley, Deputy Director (SLOCOG)
Richard Murphy, Programming Director (SLOCOG)
Lance Okuno, Planner (SLOCOG)
Jon Ansolabehere, Legal Counsel (SLOCOG)
Aida Nicklin, Executive Secretary (SLOCOG)
Also Present: Tania Arnold, Chief Financial Officer and Deputy Director (Regional Transit Authority) Eric Greening, Member, Social Services Transportation Advisory Council (SSTAC)

1. Call to Order and Roll Call: President Jimmy Paulding called the meeting to order at 10:00 a.m. Silent roll call was taken.

2. Public Comments:

Eric Greening, Garden Farms, thanked SLOCOG staff for their participation in the multi-hazard mitigation plan. He praised staff’s work on both the pedestrian safety issues and the North County Multimodal Corridor Plan. Greening asserted that the most dangerous spot for pedestrians is Vineyard Drive in Templeton relative to access to the Trader Joe’s store as access must be on the east side of Vineyard and one must cross heavy traffic.

3. Executive Committee Meeting Minutes – January 15, 2025:

Public Comments:

Eric Greening, Garden Farms, requested some changes on page 3-4 of the meeting minutes of January 15, 2025, under Public Comments (see highlighted changes in yellow below):

Eric Greening stressed the need to consider whether there are dangerous interchanges, noting that a stop gap measure four-way stop signs could be a temporary mitigation while waiting for more comprehensive projects.

Executive Committee action: President Jimmy Paulding moved the motion to approve the meeting minutes of January 15, 2025 as presented, and as amended per Eric Greening’s changes on page 3-4. Past President Fred Strong seconded, and the motion passed (Vice President Carla Wixom was

SLOCOG Executive Committee March 12, 2025
3-2
not yet present at the time of approval).

4. April 2, 2025 Draft SLOCOG Board Agenda: Peter Rodgers and staff discussed the draft SLOCOG Board agenda for April 2, 2025:

Director Reports:
• SLOCOG Executive Director’s Report: SLOCOG Executive Director will present this report at the April 2nd meeting.
• Caltrans District 5 Director’s Report: Caltrans Director will present this report or will assign staff to present on his behalf.

Vice President Carla Wixom arrived at 10:03 a.m.

Consent Agenda Items:

Peter Rodgers briefly talked about the Consent Agenda. Comments/discussion on some items are outlined below under the item/s discussed.

A-1 a. SLOCOG Board Meeting Minutes – February 5, 2025
b. SLOCOG Board Meeting Minutes – March 5, 2025
A-2 Executive Committee Minutes – March 12, 2025
A-3 Social Services Transportation Advisory Council (SSTAC) Minutes – March 19, 2025 A-4 Technical Transportation Advisory Committee (TTAC) Minutes – March 19, 2025 A-5 Citizens Transportation Advisory Committee (CTAC) Minutes – March 19, 2025 B-1 Year-to-date Financial Report
B-2 FY 2025/26 Transportation Development Act (TDA) Fund Apportionment: Sales tax receipts are flat or down so most member jurisdictions, including SLOCOG, are taking a cut.

B-3 Resolution Assigning Signatory Powers for SLOCOG Documents, Contracts, and Certification of Conformance
B-4 FY 2025/26 Proposed Overall Work Program (OWP) and Budget: This item was moved from presentation to consent agenda because of the amount of presentation items. FY 25/26 estimate is extremely tight at $11M. This can be pulled for discussion. SLOCOG will probably eliminate a vacant position that is unfunded now.

B-5 FY 2024/25 Transportation Development Act (TDA) Funding Revisions – Exhibit A: B-5, C-2 and C-9:

This item includes the fix to the Senior-WAV/Go! program issue of providing four (4) roundtrips per individual per month. Funds ($160K) will be taken from Rural Transit Fund (RTF) to get back to four roundtrips (maxing out the amount of money SLOCOG is allowed to fund Senior Go!). Item B-5 addresses the RTF exchange.

C-1 2025/2026 Unmet Transit Needs Findings
C-2 Transit Fund Programming: FY 2025/26 Rural Transit Fund (RTF) & State of Good Repair (SGR), and FY 2024/25 Low Carbon Transit Operations Program (LCTOP): As mentioned in Item B-5 above, Staff is recommending using FY 24/25 RTF “Reserve” carry-over funding towards the SeniorWAV/GO! program to provide up to 4 roundtrips per individual per month for the remainder of the current fiscal year (4 months). This is additional programming of transit funds.

President Jimmy Paulding inquired if the Ventura Transit Systems (VTS) contract for the Senior Go! Program will be amended. Peter Rodgers noted that the original contract was signed after Board approval at the last meeting, and Item C-9 is the amendment to the original contract. SLOCOG still has a contract with VTS through next fiscal year. President Paulding mentioned that he does not see anything about the Coordinating Human Services Public Transportation Plan (CHSPTP) in the draft April agenda. Rodgers indicated staff can bring back links and point out the key sections of the plan related to efficient ways to provide senior services.

SLOCOG Executive Committee March 12, 2025
3-3
Tania Arnold noted to keep in mind when looking at the Senior Go! Program, that some seniors qualify for the Runabout service (regional rides are as low as $3; for longer trips, the cost incrementally goes up).

C-3 Low Carbon Transit Operations Program (LCTOP) Signatory Resolution, Certifications and Assurances, and Authorized Agents
C-4 US 101 North County Multimodal Corridor Plan
C-5 Intercity Rail Update
C-6 Local Choice Funds – USHA Expenditure Plans
C-7 Community Betterments Status of Projects Part 2: Richard Murphy briefly talked about Item C-7, noting to keep in mind that these are not regionally significant projects, but are focused on community priority betterments. He further noted this is a second action to address medium to high risk projects. The objective is either to come up with a solution to keep the projects moving or come back with a recommendation to take the money back. There is no recommendation to remove funding at this time, however there are specific project delivery milestones set.

During a short discussion that ensued, Murphy noted this should be a slam dunk, assuming all agencies are in agreement.

C-8 Volunteer Driver Program Call for Projects
C-9 Senior-WAV (Wheelchair Accessible Vehicle) Transportation Service Contract Amendment: This is a contract amendment as mentioned earlier. Since SLOCOG is not a transit operator, the agency is not mandated to notice this item.

C-10 Agreement for Consolidation of Transit Services - City of Atascadero and Regional Transit Authority (RTA)
D-1 Transportation Efficiency Analysis 2.0 Contract
D-2 Local Roads First Request for Proposals (RFP)
D-3 Safe Routes to School (SRTS) Survey Map
E-1 Correspondence, Press Releases and News Articles
E-2 Ride-On Transportation Semi-Annual Report: July-December 2024: Ride-On has provided the report
Public Comments:

Eric Greening thanked SLOCOG staff for all the work on trying to rescue the Senior Go! Program. On Item C-8 Volunteer Driver Program Call for Projects relative to accessible vehicles, Greening asked if what they have on those vehicles are lifts or ramps, noting he prefers ramps as it is unnerving to be lifted in. Lance Okuno said, “We do not specify, it is basically what VTS has available right now, but we will check.” Past President Fred Strong noted that the use of ramps depends on if they are using wheelchair or walker.

Transportation and Presentation Items:

F-1 2026 Fund Cycle – Surface Transportation Program | Major Projects: Richard Murphy discussed Item F-1, noting the discussion last week at the SLOCOG Board meeting on the Bob Jones Trail project. He said, “We found a way and that is to advance funding capacity in the 2026 Fund Cycle. Staff will hold a workshop with advisory committee members on the 2026 Fund Cycle on April 23rd. Vincent Mammano, Director of Strategic Solutions at Mark Thomas & Associates (Grant Funding Consultant) will attend the SLOCOG Board meeting to talk about major regional projects in the queue and an investment approach to advance them successfully. The consultant is tasked to develop a strategy on how to secure outside funding. Having a sense of what that chess board has will guide us in formulating staff recommendations.

President Paulding stressed the need to make certain that the intent is clear, capturing what the exact Board action was on the Bob Jones Trail item. Murphy stated staff will clarify that.

SLOCOG Executive Committee March 12, 2025
3-4
Public Comments:

Eric Greening stated he is fine with Item F-1
F-2 2026 Fund Cycle Public Transportation Program - Status of Projects: Peter Rodgers briefly talked about Item F-2, noting that the numbers have changed a little and that this is a refresh similar to what was done with Community Betterments presentation. Lance Okuno noted that staff will come back at a future meeting with recommendation/s for Board action.

Public Comments:

Eric Greening asked if the programming of the Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP) will be presented in October and if the SRTP itself will be presented to the Board sooner. Peter Rodgers said this refers to the status of projects with an update on the $33M SB 125 funding. Richard Murphy noted that the consultant will do the presentation.

F-3 2025 Regional Road Safety Action Plan: Peter Rodgers stated that the goal is to attract more funding, and staff will be presenting a plan to the Board. The consultant will be attending the April meeting.

Staff has engaged a number of stakeholders. This is a necessary step. SLOCOG is assisting the County, and by taking other member jurisdictions’ good work to make it a complete comprehensive plan, it would allow this region to pursue grant money.

Public Comments:

Eric Greening thanked staff for all the good work.

F-4 Data Drive Update: James Worthley said this would be a short presentation on data drive update.

Past President Fred Strong left the meeting 10:32 a.m.

Peter Rodgers asked the Executive Committee if Item C-9 Senior-WAV Contract Amendment should be pulled from consent agenda and make it a discussion item. President Paulding advised to mention it in the Executive Directors’ report. He asked if there will be a press release on this item. Okuno noted that a press release will be done once changes to the fare structure is finalized. Rodgers concurred to keep the item in consent agenda.

5. Public request to have a presentation on evacuation routes: Peter Rodgers briefly talked about the public request, noting that bringing a presentation to the Board seems to make a fair amount of sense (considering the recent fires, storms, etc.).

Vice President Carla Wixom indicated she supports bringing this item to the Board.

President Jimmy Paulding inquired if the County Office of Emergency Services (OES) will be asked to give a presentation. Rodgers responded affirmative.

Public Comments:

Eric Greening suggested that maybe inviting both the consultant for the emergency plan and OES would be good. The Plan itself (first part) is the identification of the hazard and the risk. The mitigation is being written now. He noted that some kind of online workshop in April will occur at the same time as the County Board of Supervisors meeting on Bob Jones Trail project. He thanked SLOCOG for the support on this.

This is another way for the public to participate in the update process of the hazard mitigation.

6. Late Breaking News: No late breaking news.

SLOCOG Executive Committee March 12, 2025
3-5

7. Executive Committee Member Comments and Adjournment:

Public Comments: There were none.

There being no further comments, President Jimmy Paulding adjourned the Executive Committee meeting at 10:41 a.m.

Next Meeting: Wednesday, April 2, 2025 (moved from April 9th) (SLOCOG – tentative).

Minutes prepared by Aida Nicklin
H:\2024-25 OWP\0400 Agency Admin, Finance, Personnel 24-25\EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE_24-25\11-May 2025\Executive Committee Meeting Minutes - March 12, 2025.docx

4-1
**DRAFT**

SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 4, 2025
PLEASE NOTE THE LOCATION:

San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors Chambers

KATCHO ACHADJIAN GOVERNMENT CENTER SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY 1055 Monterey Street, San Luis Obispo, California 93401 PLEASE NOTE THE TIME:
9:00 A.M.

President: Jimmy Paulding Vice President: Carla Wixom
Board Members:

John Peschong (First District - SLO County) Heather Newsom (Atascadero) Bruce Gibson (Second District - SLO County) Kassi Dee (Grover Beach) Dawn Ortiz-Legg (Third District - SLO County) Carla Wixom (Morro Bay) Jimmy Paulding (Fourth District - SLO County) Fred Strong (Paso Robles) Heather Moreno (Fifth District - SLO County) Ed Waage (Pismo Beach) Aileen Loe (Arroyo Grande) Erica A. Stewart (San Luis Obispo) Scott Eades (Ex-Officio, Caltrans District 5)
SLOCOG, in accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), will accommodate persons who require a modification of accommodation to participate in this meeting. SLOCOG is also committed to helping people with limited proficiency in the English language access the agency’s essential public information and services in the Spanish language. You can request such assistance by calling (805) 781-4219. We require at least 48 hours notice to provide reasonable accommodations.

SLOCOG, de acuerdo con la Ley de Estadounidenses con Discapacidades (ADA), acomodará a las personas que requieran una modificación de la adaptación para participar en esta reunión. SLOCOG también se compromete a ayudar a las personas con dominio limitado del inglés a acceder a los servicios públicos esenciales de la agencia y a la información pública en español. Para solicitar una adaptación, por favor llame al (805) 781- 4219. Requerimos al menos 48 horas de anticipación para proporcionar adaptaciones razonables. 9:00 I. FLAG SALUTE, CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
9:02 II. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Any member of the public may address the SLOCOG Board for a period not to exceed three (3) minutes on any item of interest not on the agenda within the jurisdiction of the Board. In compliance with the Brown Act, the Board will listen to all communication, but in compliance with the Brown Act, will not take any action on items that are not on the agenda.
9:20 III. DIRECTOR REPORTS
a. SLOCOG Executive Director
The AGENDA is available/posted at: www.slocog.org

4-2
b. Caltrans District 5 Director
9:35 IV. CONSENT AGENDA (INFORMATION AND ACTION ITEMS – ROLL CALL): The following Items are considered routine and non-controversial by staff and will be approved by one motion if no member of the COG or public wishes an item be removed. If discussion is desired by anyone, the item will be removed from the consent agenda and will be considered separately. Questions of clarification may be made by COG Board members without removal from the Consent Agenda. The recommendations for each item are noted in parenthesis.

Consent Agenda – Minutes of Meetings:

A-1 SLOCOG Board Meeting Minutes – April 2, 2025 (APPROVE) A-2 Executive Committee Minutes – May 14, 2025 (INFORMATION) A-3 Social Services Transportation Advisory Council (SSTAC) Minutes – May 21, 2025 (INFORMATION)
A-4 Technical Transportation Advisory Committee (TTAC) Minutes May 21, 2025 (INFORMATION)
A-5 Citizens Transportation Advisory Committee (CTAC) Minutes – May 21, 2025 (INFORMATION)
Consent Agenda - SLOCOG Administrative Office & Regional Rideshare Items:

B-1 Year-to-date Financial Report (RECEIVE AND FILE Year-to-Date Financial Statements [Attachments A and B]). Jake Kramer B-2 Conditional Approval of Transportation Development Act (TDA) Claims for FY 2025/2026 (ADOPT RESOLUTION authorizing the Executive Director to approve 2025/26 TDA claims and authorize TDA funds to be released based on the requirements noted in EXHIBITS A and B of the resolution). Ashley Kneeland
B-3 AGP Video Production of Board Meetings - Contract Extension (APPROVE SECOND CONTRACT EXTENSION with AGP Video for one year to televise all SLOCOG and RTA meetings with costs shared on a prorata basis (approximately $6,650-$8,400 annually). (RTA has adopted this at their May 7, 2025 meeting, Item A-6). Stacey Dougan
B-4 Contract with Khouri Consulting LLC for Project Advocacy (APPROVE CONTRACT AND CONCUR WITH SOLE-SOURCE JUSTIFICATION). Tim Gillham
B-5 Federal Legislative Support Contract (AUTHORIZE SOLE-SOURCE CONTRACT WITH THE FERGUSON GROUP for $30,000 per year for 2 years due to an urgent need and specialized expert services.). Peter Rodger
B-6 Three-Year Contract Extension – Ridematching Software Vendor (APPROVE AMENDMENT FOR CONTRACT EXTENSION WITH RIDE
AMIGOS FOR THREE YEARS). Mallory Jenkins
Consent Agenda – Programming Division Items:

C-1 Hybrid Farebox Recovery Ratio for San Luis Obispo Regional Transit Authority (RTA) (APPROVE a Hybrid Farebox Recovery Ratio for RTA Fixed-Route Services for FY 25/26 of ____%). Ivana Rodriguez C-2 Amend Call Box Maintenance Contract with Knightscope, Inc. (APPROVE CONTRACT AMENDMENT #4 WITH KNIGHTSCOPE, INC.

NOT TO EXCEED $_____________ANNUALLY). Tim Gillham

4-3
C-3 Amend Call Box Private Call Answering Center Contract with AAMCOM, Limited Liability Company (LLC) (APPROVE CONTRACT AMENDMENT #1 WITH AAMCOM, LLC (APPROXIMATELY
$_______ANNUALLY)). Tim Gillham
C-4 Contract with Ride-On Transportation (APPROVE CONTRACT, [ATTACHMENT A] WITH RIDE-ON TRANSPORTATION NOT TO
EXCEED $310,000). Lance Okuno
C-5 Volunteer Driver Program Contract (APPROVE CONTRACT WITH ________ IN THE AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $_______). Lance Okuno C-6 Update on Morro Bay Partnership Withdrawal – Route 1/41 Roundabout (RECEIVE INFORMATION). Richard Murphy
C-7 Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvement Study Findings (RECEIVE INFORMATION; INTEGRATE SUGGESTED PROJECTS INTO PLANS
AND PROGRAMS, AS APPROPRIATE). Lance Okuno / Paige Anderson C-8 Senior Transportation Long term solutions (RECEIVE INFORMATION).

Lance Okuno
C-9 Final 2026 Fund Cycle Programming Policies | Surface Transportation Program (APPROVE FINAL 2026 FUND CYCLE PROGRAMMING
POLICIES FOR THE SURFACE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM).

Richard Murphy
Consent Agenda – Planning Division Items:

D-1 Local Roads First Contract (APPROVE STAFF RECOMMENDATION).

James Worthley
A) Approve the contract with _____________ for an amount not to exceed $241,000.

B) Authorize Executive Director to seek/secure consultant(s) support services for an amount not to exceed $25,000 to support public engagement efforts.

D-2 Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) Progress – 2024 Annual Progress Reports (RECEIVE INFORMATION) Jayden Hermansen Consent Agenda – Correspondence, News Items & Other
Reports:

E-1 Correspondence, Press Releases and News Articles (RECEIVE INFORMATION). Peter Rodgers / Stacey Dougan
V. PUBLIC HEARING, TRANSPORTATION AND PRESENTATION
ITEMS
9:45 F-1 Presentation: Emergency Services (RECEIVE INFORMATION). Sara Sanders
10:00 F-2 2060 Regional Growth Forecast (VOICE VOTE - ADOPT the 2060 Regional Growth Forecast). Daniel Audelo / Beth Jarosz (Population Reference Bureau)
10:20 F-3 2025 Federal Transportation Improvement Program (FTIP) Amendment No. 5 (ROLL CALL – ADOPT THE RESOLUTION
APPROVING AMENDMENT NO. 5 TO THE 2025 FTIP). John DiNunzio

4-4
F-4 Mobility Wallet Pilot Program (VOICE VOTE - APPROVE USE OF

LCTOP FUNDS FOR A MOBILITY WALLET PILOT PROGRAM AND
DIRECT STAFF TO RELEASE REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS [RFP] FOR A PREPAID CARD VENDOR). Ivana Rodriguez
F-5 2027 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) Draft Vision and Goals (REVIEW AND COMMENT; SUPPORT DIRECTION). Sara Sanders
F-6 Regional Road Safety Plan (VOICE VOTE - APPROVE). John DiNunzio VI. AREA WIDE ITEMS
10:30 G-1 State Legislative Update (VOICE VOTE - APPROVE STAFF RECOMMENDATION). Gus Khouri (Legislative Consultant, Khouri Consulting) / Tim Gillham
a) Support ___ bills and oppose ___ bills in SLOCOG Bill Matrix (Attachment A)
b) Accept ___________ State Legislative Update (Attachment B) 10:50 VII. BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS & BOARD REPORTS
11:00 VIII. ADJOURNMENT
Next SLOCOG meeting: August 6, 2025, Wednesday
H:\2024-25 OWP\0400 Agency Admin, Finance, Personnel 24-25\EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE_24-25\11-May 2025\DRAFT SLOCOG Board Agenda - June 4, 2025.docx

RESOLUTION NO. 30-25

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL

OF THE CITY OF MORRO BAY, CALIFORNIA,

REQUESTING THE SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS

TO COMPLETE THE ROUNDABOUT PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL PHASE

T H E C I T Y C O U N C I L
City of Morro Bay, California
WHEREAS, since 2014 the City has performed project planning and environmental work for the roundabout project at the intersection of State Route 1, State Route 41, and Main Street in Morro Bay; and
WHEREAS, the City analyzed the intersection through a Caltrans approved Intersection Control Evaluation (ICE), which determined the roundabout alternative was the Caltrans preferred intersection improvement project; and
WHEREAS, the City brought the environmental phase of the roundabout project to approximately 96% completion with all environmental documents in draft form and in final Caltrans review; and
WHEREAS, at their meeting on February 25, 2025, the City Council requested a status update on the roundabout project; and
WHEREAS, after receiving a project status update at their meeting on April 22, 2025, the City Council directed staff to discontinue work on the roundabout project environmental phase; and
WHEREAS, the City Council and community have stated concerns regarding pedestrian and bicycle safety associated with a roundabout at this intersection; and WHEREAS, at the City Council meeting on May 13, 2025, the City Council voted to reconsider their action taken on April 22, 2025, regarding the project; and WHEREAS, finalization of the environmental phase does not address concerns regarding pedestrian and bicycle safety associated with a roundabout at this intersection as those design elements are addressed in the project’s design phase; and WHEREAS, the City has authority over the coastal development permit process and is expected to hear proposed pedestrian and bicycle safety improvements for this project at 60% design at a later time; and
WHEREAS, the San Luis Obispo Council of Governments (SLOCOG) is the Regional Transportation Planning Agency (RTPA) for the San Luis Obispo region pursuant to Section 29532 of the Government Code has agreed in concept to fund up to $8 Million of the estimated project cost; and
WHEREAS, SLOCOG has adopted, pursuant to Government Code 65080, a Regional Transportation Plan (RTP); and
WHEREAS, SLOCOG biennially adopts, pursuant to Government Code Section 65080, a Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP) that is submitted, pursuant to Government Code 14527, to the California Transportation Commission (CTC) and the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans); and

WHEREAS, SLOCOG has developed, in cooperation with Caltrans, public transit providers, and local governments, a comprehensive program for funding made available for surface transportation projects and programs; including highways, streets, and roads improvements, bicycle and pedestrian improvements, and transit capital and operations for inclusion in a multi-year capital improvement program called the RTIP; and WHEREAS, SLOCOG’s latest RTIP was approved on August 12, 2024 and included the roundabout project; and
WHEREAS, SLOCOG staff in its staff reports to its Executive Committee’s May 14, 2025 meeting, and Technical Transportation Advisory Committee’s and Citizens Transportation Advisory Committee’s May 21, 2025 meetings has indicated an interest in taking over the roundabout project environmental phase with its position to complete the environmental phase of the State Route 1, State Route 41, and Main Street intersection project.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Morro Bay:

1. The City will not complete the roundabout project environmental phase.

2. The City formally requests SLOCOG take over and complete the roundabout project environmental phase with the understanding that upon completion, Caltrans will act as agency lead on design and construction of the roundabout.

3. The City will transfer development impact fee funding at a not-to-exceed amount of $60,000 to SLOCOG for the completion of the roundabout project environmental phase.

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Morro Bay at a regular meeting thereof held on the 27th day of May 2025 on the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

RECUSE:
______________________________
CARLA WIXOM, Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
DANA SWANSON, City Clerk

© 2024 Microsoft Corporation © 2024 Maxar ©CNES (2024) Distribution Airbus DS © 2024 Microsoft Corporation © 2024 Maxar ©CNES (2024) Distribution Airbus DS 1/27/2025
Figure 1 0 100' 200' Roundabout Conforming to Drone Aerial N LEGEND:

Limit of Construction
Archaeological APE
Roundabout Linework to Conform to Drone Aerial (July 2024) Roundabout Boundary in Accordance with HDM Index 405.10 Date
Project No.

Filename: \\ghdnet\ghd\US\San Luis Obispo\Projects\561\12619326\Digital_Design\ACAD\Figures\0512619326EX003_APE.dwg Plot Date: 27 January 2025 11:55 AM
CITY OF MORRO BAY 12619326
SR 1/SR 41/MAIN STREET ROUNDABOUT
ATTACHMENT 1
30% PRELIMINARY DESIGN Page 97 of 246
ATTACHMENT 2

SR1/SR41/Main St Interchange
Public Engagement
Community Survey Results
May / June 2023

Survey Results | Overview
2 [Footer] l © 2022 GHD. All rights reserved.
309 survey responses from Community
• 8 received night of public workshop
• Peak day: 108 responses received May 18

Are you a resident of Morro Bay?
Survey Results | Responses
3 [Footer] l © 2022 GHD. All rights reserved.

No: 78
Yes: 231
0 50 100 150 200 250
Yes
No
Are you a resident of Morro Bay?
Yes
No

How often do you use this intersection?
Survey Results | Responses
4 [Footer] l © 2022 GHD. All rights reserved.

Never: 0
Sometimes: 120
Daily: 110
Multiple Times Per Day: 79
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Never
Some�mes
Daily
Mul�ple �mes per day
How o�en do you use this intersec�on?
Never
Some�mes
Daily
Mul�ple �mes per day

How do you use this intersection?
Survey Results | Responses
5 [Footer] l © 2022 GHD. All rights reserved.

I don’t use this intersection: 0
As a cyclist: 48
As a pedestrian: 50
As the driver/passenger of a motor vehicle: 309
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
As the driver/passenger of a motor vehicle
As a pedestrian (walking or wheelchair)
As a cyclist
I don't use this intersection

Do you feel this intersection handles the flow of vehicles and pedestrians adequately?
Survey Results | Responses
6 [Footer] l © 2022 GHD. All rights reserved.

No: 264
Yes: 45
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Yes
No
Do you feel this intersec�on handles traffic flow of vehicles and pedestrians adequately? Yes
No

How are your experiences with this intersection?
Survey Results | Responses
7 [Footer] l © 2022 GHD. All rights reserved.

I do not use this intersection regularly because I avoid it: 24 I do not use this intersection regularly, but when I use it, I have no issue: 13 I use this intersection regularly, but I have problems with it: 222 I use this intersection regularly without issue: 50
0 50 100 150 200 250
I use this intersection regularly without issue
I use this intersection regularly, but I have problems with it I do not use this intersection regularly, but when I use it, I have no issue I do not use this intersection regularly because I avoid it

Do you avoid this intersection? If so, why?
Survey Results | Responses
8 [Footer] l © 2022 GHD. All rights reserved.

I avoid this intersection because of congestion and traffic: 122 I do not avoid this intersection: 138
I avoid this intersection because of safety concerns: 33 Other: 16
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
I do not avoid this intersection
I avoid this intersection because of congestion and traffic I avoid this intersection because of safety concerns
Other Answers

What, if any, are your safety concerns with the intersection? Survey Results | Responses
9 [Footer] l © 2022 GHD. All rights reserved.

Large all-way-stop controlled intersections are difficult to navigate due to many approach lanes, particularly with pedestrians crossing.

The exit from HWY 1 gets backed up and causes a wait - sometimes it's quicker to use the Main St. Hwy 1 exit and drive the feeder to the intersection.

Because of the many businesses that feed the intersection it gets backed up.

No control of pedestrian traffic at peak times
It becomes congested and dangerous during high volume times Dangerous for kids walking to and from MBHS and the flow of traffic is too slow when it gets busy This intersection is so dangerous — especially during mornings and lunchtime (when high school students are getting something to eat.

If The City has the money to install the roundabout, I support that because the roundabout on the south side of town works great. If the funds are not available for a roundabout, the intersection should remain as is with upkeep on the crosswalk painting and limit lines.

Drivers often appear distracted or confused. It is very similar to MB Blvd prior to roundabout installation.

Mainly the high school pedestrian traffic during the lunch break hour. Also, significant vehicle congestion at morning and afternoon drop off.

Too much traffic, hard to get across intersection.

Who goes when after stopping. Hate roundabouts, signals would be my preference.

As a four way stop, there is so much traffic drivers forget their place in line and go when they should be waiting. The high school children are a concern. Why are they allowed to leave school? Traffic wise; vehicles MUST fully come to a stop, accidents happen when drivers get confused or aggressively move forward out of order. That throws off the orderly flow of who’s next. Usually only a problem early ie: 8 am, and lunchtime, and after school until 4:30-5 in my opinion High school kids need stoplights for crossing safety.

Too many cars for stop signs to work. Needs better flow.

Pedestrian traffic mixed with cars.

Congested traffic flow, pedestrian safety , eye sore
#1- I frequently travel eastbound Highway 41. The combination of traffic emerging the offramp from Highway 1 and trying to make left turns onto Atascadero Road while while vehicles are lined up at the four-way arterial stop at Main Street is a safety concern. #2- Drivers also seem to have difficulty deciding when it's their turn to proceed at the four-way arterial stop. #3 - The backup of westbound traffic from Highway 41 can be a major bottleneck on weekends.

Drivers not understanding 4 way stop procedure. Drivers not stopping. Pedestrian safety especially with the kids from the high-school. I avoid this intersection if during certain times of day.

This intersection is a problem. When the high school has students out, multiple times a day, it’s crazy and gets backed up. Weekends with tourists it’s crazy aga. We need a stop light. Roundabouts don’t work well here as no one knows how to do them and large rvs coming and going wouldn’t fit.

No clear direction to vehicles or pedestrians
The confusion on the part of both the pedestrians and the drivers....who goes where and when??? Kids crossing the street without looking. Everyone assuming they have the right of way when they aren’t paying attention to whom actually does.

What, if any, are your safety concerns with the intersection? (cont’d) Survey Results | Responses
10 [Footer] l © 2022 GHD. All rights reserved.

Safety for everyone: drivers, bicycles, pedestrians.

Pedestrians (high school students mainly) will need to cross this roundabout if constructed.

This intersection is dangerous for pedestrians and too complicated for many drivers to navigate safely.

Students crossing, Back up from Hwy 4, hard to get across in many areas.

The four way stop with left turns, right turns and multiple cars waiting, including cars coming off the highway creates confusion. Drivers frequently do not seem to know which direction has the right of way.

Basically a round about would be a terrible option. I don't usually take surveys, but if it will help stop a round about, I'll answer the questions. I don't have any concerns about the intersection. I usually travel it at other than rush hours, not because of avoiding it, but because my business usually takes me there at other hours.

I never use it on the weekend because of traffic
That no one that lives in present day 2023 is aware of this project. It's a bunch of people out of touch with present day. Nobody clicks surveys anymore its 2023 use the comment section of social media like everyone else. If you did. It would be incredibly obvious to you that the public wants a signal there. NOT A ROUNDABOUT NO ONE WANTS A ROUNDABOUT The high schoolers crossing the street in big groups with no light signal telling them when to Stop or Walk. When some drivers don’t know who’s turn it is to go and causes confusion. Getting back onto the road from the Chevron or Cork N’ Bottle Liquor Store.

A lot of the challenges have to do with the students just walking across the street whenever they want to. That really slows up traffic.

It gets extremely backed up. It can't be avoided if you want to take highway 41 east to Atascadero or to Miners Ace Hardware which I frequently shop at.

You just have to go and hope that no one else decides at the same time to do the same. No matter what, you feel like you're cutting someone off and it harshens the mellow.

Peoples and students disregard for others.
uneven flow of traffic.

Students from MBHS
For the most part it handles the amount of traffic Morro Bay has. During high use times, signals would help the traffic flow consistently.

It's a confusing intersection (doubly so for tourists), and it feels very dangerous to pedestrians & cyclists because it's large and because the drivers are so distracted near misses, impatient drivers not waiting their turn, north bound off ramp Safety of pedestrians and people who don’t know who has right of way Too busy, pedestrians, cars, trucks and cyclists.

Pushy drivers not waiting their turn.

Sometimes, heavy pedestrian use, but it is not bad.

Traffic from all directions. Students crossing the roads at busy times. Four way STOP drivers not taking their turns correctly. Major congestion especially when exiting freeway.

Too much volume certain times of the day for intersection. Difficult to watch the many drivers either turning and going straight from multiple lanes. long backups at freeway exits
Pedestrians and unable to see at off ramps
There's a high risk for pedestrian injuries due to the erratic and heavy traffic flow. Cars often get confused about whose turn it is. Traffic gets easily backed up, especially on weekends and daily rush hours. Page 108 of 246
What, if any, are your safety concerns with the intersection? (cont’d) Survey Results | Responses
11 [Footer] l © 2022 GHD. All rights reserved.

If there were a stoplight at this intersection it would make it easier for people at the high school to turn North onto the 101 ramp, as it is now, you basically feel like you are playing Frogger and you are the frog trying to get across to the on ramp without someone turning in front of you at the last second. A stoplight would also make it easier to turn left at the off ramp next to the high school instead of waiting for a million cars to go by. At least there would be a break in the traffic and make it safer to get across. That intersection needs a stoplight. I will absolutely be so disappointed if there is a roundabout put there, no one knows how to navigate those, especially high school drivers. STOPLIGHT PLEASE!!!
Because of the volume of traffic at the intersection, drivers have trouble identifying who has the right of way. I often see drivers entering the intersection and needing to stop because another vehicle cuts them off.

I feel like having some sort of pedestrian lights or buttons would help, especially at night.

There is no good flow of traffic. People are often cutting each other off and it gets close to accidents. I see people using wheelchairs or walking who have trouble crossing. There are often students there in the morning who look worried.

The stop signs are currently not working. The drivers leaving the northbound 1 offramp do not have room to move into the road to access the stop sign at the cross section of 41 and main street. The intersection is not able to handle the highschool traffic.

Speed of drivers coming off the 41 and high school traffic/beginner drivers Especially when the high school kids are on lunch or leaving school its hectic and dangerous, kids crossing and cars not paying attention to when its their turn.

Proximity to on/off ramps. Cars going west sometimes use a right turn signal when at Main but go straight then turn right at the On ramp confusing other drivers. East bound cars have no defined lanes so one or two cars might be turning left, going straight, or turning right and not using turn signals causes massive confusion especially when two cars are both going straight. Most people don't know how to properly alternate at 4-way stops.

Many people run the stop signs. The off-ramp causes much confusion.

Many times people coming from Atascadero do not stop.
congestion, traffic and safety
There are a lot of high school students crossing at lunchtime.

Congestion, especially northbound Main St. is compounded by students crossing. leave it alone.

Too many entrances and exits, people don't know how to drive at four-way stops, too many high school students at certain times of the day. It's just too much trouble! Biggest problem is the school kids, they walk in small groups, first one set goes in and then shortly behind them another set starts in, effectivly blocking traffic, sometimes in two directions. pedestrian traffic from the high schools students is a nightmare in the morning, lunch and after school. always major traffic delays during these times The worst spot is the exit heading south. It's very dangerous. flashing lights for crosswalks such as downtown slo has.

I have no problem with the intersection with the exception of weekends & holidays.

Some drivers don’t pay attention or wait their turn for the right away.😤😤 Tourists don’t have a clue! 🤣🤣
Traffic when high school lets out cause backup on Hwy 1 off ramp. I sometimes pass this exit and go to the stop light and backtrack.

Drivers, unfamiliar with the area, cause traffic delays and pose potential hazards due to lack of driving directions for their destinations and the small amount of distance provided for the left hand turn lane. During school hours, this intersection becomes gridlocked causing further traffic issues. Oftentimes, I've seen drivers become frustrated and make unsafe driving decisions.

During peak summer season, I will avoid leaving home to drive into town to shop because this intersection becomes so congested including drivers with a lack of drivers courtesy and safety awareness.

Difficult to exit off Highway 1 north to go east on 41. Traffic flow is inefficient.

So confusing with the multiple stop signs. Very busy intersection. none Page 109 of 246
What, if any, are your safety concerns with the intersection? (cont’d) Survey Results | Responses
12 [Footer] l © 2022 GHD. All rights reserved.

Drivers are confused or unaware of who has the “right of way” when approaching the intersection. Several times I have had near misses when a vehicle does not wait until the right of way vehicle has progressed. I have also observed vehicles running stop signs or just disregarding traffic altogether.

Particularly when turning on to Atascadero Rd from the northbound Hwy 1 off ramp it’s very congested, people seem to have a difficult time determining right-of-way at the intersection in general.

Turning right from the US1-N off ramp is difficult as unclear if it's single lane, who is turning left vs going straight (east on 41) or right (onto Main). Very difficult during high school start/end times.

Intersecting two highways with ramps and Main Street at a stop sign doesn't work well with all of the traffic and pedestrians.

No roundabout
Putting in a roundabout has major concerns for me. Too many buses, big rigs and confused drivers. No roundabout !!! Stop and go traffic. Takes too long.

It is confusing to navigate and other drivers get emotional or frustrated by the lack of clarity. It is sometimes difficult to see pedestrians and bicyclists. I often find long waits and the intersection is not efficient to travel through.

Visibility, congestion issues. Safety for vehicles, cyclists and pedestrians. Speed and flow of traffic varies, so timing is always a guess and estimation when pulling off of the highway onto 41.

It is difficult to turn right off of Highway One onto Highway 41 eastbound when MBHS is dismissing.

The intersection of two busy state highways should be free flowing without stop signs or traffic lights Traffic congestions and aggressive drivers. Also concerned over pedestrian and biking safety.

I have been in a traffic accident there where a car hit my vehicle. I also am concerned about student traffic in mornings, lunch breaks and at close of school.

Large vehicles ie.commercial trucks or r v's ability to use. also the students from the high school crossing the streets Safely.

High school kids at lunch time cause traffic delays because groups have to cross multiple paths at once to get through the intersection, causing extended waiting times for vehicles.

Traffic backs up on the off-ramps and the intersection is always a problem to get through Back when I went to Morro Bay High, student were in danger of unregulated traffic and the traffic because worse during peak times. unsafe
congested
At times the intersection is congested. Many people get confused as to who has the right of way. There is the potential for serious accidents.

Other drivers possible lack of knowing the driver on the right goes first if they get there at the same time. Drivers don't wait their turn to go. Drivers irritation at pedestrians crossing the street. congestion during hours of drop off and pick up for MBHS Congestion and confusion created by fairly frequent high volume and the close proximity of freeway off ramps to the intersection. This is compounded by heavy pedestrian traffic from the high school. Safety at this intersection is a serious concern.

Drivers unfamiliar with right of way rules. Steady stream of pedestrians from MBHS.

Except days and times that I know it will be backed up.

I avoid this intersection during peak times because of the congestion. 1) I will wait until majority of traffic passes before crossing 2) No one seems to know when it is their turn, or they anxiously take their turn 3) it would worry me if my grandchildren would have to cross that intersection As a pedestrian I feel unsafe crossing Main Street and the Highway 1 on/off ramps. Vehicles don't always see pedestrians because the intersection is confusing.

I avoid when past experiences tell me it’s busy.

Pedestrian safety is lacking
High school students crossing during lunch time.

What, if any, are your safety concerns with the intersection? (cont’d) Survey Results | Responses
13 [Footer] l © 2022 GHD. All rights reserved.

I sometimes avoid this intersection due to both congestion and safety of students walking to snd from MBHS. The most concerning/dangerous place is exiting the 1 off-ramp heading North at Atascadero Rd. If you are making a left, to go under the freeway, to MBHS you are dealing with 1) cars coming east under the underpass from MBHS 2) cars heading west directly from Highway 41 3) Northbound cars on Main St. turning left towards MBHS (which is blind because it is hard to asses if the car is going straight on Main or is going to turn left) and 4) cars making a right from southbound Main St. Four directions of cars need to be clear to safely exit the off ramp to go to MBHS PLUS you have to take in the congestion that accumulates under the freeway that blocks you from making a left turn AND the pedestrian traffic. I literally witnessed a SUV almost being hit yesterday at this location.

Heavy traffic at certain times of day and during events.

Too many people don't wait their turn to move across the junction.

Dangerous for pedestrians to cross in front of traffic
if there were a bypass, I'd use that. Consider an alternate like connecting little morro creek road.

Move the on and off ramps and add improvements to Main St to handle the traffic.

Provide cost estimates for ALL options for public consideration, not just the Double traffic light and the round about. 1) Kids crossing ( They look scared when crossing 2) It's a mess when I am going through the intersection around 8:20 am to head to work. 3) I was just rear ended because I had to stop for someone that pulled out in front of me and it was my turn to go. 4) Drivers turning left off highway 1 pull out so for you can't see if cars are coming to turn right to get on 41. Something needs to be done about it that's for sure! Thank you and good luck! Pedestrian awareness
I am also concerned about safety. I don't see pedestrians often at the intersection but do see it as a safety problem as well.

Highway 1 exits onto Highway 41 have the most issues. Often have difficulty getting onto Highway 41.

Northbound off ramp from Hwy 1 is too close to intersection making it difficult to cross or turn left at intersection. Also drivers don't follow rules of the road at intersection. I've been rear-ended there too
Poor, inefficient traffic flow.

It takes forever at high traffic times. It can get very backed up Too many cars have to floor it to get through intersection towards the high school.

Eliminate the hwy on/off ramps. There are others within a few blocks Pedestrians.

Hard to get off freeway and merge when congested.

It’s a complex intersection but does not appear to be complex until you are actually using it. It’s hard to take in all the possible decisions other drivers are making. There are not any other intersections like it in the area so it’s unfamiliar which is a particular concern with many tourist visitors. I’m always nervous when using it Disproportionate congestion on 4 way stop. Vehicles exiting hwy 1 add to existing line of vehicles and opposite side is line of vehicle from hwy 41. Too much traffic for a 4 way stop.

School times. Big mess. Huge mother homes no room. Kids crossing forever.

Pedestrians and students getting killed by someone who is not paying attention and does not know how to properly operate a 4-way stop Traffic coming off the highway with two layers of stop signs, pedestrians trying to cross, cyclists coming from multiple directions and cars trying to go through 4-way stop is very busy and there needs to be better to prevent accidents.

What, if any, are your safety concerns with the intersection? (cont’d) Survey Results | Responses
14 [Footer] l © 2022 GHD. All rights reserved.
1-Speed at which some vehicles pass through area. We live in Harbor View tract. It becomes very difficult to turn onto Main from Radcliff ( especially south bound). 2-Safety of pedestrians and bikes crossing the 1 on ramp.

A signal could potentially cause sourhbound traffic to backup past Radcliff making it even more difficult to exit onto southbound Main. A roundabout would slow traffic and potentially make exiting safer.

However how would pedestrians safety be addressed at roundabout?? Possibly a flashing signal indicating a walker?? Turning from north bound Hwy 1 off-ramp onto Hwy 41 east bound.

High school students not yielding to vehicles so that the intersection flows smoothly. They just keep coming in a constant flow and do not allow cars to cross the intersections.

Hard to exit highway 1 and turn right onto 41. Also lots of traffic from different directions to be aware of. Pedestrians and lots of school walking and biking to be cautious of.

Needs a traffic light.

Most people seem to have never learned how to use a 4 way stop.

People drive through without stopping.

The high schoolers cross the street and therefore the flow of the cars becomes a mess and people and cars almost get hit.

People getting off the highway and turning towards the high school pull out and almost hit other drivers driving towards the highway entrance.

It gets backed up in all ways at various times of the day and causes a huge annoyance.

I use the intersection daily to go to and from work. There is not a single day that someone uses the intersection incorrectly and causes a possible dangerous situation for me or other drivers and pedestrians.

Traffic backs up onto the freeway and motorists often times have a hard time seeing cyclists and pedestrians Too many variables including pedestrians who don't try to work with the traffic flow and drivers who don't know the rules of the road I've had a career with the Federal Highway Administration and know that this intersection can be made safer, more efficient, and more environmentally sound if replaced with a modern, well-designed round-about.

Not enough space beyween northbound HWY 1 stop sign and 41/Main stop sign making the right hand turn.

Students crossing at all different times adds to morning and afternoon traffic a cross walk with a light would be very helpful. Instead of kids crossing not stopping and looking for oncoming traffic I am concerned at the number of cars and kids walking to school, home from school, and during lunch time during the Morro Bay High School day. There are not adequate ways to exit Highway 1 and often it is a blind turn as cars move toward the high school.
ery busy with traffic cominng every which way and THEN the students from the high school saunter across at all kinds of times going to & fro to the liquor store and taco bell.....and also just walking home. Sometimes it is compounded by traffic from the high school AND traffic trying to go to & fro to the Thursday farmer's market.....It is dangerous for pedestrions and traffic is often backed up from the off ramp and trying to go over to Main or to go to Hwy 42. The new Hotel will only compound this. Students should not be walking through this area without a stop light at least. AND a traffic circle with student pedestrians would be chaos and dangerous.

I would request traffic lights at this location with of course pedestrian lighting signals when it is safe for them to cross.

Other drivers who are distracted / don't pay attention / dis-courteous...

It's unsafe, especially with tourists from out of the area and when the high school let's out. Also, st times its next to impossible to take the off ramp off hwy 1 onto 41. You can't get out because of traffic coming under the overpass on 41.
inadequate throughput
Safety of pedestrians & impatient drivers who don’t pay attention to the rules of a four way stop.

What, if any, are your safety concerns with the intersection? (cont’d) Survey Results | Responses
15 [Footer] l © 2022 GHD. All rights reserved.

A lot of drivers don’t know when it is their turn to turn/drive through the intersection causing traffic to stall. This also causes irritation amongst other drivers. Also,often times pedestrians are unable to cross bec there are too many cars!
People don’t seem to be able to take their turn at the stop sign. It’s very frustrating and dangerous for pedestrians. the 4 way stop is a joke for many drivers It is a free for all Morning traffic during the school year. Incoming tourist traffic on weekends and during the summer months I suggest a roundabout
Four way stop does not work. Everyone goes at the same time. Traffic gets backed up on Fridays and weekends and people get frustrated and drive more erratically.

It's a tough intersection for pedestrians. I'm concerned about safety.

Increased traffic due to a motel being approved in a bad location. Safety concerns for pedestrians, ie...school kids.

After school, too many students cross at the same time which often impedes traffic. It is very congested (often by tourists who are already trying to decide what exit is correct) and the left hand turn lane starts to begin near Miner's Hardware. I live by the intersection and have seen multiple accidents or near misses. Slowing traffic and using traffic double traffic signals (much like 46 west/101) is the only way to improve safety for cars AND pedestrians.

Highway 1+highway 41+Morro bay high school= disaster.

Uncontrolled left and right turns. Traffic exiting off Northbound 1 are placed in the right hand turn lane even if they want to proceed to Hwy 41. Southbound 1 exit has a blind spot from the underpass where cars speed to get to the Southbound on ramp
This intersection is poorly regulated. It has several ingresses, which contributes to a disorderly and confusing traffic flow. When you finally get to the front of the line, it's difficult to determine whose turn it is. I got a traffic citation there, which was due to exactly that: Nobody knew whose turn it was--hesitation from all quarters--I went and got cited.

When Students are crossing, which is multiple times a day, they don't yield to cars and just continue to cross with no regard to oncoming traffic.

Drivers do not take their turn to stop then go safely.

People not following the right of way law
Drivers do not wait their turn, traffic blocks line of sight, high school kids saunter across without letting traffic move Proximity to MBHS
Number of sources of vehicled
High school kids walking across the intersection
Stopped cars blocking sight line to turn left off ramp
Drivers impatient to wait turn to go through
Traffic backs up during peak periods
Can’t see lines, arrows or word on pavement
I have lived in MB for over 8 years, worked and attended MBHS. NOTHING has positively changed at the intersection. Traffic has gotten worse with the impact of the tourists' large campers and more high school traffic. The intersection is so disorganized with little respect and concern for ped safety.

Issues with pedestrian crossings, especially with high school kids in the crosswalk. Dangerous and clogs up traffic.

I typically try to avoid times of the day that correlate with high school drop off (start time, end time, and lunch time). The traffic is extremely difficult to navigate in addition to the students on foot.

Zero concerns. PLEASE DO NOT ADD ANOTHER ROUNDABOUT. Personally, I really detest those!! Congestion

What, if any, are your safety concerns with the intersection? (cont’d) Survey Results | Responses
16 [Footer] l © 2022 GHD. All rights reserved.

To get off coming from the south to turn left is insane, always takes forever. Also at peak times, the traffic backs up on the freeway at that off-ramp, which is not safe.

When the high school kids are walking around there it’s not safe for them.

Waiting at the stop sign coming from any direction is always crazy especially at peak times and the weekends.

People are confused as to who goes first after stopping. Some people don’t wait after stopping and others wait too long.

Safety for school children. Need traffic lights to improve traffic flow. Lots of truck traffic, so a roundabout is not a safe idea.

The majority of people suck at driving and cannot navigate the intersection. This results in major congestion.

I don’t see how the traffic circle will help with pedestrian traffic. Since a circle promotes traffic flow, pedestrian traffic is still a problem not addressed. holiday weekends
Other drivers regularly proceed when its not their turn. If pedestrians are using crosswalks traffic gets backed up for long periods. Dangerous for pedestrians. 1 - Poor traffic control. It can be hard to know whose turn it is to enter the intersection. This leads to confusion, people going out of turn, people missing their turn, etc. Pedestrians and bicycles complicate this. 2 - Cars taking the Hwy 1 northbound offramp to 41 east don't always know where they should be at the intersection in order to go straight ahead. I believe they should be near the center line. But sometimes they are to the right, as if they are going to turn right (southward) onto Main, but they don't do that - they go east on 41. 3 - Congestion at different times for different reasons - commuter traffic, high school traffic (cars and pedestrians), weekend visitors. 4 - From the Hwy 1 northbound offramp, it can be hard to get out onto 41 in order to turn left (northward) onto Main when there is much traffic coming from the left (on 41 from Flippo's area). 5 - Cars that enter intersection before pedestrians have finished crossing. 6 - Pedestrians not always very visible to cars.

Pedestrian traffic is uncontrolled. Also, with multiple lanes from different directions, you can have vehicles arrive at different times that try to go when the car next to them goes.

Foot traffic from the high school and backup traffic during rush hour Safety
People/cars do not follow the 4 way stop..go when not their turn...students never look and never pay attention. Don't space out.

None
Too much traffic congestion.

As a driver, it is often very congested, especially when students are present. There are too many areas to watch for other vehicle SS as well as pedestrians.

People don't know the rule of right of way. At peak traffic this can be dangerous when cars go through the intersection without waiting their turn. Also, high school students at lunch time, and end of day make it difficult to go through, and causes tie-ups.

None. Repaint the striping
pedestrian safety (mainly high school students crossing or other pedestrians),,,,,, and traffic back-ups in all directions Newly built hotel will make this even worse
This intersection is extremely dangerous. Many motorists seem to ignore the stop signs, and pedestrians often do not pay attention to oncoming traffic. We've lived in Morro Bay for 13 years and have noticed that the volume of traffic has significantly increased, especially on weekday afternoons and on weekends. We're very concerned about the additional traffic that will be generated when the new affordable housing project and hotel are completed.

Have the studies on vehicular traffic at the intersection of Main & Atascadero Road looked at the cumulative impacts of the existing traffic congestion, students traveling to/from the school, the new hotel, and the housing development? If so, what guidelines did these studies rely on to determine traffic impacts? And when were these guidelines published?

What, if any, are your safety concerns with the intersection? (cont’d) Survey Results | Responses
17 [Footer] l © 2022 GHD. All rights reserved.

The biggest problem is the lack of adequate merging ability for vehicles entering the intersection, and living in North Morro Bay, I have to deal with these issues constantly.. The biggest concerns I have with the current layout are:
1) When traveling southbound on SR1, and needing to exit at SR41, it’ difficult (if not impossible), to make a left turn onto SR41 from the highway exit ramp due to terrible visibility of oncoming traffic, and the lack of any stop signs for the cars on SR41. If anything is done with the intersection, the corrections should also include the problems on the south side of SR-1 (not just the north side where SR41 meets Main Street and the on & off ramps for SR1):

2. Continuing under the highway from the west, the next problem is trying to get through the intersection of SR41 and Main St., since it’s a 4-way stop, but there are more than 4 lines of cars converging there (mainly from the cars traveling northbound and trying to exit SR-1 at this exit). They are all just dumped into an intersection with a 4 way stop, and it backs everything up (including onto the highway), partly due to too many vehicles…but mostly because that 4-way stop is not the right kind of intersection there (because of the highway exits, and because different drivers all treat the 4-way stop slightly differently)

3. There do not seem to be sufficient means for SAFE passage through the entire intersection for bicycles…it’s more of a gauntlet to run through and hope you don’t get hit.

It's hard to know when it's your turn to go
Hard to get into flow to intersection when exiting Hwy1 N bound. People lose track of their turn. Pedestrians are sometimes hard to see if they cross from NW side.

So many drivers running the stop sign
The multiple lanes with stop signs really confuses drivers. Poor pedestrian and cyclist options.

I have seen near misses here.

Cars move to slowly through the intersection and the traffic coming off the highway doesn’t have enough room to exit if there are cars already at the stop sign past the exit ramp. There is too many cars trying to pass through at the same time and all stop signs cause too much stopping at moving in such small increments. Too much going on in such a tiny space.

Can be a long line on the NB off-ramp; difficult turning on to Main/41 from the SB off-ramp; at the 4-way stop, seems like there’s always confusion as to which car/direction has the turn to cross the intersection. So many directions to go from 41W into town.

It is not safe for pedestrians. I have no issues with traffic (cars) as it now stands.

Congestion during certain times, drivers not always follow the right of way and lots of close calls Traffic backups along with many pedestrians
Congestion at freeway exits
Traffic backups, people unsure how to go through (4 way stop) long lines of oblivious students walking at lunch time Traffic gets backed up, especially at school start and ending and lunch.

One or two weekends in the summer see heavy traffic from the Valley into Morro Bay that involve a few minutes' wait. Not a big problem. Otherwise, I find the intersection trouble-free--and a lot easier to use than the MBB roundabout.

What, if any, are your safety concerns with the intersection? (cont’d) Survey Results | Responses
18 [Footer] l © 2022 GHD. All rights reserved.

1. Traffic congestion: The primary issue is congestion itself, which can lead to significant delays and frustration for drivers. The close proximity of the highway ramps may result in a high volume of vehicles entering and exiting the area, exacerbating the congestion at the 4-way stop.

2. Lack of traffic flow coordination: Without proper traffic flow coordination, drivers may find it difficult to navigate through the intersection smoothly. This can lead to frequent stop-and-go situations, increasing the potential for accidents and impeding the overall efficiency of the intersection.

3. Conflicting movements: At a 4-way stop, there are multiple directions of traffic that need to navigate through the intersection. With the added complexity of highway ramps nearby, there can be conflicting movements between vehicles entering or exiting the ramps and those crossing the intersection. This increases the likelihood of accidents or near misses.

4. Difficulty merging: Drivers exiting the highway ramps may face challenges merging with the traffic at the 4-way stop, especially if the flow is heavy. This can lead to delays and disruptions in traffic, causing congestion and potential hazards.

5. Pedestrian safety concerns: A congested 4-way stop can also pose risks to pedestrians crossing the intersection. Higher traffic volumes and frustrated drivers may result in reduced visibility, longer crossing times, and an increased likelihood of pedestrian accidents.

6. Inadequate signage or road markings: Insufficient or unclear signage and road markings can exacerbate the issues at the intersection. Drivers may struggle to understand the right-of-way rules or fail to see critical information, leading to confusion and potential accidents.

7. Insufficient enforcement: Without proper enforcement of traffic rules, drivers may become more prone to risky behaviors such as running stop signs, cutting off other vehicles, or disregarding pedestrian right of way. This can further contribute to the congestion and safety concerns at the intersection.

Drivers regularly are aggressive, and do not take turns the way they should. I am unable to avoid this intersection due to where I live. I am concerned about pedestrians and bikes, there have been close calls.

Turning onto eastbound 41 from the freeway is very difficult at nearly anytime Need a roundabout for longer term solution
Dangerous

What, if any, are your safety concerns with the intersection? (cont’d) Survey Results | Responses
19 [Footer] l © 2022 GHD. All rights reserved.

Congestion from pedestrians especially during school commutes. Congestion from visitors’ vehicles from down 41 Too congested and too much traffic from all directions.

The mix of users and low & high-flow traffic times causes driver confusion and aggression. Drivers and pedestrians are at risk for incident and accident. Often drivers do not properly stop and yield, instead they break the 4-way stop order. I avoid this intersection often, but use it often.

Trying to get off of the freeway and onto 41. Or even to turn north to get to Farmer’s Market. Or to Atascadero or Ace. Drivers won’t let you out onto the road. There should be two lanes going north as you get off the freeway. One to turn north onto Main St. and one to go straight or turn right onto Main. People wanting to go north on Atascadero road should be in their own lane and away from the drivers trying to turn left up Main.

Kids crossing street cause significant delays and safety issues Long wait times during the commute period.

The present four-way stop seems to lead to confusion for drivers, especially hesitant ones, which adds to the traffic congestion.

To many on/ off ramps, stripping lanes would help, having main street North cut the corner at the current uhaul center and merge with traffic at main would help, eleminate off ramp at Atascadero road , divert traffic to a new main street on/ off ramp would help. What are you going to do about the new apartments on Atascadero road when completed ? Think of a new way in and out of Morro Bay.

Morro Bay High School - vehicle traffic and walking students at start of school, lunch hour and end of day make the intersection difficult to negotiate. Holidays and many weekends, traffic traveling west on SR 41 into Morro Bay create back-up and traffic congestion.

Not safe
The 4-way stop setup at this intersection is woefully inadequat for the traffic volume (depending on time of day), pedestrian traffic, and the consistent reliability of many drivers understanding of basic traffic laws. Being a North Morro Bay resident I cannot count how many times I have almost had a serious accident at this intersection. Fix it fast.

It is obvious that the 4-way stop signage at this intersection is inadequate to handle the auto/truck and pedestrian traffic safely. Congestion is horrible at times, especially during vacation and summertime and when Morro Bay High School is in session. Living in North Morro Bay I am acutely aware of the shortcomings of this intersection. On countless occasions I find myself going North on Main Street to San Jacinto intersection to go South on Hwy. 1.

There is no thought out regulation of traffic flow. Currently, this is only an issue during peak times, but those peak times include many children, as well as out-of-towners in big trucks, who may be in a hurry. Plus, we are building more, which will mean more commuters and visitors, and perhaps children, using this intersection more and more as time goes on. Plus, when the 1 is closed up north, (as it has been more often than not in the past few years ), traffic gets diverted to the 41. At lunch time, the school children just trickle across and jam up the intersection for ever. Same thing in the AM. There is a stop sign at the end of the northbound 1 offramp immediately before another stop sign, and this choppy traffic just enters the right turn lane. Europeans do not know how to take 4-way stops and therefore gum up the process randomly with many cats waiting. It is not currently a big problem, but I do fear for cyclists and pedestrians continually in that intersection.

Traffic congestion is notably heavy during periods of the day when drivers are heading to and coming from Morro Bay High School.

I have a printed copy of the MBHS Bell Schedule. I avoid the intersection before the start of school and during the lunch break period. I was told the MBHS campus will be a closed campus in the near future. That SHOULD reduce the pedestrian issue when the students "two block" three crosswalks. A MBPD officer directing traffic on a "as needed" basis would save the City of MB millions of dollars yet to be determined, $$,$$$,$$$,$$$ Traffic backs up in all directions. Drivers, if in a hurry, make it dangerous for others, not taking their correct turn. I see a lot of apprehension when it’s your time at the stop sign. Confusing to a lot of drivers. Page 117 of 246
What, if any, are your specific concerns with this intersection?* Survey Results | Responses
20 [Footer] l © 2022 GHD. All rights reserved.

Common Responses
• Near misses
• Confusion at all-way stop as to who has right-of-way
• Too much happening in a small space
• Congestion
• Lots of pedestrians, not paying attention
• Aggressive drivers
• Dangerous
*Answers summarized

What improvements, if any, do you think are important at this intersection?
Survey Results | Responses
21 [Footer] l © 2022 GHD. All rights reserved.

Improve traffic congestion and flow of traffic: 256
Improve safety: 198
Improve pedestrian facilities: 215
Other: 45
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Improve traffic congestion and flow of traffic
Improve safety
Improve pedestrian facilities (such as sidewalks, crosswalks, and pedestrian warning devices) Other Answers

Based upon your understanding of the existing 4-way stop, a double traffic signal alternative, and a roundabout alternative, which intersection type would you think is the safest for MOTORISTS? Survey Results | Responses
22 [Footer] l © 2022 GHD. All rights reserved.

Existing 4-way stop: 24
Double traffic signal alternative: 121
Roundabout alternative: 154
Other: 10
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Existing 4-way stop
Double traffic signal alternative
Roundabout alternative
Other Answers

Based upon your understanding of the existing 4-way stop, a double traffic signal alternative, and a roundabout alternative, which intersection type would you think is the safest for PEDESTRIANS? Survey Results | Responses
23 [Footer] l © 2022 GHD. All rights reserved.

Existing 4-way stop: 25
Double traffic signal alternative: 159
Roundabout alternative: 96
Other: 29
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Existing 4-way stop
Double traffic signal alternative
Roundabout alternative
Other Answers

Based upon your understanding of the existing 4-way stop, a double traffic signal alternative, and a roundabout alternative, which intersection type would you think is the safest for CYCLISTS? Survey Results | Responses
24 [Footer] l © 2022 GHD. All rights reserved.

Existing 4-way stop: 27
Double traffic signal alternative: 137
Roundabout alternative: 124
Other: 21
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Existing 4-way stop
Double traffic signal alternative
Roundabout alternative
Other Answers

Based upon your understanding of the existing 4-way stop, a double traffic signal alternative, and a roundabout alternative, which intersection type would you think allows for the best traffic flow and congestion relief?
Survey Results | Responses
25 [Footer] l © 2022 GHD. All rights reserved.

Existing 4-way stop: 24
Double traffic signal alternative: 98
Roundabout alternative: 174
Other: 13
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Existing 4-way stop
Double traffic signal alternative
Roundabout alternative
Other Answers

Additional questions, comments, or concerns
Survey Results | Responses
26 [Footer] l © 2022 GHD. All rights reserved.

The MB Blvd roundabout raised concerns prior to implementation. Traffic flow increased tremendously after implementation. The fear of something new should not stop progress and it is clear the community adapted to the change.

Roundabouts are demonstrably safer for drivers, cyclists, and pedestrians and I support a roundabout for this location.

This is a VERY difficult issue to solve because the exit from Hwy 1 does NOT have adequate space, and therefore double signal AND roundabout alternatives may not relieve congestion without a solution to the Hwy 1 exit space.

Although I would prefer the roundabout; I do not think it will work well due to the high pedestrian traffic. I think the pedestrian traffic will cause back up/stoppage in all directions. Inside and outside the roundabout. Therefore, I feel the signal option would better control the pedestrian traffic. Optimizing the timing of signals will be the challenge. Thank you for allowing citizen thoughts on this matter.

Please put a roundabout at this intersection
A traffic signal would increase speeds for those who get the green light through the intersection. The stop signs require vehicles to stop and start when it is safe to proceed. The roundabout is a good idea if The City has the funds to do it.

Roundabouts are confusing and dangerous, especially for pedestrians. People don't know which way to enter and especially, get out of it. They're an accident waiting to happen in my opinion. Hate them!
I don’t think the people who drive thru the four way stop will be able to figure out the roundabout before there are accidents.

The 4 way has worked great for my many years here due to very manageable, mostly light traffic at this intersection. My concern is for the student pedestrians. Mostly Lunch and after school, otherwise the vehicles and very few pedestrians flow nice and orderly.

Ie:

These large groups of students meandering slowly while crossing can in turn, cause confusion with drivers unsure whether it’s their turn to proceed or some impatient drivers have proceeded dangerously.

PS how about MB high providing fresh and delicious lunches at the school so the kids have better choices for nourishment? Stay away during the lunch time break due to students going back and forth to/from Taco Bell of wherever they go. Yikes.

What my understanding of cost for the intersection is that the round about cost less. But if the double lights system is safer by all means that should be the project to move forward with.

Also closed campus at the high school should be a priority of the school district.

For safety and budgetary reasons, I think double traffic signal would be best. I love roundabouts and the Morro Bay Blvd one has demonstrated their effectiveness but there isn't enough space for an adequate one at Main & 41 plus roundabout will not solve the pedestrian safety issue at peak high-school times.

Scramble is very common in many densely populated areas. They work well. Extremely disappointed that this survey does not appear to be aware of this option! This intersection tends to be the biggest concern or have the highest congestion during the high school lunch hour, or during an influx of people from out-of-town for events and holiday weekends. If we don’t add traffic signals or roundabout, at very least there should be a crossing guard or crosswalk assistance in place for kids crossing the busy intersections, or an officer guiding traffic off the freeways and intersections without needing to stop (to keep traffic from getting too congested).

I am absolutely opposed to the roundabout, as the current one in Morro Bay is so confusing to most that I 100% avoid it to avoid accidents. Every time I have gone through it I’ve nearly been hit. Thank you for allowing community input!

Additional questions, comments, or concerns (cont’d)
Survey Results | Responses
27 [Footer] l © 2022 GHD. All rights reserved.

While roundabout keeps traffic flowing, it is the least safe alternative.

I like roundabouts, but this intersection, with the combination of students, visitors and residents, might be safer with traffic signals, perhaps with adjustable timing for school hour traffic times.

The Roundabout will decrease exhaust fumes from idling traffic waiting for a stoplight. It keeps traffic flowing smoothly from all directions. The pedestrians, bicyclists should have an alternate pathway, perhaps a bridge?
Many new motorists coming into town may not understand round about and it is also hard for many pedestrians to cross at one time or continually.

A roundabout must be designed to be safe for pedestrians and bicycles to cross but the concept should not be rejected before such safe options are even considered. Also, that intersection is a gateway to our community and a roundabout could be landscaped to make it much more attractive and welcoming.

While the latest and greatest (sarcasm noted) planning and engineering ideas are trying to push round abouts, round abouts are a terrible option. They are confusing, right of way is murky at best and pedestrians and cyclists are at peril. Please use traffic signals rather than round abouts.

Plenty of advanced warning signs needed before intersection as you're traveling West on Hwy. 41.

I feel bad for kids walking from the high school and any cyclists It's 2023 read the comments section leading people to this survey. Nobody takes surveys anymore. If you simply read the comments in your social media, you wouldn't be wasting your time with surveys. You would already know the answer is traffic signals.

I can’t imagine high school pedestrians trying to cross there with a round about where the cars don’t stop! If you make that choice you better be prepared to put in a pedestrian bridge for safety.

It would be crazy to have a roundabout at that intersection. Most people from California do not know how to use a roundabout, and it really slows things down. I’m from Massachusetts, and I know the challenges of a roundabout, and they tend not to work in heavily trafficked areas.

It's a mess, good luck.

I don’t believe a roundabout would be good for the pedestrian traffic and flow of vehicle traffic. Students walking across the roundabout could cause a greater traffic congestion.

Morro Bay is already in debt because we overbuilt the water reclamation facility. We cannot afford a 12 million dollar roundabout that will most likely be over-budget just like the WRF is. Traffic does not constitute the expense. Signalizing will be less money, less construction disruption and the problems will be addressed sooner.

A roundabout is probably the right choice for this intersection, but it would be a lot better if you would design it so that it is safe and comfortable for pedestrians and cyclists as well as motorists.

As somebody who exclusively drives through this intersection, I have no problem with it taking a little longer for me to get through as long as everybody else is safe and comfortable.

I've heard mention of pedestrian bridge or tunnel. That concentrates pedestrians to one path, but there are still pedestrians that have to cross to get to that, so it doesn't help and it doesn't help vehicles which are causing the problems for pedestrians.

When exiting the freeway, cars are often backed up because drivers cannot get into the line leading to 41. That's a very difficult right turn because there is usually only room for two cars before the STOP sign.

I believe the people opposing the roundabout oppose it based on their gut rather than available traffic studies.

Roundabout with foot bridge will be safest for the HS kids

Additional questions, comments, or concerns (cont’d)
Survey Results | Responses
28 [Footer] l © 2022 GHD. All rights reserved.

An underpass or overpass would mitigate the pedestrian and cyclist concerns with a roundabout. However, there is a known archaeological site, CA-SLO-165, that will be drastically impacted by construction. The site is dense and over 2 meters deep. There is a high risk of uncovering disturbed or in situ burials, which has occurred at the nearby affordable housing development. The high cost of mitigation for these discoveries will need to be considered in conjunction with the tribal rights and concerns of the local tribal groups. The best plan would prioritize decreasing the impacts to CA-SLO-165.

One big issue would be the southbound offramp onto 41. There’s traffic coming from the beach, students walking along the road, cars accelerating from the stop sign to turn left onto the southbound, on-ramp all create problems in getting across the road at the southbound Highway one offramp.

I am worried that there will be a serious accident at this intersection. I am always nervous using it. I wish it were easier to avoid. I think that people get frustrated by the slow moving traffic and that is what will cause an accident.

A roundabout is the best alternative as we move into energy efficient and safety measures for that high traffic area. A 4-way signal will not take care of the existing problems. It does not even work at San Jacinto. Don't make the same mistake. The roundabout will be more cost-effective and safety conscious in the long run.

Round about seems nice but that intersection is used by more infrequent visitors of Morro Bay. Roundabouts will only confuse a large potion of tourists coming to town.

Roundabouts are more and more common so they are not new and confusing any more. I strongly support the Roundabout alternative.

The double signal idea will probably cause greater delays and more people running them. Also, whenever there are power issues and they are out or flashing red all directions, that will really cause a mess. Signals add greater visual clutter which can also add more confusion.

The on/off ramps must be reconfigured as they are a major cause of problems and only the roundabout solves that.

West bound traffic lanes should have a series of Bot Dots to slow traffic for pedestrian safety. The other directions should be fine as their approach speeds are not as high.

There will always be periods of excessive pedestrian use from the school that will slow and delay any of the options. That is just unavoidable and none of the options can solve that or make it 100% safe. Roundabouts, by their nature, slow traffic and should help improve the situation slightly.

The overall cost for a roundabout is higher but in the long run it is worth it and I am willing to support our funds to go for it. I've lived here 50 years and we need to get this roundabout to finally solve the problem of the worst intersection in the city.

If NOT for pedestrians and bikes a roundabout might be enough. Morro Bay is increasingly marketed as a tourist and event destination. The fix at this intersection needs to be effective for an increase of every kind of traffic, and the longer term. Please spend wisely.

I like roundabouts, but this is a bad intersection for it. There are too many high school students crossing at lunchtime for traffic to be flowing without stopping.

I think the northbound hwy 1 off ramp signal should be synchronized with the signal at Main St and east bound hwy 41 so that when it's green, traffic will flow from the freeway, through the intersection, onto hwy 41.

There needs to be a roundabout at San Jacinto intersection. That intersection is very confusing to almost everyone.

A roundabout sounds like a good option for vehicle traffic flow, but not a good option for pedestrians and bicyclists. Building around about would be so much more expensive than putting in double stop traffic lights. Traffic lights would be the best option for pedestrians, bicyclists and taxpayers.

None of the proposed solutions will fix it. 41 should end in two on ramps to hwy 1 and not go through. Main would go under 41 and still be able to go under the existing overpass. observing a semitruck exiting from north 1, and then trying to turn onto main st going north, there is NO ROOM for a roundabout. there are 6 ingress/egress lanes from highway and local traffic that makes roundabout impractical.

Additional questions, comments, or concerns (cont’d)
Survey Results | Responses
29 [Footer] l © 2022 GHD. All rights reserved.

NO ROUNDABOUT!!! People just don't seem to know how to use them no matter how many signs there are. I almost get hit or have to slow down/stop every time I'm in it. People coming into the roundabout do not yield--they just enter & keep on going.

Morro Bay has 3 kinds of drivers:

Fast & Furious - those going to work or school (HS & Colleges) 🚗🚗 💨💨 Old & Slow - like me retired & careful. Safety first. Nowhere that I need to be in a hurry. 😊😊 Tourists- Don’t pay attention. Too busy sight seeing. Careless not watching the road or road signs!!😠😠 Roundabouts work. They are used in many other places ( including Morro Bay) Just do it.

Roundabouts are new for some folks, but are very common in other parts of the country and especially overseas. The other roundabout in Morro Bay took some getting used to but has demonstrated improved safety and flow. It's worth the extra money for a better and more long term solution.

Please do something soon to fix this problem area. I think it will help the businesses, the school and the regional and local traffic.

No roundabout
No roundabout please
I have a house less than an 1/8 th of a mile from this intersection and I have used it regularly for over 20 years with my children on bikes and walking. I think the roundabout option is the best and safest option for families, drivers, and children.

I have traveled on many other roundabouts joining two highways in other states and have NEVER had a problem.

The solution might include removing the bridge over Hwy 41 and creating flyovers for local traffic at this intersection I believe the roundabout would work best, but only if pedestrian/bike crossings are moved farther back from the intersections with push to cross flashing lights. This is a tight intersection with a lot going on (Rt 1 entry/exits, school children crossings, bikes, traffic congestion). The roundabout would be a challenge but could be made to work but intersection would need to be expanded.

I have not yet seen a roundabout that works for large trucks, the one on the south end of town sucks and I'm sure if one was to be built here ti would be the same, only worse as this is a major highway and one that carries a lot of truck traffic, cal trans specs are dreamed up by someone that has no experience with trucks but plats with a computer. none
My research into roundabouts shows that they are far safer than conventional intersections. There are fewer fatalities and serious injuries because there are no (or fewer at least) T-bone collisions or head-ons. Collisions are more like fender-benders and occur at slower speeds. As long as people understand what a yield sign means and behave accordingly, there should be no accidents.

Education is key to the success of the roundabout option. First a traffic simulation can demonstrate how traffic flow will be better than signalization. Since many residents have expressed concerns about roundabout, public education on the subject would be helpful. Finally, southbound ramps need to be included in traffic study to evaluate impacts. Thanks.

Please do something beneficial for all concerned
Roundabouts are confusing and don't seem safe to me. Especially since a pedestrian was killed by a trash truck at the roundabout at Morro. Stop lights seem much safer to me.

Pedestrian safety should be the most important thing. A roundabout would help with congestion but make it much less safe for pedestrians and cyclists. In roundabouts motorists are usually only looking one way and not going slow enough to see pedestrians and can be confusing.

Additional questions, comments, or concerns (cont’d)
Survey Results | Responses
30 [Footer] l © 2022 GHD. All rights reserved.

I prefer the roundabout. My only concern is for pedestrians, because Californian drivers are not good at recognizing the presence of pedestrians and many just ignore them. There will probably need to be an additional, on demand, pedestrian stop signal for pedestrians, for all the options.

I would agree with the roundabout idea also, but the idiotic drivers using one do not seem to understand what they are supposed to do, they do not have the right of way coming into it, the driver already in the roundy has the right of way. I have had way too many near collisions in the MBB one that I shy away from that. As far as the pedestrian situation is concerned, watching the high school student cross Main St is like watching syrup flow in January in Maine. Pretty slow. I always avoid that intersection when possible.

Put out a "Frequently Asked Questions" link that takes a look at each of the concerns and provides feedback to the concerned. 1. why is a round about safer? (link to a video on youtube with examples).

2. Can big vehicles go through a round about (link to youtube with video of delivery and fire trucks in a round about) 3. is it safe for platoons of kids (show refuge areas, length of crossing and time....). 4.

Why is it safe for drivers (decisions are limited to one-right turns only)...

The intersection is a tough one for sure.

I don’t want a roundabout at all. The one we have already I avoid if possible.

I have been a resident of Morro Bay for many years and remember when there used to be an old 4 way flashing light hanging above the intersection. Morro Bay has grown in popularity over the years as an iconic visiting destination! Please build a roundabout as the last thing anyone wants to do when they arrive from 41 is to stop at a long red light- also side note, Morro Bay HS has a significant amount of traffic in the mornings late afternoon and I believe a round about would alleviate congestion during the busy times, intersections are safe yes, but so are roundabouts yet roundabouts also allow traffic to flow freely in the area
I cannot understand why there is such objection to a traffic circle/roundabout at these intersections. I’ve been to Europe where traffic circles are everywhere. Traffic approaching these intersections have to slow, but for the most part, does not stop. The area within the traffic circle can be mounded with earth and landscaped with native trees and bushes. I live in Cambria and I am very much in favor of the traffic circle/roundabout solution.

Roundabouts can be built with pedestrian / cycling signals! You can even have cycling/ pedestrian lanes with roundabouts too. This is regularly done in Europe/ UK I can’t visualize the double light option based on the map. I’m concerned about the double light option resulting in longer lines of cars causing jams at the high school and impacting hwy 1.

I like our existing roundabout for traffic flow, but drivers don’t seem to notice pedestrians trying to cross. Fix that part and we have a clear winner! Thanks for asking for community input.

Go and study sedona az and round abouts in Chino hills az and cottonwood az they all work great. No lights go out. No major waiting traffic moves.

I think a double interchange light will make traffic congestion worse considering if the light timing get out of sync, it’ll just increase traffic congestion. Especially considering the numerous power safety outages that the area experiences during the summer months Our community struggles with roundabouts as seen at Morro Bay Blvd.

Students walking is a big concern. Additional guidance on using a roundabout will be needed. Re: cross 41 on the Westside of Hwy 1 near the school is better than crossing at the roundabout.

The roundabout at Milpas, and 101 in Santa Barbara is very similar to the set up that would occur at 41 and one. It is in fact a two lane roundabout & traffic flows very well there.

Pedestrian safety should be a priority with the high school on this road. A better highway exit location/arrangement for highway 41 from the 1 would solve some congestion problems for sure. Hate that exit.

What are the terms and conditions that you are asking agreement on?

Additional questions, comments, or concerns (cont’d)
Survey Results | Responses
31 [Footer] l © 2022 GHD. All rights reserved.

Roundabouts are poor at accomodating pedestrians. Visibility is difficult as shown by the roundabout on MB blvd. With the high school traffic (both vehicular and pedestrian) a roundabout would prove catastrophic IMO
South Lake Tahoe. Incline Village Tahoe, Minden Nevada in front of their high school, various places in Carson City and Reno Nevada, Vail Colorado, SLO CO HWY 46 @ Vinyard Dr., Tank Farm Rd.

SLO. TANK FARM RD @ Orcutt Rd SLO,
This is not new technology, it's proven itself over a number of years in more complex sites than hwy 41@ Main St.

Mistakes have been made but lessons have been learned.

In the worst- case scenario, a side swipe pact is better than a T-bone any day.

Terry Philbin
Cal Poly, Civil Engineering '78
PLease initiate traffic light for this location. It will be less confusing than a circle, and safer for all. PLEASE do not have pedestirans cross through a traffic circle......

Roundabouts are used successfully in other states, Colorado has hundreds of them but having one at that intersection won't work due to the safety of pedestrians (lunch time at the high school) and unfamiliarity by visitors. As evidenced by the roundabout at MB Blvd and Quintana. The traffic does flow better but half the drivers entering it are unsure of what to do and what lane to be in. Then add a pedestrian or distracted high schooler to the crosswalk and everything stops. The current intersection at Hwy 41 works fine. Drivers need to be alerted so they pay attention. The inconvenience and expense of having another construction project in that part of Morro Bay isn't worth it.

Bicyclist don't follow the laws of the road and don't stop at stop lights anyway.

The roundabout on MBB has improved traffic flow in my end of town greatly.

Please do this soon before anyone gets hurt
I live a few blocks away On Fir Ave near Elena-Whether in my car or walking my dogs this is a risky intersection The off ramp to 41 when traveling north should be eliminated in addition to adding a dbl traffic signal it cause the worst part of the congestion during school drop off. The Main Street exist should suffice and direct traffic to the back of the line for the traffic signal My support of the roundabout is premised on the roundabout having motion activated lights in the crosswalk for pedestrians.

Need to explore all alternatives to fund either the double signal or roundabout with a pedestrian bridge included! Pedestrians (especially students), Highway entrances and exits and basic lack of understanding of a roundabout on the part of too many motorists make a double light the best option in addition to lowering the speed limit.

My experience with the MB Blvd/Quintana roundabout is fully positive. All vehicles as well as pedestrians can travel in a safe, orderly manner.

People are too stupid to understand how a roundabout works in this country. Drivers also don’t seem to understand how to use a 4 way stop or are too ignorant or think only of themselves and just slow down then run it.

Additional questions, comments, or concerns (cont’d)
Survey Results | Responses
32 [Footer] l © 2022 GHD. All rights reserved.

I am in favor of a double traffic signal to ensure safety of not only vehicles but of pedestrians especially the students at Morro Bay High School, who use that intersection daily. With the addition of the new Hampton Inn hotel, there’s going to be more traffic and having a double signal will be better for the traffic and pedestrians. Since I use that intersection multiple times a day I have seen too many close calls. I feel it also will be more cost-effective for the city rather than doing a roundabout. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to express my concerns.

I don’t like the idea of another traffic circle in MB. The proximity to the gas station adds to the issue. I’ve witnessed too many problems with drivers blocking traffic while attempting left turns out of the stations. Also tourists don’t know how to use them
Perhaps a traffic light with sensors to monitor traffic so the lights can be adjusted Maybe need a pedestrian walk over bridge especially when HS kids are out.

I feel a roundabout allows traffic to run smoother when people are paying attention for vehicles, though not sure how it works for cyclists and pedestrians . I’d be curious what the static’s are for the other roundabout in MB for accidents.

I’m torn between a double signal and roundabout. If a double signal could guarantee that traffic would flow better coming off the freeway and a 4 way signal covering 41, the off Ramp and main st to ease flow of traffic that would be good or if a roundabout would work better, that’s should be up to the traffic engineers, cal trans and experts who work on traffic congestion issues.

I live by the only roundabout on Morro Bay boulevard and NO one stops for pedestrians crossing. No one looks because they are confused as to which lane they need to be in. I use this intersection almost daily.
no one can navigate a roundabout in this town, I avoid the one we have already because it a nightmare.

To many people who come visit our community don’t know how to use roundabouts making them more dangerous than the stop signs.

Roundabouts save lives. It's about time we get on board with them when we have the chance. Look at the new roundabout on Hwy 46--Traffic continuously flows through there safely and with ease. The other options pale in comparison.

I use this intersection frequently. I strongly support the roundabout alternative. Roundabouts have been installed with great success in many other communities. They allow for excellent traffic flow and are great to slow traffic down. Roundabouts work even when the electricity is out.

Thank you for taking input on this
Roundabout would NOT work, especially with the students. Would be more dangerous.

No improvement needed
This is a WANT not an NEED. Neither the traffic or the pedestrian use have changed in decades. Has anyone ever been killed or seriously injured at this intersection? A signal is the less costly of the 2 options however I believe the current situation is perhaps safer as you aren’t relying on an outside factor ie a light and in this case one tends to drive more carefully using all of their senses rather than driving on autopilot when the light changes. Bottom line the City is not in the position to afford anything no matter who is chipping in. If it were necessary, Cal Trans would just do it. Just fix the sewer lines, storm drains and pave the roads. Focus on that.

While roundabouts have been proven to create flow, drivers may be encouraged to drive too fast through the roundabout and not heed to pedestrian/bicycle safety.

City should have addressed this issue before new hotel and other highway 41 development

Additional questions, comments, or concerns (cont’d)
Survey Results | Responses
33 [Footer] l © 2022 GHD. All rights reserved.

Although a double traffic signal may lead to additional air pollution from idling cars, I'm hopeful that this will only be short term problem as electric vehicles will likely be the norm in the years to come.

I hope putting in a traffic signal is not the chosen solution, but if it is, can someone PLEASE put effective sensors in the ground so that motorists don’t have to sit at an incredibly long light simply because it’s on a timer (and not based on actual cars waiting). During the daytime, the signals at the next intersection further north (at the intersection of San Jacinto & SR-1) is TERRIBLE. If you just miss the light you can end up waiting long minutes for the cycle to come back allowing you to cross or turn. But in the evenings, the sensors kick in, and traffic doesn’t have to sit wasting endless gas idling. For the SR-1/SR-41 intersection, there needs to be accurate sensors or the traffic will end up backing up on the the highway. I just think that a roundabout makes MUCH more sense for that location.

The roundabout will work if there are no pedestrians or cyclists. Once you throw them in, the roundabout is not safe even though it would have the best flow for traffic. The Hwy 1 off/ramp and Main Street is unfortunately to close, making this design very difficult.

Thank you for seeking community input!
Roundabouts work. Time to join the 21st century. The luddites that think people can’t figure out roundabouts should move elsewhere.

Thanks for working on this Highly used intersection Ana trying to keep everyone safe, especially our students I think the traffic light would, most importantly, ensure the safety of our MB High School students. It would also make the most traffic sense to visitors to our community.

In the round about scenario there needs to be pedestrian flashers embedded in pavement Hazardous Waste and Cultural Resources
People are afraid of roundabouts if they haven’t used them much. It is the best solution combining traffic flow and pedestrian/cyclist’s safety When comparing the two options for a congested 4-way stop with highway ramps located 75 feet away, stop lights emerge as the more practical choice compared to a roundabout. While both solutions aim to address traffic congestion, conflicting movements, and pedestrian safety concerns, stop lights offer distinct advantages over a roundabout in this particular scenario. Stop lights effectively manage traffic flow, reduce conflicts between vehicles, and provide clear right-of-way instructions. They are a familiar and easily understandable traffic control system for drivers, minimizing confusion and enhancing compliance. Additionally, stop lights allow for designated pedestrian crossing phases, improving safety for pedestrians. In contrast, a roundabout may require more space, making it challenging to implement at this congested intersection. It could potentially lead to further congestion due to the close proximity of highway ramps and the complexity of traffic patterns. Considering the specific characteristics and limitations of the intersection, stop lights offer a more practical and efficient solution to address the challenges and improve overall safety and traffic flow.

This is a solution in search of a problem. I've used the intersection many times a day for 14 years without trouble. The cost involved in a roundabout or traffic light is not justifiable in a town that can't keep its streets paved.

If removing the highway ramps is cost-prohibitive, then installing stop lights may be the most practical solution to improve safety at the congested 4-way stop with highway ramps. A well-designed stop light system can help improve traffic flow and reduce the potential for accidents.

A roundabout could be an alternative to stop lights, but it's important to consider the specific characteristics of the intersection and the surrounding area before implementing this option. Roundabouts require sufficient space, and their effectiveness can be impacted by the number of intersecting roads, traffic volume, and other factors. In some cases, roundabouts may not be feasible or practical.

Installing stop lights can provide several advantages over a roundabout, including:

1. Efficient traffic flow: Stop lights can efficiently manage traffic flow, providing a clear right-of-way for each direction of traffic. This can help reduce congestion and travel time.

2. Lower implementation cost: Stop lights are generally less expensive to implement than a roundabout, as they require less physical construction and land acquisition.

3. More familiar to drivers: Stop lights are a more familiar traffic control device for drivers, which can reduce confusion and improve compliance with traffic regulations.

4. Lower maintenance costs: Stop lights generally require less maintenance than a roundabout, as they have fewer moving parts and don't require landscaping or other complex features.

5. Better pedestrian safety: Stop lights can provide designated pedestrian crossing phases, making it safer for pedestrians to cross the intersection.

I think community members need a better education on the safety of roundabouts. I believe that is the main concern, and it’s not adequately understood. Page 131 of 246 Additional questions, comments, or concerns (cont’d)
Survey Results | Responses
34 [Footer] l © 2022 GHD. All rights reserved.

DO NOT put in another roundabout - it is a costly and unwise choice. The roundabout at the top of MBB is the most dangerous intersection in town, more so than 4-way stop at HWY41.

Drivers fly through the roundabout, or don't know they have to yield and enter into other drivers. We have community members avoiding both intersections, myself included. Identify a better solution.

Flashing pedestrian crosswalks at HWY41 alone will not solve the issue either, it may create more confusion/chaos.

No one seems to remember we have a Bike Path designated for bicycles. Many students take that route and community members take that route.

Roundabouts can not handle pedestrians effectively. The existing roundabout comes to a halt and no one knows what to do when someone crosses the street. And that one has no pedestrians compared to this intersection near the high school See above suggestions
-Add pavement striping to create 2 distinct lanes as traffic exits NB Hwy 1 for immediate help with traffic flow and congestion. -Eliminate NB Hwy 1 offramp (relocate or expand/improve Main St. offramp) -Create righthand merge lane from westbound SR 41 onto Main St. so traffic does not need to enter intersection and stop When City approves major projects (apartments on SR 41 and Hampton Inn) must make provision and plans for necessary infrastructure improvements at the same time. Were developers of those projects required to help fund these needed improvements as a result of increased traffic? Please install a double traffic signal, pedestrian controlled buttons to cross the street, and computerized lights to handle the traffic volume from the 4 lanes, left hand turn lanes, and volume of cars coming off Hwy. 1. Current congestion and safety concerns is horrible.

Many people do not know what a roundabout is, what is the protocol, and this intersection has way too much traffic coming from various directions at different times to be a logical choice.

Do not install a Roundabout, PLEASE.

Timed left-hand turn lanes, and pedestrian controlled button for safely crossing the street in well marked crosswalks. Please no roundabout.

A roundabout seems like the clearest winner, in terms of keeping motorized traffic flowing, but we have many pedestrians and a number of cyclists. The only way to make it truly safe for the latter 2 groups would be to build pedestrian/cyclist bridges over the intersection. In an ideal world, we would have a couple of such bridges, because mixing the groups with this many older folks and tourists driving around will never feel truly safe.

The existing roundabout in Morro Bay has worked well and I feel that given time, motorists will adapt to this proposed roundabout as well.

It is what it is. The City of MB can't please everyone. Fix the traffic problems first BEFORE allowing more hotels and additional affordable housing.

The addition of roundabouts in SLO county and many other counties have worked very well. I believe that would be true at this location.

Public Engagement
MBHS Survey Results

What is your relationship to MBHS?
Survey Results | Responses
36 [Footer] l © 2022 GHD. All rights reserved.

How do you use this intersection?
Survey Results | Responses
37 [Footer] l © 2022 GHD. All rights reserved.

Do you feel this intersection handles traffic flow of vehicles and pedestrians adequately?
Survey Results | Responses
38 [Footer] l © 2022 GHD. All rights reserved.

How often do you use this intersection?
Survey Results | Responses
39 [Footer] l © 2022 GHD. All rights reserved.

Do you avoid this intersection? Why?
Survey Results | Responses
40 [Footer] l © 2022 GHD. All rights reserved.

What, if any, are your safety concerns with the intersection? Survey Results | Responses
41 [Footer] l © 2022 GHD. All rights reserved.
bad visability, confussing to who's turn it is
I have experienced almost being hit in this intersection while driving. I’ve had issues with traffic congestion, especially getting off the freeway off-ramp heading northbound. Traffic at the 4-way stop often is congested and confused.

In my car, I’m concerned I’ll hit another car, a biker, a student pedestrian It is congested in the morning around 8:30 when school starts and at 3:30 when school gets out.

It’s hard to avoid this intersection if you are coming from los osos. I’m a parent now, but when I was an employee I would get off on main then head to the intersection of 41 because I knew I would have the right of way to turn left. Sitting in the line of traffic on the offramp and trying to get to MBHS is stressful. There are so many factors to watch out for. I’ve almost hit a pedestrian several times New drivers navigating a difficult intersection, pedestrians Northbound off-ramp, very hard to find time to turn left. People don’t abide by right of way, and lots of close calls.

Not enough room at the 4-way stop, not safe for pedestrians, mix of locals and tourists (unfamiliar with peculiarities of that intersection), heavy pedestrian/bike traffic with nowhere to go, and so on, and so forth
Pedestrian traffic
People have to take action that bypasses the stop sign rules because of the congestion and chaos at that intersection. It is a hazard in terms of driving, riding a bike, and walking. I'm so happy that this intersection will be safer and more efficient in the future! Poor visibility and congestion
Reckless driving and blind turns leading to crashes.

Some cars in a hurry didn’t fully stop.

Student safety
That I will get hit by a car turning left onto Atascadero rd exiting off off hwy I. People pull out unexpectedly.

The highway 1 enterance/exits at this intersection is highly congested and is difficult to get out of if you are on the North exit. In addition to traffic flow from the 4-way stop before/after, it further causes a choke point for traffic. For students/cyclists crossing, it may also be difficult to do so with agressive drivers.

The left turn from the north bound freeway exit is confusing and unsafe. Community members are mindful of this but travelers do not understand the unique flow. there are several area's/lanes when you use them that you can not see oncoming traffic. if you are a cyclist that attemps to use this intersection at peak times, you take your life in your hands because you can not see them and many go int he bike lanes to proceed in a car forward.

This intersection is extremely complex- especially for young drivers. The off ramp off of HWY1 and the 41 and Main all come together in a total mess. It was poorly designed and needs improvement Too many entrances and pedestrians
With freeway off-ramp it is a confusing and inconsistent flow of traffic. I only use this intersection when school is off. I also find it hard to see pedestrians. (blank)
No one knows how to use a 4 way stop properly
It is so hard to turn left exiting the northbound exit. Super dangerous Pedestrian safety Page 139 of 246
What, if any, are your safety concerns with the intersection? (cont’d) Survey Results | Responses
42 [Footer] l © 2022 GHD. All rights reserved.

Visibility is challenging with the combination of pedestrians and teen drivers.

Kids and skateboarders crossing, student drivers, not being able to make turns in a timely fashion, near collisions with other cars, other drivers getting mad.

There is no real flow of traffic there. People just go and hope for the best. My son has almost been here trying to cross the street there several times.

Very dangerous for all drivers and especially new drivers.

The flow is irradic. It needs a light , especially at peak times. It's almost impossible to make certain turns without impeding the flow of traffic. Now there is a hotel to add to the traffic.

The two intersections side by side plus the freeway ramps and the left turns makes it very difficult and time consuming to make a turn.

People don't pay attention and stop for pedestrians pedestrians walk whenever they want and there's no actual lanes for you to follow.

Too many cars going too many directions especially when kids are present. NOT a good mix.

It’s a mess!! Too much traffic, pedestrians, and mayhem.

First safety issue - My son rides his bike to school and crosses intersection and I think it's very unsafe and worry that he will die coming or leaving school. Many students are new drivers and the kids are in a rush to get to school in the mornings so they're not late. Therefore, I find it very unsafe to have this unsafe intersection here. Also, the construction next to the high school is adding to the problem.

Furthermore, once the hotel is built there will be even more traffic going through the unsafe intersection. It's a confusing intersection with too much traffic and lots of pedestrians and bicyclists. We are at risk of a deadly accident occurring at this intersection.

There is poor visibility when trying to turn left out of the HWY 1 northbound off ramp. Also, high school students ride their bikes on the wrong side (e.g., against traffic) in the morning. I almost hit a child trying to make a right turn onto HWY 1 southbound after dropping my child off. He was riding his bike in the wrong direction and went straight through the crosswalk without looking or slowing down. If I hadn't seen him, he would have been seriously injured or killed.

Drivers don't know when to take their turn, the turn lane and straight lane rules aren't followed properly and pedestrians don't know when to cross - it's a guessing game for everyone, when to go and when to wait.

It’s dangerous in all directions.

Yielding to pedestrians, car accidents
Children crossing, traffic
No one ever seems to know when it's their turn to go and the mornings are a mess.

I’ve almost been hit multiple times by people running the stop sign here. It’s honestly really dangerous.

Backlog on freeway makes for very dangerous situations trying to exit at 41 It is dangerous exiting the freeway and going to the high school due to the flow of traffic. The hotel will make it worse. This intersection is terrible for new drivers.

I can not avoid this intersection as my children go to school at MBHS and my husband works in Atascadero. The new Hampton Inn Hotel on the corner is going to add more traffic. This intersection is the only one that has so many different directions one can go to. I wish there was a street that just went to the high school. Students walking to and from school is going to be a major concern.

People don’t know how to use a 4 way stop apparently and I’ve seen a lot of accidents almost happen. complex traffic patterns may lead to accidents; other drivers often seem confused; intersections get blocked There are too many different users — cars, cyclists, and pedestrians — going in too many different directions in too great a volume to adequately be managed in that small space.

Difficult to see approaching vehicles due to overgrowth, vehicles coming from too many directions, and occasional pedestrians. Frenzied parents on way to MBHS and oversized trailers coming into town from the valley.

When it is right before school starts, you have cars trying to go every which way as well as students walking to school, it is a lot to be mindful of, and difficult to see oncoming cars when turning left on Atascadero Road
My question is, why in the world was a hotel approved right on the high school campus? This survey should have been done before this was approved. The area was congested before, but now it will be even worse. Three hotels Wake up Morro Bay, this is NOT only a tourist attraction. People live here. People who make decisions for Morro Bay should live in Morro Bay. I have two kids at the high school and it is ridiculous that my son has to leave 20 min early because of traffic. Please fix what you have created Morro Bay officials. So disappointed. Page 140 of 246 What, if any, are your safety concerns with the intersection? (cont’d) Survey Results | Responses
43 [Footer] l © 2022 GHD. All rights reserved.

Students crossing and cars getting impatient and rushing.m through.

People going out of turn really fast to squeeze in first.

Pedestrian are my numb3r one concern. People do not want to stop for them. My daughter always come home telling me they almost got hit by a car at that intersection Traffic consistently backs up in every direct. Once there are a few cars at the stop sign it’s impossible to see if the way is clear to cross from the off-ramp.

I’m concerned for the students when school is on session and for pedestrians crossing the walkways. Also, the four way stop becomes congested frequently that long lines form because people don’t know how to go with the flow of traffic. This has been an ongoing issue for many years and will become worse with the new hotel and apartment complex being built.

It is an awkward intersection with the freeway exit and 4-way stop. My biggest concern however are the pedestrians, especially from the high school, mixed up in all of this. It would make a lot of sense to have a pedestrian tunnel.

The high school students at lunch time walking through make me scared they will get hit because driver get so impatient there. Also during school drop off and pick up. It is CRAZY! I’m shocked there hasn’t been more accidents in front of the school and at the 41 intersection.

People coming off hwy 101 will force themselves into the intersection causing problems.

Hey 1 north exit backs onto oncoming fast traffic
I drive down coming from highway 1 north and exit on 41 to0 turn right to go to the high school. Although I make a full stop to watch out for pedestrian and other cars coming from east 41 I have witnessed near misses from other drivers rushing to get to school and usually involves a pedestrians oblivious to traffic around them. Parents have also taken to illegally dropping off their kids right on that intersection. Traffic lights would help, I think, but I don't think a roundabout would. A roundabout would mean for drivers like myself to sit in that intersection until oncoming traffic (from east 41) to not even slow down when entering highway 1 to go south. Parents who just dropped off their students will also be stuck in that intersection. When school is in session, traffic from west 41 (highschool) cannot pile up in that intersection. It is too dangerous for students to cross that road when there are cars stopped around them. Drivers stopped in that intersection will be too busy keeping their eyes on when they can enter that roundabout rather than watching out for pedestrians.

Proximity of my left turn to the high school or left turn to Atascadero to the other traffic in Main Street obscured by other vehicles Your horrible panning of a city put a brand new hotel corporate hotel right next to a High School. Use your brain much. Its the thing between your ears. Duh.

Waiting too long on a light or students clogging the circle.

Cross traffic with many times low visibility. Add in pedestrian traffic for a unsafe environment Cars moving quickly, checking multiple directions but not seeing pedestrians.

Right before school starts and right after, there is a rush to get into MBHS from Main St. the eastbound 101 off ramp, the westbound 101 off ramp everything converges right under the overpass on Atascadero.Students who are walking are put in very dangerous positions using crosswalks on two on/off ramps. I is hard to see pedestrians in cross walks amid the confusion of cars coming on and off the 101 and the four way stop at Main. The next very dangerous place for pedestrians and car traffic is getting and our of the main parking lot at MBHS. To make a left onto Atascadero Road is difficult at the school drop off and pick up times. There is a long line of cars trying to make a left turn, while some cars are turning right into the parking lot and other cars are driving down Atascadero to the far parking lot.

Not only am I a MBHS parent I also live on Sunset Ave. very close to this intersection and witness difficult and often times dangerous interactions. Car to car and car to pedestrian.

The congestion increases visibility issues with pedestrians and cyclists.

On weekends and holidays the heavy congestion increases tense interactions among motorists and motorists to pedestrians due to patience being strained.

Often times to a breaking point and dangerous driving.

High school kids walking all the time without looking...and I'm saying that as the parent of one. Also, you cannot see around cars in the direction you need to pull out. I don't use the off ramp on this exit for that reason.

It is awful.

Not all drivers know how to navigate a busy intersection with multiple forward motion options. So, it's a bit nerve-wracking to wonder each time you're at the intersection if each driver knows when it is their turn to go. I also wonder how safe the intersection is for pedestrians. I wouldn't want to cross the intersection personally as a pedestrian (unless I'm forgetting, I don't think the intersection or crosswalks are well lit).

Pedestrians and bikes and accidents
When school is in session i avoid this way as it's to clustered but regularly when there's no school i have no issues with it. I think putting in a stop light system would greatly help

What, if any, are your safety concerns with the intersection? (cont’d) Survey Results | Responses
44 [Footer] l © 2022 GHD. All rights reserved.

Exiting the northbound offramp and preceding to make a left is impossible during high traffic times. Also, at the end of the school day, traffic backs up to get back on the freeway Exiting southbound and making a left to drop off at the HS. It's very hard to see traffic coming from the right.

Northbound offramp drivers form 2 lanes onto hwy 41, when there is only on lane marked.

It gets very congested and people do not know how to use the four way stop. Plus you add in the highway ramps, high school traffic and now the new hotel and it is just a mess! I have actually grazed pedestrian children crossing the street while looking in 6 different places to time my left hand turn properly…no matter how experienced and careful a driver you are it’s impossible to keep your eye on all potential hazards at once. And now I’m sending a newly licensed teenager into the intersection!!! HELP! Not only is there congestion at both the intersection and the Hwy 1 off ramp but it is also very hard to get opportunities to safely pull out into the lane. Our son will have his license before next school year and I worry daily about the safety of these intersections. Also, students who walk to and from school in this area are constantly having to dodge traffic. too many things going on in one place
Students crossing the busy intersection, I don't see a roundabout making it better! The students who walk to school
It's basically impossible to avoid this intersection if you have a student at MBHS. The on and off ramps for the freeway make an already busy intersection very dangerous and almost impassable some mornings. It feels like it is only a matter of time until an MBHS student gets hit.

The visibility of turning left from getting off the free way when people come from the high school and block the visibility of oncoming traffic when they go to the stop sign. poor visibility of oncoming traffic from various angles; unsafe turns beyond the stop signs When a car is turning left onto Atascadero road from south Main Street (or left from the Hwy 1(S)exit) cars are turning left onto HWY 1(N) and Left Off of Hwy 1(S) and are turning left onto Hwy 1(S) which backs up traffic and then there are the pedestrians that are walking to and from Main Street. Essentially, to turn Left you are navigating at least 6 danger points coupled with the aggressive or hesitant stop sign users there are near misses almost every time I observe the intersection waiting in the traffic for my turn to come up.

Vehicles turning right from Southbound Main Street vs vehicles turning left from the Northbound 1 exit, especially at times when traffic is congested at school dismissal. Highway 1 exiting traffic backing up to freeway at start of school. Additionally, drivers do not seem to be paying attention to pedestrians as much as they are trying to watch traffic in both intersections to safely make their turn.

People driving to fast and not seeing walkers or bicyclists. Too many people using the off ramp.

I've nearly been hit both driving, biking, or walking several times over the year. People do not know how to take turns and become impatient and reckless.

There is not a safe way to turn left from hwy 1 off ramp toward MBHS during school drop off or pick up. I also don’t think it’s safe for students to walk in front of the on and off ramps. Too many speedy drivers.

Buildup of traffic under the overpass. Pedestrian safety is questionable.

It’s chaos during school drop off/pick up. Nobody knows when to go. possible traffic accidents
The intersection is very chaotic with the entrance/exit in the immediate vicinity. It is unsafe especially with our newly licensed high school drivers and visitors to the area.

Distracted drivers. Poor attitude drivers. Inexperienced drivers. Hazardous drivers. Speeding drivers. Unsafe drivers.