Loading...
Item 16 - Adoption of the Active Transportation Plan Department Name: Public Works Cost Center: 5010 For Agenda of: February 2, 2021 Placement: Public Hearing Estimated Time: 60 minutes FROM: Matt Horn, Public Works Director Prepared By: Luke Schwartz, Transportation Manager Adam Fukushima, Active Transportation Manager SUBJECT: ADOPTION OF THE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN RECOMMENDATION As recommended by the Planning Commission and Active Transportation Committee, adopt a Resolution (Attachment A) to: 1. Adopt an Initial Study/Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact (Attachment B); and 2. Adopt the Active Transportation Plan (Attachment C); and 3. Authorize the Public Works Director or their designee to approve future administrative revisions to the Active Transportation Plan as necessary, so long as the revisions do not alter the policy framework, project recommendations, and substantive content of the February 2021 edition of the Plan (Attachment C), and any such revisions are documented in writing and provided to the City Clerk for record keeping. REPORT-IN-BRIEF Consistent with the Sustainable Transportation Major City Goal identified in the 2019-21 Financial Plan, the City's Transportation Planning and Engineering Program has prepared the City’ s first Active Transportation Plan (“the Plan”) t o guide future transportation planning for both bicycling, walking and other forms of human-powered transportation. This report provides an overview of proposed policies, projects, programs, and implementation strategies contained in the Plan. This public hearing follows up on the Council Study Session held December 8, 2020, where the Council provided comments, questions, and general input on the Draft Plan and heard public comment from the community. The Final Plan incorporates refinements to address the input and direction provided by the City’s Active Transportation Committee (ATC), Planning Commission, City Council, and the community. The Active Transportation Plan document is provided as a Council Reading File (Attachment C) and is also available for public review at www.slobikewalk.org. Item 16 Packet Page 171 DISCUSSION Background Over the past two years, City staff has been working on preparation of the City's first Active Transportation Plan. This Plan serves as both a successor to the City's 2013 Bicycle Transportation Plan, as well as the City's first comprehensive plan on pedestrian policies, programs and infrastructure recommendations. The consolidation of the two modes (as well as consideration for other human powered devices) into one plan serves to not only support the goals of the 2014 General Plan Circulation Element to increase access and mode share for sustainable transportation modes, but also to increase the City's chances of competing for grants, especially the highly competitive California Active Transportation Program, which in the last cycle provided $440 million in funding and has contributed over $10 million toward bicycle and pedestrian projects in the City of San Luis Obispo to date. Highlights and major themes of revisions since the public review draft include, but are not limited to, the following: 1. Additional explanation of Active Transportation Plan concepts including the plan goals, Level of Traffic Stress analysis, project prioritization, equity, electric bikes, protected bicycle lanes, bicycle parking, and other design concepts. 2. Additional explanation of proposed pedestrian improvements in the downtown. 3. Improved mapping of proposed bicycle and pedestrian projects. 4. Requests to elevate priority of the segment of the Bob Jones Trail between Octagon Barn and Los Osos Valley Road to a Tier 1 project (currently a Tier 2 project in the Plan). • Note: In response to multiple comments heard during the public review period, the Final Plan includes additional clarification stating that if the County is able to secure funding to complete the Bob Jones Trail segment south of the City from Avila Beach to the Octagon Barn, the Octagon Barn to Los Osos Valley Road segment in the City will be reclassified from a Tier 2 to a Tier 1 project. 5. In response to questions from Council at the study session regarding past community opposition and Council direction, the proposed crossing improvement of Brizzolara Creek at Montalban Street, which was a Tier 3 project, has been removed fr om the Final Plan. 6. Added an equity performance measure and additional equity policy actions. 7. Name of goal three changed from “Accessibility” to “Convenience” to better reflect what the goal sets out to accomplish. 8. Provided clarification on the survey statistics. Only results from the statistically valid survey were included in the Plan. The Active Transportation Plan at a Glance The Active Transportation Plan is centered around four major goals: 1. Build It. The City can develop the physical infrastructure necessary to achieve this Plan's goals with an emphasis on priority actions to build a high-quality bicycle and pedestrian network. 2. Safety. Active transportation can be safe - with an emphasis on addressing safety, education, and partnerships. Item 16 Packet Page 172 3. Convenience. Active transportation can be easy - with an emphasis on user convenience, accessibility, and connectivity. 4. Equity. Active transportation is for everyone - with an emphasis on accommodating diverse mobility needs, ensuring that active transportation projects and resources provide equitable benefits to disadvantaged and low-income community members, and that city planning and outreach processes are inclusive and accessible to all community members. The structure of the Active Transportation Plan document is organized as follows: Chapter 1: Introduction - Introduces the Plan within the context of wider City policy and explains what an Active Transportation Plan is. Chapter 2: Vision and Goals - Captures the vision and goals of the Plan and identifies performance measures to ensure that the City can track progress and make the Plan vision a reality. Chapter 3: Bicycling and Walking in the City Today - An inventory of present-day bicycle and pedestrian conditions. Chapter 4: Community Engagement - Provides a summary of the community outreach activities organized and facilitated by City staff, focusing on barriers to walking and bicycling. Chapter 5: Recommended Bicycle & Pedestrian Projects - Identifies recommended bicycle and pedestrian projects that will enhance the biking and walking experience for San Luis Obispo residents. Chapter 6: Bicycle & Pedestrian Programs - Provides a description of bicycle and pedestrian education, encouragement, enforcement, and evaluation programs. Chapter 7: Implementation - Details a practical roadmap for implementing the proposals within this plan including project details, cost estimates, and grant funding opportunities. Changes from the 2013 Bicycle Transportation Plan In addition to adding a pedestrian component, the Active Transportation Plan proposes a new approach to implementing projects compared to the 2013 Bicycle Transportation Plan. This is in response to public outreach results as well as input from the Active Transportation Committee. Previous bicycle and pedestrian planning efforts have prioritized the implementation of striped bike lanes and off-street shared-use paths. While all proposed shared-use paths and many other bicycle projects from the 2013 Bicycle Transportation Plan have been carried over to the Active Transportation Plan, the new Plan has a greater focus on prioritizing projects that provide physical separation and safe crossing opportunities along existing major city streets, which provides more intuitive routes with more direct connections to key destinations that community members already travel to daily. The Active Transportation Plan also incorporates new best practices and design tools that were not approved for use in California or widely deployed at the time the previous Bicycle Transportation Plan was adopted, such as protected bike lanes and protected intersections. Furthermore, the Active Transportation Plan places more emphasis on investments that have the greatest potential to increase bicycling and walking for transportation purposes in the near-term, especially projects within the City right-of-way that can be built more quickly, affordably, and minimizes the need for outside agency approvals and right-of-way acquisition. Item 16 Packet Page 173 Barriers to Bicycling and Walking To achieve the City’s Modal Split Objectives, public outreach and surveys were conducted to identify the barriers to bicycling and walking. For bicycling, surveys showed that the perception of risk with using higher-stress facilities is often the most significant barrier to bicycling for most people. In order to develop a bicycling environment that will encourage more people to ride, it is important to first understand the existing level of interest, ability and comfort of bicycling within the community. While there are many diverse types of individuals who bike, including people who have no other means of transportation, for the purposes of bicycle system planning, the population can generally be classified into four types of transportation bicyclists as shown below. For walking, types of pedestrians usually vary according to age and/or physical ability. Public outreach results indicated drivers not paying attention, pedestrians not feeling safe, lack of night lighting, and time to reach destination as the top concerns about walking today in San Luis Obispo. Statistically valid survey results, as well as feedback from public workshops also indicated a concern about the need for more protected crossings along high-traffic roadways and more street lighting, especially near Cal Poly as a particular barrier to walking. The Bicycle and Pedestrian Network Provided with data from community surveys and outreach activities, and technical analysis of barriers and levels of traffic stress within the existing transportation network, staff worke d with the Active Transportation Committee and the City’s Active Transportation Plan technical consultant, Alta Planning+Design, to develop a proposed network of bicycle and pedestrian projects that enhance user safety and comfort levels. Building on the proposed network from the 2013 Bicycle Transportation Plan, routes were identified that could include more physical separation from vehicular traffic along roadways that are within existing city right -of-way. Several design strategies that were not widely deployed in California (or approved by Caltrans) at the time the 2013 Bicycle Transportation Plan was adopted, are prominent features of this Plan, including protected bike lanes (“cycle tracks”) and bicycle protected intersections. Item 16 Packet Page 174 Caltrans has since authorized the use of these design strategies and many successful installations have been completed throughout California in recent years. While many locations will require further analysis and design review to ascertain whether a protected bike lane is feasi ble, the Active Transportation Plan proposes protected bike lanes on most arterial routes. The Active Transportation Plan also identifies information on existing sidewalks and areas where there are gaps in the sidewalk network to be completed. Existing and Proposed Bicycle and Shared-Use Path Network Facility Type Existing (miles) Proposed (miles) Shared Use Path 11 31 Bicycle Lane 37 13 Bicycle Route 26 0.4 Neighborhood Greenway 1.5 10 Protected Bicycle Lane 0.1 25 In addition to proposed bikeways, outreach results indicated that crossing large arterial Streets was a significant barrier for both walking and bicycling, and therefore, the Active Transportation Plan identifies almost fifty locations citywide for crossing improvements. While each locat ion will require further analysis prior to implementation, the improvements are categorized into locations of major and minor crossings. Possible improvements at major crossing locations could include roundabouts, pedestrian hybrid beacons (a.k.a. “HAWK Crossings”), traffic signals or a new design tool known as a protected intersection. Possible improvements at minor crossing locations include curb ramps, crosswalk striping, flashing beacons, bike boxes, curb extensions and median refuges. Prioritization of Projects Given that the Plan proposes over 240 projects and acknowledging that there are limited financial resources to spread between all city infrastructure projects, it is imperative that the bicycle and pedestrian projects identified in this Plan are prioritized based on their greatest potential to increase safety, access and connectivity, and ultimately, the number of bicycle and pedestrian trips. Therefore, the bicycle and pedestrian network projects were evaluated against a set of criteria and scored. The following criteria were used to prioritize the proposed bicycle and pedestrian projects: a) Ridership/ Usage Potential b) Safety/ Collisions c) Equity: Improve access for Disadvantaged and Low- Income Community Members d) Community Input e) Existing Level of Traffic Stress (LTS) f) Proximity to Key Destinations: Schools (K-12 and Cal Poly), Parks and Open Space, Retail and Employment Centers, Downtown, Senior Housing & Supportive Facilities Item 16 Packet Page 175 The projects have been categorized into the following priority levels: • Tier 1: The highest-priority projects with the greatest potential to increase the number of people bicycling and walking. The City will actively pursue funding for these projects first. The Plan proposes that the City endeavor to complete the Tier 1 network by 2030, which is consistent with the City’s Climate Action Plan objectives to support citywide carbon neutrality by 2035. • Tier 2: Moderate-priority projects that play an important role in the future bicycle and pedestrian network, but with less potential than Tier 1 projects to increase bicycling and walking. These projects will be pursued as funding opportunities arise, but not at the expense of delaying Tier 1 projects. • Tier 3: Lower-priority projects that help complete the bicycling and walking network but are not likely to generate measurable increases in bicycle and pedestrian trips. These projects will be funded primarily through grants and where required as a condition of approval for new development projects. Individual bikeway and pedestrian projects were reviewed, evaluated, and prioritized by City staff and the City’s Active Transportation Committee based on the prioritization criteria listed above. In selecting the Tier 1 network, staff and the Active Transportation Committee focused on creating a crosstown network of interconnected routes and crossings that present the greatest potential to generate increased bicycle and pedestrian mode share and reduce existing collision trends. Using data extracted from the City’s Travel Demand Forecasting Model, various route combinations were evaluated until a refined network of nine priority corridors was selected (see Figure 1 below). These Tier 1 priority corridors have potential to serve roughly 70% of citywide trips, at least for a majority of the trip length. The remaining Tier 2 and Tier 3 projects improve bicycle and pedestrian circulation, but to a lesser extent than the Tier 1 network. Item 16 Packet Page 176 Figure 1. Tier 1 Projects (routes and crossing improvements) Additional Pedestrian-Specific Improvements and Amenities In addition to the bikeways, shared- use paths and crossing improvement projects identified as part of the Tier 1-3 networks, the Active Transportation Plan also proposes to actively pursue opportunities to construct other pedestrian-specific improvements to enhance accessibility and connectivity, including sidewalk repairs and construction of new sidewalks, upgrades to curb ramps, and installation of additional street lighting. To complete the pedestrian network, approximately 27 miles of new sidewalk would need to be constructed to fill in all the existing sidewalk gaps throughout the city. In addition, the City has thousands of intersection corners that would need to be reconstructed to meet current ADA standards, and several hundred new streetlights would need to be installed for each on-street and off-street path to meet the City’s current Engineering Standards. Many of these improvements will likely be installed as a requirement of future land use development/redevelopment projects, while others will be installed as City-initiated capital improvement projects. In lieu of mapping and inventorying the thousands of individual locations where the City would install/repair sidewalks, curb ramps and streetlights, the Plan outlines methodology for prioritizing City initiated installation of these pedestrian improvements based on factors such as collision history, pedestrian activity, and proximity to key destinations such as schools (including Cal Poly), parks, the downtown core, and senior living facilities. Per the Plan, these types of improvements would be prioritized first in areas with existing safety concerns, and then in areas of high pedestrian activity, such as near Cal Poly, the downtown core, and near parks and K-12 schools. Item 16 Packet Page 177 The Plan also identifies recommended features to make the overall walking experience more inviting and enjoyable, including policies recommending inclusion of public art and streetscape enhancements as part of active transportation infrastructure projects. In conjunction with the City’s COVID-19 economic response campaign known as Open SLO, the City installed nearly 40 parklets citywide. The Active Transportation Plan builds on this success and provides guidance for a sustained parklet program. Other programs include recommendations to bring an Open Streets event (also known as Ciclovía) to San Luis Obispo, continued support for a citywide bike share system, creating walking/biking wayfinding signage, and recommendations to incorporate public art and placemaking streetscape enhancements as part of every future active transportation project, where appropriate. Implementation The Active Transportation Plan will be built over a number of years depending on funding and staffing resources, focusing first on the Tier 1 projects that have the highest potential to increase walking and biking. Throughout the implementation process, staff will continue to work with critical partners and the community to gather input. Implementation of the Plan will be incremental but is guided by established policy to continue to prioritize funding toward meeting the City's goals for increasing bicycling and walking and to ensure that projects benefit disadvantaged and low-income community members equitably. The Plan includes the following implementation strategies to accelerate priority active transportation improvements: Leveraging Funds with Larger Pro jects Oftentimes, the costs associated with individual active transportation projects can be reduced significantly by incorporating them into larger infrastructure projects, particularly roadway resurfacing projects. These projects require coordination and planning and focus on leveraging on-going or planned projects to build active transportation projects with an economy of scale. Quick-Build Quick-build projects are semi-permanent improvements that can be designed and implemented quickly, often utilizing lower-cost interim materials, such as flex posts, curb stops or paint, in lieu of more costly permanent materials. Quick-build strategies also provide the flexibility to test and refine designs before committing to more substantial infrastructure investments. An example of a quick-build strategy is the recent installation of bike lanes on Higuera Street in the downtown. By first installing the bike lanes in paint at a cost of around $15,000, the C ity is able to test the viability of the design before committing to a more permanent installation. Item 16 Packet Page 178 Projects Built as a Condition of Development An additional opportunity to fund projects is to ensure the City works with developers to pay for or implement active transportation projects that are necessary to serve their new developments. The City has been successful in doing this through the construction of new projects by a developer or through infrastructure financing through the Citywide Transportation Impact Fee program, which collects a fair share fee from development throughout the City to help fund significant roadway, bicycle and pedestrian improvement projects. These opportunities create a "win-win" scenario for the community and the developer as it provides holistic circulation benefits to the entire community, including reduction in citywide vehicle miles traveled (VMT), while providing necessary transportation options for the individual residents, workers and visitors of the new development. Measuring Progress Towards Implementing the Plan Ongoing monitoring and evaluation will be vital in achieving the goals of the Active Transportation Plan. The following matrix summarizes the proposed ways the City plans to measure progress towards implementing the Active Transportation Plan, with a summary report to be presented every other year to the Active Transportation Committee and made available to community on the City’s website. Active Transportation Plan Performance Measures # Performance Measure Goal Baseline 1 The share of citywide commute trips made by bicycling to 20% and 12% by walking by 2030 Current Mode Share: • Bicycle - 8.3% • Walk - 7.2% • Drive Alone - 67.7% 2 Consistent with the City's Climate Action Plan and General Plan Mode Share Objectives, decrease the share of total citywide trips made by single-occupant auto to 50% or less by 2030 Current Mode Share: • Drive Alone - 67.7% 3 Achieve Platinum Level status as Bicycle Friendly Community by the League of American Bicyclists Gold Status 4 Continue progress towards the City's Vision Zero goal of eliminating traffic fatalities and severe injuries, endeavoring towards a trend of zero fatal collisions by 2030. Three-Year Total (2015-2017): • 3 fatal collisions • 43 severe injury collisions 5 Complete installation of the Active Transportation Plan's Tier 1 bicycle and pedestrian network by 2030. 6.5% of the ultimate Tier 1 network currently in place 6 Consistent with the General Plan Circulation Element policies, strive to allocate transportation funding across various transportation modes approximately proportional to the General Plan Modal Split Objectives Baseline to be set in 2021 7 Double the mode share for all bicycle and pedestrian trips for public K-12 schools in the city Baseline to be set in 2021 Item 16 Packet Page 179 8 Strive to achieve the same demographic representation of those using active transportation modes as those using single occupancy motor vehicles. Baseline to be set in 2021 POLICY CONTEXT The recommendations of the Active Transportation Plan support the current Sustainable Transportation Major City Goal identified in the 2019-21 Financial Plan. In addition, the Active Transportation Plan implements many of the goals, objectives policies and programs of both the City's General Plan and Climate Action Plan for Community Recovery. The General Plan Land Use and Circulation Elements identify a multitude of goals and policies promoting bicycling and walking and reducing community dependence on single-occupant automobile trips. Similarly, reducing vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and related greenhouse gas emissions through improving access and use of sustainable transportation modes, such as walking and bicycling, is one of the most important goals identified in the City's Climate Action Plan for Community Recovery. In turn, one of the key Foundational Actions identified under the Connected Community Pillar of the Climate Action Plan recommends that the City “Complete adoption of the Active Transportation Plan and begin implementation immediately.” A fundamental objective of the Active Transportation Plan is to provide the policies, programs and infrastructure needed to increase the number of trips completed by active transportation modes, supporting th e City’s General Plan and Climate Action Plan Modal Split Objectives to reach 20 percent of Citywide trips by bicycle and 18 percent by walking, carpool and other sustainable transportation options. PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT In the fall of 2019, City staff branded an outreach strategy known as the “Roll and Stroll” campaign and held a series of both in-person and online community outreach activities for the Active Transportation Plan. The community outreach is summarized in Chapter Four of the Plan. In-Person Activities In person outreach included five pop-up workshops on weekends in neighborhoods throughout the City, event booths at the SLO Farmers Market and Cal Poly University Union, as well as an open house workshop at the City/County Library. Item 16 Packet Page 180 Other Activities Online activities included a project webpage at www.slobikewalk.org, an online interactive mapping tool, and an Active Transportation Survey. T he Active Transportation Survey was conducted to better understand existing travel behavior, major barriers to active transportation, and what investments community members would like the City to prioritize in order to increase access to walking and bicycling. Postcards were distributed to a randomly generated list of 4,500 city residents to invite participation in the survey, which resulted in 709 completed surveys, providing a statistically valid sample. Other community members were also offered the opportunity to participate in the survey, although the results were not counted as part of the statistically valid survey sample. An Interactive Online Mapping Tool was created to provide participants with an opportunity to mark locations throughout the city of desired intersection crossing priorities, bikeway, and pedestrian facility improvements. The input received as part of these public outreach activities was used to guide development of the projects, policies, and programs included in the Draft Active Transportation Plan. Public Review Draft The Public Review Draft of the Active Transportation Plan was released on November 19, 2020 and available for an extended public review period through December 31, 2020. The draft was made available on the City website as well as on the project webpage www.slobikewalk.org. Notice of the draft was made available through a press release as well as a notice of availability published in the SLO New Times, and an email sent out to individuals who had signed up for updates on the project webpage. In total, including project webpage responses and emails, staff received 135 substantive comments and 302 non-substantive comments, totaling 437 total public draft comments. Substantive comments were archived by topic area, and longer comments were br oken down into multiple comment rows based on individual topic. The response to substantive public draft comments is included in Attachment E. Along with their recommendation to adopt the Active Transportation Plan, the ATC submitted 42 comments. The response to their comments is included in Attachment F. CONCURRENCE Over the past two years, spanning at least 19 meetings, the ATC provided valuable input on the Active Transportation Plan. On December 3, 2020, the ATC recommended unanimously to adopt the Active Transportation Plan with comments to be considered for the final draft. The responses to comments are included as part of Attachment F. On December 9, 2020, the Planning Commission recommended unanimously to adopt the Active Transportation Plan and approve the Initial Study / Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact (see Attachment D for resolution). Item 16 Packet Page 181 Several City departments provided input to the Active Transportation Plan including City Administration, Fire and Police Departments, Construction Inspection, Office of Sustainability, and the Community Development Department (planning and development engineering groups). Other community groups have helped shape the Active Transportation Plan including SLO RISE, the SLO Chamber of Commerce, Downtown SLO, SLO County Public Health Injury Prevention Committee, SLO County Healthy Eating-Acting Living Coalition, Bike SLO County, Save Our Downtown, SLO Under 40, Cal Poly ASI, and others. Public agency comment letters received included the San Luis Obispo Council of Governments, San Luis Obispo Air Pollution Control District, and Caltrans. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW An Initial Study /Negative Declaration was prepared pursuant to CEQA (EID 0496 -2020) by Alta Planning+Design to evaluate the potential significant effects of implementing the Active Transportation Plan (Attachment B). An extended review period for the Initial Study / Negative Declaration opened on November 19, 2020 and closed on December 31, 2020. The Active Transportation Plan is a program/policy-level document, which means it does not provide project-specific construction details that would allow for project-level CEQA analysis. Specific development is not being proposed under this Active Transportation Plan and adoption of it would not authorize any land use changes or development. Information such as precise project locations, project timing, funding mechanisms, material types, types of equipment and ultimately construction drawings will be required in order for future “project -level” CEQA analysis to occur. Under CEQA, a programmatic document is prepared on a series of actions that can be characterized as one large project and/or for a project that will be implemented over a long period of time. Therefore, the Initial Study/Negative Declaration was prepared at a “program-level,” which is appropriate for this type of proposal. The Initial Study does not identify any potentially significant impacts that would occur as a result of adoption of the Active Transportation Plan. FISCAL IMPACT Budgeted: No Budget Year: 2019-21 Funding Identified: No Fiscal Analysis: Funding Sources Total Budget Available Current Funding Request Remaining Balance Annual Ongoing Cost General Fund N/A* State Federal Fees Other: Total Item 16 Packet Page 182 *A total of $140,000 was previously allocated for preparation of the Active Transportation Plan in the FY 2017-19 and FY 2019-21 Financial Plans and has been sufficient to bring the Plan to this stage. Adoption of the Active Transportation Plan itself does not have any direct fiscal impact. However, when adopted, the fiscal impact associated with fully implementing the Active Transportation Plan is significant and will extend over many years, requiring substantial funding commitments over multiple financial plans as well as exploration of grants, development fees and other outside funding sources. Since the Active Transportation Plan is a programmatic document, it provides only a planning level assessment of project costs. Therefore, a high - and low-cost range has been provided, which is summarized in the table below. The broad range of potential costs is appropriate given the level of uncertainty in the design at this point in the planning process. Total Cost Estimate Table Priority Level Cost Estimate (Low) Cost Estimate (High) Tier 1 Projects $ 16,800,000 $ 195,400,000 Tier 2 Projects $ 2,900,000 $ 26,500,000 Tier 3 Projects $ 30,900,000 $ 181,400,000 Consistent with the Climate Action Plan for Community Recovery, the Active Transportation Plan calls for the City to actively work toward achieving the General Plan mode share targets by 2030 by prioritizing implementation of the Tier 1 bicycle and pedestrian network. Other projects would be completed as opportunities become available or as part of development mitigation. With that said, ultimately each individual project and program expenditure would be considered and prioritized by the City Council as part of the City’s two-year financial planning process. For FY 2021-23, scheduled pavement plan upgrades present an opportunity to begin implementation of the Anholm Neighborhood Greenway, protected bike lanes and buffered bike lanes on Marsh St and Higuera St in the downtown as well as pedestrian improvements. ALTERNATIVES Council could request more information, suggest substantial changes, or otherwise request that the Active Transportation Plan be presented for adoption at a later date. Staff does not recommend this as several proposed projects in the Active Transportation Plan may risk exclusion from the forthcoming FY 2021-23 Financial Plan. Item 16 Packet Page 183 Attachments: a - Draft Resolution b - COUNCIL READING FILE - Initial Study / Negative Declaration c - COUNCIL READING FILE - Active Transportation Plan d - Planning Commission Resolution No. PC-1029-20 e - Response to Public Draft Comments f - Response to ATC Comments Item 16 Packet Page 184 R ______ RESOLUTION NO. _____ (2021 SERIES) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA ADOPTING THE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (EID 0496-2020) WHEREAS, the Climate Action Plan includes a goal of reaching adopted mode share targets related to carbon neutrality by 2030 and the Circulation Element of the General Plan establishes a goal of reducing motor vehicle use and reaching 20% of all citywide trips by bicycle and 18% by walking, carpooling and other forms of transportation; and WHEREAS, the Circulation Element of the General Plan establishes a goal to consolidate the Bicycle Transportation Plan with a citywide Pedestrian Plan (an “Active Transportation Plan”); and WHEREAS, the potential environmental impact of the Active Transportation Plan has been evaluated in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to an initial environmental study (EID 0496-2020) and an Initial Study/Negative Declaration of environmental impact has been prepared and circulated for public review and comment period from November 19, 2020 to December 31, 2020; and WHEREAS, an outreach strategy known as the “Roll and Stroll” Campaign was conducted consisting of both online and in-person activities, including six pop-up workshops in the community, an open house workshop, an online interactive mapping tool, a project webpage, a citywide survey, as well as a statistically valid survey distributed to a randomly generated list of 4,500 city residents to invite participation in the survey; and WHEREAS, the Active Transportation Committee provided input on the Active Transportation Plan in over 19 meetings over the course of two years and at the hearing of December 3, 2020 conducted via a virtual, online, meeting platform reviewed the Active Transportation Plan and unanimously recommended approval of the Active Transportation Plan; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission at the hearing on December 9, 2020, conducted via a virtual, online, meeting platform, reviewed the Active Transportation Plan and unanimously recommended approval of the Plan and adoption of the Initial Study / Negative Declaration for the Plan; and WHEREAS, the City Council at the study session on December 8, 2020 via a virtual, online, meeting platform, reviewed the Active Transportation Plan and provided input in anticipation of the final draft of the Plan; and WHEREAS, notices of said public hearings were made at the time and in the manner required by law; and Item 16 Packet Page 185 Resolution No. _____ (2021 Series) Page 2 R ______ WHEREAS, the City Council has duly considered all evidence, including the testimony of interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations by staff, presented at said hearing s. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo to adopt the Initial Study / Negative Declaration, approve the Active Transportation Plan, and authorize the Public Works Director to update the Active Transportation Plan with administrative, non-policy amendments as necessary and appropriate. This resolution is based on the following California Environmental Quality Act findings, with associated findings: SECTION 1. Environmental Review. The City Council finds and determines that the Initial Study / Negative Declaration adequately addresses the potential environmental impacts of the project as defined by CEQA, finds that approval of the Active Transportation Plan would not result in any significant environmental impacts, and hereby approves the Negative Declaration and directs staff to prepare and file a Notice of Determination with the County Clerk within five working days of the approval of the Active Transportation Plan. SECTION 2. Findings. This Council, after consideration of the Active Transportation Plan, as recommended by the Active Transportation Committee and Planning Commission, staff recommendations, public testimony, and reports thereof, makes the following findings: 1. The proposed Active Transportation Plan will promote the public health, safety, and welfare of persons working, living, or travelling in the City by providing a network of convenient pedestrian and bicycle facilities and programs. 2. The proposed Active Transportation Plan is consistent with the General Plan (including Circulation Element Policies 1.7.1, 1.7.2, 1.75, 4.1, 4.2, 5.1, 5.2 among others) and will further General Plan goals to reduce single-occupancy motor vehicle use by implementing planned projects or programs that both support and promote sustainable alternatives to motorized transport such as walking, using transit and bicycles. 3. The proposed Active Transportation Plan will provide new and improved bicycle and pedestrian facilities which furthers existing General Plan policies and objectives to complete a network of safe and convenient bikeways and walkways that connect neighborhoods with major activity centers and routes outside of the city. Item 16 Packet Page 186 Resolution No. _____ (2021 Series) Page 3 R ______ SECTION 3. Approval. The Active Transportation Plan is hereby approved by the City Council and Resolution Number 10471 (2013 Series) approving the 2013 Bicycle Transportation Plan is hereby repealed and superseded. Upon motion of _______________________, seconded by _______________________, and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: The foregoing resolution was adopted this _____ day of _____________________ 2021. ____________________________________ Mayor Heidi Harmon ATTEST: ____________________________________ Teresa Purrington City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: _____________________________________ J. Christine Dietrick City Attorney IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, on ____________________________. ____________________________________ Teresa Purrington City Clerk Item 16 Packet Page 187 RESOLUTION NO. PC-1029-20 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVE THE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE AND ADOPT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT; AS REPRESENTED IN THE STAFF REPORT AND ATTACHMENTS DATED DECEMBER 9, 2020 (CITYWIDE, OTHER- 0495-2020 & EID-0496-2020) WHEREAS, the Active Transportation Committee of the City of San Luis Obispo at the meeting of December 3, 2020 recommended approval of the Active Transportation Plan. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a meeting via teleconference on December 9, 2020, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under OTHER 0495-2020 and EID 0496-2020, City of San Luis Obispo, Public Works, applicant; and, WHEREAS, notices of said public hearings were made at the time and in the manner required by law; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo has duly considered all evidence, including the testimony of the applicant, interested parties, and evaluation and recommendations by staff, presented at said hearing; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Findings. Based upon all the evidence, the Planning Commission makes the following findings regarding the project: 1. The proposed Active Transportation Plan will promote the public health, safety, and welfare of persons working, living, or travelling in the City by providing a network of convenient pedestrian and bicycle facilities and programs. 2. The proposed Active Transportation Plan will further General Plan goals to reduce single-occupancy motor vehicle use by supporting and promoting alternatives such as walking, using transit and bicycles. 3. The proposed Active Transportation Plan will provide new and improved bicycle and pedestrian facilities which furthers existing General Plan policies and objectives to complete a network of safe and convenient bikeways and walkways that connect neighborhoods with major activity centers and routes outside of the city. Item 16 Packet Page 188 OTHR-0495-2020 & EID-0496-2020 City-Wide Page 2 SECTION 2. Environmental Review. The Planning Commission finds that the project’s programmatic Initial Study / Negative Declaration adequately evaluates potential environmental impacts of the project. SECTION 3. Action. The Planning Commission does hereby recommend Council approve the Active Transportation Plan and adopt of the Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact. On motion of Commissioner Hopkins, seconded by Commissioner Kahn, and on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Hopkins, Kahn, Quincey, Shoresman and Vice-Chair Jorgensen NOES: None REFRAIN: None ABSENT: Commissioners Wulkan and Chair Dandekar The foregoing resolution was adopted this 9th day of December 2020. TCorey_____________________________ Tyler Corey, Secretary Planning Commission Item 16 Packet Page 189 Attachment E ‐ Response to Public Draft Comments# Topic Participant CommentResponse1 General Comment Bike SLO County Include photos of Black, Indigenous, People of Color (BIPOC) within the ATPWhile the public draft did include photos of San Luis Obispo's BIPOC community, additional photos have been added.2 General Comment CaltransPlease note in the draft plan’s Introduction section—and wherever else applicable—that the proposed concepts are planning-level-only. The feasibility and design standards will need further analysis as this plan moves forward. Caltrans’ comments regarding this document are not considered approval for any improvement conceptsChapter 5 includes language that the Plan is a high-level blueprint and that its projects will require more detailed analysis to determine constructability constraints, neighborhood compatibility, and other challenges that may make a project infeasible or undesirable.3 General Comment CaltransIn general, any changes to the state’s right of way would be subject to consistency of current adopted policies, manuals, and guides.Comment received4 General Comment CaltransCurrently, Caltrans is developing a districtwide Active Transportation Plan on bicycle and pedestrian needs at specific locations, on, across and parallel to the state highway system. The plan, which will be available for public review in February, emphasizes social equity and providing safe walking and bicycling. It will be a useful tool for local jurisdictional multimodal planning efforts. We look forward to input from the city and coordination on future implementation.Comment received 5 General CommentSlobikewalk.org Anonymous CommentReevaluation (post pandemic budget considerations) of the expensive and disruptive tearing up of Anholm neighborhood in favor of continuing trial of less costly and invasive solutions that are observable around town.The Anholm Neighborhood Greenway includes many cost effective strategies including movable planter boxes as a first stage toward a more costly and permanent concrete solution.Item 16Packet Page 190 Attachment E ‐ Response to Public Draft Comments6 General CommentSlobikewalk.org Anonymous CommentOur city needs to spend down the pension debt & stop spending huge amounts on small percentage who bike. We think that the city should not be spending any unnecessary money on ANYTHING right now since we are deeply in debt. The city is fiscally irresponsible. If you insist on spending money we do not have then more money needs to be spent on walkers. Most people have 2 legs & walk. Not that many people ride bikes . The walkers seem very unrepresented on the ATC. You are marginalizing walkers & auto users (drivers/passengers).The Plan does not commit city resources to projects but provides a blueprint for meeting General Plan and Climate Action Plan goals. Active Transportation improvements can reduce automobile use, which reduce costs for maintaining city streets and related infrastructure, which are a significant portion of the City's annual budget.7 General CommentSlobikewalk.org Anonymous CommentI like what I have seen in the proposed active transportation plan. It seems to be a pragmatic way of achieving the stated goals. I know that you can only deal with issues within the city borders, but I would urge you to also consider how to improve the biking options for interconnecting the cities and surrounding areas.The Plan is consistent with the County Bikeways Plan in providing connections to outside of the city.8 General CommentSlobikewalk.org Anonymous CommentStop wasting money on these idea. The city doesn't even have enough money to pay for their large pensions, let along bike lanes that they can't maintain.The Plan does not commit city resources to projects but provides a blueprint for meeting General Plan and Climate Action Plan goals. Active Transportation improvements can reduce automobile use, which reduce costs for maintaining city streets and related infrastructure (a significant portion of the city budget).9 General CommentSlobikewalk.org Anonymous CommentNo one moves here and pays astronomical rents or mortgages and then rides a bike. They drive and mostly drive very nice vehicles. If the city were really serious about reducing cars, only allow homes to be built with one car garages or a carport or neither of these. It would reduce the cost of housing and accomplish your goal more than building more bike lanes primarily for recreational use.Bicycle use in the city has steadily increased over the last 10+ years and is currently at just over 8% of all citywide trips, which is significantly higher than the national average of less than 1%. Providing high quality bicycle infrastructure is a key strategy in increasing bicycling and works in tandem with increasing housing capacity in the city.Item 16Packet Page 191 Attachment E ‐ Response to Public Draft Comments10 General CommentSlobikewalk.org Anonymous Comment My concern is personal safety of walking and the increased amounts of homeless persons that have mental disabilities, on drugs, passed out, often clustered on walkways with their bags, dogs, etc.. I understand that most are harmless but their erratic and unstable behavior can install real fear. I am talking about daylight hours. I have lived and worked here since 1993 and have never felt this level of discomfort walking in my town. How can we help resolve this as a community?This comment will be forwarded on to the Community Development Department.11 General CommentSlobikewalk.org Anonymous CommentI do not see how the city plans to pay for this work. Who does the city plan to charge ? How does this fit within the city budget ?The Plan does not commit city resources to projects but provides a blueprint for meeting General Plan and Climate Action Plan goals. A majority of the Plan projects will be built as a condition of development as well as require a financial commitment from the City through the 2-year budget planning process over multiple years.12 General CommentSlobikewalk.org Anonymous CommentGet your head out of the clouds and put this money to better use, like fixing roads and pipes.Maintaining roads and utilities is a large portion of the City budget. Active Transportation improvements can reduce automobile use, which reduce costs for maintaining city streets and related infrastructure.13 General CommentSlobikewalk.org Anonymous CommentThe city of San Luis has no monies for these projects, there are many projects in the works that need attention but this should not be one of them, the city is starting to have infrastructure problems,water mains are old and at times have broken, city streets are falling apartMaintaining roads and utilities is a large portion of the City budget. Active Transportation improvements can reduce automobile use, which reduce costs for maintaining city streets and related infrastructure.14 General CommentSlobikewalk.org Anonymous CommentIt's interesting that the photos of in this project do not represent the diversity of people who live and work in the CityThe public draft of the Plan did include photos of San Luis Obispo's diverse community, however new photos have been added to the Plan.Item 16Packet Page 192 Attachment E ‐ Response to Public Draft Comments15 General Support Rick FeeSLO is among our favorite towns to visit. Your commitment to improving the safety and efficiency for people on bikes and on foot makes your town all that much more attractiveComment received16 General SupportAir Pollution Control DistrictThe APCD would like to commend the City of SLO for updating their Bicycle Transportation Plan and transform it into an Active Transportation Plan (ATP) to include both bicycling and walking needs. Promoting active transportation by incorporating pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure into the City is consistent with several of the APCD's land use goals and policies in the Clean Air Plan and helps meet the SB 32 and SB 375 emission reduction targets set by California legislation and the California Air Resources Board.Comment received17 General Support Taylor MehelicI urge you to support the Active Transportation Plan as recommended by the Active Transportation Committee without major revisions. I want to see these Tier 1 projects considered in the FY21-23 budget cycle without delay so that we can start to see real progress in support of active transportation in our city.Comment received18 General Support Emily White I am in support of the Active Transportation Plan. Comment received19 General Support John ClementsI support the ATP as written, and look forward to USING these trails to get to and from work, travel to parks and recreation, and to go downtown and *buy things* to support our local economy.Comment received20 General Support Gregor KraemerI urge you to support the Active Transportation Plan as recommended by the Active Transportation Committee without major revisions. Comment received21 General Support Laura JoinesI am writing to support the active transportation plan in SLO city and county.Comment receivedItem 16Packet Page 193 Attachment E ‐ Response to Public Draft Comments22 General Support Brad LangerI am writing to support the active transportation plan in SLO city and county.Comment received23 General Support Nathan Deweber I am writing to support the active transportation plan in SLO city and county.Comment received24 General Support Kathryn AnneI urge you to support the active transportation Plan as recommended by the Active Transportation Committee without major revisionsComment received25 General Support Erik JustesenI am writing to record my support of the Draft ATPComment received26 General Support Jonathan RobertsThe ATC unanimously recommends the draft Active Transportation Plan without any major modifications for your review and are excited for it's final adoption in February, 2021!Comment received27 General Support Kim Lisagor BisheffActive transportation is a critical component of the city’s climate, vision zero and mode shift goals, and I was encouraged to see unanimous support for the ATP from the Active Transportation Committee. Please pass the plan without major revisions so that we can stay on track with those goals. Comment received28 General Support Robin EricksonI am writing to endorse the ATP, as guided by the Active Transportation Committee.This includes support for the Tier 1 projects (without major revisions) for the FY21-23 budget cycle. The ATP has incorporated a lot of detailed and well thought out work, and appears to have followed a systematic process for determining priorities.Comment received29 General Support Raquel SmithI urge you to support the Active Transportation Plan as recommended by the Active Transportation Committee without major revisions.Comment receivedItem 16Packet Page 194 Attachment E ‐ Response to Public Draft Comments30 General Support Willy WilsonI urge you to support the Active Transportation Plan as recommended by the Active Transportation Committee without major revisions.Comment received31 General Support Eric Azriel Supports the Tier 1 list of projects in the ATP Comment received32 General Support Helen MastacheI am writing to express my support for the Active Transportation Plan as unanimously recommended by the Active Transportation Committee. Comment received33 General Support Shannon KlischI am writing to express my support for the Active Transportation Plan as unanimously recommended by the Active Transportation CommitteeComment received34 General Support Christina JacobsonPlease support the Active Transportation Plan as recommended by the Active Transportation Committee without major revisions.Comment received35 General Support Ellie PetersenPlease support the Active Transportation Plan as recommended by the Active Transportation Committee without major revisions.Comment received36 General Support Aaron WilliamsI’m writing to share my support for the ATP and related projectsComment received37 General Support Kyron BlauI urge you to support the Active Transportation Plan as recommended by the Active Transportation Committee without major revisionsComment received38 General Support Dawn JankeI urge you to support the Active Transportation Plan as recommended by the Active Transportation Committee without major revisionsComment received39 General Support Robin MarziI urge you to support the Active Transportation Plan as recommended by the Active Transportation Committee without major revisionsComment receivedItem 16Packet Page 195 Attachment E ‐ Response to Public Draft Comments40 General Support Melanie MillsPlease support the Active Transportation Plan as recommended by the Active Transportation Committee without major revisions. Comment received41 General Support Milo SkapinskyI urge you to support the Active Transportation Plan as recommended by the Active Transportation Committee without major revisions.Comment received42 General Support Tony SkapinskyI am writing to express my support for the Active Transportation Plan as unanimously recommended by the Active Transportation CommitteeComment received43 General Support Scott PetersenMy family strongly supports the Tier 1 projects of the Active Transportation Plan without any major revisions, as recommended by the Active Transportation CommitteeComment received44 General Support Steve KlischI urge you to support the Active Transportation Plan as unanimously recommended by the Active Transportation Committee without major revisionsComment received45 General SupportSlobikewalk.org Anonymous CommentI support creating walking/biking only public right of ways.The Plan proposes policies and projects to create more dedicated space for both bicycling and walking.46 General SupportSlobikewalk.org Anonymous CommentAs an active bike rider, walker, jogger and skateboarder all over the town, I'm thrilled to see a number of the pain points I've experienced in the 8+ years I've lived and commuted in town (namely the Higuera/Madonna/South and Broad/South/Santa Barbara intersections) addressed in the planComment receivedItem 16Packet Page 196 Attachment E ‐ Response to Public Draft Comments47 General Support Douglas BingJust wanted to express my appreciation for creating more dedicated bike lanes throughout the city. I hope for a respectful balance between the needs of cyclists and motorists. Comment received48 General Support Ethan StanI am very pleased with what I am seeing in this Draft Active Transportation Plan. Comment received49Bicycling and Walking in SLO TodayAndy PeaseFig. 10 Connectivity could use a legend or some way to make the intent a little more obvious. I finally get it about the islands, but it took a few tries.The text and the map for Fig 10 has been revised to better explain connectivity islands.50Bicycling and Walking in SLO TodayAndy PeaseThe Progress list on p. 83 seems a little anemic. I know you can’t list everything, but it would be nice to give kudos to the number of projects or bike lanes that were added since the 2013 plan. There has been so much great work done on bike lanes and intersections!Additional successes have been added to the list.51Bicycling and Walking in SLO TodaySLOCOGThe plan notes that of the 709 residents who completed the survey, 83% own a bicycle, thus bicycle ownership isn't a major barrier to biking in the City of San Luis Obispo. SLOCOG staff noted that this percentage seemed higher thanexpected. A separate but related consideration not addressed in the plan is the numbers of visitors who arrive in San Luis Obispo without a bicycle and do not know how/where to access one. SLOCOG suggests that the plan consider visitors as another potential audience who may not have easy access to a bike during their stay.The statistic of bicycle ownershp came from a statistically valid survey of residents of San Luis Obispo and did not include visitors. The Plan does recommend a bike share program that can benefit visitors and the City will continue working with partners including SLOCOG, to determine barriers to bicycling and appropriate programs to improve use.52Bicycling and Walking in SLO TodayGary HavasComment that the disadvantaged community maps provided in the Plan do not tell the whole story on what the true equity issues are in San Luis Obispo given that Cal Poly and agricultural areas are a huge part of the zoned areasAgreed. The disadvantaged community maps are from the California AB 1550 and SLOCOG regional definitions of disadvantaged communities, which are used to determine scoring criteria for competitive state grants. Item 16Packet Page 197 Attachment E ‐ Response to Public Draft Comments53 Vision and Goals Andy PeaseGoal 3 Accessibility. It seems like ‘accessibility’ is pretty limited and almost technical as a term. It could be replaced with something like: easy, preferred, desired, enjoyable, obvious, delightful, convenient, etc.Goal 3 has been revised from "Accessibility" to "Convenience" with additional explanation of the goal.54 Vision and Goals Bike SLO County Incorporate a gender and race lens to the ATP A performance measure for equity has been added with a goal that the demographics for active transportation modes should endeavor to be the same as for single occupancy motor vehicle use.55 Vision and Goals Sarah FlickingerAdding an equity metric could significantly shift they types of facilities in certain areas of the city, and that is absolutely something that should happenAn equity performance measure has been added to the Plan.56 Vision and Goals Karen Aydelott Urge more connectivity for bicycling.Connectivity is a core aspect of the Plan, which proposes over 240 projects to improve connectivity throughout the city.57 Vision and GoalsSlobikewalk.org Anonymous CommentThough the plan mentions desired roadway speeds or bike infrastructure on various roadway types and prevailing speeds, it does not mention or highlight that speed is directly linking to survivability of someone walking or bilking. There should be greater emphasis within the plan to lower all roadway speeds within the city limits.A goal of the plan is to explore lowering speeds as low as 15 mph on appropriate roadways if allowed by the California Vehicle Code.58 Vision and Goals BK RichardsOne thing that only got glancing discussion is the advent of all sorts of scooters, wheeled electric platforms, electric bicycles, motorized skateboards. I think it is important to: acknowledge how big this fulfills some goals, acknowledge how it all complicates planning, describe how it is or is likely to add to the safety challenges.The Vision and Goals as well as the Design Guidelines have revised language on the challenges and opportunities presented by electric bikes as well as other micromobility devices.Item 16Packet Page 198 Attachment E ‐ Response to Public Draft Comments59 Vision and Goals Gary HavasRemove portion about needing city council support to pursue shared micromobilityAllowing certain shared micromobility devices is complicated by a city ordinance that prohibits scooters and other rolled devices on city streets. Amending or eliminating the city ordinance by the city council would be necessary to move forward with a shared micromobility program with these kinds of devices.60 Vision and Goals Rick EllisonSuggestion to swap the performance measure of the Bicycle Community Designation of the League of American Bicyclists for the People For Bikes City RatingThe People For Bikes city rating is a new methodology and is still going through significant transformation in each iteration. Given that in 2020 the City achieved the No. 1 rating in the nation with this methodology, the Bike Friendly Community designation is perhaps more usable as a guide for future improvements.61 Vision and Goals Gary HavasThe Plan mentions that projects will be pursued where supported by individual neighborhoods. I like this generally, and fear it also. The City Council at the Dec 8, 2020 Study Session expressed that neighborhood support was an important aspect of Plan implementation.62 Design Guidelines Davis FoleyI would welcome a "quiet streets" initiative comprising: road diets, citywide maximum speed limit of 25 mph and elimination of slip lanes. The Plan goals call for the City to explore reducing speed limits as low as 15 mph in neighborhoods per the California Vehicle Code.63 Design Guidelines Myron AmerineI would like to make one more attempt to obtain stronger policy language with regard to biycle and pedestrian facilities in the ATC Plan as it pertains to freeways.The City does not have authority over freeways, which are under the jurisdiction of Caltrans. The Design Guidelines, however, do include the following policy: "4.13 The City shall work with Caltrans to encourageand advocate that freeway overcrossing/undercrossing and interchange projects incorporatethe needs of bicycling and walking as part of theproject design, avoiding conflict points wherecyclists and pedestrians must cross the pathconcurrent with high speed/volume motor vehiclemovements."64 Design Guidelines Lea BrooksRequest to consider resources from Bike SLO County and Cal Bike in the Plan.The Design Guidance mentions the Cal Bike Quick-Build Guide and other advocacy resources.65 Design Guidelines RRM Design GroupOn page 141 and 155, When reconfiguring parking stalls, consider using diagonal reverse-in types where feasible. These reversible diagonal parking stalls give drivers a better view of oncoming traffic (vehicular and bicycle).Comment receivedItem 16Packet Page 199 Attachment E ‐ Response to Public Draft Comments66 Design Guidelines RRM Design GroupP. 65 and 66 of design guidelines recommend adding design criteria to locate transit stops at far side of the intersection instead of before the intersectionComment forwarded to the Transit Division.67 Design Guidelines RRM Design GroupP. 69-70 Recommend design guidelines include adding guidance on using specific colors orpavements for pedestrian areas.The Plan policies detail options for textured and colored pavement for pedestrian use, which the City has already begun to employ consistant with Federal and State standards.68 Design GuidelinesAir Pollution Control DistrictSince electric bikes are a growing assisted active transportation mode, APCD recommends the ATP provide specific information about their use and limitations within the City.More discussion has been added on the challenges and benefits of electric bikes.69 Design GuidelinesHealthy Communities Work GroupExpressed concerns about extra danger posted to pedestrians on shared use paths from users of e-bikes.The City minimum standard for the width of a bike path is greater than the State standard and provides more room when sharing the path with other path users. As e-bikes gain in popularity, additional outreach on the importance of yielding to other path users and lowering speed will be important.70 Design GuidelinesHealthy Communities Work GroupExpressed concerns about obstacles in the way of sidewalks and bike lanes such as signs, utility poles, landscaping.The ATP Design Guidelines and existing City Engineering Standards establish design policies and standards that identify the proper location for signs, utility poles, and other vertical obstructions within sidewalk and bike lanes consistent with Federal, State and industry-leading design best practices.71 Design Guidelines Gary HavasI believe that “sharrows” are no longer considered appropriate for modern bicycling infrastructure.The Plan recommends use of sharrows only in areas where other improvements are not feasible or recommended and only under lower speed and volume conditions. 72 Design Guidelines Gary HavasPlease include all of the features for Upright Adult in the Bicycle as Design Vehicle Table in the Design Guidelines. Otherwise this table will be misleading. 2013 is a LONG time ago. Recumbents are increasingly of the trike type, and even those are popularly being electrified.This table is from national guidance on the Bicycle as Design Vehicle. It includes a variety of types of bicycles but not all types as the bicycle industry is changing rapidly especially with trikes, cargo, and electric bikes. The table provides a sample rather than a complete list, which would be challenging to keep up to date.Item 16Packet Page 200 Attachment E ‐ Response to Public Draft Comments73 Design Guidelines Gary HavasComment to consider cameras, speed sensitive strobes to enforce lower speeds in work zonesThe City will consider all devices to deter speeding in work zones that are permitted by State law. Cameras for speed enforcement have had legal challenges in California.74 Design Guidelines Gary HavasConsider language for including street drainage bioswalesThe Plan supports the City's broader efforts on landscaping and other low impact development best practices.75 Design Guidelines Gary HavasConsider making Peak Racks with the hi-lo design the city's bike rack standard and making u-racks inappropriate with the exception of docking cargo and larger self supported (kickstand) bikes.Peak Rack type racks are the City approved standard. U-racks are allowed in areas where there is a small footprint and no other rack type is feasible. The Plan has been revised to state that when the Zoning Regulations are updated that U-racks are discouraged to the extend possible.76 Design Guidelines Gary HavasThe recommended environmental considerations near Laguna Lake in the Design Guidelines seems more appropriate for another documentPer the City Natural Resources Manager, these considerations have been carried over from the 2013 Bike Master Plan given the environmental context of Laguna Lake area.77 Implementation SLOCOGAn action strategy in the 2019 RTP is to fund the planning, environmental assessment, design, and construction of bicycle and pedestrian facilities that close gaps in the network (both physical and perceived) and improve multimodalmobility, including Safe Routes to School projects, and many proposed Tier 1 and Tier 2 projects can help toimplement this action strategy. SLOCOG applauds the City’s efforts to implement a progressive program of projectsthat gives high priority to projects with the potential to increase mode share and improve safety and look forward toour continued collaboration to advance projects where local and regional goals and priorities can be achievedComment receivedItem 16Packet Page 201 Attachment E ‐ Response to Public Draft Comments78 Implementation Helene FingerThe Bob Jones Trail Octagon Barn Connection project from Los Osos Valley Road to Octagon Barn should be included in the Tier 1 project list.A new page to the Plan has been added discussing the Bob Jones Trail and the Railroad Safety Trail. Additional description has been added for this segment of the Bob Jones Trail stating that it will be recategorized to a Tier 1 project if the County is able to secure funding for the section to Avila Beach.79 Implementation Jesse EnglertI would like to specifically highlight the categorization of projects into a tiered structure by recommending that all projects remain in their tiers as currently categorized. Comment received80 Implementation Michelle HamiltonI am writing to you to ask you to please complete the current bike paths we have in town before diverting funds to other bike projects.Comment received81 Implementation Linda SpiersI would like to recommend that we connect existing cycling paths to make them more useful before adding bike designations on busy streets. The Plan proposes important portions of shared use paths as Tier 1 projects including portions of the Bob Jones Trail and Railroad Safety Trail. Other portions are included in the Tier 2 and Tier 3 lists however any of these portions can be triggered for construction through conditions of development such as the portion from Orcutt to Righetti Ranch.82 ImplementationSlobikewalk.org Anonymous CommentThere is a lot of good stuff in the plan. I am highly supportive of building out the Tier 1 corridors by 2030 and find the methodology and approach for project prioritization spot on.Comment received83 ImplementationSlobikewalk.org Anonymous CommentThe plan should emphasize use of demonstration and pilot programs for its outreach efforts rather than concept plans. This will give people more chance to try out new roadway designs rather than focus on fear of change. Outreach efforts should heavily focus on gaining opinions of those walking, biking, or wanting to bike and walk.Demonstration projects are short period projects that can be useful for showing what the benefits of an improvement are using easily removable materials. They can be used both for outreach or demonstrating a concept.84 ImplementationSlobikewalk.org Anonymous CommentPlease prioritize protected bike lanes across the city and approve the ATP as is.Comment receivedItem 16Packet Page 202 Attachment E ‐ Response to Public Draft Comments85 ImplementationSlobikewalk.org Anonymous CommentAfter reviewing the plan I would recommend moving Bob Jones Trail to Tier 1 status. The Plan includes the Bob Jones Trail from Calle Joaquin to Froom Ranch Way as a Tier 1 project. The Plan also recommends that if the County secures funding for the portion to Avila Beach that the segment from the Octagon Barn to Los Osos Valley Rd will be recategorized from a Tier 2 to a Tier 1 project.86 ImplementationSlobikewalk.org Anonymous CommentI'd encourage however that the Committee prioritize closing of gaps between existing already accomplished improvements as a practical way to build the sustainable network and higher use/comfort and reach for people opting to use bicycles as an alternative to getting into cars because uncomfortable gaps remain. I am like many in the County that while I don't live in the City I work in the City and make trips for a variety of reasons during my workday. Closing gaps within existing routes would make it easier and more attractive to bike during my day rather than always using a motor vehicle for those tripsThe Plan includes a diverse mix of bike facility types from low speed neighborhood greenways on local streets, to shared used paths and protected bike lanes on arterial routes. Gaps in the bikeway network will be completed over time through a mixture of development mitigation and city initiated projects depending on a project's priority and likelihood of increasing bicycle trips.87 ImplementationSlobikewalk.org Anonymous CommentPlease focus your efforts on closing the gaps in the current Bob Jones Trail, rather than start a new list of projects, especially ones that take bikers through such busy roads in the city. The Plan includes a diverse mix of bike facility types from low speed neighborhood greenways on local streets, to shared used paths and protected bike lanes on arterial routes. Portions of the Bob Jones Trail will be completed over time through a mixture of development mitigation and city initiated projects.88 ImplementationSlobikewalk.org Anonymous CommentI would like to see the city prioritize closing the gaps and connecting our existing bike paths before creating new cycle tracks on busy streets. I live in the Sinsheimer neighborhood and would like to see Bullock Lane put through to Tank Farm Road, to name just oneThe Plan includes a diverse mix of bike facility types from low speed neighborhood greenways on local streets, to shared used paths and protected bike lanes on arterial routes. Portions of the Railroad Safety Trail will be completed over time through a mixture of development mitigation (such as the segment along Bullock Lane) and city initiated projects. Item 16Packet Page 203 Attachment E ‐ Response to Public Draft Comments89 Implementation Gary Havas I am concerned the Bob Jones Trail is not Tier 1As recommended by the Active Transportation Committee, the segment along Los Osos Valley Road from Calle Joaquin to Froom Ranch is included as a Tier 1 project. The segment from Los Osos Valley Road to the Octagon Barn has been revised such that if the County receives funding for the portion to Avila Beach that this segment will be changed from a Tier 2 to a Tier 1 project.90 Implementation Gary HavasConsider adding S. Higuera from Tank farm north to Bridge Street as a Quick-Build potential projectThis segment of S. Higuera will require further engineering analysis and community outreach given potential right of way constraints, low potential to reduce lane widths, potential conflicts with emergency service response times and transit schedules.91Interagency CoordinationRobert CollinsI think the city should put pressure on the county to improve their bike lanes near SLO. Tank Farm road and Buckley road are a nightmare to ride a bike on! How do you share a road when cars and trucks are doing 55 mph?The City will coordinate with the County of San Luis Obispo on projects that are in the County jurisdiction. In addition, the County Bikeways Plan was consulted for the proposed City projects that terminate at the city/county border.Item 16Packet Page 204 Attachment E ‐ Response to Public Draft Comments92Interagency CoordinationRRM Design GroupPage 22, Goal 3.3c Include discussion to consider projects and coordination with the San Luis Obispo County Stormwater Resource Plan (Stormwater Resource Plan) to help the County achieve its regional stormwater treatment goals. The Stormwater Resource Plan identifies complete streets and green streets projects as opportunities to includestormwater treatment (such as Low Impact Development). A multi-benefit project that incorporates transportation and stormwater is a strong candidate for grant funding fromvarious state agencies. Stormwater Resource Plan: https://www.slocounty.ca.gov/Departments/Public-Works/Forms-Documents/Committees-Programs/Stormwater-Resource-Plan/Documents/Stormwater-Resource-Plan.pdfThe Plan includes a goal to incorporate stormwater management elements into active transportation projects where feasible. Staff will review the County Stormwater Resource Plan and look for opportunities to echo the recommendations of the plan into future capital improvement projects.93Interagency CoordinationRRM Design GroupOn page20, Consider adding San Luis Coastal Unified School District to the list of partners to acknowledge the importance of the City-wide SRTS network and the recommendedprogram policy 6.3 on page 123. Revision addedItem 16Packet Page 205 Attachment E ‐ Response to Public Draft Comments94Interagency CoordinationCaltransIt is important to understand Caltrans’ role in implementing active transportation improvements along the state highway system, particularly “Main Streets” like Santa Rosa Street. While seeking feasible opportunities for complete street enhancements (at times based on local plans) to incorporate in our State Highway Operation & Protection Program (SHOPP) projects, often we find ourselves constrained in a variety of ways and benefit from partnerships. These partnerships such as with the city, San Luis Obispo Council of Governments (SLOCOG), and other pertinent resource agencies helps to further refine the potential improvements, seek funding, and provide technical expertise. It’s also worth mentioning that locally-sponsored projects, whether stand-alone or features added to existing SHOPP projects, are required to establish a maintenance and/or cooperative agreement with us for long-term maintenance needs of the new elements.Comment received95 Programs Andy PeaseOn the survey results on p. 40 of the plan, it lists ‘drivers are speeding…’ as a top reason. It occurs to me that so much of what we are having to build wouldn’t be needed at all if we had a culture of slower, considerate driving. I know the ATP is putting in the physical infrastructure, which is the most reliable tool, but I wonder if there could be some acknowledgement and program focused on behaviors of people driving cars. Signage, advertising, forums, campaigns, getting into high schools and colleges, etcSafety education and outreach to all modes of transportation users, especially motorists, is an important proposed program of the Plan. The City and local partners have had limited success with education efforts given that a large share of motorists in the City are not residents of San Luis Obispo. Therefore, the Plan, following outreach results and input from the Active Transportation Committee, places a focus on infrastructure improvements with a strategy of quicker and more cost effective implementation strategies as a high priority.Item 16Packet Page 206 Attachment E ‐ Response to Public Draft Comments96 ProgramsSLOCOGSLOCOG & Rideshare work together to implement the Safe Routes to School Capital Grant Program and convene theSafe Routes to School Taskforce, compromised of member agency planners & engineers, bicycle & health advocates,and school/district representatives, which helps guide the development of the grant program and guidelines andoffer input on SRTS projects and program best-practices. SLOCOG and Rideshare look forward to partnering withthe City on future SRTS planning, projects, outreach and effortsComment received97 ProgramsSLOCOGSLOCOG commends the City for its vision to develop a "Safe Routes for Seniors" program. Rideshare'sKnow How to Go mobility management program focuses on overcoming barriers to public transportationand increasing independence for seniors and people with disabilities through mobility options counseling and oneon-one travel training. Rideshare hopes to coordinate with the City on its efforts to reach similar goalsComment receivedItem 16Packet Page 207 Attachment E ‐ Response to Public Draft Comments98 ProgramsSLOCOGSafety is frequently noted as a primary barrier to biking and walking and much of the collision data indicates driverdistraction at fault. The City should consider the possibility of an ongoing driver education and awareness campaignthat places increased emphasis on the responsibility drivers bear to protect the safety of more vulnerable roadusers, such as people who bike and walk, who are at greater risk of experiencing severe injury and death as a resultof reckless and distracted driving behaviors.The Plan includes a goal to improve safety education for all users of the road. Given that these issues are regional as well as local, the City looks forward to partnering with SLOCOG and others on this effort.99 ProgramsSLOCOGSLOCOG is encouraged to see recommended implementation of a Mobility as a Service (MAAS) platform andcontinued assessment of a bike share and other micro-mobility programs. An action strategy of the RTP is todevelop a regional MAAS platform to provide a unified, equitable gateway to transportation-related information andservices. We encourage the city to consider working in partnership with our agency to develop the platform in orderto share information and best practices as we explore future implementation of a regional MAAS platform.Comment receivedItem 16Packet Page 208 Attachment E ‐ Response to Public Draft Comments100 Programs Bike SLO CountyConcerning helmet challenges for people with afro-textured hair, can the city sponsor a project for engineers at Cal Poly to solve this? The Plan has been revised to include a goal to update the City’s bicycle education efforts with an equity lens for things like providing tips for how people with Afro-textured hair can wear a bicycle helmet more easily. 101 ProgramsAir Pollution Control DistrictRecommend ATP expand its discussion of “other” zero-emission, motorized, micromobility options likepersonal electric skateboards/scooters and the role they play in achieving ATP goalsThe Plan includes a goal for the City to explore expanded use of micromobility devices such as scooters and electric skateboards including whether to amend an ordinance restricting such devices on city right of way.102 ProgramsHealthy Communities Work GroupExpressed concern for the need for a driver education campaign.The Plan proposes improved education for all users of the road including drivers.103 ProgramsSlobikewalk.org Anonymous CommentI also would pitch the idea of making the downtown parklets permanent or somehow allowing downtown businesses to better utilize parking spots in front of their business for fun and interesting opportunitiesAlong with design guidelines for the installation of parklets, the Plan proposes making parklets a permanent program citywide.104 Programs Rick EllisonRecommended removing Enforcement as one of the 6 Es in Chapter 6Enforcement in the Plan was discussed with the Active Transportation Committee and was ultimately recommended to remain in the Plan given that motorist interactions with bicyclists and pedestrians sometimes requires enforcement efforts. Item 16Packet Page 209 Attachment E ‐ Response to Public Draft Comments105 ProjectsJim NettThe City Council voted several years ago to not put a bridge across Brizzolara Creek, connecting the two sections of Montalban Street, as was shown on earlier versions of the transportation plan. It should have been removed from the plan, yet still appears in this version.This project has been removed from the Plan.106 ProjectsRaymond KieferJohnson Ave northbound a block or two before the San Luis Dr split - In the vicinity of Breck adding sharrows would make riding safer for those staying on Johnson. This intersection is identified in the Plan as a proposed crossing improvement. When the project is initiated, more detailed analysis will be conducted which will inform what improvements may be constructed at that location.107 ProjectsRaymond KieferNorth & South bound Higuera at Marsh making a left or right turn to access the Madonna Trail - As you know this is a cluster. Some striping of any type once going toward the 101 underpass could save a life. This intersection is identified in the Plan as a proposed crossing improvement. When the project is initiated, more detailed analysis will be conducted which will inform what improvements may be constructed at that location.108 ProjectsRaymond KieferDesire for a Ped x-ing at Osos & Leff - I live on Church St across fr Sally Loo's. As a frequent walker to downtown, x-ing Osos is a challenge. This intersection is identified in the Plan as a proposed crossing improvement. When the project is initiated, more detailed analysis will be conducted which will inform what improvements may be constructed at that location.109 ProjectsLeslie TerryConcern that road diets will negatively impact those who cannot use active transportation and will create congestion Road configurations are considered on a case by case basis and are informed by collision history, volume, speeds, and other factors. In certain instances, road reconfigurations, such as with South St, can improve congestion by eliminating lane weaving while also improving conditions for active transportation.Item 16Packet Page 210 Attachment E ‐ Response to Public Draft Comments110 ProjectsEric ZeebBike lanes are mostly ok for adults, but I don't yet feel comfortable allowing my kids to ride around town. In the short term I would also love to see some sort of bike lane/path to get across the south part of town such as down tank farm, which currently does not exist.The Plan includes a diverse mix of bike facility types from low speed neighborhood greenways on local streets, to shared used paths and protected bike lanes n arterial routs depending on a planning level analysis of feasibility and street context. In addition, when projects are initiated, other roadway improvements will be considered in tandem which can help further improve the comfort level for active transportation. Shared use paths on both sides of Tank Farm Road are proposed projects in the Plan.111 ProjectsCaltransWe suggest the city consider further analyzing the routes to and from CSU-Cal Poly where bicycle usage is high along with the State Route (SR) 1 intersections of Foothill Boulevard, Highland Drive and Murray Avenue. We support a strong partnership between the city, CSU-Cal Poly, SLOCOG and Caltrans to improve the Foothill Boulevard corridor—a major multimodal connector providing access to and from the university, housing, workplaces and commercial outlets. We recommend working collaboratively to develop and implement a grade-separated facility in the vicinity of SR 1 (Santa Rosa Street)/Boysen Avenue. SLOCOG’s 2019 Regional Transportation Plan identifies the need for bicycle and pedestrian improvements along this highway, but funding availability remains a challenge.The Plan proposes multiple projects to improve the comfort level of bicycling and walking to Cal Poly both along State Route 1 and parallel routes such as the Railroad Safety Trail and the Anholm Neighborhood Greenway. The City looks forward to coordinating with Caltrans and Cal Poly on projects of mutual benefit.Item 16Packet Page 211 Attachment E ‐ Response to Public Draft Comments112 ProjectsCaltransProtected bike lanes require wider shoulders to provide adequate space between vehicles and bicyclists. It’s likely that installing these bike lanes on Santa Rosa Street, between Walnut Street and Highland Drive, would be challenging as much of the roadway is fully built out with two lanes in each direction, two-way left turn lanes in the median or left-turn pockets, shoulders less than 8-feet-wide, and multiple driveways and cross streets along the corridor. Closely spaced driveways may result in potential conflict points from vehicles entering and exiting.Implementing wider shoulders at this location would likely require widening as well as reducing or eliminating a lane. Eliminating a lane at this location is problematic as it will create operational impacts, so Caltrans is unlikely to support this approach. We recognize that local control of a main street can help communities achieve their active transportation vision. Toward that goal, we remain open to discussion on relinquishing a portion of SR 1 to the city. We also recommend the plan include some narrative about relinquishment as an option for future consideration.Comment received. Mention of relinquishment has been added to the Plan as a possible option.113 ProjectsSarah FlickingerFully connected Class 1 trails and neighborhood greenways should not be reserved for some neighborhoods, with only on-arterial pathways available in others.The Plan includes a diverse mix of bike facility types from low speed neighborhood greenways on local streets, to shared used paths and protected bike lanes on arterial routes. Portions of the Bob Jones Trail and Railroad Safety Trail will be completed over time through a mixture of development mitigation and city initiated projects.114 ProjectsJennifer SchaevitzI feel strongly that the Bullock Ln and the Bob Jones Trail connections should be built because we don’t feel safe riding on busy roads and cycle tracks won’t make them safer.The Bob Jones Trail between Righetti Ranch and Bullock Lane is currently in the planning stage in connection with an adjacent residential development.Item 16Packet Page 212 Attachment E ‐ Response to Public Draft Comments115 ProjectsWendy DischEliminating the BJT gap and the Bullock Lane gap along the railroad by the new subdivision would be two major improvements that would benefit the most riders and pedestrians. I recommend that both of these should be listed in the Tier 1 category.The Bob Jones Trail between Righetti Ranch and Bullock Lane is currently in the planning stage in connection with an adjacent residential development.116 ProjectsSlobikewalk.org Anonymous CommentI live on the Morro bicycle path and the city has decided to place art in front of my home without ever contacting me.Painting curb extension along the Neighborhood Greenways was discussed during all stages of the outreach for the 2020 Resealing Project which included two neighborhood meetings, flyers posted around the neighborhood, social media engagement and a dedicated City webpage with project specific information. This planned art work was also included as agendized items at the Active Transportation Committee and City Council prior to the approval of the 2020 Resealing Project. Following that general planning effort, additional engagement was done specifically to encourage neighborhood participation in being an artist or serving on the selection jury, which was comprised of 14 jurors of residents who live within these neighborhoods. 117 ProjectsSlobikewalk.org Anonymous CommentGet the lighting under Chorro overpass in place before someone is injured or further serious trouble occurs. Lighting the Choro overpass is part of the Anholm Neighborhood Greenway, which is a Tier 1 priority project.118 ProjectsAllan CooperPromote more walking in addition to biking because 28% of the population are senior citizens. The draft Active Transportation Plan does not adequately address mid-block crosswalks, traffic calming and sidewalk widening needed in our Downtown Core. While the Plan has a citywide focus, the final draft includes more description of proposed improvements in the downtown including crossing improvements and widened sidewalks for the benefit of pedestrians of all ages. In addition, an aspect of the prioritization process included proximity of projects to senior living facilities. Item 16Packet Page 213 Attachment E ‐ Response to Public Draft Comments119 ProjectsTate IsaacsI love all of the support and effort put into making our community more safe for biking and walking. I would also like to advocate for the expansion of the trail systems in our open spaces and if possible the addition of a bike park where riders can dial in their riding skillsComment has been forwarded to the City Natural Resources Manager. In addition, an aspect of the prioritization process included proximity of projects to parks and open spaces.120 ProjectsSlobikewalk.org Anonymous CommentI hope you will consider raising the priority for the penny lane Fairview crossing. This would allow the neighborhoods surrounding the hospital to get downtown and to the northern part of town without having to go out onto or cross Johnson Right next to a very busy and dangerousThe Active Transportation Plan places an emphasis on a Tier 1 network of projects that can be built with relative speed. The crossing of the railroad at Penny Lane would require an encroachment permit from Union Pacific. Past coordination with Union Pacific has taken up to ten years to achieve and therefore the Penny Lane crossing was not recommended by the Active Transportation Committee for inclusion into the Tier 1 network.121 ProjectsSlobikewalk.org Anonymous CommentLet's make sure these intersections, pathways and corridors are as safe to bike/walk/jog/ride along at night as they are in the day time! The Plan proposes increasing streetlighting in high demand locations.122 ProjectsSlobikewalk.org Anonymous CommentThere needs to be better bike safety lanes at the Broad St - South St - Santa Barbara Ave intersection. The Plan proposes protected bike lanes on both Broad and South Street as well as a crossing improvement at the intersection of the two streets.Item 16Packet Page 214 Attachment E ‐ Response to Public Draft Comments123 ProjectsJack ShouldersConnect the SLO Bob Jones Trail section at LOVR to Johnson Ranch via the Octagon Barn. The proposed Vallagio development should provide a walking/biking path that connects the Irish Hills trails (Neil Havlick loop) to the near the SLO Bob Jones Trail at LOVR.The Plan proposes the Bob Jones Trail from Los Osos Valley Rd to the Octagon Barn, however it will require coordination with the County as most of the segment is outside of the City jurisdiction. 124 ProjectsSlobikewalk.org Anonymous CommentPlease focus on completing/connecting the bike and walking paths vs putting walkers and cyclists on busy roads. The Plan includes a diverse mix of bike facility types from low speed neighborhood greenways on local streets, to shared used paths and protected bike lanes on arterial routes. Portions of the Bob Jones Trail and Railroad Safety Trail will be completed over time through a mixture of development mitigation and city initiated projects.125 ProjectsWilliam Watsonit appears that the current bicycle lanes were built and future lanes are planned based mostly on "hope" and not on the reality that hardly any bicycles are actually using these lanes. On the other hand, our city is getting bigger and more congested because of these new lanes, but not to the extent that people are "going to get fed up and buy a bicycle". The latter is a pipe dream and expensive. People instead are going to use the more environmentally alternative of getting an electric vehicle rather than getting a bicycle.Bicycle use in the city has been on a steady increase over the last 10+ years and is currently at just over 8% of all citywide trips, which is significantly higher than the national average of less than 1%.126 ProjectsSlobikewalk.org Anonymous CommentI am a Cal Poly student living off campus and ride my bike to campus daily. I hate riding on busy streets and try to avoid them as much as possible. I would prefer to have the connections of the current bike paths finished instead of leaving those be and adding larger bike lanes on busy streets.The Plan includes a diverse mix of bike facility types from low speed neighborhood greenways on local streets, to shared used paths and protected bike lanes on arterial routes. Portions of the Railroad Safety Trail leading to Cal Poly will be completed over time through a mixture of development mitigation and city initiated projects. The City has just broken ground on a new portion of the trail from Taft to Pepper streets.Item 16Packet Page 215 Attachment E ‐ Response to Public Draft Comments127 ProjectsSlobikewalk.org Anonymous CommentLOVR from Madonna south to S.Higuera has heavy traffic use (vehicles at ~40-50 mph speeds, juxtaposing for position for access to Hwy 101 entrance ramps). Improved protective bike lanes and/or separate dedicated bike lanes might improve safety.The Plan proposes protected bike lanes on this segment of Los Osos Valley Rd.128 ProjectsSlobikewalk.org Anonymous CommentA separate bike path next to tank farm road would be a huge improvement for local commuters and tourists. TThe Plan proposes shared use paths on both sides of Tank Farm Road, however portions of it are in the County and will require coordination with that agency.129 Projects Devin GallagherVery supportive of grade separated crossing of 101 at Broad St. Have you considered an underpass or use of the existing and adjacent Brizzolara stream culvert? Alternatively, Consider daylighting overpass mid block on Lincoln St. What about a connector along Brizzolara Creek/101 to Santa Rosa Park/Cal Poly? Yes it is tight as but a shared path would provide an advantageous internal link for residents where cars can not go.The Plan includes the Anholm Neighborhood Greenway, which will provide improved connections for bicycling and walking across Foothill Blvd as well as connections to the downtown.Item 16Packet Page 216 Attachment E ‐ Response to Public Draft Comments130 ProjectsJohn Hedgepeth I did not see any coordinated activity with County in planning routes. The City should be aware to promote bike commuting from outlying suburbs and towns requires some level of commitment, funding and research to perform coordinated routes with other governmental entities. Second, shared pedestrian/bike routes can be a problem both in terms of safety to cyclist and pedestrian and also lowered efficiency especially to the cyclist. If you look at major European city routes, these two forms of transportation are separated. Quite often there is a bicycle path next to sidewalksThe Plan will work in coordination with the County Bikeways Plan to improve connections outside of the city especially the Bob Jones Trail.131 ProjectsDorothy CurhanPlease repair the bike lane on tank farm road. I use it almost every day on my trike and the lane isn’t quite wide enough and free from debrisComment has been forwarded to the maintenance division. Depending on the location on Tank Farm Road, the request may need to be forwarded to the County as portions of the road are outside the city jurisdiction.132 ProjectsCrissa HewittTo improve safety and therefore use for pedestrians, the sidewalks on Chorro and Broad and cross streets from Foothill to the freeway need to be completely redone.Sidewalks located on the frontage of private residences are the responsibility of the property owner. In addition, the Plan includes curb ramp and other pedestrian amenities as part .of the Anholm Neighborhood Greenway133 ProjectsSlobikewalk.org Anonymous Comment foothill blvd should have a protected bike laneThe Plan does propose a protected bike lane on Foothill Blvd.Item 16Packet Page 217 Attachment E ‐ Response to Public Draft Comments134 ProjectsGary HavasI wonder if the statement of feasibility of projects could be composed with more of a statement commitment to completion than this suggestsGiven that the Plan is a high level document, more detailed engineering analysis and public outreach will be necessary as projects are initiated. Given project unknowns it is necessary to point out that certain projects may be infeasible or have incompatibility with the community.135 Projects RRM Design GroupAgree that LOVR is a Tier 1 project – our employees who travel this route observe many near-misses related to cars pulling out into traffic and narrow lane situations.Comment receivedItem 16Packet Page 218 City of San Luis Obispo, Council Memorandum Attachment F: Response to Active Transportation Committee Comments Substantive Comments on the Active Transportation Plan Number Page Comment Response 1 General Expand discussion of COVID-19-19 to include more general disruptions in the world. Language added expanding the discussion on the importance of general resiliency. 2 General Remove mentions that SLO is “unaffordable” and instead rephrase to mention that the plan makes SLO more affordable. Many citations changed to “affordability” rather than “unaffordable.” 3 General Change “unsheltered persons” to “unhoused” persons Revisions added. 4 General Many of the figures are very dense and cannot be zoomed by the reader to provide more detail (e.g., Figure 12). Suggest these figures be placed in the document at high resolution and with more detail (e.g., street names). Map resolutions have been improved and additional changes made to make the maps easier to read. New maps of Tier 1 and 2 projects have also been added to the Plan. 5 General Add language on the increase in the number of ebikes to induce new riders and require monitoring for safety consequences Discussion on the increase, opportunities and challenges of ebikes has been added 6 General More explanation needed on how the tiers achieve ridership goals. More explanation added on how completing the Tier 1 network by 2030 will help to reach General Plan and Climate Action Plan goals 7 2 Add previous ATC members in acknowledgements section. Previous members who provided input have been added 8 5-12 City Manager’s introductory references three innovations/focus points for the plan: 1) quick build, 2) LTS, 3) equity/sustainability/economy (page 5). The plan’s objectives of safety/health/sustainability, access/mode shift, collaboration/equity are introduced page 8. On page 10, it says the plan will accomplish mode share, bike/ped network, connectivity to destinations, reduced pollution/GHG, and disadvantaged community input. Section on the Plan objectives and other relevant sections amended Item 16 Packet Page 219 Attachment F: Response to ATC Comments Page 2 On page 10, it lists quality of life improvements to the build environment, public health, housing, and climate action. On page 12, the three foundations of sustainability, equity, and economic resilience are introduced. In the Vision & Goals chapter (starting page 18), the goals are divided into four sections: build it, safety, accessibility, and equity. The plan will regroup goals, pillars, etc. At minimum, the goals as introduced in the beginning of the plan (yellow box on page 8) should correspond to the Vision & Goals chapter. 9 6 Suggest an addition to the Introduction stating that this is a “living” document and as such will be periodically reviewed and updated as we learn from implementation of the plan and as the needs of city residents and visitors evolve – this will be particularly true of the project lists Revision added. 10 14 Think Chapter 4, on community engagement, should be moved to the end. See how it flows chronologically, but for anyone reading this plan that information is not as useful/relevant as subsequent sections (the important results of outreach are included in the prior chapter about biking and walking today). Given that the Plan will be consulted by grant funders, Chapter 4 has been kept in its place to highlight the importance of community engagement in San Luis Obispo but has also been revised to remove redundancies between Chapters 3 and 4. 11 18 Remove wording “highest priority” “moderate priority” and “lower priority” in the project tier discussion box. Revisions added. 12 20 add the “ATC” in point 1.6. Revisions added. 13 21 7.25 Please consider removing U-style racks as an option as they require bicycles to use kickstands. Unless you are willing to scratch/dent up your bike frame. Pg. 21 Doors leading into buildings with bicycle parking need to be automatically operated (or at the very least U-style racks are an approved option in areas where there is not enough room to install other racks which have larger footprints. However, language in this section and the Design Guidelines has been added discouraging use of U-style racks in favor of other racks when possible. Item 16 Packet Page 220 Attachment F: Response to ATC Comments Page 3 not swing shut) to accommodate large bicycles. Also, make sure they are on the bottom floor. Language added to encourage updating the Zoning Regulations to reflect discouraging U-style racks as much as possible. 14 23 There is an existing reference to exploring changes to the Municipal Code as they pertain to micromobility (p. 23). This is currently the only reference to the Municipal Code in the plan. Suggest making this a broader exploration to review any conditions in the Municipal Code that pertain to bicycling and walking such as exploring allowing sidewalk bicycle riding. The Active Transportation Plan is a document for pedestrian as much as bicycle use. Allowing bicycle riding on sidewalks may conflict with pedestrians and those with disabilities. However, projects in the Active Transportation Plan will significantly increase the number of bicycle routes with physical separation from traffic thus helping to reduce the demand for sidewalk riding. 15 23 "Open streets" should be explained/defined (p. 122? As first mention). A definition for this citation of Open Streets has been added. 16 26 ACS data should be supplemented with local data on mode share. The Plan mentions using city survey data as well as national data (ACS) 17 26 Consider an equity performance measure. A performance measure for equity has been added with a goal that the demographics for active transportation modes should endeavor to be the same as for single occupancy motor vehicle use. 18 46 Like the side-by-side comparison of total collisions and severe/fatal collisions by mode but think the relationship should be highlighted in the text as well. In my mind, the conclusion is that active transportation collisions have a disproportionate share of the injuries. Additional discussion has been added in the text highlighting the disproportionate impact of collisions on active transportation modes. 19 47 The paragraph requires the reader to assume that the discussion is about collisions with cars, but this is not stated and should be. The question is further clouded by the information in the “2017 Collisions by Type” pie chart. The chart shows 86% car, which we might assume means car versus car, but could mean car versus object (ex. tree, light pole) collisions. By default, does 8% bike collisions mean bike versus bike or object (potentially true, but not stated), or bike versus car Additional discussion has been added highlighting the disproportionate impact of collisions on active transportation modes. Item 16 Packet Page 221 Attachment F: Response to ATC Comments Page 4 collision? The description and the diagrams should be more clearly labeled. Additionally, the reader should be informed as to why (presumably) car versus car collisions are significant in a bike-pedestrian plan. 20 p. 53, column 2, para 1 This entire paragraph is very confusing and needs to be re-written. A large part of the confusion lied in the error of there being no symbols on Figure 10 to indicate significant colors of the roadways. This reader deduces (maybe incorrectly) that on Figure 10, interconnected low-stress corridors are displayed in blue. The paragraph should lead the reader in by stating, "On Figure 10, interconnected low-stress corridors are displayed in blue.” “Line two says, “When the color of a collection of roadways changes or the color is broken….” We don't actually mean the color of the roadway. The statement would be clearer if it said, "when the LTS of a collection of roadways changes or varies, ... The section on Low-Stress Connectivity Islands has been revised to make it simpler to understand. In addition, the corresponding map has been updated to show where barriers to connectivity exist. 21 p. 53, column 2, para 2 The word “connected” is a jargon term in this document that seems to be a shorthand implied definition for “interconnected low stress travel”. In this sentence the full "implied definition" should be written out, ex. “These crossings provide the majority of the downtown area with more interconnected low stress travel.” Make it clearer what “connected” means and provide more definition and explanation. The section on Low-Stress Connectivity Islands has been revised to make it simpler to understand. In addition, the corresponding map has been updated to show where barriers to connectivity exist. 22 54 Figure 10's legend should include the low stress and high stress symbols and descriptions. The colors used in the figure are not defined and the scale is too small to highlight pertinent information, so the figure is not informative. The entire section on Low-Stress Connectivity Islands has been rewritten to make it simpler to understand. In addition, the corresponding map has been updated to show where barriers to connectivity exist. Item 16 Packet Page 222 Attachment F: Response to ATC Comments Page 5 23 p. 55, column 2, para 1 & 3 Figure 11 should be presented before Figure 12, or the labels should be switched. Revision added. 24 80 Chapter 5 needs more explanation and examples of what protected bike lanes are with photos of different ways to construct them. A new section has been added with several photos showing that protected bike lanes can be designed in different ways given the needs and context of a roadway. 25 80 In Chapter 5, more attention is needed to prevent right- and left-turn collisions and provide a clear understanding of the policies and design. They need to be stronger in the Design Guidelines, Appendix C, table on page 19. Add language in chapter 5 on how some of these toolbox options help with these collisions. The introduction of Chapter 5 includes language about Vision Zero policies to reduce injuries and that the crossing improvements and corridor improvements will address improvements at high injury locations. 26 80 In Chapter 5, consider adding a pathway project connecting Goldenrod Rd to the new business parks along Farmhouse Lane. Plan revised to include a portion of the Edna-Price Canyon Trail as a non-city project that would need to be initiated by the County. 27 96 Supplement text on Figure 18, which itemizes the gaps between existing and proposed, along with numbers that place these gaps on the map. The goal would be for community members to zoom in on their specific area of concern and be able to understand the status. Make clearer that the network viewer is available. Map resolutions have been improved and changes added to made to make the maps easier to read. New maps of Tiers 1-3 projects have also been created and added to appendix B. Network viewer added to the table. 28 112 Full page photo has great subject matter and facial expressions but may elicit some cringe-worthy comments due to the camera angle and the shadows created by the skirt of the central rider. Strongly suggest replacing this photo with another. Some potential photos taken of micro-mode pedicab riders in SLO are provided as separate files in this commentary email. Photo replaced. 29 117 Move mention of “fall prevention for seniors program” to earlier in Chapter 6. Revision added 30 128 Appendix A will be most useful if it includes details of the specific projects, such as zoomed in Project maps, Map resolutions have been improved and additional changes made to make the maps easier to read. New Item 16 Packet Page 223 Attachment F: Response to ATC Comments Page 6 and description/diagrams of the various Project Components (or links to city website documents with these details). It would be helpful if the “Appendix A” wording were a live link like the Figure XX wordings are. Make public viewer footer more visible in Appendix A. Many of the public comments received to date express concern that the ATP is not addressing the gaps in the existing low stress bike and pedestrian network. And yet closing the gaps was one of the major goals when assigning projects to the Tier system. The conclusion is that the ATP is not clearly relaying the information so that the public can be better assured in the gap-closing priority. Repeating the comment on page 53 (above), the document relies on the wording “connected” quite often with the implication that the reader understands this word to mean ‘interconnected low stress travel”. But that point is not well made, leading to questions and criticisms by multiple reviewers that the ATP does not address gaps in safe travel routes. The ATP needs to provide more detailed (zoomed in) maps and more detailed descriptions of the Tier 1 and 2 bike and pedestrian projects in order to address the common concerns voiced by the reviewing public. maps of Tiers 1-3 projects have also been created and added to appendix B. Network viewer website link added to the table. 31 132 Double check mileage total on Prado/Dalidio corridor. Revision added. 32 138-141 The cost range for a bike lane is shown at $100k- $400k/mile (page 138), but the subsequent case study of the Higuera street bike lane says the project cost $15k total. That project is at least half a mile (measured on Google Maps), so that would be only $30k/mile. If we recently implemented a project for less than the low The cost for a bike lane has been revised Item 16 Packet Page 224 Attachment F: Response to ATC Comments Page 7 range for a facility, think we should adjust the estimate range. 33 140, fig 29 The dollar cost estimates should be rounded to the nearest $100 or $1,000. Showing costs to the penny presumes more detailed cost analysis than anyone realistically has and makes the table look cluttered. Revision added 34 141-142 Really like the suggestion to consider EVERY project as having potential to be a quick-build project. Due to the high cost of implementing the Tier 1 plan, it will be crucial to use quick build techniques as much as possible. See no reason why quick build techniques cannot be used in at least some aspect of all projects. Also like the suggestion of removing the quick build map as it does seem to be limiting. While many projects (though not all) in the Plan have a potential for quick-build implementation, the map shows the projects with the highest potential for quick-build implementation. Further study will indicate which additional projects have potential for quick-building based on more engineering analysis 35 143, fig 30 This figure has no reference in the text. Every figure should have some textural reference. Also, Figure 30 begs the question of, "How is this figure related to the Tier 1 and 2 project Figures 26 and 27"? The text could address this question, as in, "all quick build projects fall within the Tier1 and 2 categories." (this is example wording - not checked for accuracy) - or some similar discussion. Revision added 36 144, para 1 Pre-approved designs are a time- and cost-saving measure that the City should pursue. However, this action is not listed as a stand-alone goal in this document. Pre-approved designs should be included as an Implementation Policy. Pre-approved designs are mentioned in Goal 7.4.2 37 144 Make a clearer distinction between a pilot project and a quick-build project. Revision added 38 149 “Continue progress towards the City's Vision Zero goal of eliminating traffic fatalities and severe injuries, endeavoring towards a 75% reduction by 2030” I believe this should be a 100% reduction by 2030 since The Plan has been revised to reflect that the City will endeavor for a 100% reduction in fatal and severe injuries by 2030. Item 16 Packet Page 225 Attachment F: Response to ATC Comments Page 8 Vision Zero calls “to eliminate all traffic fatalities and severe injuries” We received a few correspondences regarding Vision Zero and I suggest staff incorporate stronger language into the plan. There is room for improvement and revising these policies to use the newest techniques. The categories in which we capture these statistics have a car centric perspective. We need to update our Vision 0 perspective to the latest standards. 39 149 Remove this mention of the Performance Measures since it already appears in Chapter 2. The performance measures have been repeated in the Implementation chapter since they are inextricably linked to the Vision and Goals of Chapter 2 Design Appendix 40 Throughout Avoid use of paint for colorized bikeways – reduced friction, particularly when wet. Use thermoplastic or MMA instead (which also require less frequent maintenance). The City’s preference on permanent installations is for thermoplastic, MMA or other permanent materials, however paint is an approved material when applied according to State guidelines especially for quick-build installations. 41 5 Add a reference to a few Cal Bike resources. The design guidelines mention Cal Bike Quick-Build guide and other advocacy resources 42 7 Made this comment the last time around and maintain that describing children and teen pedestrians as having “insufficient judgement” is completely backwards. The design should be sufficient for the range of population using it, not the other way around. I get that these are from AASHTO, but I don’t think we’re beholden to repeat that language in our plan. (look for other national guidance on this to reference). Staff and the consultant were not able to find alternative national guidance, however the AASHTO guidance will still help the designer understand the variety of needs and abilities of pedestrians when designing projects. Item 16 Packet Page 226